The Upanishads are the philosophical core of the Vedas, exploring the nature of reality, the Self (Atman), and ultimate truth (Brahman). Among the many Upanishads, thirteen are regarded as the principal (Mukhya) Upanishads and form the foundation of Vedanta philosophy.
The Upanishads are the concluding portion of the Vedas and represent the
highest expression of ancient Indian philosophical thought. The word “Upanishad”
literally means “sitting near,” referring to a student sitting near a teacher to
receive deeper spiritual knowledge.
According to the Muktika Upanishad, there are 108 Upanishads in total.
However, among them, 13 are considered the most important, known as the
Mukhya Upanishads.
The term mukhya means principal, primary, or most important. These texts
are universally accepted as śruti (revealed scripture) and form the core
foundation of Vedanta philosophy.
What the Upanishads Teach
At their heart, the Upanishads try to answer a few fundamental questions:
What is the true nature of reality?
Who am I beyond body and mind?
What is the ultimate truth behind the universe?
Their central ideas revolve around:
Atman - the inner Self
Brahman - the ultimate reality
Unity - the idea that Atman and Brahman are one
Instead of rituals, they focus on knowledge, inquiry, and realization.
The 13 Mukhya Upanishads
These are the principal Upanishads traditionally studied:
Isha
Kena
Katha
Prashna
Mundaka
Mandukya
Taittiriya
Aitareya
Chandogya
Brihadaranyaka
Shvetashvatara
Kaushitaki
Maitri (Maitrayaniya)
How to Read the Upanishads (Simple Path)
For an average reader, reading in the right order makes a big difference. The
following progression moves from simple → deep:
🟢 Step 1 - Start Small and Direct
Isha - balance of life and renunciation
Kena - who drives the mind and senses
Katha - story-based teaching of the Self
🟡 Step 2 - Build Understanding
Prashna - structured questions and answers
Mundaka - higher vs lower knowledge
Mandukya - analysis of consciousness (very short but deep)
🔵 Step 3 - Go Deeper
Taittiriya - layers of human existence
Aitareya - creation and consciousness
🔴 Step 4 - Advanced Exploration
Chandogya - detailed teachings and examples
Brihadaranyaka - vast and philosophical
🟣 Step 5 - Theistic Perspective
Shvetashvatara - introduces devotion and personal God
⚪ Step 6 - Additional Texts
Kaushitaki
Maitri
Practical Reading Advice
Start with shorter Upanishads before moving to larger ones
Do not rush - even a few verses can be deeply meaningful
Focus on understanding the idea, not memorizing words
Re-reading is essential - meanings deepen over time
Simple Summary (For Easy Understanding)
The Upanishads are ancient texts that try to answer one simple question: What
is the truth of life?
They teach that behind everything in the universe, and inside every human being,
there is one ultimate reality.
This reality is called Brahman, and our true self is called Atman. The
Upanishads say that these two are not different.
By understanding this, a person moves from confusion to clarity, and from
restlessness to peace.
This collection presents the principal Upanishads with structured guidance,
helping the reader move step by step from basic ideas to deeper realization.
1 - Isha Upanishad
The Isha Upanishad presents a unique and balanced vision of life, reconciling apparent opposites such as action and renunciation, unity and multiplicity, and knowledge and ignorance. It teaches that the world is not to be rejected but understood as a manifestation of the divine, and that true realization lies in harmonizing both worldly engagement and spiritual insight.
Editorial Note:
The Isha Upanishad is one of the shortest yet most philosophically complete
texts in the Upanishadic tradition. It is embedded in the 40th chapter of the
Shukla Yajurveda Samhita, making it a Samhita Upanishad, unlike many
others that belong to the Aranyaka or Brahmana layers.
Two principal recensions of this Upanishad are known: the Kanva Shaka, which
contains 18 verses, and the Madhyandina Shaka, which contains 17 verses.
This edition follows the Kanva recension, consisting of a single chapter
with verses 1 to 18.
Central Principle
The defining feature of this Upanishad is its uncompromising reconciliation of
uncompromising extremes. It does not reject the world in favor of
renunciation, nor does it accept action without spiritual insight. Instead, it
integrates both.
Later philosophical traditions often emphasized one side of this polarity:
World vs God
Enjoyment vs Renunciation
Action vs Quietism
Multiplicity vs Unity
Ignorance vs Knowledge
In many cases, this led to the elevation of renunciation and knowledge while
reducing the world and action to secondary or even illusory status, culminating
in doctrines that viewed worldly existence as a burden to be escaped.
The Isha Upanishad takes a radically different approach. It resolves this
tension not by rejecting one side, but by holding both together in a higher
unity.
Structure of the Text
The Upanishad consists of one chapter with 18 verses, but its philosophical
content can be understood in thematic groupings:
Verses 1–2 - Unity and Action Declares that the entire universe is pervaded by the Divine and teaches that
one should live actively while maintaining inner detachment.
Verses 3–8 - Nature of the Self Describes the Self (Atman) as unmoving yet faster than the mind, far yet near,
within all and beyond all.
Verses 9–14 - Knowledge and Ignorance Explains that both ignorance (worldly knowledge) and knowledge (spiritual
insight) must be understood together, not in isolation.
Verses 15–18 - Realization and Prayer Concludes with a prayer for the removal of ignorance and realization of the
ultimate truth.
Flow of Ideas
The philosophical progression of the text is clear and compact:
Divine Immanence - Everything is pervaded by the Divine.
Balanced Living - Act in the world without attachment.
Understanding Dualities - Go beyond opposites like knowledge and
ignorance.
Final Realization - Seek direct experience of truth.
Core Philosophical Themes
Unity of Existence - All is enveloped by the Divine (Isha).
Renunciation in Action - True renunciation is inward, not withdrawal.
Integration of Opposites - Life’s contradictions are resolved, not denied.
Knowledge with Ignorance - Both are necessary for complete understanding.
Simple Summary (For Easy Understanding)
The Isha Upanishad teaches that the whole world is filled with the presence of
the Divine.
It says that we should not run away from life. Instead, we should live, work,
and act in the world, but without being attached to results or possessions.
The text explains that many people choose one side — either complete
renunciation or complete involvement in the world. But this Upanishad shows that
both can go together.
It also teaches that knowledge alone is not enough, and ignorance alone is not
enough. A complete understanding comes from seeing how both fit into a larger
truth.
In the end, it guides the seeker toward realizing that the same divine reality
exists within everything and everyone.
This edition presents the original Sanskrit text with IAST transliteration,
along with translation and commentary based on the Advaita Vedanta tradition of
Shankaracharya, translated by M. Hiriyanna (1911).
तेन॑ त्य॒क्तेन॑ भुञ्जीथा॒ मा गृ॑धः॒ कस्य॑ स्वि॒द्धन॑म् ॥१॥
īśā vāsyam idaṃ sarvaṃ yat kiñca jagatyāṃ jagat |
tena tyaktena bhuñjīthā mā gṛdhaḥ kasya sviddhanam || 1 ||
In the Lord is to be veiled all this—whatsoever moves on earth. Through such renunciation do thou save (thyself); be not greedy, for whose is wealth?
Shankara
Commentary
He who rules is (termed) Īt. Īśā (means), ‘by the Lord’. The Lord is the Ruler and the real Self of every creature[1]. By such a Lord, identical with oneself, is to be overspread i.e, covered. What? idam sarvam = (all this), yat kincha = whatsoever. jagatyām= on earth. jagat = all that (moves). By one’s own Self,—the Lord, the supreme Self—which is the sole reality, all these unreal (things), both movable and immovable, have to be covered over, (perceiving) thus—‘I am the inner Self of all’.[2] Just as adventitious bad odour in a piece of sandal, arising from moisture, is overcome by true fragrance when the (sandal) piece is rubbed[3], so indeed, will all the congenital variety of the world, such as being an agent or an enjoyer, superimposed on the Self, disappear at the perception (everywhere) of the (one) really existent Self. Since jagatyām is (here used) in an indicatory sense, all kinds of effects differentiated as name, form and action (are to be understood as connoted by it). What a person, that is so full of the conception that the Lord is the Self of all, ought to do is to renounce the three-fold desire for offspring etc., and not (be engaged in) karma. In tena tyaktena, tyakta means renunciation (being used as an abstract noun). (It is not to betaken here as a past participle in the sense of ‘given up’ because) a son or a servant (for example) who has been abandoned or is dead, cannot save one since all connection is severed between them. Therefore (the word) can only mean ‘renunciation’. bhuñjīthāḥ =do save[4]. Having thus renounced desires, be not greedy (mā gṛdhaḥ) i.e., do not long for wealth, kasya svit = (of anybody). (The meaning is)—Do not long for the wealth of anybody—i.e., yourself or another. (In this interpretation) svit is a mere expletive. Or (we may say as follows)—Be not greedy. Why? (The answer is )—kasya svit dhanam= Whose is wealth?—implying a denial. If wealth could belong to anybody it might be sought; (but) everything having disappeared through the discovery of the Lord (everywhere), all this is of the Self, and all this is the Self. Thus it means—Do not seek an unreality.’[5]
Footnotes
The difference between the controller and the controlled is not to be understood as real. I t is merely apparent and is based on an illusion. In the same sense, we may, for example, say that a person standing before a number of mirrors controls the several reflected images of himself.
The sense is that one should realise that all is Self and that there is no variety in the Universe. This is the chief teaching of the present Upanishad and corresponds, in its significance, to the well-known tattvamasi of the Chāndogyopaniṣad.
The object of this illustration is to suggest that when conviction regarding the unity of all existence does not spring directly from faith in the teaching, reasoning or enquiry will generally lead to it.
This statement is not to be understood literally for the Self does not, in reality, require to be saved. It is only intended to extol renunciation by ascribing final release to its influence.
The third pāda of this verse enjoins renunciation on such as can discriminate between what is Self and what is not. Such withdrawal from the world is the only course for Self-realisation. By removing the ordinary distractions of life it renders easy the attainment of final release. The fourth pāda prescribes a rule of conduct and prohibits the acquisition by such persons of wealth of any description beyond what is necessary for bare maintenance.
Max Müller
1. ALL this, whatsoever moves on earth, is to be hidden in the Lord (the Self). When thou hast surrendered all this, then thou mayest enjoy. Do not covet the wealth of any man!
ए॒वं त्वयि॒ नान्यथे॒तो॑ऽस्ति॒ न कर्म॑ लिप्यते॒ नरे॑ ॥२॥
kurvann eveha karmāṇi jijīviṣecchataṃ samāḥ |
evaṃ tvayi nānyatheto'sti na karma lipyate nare || 2 ||
Always performing karma here, one should desire to live, for a hundred years. So long as thou (seekest to live) a mere man, no other (path) exists (where) activity does not taint thee.
Shankara
Commentary
Kurvanneva= always performing. iha =(here) karmāni = rites such as agnihotra. jijīviṣet =one should desire to live. śatam =one hundred in number. samāḥ= years. For thus much is known to be the maximum age of man. Since (this is) a (mere) iteration (of an empirically known fact) what should be taken as enjoined (here) is that, if one should desire to live a hundred years, he should live only performing karma. evam= in this manner. in regard to you), nare i.e. when you live content to be a mere man. itaḥ i.e., from this present course of performing karma like agnihotra. different course, na asti =does not exist; in which course evil action does not stain; i.e., you do not get tainted by sin. Wherefore if one should desire for life Tone should live) throughout performing karma such as agnihotra prescribed by the śāstra. How is it to be understood that the former verse assigns to a sannyāsin devotion to knowledge and the latter, only devotion to karma to one incapable of it (Self-realisation)? We reply—Do you not remember the aforesaid antithesis between jñāna and karma which remains unshakable as a mountain? Here also the same has been expressly stated in verses 1 and 2,—(that he who seeks to live must perform karma and that he who does not, must give up all desire. The same conclusion may be arrived at) from the (following) directions to sannyāsins—“He should desire neither for life, nor for death; he should enter a forest. This is the law.” “He should not thence return”. The difference in result between the two will also be pointed out later on. (Another statement of the like import is) “These two paths only appeared in the beginning—the path of activity and (the path) of withdrawal.” Of these two, renunciation is higher, cf. Taittirīya Āraṇyaka “Renunciation alone excelled”. And Vyāsa, the great Vedic teacher, after much reflection, taught his son definitely as follows—“The Vedas aim at inculcating these two paths—one termed the path of activity and the other, of renunciation.”
Max Müller
2. Though a man may wish to live a hundred years, performing works, it will be thus with him; but not in any other way
तास्ते प्रेत्या॒भिग॑च्छन्ति॒ ये के चा॑त्म॒हनो॒ जनाः॑ ॥३॥
asuryā nāma te lokā andhena tamasāvṛtāḥ |
tāṃste pretyābhigacchanti ye ke cātmahano janāḥ || 3 ||
Malignant are those worlds and enveloped in blinding darkness, into which pass, after death, whatsoever people slay the Self.
Shankara
Commentary
From the standpoint of Unity in the form of the supreme Self, even devas are (reckoned) as asuras. asuryāḥ=belonging to demons, nāma is a mere expletive here. te=(those), lokāḥ=births (or lives), because therein the fruits of karma are perceived or enjoyed. andhena=of blinding nature. tamasā=by nescience. āvritāḥ=enveloped. tān=(those) viz. existences down to the immovable, pretya=having left this body. abhigacchanti=(attain) according to their past deeds and according to their devotional practices, ye ke whosoever. ātmahanaḥ=those who slay the Self. Who are they? People that are ignorant[1]. How can they slay the eternal Self? Through their failing of ignorance they veil (i.e. forget) the ever present Self. The sign of (a belief in) its existence is the consciousness of its undecaying immortal nature. This becomes veiled (ie. forgotten), as if the Self has been slain, and the ordinary ignorant people are termed ‘slayers of Self’[2]. By reason of this sin of slaying the Self, they transmigrate. Now is explained of what nature this Self is, by slaying which the ignorant transmigrate and, as distinguished from them, the learned, by not slaying it, attain final release—
Footnotes
I read “ke te? Ye janā avidvāṃsaḥ”.
Ascribing impurity etc. to the Self is considered as equivalent to killing it; just as imputing a false and serious charge against a virtuous man is, in ordinary parlance, spoken of as “murder without a weapon.”—aśastravadha
Max Müller
3. There are the worlds of the Asuras [1] covered with blind darkness. Those who have destroyed their self (who perform works, without having arrived at a knowledge of the true Self ), go after death to those worlds.
taddhāvato'nyānatyeti tiṣṭhat tasminn apo mātariśvā dadhāti || 4 ||
Unmoving, one, (and speedier than the mind; the senses reach it never; (for) it (Self) goes before. Standing, it outstrips others that run. In virtue of it, does mātarisvā allot functions (severally to all).
Shankara
Commentary
Anejat=not shaking, from the root to shake. Shaking is moving, i.e., lapsing from its real state. (The Self is) free from it, i.e., is always of the same form. It is also one in all beings. manaso javīyaḥ= speedier than the mind which is characterised by desire &c. Wherefore these conflicting statements—that it is at once assuredly motionless and speedier than the mind? This is not wrong, for it can be justified (on the basis of the Self) being conditioned or unconditioned. In its original unconditioned form it is stated to be unmoving and one. (It is also possible to predicate motion of the Self) because it reflects (the features of) its conditioning mind which is the internal sense charaterised by desire and doubt. Since the mind, though residing here within the body can, in an instant, conceive of the distant Brahmaloka and the like, it is ordinarily taken as possessing great speed. When such mind, for instance reaches (in thought) Brahmaloka, with rapidity, the Self appears to have reached there already. Therefore it is said here 'speedier than the mind’. devāḥ=senses such as the eye—so called because they illuminate. enat =this entity of the Self. na-āpnuvan=did not reach, the mind being speedier than they. Since mental operation (always) intervenes, not even the semblance of the Self becomes perceivable by the Senses.[1] (And it is beyond the mind itself) because the Self is always in advance (of it) being all-pervading like space. (Now the verse) states that the Self, always[2] free from all features of transmigration, in its own unconditioned form and being altogether changeless, appears to the undiscriminating ignorant, as experiencing all the several modes of life due to limiting adjuncts and also as being many, i.e., one in each body. tat=(that). dhāvataḥ=speedily going. anyān=mind, the organs of speech &c., which are all other than the Self. atyeti =seems to outstrip. The text itself indicates the sense of iva (seems) by tiṣṭhat which means ‘itself remaining immutable.’ tasmin i.e. in virtue of the existence of the Self which is of the nature of eternal sentiency. Mātariśvā=He who moves (śvayati) in the heavens (mātari); the Wind, the active principle in all creatures; on which are dependent all the aggregates of causes and effects and into which they are woven like warp and woof and which is also termed ‘the connecting thread’ and is the support of the whole universe. Such is mātariśvā. apaḥ=functions[3] of things, such as flaming and burning of Fire, shining of the Sun, raining of the Cloud and so on. dadhāti=allots[4]; or the word may mean ‘directs’ agreeably to texts like “Through fear of Him the wind blows &c.” (Taitirriya Upanishad:- II, viii, 1). The idea is that all changes of the nature of cause and effect take place only when the Self, the eternal sentiency and substrate of all, exists. Not weary of repeating, the Veda states once again what has already been said in the previous verse—
Footnotes
The action of the senses presupposes the operation of the mind. The Self being beyond mind, is necessarily beyond the senses as well.
I read sarvadāpi instead of sarvavyāpi.
Apaḥ in a secondary sense means ‘Sacrificial acts’ for most of them are performed with water, ghee and such other liquids. Hence, in what may be called a ‘tertiary sense’ the term may be taken to denote all kinds of activity.
This implies an argument for the existence of an all-controlling Lord of the Universe.
Max Müller
4. That one (the Self), though never stirring, is swifter than thought. The Devas (senses) never reached it, it walked [1] before them. Though standing still, it overtakes the others who are running. Mâtarisvan (the wind, the moving spirit) bestows powers [2] on it.
tad antar asya sarvasya tad u sarvasyāsya bāhyataḥ || 5 ||
It moves and it moves not; it is far and it is near. It is inside all this; it is also outside all this.
Shankara
Commentary
Tad=the Self in question. ejati=moves. The same does not move (na ejati) i.e., in itself. In other words, being in truth motionless, it (only) appears to move. Moreover, it, tat=it, dūre=(at a distance). It is distant, as it were, because the ignorant cannot get at it even in a thousand million years. tat u=(it is also); antike=near. Absolutely so, to the wise for it is their very Self. It is not merely far and near; it is (also) antaḥ i.e. inside of all this. Compare—‘Which Self is inmost of all’—(Brihadaranyaka Upanishad III, iv, 1). asya savasya =(of this all) i.e., the universe consisting of name, form and action. It is outside all this, being pervasive; inside, being supremely subtle like space. (We should also remember) that it is without interstices from the teaching contained in passages like “wholly solid sentiency &c.’—(Brihadaranyaka Upanishad IV, v, 13)
Max Müller
5. It stirs and it stirs not; it is far, and likewise near [1]. It is inside of all this, and it is outside of all this.
स॒र्व॒भू॒तेषु॑ चा॒त्मानं॒ ततो॒ न वि जु॑गुप्सते ॥६॥
yas tu sarvāṇi bhūtāny ātmany evānupaśyati |
sarvabhūteṣu cātmānaṃ tato na vijugupsate || 6 ||
And he who sees all beings in himself and himself in all beings has no aversion thence.
Shankara
Commentary
Yaḥ tu i.e., a sannyāsin desiring final release. sarvāṇi bhūtāni= all beings (i.e., existences) from prakṛti down to the immovable, ātmani eva anupaśyati =(discovers in himself) i.e., does not understand as other than his own Self, sarva bhūteṣu cha i.e. and in the same (beings), ātmānam = (himself) i.e., his own Self as the Self of all those beings as well. (The reference here is to him) who beholds himself, the same in all beings thus—‘Just as I, the cogniser of all notions, the perceiver, one and devoid of all attributes, am the Self of this my body, the aggregate of causes and effects, so also am I in the same form, the Self of all beings from prakṛti down to the immovable. tataḥ = through such perception, na vijugupsate = does not feel repelled. This is an iteration of what is (empirically) known. All aversion is from evil things other than one’s own self, and if one recognises (everywhere) only the Self, absolutely pure and continuous, it is clear that (for such an one) there is nothing to excite repulsion. Hence the statement—‘He has no aversion thence’. Another verse also expresses the same idea—
Max Müller
6. And he who beholds all beings in the Self, and the Self in all beings, he never turns away from it [1].
tatra ko mohaḥ kaḥ śoka ekatvam anupaśyataḥ || 7 ||
When to a knower discovering unity, all beings become his very Self, what delusion then (to him) and what sorrow?
Shankara
Commentary
Yasmin=when or in which Self, sarvāṇi bhūtāni= the same (already mentioned) beings of all kinds, ātma eva abhūt= became one’s own self, through right perception, vijānataḥ = (to the knower) of Reality. tatra= then or in such Self, ko mohaḥ kaṣṣokaḥ = (what delusion and what sorrow?). Sorrow and delusion are for one that does not understand the source of desire and activity but not to one that realises the unity of Self, pure and resembling space. The third pāda by calling in question and denying the possibility of sorrow and delusion which are the result of nescience, indicates (so far as the knower is concerned) the absolute cessation of worldly existence together with its cause. The following verse (now) states of what description the Self—spoken of in the foregoing verses—in its nature, is—
Max Müller
7. When to a man who understands, the Self has become all things, what sorrow, what trouble can there be to him who once beheld that unity?
He (the self) is all pervading, bright, incorporeal, scatheless and veinless, pure, untouched by sin; a seer, all-knowing, superposed and self-begotten. (It is He that) has duly allotted to the eternal creators their (various) duties.
Shankara
Commentary
Saḥ=the aforesaid Self. paryagāt =went round; i.e. he is pervading like space. śukram=white, i.e. radiant, bright. akāyam=bodiless i.e. without the subtle body, avraṇam=not to be wounded, snāva=vein; therefore asnāviram means ‘veinless’. The last two (epithets) deny the gross body; ś uddham = without the stain of nescience. This denies the causal body, apāpaviddham=by evil (which term is meant to include) both merits and demerits[1]. The words beginning with sukram are to be changed to the masculine form, because the verse starts with saḥ (a masculine form) and ends likewise with kaviḥ and (which also are masculine in form). kaviḥ=seeing what is past[2], i.e. witness of all, according to the text—“There is no seer other than He” (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad III, vii, 23), manīṣī =the controller of the mind i.e., the all-knowing Lord. paribhūḥ means ‘who is above (pari = upari) everything’. svayambhūh = self-begotten. This signifies that what is above everything as well as what is everything are both the Self. Such a Lord, always free, being all-knowing, has allotted duties (arthān) according to past deeds which are instrumental in yielding fruit (in this life) i.e. has appropriately distributed (them). Yāthātathyataḥ, being derived from yathātathā, means ‘according to facts’. ś āśvatībhyaḥ= permanent; Samābhyaḥ i.e. among Creators going by the name of ‘Time’[3]
Footnotes
According to the view of Śaṅkarāchārya, it should be remembered, good and evil become reduced to the same level in the eyes of a knower of the Self, for both alike lead to a succession of births, although the one be of a higher kind than the other.
This word literally means ‘one that can see what is past’. Here it is to be understood in a secondary sense, the past indicatin all time—the present as well as the future. Hence it means “witness of all”.
For this sense of Samvatsara see Brihadaranyaka Upanishad I, v, 14 and Prashna Upanishad i. 9. Like everything else Time also is born of the Creator. Hence ‘Time’ is ‘Creator’ taking the effect for the cause.
Max Müller
8. He [1] (the Self) encircled all, bright, incorporeal, scatheless, without muscles, pure, untouched by evil; a seer, wise, omnipresent, self-existent, he disposed all things rightly for eternal years.
Into blinding darkness pass they who adhere to karma and into still greater darkness, as it were, they who delight in meditation.
Shankara
Commentary
andham tamaḥ = blinding darkness, praviśanti =(they pass). Who? ye avidyām upāsate = yjey who practise karma. avidyā is what is other than knowledge i.e. karma, because karma is opposed to knowledge. upāsate =devoutly practise i.e. perform only karma such as agnihotra. tataḥ i.e. than such blinding darkness. bhūya-iva= greater, as it were.[1] te tamaḥ i.e. they pass into darkness. Who? ye-u = those who, on the other hand; vidyāyām =in meditating on deities; ratāḥ take delight i.e. who engage themselves in it to the exclusion of karma. Now follows a statement of the distinction between the respective fruits of meditation and karma, as an argument for their simultaneous practice. Otherwise, if of the two thus proximately stated, one only is known to bear fruit and not the other, the relation between them would be (according to rules of interpretation, not one of co-ordination but) only that of subordination[2].
Footnotes
I read bahutaram iva.
I read aṅgāṅgitaiva syāt.
Max Müller
9. All who worship what is not real knowledge (good works), enter into blind darkness
इति॑ शुश्रुम॒ धीरा॑णां॒ ये न॒स्तद्वि॑चचक्षि॒रे ॥१०॥॥
anyad evāhur vidyayān yad āhur avidyayā |
iti śuśruma dhīrāṇāṃ ye nas tad vicacakṣire || 10 ||
Distinct, they say, is (the fruit borne) by meditation and distinct again, they say, is (that borne) by karma. Thus have we heard from sages who taught us that.
Shankara
Commentary
anyat-eva= quite distinct. Vidyayā =(by meditation) i.e. the fruit borne by meditation is distinct. āhuḥ= they say; (the second pāda) means “karma yields a distinct fruit altogether”; as recorded in “The world of manes through karma; the world of gods through meditation”. iti =thus. śuśruma =we have heard, dhīrānām i.e. (the saying) of the wise, ye—i.e., which teachers. naḥ= to us. tat i.e. karma and meditation. vicacakṣire =explained well. The purport is that this their teaching has been handed down by tradition, Since it is so,
Max Müller
10. One thing, they say, is obtained from real knowledge; another, they say, from what is not knowledge. Thus we have heard from the wise who taught us this [1].
Whoever understands meditation and karma as going together, (he) overcoming death through karma, attains immortality through meditation.
Shankara
Commentary
The first pāda means ‘meditating on deities and karma’. yah= (whoever.) ta = etat =this. ubhayam =(two) saha—i.e. to be practised by the same person. veda =(understands). (The second half of the verse) states that only a person, practising both together, will in due course, achieve the chief end[1] avidyayā= by karma like agnihotra. mṛtyum—by this word are here meant usual activity and knowledge. having overcome those two. vidyayā= by meditation on deities. amṛtam= (immortality); godhead. aśnute =attains. Becoming one with the deity (meditated upon) is termed ‘immortality’ here. Now with a view to inculcate their simultaneous practice, follows the condemnation of the separate meditation on the manifest and on the unmanifest—
Footnotes
I read Samucchayakāriṇa eva ekapuruṣārthasaṃbandhaḥ.
Max Müller
11. He who knows at the same time both knowledge and not-knowledge, overcomes death through not-knowledge, and obtains immortality through knowledge.
tato bhūya iva te tamo ya u sambhūtyāṃ ratāḥ || 12 ||
Into blinding darkness pass they who are devoted to the unmanifest, and into still greater darkness, as it were, they who delight in the manifest.
Shankara
Commentary
Saṃbhavanam means birth. That which is born and is an effect is sambhūti. asambhūti is what is other than sambhūti i.e., prakṛti, the undifferentiated cause whose essence is nescience and which is the source of all activity and desire. They who devote themselves to such Cause enter (as may be expected) darkness which is correspondingly blind in its nature. Sambhūtyām i.e., in the phenomenal Brahman known as Hiraṇyagarbha. They who delight only in Him enter darkness which is, as it were, more blinding still. Now follows as an argument for their simultaneous practice, a statement of the distinction between the respective fruits of the two kinds of meditation—
Max Müller
12. All who worship what is not the true cause, enter into blind darkness
इति॑ शुश्रुम॒ धीरा॑णां॒ ये न॒स्तद्वि॑चचक्षि॒रे ॥१३॥
anyad evāhuḥ saṃbhavād anyad āhur asaṃbhavāt |
iti śuśruma dhīrāṇāṃ ye nas tad vicacakṣire || 13 ||
Distinct, they say, is (what results) from the manifest and distinct again, they say, is (what results) from the unmanifest. Thus have we heard from the sages who taught us that.
Shankara
Commentary
anyat-eva= altogether distinct. āhuḥ =(they say). Sambhavāt =from that which has birth i.e., from meditating on the phenomenal Brahman, supernatural power such as assuming, at will, extreme subtlety is said to result. Similarly, they say that there is a (distinctive) fruit from meditating on the unmanifest,—that, alluded to in pāda 1 of verse 12 and which is known as “absorption into primal cause”[1] to those versed in the Purāṇas. iti =thus. śuśruma-dhīrāṇām—i.e., we have heard the saying of the wise. The last pāda means “who explained to us the results of meditating on the manifest and the unmanifest”. Since this is so, it is but right that meditation on both the effect and the cause should be practised together; a further reason being the achievement (through such meditation) of the chief end.[2]
Footnotes
This state may be sought on account of the absence of the ordinary excitements of life in it as in sleep.
I read yukta eva and ekapuruṣārthatvāccha.
Max Müller
13. One thing, they say, is obtained from (knowledge of) the cause; another, they say, from (knowledge of) what is not the cause. Thus we have heard from the wise who taught us this.
Whoever understands the manifest and the unmanifest as going together, (he), by overcoming death through the manifest, attains immortality through the unmanifest
Shankara
Commentary
The first half of the verse means “He who understands that meditation on the manifest and the unmanifest should be practised together”, here means an “effect”—that whose character is transitoriness; the abstract being put for the concrete, vināśena means “by meditating on such (Brahman)”. mṛtyum =death all kinds of deficiency arising from limited power, demerit, covetousness and soon. tīrtvā =(having overcome); for great supernatural power is attained by the contemplation of Hiraṇyagarbba. Having thus overcome death or limitation of power &c., asambhūtya i.e., by meditating on the unmanifest. amṛtam i.e. absorption into the First Cause. aśnute (attains). It should be noted that sambhūti in the first pāda is mentioned without the (initial) a (and is to be taken as equivalent to asambhūti) agreeably to the statement that the result is absorption into the First Cause. The result derivable, according to śāstra, through worldly and divine ‘wealth’[1] extends up to absorption into the First Cause. Thus far is metempsychosis. Higher than that, is the realisation of the unity of Self spoken of in verse 9—the result of renouncing all desires and devoting oneself (exclusively) to true knowledge. Thus the twofold teaching of the Veda, as relating to worldly activity and to withdrawal from it, has been explained here. And the (Śatapatha) Brāhmaṇa up to (the chapters on) Pravargya (purificatory ceremonies described in Khanda xiv chapters 1—3 ) concerns itself with elucidating, in full, the Vedic teaching relating to the path of activity, consisting of injunctions and prohibitions. The succeeding portion, viz., the Brhadāraṇyaka, explains the path of withdrawal from the world. In verse 11 it has been stated[2] that he who desires to live performing karma (in its entirety) from conception to death, and along with it, practises meditation on the lower (phenomenal) Brahman will attain immortality. It is now pointed out by what course, one so qualified becomes immortal. (We read in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad V, v, 2) “That is what is Truth; it is the Sun, the Person in this disc, as also the Person in the right eye”. The worshipper of this two-fold Brahman—Truth—who has also been performing karma as prescribed, addresses thus, when the end is come, Brahman who is Truth, beseeching Him for entrance—
Footnotes
Worldly wealth or means comprising cattle, land, money &c., all required for performing karma. ‘Divine wealth’ is knowledge of deities.
taduktam iti, tam pratyuktam mantreṇa vidyāṃcāvidyāṃcetyādinā.-—Ānandagici. One Ms., reads tampratyetaduktam in place of taduktam.
Max Müller
14. He who knows at the same time both the cause and the destruction (the perishable body), overcomes death by destruction (the perishable body), and obtains immortality through (knowledge of ) the true cause.
tat tvaṃ pūṣann apāvṛṇu satyadharmāya dṛṣṭaye || 15 ||
Truths face is covered with a golden lid; remove that, O Pūṣan, that I, Truth’s devotee, may see It.
Shankara
Commentary
Hiranmayam =seeming golden, resplendent tena =by such. pātrena =lid, as it were, satyasya i.e., of the Brahman residing in the Solar disc, apihitam =covered. mukham= entrance. tat= (that); tvam =(you); he-pūṣan =O Sun, apāvṛṇu =remove. satyadharmāya i.e., to me who am through meditation on you who are Truth. Or this expression may mean “one that practises true piety” Dṛṣṭaye i.e., for reaching you whose essence is Truth.
Max Müller
15. The door of the True is covered with a golden disk [1]. Open that, O Pûshan, that we may see the nature of the True [2].
yat te rūpaṃ kalyāṇatamaṃ tat te paśyāmi yo'sāv asau puruṣaḥ so'ham asmi || 16 ||
O Pūṣan, sole traveller, Yama, Sun, child of Prajāpati, recall thy rays; withdraw thy light that I may behold thee of loveliest form. Whosoever that Person is, that also am I.
Shankara
Commentary
Pūṣan=the sun, so called because he protects the world. Ekarṣe, because he traverses (the sky) alone. Yama, Death, because he controls all. Sūrya, because he sucks up rays, life and water. Prājāpatya, because he is the son of Prajāpati, the Creator. vyūha =remove, raśmīn i.e. your rays. samūha= unite i.e. withdraw. your light, yat-te =what is yours. rūpam =form, kalyāṇatamam = loveliest, tat-te =that of yours paśyāmi i.e. I may see by your grace. Further I am not entreating you as a servant, because whoever is the Person in the Solar disc, composed of vyāhṛtis,[1] the same am I. He is known as purusha (person) because He is of the form of a person, or because this world is full of Him in His modes of activity and thought or, again, because He lies in the citadel of the body.
Footnotes
Vyāhṛti is literally ‘utterance’ and is the term used to denote the three sacred syllables bhūḥ, bhuvaḥ, suvaḥ. See Brihadaranyaka Upanishad V, v, 3.
Max Müller
16. O Pûshan, only seer, Yama (judge), Sûrya (sun), son of Pragâpati, spread thy rays and gather them! The light which is thy fairest form, I see it. I am what He is (viz. the person in the sun) [1].
(May) this life (merge in) the immortal breath! And (may) this body end in ashes! Om! mind, remember, remember thy deeds; mind, remember, remember thy deeds!
Shankara
Commentary
Now that I am dying, may my life (Vāyu) abandoning the bodily adjunct assume the godly, in the immortal breath of the universal Self, the ‘connecting thread’ of all. pratipadyatām (“may reach”) is to be understood. The meaning, agreeably to the prayer for entrance, is “May this subtle body purified by meditation and karma advance”. atha =(and). idam =(this), śarīram =(body), hutam =(burnt) in fire. bhasmāntam i.e., may it end in ashes. Om—thus is addressed Brahman—as identical with what is known as Agni the essence of Truth—following the mode of meditating on Him-through this symbol, krato i.e., O mind, so called because it desires, smara i.e., remember what has to be remembered, for the time for it is now come. Therefore remember what has till now been meditated upon. Remember also whatever karma you have done till now[1] —since boyhood. The repetition of the third pāda indicates-earnestness. By another verse also, entrance is prayed for—
Footnotes
I read agre in place of agne.
Max Müller
17. Breath [1] to air, and to the immortal! Then this my body ends in ashes. Om! Mind, remember! Remember thy deeds! Mind, remember! Remember thy deeds [2]!
agne naya supathā rāye asmān viśvāni deva vayunāni vidvān |
yuyodhy asmaj juhurāṇam eno bhūyiṣṭhāṃ te nama uktiṃ vidhema || 18 ||
O God Agni, lead us on to prosperity by a good path, judging all our deeds. Take away ugly sin from us. We shall say many prayers unto thee.
Shankara
Commentary
Agne =(O Fire), naya =lead, supathā =by a good path. This qualifying word excludes the southern path. (The devotee means)—“I am tired of the southern path characterised by birth and death, and therefore do I repeatedly ask you to lead (me) by the good path free from birth and death”. rāye =for wealth i.e. (here) for enjoying the fruit of karma. asmān =us, that are qualified for (the enjoyment of) the fruits of the prescribed practices. viśvāni =all. deva =O God, vayunāni=karma or meditation. vidvān =knowing. Further, yuyodhi i.e., separate or destroy. asmat=asmattaḥ =from us. juhurāṇam =crooked or deceitful. enaḥ= sin; so that becoming pure thereby we may obtain our wish. We are not, however, able now to serve you actively (as of old); we can but do obeisance again and again (bhūyiṣṭhām) to you. Some entertain a doubt (as regards the antithesis between karma and true knowledge) hearing the statements (contained in verses 11 and 14—“Overcoming death through avidyā, he attains immortality through vidyā” and “Overcoming death through the manifest, he attains immortality through the unmanifest”. We shall therefore briefly consider (the matter now) in order to clear (this doubt.) Now then, what is the reason for the doubt? The answer is—Why should not true knowledge itself be understood by vidyā in the above passage? and also (by amṛtatva true) immortality? Well, are not this knowledge of the supreme Self and karma mutually exclusive on account of the antithesis between them? True; but this antagonism is not known (through śāstra) for antagonism or the reverse should be based on śāstraic authority only. Just as the performance of karma and the practice of Vidyā are known through śāstra alone, so also should their opposition or agreement be. As the śāstraic prohibition “No creature should be hurt” is annulled by śātra itself in “In a sacrifice animals may be killed” so also should it be in the case of vidyā and avidyā as well as in the case of knowledge and karma.[1] No; because the Veda says—“Distant are these.—opposed and leading in diverse ways—karma and knowledge” (Katha Upanishad ii, 4)- If it be said that owing to the statement in verse 11, there is (likewise) no antagonism between them, we reply ‘No’; because[2] there can possibly be no option as regards opposition or agreement between true knowledge and avidyā[3]. If it be rejoined that there is no antithesis at all, on the strength of the injunction (here in verse 11) regarding their combined practice, we repeat ‘No’; for the two cannot conceivably co-exist. If it be urged that vidyā and avidyā are to be pursued by the same (person) one after the other[4], we reply ‘No’; for when true knowledge comes to a person, nescience is inconceivable in him. Thus (for instance) if once a man experiences heat and light in fire, there cannot arise in him the ignorance—that fire is cold or devoid of light. Nor can there be doubt or delusion (in a knower) for verse 7 denies all possibility of them. Nescience being inconceivable,—we have said—its result[5]—karma—is equally inconceivable. The immortality spoken of (here) is only relative. Further if vidyā in this passage referred to knowledge of the supreme Self, praying for an entrance would be inappropriate.[6] Thus we conclude by stating that the meaning of the verses in question is, as we have explained.
Footnotes
I omit samucchayaḥ after vidyākarmaṇaśca.
I omit hetusvarūpaphalavirodhāt. I also put a full stop after vikalpāsambhavāt.
Option is conceivable in the case of karma. Thus one śākha of the Veda prescribes “udite-juhoti”; another, “anudite-juhoti.”. Here it may be understood that the Veda gives one, option to offer oblations either after sunrise or before. But the same rule cannot apply to vidyā and avidyā, on the strength of the two texts in question. In this case, only one of the statements can hold good and the other, instead of being taken literally, has to be interpreted in such a manner that it will not clash with the first. Reason has to decide which statement is to be understood literally and which not.
If it is meant that karma precedes knowledge, there is no difficulty in agreeing with the opponent, for it is recognised that karma prepares man for true knowledge. But if karma is to succeed knowledge, the statement of the opponent cannot be admitted.
The opponent may argue at this stage that the antithesis hithereto spoken of is between vidyā and avidyā and not between karma and vidyā. This argument is met by stating that dissociating avidyā from a knower is perforce dissociating karma also from him.
This is said in reference to the Vedic text. “na tasya prānā utkrāmanti” (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad v, 6), which declares that final release is attained by a knower, where he is, and not by his going elsewhere.
Max Müller
18. Agni, lead us on to wealth (beatitude) by a good path, thou, O God, who knowest all things! Keep far from us crooked evil, and we shall offer thee the fullest praise! (Rv. I, 189, 1.
॥ इति ईशावास्योपनिषद् ॥
ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदं पूर्णात् पूर्णमुदच्यते।
पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते॥
ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः॥
oṃ pūrṇamadaḥ pūrṇamidaṃ pūrṇātpūrṇamudacyate |
pūrṇasya pūrṇamādāya pūrṇamevāvaśiṣyate ||
oṃ śāntiḥ | śāntiḥ | śāntiḥ ||
2 - Kena Upanishad
The Kena Upanishad explores the fundamental question of what directs the mind, senses, and life force. It reveals that behind all mental and sensory activity lies a deeper reality - Brahman - which cannot be known through ordinary perception but only through direct inner realization.
Editorial Note:
The Kena Upanishad begins with a powerful question: “By whom (Kena) is the mind directed?”
This question forms the foundation of the entire teaching. It shifts attention
from what we experience to what makes experience possible.
Instead of focusing on the world, the Upanishad asks:
Who directs the mind?
Who enables the senses to function?
What is the source behind all actions and thoughts?
The answer given is subtle: it is Brahman, the ultimate reality, which is
not directly seen but is the very basis of seeing, thinking, and knowing.
Structure of the Text
The Kena Upanishad is divided into four khandas (sections), combining both
poetry and prose:
First Khanda (8 verses - poetic) Raises the central question and introduces Brahman as beyond mind and senses.
Second Khanda (5 verses - poetic) Explains that Brahman is not known through ordinary knowledge, but through a
deeper form of realization.
Third Khanda (12 paragraphs - prose) Presents a symbolic story where the gods fail to recognize Brahman, showing
the limits of ego and intellect.
Fourth Khanda (9 paragraphs - prose, including epilogue) Concludes with teachings on meditation, discipline, and the path to
realization.
Flow of Ideas
The teaching unfolds in a clear progression:
Inquiry - What powers the mind and senses?
Limitation of Knowledge - Brahman cannot be grasped by intellect alone.
Illustration - A story showing ignorance of even the gods.
Realization - True knowledge comes through inner awareness.
Core Philosophical Teaching
The Upanishad presents a two-fold knowledge system:
Parā Vidyā (Higher Knowledge) Direct realization of Brahman leading to immediate liberation (Sadyo
Mukti).
Aparā Vidyā (Lower Knowledge) Preparatory knowledge involving discipline, rituals, and gradual purification,
leading to gradual liberation (Krama Mukti).
Practical Interpretation
Parā Vidyā - Turning inward, reducing desires, detaching from
distractions, and realizing the Self directly.
Aparā Vidyā - Following ethical living, discipline, charity, and mental
purification to prepare for higher realization.
Both are not opposed but complement each other.
Simple Summary (For Easy Understanding)
The Kena Upanishad asks a very simple but deep question: Who is really
controlling our mind and senses?
It explains that our mind, eyes, and ears do not work on their own. There is a
deeper power behind them.
This power is called Brahman. It cannot be seen or understood like ordinary
things, but it is the reason everything works.
The text teaches that just learning from books is not enough. True understanding
comes when we look within and experience this reality directly.
It also shows that even powerful beings (like gods in the story) can fail to
understand this truth if they are proud.
In the end, the message is simple: The real source of everything is within us,
and it can be known only through inner awareness.
This edition presents the original Sanskrit text with IAST transliteration,
along with translation and commentary based on the Advaita Vedanta tradition of
Shankaracharya, translated by S. Sitarama Sastri (1905).
By whom willed and directed does the mind light on its subjects? By whom commanded does prana, the first, move? By whose will do men speak this speech? What Intelligence directs the eye and the ear?
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—‘Kena,’ ‘by what agent ‘Ishitam,’ ‘desired or directed.’ ‘Patati,’ ‘goes,’ i.e., ‘goes towards its objects.’ As the root Ish cannot he here taken in the sense of ‘repeat’ or ‘go,’ it must be understood to he used in the sense of ‘wish.’ The It suffix in Ishitam is a case of Vedic license. The word Preshitam is derived from the same root, with pra before it, when it means ‘direct.’ If the word Preshitam were alone used without the word Ishitam, questions as to the nature of the director and direction might arise, such as, by what sort of a director and by what sort of direction. But the use of the word Ishitam sets these two questions at rest, for then the meaning clearly is:- “By whose mere wish is it directed, etc.” It may be objected, that if this meaning were what was intended to ho conveyed, the use of the word Preshitam is rendered superfluous, as the meaning intended is conveyed by Ishitam alone. It may he also objected that as the use of more words should convey more meaning, it is only reasonable to interpret the text as meaning ‘By what is it directed, by mere will, by act or by word?’ Both these objections are unsound. From the mere fact of the question having been asked, it is apparent that the question is asked by one who is disgusted with the ephemeral conglomeration of causes and effects, such as the body, etc., and who seeks to know something other than that—something unchangeable and eternal. Were it otherwise, the question itself, seeing how notorious in the world is the fact that the body directs by means of will, act or word, would be meaningless. If it be objected that even on this view there is nothing gained in the sense, by the use of the word Preshitam, we say no. The word Preshitam adds to the sense when we think that a questioner really entertains a doubt. To show that the question is prompted by a doubt in the questioner’s mind, as to whether, as is notorious, the body—the collection of causes and effects—directs the mind, etc., or whether the mind, etc., is directed by the mere will of anything other than these combinations of causes and effects and acting independently, the use of both the words Ishitam and Preshitam is justifiable. If. however, it lie urged that the mind itself, as every body knows, independently lights on its own object, and that the question is itself irrelevant, the argument is untenable. If the mind were independent in the pursuit of its objects or in desisting from pursuit, then it is not possible for any one to contemplate evil; but man, conscious of evil results, wills evil, and the mind though dissuaded, attempts deeds of serious evil consequences. Therefore the question Keneshitam, etc., is certainly appropriate. By whom directed does Prana go, i.e., about its own business? Prathama is an appropriate adjective of Prana, as the activity of all the sensory organs presupposes it. By whom prompted is the speech which men in the world make use of? And what Intelligence directs the eye and the ear towards their respective objects?
Max Müller
1. THE Pupil asks:- 'At whose wish does the mind sent forth proceed on its errand? At whose command does the first breath go forth? At whose wish do we utter this speech? What god directs the eye, or the ear?'
It is the ear of the ear, mind of the mind, tongue of the tongue, and also life of the life and eye of the eye. Being disabused of the false notion, the wise, having left this body, become immortal.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—To the worthy (disciple) who had thus questioned him, the preceptor in reply says:- “Hear what you ask for—what intelligent Being directs the mind and the other senses towards their respective objects, and how it directs them.” Ear is that by which one hears, i.e., the sense whose function is to hear sounds and distinguish them. He, you asked for, is the ear of that. May it not be objected that while the reply ought to run in the form, ‘So-and-so, with such-and-such attributes, directs the ear, etc.,’ the reply in the form ‘He is the ear of the ear, etc.,’ is inappropriate? This is no objection; for he (the director) cannot otherwise be particularized. If the director of the ear, etc., can be known by any activity of his own, independent of the activity of the ear, etc., as a person who directs another to give, then, indeed, would this form of answer become inappropriate. But we do not here understand a director of the ear, etc., having any activity of his own, like a mower. The director is inferred by logical necessity from the activity manifested by the ear and others combined, such as deliberation, volition, determination enuring for the benefit of something distinct from them all (the ear, etc.). As things combined necessarily exist for the use of some other thing not so combined, we argue that there is a director of the ear, etc., distinct from the ear, etc., and for whose use the whole lot—the ear, etc.,—exists in the same manner as a house exists for somebody’s use. Hence the reply ‘It is the ear of the ear, etc.,’ is certainly appropriate. Again it is asked what is the meaning of the expression:- “It is the ear of the ear, etc.” And it is said that one ear does not want another, just as one light needs not another. This objection has no force. The meaning here is this. The ear has been found capable of perceiving objects and this capability of the ear depends upon the intelligence of the Atman, bright, eternal, intact, all-pervading. Therefore the expression ‘It is the ear of the ear, etc.,’ is correct. To the same effect also, the Srutis say, “He shines by his own brightness.” “By his light is all this Universe illumined.” “By that light illumined, does the sun shine, etc.,” and so on. The Bhagavad Gita says “As the light in the sun illumines the whole world, so does the Atman (Kshetri) O Bharata! illumine all the body (Kshetrum).” The Katha also says, “He is the eternal among the non-eternal and the intelligence among the intelligent.” The ‘ear, etc.,’ have been by all confounded with the Atman and this false notion is here dispelled. The reply of the precepter:- there is something indescribable, cognisable only by the intelligence of the wise, occupying the deepest interior of all, unchangeable, undecaying, immortal, fearless, unborn and ‘the ear of the ear, etc.’—the source of all their functional capacity, is appropriate and the meaning also. Similarly it is the mind of the mind. It is evident that the mind, if not illumined by the bright intelligence within, will he incapable of performing its functions of volition, determination, etc. It is, therefore, said that it is the mind of the mind. Both the conditioned intelligence and mind are together contemplated by the word ‘mind’ in the text. The word yat in ‘Yadvâchôhavâcham’ means ‘because’ and should he read along with the words Srôtra (ear), manah (mind), etc., thus:- ‘because it is the ear of the ear,’ ‘because it is the mind of the mind,’ etc. The objective case (vâcham) in ‘Vâchôhavacham'’ should he converted into the nominative case, for we next read ‘Prânasyaprânah.’ It may be said that conformably to the expression ‘Vâchôhavacham’ the following ‘Pranasya-pranah’ may as well be read as ‘Pranasyapranam.’ It cannot be, for conformity to the majority is desirable. So ‘vacham, should be read as ‘vak’ in conformity to ‘Sah’ and ‘Pranah,’ in ‘Sa?u?pranasya-pranah.’ because it then conforms with two words and conformity to the majority is preferred. Besides, the substance asked about can be best denoted by a noun in the nominative case. The substance asked about by you is the prana of prana, i.e., it is that substance which endows prana, with the capacity to discharge its functions, i.e., to infuse activity; for there can possibly be no activity where the Atman does not preside. “Who could live and breathe if there were not the self-luminous Brahman and “He leads Prana up and Apana down” say the Srutis. It will also be said in this Upanishad, “You know that to be the Brahman which infuses activity into Prana.” It may lie said that, in a context speaking of the ear and other senses, the mention of Breath would be more appropriate than that of Prana. Truly so; but in the use of the word Prana. breath is meant to be included. The Sruti thinks thus:—the gist of this portion is that that is Brahman for whose use the aggregation of the senses exerts its combined activity. Similarly it is the eye of the eye, &c. The capacity of the eye to perceive form is found only where the intelligence of the Atman directs it. Therefore it is the eye of the eye. After this expression in the text, the expression ‘having understood the Brahman as above defined, i.e., as the ear of the ear, &c.,’ must he supplied by the reader, as the questioner should be supposed to be anxious to know what he asked about. Another reason why the expression should be supplied is the enunciation of the result ‘they become immortal;’ for it is only by wisdom that immortality is attained and it is only by knowledge one can attain emancipation. Having given up all the sensory organs; (It is by confounding the ear and other sensory organs with the Atman that man is born subject to these conditions, dies and thus rotates) means ‘having learnt that the Atman is the Brahman defined as the ear of the ear, &c.’ Atimuchya means ‘having given up the false notion that the ear, &c., is the Atman; for, without the aid of the highest intelligence, it is impossible for one to give up the notion that the ear, &c., is the Atman. ‘Pretya’ means ‘having turned away’, ‘Asmallokat’ means ‘from this world’, where the talk is always of ‘my son,’ ‘my wife,’ ‘my kith and kin.’ The drift is ‘having renounced all desires.’ ‘Become immortal’ means ‘enjoy immunity from death.’ The Srutis also say “Not by deeds, not by offspring, not by wealth, but by renunciation did some attain immortality”; “The senses were made to perceive only external objects;” “Having turned his senses inwards for desire of immortality”; “When all desires are driven forth, here they attain the Brahman” &c. Or, seeing that the word Atimuchya necessarily implies ‘renunciation of all desires,’ the expression ‘Asmallokat pretya” may be interpreted as ‘having left this mortal body.’
Max Müller
2. The Teacher replies:- 'It is the ear of the ear, the mind of the mind, the speech of speech, the breath of breath, and the eye of the eye. When freed (from the senses) the wise, on departing from this world, become immortal [1].
iti śuśruma pūrveṣāṃ ye nastadvyācacakṣire || 3 ||
The eye does not go there, nor speech, nor mind. We do not know That. We do not know how to instruct one about It. It is distinct from the known and above the unknown. We have heard it so stated by preceptors who taught us that.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—For the reason that the Brahman is the ear of the ear, i.e., the Atman of all. the eye cannot go to the Brahman; for it is not possible to go to one’s own self. Similarly speech does not go there. When a word spoken by the mouth enlightens the object denoted by it, then the word is said to go to that object. But the Atman of that word and of the organ that utters it is the Brahman. So the word does not go there. Just as fire that burns and enlightens things does not either enlighten or burn itself, so the mind, which wills and determines in respect of external objects, cannot will or determine in respect of its self, because its Atman is also the Brahman. A thing is cognised by the senses and the mind. We do not, therefore, know the Brahman, because it cannot be an object of perception to these; and we do not, therefore, know what the Brahman is like, so as to allow us to enlighten the disciple about the Brahman. Whatever can be perceived by the senses, it is possible to explain to others by epithets denoting its class, its attributes and modes of activity; but the Brahman has no attributes of class, etc. It, therefore, follows that it is not possible to make the disciple believe in the Brahman by instruction. The portion of the text beginning with ‘Navidmah’ (we do not know) shows the necessity of putting forth great exertion in the matter of giving instruction and understanding it, in respect of the Brahman. Considering that the previous portion of the text leads to the conclusion that it is impossible by any means to instruct one about the Atman, the following exceptional mode is pointed out. Indeed it is true that one cannot be persuaded to believe in the Brahman by the evidence of the senses and other inodes of proof; but it is possible to make him believe by the aid of Agamas (Scriptures). Therefore the preceptor recites Agamas for the purpose of teaching about the Brahman and says:- ‘It is something distinct from the known and something beyond the unknown, etc.’ ‘Anyat,’ ‘something distinct’; ‘Tat,’ ‘the present theme i.e., that which has been defined to be the ear of the ear, etc., and beyond their (ear. eye, etc.,) reach. That is certainly distinct from the known. ‘The known,’ means ‘whatever is the object of special knowledge;’ and as all such objects can be known somewhere, to some extent and by some one and so forth, the whole (manifested universe) is meant by the term ‘the known;’ the drift is, that the Brahman is distinct from this. But lest the Brahnan should be confounded with the unknown, the text says:- ‘It is beyond the Unknown.’ ‘Aviditat’ means ‘something opposed to the known;’ hence, unmanitested illusion (avidya) the seed of all manifestation. ‘Adhi’ literally means ‘above’ but is here used in the derivative sense of ‘something different from for, it is well known that one thing placed above another is something distinct from that other. Whatever is known is little, mortal and full of misery and, therefore, fit to be abandoned. Therefore when it is said that Brahman is distinct from the Known, it is clear that it is not to be abandoned. Similarly, when the Brahman is said to be distinct from the Unknown it is in effect said that the Brahman is not fit to be taken. It is to produce an effect that one seeks for a cause. Therefore there can be nothing distinct from the knower, which the knower could seek for, with any benefit. Thus, by saying that the Brahman is distinct from both the Known and the Unknown and thus disproving its fitness to be abandoned or to be taken, the desire of the disciple to know anything distinct from Self (Atman) is checked. For, it is clear that none other than one’s Atman can be distinct from both the Known and the Unknown; the purport of the text is that the Atman is Brahman. The Srutis also say:- “This Atman is Brahman:” “this Atman who is untouched by sin.” “This is the known and the unknown Brahman;” “This Atman is within all;” etc. The preceptor next says how this meaning of the text, that the Atman of all, marked by no distinguishing attributes, bright and intelligent, is the Brahman, has been traditionally handed down from preceptor to disciple. And Brahman can he known only by instruction from preceptors and not by logical disquisitions, nor by expositions, intelligence, great learning, penance or sacrifices, etc. We have beard this saying of the preceptors who clearly taught us the Brahman.
Max Müller
3. 'The eye does not go thither, nor speech, nor mind. We do not know, we do not understand, how any one can teach it. 4. 'It is different from the known, it is also above the unknown, thus we have heard from those of old, who taught us this [1].
What speech does not enlighten, but what enlightens speech, know that alone to be the Brahman, not this which (people) here worship.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—When by the text “It is something distinct from both the known and the unknown,” the preceptor conveyed that the Atman is Brahman, the disciple doubted how the Atman could be Brahman. The Atman, as is well known, being entitled to perform Karma and worship (of the gods) and being subject to births and re-births seeks to attain Brahma or other Devas, or heaven, by means of Karma or worship. Therefore, somebody other than the Atman, such as Vishnu, Isvara, Indra or Prana, entitled to be worshipped, may well be Brahman; but the Atman, can never be; for it is contrary to popular belief. Just as logicians contend that the Atman is distinct from Isvara, so the votaries of Karma worship Devas, other than the Atman, saying:- ‘Propitiate this Deva by sacrifice’ and ‘Propitiate that Deva by sacrifice.’ Therefore it is only reasonable that what is known and entitled to worship is Brahman and that the worshipper is other than that. The preceptor inferred this doubt running in the disciple’s mind either from his looks or from his words and said:- ‘Do not doubt thus.’ Yat means ‘that which is intelligence itself.’ Vale is the organ presided over by Agni (Fire) occupying eight localities in the body, such as the root of the tongue, &c. The letters are intended to express the meaning to be conveyed and are subject to laws as to their number and order. The word which is produced by them is called Vak (speech.) The Sruti says “The letter a is all speech, which being produced by the use of letters, divided into sparsa, antastha and ushma becomes diverse and assumes many forms.” The Rik, Yajur, Sama and truth and falsehood are its modifications. By such speech, enclosed in words and conditioned by the organ of speech, Brahman is not illumined or explained. ‘Yena,’ ‘by the Brahman.’ Brahman by its brightness illumines speech, and its organ. It has been said here that, That (Brahman) is the speech of speech. The Vajasaneyaka says ‘Brahman is within the speech and directs it.’ Having said ‘Speech in man is the same as that in the letters and that some Brahmin knows it,’ the Upanishad, in answer to a question anticipated, says “That is speech, by which one speaks in dreams.” The speakers power of speech is eternal, and is by nature of the same essence as Intelligence. The power of speech of the speaker knows no decay. So says the Sruti. Know this Atman to be the Brahman, unsurpassable, known as Bhuma. Brahman, because it is big, all-pervading; know this through its conditions of speech, etc. The following expressions ‘speech of speech,’‘eye of the eye,’ ‘ear of the ear,’ ‘mind of the mind,’ ‘doer,’ ‘enjoyer,’ ‘knower,’ ‘controller,’ ‘governor,’ ‘Brahman is knowledge and bliss,’ etc., are used in popular language of the unspeakable Brahman, devoid of attributes, highest of all, unchangeable. Disregarding these, know the Atman itself to be the unconditioned Brahman. This is the meaning. Brahman is not what people here worship, such as Isvara, which is not the Atman, and which is conditioned and referred to as ‘this.’ Though it had been said ‘know That to be Brahman,’ still it is again said:- “and not this, etc.,” thus repeating the idea that what is not Atman is not Brahman. This is either to lay down a Niyama (a rule restricting the choice to a stated alternative when several others are (possible) or for Parisankhyana (exclusion).
Max Müller
5. 'That which is not expressed by speech and by which speech is expressed, that alone know as Brahman, not that which people here adore.
What one cannot think with the mind, but by which they say the mind is made to think, know That alone to be the Brahman, not this which (people) here worship.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—‘Manah,’ ‘mind.’ By the word ‘Manah’ here, both mind and intelligence are meant. ‘Mauah’ means ‘that by which one thinks.’ The mind is equally connected with all the sensory organs, because its sphere includes all external objects. The Sruti says:- ‘Desire, volition, deliberation, faith, negligence, boldness, timidity, shame, intelligence, fear, all these are mind.’ The modes of activity of the mind are desire, etc. By that mind, none wills or determines that intelligence which enlightens the mind, because as enlightener of the mind, that is the mind’s controller, the Atman being in the interior of everything, the mind cannot go there. The capacity of the mind to think exists, because it is enlightened by the intelligence shining within, and it is by that, that the mind is capable of activity. Those who know the Brahman say that the mind is pervaded by the Brahman. Therefore know that to be the Brahman which is the Atman, the interior intelligence of the mind. ‘Nedam, etc.,’ has already been explained in the commentary on the last verse.
Max Müller
6. 'That which does not think by mind, and by which, they say, mind is thought [1], that alone know as Brahman, not that which people here adore.
What cannot be seen by the eye, but by which the eyes are able to see. That alone know thou to be the Brahman; not this which (people) here worship.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—‘See’ means ‘perceive as an object.’ By the light of the Atman, connected with the activities of the mind, man perceives the activity of the eye, varying with the activity of the mind.
Max Müller
7. 'That which does not see by the eye, and by which one sees (the work of) the eyes, that alone know as Brahman, not that which people here adore.
What cannot be heard with the ear, but by which the ears are able to hear, That alone know thou to be the Brahman; not this which (people) here worship.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—‘What cannot be heard with the ear’ means ‘which the world does not perceive as an object with the organ of hearing, presided over by Digdevata, produced in Akas and connected with the activity of the mind.’ By which the ears are able to hear,’ it is well known that it is perceived as an object by the intelligence of the Atman. The rest has been already explained.
Max Müller
8. 'That which does not hear by the ear, and by which the ear is heard, that alone know as Brahman, not that which people here adore.
What none breathes with the breath, but by which breath is in-breathed, That alone know thou to be the Brahman; not this which (people) here worship.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—‘What none breathes with the breath’ means ‘what none perceives, like odour, with the earthly breath filling the nostrils and connected with the activity of the mind and life.’ ‘But by which, etc.,’ means ‘by the enlightening intelligence of the Atman, breath is made to move towards its objects.’ All the rest ‘tadeva, etc,’ has already been explained.
Max Müller
9. 'That which does not breathe by breath, and by which breath is drawn, that alone know as Brahman, not that which people here adore.'
If thou thinkest ‘I know well’ it is certainly but little—the form of the Brahman thou hast known, as also the form in the Devas. Therefore I think that what thou thinkest known is still to be ascertained.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—The preceptor, fearing that, the disciple persuaded to believe that lie is the Atman, i.e., the Brahman not fit to be abandoned or acquired, might think ‘I certainly am the Brahman, I know myself well,’ says for the purpose of dispelling that notion of the disciple Yadi, etc. Then, is not an accurate conviction ‘I know (Brahman) well’ desirable? Certainly it is desirable. But an accurate conviction is not of the form ‘I know (Brahman) well.’ If what should be known becomes an object of sense-perception then it is possible to know it well, just as an inflammable substance can be consumed by the consuming fire. But the essence of fire cannot itself be so consumed. The well-ascertained drift of all Vedanta is that the Self (Atman) of every knower is the Brahman. The same has been here explained in the form of question and answer by the text ‘It is the ear of the ear, etc.’ The same has been still more clearly determined by the text:- “What is not enlightened by speech, etc.” The traditional theory of those who know the Brahman has also been declared by tbe text:- “It is something different from both the known and the unknown.” This Upanishad will also conclude by saying “It is unknown to those who know, and known to those who do not know.” It is, therefore, certainly proper that the notion of the disciple, ‘I know Brahman well’ should be dispelled. It is evident that the knower cannot be known by tbe knower, just as fire cannot be consumed by fire. There is no knower other than th e Brahman, to whom the Brahman can be a knowable, distinct from himself. By the Sruti:- “There is no knower other than that,” the existence of another knower is denied. The belief, therefore, ‘I know Brahman well’ is an illusion. Therefore well did the preceptor say ‘Yadi, etc.’ ‘Vadi’ means ‘if perchance.’ ‘Suveda’ means ‘I know Brahman well.’ Because some one whose sins have been purged and who is really intelligent may properly understand what is taught and others not, the preceptor begins with a doubt ‘Yadi, etc.’ Such cases have also been found to occur. When he was informed ‘This purusha who is seen in the eye, this is the Atman; this is the immortal, fearless self,’ Virochana, the son of Prajapati and the lord of the Asuras, though intelligent, misinterpreted this instruction, on account of his natural defects and understood that the body was the Atman. Similarly, Indra, the lord of the Devas, not being able to comprehend the Brahman, at the first, second and third instructions, did, at the fourth, his natural faults having been removed, comprehend the very Brahman that he was first taught. It has been found in the world also, that, of disciples receiving instruction from the same preceptor, some understand him properly, some misinterpret his teaching, some interpret it into the exact contrary of the teacher’s view and some do not understand it at all. What more need we say of the knowledge of the Atman which is beyond the reach of the senses. On this point, all logicians, with their theories of Sat and Asat, are in conflict. The doubt, therefore, expressed in ‘Yadi manyase,’ etc., with which the preceptor begins his discourse is certainly appropriate, considering that the disciples, in spite of the instruction that the Brahman is unknowable, might have misunderstood him. ‘Dahara’ means ‘little’; ‘Vettha’ Means ‘knowest’; i.e., thou knowest surely little of Brahman’s form. Has Brahman then many forms, great and little, that it is said ‘daharam, etc.’? Quite so; many, indeed, are the forms of Brahman produced by conditions of name and form, but none in reality. By nature, as the Sruti says, it is without sound, touch, form, destruction; likewise, tasteless,odourless, and eternal. Thus with sound, etc., form is denied. But it may be said that, as that by which a thing is defined, is its rupa or form, the peculiar attribute of Brahman by which it is defined, may be said to be its form. We thus answer:- Intelligence cannot be the quality of the earth, etc., either of one or all of them together, or under any modifications. Similarly, it cannot he the quality of the sensory organs, like the ear, etc., or of the mind. ‘Brahmano rûpam,’ Brahman is defined by its intelligence. Hence it is said:- “Brahman is knowledge and bliss;’ ‘Brahman is dense with knowledge’; ‘Brahman is existence, knowledge and infinity’; thus the form of Brahman has been defined. Truly so; but even there, the Brahman is defined by the words ‘knowledge, etc.,’ only with reference to the limitations of mind, body and senses, because of its apparent adaptations to the exapansion, contraction, extinction, etc., of the body, etc., and not on account of its own essence. According to its essence it will be concluded in the subsequent portion of this Upanishad that it is unknown to those who know, and known to those who do not know. The expression ‘Yadasya brahmano rupam’ should be read along with what precedes it. Not only dost thou know little of the form of Brahman. when thou knowest it, as conditioned in man, but also when thou knowest it as conditioned in the Devas; so I think. Even the form of Brahman as it exists in the Devas is little, because it is limited by condition. The gist is that the Brahman limited by no conditions or attributes, passive, infinite, one without a second, known as Bhûma, eternal, cannot be known well. This being so, I think that you have yet to know Brahman by enquiry.’ ‘Atha nu,’ ‘therefore.’ ‘Mimamsyam,’ ‘worthy of enquiry.’ Thus addressed by the preceptor, the disciple sat in solitude all composed, discussed within himself the meaning of the Agama as pointed out by his Guru (preceptor), arrived at a conclusion by his reasoning, realised it in himself, approached the preceptor and exclaimed “I think I now know Brahman.”
Max Müller
1. The Teacher says:- 'If thou thinkest I know it well, then thou knowest surely but little, what is that form of Brahman known, it may be, to thee [1]?'
yo nastadveda tadveda no na vedeti veda ca || 10 ||
I do not think I know well; I know too; not that I do not know. He of us who knows that, knows that as also what is meant by ‘I know too; not that I do not know.’
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—On being asked how, the disciple says:- “Listen. I do not think I know Brahman well.” “Then is the Brahman not known by thee?” Thus questioned, the disciple says “Not that I do not know, I know too;” the word too in ‘I know too’ means ‘I do not know too.’ Is it not contradictory:- ‘I think I know not Brahman well etc.?’ If thou dost not think thou knowest well, how then dost thou think thou knowest also? If again thou thinkest thou certainly knowest, then how dost thou think thou knowest not well? To say that a thing is not known well by the man who knows it is a contradiction, the cases of doubt and false knowledge being left out of consideration. Nor is it possible to lay down a restrictive rule that the knowledge of Brahman should be doubtful or false. It is well known that under any circumstances, doubtful or false knowledge works great evil. Though thus attempted to be shaken in his conviction by the preceptor the disciple was not shaken. From the tradition which his master had explained to him, i.e., that the Self is something other than both the known and the unknown, from the reasonableness of the doctrine and from the strength of his own experience, the disciple loudly exclaimed, showing the firmness of bis knowledge of the Brahman. How lie exclaimed is thus stated. ‘He of us,’ i.e., my co-disciple, who correctly understands what I have said, knows That (Brahman). The words he referred to are ‘not that I do not know. I know too.’ What was defined by the expression ‘that is something other than both the known and the unknown’, the disciple discussed and decided from inference and from experience; and in order to see whether the preceptor’s views agreed with his own and to counteract any false conclusion, which dull persons may have arrived at, he expressed the same in different words:- ‘not that I do not know; I know too.’ The confident exclamation of the disciple ‘He of us. etc.,’ is accordingly appropriate.
Max Müller
2. The Pupil says:- 'I do not think I know it well, nor do I know that I do not know it. He among us who knows this, he knows it, nor does he know that he does not know it [1].
It is Known to him to whom it is Unknown;. he knows it not to whom it is known. (It is) Unknown to those who know, and Known to those who do not know.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Turning from the concurring views of the preceptor and the disciple, the Sruti speaking for itself conveys in this text the view about which there is no disagreement. The purport is that to the knower of the Brahman whose firm conviction is that the Brahman is unknowable, the Brahman is well known. But he, whose conviction is that the Brahman is known by him, certainly knows not the Brahman. The latter half of the text only states those two distinct conclusions of the wise and ignorant man more emphatically. To those who know well, the Brahman is certainly (a thing) unknown; but to those w ho do not see well, i.e., who confound the Atman with the sensory organs, the mind and the conditioned intelligence [ Buddhi ], Brahman is certainly not known, but not to those who are extremely ignorant; for, in the case of these, the thought ‘Brahman is known by us’ never arises. In the case of those who find the Atman in the conditioned organs of sense, mind and intelligence, the false notion ‘I know Brahman’ is quite possible, because they cannot discriminate between Brahman and these conditions and because the conditions of intelligence, etc., are known to them. It is to show that such knowledge of the Brahman is fallacious that the latter half of the text is introduced. Or, the latter half ‘Avijnatam, etc..’ may be construed as furnishing a reason for the view propounded in the former.
Max Müller
3. 'He by whom it (Brahman) is not thought, by him it is thought; he by whom it is thought, knows it not. It is not understood by those who understand it, it is understood by those who do not understand it.
(The Brahman) is known well, when it is known as the witness of every state of consciousness; for (by such knowledge) one attains immortality. By his Self he attains strength and by knowledge, immortality.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—It has been settled that it is unknown to those who know. If Brahman he not known at all, it will then come to this, that there is no difference between the worldly-minded and those who know the Brahman. To say that It is unknown to those who know is also a contradiction, flow then could that Brahman he well-known? This is explained in this text, ‘Pratibôdhaviditam’ means ‘known in respect of every state of consciousness.’ By the word ‘bôdha’ is meant ‘mental perception.’ That by which all states of consciousness are perceived like objects is the Atman. He knows and sees all states of consciousness, being by nature nothing hut intelligence and is indicated by these states of consciousness, as blended with every one of them. There is no other way by which the inner Atman could be known. Therefore when the Brahman is known as the witness of all states of consciousness, then it is known well. Being the witness of all states of consciousness, it will he clear that it is intelligence in its essence, subject to neither birth nor death, eternal, pure, unconditioned, and one in all things, because there is no difference in its essence, just as in the essence of the Akas, in a vessel or mountain cave, etc. The drift of the passage from the Agamas [traditions] is that the Brahman is other than both the known and the unknown. It is this pure Atman that will be described at the close of the Upanishad. Another Sruti says “He is the seer of the eye, the hearer of the ear, the thinker of thought, and the knower of knowledge.” But some explain the expression ‘Pratibôdhaviditam’ in the text as meaning ‘known by its defining attribute of knowledge,’ on the view that Brahman is the author of the act of knowing and that Brahman as such author is known by its activity in knowing,’ just as the wind is known as that which shakes the branches of the trees. In this view the Atman is an unintelligent substance having the power to know and not intelligence itself. Consciousness is produced and is destroyed. When consciousness is produced, then the Atman is associated with it; but when it is destroyed, the Atman, dissociated from consciousness, becomes a mere unintelligent substance. Such being the case, it is not possible to get over the objection that the Atman is rendered changeable in its nature, composed of parts, transient, impure, etc. Again according to the followers of Kanada consciousness is said to be produced by the combination of the Atman and the mind and to adhere to the Atman. Therefore, the Atman possesses the attribute of knowledge but is not subject to modifications. It simply becomes a substance just like a pot made red. Even on this theory the Brahman is reduced to an unintelligent substance and therefore, the Srutis ‘Brahman is knowledge and bliss, etc.,’ would be set at naught. Moreover the Atman having no parts and being omnipresent and, therefore, ever connected (with the mind), the impossibility of laying down a law regulating the origin of recollection is an insurmountable objection. Again that the Atman can be connected with any thing is itself repugnant to the Srutis, Smritis and logic. ‘The Atman is not connected with anything else; ‘The Atman unconnected with anything supports everything; so say both the Sruti and the Smriti. According to logic, too, a thing having attributes may be connected with another having attributes and not with one dissimilar in class. To say, therefore, that a thing having no attribute, undifferentiated and having nothing in common with anything else, combines with another unequal in class is illogical. Therefore, the meaning that the Atman is, by nature, knowledge and light, eternal and undecaying, can be arrived at, only if the Atman be the witness of all states of consciousness, and not otherwise. Hence the meaning of the expression ‘Pratibôdhaviditam matam’ is just what we explained it to be. Some, however, explain that the drift of this portion of the text is that the Atman is knowable by itself. There the Atman is thought of as conditioned and people talk of knowing the Atman by the Atman, distinguishing as it were, the unconditioned Atman from the Atman conditioned by intelligence, etc. Thus it has been said “He sees the Atman by the Atman” and “O Best of men! know the Atman by the Atman, thyself.” It is clear that the unconditioned Atman, being one, is not capable of being known either by itself or by others. Being itself the knowing principle, it cannot stand in need of another knowing principle; just as one light cannot possibly require another light. So here. On the theory of the followers of Buddha that the Atman is known by itself, knowledge becomes momentary and no Atman as its knower is possible. It is well known that the knowledge of the knower knows no destruction, being-indestructible. Again the Srutis:- ‘Him who is eternal, omnipresent and all-pervading,’ ‘This is He, great, unborn, Atman, undecaying, deathless, immortal and fearless,’ etc., would be set at naught. Some, however, construe the word ‘Pratibodha’ to mean ‘causeless perception’ as that of one who sleeps. Others yet say that the word ‘Pratibôdha’ means ‘knowledge of the moment.’ (We answer) whether it has or has not a cause, whether it occurs once or is often repeated, it is still Pratibôdha itself or knowledge itself. The drift is that the Brahman known as the witness of all states of consciousness is well-known, because by such knowledge, one attains immortality, i.e., being centred in one’s self, i.e., emancipation. The knowledge that the Atman is the witness of all states of consciousness is the reason for immortality. Immortality cannot possibly be the fact of the Atman becoming something other than itself. The immortality of the Atman, consisting in being Atman, is causeless; thus the mortality of the Atman consists in the mistaken belief of no ‘Atman’ induced by ignorance. How again, it may be asked, does one attain immortality by the knowledge of the Atman as already explained? It is therefore, said as follows:- ‘Atmana’ means ‘by one’s own nature;’ ‘Vindate’ means ‘attains;’ ‘Viryam’ means ‘strength or capacity.’ The strength gained by wealth, retinue, mantras, medicinal herbs, devotion and yoga cannot overcome mortality, because that is produced by things themselves mortal. The strength gained by the knowledge of the Atman can be acquired by the Atman alone and not by any other means. Because the strength produced by the knowledge of the Atman does not require any other aid, that strength alone can overcome death. And because one acquires by bis Atman alone the strength produced by the knowledge of the Atman, therefore he attains immortality by the knowledge of the Atman. The Atharvana Upanishad says “This Atman cannot be attained by one devoid of strength.”
Max Müller
4. 'It is thought to be known (as if) by awakening, and (then) we obtain immortality indeed. By the Self we obtain strength, by knowledge we obtain immortality.
If one knows (That) here, then there is truth. If one knows not (That) here, there will be great loss. The wise, seeing the on e Atman in all created things, having turned away from this world, become immortal.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com:—It is, indeed, hard to suffer birth, old age, death, sickness, etc., owing to ignorance, being one of the crowd of living beings, such as Devas, men, beasts. (pretas), etc., full of the miseries of Samsara. Therefore if a man, even in this world being authorised and competent, knows the Atman as defined, in the manner already explained, then there is truth; i.e., there is in this birth as a mortal, immortality, usefulness, real existence. But if one living here and authorised does not know the Brahman, then there is long and great misery for him, i.e., rotation in Samsara—one continuous stream of births and deaths. Therefore the Brahmins who know the advantages and the disadvantages as above pointed out, perceive in all things in the universe, immoveable and moveable, the one essence of the Atman, i.e., the Brahman, turn away with disgust from this world, the creature of ignorance consisting in the false notion of ‘I’ and ‘mine’ and having realised the principle of unity, the oneness of the Atman in all, become immortal, i.e., become Brahman itself; for, the Sruti says “He who knows that highest Brahman becomes Brahman itself.”
Max Müller
5. 'If a man know this here, that is the true (end of life); if he does not know this here, then there is great destruction (new births). The wise who have thought on all things (and recognised the Self in them) become immortal, when they have departed from this world.'
brahma ha devebhyo vijigye tasya ha brahmaṇo vijaye devā amahīyanta |
ta aikṣantāsmākamevāyaṃ vijayo'smākamevāyaṃ mahimeti || 14 ||
The Brahman won a victory for the Devas and in that victory of the Brahman the Devas attained glory. They thought ‘the victory is ours and this glory is ours alone.’
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—From the passage that ‘It is not known to those who know,’ some fools may argue that whatever is, can be known by proofs, and whatever is not cannot be so known and is, therefore, non-existent, as the horns of a hare, and Brahman, being unknown, does not exist. In order that they may not fall into that error this parable is introduced; for, the subsequent passages clearly show the folly of thinking that that Brahman who is controller of all in every way, Deva, even superior to all Devas, Lord over lords, not easily known, the cause of the victory of the Devas and of the defeat of the Asuras does not exist. Or (it is related) for eulogising the knowledge of Brahman. How? By showing that it was, indeed, by the knowledge of the Brahman that Fire, etc., attained pre-eminence among the Devas; and Indra specially more than the rest. Or. it shows how difficult it is to know Brahman, because even Fire, etc, with all their great powers, and even Indra. lord of the Devas knew the Brahman only with considerable difficulty. It may be that the whole Upanishad to follow is intended to lay down an injunction (to know the Brahman) or the story may have been intended to show the fallacious nature of the notion of doer, etc., found in all living beings, by contrasting it with the knowledge of the Brahman—fallacious like the notion of the Devas that the victory was theirs. The Brahman already defined won a victory for the benefit of the Devas; the Brahman in a battle between the Devas and the Asuras defeated the Asuras, the enemies of the world and the violators of the limitations imposed by the Lord and gave the benefit of the victory to the Devas for the preservation of the world. In this victory of Brahman the Devas, Fire, etc., attained glory, and not knowing that the victory and glory belonged to the Paramatman, seated in then own Atman, the witness of all perceptions, Lord of the universe, omniscient, the dispenser of the fruits of all Karma, omnipotent, and desirous of securing the safety of the world, looked upon the victory and the glory, as achieved by themselves—the Atman enclosed within the limitations of their own forms, Fire. etc.; that the glory—their being Fire, Air, Indra and the like, resulting from the victory—was theirs and that neither the victory nor the glory belonged to the Lord, over all the Atman within them. So they cherished this false notion.
Max Müller
1. Brahman obtained the victory for the Devas. The Devas became elated by the victory of Brahman, and they thought, this victory is ours only, this greatness is ours only.
taddhaiṣāṃ vijajñau tebhyo ha prādurbabhūva tanna vyajānata
kimidaṃ yakṣamiti || 15 ||
He knew this notion of theirs and appeared before them. What that Great Spirit was they did not know.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—The Brahman evidently knew this false notion of theirs. Brahman being omniscient and director of the senses of all living beings knew of the false idea of the Devas and in order that the Devas might not be disgraced like the Asuras by this false notion, out of pity for them and intending to bless them hy dispelling their false notion, appeared before them for their benefit in a form assumed at will, in virtue of its power—a form unprecedentedly glorious and astonishing and capable of being perceived by the senses. The Devas did not at all know the Brahman that appeared before them. Who is this Yaksham, i.e., this venerable Great Spirit.
Max Müller
2. Brahman perceived this and appeared to them. But they did not know it, and said:- 'What sprite (yaksha or yakshya) is this?'
That placed a straw before him and said:- ‘Burn this.’ He approached it with all haste but was not able to burn it. He immediately returned from thence to the Devas and said I was not able to learn what this Great Spirit is.”
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—The Devas not knowing what that Spirit was, being afraid of it, and desirous to know what it was, thus addressed Agni who went before them and who was little less than omniscient. “O Jataveda, learn well what this Great Spirit now in our view is. You are the brightest of us all.” “Be it so” said Agni and ran towards the Spirit. Seeing him approach near, with a desire to ask questions of it, but overawed into silence in its presence, the Spirit asked him:- “who art thou?” Thus questioned by Brahman, Agni replied:- “I am Agni well known also as Jataveda”; as if in self-complaisance at being so well known by two names, Brahman said to Agni who had thus replied:- “what power is in thee who ownest such well-known and significant names.?” He replied:- “I could reduce to ashes all this universe and all immoveables, etc., on this earth.” The word ‘earth’ is illustratively used; for, even what is in the air is burnt by Agni [Fire]. The Brahman placed a straw before Agni who was so vain-glorious, and said:- “Burn but this straw in my presence. If thou art not able to burn this, give up thy vanity as the consumer of all.” Thus addressed, Agni approached the straw with all the speed of overweening confidence but was not able to burn it. So he. Jataveda, being unable to burn it, covered with shame and bathed in bis resolution, returned in silence from the presence of the Spirit and told the Devas:- “I was not able to learn more, concerning this Spirit.”
Max Müller
6. Brahman put a straw before him, saying:- 'Burn this.' He went towards it with all his might, but he could not burn it. Then he returned thence and said:- 'I could not find out what sprite this is.'
That placed a straw before him and said “Blow it away.” He approached it with all speed but was not able to blow it. He returned immediately from there and told the Devas “I was not able to learn who this Great Spirit is.”
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—They next addressed Vayu thus:- ‘know this, etc.’ The vest bears the same meaning as in the last passage. Vayu [ Air ] is so named from the root which means ‘to go’or ‘to smell.’ Vayu is also called ‘Matarisva’ because it travels [ svayati ] in space [ matari ], ‘Adadiyam’ means ‘can take.’ The rest is explained as in the previous passage.
Max Müller
10. Brahman put a straw before him, saying:- 'Take it up.' He went towards it with all his might, but he could not take it up. Then he returned thence and said:- 'I could not find out what sprite this is.'
sa tasminnevākāśe striyamājagāma bahuśobhamānāmumām̐
haimavatīṃ tām̐hovāca kimetadyakṣamiti || 25 ||
He beheld in that very spot a woman, Uma, very beautiful and of golden hue, daughter of Himavat. He said to her “What is this Great Spirit?”
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Atha, etc., has already been explained. Indra, lord of the Devas, Maghavan, (being the most powerful of them) said yes, and ran to That. Hut That vanished from his sight, when he was near the Brahman and did not even talk to him, because it wished to crush altogether his pride at being Indra. In the very spot where the Spirit showed itself and from which it vanished and near the place where Indra was at the moment the Brahman vanished, Indra stood discussing within himself what that Spirit was, and did not return like Agni and Vayu. Seeing his attachment to that Spirit, knowledge in the form of a woman and of Umu appeared before him. Indra beheld knowledge. fairest of the fair,—this epithet is very appropriate in the particular context—as if adorned in gold. ‘Himavatim’ may mean ‘the daughter of Himalaya’ and being ever associated with the Lord (Siva) the omniscient, and having approached her, asked:- “Who is this Spirit that showed itself and vanished?”
Max Müller
12. Then in the same space (ether) he came towards a woman, highly adorned:- it was Umâ, the daughter of Himavat [1]. He said to her:- 'Who is that sprite?'
She said “It is Brahman indeed. Attain glory in the victory of Brahman.” From her words only, he learned that it was Brahman.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—The particle ‘Ha’ means ‘verily.’ Glory in the victory of the omnipotent Lord (for the Asuras were defeated only by Brahman). Etat modifies the predicate. Your notion that the victory and the glory are yours is false. From her words alone Indra learned that it was Brahman. The force of ‘only’ is that Indra did not know of himself.
Max Müller
1. She replied:- 'It is Brahman. It is through the victory of Brahman that you have thus become great.' After that he knew that it was Brahman.
These Devas Agni, Vayu and Indra therefore much excel others, because they touched the Brahman nearest. They it was who first knew the Spirit to be Brahman.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Because these Devas, Agni, Vayu and Indra approached the Brahman nearest by conversing with and seeing That, they surpass the others considerably in the matter of power, quality and affluence. The particle ‘Iva’ either has no meaning or has the force of ‘certainly.’ Because these Devas, Agni, Vayu and Indra approached nearest the most desirable Brahman, by such means as the conversation aforesaid, and because they were the first who knew the Brahman, they are foremost.
Max Müller
2. Therefore these Devas, viz. Agni, Vâyu, and Indra, are, as it were, above the other gods, for they touched it (the Brahman) nearest [1].
ह्येनन्नेदिष्ठं पस्पर्श स ह्येनत्प्रथमो विदाञ्चकार ब्रह्मेति ॥ ३॥
tasmādvā indro'titarāmivānyāndevānsa
hyenannediṣṭhaṃ pasparśa sa hyenatprathamo vidāñcakāra brahmeti || 28 ||
Therefore also does Indra considerably excel other Devas because he approached Brahman nearest and because he first knew the Spirit to be Brahman.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Because even Agni and Vayu knew Brahman from the words of Indra and because Indra first heard of the Brahman from the words of Uma, therefore does Indra so excel the other Devas. He approached Brahman nearest because he was first who knew the Brahman.
Max Müller
3. And therefore Indra is, as it were, above the other gods, for he touched it nearest, he first knew it.
Thus is That inculcated by illustration—that it flashed like lightning—that it appeared and vanished as the eye winketh. This is the illustration of the Brahman used in respect to the Devas.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Of the Brahman the subject discussed, this is the Adesa. Adesa is instruction by means of illustrations. The illustration by which the Brahman, the like of which does not exist, is explained is said to-be its Adesa. What is It? That which is well-known in the world as the flash of lightning. To add ‘kritavat’ is inconsistent. Therefore we understand it to mean ‘the flash of lightning’. The particle ‘A’ means ‘like.’ The meaning is ‘like the flash of lightning.’ We find another Sruti saying ‘As if a lightning flashed.’ It just showed itself to the Devas like lightning and vanished from their view—or the word ‘Tejas’ [bright] should be supplied after ‘Vidyutah’ [of lightning]. The meaning then is that It shone for a moment like a dazzling flash of lightning. The word ‘iti’ shows that it is an illustration. The word ‘ith’ is used in the sense of ‘and’ or ‘else’. This is another illustration of it. What is it? It winked as the eye winks. The nich suffix has no distinct meaning from the meaning of the root. The particle ‘a’ means ‘like’. The meaning is that it was like the eye opening and closing to see and to turn from its objects. This illustration of the Brahman is taken from the activity of the deities.
Max Müller
4. This is the teaching of Brahman, with regard to the gods (mythological):- It is that which now flashes forth in the lightning, and now vanishes again.
Next illustration, from the Atman within the body—as speedily as the mind goes to Brahman—as speedily as one thinks of Brahman hy the mind, and as speedily as the mind wills.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—‘Atha’ means‘next’. We offer illustrations from the Atman within the body. ‘Goes to’ means ‘perceives as an object’. As speedily as one (worshipper) thinks of the Brahman as near. ‘Abhikshnam’ means ‘very much’. ‘Wills’, i. e., about the Brahman. By the volition, recollection of the mind, the Brahman as hounded by the mind is perceived as an object. Therefore this is an illustration of the Brahman taken from within the body, as lightning and winking from the activity of the powers. And as those illustrations show that Brahman flashes instantaneously, so these illustrations show that Brahman’s appearance and disappearance are as quick as the perceptions of the mind. These illustrations of the Brahman are given because it can be understood by dull persons only if so illustrated. It is well-known that the unconditioned Brahman can be known by persons of inferior intellect.
Max Müller
5. And this is the teaching of Brahman, with regard to the body (psychological):- It is that which seems to move as mind, and by it imagination remembers again and again [1].
तद्ध तद्वनं नाम तद्वनमित्युपासितव्यं स य एतदेवं वेदाभि
हैन सर्वाणि भूतानि संवाञ्छन्ति ॥ ६॥
taddha tadvanaṃ nāma tadvanamityupāsitavyaṃ sa ya etadevaṃ vedābhi
hainaṃ sarvāṇi bhūtāni saṃvāñchanti || 31 ||
The Brahman should be worshipped by all and is hence called Tadvana. As Tadvana, It must be worshipped. Who thus knows Brahman, is loved by all living beings.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—‘Tat’ means ‘Brahman’. ‘Ha’ means ‘as is well-known’. ‘Tadvanam’ is a compound of tat and vanam. It means ‘which deserves to be worshipped as the one Atman of all living things’. The Brahman is well-known as Tadvanam and should, therefore, be worshipped as Tadvana, a word denoting its virtue. ‘Worshipped’ means ‘contemplated.’ The Sruti next declares the fruit attained by one who contemplates the Brahman by this name. He who contemplates the Brahman already defined as possessed of this virtue, him (this worshipper) all living things love, i.e., pray to him as they would to Brahman. Thus instructed, the disciple addressed the preceptor in the following manner.
Max Müller
6. That Brahman is called Tadvana [1], by the name of Tadvana it is to be meditated on. All beings have a desire for him who knows this.
उपनिषदं भो ब्रूहीत्युक्ता त उपनिषद्ब्राह्मीं वाव त
उपनिषदमब्रूमेति ॥ ७॥
upaniṣadaṃ bho brūhītyuktā ta upaniṣadbrāhmīṃ vāva ta
upaniṣadamabrūmeti || 32 ||
(The disciple). (O Preceptor!) “Teach me the Upanishad”. (The preceptor). “We have told thee the Upanishad.” We have certainly told thee the Upanishad about Brahman”
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—When the disciple said “O holy one! Teach me the secret that should he thought of,” the preceptor replied “the Upanishad has been taught thee.” “What is that Upanishad?” The preceptor replied “The Upanishad treating of Brahman, the supreme Self, has been taught thee who excel in knowledge”. The latter half is introduced for decisively asserting that the knowledge of the supreme Pramatman, the Brahman already explained, is the Upanishad. Now what is the real significance of the disciple, who has already heard, explained to him, the knowledge of the Brahman, asking the preceptor to tell him the Upanishad? If the question was about what was already explained, then the question itself becomes redundant and meaningless like Pishtapeshana. If, however, the Upanishad had been only partially explained, then the concluding it by reciting its fruits:- “Having turned away from this world they become immortal,” is not reasonable. Therefore, the question, if asked about the unexplained portion of the Upanishad is also unsound, because there was no portion yet to be explained. What then is the meaning of the questioner. We answer thus:- The disciple meant to say:- “Does the Upanishad already explained stand in need of anything else which should combine with it to secure the desired end, or does it not stand in need of any such thing? If it does, teach me the Upanishad about what is so required. If it does not, assert emphatically like Pippalada in the words—There is nothing beyond this—.” The preceptor’s emphatical assertion, “The Upanishad has been told thee” is but proper. It may be said that this cannot be construed as an emphatic assertion, as already explained, for something yet had to be said by the preceptor. It is true that the preceptor adds ‘Tasyi’, etc., but that is not added as a portion combining with the Upanishad, already explained, in accomplishing the desired end, nor as a distinct aid for achieving the end with the Upanishad, but as something intended as a means to the acquisition of the knowledge of the Brahman; for, tapas, etc., are apparently of the same importance with the Vedas and their supplements, being mentioned along with them. It is well known that neither the Vedas nor the supplements are the direct complements of the knowledge of the Brahman or concomitant helps to it. It is urged that it is only reasonable to assign different offices according to merit, even to many mentioned in the same breath. Just as the mantras for invoking the gods, where more than one is named, are used to perform the function of different deities according as the god to be invoked is this or that; it is urged it is to be inferred that tapas, peace, karma, truth, etc., are either complements or concomitant helps to the knowledge of Brahman, and that the Vedas and their supplements, elucidating meanings, are only helps to the knowledge of Karma and Atma. They urge that this distribution is only reasonable from the reasonableness of the applicability of their purport to this distribution. This cannot be, for it is illogical. This distinction is impossible to bring about. It is unreasonable to think that the knowledge of the Brahman, before which all notions of distinctions of deed, doer, fruit, etc., vanish, can possibly require any extraneous tiling as its complement or concomitant aid in accomplishing it. Nor can its fruit, emancipation, require any such. It is said:- “One desirous of emancipation should always renounce karma and all its aids. It is only by one that so renounces that the highest place (can he reached). Therefore, knowledge cannot consistently with itself require karma as its concomitant help or its complement. Therefore, the distribution on the analogy of the invocation in Suktavaka is certainly unsound. Therefore, it is sound to say that the question and answer were intended only to make sure. The meaning is “what was explained is all the Upanishad, which does not require anything else for ensuring emancipation.”
Max Müller
7. The Teacher:- 'As you have asked me to tell you the Upanishad, the Upanishad has now been told you. We have told you the Brâhmî Upanishad.
tasai tapo damaḥ karmeti pratiṣṭhā vedāḥ sarvāṅgāni
satyamāyatanam || 33 ||
Devotion, self-control and Karma are its pedestal, as also the Vedas and their supplements. Truth is its abode.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Of the Upanishad about Brahman which has been already taught, devotion, etc., are helps to the acquisition. ‘Tapas’ means, ‘control of the body, the sensory organs and the mind.’ ‘Dama’ means ‘freedom from passions.’ ‘Karma’ is Agnihotra, etc. It has been seen that knowledge of the Brahman arises indirectly through the purification of the mind in the person, who has been refined by these. Even when Brahman is explained, those who have not been purged of their faults, either disbelieve or misbelieve in it, as in the cases of Indra, Virochana, etc. Therefore, knowledge as inculcated arises only in him who has, by tapas, etc., performed either in this birth or in many previous ones, purified his mind. The Sruti says:- “To that high-souled man whose devotion to the Lord is great and whose devotion to his preceptor is as great as that to the Lord, these secrets explained become illuminated.” The Smriti says:- “Knowledge arises in men by annihilation of sinful deeds.” The word ‘iti’ is used to show that the mention of tapas, etc., is only by way of illustration; for it will show that there are other aids than those mentioned to the acquisition of knowledge, as freedom from pride, hatred of pomp, etc. ‘Pratishta’ means ‘legs.’ For, when they exist, knowledge is firmly seated just as a person goes about with his legs, the four Vedas, all the six supplements, i.e., Siksha, etc. The Vedas being the enlighteners of the knowledge of karma and the supplementary scriptures being intended for their protection are called ‘legs’ of the knowledge of Brahman. Or the word ‘Pratishta’ having been construed as legs, the Vedas must be understood as all other parts of the body than the legs, such as the head, etc. In this case it should be understood that in the mention of Vedas, the Angas, siksha, etc., are in effect mentioned. When the trunk [ angi ] is mentioned, the limbs [ angas ] are included; because the limbs live in the trunk. The place where the Upanishad rests is Truth. ‘Satyam’ (Truth) means ‘freedom from deceit and fraud in speech, mind or deed’; for knowledge seeks those who are good-natured and free from deceit and not men of the nature of the A suras and the deceitful; for, the Sruti says:- ‘Not in whom there is fraud, falsehood or deceit.’ Therefore, it is said that Truth is the resting place of knowledge. The mention again of Truth as the resting place of knowledge, notwithstanding its implied mention as ‘the leg on which knowledge stands’ along with devotion, etc., is to indicate that Truth excels others as a help to knowledge; for, the Smriti says:- “If a thousand Asvamedha sacrifices and Truth were weighed in the balance, one Truth spoken will outweigh the thousand sacrifices.”
Max Müller
8. 'The feet on which that Upanishad stands are penance, restraint, sacrifice; the Vedas are all its limbs [1], the True is its abode.
He who knows this thus, having shaken off all sin, lives firmly seated in the endless, blissful and highest Brahman. He lives firmly seated.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—‘This’ means ‘the knowledge of Brahman as explained in ‘keneshitam’, etc., and highly eulogised in the text ‘Brahmaha Devebhyo,’ etc., and the source of all knowledge. Although it has been already said that by such knowledge one attains immortality, the fruit of the knowledge of Brahman is again stated at the end. ‘Sin’ means ‘the seed of Samsara whose nature is ignorance, desire and karma’ ‘Anante’ means ‘boundless.’ ‘Svarye loke’ means ‘in the Brahman who is all bliss’ and not ‘in heaven because of the adjunct ‘boundless.’ It may be said that the word ‘boundless’ is used in its secondary sense. Therefore the Sruti adds:- ‘Jyeye,’ ‘highest of all.’ The purport is that he is firmly seated in the unconditioned Brahman, i.e., does not again revert to Samsara [worldly existence].
Max Müller
9. 'He who knows this Upanishad, and has shaken off all evil, stands in the endless, unconquerable [1] world of heaven, yea, in the world of heaven.'
ॐ आप्यायन्तु ममाङ्गानि वाक्प्राणश्चक्षुः
श्रोत्रमथो बलमिन्द्रियाणि च सर्वाणि ।
सर्वं ब्रह्मौपनिषदं
माऽहं ब्रह्म निराकुर्यां मा मा ब्रह्म
निराकरोदनिराकरणमस्त्वनिराकरणं मेऽस्तु ।
तदात्मनि निरते य
उपनिषत्सु धर्मास्ते मयि सन्तु ते मयि सन्तु ।
ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥
॥ इति केनोपनिषद्॥
oṃ āpyāyantu mamāṅgāni vākprāṇaśchakṣuḥ
śrotramatho balamindriyāṇi cha sarvāṇi
sarvaṃ brahmaupaniṣadaṃ
māhaṃ brahma nirākuryāṃ mā mā brahma
nigakāgedanirakāraṇamastvanirākaraṇaṃ me'stu
tadātmani nirate ya
upaniṣatsu dharmāste mayi santu te mayi santu
oṃ śāntiḥ | śāntiḥ | śāntiḥ |
3 - Katha Upanishad
The Katha Upanishad presents a profound dialogue between Nachiketa and Yama, the Lord of Death, exploring the nature of the Self (Atman), the distinction between the path of wisdom and the path of pleasure, and the ultimate goal of liberation. Through a simple yet powerful story, it reveals deep philosophical truths about life, death, and eternal reality.
Editorial Note:
The Katha Upanishad is one of the most engaging and accessible Upanishads,
presented in the form of a story.
It narrates the journey of a young boy, Nachiketa, who meets Yama, the
Lord of Death. What begins as a simple encounter becomes a deep philosophical
dialogue about life, death, and the ultimate truth.
The Story in Brief
Nachiketa, the son of Sage Vajasravasa, is offered to Death due to a ritual vow.
When he reaches the abode of Yama, the deity is absent for three days. As a mark
of respect for the boy’s patience and discipline, Yama offers him three
boons:
First Boon - Peace with his father Nachiketa asks to return home and be accepted by his father. Granted.
Second Boon - Knowledge of the sacred fire He learns the ritual that leads to higher realms (heaven). Granted.
Third Boon - The mystery of death He asks the most important question: “Does the Self exist after death?”
This final question becomes the heart of the Upanishad.
Structure of the Text
The Katha Upanishad is organized into two chapters (Adhyayas), each divided
into three sections (Vallis), making a total of six sections:
First Chapter
First Valli (29 verses) Introduction of Nachiketa and the three boons.
Second Valli (25 verses) The distinction between Shreya (the good) and Preya (the pleasant).
Third Valli (17 verses) The nature of the Self and the famous chariot metaphor.
Second Chapter
Fourth Valli (15 verses) Deeper explanation of the Self as beyond life and death.
Fifth Valli (15 verses) Meditation and realization of the inner Self.
Sixth Valli (17 verses) Final teachings on liberation and the realization of Brahman.
Flow of Ideas
The Upanishad progresses in a clear narrative and philosophical order:
Questioning Death - A sincere seeker asks about the ultimate truth.
Choice of Paths - Wisdom vs worldly pleasure.
Nature of the Self - The Self as eternal and beyond change.
Inner Discipline - Control of mind and senses.
Realization - Understanding the unity of Atman and Brahman.
Core Philosophical Teachings
Shreya vs Preya The path of wisdom leads to liberation, while the path of pleasure leads to
temporary satisfaction.
Nature of Atman The Self is:
Eternal
Changeless
Beyond birth and death
Present in all beings
Unity of Atman and Brahman Individual Self (Atman) and Universal Reality (Brahman) are one.
Symbol of Om The syllable Om represents the ultimate reality and the Self.
Chariot Analogy Body = chariot, senses = horses, mind = reins, intellect = driver, Self =
master.
Simple Summary (For Easy Understanding)
The Katha Upanishad tells the story of a young boy who is not afraid to ask the
most important question: What happens after death?
Instead of accepting easy answers, Nachiketa chooses knowledge over comfort.
Yama teaches him that there are two ways to live:
One is chasing pleasure and temporary happiness
The other is seeking truth and lasting peace
The Upanishad explains that our real identity is not the body or mind, but the
Self (Atman), which never dies.
It also teaches that by controlling our mind and senses, and by understanding
this inner Self, we can realize the ultimate truth.
In the end, the message is simple and powerful: The one who knows the Self goes beyond death and attains true freedom.
This edition presents the original Sanskrit text with IAST transliteration,
along with translation and commentary based on the Advaita Vedanta tradition of
Shankaracharya, translated by S. Sitarama Sastri (1928).
ॐ उशन्ह वै वाजश्रवसः सर्ववेदसं ददौ । तस्य ह नचिकेता नाम पुत्र आस ॥ १॥
oṃ uśanha vai vājaśravasaḥ sarvavedasaṃdadau | tasya ha naciketā nāma putra āsa || 1 ||
From desire, as story tells, the son of Vâjasrava made a gift of all his wealth; he had a son, so the story goes, by name Nachikêtas.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Ushan, desiring for the fruits of the sacrifice. Ha and vai are two particles which have the force of recalling to mind what had passed. Vâjasravasah:- vâja means food, srava means fame; the compound, therefore, means one who had attained fame by the giving of food; or, the compound may be a proper name. The son of Vâjasrava is Vâjasravasah. Vâjasravasah, it is said, performed the Visvajit sacrifice (in which all is given away) desirous of its fruits. During the sacrifice he gave away all his wealth. The performer of the sacrifice had a son named Nachikêtas.
Him, though young, zeal possessed when rewards were being distributed; he thought.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Him, i.e., Nachikôtas, though in the prime of life, i.e., young and not possessed of the power of procreating zeal, i.e., faith in the existence of a future state, entered, induced by the desire of good to his father. At what time is explained; when cows were brought to be distributed among the Ritviks and the sadasyas for their rewards; possessed of zeal, Nachikêtas thus thought.
anandā nāma te lokāstānsa gacchati tā dadat || 3 ||
(These cows) have drunk water for the last time, eaten grass for the last time, have yielded all their milk and are devoid of vigour. Joyless verily are those worlds; them he attains who gives these.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—How he thought is explained; the epithet Pîtôdakâh and those which follow describe the cows to be given as rewards. Pítôdakâh, by which all water has been drunk; jagdhatrinâh, by which all grass has been eaten. Dugdhadôhâh, from which all milk has been milched. Nirindriâh (?), not capable of breeding. The meaning is—cows old and useless; giving such cows to the Ritviks for their rewards, the person performing the sacrifice attains those worlds which are joyless, i.e., devoid of happiness.
He said unto his sire, ‘father, to whom wilt thou give me’; he said this again and for the third time. To him, he said ‘unto Death do I give thee.’
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Thinking that, as being the duty of a good son, he should ward off the undesirable consequences, which might befall his father on account of the imperfection in the sacrifice, by even giving himself away and thus perfect the sacrifice, he approached his father and said to him, ‘father, to whom, i.e., to which of the Ritviks will you give me as Dakshinâ, i.e., reward? though unheeded by his father thus addressed, he repeated the question a second time and a third time ‘to whom will you give me,’ ‘to whom will you give me?’ The father incensed at the thought that that was not like a boy said to the son ‘to Death do I give thee.’
(Nachikêtas thought) of many I go the first; of many I go midmost; what is there for Death to do which he can now do by me?
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Thus addressed, the son alone in himself, anxiously reflected; how will be explained; among many, i.e., of disciples or sons, I go the first, i.e., in the matter of doing service as a disciple; of many a middling disciple, I behave like a middling disciple and never as the worst; still, my father has said that he will give me unto Death, though his son is of such good qualities. What is there to be done for Death which can now be done by me thus given? It is plain that my father has spoken under the influence of anger without any end in view; still my father’s words should not be falsified. Thus thinking, and after anxious reflection, he told his father who was full of grief ‘what have I said.’
Call to mind how our ancestors behaved and mark also how others now behave; like corn, decays the mortal and like corn is born again.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Remember and reflect how your deceased ancestor's father, grandfather and the rest conducted themselves; seeing them, it behoves you to travel in their path; see also how others, good men, now behave. There never was or is any falsehood in them; falsifying one’s word is the manner of bad men and none who has broken his word can ever become undecaying and immortal. What is there gained by breaking one’s word, seeing that man decays and dies like corn and is again born like corn in this, transitory world of the Jîvas? The meaning is ‘protect your truth and send me to Death.’
Like fire, a Brahman guest enters houses; men give this to quiet him. Vaivasvaia! fetch water.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Thus addressed, the father sent him to Death to keep his word and he having gone to the mansion of Death fasted for three nights, Death being away; when Death had gone and returned, his ministers or wife said to inform him, ‘a Brâhman guest, verily like fire itself, enters houses burning them; and good men to allay his burning heat as that of fire, propitiate him by giving water to clean his feet, seat to sit upon, etc. Therefore, Oh Vaivasvata! fetch water to be given to Nachikètas; also because evil consequences are declared in default.
Hope and expectation, company with good men, true and pleasant discourse, sacrifices, acts of pious liberality, children and cattle, all these are destroyed in the case of the ignorant man, in whose house a Brâhman guest fasting stays.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Hope, i.e., wish for something not definitely known but attainable. Expectation, looking out for something definitely known and attainable. Company with good men, i.e., the fruit resulting from association with good men. Sweet discourse, i.e., the fruit of true and pleasant speech. Ishtam, i.e., the fruit of a sacrifice. Púrtam, i.e., the fruit resulting from charities such as the laying out of a garden, etc. Putrapasûn, i.e., children and cattle. All this is destroyed of the men with little intelligence in whose house, a Brahman, fasting stays. The meaning is that a guest is, therefore, under no circumstances to be neglected.
As you have lived here. Oh Brâhman, a venerable guest in my house for three nights fasting, be my prostration to you, Oh Brâhman, may good befall me. Therefore, ask three boons in return.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Thus addressed, Death having approached Nachikêtas worshipfully, said ‘as you have been living in my house fasting for three nights, a Brâhman guest worthy of reverence, therefore be my prostration to you. Oh Brâhman, therefore be good unto me and let me be freed from the sin of your having lived here fasting; although all good may befall me by your mere grace, still in order that I may propitiate you better, ask of me any three objects you wish for, one for every night you fasted.
(Nachikêtas said) That Gautama may be freed from anxiety, be calm in mind, not wrath against me, that he may recognise and welcome me let go by you—is, Oh Death, the first of the three boons I ask.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—But Nachikêtas replies ‘if willing to grant boons, that my father be freed from anxiety, i.e., about me as to what his son would be doing after reaching Death, be calm in mind and not wrath against me; and again my father remember and believe me as the very son sent by him to you and sent home back by you and welcome me recognizing, Oh Death—is the first of the three boons I ask, the end of which is to gladden my father.’
(Death replies) Auddâlaki, the son of Aruna will recognise you, as before, with my permission, will sleep during nights in peace and when he sees you returned from the jaws of Death, will lose his wrath.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Death replied ‘just as your father’s heart was affectionate towards you before, so your father Auddâlaki, the son of Aruna (or the Dvyamushyâyana, son of both Uddâlaka and Aruna), will be affectionate towards you and confide in you with my permission; he will sleep the rest of the nights in peace of mind and will lose his wrath when he sees you released from the jaws of Death.
(Nachikêtas says) In heaven there is no fear. You are not there; nor there do they in old age fear. Having crossed both hunger and thirst, one in heaven rejoices being above grief.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com. —Nachikêtas said ‘In heaven there is no fear at all caused by disease, etc. Nor do you rule there of might.' Therefore, none there, fears you, as men in this world do in old age; again, having subdued both hunger and thirst, one in heaven being free from all afflictions of the mind rejoices.
Oh Death! thou knowest the fire which leads to heaven; explain to me who am zealous that (the fire) by which those, whose world is heaven, attain immortality. I pray for this by my second boon.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—The fire, which helps one to attain the heaven possessed of such attributes, thou, Oh Death! knowest; and as thou knowest, teach me who am zealous by which fire sacrificing, men attain heaven and immortality or become Devas. This knowledge of the fire, I crave by my second boon.
(Death says) I will tell thee well; attend to me, Oh Nachikêtas, I know the fire leading to heaven; know the fire which leads to heaven and also the support of the universe and which is seated in the cavity.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—This is Death’s declaration. I will tell thee what has been solicited by thee; attend to what I say with concentrated mind. I know the fire, Oh Nachikêtas, which helps one to heaven; ‘I will tell thee and attend’ are expressions used to concentrate the disciple's intellect; now he praises the fire, know this fire as leading to heaven and as the stay of the universe in its form of virât and as located in the intelligence of knowing men.
sa cāpi tatpratyavadadyathoktaṃathāsya mṛtyuḥ punarevāha tuṣṭaḥ || 15 ||
Death told him the fire, the source of the worlds what altars (to be raised), how many and how, and Nachikêtas repeated it all as explained. Then Death, being delighted, said to him again.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—This, the Sruti itself says. Death explained o Nachikêtas, the fire, which was the source of the worlds, being the first embodied existence, the same that was asked for by Nachikêtas; again he told him of what form the sacrificial bricks were to be, how many in number and in what manner the sacrificial fire was to be lit and all this; Nachikêtas also faithfully repeated what was told him by Death. Then delighted by his repetition, Death said to him again inclined to grant him a boon other than the three promised.
Delighted, the high-souled Death told him. ‘I give thee here this other boon; by thy name alone, shall this fire be known; and take, thou, this garland also of various hues.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—How? He said to Nachikêtas, being delighted with, i.e., experiencing great delight at the sight of true discipleship, and being liberal-minded ‘I give you now here this other boon, the fourth, being pleased with you; the fire that I have explained shall become celebrated by your name alone. Moreover, accept this sounding garland set with precious stones and wonderful’; or, the word ‘srinkâm’ may mean ‘the no mean goal that can be attained by karma the whole passage signifying ' accept also the knowledge of Karma because it is the source of many fruits.
The three-fold Nachikêtas, being united with the three doing, the three-fold Karma, crosses birth and death, knowing the adorable, the bright, the omniscient fire born of Brahman and realising him, attains thorough peace.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Again he praises Karma; the three-fold Nachikêtas, i.e., he by whom the Nachikêta fire has been kindled thrice; or, he who knows, studies and performs in, the Nachikêta fire. United with the three, i.e., who united with his mother, father and preceptor, i.e., having duly received instruction from them; for, that such instruction is a source of authority, is inferred from other Srpitis, such as ‘he who has a mother’ and ‘he who has a father,’ etc. or, the three may refer to ‘direct perception,’ ‘inference’ and ‘ágamas or to ‘the vêdas,’ ‘the Smritis’ and ‘good men’; for, knowledge of virtue from these sources is an obvious fact. Doing the threefold karma, i.e., performing sacrifices, reciting the vêdas, and making gifts. Whoso does these, crosses or travels beyond birth and death; again Brahmajagnam:- Brahmaja means born of Brahma, i.e., Hiranyagarbha; he who is born of Brahma and is omniscient is Brahmajagnah. Dêvam, so called because shining, i.e., having the qualities of knowledge, etç. Idyam, worthy of praise. Knowing such fire, from the Sâstras and having realised him as his own âtman, one attains this absolute renunciation which is realized in his intellect. The meaning is that one attains the place of the virât, by the continued practice of Upâsana and Karma.
त्रिणाचिकेतस्त्रयमेतद्विदित्वा य एवं विद्वाश्चिनुते नाचिकेतम् ।
स मृत्युपाशान्पुरतः प्रणोद्य शोकातिगो मोदते स्वर्गलोके ॥ १८॥
triṇāciketastrayametadviditvā ya evaṃ vidvām̐ścinute nāciketam |
sa mṛtyupāśānpurataḥ praṇodya śokātigo modate svargaloke || 18 ||
The three-fold Nachikêtas, knowing these three, who propitiates the Nachikêta fire with this knowledge, casts off Death’s meshes behind him, travels beyond grief and rejoices in heaven.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—He now concludes the fruits, of the knowledge and the performance of sacrifice and with them, the present topic. The three-fold Nachikêtas who properly understands what was said about the bricks, their numbers and mode and who realizing the fire as the âtman completes the sacrifice called Nachikêta, shakes off even before death, the meshes of Death consisting in vice, ignorance, desire and hatred, etc., and devoid of all grief rejoices in heaven, i.e., by realizing his Self as the virât.
This is thy fire, Oh Nachikêtas, which leads to heaven and which you craved for, by the second boon; people will call this fire thine alone; Oh Nachikêtas, demand the third boon.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Oh Nachikêtas, this is the fire leading to heaven that you craved for, by the second boon; and the expression ‘the boon has been granted’ should be supplied by way of concluding what has been said again, people will call this fire by thy name; this is the fourth boon which I granted being delighted with thee; Oh Nachikêtas, demand the third boon. The meaning is that Death considered himself a debtor if that were not granted.
(Nachikêtas said) This well-known doubt as to what becomes of a man after death,—some say he is and some, he is not,—I shall know being taught by thee. This boon is the third of the boons.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Thus much, which has been indicated by the two boons, is alone to be understood from the preceding Mantras and Brâhmanas, which are mandatory or prohibitory in their import but not the knowledge of the true nature of the entity of the âtman. Therefore, for the dispelling of natural ignorance (Avidya), which deals with matters the subject of positive and prohibitory injunctions, which consists in superposing on the âtman, activity, agency and enjoyment, and which is the seed of samsâra, it is necessary to explain the knowledge of the identity of the Brahman and the âtman, which is contrary to that previously explained which is free from the fault of superposition of activity; agency, and enjoyment on the âtman, and whose result is the attainment of absolute emancipation; with this end, the subsequent portion of this work is commenced. The anecdote explains how without this well-known knowledge of the âtman, the subject of the third boon, all that is desirable is not achieved even by the obtaining of the second boon. Because, it is only those, who are disgusted with the result previously named in the nature of means and ends, transitory, and produced by karma, that are entitled to acquire the knowledge of the âtman; therefore, to denounce Karma, it is sought to tempt Nachiketas away from his object, by promise of sons and the rest. Nachikêtas being asked by Death to name his third boon, said:- ‘This doubt regarding man when dead,—some say that there is an âtman distinct from body, senses, mind and intellect and entering into another body; some say that there is no such âtman; and this doubt cannot be resolved by us, either by direct perception or logical inference; and because the attainment of the highest consummation depends upon a clear knowledge of this. I would acquire this knowledge, being instructed by thee. This, the third, i.e., the last of the boons.
Here, even the gods of yore had doubt. Indeed it is not easy to know—subtle is this matter—Oh, Nachikêtas, ask for some other boon. Press not this on me; give this up for me.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Death in order to test whether he was or was not absolutely fit to acquire the knowledge of the âtman leading to emancipation, said this:- ‘Even by the gods in older times, doubt was entertained on this point. It is not easy to be known, though heard explained, by ordinary men. Because this subject of the âtman is subtle. Therefore, Oh, Nachikêtas, ask for another boon, whose fruit is certain; press me not as a creditor presses a debtor. Give up this boon for me.
Thou sayest, Oh Death, that even the gods had doubts here and that this is not easy to know. None other like thee, who could tell of this, can be found; no other boon can at all equal this.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Thus addressed, Nachikêtas said, ‘I have heard from yourself that even the gods had doubt on this point and you say, Oh Death, that the true nature of the âtman is not easy to know. As this cannot be known even by the learned, another, learned like you 2 to explain this, cannot be found, though sought.’ This boon also is a means to the attainment of emancipation and there is no other boon which can at all weigh with this. The meaning is that other boons bear only transitory fruits.
bhūmermahadāyatanaṃ vṛṇīṣva svayaṃ ca jīva śarado yāvadicchasi || 23 ||
(Death says) ask for centenarian sons and grandsons, many cattle, elephants, gold and horses. Ask for wide extent of earth and live yourself, as many autumns as you like.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Though thus addressed, still Death said, to tempt him again. ‘Satâyushah, those who live a hundred years, i.e., centenarians; ask for centenarian sons and grandsons, besides, many cattle such as cows, etc., elephants, gold and horses. Ask for sovereignty over a large circuit of earth.’ And as all this would be useless, if he were himself short-lived, Death added ‘and yourself live as many years as you like with a body, where all the organs are vigorou.’
Some boon equal to this, if thou thinkest fit, demand—wealth and longevity; be king of the wide earth, Nachikêtas, I shall make thee enjoy all thy desires (pertaining to earth and heaven).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—If you think of any other boon equal to that already explained, ask for that also; besides, ask for large quantities of gold and precious stones and longevity to boot. In short, rule as king in the, wide earth; moreover, I shall make thee enjoy all thy desires pertaining to men and gods; for, I am a Dêva whose will never fails.
Whatever desires are difficult to realise in the land of mortals, ask, as thou likest, for all such desired objects. These nymphs have their chariots and lutes; and women like these are not enjoyable by mortals; with these, by me given, have thy services performed. Oh Nachikêtas, do not ask about death.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Ask, as you like, for all desired objects, which are covetable, but not easily attainable in the land of mortals. Again, here are these celestial nymphs (the term Râmâs meaning those who delight males) with their chariots and with their musical instruments; and women like these cannot be obtained by mortals without the grace of beings like us; with these female attendants given by me, have thy services performed, such as cleaning the feet with water, etc.; Oh Nachikêtas, it does not become you to put me the question connected with death, i.e., whether, when man is dead, there is or is not anything surviving—a question (as unprofitable as that) of examining the number of crow’s teeth.
api sarvaṃ jīvitamalpameva tavaiva vāhāstava nṛtyagīte || 26 ||
(Nachikêtas says) Ephemeral these; Oh Death, these tend to the decay of the fire (vigour) of all the senses in man. Even the longest life is, indeed, short. Thine alone be the chariots, the dance and music.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Though thus tempted, Nachikêtas unagitated like a large lake, said:- svôbhâvah, enjoyments whose existence the next day is a matter of doubt; the enjoyments enumerated by you are ephemeral; again. Oh Death, they tend to the decline of the vigour of all the organs of man. These nymphs and other enjoyments only tend to harm, because they destroy virtue, strength, intellect, vigour, fame and the rest. As for the longevity that you will give me, hear me on that point. All life, even that of Brahma is, indeed, short. What need be said of our longevity. Therefore, keep the chariots, etc., for thyself alone, as also the dance and music.
न वित्तेन तर्पणीयो मनुष्यो लप्स्यामहे वित्तमद्राक्ष्म चेत्त्वा ।
जीविष्यामो यावदीशिष्यसि त्वं वरस्तु मे वरणीयः स एव ॥ २७॥
na vittena tarpaṇīyo manuṣyo lapsyāmahe vittamadrākśma cettvāṃ |
jīviṣyāmo yāvadīśiṣyasi tvaṃ varastu me varaṇīyaḥ sa eva || 27 ||
Man is not to be satisfied with wealth; if wealth, were wanted, we shall get it, if we only see thee. We shall also live, as long as you rule. Therefore, that boon alone is fit to be craved by me.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Moreover, man is not to be satisfied with much wealth; for, attainment of wealth has not been found to ensure delight to anybody. If ever we have thirst for wealth, we shall get it, if we have seen thee; so also, long life; we shall live, as long as you rule in your place; for, how could a mortal, after approaching thee, become poor or short-lived. Therefore, the boon fit to be craved for by me is that alone, i.e., the knowledge of the âtman.
abhidhyāyanvarṇaratipramodānatidīrghe jīvite ko rameta || 28 ||
What decaying mortal living in the world below and possessed of knowledge, having reached the company of the undecaying and the immortal, will delight in long life, knowing the nature of the delight produced by song and sport?
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Again, having approached those whose age knows no decay and who are immortal and knowing of some other surpassing benefit to be had from them, how çould a mortal, himself living on earth below (below, relatively the Antariksha, i.e., region of the sky), pray for such transitory things, as sons, wealth, gold, etc., covetable only by the ignorant? Another reading has ‘Kvatadasthah’ for ‘Kvadhasthah’; the meaning according to this reading is this:- Tadasthah, one who ardently covets them, i.e., sons and the rest; when will one, who seeks higher objects than these though difficult to attain, thirst for these? The meaning is that no one who knows them as valueless, will wish for them. Everybody in the world wishes to become something higher and higher than he is; therefore, I am not to be tempted by the prospect of sons, wealth, etc.; and what sensible man will delight in longevity who knows the transitory nature:- of nymphs and of the delights of music and sports?
Oh Death, tell us that in which men have this doubt, and which is about the great hereafter; no other boon doth Nachikêtas crave, than this which entered into the secret.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Therefore, giving up the idea of tempting me by promise of ephemeral objects, tell us, Oh Death, that which was solicited by me, i.e., the well-ascertained knowledge of the âtman, about which they doubt whether it is or no, when men die, which relates to the world to come and which serves to be of great benefit. Why say much? Than the present boon about the âtman which goes into an inexplicable secret, no other boon which is to be craved for only by the ignorant and whose subject is something transitory, Nachikêtas does crave for, even in thought. The Sruti itself says this.
(Death said) One is good while another is pleasant. These two, serving different ends, bind men; happiness comes to him, who, of these, chooses the good; whoso chooses the pleasant forfeits the true end.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Having thus tested the disciple and found him worthy of the knowledge, Death said ‘good is one thing and pleasant is another.’ Both these, the good and the pleasant, serving different ends, bind man competent for both, subject to the varying conditions of caste, orders of life, etc., i.e., all men are propelled in their mind by these two actions; for, according as one wishes for prosperity or immortality, he attempts at what is good and what is pleasant. Therefore as men have to perform acts to obtain what is good and what is pleasant, all men are said to be bound by these. These two, though connected with the realisation of one or other of the covetables of man, are opposed to each other, one being in the nature of knowledge and the other of ignorance. Thus, as both these are impossible to be pursued by the same individual without abandoning either, happiness falls to him who, of these two, rejects what is merely pleasant, being in the nature of ignorance, and pursues only the good. But he, who is not far-sighted, who is ignorant and who pursues only the pleasant, is separated from, i.e., misses the true and eternal end of man.
Both the good and the pleasant approach the mortal; the intelligent man examines and distinguishes them; for, the intelligent man prefers the good to the pleasant; the ignorant man chooses the pleasant for the sake of his body.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—If both the sweet and the good can be pursued at will, why do the mankind, in general, pursue the sweet? This is explained; it is true that they can both be pursued; still, as they are not easily distinguishable by persons of poor intelligence, either in respect of the means to their attainment, or in respect of their fruits, both the sweet and the good become as it were mingled, and approach man. Therefore the intelligent man examines both the sweet and the good as a flamingo separates milk and water and having considered in his mind their relative weight, divides them both and follows the good alone, as preferable to the sweet; but the man of poor intelligence, incapable of such discernment, pursues the sweet, such as cattle, sons and the rest, for the purpose of fattening and preserving his body, etc.
Oh Nachikêtas, thou hast renounced desires and desirable objects of sweet shape, judging them by their real value; thou hast not accepted this garland of such wealth, in which many mortals sink.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—You, though repeatedly tempted by me, have renounced objects of desires, such as sons, etc., and also objects of sweet shape, such as nymphs, judging well of them and ascertaining their faults, i.e., their ephemeral and sapless nature. Oh Nachikêtas, how intelligent you are! You have not taken up this contemptible path of wealth, trodden by the ignorant men, in which many fools come to grief.
These two are wide apart, mutually exclusive, leading to different ways, known as ignorance and knowledge. I regard Nachikêtas as wishing for knowledge; desires, though numerous, have not shaken thee.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—It has been stated that he who, of these pursues the good, attains the good and he that pursues the pleasant forfeits consummation; why is that so? Because, these two travel at a great distance from each-other, being mutually exclusive as they are of the nature of knowledge and ignorance, like light and darkness going different ways, i.e., leading to different results, being the cause of bondage and emancipation. What are these two is explained. Ignorance which, deals with ‘the pleasant’ and knowledge which deals with ‘the good,’ both well understood by the intelligent; here, I regard you Nachikêtas, as longings after knowledge, because objects of desire the nymphs and the rest—which tempt the intellect of the ignorant, have not, though numerous, shaken thee, i.e., diverted thee from the path of ‘the good, by creating in you a desire for worldly enjoyment. Therefore, I regards you as longing after knowledge and worthy of attaining ‘the good.’ This is the drift.
Living in the middle of ignorance and regarding themselves as intelligent and learned, the ignorant go round and round, in many crooked ways, like the blind led by the blind.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—But those men living in Samsâra in the midst of ignorance as in thick darkness, entangled in a hundred meshes formed by attachment for sons, cattle and the rest, regarding themselves as intelligent and well-versed in the Sâstras, go round and round, get into many crooked ways afflicted with miseries such as old age, death, disease, etc., devoid of discernment, just as the blind led by the blind in uneven paths come to great grief.
The way to the future does not shine for the ignorant man who blunders, rendered, blind by folly caused by wealth; thinking thus ‘this world is and none other,’ be gets into my power again and again.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Therefore alone, i.e., being ignorant, the way to the other world shines not for him. Sâmparâyah, the other world. Sâmparâyah, some means pointed out by the Sâstras and leading to the attainment of the other world; that means does not shine for the benefit of the ignorant man who is led astray, his mind being engrossed by such benefits, as son, cattle, etc., and who is enveloped by the darkness Of ignorance caused by wealth. Constantly thinking that this world alone which is perceived and which consists of women, food, drink, etc., exists, and that there is no other invisible world, he is born again and again and becomes subject to me, i.e., Death. The meaning is that he becomes subject to be tossed in grief, such as birth, death, etc., such is the world in general.
Who cannot be attained even for hearing by many; whom, many though hearing, do not know; the expounder of him is a wonder; and able, the attainer of him; a wonder, the knower of him instructed by the able.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Of thousands who seek good, it is some one like you who becomes the knower of the âtman; for, even for hearing, the âtman is not attainable by many; many others, though they hear of him, do not know the âtman, not being entitled, because their minds are not purified; again, the expounder of the îtman is, like a wonder, some one among many, Similarly, even among many who have so heard, some one alone of many, that is able, attains the âtman; the knower of the âtman is a wonder—some me who is instructed by an able preceptor.
This âtman now explained cannot easily be known, of taught by a person of inferior intellect being variously regarded. When it is taught by a preceptor, one with the Brahman, there is no further travel, his being subtler than the subtle and not arguable.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Why so? Because, taught by a man of worldly understanding, the âtman which you ask me about, is not easily knowable, because he is variously discussed by disputants, whether he exists or not, whether he is a doer or not, whether he is pure or not and so forth. How then can he be well-known is explained. If the âtman is taught by a preceptor who is free from the notion of duality and who has become one with the Brahman, none of the various doubts exists, such as whether he is or not, etc., because the nature of the âtman absorbs all such doubtful alternatives; or, the text may be thus construed:- when the âtman, which is none other than his own Self, is taught, there is no knowing any other thing; for, there is no other knowable; for, the knowledge of the oneness of the âtman is the highest state of knowledge. Therefore, there being nothing else to be known, knowledge stops there; or, Gatiratra nâsti, may mean there is no travelling into Samsâra when the âtman, not distinct from the Self has been taught; because, emancipation, the fruit of such knowledge, is its necessary concomitant. Or, it may mean that when the âtman is explained by a preceptor who is become one with the Brahman to be taught, there is no failing to understand it. The meaning is that as in the case of the preceptor, the hearer’s knowledge of the Brahman will take the form, ‘I am not other than that.’ Thus the âtman can easily be known when explained by the preceptor versed in the âgamâs, to be no other than one’s self; otherwise, the âtman will be subtler than even the subtle and cannot be known by dint of one’s mere intelligent reasoning When the âtman is established by argument to be something subtle by one man, another argues it to be subtler than that and another infers it to be something yet subtler; for, there is no finality reached by mere argumentation.
This idea cannot be reached by mere reasoning. This idea, Oh dearest, leads to sound knowledge, only if taught by another; thou hast reached it; Oh, thou art fixed in truth. May we find, Oh Nachikêtas, a questioner like thee!
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—This idea of the âtman knowable by the âgamâs and taught by a preceptor who is one with the âtman is not to be attained by dint of one’s intelligent reasoning; or, it may mean, cannot be dispelled by mere intelligent reasoning; for, a logician not versed in the âgamâs will postulate something created by his own intelligence. Therefore alone, this idea arising from the âgamâs helps one, Oh dearest, to sound knowledge, only when taught by a preceptor who is not a logician and who is conversant with the âgamâs. What is that idea which can not be attained by reasoning is explained. That idea which you have now attained by my granting of the boon. Oh thou art fixed in truth. Death says this of Nachikêtas with sympathetic favour, for the purpose of enlogising the knowledge which he was going to inculcate. May we find, Oh Nachikêtas, a questioner like thee, a son or a disciple.
I know that the treasure is uncertain; for, that which is constant is never reached by things which change. Therefore, has Nachikêta fire been propitiated by me with the perishable things, and I have attained the eternal.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Delighted, Death says again:- I know that the treasure, i.e., the reward of Karma, because it is sought after like a treasure, is not eternal; for, that which is constant, i.e., the treasure named Paramâtman cannot be reached by things not constant. That treasure alone, which is in the nature of uncertain happiness, can be obtained by uncertain things. Therefore, by me, though I know that the eternal cannot be attained by ephemeral aids, has been propitiated, the fire Nachikêtas leading to the attainment of heavenly joys with ephemeral things. By virtue of that, I have attained the position of authority, this office of Death known as Svarga eternal, but only relatively.
The end of all desires, the stay of all the universe, the endless fruit of worship, the other shore of fearlessness, the praiseworthy, the great and boundless goal, all these hast thou beheld, and being intelligent, Oh Nachikêtas, hast boldly rejected all.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—But you having beheld the end of all desires (for, here, i.e., in Hiranyagarbha, all desires are fulfilled), the support of all the worlds comprising the Adhyâtma, the Adhibhûta and the Adhidaiva, i.e., (the bodies, elements and gods), the immortal goal of worship, the place of Hiranyagarbha, the extreme state of fearlessness, praiseworthy, great as combining many desirable powers such as animâ (praiseworthy and great because it is unsurpassable) the boundless and unsurpassable goal of the âtman, have boldly, being intelligent, rejected, wishing only for the highest, all this host of enjoyments within the pale of Samsâra. Oh, what unsurpassable qualities you possess!
Contemplating with a concentrated mind, weaned from all external objects on the âtman, ancient, hard to see, lodged in the inmost recess, located in intelligence, and seated amidst miserable surroundings, the intelligent man renounces joy and grief.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—The âtman which you wish to know is hard to see, being extremely subtle, lodged in the inmost recess, being concealed by the modifications of consciousness, caused by worldly objects. Located in intelligence (being realised, as if there lodged) and seated amidst manifold miseries. Being lodged in the inmost recess and located in intelligence, he is seated amidst miseries; (being thus seated he is hard to see) dwelling on that ancient âtman, with a mind weaned from all external objects and concentrated on the âtman, the intelligent man renounces joy and grief, as there is neither superiority nor inferiority for the âtman.
Having heard and well-grasped this, the mortal abstracting the virtuous âtman, attaining this subtle âtman, rejoices having obtained what causes joy. I think that the mansion is wide open for Nachikêtas.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Again having heard this, the true âtman which I shall explain to you—from the presence of the preceptor and well-grasped it as his own Self, having abstracted the virtuous âtman from the body, etc., and having realized this subtle âtman, the learned mortal rejoices having obtained what gives him joy, i.e., the âtman. The door of such abode of Brahman is, I think, wide open for you, Nachikêtas. The drift is ‘I think you worthy of emancipation.’
What thou seest other than virtue and vice, other than what is made and what is not, other than the past and the future, tell me that.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—If I am worthy, and you are, Oh Baghavan, pleased with me:- other than virture, i.e., different from the performance of acts enjoined by the Sâstras, their fruits and their requisites and similarly from vice; other than what is made, i.e., effect; and what is not made, i.e., cause; and again other than the past, i.e., time gone by; and the future, i.e., time yet to come; and similarly the present, i.e., what is not conditioned by time (past, present and future); if you see or know anything like this, beyond the reach of all wordly experience, tell me that.
The goal which all the Vêdâs uniformly extol, which all acts of tapas speak of, and wishing for which men lead the life of a Brahmachârin, that goal I tell you briefly—It is this—Om.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—To him, who had thus questioned, Death explained the thing asked for and also something else, i.e., the worship of ‘Om.’ What praiseworthy goal all Vêdâs without break, i.e., with one voice, declare, to which goal all acts of îapas are intended to lead, and desirous of which men live in the residence of their preceptor, or practise other kinds of Brahmacharya to attain the Brahman, that goal which you wish to learn, I shall tell you briefly. It is this — ‘Om’. The goal which you wish to learn is the goal which is denoted by the word ‘Om,’ and of which the word ‘Om’ is a substitute (Pratîka).
एतद्ध्येवाक्षरं ज्ञात्वा यो यदिच्छति तस्य तत् ॥ १६॥
etaddhyevākśaraṃ brahma etaddhyevākśaraṃ param |
etaddhyevākśaraṃ jñātvā yo yadicchati tasya tat || 16 ||
This word is, indeed, Brahman, this word is, in deed, the highest; whoso knows this word obtains, indeed, whatever he wishes for.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Therefore, the word, indeed, is Brahman, (manifested). This word, indeed, is also the highest- Brahman. For, this word is the substitute for both of them. Whoso worships this word as Brahman obtains what he wants, i.e., the manifested or the unmanifested Brahman. If it be unmanifested, it should be known; if it be manifested, it should be reached.
This prop is the best. This prop is the highest Knowing this prop, one is worshipped in the world of Brahman.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—This being so, this prop is the best, i.e., the most praiseworthy of all props, to attain the Brahman. This prop is both the higher and lower; for, it leads to both the highest and the manifested Brahman i.e., of the highest Brahman and the manifested Brahman. The meaning is:- he becomes one with the Brahman and he becomes fit to be worshipped like Brahman.
The intelligent âtman is not born, nor does he die; he did not come from anywhere nor was he anything, unborn, eternal, everlasting, ancient; he is not slain though the body is slain.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—The particle ‘Om’ has been pointed out as a prop of and as a substitute for the âtman, asked about in the text beginning with ‘Anyaira dharmat,’ etc., and devoid of all attributes, for the benefit of the ignorant and the middling class of men who wish to attain the Brahman, manifested and unmanifested. Now, this text is indroduced for the purpose of directly ascertaining the real nature of the âtman, to attain whom the word ‘Om’ was mentioned as a prop; he is not born, i.e., produced; nor does he die; various modifications are incidental to a thing which is produced and not eternal. Of those, the first and the last modifications namely birth and death are at the outset denied of the âtman, with the object of denying all modifications by the expressions ‘he is not born nor does he die.’ Vipaschit, intelligent; for, he is by nature of indestructible intelligence. Again, this âtman came not from anything, i.e., from any other cause; nor did any other real thing proceed from this âtman; therefore, this âtman is unborn, eternal, everlasting, undecaying (for, whoso is not everlasting decays; but he is everlasting); therefore, ancient, i.e., new, even formerly; (for, that which undergoes a development of its parts, is then said to be new); for instance a pot, etc.; but the âtman who is of a contrary nature is ancient, i.e., incapable of development; this being so, he is not slain or affected, even though the body is slain by swords, etc. Though in it, he is in it like the âkâs.
ubhau tau na vijānīto nāyam̐ hanti na hanyate ॥ 19 ॥
The slayer who thinks of slaying this and the slain who thinks this slain, both these do not know. This slays not, nor is slain.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Even the âtman of such description, the slayer who sees the mere body as the âtman thinks of slaying and he who thinks that his âtman is slain, both these do not know their own âtman; for, he does not slay the âtman, being incapable of modification; nor is he slain being incapable of modification like the âkâs. Therefore, all samsâra, the fruit of virtue and vice is only in the case of those who do not know the âtman, and not in the case of one who knows the Brahman; for in his case, virtue and vice are inappropriate both from the authority of the srutis and from the cogency of reasoning.
Subtler than the subtle, greater than the great, in the heart of each living being, the âtman reposes. One free from desire, with his mind and the senses composed, sees the glory of the âtman and becomes absolved from grief.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—How then does one know the âtman is explained? Subtler than the subtle, i.e., subtler than grain, etc.; greater than the great, i.e., greater than things of great dimensions, such as the earth (whatever thing is in the world, that is known to exist only by virtue of the eternal âtman; divorced from the âtman it becomes a non-entity; therefore, this âtman alone is subtler than the subtle and greater than the great, because all names, forms and actions are only conditions imposed upon it). This âtman is seated, as the âtman, in the heart of every living creature, irons Brahma down to the worm. That âtman to whose realisation, hearing, thought and meditation are indicated as aids; one free from desire, i.e., one whose intelligence has been diverted from all external objects, either of this world or of the world to come (when he is so,—the mind and the senses which are called Dhâtus.—because they suppprt the body, become composed); sees, i.e., directly realises, in the form ‘I am he’, the glory of the âtman, devoid of increase or diminution due to Karma; and, therefore, he becomes absolved from grief.
Sitting, he goes far; lying, he goes everywhere. Who else but me deserves to know the God, who is joyful and joyless.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Otherwise, this âtman cannot be known by worldly men having desires, because sitting, i.e., not moving, he goes a great distance. Lying, he goes everywhere. Thus the âtman is both joyful and joyless. Thus he has properties mutually opposed; therefore it being impossible to know him, who else but me can know the âtman, who is joyful and joyless. It is only by persons like us of subtle intellect and learning that the âtman can be known. Being conditioned by conflicting attributes of fixity and movement, and of constancy and change, the âtman appears as if itself possessed conflicting attributes like Visvarupa, a sum of various forms, or (more properly) like Chintâmani (a gem which appears according to the fancy of the seer). Therefore, Death indicates the difficulty of knowing the âtman by the statement ‘who else but me can know the âtman.’ The cessation of the activity of the senses is ‘lying;’ in the person lying, there is a cessation of the partial knowledge produced by the senses. In this state the âtman seems to go everywhere, because its knowledge then is of a general character, i.e., unqualified by conditions; but, though fixed in its own nature, when it has special or qualified knowledge it seems to go a great distance, because it is conditioned by the motion of the mind and the rest, but really he is here alone, i.e., in this body.
mahāntaṃ vibhumātmānaṃ matvā dhīro na śocati || 22 ||
The intelligent man knowing the âtman, bodiless, seated firmly in perishable bodies, great and all-pervading, does not grieve.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—This text shows that by knowing him, grief also vanishes. ‘Bodiless,’ the âtman being like the âkâs by its own nature; ‘bodies,’ bodies of the gods, the manes, men and the rest. ‘Perishable,’ devoid of firmness, not eternal; ‘firmly seate,’ eternal, i.e., not subject to modifications; ‘great,’ to avoid the doubt that the greatness may be relative, the text adds ‘all-pervading.’ The word ‘âtman’ is used to show that it is not distinct from one’s Self. The word âtman is primarily used to denote the Pratyagâtman, i.e., the âtman in the body. Having known the âtman of this description, i.e., having realised him in the form ‘I am he,’ the intelligent do not grieve. There is no occasion for such a knower of the âtman to grieve.
This âtman is not to be attained by a study of the Vêdâs, nor by intelligence, nor by much hearing, but the âtman can be attained, only by him who seeks to know it. To him, this âtman reveals its true nature.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—This text says that though this âtman is hard to know, still he can certainly be known well by proper means. This âtman is not attainable by the study of many Vêdâs, or by intelligence, i.e., a retentive memory of the import of books, or by any amount of mere learning. By what then can he be attained is explained. That âtman (self) whom the neophyte seeks, by the same self, i.e., by the seeker, can the âtman be known. The meaning is that, of one who seeks only the âtman, being free from desire, the âtman is attained by the âtman alone. How it is attained is explained. To the man who seeks the âtman, the âtman reveals its real form, i.e., its own true nature.
None who has not turned away from bad conducts whose senses are not under control, whose mind is not collected, or whose mind is not at rest, can attain this âtman by knowledge.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Yet something more:- who has not turned away from bad conduct, i.e., from sinful acts prohibited and not permitted by the srutis and the smritis, who has no quietude from the activity of the senses, whose mind is not concentrated, i.e., whose mind is deverted off and on; whose mind is not at rest, i.e., whose mind, though collected, is engaged in looking forward to the fruits of being so collected, cannot attain the âtman now treated of, but only by means of the knowledge of Brahman; the meaning is that he alone who has turned away from bad conduct, who is free from the activity of the senses, whose mind is collected, and whose mind is at rest, even in respect of the fruits of its being so collected, taught by a preceptor, attains the âtman above described by knowing him.
mṛtyuryasyopasecanaṃ ka itthā veda yatra saḥ || 25 ||
Of whom, the Brahma and the Kshatriya classes are the food, and Death but pickles (to supplement it); how can one thus know where that âtman is.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—As for him who is not of this description, the sruti says:- Of whom Brahmins and Kshatriyas, though the stay of all virtue and the protectors of all, are the food; and Death, though destroyer of all, is only a pickle being insufficient as food. How can one of worldly intellect, devoid of helps above described, know where that âtman is, in this manner, as one who is furnished with the helps above described?
chāyātapau brahmavido vadanti pañcāgnayo ye ca triṇāciketāḥ || 1 ||
The two, who enjoy the fruits of their good deeds, being lodged in the cavity of the seat of the supreme, the knowers of Brahman call shadow and light, as also those who maintain five fires and have thrice propitiated the Nachikêta fire.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.— The connection of the present valli is this. Knowledge and ignorance have already been described, as leading to many contrary results; but each of them has not been described, in its own nature, with its results. The imagining of the analogy of the chariot is for the purpose of determining them, as also for the easy understanding of the subject. Thus two âtmans are here described for the purpose of distinguishing between the attainer and the attained and the goer and the goal. Drinking, i.e., enjoying; truth, i.e., the fruits of the enjoyer, on the analogy of using the expression ‘the umbrella-carriers go’ when not all of them carry umbrellas. Sukritasya means of deeds done by themselves and is connected with the previous word ‘fruits.’ Lôkê, means in this body. Guhâm pravishtau, means lodged in intelligence. Paramê, superior in relation to the space of the âkâs of the external body. Parârdhê, in the abode of Brahman, for, there, can Brahman be realised. The meaning is that they are lodged in the âkâs within the cavity of the heart; again they are dissimilar like shadow and light, being within the pale of Samsâra and free from Samsâra, respectively. So do the knowers of Brahman tell; not those alone who do not perform Karma say so; but also householders maintaining five sacrificial fires, and others by whom the sacrificial Nachikêta fire has been thrice lit.
We are able to know the fire which is the bridge of those who perform sacrifices, and also the highest immortal Brahman, fearless, and the other shore for those, who wish to cross the ocean of Samsâra.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—The Nachikêta fire, which is, as it were, a bridge for persons performing sacrifices for the purpose of crossing grief, we can light up. Moreover, what is fearless, and what is the main support of the knowers of Brahman, who wish to go to the other shore of Samsâra, the immortal Brahman known as âtman, we can know. The meaning of the text is that both the unmanifested and the manifested Brahman, the goal of the knowers of Brahman, and those who perform Karma are worthy to be known. It is a description of these that has been given in the previous text.
buddhiṃ tu sārathiṃ viddhi manaḥ pragrahameva ca || 3 ||
Know the âtman as the lord of the chariot, the body as only the chariot, know also intelligence as the driver; know the minds as the reins.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Here a chariot is imagined for the âtman, conditioned in Samsâra, entitled to acquire knowledge and perform Karma for attaining emancipation and for travelling in Samsâra, as a means to reach both. Know the âtman, who is the enjoyer of the fruits of Karma and is in the bondage of Samsâra, to be the lord of the chariot. Know the body to be verily the chariot, because like a chariot the body is drawn by the senses occupying the place of horses. Know also the intelligence to be the driver, furnished with the capacity for determination, because the body is mainly guided by the intelligence, as the chariot is mainly guided by the driver; for, everything done by the body is generally done by the intelligence. Know the mind with its characteristics of volition, doubt, etc., to be the reins; for, the senses, such as the ear, perform their functions when grasped by the mind as horses by the reins.
The senses, they say, are the horses; the objects which they perceive, the way; the âtman, the senses and the mind combined, the intelligent call the enjoyer.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Those who are versed in the construction of chariots call the senses, such as the eye and the rest, horses, from the similitude of their drawing the body. Know the objects (such as form, etc.), of these senses, regarded as horses, to be the roads. The intelligent call the âtman combined with the body, the senses and the mind, the enjoyer, i.e., one in Samsâra; for, the pure âtman cannot be the enjoyer. Its enjoyment is only the product of its conditions such as intelligence, etc.; accordingly also, other srutis declare that the pure âtman is certainly not the enjoyer. ‘It seems to think and to move’; only if this is so, in working out the analogy of the chariot to be described, it will be appropriate to understand. ‘The Vishnu Pâda’ as the pure âtman but not otherwise; for, there can be no going beyond Samsâra in the case of the pure âtman.
But of him who is not possessed of discrimination, and whose mind is always uncontrolled, the senses are not controllable as vicious horses of a driver.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—This being so, of that driver known as Buddhi, who is not capable of discrimination as to what is to be done or omitted to be done, as the other driver in the guiding of his chariot has a mind like the reins of a chariot not well-grasped by the driver, i.e., uncontrolled by the intellect; of that incompetent driver, i.e., intellect, the senses which stand in the place of the horses become unruly and uncontrollable, as the vicious horses of the other driver.
But of him who knows and has a mind always controlled, the senses are always controllable as the good horses of the driver.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—But of him who is a driver, the contrary of one already explained, i.e., of the driver who knows and who has the mind always under restraint, the senses standing in the place of the horses can be let go or stopped, i.e., controlled like the good horses of the other driver.
na sa tatpadamāpnoti sam̐ sāraṃ cādhigacchati ॥ 7 ॥
But he, whose intellect has no discrimination and whose thind is not under control and who is always unclean, does not reach that goal and falls into Samsâra.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Now the text mentions the results produced by the driver (intelligence) who is unknowing, as above stated; the lord of the chariot, who does not know and who has not the mind under control and who is, therefore, always unclean, does not attain that immortal great goal already described, by reason of having such a driver. It is not alone that he does not attain that, but he reaches Samsâra marked by births and deaths.
sa tu tatpadamāpnoti yasmādbhūyo na jāyate || 8 ||
But he, who knows, who has his mind always under control and who is clean, reaches that goal from which he is not born again.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—But the second, i.e., the lord of the chariot who has a discriminating intellect as his driver, i.e., the knowing man, having his mind under control and being, therefore, always clean, reaches that goal from which never falling, he is not born again in Samsâra.
But the man who has a discriminating intellect for the driver and a controlling mind for the reins, reaches the end of the road, i.e., that highest place of Vishnu.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—What that goal is, is now explained; but the man who has discerning intelligence for the driver, whose mind is under control, and who is clean, i.e., the knowing man reaches the end of the road of Samsâra, i.e., realises the Supreme; i.e., is absolved from all the ties of Samsâra. The man of knowledge attains 1 the highest place of Vishnu, i.e., the nature of the all-pervading Brahman, the Paramâtman known as Vâsudêva (the Self-luminous).
Beyond the senses, are the rudiments of its objects; beyond these rudiments is the mind; beyond the mind is âtman known as Mahat (great).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Now this subsequent portion is introduced for the purpose of showing that the goal to be reached should be understood to be the Pratyak (the internal) âtman, the subtlest proceeding from the gross senses in the ascending degree of subtlety. The senses are gross and those rudiments (Vishaya) from which these spring for their own illumination are subtler than the senses, their own effects, greater than these and the âtman of these, i.e., bound up with these; subtler than these rudiments and greater than these, being the âtman of these, is the mind. Here, by the word mind is denoted the rudiments of the Bhûta (Bhûta Sûkshma) from which mind originates. Than the mind which is the origin of volition, deliberation and the rest, the intellect is subtler, greater, and more possessed of the functions of seeing, hearing, etc., does not shine, as the âtman of any being concealed by ignorance and delusion. Oh, how deep, unfathomable and marvellous this Mâya, that every living being, though really in its nature the Brahman, does not, though instructed, grasp the truth ‘I am the Paramâtman’ and feels convinced, without any instruction that he is such a person's son mistaking for the âtman the combination of the body, and the senses, etc., which is not the âtman and is only perceived by him, like the pot, etc.; indeed, the world wanders repeatedly deluded by the Mâya of the Brahman alone; so the smriti also says ‘Being concealed by Yôgamâya, I do not shine to all, etc.’ Are not these statements inconsistent? Knowing him, the intelligent do not grieve and ‘he does not shine.’ It is not so. It is said he does not shine, because he cannot be known by the unpurified intellect; but he is seen by the purified intellect. Agryayâ, like a point, i.e., concentrated, subtle, i.e., capable of perceiving subtle objects. By whom? By the subtle seers, i.e., by persons, who, by seeing the different degrees of subtlety as pointed out by the rudiments, are subtler than the senses, etc., are characteristically able to see the subtlest, i.e., by learned persons.
Beyond the great Ātman is the Unmanifested; beyond the Unmanifested is the Puruṣa (the Cosmic Soul); beyond the Puruṣa there is nothing. That is the end that is the final goal.
Let the intelligent man sink speech into mind, sink that into intelligence and intelligence into the great âtman and sink that into the peaceful âtman.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—The text states the means of attaining that Yatchêt, draw into. Prâjnah, one having discernment. What? Vâky, i.e., speech. The word ‘vâk,’ i.e, speech, is illustratively used to denote all the senses. Where? In the mind. The lengthening of the vowel in manasî is a Vedic license; and that mind, let him sink into gnâna, i.e., intellect bright by nature; ‘intellect’ is called âtman here; for, it pervades the mind and the other senses; therefore, it is their ‘Pratyagâtman,’ i.e., internal principle; let him sink the intellect into the âtman; ‘great,’ i.e., first born Hiranyagarbha. The meaning is, let him make his intelligence as clear in its nature as the first born; let him sink that great âtman also into the peaceful âtman, i.e., into the primary âtman whose nature does not admit of any conditions, which is unmodified, which is within all and which is the witness of all the modifications of the intellect.
Arise, awake; having reached the great, learn; the edge of a razor is sharp and impassable; that path, the intelligent say, is hard to go by.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Having thus merged into the purusha, the âtman, all the three, i.e., name, form and karma which are produced by false knowledge and are of the nature of action, agents and fruits, by a knowledge of the true nature of his âtman, as the water in the mirage, the serpent in the rope and the colour of the sky, disappear by seeing the true nature of the mirage, rope and the sky, one becomes free from anxiety and calm, his purpose accomplished. Therefore to know that, arise, Oh, living beings sleeping in beginningless ignorance, i.e., turn towards the acquisition of the knowledge of the âtman; and awake, i.e., put an end to the sleep of ignorance, horrible in form and the seed of all misery. How? Having approached excellent preceptors who know that, realise the âtman taught by them, the innermost and in all, thus ‘I am he.’ This is not to be neglected. Thus, the sruti, like a mother, says from compassion; because the object to be known can be realised only by very subtle intelligence. Why is it stated ‘by subtle in-tellect’'? The edge of a razor is pointed, i.e., made sharp and impassable, i.e., passable with difficulty; as that cannot be walked over by the feet, similarly hard to attain, the intelligent say, is the road of the knowledge of truth. The meaning is that because the object to be known is very subtle, they say the road of knowledge leading to that is not easily attainable.
Which is soundless, touchless, formless, undecaying, so tasteless, eternal and scentless, beginningless, endless, beyond the Mahat, and constant, knowing that, man escapes from the mouth of Death.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—How the object to be known is very subtle is explained. This earth produced by sound, touch, form, taste and scent, and the object of all the senses, is gross; so is the body. Here, by the elimination one by one, of these gunâs, i.e., attributes from earth and the rest, difference in respect of subtlety, greatness, purity and durability, has been found in the element, from water upwards to the âkâs. Therefore the sruti shows that little need be said of the unsurpassable subtlety, etc., of that in which smell and the rest up to sound inclusive, mere modifications being gross, do not exist; which is soundless, touchless, formless, undecaying, so tasteless eternal and scentless, Brahman thus explained is undecaying; for, what has sound, etc., decays. But this having no sound, etc., does not decay or suffer diminution; therefore also, it is eternal; for what decays is ephemeral; but this does not decay. Therefore, it is eternal; and being eternal, it is beginningless; i.e., has no cause; what has a beginning, that being an effect, is not eternal and is absorbed into its cause as earth, etc. But this being the cause of all is not an effect and not being an effect, it is eternal. It has no cause into which it could be absorbed; similarly endless, i.e., that which has no end or anything to be done by it. As the ephemeral nature of plantains, etc., is seen, by the fact of their yielding fruit and other results; not even thus, is it seen that Brahman, has an end; therefore also eternal. Beyond the mahat, distinct in nature from the principle known as mahat called intelligence, for it is the witness of all, eternal knowledge being its nature, and Brahman being the âtman of all things. For, it has been already said ‘This âtman concealed in all living beings, etc.’ Constant, i.e., changeless and eternal. Its eternal nature is not relative like that of the earth, etc. Having realised Brahman thus described as the âtman, one releases the âtman from the mouth of Death, i.e., from what is incidental to Death, i.e., from ignorance, desire and karma.
uktvā śrutvā ca medhāvī brahmaloke mahīyate || 16 ||
Hearing and repeating the old Nachikêta’s story told by Death, the intelligent man attains glory in the world of Brahman.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—The sruti, for extolling the knowledge treated of, says:- Nachikêtam ] obtained by Nachikêtas. Mrityuprôktam ] told by Death. The story] contained in the three vallis. Old] of ancient date, being narrated in the Vêdâs. Repeating] to Brâhmins. Hearing] from preceptors; world of Brahman ] world which is Brahman; attains glory] having become the âtman, is fit to be worshipped.
Whoever with zeal, causes to be recited before an. assembly of Brâhmins or at the time of Srâddha of the ancestors, this highest secret, that secures immortality, secures immortality.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Whoever causes this text, this highest secret to be recited verbatim and with meaning, in an assembly of Brâhmins, being himself clean, or causes it to be recited at the time of Srâddha to those who are there fed, that Srâddha is able to secure for him endless fruits. The repetition is for concluding the chapter.
The self-existent created the senses out-going:- therefore, one sees outside and not the âtman within. Some intelligent man, with his senses turned away, (from their object), desirous of immortality, sees the âtman within.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—It was stated that this âtman concealed in all living beings does not shine but is seen by the subtle intellect. What is the obstacle to the subtle intellect seeing the âtman, in the absence of which the âtman can be seen? This valli is begun for the purpose of showing why it is not seen; for it is only when the cause of the obstacle to the attainment of good is known, that it is possible to attempt to remove it and not otherwise. Parânchi ] which go out; khâni ] the senses; the ear and the rest are indicated illustratively by this word khâni. These senses go outward to enlighten their objects, such as sound, etc., as they are of this nature; Paramêsvara has damned them. Who is that? The self-existent, the lord of all, because he alone is always independent and never dependent on others. Therefore, the perceiver sees the external objects which are not the âtman, such as sound, etc., and not the âtman within. Though this is the nature of the world, some discerning man, like turning back the current of a river, sees the âtman within (pratyagâtman) the âtman which is pratyak; it is to denote the pratyak (the inner spirit) that the word âtman is technically used in the world and not to denote any other; and even according to its etymology, it is that alone which the word âtman denotes; for, according to the smriti which declares the derivative meaning of the word âtman, what pervades, what absorbs, what enjoys objects here and what makes the continuous existence of this universe is, therefore, called the âtman. The word ‘aikshat’ meaning ‘saw’, here means ‘sees’; for the tense is not strictly observed in the Vêdâs. How he sees is explained. With his eyes turned with all his senses, the eye, the ear and the rest diverted from all objects. Thus prepared, he sees pratyagâtman; for it is not possible for the same man to be intent on external objects and go to see the pratyagâtman. Why again the intelligent man with such great efforts and by restraining his senses from their natural activity sees the pratyagâtman, is explained. Being desirous to secure immortality, i.e., eternal existence for his âtman.
The ignorant pursue external objects of desire; they get into the meshes of widespread death:- but the intelligent, knowing sure immortality, do not covet the uncertain things here.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—The natural tendency to see external objects which are not atman is the cause of the obstacle, i.e., ignorance, to the realisation of the âtman. Being, opposed to it, the desire of enjoyments pertaining to this world and to the next, external to self and held up by ignorance, is another obstacle. The realisation of the âtman being impeded by ignorance and desire, men with little intelligence pursue only external objects of desire. By that cause, they get into the meshes of widespread, i.e., omnipresent death, i.e., the combination of ignorance, desire and karma. Meshes] that which binds, consisting in the possession and deprivation of the body, the senses, etc. The meaning is that they fall into a continuous stream of manifold misery, such as birth, death, old age, sickness, etc., This being so, the intelligent, knowing the certain immortality of concentration in the pratyagâtman (the immortality of the Dêvâs and the rest is uncertain; but this consisting in concentration in the pratyagâtman is certain, because it does not increase or suffer diminution by karma); i.e., knowing this constant and unshakable immortality, the knowers of Brahman do not covet any, among the ephemeral objects here, i.e., in samsâra full of misery, because these objects are opposed to the realisation of the pratyagâtman. The drift is that they rise above the desires of sons, wealth and worlds.
By which alone, one knows form, taste, smell, sounds, touch and the pleasures of the sexes; what remains here unknown to that. This verily is that.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—How is that to be known, other than the knowledge of which Brâhmins do not crave anything. This is explained. By which, i.e., the âtman whose nature is intelligence; all the world clearly knows form, taste, smell, sounds, touches and the pleasurable sensations due to the commingling of the sexes. It may here be objected that the experience of the world is not in the form ‘I know by the âtman distinct from the body, etc.’; but that all the world thinks in the form ‘I, the combination of the body, etc., Know.’ Not so; even the combination of the body, etc., not being distinguishable in its nature from sounds and the rest and being in the nature of a knowable, it is not reasonable to attribute the nature of knower to it; for if the combination of the body, etc., being no other than form, etc., could perceive other forms, etc., even external forms, etc., may perceive their own and
ईशानं भूतभव्यस्य न ततो विजुगुप्सते । एतद्वै तत् ॥ ५॥
ya imaṃ madhvadaṃ veda ātmānaṃ jīvamantikāt |
īśānaṃ bhūtabhavyasya na tato vijugupsate | etadvai tat || 5 ||
He who knows this Ātman, the honey- eater (perceiver and enjoyer of objects), ever near, as the lord of the past and future, fears no more. This verily is That.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
NOTE:- Tranlsation and commentary is missing from the book. The alternate translation for the verse presented above is from Swami Paramananda.
गुहां प्रविश्य तिष्ठन्तं यो भूतेभिर्व्यपश्यत । एतद्वै तत् ॥ ६॥
yaḥ pūrvaṃ tapaso jātamadbhyaḥ pūrvamajāyata |
guhāṃ praviśya tiṣṭhantaṃ yo bhūtebhirvyapaśyata | etadvai tat || 6 ||
Who sees him seated within the five elements,—him who was born of Tapas (Brahman) who was born before the waters and who having entered the cavity of the heart, is therein seated. This verily is that.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—This shows that he who was pointed as the pratyagâtman and Isvara is the âtman of all. Yah ] some seeker after emancipation. Pûrvam ] first. Tapasah ] from the Brahman defined as knowledge, etc. Jâtam ] created or produced, the first-born of Brahman, i.e., Hiranyagarhha. ‘Born before whom’ is explained. Adbhyah pûrvam ] before the five elements, including water; not before water alone; ajâyata ] was born. This first-born who having created the bodies of the Dêvâs, etc., entered the âkâs of the heart of every living thing and is there seated, perceiving sounds, etc., Bhûtêbhih means Bhûtâh or elements in the nature of cause and effect. Who sees him seated with them:- who sees thus. See this alone, i.e., Brahman the subject of our present discussion.
Who is born along with prâpa manifested as all Dêvâs, the eater, seated, having entered the heart, who was born with the elements. This verily is that.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Dêvatâmayî ] in the form of all the Dêvatâs. Prâpena ] as Hiranyagarbha; is born] from the highest Brahman; aditi ] so called, because she eats as it were sounds, etc.; her] who as before entered the heart and is there seated, the text describes her. Who was born along with bhûtâs or living creatures.
The fire lodged in the aranis, as the foetus is well-borne by the pregnant woman fit to be worshipped every day by watchful offerers and other men. This verily is that.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Again, the sacrificial fire lodged in the upper arani and the lower arani, the eater of all offerings and the fire within the body; which are well-maintained by the ritviks and yôgins, respectively, as the foetus is well-maintained in the world by pregnant women, by means of food, drink, etc., not condemned. Moreover, fit to be worshipped, i.e., eulogised and adored every day by those who follow Karma and by those who follow yôga, in sacrifices and at heart; jâgrivadbhih, who are by nature on the alert, i.e., watchful. Havishmadbhih, by those having offerings such as ghee, etc., and by those having contemplation and meditation. This verily is that—that Brahman now treated of.
Whence also the sun rises and where he sets, on that, all the Devas depend. None certainly passes beyond that. This verily is that.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Moreover, that prâna from which the sun rises and that where alone the sun every day sets, that prana. i.e., the Adhidaiva and the Adhyâtma aspect of Atman as the gods and speech, etc., as the senses enter into, while they last, as spokes in a wheel. Even he is certainly Brahman. That is this Brahman, the âtman of all. None certainly passes beyond that] none ceasing to be of the nature of that becomes other than that. This verily is that.
mṛtyoḥ sa mṛtyumāpnoti ya iha nāneva paśyati || 10 ||
What indeed is here, is there; what there, that here again; from Death to Death he goes; who here sees, as if different.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—This is said in order that the doubt may not arise in anybody; that what exists in all from the Brahma down to the immovable and appears, being subject to particular conditions, as something other than Brahman and subject to samsâra, he is different from the highest Brahman. What indeed is here subject to conditions of causes and effects and appears to the ignorant as possessing the attributes of sâmsâra, he is indeed the Brahman there centred within the body, in his nature dense with eternal knowledge and devoid of the attributes of all samsâra; again, what there is centred with self is itself here subject to conditions of name, form, cause and effect and is no other. This being so, he who here deluded by ignorance, which consists in seeing difference by the nature of the conditions sees in the Brahman which is one, a variety, thinking thus ‘I am other than the highest Brahman and the highest Brahman is other than I’, goes from death to death, i.e., is again born and dies; so, one should not see thus. The drift of the text is that one should see thus. ‘I am indeed the Brahman, the one unalloyed intelligence, all-pervading, filling all space like the âkâs’.
mṛtyoḥ sa mṛtyuṃ gacchati ya iha nāneva paśyati || 11 ||
By mind alone could this be obtained, there is no difference here at all. He goes from death to death who sees as if there were difference here.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Before attaining the knowledge of the oneness, by the mind purified by the sâstrâs and by the preceptor, this unalloyed essence of the Brahman should be attained in the form ‘There is the Brahman alone, nothing else exists.’ When attained, ignorance, the cause of the perception of difference being removed, there is not even the slightest difference here, i.e., in the Brahman. But he who does not give up....[1]
ईशानं भूतभव्यस्य न ततो विजुगुप्सते । एतद्वै तत् ॥ १२॥
aṅguṣṭhamātraḥ puruṣo madhya ātmani tiṣṭhati |
īśānaṃ bhūtabhavyasya na tato vijugupsate | etadvai tat || 12 ||
The Puruṣa (Self), of the size of a thumb, resides in the middle of the body as the lord of the past and the future, (he who knows Him) fears no more. This verily is That.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
NOTE:- Tranlsation and commentary is missing from the book. The alternate translation for the verse presented above is from Swami Paramananda.
ईशानो भूतभव्यस्य स एवाद्य स उ श्वः । एतद्वै तत् ॥ १३॥
aṅguṣṭhamātraḥ puruṣo jyotirivādhūmakaḥ |
īśāno bhūtabhavyasya sa evādya sa u śvaḥ | etadvai tat || 13 ||
That Puruṣa, of the size of a thumb, is like a light without smoke, lord of the past and the future. He is the same today and tomorrow. This verily is That.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
NOTE:- Tranlsation and commentary is missing from the book. The alternate translation for the verse presented above is from Swami Paramananda.
As rain water, (falling) on the mountain top, runs down over the rocks on all sides; similarly, he who sees difference (between visible forms) runs after them in various directions.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
NOTE:- Tranlsation and commentary is missing from the book. The alternate translation for the verse presented above is from Swami Paramananda.
As water pure poured into pure becomes the same only, so the âtman of the thinker who knows thus, becomes; Oh Gautama.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—But how becomes the âtman of a thinker who has acquired knowledge, whose perception of difference due to conditions has been destroyed, and who knows the âtman pure, dense with knowledge unalloyed, and one without a second, is explained. As water pure poured into pure becomes of the same quality, not otherwise, the âtman also of the thinker becomes the same, Oh Gautama. Therefore, leaving the perception of difference induced by bad logic and the erroneous notion of no-here-after, the perception of the one-ness of the âtman inculcated by the Vêdâs, a better well-wisher than thousands of mothers and fathers should be anxiously respected by those whose pride has been quelled.
अनुष्ठाय न शोचति विमुक्तश्च विमुच्यते । एतद्वै तत् ॥ १॥
puramekādaśadvāramajasyāvakracetasaḥ |
anuṣṭhāya na śocati vimuktaśca vimucyate | etadvaitat || 1 ||
The city of the unborn, whose knowledge is permanent, has eleven gates; thinking on him, one does not grieve and being freed, becomes free. This verily is that.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—As Brahman is not easily knowable, this if commenced for the purpose of ascertaining the entity of the Brahman, again by another method. City] being like a city, this body is called a city, because we find in it the appendages of a city such as gatekeepers, their controllers, etc.; a city with all its appendages has been found to exist, for an owner independent of it and not mixed up with it; similarly, from its resemblance to a city, the body, a bundle of many appendages, must exist for an owner occupying the place of a king and not mixed up with it; and this city named body has eleven gates; seven in the head, and three lower down including the navel and one at the top of the head; whose this is, i.e., of the unborn] of the âtman not subject to modifications such as birth, etc., occupying the place of the king and dissimilar in its properties to the city; avakra chêtasah:- whose chetah, i.e., knowledge is not crooked and eternally existent like the splendour of the sun and uniform, i.e., of the Brahman occupying the place of the king; contemplating on that Paramêsvara, highest Lord, the owner of the city; for the word anushthânam here means the contemplation of him leading to sound knowledge or realisation of him contemplating on him, as living equally in all things, one does not grieve, being freed from all desire; fearlessness being attained by knowing him, there being no occasion for grief, whence could he fear? Even here, he becomes freed from the ties of desire and karma induced by ignorance and being thus freed, he becomes free, i.e., does not enter a body again.
As mover, he dwells in heaven; as pervader, in inter-space; as fire, in the altar; as guest, in a house; he dwells in man, dwells in betters, dwells in truth and dwells in the âkâs. He is all that is born in water, all that is born of earth, all that is born of sacrifices and all that is born of mountain; true and great.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—And he the âtman does not live in the city of one body alone; but he lives in all cities. How hamsah ] one who moves; suchishat ] dwelling in heaven as the sun. Vasuh, one who animates all; dwells in the inter-space, as wind; hôtâ ] fire, according to the sruti ‘fire indeed is hôtâ;’ Vêdishat ] dwelling in Vêdi or earth, according to the srutis ‘ this Vêdi is the supreme nature of earth,’ etc. Atithih ] sômah. Durônasat ] dwelling in Durôna, i.e., vessel; or a Brâhmin dwelling in the house (Durôna) as a guest (atithih); nrishat ] dwelling in men; Varasat ] dwelling in betters, i.e., the Devas. Ritasat dwelling in rita, i.e., truth or sacrifice; Vyômasat dwelling in Vyôma, i.e., âkâsa, Abjâh ] those born in water, in the form of conch, mother of pearl, whale, etc.; gojâh ] those born of the earth in the form of corn, grain, etc.; ritajâh, those born in the form of appendages ta sacrifice; adrijâh ] those born of mountains in the form of rivers, etc.; though the âtman of all, he is ritam, i.e., of unchanging nature. Brihat, great, being the cause of all; even when the sun alone is described by the mantra, even then, from the fact that the sun is accepted as âtman in his nature, there is no conflict in this commentary. The meaning of the mantra is that the âtman of the universe is only one and all-pervading and there is no difference in the âtman.
He leads the prâna upwards and casts the apâna downwards; the dwarf seated in the middle, all Devas worship.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—In realising the existence of the âtman an evidence is offered—Upwards] from the heart. Prâba ] the wind, whose function is connected with breath. Unnayati ] leads upwards. Similarly casts the apâna downwards. The word yah (who), should be supplied to complete the sentence. Him seated in the middle, i.e., in the âkâs of the lotus of the heart, with the light of knowledge clearly shining in the intellect and worthy of worship, all the Dêvâs, i.e., the senses, the eyes and the rest propitiate, by bringing in the perceptions of form, etc., as the subjects please the king, by offerings, i.e., they are uninterruptedly active on his account. The drift of the text is that there is another on whose behalf and by whom is directed all the activity of the winds and the senses.
When this âtman seated in the body escapes from the body what here remains? This verily is that.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Again, of this âtman in the body, visramsamânasya ] escaping. Dehinah ] embodied. The meaning of the word visramsamâna is explained by the expression dêhât vimuchyamânasya (being free from the body); what here remains? nothing of the whole lot of prâna, etc., remains. Here] in the body; the âtman, on whose leaving the body, all this lot of effects and causes becomes in an instant enervated, destroyed and defunct, as in the case of the inhabitants of a city, when the lord of the city, is driven out of it, has been established to be some other than all this.
Not by prâna, not by apâna, does any mortal live; but it is by some other on which these two depend that men live.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—The theory may be urged ‘that the body becomes destroyed only by the exit of prana, apâna, etc., and not by the exit of the âtman distinct from these; for, man lives only by prana and the rest’. This is not so; not by prâna, not by apâna, not by the eyes, etc., does a mortal having a body live. These acting jointly for the benefit of some other cannot be the source of life. The existence of houses, etc., composite in their nature, has not been seen in the world to be undirected by some other not connected with them, for whose benefit they exist; so also, it should be in the case of the combination of prâna and the rest. Therefore, it is by some other alone, dissimilar to the combination of prâpa and the rest, all these combined maintain their life. On which âtman, dissimilar to those combined, the really existent and the highest, these two prâna, and apâna combined with the eyes and the rest, depend and for the benefit of whom (not so combined) prâna, apâna and the rest perform their functions in combination, he is established to be other than they.
hanta ta idaṃ pravakśyāmi guhyaṃ brahma sanātanam |
yathā ca maraṇaṃ prāpya ātmā bhavati gautama || 6 ||
To thee, Oh Gautama, I will explain the secret ancient Brahman and also how after death, the âtman becomes.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—I will now explain to thee again this secret ancient Brahman by whose knowledge cessation of all samsâra results and not knowing which, how after death the âtman travels in samsâra. Listen, Oh Gautama.
Some jîvas (dehinah) go into wombs to be embodied; others pass into the immoveable, according to their karma and to their knowledge.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Into wombs, combined with semen virile. Some ignorant fools go to take a body. The meaning is that the jîvas having a body enter the womb. Others, yet inferior after death, become immoveable, such as trees and the rest; ‘according to their karma, means according to karma performed by them, i.e., by the form of karma performed by them, in this birth. Similarly also , ‘ according to their knowledge,’ i.e., according to the nature of knowledge acquired by them. The meaning is that they take a body corresponding to them; for, another sruti says ‘they are born according to their knowledge.’
This Purusha who wakes when all sleep, creating what was desired is certainly ‘the pure,’ that is Brahman and that is said to be immortal. All worlds are fastened on that; none passes beyond that. This verily is that.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—What was pledged in ‘I will explain the secret Brahman’ is now explained. This Purusha who wakes, i.e., does not sleep, when all, i.e., when prâna and the rest are asleep, creating by ignorance whatever was desired, i.e., objects of perception, such as woman and the rest, is certainly pure; and that is the Brahman. There is no other secret Brahman. It is that alone which is said to be immortal, i.e., deathless in all the sâstrâs. Moreover, the worlds, earth and the rest, all depend on the Brahman, that being the cause of all worlds. None passeth beyond that, etc., as already explained.
As fire, though one, having entered the world, takes a separate form in respect of every form, so does the internal âtman of all living things assume a form for every form and is outside all forms.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—As the knowledge of the oneness of the âtman, though supported by authority and often reiterated, is not firmly grasped by the intellect of perverse-headed Brahmins, whose mind is shaken by the intellect (arguments) of many logicians, the sruti, being anxious to inculcate it, says again and again:- as fire, though one, bright by nature, having entered the world (Bhuvanam meaning world, because all bhavanti, i.e., are born there) in respect of everything to be burnt assumes separate shapes; so, being one only, the internal âtrnan of all, having entered all bodies such as fire in logs, etc., being extremely subtle, assumes forms responsive and is also without them all, like the âkâs, in his own unmodified nature.
As wind, though one, having entered the world, assumes forms responsive to every form, so the internal âtman of all living things, though one, assumes forms responsive to every form and is outside them all.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.— So, another illustration (is offered by ‘as wind though one’, etc.). The analogy is complete, as he enters all bodies as prâtta and takes forms corresponding to every form.
As the sun, the eye of all the world, is not tainted with the stains in external objects seen by the eyes, so, the one internal âtman of all living things is not tainted with the world’s grief, being external to it.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Seeing that if one be the âtman of all, he may be regarded as subject to the grief of samsâra, this is said. As the sun benefiting the eye by its rays and manifesting even unclean things such as urine, ordure, etc., though being the eye of all, the world seeing them is not tainted with sins and other blemishes due to seeing unclean things, etc., and by stains caused by physical contact with unclean objects so the one internal âtman is not tainted with the misery of the world, being outside that; for, the world by ignorance superposed on the âtman, suffers misery arising from desire and karma. But that is not really in the âtman, just as, the serpent, silver, water and dirt superposed on the rope, mother-of-pearl, barren spot and the sky, respectively, do not really exist as blemishes in the rope, etc.; from the superposition, by false notion, they are perceived as blemishes in the true objects connected (by the notion); the true objects are not tainted by such blemishes because they are external to the false notion so superposed. Thus the world having superposed on the âtman, the false notion of deed, agency and fruits like the notion of the serpent (on the rope), suffers the misery of birth, death, etc., due to that. But the âtman, though the âtman of all the world, is not tainted by the misery of the world arising from the superposition of a false notion. Why? being external. Because he is like the rope, etc., external to the false notion superposed on him.
Sole, controller, the internal âtman of all living things who makes his own form diverse to the intelligent who realizes him as seated in the self, eternal bliss is theirs, not others.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Moreover, he, the lord of all, all-pervading, independent, is one (there is none other equal to him or greater than he); vasî ] under whose control all the universe is; because he is the internal âtman of all; for, he makes himself though one, of the nature of unalloyed pure knowledge, diverse by the differences of impure conditions of name, form, etc., by his mere existence, having unthinkable powers. Âtmastham ] clearly perceived in the form of knowledge, in the conditioned intellect, in the âkâsa of the heart, within the body; for, the body is not the supporter of the âtman, he being formless as the âkâsa. He is like the face reflected in the mirror. To those discerning persons who perceive this lord, this âtman, all their external activities being checked in accordance with the teaching of the preceptor and the âgamâs and realise him directly, to those who have become lords of all, belongs the eternal bliss, i.e., delight in self and not to the undiscerning others, whose intelligence is engrossed by external objects, though the bliss is their own âtman, which in the case of the latter is concealed by ignorance.
Eternal among the ephemeral, conscious among the conscious, who, being one, dispenses desired objects to many, the intelligent who see him seated in their selves, to them, eternal peace, not to others.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Again, deathless among mortal things, conscious among the conscious, such as Brahma and other living beings. As the power of burning in water and the rest, which are not fire in themselves, is due to fire, so, the intelligence of others is due to the intelligence of the âtman; again, he, omniscient and lord over all, dispenses to those having desire, i.e., to those in samsâra, according to their respective karma, the fruits of karma and desired objects, according to his grace, himself one, to many, without effort. To such intelligent men as see him seated in their selves, eternal peace accrues, not to others, i.e., to those who do not see so.
kathaṃ nu tadvijānīyāṃ kimu bhāti vibhāti vā || 14 ||
They think of that as this—the indescribable highest bliss. How shall I know that, whether that which shines is seen clearly or not.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—That bliss of the knowledge of the âtman which is indescribable, highest and which, though beyond the speech and mind of men, under the sway of Prakriti, they, the Brâhmins freed from all desire, describe as this, i.e., as something directly perceived; how; i.e., by what process shall I know that bliss:- i.e., realise it as thus perceivable by my intelligence, as the sanyâsins freed from desire, do? Is that which is luminous of itself an object clearly perceivable by our intelligence or not?
The sun does not shine there; nor do the moon and the stars, nor do these lightnings shine. How could this fire? Him shining, all shine after. All this shines by his light.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—The reply here is that it shines and is perceived as shining. The sun, though the enlightener of all, does not shine in the Brahman, being his âtman, i.e., the sun does not illumine the Brahman. Similarly, the moon and the stars do not; nor do these lightnings illumine. How could this fire, perceivable by us? Why say much? All these, the sun and the rest who shine, shine only after him, the lord of all; as water, firebrand, etc., from their contact with fire, burn after the burning fire and not by their own inherent virtue. It is by his light only, that all this, the sun and the rest shine. This being so, that Brahman alone shines and shines variously. From the various kinds of light possessed by its effects, the self-luminosity of the Brahman is inferred. It is not possible for one to impart to another luminosity, which one does not possess, because pots, etc., are found incapable of illumining other objects and the sun and the rest, luminous in their nature, are found capable of that.
Root up and branches down is this ancient asvattha tree, that (its source) is pure. That is Brahman and that alone is called immortal. On that, do all worlds depend and none passes beyond that. This verily is that.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—As in the world, the ascertainment of the root of a tree is made by ascertaining the nature of the tula (panicle of the flower), this sixth valli (part) is begun with the object of ascertaining the nature of the Brahman, the source (of the samsâra tree,) by ascertaining the nature of the effect, the tree of samsâra. Root up, having its root up, i.e., ‘that highest place of Vishnu’ is its root, this tree of samsâra, extending from the avyakta to the immoveable, has its root up, i.e., in Brahman. It is vriksha (tree), so called, because it is felled; this tree consisting in manifold miseries of birth, decay, death and grief, etc., changing its nature every moment, like jugglery, waters of the mirage, a city formed by the clouds in the sky, etc.; because like these perceived only to vanish ultimately, non-existent like a tree, sapless like the stem of the plantain tree, the subject of several doubtful alternatives in the intellects of many hundreds of sceptics, not ascertained to be what it really is by seekers after truth, receiving its sap from its source, i.e., the highest Brahman ascertained by Vêdânta, growing from the seed of ignorance, desire, karma and avyaktam, having for its sprout hiranyagarbha—the combination of the power of knowledge and activity of the lower Brahman, having for its skandha (trunk), the various subtle bodies of all living things, possessed of the pride of stature from the sprinkling of the waters of desire, having for its tender buds the objects of intelligence and the senses, having for its leaves the srutis, the smritis, logic, learning and instruction, filled with the lovely flowers of sacrifice, gift, penance and many other deeds, having various tastes such as the experience of joy and sorrow, having endless fruits on which living beings subsist, with its roots well grown, i.e., (tendencies of the mind) entwined and fastened firm by the sprinkling of the waters of desire for the fruits, with the nests built by birds, i.e., all living beings from Brahma downwards in the seven worlds beginning with that called satya, reverberating with the tumultuous noise arising from dancing, singing, instrumental music, joking, clapping on the shoulders, laughing, pulling, crying, exclaiming ‘leave me,’ ‘leave me,’ etc., induced by mirth and grief, produced by the happiness and misery of living beings and felled by the unresisted sword of the realisation of the Paramâtman proved by the Vêdânta, this tree of Samsâra, always shaking by its nature to the wind of desire and karma, like the asvattha tree, having its branches, i.e., heaven, hell, the world of beasts and prêtâs, etc., downwards, existing from time immemorial, because having no beginning. That which is the root of this tree of Samsâra is indeed pure, bright, i.e., resplendent, the intelligence of âtman; that indeed is Brahman, being greater than all; that indeed is described as immortal in nature, being true; any other than that is a mere matter of speech, modification, name and falsehood and therefore subject to death. On that, i. e., on the Brahman absolutely true, do all the worlds, false like the city of clouds in the sky, waters of the mirage and jugglery (mâya) and perceived as non-existent by the knowledge of the absolute truth, depend during their birth, stay and absorption. None, i.e., no modification passes beyond that, i.e., Brahman, as the thing made, such as pot, etc., does not pass beyond the mud, etc. This verily is that.
mahadbhayaṃ vajramudyataṃ ya etadviduramṛtāste bhavanti || 2 ||
All this universe evolved (from prâna) moves while Prâna is; a mighty terror, the thunderbolt uplifted; those who know this become immortal.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—If it be said that Brahman, the source of the world, by knowledge of which men are said to become immortal, does not exist and that all this has come out of nothing, it is not sound; all this universe, the highest Brahman existing, moves; and having come out of that alone, acts regularly. This Brahman, the cause of the origin, etc., of the universe is mahatbhaya, i. e., great and terrible. It is like the thunderbolt uplifted; as, at the sight of the master with the thunderbolt raised in his hand, the servants regularly keep his commands, so this world, with its lords and with the sun, moon, planets, constellation and stars, etc., regularly and without a moment's respite obeys the law. This is the drift. Those who know this, this highest Brahman, the witness of all the modifications of one’s mind, become immortal.
From fear of him, fire burns; from fear, the sun shines; from fear, Indra and Wind; and Death, the fifth, speeds.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—How the world lives from fear, of him, is explained. The fire burns from fear of him, the lord of all; the sun shines from fear; from fear, Indra and Wind; and Death, the fifth, runs; for, if Brahman did not exist as controller of the competent protectors of the world, like one with the thunderbolt uplifted in his hand, their well-regulated activity, as that of the servants trembling from fear of the master would not be possible.
If here he is able to know before the falling of the body, then in the worlds of created things, he becomes embodied.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—If he is able to know and knows even during life, this Brahman} the cause of fear, before the falling of the body, then he becomes freed from the bond of Samsâra. If he is not able to know, then, i.e., from want of that knowledge, he becomes able to take, i.e., he takes a body in earth and other worlds, where those who are fit to be created, are created. Therefore, before the falling of the body, attempt should be made to realise the âtman; for the realisation of the âtman even here will be clearly horrible as that of a face reflected in a mirror; not in other worlds except the Brahmalôka; and that is hard to reach.
As in a mirror, so within one's self; as in dreams, so in the world of the manes; as indistinctly seen in water, so in the world of the Gandharvâs; as of light and shade, so in the world of Brahma.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—How is explained. As one in the world sees his own image reflected in a mirror very distinctly, so the realisation of the âtman in one's intelligence, when spotless like a mirror, becomes clear. As in dreams, the perception is indistinct and produced, i.e., (obscured) by the reminiscences of the waking state, so indistinct is the realisation of the âtman in the world of the manes, being engrossed in the enjoyment of the fruits of karma. As the image of one's self reflected in water is seen indistinctly, with the various parts not defined, so is the realisation of the âtman in the world of the Gandharvâs certainly indistinct. Thus, it is inferred from the authority of the sâstrâs, even in other worlds, it is only in one, the Brahmalôka, that it is very distinct, as that of light and shadow and that (Brahmalôka) is hard to attain requiring as means, a combination of very special karma and knowledge, i.e., (worship). The drift, therefore, is that one should attempt to realise the âtman even while here (in this world).
pṛthagutpadyamānānāṃ matvā dhīro na śocati || 6 ||
The intelligent man knowing that the senses separately produced are distinct (from the âtman) and also their rising and setting, does not grieve.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—How is he to be known and what avails it to know him are explained. Of the senses, such as the ear, etc., separately originating from their causes, the âkâsa, etc., for perceiving their respective objects, knowing their distinctness, i.e., dissimilarity of their nature to the nature of the âtman extremely pure, untainted, and all intelligence; and also the rising and setting, i.e., the creation and absorption of the senses, to depend on the waking and sleeping states and that the âtman has neither beginning nor end, the intelligent man does not grieve. The eternally identical nature of the âtman never changing, there can be no cause of grief. So also another sruti says ‘The knower of the âtman crosses grief.’
Beyond the senses is the mind; higher than the mind is the intellect; above the intellect is the great âtman; higher than the mahat is Avyaktam.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—As the senses have been stated to be distinct from the âtman, he cannot be externally perceived; because he is the internal principle of all. How it is so, is explained. Beyond the senses, is the mind, etc., As arthâs (rudiments) here are of the same class with the senses, they are included in the word Indriya. The rest as previously explained. The word saiva here denotes ‘intellect.’
yaṃ jñātvā mucyate janturamṛtatvaṃ ca gacchati || 8 ||
Beyond the Avyaktam is Purusha, all-pervading and devoid of linga (indicative mark), whom knowing the mortal is freed and attains immortality.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Beyond the Avyaktam is Purusha all-pervad-ing, being the cause of all âkâsa, etc., which is all-pervading. Devoid of linga ] that by which anything is reached (known) is linga such as intellect, etc. That does not exist in him; so he is devoid of linga. The meaning in effect is devoid of all the attributes of samsâra. Him knowing, both from the preceptor and the sâstrâs, the mortal, even during life, is freed from the knots of the heart, such as ignorance, etc., and even when the body falls, attains immortality. This clause is connected with the previous one thus. He is the Purusha beyond the Avyaktam, etc.
His form stands not within the fold of vision. None sees him with the eye. By the intellect controlling the mind, and by constant meditation is he revealed. Whoso knows that becomes immortal.
Not by speech, not by mind, not by the eye, can he be attained; except in his case who says ‘He is,’ how can that be known.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—If the Brahman could be perceived by the operation of the intellect, etc., it can be specifically apprehended as this or that. When the intellect, etc., cease to act, Brahman which is not cognised, in the absence of the cause of cognition, does certainly not exist; for, it is only when anything is perceived by the instruments of cognition, it is reputed in the world to exist; and the contrary is said to be non-existing; and, therefore, yôga is useless; or, the Brahman not being known should be known as non-existing. If it is thus urged, it is thus replied ‘true not by speech, not by mind, not by the eye, not by other senses, could he be known; still, though devoid of any attributes, being known as the origin of the universe, he certainly exists; for, that into which effects are absorbed must certainly exist; for, here also, this effect traced back in the ascending series of subtlety leads only to the conviction of something as existent (in the last resort).’ The intellect, even in the ultimate analysis of all the objects of perception, is still pregnant with a belief in the existence of something; for, the intellect is our authority in the comprehending of the real nature of existence and non-existence. If the universe had no existing cause, then the effect (the world) being inseparably connected with non-existence would be apprehended as nonexisting. But this is not so; it is perceived as existing only as pot, etc., made of earth, is perceived in combination with earth. Therefore, the cause of the world, the âtman, must be known as existing. Wherefore? In any other than him who believes in existence, follows the drift of the agâmâs and is possessed of faith, i.e., one who argues that there is no âtman, the source of the universe, and that all this effect not connected with any cause is absorbed into nonexistence and who thus sees perversely, how can that Brahman be truly known? The meaning is it cannot at all be known.
He should be known to exist and also as he really is. Of these two, to him who knows him to exist, his real nature becomes revealed.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Therefore, having abandoned the theory of those who argue for non-existence, the âtman should be known as existing, as productive of effects and conditioned by intelligence. But when the âtman is devoid of that and subject to no modification (an effect has no existence independent of the cause); as the sruti says ‘a modification is a mere matter of speech and name; that it is mud is alone true,’ then, is the true nature of the âtman unconditioned, devoid of indicative marks, and incapable of being thought of, as existent or non-existent. In that nature also, ‘the âtman should be known’ follows. Of these two] of the conditioned and the unconditioned, i.e., known as existence and its true nature; the genitive case has the froce of Nirdhârana, i.e., determining; of the âtman previously known as merely existent] of the âtman known by the belief in its existence produced by its limitations, i.e., its perceived effects. Afterwards, the real nature of the âtman subject to no condition, different from both the known and the unknown, i.e., the manifested universe and the prakriti, one without a second, and indicated by the srutis ‘ not this, not that, etc.,’ ‘not gross, not subtle, not short ‘in the invisible, bodiless, supportless, etc.,’ faces him who had previously realised it as existent.
When all desires clinging to the heart of one fall off, then the mortal becomes immortal and here attains Brahman.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—When of the person thus seeing the truth, all desires, which were clinging to the intellect of the knower before he attained the knowledge, fall off from want of anything else to be desired (for intellect and not the âtman is the seat of desires, and also from another sruti which says desire, volition, etc.), then the mortal (he was so before he attained the knowledge), subsequently to the acquisition of knowledge, becomes immortal, death consisting in ignorance, desire and karma being destroyed, and becomes Brahman even here (there being no necessity of going, death resulting in a going having been destroyed) like fire extinguished, all bondage being destroyed.
When here all the knots of the heart are sundered, then the mortal becomes immortal. Thus, much, the instruction.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—When again, the up-rooting of all desires takes place is explained. When all the ties of the heart of one, while yet alive, i.e., all the modifications of the intellect due to ignorance which are in the nature of fast-bound knots are destroyed; when the ties of the heart, i.e., such as the beliefs ‘I am this body,’ ‘this is my wealth,’ ‘I am happy or miserable,’ etc., are destroyed by the rise of the contrary belief in the identity of the Brahman and the âtman, in the form ‘I am certainly Brahman not subject to Samsâra’ the desires which originate in those ties are destroyed to their very root; then the mortal becomes immortal. Thus much alone—the doubt that there is more should not be raised—is the instruction. Of all the Vedântâs’ should be supplied to complete the sentence,
A hundred and one are the nerves of the heart. Of them, one has gone out piercing the head; going up through it, one attains immortality; others at the time of death lead different ways.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—It has been stated that there is no going; for, the knower who has attained the knowledge that the âtman is the all-pervading Brahman devoid of all attributes and who has untied all the knots due to ignorance, &c., and who has become Brahman even while alive; because, says the sruti ‘ he attains Brahman here’ and also says another sruti ‘ his prânâs do not go out.’ ‘Being Brahman, he attains Brahman; but, for those who attain Brahmalôka by the knowledge of the lower Brahman and by other kinds of worship and for those of an opposite kind who whirl in samsâra this special way is pointed out, with a view to eulogise the fruits of the knowledge of the higher Brahman now treated of; moreover, the knowledge of the agni has been made the subject of a question and a reply and this mantra is begun also for the purpose of stating the process by which the fruit of that knowledge is attained. Here, nerves, one hundred in number, and one other named sushumnâ branch out from the heart of man. Among them, the one named sushumnâ has gone out piercing the head. At the moment of death, one should control the âtman in the heart and make it join that nerve, nâdi; going up by that nerve, one goes through the orb of the sun and attains relative immortality; according to the smriti permanency till the absorption of the elements is spoken of as immortality; or, he attains absolute immortality along with Brahma, in due course of time, having enjoyed incomparable pleasures in the Brahmalôka. At the time of death, the other nerves travel diverse ways, i.e., they become the cause of one, being born again in samsâra alone.
The Purusha of the size of a thumb, the internal âtman, is always seated in the heart of all living creatures; one should draw him out from one’s own body boldly, as stalk from grass; one should know him as pure and immortal; one should know him as pure and immortal.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Now the sruti says this, for the purpose of concluding the drift of all the vallis. The Purusha of the size of a thumb, the internal âtman, as previously explained, is seated in the heart of all men. One should draw him out, i.e., separate him from one’s own body; ‘like what’ is explained. As the stalk within the grass, from the grass boldly with self-composure. Him, so drawn out from the body, one should know as Brahman previously described, pure, immortal and mere intelligence. The repetition and the use of the particle ‘iti’ are to show that the Upanishad ends here.
मृत्युप्रोक्तां नचिकेतोऽथ लब्ध्वा विद्यामेतां योगविधिं च कृत्स्नम् ।
ब्रह्मप्राप्तो विरजोऽभूद्विमृत्युरन्योऽप्येवं यो विदध्यात्ममेव ॥ १८॥
mṛtyuproktānnaciketo'tha labdhvā vidyāmetāṃ yogavidhiṃ ca kṛtsnam |
brahmaprāpto virajo'bhūdvimṛtyuranyo'pyevaṃ yo vidadhyātmameva || 18 ||
Nachikètas then having acquired this knowledge imparted by Death and also all the instruction about yôga, attained Brahman, having become free from taint and death; so does another also, who thus knows the nature of the âtman.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—This conclusion of the story intended to eulogise knowledge is now stated. Nachikêtas having obtained from Death by the granting of boons, the knowledge of the Brahman imparted as above said and also all the instruction about yôga with its fruits, attained Brahman, i.e., became immortal. How? Being already freed from vice and virtue and from desire and ignorance. Not merely Nachikêtas alone but even another who like Nachikêtas, knows the âtman and realizes its true nature unconditioned and within all, and not its form which is not within all. Who knows the nature of the âtman, as thus stated, such knower also; ‘being untainted becomes deathless, by attaining Brahman’ should be supplied to complete the sentence.
saha nāvavatu | saha nau bhunaktu | saha vīryaṃ karavāvahai |
tejasvināvadhītamastu mā vidviṣāvahai || 19 ||
Let Him protect us both; let us exert together may what we study be well studied; may we not hate.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—This sânti (expiatory prayer) is stated here for the purpose of removing all faults incurred by the disciple and preceptor, in the course of receiving, and imparting knowledge respectively, and caused by dereliction of rules due to oversight or excitement. Let him protect us both by illumining the nature of knowledge. Who? He alone, the Lord of all, revealed by the Upanishads. Again, let him protect us both, by revealing the fruits of such knowledge. Let us together acquire the strength produced by knowledge. Moreover, may what is studied by us, who are bright, be well studied! Or may what is studied, i.e., acquired by study, by us, be very potent! May we, disciple and preceptor, never hate each other, owing to blame incurred by us, by improper recital or instruction due to oversight! The repetition three times of ‘Peace,’ as ‘Peace! Peace! Peace!’ is for averting all evil. The word Om is to show that the Upanishad ends here.
ॐ सह नाववतु । सह नौ भुनक्तु । सहवीर्यं करवावहै ।
तेजस्वि नावधीतमस्तु । मा विद्विषावहै ॥
ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥
ॐ तत् सत् ॥
4 - Prashna Upanishad
The Prashna Upanishad presents spiritual knowledge through a structured question-and-answer format, where six seekers approach Sage Pippalada with fundamental questions about creation, life force, consciousness, and realization. It offers a gradual path from ritual and discipline to deeper understanding of Brahman.
Editorial Note:
The Prashna Upanishad is unique in its structured learning approach.
Instead of a continuous narrative, it is organized as a series of six
questions (prashnas) asked by six sincere seekers to the sage Pippalada.
Each question explores a fundamental aspect of life, creation, and realization,
making this Upanishad especially suitable for systematic study.
The Six Seekers and Their Questions
Six disciples approach the teacher after a period of discipline and preparation:
Kabandhi - Origin of creation
Bhargava - The forces that sustain life
Kausalya - Nature and role of Prana (life force)
Gargya - State of consciousness in sleep and dream
Satyakama - Meaning and power of Om
Sukesha - The ultimate Self with sixteen parts (Shodasha Kala)
Structure of the Text
The Upanishad is divided into six chapters, each representing one question:
Chapter 1 (16 verses) - Creation and origin of beings
Chapter 2 (13 verses) - The vital forces and their functions
Chapter 3 (12 verses) - Supremacy and working of Prana
Chapter 4 (11 verses) - Mind, dream, and deep sleep
Chapter 5 (7 verses) - Meditation on Om as a path
Chapter 6 (8 verses) - The Self with sixteen aspects and final realization
Flow of Ideas
The teaching progresses step by step:
Creation - How the universe and life begin
Life Forces - What sustains living beings
Prana - The central power behind life
Mind and Consciousness - States of awareness
Spiritual Practice - Use of Om as a tool
Realization - Understanding the complete Self
Philosophical Progression
The Upanishad reflects a gradual movement:
First Three Questions Focus on rituals, meditation, and their results, including their
limitations.
Fourth Question Introduces deeper understanding of Brahman (ultimate reality).
Fifth Question Explains the method of realization, especially through Om.
Sixth Question Culminates in final realization, describing the Self as complete and
infinite.
Core Teachings
Structured Inquiry - Knowledge begins with sincere questioning
Role of Prana - Life force as central to existence
States of Consciousness - Waking, dream, and deep sleep
Om as Path - A practical gateway to realization
Complete Self - The Self as whole, like salt dissolved in water
Simple Summary (For Easy Understanding)
The Prashna Upanishad is like a classroom where six students ask important
questions about life.
Each question builds on the previous one, starting from basic ideas like
creation and moving toward deeper truths about the Self.
It explains how life works, what keeps us alive, how the mind behaves in sleep,
and how we can understand reality.
One important teaching is about Om, which is shown as a simple and powerful
way to move toward spiritual understanding.
In the end, the Upanishad teaches that the true Self is complete and present
everywhere, even though we may not see it directly.
The journey is gradual - from learning and discipline to realization.
This edition presents the original Sanskrit text with IAST transliteration,
along with translation and commentary based on the Advaita Vedanta tradition of
Shankaracharya, translated by S. Sitarama Sastri (1928).
Sukêsa, son of Bhâradvâja, and Satyakâma, son of Sibi, and Gârgya, a son of the son of the sun, and Kausalya, son of Asvala, and Bhârgava of Vidarbha, and Kabandhî, son of Kâtya,—all these intent on Brahman and centred in Brahman, seeking the highest Brahman, approached the revered Pippalâda, samit (sacrificial fuel) in hand, thinking that he would explain all to them.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Om, adoration to the Paramâtman, This Brâhmana is begun for the purpose of explaining at length the drift that has been expressed by the mantras. The story of the sage questioning and the sage replying is for the purpose of eulogising knowledge. Thus it praises knowledge, by saying that it should be acquired by men who have been observing Brahmacharya and residing in the house of the preceptor for a year, and who have performed tapas, and that it should be imparted by preceptors but little short of omniscient, like Pippalâda, etc., and not by anybody whosoever; and by the indication of such means as Brahmacharya their observance is directed; Sukesa by name and son of Bhâradvâja; Saibyah, son of Sibi; Satyakâma by name; Sauryâyani ] the son of Sûrya (sun) is Saurya and his son is Sauryâyani. This form (with a long vowel ending) is Vedic license; Gârgya, one born of the family of Gârga; Kausalya by name. Âsvalâyana, the son of Asvala; Bhârgava, one born of the family of Bhrigu; strictly the gôtrâpatyam of Bhrigu (vide, Pânini); Vaidarbhi, born in Vidarbha; Kabandhî by name; Kâtyâyana, son of Kâtya; his great-grandfather being alive, the suffix denoting uva pratyayam is used (vide, Pânini). All these intent on Brahman, i.e., believing in the Apara Brahman as supreme and devoted to its practice seeking after the highest Brahman, i.e., wishing to attempt, as they could, to attain that eternal knowable, approached the worshipful preceptor Pippalâda, with loads of samit in their hands, for the purpose of knowing that, thinking that he would explain all to them.
That seer said to them; as yet, live another year in tapas, Brahmacharya and faith; then ask us questions as you please and if we know, we shall, indeed, explain all to you.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.— The seer said to them, who had thus approached him, though you have already performed tapas by controlling your senses, still again, live another year here especially careful about Brahmacharya and faith and well intent on serving your preceptor; then, as you please, i.e., without restraining your desire, ask questions, every one of you, on subjects on which you may wish to know. If we know what is asked about (the word ‘if’ is intended to show that the preceptor was not conceited, not that there was any doubt as to his knowledge, as is apparent from his answering the questions), we shall explain to you all you ask about.
Then Kabandhî, having approached Kâtyâyana asked:- worthy master, whence are these creatures born?
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Then, i.e., after a year, Kabandhi having approached Kâtyâyana asked ‘Oh, worthy master, whence do these creatures, Brahmins and the rest, arise?’ This question is intended to elicit what results are attained and what path is gone through, by combining Aparavidya and Karma.
tasmai sa hovāca prajākāmo vai prajāpatiḥ sa tapo'tapyata
sa tapastaptvā sa mithunamutpādayate | rayiṃ ca praṇaṃ
cetyetau me bahudhā prajāḥ kariṣyata iti || 4 ||
To him he said:- ‘The lord of creatures, wishing for creatures, thought; and having thought out his thought created a pair—food and eater—thinking they would produce creatures for him variously.’
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—To him who thus interrogated, he replied for solving the doubt. Wishing to create creatures out of himself, the lord of creatures, the âtman of all thinking to create the universe, acting according to the word filled with the thought, being Hiranyagarbha born at the beginning of this Kalpa and being the lord of all created beings and things immoveable and moveable, revolved in his mind the knowledge acquired in the previous birth, the drift of which is revealed by the srutis. Having thus brooded over the knowledge, imparted by the srutis produced a pair, a couple—necessary for creation,—the moon, i.e., food and prâna, fire (sun), i.e., the eater. Thinking that agni (sun) and the moon, i e., (the eater and the food) respectively would create diverse creatures, he created the sun and the moon, in the order beginning with anda (globe).
एतत्सर्वं यन्मूर्तं चामूर्तं च तस्मान्मूर्तिरेव रयिः ॥ ५॥
ādityo ha vai prāṇo rayireva candramā rayirvā
etatsarvaṃ yanmūrtaṃ cāmūrtaṃ ca tasmānmūrtireva rayiḥ || 5 ||
The sun is life, indeed, and the moon, the food; all this having form and formless is food; so form is certainly food.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Here the sun is prâna, the eater, the fire the moon is the food, the moon is, indeed, food. This pair, the eater and the food really one, different aspects of the lord of creatures. The distinction is really one of secondary and primary. How? all this gross and subtle, is, indeed, in one aspect food, both having form and formless, the eater and the food. Therefore, when a dinner is made, i.e., what has form and what has not; (the former) is food being eaten by what is formless.
Now the sun rising enters the east. By that, he bathes, in his rays, all prâna in the east. When he lights up the south, the west, the north, the nadir, the zenith, the inter-space and all, by that, he bathes in his rays, all prâna.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Similarly, though formless the prâna, i.e., the eater, is all, and food also is prâna; how? Now the sun rising, i.e., becoming perceivable by the eyes of living beings, lights up the east with his light; by thus pervading all with his light makes all the lives in the east one with his own self, all living beings being pervaded by his all-pervading rays of light; similarly also, when he lights the south, the west, the north, the nadir, the zenith, the inter-space, the cardinal points and those between them, he bathes all lives in all those directions in his all-pervading light.
This is he, the totality of all living beings, assuming every form, life and fire, (who) rises (every day). This is told by the Rik.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—This is he, the eater, life, the âtman of all, Assuming all forms, being the âtman of the universe, prana and fire. This is the eater, who rises every day making all cardinal points his own. This, now explained, has also been told by the mantra also.
Having all forms, shining, omniscient, the highest stay, sole-light, heat-giver, having a thousand rays, existing in a hundred forms, life of all creation, this sun rises.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Visvarûpam, having all forms; Harinam, shining; jâtavêdasam, omniscient; the highest stay] to whom all lives cling; sole-light] the eye, as it were of all living beings, having no second. Tapantam, giving heat. This sun, their own âtman, the knowers of Brahman, the seers have known. Who is it that they have known? Having a thousand rays, having many rays; existing in a hundred forms, i.e., existing in many forms in different living beings. This sun, the life of all creation, rises.
संवत्सरो वै प्रजापतिस्तस्यायने दक्षिणं चोत्तरं च ।
तद्ये ह वै तदिष्टापूर्ते कृतमित्युपासते ते चान्द्रमसमेव
लोकमभिजयन्ते । त एव पुनरावर्तन्ते तस्मादेत ऋषयः
प्रजाकामा दक्षिणं प्रतिपद्यन्ते । एष ह वै रयिर्यः
पितृयाणः ॥ ९॥
saṃvatsaro vai prajāpatistasyāyane dakśiṇaṃ cottaraṃ ca |
tadye ha vai tadiṣṭāpūrte kṛtamityupāsate te cāndramasameva
lokamabhijayante | ta eva punarāvartante tasmādeta ṛṣayaḥ
prajākāmā dakśiṇaṃ pratipadyante | eṣa ha vai rayiryaḥ
pitṛyāṇaḥ || 9 ||
The year is the lord of the creation; of it, two paths, the southern and the northern. Those who follow the path of karma alone, by the performance of sacrificial and pious acts, win only the world of the moon; they certainly return again; therefore, these sages desirous of offspring take the southern route. This is the food reached by the way of the manes.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—How the pair—the moon, having form, the food and the prana, the formless, the eater, the sun, could create all creatures is explained. This pair alone is time, the year is the lord of creatures, because the year is accomplished by the pair which together are the lord of creatures; the year being a combination of tithîs, days and nights accomplished by the moon and the sun, is said to be of the nature of the pair, food and eater being no other than they. How is that? Of the year the lord of creatures, are two paths, the southern and the northern. These are the two well-known paths, each extending over six months, by which the sun goes south and north, distributing worlds among those who perform karma alone and those who combine karma with worship. The second tadu, i.e., the tadu in ‘tadupâsate’ is an adverbial adjunct. Those among the Brâhmins and the rest who follow only what is done, as Ishtam (sacrifices) and pûrtam (pious acts) and not what is not made, i.e., nothing eternal, attain the world of the moon, i.e., the world of food, a portion of the lord of creatures, who is both food and eater, the worlds of the moon being in the nature of one made, i.e., not eternal. They, after consumption there of what has been done, return, i.e., enter this world or something worse, as is said. As these devotees, i.e., the house-holders, the seers of heaven, desirous of offspring achieve as the fruit by the sacrificial and pious acts, the moon, i.e., the lord of creatures in the form of food; therefore, they attain what was performed by them, i.e., the food, i.e., the moon to which the southern route leads. This is the food, the moon, to which the route of the manes leads.
Now, by the northern route, by tapas, Brahmacharya, faith and knowledge seeking after the âtman, they gain the sun. This is the stay of all lives, this is immortal, this is fearless, the highest goal; they do not return from thence. This is the obstacle. About that, is this (following) verse.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—By the northern route, they reach the sun, a part of the lord of creation, the prana, the eater. By what? by tapas, i.e., by control over the senses, more particularly by Brahmacharya, by faith and by knowledge regarding the self of the lord of creation, i.e., worship of Prajâpati; seeking after the self, i.e., the prana, the sun, the stay of the universe, i.e., realising the sun in the form ‘I am he,’ they gain, i.e., reach the sun. This is certainly the common abode of all lives, their support; this is immortal, i.e., indestructible and, therefore, fearless, not full of fear of increase or diminution like the moon. This is the highest goal of those who resort to mere worship and of those who combine karma and worship. They da not return from hence, as followers of mere karma do:- Hence, this is, the obstacle of the ignorant; for, the ignorant obstructed by the sun do not attain the year, i.e., the sun, i.e., the prana. He, the year, in the nature of time, is an obstacle to the ignorant About that, is the following verse.
Having five feet, the father of all, having twelve forms, they say he is seated in a place higher than Dyulôka, full of water. These others say that the world is lodged in him, all knowing, ever moving with seven wheels and six spokes.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Having five feet] the five seasons are, as it were, the feet of the sun which is no other than the year. With these seasons as ‘feet,’ the year moves. This analogy makes but one of the hêmanta and the sisira seasons. Father] he is called father because he is the creator of all. Having twelve forms] the twelve months are the forms, i.e., limbs or component parts of the year. In a place higher than Dyulôka (sky), i.e., in the third heaven. Purishinam, full of water. They say] those who know Time say. The same, some others who know Time say, is omniscient; and that the world is fixed to the wheel of Time, ever on the move, in the form of seven horses and having six seasons. They say that all the universe is fixed there as spokes in a wheel. Whether having five feet and twelve limbs, or whether possessed of seven wheels and six spokes, in any view, the year, of the nature of Time, the lord of creation, in the form of the sun and the moon, is the cause of the universe.
The month is the lord of creation; its dark half is, indeed, the food; the light half, the prâna (eater). Therefore, the seers perform sacrifices in the light half; the others, in the other, i.e., the dark half.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—The lord of creation, i.e., the year, in which this universe inheres, ends in its component part, the month. The month, indeed, the lord of creation above described, is also in the nature of a pair; of the lord of creation, i.e., the month, one portion, i.e., the dark half, is food, i.e., the moon. The other part, i.e., the light half, is the sun, the eater, the fire. Because, they see everything as prâna, marked by the light half; therefore, these seers who see the prâna, though performing sacrifices in the dark half, perform them, only in the light half, as they do not see the dark half, as distinct from prâna (the light half). But others see not the prâna and only see the unseeing dark half. Those others perform sacrifices, only in the dark half, though they do them in the light half.
The day and night is, indeed, the lord of creation. Of that, the day is the prâna and the night, indeed, is the food. Those who combine with Rati (sexual intercourse) by day, spill prâna. That they combine with Rati by night is Brahmacharyam indeed.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—And that lord of creation, i.e., the month, culminates in his component parts, the day and night as before explained. Of him, the day is, indeed, prâna; the eater, the fire; the night, indeed, is food, as before explained. Those spill their prâna, i.e., the day, that is, waste it by separating it from the selves. Who? Those ignorant men, who by day have carnal intercourse with woman, who is the cause of sexual pleasures. This being so, the prohibition that it should not be done is a rule laid down by the way. If they have intercourse by night, in season, that is Brahmacharyam indeed. That being praiseworthy, the mandate that one should approach his wife during rita, in season, is also, by the way, enjoined. What is relevant here is this, i.e., the lord of creation in the form of day and night becomes such as corn, grain, etc.
annaṃ vai prajāpatistato ha vai tadretastasmādimāḥ prajāḥ
prajāyanta iti || 14 ||
Food indeed, is the lord of creation; from that, indeed is the semen virile; from that are all these creatures produced.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Thus modified in this order, food is the lord of creation. How? From that is semen virile, the seed in man, the cause of creation. From that, sprinkled in woman, these creatures, such as men, etc., are produced. What was asked for, from whence are creatures produced, has thus been determined, that these creatures are produced by couples, beginning with the sun and the moon and ending with the day and the night, through food, blood and semen virile.
tadye ha vai tatprajāpativrataṃ caranti te mithunamutpādayante |
teṣāmevaiṣa brahmaloko yeṣāṃ tapo brahmacaryaṃ yeṣu satyaṃ
pratiṣṭitam || 15 ||
Thus, those who follow the vow of the lord of creation produce couples. To them alone, is this Brahmalôka, in whom tapas, brahmacharyam and truth abide.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Thus, this being so. Of those householders (Vai and Ha are two particles, remembrances of well-known things), who obey the vow of Prajâpati (lord of creation), i.e., who approach their wives in due season, their visible fruits (in this world) is this. What? They produce a couple, i.e., son and daughter. The invisible fruits (pertaining to the future world) are also to them alone, performing sacrificial and pious acts and making gifts. This Brahmalôka, i.e., the world of the moon, to which the route of the manes leads, is to those in whom tapas, i.e., the vow of a snâtaka, etc., Brahmacharyam, i.e., abstinence from sexual intercourse except in season, and truth, i.e., abstinence from falsehood abide always without any deviation.
teṣāmasau virajo brahmaloko na yeṣu jihmamanṛtaṃ na
māyā ceti || 16 ||
To them, is that Brahmalôka devoid of taint; in them there is no deceit, falsehood or dissimulation.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—But to whom is that state of lower Brahman marked by the sun, reached by the northern route, untainted, i.e., pure, not tainted like the Brahmalôka of the moon, subject to increase and diminution, is explained. They in whom fraud does not exist, as necessarily it does in householders, resulting in many conflicting modes of conduct; those for whom-falsehood is not unavoidable, as it is in the case of householders on account of play, mirth, etc.; similarly, those in whom there is no dissimulation as in householders. Dissimulation consists in disclosing one’s self in one manner and acting otherwise. It is of the nature of duplicity in behaviour. To those men duly fitted, i.e., the Brahmachârin, the hermit and the sanyâsin in whom, from absence of cause, these faults, such as duplicity, etc., do not exist, is this untainted Brahmalôka, according to the means they employ. Thus, this is the goal of those who combine karma with knowledge (worship). The Brahmalôka previously explained and marked by the moon is for those who perform mere karma.
Next Bhârgava of Vidarbha questioned him ‘Oh Bhagavan! How many Dêvâs support the creature? Which of them enlighten that? Who again is of all of them, the greatest.’
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—It has been said that prâna is the eater, the lord of creation. This question is begun for the purpose of determining how he is such lord and eater in this body. Next Bhârgava of Vidarbha questioned him, Oh Bhagavan! how many Dêvâs (senses) mainly support the creature, i.e., the body? Which, among the senses divided into intellectual and active, manifest their glory outside. Who again of these is the greatest, i.e., the most important of these which are in the nature of cause and effect.
पृथिवी वाङ्मनश्चक्षुः श्रोत्रं च । ते प्रकाश्याभिवदन्ति
वयमेतद्बाणमवष्टभ्य विधारयामः ॥ २ ॥
tasmai sa hovācākāśo ha vā eṣa devo vāyuragnirāpaḥ
pṛthivī vāṅmanaścakśuḥ śrotraṃ ca | te prakāśyābhivadanti
vayametadbāṇamavaṣṭabhya vidhārayāmaḥ || 2 ||
To him he said, “This Dêva is the âkâsa, wind, fire water, earth, speech, mind, eye and ear. They revealing their glory say, ‘we hold together and support this body.’
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—To him, who thus questioned, he replied:- ‘This Dêva is the âkâsa, wind, fire, water, earth, i e., these five great elements, Bhûtas, the constituent elements of the body and speech, mind, eye, ear and the rest, i.e., the senses of acting and the senses of intellect; these Devas of the nature of effects and instruments, manifesting their glory and competing for pre-eminence, say this body, this bundle of causes and effects, we hold together, as pillars do the vault, from going to pieces and chiefly support. The thought of each is that the body—the bundle—is supported by it alone.’
Prâna, the greatest, said to them, ‘Do not cherish this foolish vanity. I alone, having divided myself five-fold, hold this body together and support it.’ They did not believe.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Prâna, pre-eminent, said to them who were thus vain, ‘do not from want of discernment cherish this vanity; for, I alone hold together and support this body, having divided myself into five distinct conditions such as prâna, etc.’; and when he said he supported it, they did not believe in him and thought how it could be thus.
tasmim̐śca pratṣṭhamāne sarva eva pratiṣṭanta evaṃ vāṅmanaṣcakśuḥ
śrotraṃ ca te prītāḥ prāṇaṃ stunvanti || 4 ||
He from indignation seemed to ascend from the body, and when he ascended, all the others immediately ascended too; and when he was quiet they were quiet too, just as bees fly up when their king flies up and settle down when he settles down; so, mind, speech, eye, ear and the rest being pleased, praise Prâna.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—And he, Prâna, observing their want of faith, seemed to ascend from the body of himself from indignation. What followed when he seemed to ascend is made apparent by an illustration. Immediately after he ascended, all the other prânas, i.e., the eye and the rest began ascending and when he, Prâna, became inactive, i.e., did not ascend, all became quiet, i.e., settled down; just as in the world, the bees ascend after their king ascends and settle down when he settles down. As in the illustration, so here. Speech, mind, the eye, ear, etc., leaving their disbelief and knowing the glory or greatness of Prâna, grow delighted and praise Prâna.
eṣa pṛthivī rayirdevaḥ sadasaccāmṛtaṃ ca yat || 5 ||
As fire, this burns; this, sun; this, cloud; this, Indra; this, wind; this, earth; moon, Dêva and what has form, what is formless and what is immortal nectar.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—How? This Prâna being fire, burns or flames; so this being sun, shines; so this being cloud, rains. Again this being Indra, protects the creatures and destroys, Asuras and Râkshasas. This is wind in its different forms, âvaha, pravâha, etc. Again this is Dêva, earth (supporter of all) and moon (nourisher of all). This is all that has form and all that is formless. This is also amrita which is the stay of all Dêvâs. In short,
ṛco yajūm̐ṣi sāmāni yajñaḥ kśatraṃ brahma ca || 6 ||
As spokes in the nave of a wheel, so all is centred in Prâna. Riks, Yajur, Sâmams, sacrifices, Kshatriyas and Brâhmins.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—As spokes in the nave of a wheel, all from sraddhâ (faith) down to name is centred in Prâna, while they endure; so also Rik, Yajur and Sâma Vêdâs, the three kinds of mantras, and what is accomplished by them, i.e., the sacrifice, the Kshatriyas, pro tectors of all and the Brahmins competent to perform sacrifices and other karma. Prâna is all this.
As lord of creatures, you move in the womb and yourself are afterwards born. These creatures bring offerings, Oh Prâna, to you who are sitting with the prânas.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Again, being yourself the lord of creatures, you move in the womb and are born, being another embodiment of the father and the mother. That you are both father and mother is already established by your being the lord of creatures. The meaning is you Prâna, though one, are the âtman of all, in the guise of the forms of all bodies and souls. For you, Oh Prâna, these creatures, men and the rest, bring offerings through the apertures of the eyes, etc. As you are within all bodies along with the Prânas, i.e., the eyes and other senses, it is but proper they should bring you offerings. As you are the eater, all the rest is, indeed, food for you.
You are the best carrier to the celestials, the first oblation to the manes. You are the true active principle of the senses (prânas) which form the sap of the body.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Moreover, you are the best of the carriers of oblations to the Dêvâs such as Indra. The food given to the manes in the Nandi srâddha is prior even to that offered to the chief of the Dêvâs. You alone are the carrier of that to the manes. Besides, of the senses such as the eye, etc., (prânas) which are called atharva, and in whose absence the limbs are dried up, you are the active principle aiding in the support, etc., of the body.
Oh Prâna, you are Indra, you are Rudra by valour; you are the protector; you move in the sky and you are the Sun, the lord of all luminaries.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.— Again, Oh Prâna, you are Indra, i.e., Paramêsvara (Lord of all). By valour, you are Rudra, destroyer of the world and you are the protector of the world, while it endures, by your mild aspect; you always move in the inter-space. By rising and setting, you are, indeed, the sun, the lord of all orbs of light.
When you rain, all round; then Oh Prâna, these, your creatures, sit delighted thinking there will be food at their desire.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—When you in the form of clouds, rain all round; then, having obtained food, these creatures put forth activity. Or, Oh Prâna, these, your creatures, being yourself and nourished by your food, become delighted with the mere sight of the rain you pour, thinking there will be food at their desire.
Oh Prâna, you are unpurified, you are the fire called Ekarshi, eater, lord of all the existing universe; we are the givers of oblations, Oh Matarisvan! you are our father.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Again, being first born and there being none other to purify you, you are unpurified. The meaning is you are, by nature itself, pure. Oh Prâna, you are the eater of all oblations being Ekarshi, i.e., fire well-known among the followers of the Atharva Vêda, by the name of Ekarshi. You alone are the lord of all the universe which exists. Or, the word ‘satpatih’ may be interpreted as ‘good lord.’ But we are the givers of oblations to be eaten by you. You are, Oh Mâtarisvan! our father; or, you are the father of Mâtarisvan, i.e., wind. Therefore, it is established that you are the father of all the universe.
What form of yours is lodged in speech, what in the ear, what in the eye, and what in the mind continuous, make that propitious air do not ascend from the body.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—In short, what form of yours, lodged in speech moves the mouth of the speaker, what in the ear, what in the eye, and what united with the mind acts as volition, etc., make that passive, i.e., quiet. Do not make that unquiet, by ascending from the body.
मातेव पुत्रान्रक्षस्व श्रीश्च प्रज्ञां च विधेहि न इति ॥ १३ ॥
इति प्रश्नोपनिषदि द्वितीयः प्रश्नः ॥
prāṇasyedaṃ vaśe sarvaṃ tridive yatpratiṣṭhitam |
māteva putrānrakśasva śrīśca prajñāṃ ca vidhehi na iti || 13 ||
All this is within the control of Prâna, as also what is in the third heaven. Protect us like a mother. Give us affluence and knowledge.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—In short, everything of enjoyment in this world, is under the control of Prâna; as also of all that which exists in the third heaven for the enjoyment of the Dêvâs, etc., Prâna alone is the lord or protector. Therefore, protect, as a mother does her sons. As all splendour pertaining to a Brahmin and Kshatriya are due to you, give us that affluence and knowledge originating in you. It has been thus determined that Prâna whose greatness or glory, as being all, has thus been disclosed by the eulogy of the prânas; such as speech and the rest is the lord of the creation, the eater.
Then, Kausalya, son of Âsvala questioned him. ‘O Bhagavan! whence is this Prâna born? How does he come into this body? How does he stay dividing himself? By what does he ascend from the body? How does he support all external and how all within the body?
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Then, Kausalya, son of Âsvala questioned him. Though Prânas glory has been thus realized by the prânas, which had ascertained its real nature, it may still be that it is an effect, being a combination (samhata). Therefore, I ask, Oh Bhagavan! whence, i.e., from what cause, Prâna, thus determined, is produced and when produced, by what form of activity does he enter the body? The meaning is, what is the cause of his taking a body and when he has entered the body, how does he, dividing himself, stay? By what form of activity does he ascend from the body? How does he support what is external to the body, i.e., adhi bhûta and adhi daiva, i.e., the totality of elements and powers; and how, what is within the body.
To him he replied, ‘you ask questions about transcending things. I will answer thee, because you are a greater knower of Brahman.’
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Thus questioned, the preceptor, said to him, Prâna himself, being difficult to know, is fit for intricate questioning. You question about the origin, etc., even of him. Therefore, you ask questions about transcending things. As you are eminently, a knower of Brahman, I am delighted and shall tell you what you ask about. Listen.
This Prâna is born of the âtman. As this shadow in the man, so is this in the âtman. By the act of the mind, this comes into this body.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—This Prâna spoken of is born of the âtman, i.e., of the highest purusha, undecaying and true. As regards the how of it, the following illustration (is offered). As in this world, when the figure of the man consisting of the head, hands, etc., is the cause, his shadow is produced as the effect; so in this Brahman the true purusha, is this principle named Prâna analogous to the shadow and falls in its nature recognized as the shadow in the body. It comes into this body by the act of the mind, i.e., through the karma, arising from volition, wish, etc., of the mind; for, it will be said later on ‘By virtue, virtuous world, etc.’ Another sruti also says, ‘Intent on that fruit he reaches it with his karma.’
As the sovereign alone commands the officers, (under him) ‘stay in these villages and those,’ so this Prâna posts other prânas separately (at their respective posts).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Just as in the world, the soverign alone posts officers under him to different villages; how? ‘Look to these villages and those.’ So, as pointed out in the illustration, the chief Prâna commands other prânas such as the eye, etc., and his own different manifestations to their respective posts.
prātiṣṭate madhye tu samānaḥ । eṣa hyetaddhutamannaṃ samaṃ nayati
tasmādetāḥ saptārciṣo bhavanti || 5 ||
The apâna stays in the two lower apertures. Prâna stays in the eye, ear, speech and nose. In the middle is samâna. He distributes the food supplied equally; so, these seven flames arise.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Of its division now; the apâna, an aspect of the chief Prâna, stays in the two lower apertures expelling urine and faeces, etc.; so in the eye and the ear and going out from the mouth and the nose, Prâna, occupying himself the place of the sovereign, stays. In the middle, i.e., between prâna and apâna, i.e., in the navel, samâna (so called, because he distributes food and drink saman, i.e., equally). As this distributes equally, the food and drink thrown into the fire of the body, these seven flames go out from the fire in the stomach fed by food and drink, and reaching the region of the heart through the apertures in the head. The drift is that the objects of seeing, hearing, etc., are enlightened through the prâna.
This âtman is in the heart. Here, there are a hundred and one nerves. Every one of these has a hundred brandies; again, every one of these has seventy-two thousand sub-branches. In these, vyâna moves.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—In the heart, i.e., in the âkâsa of the heart, enclosed within a lump of flesh of the form of a lotus, is this âtman, i.e., the subtle body connected with the âtman. Here, i.e., in the heart, are the chief nerves, a hundred and one in number. Every one of these chief nerves has a hundred branches. Every one of these branches has seventy-two thousand sub-branches. In these nerves, moves vyâna (so called, because he is all-pervading). Vyâna stays pervading the whole body through the going out from the heart everywhere within the body, as rays from the sun, especially in the joints, shoulders and vital parts. Growing active in the interim between the activities of the prâna and the apâna, it is able to perform deeds requiring great strength.
Now by one nerve, udâna ascending, conducts to virtuous worlds by virtue, to sinful worlds by sin and to the world of men by virtue and sin combined.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—By one of these hundred and one nerves, i.e., by that nerve named sushumna which goes up, udâna moving in all portions, from the foot to the head, conducts one to virtuous worlds, such as the abode of the Dêvâs by virtuous deeds enjoined by the sâstrâs; by sinful deeds contrary to virtue, to sinful worlds, such as birth among horizontal creatures, i.e., beasts. By both equally combined, i.e., virtue and sin, to the world of men. ‘Conducts’ should be supplied.
The sun, indeed, is the external prâna. He rises favouring the prâna in the eye. So the goddess of the earth attracts the apâna downwards. The âkâsa between is samâna. The wind is vyâna.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—The sun is the well-known outward Prâna among the Dêvâs. He rises and by his light favours this prâna, lodged in the eye of the body, i.e., helps it with luminosity in the perception of forms. Similarly the well-known goddess presiding over earth, attracts or controls the activity of the apâna in the purusha and favours its action by pulling downwards; for, otherwise, this body, owing to its weight, may fall down, or being unimpeded, may fly up. The air in the âkâsa, in the middle, i.e., between the earth and heaven (by the word âkâsa, the wind in it is denoted, as those in a cot are denoted by the word cot) is samâna, i.e., favours samâna, samâna resembling it, in the fact of being enclosed within the âkâsa in the middle. The external wind, vâyu, generally because it resembles vyâna in pervading, favours vyâna. This is the drift.
tejo ha vā udānastasmādupaśāntatejāḥ | punarbhavamindriyairmanasi sampadhyamānaiḥ || 9 ||
The external fire têjas verily is udâna. Therefore the fire being extinguished, one again enters another body with the senses clinging to the mind.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—The general fire têjas, well-known and external, is the udâna in the body. The meaning is, that by its light, it favours the wind known as udâna as ‘udâna,’ fire in its nature, favoured by the external fire, causes the ascent from the body. Therefore, when a man’s natural fire is extinguished, then one should know that his life is spent, i.e., that he is dying; he enters another body. How? along with the senses such as speech, etc., clinging to the mind.
Of what thought, by that he attains prâna, the prâna combined with udâna along with the âtman, conducts to the world thought of.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Of what thought he is at the time of death, by that thought, i.e., volition, he attains along with the senses, the prâna, i.e., he puts forth the activity of the chief Prâna. The meaning is that at the time of death, the activity of the senses having declined, he lives putting forth the activity of the chief Prâna alone. Then his relations around say ‘he breathes and lives’; and that prâna manifesting the activity of udâna (têjas); with the âtman ] with the owner, i.e., the enjoyer. The prâna manifesting the activity of the udâna alone, leads the enjoyer to worlds (bodies) thought of, according to the influence of virtuous and sinful karma.
ya evaṃ vidvānprāṇaṃ veda na hāsya prajā hīyate'mṛto
bhavati tadeṣa ślokaḥ || 11 ||
The learned man who knows Prâna thus—of his offspring there is break and he becomes immortal; there is the following verse.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Of the learned man who knows Prâna thus i.e., with these attributes already described, about his birth, etc., the following fruits, both here and hereafter, are pointed out. The offspring, i.e., the son, the grandson, etc., of this knower, do not suffer break in continuity, and when the body falls having become one with Prâna, he becomes immortal (in a relative sense). The following verse (slôka) briefly explains this purport.
Knowing the birth, the coming, the staying, and the five-fold sovereignty of Prâna and its stay in the body, one attains immortality; one attains immortality.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Birth] from the Paramâtman. Coming] coming into this body, by the activity of the mind. Staying] in the lower apertures and other places. Five-fold sovereignty] the posting, as by a sovereign, of the different aspects of Prana, in five forms. Its external manifestation] as the sun, &c. Within the-body] as eye, &c. Knowing Prâna thus one attains immortality (relative).
Next Sauryâyani Gârgya questioned him ‘Oh Bhagavan! What in the man sleep? What wake in him? Which is the Dêvâ who sees dreams? Whose is this bliss? In which of them again are all of them fixed?’
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Next Sauryâyani Gârgya questioned him:- Having thus exhausted by these three questions, all about Samsâra, the subject of Apara (lower) Vidyâ subject to modification, partaking of the nature of causes and effects and of ephemeral existence, the next three questions are asked in order that the Brahman, not partaking of the nature of causes and effects devoid of prâna, not perceivable by the mind, beyond the shot of the senses, bliss in its nature, free from misery, not subject to modification, undecaying, true, knowable by Para Vidyâ (higher knowledge), known as purusha, without and within all and unborn, may be known. Now, it was stated in the second Mundaka, that everything known to exist, proceeded from the undecaying Brahman, as sparks from the flaming fire, and that everything is absorbed into Brahman. What are all those existences which diverge from the Brahman? How again, thus existing in divergence are absorbed into it (Brahman) alone? What again are the characteristics of that Brahman? Now, in order to explain, these questions are imagined to be raised:- ‘Oh Bhagavan, in this man, having head, hands, etc., what senses sleep, i.e., cease to perform their functions? What again in this man wake, i.e., do not sleep, i.e., perform their functions? Of these distinguishable as effects and instruments, which Dêvâ sees dreams? Dream is seeing within the body, as if he were awake, by one who has turned away from waking consciousness. The drift is whether, that is accomplished by any Dêvâ, in the nature of an effect, or any in the nature of an instrument. And who enjoys the bliss (arising when the activity of the waking and the dreaming state ceases) clear, i.e., free from the stain of contact with the objects of the senses, consisting in the absence of all trouble (distraction) and unobstructed? Then, where are all these, their waking and dreaming activities having ceased, centred? i.e., where do these blend indistinguishably, like juice in honey and like rivers entering the ocean. It is but reasonable that these turned away from their own activities, like the scythe and other instruments, which have ceased to do their work, should separately rest, each in its own place. Whence does the supposition then arise, that the senses of man in sleep become all blended in one. The supposition of the questioner is certainly reasonable. As all the senses together, during waking, act on behalf of some lord and are dependent (on him), therefore their coalition in one is reasonable even in sleep, because of their dependence and acting together. Therefore, this question is certainly consistent with the supposition. Here the question ‘in which are all these centred?’ is asked by the questioner who wishes to know him, in whom all this bundle of effects and instruments is absorbed during sleep and Pralaya.
punarudayataḥ pracarantyevaṃ ha vai tat sarvaṃ pare deve manasyekībhavati
tena tarhyeṣa puruṣo na śṛṇoti na paśyati na
jighrati na rasayate na spṛśate nābhivadate nādatte nānandayate
na visṛjate neyāyate svapitītyācakśate || 2 ||
To him, he said:- ‘Just as, O Gârgya, the rays of the setting sun all become one in this orb of light and go out again when he rises again, so all of these become one in the highest Dêvâ, i.e., the mind; then, therefore, the man hears not, sees not, smells not, tastes not, feels not, speaks not, takes not, delights not, abandons not, moves not; they say ‘he sleeps.’
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—To him, the preceptor said:- ‘O Gârgya, hear what you ask for; just as the rays of the suit disappearing become all one in the orb of light, i.e., become one and indistinguishable, and when the same sun rises again and again become dispersed; as in this illustration, so all that crowd of objects and senses become one in the highest Dêvâ (having light) i.e., mind (as the eye and other senses are under the control of the mind, mind is said to be the highest sense), during sleep and become indistinguishable, like the rays in the orb of light, and when he wakes go out of the mind to perform their own functions, as the rays from the orb of light. As during sleep, the ear and other senses capable of knowing sound, etc., become, as it were, one in the mind, their activity as senses having ceased, therefore, during sleep this man called Dêvadatta, etc., hears not, sees not, smells not, tastes not, feels not, speaks not, takes not, delights not, abandons not, moves not; men of worldly understanding say ‘he sleeps.’
The fires of prâna alone wake in this city. This apâna is the gârhapatya fire. Vyâna is the anvâhâryopachana fire. The prâna is the âhavaniya- fire, as it is taken from the gârhapatya fire.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—When the senses, the ear and the rest, are gone to sleep in this city, i.e., in this body of nine apertures, the five winds, prâna and the rest, called fires, being like fire, keep watch. This is their similitude with fires. This apâna is the gârhapatya fire. How is explained; just as, at the time of performing the agnihôtra, another fire named âhavanîya is obtained from the gârhapatya, so from the apâna during sleep, prâna, as it were, the âhavanîya fire is obtained. But Vyâna, emerging from the southern cavity of the heart is called the anvâhâryapachana, or the southern fire, from its connection with the south.
यदुच्छ्वासनिःश्वासावेतावाहुती समं नयतीति स समानः ।
मनो ह वाव यजमान इष्टफलमेवोदानः स
एनं यजमानमहरहर्ब्रह्म गमयति ॥ ४॥
yaducchvāsaniḥśvāsāvetāvāhutī samaṃ nayatīti sa samānaḥ |
mano ha vāva yajamāna iṣṭaphalamevodānaḥ sa
enaṃ yajamānamaharaharbrahma gamayati || 4 ||
(The priest) is he, samâna, since he distributes equally the oblations which are inspiration and expiration. The mind is the sacrificer; the udâna is the fruit of sacrifice; he leads the sacrificer every day to Brahman.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Here also, there is the priest officiating at the agnihôtra. Because, he distributes inspiration and expiration (which are, as it were, the agnihôtra oblations which are always double) for the support of the body; he is the officiating priest, as the carrier of the oblations, though already said to occupy the position of the fire (also). Who is this? He is samâna; therefore, even the sleep of the knower is the giving of oblation in agnihôtra. The drift, therefore, is that the knower should not be regarded as one performing no karma; for, it is said in the Vâjasanêyakôpanishad ‘even of him sleeping, all the Bhûtas always perform sacrifices.’ Here, having thrown the external senses and objects as oblations into the wakeful Prânâ-fires and wishing to reach the Brahman, as one who would wish to reach heaven, the fruit of the performance of agnihôtra, the mind, as sacrificer, wakes. Being known like the sacrifices as the most important of the effects and instruments, and having set out towards Brahman, as sacrificer to heaven, the mind is made the sacrificer. The fruit of the sacrifice is udâna; because, the realization of the fruits of sacrifice is due to udâna. How? The udâna causing the mind, the sacrificer, to cease his own activity, conducts him every day during sleep to the undecaying Brahman, as to heaven. Therefore, udâna occupies the place of the fruits of sacrifices.
In this state, this Dêvâ (mind) undergoes a variety of changes, sees again what it has seen, hears again whatever was heard, experiences again what it had experienced in different lands, and directions. What was seen and not seen, heard and not heard, experienced and not experienced, existent and non-existent, it sees; being all, it sees.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Thus, of the knower, from the time of the cessation of the activity of the ear to the time of his waking from sleep, till then he enjoys all the fruits of a sacrifice and not misery, as in the case of the ignorant. Thus, being a knower, is eulogised. For, it is not, alone, in the case of the knower, that the ear, etc., cease from activity, or the Prâna-fires keep watch, or the mind being free in the waking and dreaming conditions merges in the condition of sleep every day. It is well known that all living creatures pass through the waking, dreaming and sleeping conditions by turns. Therefore, this context must be regarded as praising the state of a knower (and not as laying down any rules). As regards the question, which of the dêvâs sees, dreams, he replies:- ‘When the ear, etc., cease activity’ and prâna and other airs keep watch for the support of the body before reaching the condition of sleep, during this interim, this dêvâ (mind) with the ear and other senses absorbed in it, like rays of the sun sees in dreams his own greatness, i.e., assumes diverse forms in the nature of subject and object. It may be urged that the mind is only the instrument of the enjoyer, i.e., the Âtman is enjoying the various forms and that it cannot be said to enjoy independently; for, it is the Âtman that is independent. This is no fault; for, the independence of the Âtman is due to its conditioning mind; for, the Âtman does not really in its own nature dream or wake. It has been said in the Vâjasanêyakôpanishad that its waking and dreaming are caused by its condition, mind. Combined with mind and becoming a dream, it seems to think and to move, etc. Therefore, the statement that the mind is independent in enjoying diverse forms is only logical. Some say that the selfluminosity of the Âtman will be marred during dreams owing to its combination with the condition, mind. That is not so. This false notion of theirs is caused by their ignorance of the drift of the srutis; because even all the talk that the Âtman is self-luminous, which endures only till emancipation, is produced by conditions such as mind and is within the pale of ignorance. Where there is something like another, then one sees something distinct from himself; of him there is no connexion with what is visible according to the sruti ‘ but where all becomes the Âtman alone, there who could be seen by whom, etc.?’ Therefore, this doubt arises only in those who know only the lower Brahman and not in those who know the one Âtman. It may be urged that, if this be so, then the distinction in ‘here, i.e., in dreams, this Purusha is self-luminous’ will become meaningless. It is here replied that what is stated is very little. The self-luminosity of the Âtman, enclosed in the cavity of the heart, according to the text ‘he who sleeps in the âkâsa, within the cavity of the heart, will be marred in a greater degree. If it be urged that though this is really a fault, still that half the burden, i.e., half the obstacle will be removed in the matter of the selfluminosity of the Âtman by assuming the absence of mind during dreams. This is not sound; for, even on that supposition, from the sruti, ‘ he sleeps in the nerve called, Purîtati,’ the notion of removing half the hindrance, in the matter of self-luminosity of the Âtman, is certainly false; because, even in sleep, the Âtman rests in the nerve called ‘Purîtati.’ How then is it said, ‘here, this Purusha is self-luminous.’ If it be said that as that sruti is found in another branch of the Vêdâs, it is not in point here, that is unsound; for, it is admitted that the purport of the srutis must be identical; and one Âtman being the subject of all Vêdântâs is desired to be taught and to be known. Therefore, it is right that the appropriateness of the assertion that the Âtman is self-luminous in dreams should be explained. Because, srutis serve to reveal the real truth. If this be so, hear the purport of the sruti, abandoning all conceit. Not by all who think themselves learned, could the drift of the srutis be known, even in a hundred years, by mere conceit. Just as the self-luminosity of the Âtman is not affected in sleep, because it is possible to represent him as distinguished from the âkâs of the heart, and the purîtati nerve where he sleeps, because he is not connected with them; so, the self-luminosity of the Atman, as distinct from the visible reminiscences of the observer, who is different from all effects and instruments and who sees, on account of ignorance, as separate objects, the reminiscences, which, as the result of karma, are left in the mind full of tendencies due to ignorance, desire and karma, cannot be marred even by the proudest logician. Therefore, it is properly said that when all the senses are absorbed in the mind and when the mind is not absorbed, the Âtman, as manômaya, sees dreams. How it realizes a diversity of experiences is explained. Whatever has been seen, such as friend, son, etc., the mind influenced by unconscious impressions thinks from ignorance that it sees the son, the friend, etc., produced from such impressions. Similarly, it seems to hear what has been heard, owing to such impressions; and from ignorance, it seems to experience what it has experienced in different lands and directions. Similaily, what was seen in this birth and what was not seen, i.e., what was seen in previous births; for, there can be no unconscious impressions of what was never seen; similarly, what was heard and not heard, and what was experienced in this birth by the mind alone, and what was not experienced, i.e., what was not experienced by mind alone in previous births what is existent such as real water and what is non-existent such as waters of the mirage; in short, sees all said and not said; being all, i.e., being conditioned by all the unconscious impressions of the mind, sees all. Thus, the mind, being in itself all the senses, sees dreams.
When it is overpowered with light, then this mind sees no dreams; thus then, the bliss arises in this body.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—When the Dêvâ, i.e., the mind, becomes overpowered, i.e., has all the outlets of these impressions closed by the light (lodged in the nerve) known as Pitta and pertaining to the sun, then the rays, i.e., the tendencies of the mind, become absorbed into the heart along with the senses. When the mind, like fire in a log of wood, pervades the whole body in its form, as general knowledge (as opposed to a special modification) then he sleeps. All that time, this Dêvâ named mind, does not see dreams, the door of vision being closed by light. Then, in this body, this bliss arises, which is knowledge unimpeded, pervading all body without distinction and clear.
sa yathā sobhya vayāṃsi vasovṛkśaṃ saṃpratiṣṭhante |
evaṃ ha vai tat sarvaṃ para ātmani saṃpratiṣṭhate || 7 ||
Just as, good youth I birds go towards the tree intended for their abode, so, all this goes to the supreme Âtman.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Then at this time, all the effects and instruments depending on ignorance, desire and karma become quiet. When they are quieted, the entity of the Âtman, misunderstood on account of its conditions, becomes one without a second, free from trouble and calm. To indicate this condition by the entering into the Âtman of the earth and other objects, produced by ignorance, the Sruti offers an illustration. This is the illustration. In the same manner, good-looking youth! that birds go to the tree intended for their abode; so, as in the illustration, all that will be said hereafter becomes absorbed into the supreme and undecaying Âtman.
तेजोमात्रा च वायुश्च वायुमात्रा चाकाशश्चाकाशमात्रा
च चक्षुश्च द्रष्टव्यं च श्रोत्रं च श्रोतव्यं च घाणं च
घ्रातव्यं च रसश्च रसयितव्यं च त्वक्च स्पर्शयितव्यं च
वाक्च वक्तव्यं च हस्तौ चादातव्यं चोपस्थश्चानन्दयितव्यं
च पायुश्च विसर्जयितव्यं च यादौ च गन्तव्यं च मनश्च
मन्तव्यं च बुद्धिश्च बोद्धव्यं चाहङ्कारश्चाहङ्कर्तव्यं च
चित्तं च चेतयितव्यं च तेजश्च विद्योतयितव्यं च प्राणश्च
विधारयितव्यं च ॥ ८॥
pṛthivī ca pṛthivīmātrā cāpaścāpomātrā ca tejaśca
tejomātrā ca vāyuśca vāyumātrā cākāśaścākāśamātrā
ca cakśuśca draṣṭavyaṃ ca śrotraṃ ca śrotavyaṃ ca ghrāṇaṃ ca
ghrātavyaṃ ca rasaśca rasayitavyaṃ ca tvakca sparśayitavyaṃ ca
vākca vaktavyaṃ ca hastau cādātavyaṃ copasthaścānandayitavyaṃ
ca pāyuśca visarjayitavyaṃ ca yādau ca gantavyaṃ ca manaśca
mantavyaṃ ca buddhiśca boddhivyaṃ cāhaṅkāraścāhaṅkartavyaṃ ca
cittaṃ ca cetayitavyaṃ ca tejaśca vidyotayitavyaṃ ca prāṇaśca
vidyārayitavyaṃ ca || 8 ||
Earth and its subtle form, water and its subtle form, fire and its subtle form, air and its subtle form, âkâsa and its subtle form, sight and its objects, taste and its objects, touch and its objects, speech and object, hands and what is to be handled, the organ of generation and what is to be enjoyed, the organ of excretion and what must be excreted, the feet and what is to be trodden on by them, mind and what must be thought, the intellect and what must be determined, egotism and its object, Chitta and its object, light and its object, and Prâna and what must be supported by it.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—What is that all? The earth gross, having five attributes and its cause, the rudiment of earth, i.e., the subtle form of smell, so water and the subtle form of water, fire and its subtle form, air and its subtle form, âkâsa and its subtle form, i.e., all gross and subtle Bhûtâs; similarly, the sense of sight and its objects, ear and its objects, nose and its objects, the palate and its objects, touch and its objects, speech and what must be said, hands and what must be handled, the organ of generation and what must be enjoyed, the organ of excretion and what must be excreted, feet and what must be reached; thus, all the intellectual and active senses have been mentioned. The mind already stated and its objects, the intellect consisting in determination and its objects, ahânkâra, i.e., the mind characterised by egotism and its objects, Chittam, i.e., the intelligent mind and its objects. Tejas ] The skin apart from the sense of touch, having light. Vidyôtayitavyam ] the objects enlightened by it. Prâna, what is called the sûtra, and what is strung on it, i.e., all the bundle of effects and instruments combined for the benefit of some other entity, having name, form, etc.
एष हि द्रष्टा स्प्रष्टा श्रोता घ्राता रसयिता मन्ता
बोद्धा कर्ता विज्ञानात्मा पुरुषः । स परेऽक्षर आत्मनि
सम्प्रतिष्ठते ॥ ९॥
eṣa hi draṣṭa spraṣṭā śrotā ghrātā rasayitā mantā
boddhā kartā vijñānātmā puruṣaḥ । sa pare'kśara ātmani
saṃpratiṣṭhate || 9 ||
This is the seer, toucher, hearer, smeller, taster, the thinker, the knower, the doer, the intelligent entity, Purusha. He becomes merged in the Supreme, undecaying Âtman.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Then, the self which has entered here, like the sun in the water, etc., with the attributes of enjoyer and doer; this is the seer, toucher, hearer, smeller, taster, thinker, knower, doer, the intelligent self (Vignâna means the intellect being the instrument by which things are known). Here, it means, he who knows, i.e., the knower. Vignânâtma, of the nature of knower. The meaning is that he is a knower by his nature. Purusha, because full of, i.e., subject to the conditions above described, i.e., the nature of effects and instruments. And he enters into the supreme undecaying Âtman, the supporter of the universe, as the reflected image of the sun, etc., in water enters into the sun, etc.
शुभ्रमक्षरं वेदयते यस्तु सोम्य । स सर्वज्ञः सर्वो भवति
तदेष श्लोकः ॥ १०॥
paramevākśaraṃ pratipadyate sa yo ha vai
tadacchāyamaśarīramlohitaṃ
śubhramakśaraṃ vedayate yastu somya | sa sarvajñaḥ sarvo bhavati
tadeṣa ślokaḥ || 10 ||
The supreme, undecaying one, he surely attains. Who knows that, shadowless, bodiless, devoid of attributes, pure and undecaying. Who knows that good-looking youth! becomes omniscient and becomes all. There is this verse.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—The fruits of one who realises the oneness of the âtman are stated. He surely attains the supreme, undecaying âtman, hereafter described. He who being freed from all desires, knows that, shadowless, i.e., free from Tamas or ignorance, bodiless, i.e., devoid of body subject to conditions of name, form, etc., alôhitam, i.e., devoid of all gunas (attributes) such as Rajas; because thus, therefore, pure; undecaying, because devoid of all attributes the eternal known as purusha having no Prâna, not perceivable by the mind, bliss in its nature and free from all misery, existing without and within all, unborn. Who renounces everything, good-looking youth! there can be nothing which is not known by him. Owing to ignorance he was not omniscient before; subsequently, by the removal of ignorance, by knowledge, he becomes all. The following verse briefly conveys the drift stated.
Who knows, good-looking youth ! the undecaying Âtman in whom the knowing self with all the dêvâs, the Prânas, and the five elements are centred. He, the omniscient, enters, indeed, into all.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Who knows good-looking youth! the undecaying Âtman, into which the knowing self with alt the Dêvâs, such as fire and the rest, the Prânas, i.e., the eye and the rest and the Bhûtâs, such as the earth, etc., enter; he being omniscient enters, indeed, into all.
atha hainaṃ saibyaḥ satyakāmaḥ papraccha | sa yo ha
vai tabhdagavanmanuṣyeṣu prāyaṇāntamoṅkāramabhidhyāyīta
katamaṃ vāva sa tena lokaṃ jayatīti
tasmai sa hovāca || 1 ||
Then, Satyakâma, son of Sibi, questioned him:- “Oh Bhagavan! what world does he, who among mortals meditates on ‘Om’ till death, win by that?” To him he replied.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com,—Satyakâma, son of Sibi, questioned him. Now the Prasna is begun for the purpose of enjoining the worship of the syllable ‘Om,’ as a means to the attainment of the Para (higher) and Apara (lower) Brahman, Oh Bhagavan. Who among mortals, like a wonder, until death meditates upon the syllable ‘Om,’ (the word meditation is the continuous contemplation as Âtman of the letter ‘Om’ regarded as Brahman by courtesy, by one whose senses are turned away from external objects and whose mind is composed, the course of such meditation not being vitiated by other or dissimilar states of consciousness and being ready like the flame of a lamp in an airless place). Who thus maintains a vow for life and combines in him truth, abstinence from sexual pleasures, abstinence from cruelty, absence of acceptance, renunciation, sanyâsam, cleanliness, cheerfulness, absence of fraud and many other kinds of forbearance and religious observance. What world, for there are many worlds to be won by worship and karma, does he attain by thus meditating on ‘Om.’ To him who had thus questioned, he, Pippalâda replied.
The syllable ‘Om’ is verily the higher and lower Brahman. Therefore, the knower, by this means, surely reaches either of them.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—This Brahman—the higher Brahman, true, undecaying, known as Purusha, and the lower Brahman known as Prâna, the first-born—is, indeed, the syllable ‘Om’; for, the syllable ‘Om’ is its Pratika, substitute. The higher Brahman, not capable of being indicated by words, etc., and devoid of all distinguishing attributes, is, therefore, being beyond the reach of the senses, incapable of being comprehended by the mere mind. But to those worshippers who contemplate on the syllable ‘Om’ as upon the image of Vishnu, etc., and regard it as a substitute for Brahman, the Para Brahman is understood to reveal itself, from the authority of the sâstrâs; so too the lower Brahman. Therefore, it is by courtesy, that Brahman, the higher and the lower, is said to be the syllable ‘Om.’ Therefore, he who knows thus, attains either the higher or the lower Brahman, by this very means to the attainment of the âtman, i.e., by the meditation on ‘Om.’ For the syllable ‘Om’ is the nearest stay of Brahman.
If he meditate on one mâtra (measure) of it, he, by that enlightened, soon comes to earth. The riks conduct him to the world of men. He, there combined with tapas, Brahmacharya and faith, experiences greatness.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Though he may not know the division of all the mâtras (measures) of the syllable ‘Om’, still he surely reaches the excellent goal by virtue of the meditation on the syllable ‘Om’. One who depends entirely on the syllable ‘Om’ does not, by the defect of a partial knowledge of it, attain evil, as one, who has fallen from both karma and knowledge. Even if he constantly meditates on ‘Om’ knowing it only as one mâtra, he enlightened by that meditation of ‘Om,’ with only one mâtra, soon reaches the earth. What? The world of men; for, many are the births possible in this earth. Of these, the riks take the worshipper only to the world of men. The first only mâtra of the letter ‘Om’ meditated on is the Rig Veda. By that, in his birth as man, he becomes pre-eminent among the twice-born and combining tapas, Brahmacharya and faith experiences greatness, i.e., does not become an unbeliever, acting according to pleasure. One who has fallen from yôga never attains a bad goal. Note.—By the meditation of ‘Om,’ as one mâtra, some mean the meditation on the letter ‘A’ alone of the syllable. Others again, take it to mean the contemplation on the whole syllable ‘Om,’ but pre-eminence being given only to one mâtra.
sa somaloke vibhutimanubhūya punarāvartate || 4 ||
But if he meditates on its second mâtra only, he becomes one with mind. He is conducted into intermediate space—the world of the moon—by yajus. Having enjoyed greatness there, he returns again.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Now again, if he meditates on the syllable ‘Om,’ by its second mâtra, he becomes one with the moon, of the nature of dreams, in the form of Yajur Vêda, worthy of meditation. Thus become immortal] is taken by the yajus representing the second mâtra to the lunar world, the support of antariksha,. intermediate space, and representing the second mâtra. The meaning is that he is taken by the yajus to be born in the lunar world. Haying there, in the lunar world, enjoyed greatness returns again to the world of men.
But if he meditates on the supreme Purusha by this very letter ‘Om,’ of three mâtras, he becomes united with the bright sun. Just as the snake puts off its skin, even so he is freed from sin. He is conducted by sâma to the world of Brahma. He sees the supreme Purusha beyond this, dense with life and lodged in the heart of all. There are the two following verses.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—But he who meditates upon the supreme Purusha within the sun, by this pratîka, i.e., substitute, i.e., by the syllable ‘Om’ with the knowledge that it is of three mâtras, by such meditation becomes united with the sun. According to the context, the syllable ‘Om’ must be taken to be a help, being a Pratîka or substitute, from the declaration of its identity with the Brahman, higher and lower, according to the sruti. Otherwise, the accusative case of ‘Om’ used in many places, will be objectionable. Though by the use of the third case, the syllable ‘Om’ may be understood as a kârana, i.e., instrument, still agreeably to the context, it must be read as if in the accusative case, the meaning then being, ‘let one meditate upon the syllable of three mâtras as the supreme Purusha.’ According to the maxim ‘you may abandon one for the benefit of a whole family’ the instrumental case should be here given up for the accusative case used in previous passages. By such meditation, he becomes united with the bright sun. Then, even if he dies while meditating, he does not return from the solar world as from the lunar, but is for ever united with the sun. Just as the snake puts off its skin and becomes new again, its skin having been peeled off, so—as in this illustration—this man being freed from the impurity of sin, analogous to the skin, is conducted up, by the sâmans representing the third mâtra, to the world of Brahma, i.e., Hiranyagarbha called Satya. He, Hiranyagarbha is the âtman of all the jîvas travelling in samsâra; for, he is the internal âtman of all living beings in the subtle form; and in him the subtle âtman are all the jîvas strung together. So he is jîvaghana (dense with lives). The knower of the syllable ‘Om’ of the three mâtras sees the Purusha called Paramâtman beyond this Hiranyagarbha and sees him by meditation as lodged in all bodies. The following two verses make the drift stated clear.
When the three mâtras, each of which leads to death by itself, are joined one to another in close union and used in well-performed actions, external, internal and intermediate, the knower does not shake.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—The mâtras of the syllable ‘Om’ three in number, i.e., a, u, and m are subject to death; that is, are not beyond the pale of death; but when used in meditating on the âtman in combination, the syllable ‘Om,’ with the three mâtras, being used at the time of contemplation by the worshipper, in respect of every one of the three aspects of Brahman. Contemplated, i.e., the Vaisvânara or Visva representing the waking condition, the Hiranyagarbha or Taijasa representing the dreaming condition and the Isvara or Prâgna representing the sleeping condition, the person meditating who knows this division of the mâtras of ‘Om’ does not shake. One who knows this, cannot possibly be shaken; because, the Purushas representing the waking, dreaming and sleeping states, with their respective places, are seen as one, with the letter ‘Om’ of three mâtras; such a knower having become the Âtman of all and one with ‘Om’ from whence could he move and where?
By riks this world, by yajus the antariksha and by sâman that which the seers know (the Brahmalôka); by the very aid of the letter ‘Om,’ the knower reaches these and also that which is quiet, undecaying, deathless, fearless and supreme.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—The second verse is intended to state the whole drift briefly. By riks this world where men live, by yajus, the antariksha, i.e., the world presided over by the moon. By sâma that which the knowers alone and not the ignorant know as the third world, the world of Brahma. This threefold world, pertaining to the lower Brahman the knower reaches by the help of the syllable ‘0m.’ That, i.e., the highest Brahman, undecaying, true, called Purusha, quiet, i.e., devoid of all the characteristics of the universe, such as waking, dreaming, sleeping, etc., therefore undecaying, i.e., free from old age or decay, deathless, fearless, because devoid of decay and modification and supreme, i.e., unsurpassable because fearless, even that, by the syllable ‘Om,’ a help to that attainment, the knower reaches. The word iti is used to show that the sentence ends.
sa tūṣṇīṃ rathamāruhya pravavrāja | taṃ tvā pṛcchāmi kvāsau
puruṣa iti || 1 ||
Then Sukêsa, son of Bhâradvâja questioned him “Oh Bhagavan, Hiranyagarbha of Kôsala, son of a king, approached me and asked me this question ‘Oh Bhâradvâja, knowest thou the Purusha of sixteen kalâs (parts)?’ I replied to the lad ‘I know this not, if I knew him, how should I not tell thee? He who utters a falsehood is certainly dried up, root and all; therefore, I dare not utter falsehood.’ He got into the chariot and went away in silence. That I ask you. Where is that Purusha?”
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Then Sukêsa, son of Bhâradvâja questioned him:- “It has been stated that all the universe in the nature of effects and causes, together with the knowing self, enters into the supreme, undecaying self, during sleep. It will be clear by necessary implication that the whole universe enters into that undecaying âtman alone, even in pralaya and that it is produced from thence. For, the absorption an effect into what is not its cause is inappropriate. It has also been said that this Prâna is born of the âtman. The settled meaning of all the Upanishads is that the highest consummation results from the knowledge of that which is the cause of the universe. It has also been subsequently said ‘he, all-knowing, becomes all.’ It should be stated where then that undecaying, true âtman, known as Purusha, is to be known; for that purpose, this question is asked.” The recital of the anecdote is for the purpose of stimulating those, who wish for emancipation, to special activity, in attaining knowledge by proclaiming the difficulty of attaining it. “Oh Bhagavan! the son of a king, warrior by caste, born in Kôsala, and named Hiranyagarbha approached me and asked me the following questions:- ‘Oh Bhâradvâja, do you know the Purusha of sixteen kalâs, that is the Purusha in whom, the kalâs, i.e., parts as it were, sixteen in number, are superposed by ignorance.” I told the prince who questioned me ‘I know not him of whom you ask.’ I told him the reason of my ignorance as he did not believe that I was ignorant, though I had thus replied. ‘If at all I knew the Purusha, whom you ask about, how should I not tell it to you, a supplicant, eminently possessing the qualities of a true disciple?’ Seeing again that he did not appear to believe, I said to make him believe, ‘he who making his âtman what it is not, speaks what is not true, is dried up, root and all, i.e., is destroyed both in this world and in the next. As I know this, I dare not, like an ignorant man, speak an untruth.’ The prince thus made to believe, silently touched with shame, got into the chariot and went back the way he came. Therefore, it is established that knowledge should be imparted by the knower to one who has approached him duly and is worthy of it (knowledge); and that falsehood should not be uttered under any circumstances. I ask you about that Purusha who is in my heart, as a knowable, i.e., (being unknown) like a shaft. Where is this Purusha who should be known?
tasmai sa hovāca | ihaiivāntaḥśarīre sobhya sa puruṣo
yasminnatāḥ ṣoḍaśakalāḥ prabhavantīti || 2 ||
To him he replied:- ‘even here, within the body, good-looking youth! is that Purusha of whom these sixteen kalâs are born.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—To him he replied:- ‘even here, within the body, i.e., in the âkâsa of the lotus of the heart, O good-looking youth! is that Purusha to be sought for not in other places; of whom these sixteen kalâs, to be hereafter named, Prâna and the rest are born. By ignorance, the Purusha though devoid of parts, is seen as one having parts, by virtue of the sixteen kalâs which are its conditions. In order that the Purusha may be seen as unconditioned, by means of knowledge and by the elimination of the kalâs, which are conditions super-imposed upon him, it is said that the kalâs, prâna, etc., have their origin in him. As it is not possible, except by superposition to speak of the unconditioned, the one and the pure entity as attainable, etc., the origin, the support, and the destruction of kalâs, subject of ignorance, are superimposed upon it. It is always seen that the kalâs, which are observed to arise, exist and disappear, are not different from intelligence. It is why some ignorant persons maintain that intelligence is every moment born and destroyed in the form of pot, etc., as the ghee by its contact with fire. Some others hold that when it is controlled, everything is void as it were. Some others think that the knowledge of pots, etc., is an ephemeral property which rises and disappears in the eternal knower who is the Âtman. The materialists hold that intelligence is an attribute of matter; the true theory is that the âtman is intelligence itself, knowing no diminution or decay, and shines in assumed conditions of name and form; for, the srutis say “Brahman is existence, knowledge and infinity”; “Brahman is knowledge; Brahman is knowledge and bliss.” He is dense with knowledge, &c. While the objects change their form, the intelligence which cognises them in their various changes, does not change, as it cognises every change in the objects. It cannot be said that there exists an object but it cannot be known. It is like saying that there is no eye, although the form is apprehended. Knowledge may exist, where there is no object to be known; but the object never exists without knowledge; for, knowledge if it does not exist, with reference to any particular knowable, exists in regard to other knowables; but where there is no knowledge, there can be no knowable. As there is neither knowledge nor knowable in sleep, it may be contended that even knowledge disappears where there are no knowable objects. This cannot be. As the function of knowledge, like that of light, is to illumine the knowable, it cannot be inferred that there is no knowledge in sleep, as there is no knowable to be illumined by it, as the absence of light cannot be argued from the absence of objects which it could illumine; for, the non-existence of sight cannot be argued by the Vainâsikas from the fact that no form is seen in the midst of darkness. It may be urged that the Vainâsika postulates the absence of knowledge in the absence of the knowable. But the Vainâsika must reply by what process he could argue out the absence of that knowledge, by which he was able to posit the absence of all knowables. The absence of the knowable, being itself a fact to be known, it cannot be known in the absence of knowledge. It may be argued that as knowledge is not distinct from the knowable, there can be no knowledge where there is no knowable. This cannot hold, as it is admitted, that abhâva (non-existence) is as much a knowable. The Vainâsikas concede that abhâva (non-existence) is permanent and knowable. If, therefore, knowledge is not distinct from the knowable, knowledge will be made permanent. As the non-existence (abhâva) of knowables is ex hypothesi of the nature of knowledge, the term ‘non-existence’ is only a misnomer, not a reality; as also the transient nature of knowledge. There is no harm done to knowledge which is permanent by its being verbally described as non-existence, i.e., abhâva. If it be said that though non-existence, i.e., abhâva is knowable, it is distinct from knowledge; then, it comes to this, that absence of knowledge does not follow from absence of all knowables. It may be urged that the knowable is distinct from knowledge, but that knowledge is not distinct from knowable. But this statement is merely one of words. If the identity of the knowable and knowledge is conceded, it is mere word to say that the knowable is distinct from knowledge, and that knowledge is not distinct from knowable, as is the statement that vahni (fire) is distinct from agni (fire), though agni is not distinct from vahni. If knowledge is distinct from the knowable, the statement is inappropriate, that where there is no knowable, there is no knowledge. Nor can it be said that where there is no knowable there is no knowledge, as it is not perceived; for, they concede that in sleep knowledge exists. It is well-known that Vainâsikas admit the existence of knowledge even in sleep. But the existence of a knowable is also admitted. If it be said that in that case, knowledge is knowable by itself, we say ‘no’; for, the distinction between knowledge and knowable exists then. As the knowledge which perceives the non-existence of all things is distinct from the non-existence of the things themselves, the distinction between knowledge and knowable is inevitable even then; and a hundred Vainâsikas cannot get over this objection and make knowledge itself a knowable, as surely as they cannot revive a dead man. It may be objected that, according to our theory, one knowledge has to be known by another and so on without limit. We answer ‘no’:- for, all things can be classified as ‘knowledge’ and ‘knowable,’ and those that are not Vainâsikas concede only a two-fold classification of ‘knowledge’ and ‘knowable,’ and do not admit a third knowledge, which perceives the other knowledge. It may be contended, if knowledge could not know itself, there can be no omniscience. We answer, ‘let that blame attach to the Vainâsikas themselves.’ We gain nothing by refuting that objection. Not only this, their theory is vitiated by the absence of finality; for, according to them knowledge is know-able by another knowledge. If knowledge, therefore, cannot know itself, then the objection of the absence of finality to their theory is irrefutable. If it be urged that this fault is observable alike in our theory also, we say ‘no’; for, according to us knowledge is one. Knowledge which is one in all places, times and men, is reflected and seen diverse, in diverse conditions of name and form, as the sun, etc., is seen when reflected in water, etc. Therefore, the above-named objection has no force; and so, the following is here stated. Nor could it be contended that from the sruti here, that the Purusha is limited within our body, like an apple in a pit; because the Purusha is the cause of Prâna and other kalâs. For, the Purusha limited by the body alone cannot be understood to be the cause of kalâs, such as Prâna, Sraddhâ, etc.; for, the body itself is produced by kalâs. This body produced by kalâs which have their origin in Purusha cannot contain within it, as an apple within the pit, the Purusha who is the cause of its cause. It may be urged that on the analogy of the seed and tree, this is quite possible. As the tree of which the seed is the cause, yields fruits containing within them, the seed, the cause of their cause, (for instance, the mango fruit), it may be urged that similarly the body may contain within it the Purusha which is the cause of its cause. This cannot be for a two-fold reason, i.e., difference and divisibility. In the illustration, the seeds contained in the fruits are different from those which produced the tree. In the case to which the analogy is sought to be applied, the same Purusha who is the cause of the cause of the body is said, by the srutis, to be contained within the body. Again, as the seed and the tree are composed of parts, the relation of the container and the contained may there obtain. But here, the Purusha is one and indivisible; and the kaìâs and the body are both composed of parts. From this, it follows that the body cannot contain even the âkâsa. How can it then contain the Purusha, the cause of the âkâsa? Therefore, the analogy is false. It may be urged:- ‘Let go the analogy, we have the text.’ We answer that texts cannot make and unmake things. The office of the texts is not to metamorphose existing things, but only to make existing things clear. So, the passage, which says that the Purusha i s within the body, must be construed, just in the same way as the passage which says that the âkâsa is within the globe. Besides, the statement that the Purusha is within the body, is intended to serve as a help to his realization; for, in our experience the Purusha is realized as if within the body, by the process of seeing, hearing, thinking, knowing, etc. Therefore, it is said, that Purusha is within the body. Even a fool will not allow himself to say, even in his mind, that the Purusha who is the cause of the âkâsa is really within the body, as the apple is within the pit. Much less would the authoritative sruti say so.
स ईक्षाञ्चक्रे कस्मिन्नहमुत्क्रान्त उत्क्रान्तो भविष्यामि
कस्मिन्वा प्रतिष्ठिते प्रतिष्ठस्यामीति ॥ ३॥
sa īkśācakre | kasminnahamutkrānta utkrānto bhaviṣyāmi
kasmit vā pratiṣṭite pratiṣṭasyāmīti || 3 ||
He thought, ‘what going out, shall I go out; or, what staying shall I stay?’
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—The kalâs were stated to have their origin in Purusha in order that the Purusha may be distinctly described. In what order these kalâs come out of their origin was stated for another purpose. That the creation was preceded by intelligence is shown by this statement, i.e., the Purusha of sixteen kalâs, asked for by Bhâradvâja ‘saw,’ i.e., ‘thought.’ The fruit and order of creation are thus explained. On what agent going out of my body I myself will be going out. On what staying in the body, I myself shall stay. Herein, it is objected, that the Âtman is not the creator, and that Pradhâna or Prakriti is the creator. Prakriti, therefore, converts itself into mahat and other forms, for the benefit of the Purusha. It does not stand to reason to say that the Purusha created the universe by his thought of himself; while there is the Prakriti, the state of equilibrium of the three Gunas, satva, etc., competent according to recognised authorities, to create the world; or, while there are the atoms, acting agreeably to the divine will; because, the Âtman being one, has not the necessary materials to create the universe, and further, to attribute creation to the Âtman, is to make the Âtman the author of evils to himself. For, no intelligent being, it is well-known, will do anything to his own trouble. Therefore, the assertion he saw, (thought), etc., is meant to dignify the unintelligent creator Prakriti into an intelligent entity, seeing how the Prakriti in view to bene lit the Purusha acts in an established order, as if possessed of intelligence. The Purusha is said to create, just as a king is said to do things, when the king’s factotum does all. This contention has no force. It is equally appropriate to view the Âtman as the creator of the universe, as to look upon him as the enjoyer. As, according to the Sânkhya, the Âtman which is mere intelligence and not liable to any change can, be the enjoyer, so according to the follower of the Vêdâs, he can be also the author of creation preceded by thought; for, there is the authority of the sruti on the point. It is urged that, if the Âtman is transformed into a diligent entity, it must be subject to the faults of transiency, impurity and diversity; but where there is a mere change in the intelligence of the Âtman, as during enjoyment, without a change of entity, there can be no fault. It is also urged that in the case of the followers of the Vêdâs who attribute to the Âtman the function of the creation of the universe, they make the Âtman transient and subject to such other faults, by attributing to him a change of entities. This objection is not sound; for, it is admitted that the Âtman has two aspects, one unconditioned and the other assuming distinguishing conditions of name and form imposed upon it by ignorance (avidyâ). The aspect of the Âtman well-known to be the result of the conditions of name and form, due to ignorance, is admitted, only because it is talked about in the sâstras which deal with the so-called bondage and the emancipation of the âtman. But the entity, in its real nature, is unconditioned, one without a second, incomprehensible to the intellect of all logicians, fearless and pure. It cannot, therefore, be the creator or enjoyer, nor could there be actions, agent or fruit, with reference to it. For, everything is identical with the Âtman. But the Sânkhyas who found that creation, act, agent and fruits were all super-imposed upon the Purusha, by ignorance (avidyâ) recoiled from their position, because of their non-allegiance to the sâstras, and postulated that the Purusha is really the enjoyer. They postulated also the existence of Prakriti, as an entity really distinct from the Purusha and have been overcome by the reasonings of other logicians; similarly, have other logicians been overcome by the Sânkhyas. Thus engaged in supporting conflicting theories and fighting each other like creatures, striving to get at the same piece of flesh, they have all of them been continually drawn away from the truth finding the authorities against each other. In order that those desirous of emancipation may disregard all their theories and strive with zeal to realize the true drift of the Vêdânta, i.e., universal identity, we point out the flaws in the theory of the logicians but we do not do it in the spirit of a logician. It has been accordingly observed ‘having left the causes of all disputes to other disputants, the knower of the Vêdâs, with his intelligence well protected by them, reposes in happiness.’ Again, there is no difference in the nature of the changes required to make the Purusha the creator and the enjoyer respectively. What is that kind or change which would support the theory that the Purusha could be said to be only the enjoyer but not the creator and the Pradhâna to be only the creator and not the enjoyer. It was said that the intelligent Âtman changes in itself and enjoys but is not converted to anything distinct from itself; whereas Prakriti is converted into different entities and thus acquires the characters of diversity, impurity and dullness, but not so Purusha. To this we answer that this is really no distinction, being purely verbal. If it be urged that the Âtman, which is purely intelligent, undergoes a change when the time of enjoyment comes and that when the enjoyment is over, it gives up the change becoming purely intelligent again, it may be said similarly that Prakriti is changed into forms, like mahat, withdraws itself from them, and becomes Prakriti again, and the distinction in respect of the changes undergone by Purusha, and Pradhâna is, therefore, verbal. If it be urged that even during the time of enjoyment, the Purusha is purely intelligent as before it, then it is plain that the enjoyment attributed to the Purusha is not real. If it be urged that the intelligent Purusha undergoes real change during enjoyment and enjoys by means of that change, this enjoyment may be attributed to Pradhâna as well, seeing that it also undergoes change during enjoyment. If it be urged that the change in the intelligence of Purusha alone is enjoyment, we see no reason why fire, etc., which possess special attributes such as heat, etc., are not said to enjoy. Nor could it be said that Pradhâna and Purusha enjoy simultaneously; for, it would be then inappropriate to hold that Pradhâna is working for another. It is well-known that of two enjoyers, one cannot be dependent upon the other as chief, in the same way that two lights cannot be, in enlightening each other. If it be said that the reflection of the intelligence of the Purusha in the mind, which is essentially sâtvic in its nature and has the attribute of enjoyment, is what is meant by the capacity to enjoy, of the Purusha which is really not subject to any modification, we say ‘no’; for, if such capacity does not affect the Purusha, the making him the enjoyer is meaningless. If the misery of enjoyment does not attach to the Purusha, he being always devoid of changes, to remove what, is the sâstra leading to emancipation made? If it be said that the sâstra is made to remove the evil, merely superposed by ignorance, on the Purusha, then the theory that Purusha is really the enjoyer alone, not creator, that Pradhâna is the creator alone, not enjoyer; that there is a real and distinct entity other than the Purusha should not be respected by those wishing for emancipation, as it is unsupported by âgamas, superfluous and unreasonable. If it be urged that even if there were but one entity, i.e., the Âtman, the compiling of the sâstra is superfluous, we say ‘no.’ There is no such defect. The alternative doubt, whether the compilation of the sâstras is superfluous or otherwise, can arise only if there be those who compose the sâstras and those who seek its fruits. If the Âtman were one, there can be no composer of the sâstras, etc., different from that. In their absence, this alternative question is itself inappropriate. When the oneness of the Âtman is admitted, the use of the sâstras is also admitted by you. When that is admitted, the sruti points out the inappropriateness of the alternative supposition. ‘But, where to him all becomes surely Âtman, there who could see what and by whom, etc.’ The appropriateness of compiling the sâstra is also pointed out, when Sealing from the standpoint of ignorance, without the knowledge of the real existing entity. Thus at length, in the Vâjasanêyaka ‘where he sees as if quality exists, etc.’ In this Atharvamantrôpanishad also, a division of the sâstra is made at the very beginning, as that relating to Parâ (higher) Vidyâ and to Apara (lower) Vidyâ. Therefore, there is no scope for the army of the arguments of logicians entering into this domain of oneness of the Âtman well-guarded by the hand of the royal authority of Vêdânta. By this, it must be understood that the fault of ‘want of materials’ in creating, pointed out in the Brahman by others, has been refuted, as the Brahman appears possessed of a diversity of many powers and means, due to conditions of name and form produced by ignorance; as also the objection that the âtman brings misery on itself, etc. As for the illustration that the king is by courtesy called the doer, when the king’s factotum is the real doer, that is not here in point. For, then, the primary import of the authoritative sruti ‘he saw, etc.,’ will be affected. Where the primary meaning of a word cannot be possibly accepted, there alone is a secondary meaning allowed. But here to say that a non-intelligent thing puts forth well-regulated activity in the cause of Purusha taking note of persons emancipated and bound, of doer, deed, place, time and causes and for the purposes of securing such results as bondage, emancipation, etc., does not stand to reason. But on the view already stated that the omniscient lord is the creator, this stands to reason.
sa prāṇamasṛjata prāṇācchraddhāṃ khaṃ vāyurjyotirāpaḥ
pṛthivīndriyaṃ manaḥ annamannādvīryaṃ tapo mantrāḥ karmalokā
lokeṣu ca nāma ca || 4 ||
He created Prâna; from Prâna faith, âkâsa, air, fire, water, earth, senses, mind and food; and from food, strength, contemplation, mantrâs, karma and worlds; and in worlds name also.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—By the Purusha, i.e., Isvara alone, is Prâna the chief functionary created. How? He, the Purusha by seeing, i.e., contemplating as explained, created Prâna called Hiranyagarbha, the support of the active instruments of all living beings and the internal Âtman of all. From Prâna, he created faith, which is the stimulus for all living beings, to perform good karma. Then he created the great Bhûtâs which help to the enjoyment of the fruits of karma in here and which are causes in themselves; the âkâsa having the attribute of sound; air having two attributes, its own—touch—and that of its cause; so, fire having three attributes, its own—form—and the two previous—sound and touch; so, water having four attributes, its own peculiar one—taste—and the three previously named; so, earth having five attributes, its own—smell—combined with the previous four; so the senses formed by these, ‘Bhûtâs (rudiments) ten in number, of two classes—intelligent and active; the mind, lord of these, situate within and characterised by doubt and volition. Having thus created for living beings the effects and causes, he created for their support food consisting of grain, corn, etc.; from the food eaten, efficiency—strength—a help towards the performance of all karma; and for the living beings having such strength, and being led astray from virtue, tapas contemplation—a help to the purification of the mind. Mantras, for those whose internal and external senses have been purified by tapas, the Riks, Yajus, Sâma, Atharva and Angirasa mantrâs, helps to karma from them karma consisting in agnihôtra, etc.; from them, worlds, fruits of karma; and of living beings therein created, names, such as Dêvadatta, Yagnadatta, etc.; thus all these kalâs created with the aid of the seed, the faults of ignorance, etc., in living beings, as the vision of the double moon, gnats, fly, etc., created by the pressure of the finger on the eyes, and as the vision of all objects created in dreams, are again absorbed into Him alone, having dropped all distinctions of name and form.
procyate sa eṣo'kalo'mṛto bhavati tadeṣa ślokaḥ || 5 ||
Just as these rivers flowing towards the sea, their goal, having reached the sea, disappear, their name and form are destroyed and all is called sea; so of him that sees the Purusha around, the sixteen kalâs whose goal is the Purusha, having reached Purusha, disappear; their name and form are destroyed and all is called, Purusha alone. He becomes devoid of parts and immortal. There is this verse.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—How is that illustrated? Just as in this world, these rivers flowing, whose goal is the sea, having reached the sea, suffer a disappearance of their name and form, and when they so disappear their name and form as the Ganges, the Jumna, etc., disappear, and in the absence of all distinction is called ‘the sea,’ and expanse of water; as in this illustration, so of the seer who sees around the Purusha already described treated of here and who has become the self (the active agent ‘seer’ is here used, as the sun is said to be the giver of light everywhere, although his form is light itself) the sixteen kalâs, Prâna and the rest already described, whose goal is Purusha, as the sea is of the rivers, having reached Purusha, i.e., being absorbed into Purusha, disappear; accordingly, their name and form, i.e., their name as Prâna, etc., and their distinct nature are destroyed. The entity that survives understroyed when name and form are destroyed is called Purusha by the knowers of Brahman. He who knows thus, being instructed by the preceptor, how the kalâs are absorbed, becomes devoid of kalâs, when the kalâs produced by ignorance, desire, and karma have been absorbed by knowledge, and becomes immortal, the kalâs produced by ignorance, the cause of death, having been destroyed. To convey that drift is the following verse.
taṃ vedhyaṃ puruṣaṃ veda yatha mā vo mṛtyuḥ parivyathā iti || 6 ||
Know that knowable Purusha in whom the kalâs are centred like spokes in the nave of a wheel. So, death, may not harm you.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—As the spokes of a wheel are centred in the nave of the wheel, and depend on it, so the kalâs, Prâna, etc., are centred in the Purusha during their creation, support and destruction. Know that Purusha the Âtman of all kalâs, worthy to be known (Purusha, because he is all-pervading, or because he stays in the heart); so, O disciples! death may not harm you. If the Purusha be not known, you will certainly become miserable, subject to the grief caused by death. The drift is that it may not so befall them.
ते तमर्चयन्तस्त्वं हि नः पिता योऽस्माकमविद्यायाः परं पारं तारयसीति ।
नमः परमऋषिभ्यो नमः परमऋषिभ्यः ॥ ८॥
इति प्रश्नोपनिषदि षष्ठः प्रश्नः ॥
te tamarcayantastvaṃ hi naḥ pitā yo'smākamavidhyāyāḥ paraṃ paraṃ tārayasīti |
namaḥ paramaṛṣibhyo namaḥ paramaṛṣibhyaḥ || 8 ||
They worshipping him, said:- ‘you are our father who helps us to cross to the other shore of ignorance; adoration to the great sages; adoration to the great sages.’
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Having thus instructed them, Pippalâda said to them:- “Thus far, I know the supreme Brahman worthy to be known. There is nothing beyond this, more excellent or worthy to be known. This he said to remove any doubt in the minds of disciples, that there was yet something not known and to produce a belief in their minds that their object had been accomplished. Then, what did the disciples instructed by the preceptor, their purpose accomplished and finding no return for knowledge received, do for their preceptor is explained. They worshipped him by throwing handfuls of flowers at his feet and by prostrating before him. What they said is stated:- ‘You are our father; because, you are the creator, by giving us knowledge of the Brahman—body, eternal, undecaying, deathless and fearless as it were—because you alone have helped us to cross by means of the boat of knowledge to the other shore (supreme emancipation characterised by the absence of return to samsâra) of the ocean of ignorance consisting in perverse knowledge and infested by such evils as birth, old age, death, sickness, misery, etc.; your being our father is more appropriate than others.’ Even that other father who creates the mere physical body is still to be worshipped most of all, in the world. What need be said of him who confers thorough immunity from fear?” This is the drift. Adoration to the great sages who transmitted the knowledge of Brahman. Adoration to the great sages. The repetition indicates regard.
The Mundaka Upanishad presents a clear distinction between lower knowledge of the material world and higher knowledge of Brahman. Through poetic teachings, it guides the seeker from ritual-based practices toward direct realization of the Self, emphasizing that true liberation comes through knowledge alone.
Editorial Note:
The Mundaka Upanishad is a beautifully structured philosophical text,
presented as a dialogue between Angira Rishi and his disciple Saunaka.
It is known for its clear teaching style, especially its distinction between
two types of knowledge:
Lower Knowledge (Apara Vidya) - knowledge of the material world, rituals,
scriptures, and external practices
Higher Knowledge (Para Vidya) - knowledge of Brahman, the ultimate
reality, which leads to liberation
This Upanishad strongly emphasizes that true freedom comes through knowledge,
not rituals alone.
Structure of the Text
The Mundaka Upanishad is divided into three Mundakams (parts), each further
divided into two sections (khandas):
First Mundakam - Knowledge Defined
Section 1.1 (9 verses) Introduces higher and lower knowledge.
Section 1.2 (13 verses) Explains the limitations of rituals and external practices.
Second Mundakam - Nature of Reality
Section 2.1 (10 verses) Describes Brahman as the source of all creation.
Section 2.2 (11 verses) Explains the relationship between the world, the Self, and Brahman.
Third Mundakam - Realization
Section 3.1 (10 verses) Describes the path to realizing Brahman.
Section 3.2 (11 verses) Explains the state of liberation - freedom, fearlessness, and bliss.
Flow of Ideas
The teaching progresses in a logical and practical way:
Understanding Knowledge - Difference between lower and higher knowledge
Knowing Brahman - Understanding the source of all existence
Path to Realization - Turning inward toward the Self
Final State - Freedom and complete peace
Core Philosophical Teachings
Two Types of Knowledge Lower knowledge helps in understanding the world, but higher knowledge leads
to liberation.
Limitations of Rituals External actions like sacrifices and offerings cannot remove ignorance.
Nature of Brahman Brahman is beyond senses, mind, and intellect, yet is the source of
everything.
Unity of Atman and Brahman The inner Self and ultimate reality are one.
State of Liberation Realization brings:
Freedom from fear
Inner peace
Self-sufficiency
Bliss
Simple Summary (For Easy Understanding)
The Mundaka Upanishad explains that there are two kinds of learning.
One is about the world - books, rituals, and knowledge of things around us. The
other is about understanding the ultimate truth, which cannot be seen or
touched.
It teaches that just performing rituals or good actions is not enough to solve
life’s deeper problems.
To truly understand life, we need to know Brahman, the reality behind
everything.
The Upanishad guides us step by step - from learning, to questioning, to finally
realizing that the truth is within us.
In the end, it says that the person who knows this truth becomes free from fear,
full of peace, and completely satisfied.
This edition presents the original Sanskrit text with IAST transliteration,
along with translation and commentary based on the Advaita Vedanta tradition of
Shankaracharya, translated by S. Sitarama Sastri (1905).
sa brahmavidyāṃ sarvavidyāpratiṣṭhāmatharvāya jyeṣṭhaputrāya prāha || 1 ||
Brahma was the first among the Devas, the creator of the universe, the protector of the world. He taught the knowledge of Brahman, on which all knowledge rests, to his eldest son Atharva.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—The word “Brahma” means “much grown,” “great”, as excelling all others in virtue, knowledge, freedom from desires and power. The word Devanam means Indra and others, literally, those possessing “enlightenment.” The word ‘Prathama’ means “preeminent by attributes” or “at first.” Sambahhava means “became manifest well,” i.e., of free choice not like mortals who are born in Samsara, in consequence of their good and bad deeds; for, the Smriti says “He who is beyond the reach of the senses and cannot be grasped, etc.” Visvasya means “of the whole universe.” Karta, ‘creator Bhuvanasya, ‘of the world’ so created; gopta, ‘protector the epithets for Brahma are for eulogising the knowledge. He, i.e., Brahma whose greatness is thus celebrated. Brahma Vidyâm, ‘knowledge of the Brahman or the Paramatmam’ because it is described as knowledge ‘by which one knows the undecaying and the true Purusha that knowledge is of the Paramatman; or Brahma vidya may mean “knowledge taught by Brahma the first born.” Savva vidya pratishtam means “that on which all knowledge rests for support”; because it is the cause of the manifestation of all other knowledge; or, it may he, because the one entity to he cognized by all knowledge is only known by this; for the Sruti says “by which, what is not heard becomes heard; what is not thought of becomes thought of; and what is not known becomes known.” The expression “on which all knowledge depends” is also eulogy. He taught this knowledge to his eldest son; as Atharva was created at the beginning, in one of the numerous creations made by Brahma, he is said to be his eldest son. To him, his eldest son, he taught.
sa bhāradvājāya satyavāhāya prāha bhāradvājo'ṅgirase parāvarām || 2 ||
That knowledge of Brahman which Brahma taught to Atharva, Atharva taught to Angira in ancient days; and he taught it to one of the Bharadvaja family by name Satyavaha; and Satyavaha taught to Angiras the knowledge so descended from the greater to the less.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—That knowledge of Brahman, which Brahma taught to Atharva, the same knowledge thus acquired from Brahma, Atharva in ancient days taught to one named Angih; and this Angih taught it to one named Satyavaha of the line of the Bharadvaja; and Bharadvaja taught it to Angiras, his disciple or his son. Paravaram, because it was acquired from superior by inferior sages; or, because it permeates the subject of all knowledge, great and small; the term Praha, i.e., taught should be read into the last clause.
Saunaka, a great grihasta, having duly approached Angiras, questioned him “What is that, O Bhagavan which being known, all this becomes known.”
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Saunaka, the male issue of Sunaka. Mahasalah means “the great house-holder”; Angiras, i.e., the disciple of Bharadvaja and his own preceptor; Vidhivat means ‘duly i.e., according to the sastras; Upasannah means ‘having approached Paprachha means ‘questioned from “the approaching duly” mentioned just after the connection between Saunaka and Angiras, it should be inferred that in resect of the manner of approaching, there was no established rule among the ancients, before him. The attribute “duly” might have been intended either to fix a limit, or to apply to all alike, on the analogy of a lamp placed amidst a house; for the rule about “the manner of approaching” is intended in the case of persons like us also. What did he say? “What is that? Oh Bhagavan, etc.” The particle ‘nu’ expresses doubt. Bhagavo means ‘O Bhagavan.’ “All this” means “everything knowable.” Vijnatam means ‘specially known or understood.’ [Oh Bhagavan what is that which being known everything knowable becomes well-known]. Saunaka having heard the saying of good men that “when one is known, he becomes the knower of all,” and being desirous of knowing that one in particular, asked in doubt “what is that, etc.”; or, having seen merely from a popular view, questioned. There are in the world varieties of pieces of gold, etc., which, though different are know n by people in the world by the knowledge of the unity of the substance (gold, etc.); similarly “Is there one cause of all the varieties in the world, which cause being known, all will be well-known?” It may be said that when the existence of the thing is not known, the question “what is that, etc.,” is not appropriate and the question in the form “is there, etc.,” would then he appropriate; if the existence is established, the question may well be “what is that, etc.,” as in the expression, “With whom shall it be deposited.” The objection is unsound; the question in this form is appropriate from fear of troubling by verbosity.
To him he said “There are two sorts of knowledge to he acquired. So those who know the Brahman say; namely, Para and Apara, i.e., the higher and the lower.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Angiras said to Saunaka. What did he say? (He said) that there were two sorts of knowledge to he known. So indeed, do those who know the import of the Vedas and who see the absolute truth, say what these two sorts are; he says:- Para is the knowledge of the Paramatman and Apara is that which deals with the means and the results of good and bad actions. It may be asked how, having to say what it was that Saunaka asked about in the question—“What being known one becomes omniscient,’ Angiras stated what he was not asked about, by the passage “there are two sorts of knowledge, etc.” This is no fault; for the reply requires this order of statement. Apara vidya is ignorance and that ought to be dispelled. When what is known is Apara vidya, i.e., the subject of ignorance, nothing can be known as it is. The rule is that after thus refuting the faulty theory, the true conclusion should be stated.
शिक्षा कल्पो व्याकरणं निरुक्तं छन्दो ज्योतिषमिति ।
अथ परा यया तदक्षरमधिगम्यते ॥ ५॥
tatrāparā ṛgvedo yajurvedaḥ sāmavedo'tharvavedaḥ
śikṣā kalpo vyākaraṇaṃ niruktaṃ chando jyotiṣamiti |
atha parā yayā tadakṣaramadhigamyate || 5 ||
Of these, the Apara is the Rig Veda, the Yajur Veda, the Sama Veda, and the Atharva Veda, the siksha, the code of rituals, grammar, nirukta, chhandas and astrology. Then the para is that by which the immortal is known.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Of these, what Apara vidya is, is explained. Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda, and the Atharva Veda, these four Vedas, the siksha, the code of rituals, grammar, nirukta, chhandas and astrology, these six angas (of Vedas), all this is knowledge called Apara; now, knowledge called Para is explained. It is that by which the “immortal” as hereafter described is reached; for, the root gam, with adhi before it, generally means reach. Nor is the attainment of the highest, different from the sense of knowledge. The attainment of the highest is merely the removal of ignorance. They mean the same thing. It may he asked how that Vidya could be called para and a help to emancipation, if such Vidya be excluded by the Rig Veda, etc; for, the Smriti says “Those Smritis which are excluded by the Vedas, etc.” It will become unacceptable, because it sees wrongly and leads to no good results; and again the Upanishads will become excluded by the Rig Veda, etc., but if they are included in the Rig Veda, etc., a separate classification is useless. How then can it be called para? The objection has no force; for by the term “Vidya” is here meant the knowledge of a subject; by the term “Para vidya” is meant primarily in this context, that knowledge of the immortal which could be known through the Upanishads and not the mere assemblage of words in them; but by the term vidya is always understood the assemblage of words forming it. As the immortal cannot be realised by a mere mastery of the assemblage of words without other efforts, such as the approaching a preceptor and spurning all desires, etc., the separate classification of the knowledge of Brahman and its designation as Para vidya are proper.
That which cannot be perceived, which cannot be seized, which has no origin, which has no properties, which has neither ear nor eye, which lias neither hands nor feet, which is eternal, diversely manifested, all-pervading, extremely subtle, and undecaying, which the intelligent cognized as the source of the Bhutas.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—As in the matter of an injunction (vidhi) there is something to be clone, as of the nature of Agnihotra, etc., subsequent to the realization of its import, with the aid of many requisites (karaka.), such as the doer, etc., there is nothing here to be done in the matter of the knowledge of the Brahman. It is accomplished simultaneously with the realization of the import of the text; for, there is nothing here except being centred in the knowledge revealed by mere words. Therefore, the Para vidya is here explained with reference to Brahman, as described in the text “that which cannot be perceived, etc.”; what is to be explained is realized in the mind and referred to, as what is already known by the expression “that which”; Adresyam means ‘that cannot be perceived’, invisible, i.e., beyond the reach of all the intellectual senses; for, vision externally directed is the medium for the working of the five senses. Agrahyam means ‘that cannot be seized,’ i.e., not an object for the organs of action. Gôtram means ‘line or source’; therefore Agotram means ‘unconnected with anything,’ for it has no source with which it can be connected. Varnah means “those which are described, i.e., properties of objects such as bigness, etc., whiteness, etc.; avarnam, ‘that which has no properties’; the eye and the ear are organs found in all animals perceiving name and form. It is said to be achakshu srotram, becaus it has not these organs. From the attribute of intelligence, as inferred from the text “who knows all and everything of each”, it may be thought that it accomplishes its purpose, like people in samsara, with the aid of organs such as the eye, the ear, etc. This supposition is here avoided by the expression “having neither eye nor ear”; for the texts “he sees without eyes” and “hears without ears”, etc., are found; moreover, it has neither hands nor feet, i.e., has no organs of action; thus as it is neither grasped nor grasps, it is nitya, i.e., immortal. Vibhum, because it is diversely manifested in the form of living things from Brahma down to the immovable. Sarvagatam, i.e., all-pervading like the akas. Susukshmam, i.e., extremely subtle, because there is no cause like sound to make it gross; for, it is sound and the rest that are the causes seriatim of the greater and greater grossness of the akas, wind and the rest; as they do not exist here, it is very subtle; again, it is avyayam, i.e., undecaying, because of its being what it was just stated to be; it does not decay, therefore, it is undecaying; for decay consisting in the diminution of limbs, as in the case of a body, is not possible in what has no limbs; nor is ‘decay’ consisting in the diminution of treasure possible as in the case of a king; nor is ‘decay’ in respect of attributes possible, because it has no attributes and is itself all. Yat, answering to this description. Bhutayonim, the source of all created things or elements, as earth is of all that is immovable and movable. Paripasyanti, see everywhere the Atman of all, i.e., the immortal Dhirah, the intelligent, i.e., those possessed of discernment; that knowledge by which this immortal Brahman is known is what is called Para vidya; this is the drift of the whole.
As the spider creates and absorbs, as medicinal plants grow from the earth, as hairs grow from the living person, so this universe proceeds from the immortal.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—It was said the immortal is the source of all created things. How it is the source is explained by well-known analogies; as is well-known in the world, the spider without requiring any other cause itself creates, i. e., sends out threads not distinct from its own body and again absorbs them itself, i. e., draws them into itself or makes them part of itself; as medicinal plants, i. e., from the corn plant to the immovable, not distinct from the earth, proceed from the earth, and as from the living person the hairs proceed different in nature from him; as in these illustrations, so here, i. e., in the circle of samsara, all the universe of the same and different nature proceeds from the akshara above described, without requiring any other cause; the statement of many analogies is to facilitate easy understanding of the meaning; universe which proceeds from the Brahman proceeds in this order and not all at once, like the throwing of a handful of apples.
By tapas Brahman increases in size and from it food is produced; from food the prana, the mind, the Bhûtas the worlds, karma and with it, its fruits.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—This mantra is begun for the purpose of stating the fixed order of creation. ‘By tapas,’ by knowledge of how to create the Brahman which is the source of all created things; ‘increases,’ i. e., becomes distended, being desirous to create the world as a seed when sending out the sprout, or as a father desirous of begetting a son dilates with joy; from the Brahman thus extended by its omniscience, i. e., by its knowledge and its power of creation, preservation and destruction of the universe; Annam means ‘that which is eaten or enjoyed’, i.e., the unmanifested (avyakritam) common to all in samsara is produced in the state fit for emancipation; and from “the unmanifested”, i. e., the “Annam” in the state fit for manifestation. Prana, i. e., Hiranyagarhha, the common cosmic entity, endowed with the power of knowledge and activity of the Brahman, the sprouting seed, as it were, of the totality of cosmic ignorance, desire, karma, and creatures and the Atman of the universe. “Is produced”, should be supplied. From that prana that which is called “mind” whose characteristic is volition, deliberation, doubt, determination, etc., is produced; and from that mind whose essence is volition, etc., what is called satyam, i.e., the five elements such as the akas, etc., are produced and from the five elements called satya, the seven worlds, the earth, etc., are produced in the order of the globes; and in them karma, for the living beings, man, etc., according to caste and the order of life, is produced; and with karma as the cause, its fruits. As long as karma is not destroyed, even by hundreds of millions of kalpa, so long is its fruit not destroyed. Hence it is called Amritam.
tasmādetadbrahma nāma rūpamannaṃ ca jāyāte || 9 ||
From the Brahman who knows all and everything of all and whose tapas is in the nature of knowledge, this Brahma, name, form and food are produced.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—By way of concluding what was already stated the mantra says as follows:- ‘Yah,’ above described and named akshara; Sarvajna means he who knows all, who knows all things as a class. Sarvavid, i.e., who knows everything in particular; whose tapas is only a modification of knowledge, consists in omniscience and is not in the nature of modification. From him so described, omniscient, this, i.e., manifested Brahman by name Hiranyagarbha, is produced. Again name, such as ‘This is Devadatta and Yajnadatta, etc.’; and form such as this is white, blue, etc., and food such as corn, yava, etc., are produced in the order stated in the last text; thus there is no inconsistency.
The various karma which seers found in the mantras are true and were much practised in the Treta age; practise them always with true wishes. This is your way to the attainment of the fruits of karma.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—By the text the Rig Veda, the Yajur Veda, etc., all Vedas with their angas (appendages) have been stated to be apara vidya; and para vidya has been specifically stated to be that knowledge by which the akshara described in the text beginning with “That which cannot be perceived, etc,.” and ending with “Name, form and food are produced”, is known. Hereafter, the next text is begun to distinguish between the bondage of samsara and emancipation, the subjects of these two sorts of knowledge respectively. Of these, the subject of apara viyda is samsara which consists in the variety of action, its means such as doer, etc., and its results, is without beginning or end, and being misery in its nature, should be discarded by every embodied being; and in its entirety it is of an unbroken connection like the stream of a river. The subject of para vidya is emancipation which consists in the cessation of samsara, which is beginningless, endless, undecaying, immortal, deathless, fearless, pure and clear and is nothing but being centred in self and transcendant bliss without a second; first it is attempted to elucidate the subject of apara vidya; for, it is only when it is seen that it is possible to get disgusted with it; accordingly it will be said later on “Having examined the world attained by karma”; and as there can be no examination of what is not presented to the view, the text shows what it is. ‘Satyam.’ True.” What is that? Mantreshu, in the Vedas known as Rig, Yajur, etc. ‘Karmani’, Agnihotra and the rest disclosed by texts of the Vedas; ‘Kavayah,’ ‘seers like Vasishtha and ‘others’. Apasyan have seen. This is true because they are the unfailing means of accomplishing the objects of man. These enjoined by the Vedas and seen by the Rishis were done in diverse ways by the followers of karma. Tretayam, i.e., wherein there is the combination of the three Vedas of the three inodes of rites performed with the aid of a hota, adhvaryu and udgata, or it may mean that they were generally performed in the Treta age. Therefore, you should do them always; ‘Satyakamah’ ‘wishing for those fruits which they can bear.’ This is your route for the attainment of the fruits of Karma. Sukritasya, performed by you; Loka is what is found, or enjoyed; hence the fruits of Karma are denoted by the word “LoJca.” The meaning is that, to attain them, this is the route. These Karma, Agnihotra and the rest enjoined in the Vedas form the road, i.e., the means for the attainment of the necessary fruits.
When the flame of the fire burning high is moving, then one should perform the oblations in the space between the portions, where the ghee should be poured on either side.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Of the various kinds of karma, agnihotra is first explained to show what it is, because it is the first of all karma. How is that to be performed? When the flame moves, the five being well fed by fuel, then in the flame so moving between the portions where quantities of ghee are poured on either side, i.e., in the place called avapasthana one should throw the oblations intending them for the devata. As the same has to be done during many days the plural oblations is used. This karma marga which consists in properly offering the oblations, etc., is the road to the attainment of good worlds but it is not easy to do that properly and the impediments are many.
He whose agnihotra is without Darsa, without Paurnamasa, without Chaturmasya, without agrayana, without atithi (guests) and without oblation is without vaisvadeva, or irregularly performed, destroys his worlds till the seventh.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—How is that so? ‘Without Darsa’, without ritual named Darsa; for, one who performs agnihotra should necessarily perform Darsa; though connected with agnihotra (as a part of it) it becomes as it were an attribute of agnihotra. The drift is Agnihotra, without Darsa performed. The expressions “without paurnamasa, etc., as attributes of agnihotra should be similarly noted; for, all are equally the angas (parts) of agnihotra. ‘Without Paurnamasa,’ devoid of the Paurnamasa ritual. ‘Without Chaturmasya,’ devoid of the Chaturmasya ritual. ‘Without agrayana’, devoid of the agrayana ritual which is to he performed in autumn, etc.; similarly ‘without atithi’, devoid of the daily propitiation of guests; ‘ahutam’, oblation not offered well by himself at the time for agnihotra. “Without vaisvadeva”, like “without Darsa”, means devoid of the vaisvadeva ritual. Is ‘irregularly performed,’ oblation though offered, not offered in the proper manner. What such karma, as agnihotra ill-performed or not performed at all, leads to, is stated immediately after. ‘Till the seventh’, inclusive of the seventh. ‘His,’ of the doer. ‘Destroys the seven worlds of the doer’, seems to destroy; because only the trouble taken is the fruit; for, it is only when karma is properly performed, the seven worlds beginning with Bhu and ending with satya are obtained as result, according to the fruition of the karma. These worlds are not obtainable by agnihotra and other karma, performed as just above stated and they are therefore said to be as it were destroyed; but the mere trouble is ever present; or, it may be construed to mean that the three ancestors (the father, the grand-father and the great-grand-father) and the three descendants (the son, the grandson and the great-grandson) connected by the offer of oblations do not confer any benefit on his soul by virtue of the agnihotra and the rest, performed as above stated.
Him who performed karma (agnihotra) in the bright flames at the proper time, these oblations, performed by him, conduct through the rays of the sun where the Lord of the Devas is sole sovereign.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—The agnihotri who performs the karma, agnihotra and the rest, in these different bright tongues of the fire, at the time fixed for the performance of the karma, these oblations (performed by him) becoming so many rays of the sun conduct him to Heaven, where Indra, Lord of the Devas, singly rules over all. ‘Adadayan,’ taking (the sacrificer).
These oblations shining bright carry the sacrificer through the rays of the sun bidding him welcome, propitiating him and greeting him with pleasing words. This is the well-laid path of virtue leading to Brahmaloka.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—How these carry the sacrificer through the sun’s rays is now explained; calling “come, come,” these bright oblations greeting him with pleasant words, i.e., with words of praise, etc., and propitiating him, i.e., addressing him with such pleasing words, as “this is your virtuous and well-laid road to Brahmaloka, the fruits of your deeds.” The word Brahmaloka by the force of the context means “Svarga or Heaven.”
etacchreyo ye'bhinaṃdanti mūḍhā jarāmṛtyuṃ te punarevāpi yanti || 7 ||
The eighteen persons necessary for the performance of sacrifice are transitory and not permanent and karma in its nature inferior, has been stated as resting upon these. Those ignorant persons who delight in this, as leading to bliss, again fall into decay and death.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—This karma, devoid of knowledge, bears but this much fruit and being accomplished by ignorance, desire and action, is sapless and is the source of misery. Therefore it is condemned. “Plava” means ‘ephemeral’ because these are adridha, i.e., not permanent. Yajnarupa, the forms of sacrifice, i.e., necessary for the performance of the sacrifice. Eighteen in number, consisting of the sixteen Ritviks, the sacrificer and his wife. Karma stated in the sastras depends on these. Avaramkarma, i.e., mere karma devoid of knowledge; and as the performance of karma which is inferior depends on these eighteen who are not permanent. The karma done by them and its fruit are ephemeral, as, when the pot is destroyed, the destruction of milk, curd, etc., in it, follows. This being so, those ignorant persons who delight in this karma as the means of bliss, fall again into decay and death, after staying some time in Heaven.
Being in the midst of ignorance and thinking in their own minds that they are intelligent and learned, the ignorant wander, afflicted with troubles, like the blind led by the blind.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Moreover, being in the midst of ignorance, i.e., being utterly ignorant and thinking in their own minds “we alone are intelligent and have known all that should be known.” Thus flattering themselves, the ignorant wander much afflicted by old age, sickness and a lot of their troubles, being devoid of vision as the blind in this world, going the way pointed out by persons, themselves blind, fall into ditch and brambles.
yatkarmiṇo na pravedayanti rāgāttenāturāḥ kṣīṇalokāścyavante || 9 ||
The ignorant following the diverse ways of ignorance, flatter themselves that their objects have been accomplished. As these followers of karma do not learn the truth owing to their desire, they grow miserable and after the fruits of their karma are consumed, fall from Heaven.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—The ignorant acting diversely according to ignorance, flatter themselves that they have achieved what they should. This being so, the followers of karma do not learn the truth as they are assailed with the desire for the fruits of karma; they grow miserable for that reason and fall from heaven after the fruits of their karma are consumed.
These ignorant men regarding sacrificial and charitable acts as most important, do not know any other help to bliss; having enjoyed in the heights of Heaven the abode of pleasures, they enter again into this or even inferior world.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—“Ishtam” karma enjoined by the Srutis as sacrifices, etc. “Purtam” karma enjoined by Smritis such as the digging of pools, wells, tanks, etc. Regarding these alone as the most important aids to the attainment of human objects, these ignorant men, being infatuated with attachment to their sons, cattle and relatives, do not know the other called ‘knowledge of self’ which is the help to bliss. Having enjoyed in the top of heaven—the place of pleasures—the fruits of their karma, they enter again into this world of men or even inferior world, such as the world of horizontal beings, hell, etc., according to the residue of their karma.
तपःश्रद्धे ये ह्युपवसन्त्यरण्ये शान्ता विद्वांसो भैक्ष्यचर्यां चरन्तः ।
सूर्यद्वारेण ते विरजाः प्रयान्ति यत्रामृतः स पुरुषो ह्यव्ययात्मा ॥ ११॥
tapaḥśraddhe ye hyupavasantyaraṇye śāntā vidvāṃso bhaikṣyacaryāṃ carantaḥ |
sūryadvāreṇa te virajāḥ prayānti yatrāmṛtaḥ sa puruṣo hyavyayātmā || 11 ||
But they who perform tapas and sraddha in the forest, having a control over their senses, learned and living the life of a mendicant, go through the orb of the sun, their good and bad deeds consumed, to where the immortal and undecaying purusha is.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—But those who possess the knowledge contrary to that of persons previously mentioned, i.e., the hermits of the forest and the Sanyasins. ‘Tapah,’ the karma enjoined on one’s order of life. ‘Sraddha,’ the worship of the Hiranyagarbha and other deities. ‘Upavasanti,’ follow:- ‘Aranye,’ living in the forest. ‘Santah,’ having control over the group of senses. ‘Learned’ includes also house-holders who possess chiefly knowledge, living by begging; because, they have nothing to call their own. ‘Living on alms’ is connected with ‘living in the forest.’ ‘Through the orb of the sun,’ through the northern route indicated by the sun. ‘Virajah,’ their good and bad deeds being consumed. ‘Prayanti,’ go with excellence. ‘Where,’ to Satyaloka where the immortal Purusha, the first born, undecaying Hiranyagarbha is. ‘Undecaying,’ because he lives to the end of samsara. With this, end the movements within the pale of samsara attainable, through apara vidya. If it be said that some regard this as emancipation, we say it is not so, because of the Srutis, ‘All his desires are even here absorbed’ and ‘those intelligent persons whose mind is concentrated reach the all-pervading, on all sides and enter into everything, etc.,’ and because of the mention of emancipation being irrelevant in this context; for, in the course of treating of the apara vidya, there is no pertinency of emancipation being brought in. The consumption of karma spoken of is only relative; all the result of the apara vidya being in the nature of ends and means and diversified by the difference of acts, requisites and fruits and partaking of duality is only this much, which ends with reaching Hiranyagarbha. Accordingly also it has been said by Manu speaking of the various stages within samsara from the immovable upwards:- ‘The wise consider this a high and pure stage to attain the world of Brahma, the Prajapatis (creators), virtue, mahat and avyakta.
tadvijñānārthaṃ sa gurumevābhigacchetsamitpāṇiḥ śrotriyaṃ brahmaniṣṭham || 12 ||
Let a Brahmin having examined the worlds produced by karma be free from desires, thinking, ‘there is nothing eternal produced by karma?; and in order to acquire the knowledge of the eternal, let him Samid (sacrificial fuel) in hand, approach a perceptor (preceptor?) alone, who is versed in the Vedas and centered in the Brahman.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Now, this is said for the purpose of showing that only the person thoroughly disgusted with all samsara which is in the nature of ends and means, is entitled to acquire the para vidya. ‘Parikshya,’ well knowing that the subject of apara vidya consisting of the Rig, and other Vedas, performable by a person tainted with the defects of natural ignorance, desires and karma has been intended for a person possessed of such defects and after examining those worlds which are the fruits of such karma performed, attainable by the northern and southern routes and these others such as Hell, the world of beasts and the world of departed spirits, which are the result of the vices of not performing the prescribed karma and performing the forbidden karma; after having examined these worlds with the aid of experience, inference, analogies and agamas, i.e.. determined the true nature of all these worlds attainable by one, within the pale of samsara, beginning from the avyakta down to the immovable, manifested and unmanifested in their nature, productive of each other like the seed and its sprout, agitated by a hundred thousand troubles, fragile like the womb of the plantain, similar in kind to illusion, the waters of the mirage, the shape of cities formed by the clouds in the sky, dreams, water-bubbles and foam and destroyed every moment and discarding all these as being produced by good and bad deeds and acquired by karma induced by the faults of ignorance and desire. The word ‘Brahmana’ is here used because the Brahmin is specially competent to acquire the knowledge of Brahman through wholesale renunciation. What he should do after examining these worlds is explained. ‘Nirvedam,’ the root vid with the prefix nih is here used in the sense of freedom from desires. The meaning is that he will get disgusted. The mode of disgust is thus shown:- ‘Here,’ in samsara there is nothing which is not made; for, all worlds produced by karma are transitory. The meaning is:- there is nothing eternal; for all karma is help to what is merely transitory. All that is produced by karma is one of four kinds, that which is produced, that which is reached, that which is refined and that which is modified; beyond this nothing can be done by karma. Hut I am a seeker after that consummation which is eternal, immortal, fearless, changeless, immovable and constant; but not after one of a contrary nature; of what use therefore is karma which is full of trouble and which leads to misery? Thus disgusted, the Brahmin should, for knowing that abode which is fearless, full of bliss, not made, and eternal, only approach a preceptor, possessing attributes such as control of mind, control of the external senses and mercy, etc., (the force of the word ‘alone’ is to show that even one versed in the recital of the sastras should not independently by himself seek the knowledge of the Brahman) with a load of Samid in his hand. ‘Srotriyam,’ versed in the recital of the Vedas and the knowledge of its import. ‘Brahmanishtham’; like japanishtha and taponishtha, this word means ‘one who is centred in the Brahman devoid of attributes and without a second, after renouncing all karma; for, one performing karma cannot be centred in the Brahman on account of the antagonism between karma and the knowledge of the Atman. Having duly approached the guru, let the Brahmin propitiate him and question him about the true and immortal Pursha.
To him who has thus approached, whose heart is well subdued and who has control over his senses, let him truly teach that Brahmavidya by which the true immortal purusha is known.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—‘He,’ the learned preceptor who knows the Brahman; ‘Upasannaya ' who has approached him. ‘Samyak, i.e., well, according to the sastras; ‘Prasanta chittâya,’ i.e., whose heart is subdued, who is free from such faults as pride, etc. ‘Samanvitaya,’ who has control also over the external senses, i.e., who has turned away from everything in the world. ‘By which knowledge,’ by the para vidya, ‘Aksharam’ that which has been described as imperceivable, etc., and denoted by the word Parasha, because it is all pervading; or, because it is seated in the city of the body. ‘Satyam,’ the same, because it is truth in its nature. ‘Akshara,’ because it knows no decay, because it is scathless, and because it knows no destruction. ‘Veda’ means ‘know.’ The meaning is ‘let him teach that knowledge of the Brahman, as it should be taught. This is the duty of also the preceptor, that he should make the good pupil duly approaching him, cross the sea of ignorance.
tathākṣarādvividhāḥ somya bhāvāḥ prajāyante tatra caivāpi yanti || 1 ||
This is true; as from the flaming fire issue forth, by thousands, sparks of the same form, so from the immortal proceed, good youth, diverse jivas and they find their way back into it.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Everything made, as the result of apara vidya has already been stated. That entity known as Purusha from which samsara derives its strength, from which, as its immortal source, it proceeds and into which it is again absorbed is true; the subsequent portion of the book is begun for the purpose of explaining him, who being known, all will become known and who is the subject of ‘Brahinavidya.’ The satyam or truth which is the subject of the apara vidya and which is in the nature of the fruits of karma is only relatively true; but this which is the subject of para vidya is absolutely true, being defined as absolute existence. This satyam is real, being the subject of knowledge; the other mtyam is false, being the subject of ignorance. How could men directly cognize the immortal and real Purusha, seeing that it is altogether beyond the reach of direct perception. To this end, the Sruti gives an example:- ‘As from the fire well-fed sparks, i.e., particles of fire issue forth by thousands like fire in their form; so, from the immortal abode described, diverse jivas, diverse because of the difference of conditions, i.e., in their various bodies, come into existence. Just as from akas, the spaces enclosed as it were within the limits of a pot, etc.’ As these spaces undergo varieties corresponding to the varieties of their conditions such as pot, etc., so also the jivas according to the varieties of their bodies created by names and forms. Th e jivas are absorbed into the immortal purusha when the bodies conditioning them cease to exist, as the various cavities cease to exist, when the pot, etc., cease to exist. As the origin and destruction of the various cavities in the akas are due to its being enclosed in a pot, etc., so also the cause and the absorption of the jiva are due to the akshara, being conditioned by bodies bearing names and forms.
He is bright, formless, all-pervading, existing without and within, unborn, without prana, without mind, pure and beyond the avyakrita, which is beyond all.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—With a view to describe the nature of that akshara, i.e., which is beyond what is known as avyakrita (the unmanifested), the seed of all name and form and transcending its own modifications which is devoid of all varieties of conditions and bereft of all forms like the akas and which is capable of being only negatively defined, the text says thus. ‘Divyah,’ bright, being self-resplendent, or born of itself or distinct from all that is wordly. ‘Hi’, because; ‘amurtah,’ having no form of any kind. ‘Parusha,’ all-pervading or seated in the city of the body. ‘Sabahyabhyantarah’ means ‘existing both without and within.’ ‘Unborn’ is ‘not born of anything,’ i.e., neither from itself nor from any other, there being no other, from which it could be born. As wind, etc., in the case of water bubbles, and as the pot, etc., in the case of the different cavities of akas, so modifications of things, have birth for their source, and all these modifications are denied when birth is denied. The drift is that he is both without and within, unborn and therefore undecaying, immortal, changeless, constant and fearless. Though he appears to be in the various bodies with prana, with mind, with senses and with their objects owing to the ignorance of those who perceive difference of conditions, such as bodies, etc., as they see in the akas the colour etc., of the surface; but still to those who see the reality, he is without prana, etc.; he is without prana, i.e., in whom the mind, which has various active powers and whose characteristic is motion, does not exist. He is without mind because in him the mind with its various powers of knowledge and with its characteristics of voltion, etc., does not exist. It should he understood that of him are denied the varieties of winds such as prana, the active sensory organs, their objects and accordingly intelligence, mind, the organs of knowledge and their objects. Accordingly, another Sruti says ‘It seems to think and move.’ He is suhhra or pure, because both these conditions are thus denied of him. The Akshara which is beyond all, the Avyakrita whose nature is indicated as the seed condition of all name and form, as it is known to be the seed of all effects and causes; ‘param’ because the akshara known as avyakrita is in its condition above all its modifications. The Purusha is beyond even this unmanifested akshara, i.e., not subject to any conditions. In whom is the akshara known as akas with all the objects of duality strung together as warp and woof. How then could it be said to be without prana, etc? It prana, etc., existed as such in their own forms before their creation like the purusha. then the purusha can be said to be with prana because of their then existence; but they, the prana, etc., do not, like the purusha, exist in their own forms, before their creation. So the highest purusha is without prana, etc.
From him are born the prana, the mind, all the sensory organs, the akas, the wind, the fire, water and the earth which supports all.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—As Devadatta is said to be ‘aputra’ when a ‘putra’ is not born to him, so it is explained how it is said in this connection that in the case of the purusha the prana, etc., do not exist; because from this purusha alone viewed as conditioned by the seed of name and form is born the prana, the modification of the object of ignorance, a mere name and in its nature a non-entity; for, another Sruti says ‘The name is mere speech, a modification and a falsehood’; by prana, which is an object of ignorance and a falsehood, the highest cannot be said to be possessed of it (prana), as a sonless man cannot be said to have a son, by a son seen in dreams; similarly the mind, all the sensory organs and their objects are born of this. Therefore, that he is really without prana, etc., is established. It should be known that just as these prana, etc., did not really exist before the creation, so, even after absorption as the organs, the mind and the senses, so the bhutas which are the causes of the bodies and objects. ‘Kham,’ the aka s, the air internal and external, o various kinds such as avaha, etc.; ‘Jotihi’, fire. ‘Apah’, water. ‘Prithivi,’ earth. ‘Visvasya,’ o all. All these whose attributes are sound, touch, form, taste and smell and which are respectively formed by the combination of the latter with the previous attributes are born of him. Having briefly stated the immortal, unconditioned, eternal Purusha, the object of para vidya, by the text ‘Bright, formless, etc.,’ the Sruti next proceeded to explain his nature in detail and at length. It is only when a thing is explained briefly and at length it becomes capable of being easily understood as if explained by Sutras and by their commentaries.
This is he, the internal atman of all created things whose head is agni, whose eyes are the sun, and the moon, whose ears are the four directions, whose speeches are the emanated Vedas, whose breath is vayu, whose heart is all the universe and from whose feet the earth proceeded.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—This text is intended to show that the virat purusha within the globe, who is born of Hiranyagarbha the first born, is born only and a modification, of this purusha, though apparently distanced by an intermediate principle. The text also describes him. ‘Agnihi,’ the devaloka or svarga, from the Sruti ‘This loka verily is Agni, O Gautama.’ ‘Murdha,’ head; whose eyes are the sun and the moon. The word ‘yasya’ (of whom) should be read in every clause. The word ‘asya’ subsequently occurring being converted into ‘yasya’ whose speech are the opened, i.e., celebrated Vedas. ‘Hridayam’ heart. ‘Visvam,’ the whole universe. The whole universe is only a modification of the mind for it is absorbed into the mind during sleep and because it issues from the mind when waking, like sparks of fire and from whose feet the earth was born; this deity, all-pervading, endless, the first embodied existence having for its body the three lokas is the interior atman of all created things; for, it is he who, in all created things, is the seer, the hearer, the thinker, the knower and who is the cause of all. It is next stated that all living beings who come into samsara through the five fires are also born of the same purusha.
From him the Agni (Dyu loka) whose fuel is the sun; from the moon in the Dyu Loka, parjanya (clouds); from the clouds, the medicinal plant that grows on earth; from these, the male (fire) which sheds the semen on woman, thus gradually many living beings such as Brahmins, etc., are born of the Purusha.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—‘From him,’ from the Purusha. ‘Agni,’ the Dyu loka, a kind of abode for man. That Agni is described. ‘Samidhah’ fuel; for which the sun is. as it were, a fuel; for, it is by the sun that the Dyu loka is lighted. From the moon emerging out of the Dyu loka parjanya, the second fire, is produced; and from the parjanya, the medicinal plants proceed, grow on earth:- and from the medicinal plants offered to the purusha fire serving as the material cause the man (fire) sheds semen on the woman (fire). Thus gradually from the purusha are produced many living beings such as Brahmins, etc.; moreover, the helps to karma and their fruits also proceed from the Purusha.
From him the Rig, the Sama, the Yajur, Diksha, sacrifices, all Kratus, Dakshina, the year, the sacrificer and the worlds which the moon sanctifies and the sun illuminates.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—How? ‘Tasmat,’ from the Purasha; ‘Richah the mantras whose letters, feet and endings are determined and which are marked by Chhandas (metre) like the gayatri. Sama with its fivefold and sevenfold classification characterized by sthoba and other gita (music). ‘Yajus,’ mantras in the form of sentences, whose letters, feet and endings are determined by no rules. Thus the threefold mantras. ‘Diksha’, restrictions such as the wearing of a mounjee (a kind of cord), etc., imposed upon the performer (of a sacrifice). ‘Yajnas,’ all sacrifices such as Agnihotra, etc. ‘Kratu’ sacrifices which require a yupa (i.e., sacrificial post). ‘Dakshinah,’ rewards distributed in sacrifice from a single cow up to unbounded whole wealth. ‘Year,’ stated time as a necessary adjunct of karma. ‘Yajamano’ the performer, i.e., the sacrificer. The worlds which are the fruits of his karma are next described “which the moon renders sacred and where the sun shines”; these are attainable by the northern and southern routes and are the fruits of the karma performed by the knowing and the ignorant.
From him also the devas are variously born, the sadhyas, the men, the cattle, the bird, the prana and the apana, the corn and yava, tapas, devotion, truth Brahmacharya and injunction.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Tasmat, “from him also, from the purusha. ‘Variously,’ in various groups such as vasus, etc. Samprasutah, well born. Sadhyas, a species of Devas. Men those that are entitled to perforin karma; cattle, both of the village and the forest. Vayamsi, birds. The food of men, etc., The Prana and the Apana; corn and yava, to be used for making havis (oblations). Tapas, both as an indispensable adjunct to karma whose efficacy lies in the purification of the performer and as an independent means of attaining the fruits of karma. Devotion, that state of mind which precedes the mental calm and a belief in a future state necessary to the accomplishment of all human ends. Similarly, truth, i.e., avoiding falsehood and speaking out what has really happened, without harm to others. Brahmacharyam, absence of sexual intercourse. Injunction, the statement of what ought to be done.
From him mare borne the seven pranas, the seven flames, their sevenfold fuel, the sevenfold oblation and these seven lokas where the pranas move, seven and seven in each living being lying in the cave, there fixed.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Again the seven pranas, i.e., (organs of sense) in the head are born of this purusha alone. ‘Their seven flames,’ their light which enlightens their objects. Similarly, the sevenfold fuel, their sevenfold objects; for, it is by these objects that the pranas, i.e., organs of sense are fed. ‘The sevenfold oblations’, the perceptions of the sevenfold objects; for, another Sruti says:- “He offers the oblation which consists in the perception of the objects by the senses.” The seven lokas, i.e., the seats of the senses where the pranas move. The clause “where the pranas move” is intended to exclude the vital airs, i.e., prana, apana and the rest. ‘Lying in the cave,’ lying during sleep in the body or the heart. ‘Fixed,’ fixed by the creator. ‘Seven and seven’, in every living thing. The meaning of the context is that all karma performed by knowing men who propitiate their Atman and the fruits of such karma as well as the karma performed by the ignorant and their means and fruits; all these proceed only from the highest and the omniscient purusha.
From him proceed the oceans and all the mountains and the diverse rivers; from him also, all the medicinal plants and taste, by which encircled by the Bhutas, i.e., gross elements, the intermediate Atman, i.e., subtle body is seated.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—‘From him,’ from the purusha. ‘The oceans’, all, the salt ocean, etc. ‘Mountains’, the Himalayas and the rest are all from this purusha. ‘Syandante,’ flow. ‘Rivers’, such as the Granges. ‘Sarvarupah,’ of many forms. From this purusha, also proceed, the medicinal plants, such as corn, yava paddy, etc. ‘Taste,’ sixfold such as sweetness, etc. ‘By which’, by which taste. ‘Bhutaih,’ by the five gross bhutas. ‘Pariveshtitah’, encircled. ‘Tishthate’, is seated. ‘The internal Atman’, the subtle body, so called, because it is the Atman, as it were, intermediate between the gross body and the soul proper.
puruṣa evedaṃ viśvaṃ karma tapo brahma parāmṛtam |
etadyo veda nihitaṃ guhāyāṃ so'vidyāgranthiṃ vikiratīha somya || 10 ||
The purusha alone is all this universe—Karma and Tapas. All this is Brahman, the highest and the immortal who knows this as seated in the cavity of the heart, unties the knot of ignorance even here, Oh good looking youth!
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Thus, out of purusha, all this is born; therefore, as the Sruti says “The name is mere speech, a modification and a falsehood and the purusha alone is true.” Therefore all this is only purusha. The universe has no separate existence apart from purusha. Hence to the question propounded “O Bhagavan, by knowing whom, all this becomes known,” the answer has been given, i.e., when this purusha, the supreme Atman, the first cause is known, it becomes clear that all this universe is purusha and nothing else exists except him. What then is this “all,” it is thus explained. Karma is of the nature of Agnihotra and the rest. Tapas, knowledge and the fruit due to it. By ‘all’ this much is meant. And all this is evolved out of Brahman. Therefore everything is Brahman. He who knows that lie himself is this Brahman the highest and the immortal placed in the hearts of all living beings, destroys the dense tendencies of ignorance. Iha, even while living and not merely after death. Soumya, good looking.
Bright, well-fixed, moving in the heart, great and the support of all; in him is all this universe centred, what moves, breathes and winks. Know this which is all that has form and all that is formless, which is to be sought after by all, which is beyond the reach of man’s knowledge, and the highest of all.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—It is now explained how the akshara which is formless, could be known. Avihi, bright, shining as the percipient of sound, etc., according to the Sruti, “It shines through its conditions of speech, etc.” It is seen in the heart of all living beings appearing there with the attributes of seeing, hearing, thinking, knowing, etc. This Brahman shining is Sannihita, i.e., well seated in the heart. It is celebrated as guhacha- ran because it moves in the cavity in modes of seeing, hearing, etc. ‘Great’, because it is greater than all. Padam, reached by all, because it is the seat of all objects. How is it said to be great, etc? Because in the Brahman all this universe is centred as the various spokes are in the wheel-ring of the chariot. Ejat, moving, i.e., birds, etc; pranet, breathes, i.e., men, cattle, etc., having prana, a puna, etc; and ‘winks’, all that winks and all that winks not, from the force of the particle cha; this in which all is centred, know, O disciple, that that is your own atman; both sat and asat; for without it, sat and asat, that which has form and that which has not, i.e., the gross and subtle do not exist. Varenyam, covetable; because of all objects it is the only eternal entity. Param, distinct from, or, beyond; this is connected with the expression “knowledge of men” though remote; the meaning is that it is beyond the reach of wordly knowledge. Varishtham, the highest of all; because of all that is high, the Brahman is pre-eminently high, being free from all faults.
What is bright, what is smaller than the small, in what are centred all the world and those that live in them is this immortal Brahman. That is prana, that is speech and mind. That is true and immortal; good looking youth. Strike thy mind upon that which should be struck by the mind.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Besides it is archimat, bright, because it is by the light of the Brahman that the sun, etc., shine; again it is subtler than the subtlest (i.e.,) grain, etc. From the particle cha, it is suggested that it is bigger than the biggest, such as earth, etc. In whom all the worlds such as earth, etc., are fixed and men and the rest, inhabitants of those worlds; for all are well-known to depend upon “Intelligence”, i. e., Brahman; this immortal Brahman on which all depend is prana, speech, mind and all the instruments. It is their internal intelligence for the whole combination of prana, senses, etc., is dependent upon that intelligence, according to the Sruti ‘It is the prana of prana, etc. This immortal Brahman which is the internal intelligence of prana, etc., is true and, therefore, endless. Veddhavyam, should he seized by the mind. The meaning is that the mind should be concentrated upon the Brahman. This being so, O good looking youth, strike that, i.e., concentrate your mind upon that Brahman.
Having taken the how furnished by the Upanishads, the great weapon—and fixed in it the arrow rendered pointed by constant meditation and having drawn it with the mind fixed on the Brahman, hit, good looking youth! at that mark—the immortal Brahman.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—How that is hit is now explained. Dhanuh. the bow. Grihitva, having taken. Upanishadam horn in, i.e., well-known in the Upanishads. Mahastram, great weapon, i.e., the arrow; fix the arrow; of what quality is stated. Upasauisltam, rendered pointed by constant meditation, i.e., purified; after fixing it and drawing it, i.e., having drawn the mind and the senses from their external objects and bending, i.e., concentrating them on the mark, for the bow here cannot be bent as by the hand; hit the mark—the immortal Brahman—above defined with thy mind, Oh good looking youth, engrossed by meditation upon the Brahman.
The Pranava is the how, the Atman is the arrow and the Brahman is said to be its mark. It should he hit by one who is self-collected and that which hits becomes, like the arrow, one with the mark, i.e.. Brahman.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—What the bow and the rest above referred to are, is explained. The Pranava, i.e., the syllable “Om” is the bow; as the bow is the cause of the arrow entering into the mark, so the syllable “Om” is the cause of the Atman entering into the Brahman; for it is only when purified, by the repetition of Pranava, that the Atman supported by it becomes fixed in the Brahman without obstruction, as the arrow by the force of the bow is fixed in the mark. Therefore the Pranava is like a bow. The arrow is the Paramatman itself conditioned as the Atman having entered the body here, as the sun enters the water, as the witness of all states of consciousness. That, like an arrow, is discharged towards itself—the immortal Brahman. Therefore the Brahman is said to be its mark, because it is seen to be the Atman itself by those who fix their mind upon it as on a mark. This being so, the Brahman which is the mark should be hit by one who is self-collected, i. e., who is free from the excitement caused by a thirst to get at external objects, who is disgusted with everything, who has conquered his senses and whose mind is concentrated. When that is hit, the Atman becomes like the arrow, one with the mark, i.e., the Brahman. Just as the success of the arrow is its becoming one with the mark, so the fruit here achieved is the Atman becoming one with the immortal Brahman by the dispelling of the notion that the body, etc., is the Atman.
He in whom the heaven, the earth, the antariksha (sky), the mind with the pranas are centred; know him to be the one Atman of all; abandon all other speech; this is the road to immortality.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—As the “Immortal” cannot be easily grasped by the mind, the repetition is for the purpose of making it more easily cognisable. He, the immortal Brahman, in whom Dyouh, earth, and antariksha are centred, as also the mind with the other instruments; know him, O disciples as “the one,” the support of all; the Atman, i.e., the internal principle of yourselves and all living beings; having known that, leave off all other speech of the nature of “Apara vidya” as also all Kar ma with their aids elucidated by it; for, this, i.e., the knowledge of the Atman is the road to the attaintment of emancipation, the bridge as it were by which the great ocean of Samsara is crossed, as another Sruti says “having known him thus, one travels beyond death; there is no other road to emancipation.”
Where the nerves of the body meet together as the spokes in the nave of a wheel, this Atman is within it variously horn; meditate upon “Om” as the Atman. May there be no obstacle to your going to the other side beyond darkness.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Within the heart where all nerves running through the body meet together, as the spokes in the nave of the wheel, this Atman, spoken of, dwells within, as the witness of the states of consciousness, seeing, hearing, thinking, knowing and as it were, being variously born by the modifications of the mind, such as anger, joy, etc; men in the world say ‘He has become angry, he has become “joyful”, according to the conditions of the internal sense (mind); meditate upon Atman having the syllable “Om” as your support and imagining as stated. And it has been said “the preceptor who knows must instruct the disciples.” The disciples are those who being desirous to acquire the knowledge of the Brahman, have renounced Karma and taken the road to emancipation. The preceptor gives his benediction that they may attain the Brahman without hindrance; svasti vah paraya, let Him be without hindrance to your reaching the other shore. Parastat, beyond; beyond what? Beyond the darkness of ignorance, i. e., for the realisation of the true nature of the Atman devoid of ignorance. He who should be reached after crossing the ocean of Samsara and who is the subject of the Para vidya.
This Atman who knows all and all of everything and whose glory is so celebrated on earth is seated in the akas of the blight city of Brahman. He is conditioned by the mind, is the leader of the prana and the body and is seated in food, i.e., the body fixing the intelligence (in the cavity of their heart). The discerning people see by means of their superior knowledge on all sides the atman which shines, all bliss and immortality.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Where He is, is now explained; the terms ‘sarvajna’ and ‘sarvavit’ have already been explained. He is again described; by the expression “whose glory is this” is meant “whose glory is celebrated.” What is that glory? By whose commands stand supported the earth and the sky, by whose command, the sun and the moon always rotate as the flaming fire-brand. By whose command the rivers and the seas do not overstep their limits, whose command all that is moveable and immoveable likewise obey, whose commands in the same way, the seasons, the solstices, and the years do not transgress; by whose commands all karma, their performers and their fruits do not likewise go beyond their appointed time; that is his glory. Bhuvi, in the world. This Deva whose is all this glory and who is omniscient. Divye, bright, i. e., illuminated by all the states of consciousness. Brahmapure, in the lotus of the heart, so called because the Brahman is always manifesting himself there, in the form of intelligence. Vyomni, in the akas, within the cavity of the heart. He is perceived as if seated there because, otherwise, motion to or from, or fixity in a place is not possible for him who is all-pervading like the akas. Manomaya, because seated in the heart, he is perceived only by the modifications of the mind. (Thus) conditioned by the mind. Leader of the prana and the body, because lie leads the prana and the body from one gross body into another body. Pratishthitah, fixed. Anne, in the food, i.e., in the body which is a modification of the food eaten and which grows and decays day by day. Hridayam, intellect, Sannidhaya, fixing—in the cavity of the lotus; for, the Atman is really seated in the heart and not in the food. Tat, the entity of the Atman. Vijnanena, by knowledge, thorough, produced by the teachings of the sastras and the preceptor, and arising from control of the mind, control of the senses, meditation, complete renunciation and freedom from desire. Paripasyanti, see on all sides full. Dhirah, the discerning. A’nandarupam, free from all dangers, miseries and troubles. Vibhati, shines much in one-self always.
When he that is both high and low is seen, the knot of the heart is untied; all doubts are solved; and all his karma is consumed.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—The fruit of the knowledge of the Paramatman is stated to be the following. Loosened is “the knot of the heart,” i.e., the group of tendencies in the mind due to ignorance, the desire which clings to the intellect according to the Sruti “The desires which lie imbedded in the heart, etc.” This is attached to the heart (intellect) not to the Atman. Biddyate. undergoes destruction; doubts regarding all knowable things have their solution—doubts which perplex worldly men up to their death, being (continuous) like the stream of the Granges; of the man whose doubts have been solved and whose ignorance has been dispelled, such karma as was anterior to the birth of knowledge in this life, such as was performed by him in previous births and had not begun to bear fruit and such as was existing at the birth of knowledge come to an end; but not that karma which brought about this birth, for it had begun to bear fruit. He, “the omniscient”, not subject to samsara; ‘both high and low,’ high as being the cause and low as being the effect; when he is seen directly as “I am he”, one attains emancipation, the cause of samsara being up-rooted.
The stainless indivisible Brahman, the pure, the light of all lights is in the innermost sheath of golden hue. That is what the knowers of the Atman know.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—The three following texts briefly elucidate the meaning already expressed. Hiranmaye, golden, i.e., full of light, or bright with intelligence and knowledge. ‘The highest sheath’, sheath, as it were, of a sword; highest, because it is the place where “the Atman is realised as located” and because it is the innermost of all. Virajam, free from the taint of ignorance and all other faults. Brahma, because it is the greatest of all and Atman of all. Nishkalam, that from which the kalas had proceeded, i.e., devoid of parts; because it is untainted and devoid of parts, therefore it is subhram or pure. The light of all lights, whose light enlightens even those that illumine all other things such as fire, etc. The meaning is that the brightness of even the fire, etc., is due to the splendour of the intelligence of the Brahman within; the light of the Atman is the highest light which is not illumined by other lights. ‘The knowers of the atman’, those discerning men who know the Self as the witness of the objective states of consciousness regarding sound and the rest; as it is the highest light, it is only those who follow (are in) the subjective state of consciousness, not others, who follow (are in) the perceptions of external objects, that know it.
The sun shines not there, nor the moon and the stars. Nor do these lightnings shine. How could this fire? All shine after him who shines. All this is illumined by his radiance.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—How that is the light of all lights is explained. The sun, though enlightening all. does not shine in, i.e., does not illumine the Brahman which is his Atman; for, the sun illumines the whole universe other than the Atman with the light of the Brahman, but has not in himself the capacity to illuminate. Similarly neither the moon and the stars nor the lightning shines. How could this file which is in the range of our vision? Why dilate? This universe which shines, shines with the light of Him, the Lord of all, who shines being himself luminosity. Just as water and the rest by their contact with fire, heat with the heat of the fire, but not by their own inherent power, so all this universe, the sun and the rest shine with the light of the Brahman. As it is the Brahman alone that thus shines and shines with varying light in its diverse manifestations, itself luminosity, is inferred; for, that which is not itself light cannot illumine others as we see that pots, etc., do not illumine others and that the sun and the rest having light, illumine others.
adhaścordhvaṃ ca prasṛtaṃ brahmaivedaṃ viśvamidaṃ variṣṭham || 11 ||
All this before is immortal Brahman; certainly all behind is Brahman; all to the south and to the north; all bellow and all alone stretched out, i.e., extended, all this is certainly Brahman, the highest.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—The statement, Brahman alone the light of lights is true and that all else is only its modification, a matter of speech is a mere name and falsehood first made and logically demonstrated at length (afterwards) is affirmed again as a conclusion by this mantra. That which is before us and which, in the eyes of the ignorant, appears to be not Brahman is certainly Brahman. Similarly what is behind us; so, that to the south; so, that to the north; so, that below, and that above and all that is extended everywhere in the form of effect, appearing otherwise than Brahman and possessed of name and form. Why say much? All this vast universe is Brahman certainly. All perception otherwise than as Brahman is mere ignorance, just as the perception of a serpent in a rope. The declaration of the Vedas is that the one Brahman alone is really true.
Two inseparable companions of fine plumage perch on the self-same tree. One of the two feeds on the delicious fruit. The other not tasting of it looks on.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—The Para vidya has been explained, by which the immortal ‘purusa’ or the Truth could be known, by whose knowledge the cause of Samsara, such as the knot of the heart, etc., can be totally destroyed. Yoga which is the means to the realization of the Brahman has also been explained by an illustration “taking the bow and the rest.” Now the subsequent portion is intended to inculcate the auxiliary helps to that yoga, as truth, etc. Chiefly, the truth is here determined by another mode, as it is extremely difficult to realize it. Here, though already done, a mantra (brief) as an aphorism is introduced for the purpose of ascertaining the absolute entity. Suparnau, two of good motion or two birds; (the “word Suparna” being used to denote birds generally); Sayujau inseparable, constant, companions; Sakhayau, bearing the same name or having the same cause of manifestation. Being thus, they are perched on the same tree (‘same,’ because the place where they could be perceived is identical). ‘Tree’ here means ‘body;’ because of the similitude in their liability to be cut or destroyed. Parishasvajate, embraced; just as birds go to the same tree for tasting the fruits. This tree as is well known has its root high up (i.e., in Brahman) and its branches (prana, etc..) downwards; it is transitory and has its source in Avyakta (maya). It is named Kshetra and in it bang the fruits of the karma of all living things. It is here that the Atman, conditioned in the subtle body to which ignorance, desire, karma and their unmanifested tendencies cling, and Isvara are perched like birds. Of these two so perched, one, i.e., kshetrajna occupying the subtle body eats, i.e., tastes from ignorance the fruits of karma marked as happiness and misery, palatable in many and diversified modes; the other, i.e., tbe lord, eternal, pure, intelligent and free in his nature, omniscient and conditioned by maya does not eat; for, lie is the director of both the eater and the thing eaten, by the fact of Ids mere existence as the eternal witness (of all); not tasting, he merely looks on; for, his mere witnessing is direction, as in the case of a king.
On the self same tree, the Jiva drowned as it were and perplexed, grieves owing to helplessness. Hut when he sees the other, the lord who is worshipped by all, and his glory, lie becomes absolved from grief.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—In this state of things, the Jiva, i.e., the enjoyer occupying the body as above described, under the heavy load of ignorance, desire and thirst for the fruits of Karma, etc., sinks down like a bottle-gourd in the waters of the sea, is convinced beyond doubt that the body is the atman and thinking that he is the son of this man or the great-grandson of that, lean or stout, with or without good qualities, is enjoying or suffering, and that there is none but him, is born, dies, is united with and parted from relations and kinsmen; therefore, he grieves from helplessness thus:- “I am good for nothing; I have lost my son; my wife is dead; what avails my life” and so forth and is subject to anxiety from ignorance owing to numerous kinds of troubles; but when thus constantly degenerating in births, of pretas, beasts, men and the like, he happens, owing to the result of pure deeds stored up in many (previous) births to be instructed in the path of Yoga by some preceptor surpassingly compassionate and being qualified by abstinence from giving pain, truth speaking, continence, complete renunciation and control over the internal and external senses and with his mind concentrated, finds by dint of meditation, the other who is approached by different paths of Yoga and by the followers of Karma distinct from him, conditioned in the body, not subject to the bondage of Samsara, unaffected by hunger, thirst, grief, ignorance, decay and death and lord over all the universe and thinks thus:- “I am the atman, alike in all, seated in every living thing and not the other, the illusory atman, enclosed under conditions created by ignorance and this glory—this universe is mine, the lord of all,” then he becomes absolved from grief, i.e., is released entirely from the ocean of grief, i.e., his object is accomplished.
When the seer sees him of golden line, the creator, lord, Purusha, and the source of (Apara) Brahma, then the knower, having shaken off all deeds of merit and sin, attains supreme equality, being untouched with stain.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Another mantra also conveys the same meaning at length. Yada, when; Pasyaha, one who sees, i.e., a learned man, i.e., a man of practice. Rukmavamam, of self-resplendent nature, or, of imperishable brightness as that of gold. ‘Creator,’ of all the universe; ‘Brahmayonim’ the Brahman who is the source of the manifested Brahman. When he sees the Brahman thus, then the learned man shaking off, or burning away good and bad deeds, forming a bondage to their root and being unaffected, i.e., freed from grief, attains that supreme equality which is identity with the Brahman. The equality in matters involving duality is certainly inferior to this.
This is, indeed. Prana, i.e., Isvara, shining variously with all living beings. Knowing him, the wise man becomes not a talker regarding anything else. Sporting in self, delighted in self and doing nets (enjoined), this man is the best of those who know the Brahman.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Again this Isvara is the prana of prana. This, now treated of. ‘All living things,’ from the Brahman down to the worm. The instrumental case in “Sarvabhutaih” has the force of “thus become.” The meaning is ‘existing in all living things, i.e., the atman of all.’ Vibhati, shines variously. The man of knowledge who directly realises Him who is in all things as his own Atman and thinks “I am he” does not become an ativadin. merely by the knowledge of the import of the mahavakya. Ativadi, means one whose nature is to talk of all other things more, when he sees that all is the Atman and nothing else exists; how then could he talk of anything else. It is only where one sees anything else, he could well talk of that; but this man of knowledge sees, hears and knows none other than the Atman; so. he is not a talker of anything else. Again, he is an atmakridah, i.e., one whose sport is within his own Atman and not elsewhere, such as son. wife, etc. Similarly, he is atmaratih, i.e., one who delights or revels in his own Atman. The term krida or play requires some external help. But delight or revelling does not require any external help but indicates merely the attachment to an external object. This is the distinction. Similarly, kriyavan, i.e., one whose activity consists in knowledge, meditation, freedom from desire, etc. But if the reading he “atmaratikriyavan” (a compound) the meaning is he whose activity is mere delight in man; as between the Bahuvrihi and the “matup” ending, one is sufficient without the other; but some contend that the single compound, denotes a combination of both karma, i.e., Agnihotra and the rest, and the knowledge of Brahman. It is not possible for one to he playing with external objects and at the same time to he delighted in self. It is only the man who has turned away from external activity that becomes delighted in self; for, external activity and delighted in itself are opposed to each other; for, it is not possible that darkness and light could exist in the same place. Therefore, the statement that a combination of karma and knowledge is inculcated by this text is certainly the prattle of the ignorant. This also follows from the Srutis “Leave off from all other speech” and “by renunciation of Karma, etc.” Therefore, he alone is “kriyavan” whose activity consists in knowledge, meditation, etc., and who is a Sanyasin not transgressing the limits of prohibitory injunctions. Such a man as is not an ativadin, as sports in his own self, as delights in himself and as is a Kriyavan (whose activity is aforesaid) is the first among all the knowers of Brahman.
This Atman within the body, resplendent and pure, can be reached by truth and tapas, by sound knowledge and by abstinence from sexual pleasures constantly practised; he is within the body, resplendent and pure; him, assiduous Sanyasins see, their faults removed.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Now truth and the rest chiefly characterized by restraint are enjoined upon a bhikshu, i.e., mendicant, as auxiliary aids with sound knowledge; he should be attained by truth, i.e., by abstaining from falsehood; as also by tapas, i.e., by concentration of the senses and the mind, which is declared to be the highest tapas; for, it is this which is of greatest help, as it is turned towards beholding the Atman, not the other forms of tapas, such as the performance of the chandrayana (a penance), etc. “This Atman should he attained” should be read into every clause. ‘By good knowledge’, by beholding the Atman as it really is. ‘By Brahmacharya,’ by abstinence from sexual pleasure. Nityam, always. The word “always” should be read with every one of the words ‘truth,’ ‘tapas,’ etc. Just as a lamp within a building illumines every part of it, it will be said, later on, that they seethe Atman in whom there is neither deceit, nor falsehood, nor cunning. Who this Atman is that should be attained by these aids is explained. ‘Within the body,’ in the midst of the body, i.e., in the akas of the lotus of the heart. ‘Resplendent’, of golden hue. Subhra, pure. The yatayah, i.e., those who are habitually seeking, i.e., the Sanyasins, ‘their faults removed,’ i.e., devoid of all taint of mind such as anger, etc., find this atman. The drift is that the atman is attained, by Sanyasins with these aids as truth, etc., constantly practised and cannot be attained by them occasionally practised. This text is a eulogy of such aids as truth, etc.
yenākramantyṛṣayo hyāptakāmā yatra tat satyasya paramaṃ nidhānam || 6 ||
Truth alone wins, not falsehood; by truth, the Devayanah (the path of the Devas) is widened, that by which the seers travel on, having nothing to wish for to where there is that—the highest treasure attained by truth.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Truth alone, i.e., he who speaks the truth alone, wins; not he who utters falsehood, for there can be neither victory nor defeat between abstract truth and falsehood where they do not cling to men. It is well known in the world that he who utters falsehood is defeated by him who speaks the truth; not the converse. Therefore, it is established that truth is a strong auxiliary; again, the superiority of truth as an aid is also known from the sastras; how? It is only by truth, i.e., by a determination to speak what had occurred, the road named “Devayanah” (the way of the gods) is widened; i.e., is kept up continually; by which road, seers free from deceit, delusion, fraud, pride, vanity and falsehood and having no desires, go about to where the absolute truth, the highest treasure covetable by man and attainable by the important aid, truth, exists. The expression “where the greatest, etc.,” is connected with the preceding clause “the road by which they go is widened by truth.” What that is and what its characteristics are, will be explained.
dūrātsudūre tadihāntike ca paśyantvihaiva nihitaṃ guhāyām || 7 ||
That shines as vast, heavenly, of unthinkable form and subtler than the subtle, much farther than the distant, near, also here, and seen fixed in the cavity, by the intelligent.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—The Brahman now treated of and attainable by truth, etc., is vast, because it is all-pervading; ‘heavenly,’ self-luminous and imperceivable by the senses. Therefore alone, is it that its form is unthinkable; it is subtler than even the subtle, such as the akas and the rest; for, being the cause of all, it is of unsurpassing subtlety. Vibhati, shines diversely, i.e., in various forms such as that of the sun, the moon, etc. Again it is farther, even from the most distant places; for, the Brahman cannot be in the least approached by the ignorant. It is also near, i.e., in the body itself; because, it is the atman of those who know and because it is within all, from the Sruti which declares it to be even within the akcas. ‘In those who see,’ among the intelligent men. ‘Fixed,’ seated, i.e., seen by yogis, as possessed of the activity of seeing, etc. Where? in the cavity, i.e., in the intellect; for, it is seen as lodged there by those who know; still, though lodged there, it is not seen by the ignorant, as it is veiled by ignorance.
He is not grasped by the eye; nor by speech; nor by other senses; nor by tapas; nor by karma; when one’s mind is purified by the clearness of knowledge, then alone he sees the indivisible (Brahman) by contemplation.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Again, a special aid to the attainment of Brahman is explained. It is not seen by the eye of anybody, because it has no form; nor is it grasped by speech, because it cannot be the subject of words; nor by the other senses. Though tapas is an aid to the attainment of all, the Brahman cannot be reached by Karma enjoined by the Vedas, such as agnihotra and the rest though their greatness is well known. What, then, is the means by which it could be grasped is explained. Gnana prasadena, though the intellect in all men is by nature competent to know the Atman, still being polluted by such faults, as love for external objects, etc., and hence unclear and impure, it does not, like a stained mirror and muddy water, grasp the entity of the Atman though always near; but when, by removal of the polluting taint, such as desire, etc., produced by contact with the objects of the senses, it is made clear and calm like mirror and water, then the intellect becomes clear; by this clearness of the intellect the mind is purified and the man becomes competent to realize the Brahman. Therefore, he sees the Atman which has no parts, by meditation, having recourse to such helps such as truth, etc., having controlled his senses and with a concentrated mind.
This subtle Atman should be known by the mind as being in the body, whose prana entered in five different forms; the mind in all creatures is pervaded by these pranas. When it is purified, then the Atman shines out of itself.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—This Atman, who is thus seen, is subtle and should be known by the mind, i.e., by the mere intellect purified. Where is this Atman? In the body which, prana in five different forms, has well entered. The meaning is; he should be known by the mind as existing in the body, i.e., in the heart; by mind, how circumstanced should he be known, is explained; mind in all creatures is pervaded by the pranas and the senses, as milk by oil, and fuel by fire. The mind in all living beings is well known in the world, to be possessed of intelligence; when the mind is purified, i.e., freed from the taint of grief, etc., then this Atman above-defined shines out, shows itself out, by itself.
Whatever worlds he covets by his mind, and whatever objects he wishes for the man of pure mind, he gains those worlds and those objects; therefore, let him who longs for Bhuti (manifested power) worship him who knows the atman.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—This text explains that the man who identifies the atman of all with his own, obtains as the fruits thereof, all that he longs for; because of the fact that he is the Atman of all. Whatever worlds, i.e., such as those of the manes and the rest, he covets either himself, or for others, or whatever enjoyments he wishes for the man of pure mind who is free from all grief and who knows the Atman, he obtains those worlds and those enjoyments. Therefore, i.e., because the wishes of the knower of the Atman are always realised; let one who longs for vibhutis propitiate the knower of the Atman, whose mind is purified by such knowledge, by cleaning his feet with water, personal service, prostration and the rest; therefore, he is worthy of worship.
स वेदैतत्परमं ब्रह्म धाम यत्र विश्वं निहितं भाति शुभ्रम् ।
उपासते पुरुषं ये ह्यकामास्ते शुक्रमेतदतिवर्तन्ति धीराः ॥ १॥
sa vedaitatparamaṃ brahma dhāma yatra viśvaṃ nihitaṃ bhāti śubhram |
upāsate puruṣaṃ ye hyakāmāste śukrametadativartanti dhīrāḥ || 1 ||
He knows the highest Brahman, the place where all this universe rests, and which shines with clear brightness. The intelligent, who, free from all desire, worship this man, travel beyond this seed.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—As he knows the Brahman above defined, the highest of all, the place where all desires rest, where all the universe rests and which shines purely by its own light, the intelligent, who free from yearning for vibhuti and with a desire for emancipation, worship even this man as the highest, travel beyond this seed, i.e., the material cause of embodied existence, i.e., are never born again of the womb, according to the Sruti, ‘He does not like any abode.’ The meaning is that one should worship such a knower.
He, who broods on and longs for objects of desire, is born there and there with such desires; but of him whose desires have been fulfilled and who has realised, the Atman, the desires end even here (in this world).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—This text shows that the primary help to him who is desirous of emancipation is the renunciation of all desire. He who covets visible or invisible objects of desire, brooding on their virtues is born again and again with those desires of external objects which are incentive to the performance of good and bad deeds. Wherever his desires direct him to perform karma for the realisation of their objects, he is born with those self-same desires in those objects. But of him who from a sound knowledge of the absolute truth has all his desires fulfilled, because the Atman is the object of his desire and whose Atman through knowledge has been made to assume its highest, i.e., true form by the removal of the lower form imposed on it by ignorance, all desires impelling him to do meritorious and sinful deeds are destroyed even while his body lasts. The drift is that desires do not spring up, because the causes of their rising are destroyed.
This Atman cannot be attained by dint of study or intelligence or much hearing—whom he wishes to attain—by that it can be attained. To him this Atman reveals its true nature.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—If thus the realisation of the atman is the greatest gain of all, it may be thought that means such as study, etc., should be largely employed for its attainment. This text is intended to dispel that notion. This atman which has been explained and whose realisation is the highest object of human desire cannot be attained by means of much study of the Vedas and the Sastras. Similarly not by intelligence, i.e., by a retentive memory of the purport of writings; nor by much heard, i.e., by much hearing. By what then could the Atman be attained is explained. The Paramatman whom this knower wishes to attain, by that seeking alone can that Brahman be attained; not by any other means, because his nature is always attained. What is the nature of this knower’s attainment of the Atman is explained. As pot, etc., reveals its form where there is light, so does the Atman concealed by ignorance reveal his true nature when there is knowledge. The drift is the wish for the realisation of the Atman after renouncing all others is alone the means to the attainment of the Atman.
This Atman cannot he attained by one devoid of strength or by excitement or by tapas devoid of linga. But of the knower who strives with these aids, the Atman enters into the Brahman.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Combined with the wish to realise the Atman, strength, absence of excitement, and knowledge coupled with Sanyasa are helps; because this Atman cannot be attained by one devoid of strength produced by concentration on the Atman or by excitement caused by associating with objects of the world, as son, cattle and the rest, or by tapas devoid of linga. ‘Tapas’ here means ‘knowledge.’ “Linga,” means “Sanyasa.” The meaning is that the Atman cannot be attained by knowledge without Sanyasa. But of the knower who, with these aids, strength, absence of excitement, Sanyasa and knowledge—strives intent after the Atman, the Atman enters its abode, the Brahman.
te sarvagaṃ sarvataḥ prāpyadhīrā yuktātmānaḥ sarvamevāviśanti || 5 ||
Having attained Him, the seers content with their knowledge, their purpose accomplished, free from all desire, and with full composure, having attained the all-pervading Atman on all sides, ever concentrated in their minds, enter into everything.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—How they enter into Brahman is explained. Having known him well, the seers content with that knowledge and not by any external means of delight tending to the growth of their body, their Atman having become one with the Paramatman, free from the fault of desire, etc., their senses subdued, having attained him all pervading like the akas on all sides, i.e., not in any particular place limited by conditions (what then do they attain? The Brahman itself, one and without a second as their own Atman), being discerning and with concentrated minds enter into everything when their body falls, i.e., cast off all limitations imposed by ignorance, as the akas in the pot when the pot is broken. Thus do the Knowers of Brahman enter into Brahman abode.
te brahmalokeṣu parāntakāle parāmṛtāḥ parimucyanti sarve || 6 ||
Having without doubt well ascertained the significance of the knowledge of Vedanta the seekers, their minds purified by dint of renunciation, attain the worlds of the Brahman and when their body falls, their Atman being one with the highest immortal Brahma n are absolved all round.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Having without doubt determined the object of the knowledge of Vedanta, i.e., that Brahman should be known, the seekers, their minds purified by dint of renunciation of all karma and by being centred in the pure Brahman, attain the worlds of the Brahman at the end of samsara, which for the seekers after emancipation corresponds to the time of death of those rotating in samsara. As men who seek emancipation are many, the world of Brahman, though one, appears to be many or is reached as many; so, the plural number ‘worlds of the Brahman’ is used. Brahman being the world reached, the expression ‘in the worlds of the Brahman’ means ‘in Brahman.’ Paramritah, they whose atman has become the highest immortal, i.e., Brahman. They become the highest and immortal Brahman, even during life and are absolved in all sides like a lamp that has gone out and like the akas in the pot, i.e., they have no need of any other place to go to; for, the Sruti and the Smriti say “as the footmark of birds in the air and that of aquatic animals in water are not seen, so the track of the knowing men” and they go by no road, who would reach the ends of the roads of samsara. Motion limited by place is only in samsara, because it is accomplished by means limited; but as the Brahman is all, it cannot be reached in a limited space; if the Brahman were limited in respect of place, it would like a substance having form, have a beginning and an end, be dependent on another, composed of parts, non-eternal and be a product. But the Brahman cannot be like that; so, its attainment too, cannot be limited by conditions of place.
The fifteen kalas go back to their source; all the powers seated on the senses go back to their corresponding deities and all his karma and the atman, all these become one, in the highest and imperishable Brahman.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Moreover, the knowers of Brahman regard emancipation as consisting only in the release from bondage, samsara, ignorance and the rest not as something produced. Besides at the time of emancipation the kalas which produce the body, pranas etc., go back to their own seat, i.e., cause. The word ‘Pratishtha’ is accusative plural. Fifteen:- fifteen in number already enumerated in the last prasna and well known. Devas, the powers adhering to the body, and lodged in the senses such as the eye, etc.; all these go to the corresponding deities such as the sun, etc.; also those actions of the seeker after emancipation which have not begun to bear fruit (for those which have begun to bear fruit can be consumed only by enjoyment) and the Atman limited by the intellect, i.e., who, mistaking the condition of the intellect so caused by ignorance for the Atman, has here entered into various bodies like the image of the sun, etc., into water, etc. (Karma being intended for the benefit of the Atman). Therefore ‘Vijnanamaya’ means ‘chiefly possessed of intellect.’ These and the Vijnanamaya Atman, after removal of the conditions imposed, become mingled as one in the Brahman, the highest, the imperishable, endless, indestructible, all-pervading like the akas, unborn, undecaying, immortal, beneficent, fearless, having neither before nor after, nor in, nor out, without a second, unconditioned, lose their distinctive features, i.e., become one as the images of the sun, etc., become one with the sun when the surface, such as water (in which lie is reflected) is withdrawn and as the akas within the pot, etc., becomes one with the akas when the pot, etc., is withdrawn.
Just as rivers flowing become lost in an ocean, giving up both their name and form, just so, the knower, freed from name and form, attains the bright Purusha which is beyond the avyakta.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Moreover, just as flowing streams such as the Granges and the rest having reached the sea give up their distinct individuality in it, losing both their names and form, so, the knower being freed from name and form, created by ignorance, reaches the resplendent purusha above defined, who is beyond the avyakta already explained.
He who knows that highest Brahman becomes even Brahman; and in his line, none who knows not the Brahman will be born. He crosses grief and virtue and vice and being freed from the knot of the heart, becomes immortal.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—It may he said that numerous obstacles are well known to exist in the attainment of good and that even the knower of Brahman may, therefore, be impeded either by some grief or other, or be made to take some other course by some other being, such as the Devas, reach some other after death and not reach Brahman. This cannot be; for all obstacles have already been removed by knowledge. Emancipation knows only the obstacle of ignorance and no other obstacle; because it is eternal and is being the Atman itself. Therefore, he in the world who knows that highest Brahman, as “I am directly that” does not take any other course. It is impossible even for the Devas to throw any obstacle in his attempt to reach the Brahman, because he becomes the Atman of all these; therefore he who knows the Brahman becomes even Brahman. Moreover in the line of this knower, there will not be born any who knows not the Brahman; again, he overcomes even during life the heart-burning caused by frustration of his many desires, crosses over karma known as vice and virtue, and being freed from “the knots of the heart” caused by ignorance, becomes immortal. It has already been said “the knot of the heart is untied, etc.”
This is explained by the mantra “who perform the karma enjoined, who are srotriyas, who are centred in the Brahman (lower) and who with faith, offer oblations themselves to the fire named Ekarshi, perform the vow named Sirovrata (who duly carry a fire on the head); to those alone, let one teach this knowledge of the Brahman.”
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—Now, the Upanishad concludes by indicating the rule regarding the teaching of the knowledge of Brahman. This, the rule about the teaching of the knowledge of Brahman is expounded by this text. Who perform the karma enjoined, who are Srotriyas, who being engaged in the worship of the manifested Brahman seek to know the unmanifested Brahman. Who with faith, themselves offer the oblations to the fire known as Ekarshi; to them alone whose mind is thus purified and who are, therefore, fit (to receive instruction) should one teach the knowledge of Brahman as also to those by whom is duly practised the vow of Sirovratam such being the well known Vedic vow among those who are of the Atharvana Veda.
This external purusha did the seer Angiras teach in ancient times; none by whom the vow is not observed studies this; prostration to the great sages, prostration to the great sages.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Com.—This undecaying and true purusha did the seer, known as Angiras, teach in ancient days to Saunaka who had duly approached him and questioned him (about this). The meaning is that, similarly, any other also should teach the same to one who longs for bliss and seeks emancipation and who with that end in view has duly approached the preceptor. This knowledge in the form of a book, no one who has not observed the vow, studies; for it is knowledge, only in those who observe the vow, that bears fruit. Thus ends the knowledge of Brahman which has been handed down from Brahma and the rest from preceptor to disciple. Prostration to those sages, Brahma and the rest, who have directly seen the Brahman and realised him. Prostration again to them; the repetition is both to indicate great solicitude and the fact that the Mundakopanishad here ends.
The Mandukya Upanishad, the shortest of all Upanishads, presents a profound analysis of consciousness through the four states of experience - waking, dream, deep sleep, and the transcendental state (Turiya). It establishes the identity of Atman and Brahman and explains the significance of the syllable Om as the complete expression of reality.
Editorial Note:
The Mandukya Upanishad is the shortest yet one of the most profound
Upanishads, consisting of only 12 verses. Despite its brevity, it contains
the essence of Advaita Vedanta philosophy.
It focuses on a single powerful idea: Understanding consciousness is the key to realizing the Self.
Core Teaching - Four States of Consciousness
The Upanishad explains that our experience can be understood in four states:
Vaisvanara (Waking State) Awareness of the external world through senses.
Taijasa (Dream State) Inner mental experiences, thoughts, and dreams.
Prajna (Deep Sleep) State of undifferentiated awareness without desires or dreams.
Turiya (Transcendental State) Beyond all three states - pure consciousness and true Self.
The realization of Turiya is the realization of Atman (Self).
Mahavakya
The Upanishad declares: “ayam atma brahma” - The Self is Brahman
This statement expresses the unity of individual consciousness and universal
reality.
Structure of the Text
The Mandukya Upanishad consists of 12 concise prose statements, each
building on the previous:
Verses explain the nature of Om (AUM)
Each part of Om represents one state of consciousness
The silence beyond Om represents Turiya
Mandukya Karika
The text is traditionally studied along with the Mandukya Karika by
Gaudapada (6th century CE). Here “N.N” (with dot) verses are Karika and “N”
verses are Upanishad verses.
The Karika expands the brief verses into a detailed philosophical system
It establishes non-duality (Advaita) through logical reasoning
In many traditions, the Upanishad is not studied independently of the Karika
Flow of Ideas
The teaching is extremely compact:
Reality as Consciousness
Analysis of Experience
Symbolism of Om
Transcending All States
Realization of Non-Duality
Core Philosophical Teachings
Four States of Consciousness - A complete map of human experience
Om as Reality - Sound-symbol of the universe and the Self
Non-Duality - Atman and Brahman are one
Beyond Mind and Senses - True Self is beyond all changing states
Simple Summary (For Easy Understanding)
The Mandukya Upanishad explains something very simple but very deep: Our true
nature can be understood by observing our own experience.
It says we live in three common states - waking, dreaming, and deep sleep. But
there is a fourth state, called Turiya, which is beyond all of them.
This fourth state is our real nature - pure awareness.
The Upanishad also explains that the sound Om represents all of reality,
including these four states.
By understanding this, we can realize that our true self is not limited to the
body or mind.
In the end, the message is: You are pure consciousness, and that is the
ultimate reality.
This edition presents the original Sanskrit text with IAST transliteration,
along with translation and commentary based on the Advaita Vedanta tradition of
Shankaracharya, including the Mandukya Karika of Gaudapada, translated
by Vidyavachaspati V. Panoli.
All this is the letter Om. A vivid explanation of this (is begun). All that is past, present, and future is but Om. Whatever transcends the three periods of time, too, is Om.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Introductory & Commentary How does, again, the determination of (the meaning of) Aum help the realization of the essential nature of Atman? It is thus explained:- The Śruti passages such as these declare thus:- “It is Aum.” “This (Aun) is the (best) support.” “Oh, Satyakāma, It is the Aum which is also the higher and the lower Brahman.” “Meditate on the Self as Aum.” “Aum, this word is Brahman.” “All this is verily Aum [Om].” As the rope, etc., which are the substratum of such illusions (misapprehensions) as the snake, etc., so is the non-dual Atman, which is the Ultimate Reality, the substratum of such imaginations as the vital breath (Prana), etc., which are unreal. Similarly, Aum is the substratum of the entire illusion of the world of speech having for its (corresponding) contents such illusory objects as Prana, etc., imagined in Atman. And Aum is verily of the same essential character as the Atman; for it is the name for Atman. All illusions such as Prana, etc., having Atman for their substratum and denoted by words—which are but modifications of Aum—, cannot exist without names (which are but the modification of Aum). This is supported by such Śruti passages as:- “The modification being only a name arising from speech.” “All this related to It (Brahman) is held together by the cord of speech, and strands of (specific) names.” “All these (are rendered possible in experience) by names,” etc. Aum, the word, is all this. As all diversified objects that we see around us, indicated by names, are not different from their (corresponding) names, and further as the different names are not different from Aum, therefore all this is verily Aum. As a thing is known through its name, so the highest Brahman is known through Aum alone. Therefore the highest Brahman is verily Aum. This (treatise) is the explanation of that, tasya, that is, of Aum, the word, which is of the same nature as the higher as well as the lower Brahman. Upavyākhyānam means clear explanation, because Aum is the means to the knowledge of Brahman on account of its having the closest proximity to Brahman. The word ‘Prastutam’ meaning ‘commences’ should be supplied to complete the sentence (as otherwise, it is incomplete). That which is conditioned by the triple (conceptions of) time, such as past, present and future is also verily Aum for reasons already explained. All that is beyond the three (divisions of) time, i.e., unconditioned by time, and yet known by their effects, which is called ‘Avyākṛta’, the unmanifested, etc.,—that also is verily Aum.
All this is certainly Brahman. This Self is Brahman. This Self, as such, is possessed of four quarters.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Introductory & Commentary Though the name and the object signified by the name are one and the same, still the explanation has been given (here) by giving prominence to the name (Aum). Though in the Upaniṣadic passage,—“Aum, this word, is all this”—explanation has been furnished by giving prominence to the name (Aum), the same thought is again expounded by giving prominence to the thing signified by the name. The object is to realize the knowledge of the oneness of the name and the thing signified by it. Otherwise, (the explanation) that the knowledge of the thing is dependent on the name, might suggest that the oneness of the name and the thing is to be taken only in a figurative sense. The purpose of the knowledge of the unity (of the name and the thing signified by it) is to simultaneously remove, by a single effort, (the illusion of) both the name and the thing and establish (the nature of) Brahman which is other than both. Therefore,the Śruti says,’ “The quarters (Pādas) are the letters of Aum (Mātrā) and the letters are the quarters.” All this is verily Brahman. All that has been said to consist merely of Aum (in the previous text) is Brahman. That Brahman which has been described (as existing) inferentially is now pointed out, as being directly known, by the passage, “This Self is Brahman”. The word this, meaning that which appears divided into four quarters, is pointed out as the innermost Self, with a gesture (of hand) by the passage, “This is Atman”. That Atman indicated by Aum, signifying both the higher and the lower Brahman, has four quarters (Pādas), not indeed, like the four feet (Pādas) of a cow, but like the four quarters (Pādas) of a coin known as Kārṣāpaṇa. The knowledge of the fourth (Turiya) is attained by merging the (previous) three, such as Viśva, etc., in it in the order of the previous one, in the succeeding one. Here the word ‘Pāda’ or ‘foot’ is used in the sense of instrument. The word ‘Pāda’ is again used in the sense of an object when the object to be achieved is the fourth (Turiya).
(The Self) seated in the waking state and called Vaisvanara who, possessed of the consciousness of the exterior, and seven limbs and nineteen mouths, enjoys the gross objects, is the first quarter.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Jāgaritasthāna, i.e., his sphere (of activity) is the waking state. Bahiṣprajña, i.e., who is aware of objects other than himself. The meaning is that consciousness appears, as it were, related to outward objects on account of Avidya. Similarly Saptāṅga, i.e., he has seven limbs. The Śruti says, “Of that Vaiśvānara Self, the effulgent region is his head, the sun his eye, the air his vital breath, the ether (Ākāśa) the (middle part of his) body, the water his kidney and the earth his feet.” The Āhavanīya fire (one of the three fires of the Agnihotra sacrifice) has been described as his mouth in order to complete the imagery of the Agnihotra sacrifice. He is called Saptāṅga because these are the seven limbs of his body. Similarly he has nineteen mouths. These are the five organs of perception (Buddhindriyas); the five organs of action (Karmendriyas); the five aspects of vital breath (Prana, etc.); the mind (Manas); the intellect (Buddhi); egoity (Ahamkara); mind-stuff (Chitta). These are, as it were, the mouths, i.e., the instruments by means of which he (Vaiśvānara) experiences (objects). He, the Vaiśvānara, thus constituted, experiences through the instruments enumerated above, gross objects, such as sound, etc. He is called Vaiśvānara because he leads all creatures of the universe in diverse ways (to the enjoyment of various objects); or because he comprises all beings. Following the grammatical rules regarding the compound which gives the latter meaning, the word that is formed is Viśvānara, which is the same as Vaiśvānara. He is the first quarter because he is non-different from the totality of gross bodies (known as Virāt). He is called first (quarter) because the subsequent quarters are realized through him (Vaiśvānara). Objection:- While the subject-matter under discussion treats of the innermost Self (Pratyak Ātmā) as having four quarters—in the text, “This Atman is Brahman”—how is it that (the external universe consisting of) the effulgent regions, etc., have been described as its limbs such as head, etc.? Reply:- This, however, is no mistake; because the object is to describe the entire phenomena, including those of gods (Adhidaiva) as having four quarters from the standpoint of this Atman known as the Virāt (i.e., the totality of the gross universe). And in this way alone is non-duality established by the removal of (the illusion of) the entire phenomena. Further, the one Atman is realized as existing in all beings and all beings are seen as existing in Atman. And, thus alone, the meaning of such Śruti passages as “Who sees all beings in the Self, etc.” can be said to be established. Otherwise, the subjective world will, verily, be, as in the case of such philosophers as the Sāmkhyas, limited by its (one’s) own body. And if that be the case, no room would be left for the Advaita which is the special feature of the Śruti. For, in the case of duality, there would be no difference between the Advaita and the Sāmkhya and other systems. The establishment of the identity of all with Atman is sought by all the Upaniṣads. It is, therefore, quite reasonable to speak of the effulgent regions, etc., as seven limbs in connection with the subjective (individual self, Adhyātma) associated with the gross body, because of its identity with the Adhidaiva (comprising the super-physical regions) universe from the standpoint of the Virāt (the totality of the gross physical universe). This is further known from such characteristic indication (of the Śrutí), as “Thy head shall fall”, etc. The identity (of Adhyātma and Adhidaiva) from the standpoint of the Virāt indicates similar identity of the selves known as the Hiraṇyagarbha and the Taijasa as well as of the Unmanifested (Isvara) and the Prajna. It is also stated in the Madhu Brāhmaṇa, “This bright immortal person in this earth and that bright immortal person in the body (both are Madhu).” It is an established fact that the Self in deep sleep (Prajna) is identical with the Unmanifested (Isvara) because of the absence of any distinction between them. Such being the case, it is clearly established that non-duality is realized by the disappearance (of the illusion) of all duality.
(The Self) seated in the state of dream and called Taijasa who, possessed of the consciousness of the interior, and seven limbs and nineteen mouths, enjoys the subtle objects, is the second quarter.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
He is called the Svapnasthāna because the dream (state) is his (Taijasa) sphere. Waking consciousness, being associated as it is with many means, and appearing conscious of objects as if external, though (in reality) they are nothing but states of mind, leaves in the mind corresponding impressions. That the mind (in dream) without any of the external means, but possessed of the impressions left on it by the waking consciousness, like a piece of canvas with the pictures painted on it, experiences the dream state also as if it were like the waking, is due to its being under the influence of ignorance, desire and their action. Thus it is said, “(And when he falls asleep) then after having taken away with him (portion of the) impressions from the world during the waking state (destroying and building up again, he experiences dream by his own light)” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, 4. 3. 9). Similarly the Atharvana, after introducing the subject with “(all the senses) become one in the highest Deva, the mind,” continues “There the god (mind) enjoys in dream greatness” (Praśna Upaniṣad). From the standpoint of the sense-organs, the mind is internal. He (the Taijasa) is called the Antaḥprajña or conscious of the internal because his consciousness in dream becomes aware of the mental states, which are impressions left by the previous waking state. He is called the Taijasa because he appears as the subject though this (dream) consciousness is without any (gross) object and is of the nature of the essence of light. The Viśva (the subject of the waking state) experiences consciousness associated with gross external objects; whereas, here (in the dream state), the object of experience is consciousness consisting of Vāsanās (the impressions of past experience). Therefore this experience is called the experience of the subtle. The rest is common (with the previous Śruti). This Taijasa is the second quarter (of Ātmarn).
Where the sleeper desires not a thing of enjoyment and sees not any dream, that state is deep sleep. (The Self) seated in the state of deep sleep and called Prajna, in whom everything is unified, who is dense with consciousness, who is full of bliss, who is certainly the enjoyer of bliss, and who is the door to the knowledge (of the preceding two states), is the third quarter.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The adjectival clause, viz., “Wherein the sleeper,” etc., is put with a view to enabling one to grasp what the state of deep sleep (Suṣupti) signifies, inasmuch as sleep characterized by the absence of the knowledge of Reality is the common feature of those mental modifications which are associated with (waking, that is) perception (of gross objects) and (dream, that is the) non-perception (of gross objects). Or the object of the introduction of the adjectival clause may be to distinguish the state of deep sleep (of the sleeping person) from the two previous states as sleep characterized by the absence of knowledge of Reality is the common feature of the three states. ‘Wherein,’ that is to say, in which state or time, the sleeping person does not see any dream, nor does he desire any desirable (object). For; in the state of deep sleep, there does not exist, as in the two other states, any desire or the dream experience whose characteristic is to take a thing for what it is not. He is called the ‘Suṣuptasthāna’ because his sphere is this state of deep sleep. Similarly it is called Ekībhūta, i.e., the state in which all experiences become unified—a state in which all objects of duality, which are nothing but forms of thought, spread over the two states (viz., the waking and the dream), reach the state of indiscrimination or non-differentiation without losing their characteristics, as the day, revealing phenomenal objects, is enveloped by the darkness of night. Therefore conscious experiences, which are nothing but forms of thought, perceived during dream and waking states, become a thick mass (of consciousness) as it were (in deep sleep); this state of deep sleep is called the ‘Prajñānagharta’ (a mass of all consciousness unified) on account of the absence of all manifoldness (discrimination of variety). As at night, owing to the indiscrimination produced by darkness, all (percepts) become a mass (of darkness) as it were, so also in the state of deep sleep all (objects) of consciousness, verily, become a mass (of consciousness). The word ‘eva’ (‘verily’) in the text denotes the absence of any other thing except consciousness (in deep sleep). (At the time of deep sleep) the mind is free from the miseries of the efforts made on account of the states of the mind being involved in the relationship of subject and object:- therefore, it is called the Ānandamaya, that is, endowed with an abundance of bliss. But this is not Bliss Itself; because it is not Bliss Infinite. As in common (experience) parlance, one, free from efforts, is called happy and enjoyer of bliss. As the Prajna enjoys this state of deep sleep which is entirely free from all efforts, therefore it is called the ‘Ānandabhuk’ (the experiencer of bliss). The Śruti also says, “This is its highest bliss.” It is called the ‘Cetomukha’ because it is the doorway to the (cognition) of the two other states of consciousness known as dream and waking. Or because the Ceta (the perceiving entity) characterized by (empirical) consciousness (Bodha) is its doorway leading to the experience of dreams, etc., therefore it is called the “Cetomukha’. It is called Prajna as it is conscious of the past and the future as well as of all objects. It is called the Prajna, the knower par excellence, even in deep sleep, because of its having been so in the two previous states. Or it is called the Prajna because its peculiar feature is consciousness undifferentiated. In the two other states consciousness exists, no doubt, but it is (there) aware of (the experiences of) variety. The Prajna, thus described, is the third quarter.
This is the Lord of all; this is omniscient; this is the in-dwelling controller (of all); this is the source and indeed the origin and dissolution of all beings.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
This in its natural state, is the Lord (Isvara) of all. All, that is to say, of the entire physical and super-physical universe. He (Isvara) is not something separate from the universe as others hold. The Śruti also says, “O good one, Prana (Prajna or Isvara) is that in which the mind is bound.” He is omniscient because he is the knower of all beings in their different conditions. He is the Antaryāmin, that is, he alone entering into all, directs everything from within. Therefore He is called the origin of all because from Him proceeds the universe characterized by diversity, as described before. It being so, He is verily that from which all things proceed and in which all disappear.
ghanaprajñastathā prājña eka eva tridhā smṛtaḥ .. 1..
Visva having exterior consciousness is all-pervading, whereas Taijasa has interior consciousness, and Prajna, similarly is dense with consciousness. Thus the One alone is regarded in there ways.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The implication of the passage is this:—That Atman is (as witness) distinct from the three states (witnessed) and that he is pure and unrelated, is established by his moving in three states, in succession, and also on account of the knowledge, “I am. that,” resulting from the experience which unites through memory. The Śruti also corroborates it by the illustration of the ‘great fish’, etc.
ākāśe ca hṛdi prājñastridhā dehe vyavasthitaḥ .. 2..
Visva is seen in the right eye which is its seat of experience, whereas Taijasa is inside the mind and Prajna is in the space inside the heart. In these three ways he dwells in the body.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
This verse is intended to show that the threefold experience of Viśva, etc. (Taijasa and Prajna) is realised in the waking state alone. Dakṣinākṣi:- the means of perception (of gross objects) is the right eye. The presence of Viśva, the cognizer of gross objects, is chiefly felt there. The Śruti also says, “The person that is in the right eye is known as Indha—the Luminou s One” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad). Indha, which means the effulgent one, who is the Vaiśvānara and also known as the Virāt Atman (the totality of gross bodies), the perceiver in the sun, is the same as the perceiver in the eye. Objection:- The Hiranyagarbha is distinct from the knower of the body (Kṣetra) who is the cognizer, the controller of the right eye, who is also the general experiencer and who is the Lord of the body. Reply:- No, for, in reality, such a distinction is not admitted. The Śrutí says, “One effulgent being alone is hidden in all beings.” The Smṛti also says:- “Me do thou also know, O Arjuna, to be the Kṣetrajña (the knower of the body) in all Kṣetras (bodies)” (Gītā, 13. 2). “indivisible, yet it exists as if divided in beings” (Gītā, 13. 16). Though the presence of Viśva is equally felt in all sense-organs without distinction yet the right eye is particularly singled out (as the chief instrument for its perception), because he (Viśva) makes a greater use of the right eye in perceiving objects. (The right eye is made here to represent all the sense-organs). The one, who has his abode in the right eye, having perceived (external) forms, closes the eye; and then recollecting them within the mind sees the very same (external objects) as in a dream, as the manifestation of the (subtle) impressions (of memory). As is the case here (waking), so also is the case with dream. Therefore, Taijasa, the perceiver in the mind.within, is verily the same as Viśva. With the cessation of the activity known as memory, the perceiver (in the waking and dream states) is unified with Prajna in the Ākāśa of the heart and becomes verily a mass of consciousness, because there is, then, a cessation of mental activities. Both perception and memory are forms of thought, in the absence of which the seer remains indistinguiṣably in the form of Prana in the heart alone. For, the Śruti also says, “Prana alone withdraws all these within.” Taijasa is identical with Hiraṇyagarbha on account of its existence being realised in mind. Mind is the characteristic indication (of both). This is supported by such scriptural passages as “This Puruṣa (Hiraṇyagarbha) is all mind,” etc. Objection:- The Prana (vital breath) of a deep sleeper is manifested. The sense-organs (at the time of deep sleep) are merged in it. How, then, can it (Prana) be said to be unmanifested? Reply:- This is no mistake, for the unmanifested (Avyākritā) is characterised by the absence (of the knowledge) of time and space. Though Prana, in the case of a person who identifies himself with (particular) Prana, appears to be manifested (during the time of waking and dream), yet even in the case of those who (thus) identify themselves with individualized Prana, the Prana, during deep sleep, loses (such) particular identification, which is due to its limitation by the body, and is verily the same as the unmanifested. As in the case of those who identify themselves with individualized Pranas, the Prana, at the time of death, ceases to be the manifested, so also in the case of those who think of themselves as identified with the individualized Pranas, the Prana attains to the condition like the unmanifested, in the state of deep sleep. This Prana (of deep sleep) further contains the seed (cause) of (future) creation (as is the case with the Avyākritā). The cognizer of the two states—deep sleep and Avyākritā—is also one (viz., the Pure Consciousness). It (one in deep sleep) is identical with the (apparently) different cognizers identifying themselves with the conditioned (in the states.of waking and dream), and therefore such attributes as “unified,” “mass of all consciousness,” etc., as described above, are reasonably applicable to it (one in deep sleep). Other reason, already stated, supports it. How does, indeed, the word Prana apply to the Avyākrita (unmanifested)? It is supported by the Śruti passage, “Oh, good one, the mind is tied to the Prana.” Objection:- In that Śruti passage, the word Prana indicates Sat (Existence) i.e., the Brahman, (not the Avyākrita) which is the subject-matter under discussion, as the text commences with the passage, “All this was Sat in the beginning.” Reply:- This is no mistake, for (in that passage) the Sat is admitted to be that which contains within it the seed or cause (of creation). Though Sat, i.e., Brahman, is indicated in that passage by the word ‘Prana’, yet the Brahman that is indicated by the words Sat and Prana (in that connection) is not the one who is free from its attribute of being the seed or cause that creates all beings. For if in that Śruti passage, Brahman, devoid of the causal relation (i.e., the Absolute) were sought to be described, then the Śruti would have used such expressions as “Not this, Not this,” “Wherefrom speech turns back”, “That is something other than both the known and the unknown”, etc. The Smṛti also declares, “It is neither Sat (existence) nor Asat (non-existence)” (Gītā). If by the text were meant the (Absolute) devoid of causal relation then the coming back, to the relative plane of consciousness, of those who were in deep sleep and unified with Sat at the time of Praḷaya (cosmic dissolution), could not happen. Further, (in that case) the liberated souls would again come back to the relative plane of consciousness; for the absence of seed or cause (capable of giving birth to the world of names and forms) would be the common feature of both. Further, in the absence of the seed (cause, i.e., at the time of Suṣupti and Praḷaya) which can be destroyed by Knowledge (alone), Knowledge itself becomes futile. Therefore the word Sat (the text of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, the passage under discussion) in that aspect in which causality is attributed to it, is indicated by Prana, and accordingly has been described in all the Śrutis as the cause. It is for this reason also that the Absolute Brahman, dissociated from its causal attribute, has been indicated in such Śruti passages as “It is beyond the unmanifested which is higher than the manifested”, “He is causeless and is the substratum of the external (effect) and the internal (cause),” “Wherefrom words come back....”, “Not this, not this”, etc. That which is designated as Prajna (when it is viewed as the cause of the phenomenal world) will be described as Turiya separately when it is not viewed as the cause, and when it is free from all phenomenal relationship (such as that of the body, etc.), i.e., in its absolutely Real aspect. The causal condition is also verily experienced in this body from such cognition of the man who is awakened from the deep sleep, as “I did not know anything (at the time of deep sleep).” Therefore it is said that (one) Atman is perceived as threefold in the (one) body.
vedaitadubhayaṃ yastu sa bhuñjāno na lipyate .. 5..
He who knows these two, viz that which is shown to be the thing to be enjoyed and that which is (shown) to be the enjoyer, in the three states, does not become affected, even though enjoying.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
In the three states, namely, waking, etc., the one and the same object of experience appears in threefold forms as the gross, the subtle and the blissful. Further, the experiencer (of the three states) known (differently) as Viśva, Taijasa and Prajna has been described as one on account of the unity of consciousness implied in such cognition as ‘I am that’ (common to all conditions). as well as from the absence of any distinction in respect of the perceiver. He who knows the two (experiencer and the objects of experience), appearing as many in the form of subject and objects of experience, though enjoying them, is not affected thereby; because all objects (of experience) are experienced by one subject alone. As (the heat of the) fire does not increase or decrease by consuming wood, etc., so also nothing is added to or taken away (from the knowingness or awareness of the Atman) by its experience of that which, is its object.
It is a settled fact that coming into being can be said only of positive entities that exist. Prana creates all; and Purusha creates the conscious beings separately.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The manifestation can be predicated of positive entities comprehended as the different forms of Viśva, Taijasa and Prajna—whose existence, of the nature of illusory names and forms caused by an innate Avidya (ignorance), cannot be denied. This is thus explained later on:- “Neither in reality nor in illusion can the son of a barren woman be said to be born.” For, if things could come out of non-entity, Brahman whose existence is inferred from experience will itself be rendered a non-entity because of the absence of means of comprehension. That the snake (in the rope) appearing as such on account of an illusory cause (Māya) which itself is the effect of ignorance (Avidya), pre-exists in the form of the rope is a matter of common experience. For by no one is the illusion of the rope-snake or the mirage, etc., ever perceived without a substratum. As before the illusory appearance of the snake, its existence was certainly there in the rope, so also all positive entities before their manifestation certainly exist in the form of a cause, i.e., Prana. The Śruti also declares this in such passages as:- “All this (the phenomenal universe) was verily Brahman at the beginning” and “All this existed, at the beginning as Atman.” Prana manifests all. As the rays proceed from the sun, so also all different centres of consciousness (i.e., the Jivas) which are like the (many) reflections of the same sun in the water and which are manifested differently as Viśva, Taijasa and Prajna, comprising various physical forms of gods, animals, etc., proceed from the Puruṣa. The Puruṣa manifests all these entities called as living beings, which are different from inanimate objects, but of the same nature as itself (Puruṣa), like fire and its sparks and like the sun with its reflections in water. Prana, the causal self, manifests all other entities like the spider producing the web. There are such scriptural pass-ages in its support as, “The sparks from the fire, etc.”
Those who think of creation hold it as the manifestation of God's power; while others regard creation as same as dream and illusion.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Creation is the manifestation of the superhuman power of God ; thus think those who reflect on (the process of) creation. But those who intently think of the Ultimate Reality find no interest in (the theory of) creation. It (that no interest should be attached to the act of creation) is also supported by such Śruti passages as, “Indra (the great god) assumed diverse forms through Maya (Maya)”. The juggler throws the thread up in the sky, climbs by it with his arms, disappears from the sight (of the spectators), engages himself in a fight (in the sky) in which his limbs, having been severed, fall to the ground and he rises up again. The on-looker, though witnessing the performance, does not evince any interest in the thought in regard to the reality of the jugglery performed by the juggler. Similarly there is a real juggler who is other than the rope and the one that climbs up the rope. The manifestation of deep sleep, dream and waking is analogous to the throwing up of the rope by the juggler (in the above illustration) and the (empirical selves known as) Prajna, Viśva and Taijasa, related to the three states, are similar to the juggler, who appears to have climbed up the rope. As he, the juggler, remains on the ground unseen (by the on-lookers) having veiled himself, as it were, by his illusion, so also is the truth about the Highest Reality known as Turiya Therefore those noble souls seeking Moksa evince interest in the contemplation of this (the Turiya) but not in the creation which is futile. The word, ‘SvapnaMayasarūpa’—meaning, alike dream and illusion—is intended to show that all these (false) notions (regarding manifestation) belong only to those who imagine the process of creation or manifestation.
Creation is the mere will of the Lord, say those who thought out well the (process of) creation, but those who rely upon time hold that the birth of beings is from time.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The manifestation (creation) proceeds from the mere will of God because His will in reality cannot but achieve its purpose. Such objects as pot, etc., are but the (manifestation of the) will (of the potter). They can never be anything external or unrelated to such will. Some say manifestation proceeds from time.
devasyaiṣa svabhāvo'yamāptakāmasya kā spṛhā .. 9..
Some others hold that creation is for the enjoyment (of God), yet others say that it is for His sport. But it is the very nature of the resplendent Being, (for) what desire can he have whose desire is all fulfilled?
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Others think that the purpose of manifestation is only the enjoyment (by God of the objects so created), that creation is merely a diversion of God. These two theories are refuted (by the author) by the single assertion that it is the very nature of the Effulgent (Brahman). Thus taking this standpoint (the nature of the Effulgent Being) all the theories (of creation) herein (stated) are refuted for the reason indicated by:- “What could be the desire for manifestation on the part of Brahman whose desires are ever in a state of fulfilment?” For the rope, etc., to appear as snake, no other reason can be assigned than Avidya.
The Fourth is thought of as that which is not conscious of the internal world, nor conscious of the external world, nor conscious of both the worlds, nor dense with consciousness, nor simple consciousness, nor unconsciousness, which is unseen, actionless, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable, indescribable, whose proof consists in the identity of the Self (in all states), in which all phenomena come to a cessation, and which is unchanging, auspicious, and non-dual. That is the Self; that is to be known.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Introductory & Commentary The fourth quarter which now comes in order (for explanation) has to be described. This is done in the words of the text:- “Not conscious of the internal object.” It (Turiya) does not admit of description or indication by means of words, for all uses (affirmative or negative) of language fail to express it. Therefore Turiya is sought to be indicated by the negation of all attributes (characteristics). Objection:- Then it becomes mere void or Sunya. Reply:- No, because it is impossible for imagination to exist without a substratum. The illusion of silver, a snake, a man or mirage, etc., cannot be conceived as existing without the (corresponding) substratum of the mother-of-pearl, rope, stump or desert, etc. Objection:- If that be the case, Turiya ought to be indicatable by words and not by the negation of all attributes. For, it is the substratum of all imaginations such as, Prana, etc., in the same way as jars, etc., which being the substratum of water, etc., are indicated as such by words. Reply:- The idea of Prana, etc., (supposed to exist in Turiya) is unreal like the false idea of silver, etc., in the mother-of-pearl, etc. A relation between the real and the unreal cannot be expressed by words because such relation is, itself, non-existent. Turiya cannot be the object of any other instrument of knowledge (such as direct perception) like the cow, etc., because of its unique nature, owing to the absence of Upādhis. Atman cannot have anything like a generic property, like the cow, etc., because it is devoid of all Upādhis or attributes; it has neither generic nor specific characteristics because it is one, without a second. It cannot be known by any activity (proceeding from it) as in the case of a cook; because it is devoid of all actions. It cannot be described by attributes such as blue, etc., because it is without any attribute. Therefore it follows that Turiya cannot be indicated by any name. Objection:- Then it (Turiya) would be like the “horns of a hare” and hence one’s pursuit of it must be futile. Reply:- No, the knowledge of Turiya as identical with Self (Atman) destroys the hankering after objects which are non-self just as the knowledge of mother-of-pearls (mistaken for silver) removes the desire for (illusory) silver. For, once the identity of Turiya and Self is realised there is no possibility of one’s being deluded by ignorance, desire and the like misapprehensions (which are the effects of ignorance) and there is no reason for Turiya not being known as identical with the Self. For all the Upaniṣads point to this end only as is evident from the following:- “That thou art”, “This Atman is Brahman”, “That is real and that is Atman”, “The Brahman which is directly and immediately cognized”, “He is both without and within, as well as causeless”, “All this is verily Atman”, etc. This very Atman has been described as constituting the Highest Reality and its opposite (the unreal) and as having four quarters. Its unreal (illusory) aspect has been described as due to ignorance, like the illusion of snake in the rope, having for its characteristics the three quarters and being of the same nature as the seed and the sprout. Now is described (in the following Śruti) Turiya which is not of the nature of cause but which is of the nature of the Highest Reality corresponding to the rope—by negating the three states, enumerated above, which correspond to the snake, etc. Objection:- The object was to describe Atman as having four quarters. By the very descriptions of the three quarters, the fourth is established as being other than the three characterised by the “conscious of the subjective”, etc. Therefore the negation (of attributes relating to the three quarters) for the purpose of indicating Turiya implied in the statement, “Turiya is that which is not conscious of the subjective”, etc., is futile. Reply:- No. As the nature of the rope is realised by the negation of the (illusory) appearances of the snake, etc., so also it is intended to establish the very Self, which subsists in the three states, as TuriyaThis is done in the same way as (the great Vedic statement) “Thou art that”. If Turiya were, in fact, anything different from Atman subsisting in the three states, then, the teachings of the Scriptures would have no meaning on account of the absence of any instrument of knowledge (regarding Turiya). Or the other (inevitable alternative would be to declare absolute nihilism ( śūnya) to be the ultimate Truth. Like the (same) rope mistaken as snake, garland, etc., when the same Atman is mistaken as Antaḥprajña (conscious of the subjective) etc., in the three states associated with different characteristics, the knowledge, resulting from the negation of such attributes as the conscious of the subjective, etc., is the means of establishing the absolute absence of the unreal phenomena of the world (imagined) in Atman. As a matter of fact, the two results, namely, the negation of (superimposed) attributes and the disappearance of the unreal phenomena happen at the same time. Therefore no additional instrument of knowledge or no other effort is to be made or sought after for the realisation of TuriyaWith the cessation of the idea of the snake, etc., in the rope, the real nature of the rope becomes revealed and this happens simultaneously with the knowledge of the distinction between the rope and the snake. But those who say that the knowledge, in addition to the removal of the darkness (that envelopes the jar), enables one to know the jar, may as well affirm that the act of cutting (a tree), in addition to its undoing the relation of the members of the body intended to be cut, also functions (in other ways) in other parts of the body. As the act of cutting intended to divide the tree into two is said to be complete with the severance of the parts (of the tree) so also the knowledge employed to perceive the jar covered by the darkness (that envelopes it) attains its purpose when it results in removing the darkness, though that is not the object intended to be produced. In such case the knowledge of the jar, which is invariably connected with the removal of the darkness, is not the result accomplished by the instrument of knowledge. Likewise, the knowledge, which is (here) the same as that which results from the negation of predicates, directed towards the discrimination of such attributes as “the conscious of the subjective” etc., superimposed upon Atman, cannot function with regard to Turiya in addition to its act of negating of such attributes as “the conscious of the subjective” which is not the object intended to be produced. For, with the negation of the attributes such as “conscious of the subjective,” etc., is accomplished simultaneously the cessation of the distinction between the knower, the known and the knowledge. Thus it will be said later on, “Duality cannot exist when Gnosis, the highest Truth (non-duality), is realised.” The knowledge of duality cannot exist even for a moment immediately after the moment of the cessation of duality. If it should remain, there would follow what is known as regressus ad infinitum; and consequently duality will never cease. Therefore it is established that the cessation of such unreal attributes as “conscious of the subjective” etc., superimposed upon Atman is simultaneous with the manifestation of the Knowledge which, in itself, is the means (pramana) for the negation of duality. By the statement that it (Turiya) is “not conscious of the subjective” is indicated that it is not “Taijasa”. Similarly by the statement that it is “not conscious of the objective,” it is denied that it (Turiya) is Viśva. By saying that it is “not conscious of either”, it is denied that Turiya is any intermediate state between the waking and the dream states. By the statement that Turiya is “not a mass all sentiency”, it is denied that it is the condition of deep sleep—which is held to be a causal condition on account of one’s inability to distinguish the truth from error (in deep sleep). By saying that it is “not simple consciousness”, it is implied that Turiya cannot simultaneously cognize the entire world of consciousness (by a single act of consciousness). And lastly by the statement that it is “not unconsciousness” it is implied that Turiya is not insentient or of the nature of matter. Objection:- How, again, do such attributes as “conscious of the subjective,” etc., which are (directly) perceived to subsist in Atman become non-existent only by an act of negation as the snake, etc. (perceived) in the rope, etc., become non-existent (by means of an act of negation)? Reply:- Though the states (waking and dream) are really of the essence of consciousness itself, and as such are non-different from each other (from the point of view of the substratum), yet one state is seen to change into another as do the appearances of the snake, water-line, etc., having for their substratum the rope, etc. But the consciousness itself is real because it never changes. Objection:- Consciousness is seen to change (disappear) in deep sleep. Reply:- No, the state of deep sleep is a matter of experience. For the Śruti says, “Knowledge of the Knower is never absent.” Hence it (Turiya) is “unseen” ; and because it is unseen therefore it is “incomprehensible”. Turiya cannot be apprehended by the organs of action. Alakṣanam means “uninferable”, because there is no Liṅga (common characteristic) for its inference. Therefore Turiya is “unthinkable” and hence “indescribable” (by words). It is “essentially of the nature of consciousness consisting of Self”. Turiya should be known by spotting that consciousness that never changes in the three states, viz., waking, etc., and whose nature is that of a Unitary Self. Or, the phrase may signify that the knowledge of the one Atman alone is the means for realising Turiya, and therefore Turiya is the essence of this consciousness or Self or Atman. The Śruti also says, “It should be meditated upon as Atman.” Several attributes, such as the “conscious of the subjective” etc., associated with the manifestation (such as, Viśva, etc.) in each of the states have already been negated. Now by describing Turiya as “the cessation of illusion”, the attributes which characterise the-three states, viz., waking, etc., are negated. Hence it is “ever Peaceful”, i.e., without any manifestation of change—and “all bliss”. As it is non-dual, i.e., devoid of illusory ideas of distinction, therefore it is called “Turiya”, the “Fourth”, because it is totally distinct (in character) from the three quarters which' are mere appearances. “This, indeed, is the Atman and it should be known,” is intended to show that the meaning of the Vedic statement, “That thou art”, points to the relationless Atman (Turiya) which is like the rope (in the illustration) different from the snake, line on the ground, stick, etc,, which are mere appearances. That Atman which has been described in such Śruti passages as “unseen, but the seer”, “the consciousness of the seer is never absent”, etc., should be known. (The incomprehensible) Turiya “should be known”, and this is said so only from the standpoint of the previously unknown condition, for duality cannot exist when the Highest Truth is known.
Turiya, the Lord powerful to bring about the cessation of all sorrows, is imperishable, is regarded as the non-dual Lord of all entities, and is all-pervading.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
In (the Knowledge of) Īśāna, meaning the Turiya Atman there is a cessation of all miseries characterised by the three states, viz., Prajna, Taijasa and Viśva. The word ‘Īśāna’ is explained as ‘Prahhu’, i.e., the one who brings about the cessation of miseries. It is because misery is destroyed by one’s own Knowledge of it (Turiya). ‘Avyaya’ means that which is not subject to any change, i.e., which does not deviate from its own nature. How? It is so because Turiya is non-dual, all other entities being illusory (unreal) like the idea of the snake, etc., imagined in the rope. It is he who is recognised as the Deva (on account of his effulgent nature), the Turiya, the fourth, the Vibhu, that is the all-pervading one.
प्राज्ञः कारणबद्धस्तु द्वौ तौ तुर्ये न सिध्यतः ॥ ११॥
kāryakāraṇabaddhau tāviṣyete viśvataijasau .
prājñaḥ kāraṇabaddhastu dvau tau turye na sidhyataḥ .. 11..
Visva and Taijasa are regarded as conditioned by cause and effect. Prajna is conditioned by cause. But these two (viz cause and effect) do not exist in Turiya.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The generic and specific characters of Viśva, etc., are described with a view to determining the real nature of Turiya‘Kārya’ or effect is that which is done, i.e., which has the characteristic of result. ‘Kāraṇa’ or the cause is that which acts, i.e., it is the state in which the effect remains latent. Both Viśva and Taijasa, described above, are known as being conditioned by cause and effect, characterised by both non-apprehension and mis-apprehension of Reality. But Prajna is conditioned by cause alone. Cause, characterised by the non-apprehension of Reality, is the condition of Prajna. Therefore these two, cause and effect, i.e., non-apprehension and mis-apprehension of Reality, do not exist, i.e., are not possible in Turiya.
Prajna knows neither himself nor others, neither truth nor untruth. But that Turiya is ever the all seer.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
How is it that Prajna is conditioned by cause? And how is it, again, that the two conditions of non-apprehension and mis-apprehension of Reality do not exist in Turiya? It is because Prajna does not, like Viśva and Taijasa, perceive anything of the duality, external to and other than itself and born of the cause known as Avidya. Therefore it is conditioned by darkness characterised by non-apprehension of Reality which is the cause of mis-apprehension. As Turiya exists always, ever all-seeing , on account of the absence of anything other than Turiya, it is never associated with the causal condition characterised by non-apprehension of Reality. Consequently mis-apprehension of Reality winch is the result of non-apprehension is not found in TuriyaFor, it is not possible to find in the sun, whose nature is to be ever-luminous, anything contrary to light, viz., darkness, or any other light different from itself. The Śruti also says:- “The Knowledge of the seer is never absent.” Or the phrase may be explained thus:- Turiya may be designated as ever all-seeing because it subsists in all, in dream and waking states and all the seers that cognize them (in those states) are Turiya alone. This is also borne out by the following Śruti passage, “There is no seer other than this.”
बीजनिद्रायुतः प्राज्ञः सा च तुर्ये न विद्यते ॥ १३॥
dvaitasyāgrahaṇaṃ tulyamubhayoḥ prājñaturyayoḥ .
bījanidrāyutaḥ prājñaḥ sā ca turye na vidyate .. 13..
The non-cognition of duality is common to both Prajna and Turiya. Prajna is possessed of sleep of the nature of cause, whereas that sleep does not exist in Turiya.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
This śloka is meant to remove a doubt that has arisen incidentally. The doubt is this:- How is it that it is Prajna alone and not Turiya that is bound by the condition of cause, since the non-cognition of duality is the common feature of both? This doubt is thus removed :- The meaning of the phrase Bījanidrāyuta is:- Nidrā or sleep is characterised by the absence of the Knowledge of Reality. This is the cause which gives rise to the cognition of varieties. Prajna is associated with this sleep which is the cause. It is because Turiya is ever all-seeing, therefore the sleep characterised by the absence of the Knowledge of Reality does not exist in TuriyaTherefore the bondage in the form of causal condition does not exist in Turiya.
न निद्रां नैव च स्वप्नं तुर्ये पश्यन्ति निश्चिताः ॥ १४॥
svapnanidrāyutāvādyau prājñastvasvapnanidrayā .
na nidrāṃ naiva ca svapnaṃ turye paśyanti niścitāḥ .. 14..
The first two (viz Visva and taijasa) are associated with dream and sleep, but Prajna (is associated) with sleep devoid of dream. The knowers of Brahman do not see either sleep or dream in Turiya.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Svapna or dream is the mis-apprehension of Reality like that of the snake in the rope. Nidrā or sleep has already been defined as darkness characterised by the absence of the Knowledge of Reality. Viśva and Taijasa are associated with these, viz., the conditions of dream and sleep. Therefore they have been described as conditioned by the characteristics of cause and effect. But Prajna is associated with sleep alone without dream; therefore it is described as conditioned by cause only. The knower of Brahman does not see them (dream and sleep) in Turiya, as it would be inconsistent like seeing darkness in the Sun. Therefore Turiya has been described as not associated with the conditions of cause and effect.
Dream belongs to him who perceives wrongly and sleep to him who knows not Reality. When the false notion of these two comes to an end, the state of Turiya is attained.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
When is one established in Turiya? It is thus replied:- During the states of dream and waking when one wrongly cognizes Reality like the perception of the snake in the place of the rope, he is said to be experiencing dream. Nidrā or sleep, characterised by the ignorance of Reality, is the common feature of the three states. Viśva and Taijasa, on account of their having the common features of Svapna (dream) and Nidrā (sleep), form a single class. That Nidrā (sleep) which is characterised by the predominance of wrong apprehension (of Reality) constitutes the state of inversion which is Svapna (dream). But in the third state, Nidrā (sleep), alone, characterised by the nonapprehension of Reality is the only inversion. (This forms the second or the other class implied in the text which speaks only of dream and sleep as covering the three states.) Therefore when these two classes of the nature of effect and cause, characterised by the mis-apprehension and non-apprehension respectively (of Reality), disappear by the destruction of the inversion characterised by effect and cause, by the knowledge of the nature of the Highest Reality, then one realises Turiya which is the goal. Then one does not find in Turiya this condition, the characteristics of which are these two (effect and cause), and one thus becomes firm in the Highest Reality which is Turiya.
When the individual Self, sleeping under the influence of Maya that is beginningless, is awakened, then he realises (Turiya that is) unborn, sleepless, dreamless and non-dual.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
One who is called the Jiva, the individual soul, (whose characteristic is to be) subject to the law of transmigration, sleeping under the influence of Maya which is active from time without beginning and which has the double characteristics of non-apprehending (on account of its being of the nature of the cause) and mis-apprehending Reality, experiences such dreams as, “This is my father, this is my son, this is my grandson, this is my property and these are my animals, I am their master, I am happy, I am miserable, I have suffered loss on account of this, I have gained on this account”... When the Jiva remains asleep experiencing these dreams in the two states he is then thus, awakened by the gracious teacher who has himself realised the Reality, indicated by Vedānta:- “Thou art not this, of the nature of cause and effect, but That thou art.” When the Jiva is thus awakened from sleep, he, then, realises his real nature. What is his nature? It (Self) is birthless, because it is beyond cause and effect and because it has none of the characteristics such as birth, etc., which are (inevitably) associated with all (relative) existence. It is birthless, i.e., it is devoid of all changes associated with the object of relative existence including the conditions of cause and effect. It is Anidram (sleepless) because there does not exist in it Nidrā (sleep), the cause, of the nature of the darkness of Avidya, which produces the changes called birth, etc. Turiya is free from Svapna (dream) because it is free from Nidrā (sleep) which is the cause of mis-apprehension of Reality (dream). It is because the Self is free from sleep and dream therefore the Jiva, then realises himself as the Turiya Atman, birthless and non-dual.
If a phenomenal world were to exist, it should, no doubt, cease to be. This duality is but an illusion; in reality it is non-dual.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
If the knowledge of non-duality (Turiya) be possible.after the disappearance of the perceived manifold, how could non-duality be said to exist (always) while the perceptual manifold remains? This is explained thus:- This would have been true if the manifold really existed. This manifold being only a false imagination, like the snake in the rope, does not really exist. There is no-doubt that it would (certainly) disappear if it really existed. The snake imagined in the rope, through false conception, does not really exist and therefore does, not disappear through correct understanding. Nor, similarly, does the illusion of the vision conjured up by the magician exist and then disappear as though a veil thrown over the eyes of the spectators (by the magician) were removed. Similar is this duality of the cognized universe called the Phenomenal or manifold, (Mayamātraṃ dvaitaṃ) a mere illusion. Non-duality Turiya like the rope and the magician (in the illustrations) is alone the Supreme Reality. Therefore the fact is that there is no such thing as the manifold about which appearance or disappearance can be predicated.
upadeśādayaṃ vādo jñāte dvaitaṃ na vidyate .. 18..
The notion (such as the teacher, the taught and the scripture) will disappear, if anyone had imagined it. This notion (of the teacher etc.,) is for the purpose of instruction. When (the Truth is) realised, duality does not exist.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Objection:- How could (duality implied in) ideas such as the teacher, the taught and the scripture disappear? Reply:- This is thus explained. If such ideas had ever been imagined by someone then they might be supposed to disappear. As the manifold is like the illusion (conjured up by the magician or) of the snake in the rope, so also are the ideas of the teacher, etc. These ideas, namely, the ideas of teacher, taught, and scripture are for the purpose of teaching which are (therefore appear) true till one realises the Highest Truth. But duality does not exist when one, as a result of the teaching, attains knowledge, i.e., realises the Highest Reality.
That same Self, from the point of view of the syllable, is Om, and viewed from the stand point of the letters, the quarters are the letters, and the letters are the quarters. The letters are a, u and m.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
In the word Aum prominence is given to that which is indicated by several names. The word Aum which has been explained before as Atman having four quarters is again the same Atman described here from the standpoint of syllable where prominence is given to the name. What, again, is that syllable? It is thus replied:- Aum. It is that word Aum which being divided into parts, is viewed from the standpoint of letters. How? Those which constitute the quarters of the Atman are the letters of Aum. What are they? The letters are A, U and M. Tn the first Upaniṣad it is said, “Aum, the word, is all this.” The word Aum is the name (abhidhāna) which indicates everything (abhidheya) past, present, future and all that which is beyond even the conception of time. Thus Aum is the name for Brahman. The second Upaniṣad declares that Brahman is the Atman. The Atman with its four quarters has been explained in the following Upaniṣads. Therefore all these explanations are of Aum from the standpoint of Atman where prominence is given to that which is indicated by names. Now the same Aum is explained from the standpoint of the word itself, that is the name which indicates Atman or the Supreme Reality. The Highest Truth as explained above by the process of the refutation of the erroneous superimposition can be grasped only by the students of sharp or middling intelligence. But those ordinary students who cannot enter upon philosophical reflection regarding the Supreme Reality as given in the previous texts, are advised to concentrate on Aum as the symbol of the Ultimate Reality.
Vaisvanara seated in the waking state is the first letter a, owing to its all-pervasiveness or being the first. He who knows thus verily accomplishes all longings and becomes the first.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Points of specific resemblance between them are thus pointed out. That which is Vaiśvānara, whose sphere of activity is the waking state, is the first letter of Aum. What is the Common feature between them? It is thus explained:- the first point of resemblance is pervasiveness. All sounds are pervaded by A. This is corroborated by the Śruti passage, “The sound A is the whole of speech.” Similarly the entire universe is pervaded by the Vaiśvānara as is evident from such Śruti passages as, “The effulgent Heaven is the head of this, the Vaiśvānara Atman,” etc. The identity of the name and the object, indicated by the name, has already been described. The word ‘Ādimat’ means that this has a beginning. As the letter A is with a beginning, so also is Vaiśvānara. Vaiśvānara is identical with A on account of this common feature. The knower of this identity gets the following result :- One who knows this, i.e., the identity described above, has all his desires fulfilled and becomes the first of the great.
ubhayatvādvotkarṣati ha vai jñānasantatiṃ samānaśca bhavati
nāsyābrahmavitkule bhavati ya evaṃ veda .. 10..
Taijasa seated in the dream is u, the second letter (of Om), owing to the similarity of excellence or intermediate position. He who knows thus verily advances the bounds of his knowledge and becomes equal (to all) and none who is not a knower of Brahman is born in his family.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
He who is Taijasa having for its sphere of activity the dream state is U (उ) the second letter of Aum. What is the point of resemblance? It is thus replied:- The one common feature is superiority. The letter U:is, as it were, ‘superior’ to A; similarly Taijasa is superior to Viśva. Another common feature is:- the letter U (उ) is in between the letters A (अ) and M (म). Similarly Taijasa is in between Viśva and Prajna. Therefore this condition of being in the middle is the common feature. Now is described the result of this knowledge. The knowledge (of the knower of this identity) is always on the increase, i.e., his power of knowing increases considerably. He is regarded in the same way by all, i.e., his enemies, like his friends, do not envy him. Further, in his family not one is born who is not a knower of Brahman.
minoti ha vā idagͫ sarvamapītiśca bhavati ya evaṃ veda .. 11..
Prajna seated in the state of deep sleep is m, the third letter (of Om), because of his being the measure or the entity wherein all become absorbed. He who knows thus measures all this and absorbs all.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
One who is Prajna associated with deep sleep is M (म) the third sound (letter) of Aum. What is the common feature? It is thus explained. Here this is the common feature:- The word Miti in the text means “measure”. As barley is measured by Prastha (a kind of measure), so also Viśva and Taijasa are, as it were, measured by Prajna during their evolution (utpātti) and involution (praḷaya) by their appearance from and disappearance into Prajna (deep sleep). Similarly after once finishing the utterance of Aum when it is re-uttered, the sounds (letters) A and U, as it were, merge into and emerge from M. Another common feature is described by the word “Apiteh” which means “becoming one”. When the word Aum is uttered the sounds (letters) A and U become one, as it were, in the last sound (letter) M. Similarly, Viśva and Taijasa become one (merge themselves) in Prajna in deep sleep. Therefore Prajna and the sound M are identical on account of this common basis that underlies them both. Now is described the merit of this knowledge. (One who knows this identity) comprehends all this, i.e., the real nature of the universe. Further he realises himself as the Atman, the cause of the universe, i.e., Isvara. The enumeration of these secondary merits is for the purpose of extolling the principal means (of knowledge).
mātrāsampratipattau syādāptisāmānyameva ca .. 19..
When the identity of Visva with the letter a is meant, ie., when the identity of Visva with the letter a is admitted, the common feature of being the first is seen to be obvious, as also the common feature of all-pervasiveness.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
When the Śruti intends to describe Viśva as of the same nature as A (अ), then the most prominent ground is seen to be the fact of each being the first, as described in the Upaniṣad discussed above. “Mātrā sampratipath” in the text means the identity of Viśva and A. Another prominent reason for such identity is their all-pervasiveness.
In the event of Taijasa being apprehended as identical with u, ie, when the identity of taijasa with the letter u is admitted, the common feature of superiority is seen clearly and so, too, is the intermediate position.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
When Taijasa is intended to be described as ‘U’, the reason of their being ‘Superior’ (in respective cases) is seen to be quite clear. Their being in ‘the middle’ is also another plain ground. All these explanations are as before.
In the even of Prajna being apprehended as identical with m, ie, when the identity of Prajna with the letter m is admitted, the common feature of being the measure is seen to be obvious and so too is the common feature of absorption.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Regarding the identity of Prajna, and M the plain common features are that both of them are the ‘measure’ as well as that wherein all merge.
sa pūjyaḥ sarvabhūtānāṃ vandyaścaiva mahāmuniḥ .. 22..
He who knows conclusively the common similarities in the three states, becomes worthy of worship and adoration by all beings, and is also a great sage.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
One who knows positively, i.e., without a shadow of doubt, the common features that are found in the three states, is worshipped and adored in the world. He is a knower of Brahman.
The letter a leads to Visva and the letter u to Taijasa. Again, the letter m (leads) to Prajna. For the one who is free from letters, there is no attainment.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Having identified the quarters of Atman with the sounds (letters) of Aum, on account of the common features stated above, he who realises the nature of the sound Aum, described above, and meditates upon it, attains to Viśva through the help of A. The meaning is that he who meditates on Aum having for his support A becomes Vaiśvānara. Similarly the meditator of U becomes Taijasa. Again the sound M leads its meditator to Prajna. But when M too disappears, causality itself is negated. Therefore about such Aum, which thus becomes soundless, no attainment can be predicated.
evamoṃkāra ātmaiva saṃviśatyātmanā''tmānaṃ ya evaṃ veda .. 12..
That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The amātroḥ (soundless) is that which has no parts (sounds, etc., or letters). This partless Aum which is the fourth, is nothing but Pure Atman. It is incomprehensible, because both speech and mind which correspond to the name and the object disappear or cease; the name and the object (that is indicated by the name) which are only forms of speech and mind cease or disappear (in the partless Aum), It is the cessation of the (illusion of) phenomena and all bliss and is identical with non-duality. Aum, as thus understood, has three sounds which are the same as the three quarters and therefore Aum is identical with Atman. He who knows this merges his self in the Self which is the Highest Reality. Those who know Brahman, i.e., those who realise the Highest Reality merge into Self, because in their case the notion of the cause which corresponds to the third quarter (of Atman) is destroyed (burnt). They are not born again, because Turiya is not a cause. For, the illusory snake which has merged in the rope on the discrimination of the snake from the rope, does not reappear as before, to those who know the distinction between them, by any effort of the mind (due to the previous impressions). To the men of dull or mediocre intellect who still consider themselves as students of philosophy, who having renounced the world, tread on the path of virtue and who know the common features between the sounds (mātrāḥ) and the quarters (or parts) as described above,—to them Aum, if meditated upon in a proper way, becomes a great help to the realisation of Brahman. The same is indicated in the Kārikā later on thus:- “The three inferior stages of life, etc” (Māṇḍūkya Kārikā, Advaita Chapter, 16.)
oṃkāraṃ pādaśo jñātvā na kiñcidapi cintayet .. 24..
Om should be known, quarter by quarter. It is beyond doubt that the quarters (of the self) are the letters (of Om). Having known Om, quarter by quarter, one should not think of anything else.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Here are, as before, the following verses:- Aumkāra should be known along with the quarters; for the quarters are identical with sounds (letters) because of their common features described before. Having thus understood Aumkāra, no other object, seen or unseen, should be thought of; for, the knower of Aumkāra has all his desires fulfilled.
praṇave nityayuktasya na bhayaṃ vidyate kvacit .. 25..
Let the mind be fixed on Om, for Om is Brahman, the fearless. For him who us ever fixed on Om, there is no fear anywhere.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The word Yuñjīta means to unify, i.e., to absorb. The mind should be absorbed in Aum, which is of the nature of the Supreme Reality, as explained before. The Aum is Brahman, the ever-fearless. He who is always unified with Aum knows no fear whatever; for the Śruti says, “The knower of Brahman is not afraid of anything”.
Om is indeed the lower Brahman; Om is (also) regarded as the higher (Brahman). Om is without a cause, without interior and exterior, without effect, and is undecaying.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Aum is both the Lower Brahman and the Supreme TuriyaWhen from the highest standpoint, the sounds and quarters disappear (in the soundless Aum) it is verily the same as the Supreme Brahman. It is without cause because no cause can be predicated of it. It is unique because nothing else, belonging to any other species-separate from it, exists. Similarly nothing else exists outside it. It is further not related to any effect (because it is not the cause of anything). It is without cause and exists everywhere, both inside and outside, like salt in the water of the ocean.
evaṃ hi praṇavaṃ jñātvā vyaśnute tadanantaram .. 27..
Om is indeed the beginning, middle and end of everything. Having known Om thus, one attains immediately the identity with the self.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Aum is the beginning, middle and end of all; that is, everything originates from Aum, is sustained by it and ultimately merges in it. As the magician, etc. (without undergoing any change in themselves) stand in relation to the illusory elephant, (the illusion of) snake-rope, the mirage and the dream, etc., so also is the sacred syllable Aum to the manifested manifold such as Ākāśa (ether), etc. The meaning is that he who knows thus, the Aum, Atman, which, like the magician, etc., does not undergo any change, at once becomes unified with it.
sarvavyāpinamoṅkāraṃ matvā dhīro na śocati .. 28..
One should know Om to be the Lord dwelling in the hearts of all. having known the all-pervasive Om, the intelligent one does not grieve.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Know Aum as the Isvara present in the mind, which is the seat of memory and perception, of all things. The man of discrimination realising Aumkāra as all-pervading like the sky, i.e., knowing it as the Atman, not bound by the law of transmigration, does not grieve; for, there is no cause of misery for him. The Scriptures also abound in such passages as, “The knower of Atman goes beyond grief.”
He by whom is known Om which is without measure and possessed of infinite magnitude and which is auspicious, since all duality ceases in it, is a sage and none else.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Amātra or soundless Aum signifies Turiya Mātrā means “measure”; that which has infinite measure or magnitude is called Anantamātra. That is to say, it is mot possible to determine its extension or measure by pointing to this or that. It is ever-peaceful on account of its being the negation of all duality. He who knows Aum, as explained above, is the (real) sage because he has realised the nature of the Supreme Reality. No one else, though he may be an expert in the knowledge of the Scriptures, is a sage.
The wise declare the unreality of all objects in a dream because they are located within (the body) and (also) because they are confined within a limited space.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Aum. It has been already said, “Duality does not exist when (true) knowledge arises,” and this is borne out by such Śruti passages as, “It (Atman) is verily one and without a second,” etc. This is all based merely on the authority of the Śruti. It is also equally possible to determine the unreality (illusoriness) of duality through pure reasoning; and for this purpose is begun the second chapter which commences with the words Vaitathyam (unreality) etc. The word, Vaitathyam signifies the fact of its being unreal or false. Of what is this (unreality) predicated? Of all objects, both internal and external, perceived in the dream. It is thus declared by the wise, i.e., those who are experts in the use of the means (pramāṇas) of arriving at true knowledge. The reason of this unreality is stated thus; For, the objects perceived are found to be located within the body. All these entities such as a mountain, an elephant, etc., perceived in the dream are cognized there (i.e., within) and not outside the body. Therefore they must be regarded as unreal. Objection:- This (“being within”) is no valid reason. A jar and other things on account of their being perceived within a cover, such as a cloth, etc. (cannot be called unreal). Reply:- On account of their being confined in a limited space, that is, within the body (where dream objects are cognized). It is not possible for the mountain, the elephant, etc., to exist in the limited space (within the nerves of the body) which are within the body.. A mountain does not or cannot exist inside a body.
pratibuddhaśca vai sarvastasmindeśe na vidyate .. 2..
Since the period is short, one does not go to the place and see. Also, every dreamer, when awakened, does not exist in that place (of dream).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
That all that is perceived to exist in dreams is located in a limited space, is not a fact. For a man sleeping in the east, often finds himself, as it were , experiencing dreams in the north. Anticipating this objection (of the opponent) it is said:—The dreamer does not go to another region outside his body where he experiences dream. For, it is found that as soon as a man falls asleep he experiences dream objects, as it were, at a place which is hundreds of Yojanas away from his body and which can be reached only in the course of a month. The long period of time which is necessary to go to that region (where dream objects are perceived) and again to come back (to the place where the sleeper lies) is not found to be an actual fact. Hence on account of the shortness of time the experiencer of the dream does not go to another region. Moreover, the dreamer when he wakes up, does not find himself in the place where he experiences the dream. Had the man (really) gone to another place while dreaming and cognized (or perceived) the dream-objects there, then he would have certainly woke up there alone. But this does not happen. Though a man goes to sleep at night he feels as though he were seeing objects in the day-time and meeting many persons. (If that meeting were real) he ought to have been met by those persons (whom he himself met during the dream). But this does not happen; for if it did, they would have said, “We met you there to-day.” But this does not happen. Therefore one does not (really) go to another region in dream.
vaitathyaṃ tena vai prāptaṃ svapna āhuḥ prakāśitam .. 3..
The non-existence of the chariot etc., (seen in dream) is heard of (in the sruti) from the point of view of reasoning. The knowers of Brahman say that the unreality thus arrived at (through reasoning) is revealed (by the sruti) in the context of dream.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
For this reason also the objects perceived to exist in dream are illusory. For, the absence of the chariots, etc. (perceived in dream) is stated by Śruti, in such passages as “There exists neither chariot, etc.” its assertion being based on reason. In the opinion of the wise, i.e., the knowers of Brahman, the illusoriness (of the dream objects) has been established on the ground of their being perceived within the contracted space in the body. The Śruīi only reiterates it in order to establish the self-luminosity (of Atman) in dream.
yathā tatra tathā svapne saṃvṛtatvena bhidyate .. 4..
There is the unreality of the objects even in the waking state. Just as they are unreal in dream, so also are they unreal in the waking state. the objects (in dream) differ owing to the location within the body owing to the spatial limitation.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The proposition to be established (Pratijñā) is the illusoriness of objects that are perceived in the waking state. “Being perceived” is the “ground” (hetu) for the inference. They are like the objects that are perceived in dream, is the illustration (dṛṣṭāntaḥ). As the objects perceived to exist in dream are illusory so also are the objects perceived in the waking state. The common feature of “being perceived” is the relation (Upanaya) between the illustration given and the proposition taken for consideration. Therefore the illusoriness is admitted of objects that are perceived to exist in the waking state. This is what is known as the reiteration (Nigamanam) of the proposition or the conclusion. The objects perceived to exist in the dream are different from those perceived in the waking state in respect of their being perceived in a limited space within the body. The fact of being seen and the (consequent) illusoriness are common to both.
bhedānāṃ hi samatvena prasiddhenaiva hetunā .. 5..
The wise say that the states of waking and dream are same, in view of the similarity of the objects (seen in both the states) and in view of the well-known ground of inference.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The identity (of the experiences) of the dream and waking states is declared by the wise on account of the reason, already stated, i.e., the experience of objects (in both the states) is associated with subject-object relationship. This Kārikā enunciates the conclusion that has already been arrived at in the previous inference by the wise.
That which is non-existent in the beginning and at the end is definitely so in the present (ie., in the middle). The objects, though they bear the mark of the unreal, appear as though real.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The objects perceived to exist in the waking state are unreal for this reason also, that they do not really exist either at the beginning or at the end. Such objects (of experience) as mirage, etc., do not really exist either at the beginning or at the end. Therefore they do not (really) exist in the middle either. This is the decided opinion of the world. The several objects perceived to exist really in the waking state are also of the same nature. Though they (the objects of experience) are of the same nature as illusory objects, such as mirage, etc., on account of their non-existence at the beginning and at the end, still they are regarded as real by the ignorant, that is, the persons that do not know Atman.
tasmādādyantavattvena mithyaiva khalu te smṛtāḥ .. 7..
Their utility is opposed in dream. therefore, on the ground of having a beginning and an end, they are regarded as definitely unreal.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Objection:- The assertion that the objects perceived to exist in the waking state are illusory like those of the dream state is illogical. It is so because the objects of the waking experience, such as food, drink or vehicles, etc., are seen to serve some purpose, that is, they appease hunger and thirst as well as do the work of carrying a man to and fro. But this is not the case with the objects perceived in dream. Therefore the conclusion that the objects perceived in the waking state are unreal like those seen in dream is mere fancy. Reply:- It is not so. Objection:- Why? Reply:- It is because the serving as means to some end or purpose which is found in respect of food, drink, etc. (in the waking state) is contradicted in dream. A man, in the waking state, eats and drinks and feels appeased and free from thirst. But as soon as he goes into sleep, he finds himself (in dream) afflicted with hunger and thirst as if he were without food and drink for days and nights. And the contrary also happens to be equally true. A man satiated with food and drink in dream finds himself, when awakened, quite hungry and thirsty. Therefore the objects perceived in the waking state are contradicted in dream. Hence, we think that the illusoriness of the objects perceived in the waking state like those of dream need not be doubted. Therefore both these objects are undoubtedly admitted to be illusory on account of their common feature of having a beginning and an end.
(To see) unusual things (in dream) is indeed an attribute of the dreamer just as it is in the case of those who dwell in heaven. These he perceives by going there, even as one, well instructed, does in this world.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Objection:- The assertion about the illusoriness of objects perceived in the waking state on account of their similarity to those perceived in the dream state is not correct. Reply:- Why? Objection:- The illustration does not agree with the thing to be illustrated. Reply:- How? Objection:- Those objects that are cognized in the waking state are not seen in dream. Reply:- What then are they (dream experiences)? Objection:- A man perceives in dream objects which.are never usually seen in the waking state. He finds himself (in dream) to be with eight hands and seated on an elephant with four tusks. Similarly various other unusual (abnormal) objects are seen in the dream. These (dream objects) are not like other illusory objects. They are, without doubt, real (in themselves). Therefore the illustration does not agree. Hence, the statement that the waking experiences are unreal like those of dream is not correct. Reply:- No, your conclusion is not correct. You think that the objects perceived in dream are extraordinary (not like those usually seen in the waking state), but these are not absolutely real in themselves. What, then, is their nature? They are only peculiar to the circumstances of the perceiver associated with those (dream) conditions, i.e., of the dreamer associated with the dream-conditions. As the denizens of heaven, such as Indra, etc., have the characteristics of being endowed with a thousand eyes, etc. (on account of the very condition of their existence in heaven), so also there are the (peculiar) unusual (abnormal) features of the dreamer (on account of the peculiar condition of the dream state). These (dream experiences) are not absolutely real like the absolute reality of the perceiver. The dreamer associated with the (dream) conditions, while in the dream state, sees all these abnormal or peculiar objects which are but the imaginations of his own mind. It is like the case of a man, in the waking experience, who is well instructed regarding the route to be taken to reach another country, and who while going to that country sees on the way objects belonging to that locality. Hence as perception of snake in the rope and the mirage in the desert which are due to the (mental) conditions of the perceiver are unreal, so also the objects transcending the limits of the waking experience, perceived in dream, are unreal on account of their being due to the (peculiar) condition of the dream state itself. Therefore the illustration of dream is not incorrect.
Even in dream what is imagined by the mind (chitta) within is unreal, while what is grasped outside by the mind is real. But both these are seen to be unreal.
Even in the waking state what is imagined by the mind within is unreal, while what is grasped by the mind outside is real. It is reasonable to hold both these to be unreal.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Having refuted the contention of the opponent that there exists no similarity between objects of the waking state and the abnormal (unusual) objects seen in dream, (the text proceeds to point out) the truth of the objects of waking state being (unreal) like those of dream. In the dream state also those which are mere modifications of the mind, cognized within, are illusory. For, such internal objects vanish the moment after they are cognized. In that very dream such objects as pot, etc., cognized by the mind and perceived by the sense-organs, eyes, etc., as existing outside, are held to be real. Thus, though all the dream experiences are, without doubt, known to be unreal, yet they arrange themselves as real and unreal. Both kinds of objects (in dream), imagined by the mind internally and externally, are found to be unreal. Similarly in the waking experience objects known as real and imaginary (mental) should be rationally held to be unreal. Objects, internal and external, are creations of the mind (whether they be-in the dream or in the waking state). Other matters have already been explained.
ka etānbudhyate bhedān ko vai teṣāṃ vikalpakaḥ .. 11..
If the objects of both the states be unreal, who comprehends all these and who again imagines them?
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The opponent asks, “If the objects, cognized in the-waking and dream states, be devoid of reality, who is the cognizer of these,—objects imagined by the mind, both inside (subjective), and outside (objective)? Who is, again, their fmaginer?” In short, what is the support (substratum) of memory and knowledge? If you say none,. then we shall be led to the conclusion that there is nothing like Atman or Self.
The self-luminous Self, by Its own Maya imagines Itself by Itself and It alone cognises all objects. This is a settled fact of the Vedanta-texts.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The self-luminous Atman himself, by his own Maya, imagines in himself the different objects, to be described hereafter. It is like the imagining of the snake, etc., in the rope, etc. He himself cognizes them, as he has imagined them. There is no other substratum of knowledge and memory. The aim of Vedānta is to declare that knowledge and memory are not without, support as the Buddhistic nihilists maintain.
The Lord imagined in diverse forms the worldly objects existing in the mind. With the mind turned outward, He imagines diversely permanent objects (as also impermanent things). Thus the Lord imagines.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
How does he imagine the ideas? It is described thus:—The word “Vikaroti” means creates or imagines, i.e., manifests in multiple forms. Lord, i.e., Atman,. with his mind turned outward, imagines in diverse forms various objects, perceived in the (outside) world, such as sound, etc., as well as other objects, and also various objects permanent (such as earth, etc.), and impermanent, i.e., which exist only for the moment, i.e., as long as that imagination lasts—all being of the nature of subtle ideas (Vāsanas) in his mind and not yet fully manifested. Similarly, turning his mind within, the Lord imagines various ideas which are subjective. “Prabhu” in the text means the Lord (Isvara), i.e., the Atman.
Things that exist within as long as the thought lasts and things that are external and conform to two points of time, are all imaginations alone. The distinction (between them) is caused by nothing else.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
A doubt is raised as to the statement that everything is mere imagination of mind like the dream. For, the imagination of mind, such as desire, etc., determined by mind, is different from objects perceived to exist outside, on account of the latter being determined by two points in time. This objection is not valid. Objects perceived to exist within, only as long as the thought About them lasts, signify those (subjective) ideas which are only determined by mind; i.e., such objects have no other time to determine them except that wherein the idea in the mind exists (when.imagining such ideas). The meaning is that such (subjective) ideas are experienced at the time when they are imagined. Objects related to two points of time signify those external objects which are cognizable by others at some other point of time and which cognize the latter in their turn. Therefore such objects are said to be mutually limited by one another. As for example, when it is said that he remains till the cow is milked, the statement means, “The cow is milked as long as he remains and he remains as long as the cow is milked.” A similar instance is the following:- “It is like that, that is like this.” In this way, the objects perceived to exist outside mutually determine one another. Therefore they are known as “Dvayakālāh” that is, related to two points in time. Ideas perceived within and existing as long as the mind that cognizes them lasts, as well as the external objects related to two points in time, are all mere imaginations. The peculiar characteristic of being related to two points in time of the objects that are perceived to exist outside is not due to any other cause except their being imagined by the mind. Therefore the illustration of dream well applies here.
कल्पिता एव ते सर्वे विशेषस्त्विन्द्रियान्तरे ॥ १५॥
avyaktā eva ye'ntastu sphuṭā eva ca ye bahiḥ .
kalpitā eva te sarve viśeṣastvindriyāntare .. 15..
The objects that seem to be unmanifested within the mind, and those that seem to be manifested without, are all mere imaginations, their distinction being the difference in the sense-organs.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Though the objects perceived within, as mere mental impressions, are unmanifested, and though the objects perceived outside through the sense-organs such as eyes, etc., are known as manifested (gross entities), yet the distinction is not due to anything substantial in the nature of the (two kinds of) objects. For, such distinction is seen in dreams as well. What is, then, the cause of this distinction? It is only due to the difference in the use of sense-organs (by means of which these objects are perceived). Hence, it is established that the objects perceived in the waking state are as much imagination of the mind as those seen in the dream.
First of all, He imagines the Jiva (individual soul) and then (He imagines) various objects, external and internal. As is (a man’s) knowledge, so is (his) memory of it.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
What is the source of the imagination of various objects, subjective and objective that are perceived and appear to be related to one another as cause and effect? It is thus explained:—The Jiva is of the nature of cause and effect and is further characterised by such ideas as “I do this, I am happy and miserable.” Such Jiva is, at first, imagined in the Atman which is pure and devoid of any such characteristics, like the imagination of a snake in a rope. Then for the knowledge of the Jiva are imagined various existent entities, both subjective and objective, such as Prana, etc., constituting different ideas such as the agent, action and the result (of action). What is the cause of this imagination? It is thus explained:—It, the Jiva, who is the product of imagination and competent to effect further imagination, has its memory determined by its own inherent knowledge. That is to say, its knowledge is always followed by a memory, similar to that knowledge. Hence, from the knowledge of the idea of cause results the knowledge of the idea of the effect. Then follows.the memory of both cause and effect. This memory is followed by its knowledge which results in the various states of knowledge characterised by action, actor and the effect. These are followed by their memory, which, in its turn, is followed by the states of knowledge. In this way are imagined various objects, subjective and objective, which are perceived and seen to be related to one another as cause and effect.
Just as a rope, the nature of which is not known in the dark, is imagined to be things such as a snake, a water-line, etc., so too is the Self imagined (as various things).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
It has been said that the imagination of Jiva (the Jiva- idea) is the source of all (other) imaginations (ideas). What is the cause of this Jiva -idea? It is thus explained by an illustration:—It is found in common experience that a rope, not known as such, is imagined, in hazy darkness, as snake, water-line, stick or any one of the many similar things. All this is due to the previous absence of knowledge regarding the real nature of the rope. If previously the rope had been known in its real nature, then the imagination of snake, etc., would not have been possible, as in the case of one’s own fingers. Similarly, Atman has been variously imagined as, Jiva, Prana and so forth because It is not known in Its own nature, I.e., pure essence of knowledge itself, the non-dual Atman, quite distinct from such phenomenal characteristics indicated by the relation of cause and effect, etc., which are productive of misery. This is the unmistakable verdict of all the Upaniṣads.
As when the (real nature of the) rope is known, the illusion ceases and the rope alone remains in its non-dual nature, so too is the ascertainment of the Self.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
When it is determined that it is nothing but the rope alone, then all illusions regarding the rope disappear and the (non-dual) knowledge that there exists nothing else but the rope, becomes firmly established. Similar is the knowledge,—like the light of the sun—produced by the negative Scriptural statements which deny all phenomenal attributes (in Ātmari),—statements like “Not this”, “Not this”, etc., leading to the knowledge of the real nature of Atman, as:- “All this is verily Atman”, “(It is) without cause and effect, without internality and externality”, “(It is) ever without and within and beginningless”, “(It is) without decay and death, immortal, fearless, one and without a second.”
(The Self) is imagined as infinite objects like prana etc. This is the Maya of the luminous One by which It itself is deluded, (as it where).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
If it be definitely ascertained that Atman is verily one, how could it be imagined as the endless objects like Prana, etc., having the characteristics of the phenomenal experience? It is thus explained:—This is due to the Maya (ignorance) inhering in the luminous Atman. As the illusion conjured up by the juggler makes the very clear sky appear covered with trees blooming with flowers and leaves, so does this luminous Atman become deluded, as it were, by his own Maya. “My Maya cannot be easily got over” declares the Gītā.
The knowers of Prana hold Prana (to be the cause of the world), which the knowers of the elements regard the elements (to be the cause). Qualities (are the cause), say the knowers of quality, whereas the knowers of category consider categories (to be so).
The knowers of the quarters (such as Visva) hold the quarters (to be the cause), while the knowers of sensory objects regard sensory objects (to be the cause). the worlds (are real), say the knowers of the worlds, and the knowers of the gods consider the gods (to be so).
bhokteti ca bhoktṛvido bhojyamiti ca tadvidaḥ .. 22..
Those well-versed in the Vedic lore hold the Vedas (to be real), while the sacrificers subscribe it to the sacrifices. Those who know the enjoyer hold the enjoyer (to be real), whereas those familiar with the enjoyable things think of them (to be real).
Subtlety (is real), say those who know the subtlety, while those familiar with the gross regard it to be so. (Reality is) possessed of a form, say the worshippers of God with form, while the worshippers of the formless (hold the reality) to be formless.
The astrologers hold time (to be real), while the knowers of directions consider directions (to be so). Those stiff in debate affirm that disputations (lead to the reality), whereas those who aspire after the worlds consider them (to be real).
cittamiti cittavido dharmādharmau ca tadvidaḥ .. 25..
The knowers of the mind hold it (to be the Self), while the knowers of the intellect regard it (to be so). The knowers of the heart ascribe (reality to it), whereas it is attributed to virtue and vice by those who know them.
Some say that twenty-five categories (constitute the reality), whereas others speak of twenty-six. Again, some say that thirty-one categories (constitute it), yet some others hold that they are infinite.
Those who know the people (and their pleasures) find reality in pleasures. Those who are familiar with the stages of life regard them (as real). The grammarians (ascribe reality) to the words in the masculine, feminine and neuter genders, whereas others (know reality) to be the higher and lower (brahman).
sthitiriti sthitividaḥ sarve ceha tu sarvadā .. 28..
Those who know all about creation (say that reality consists in) creation. (Reality lies) in dissolution, say those who know it, while those who know about subsistence (hold it to be the reality). All these ideas are always imagined on the Self.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Prana means Prājña (the Jiva associated with deep sleep) and Bījātmā (the causal self). All the entities from Prana to the Sthiti (subsistence) are only various effects of Prana. These and other popular ideas of their kind, imagined by all beings, are like the imaginations of the snake, etc., in the rope, etc. These are through ignorance imagined in Atman which is free from all these distinctions. These fancies are due to the lack of determination of the real nature of the Self. This is the purport of these ślokas. No attempt is made to explain the meaning of each word in the texts beginning with Prana, etc., on account of the futility of such effort and also on account of the clearness of the meaning of the terms.
yaṃ bhāvaṃ darśayedyasya taṃ bhāvaṃ sa tu paśyati .
taṃ cāvati sa bhūtvā'sau tadgrahaḥ samupaiti tam .. 29..
He to whom (a teacher) might show an object sees that alone (as the reality). That object, too, becoming one with him, protects him. That state of being engrossed culminates in his self-identity with the object shown.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
What more is to be gained (by this kind of endless discussion)? Whatever idea or interpretation of such things as Prana, etc., narrated above or omitted, is shown to the inquirer by the teacher or other trustworthy person. He realises that as the sole essence (Atman), i.e., he understands that as “I am that or that is mine”. Such conception about Atman as is revealed to the inquirer, appears to him as the sole essence and protects him, i.e., keeps him away from all other ideas (because it appears to him as the highest ideal). On account of his devotion (attachment) to that ideal, he realises it as the sole essence in due course, i.e., attains his identity with it. Prana—All interpretations of Atman must be included in the Prana, as Prana or the causal Self is the highest manifestation of Atman in the relative plane. Realises, etc.—It is because such inquirer, for want of proper discrimination, accepts the words of the teacher as the highest truth. The teacher also, realising the limited intellectual capacity of the student, teaches him, at first, only a partial view of truth. On account, etc.—Such student only gets a partial view of Reality though he takes it as the sole essence. He shuts his eyes to other views. On account of his single-minded devotion to that ideal he becomes intolerent of other view-points. But he who takes a particular idea to be the Reality and condemns other ideas as untrue, has not realised the Highest Truth. For, to a knower of Reality, all imaginations are identical with Brahman and hence have the same value. This is the mistake generally committed by the mystics who, for want of the faculty of rational discrimination, do not see any truth in the views of others.
evaṃ yo veda tattvena kalpayetso'viśaṅkitaḥ .. 30..
By these things that are non-separate (from the Self), this Self is manifested as though separate. He who knows this truly comprehends (the meaning of the Vedas) without entertaining any doubt.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Though this Atman is verily non-separate from these, the Prana, etc.,—like the rope from such imaginary ideas as the snake, etc.,—it appears as separate to the ignorant persons. But to the Knower (of truth), the Prana, etc., do not exist apart from Atman, just as the snake, etc., falsely imagined in the rope, do not exist apart from the rope. For, the Śruti also says, “All that exists is verily Atman” One who thus knows truly, that is, from Scriptures as well as by reasoning that Prana, etc., imagined in Atman, do not exist separately from Atman fas in the illustration) of the (illusory) snake and the rope, and further knows that Atman is ever pure and free from all imaginations,—construes, without hesitation, the text of the Vedas according to its division. That is to say, he knows that the meaning of this passage is this and of that passage is that. None but the Knower of Atman is able to know truly the (meaning of the) Vedas. “None but the Knower of Atman is able to derive any benefit from his actions,” says Manu.
Just as dream and magic, as well as a city in the sky, are seen (to be unreal), so too, is this universe seen (to be unreal) from the Vedanta-texts by the wise.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The unreality of duality has been demonstrated by of Vedānta Scriptures. Therefore it is stated:—Dream objects and illusion, though unreal when their true nature is considered, are thought, in spite of their unreality, as real by the ignorant. As an imaginary city in the sky, filled with shops full of vendable articles, houses, palaces and villages frequented by men and women, though appearing real to us, is seen to vanish suddenly as dream and illusion, which are known to be unreal (though they appear to be real),—so also is perceived this entire duality of the universe to be unreal. Where is this taught? This is thus taught in the Vedānta Scriptures. “There is no multiplicity here.” “Indra (assumed diverse forms) through the powers of Maya.” “In the beginning all this existed as Brahman.” “Fear rises verily from duality,” “That duality does never exist.” “When all this has become Atman then who can see whom and by what?” In these and other passages, the wise men, i.e., those who see the real nature of things, declare (the unreal nature of the universe). The Smṛti of Vyāsa also supports this view in these words:- “This duality of the universe, perceived by the wise like a hole seen in darkness in the ground, is unstable like the bubbles that appear in rain-water, always undergoing destruction, ever devoid of bliss, and ceasing to exist, after dissolution.”
na mumukṣurna vai mukta ityeṣā paramārthatā .. 32..
There is no dissolution, no origination, none in bondage, none possessed of the means of liberation, none desirous of liberation, and none liberated. This is the ultimate truth.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
This verse sums up the meaning of the chapter. When duality is perceived to be illusory and Atman alone is known as the sole Reality, then it is clearly established that all our experiences, ordinary or religious (Vedic), verily pertain to the domain of ignorance. Then one perceives that there is no dissolution, i.e., destruction (from the standpoint of Reality); no birth or creation, i.e., coming into existence; no one in bondage, i.e., no worldly being; no pupilage, i.e., no one adopting means for the attainment of liberation; no seeker after liberation, and no one free from bondage (as bondage does not exist). The Ultimate Truth is that the stage of bondage, etc., cannot exist in the absence of creation and destruction. How can it be said that there is neither creation nor destruction? It is thus replied:-—There is no duality (at any time). The absence of duality is indicated by such Scriptural passages as, “When duality appears to exist....” “One who appears to see multiplicity....” “All this is verily Atman.” “Atman is one and without a second.” “All that exists is verily the Atman,” etc. Birth or death can be predicated only of that which exists and never of what does not exist, such as the horns of a hare, etc. That which is non-dual (Advaita) can never be said to be born or destroyed. That it should be non-dual and at the same time subject to birth and death, is a contradiction in terms. It has already been said that our dual experience characterised by (the activities of) Prana, etc., is a mere illusion having Atman for its substratum, like the snake imagined in the rope which is its substratum. The imagination characterised by the appearance of the snake in the rope cannot be produced from nor dissolved in the rope (i.e., in any external object), nor is produced from the imaginary snake or dissolved in the mind, nor even in both (i.e., the rope and the mind). Thus duality being non-different from mental (subjective) imagination (cannot have a beginning or an end). For, duality is not perceived when one’s mental activities are controlled (as in Samādhi) or in deep sleep. Therefore it is established that duality is a mere illusion of the mind. Hence it is well said that the Ultimate Reality is the absence of destruction, etc., on account of the non-existence of duality (which exists only in the imagination of the mind). Objection:- If this be the case, the object of the teachings should be directed to prove the negation of duality and not to establish as a positive fact non-duality, inasmuch as there is a contradiction (in employing the same means for the refutation of one and the establishment of another). If this were admitted, then the conclusion will tend to become Nihilistic in the absence of evidence for the existence of non-duality as Reality; for, duality has already been said to be non-existent. Reply:- This contention is not consistent with reason. Why do you revive a point already established, viz., that it is unreasonable to conceive of such illusions as the snake in the rope, etc., without a substratum? Objection:- This analogy is not relevant as even the rope, which is the substratum of the imaginary snake, is also an imaginary entity. Reply:- It is not so. For, upon the disappearance of the imagination, the unimagined substratum can be reasonably said to exist on account of its unimagined character. Objection:- It may be contended that like the imagination of the snake in the rope, it (the unimaginary substratum) is also unreal. Reply:- It cannot be so. For, it (Brahman) is ever unimagined, because it is like the rope that is never the object of our imagination and is real even before the knowledge of the unreality of the snake. Further, the existence of the subject (knower or witness) of imagination must be admitted to be antecedent to the imagination. Therefore it is unreasonable to say that such subject is non-existent. Objection:- How can the Scripture, if it cannot make us understand the true nature of the Self (which is non-duality), free our mind from the idea of duality? Reply:- There is no difficulty. Duality is superimposed upon Atman through ignorance, like the snake, etc., upon the rope. How is it so? I am happy, I am miserable, ignorant, born, dead, worn out, endowed with body, I see, I am manifested and unmanifested, the agent, the enjoyer, related and unrelated, decayed and old, this is mine,—these and such other ideas are superimposed upon Atman. The notion of Atman (Self) persists in all these, because no such idea can ever be conceived of without the notion of Atman. It is like the notion of the rope which persists in (all superimposed ideas, such as) the snake, the water-line, etc. Such being the case, the Scripture has no function with regard to the Atman which, being of the nature of the substantive, is ever self-evident. The function of the Scripture is to accomplish that which is not accomplished yet. It does not serve the purpose of evidence if it is to establish what has been already established. The Atman does not realise its own natural condition on account of such obstacles as the notion of happiness, etc., superimposed by ignorance; and the true nature is realised only when one knows it as such. It is therefore the Scripture, whose purpose is to remove the idea of happiness, etc. (associated with Atman) that produces the consciousness of the not-happy (i.e., attributeless) nature of Atman by such statements as “Not this” “Not this”, “(It is) not gross,” etc. Like the persistence of Atman (in all states of consciousness) the not-happy (attributeless) characteristic of Atman does not inhere in all ideas such as of being happy and the like. If it were so, then one would not have such specific experience as that of being happy, etc., superimposed upon Atman, in the same manner as coldness cannot be associated with fire whose specific characteristic is that of heat. It is, therefore, that such specific characteristics as that of being happy, etc., are imagined in Atman which is, undoubtedly, without any attributes. The Scriptural teachings which speak of Atman as being not-happy, etc., are meant for the purpose of removing the notion that Atman is associated with such specific attributes as happiness, etc. There is the following aphoristic statement by the knowers of the Āgama. “The validity of Scripture is established by its negating all positive characteristics of Atman (which otherwise cannot be indicated by Scriptures).”
This (Self) is imagined to be unreal objects and also to be non-dual. The objects are also imagined on the non-dual (Self). therefore non-duality is auspicious.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The reason for the interpretation of the previous verse is thus stated:- Just as in a rope, an unreal snake, streak of water or the like is imagined, which are nonseparate (non-dual) from the existing rope,—the same (rope) being spoken of as this snake, this streak of water, this stick, or the like,—even so this Atman is imagined to be the innumerable objects such as Prana, etc., which are unreal and perceived only through ignorance, but not from the standpoint of the Ultimate Reality. For, unless the mind is active, nobody is ever able to perceive any object. But no action is possible for Atman. Therefore the objects that are perceived to exist by the active mind can never be imagined to have existence from the standpoint of the Ultimate Reality. It is therefore this (non-dual) Atman which alone is imagined as such illusory objects as Prana, etc., which are perceived, as well as the non-dual and ultimately real Atman (which is the substratum of illusory ideas, such as Prana, etc.) in the same manner as the rope is imagined as the substratum of the illusion of the snake. Though always one and unique (i.e., of the nature of the Atman), the Prana, etc., the entities that are perceived, are imagined (from the standpoint of ignorance) as having the nondual and ultimately real Atman as their substratum. For, no illusion is ever perceived without a substratum. As “non-duality” is the substratum of all illusions (from the standpoint of ignorance) and also as it is, in its real nature, ever unchangeable, non-duality alone is (the highest) bliss even in the state of imagination, i.e., the empirical experiences. Imaginations alone (which make Prana, etc., appear as separate from Atman) are the cause of misery. These imaginations cause fear, etc., like the imaginations of the snake, etc., in the rope. Non-duality is free from fear and therefore it is the (highest) bliss.
na pṛthaṅnāpṛthakkiñciditi tattvavido viduḥ .. 34..
This (world) viewed on the basis of the Self, is not different. Neither does it ever exist independent by itself nor is anything different or non-different (from the Self). Thus know the knowers of Truth.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Why is non-duality called the highest bliss? One suffers from misery when one finds differences in the form of multiplicity, i.e., when one finds an object separate from another. For when this manifold of the universe with the entire relative phenomena consisting of Prana, etc., imagined in the non-dual Atman, the Ultimate Reality is realised to be identical with the Atman, the Supreme Reality, then alone multiplicity ceases to exist, i.e., Prana, etc., do not appear to be separate from Atman. It is just like the snake that is imagined (to be separate from the rope) but that does no longer remain as such when its true nature is known with the help of a light to be nothing but the rope. This manifold (Idam) does never really exist as it appears to be, that is to say, in the forms of Prana, etc., because it is imaginary just like the snake seen in the place of the rope. Therefore different objects, such as Prana, etc., do not exist as separate from one other as a buffalo appears to be separate from a horse. The idea of separation being unreal, there is nothing which exists as separate from an object of the same nature or from other objects (of different nature). The Brāhmaṇas, i.e., the Knowers of Self, know this to be the essence of the Ultimate Reality. Therefore the implication of the verse is that non-duality alone, on account of the absence of any cause that may bring about misery, is verily the (highest) bliss.
By the sages who are free from attachment, fear and anger and well-versed in the Vedas is realised this Self which is beyond all imaginations, in which the phenomenal world ceases to exist and which is non-dual.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The perfect knowledge as described above, is thus extolled. The sages who are always free from all blemishes such as attachment, fear, spite, anger, etc., who are given to contemplation, who can discriminate between the real and the unreal and who can grasp the essence of the meaning of the Vedas, i.e., who are well versed in the Vedanta (i.e., the Upanishads) do realise the real nature of this Atman which is free from all imaginations and also free from this the illusion of the manifold. This Atman is the total negation of the phenomena of duality and therefore it is non-dual. The intention of the Śruti passage is this:- The Supreme Self can be realised only by the Sannyāsins (men of renunciation) who are free from all blemishes and who are enlightened regarding the essence of the Upaniṣads and never by others, i.e., those vain logicians whose mind is clouded by passion, etc., and who find truth only in their own creeds and opinions.
Therefore, having known it thus, one should fix one’s memory on non-duality (ie., should give undivided attention). Having attained the non-dual, one should conduct oneself as though one were a dullard.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
As non-duality, on account of its being the negation of all evils, is bliss and fearlessness, therefore knowing it to be such, direct your mind to the realisation of the non-dual Atman. In other words, concentrate your memory on the realisation of non-duality alone. Having known this non-dual Brahman which is free from hunger, etc., unborn and directly perceptible as the Self and which transcends all codes of human conduct, i.e., by attaining to the consciousness that ‘I am the Supreme Brahman,’ behave with others as one not knowing the Truth; that is to say, let not others know what you are and what you have become.
The ascetic should be free from praise and salutation and also from rituals. The body and the Self should be his support and he should depend upon what chance brings.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
What should be his code of conduct in the world? It is thus stated:—He should give up all such formalities as praise, salutation, etc., and be free from all desires for external objects. In other words, he should take up the life of a Paramahamsa Sannyāsin. The Śruti also supports this view in such passages as “knowing this Atman”, etc. This is further approved in such Smṛti passages as, “With their consciousness in That (Brahman), their self being That, intent on That, with That for their Supreme Goal” (Gītā), etc. The word “chalam” in the text signifying “changing” indicates the “body” because it changes every moment. The word “Achalam” signifying “unchanging” indicates the “Knowledge of Self”. He has the (changing) body for his support when he, for the purpose of such activities as eating, etc., forgets the Knowledge of the Self, the (real) support of Atman, unchanging like the Ākāśa, (ether) and relates himself to egoism. Such a wise man never takes shelter under external objects. He entirely depends upon circumstances, that is to say, he maintains his body with whatever food or strips of cloth, etc., are brought to him by mere chance.
Having perceived Truth internally and having perceived it externally, one should become identified with Truth, should derive delight from Truth, and should never deviate from Truth.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The truth regarding external objects such as the earth, etc., and the truth regarding internal objects characterised by body, etc., is that these are as unreal as a snake seen in the rope, or objects seen in dream or magic. For, there are such Śruti passages as, “modification being only a name, arising from speech, etc.” The Śruti further declares, “Atman is both within and without, birthless, causeless, having no within or without, entire, all-pervading like the Ākāśa (ether), subtle, unchanging, without attributes and parts, and without action. That is Truth, That is Atman and That thou art.” Knowing it to be such from the point of view of Truth, he becomes one with Truth and derives his enjoyment from Truth and not from any external object. But a person ignorant of Truth, takes the mind to be the Self and believes the Atman to be active like the mind, and becomes active. He thus thinks his self to be identified with the body, etc., and deviated from Atman saying, “Oh, I am now fallen from the Knowledge of Self.” When his mind is concentrated he sometimes thinks that he is happy and one with the Self. He declares “Oh, I am now one with the essence of Truth.” But, the knower of Self never makes any such statement, as Atman is ever one and changeless and as it is impossible for Atman to deviate from its own nature. The consciousness that “I am Brahman” never leaves him. In other words, he never loses the consciousness regarding the essence of the Self. The Smṛti supports this view in such passages as “The wise man views equally a dog or an outcaste.” “He sees who sees the Supreme Lord remaining the same, in all beings.” (Gītā)
The aspirant, resorting himself to devotion, remains in the conditioned Brahman. Prior to creation all this was of the nature of the birthless Brahman. Hence the man (with such a view) is considered to be of narrow outlook.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
While determining the meaning of Aum, it has been stated in the form of a proposition that “Atman is the negation of phenomena, blissful and non-dual.” It has been further stated that “Duality does not exist when the reality is known.” Further, in the chapter on Illusion, that duality does not exist really has been established by the illustrations of dream, magic, castle-in-the-air, etc., and also by reasoning on the grounds of “the capability of being seen” and “the being finite,” etc. Now it is asked whether non-duality can be established only by scriptural evidence or whether it can be proved by reasoning as well. It is said in reply that it is possible to establish non-duality by reasoning as well. How is it possible? This is shown in this chapter on Advaita. It has been demonstrated in the last chapter that the entire realm of dualism including the object and the act of devotion is illusory, and the attributeless, non-dual Atman alone is the Reality. The word “upāsanāŚrīta” in the text, meaning the one betaking himself to devotion, signifies him who has recourse to devotional exercises as means to the attainment of liberation and who further thinks that he is the devotee and Brahman is his object of worship. This Jiva or the embodied being further thinks that through devotional practices he, at present related to the evolved Brahman (Personal God), would attain to the ultimate Brahman after the dissolution of the body. Prior to the manifestation, according to this Jiva, everything including itself, was unborn. In other words he thinks, “I shall, through devotional practices, regain that which was my real nature before manifestation, though at present I subsist in the Brahman that appears in the form of the manifold.” Such a Jiva, that is, the aspirant, betaking itself to devotion, inasmuch as it knows only a partial aspect of Brahman, is called of narrow or poor intellect by those who regard Brahman as eternal and unchanging. The Upaniṣad of the Talavakāra (Kena) supports this view in such statements as, “That which is not expressed (indicated) by speech and by which speech is expressed, That alone know as Brahman and not that which people here adore,” etc.
Therefore, I shall describe that (Brahman) which is free from limitation, is unborn and is ever the same. Listen how nothing whatsoever is born, though it appears to be born in all respects.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
One unable to realise Atman, which is both within and without and birthless, and therefore believing oneself to be helpless through Avidya, thinks, “I am born, I subsist in the Brahman with attributes (saguṇa) and through devotion to It I shall become Brahman,” and thus becomes Kripaṇa (narrow-minded). Therefore, I shall describe Brahman which has never been subject to any limitation and which is birthless (changeless). The narrowness of mind has been described in such Śruti passages as, “When one sees another, hears another, knows another, then there is limitedness (littleness), mortality and unreality,” “Modification is only a name arising from speech, but the truth is that all is clay,” etc. But contrary to it is Brahman known as Bhumā (great) which is both within and without and which is free from all limitations. I shall now describe that Brahman, free from all limitations, by realising which one gets rid of all narrowness superimposed by ignorance. It (Brahman) is called Ajāti, birthless, inasmuch as none knows its birth or cause. It is the same always and everywhere. How is it so? It is so because there does not exist in it (Brahman) any inequality caused by the presence of parts or limbs. For, only that which is with parts may be said to be born (or to have taken new form) by a change of its parts. But as Atman is without parts, it is always the same and even, that is to say, it does not manifest itself in any new form through a change of the parts. Therefore it is without birth and free from limitation. Now listen as to how Brahman is not born, how it does not undergo change by so much as a jot, but ever remains unborn, though it appears, through ignorance, to be born and to give birth to others, like the rope and the snake.
The self is said to be existing in the form of Jivas (individual souls), just as (the infinite) ether exists in the form of ether confined within jars. Similarly, It is said to be existing as the aggregate of bodies, even as ether exists like jars etc. This is the illustration with regard to birth.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
It has been said in the previous text, “I shall now describe Brahman, birthless and free from all narrowness.” Now I shall give an illustration and a reason to substantiate the proposition. As the Supreme Atman is like the Ākāśa, subtle, without parts and all-pervasive, it is compared to the Ākāśa. The Supreme Self again, who is likened to the Ākāśa, is said to be manifested as the embodied beings (Jivas) or Kṣetrajñas (Knowers of bodies), and are likened to the Ghaṭākāśas or the Ākāśa enclosed in jars. This is the Supreme Self which is like the Ākāśa. Or the sentence may be explained thus:—As the totality of the Ākāśa enclosed within the pots is said to constitute what is known as the Mahākāśa or the great expanse of ether, similarly the totality of the embodied beings (Jivas) constitutes the Supreme Being. The creation or manifestation of the Jivas (embodied beings) from the Supreme Self, as stated in the Vedānta, is like the creation or manifestation of the Ghaṭākāśa (i.e., the ether enclosed in a jar) from the Mahākāśa (or the great and undifferentiated ether). That is to say, creation or manifestation is not real. As from that Ākāśa are produced such physical objects as the pot, etc., similarly from the Supreme Self which is like the Ākāśa, are produced the entire aggregate of material entities, such as the earth, etc., as well as the individual bodies, all characterised by causality, the entire production being nothing but mere imagination like that of the snake in the rope. Therefore it is said, “The aggregates (of the gross bodies) are produced like the pot, etc.” When the Śruti, with a view to the enlightenment of the ignorant, speaks of the creation or manifestation (of the Jivas) from the Atman, then such manifestation, being admitted as a fact, is explained with the help of the illustration of the creation of the pot, etc., from the Ākāśa.
Just as when the jars etc., cease to exist, the ether etc., confined within them become merged in the infinite ether, so also the individual souls become merged in the Self here.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
As the creation of ether enclosed within the pot, etc., follows the creation of the pot, etc., and as the merging of the same ether (in the Mahākāśa) is consequent on the destruction of the pot, etc.; in the same manner the creation or manifestation of the Jiva follows that of the aggregate of the body, etc., and the merging of the Jiva in the Supreme Self follows in the wake of the destruction of the aggregate of the body, etc. The meaning is that neither the creation nor destruction is in itself real (from the standpoint of the Absolute).
न सर्वे सम्प्रयुज्यन्ते तद्वज्जीवाः सुखादिभिः ॥ ५॥
yathaikasminghaṭākāśe rajodhūmādibhiryute .
na sarve samprayujyante tadvajjīvāḥ sukhādibhiḥ .. 5..
Just as when the ether confined within a particular jar contains dust and smoke, that is not the case with all jars, in the same way, all the individual souls are not associated with happiness etc.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The dualists contend that if one Atman exists in all bodies then the birth, death, happiness, etc., of one Atman (as Jiva) must affect all and, further, there must follow a confusion regarding the results of the action (done by individuals). This contention is,thus refuted:-—As the Ākāśa enclosed within one jar being soiled by dust, smoke, etc., does not make the Ākāśa enclosed in other jars soiled with the dust and the smoke, so all created beings are not affected by the happiness, etc. (of one Jiva). Objection:- Is it not your contention that there is only one Atman? Reply:- Yes, we admit it. Have you not heard that there is only one Atman like the all-pervading space, in all bodies? Objection:- If there be only one Atman then it must always and everywhere feel misery and happiness. Reply:- This objection cannot be raised by the Sāṃkhyas. For, the Sāṃkhyas do not admit that misery, happiness, etc., ever cling to the Atman; for they assert that happiness, misery, etc., belong inseparably to Buddhi. Further, there is no evidence for imagining multiplicity of Atman which is of the very nature of knowledge. Objection:- In the absence of the multiplicity of Atman the theory that the Pradhāna or Prakṛti acts for the sake of others does not hold good. Reply:- No, this argument is not valid; for whatever the Pradhāna or Prakṛti may be supposed to accomplish by itself for another cannot inseparably inhere in Atman. If bondage and liberation accomplished by the Pradhāna inseparably inhered in the multiple Puruṣas, then the theory that the Pradhāna (Prakṛti) always acts for the sake of others would not be consistent with the unity of Atman existing everywhere. And the theory of the Sāṃkhyas regarding the multiplicity of Atman would be reasonable. But the Sāṃkhyas do not admit that the purpose of bondage or liberation can ever be inseparably associated with the Puruṣa. For, they admit that the Puruṣas are attributeless and are centres of Pure Consciousness. Therefore, the very existence of the Puruṣa is their support for the theory that the action of Pradhāna is directed to serve the purpose of others (the Puruṣas). But the supposition of the multiplicity of Puruṣas need not be made for this purpose. Therefore the theory of the Pradhāna seeking to serve the purpose of others cannot be an argument for the supposition of the multiplicity of Atman. The Sāṃkhyas have no other argument in support of their supposition regarding the multiplicity of Atman. The Pradhāna takes upon itself bondage and liberation only through the instrumentality of the existence of the other (the Puruṣa). The Puruṣa which is of the very nature of knowledge, is the cause of the activity of the Pradhāna by the fact of its very existence and not on account of its any specific qualities. So it is through ignorance alone that people imagine the Puruṣa (Atman) to be many and also thereby give up the real import of the Vedas. The Vaiśeṣikas and others assert that attributes such as desire, etc., are inseparably related to Atman. This view is also not correct. For, the Samskāras (the impressions) which are the cause of memory cannot have any inseparable relation with Atman which has no parts. Further, if it be contended that the origin of memory lies in the contact of Atman with the mind, we say that this contention is not valid; for, in that case there will be no principle regarding memory. Memory of all things will come simultaneously. Besides mind can never be related to the Atman which is devoid of all sensations such as touch, etc., and which belongs to a class other than that of the mind. Further the Vaiśeṣikas do not admit that the attributes (Guṇa) such as forms, etc. (Rūpas), action (Karma), generality (Sāmānya), particularity (Viśeṣa) and inherence (Samavāya), can exist independently of the substance (Dravya). If these are totally independent of one another, the contact between the Atman and desire, etc., and also between the attributes (Guṇa) and the substance (Dravya) will be an absurdity. Objection:- The contact characterised by an inseparable inherence is possible in the case of entities where such relation is proved to be innate. Reply:- This objection is not valid; for such innate relationship cannot be reasonable, as the Atman, the ever permanent, is antecedent to the desires, etc., which are transitory. And if desires, etc., be admitted to have inseparable innate relationship with Atman, then the former would be as permanent as such innate attributes of Atman as greatness, etc. That is not desirable, for then there would be no room for liberation of the Atman. Further, if inseparable relationship (Samavāya) were something separate from the substance, then another factor must be stated which can bring about the relationship between Samavāya and the substance,—as in the case of the substance and the attributes. Nor can it be stated that Samavāya is a constant inseparable relationship with Atman; for, in that case, the Atman and Samavāya on account of their constant and inseparable relationship can never be different from one another. If, on the other hand, the relationship of Samavāya be totally different from the Atman, and the attributes also be different from the substance, then the possessive case cannot be used to indicate their mutual relation which is possible only when the two terms connected by the possessive are not totally different. If Atman be inseparably connected with such categories as desires, etc., which have both “beginning” and “end,” then it would itself be impermanent. If Atman be considered to have parts and undergo changes, like the body, etc., then, these two defects always associated with the body, etc., would be inevitable in the case of the Atman. (Therefore the conclusion is that) as the Ākāśa (ether), on account of the superimposition of ignorance (Avidya), is regarded as soiled by dust and smoke, in like manner, the Atman also, on account of the limiting condition of the mind caused by the erroneous attribution of Avidya, appears to be associated with the contamination of misery, happiness, etc. And such being the case, the idea of bondage and liberation, being empirical in nature, does not contradict (the permanent nature of Atman from the standpoint of Truth). For, all the disputants admit the relative experience to be caused by Avidya and deny its existence from the standpoint of the Supreme Reality. Hence it follows that the supposition of the multiplicity of Atman made by the logicians is without basis and superfluous.
ākāśasya na bhedo'sti tadvajjīveṣu nirṇayaḥ .. 6..
Though forms, functions and names differ here and there (in respect of the ether contained by jars etc.,), yet this causes no differences in the ether. Similar is the conclusion with regard to individual souls.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Objection:- If Atman be one then how is it possible to justify the variety of experiences pointing to the multiplicity of Atman (which is explained as being) due to Avidya (ignorance)? Reply:- This is thus explained:- In our common experience with regard to this Ākāśa (which is really one), we find variety of forms, such as large, small, etc., in respect of the Ākāśa enclosed in a pot, a water-bowl and a cover. Similarly there are various functions (of the same Ākāśa) such as fetching water, preserving water and sleeping. Lastly there are various names as the ether enclosed in a jar (ghaṭa). the ether enclosed in a water-bowl (karaka), etc., caused by different upadhis. All these different forms, functions and names are matters of common experience. This variety of experience caused by different forms, etc., is not true from, the standpoint of the ultimate Reality. For, in reality Ākāśa. never admits of any variety. Our empirical activities based upon the difference in Ākāśa are not possible without the instrumentality of an adventitious upadhi. As in this illustration, the Jivas (embodied beings) which may be compared to the Ākāśa enclosed in a jar, are regarded as different, this difference being caused by the upadhis. This is the conclusion of the wise. This text gives one of the explanations of the empirical world as stated by the wise.
As the ether within a jar is not a modification nor a part of the (infinite) ether, so an individual soul is never a modification nor a part of the (supreme) Self.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Objection:- Our experience of the variety of forms, functions, etc., associated with the ether enclosed in the pot, etc., is true from the standpoint of the ultimate Reality (and not illusory, as you say). Reply:- No, this cannot be so. For, the ether enclosed in the pot cannot be the evolved effect of the real ether in the same way as the ornament, etc., are the effect of gold or the foam, bubble, moisture, etc., are the effect of water. Nor, again is the Ghaṭākāśa (the Ākāśa in the pot) similar to the branches and other parts of a tree. As Ghaṭākāśa is neither a part (limb) nor an evolved effect of the Ākāśa, so also the Jiva (the embodied being), compared to the Ākāśa enclosed in the pot, is neither, as in the illustrations given above, an effect nor part (limb) of the Atman, the ultimate Reality, which may be compared to the Mahākāśa (i.e., the undifferentiated expanse of ether). Therefore the relative experience based upon the multiplicity of Atman is an illusion (from the standpoint of the ultimate Reality).
Just as to the children the sky becomes soiled by dirt, so too, to the unwise the Self becomes tainted by impurities.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
As the diversity of experiences such as forms, functions, etc., is caused by the admitted differences of the Ghaṭākāśa, etc., so also is the experience of birth, death, etc., consequent on the perception of the different Jivas, due to the limitations caused by Avidya (ignorance). Therefore the contamination of misery, action and result (of action) caused by Avidya does not really inhere in the Atman. In order to establish this meaning by an illustration, the text says:—As in our ordinary experience it is found that the ignorant regard the Ākāśa (ether),—which, to those who know, the real nature of a thing by discrimination, is never soiled by any contamination—as soiled with cloud, dust and smoke, so also the Supreme Atman, the Knower, the innermost Self directly perceived within, is regarded by those who do not know the real nature of the innermost Self, as affected by the evils of misery, action and result. But this is not the case with those who can discriminate. As in the desert are never found foam, waves, etc., though thirsty creatures falsely attribute these things to it, similarly the Atman also is never affected by the turbidity of misery, etc., falsely attributed to it by the ignorant.
The Self, in regard to Its death and birth, going and coming, and Its existence in all the bodies, is not dissimilar to ether.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The point which has been just stated is again thus developed:—Birth, death, etc., of the Atman as seen in all bodies is like the creation, destruction, coming, going and existence of the Ghaṭākāśa (or ether enclosed within a jar).
All aggregates (such as body) are created like dream by the Maya of the Self. Whether they be superior (to another) or equal, there is no ground to prove their reality.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The aggregates of body, etc., answering to the pots, etc., in the illustration, are produced,—like the body, etc., seen in dream or conjured up by the magician—by the illusion of the Atman, i.e., the Avidya (ignorance) which is in the perceiver. That is to say, they do not exist from the standpoint of the ultimate Reality. If it be argued, in order to establish their reality, that there is a superiority (among the created beings),—as in the case of the aggregates of cause and effect constituting gods who are superior to lower beings, such as birds and beasts—or that there is an equality (of all created beings), yet no cause can be set forth regarding their creation or reality. As there is no cause therefore all these are due to Avidya or ignorance; they have no real existence.
The individual Self of the sheaths beginning with that made of food, which have been described in the Taittiriya Upanishad, is (the same as) the supreme Self, as explained (by us already) on the analogy of ether.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Now statements are made in order to show that the existence of the essence of Atman which is non-dual and without birth, etc., can as well be proved on the evidence of the Śruti. Rasa, etc., are the five sheaths such as the physical sheath (Annarasamaya), the vital sheath (Pranamaya), etc. These are called “sheaths” (Kośa) because they are like the sheath of the sword, the previous sheaths being outer than the following ones. These have been clearly explained in the Taittirīyaka, i.e., in a chapter of the Taittirīyaka-śākhā Upaniṣad. It is the Self (Atman) of these sheaths. By It, the innermost Self, the five sheaths are regarded as alive. It is again called Jiva as it is the cause of the life of all. What is It? It is the Supreme Self which has ' been described before as “Brahman which is Existence, Knowledge and Infinity.” It has been further stated that from this Atman the aggregates of the body known as Rasa, etc., having the characteristics of the sheath, have been created by its (Atman’s) power called ignorance, this creation being like the illusory creation of objects seen in a dream or in a performance of jugglery. We have described this Atman as the ether (Ākāśa) in the text, “The Atman is verily like the Ākāśa” (Gauḍapada Kārikā, 3. 3). This Atman cannot be established by the reasoning of a man who follows the logician’s method of arguments as the Atman referred to by us is different from the Atman of the logicians.
Just as it is taught that ether in the earth and the belly is verily the same, so also the supreme Brahman is declared to be the same with reference to every two (viz., the corporeal and superphysical), in the Madhu-Brahmana (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Moreover, in the words “All this is the Supreme Atman, the Brahman, the bright, the immortal Person who is both the celestial (superphysical—Adhidaiva) and the corporeal (Adhyātma), who is in this earth as well as the Knower incorporated in the body,”—Brahman alone is described in order to indicate the limit at which duality vanishes. Where does this occur? It is thus replied:—It occurs in the Madhu Brāhmaṇa chapter which is known as the chapter dealing with the Knowledge of Brahman. It is because therein is described the nectar (i.e., immortality) which is known as Madhu, i.e., honey, as it gives us the highest bliss. This Brahman is like the Ākāśa which is said to be the same or identical though separately indicated as existing in the earth and in the stomach.
nānātvaṃ nindyate yacca tadevaṃ hi samañjasam .. 13..
Since the non-difference of Jiva (individual soul) and the supreme Self is extolled on the basis of their identity, and since diversity is censured, therefore, that (non-duality) alone is reasonable.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The Śāstras as well as the sages like Vyāsa, etc., extol the identity of Jiva and the Supreme Self through the negation of all differences—the conclusion arrived at by reasoning and supported by the scriptures. Further, the experiences of multiplicity which are natural (to the ignorant) and common to all beings—the view propounded by those who do not understand the real import of the Śāstras and who indulge in futile reasoning—have been condemned thus:- “But there is certainly nothing corresponding to the dual existence,” “Fear arises from the consciousness of duality,” “If he sees the slightest difference (in Atman) then he is overcome with fear,” “All this is verily Atman, “He goes from death to death who sees here (in this Atman) multiplicity.” Other Knowers of Brahman as well as the scriptures (quoted above) extol identity (of Jiva and Brahman) and condemn multiplicity. Thus alone this praise and condemnation can easily be comprehended; in other words, it accords with reason. But the false views (vainly) advanced by the logicians, not easy of comprehension, cannot be accepted as facts (Truth).
bhaviṣyadvṛttyā gauṇaṃ tanmukhyatvaṃ hi na yujyate .. 14..
The separateness of the individual soul and the supreme Self which has been declared (in the sruti) prior to the discussion of creation (in the Upanishads), is in a secondary sense in view of the result of the future, for it (separateness) is not in fitness if held in its primary sense.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Objection:- Even the Śruti has already declared the separateness of the Jiva and the Supreme Self in that part of the Upaniṣad which describes the creation (of the universe), i.e., in the ritual portion (Karmakāṇḍa) of the Vedas. The texts of the Karma - kāṇḍa, referred to here, describe the Supreme Puruṣa who had multiple desire, in such words as, “desirous of this,” “desirous of that,” “He, the Highest, supported the heaven and the earth,” etc. This being the case, how is it possible, when there is a conflict between the knowledge portion and the ritual portion of the Vedas, to conclude that the unity underlying the meaning of the knowledge portion (of the Vedas) is alone reasonable and accurate? Reply:- Our reply is as follows:- The seperateness (of Jiva and ParamAtman) described in the Karma - kāṇḍa (ritual portion of the Vedas)—anterior to such Upaniṣadic statements dealing with the creation of the universe as “That from which all these beings emanate,” “As small sparks (come out) from fire,” “The Ākāśa has evolved from that which is this Atman,” “It created heat”—is not real from the absolute.standpoint. Objection:- What is it then? Reply:- It has only a secondary meaning. The separateness (between Jiva and ParamAtman implied in these passages) is like that between the undifferentiated ether (Mahākāśa) and the ether enclosed in the jar (Ghaṭākāśa). This statement is made with reference to a future happening as in the case of another statement we often make, “He is cooking rice.” For, the words describing separateness (of Jiva and ParamAtman) can never reasonably uphold such separateness as absolutely real, as the statements regarding the separateness of Atman only reiterate the multiple experiences of those beings who are still under the spell of their inborn Avidya or ignorance. Here in the Upaniṣads, the texts regarding the creation, destruction, etc., of the universe are meant only to establish the identity of Jiva and the Supreme Self, as is known from the texts, “That thou art,” “He does not know who knows I am another and he is another”. In other words, in the Upaniṣads the purpose of the Śruti is to establish the identity (of Jiva and Brahman). Keeping in view this identity which is going to be established later on, the (dualistic) texts only reiterate the common experience of multiplicity (due to ignorance). Therefore these (dualistic) texts are only metaphorical. Or, the Kārikā may be explained thus:-—The scriptural text, “He is one and without a second,” declares the (complete) identity of Jiva and Brahman even before creation, denoted by such passages as, “He saw,” “He created fire,” etc. The culmination is, again, that identity as is known from such Śruti passages as, “That is the Reality; He is the Atman. That thou art”. Now, if keeping in view this future identity, the separateness of Jiva and Atman has been declared in some texts, it must have been used in a metaphorical way as is the case with the statement “He is cooking rice”.
The creation which is differently set forth by means of (the illustrations of) earth, gold, sparks etc., is (just) a means to reveal the idea (of identity). But multiplicity does not exist in any manner.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Objection:- Before creation all this might have been unborn, one and non-dual; but after creation, all this evolved world and the embodied beings (Jivas) denote multiplicity. Reply:- No, it cannot be so. For, the scriptural passages dealing with creation have another meaning. This difficulty raised here has already been solved by the statements that the aggregates (entities) of body, etc., like dream-objects, are produced through illusion of the subject (Atman) and that creation and the differences of the Jivas are like the creation and the differences of the Ghaṭākāśas, i.e., the bits of Ākāśa enclosed in different jars. The scriptural statements dealing with creation and differences (of the created beings), have again been referred to here in order to show that such statements regarding creation have the purpose of determining the unity of Jiva and Brahman. The (theory of) creation has been described in the scripture through the illustrations of earth, iron, sparks, etc., or otherwise; but all these modes of creation are meant for enlightening our intellect so that it may comprehend the identity of Jiva and Brahman. It is just like the story of the organs of speech (vāk), etc., being smitten with evil by the Asuras (demons) as described in the chapter on Prana (vital breath), where the real purpose of the Śruti is to demonstrate the special importance of Prana. Objection:- We do not accept this meaning as indicated. Reply:- Your contention is not correct. For this story about Prana, etc., has been differently narrated in different recensions of the Vedas. If the story of Prana were literally true, there should have been one version only in all recensions. Different versions of contradictory nature would not have been narrated. But we do come across such different versions in the Vedas. Therefore the scriptural passages recording stories of Prana are not meant to serve any purpose of their own, i.e., they should not be taken literally. The scriptural statements regarding creation should also be understood in a similar manner. Objection:- There have been different creations in different cycles. Therefore, the scriptural statements regarding creations (of the universe) and stories (of Prana) are different as they refer to the Creations in different cycles. Reply:- This contention is not valid. For, they (the illustrations of earth, iron, etc., as well as the stories of Prana) serve no other useful purpose than clearing our intellect as stated above. No one can imagine any other utility of the scriptural statements regarding creation and Prana. Objection:- We contend that these are for the purpose of meditation so that one may ultimately attain to that end. Reply:- This is not correct either; for no one desires to attain his identity with the dispute (in the case of the Prana narrative), or with the creation or destruction (in the case of the scriptural statements regarding creation, etc.). Therefore we have reasonably to conclude that the scriptural statements regarding creation, etc., are for the purpose of helping the mind to realise the oneness of Atman, and for no other purpose whatsoever. Therefore, no multiplicity is brought about by creation, etc.
There are three stages of life – low, medium, and high. This meditation is enjoined for their sake out of compassion.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Objection:- If according to such Śruti passages as “Atman is one and without a second”, etc., the Atman alone, the one, the eternally pure, illumined and free, is the highest and the ultimate Reality and all else is unreal, what then is the purpose of the devotion and spiritual practices implied in such Śruti passages as “Oh dear, Atman alone is to be seen”, “The Atman who is free from”, “He desired”, “It should be worshipped as Atman”, etc.? Further, what is the utility of Karma (Vedic works) like Agnihotra, etc.? Reply:- Yes, listen to the reasons. Āśrama signifies those who are competent to follow the disciplines of life as prescribed for the different stages. The word (in the text) also includes those who belong to the (different) castes and therefore who observe the rites (prescribed for those castes). The application of the word “Āśrama” implies that these castes are also three in number. How? It is because they are endowed with three kinds of intellect, viz., low, middle and high. This discipline as well as the (various) Karmas (works) are prescribed for the Āśramis of low and average intellect, by the Śruti, out of compassion, so that they also, following the correct disciplines, may attain to the superior knowledge. That this discipline is not for those who possess the right understanding, i.e., who are already endowed with the Knowledge of Atman which is one and without a second, is supported by such Śruíi passages as “That which cannot be known by the mind, but by which, they say, the mind is able to think, that alone know to be Brahman, and not that which people here adore”, “That thou art”, “All this is verily Atman”, etc. In the previous Kārikās it has been proved that the Scriptural statements regarding creation, etc., do not conflict with the nondual Atman. This Kārikā states that the prescription of various disciplines associated with different Varṇas and Āśramas also does not contradict the view of the non-dual Atman. The statements regarding creation, etc., as well as the various spiritual disciplines are only meant for the unenlightened in order to assist them to understand the oneness of Atman.
parasparaṃ virudhyante tairayaṃ na virudhyate .. 17..
The dualists, firmly settled in their own doctrine which is arrived at by their own conclusions, contradict one another. But this (view of the non-dualist) is in no conflict with them.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The knowledge of the non-dual Self is established by both Scriptures and reasoning. Therefore, it is alone the perfect knowledge. Other views, on account of their being devoid of the bases of Scriptures and reasoning, lead to false systems. The views of the dualists are false on account of this additional reason, that they are the fruitful sources of the vices of attachment and hatred, etc. How is this? The dualists following the views of Kapila, Kanāda, Buddha and Jina, etc., hold firmly to the conclusions as outlined and formulated by their respective schools. They think that the view they hold is alone the ultimate Reality, whereas other views are not so. Therefore they become attached to their own views and hate others whom they consider to be opposed to them. Thus being overcome with attachment and hatred, they contradict one another, the reason being the adherence to their own convictions as the only truth. But our view, viz., the unity of Atman, based upon the identity of all, supported by the Vedas, does not conflict with others who find contradictions among themselves,—as one’s limbs such as hands, feet, etc., do not conflict with one another. Hence the purport of the Śruti is that the knowledge of the oneness of Atman, as it is free from the blemish of attachment and aversion, is the true knowledge. This Karikā proves the superiority of the Advaita knowledge over other views as it does not contradict the Scriptural statements regarding creation and exercises (Upāsana), and also because it does not clash with other theories. Advaita alone harmonises all other doctrines and theories. It alone gives the rationale of other relative views regarding Truth.
teṣāmubhayathā dvaitaṃ tenāyaṃ na virudhyate .. 18..
Non-duality is indeed the supreme Reality, inasmuch as duality is said to be its product. For them duality constitutes both (the Real and the unreal). Hence this (our view) is not opposed (to theirs).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
How is it that the non-dualist does not conflict with the dualist? The reason is thus stated:-—As nonduality is the ultimate Reality, therefore duality or multiplicity is only its effect. The Scriptural passages such as, “He is one and without a second”, “He created fire”, etc., support this view. It is further borne out by reason as duality is not perceived in the states of swoon, deep sleep or trance (samādhi), in the absence of the activity of the mind. Therefore duality is said to be the effect of non-duality. But the dualists perceive duality alone either way, that is, from both the absolute and the relative standpoints. As duality is perceived only by the deluded and non-duality by us who are enlightened, therefore our view does not clash with their views. For, the Scripture also says, “Indra (the Supreme Lord) created all these diverse forms through Maya”, “There exists nothing like duality”. It is like the case of a man on a spirited elephant, who knows that none can oppose him, but who yet does not drive his beast upon a lunatic who though standing on the ground, shouts at the former, “I am also on an elephant, drive your beast on me”. Therefore from the standpoint of Reality, the Knower of Brahman is the very self of (even) the dualists. Hence, our, viz., the non-dualistic view does not clash with other views. It may be asked in view of the differences between the dualistic and the non-dualistic views, how it can be said that the latter does not find any contradiction with the former. The text of the Kārikā gives the reply. It says that the so-called duality does not exist at all. Whatever exists is non-dual Brahman alone. Therefore the non-dualist cannot quarrel with a thing which is ultimately non-existent.
tattvato bhidyamāne hi martyatāmamṛtaṃ vrajet .. 19..
This unborn (Self) undergoes modification through Maya and not in any other way. For, if the modifications are to be a reality, the immortal would tend to be mortal.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
If duality were the effect of non-duality, then it could be contended that duality also, like the Advaita, is the Supreme Reality. In order to remove this doubt which may crop up in the minds of some, it is said that non-duality which is the Supreme Reality appears manifold through Maya, like the one moon appearing as many to one with defective eye-sight and the rope appearing (to the deluded) as the snake, the water-line, etc. This manifold is not real, for Atman is without any part. An object endowed with parts may be said to undergo modification by a change of its parts, as clay undergoes differentiation into pots, etc. Therefore the purport is that the changeless (unborn) Atman which is without parts cannot, in any manner, admit of distinction excepting through Maya or the illusion of the perceiver. If the appearance of manifoldness were real, then the Atman, the ever-unborn and non-dual, which is, by its very nature, immortal would become mortal as though fire would become cold (which is an absurdity). The reversal of one’s own nature is not desired by any—as it is opposed to all means of proofs. Therefore the Reality—which is Atman—changeless and unborn, appears to undergo a modification only through Maya. Hence it follows that duality is not the ultimate Reality.
The disputants think of the very unborn Self on terms of birth. How can the Self that is unborn and immortal tend towards mortality?
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Some interpreters of the Upaniṣads, who are garrulous and who put on the airs of the Knowers of Brahman, admit that the Reality—the Atman—which is by nature ever-unborn (changeless) and immortal, really passes into birth (i.e., becomes the universe). If, according to them, the Atman really passes into birth it must undergo destruction. But, how is it possible for the Atman which is, by its very nature, ever-unborn (changeless) and immortal to become mortal, i.e., to be subject to destruction? It can never become mortal which is contrary to its very nature.
How can the entity that is immortal remain unchanged according to one to whom a thing that is immortal by nature can be born, since it is a product (in his view) ?
Shankaracharya
Commentary
As in common experience the immortal never becomes mortal, nor the mortal ever becomes immortal; therefore it is, in no way, possible for a thing to reverse its nature, i.e., to become otherwise than what it is. Fire can never change its character of being hot. The disputant who maintains that the naturally immortal entity becomes mortal, i.e., really passes into birth, makes the futile proposition that that entity before creation is by its very nature, immortal. How can he assert that the entity is of immortal nature if it be admitted that it passes into birth? That is to say, how can the immortal retain its immortal nature of changelessness if it should undergo a change? It cannot, by any means, be so. Those who hold that the Atman passes into birth (i.e., undergoes a change), cannot speak of the Atman as ever birthless. Everything, according to them, must be mortal. Hence there cannot be a state called liberation.
niścitaṃ yuktiyuktaṃ ca yattadbhavati netarat .. 23..
The sruti favours equally the creation in reality and through Maya. That which is settled by the sruti and supported by reasoning is true, and not anything else.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Objection:- Those who do not admit the change or the passing into birth of Brahman, cannot justify the Scriptural passages which support creation. Reply:- Yes, we also admit the existence of Scriptural texts supporting creation as actual, but such texts serve other purposes. Though the question has already been disposed of, the contention is here again made and refuted in order to allay all doubts regarding the applicability or otherwise of the Scriptural texts to the subject-matter that is going to be dealt with. The Scriptural text regarding creation is the same, whether the creation of things is taken in the real sense or as a mere illusion produced by the juggler. Objection:- If words admit of metaphorical and direct meanings, it is reasonable to understand the world according to their direct meaning. Reply:- We do not admit it. For, creation, in any sense other than illusion, is unknown to us, and further, no purpose is served by admitting (the act of) creation. All creation, whether metaphorical or actual, refers to the apparent creation caused by Avidya but not to any creation from the standpoint of Reality. For the Scripture says, “Though existing both within and without, he (the Atman) is (really) changeless”. Therefore we have stated in the foregoing part of this work only what is supported by reason and determined by the Śruīi such words as, “He is one and without a second and is free from birth and death”. That alone is the true import of the Scripture and not anything else.
Since the sruti says, "There is no multiplicity here", "the Lord, owing to Maya, (is seen diversely)", and "The Self, though unborn, (appears to be born in many ways)", it becomes obvious that He is born through Maya.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
It may be asked how the changelessness (Ajāti) of Atman is the final conclusion of the Śruti. In reply it is said that if creation were real, then the existence of the variety of objects would be absolutely real. Consequently there ought not to be Scriptural texts implying their unreality. But there are such Scriptural texts as, “In this (Atman) there is no multiplicity,” etc., which negate the existence of duality. Therefore creation (imaginary) has been imagined in order to help the understanding of the non-duality of Atman. It is like the story of Prana. And this is further borne out by the use of the word, “Maya” denoting unreality (in connection with creation) in such Scriptural texts as “Indra through Maya assumed diverse forms”. Objection:- The word denotes knowledge (Prajna). Reply:- It is true, but sens e-knowledge is illusory. The word “Maya” is used to denote that (sense-) knowledge. Hence there is no blemish (in such use of the word). The word “Mayabhiḥ” (through Maya) in the Scriptural text means through sense-knowledge, which is illusory. For, the Scripture again says, “Though unborn he appears to be born in many ways.” Therefore Atman passes into birth through Maya alone. The word “Tu” (“verily”) in the text (of the Kārikā) denotes certainty, that is to say, it indicates that creation is possible only through Maya or illusion and not in any real sense. For, birthlessness and birth in various forms cannot be predicated of the same object, as fire cannot be both hot and cold. Further, from such Śruti passages as “How can there be any delusion and any grief for him who sees unity,” etc., we know that the knowledge of the unity of Atman is alone the conclusion of Śruti on account of the (good) result it brings to the knower. Again, the perception of differentiation implied by creation has been condemned in such Śruti passages as, “He goes from death to death (who sees here many)”.
ko nvenaṃ janayediti kāraṇaṃ pratiṣidhyate .. 25..
By the censure of (the worship of) Hiranyagarbha is negated creation. By the statement, "Who will cause it to be born?", is denied causality.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
By the condemnation of Sambhūti (i.e., Hiraṇyagarbha) as something fit to be meditated upon, in such Śruti passage as, “They enter into blind darkness who worship Sambhūti,” the whole creation (evolution) is negatived. For, if Sambhūti were absolutely real, then its condemnation, in such manner, would not be reasonable. Objection:- The condemnation of Sambhūti is meant here for co-ordinating Sambhūti with Vināśa as is the case with the Śruti passage, “They enter into blind darkness who worship Avidya”. Reply:- Yes, it is indeed true that the condemnation of the exclusive worship of Sambhūti is made for the purpose of co-ordinating the meditation regarding Sambhūti with the Karma (ritual) known as Vināśa. Still it should not be forgotten that as the purpose of the Karma known as Vināśa is to transcend death,—whose nature is the desire consequent upon the inborn ignorance of man—so also the aim of the co-ordination of the meditation on Devatā (i.e., Sambhūti or Hiraṇyagarbha) with the Karma (called Vināśa) undertaken for the purpose of the purification of the mind of man, is to transcend death,—which is of the nature of the attachment to ritual and its results characterised by the dual hankering after the end and the means. For, thus alone man becomes free from death which is of the nature of impurity and is characterised by the dual impulse of end and means. Therefore the co-ordination of the meditation of Devatā and of Karma—which is Avidya—leads to freedom from death. Thus the realisation of Vidyā (the highest knowledge), characterised by the identity of the Supreme Self and Jiva, is inevitable for one who has transcended death,—of the form of Avidya and characterised by the dual impulses (of the means and the end),—and who is established in renunciation and also devoted to the meaning of the import of the Upaniṣad. It is therefore said thus :- BrahmAvidya (i.e., the knowledge of Brahman—which is the means for the attainment of Immortality and which is (from the relative standpoint) subsequent to the state of the antecedent Avidya (ignorance) being related to the same person (who is still in the state of ignorance), is said to be coordinated with Avidya (avidya). Hence the negation of Sambhūti is for the purpose of condemnation as it serves a purpose other than the knowledge of Brahman which (alone) is the means to the attainment of Immortality. Though it serves the purpose of removing impurity yet the devotion to Sambhūti does not enable one to realise (directly) immortality. (Therefore the condemnation of Sambhūti is reasonable.) Hence, Sambhūti, being thus negatived, it can be said to have only a relative existence. Having regard to the unity of Atman, the ultimate Reality, creation (symbolised by Hiraṇyagarbha) which is known as immortal (only from the relative standpoint) is negated. Such being the case, who can bring into being the Jiva who is seen as created only through illusion (Maya) and who exists only while ignorance (Avidya) lasts? This Jiva reverts to its original nature (of Brahman) with the disappearance of Avidvā, For, no one can verily bring into being the snake (falsely) superimposed upon the rope through Avidya and which disappears when one knows (the true nature of the rope). Therefore no one can produce or create the Jiva. The words “Ko nu” (“who can?”) in the text, being in the form of interrogation refute the idea of causality. The purport of the Kārikā is that there can be no cause for a thing which is seen to be born only through ignorance and which disappears with the destruction of the said ignorance. The Śruti also says, “This Atman is not born from any cause nor is anything born from it.”
On the ground of non-apprehension (of Brahman), all the preceding instruction (for Its comprehension) is negated by the sruti, "This Self is that which has been declared as ‘Not this, not this’". Hence the unborn Self becomes revealed by Itself.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The Śruti in such passage as, “This is the final instruction. It is not this, not this,” has determined the nature of Atman by the refutation of all specific characteristics. But knowing this Atman to be incomprehensible the Śruti has again sought to establish the very same Atman through other means and finally refuted what have been described (as the means for the attainment of Atman). That is to say, the Śruti, in such passage as, “It is not this, not this,” demonstrates the incomprehensibility of Atman or in other words, refutes the idea that Atman can be realised or understood. Those who do not understand that the means (suggested for the realisation of Atman) have only one purpose, viz., the realisation of the end (i.e., the non-dual Atman), make a mistake by thinking that what are suggested as the means have the same reality as the end. In order to remove this error, the Śruti negates the reality of the means by pointing out the incomprehensibility of Atman, as its reason. Subsequently, the student knows that the means serve their purpose by pointing only to the end and the end itself is always one and changeless. To such a student the knowledge of the unborn Self which is both within and without reveals itself.
tattvato jāyate yasya jātaṃ tasya hi jāyate .. 27..
Birth of that which exists occurs only through Maya and not in reality. He who thinks that something is born in reality, (should know) that that which is already born is (re)born.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Thus hundreds of Scriptural passages conclude that the essence which is the non-dual and birthless Self, existing both within and without, is the only Reality, and that nothing else, besides the Self, exists. Now, in order to determine this very Reality through reason, again it is stated:-— Objection:- It may also be true that if Reality be incomprehensible then the knowledge of Self would be unreal. Reply:- No, this cannot be, for the effect is comprehended. As the effects, that is to say creation (of new things), come from a really existent magician through Maya (magic), so also the comprehension of the effects, in the form of the creation of the universe, leads us to infer the existence of the Atman, the Supreme Reality, who, like the magician, is, as it were, the substratum of the illusion which is seen in the form of the creation of the universe. For, the creation of the universe is possible only with a Reality, i.e., an existing cause, like the birth of the effects, such as the elephant, etc., conjured up through illusion (by an existing magician); and this creation is never possible with a non-existing cause. It is not, however, possible for the unborn Atman to really pass into birth. Or, the first line of the text may be explained in another manner. As a really existing entity, such as the rope, etc., passes into such effects as the snake, etc., only through Maya and not in reality, similarly, the real and the incomprehensible Atman is seen to pass into birth, in the form of the universe, like the rope becoming the snake, only through illusion. The birthless Atman cannot pass into birth from the standpoint of Reality. But the disputant who holds that the unborn Atman, the Supreme Reality, is really born in the form of the universe, cannot assert that the unborn is born, as this implies a contradiction. In that case he must admit that, in fact, what is (already) born, again passes into birth. If, thus, birth is predicated of that which is already born, then the disputant is faced with what is known in logic as regressus ad infinitum. Therefore it is established that the Essence which is Atman is ever unborn and non-dual.
vandhyāputro na tattvena māyayā vā'pi jāyate .. 28..
The birth of that which is non-existent cannot occur either through Maya or in reality, for a son of a barren woman cannot be born either through Maya or in reality.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
There are those who hold that all entities are unreal, that the non-existent produces this world. But production, by the non-existent, of any thing either in reality or in illusion is not possible. For we know nothing like it in our experience. As the son of a barren woman is not seen to be born either really or through Maya, the theory of the non-existence of things is in truth untenable.
As in dream the mind vibrates through Maya, as though with dual roles, so in the waking state the mind vibrates through Maya, as though with dual roles.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
How is it possible for the Reality to pass into birth through Maya? It is thus replied; As the snake imagined in the rope, is real when seen as the rope, so also the mind, from the standpoint of the knowledge of the ultimate Reality, is seen to be identical with Atman. This mind, in dream, appears to us as dual in the forms of the cogniser and the cognised through Maya, as the snake àppears to be separate from the rope through ignorance. Similarly, indeed the mind acts (in a dual form) in the waking state through Maya. That is to say, the mind appears to act.
advayaṃ ca dvayābhāsaṃ tathā jāgranna saṃśayaḥ .. 30..
There can be no doubt that the non-dual mind alone appears in dream in dual roles. Similarly, in the waking state too, the non-dual mind appears to possess dual roles.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Really speaking, the snake is identical with the rope. In like manner, the mind which is nondual as Atman appears undoubtedly in dual forms in dreams. Verily in dream, such objects of perception as elephants, etc., or their perceivers such as eyes, etc., have no existence independently of consciousness (mind). Similar is the case in the waking state as well. For (conciousness) mind, which is the highest Reality, is common to both.
Whatever there is, moving and unmoving, which constitutes this duality, is perceived by the mind, for when mind does not exist as mind, duality is never perceived.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
It has been said that it is the mind alone which appears as dual (objects) like the appearance of the snake in the rope. But what is its proof? Our answer is this:- We make the statement on the strength of an inference following the method of agreement and difference. The proposition is that all this duality perceived as such by the imagination of the mind is, in reality, nothing but the mind. The reason for such inference is that duality is perceived when the mind acts and it vanishes when the mind ceases to act; that is to say, when the (activity, i.e., the Vṛttis of the) mind is withdrawn unto itself by the knowledge got through discrimination, repeated practice and renunciation,—like the disappearance of the snake in the rope—or during deep sleep. Hence on account of the disappearance of duality it is established that duality is unreal or illusory. That the perception of duality is due to the action of the mind is further proved in this Kārikā.
When the mind ceases to imagine consequent on the realisation of the Truth which is the Self, then it attains the state of not being the mind and becomes a non-perceiver, owing to the absence of objects to be perceived.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
How does the mind become naught? It is thus replied:—The Atman alone is the Reality like the clay; as in the Śruti passage, “All modifications are mere names arising from efforts of speech. The clay alone is real.” That knowledge of the reality of Atman comes through the Scripture and the teacher. The mind having attained to that knowledge does not imagine, as there remains nothing to be imagined. The mind then is like fire when there is no fuel to burn. When the mind thus does no longer imagine, it ceases to be mind, that is, the mind, for want of any object to be cognised, becomes free from all cognition.
(The knowers of Brahman) say that the knowledge which is free from imagination, and unborn is not distinct from the knowable. The knowledge of which Brahman is the sole object is unborn and everlasting. The unborn (Self) is known by the (knowledge that is) unborn.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
If all this duality be illusory, how is the knowledge of the Self to be realised? It is thus replied:- The Knowers of Brahman describe knowledge, i.e., the mere essence of thought, which is unborn and free from all imaginations as non-different from Brahman, the ultimate Reality, which is also the object of knowledge. This is supported by such Scriptural passages as, “Like heat from fire, knowledge (Jñānam) is never absent from the knower (Atman),” “Brahman is Knowledge and Bliss,” “Brahman is Reality, Knowledge and Infinity,” etc. The knowledge of which Brahman is the object, is non-different from (the know-able) Brahman, as is the heat from the fire. The Essence of the Self, which is the object of knowledge, verily knows itself by means of unborn knowledge, which is of the very nature of Atman. Brahman which is of the nature of one homogeneous mass of eternal consciousness, does not depend upon another instrument of knowledge (for its illumination), as is the case with the sun, which being of the nature of continuous light (does not require any instrument to illumine itself). As non-different, etc.—The Jñānam or knowledge is the same as Brahman; otherwise no knowledge would be able to tell us what Brahman is. Darkness cannot illumine the sun. Only the light of the sun which is the sun itself, can illumine the sun. Another instrument—Such as scripture, etc., which only tell us what is not self. To the Jñāni (Jnani), even when he acts in this empirical world, the knower, the knowledge and the object of knowledge are all Brahman. And yet all these, being of the nature of Brahman, are without birth (Aja).
प्रचारः स तु विज्ञेयः सुषुप्तेऽन्यो न तत्समः ॥ ३४॥
nigṛhītasya manaso nirvikalpasya dhīmataḥ .
pracāraḥ sa tu vijñeyaḥ suṣupte'nyo na tatsamaḥ .. 34..
The behaviour of the mind (thus) restrained, which is free from all imagination and which is endowed with discrimination, should be noticed. The mind in deep sleep is of a different character and is not like that (when it is under restraint).
The mind becomes dissolved in deep sleep, but when under restraint, it doesn’t become dissolved. That (mind) alone becomes Brahman, the fearless, endowed with the light that is Consciousness on all sides.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
It has been stated before that the mind, free from imagination on account of the knowledge of Truth, which is Atman, becomes tranquil for want of external objects, like the fire not fed by fuel. Such mind may be said to be under control, It has been further stated that duality disappears when the mind thus ceases to act. The Yogis should particularly know the behaviour of the mind which is thus brought under discipline, which is free from all imaginations and which is possessed of discrimination. Objection:- In the absence of all specific consciousness the mind, in the state of deep sleep, behaves exactly in the same manner as does the mind under control. What is there to be known in the absence of all specific knowledge? Reply:- To this objection we reply thus:-—Your objection is not valid. For, the behaviour of the mind in deep sleep, overcome by the darkness of delusion caused by ignorance, and still full of many potential desires which are the seeds of numerous future undesirable activities, is quite different from the behaviour of the mind well under control and free from the ignorance which produces activities that give rise to numerous afflictions, and from which has been burnt away by the fire of self-knowledge the ignorance which contains the harmful seed of all potential tendencies to act. The behaviour of the latter kind of mind is quite different. Therefore it is not like the mind in deep sleep. Hence the behaviour of such mind should be known. This is the purport.
(Brahman is) birthless, sleepless, dreamless, nameless, formless, ever-resplendent and omniscient. (As regards That) there can be no routine practice of any kind.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Brahman is both within and without as well as unborn, as there is no cause for its passing into birth. For, we have already stated that (the phenomenon of) birth is seen on account of the ignorance (of the real nature of a thing), as is the case with the rope giving birth to the (illusion of the) snake. It is birthless because all ignorance is destroyed by the knowledge of Truth which is the Atman. Hence it is free from sleep ; for, Atman, which is, by nature, non-dual, is always free from sleep the nature of which is that of beginningless delusion characterised by ignorance. Therefore it is free from dream. Names and forms which are ascribed to it are due to the ignorance of its real nature. These names and forms are destroyed by Knowledge. It is like the (destruction of the illusion of the) snake seen in the rope. Hence Brahman cannot be described by any name, nor can it be in any manner described to be of any form. To support this, there are such Śruti passages as, “From which words come back,” etc. Moreover, it is ever effulgent or it is of the very nature of effulgence. For, it is free from (the ideas of) manifestation and non-manifestation characterised by wrong apprehension and non-apprehension. Apprehension and nonapprehension are (as inseparable) as day and night. Darkness is the characteristic of ignorance. These are the causes of the non-manifestation (of the real nature of Atman). These are absent in Atman. Moreover, Atman is always of the nature of consciousness and effulgence. Therefore it is reasonable to speak of Atman as ever-effulgent. It is all-knowing, that is to say, Atman is all that exists and Atman is consciousness (awareness) itself. As regards such Brahman (i.e., the one that knows such Brahman) no action can be enjoined, as may be in the case of others, who (on account of their ignorance of the real nature of Brahman) are asked to practise concentration, etc., on the nature of Atman. The purport is that besides the destruction of ignorance it is not possible to prescribe any disciplinary action (for the knowledge of Brahman), as Brahman is always of the nature of purity, knowledge and freedom. The nature of Brahman, which is the subject-matter under discussion is thus described in other ways. The purport of the Kārikā is that apart from the realisation of one’s identity with the attributeless Brahman no effort is to be made by him. The categorical imperative of Kant has no meaning for a knower of Atman. Yogic Samādhi is not the same as the goal of Jñāna Yoga as described in the philosophy of Advaita Vedānta or the Kārikā.
The Self is devoid of all (external) organs, and is above all internal organs. It is exquisitely serene, eternally resplendent, divinely absorbed, unchanging and fearless.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Now is explained the reason for indicating Brahman as without name, etc., as stated above. The word Abhilāpa, meaning expression, denotes here the instrument of sound by which all sounds are expressed. Brahman is beyond speech. The instrument of sound is used in the sense of metonymy, i.e., it also implies other instruments of sense-knowledge. The purport is that the Atman is beyond all external sense-organs. Similarly, it is beyond all activities of the mind. The word “Chintā” in the text stands for “mind” (or the internal organ of thought). For, the Śruti says, “It is verily without Prana and without mind”, “It is higher than the imperishable Supreme.” It is all peace as it is free from all distinctions. The Atman is ever-effulgent, that is to say, being of the nature of self-consciousness which is its very essence, it is eternal light. The Atman is denoted by the word Samādhi as it can be realised only by the knowledge arising out of the deepest concentration (on its essence) or, the Atman is denoted by Samādhi because the Jiva concentrates his mind on Atman. It is immovable, i.e., beyond change. Hence, it is fearless as it is free from change.
Where there is no thought whatever, there is no acceptance or rejection. Then knowledge, rooted in the Self, attains the state of birthlessness and sameness.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
As Brahman alone has been described in the previous text as Samādhi (i.e., the sole object of concentration) and as free from activity and fear, therefore in that Brahman there is nothing to accept nor is there anything to give up. For, acceptance or abandonment is possible only where there is change or the possibility of change. But both these are inconsistent with Brahman—as nothing else exists which can cause a change in Brahman, and further because Brahman is without parts. Therefore, the meaning is that in Brahman there is no possibility of either accepting or giving up anything. The purport of the Kārikā is this:- How can there be any acceptance or abandonment (in Brahman) where, in the absence of the mind, no mentation whatsoever is possible? When the knowledge of Reality which is the Self, ensues, then Knowledge, for want of any object to rest upon, becomes established in Atman, like the heat of fire (in the absence of fuel). Ajāti, i.e., free from birth. It attains to the state of supreme non-duality. Thus is concluded, by means of reasoning and Scriptural authority what was stated before as a proposition in the following words:- “Now I shall describe the non-dual Brahman which is free from limitation and birth and which is the same everywhere.” Everything else, other than the knowledge of Reality which is the Self, birthless and homogeneous, implies limitation. The Śruti also says, “O Gārgi, he who departs from this world without knowing that Imperishable One, is, indeed, narrow-minded.” The purport is that everyone, realising this knowledge, becomes established in Brahman and attains to the fulfilment of all desires.
This Yoga that is said to be not in touch with anything is hard to be perceived by anyone of the Yogis, for the Yogis who behold fear in what is fearless, are afraid of it.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Though such is the nature of the knowledge of the Supreme Reality, yet it is described in the Upaniṣads as Yoga not in touch with anything; for, it is free from all touch implying relations (with objects). It is hard to be attained by the Yogis who are devoid of the knowledge taught in the Vedānta philosophy. In other words, this truth can be realised only by the efforts culminating in the knowledge of Atman as the Sole Reality. The Yogis shrink from it, which is free from all fear, for they think that this Yoga brings about the annihilation of their self. In other words, the Yogis, being devoid of discrimination, who, through fear, apprehend the destruction of their self, are afraid of it which is, in reality, fearlessness.
duḥkhakṣayaḥ prabodhaścāpyakṣayā śāntireva ca .. 40..
For all the Yogis, fearlessness, cessation of misery, awareness and everlasting peace, depend upon the control of their mind.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
hose who regard mind and the sense-organs, when seen apart from their identity with the very nature of Brahman, as mere imagination,—like that of the snake when seen apart from its identity with the rope—and who thus deny the sole reality of the mind and the sense-organs (independent of Brahman), i.e., those who look upon themselves as of the very nature of Brahman, spontaneously enjoy, as quite natural to them, fearlessness and eternal peace known as Freedom, (perfect knowledge) for which they (the Jñānis) do not depend upon any mechanical effort (such as the control of the mind, etc.). We have already stated that no duty (effort), whatsoever, exist for the Jñāni. But those other Yogis who are also traversing the path (leading to Truth), but who possess inferior or middling understanding and who look upon the mind as separate from but related to Atman, and who are ignorant of the knowledge regarding the reality of Atman—the Yogis belonging to this class can experience fearlessness as a result of the discipline of the mind. To them the destruction of misery is also dependent upon mental control. The ignorant can never experience the cessation of misery, if the mind, (considered) related to Atman, becomes active. Besides, their knowledge of self is dependent on their control of the mind. And similarly, eternal peace, known as Mokṣa (or liberation), in their case, depends upon the mental discipline.
By a tireless effort such as that by which the emptying of an ocean, drop by drop, is aimed at with the help of the edge of a Kusa grass, the conquest of the mind will become possible through absence of dejection.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
As one may try to empty the ocean, by draining off its water drop by drop, with the help of a (blade of) Kuśa -grass, even so may one control the mind by making the same effort with a heart which becomes neither depressed nor tired. This Kārikā gives us an idea of the effort that a Yogi should make to control his mind completely. But it appears that the complete suppression of the mental Vṛttis is impossible in this way. And as the happiness of a Yogi is dependent upon such suppression, he can never attain to eternal Truth by the Yogic method. Jñāna - yoga is the royal road for the attainment of eternal Truth and peace.
With the (proper) means one should bring under restraint the mind that is torn amid desire and enjoyment. Even when the mind is well settled down in sleep, it should be brought under restraint, for sleep is as harmful as desire.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Is untiring effort the only way for bringing the mind under discipline? We say, in reply, no. One should, with untiring effort, follow the means, to be stated presently, in order to bring the mind under discipline, that is to say, bring it back to Atman, when the mind turns towards objects of desires and enjoyments. The word “Laya” in the text indicates Suṣupti, i.e., deep sleep in which state one becomes oblivious of all things. The (injunction implied in the) words “should be brought under discipline”, should also be applied in the case of the mind when it feels happy, that is to say free from all worries in the state of Laya or oblivion. Why should it be further brought under discipline if it feels pleasure (in that state)? It is thus replied:- Because the state of oblivion is as harmful as desire, the mind should be withdrawn from the state of oblivion as it should be withdrawn from objects of enjoyment.
ajaṃ sarvamanusmṛtya jātaṃ naiva tu paśyati .. 43..
Remembering that everything is productive of grief, one should withdraw (one’s mind) from the enjoyment of the objects of desire. (Similarly), remembering that everything is the unborn Brahman, one does not certainly see the born (ie., duality).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
What is the way of disciplining the mind? It is thus replied:- Remember that all duality is caused by Avidya or illusion and therefore afflicted with misery. Thereby dissuade the mind from seeking enjoyments produced by desires. In other words, withdraw the mind from all dual objects by impressing upon it the idea of complete non-attachment. Realise from the teachings of the Scriptures and the Āchāryās that all this is verily the changeless Brahman. Then you will not see anything to the contrary, viz., duality; for it does not exist.
The mind that is in deep sleep should be awakened and the mind that is distracted should be brought back to tranquillity again. One should know the mind as passion-tinged, and should not disturb it when it has attained the state of equillibrium.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
When the mind is immersed in oblivion, i.e., in Suṣupti, then rouse it up by means of knowledge and by detachment. That is to say, turn the mind to the exercise of discrimination which leads to the knowledge of the Self. The word “Chitta” in the text bears the same meaning as “Manas” or mind. Bring the mind back to the state of tranquillity if it is distracted by the various objects of desires. When the mind is thus, by constant practice, awakened from the state of inactivity and also turned back from all objects, but not yet established in equilibrium, that is to say, when the mind still dwells in an intermediary state,—then know the mind to be possessed of attachment. Then the mind contains within it the seeds of desires for enjoyment and inactivity. From that state also, bring the mind, with care, to the realisation of equilibrium. Once the mind hás realised the state of equilibrium, that is, when it is on the way to realise that state, then do not disturb it again. In other words, do not turn it to (by attachment) external objects.
In that state one should not enjoy the happiness, but should, by means of discrimination, become unattached. When the mind that has become still tends towards wandering, it should be unified (with the self) with efforts.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The seeker should not taste that happiness that is experienced by the Yogis seeking after Samādhi. In other words, he is not to be attached to that happiness. What then should be done by the student? He should be unattached to such happiness, by gaining knowledge through discrimination, and think that whatever happiness is experienced is false and conjured up by ignorance. The mind should be turned back from such happiness. When, however, having been once withdrawn from happiness and fixed on the state of steadiness, the mind again manifests its outgoing propensities, then control it by adopting the above-mentioned means; and with great care, make it one with Atman; that is, make the mind attain to the condition of pure existence and thought.
When the mind does not become merged nor distracted again, when it becomes motionless and does not make appearances (as objects), then it verily becomes Brahman.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
When the mind brought under discipline by the above-mentioned methods, does not fall into the oblivion of deep sleep, nor is distracted by external objects, that is to say, when the mind becomes quiescent like the flame of a light kept in a windless place; or when the mind does not appear in the form of an object,—when the mind is endowed with these characteristics, it verily becomes one with Brahman.
That highest Bliss exists in one’s own Self. It is calm, identical with liberation, indescribable, and unborn. Since It is one with the unborn knowable (Brahman), the knowers of Brahman speak of It as the Omniscient (Brahman).
No Jiva (individual soul), whichsoever, is born. It has no cause (of birth). (Such being the case), this is the highest Truth where nothing is born whatsoever.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The above-mentioned bliss which is the highest Reality and which is characterised by the knowledge of the Atman is centred in the Self. It is all peace, characterised by the cessation of all evils. It is the same as liberation. It is indescribable as nobody is able to describe it; for, it is totally different from all objects. This ultimate bliss is directly realized by the Yogis. It is unborn because it is not produced like anything resulting from empirical perceptions. It is identical with the Unborn which is the object sought by Knowledge. The Knowers of Brahman describe this bliss verily as the omniscient Brahman, as it is identical with that Reality which is omniscient.
I bow down to him who is the best among men and who has realised the individual souls that are like ether, through his knowledge which again resembles ether and is not different from the object of knowledge.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The proposition regarding Advaita (as the Supreme Truth) has been based upon scriptural evidence, by determining the nature of Aum. That proposition has been established by proving the unreality of the distinction implied by the external objects (of experience). Again the third chapter dealing with Advaita has directly established the proposition on the authority of scripture and reason with the concluding statement that “This alone is the Ultimate Truth”. At the end of the previous chapter it has been hinted that the opinions of the dualists and the nihilists, who are opposed to the philosophy of Advaita which gives the true import of the scriptures, bear the name of true philosophy. But that is not true because of their mutual contradictions and also because of their being vitiated by attachment to their own opinions and aversion to those of others. The philosophy of Advaita has been extolled as the true philosophy on account of its being free from any vitiation (referred to above regarding the theories of the dualists and nihilists). Now is undertaken the chapter styled Alātasānti (i.e., on the quenching of the fire-brand) in order to conclude the final examination for the establishment of the philosophy of Advaita, by following the process known as the method of disagreement, which is done by showing here in detail that other systems cannot be said to be true philosophy. For there are mutual contradictions implied in them. The first verse has for its purpose the salutation to the promulgator of the philosophy of Advaita, conceiving him as identical with the Advaita Truth. The salutation to the teacher is made in commencing a scripture in order to bring the undertaking to a successful end. The word “Ākāśakalpa” in the text means resembling Ākāśa, that is to say, slightly different from Ākāśa. What is the purpose of such knowledge which resembles Ākāśa? By such Knowledge is known the nature of the Dharmas (i.e., the attributes of Atman). The attributes are the same as the substance. What is the nature of these Dharmas? They also can be known by the analogy of Ākāśa, that is to say, these Dharmas also resemble Ākāśa. The word “Jñeyābhinna” in the text is another attribute of ‘Jnanam’ or Knowledge and means that this knowledge is not separate from the Atmans (Jivas) which are the objects of knowledge. This identity of the knowledge and the knowable is like the identity of fire and heat and the sun and its light. I bow to the God, known as Nārāyaṇa, who by knowledge, non-different from the nature of Atman (the object of knowledge) and which resembles Ākāśa, knew the Dharmas which, again, may be compared to Ākāśa. The import of the words “Dvipadām Varam” (Supreme among the bipeds), is that Nārāyaṇa is the greatest of all men, characterised by two legs, that, is to say, He is the “Puruṣottama”, the best of all men. By the adoration of the teacher it is implied that the purpose of this chapter is to establish, by the refutation of the opposite views, Advaita which gives the philosophy of the Ultimate Reality, characterised by the identity of the knower, knowledge and the object of knowledge.
I bow down to that Yoga which is devoid of touch with anything (that implies relationship), which conduces to the happiness of all beings and is beneficial, and which is free from dispute and contradiction and is taught by the scriptures.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Now salutation is made to the Yoga taught by the Advaita Philosophy, in order to extol it. The word Asparśayoga in the text means the Yoga which is always and in all respects free from sparśa or relationship with anything and which is of the same nature as Brahman. This Yoga is well known as the Asparśayoga to all Knowers of Brahman. This Yoga is conducive to the happiness of all beings. There are certain forms of Yoga such as Tapas or austerity, which though conducive to the supreme happiness, are associated with misery. But this is not of that kind. Then what is its nature? It tends to the happiness of all beings. It may however be contended that the enjoyment of certain desires gives pleasure but certainly does not tend to one’s well-being. But this Asparśayoga conduces to both happiness and well-being. For, it never changes its nature. Moreover, this Yoga is free from strife, that is to say, in it there is no room for any passage-at-words, which is inevitable in all disputes consisting of two opposite sides. Why so? For, it is non-contradictory in nature. To this kind of Yoga, taught in the scripture, I bow.
Certain disputants postulate the birth of an entity already existing, while some others, proud of their intelligence, and opposing among themselves, postulate the birth of what is not existing already.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
How do the dualists quarrel with one another? It is thus replied:- Some disputants, such as the followers of the Sāṃkhya system, admit production as the effect of an entity that is already existent. But this is not the view of all the dualists. For the intelligent followers of the Nyāya and the Vaiśeṣika systems, that is to say, those who believe that they possess wisdom, maintain that evolution proceeds from a non-existing cause. The meaning is that these disputants, quarrelling among themselves, claim victory over their respective opponents.
vivadanto dvayā hyevamajātiṃ khyāpayanti te .. 4..
That which already exists cannot be born and that which does not exist also cannot be born. Those who argue thus are none but non-dualists and proclaim only the birthlessness.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
What do they, by refuting each other’s conclusions and quarrelling among themselves, really establish? It is thūs replied:—No entity which is already in existence can again pass into birth. The reason is that as entity, it already exists. Ft is just like the Atman, which already being in existence, cannot be born again as a new entity. Thus argues the supporter of evolution from non-ens (i.e., from a non-existing cause) and refutes the Sāṃkhya theory that an existing cause is born again as an effect. Similarly, the follower of the Sāṃkhya theory refutes the supporter of the non-ens view regarding creation by a non-existing cause. He declares that a non-existing cause, on account of its very non-existence, cannot, like the horns of a hare, produce an effect. Thus quarrelling among themselves, by supporting “existent” and “non-existent” causes, they refute theirs respective opponent’s views and declare, in effect, the truth that there is no creation at all.
We approve the birthlessness revealed by them. We do not quarrel with them. Now, learn this which is free from all disputes.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
We simply accept the view of the Ajāti or the absolute non-causation declared by them and say,“Let it be so”. We do not quarrel with them by taking either side in the disputation. In other words, like them, we do not quarrel with each other. Hence Oh ye pupils, know from us the Ultimate Reality as taught by us, which is free from dispute.
The disputants think of the self on terms of birth. How can the Self that is unborn and immortal tend towards mortality.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The word “disputant” in the text includes all the dualists, viz., those who believe that evolution proceeds from an existing cause, as well as those who believe its opposite. This verse has already been commented upon.
How can the entity that is immortal remain unchanged according to one in whose view a thing that is immortal by nature can be born, since it is an effect (in his view) ?
Shankaracharya
Commentary
These verses have already been explained. They are repeated here in order to justify our view that the disputants mentioned above only contradict each other.
prakṛtiḥ seti vijñeyā svabhāvaṃ na jahāti yā .. 9..
By the term nature is to be known that which comes into being through right attainments, which is intrinsic, inborn, and non-produced, and which does not give up its character.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Even the nature of a thing in ordinary experience does not undergo any reversal. What is meant by the nature of a thing? This is thus replied:—The word “samsiddhi” means “complete attainment”. The nature of a thing is formed by such complete attainment as in the case of the perfected Yogis who attain to such superhuman powers as Aṇimā, etc. These powers thus acquired by the Yogis never undergo any transformation in the past and future. Therefore these constitute the very nature of the Yogis, Similarly, the characteristic quality of a thing, such as heat or light of fire and the like, never undergoes any change either in time or space. So also the nature of a thing which is part of it from its very birth, as the flying power of the bird, etc., through the sky, is called its prakṛti. Anything else which is not produced by any other cause (except the thing itself); such as the running downwards of water is also called prakṛti. And lastly, anything which does not cease to be itself is known popularly to be its prakṛti. The purport of the Kārikā is that if in the case of empirical entities, which are only imagined, their nature or prakṛti does not undergo any change, then how should it be otherwise in the case of the immortal or unchanging nature regarding the Ultimate Reality, whose very Prakṛti is Ajāti or absolute non-manifestation.
All the souls are free from decay and death by nature. But by thinking of decay and death, and becoming absorbed in that thought, they deviate (from that nature).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
What is the basis of that Prakṛti whose change is imagined by the disputants? What, again, is the defect in such imagination? This is thus replied:—The words “Free from senility and death,” in the text signify freedom from all changes characterised by senility, death, etc. Who are thus free (from all changes)? These are all the Jivas, who are, by their very nature, free from all changes. Though the Jivas are such by their very nature, yet they think, as it were, that they are subject to senility and death. By such imagination about their selves, like the imagination of the snake in the rope, they (appear to) deviate from their nature. This happens on account of their identification, through thinking, with senility and death. That is to say, they (appear to) fall from their real nature by this defect in their thought.
jāyamānaṃ kathamajaṃ bhinnaṃ nityaṃ kathaṃ ca tat .. 11..
According to him who holds that the cause itself is the effect, the cause must be born. How can that which is born be unborn? How can that which is subject to modification be eternal ?
Shankaracharya
Commentary
How is it that the Sāṃkhyas, who believe in the evolution of an existing cause, maintain a view which is irrational? It is thus replied by the followers of the Vaiśeṣika system:- Those who say that the cause, that is to say, such material cause as clay, is, in itself, the effect; or in other words those disputants who assert that the cause itself changes into the effect, maintain, as a matter of fact, that the ever-existent and unborn cause, namely the Pradhāna, etc., is born again as the effect, such as Mahat, etc. If Pradhāna be born in the form of Mahat, etc., then how can it be designated as birthless? To say that it is unborn, i.e., immutable and at the same time born, i.e., passing into change, involves a contradiction. Further, the Sāṃkhyas designate Pradhāna as eternal. How is it possible for Pradhāna to be eternal if even a part of it be affected by change? In other words, ordinary experience does not furnish us with the instance of a jar, composed of parts, which, if broken in any part, can still be called permanent or immutable. The purport is that a contradiction is obvious in the statement that it is affected partly by change and at the same time it is unborn and eternal.
jāyamānāddhi vai kāryātkāraṇaṃ te kathaṃ dhruvam .. 12..
If (in your view) the effect is non-different from the cause and if, for that reason, the effect also is unborn, how can the cause be eternal, since it is non-different from the effect that undergoes birth ?
Shankaracharya
Commentary
This verse is meant to make the meaning of the previous one clearer. If your object be to maintain that the unborn cause is identical with the effect, then it necessarily follows that the effect also becomes equally unborn. But it is certainly a contradiction to say that a thing is an effect and at the same time unborn. There is a further difficulty. In the case of identity of the cause and the effect, how can, according to you, the cause, which is non-different from the born effect, be permanent and immutable? It is not possible to imagine that a part of a hen is being cooked and that another part is laying eggs. If the identity of cause and effect be maintained then it may be asked if the cause be identical with the effect or if the effect be identical with the cause. In the former case of identity, the effect becomes unborn and in the latter case the cause becomes something born and loses its immutable and permanent character.
jātācca jāyamānasya na vyavasthā prasajyate .. 13..
He who holds the view that the effect is born from an unborn cause, has no example (to be cited). If the born effect is viewed as born from another born thing, it leads to ad infinitum.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Moreover, the disputant who says that the effect is produced from an unborn cause, cannot furnish an illustration to support his view. In other words, it is consequently established that nothing is born from an unborn cause as there is no illustration to support this view. If, on the other hand, it be contended that the effect is born from a born cause, then that cause must be born from some other born cause and so on, which position never enables us to reach a cause which is, in itself, unborn. In other words, we are faced with an infinite regress.
How can they, who hold that the effect is the source of the cause and the cause is the source of the effect, assert beginninglessness for cause and effect ?
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The Śruti, in the passage, “When all this has, verily, become his Atman” declares, from the standpoint of the Ultimate Reality, the absence of duality. From this standpoint of the Scriptural text, it is said:- The cause, i.e., the merit (Dharma) and the demerit (Adharma), etc., has, for its cause, the effect, viz., the aggregate of the body, etc. Similarly, the cause, viz., merit and demerit, etc., is the cause of the effect, viz., the aggregate of the body, etc. How can disputants who maintain this view, viz., that both the cause and the effect are with beginning on account of mutual interdependence of the cause and the effect, assert that both the cause and the effect are without beginning? In other words, this position implies an inherent contradiction. The Atman, which is eternal and immutable, can never become either the cause or the effect.
According to the disputants who hold that the effect is the origin of the cause and the cause is the origin of the effect, birth may be possible, just as a father might be born of a son.
If cause and effect be possible, the order (in which they originate) has to be found out by you, for if they originate simultaneously, there is no relationship between the two, as is the case with the horns of a cow.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
How does the contention of the opponent imply a contradiction? It is thus replied:—The admission that the cause is produced from an effect, which is itself born of a cause, carries with it the contradiction which may be stated to be like the birth of the father from the son. If it be contended that the contradiction, pointed out above, cannot be valid, then the opponent should determine the order in which cause and effect succeed each other. The opponent has to show that the “cause” which is antecedent, produces the “effect” which is subsequent. For the following reason also, the order of “cause” and “effect” must be shown. For, if cause and effect arise simultaneously, then they cannot be related as the cause and the effect, as it is impossible to establish the causal relation between the two horns of a cow produced simultaneously.
Your cause that is produced from an effect cannot be established. How will a cause, that is itself not established, produce an effect ?
Shankaracharya
Commentary
How can there be no causal relation? It is thus replied:- The cause cannot have a definite existence if it is to be born of an effect which is, itself, yet unborn, and therefore which is non-existent like the horns of a hare. How can the cause contemplated by you, which is, itself, indefinite and which is non-existent like the horns of a hare, produce an effect? Two things which are mutually dependent upon each other for their production and which are like the horns of a hare, cannot be related as cause and effect or in any other way.
If the cause emerges from the effect and if the effect emerges from the cause, which of the two has arisen first on which depends the emergence of the other ?
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Though any relation between cause and effect has been found to be an impossibility, yet it may be contended by the opponent that the cause and the effect, though not causally related, yet depend upon each other for their mutual existence. As a reply to this contention we ask:- Which of the two, the cause and the effect, is antecedent to the other, upon the previous existence of which, the subsequent existence of the other is dependent?
evaṃ hi sarvathā buddhairajātiḥ paridīpitā .. 19..
Your inability (to reply) tantamounts to ignorance, or there will be a difference in the order of succession (postulated by you). Thus indeed is the absence of birth revealed by the wise in all manner.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
If you think that this cannot be explained then this inability shows your ignorance, that is to say, it demonstrates that you are deluded regarding the Knowledge of Reality. Again, the order of succession, pointed out by you—that the effect comes from the cause and the cause comes from the effect—is also inconsistent. Thus is shown the impropriety of the causal relation between the cause and the effect. This leads the wise among the disputants, by showing the fallacy in each other’s arguments, to declare, in effect, the non-evolution of things (which is our opinion).
na hi sādhyasamo hetuḥ siddhau sādhyasya yujyate .. 20..
What is called the illustration of a seed and a sprout is always equal to the major term (yet to be proved). The middle term (viz., the illustration) that is equal to the unproved major term, cannot be applied for establishing a proposition yet to be proved.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Objection:- We have asserted the causal relation between the cause and the effect. But you have raised mere verbal difficulties to show the inconsistency in our statement and made a caricature of our standpoint by pointing out its absurdity like the birth of the father from the son or a causal relation between the two horns (of a bull), etc. We do not, for a moment, admit the production of an effect from a cause not already existent or of a cause from an effect not established. Reply:- What is, then, your contention? Objection:- We admit the causal relation as in the case of the seed and the sprout. Reply:- To this we reply as follows:-—The illustration of the causal relation existing between the seed and the sprout is itself the same as the major term in my syllogism, that is to say, the illustration itself is to be proved. Objection:- It is apparent that the causal relation of the seed and the sprout is without beginning. Reply:- It is not so. The beginning of all antecedents must be admitted, as is the case with the consequents. As a sprout just produced from a seed is with beginning, similarly the seed also, produced from another sprout (existing in the past), by the very succession implied in the act of production, is with beginning. Therefore all antecedent sprouts as well as seeds are with beginning. As every seed and every sprout, among the seeds and the sprouts, are with beginning, so it is unreasonable to say that any one of these is without beginning. This is also equally applicable to the argument of the cause and the effect. Objection:- Each of the series of the seeds and the sprouts is without beginning. Reply:- No. The unity or oneness of such series cannot be justified. Even those who maintain the beginninglessness of the seed and the sprout, do not admit the existence of a thing known as the series of the seed and the sprout apart from the seed and the sprout. Nor do they admit such a series in the case of the cause and the effect. Therefore it has been rightly asked, “How do you assert the beginninglessness of the cause and the effect?” Other explanations being unreasonable, we have not raised any verbal difficulty. Even in our ordinary experience expert logicians do not use anything, which is yet to be established, as the middle term or illustration in order to establish relation between the major and the minor terms of a syllogism. The word Hetu or the middle term is used here in the sense of illustration, as it is the illustration which leads to the establishment of a proposition. In the context illustration is meant and not reason.
jāyamānāddhi vai dharmātkathaṃ pūrvaṃ na gṛhyate .. 21..
The ignorance regarding antecedence and succession reveals birthlessness. From a thing that is born, why is it that its antecedent cause is not comprehended ?
Shankaracharya
Commentary
How do the wise assert the view of Ajāti (Ajati) or absolute non-evolution? It is thus replied:—The very fact that one does not know the antecedence and the subsequence of the cause and the effect is, in itself, the clearest indication of absolute non-evolution. If the effect (Dharma, i.e., the Jiva) be taken as produced (from a cause) then why cannot its antecedent cause be pointed out? It goes without saying that one who accepts birth as a fact must also know its antecedent cause. For, the relationship of the cause and the effect is inseparable and therefore cannot be given up Therefore the absence of knowledge (regarding the cause) clearly indicates the fact of absolute non-evolution.
Nothing whatsoever is born either of itself or of something else. Similarly, nothing whatsoever is born whether it be existent or non-existent or both existent and non-existent.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
For this reason, also, nothing whatsoever is born. That which is (supposed to be) born cannot be born of itself, of another or of both. Nothing, whether it be existing or non-existing, or both, is ever born. Of such an entity, birth is not possible in any manner whatsoever. Nothing is born out of itself, i.e., from its own form which in itself has not yet come into existence. A jar cannot be produced from the self-same jar. A thing cannot be born from another thing, which is other than itself, as a jar cannot be produced from another jar, or a piece of cloth from another piece of cloth. Similarly, a thing cannot be born both out of itself and another, as that involves a contradiction. A jar or a piece of cloth cannot be produced by both a jar and a piece of cloth. Objection:- A jar is produced from clay, and a son is born of a father. Reply:- Yes, the deluded use a word like “birth” and have a notion corresponding to the word. Both the word and the notion are examined by men of discrimination who wish to ascertain whether these are true or not. After examination they come to the conclusion that things, such as a jar or a son, etc., denoted by the words and signified by the notions, or mere verbal expressions. The Scripture also corroborates it, saying, “All effects are mere names and figures of speech.” If the thing is ever-existent, then it cannot be born again. The very existence is the reason for non-evolution. A father or clay is the illustration to support the contention. If these objects, on the other hand, be non-existent, even then they cannot be said to be produced. The very-non-existence is the reason. The horns of a hare are an illustration. If things be both existent and non-existent, then also, it cannot be born. For, such contradictory ideas cannot be associated with a thing. Therefore it is established that nothing whatsoever is born. Those who, again, assert that the very fact of birth is born again, that the cause, the effect and the act of birth form one-unity, and also that all objects have only momentary existence, maintain a view which is very far from reason. For a thing immediately after being pointed out as “It is this,” ceases to exist and consequently no memory of the thing is possible in the absence of such cognition.
A cause is not born of an effect that is beginningless, nor does an effect take birth naturally (from a cause that is beginningless). For that which has no cause has no birth also.
Knowledge has its object, since otherwise it brings about the destruction of duality. Besides, from the experience of pain, the existence of external objects, as upheld by the system of thought of the opponents, is admitted.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
In accepting the beginninglessness of the cause and the effect you are forced to admit the absence of birth regarding them. How is it so? The cause cannot be produced from an effect, which is without beginning. In other words, you do not certainly mean that the cause-is produced from an effect which is, itself, without beginning and free from birth. Nor do you admit that the effect, by following its own inherent nature, (i.e., without any extraneous cause) is produced from a cause which is unborn and without beginning. Therefore by admitting the beginninglessness of the cause and the effect, you, verily, accept the fact of their being never produced. It is because we know from common experience that what is without beginning is also free from birth which means a beginning. Beginning is admitted of a thing, which has birth, and not of a thing which has none. An objection is raised in order to strengthen the meaning already stated. The word Prajñapti in the text signifies “knowledge”, i.e., the experience of such notions as that of sound, etc. This (subjective) knowledge has a cause, i.e., an (external) agent or object corresponding to it. In other words, we premise that knowledge is not merely subjective but has an object outside the perceiving subject. Cognition of sound, etc., is not possible without objects. For, such experience is always produced by a cause. In the absence of such (external) object, the variety and multiplicity of experiences such as sound, touch, colour, viz., blue, yellow, red, etc., would not have existed. But the varieties are not non-existent, for these are directly perceived by all. Hence, because:- the variety of manifold experiences exist, it is necessary to admit the existence—as supported by the system of the opposite school—of external objects which are outside the ideas of the perceiving subject. The subjective knowledge has one characteristic alone, i.e., it is of the very nature of illumination. It does not admit of any variety within itself. The variety of experiences of colour, such as blueness, yellowness, etc., cannot possibly be explained, by merely imagining a variety in the subjective knowledge, without admitting variety of external objects which are the substratum of these multiple colours. In other words, no variety of colour is possible in a (white) crystal without its coming-in contact with such adjuncts as the external objects which possess such colours as blueness, etc. For this additional reason also one is forced to admit the existence of external object,—supported by the Scripture of the opposite school,—an object which is external to the knowledge (of the perceiving subject):- Misery caused by burns, etc., is experienced by all. Such pain as is caused by burns, etc., would not have been felt in the absence of the fire, etc., which is the cause of the burns and which exists independent of the knowledge (of the perceiving subject). But such pain is experienced by all. Hence, we think that external objects do exist. It is not reasonable to conclude that such pain is caused by mere subjective knowledge. For, such misery is not found elsewhere.
In accordance with the perception of the cause of knowledge, the latter is deemed to be based on external objects. But from the point of view of reality, the (external) cause is regarded as no cause.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
To this objection, we reply as follows:-—We admit that you posit a cause of the subjective experience on account of such arguments as the existence of the variety (in the objective world) and because of the experience of pain. Stick for a while to your argument that reason demands that an external object should exist to produce a subjective impression. The opponent:- Please let us know what you (Advaitin) are going to say next. Reply:- Yes, the jar, etc., posited by you as the cause, that is to say, the cause of the subjective impression, are not, according to us, the external cause, the substratum (of the impression); nor are they the cause for our experiences of variety. Objection:- How? Reply:- We say so from the standpoint of the true nature of Reality. When the true nature of clay is known a jar does not exist apart from the clay as exists a buffalo in entire independence of a horse. Nor does cloth exist apart from the thread in it. Similarly the threads have no existence apart from the fibres. If we thus proceed to find out the true nature of the thing, by going from one cause to another, till language or the object denoted by the language fails us, we do not still find any (final) cause. “Bhūtadarsanāt” (from the true nature of the thing) may be “Abhūtadarsartāt” (from the unreality of the experiences). According to this interpretation, the meaning of the Kārikā is that we do not admit external objects as the cause on account of the unreality of these (external) objects, which are as unreal as the snake seen instead of the rope. The (so-called) cause ceases to be the cause as the former is due to the illusory perception of the perceiver. For, it (the external world) disappears in the absence of such illusory knowledge. The man in dreamless sleep and trance (Samādhi) and he who has attained the highest knowledge do not experience any object outside their self as they are free from such illusory cognition. An object which is cognised by a lunatic is never known as such by a sane man. Thus is answered the contention regarding the causality based upon the arguments of the perception of variety and the existence of pain.
cittaṃ na saṃspṛśatyarthaṃ nārthābhāsaṃ tathaiva ca .
abhūto hi yataścārtho nārthābhāsastataḥ pṛthak .. 26..
Consciousness is not in contact with objects nor is it in contact with the appearances of objects. For the object is certainly non-existent and (the ideas constituting) the appearances of object are not separate from consciousness.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Because there are no external objects as cause, the mind does not relate itself to external objects which are supposed to be the cause of the subjective impression. Nor is the mind related to the ideas which appear as external objects, as the mind, like the dream-mind, is identical with such ideas. It is because the external objects such as sound, etc., perceived in the waking state, are as unreal as dream-objects, for reasons stated already. Another reason is that the ideas appearing as external objects are not different from the mind. It is the mind alone which, as in dream, appears as external objects such as the jar, etc.
Consciousness does not ever come in contact with objects in the three periods of time. Without a cause (ie., external object) how can there be its false apprehension ?
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Objection:- The mind appears as the jar, etc., though such objects are non-existent. Therefore there must exist false knowledge. Such being the case, there must be right knowledge somewhere (in relation to, or as distinguished from, false knowledge which we point out). Reply:- Our reply to this contention is as follows:-—The mind certainly does not come in contact with a cause—an external object—in any of the three periods of time, past, present or future. If the mind had ever truly come in contact with such objects then such relation would give us an idea of true knowledge from the standpoint of Reality. And in relation to that knowledge the appearance of the jar, etc., in the mind, in the absence of the jar, etc., could have been termed as false knowledge. But never does the mind come in contact with an external object (which does not in reality exist). Hence how is it possible for the mind to fall into error when there is no cause for such an assumption? In other words, the mind is never subject to false knowledge. This is, indeed, the very nature of the mind that it takes the forms of the jar, etc., though in reality, such jar, etc., which may cause the mental forms, do not at all exist.
तस्य पश्यन्ति ये जातिं खे वै पश्यन्ति ते पदम् ॥ २८॥
tasmānna jāyate cittaṃ cittadṛśyaṃ na jāyate .
tasya paśyanti ye jātiṃ khe vai paśyanti te padam .. 28..
Therefore consciousness is not born, nor are things perceived by it born. Those who perceive it as having birth, may as well see footprints in the sky.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The verses of the Kārikā from 25 to 27 give the views of a class of Buddhistic thinkers, known as the Vijñānavādins (the subjective idealists) who thus refute the views of those who maintáin the reality of external objects. The Advaitic teacher (Gauḍapāda) approves of these arguments. Now he makes use of these very arguments of the Vijñānavādins as the ground (middle term) for refuting the conclusions of the subjective idealists. The Kārikā has this end in view. The subjective idealist admits that the mind, even in the absence of the (external) jar, etc., takes the form of the jar, etc. We also agree with this conclusion because this is in conformity with the real nature of things. In like manner, the mind, though never produced, appears to be produced and cognised as such. Therefore the mind is never produced, as is the case with the object cognised by it. The Vijñānavādins who affirm the production of the mind and also assert that the mind is momentary, full of pain, non-Self in nature, etc., forget that the real nature of the mind can never be understood by the mind fas described by them). Thus the Vijñānavādins who see the production of the mind resemble those who (profess to) see in the sky foot-prints left by birds, etc. In other words, the Vijñānavādins are more audacious than the others, viz., the dualists. And the Nihilists who, in spite of the perception of the visible world, assert the absolute non-existence of everything including their own experiences, ate even mote audacious than the Vijñānavādins. These Nihilists take the position of those who claim to compress the whole sky in the palms of their hands.
prakṛteranyathābhāvo na kathañcidbhaviṣyati .. 29..
Since it is the birthless that is born (in the view of the disputants), birthlessness is its nature. Hence deviation from this nature can happen in no way whatsoever.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
For reasons already stated it is established that Brahman is one and unborn. This verse summarises, the conclusion of what has already been stated in the form of proposition. The unborn mind, which is verily Brahman, is imagined by the disputants to be born. Therefore (according to them) the ever-unborn is said to be born. For, it is unborn by its very nature. It is simply impossible for a thing, which is ever unborn by nature, to be anyhow born, that is to say, to be anyhow otherwise than what it is.
anantatā cā''dimato mokṣasya na bhaviṣyati .. 30..
If transmigratory existence be beginningless, its termination will not be reached. And liberation will not be eternal, if it has a beginning.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Here is another defect in the arguments of those who maintain that the Atman is, in reality, subject to both bondage and liberation. If the world (i.e., the state of bondage of the Atman) be without beginning or a definite past, then its end cannot be established by any logical reasoning. In ordinary experience, there is no instance of an object which has no beginning but has an end. Objection:- We see a break in the beginningless continuity of the relation of the seed and the sprout. Reply:- This illustration has no validity; for, the seed and the sprout do not constitute a single entity. In like manner, liberation cannot be said to have no end if it be asserted that liberation which is attained by acquisition of knowledge has a (definite) beginning. For, the jar, etc., which have a beginning have also an end. Objection:- There is no defect in our argument as liberation, not being any substance, may be like the destruction of a jar, etc. Reply:- In that case it will contradict your proposition that liberation has a positive existence from the standpoint of the Ultimate Reality. Further, liberation being a non-entity, like the horn of a hare cannot ever have a beginning. This Kārikā gives us the reason for the statement that Atman is ever-pure, ever-free and ever-existent. Atman, conceived as such, is not a theological dogma, nor is it based upon the intuition of the mystic, but it is a metaphysical fact.
That which is non-existent in the beginning and the end is definitely so in the present. The objects, although similar to the unreal, look as though real.
तस्मादाद्यन्तवत्त्वेन मिथ्यैव खलु ते स्मृताः ॥ ३२॥
saprayojanatā teṣāṃ svapne vipratipadyate .
tasmādādyantavattvena mithyaiva khalu te smṛtāḥ .. 32..
Their utility is opposed in dream. Therefore, for the reasons of their having a beginning and an end, they are definitely remembered to be unreal.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
These two verses have been explained before in the chapter on Illusion (Chapter II. 6, 7). They are quoted here again in connection with the topics which are discussed in relation to the unreality of the universe and liberation.
saṃvṛte'sminpradeśe vai bhūtānāṃ darśanaṃ kutaḥ .. 33..
All objects are unreal in dream, inasmuch as they are seen within the body. In this narrow space, how is the vision of creatures possible ?
Shankaracharya
Commentary
This and the following verses are meant to explain in detail one of the previous Kārikās which states that the (so-called) cause (of the opponent) is, really speaking, no cause at all. (Ref. Verse 25, Chapt. IV.)
प्रतिबुद्धश्च वै सर्वस्तस्मिन्देशे न विद्यते ॥ ३४॥
na yuktaṃ darśanaṃ gatvā kālasyāniyamādgatau .
pratibuddhaśca vai sarvastasmindeśe na vidyate .. 34..
It is not reasonable to say that objects in dream are seen by (actually) going to them, since it runs counter to the regulation of time that is needed for the journey. Further, none, when awake, remains in the place of dream.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The time and space involved in undertaking a journey and in coming back, have a definite and fixed standard in the waking state. These are seen to be reversed in dream. On account of this inconsistency it can be positively said that the dreamer does not actually go out to another place during his dream experiences.
mitrādyaiḥ saha saṃmantrya sambuddho na prapadyate .
gṛhītaṃ cāpi yatkiñcitpratibuddho na paśyati .. 35..
(In dream) what has been discussed with friends and others (and settled) is not resorted to when awake. Whatsoever is acquired (in dream0, too, is not seen when awake.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
A man, in dream, holds conversation with his friends, etc. But, on being awake, he finds it all as unreal. Further, he possesses in dream gold, etc., but, in the awakened state he realises all these possessions to be unreal. Though he goes to other countries in dream, he does not, in reality, make any such journey.
And in dream the body becomes unreal, since another body is seen (in the bed). As is the body, so is everything cognised by the consciousness – all unreal.
Since the experience (of objects) in dream is just like that in the waking state, the former is thought of as being caused by the latter. Such being the case, the waking state is considered to be real for that dreamer alone.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The body, which appears to be wandering in the dream, is unreal; for, another body, quite different from it, is seen in the spot where the dreamer lies. As the body perceived in the dream is unreal, so also all that is cognised by the mind, even in the waking state, is unreal; for, all these perceived objects are mere different states of the mind. The significance of this chapter is that even the waking experiences, on account of their being similar to the dream experiences, are unreal.
na ca bhūtādabhūtasya sambhavo'sti kathañcana .. 38..
Such birth is not established, everything is said to be unborn. Besides, it is not possible for the unreal to be born from the real, in any way whatsoever.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Objection:- Though the waking experiences are the cause of the dream ones, still the former cannot be unreal like the latter. The dream is extremely evanescent whereas the waking experiences are seen to be permanent. Reply:- This is true with regard to the people who do not possess discrimination. Men of discrimination do not see the production or the birth of anything, as creation or evolution cannot be established as a fact. Hence all this is known in the Vedāntic books as unborn (i.e., non-dual Brahman). For the Śruti declares, “He (the Atman) is both within and without and is, at the same time, unborn.” If you contend that the illusory dream is the effect of the real waking state, we say that your contention is untenable. In our common experience, we never see a non-existing thing produced from an existing one. Such non-existing thing as the horn of a hare is never seen to be produced from any other object.
असत्स्वप्नेऽपि दृष्ट्वा च प्रतिबुद्धो न पश्यति ॥ ३९॥
asajjāgarite dṛṣṭvā svapne paśyati tanmayaḥ .
asatsvapne'pi dṛṣṭvā ca pratibuddho na paśyati .. 39..
Having seen unreal things in the waking state, one, deeply impressed, sees those very things in dream. Likewise, having seen unreal objects in dream, one does not see them when awake.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Objection:- It is you who stated that the dream is the effect of the waking experience. That being the case, how do you refute causality? Reply:- Listen to our explanation of the causality, referred to in that instance. One perceives in the waking state objects which are unreal like the snake imagined in the rope. Being deeply impressed by such (illusory) perception, he imagines in the dream, as in the waking; state, the subject-object relationship and thereby perceives (dream) objects. But though full of the unreal seen in the dream, he does not see those (unreal) objects, over again, in the waking state. The reason is the absence of the imaginary subject-object relationship (one experiences in dream). The word “cha,” “moreover” in the text denotes that the causal relationship between the waking and the dream states is not always observed. Similarly, things seen in the waking state are not, sometimes, cognised in dream. Therefore the statement that the waking condition is the cause of the dream is not made from the standpoint of the Ultimate Reality.
There is no non-existent that serves as the cause of the non-existent, in the same way as the existent does not serve as the cause of the non-existent. There is no real entity that serves as the cause of another real entity. How can the unreal be the product of the real ?
Shankaracharya
Commentary
From the standpoint of the Ultimate Reality, things can, in no way, enter into causal relation. How? An unreal cannot be the cause of another unreal. An unreal entity such as the horns of a hare, which may be said to be the cause of another unreal entity such as a castle in the air, has no existence whatsoever. Similarly, an object like a jar, which is perceived and which is the effect of an unreal object like the horns of the hare, is never existent. In like manner, a jar which is perceived and which is the effect of another jar that also is perceived to exist, is, in itself, non-existent. And lastly, how is existence possible of a real object as the cause of an unreal one? No other causal relation is possible nor can be conceived of. Hence men of knowledge find that the causal relation between any objects whatsoever is not capable of being proved. The causal relation between the waking and the dream states has been stated from the empirical standpoint alone. But it cannot be established from the standpoint of Truth. Further, no causal relation, whatsoever, is admissible.
Just as one, for want of discrimination, takes unthinkable objects in the waking state as real, so too, in dream, one sees things in that state alone, for want of discrimination.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
This verse intends to remove the slightest possibility of the causal relation between the waking and the dream States, though both are unreal. As in the waking state, one, through want of proper discrimination, imagines the snake seen in place of the rope as real—the nature of which, in fact, cannot be really determined,—so also in dream, one, through want of discrimination, imagines as if one really perceives such objects as elephant, etc. These dream objects, such as elephants, etc., are peculiar to the dream condition alone; they are not the effect of the waking experiences.
For those who, from their own experience and right conduct, believe in the existence of substantiality, and who are ever afraid of the birthless, instruction regarding birth has been imparted by the wise.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Wise men, i.e., the exponents of Advaita Philosophy, have, no doubt, supported causality. But they have done so only for those who have little discrimination but who are eager (to know the Truth) and who are endowed with faith. These people assert that external objects exist as real because they perceive them, and also because they cling to the observances of various duties associated with the different Varṇās and Āśramas? instructions regarding causality are only meant for them as a means to (some) end. Let them hold on to the idea of causality. Rut the students who practise disciplines in accordance with Vedānta philosophy will, without such belief in causality, spontaneously get the knowledge of Self, unborn and non-dual. Causality is declared not from the standpoint of the Ultimate Reality. These students, who believe in Scriptures, and who are devoid of discrimination, fear the idea of absolute non-manifestation on account of their gross intellect, as they are afraid of the annihilation of their selves. It has also been stated before that these Scriptural statement (regarding creation) are meant as a help to our higher understanding of Reality. (In Reality, there is no multiplicity.)
जातिदोषा न सेत्स्यन्ति दोषोऽप्यल्पो भविष्यति ॥ ४३॥
ajātestrasatāṃ teṣāmupalambhādviyanti ye .
jātidoṣā na setsyanti doṣo'pyalpo bhaviṣyati .. 43..
For those who, for fear of the Unborn, and also owing to their perception (of duality), deviate from the right path, the evil springing up from acceptance of birth (creation), does not accrue. The evil effect, if there be any, will be but little.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Those who on account of their perception (of the phenomenal objects) and attachment to the various duties of caste and other stages of life, shrink from the non-dual and unborn Atman, and believing in the existence of dual objects, go away from the Self, that is to say, pin their faith to duality,—these people who are thus afraid of the truth of absolute non-manifestation, but who are endowed with faith and who stick to the path of righteousness, are not much affected by the evil results consequent on such belief in causality. For, they also try to follow the path of discrimination. Even if a little blemish attaches to such persons, it is insignificant, being due to their not having realised the Supreme Truth.
Just as an elephant magically conjured up is called an elephant by relying on perception and right conduct, similarly, for reasons of perception and right conduct a thing is said to be existing.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Objection:- Objects answering to the features of duality do exist, on account of such evidence as our (direct) perception of them and also on account of the possibility of our dealings with them. Reply:- No, this objection is not valid. For, direct perception and the possibility of dealing practically with objects do not always prove the existence of objects. Objection:- How do you say that our contention admits of irregularity? Reply:- It is thus stated:- The elephant conjured up by a magician, is, verily, perceived as the real elephant. Though unreal, it (the magic elephant) is called the (real) elephant, on account of its being endowed with Such attributes of an elephant as the possibility of its being tied up with a rope or being climbed upon, etc. Though unreal, the magic elephant is looked upon as (a real) one. In like manner, it is said that multiple objects, pointing to duality, exist on account of their being perceived and also on account of the possibility of our dealing practically with them. Hence the two grounds, adduced above, cannot prove the existence of (external) objects establishing the fact of duality.
That which bears semblance of birth, appears as though moving, and, similarly seems to be a thing (of attributes), is Consciousness that is birthless, unmoving and non-material, serene and non-dual.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
What is that entity—the Ultimate Reality—which is the substratum of all false cognitions as causality (creation), etc.? It is thus replied:—Though unborn fit appears to be born. As for example, we say that Devadatta is born. Again it appears to move (though it is free from all motion):- as we say, “That Devadatta is going”. Further, it appears as an object in which inhere certain qualities. For instance, we say “That Devadatta is fair and tall”. Though from the standpoint of the Ultimate Reality, Consciousness is ever unborn, immovable, and not of the character of material objects, yet it appears as a. Devadatta who is born, who moves and who is known to be fair and tall. What is that entity which answers to these descriptions? It is Consciousness which, being free from birth, change, etc., is all peace and therefore non-dual.
Thus Consciousness is unborn; thus the souls are regarded to be unborn. Those who realise thus certainly do not fall into misfortune.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Thus, that is to say, for the reasons stated above,, the mind is free from birth. Similarly the Dharmas> that is, the Jivas9 are also unborn. This is the statement of the Knowers of Brahman. The word “Dharmāḥ” (i.e., “Selves”) is metaphorically used in the plural sense,, in consequence of our perception of variety which is, in rëálity, the appearance of the non-dual Atman as different, corporeal beings. Those who know the consciousness, stated above, which is the essence of the Self, non-dual and free from birth, etc., and, accordingly, renounce the hankering after all external objects,—they do not fall any more into this ocean of the darkness of Avidya. The Śruti also says, “Where is grief or delusion for the one that realises non-duality?”
Just as the fire-brand set in motion appears as straight, crooked etc., similarly, the vibration of Consciousness appears as the perceiver and the perceived.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
In order to explain the truth regarding the Ultimate Reality already stated, it is thus said:—As in common experience it is noticed that a fire-brand when moved, appears straight, crooked, etc., so does Consciousness appear as the perceiver, the perceived, and the like. What is that which appears as the perceiver, the perceived, etc.? It is Consciousness set in motion. There is no motion in Consciousness. It only appears to be moving. This appearance is due to Avidya or ignorance. No motion is possible in Consciousness which is ever immovable. It has already been stated that Consciousness is unborn and immovable.
Just as the fire-brand devoid of motion is without appearances and birth, so also Consciousness devoid of vibration is without appearances and birth.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
As that very fire-brand, when not in motion, does not take any form, straight or crooked, etc., becomes free from all appearances and remains changeless, so also the consciousness, which appears as moving through ignorance, when dissociated from the idea of motion on the disappearance of ignorance, becomes free from all appearances, as those of birth, etc., and remains unborn and motionless.
न ततोऽन्यत्र निस्पन्दान्नालातं प्रविशन्ति ते ॥ ४९॥
alāte spandamāne vai nā''bhāsā anyatobhuvaḥ .
na tato'nyatra nispandānnālātaṃ praviśanti te .. 49..
When the fire-brand is in motion, the appearances do not come from elsewhere. Neither do they, when the fire-brand is free from motion, go elsewhere, nor do they enter into it.
They did not go out of the fire-brand owing to their not being of the nature of substance. In the case of Consciousness, too, the appearances must be the same, for as appearance there can be no distinction.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Moreover, when that very fire-brand is in motion, the appearances, straight or crooked, etc., do not come to it from anywhere else outside the fire-brand. Nor do the appearances go elsewhere from the fire-brand when it is motionless. Nor, again, do the appearances, enter into the fire-brand when it is motionless. Moreover, those appearances do not emerge from the fire-brand as something that comes out of a house. The reason is that appearances are not of the nature of substance. The appearances have no reality. Entrance, etc., can be said of a real thing but not of anything unreal. The appearance of birth, etc., in the case of consciousness is exactly similar, for, appearances are of the same nature in both the cases.
न ततोऽन्यत्र निस्पन्दान्न विज्ञानं विशन्ति ते ॥ ५१॥
vijñāne spandamāne vai nā''bhāsā anyatobhuvaḥ .
na tato'nyatra nispandānna vijñānaṃ viśanti te .. 51..
When Consciousness is in motion, the appearances do not come from elsewhere. Neither do they, when the Consciousness is free from motion, go elsewhere, nor do they enter again into It.
kāryakāraṇatābhāvādyato'cintyāḥ sadaiva te .. 52..
They did not go out of Consciousness owing to their not being of the nature of substance, for they ever remain incomprehensible on account of the absence of relation of effect and cause.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
How are the two appearances similar? It is thus replied:- The fire-brand and Consciousness are alike in all respects. The only special feature of Consciousness is that it always remains immutable. What is the cause of such appearances as birth, etc., in Consciousness which is ever immutable? In the absence of causality, it is not reasonable to establish the relationship of the producer and the produced (between Consciousness and appearances). The appearances, being illusory, are ever unthinkable. The purport of the whole thing is this:- As the fire-brand (which is merely a point) is associated with forms straight, crooked, etc., though, in reality, such crooked or straight forms are ever non-existent, so also, pure Consciousness is associated with the ideas of birth, etc., though such ideas as birth, etc., are ever non-existent. Hence these ideas of birth, etc., associated with Consciousness are illusory.
A substance could be the cause of a substance and another could be the cause of any other thing. But the souls cannot be regarded either as substances or as some other thing different from all else.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
It has already been established that the essence of Self is one and unborn. Those who imagine causal relation in Atman must admit that substance may be the cause of another substance and that which is other than substance may be the cause of something else which is also other than substance. But a thing itself cannot be the cause of itself. Further, we do not find in common experience a non-substance which is independently the cause of something. The selves (i.e., the Jivas or beings) can be called neither substance nor other than substance. Hence the Jivas or selves cannot be the cause or effect of anything. Therefore Atman, being neither substance nor other than substance, is neither the cause nor the effect of anything.
evaṃ na cittajā dharmāścittaṃ vā'pi na dharmajam .
evaṃ hetuphalājātiṃ praviśanti manīṣiṇaḥ .. 54..
Thus external objects are not born of Consciousness; nor is Consciousness born of external objects. Thus have the wise settled the birthlessness of cause and effect.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Thus, for reasons already stated, the mind is verily of the nature of the essence of the Self. External objects are not caused by the mind nor is the mind the product of the external objects. That is because all (external) entities are mere appearances in Consciousness. Thus neither the (so-called) effect comes from the (so-called) cause nor the cause from the effect. In this way is reiterated the absolute non-evolution of causality. In other words, the knowers of Brahman declare the absence of causality with regard to Atman.
As long as there is fascination for cause and effect, so long do cause and effect come into existence. When the fascination for cause and effect ceases, there is no further springing up of cause and effect.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
What happens with regard to those who cling to the belief in cause and effect? In reply, it is said:—As long as there is faith in causality, as long as a man thinks, “I am the agent; these virtuous and vicious deeds belong to me. I shall enjoy the results of these actions, being born in course of time, as some being,” in other words, as long as a man falsely attributes causality to Atman and devotes his mind to it, cause and effect must operate for him; that is to say, the man must without intermission be subject to birth and death, which are the result of his attachment to the belief in causality. But when attachment to causality, due to ignorance, is destroyed by the knowledge of non-duality as described above,—like the destruction of the possession of a ghost through the power of incantation, medicinal herb, etc.—then on account of the wearing away of the illusion of causality, do cause and effect cease to exist.
kṣīṇe hetuphalāveśe saṃsāraṃ na prapadyate .. 56..
As long as one is completely absorbed in cause and effect, so long does transmigration continue. When the absorption in cause and effect ceases, one does not undergo transmigration.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
What is the harm if the law of cause and effect continues to operate? In reply we say:—As long as faith in causality is not destroyed by right knowledge, our course (of birth and death) in this world will continue. But when that faith is destroyed (by right knowledge) the world also ceases to exist for want of any other cause for its existence.
sadbhāvena hyajaṃ sarvamucchedastena nāsti vai .. 57..
From the relative plane (of thinking) everything seems to be born and is not, therefore, eternal. From the absolute plane (of perception) everything is the unborn (Self) and there is, therefore, nothing like destruction.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Objection:- Nothing else verily exists except the unborn Atman. Then how can you speak of the origin and destruction of the cause and the effect as well as of (the chain of birth and death constituting) the world? Reply:- Listen. The word Saṃvṛti in the text signifies the (illusory) experiences of the empirical world which are caused by ignorance. All this is born of this power of ignorance which brings into existence the illusory experiences of the world. For this reason, nothing is permanent in the realm of ignorance. Therefore it is said that the world, having the characteristics of origination and destruction, is spread before us (i.e., the ignorant persons). But as one with the Ultimate Reality, all this is nothing but the unborn Atman. Therefore, in the absence of birth, there cannot be any destruction, viz., the destruction of cause or effect.
janma māyopamaṃ teṣāṃ sā ca māyā na vidyate .. 58..
The souls that are thus born are not born in reality. Their birth is like that of an object through Maya. And that Maya again is non-existent.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Those, again, who imagine the birth of the Jivas and other entities, do so only through Saṃvṛti or the power of ignorance as stated in the preceding Kārikā. The Jivas are seen to be born only through ignorance. But from the standpoint of the Supreme Reality no such birth is possible. This (supposed) birth of the Jivas through ignorance, described above, is like the birth of objects through illusion (Maya). Opponent:- Then there must be something real known as Maya or illusion? Reply:- It is not so. That Maya or illusion is never existent. Maya or illusion is the name we give to something which does not (really) exist (but which is perceived).
नासौ नित्यो न चोच्छ्येदी तद्वद्धर्मेषु योजना ॥ ५९॥
yathā māyāmayādbījājjāyate tanmayo'ṅkuraḥ .
nāsau nityo na cocchyedī tadvaddharmeṣu yojanā .. 59..
Just as from a magical seed comes out a sprout of that very nature which is neither permanent nor destructible, so too, is the reasoning applicable in respect of objects.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Now, is the birth of Jivas, that are seen to exist, illusory? To this question, our reply is as follows:—From an illusory mango seed is born a mango sprout which is equally illusory. This sprout is neither permanent nor destructible, simply because it does not exist. In the like manner, ideas of birth and death are applied to the Jivas. The purport is that from the standpoint of the Ultimate Reality, neither birth nor death is applicable to Jivas.
yatra varṇā na vartante vivekastatra nocyate .. 60..
In the case of all birthless entities the terms permanent and non-permanent can have no application. Where words fail to describe, no entity can be spoken of in a discriminative manner.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
From the standpoint of the Ultimate Reality, no epithet such as permanence or impermanence, nor any sound corresponding to such names, can be applied to Jivas (selves or beings) which are eternal, birthless, and which are always of the nature of a homogeneous consciousness. That by which an object is designated is known as “Varṇa” or name associated with a sound. The words fail to denote the nature of Atman. It cannot be discriminated as this or that, permanent or impermanent. The Śruti also says, “Whence words fall back,” etc.
As in dream Consciousness vibrates through illusion, as though dual by nature, so in the waking state Consciousness vibrates through illusion as though possessed of dual appearances.
advayaṃ ca dvayābhāsaṃ cittaṃ svapne na saṃśayaḥ .
advayaṃ ca dvayābhāsaṃ tathā jāgranna saṃśayaṃ .. 62..
There can be no doubt that the non-dual Consciousness alone appears in dream as though dual. Similarly, in waking state, too, the non-dual Consciousness appears as though dual, undoubtedly.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
That pure consciousness which is non-dual (from the standpoint of the Supreme Reality) is sought to be described by words, is due to the active condition of the mind (which is due to Avidya). This description (of the non-dual Atman by words) has no meaning from the standpoint of the Ultimate Truth. These verses have already been explained.
svapnadṛkpracaransvapne dikṣu vai daśasu sthitān .
aṇḍajānsvedajānvā'pi jīvānpaśyati yānsadā .. 63..
The dreamer, as he wanders in the dream-land always sees the creatures born from eggs or from moisture as existing in all the ten directions.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Here is another reason which also shows us that duality describable by words, does not exist. The beings or Jivas, born of eggs or moisture, which a dreamer going about in all ten directions perceives in his dream condition as existing, (have, as a matter of fact, no existence apart from the mind of the dreamer). Objection:- Suppose we admit this. What are you driving at? Reply:- Our reply is as follows:-
These (creatures), perceptible to the consciousness of the dreamer, have no existence apart from his consciousness. So also this consciousness of the dreamer is admitted to be the object of perception to that dreamer alone.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Those beings perceived by the mind of the dreamer have no existence outside the mind of the person who dreams about them. It is the mind alone which imagines itself to have assumed the forms of many diversified beings. Similarly, that mind of the dreamer is, again, perceived by the dreamer alone. Therefore there is no separate thing called mind which is apart from the dreamer himself.
The man in the waking state, as he wanders in the places of the waking state, always sees the creatures born from eggs or from moisture as existing in all the ten directions.
These (creatures), perceptible to the consciousness of the man in the waking state, have no existence apart from his consciousness. So also, this consciousness of the man in the waking state is admitted to be the object of perception to that man of the waking state alone.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The Jivas, perceived in the waking state, do not exist anywhere except in the mind of the perceiver, for, they are not seen independent of the mind. These Jivas are similar to the Jivas, perceived in the dream, which are cognized by the mind of the dreaming person alone. That mind again, having the characteristic of perception of Jivas is non different from the perceiver of the wakings condition, because it is seen by the perceiver, as is the case with the mind which perceives the dream. The rest has already been interpreted (in the previous verses).
Both these are perceptible to each other. "Does it exist?" (To such a question) "No" is said (by way of answer). Both these are devoid of valid proof, and each can be perceived only through the idea of the other.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Both the mind and the Jivas, or in other words, the mind and its modifications (which are seen as external objects) are each an object of perception to the other. In other words, one is perceived only through the other. The mind exists only in relation to the Jiva, etc., and the Jiva and objects exist only in relation to the mind. Therefore they are each an object of perception to the other. Hence wise men assert that nothing whatsoever, neither the mind nor its object, can be said to have any existence (if either be considered by itself)—(from the standpoint of either the idealist or the realist). As in the dream the elephant as well as the mind that perceives the elephant, are not really existent, so also is the case with the mind and its objects of the waking condition. How is it so? For, both the mind and its objects have no proof of their existence (independent of each other). They are each an object of perception to the other. One cannot cognize a jar without the cognition of a jar; nor can one have a cognition of a jar without a jar. In the case of the jar and the cognition of the jar it is not possible to conceive the distinction between the instrument of knowledge and the object of knowledge.
tathā jīvā amī sarve bhavanti na bhavanti ca .. 70..
Just as an artificial creature (brought into being by incantation and medicine), takes birth and dies, so also do all these creatures come into being and disappear.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The “magician’s Jiva” means that which is conjured up before our vision by the feat of a magician. The “artificial Jiva” is that which is brought into existence by means of incantation, medicinal herb, etc. As the Jivas born of egg, etc., and created in dream, are seen to come into existence and then to pass away, so also the Jivas such as human beings, etc., seen in the waking state, though really non-existent (appear to come into existence and then pass away). These are merely the imagination of the mind.
No creature whichsoever is born, nor is there any source for it. This is that supreme truth where nothing is born whatsoever.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
It has already been stated that the appearances of birth, death, etc., of the Jivas are possible only in the empirical plane, as is the case with the dream-beings. But the Ultimate Truth is that no Jiva is ever born. The rest has already been stated.
cittaṃ nirviṣayaṃ nityamasaṅgaṃ tena kīrtitam .. 72..
This duality consisting in the subject-object relationship is nothing but the vibration of Consciousness. Again, Consciousness is without object and is, therefore, declared to be ever unattached.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The whole world of duality consisting of the subject and the object is, verily, an act of the mind. But from the standpoint of the Ultimate Reality, the mind, which is verily Atman, is unrelated to any object. On account of the absence of relation (with any object), the mind is declared as eternal and unattached. The Śruti also says, “The Puruṣa is always free from relation.” That which perceives objects outside of it, is related to such objects. But the mind, having no such external object, is free from all relations.
That which exists by virtue of being an imagined empirical view, does not exist in reality. Again, that which exists on the basis of the empirical view brought about by other schools of thought, does not really exist.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Objection:- It has been said that the mind is free from the relation with any objects, as such objects do not exist. But this non-attachment regarding the mind cannot be maintained inasmuch as objects in the forms of the teacher, the Scripture and the pupil exist. Reply:- There is no such defect in our contention. Objection:- How? Reply:- The existence of such objects as Scripture, etc., is due to the empirical experience which is illusory. The empirical knowledge in respect of Scripture, teacher and taught is illusory and imagined only as a means to the realisation of the Ultimate Reality. Therefore Scripture, etc., which exist only on the strength of illusory empirical experiences, have no real existence. It has already been said that duality vanishes when the Ultimate Reality is known. Again, the objects (which appear to come into existence through the illusory experiences), supported by other schools of thought as existent, do not, when analysed from the standpoint of the Ultimate Reality, verily exist. Hence it has been rightly said in the previous Kārikā that the mind is unattached.
paratantrābhiniṣpattyā saṃvṛtyā jāyate tu saḥ .. 74..
Inasmuch as the soul, according to the conclusions arrived at by other schools of thought, takes birth from a fancied empirical view point, it is said in consistence with that empirical point of view that the soul is unborn; but from the point of view of supreme Reality, it is not even unborn.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Objection:- If Scriptural teaching, etc., were illusory, then the birthlessness of Atman, as taught by Scripture, is also due to illusory imagination. Reply:- This is, indeed, true. Atman is said to be unborn only in relation to illusory empirical experiences which comprehend ideas of Scripture, teacher and taught. From the standpoint of the Ultimate Reality, Atman cannot be said to be even unborn. Atman which is said to be unborn only as against the conclusion of those schools (which maintain that Atman comes into existence), appears to be born to the ignorant. Therefore, the notion (based upon illusion) that Atman is unborn has no bearing on the Ultimate Reality.
dvayābhāvaṃ sa buddhvaiva nirnimitto na jāyate .. 75..
There is a mere fascination for unreal things, though there exists no duality. Having realised the absence of duality, one is not born again for want of a cause.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
As objects are, really speaking, non-existent, therefore people who believe in their existence have, in fact, attachment for duality which is unreal. It is a mere belief in the (existence of) objects which (really speaking) do not exist. There is no duality. The cause of birth is this attachment. Therefore one who has realised the unreality of duality is never born again as he is free from the cause (of birth), viz., attachment to the illusory duality.
tadā na jāyate cittaṃ hetvabhāve phalaṃ kutaḥ .. 76..
When there are no causes – superior, inferior or medium – then Consciousness does not take birth. How can there be any result when the cause is absent.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The superior cause consists of those Dharmas (i.e., duties of life), wholly virtuous, which are prescribed according to different castes and stages of life, and which when performed without any attachment to the result, enable one to attain to the position of gods, etc. The middling cause consists of those duties, mixed with certain irreligious practices the observance of which enables one to attain to the position of man, etc. The inferior cause consists of those particular tendencies, characterised by irreligious practices alone, which lead one to the position of lower creatures, such as beasts, birds, etc. When the mind realising the essence of Self which is one and without a second and which is free from all (illusory) imaginations, does not find the existence of any of the causes, superior, inferior or middling, all imagined through ignorance,—like a man of discrimination not seeing any dirt which a child sees in the sky-then it does not undergo any birth, i.e., it does not objectify itself as god, man or beast, which are the effects of their respective causes (enumerated above). No effect can be produced in the absence of a cause, as sprouts cannot come forth in the absence of the seed.
ajātasyaiva sarvasya cittadṛśyaṃ hi tadyataḥ .. 77..
The birthlessness of Consciousness which is free from causes is constant and absolute, for all this (ie., duality and birth) was an object of perception to It which had been unborn (even before).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
It has already been stated that in the absence of a cause, the mind is not subject to birth. But what is the nature of that non-evolution of the mind? It is thus replied:—The causes of birth are meritorious actions and their opposite. The state of absolute non-manifestation of the mind,—known as liberation (knowledge) and free from causality on account of the realisation of the Supreme—is always constant under all conditions and absolute, that is, ever non-dual. Even before the attainment of knowledge, the mind always remains nonmanifest and non-dual. Even prior to the realisation of the highest knowledge the idea of duality (i.e., the subject and the object) and the idea of birth are merely an objectification of the mind. Hence the non-evolution of the mind which is always free from change or birth is constant and absolute. In other words, it cannot be said that this non-evolution or liberation sometimes exists and sometimes disappears. It is always the same and changeless. It may be contended from the previous Kārikā that liberation depends upon the external factor of time. This contention is-answered in this verse.
Having realised the Truth that is uncaused and having abstained from obtaining any further cause, one attains the state of fearlessness that is devoid of grief and delusion (kama).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Through the reasoning indicated above, one knows the absence of duality, which is the cause of birth and thus realises absolute non-causation as the Ultimate Truth. Further, he does not see the reality of anything else as cause, such as religious merit, etc., which may enable one to attain to the position of gods, etc. Thus freeing himself from all desires, he attains to the highest state, i.e., liberation (knowledge) which is free from desire, grief, ignorance and fear. That is to say, he no longer becomes subject to birth and death.
vastvabhāvaṃ sa buddhvaiva niḥsaṅgaṃ vinivartate .. 79..
Owing to fascination for unreal objects, Consciousness engages Itself in things that are equally unreal. On realisation of the non-existence of objects, Consciousness, becoming free from attachment, abstains (from them).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Attachment to the unreal (objects) is due to the firm belief that duality exists, though in reality such duality is ever non-existent. On account of such attachment which is of the nature of delusion caused by ignorance, the mind runs after objects corresponding to those desires. But when a man knows the unreality of all duality of objects, then he becomes indifferent to them and turns away his mind from the unreal (objects) to which he feels attached.
viṣayaḥ sa hi buddhānāṃ tatsāmyamajamadvayam .. 80..
Then, there follows a state of stillness, when the Consciousness has become free from attachment and does not engage Itself (in unreal things). That is the object of vision to the wise. That is the (supreme) state on non-distinction, and that is birthless and non-dual.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
When the mind is withdrawn from all duality of objects, and when it does not attach itself to any objects,—as no objects exist—then the mind attains to the state of immutability which is of the same nature as Brahman. This realisation of the mind as Brahman is characterised by the mass of unique non-dual consciousness. As that condition of the mind is known,, (only) by the wise who have known the Ultimate Reality, that state is supreme and undifferentiated, birthless and non-dual.
This is birthless, sleepless, dreamless, and self-luminous. For this Entity (the Self) is ever luminous by Its very nature.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The nature of that which is realisable by the wise is again described:—It (Atman) reveals itself by itself. It does not depend for its revelation upon any external light, such as the sun, etc. Self-luminosity is its very nature. It is ever-luminous. This is the inherent characteristic of the Dharma, known as Atman.
yasya kasya ca dharmasya graheṇa bhagavānasau .. 82..
Owing to the Lord’s fondness for any object whatsoever, he becomes ever veiled effortlessly, and is unveiled every time with strenuous effort.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
How is it that the people, at large, do not realise Atman, which is the Supreme Reality, though It is again and again thus explained? To this the following reply is given:- On account of the mind apprehending through attachment, single objects of the world of duality, the blissful nature of Atman is easily covered. The reason for this concealment is only the perception of duality. There is no other cause for it. Moreover, misery is brought to the surface. The knowledge of the Supreme Reality is extremely hard to attain. The Lord, the non-dual Atman, the effulgent Being, though again and again taught by the Vedānta Scriptures and the teachers, is not therefore comprehended. The Śruti also says, “One who speaks of Atman is looked upon with wonder and he who has attained and who has realised it, is equally an object of wonder.”
अस्ति नास्त्यस्ति नास्तीति नास्ति नास्तीति वा पुनः ।
चलस्थिरोभयाभावैरावृणोत्येव बालिशः ॥ ८३॥
asti nāstyasti nāstīti nāsti nāstīti vā punaḥ .
calasthirobhayābhāvairāvṛṇotyeva bāliśaḥ .. 83..
A man of puerile imagination definitely covers the Self by affirming that It "exists", exists not", "Exists and exists not", or again, "exists not", "exists not", and by possessing such views as (that It is) changing and unchanging, both changing and unchanging and non-existent.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Attachment of the learned to such predicates as existence, non-existence, etc., serves verily as a veil between them and the Supreme Reality. What wonder is there that childish persons on account of their undeveloped intellect are unable to grasp Atman! This Kārikā brings out the aforesaid idea. Some disputant asserts that Atman exists. Another disputant, viz., the Buddhist, says that it is non-existent. A third disputant, the Jaina, who is a pseudo-nihilist, believing in both the existence and non-existence of Self, proclaims that Atman both exist and does not exist. The absolute nihilist says that nothing exists at all. He who predicates existence of Atman associates it with changeability in order to make it distinct from such impermanent objects as a jar, etc. The theory that Atman is non-existent, i.e., inactive, is held on account of its undifferentiated nature. It is called both existent and non-existent on account of its being subject to both changeability and immutability. Non-existence is predicated of Atman on account of everything ending in absolute negation or void. All the four classes of disputants, mentioned above, asserting existence, non-existence, existence and non-existence, and total non-existence (about Atman), derived respectively from their notion of changeability, immutability, combination of both and total negation, reduce themselves to the position of the childish, devoid of all discrimination; and by associating Atman with all these illusory ideas (Kalpanā) cover Its real nature. If these (so-called) learned men act as veritable children on account of their ignorance of Ultimate Reality, what is to be said regarding those who are, by nature, unenlightened!
bhagavānābhiraspṛṣṭo yena dṛṣṭaḥ sa sarvadṛk .. 84..
These are the four alternative views, owing to a fascination for which the Lord becomes ever hidden. He is the all-seer by whom is the Lord perceived as untouched by these.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
What is the nature of the essence, i.e., the Ultimate Reality, by knowing which people are purged of their stupidity and are really made to attain to wisdom? It is thus replied:- There are four alternate theories regarding Atman such as, It exists, It does not exist, etc., mentioned in the works of those who are fond of disputations. The Atman always remains covered and hidden from these vain talkers on account of their attachment to their theories. The thoughtful person who has realised the Atman, known only by the (correct understanding of) Upaniṣads, as ever-untouched by any of the four alternative predicates such as It exists,. It does not exist, etc., is the seer of all, the omniscient and the real knower of the Ultimate Reality.
Having attained omniscience in its entirety, as well as the non-dual state of Brahmanhood that is devoid of beginning, middle, and end, does anyone wish anything thereafter ?
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The state of the Brāhmaṇa signifies the state in which one is established in Brahman. The Śruti says, “This is the eternal glory of the Brāhmaṇa.” That state of Brāhmaṇa is free from beginning, end or middle. That is to say, that state of non-duality is free from the (illusory ideas of) creation, preservation and destruction. Having obtained the whole of omniscience, described above, i.e., the state of Brāhmaṇa, a non-dual state without beginning, end or middle, which is the same as the realisation of Self, the summum bonum of existence—what else remains for him to be desired? In other words, all other strivings become useless for him. It is thus said in Gītā, “He has nothing to gain by the activities (of the relative world).”
This is the humility of the Brahmanas; this is said to be their natural control. Since, by nature, they have conquered the senses, this is their restraint. Having known thus, the enlightened one becomes rooted in tranquillity.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The humility of the Brāhmaṇas which is due to their realisation of their identity with the Self, is quite natural. This is (the real significance of) his humility. The tranquillity (of the mind which the Knowers of Brahman enjoy) is also natural and not induced by any artificial means. Brahman is all peace and tranquility. Hence the Brāhmaṇas are said to have controlled their sense-organs (from pursuing the external objects). This is also the cause of the tranquillity of their nature. Having realised Brahman which is, by nature, all-peace the wise man attains to peace which is the characteristic of Brahman. That is to say, he becomes identical with Brahman.
avastu sopalambhaṃ ca śuddhaṃ laukikamiṣyate .. 87..
The duality that is co-existent with both object and (its) perception is said to be the ordinary (waking) state. That state where there is only perception without (the actual presence of an) object is said to be the ordinary (dream) state.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
We have so far, come to the following conclusions:- The theories of mere disputants contradicting one another, are the causes of our existence in the relative (Saṃsāra) world. Further these theories are characterised by partiality and aversion. Therefore these are merely false, as already shown by reasoning. On the other hand the philosophy of Advaita alone gives us true knowledge, as, being free from the four alternative predicates referred to above,—it is untouched by partiality and aversion and is all-peace by its very nature. Now the following topic is introduced as an explanation of the Vedāntic method of arriving at truth. The word “Savastu” in the text implies objects that are perceived in our empirical experiences. Similarly, the word “Sopalambha” in the text implies the idea of one’s coming in contact with such objects. This constitutes the world of duality, common to all human beings and known as the waking state which is characterised by the subject-object relationship and which alone is the sphere of all our dealings including the Scriptural, etc. The waking state, thus characterised, is admitted in the Vedānta Scriptures. There is another state which lacks the experiences (of the waking state) caused by external sense-organs. But there exists in that state the idea of coming in contact with objects, though such objects are absent. This is admitted (in the Vedāntas) as the dream state, which is again common to all, and different from and subtler than the gross state of waking.
ज्ञानं ज्ञेयं च विज्ञेयं सदा बुद्धैः प्रकीर्तितम् ॥ ८८॥
avastvanupalambhaṃ ca lokottaramiti smṛtam .
jñānaṃ jñeyaṃ ca vijñeyaṃ sadā buddhaiḥ prakīrtitam .. 88..
The state devoid of object and devoid of perception is regarded as extraordinary. Thus have the wise for ever declared knowledge, object, and the knowable.
sarvajñatā hi sarvatra bhavatīha mahādhiyaḥ .. 89..
On acquiring knowledge (of the threefold objects) and on knowing the objects in succession, there follows consequently, for the man of great intellect here, the state of omniscience for ever.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The state in which one neither perceives any object nor possesses the idea of coming in contact with such object—a state free from the relationship of subject and object—is called the highest state, which is beyond all empirical experiences. All empirical experiences consist of the subject-object relationship. This state is free from all such relationship and is the seed of future experiences. This is known as the state of deep sleep. That alone is called knowledge? which is the realisation of essence, i.e., the Supreme Reality, as well as the means to do so, viz., the analysis of the states of gross experience, subtle experience and the condition beyond all experiences. The three states, mentioned above, are the objects of knowledge; for, there cannot be anything knowable besides these three states. All entities falsely imagined by the different schools of the disputants are included in these three states. That which is to be ultimately known is the truth regarding the Supreme Reality, known as Turīya, i.e., the knowledge of Self, non-dual and Unborn. The illumined ones, i.e., those who have seen the Supreme Reality have described these features (topics) ranging from the, objects of gross experience to the Supremely Knowable Self. The word Jnanam signifies knowledge by which one grasps the significance of the three states. The word “Jneya” or knowable, signifies the three states which should be known. The first (knowable) consists of the gross stated of empirical experience. Then comes the state of subtle experience in which the first state loses itself, i.e., merges. And last comes deep sleep which is beyond all empirical experiences (gross or subtle) which results in the absemce of the two previous states, i.e., i n which the two previous states merge. By the knowledge of these three, one after the other, and consequently, by the negation of the three states the Turīya, non-dual, birthless and fearless, which alone is the Supreme Reality, is realised. Thus the knower (possessed of the highest power of discrimination) attains in this very life the state of omniscience which is identical with the knowledge of Self. He is called Mahādhīḥ or the man of the highest intellect as he has understood that which transcends all human experiences. His omniscience is constant and remains undiminished. For, the knowledge of Self once realised remains as such for ever. This is because the knowledge of the knower of the Supreme Reality does not appear and disappear like that of mere vain disputants. The scriptural statements that the Atman being known, everything else is known, is explained in the Kārikā.
Those which are to be abandoned, realised, adopted, and made ineffective should be known first. Of these, the three, excepting the thing to be realised, are regarded as mere imaginations born of ignorance.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
There may arise a doubt that the three states of empirical experience may constitute the Ultimate Reality on account of their being pointed out as things to be gradually known. In order to remove this doubt it is said, the “Heyas” or things to be avoided are the three states of empirical experience, viz., the waking, the dream and the deep sleep. These do not exist in Atman just as the snake is not present in the rope. Therefore they should be avoided. The word Jñeya, i.e., the thing to be known, in this text refers to the knowledge of the Ultimate Reality, free from the four alternative theories described before. The things to be acquired are the accessories of spiritual realisation, viz., wisdom, childlike innocence and silence. These virtues are practised by the sages after they have renounced the threefold desires. The word “Pākyāni” in the text signifies the latent impressions which in due course attain maturity, viz., such blemishes as attachment, aversion, delusion, etc. These are known as Kaṣāya or the passions that hide the real nature of the soul. As a means to their realisation of the Supreme Reality, sages should first of all be acquainted with these four things, viz., the thing to be avoided, the thing to be realised, the thing to be acquired and the thing to be rendered ineffective. These, however, with the exception of the thing to be known—that is to say, with the exception of the non-dual Brahman alone, the essence of the Ultimate Reality, that should be realised—are perceived on account of our imagination. This is the conclusion of the Knowers of Brahman with regard to the three things, viz., those to be avoided, acquired, and those that are (awaiting maturity and therefore) to be made ineffective. In other words, these three do not exist from the standpoint of the Ultimate Reality.
vidyate na hi nānātvaṃ teṣāṃ kvacana kiñcana .. 91..
It should be known that all souls are, by nature, similar to ether, and eternal. There is no diversity anywhere among them, even an iota of it.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Those who seek liberation should regard, from the standpoint of the Ultimate Reality, all Jivas, as by their very nature without beginning, i.e., eternal, and, like Ākāśa, subtle, free from all blemish and all-pervading. The plural number used with regard to the ‘Jivas’ may suggest multiplicity. The second line of the Kārikā is meant to remove any such apprehension. There is no multiplicity in the Jivas even in the slightest degree and under any condition.
All souls are, by nature, illumined from the very beginning, and their characteristics are well ascertained. He, for whom there is thus the freedom from want of further acquisition of knowledge, is considered to be fit for immortality.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Even the knowableness attributed to the Jivas is also due to the illusion of empirical experiences. It cannot be applied from the standpoint of the Supreme Reality. This idea is explained in this text. The Jivas are illumined, by their very nature, from the very beginning. That is to say, all the Jivas, like the sun which is of the very nature of eternal light, are ever illumined. No effort need be made to define their nature, as the nature of the Jiva is, from the very beginning, well determined. It cannot be subject to any such doubt as, “The Jiva may be like this or like that”. The seeker of liberation who in the manner above described, does not stand in need of anything else to make this knowledge certain to himself or others,—just as the sun, by nature ever illumined, is never in need of any light from itself or others—who thus always rests without forming ideas of duality regarding any further knowledge of his own self, becomes capable of realising the Ultimate Reality.
All souls are, from the very beginning, tranquil, unborn and, by nature, entirely detached, equal, and non-different, and inasmuch as Reality is thus unborn, unique, and pure, (therefore there is no need of tranquillity to be brought into the Self).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Similarly, there is no room for any effort to make Atman peaceful, for, all Jivas are, by their very nature, eternally peaceful, unborn and of the nature of eternal freedom. All Jivas are further of the same nature and norf-separate from one another. They being Atman in their very essence, ever pure, unborn and established in sameness, therefore the effort of attaining to liberation is meaningless. For, if something is accomplished with regard to an entity which is always of the same nature, it does not make any change in the thing itself.
There cannot ever be any purification for those who always tread the path of duality. They follow the path of difference, and speak of diversity and are, therefore, considered to be mean.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Those who have realised the truth regarding the Ultimate Reality as described above, are alone free from narrowness. Others are verily narrow-minded. This is thus described in this verse. “Drowned in the idea of separation” means those who stick to the idea of separation, that is to say, those who confine themselves to the multiplicity of phenomenal experiences. Who are they? They are those who assert that the multiplicity of objects exists, i.e., the dualists. They are called “narrowminded” as they never realise the natural purity of Atman on account of their ever-dwelling on the thought of multiplicity, i.e., on account of their taking as real the duality of experiences imagined through ignorance. Therefore it has been truly said that these people are narrow-minded.
They who have well-settled convictions regarding that which is unborn and ever the same,indeed are possessed of great knowledge in this world. But the common man cannot comprehend it.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
That this knowledge of the Supreme Reality is incapable of being understood by the poor intellect, by the unwise, i.e., by persons of small intellect who are outside the knowledge of Vedanta,—is thus explained in this verse. Those few, even though they may be women or others, who are firm in their conviction of the nature of Ultimate Reality, unborn and undivided, are alone possessors of the highest wisdom. They alone know the essence of Reality. Others, i.e., persons of ordinary, intellect, cannot understand their ways, that is to say, the Supreme Reality realised by the wise. It is said in the Smṛti:—“Even the gods feel puzzled while trying to follow in the footsteps of those who leave no track behind, of those who realise themselves in all beings and who are always devoted to the welfare of all. They? leave no track behind like the birds flying through the sky.”
yato na kramate jñānamasaṅgaṃ tena kīrtitam .. 96..
The knowledge existing in the birthless souls is regarded unborn and unrelated. Inasmuch as the knowledge has no relation with other objects, it is declared to be unattached.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
What constitutes the highest Wisdom (i.e., the wisdom of the knower of the non-dual Atman)? This is thus explained:- Knowledge which constitutes the essence of the Dhūrmas (Jivas), unborn, immutable and identical with Atman, is also admitted to be unborn and immutable. It is just like the light and the heat belonging to the sun. Knowledge, being ever unrelated to other objects, is said to be unborn. As knowledge is, thus, unrelated to other objects, it is like the Ākāśa, called unconditioned or absolute.
If there be birth for a thing, however insignificant it may be, non-attachment shall never be possible for the ignorant man. What to speak (then) of the destruction of covering for him ?
Shankaracharya
Commentary
If persons, through ignorance, think,—as those who differ from us assert—that an entity (i.e., Jiva or Atman) does undergo the slightest change, either subjectively or objectively, then such ignorant persons can never realise the ever-unrelatedness (of Atman). Therefore it goes without saying that there cannot be any destruction of bondage (that is supposed to keep the Jiva bound to the world).
All souls are devoid of any covering and are by nature pure. They are illumined as well as free from the beginning. Thus they are said to be masters since they are capable of knowing.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Objection:- It has been stated in the previous Kārikā that (according to the view of the ignorant) the destruction of the veil covering the real nature of Atman is not possible. This is a (tacit) admission by the Vedāntist that the (real) nature of the Jivas is covered by a veil. Reply:- It is not so. The Jivas are never subject to any veil or bondage imposed by ignorance. That is to say, they are ever free from any bondage (which does not at all exist). They are pure by nature; illumined and free from the very beginning as it is said that they are of the nature of eternal purity, knowledge and freedom. If so, why are Jivas described as capable of knowing (the Ultimate Reality) by teachers who are competent to know the Truth, i.e., those who are endowed with the power of discrimination? The reply is that it is like speaking about the sun as shining though the very nature of the sun is all-light, or speaking about the hill, which is ever free from any motion, as always standing.
The knowledge of the one who is enlightened and all-pervasive, does not enter into objects. And so the souls also do not enter into objects. This fact was not mentioned by the Buddha.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The knowledge of the wise man, that is to say, of the one who has attained to the Supreme Reality, is ever unrelated to other objects or Jivas. This knowledge is always centred in or is identical with Jiva (i.e., Atman) like the sun and its light. The word “Tāyee”, “All-light”, in the text signifies that which is all-pervasive like Ākāśa or, it may mean that which is adorable or allknowledge. All entities, i.e., Jivas (beings like so many Atmans) are as unattached as the Ākāśa, and ever-un-related to anything else. Knowledge (Jnana) which has been compared to Ākāśa in the beginning of this chapter is non-different from the knowledge of the wise one who is all-light. Therefore the Ākāśa like knowledge of the wise does not relate itself to any other object. This is also the essence of the Dharmas or all entities. The essence of all the entities is the essence of Brahman, and is, like Ākāśa, immutable, changeless, free from parts, permanent, one and without a second, unattached, non-cognizable, unthinkable and beyond hunger and thirst. The Śruti also says, “The knowledge (characteristic) of the seer is never absent.” This knowledge regarding the Ultimate Reality, non-dual and characterised by the absence of perceiver, perception and the perceived, is not the same as that declared by the Buddha. The view of the Buddha, which rejects the existence of external objects and asserts the existence of ideas alone, is said to be similar to or very near the truth of non-dual Atman. But this knowledge of non-duality which is the Ultimate Reality can be attained through Vedanta alone.
Having realised the non-dual state that is hard to perceive, deep, unborn, uniform and serene,we offer our salutations to It, as best as we can.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The treatise is now completed. This Salutation is made with a view to extol the knowledge of the Supreme Reality. It is extremely difficult to understand it. In other words, it is difficult of comprehension as it is not related to any of the four possible predicates, such as existence, non-existence, etc. It is profound, that is, very deep like a great ocean. People devoid of discrimination cannot fathom it. This knowledge (Jnana) is, further, birthless, always the same and all-light. Having attained this knowledge which is free from multiplicity, having become one with it, we salute it. Though this absolute knowledge cannot be subjected to any relative treatment (such as, Salutation, etc.) yet we view it from the relative standpoint and adore it to the best of our ability. The Concluding Salutation by Shri Shankaracharya 1. I bow to that Brahman, the destroyer of all fear of those who take shelter under It,—which, though unborn, appears to be associated with birth through Its (inscrutable and indescribable) power (of knowledge and activity); which, though ever at rest, appears to be moving; and which, though non-dual, appears to have assumed multifarious forms to those whose vision is deluded by the perception of endless objects and their attributes. 2. I prostrate to the feet of that Great Teacher, the most adored among the adorable, who,—out of sheer compassion for the beings drowned in the deep ocean of the world, infested with the terrible sharks of incessant births (and deaths),—rescued, for the benefit of all, this nectar, hardly obtainable even by the gods, from the innermost depths of the ocean of the Vedas by churning it with the (churning) rod of his illumined reason. 3. I make obeisance with my whole being to those holy feet—the dispellers of the fear of this chain of births and deaths—of my great teacher who, through the light of his illumined reason, destroyed the darkness of delusion enveloping my mind; who destroyed for ever my (notions of) appearance and disappearance in this terrible ocean of innumerable births and deaths; and who makes all others also that take shelter at his feet, attain to the unfailing knowledge of Scriptures, peace and the state of perfect non-differentiation. Aum Peace! Peace! Peace!
ॐ तत्सत् ॥
ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ।
oṃ tatsat ..
oṃ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ .
7 - Taittiriya Upanishad
The Taittiriya Upanishad presents a systematic exploration of Brahman through discipline, knowledge, and direct realization. It introduces the concept of the five layers of human existence and culminates in the understanding of Brahman as truth, consciousness, and infinite bliss.
Editorial Note:
The Taittiriya Upanishad is a structured and practical text that guides the
seeker from discipline and study to direct realization of Brahman.
It begins with an invocation to various deities such as Mitra, Varuna,
Aryaman, Indra, Brihaspati, and Vishnu, and recognizes Vayu as a direct
manifestation of Brahman, symbolizing life and truth.
A key idea of this Upanishad is: Knowledge (Vijnana) is central to both action (karma) and realization.
Structure of the Text
The Upanishad is divided into three sections (Vallis):
1. Siksha Valli - Discipline and Preparation
12 Anuvakas (23 verses)
Focuses on phonetics, pronunciation, and discipline (Shiksha)
Teaches correct chanting, ethical living, and student responsibilities
This section lays the foundation - preparing the mind through discipline,
study, and right conduct.
2. Brahmananda Valli - Nature of Brahman
9 Anuvakas (13 verses)
Defines Brahman as: Truth (Satya), Knowledge (Jnana), Infinite (Ananta)
Introduces the famous concept of the five sheaths (Pancha Kosha):
Physical body (Annamaya)
Vital energy (Pranamaya)
Mind (Manomaya)
Intellect (Vijnanamaya)
Bliss (Anandamaya)
This section explains that the true Self lies beyond all these layers.
3. Bhrigu Valli - Realization through Experience
10 Anuvakas (15 verses)
Story of Bhrigu, who learns from his father Varuna
Through repeated Tapas (deep reflection and meditation), Bhrigu gradually
realizes Brahman step by step, moving from food → life → mind → knowledge →
bliss.
This section emphasizes direct experience over theory.
Flow of Ideas
The teaching follows a natural progression:
Preparation - Discipline, learning, and ethical foundation
Understanding - Nature of Brahman and layers of existence
Realization - Direct experience through inquiry and meditation
Core Philosophical Teachings
Brahman as Ultimate Reality Defined as truth, knowledge, and infinite.
Five Layers of Self Human experience is layered, but the true Self lies beyond all.
Importance of Knowledge Knowledge removes ignorance and leads to fulfillment.
Bliss as Nature of Self The innermost Self is pure Ananda (happiness).
Path of Inquiry Realization comes through questioning and inner exploration.
Simple Summary (For Easy Understanding)
The Taittiriya Upanishad explains how a person can move from learning to
realizing the truth.
First, it teaches discipline - how to live, study, and prepare the mind.
Then, it explains that we are not just the body or mind. We have different
layers, and our true self lies deeper within.
Finally, through the story of Bhrigu, it shows that real understanding comes
through experience, not just theory.
The Upanishad concludes that the true Self is full of knowledge and bliss,
and realizing this is the goal of life.
This edition presents the original Sanskrit text with IAST transliteration,
along with translation and commentary based on the Advaita Vedanta tradition of
Shankaracharya, translated by Swami Gambhirananda (1937).
May Mitra be blissful to us. May Varuna be blissful to us. May Aryaman be blissful to us. May Indra and Brihaspati be blissful to us. May Vishnu, of long strides, be blissful to us. Salutation to Brahman. Salutation to you, O Vayu. You, indeed, are the immediate Brahman. You alone I shall call the direct Brahman. I shall call you righteousness. I shall call you truth. May He protect me. May He protect the teacher. May He protect me. May He protect the teacher. Om, peace, peace, peace !
Shankaracharya
Commentary
May Mitra, the deity who identifies himself with and is the self of the function of exhaling and of day; become sam, blissful; nah, to us. Similarly, too, Varuna is the deity who identifies himself with and is the self of the function of inhaling and of night. Aryaman identifies himself with the eye and the sun, Indra with strength, and Brhaspati with speech and intellect. Visnu is urukramah, possessed of great strides, and identifies himself with the feet. These are the deities in the context of the body. The expression, sam nah bhavatu, may he be blissful to us, is to be connected with all. Since the comprehension, retention, and communication of the knowledge of Brahman can proceed without hindrance when the gods are benevolent, their benignity is being prayed for by saying sam nah bhavatu etc. Salutation and euloty are offered to Vayu (Air) by one craving for the knowledge of Brahman, so that the hindrances to the knowledge of Brahman may be averted. Since the fruits of all actions are in his keeping, Vayu is Brahman; brahmane, to that Brahman; namah, (humble) salutation; the expression, 'I offer', has to be added to complete the sentence; Namah, salutation; te, to you; vayo, O Vayu; i.e. I salute you. Thus Yayu (Air, Life) himself is referred to both mediately and immediately. Besides, (O Air), since tvam eva asi, you yourself are; pratyaksam brahma, the direct and immediate Brahman-being proximate and without any intervention, as contrasted with outer organs like the eye etc.; therefore, vadisyami, I shall call, tvam eva, you alone; as pratyaksam brahma, the direct and immediate Brahman. [Brahman is referred to indirectly by such words as, 'That' and directly by the word Vayu; for Vayu, in the form of the vital force (prana) is directly perceived, though as sutra (Hiranyagarbha linking up all) he is known indirectly. The life force is more directly cognized than the sense-organs like the eye etc., which have to be inferred from the fact of their perceiving colour etc. The vital force is directly cognized by the witness (Self); and as compared with the sense-organs, it is nearer to the Self. Besides, the word Brahman, derivatively means that which nourishes. The vital force nourishes the body; therefore, with regard to the body it is Brahman.] Rtam, righteousness, is an idea fully ascertained by the intellect in accordance with the scriptures and in conformity with practice; that, too, being subject to you, vadisyami, I shall speak of you alone as that (rta). Satyam, truth, is that which is reduced to practice through speech and bodily action; since that truth, too, is practised under you, vadisyami, I shall call you that truth. May tat, that, the all-pervasive Brahman, called Vayu, being thus prayed, to by me who hanker after knowledge; avatu mam, protect me-by endowing me with knowledge. May tat, that very Brahman; avatu, protect; vaktaram, the teacher- by endowing him with the power of exposition. The repetition of the expressions, avatu mam avatu vaktaram, is for showing eagerness (for knowledge). The three repetitions in Om santih, santih, santih, (Om, peace, peace, peace) are for destroying the three kinds of obstacles to the acquistion of knowledge, viz the physical, the natural, and the supernatural.
Max Müller
1. HARIH, OM! May Mitra be propitious to us, and Varuna, Aryaman also, Indra, Brihaspati, and the wide-striding Vishnu [1]. Adoration to Brahman! Adoration to thee, O Vâyu (air)! Thou indeed art the visible Brahman. I shall proclaim thee alone as the visible Brahman. I shall proclaim the right. I shall proclaim the true (scil. Brahman). (1-5) [2] May it protect me! May it protect the teacher! yes, may it protect me, and may it protect the teacher! Om! Peace! peace! peace!
Footnotes
1. This verse is taken from Rig-veda-samhitâ I, 90, 9. The deities are variously explained by the commentators:- Mitra as god of the Prâna (forth-breathing) and of the day; Varuna as god of the Apâna (off-breathing) and of the night. Aryaman is supposed to represent the eye or the sun; Indra, strength; Brihaspati, speech or intellect; Vishnu, the feet. Their favour is invoked, because it is only if they grant health that the study of the highest wisdom can proceed without fail. 2. Five short sentences, in addition to the one paragraph. Such sentences occur at the end of other Anuvâkas also, and are counted separately.
We shall speak of the science of pronunciation. (The things to be learnt are) the alphabet, accent, measure, emphasis, uniformity, juxtaposition. Thus has been spoken the chapter on pronunciation.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The chapter 'On the Science of Pronunciation' is begun so that there may not be any slackness in the effort involved in the recital of the text; for the comprehension of meaning plays a porminent part in the Upanisad. [Comprehension of meaning is dependent on porper pronunciation; and slackness in effort refers to errors in pronunciation.] Siksa, (derivatively) signifying that through which something is learnt, is the science of pronunciation of letters etc. Or, from the (derivative) implication of those things that are learnt, siksa, means the letters etc. Siksa is the same as siksa, the lengthening (of i) being a Vedic licence. That siksam, science of pronunciation. vyakhyasyamah, we shall explain- (derivatively meaning) we shall speak (khyasyamah) clearly (vi) and fully (a). This form of the verb, signifying as it does the revelation of the activity (of the) organ of speech), is derived from the root caksin which optionally changes into khya, and is preceded by vi and a. Now, the varnah, alphabet, consists of a etc. The svarah, accent, is udatta (elevated) etc. (svaritah, pitched; and anudatta, unaccented). The matrah, measures (the times required to pronounce), are short etc. Balam, emphasis, is the kind of effort (in pronunciation). Samah is uniformity-the medium mode of pronunication of letters. Santanah is the same as samhita, i.e. juxtaposition (conjoining of the letters etc.). This is, indeed , what is to be taught. This siksadhyayah, chapter in which siksa, occurs; uktah, has been spoken; iti, thus. The conclusion with the word uktah, is for the sake of making the way clear for what follows.
Max Müller
1. Om [1]! Let us explain Sîkshâ, the doctrine of pronunciation, viz. letter, accent, quantity, effort (in the formation of letters), modulation, and union of letters (sandhi). This is the lecture on Sîkshâ.
Footnotes
1. Cf. Rig-veda-prâtisâkhya, ed. M. M., p. iv seq.
May we both attain fame together. May spiritual pre-eminence be vouchsafed to both of us together. Now therefore, we shall state the meditation on juxtaposition through five categories – relating to the worlds, to the shining things, to knowledge, to progeny, and to the body. These, they call the great juxtapositions. Now then, as regards the meditation on the worlds. The earth is the first letter. Heaven is the last letter. The sky is the meeting-place.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Now is being stated the (esoteric) meditation on the samhita (conjoining of letters). There, again, may the yasah, fame-which is prayed for as a reward for the full knowledge of the (esoteric) meditation on the samhita etc.; come saha, simultaneously; nau, to us both-to the teacher and the taught. And the brahmavarcasam, spiritual preeminence, splendour, that results from it; may that, too, occur saha, simultaneously; nau, to us both. This is an expression of a prayer on the part of the pupil. For, in the case of a pupil a prayer is appropriate, since his aspiration still remains unrealized. But this is not a prayer of the teacher, as he has gained the goal. For a teacher is called so when his aspiration has been fulfilled. Since the intellect that is too much occupied with (verbal) texts cannot easily be led to the domain of comprehension of meaning, atah, therefore; atha, after this, after the codification of the science of study; vyakhyasyamah, we shall state; upanisadam samhitayah, the Upanisad, i.e. meditation, with regard to the samhita (conjoining of letters)-a subject that is closely related to the (verbal) text itself; pancasu adhikaranesu, under five headings-through five means, i.e. subjects of knowledge. Which are they? They are being enumerated; adhilokam, the meditation that refers to the words; similarly, adhijyautisam, meditation concerning lights; adhividyam, meditation concerning knowledge; adhiprajam, meditation concerning progeny; adhyatmam, meditation concerning the body. The people versed in the Vedas, acaksate, speak of; tah, these-these meditations concerning five subjects-; as mahasamhitah, the great juxtapositions-they being great, since they relate to great things like the world, and being samhitas (juxtapositions) as well. Atha, now then; from among all these, as they are presented seriatim, adhilokam, the meditation with reference to the worlds, is being stated. The word atha is used everywhere to show the order (of meditation). Prthivi, the earth; is purvarupam, the earlier form, the earlier letter; this amounts to saying that one should think of the first letter, occuring in a juxtaposition, as the earth. Similarly, the uttararupam, the last letter; is dyauh, heaven. Akasah, sky (or space); is sandhih, the middle one, between th first and the last letters, since in it the first and last forms get united.
Max Müller
1. May glory come to both of us (teacher and pupil) together! May Vedic light belong to both of us! Now let us explain the Upanishad (the secret meaning) of the union (samhitâ) [1], under five heads, with regard to the worlds, the heavenly lights, knowledge, offspring, and self (body). People call these the great Samhitâs. First, with regard to the worlds. The earth is the former element, heaven the latter, ether their union;
Footnotes
1. Cf. Aitareya-âranyaka III, 1, 1 (Sacred Books, vol. i, p. 247).
Vayu is the link. This is the meditation with regard to the worlds. Then follows the meditation with regard to the shining things. Fire is the first letter. The sun is the last letter. Water is the rallying point. Lightning is the link. This is the meditation with regard to the shining things. Then follows the meditation with regard to knowledge. The teacher is the first letter. The student is the last letter. Knowledge is the meeting-place. Instruction is the link. This is the meditation with regard to knowledge. Then follows the meditation with regard to progeny. The mother is the first letter. The father is the last letter. The progeny is the focal point. Generation is the link. This is the meditation with regard to progeny. Then follows the meditation with regard to the (individual) body. The lower jaw is the first letter. The upper jaw is the last letter. Speech is the meeting-place. The tongue is the link. This is the meditation with regard to the (individual) body. These are the great juxtapositions. Anyone who meditates on these great juxtapositions, as they are explained, becomes conjoined with progeny, animals, the splendour of holiness, edible food, and the heavenly world.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Vayuh, air, is; sandhanam, the link (a catalytic agent)-derived in the sense of that by which things are conjoined. ['To illustrate:- In the text ise tva, the e that follows the s is the sysmbol of the earth; the t that follows is identical with heaven; the intermediate space between these two letters is akasa (the tryst); the other t that emerges by duplication in that space as a result of the process of conjoining the two parts-the actual pronunciation being iset-tva-is identified with Vayau (the joining agent). This is how one should meditate.'-S.] Iti, thus far-is stated; adhilokam, the meditation with reference to the worlds. Atha adhijyautisam etc. are to be similarly explained. The two words, iti and imah, thus and these, allude to what was mentioned earlier. Yah, anyone who; evam, thus; veda, meditates; on etah mahasamhitah, these great juxtapositions; vyakhyatah, as explained-. The meaning of the word veda should be upasana, meditation or adoration, becuase the topic is of perfect knowledge, and because there is the text:- 'Thus, O Pracinayogya, you worship' (I.vi.2). And meditation consists in a current of uniform concepts, not interspersed with dissimilar ones, which proceeds according to the scripures and relates to an object enjoined in the scriptures. Besides, the word upasana is well known in the world in such sentences as, 'He upasate, waits on (i.e. adores), the Guru', 'He upasate, waits on (i.e. adores), the king'; for man who constantly serves the Guru and others is said to be rendering upasana (adoration to them); and he acquires the fruit of his adoration. Similarly, in the present context, too, he who meditates thus, sandhiyate, is conjoined with the things beginning from progeny and ending with heaven; that is, he acquires the fruits such as progeny and others.
Max Müller
2. That union takes place through Vâyu (air). So much with regard to the worlds. Next, with regard to the heavenly lights. Agni (fire) is the former element, Âditya (the sun) the latter, water their union. That union takes place through lightning. So much with regard to the heavenly lights. Next, with regard to knowledge. The teacher is the former element, The pupil the latter, knowledge their union. That union takes place through the recitation of the Veda. So much with regard to knowledge. Next, with regard to offspring. The mother is the former element, the father the latter, offspring their union. That union takes place through procreation. So much with regard to offspring. 4. Next, with regard to the self (body). The lower jaw is the former element, the upper jaw the latter, speech their union. That union takes place through speech. So much with regard to the Self. These are the great Samhitâs. He who knows these Samhitâs (unions), as here explained, becomes united with offspring, cattle, Vedic light, food, and with the heavenly world.
In the text beginning with yah chandasam are being mentioned, for him who wants intelleigence and wealth, a prayer and a sacrifice which are the means for their acquisition; and this conclusion is borne out by the indications implied in, 'May he who is Indra gratify me with intelligence', and 'Then bring for me wealth'. Yah, he who; chandasam, among the Vedas; is rsabhah, a bull-like a bull, because of preeminence; visvarupah, omniform-because of permeating all speech, in accordance with another Vedic text, 'For instance, as (all leaves are held together) by thier midribs, (in this way all the words are joined together by Om)' (Ch.II.xxiii.3)-. Hence is Om a bull. Om is indeed the object to be worshipped here; hence its eulogy through such words as 'bull' is quite appropriate. Chandobhyah, from the Vedas; amrtat, from immortality-the Vedas are indeed, immortal-, from that immortality; adhisambabhuva, was born super-excellently. The idea is that, Om appeared as the quintessence when Prajapati perfomed austerity (i.e. deliberated intently) with a view to extracting the finest essence from the worlds, the gods, the Vedas and the Vyahrtis (Bhuh, Bhuvah, Svah). (It was only a revelation to him), for in the case of Om, which is everlasting, no real origination can properly be imagined. Sah, he-the Om which is of this kind; and which is indrah, the ordainer of all desires, the supreme Lord; sprnotu, may (He) gratify or strengthen-for the strength of wisdom is the object prayed for; ma, me; medhaya, with wisdom. Deva, O God; bhuyasam, may (I) become; dharanah, the wearer; amrtasya, of immortality-of the knowledge of Brahman which is the cause of immortality, this being the context of that knowledge. [Unless a man has intelligence, he cannot acquire knowledge of Brahman. Hence even a prayer for intelligence is meant for that knowledge. And since a poor man cannot purify his heart by scritural rites, he must perform a sacrifice which is calculated to make him wealthy. Thus such a sacrifice, too, is an indirect aid to knowledge.] Moreover, may, me, my; sariram, body; become vicarsanam, skilful, i.e. fit. The verb bhuyasam (in the first person) should (here) be changed into bhuyat in the third person. (May) me, my; jihva, tongue; (become) madhumattama, exceedingly sweet, i.e. abundantly possessed of sweet speech. Karnabhyam, through the ears; visruvam, (i.e. vyasravam), may I hear, that is, may I become a hearer of; bhuri, much. The meaning of the passage is that the group of my body and senses should become fit for the knowledge of the Self. For the same purpose, intelligence, too, is being prayed for. Brahmanah, of Braman, of the supreme Self; asi, you are; the kosah, sheath-like the scabbard of a sword, you being the seat of realization. Indeed, you are he sysmbol of Brahman, on you is Brahman realized. (You are) pihitah, covered; medhaya, by worldly intelligence; i.e. you who are such, are not known in your reality by people of ordinary intellect. (You) gopaya, protect; me srutam, things that have been heard by me, the knowledge etc. of the Self that I have acquired through hearing. The idea is:- Vouchsafe if that there may be acquisition of it, and no forgetfulness etc. These mantras are meant to be used for selfrepetition by one who wants intelligence. Now are being stated the mantras to be used for offering oblations by one who wants prosperity. Since prosperity to an unwise man is surely a cause of evil, therefore, tatah, after that, after vouchsafing intelligence; avaha, bring; sriyam, the (Goddess of) prosperity; who is avahanti, a bringer; vitanvana, an increaser-for the root tan implies kind of action; (sarvada, ever); kurvana, an accomplisher; aciram, soon-aciram being the same as aciram, the lengthening (of i) is being a Vedic licence; or the reading may be, ciram kurvana, an accomplisher for ever; atmanah mama, for myself who belong to prosperity herself. (Bringer etc.) of what? That is being said:- vasamsi, clothers; ca, and; gavah, i.e. gah, cattle; ca annapane, and food and drink. (Bring) the Prosperity that, sarvada, for ever, accoplishes all these. Prosperity of what kind? Lomasam, furry-(Prosperity that is) endowed with goats, sheep etc.; (saha), together with-(Prosperity that is) endowed with other pasubhih, animals. From the context, as determined by 'avaha, bring', if follows that Om itself is to be connected (with avaha as its nominative). The utterance of svaha is for indicating the end of the mantras meant for offering an oblation. The construction of a is with the remote word yantu thus; ayantu mam (Brahmacarinah), may the Brahmacarins come to me (from all sides). Similarly, may brahmacarinah, the Brahmacarins; vi ma ayantu, come to me variously; pra ma ayantu, come to me in a proper way; damayantu, be controlled in body; samayantu, be controlled in mind, etc.
Max Müller
1. May he [1] who is the strong bull of the Vedas, assuming all forms, who has risen from the Vedas, from the Immortal, may that Indra (lord) strengthen me with wisdom! May I, O God, become an upholder of the Immortal! May my body be able, my tongue sweet, may I hear much with my ears! Thou (Om) art the shrine (of Brahman), covered by wisdom. Guard what I have learnt [2]. She (Srî, happiness) brings near and spreads, her cattle [1]! Svâhâ [2]! May the Brahman-students come to me, Svâhâ! May they come from all sides, Svâhâ! May they come forth to me, Svâhâ! May they practise restraint, Svâhâ! May they enjoy peace, Svâhâ!
Footnotes
1. The next verses form the prayer and oblation of those who wish for wisdom and happiness. In the first verse it is supposed that the Om is invoked, the most powerful syllable of the Vedas, the essence extracted from all the Vedas, and in the end a name of Brahman. See Khând. Up. p. x seq. 2. Here end the prayers for the attainment of wisdom, to be followed by oblations for the attainment of happiness.
May I become famous among people. Svaha. May I become praiseworthy among the wealthy. Svaha. O adorable One, may I enter into you, such as you are. Svaha. O venerable One, you, such as you are, enter into me. Svaha. O adorable One, who are greatly diversified, may I purify my sins in you. Svaha. As water flows down a slope, as months roll into a year, similarly O Lord, may the students come to me from all quarters. Svaha. You are like a resting house, so you become revealed to me, you reach me through and through.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Asani, may I become; yasah, i.e. yasasvi, famous; jane, among a multitude of people. Vasyasah is the same as vasiyasah, and means, from teh supremely affluent or from him that excels all the wealthy; sreyan, more praiseworthy; asani, may I become; this is the construction. Moreover, tam tva, into you, such as you are-as teh sheath of Brahman; bhaga, O Venerable One; pravisani, may I enter, and after entering, may I become identified, your very Self; this is the idea. Sah, you, too, such as you are; bhaga, O adorable One; pravisa, enter; ma, into me; let there be nothing but identity between us. Tasmin, in you, such as you are; sahasrasakhe, who are greatly diversified; aham, I; nimrje, purity my sinful acts. In the world, yatha, as; apah, water; yanti, goes (flows); pravata, down a sloping place; and yatha, as; masah, months; (roll into) aharjaram, the year-the year is aharjara since it, by undergoing change day be day, wears out people, or since the days get worn out, i.e. included in it; as the months go to it, evam, similarly; dhatah, O Ordainer of everything; let brahmacarinah, the Brahmacarins; mam ayantu, come to me; sarvatah, from all quarters. Prativesah means are resting-place, a house at hand. Thus, to those who are devoted to you, prativesah asi, you are like a rest-house, a place where all sorrows resulting from sin can be removed. Therefore, towards ma, me; prabhahi, you reveal youself; and prapadyasva, reach me through and through-make me full of you, i.e. indetified with you, like gold soaked in mercury. The prayer for prosperity dealt with in this context of knowledge is for the sake of wealth. Wealth is needed for rites; and rites are meant to diminish accumulated sins-on the exhaustion of these, indeed, knowledge becomes revealed. Supporting this view there is this Smrti:- 'Just as one sees oneself on the clean surface of a mirror, so knowledge arises for man on the exhaustion of sin' (Mbh. Sa. 204.8; Gar.I.237.6).
Max Müller
3. May I be a glory among men, Svâhâ! May I be better than the richest, Svâhâ! May I enter into thee, O treasure (Om), Svâhâ! Thou, O treasure [1], enter into me, Svâhâ! In thee, consisting of a thousand branches, in thee, O treasure, I am cleansed, Svâhâ! As water runs downward, as the months go to the year, so, O preserver of the world, may Brahman-students always come to me from all sides, Svâhâ! (1) Thou art a refuge! Enlighten me! Take possession of me!
Bhuh, Bhuvah, Suvah – these three, indeed, are the Vyahritis. Of them Mahacamasya knew a fourth one – Maha by name. It is Brahman; it is the Self. The other gods are the limbs. Bhuh, indeed, is this world. Bhuvah is the intermediate space. Suvah is the other world. Maha is the sun; through the sun, indeed, do all the worlds flourish. Bhuh, indeed is the fire. Bhuvah is the air. Suvah is the sun. Maha is the moon; through the moon, indeed, all the luminaries flourish. Bhuh, indeed, is the Rig-Veda. Bhuvah is the Sama-Veda. Suvah is the Yajur-Veda.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The meditation with regard to conjoining has been stated. After that have been dealt with, in an orderly way, the mantras for one who desires intelligence and prosperity. They, too,are indirectly helpful to knowledge. Then is being commenced the internal meditation on Brahman as identified with the Vyahrtis, [Bhuh, bhuvah, suvah, etc., which stand for the respective worlds, are technically called the Vyahrtis. 'These Vyahrtis had been accepted with faith (by the student). If Brahman is now taught by ignoring them, will not be comprehended by the student's intellect. Hence Brahman embodied in the Vyahrtis as Hiranyagarbha, is being presented for his inward meditation.'-A.G.] which has for its result the attainment of sovereignty (I.vi.2). The text bhuh bhuvah suvah iti is for drawing attention to what was stated (earlier). The statement etah tisrah, these three, is for calling up to memory the ones that have been enumerated; and vai (indeed) is used for refreshing the memory with regard to the things called up. Thus we are reminded of these three well-known Vyahrtis. Tasam, of these; this is the fourth Vyahrti called Moha. Mohacamasyah, the son of Mahacamasa, pravedayate, knows-i.e. knew, or visualized, becuase (the particles) u, ha, and sma, refer to what is past-; tam etam caturthim, this fourth one. The mention of Mahacamasya is by way of alluding to the seer (Rsi). And from the fact of his mention in the instruction here, it is to be understood that the remembrance of the seer, too, froms a apart of the meditation. The Vyahrti that was seen (discovered) by Mahacamasya, mahah iti, as Moha; tat, that; is brahma, Brahman; for Brahman is great (mahat), and the Vyahrti, too, is Maha. What is that again? It is the Self-the word atma (Self) being derived from the root ap in th sense of encompassing; for the other Vyahrtis, comprising the worlds, gods, the Vedas, and the vital forces, are encompassed by the Self in the form of the Vyaharti, Maha, which is identical with the sun, the moon, Brahman and food. Therefore anyah devatah, the other gods; are the angani, limbs. The mention of the gods is suggestive of the worlds and other factors as well. Since all the others, viz the gods, the worlds, etc., are the limbs of the Self in the form of the worlds etc., are the limbs of the Self in the form of the Vyahrti called Meha, therefore, the text says that the worlds etc., are made great by the sun etc., just as the limbs are made great through the Self (i.e. the trunk of the body). To become great (mahanam) is to grow, to develop; so mahiyante, means (they) grow. Ayam lokah (this world), agnih (fire), rgvedah (the Rg-Veda), pranah (exhalation)-these are the first Vyahrti, Bhuh. Similarly, each of the succeeding ones becomes fourfold. [The Vyahrti called Maha is the trunk or self of the body of Brahman is Its aspect of Hiranyagarbha, for the trunk in the main thing on which are fixed and by which are sustained the subsidiary limbs. The first Vyahrti (bhuh) forms the legs; the second (bhuvah) constitutes the hands; the third (suvah) is the head of the Cosmic Person. The main injunction here is about the meditation on Brahman as embodied in the Vyahrtis. Then follow four other subsidiary meditations on the individual Vyahrtis, each of which is to be looked upon as identical with four things.]
Max Müller
1. Bhû, Bhuvas, Suvas [1], these are the three sacred interjections (vyâhriti). Mâhâkamasya taught a fourth, viz. Mahas, which is Brahman, which is the Self. The others (devatâs) are its members. Bhû is this world, Bhuvas is the sky, Suvas is the other world. 2. Mahas is the sun. All the worlds are increased by the sun. Bhû is Agni (fire), Bhuvas is Vâyu (air), Suvas is Âditya (sun). Mahas is the moon. All the heavenly lights are increased by the moon. Bhû is the Rik-verses, Bhuvas is the Sâman-verses, Suvas is the Yagus-verses.
Footnotes
1. The text varies between Bhû, Bhuvas, Suvas, Mahas, and Bhû, Bhuvar, Suvar, Mahar.
ता वा एताश्चतस्रश्चतुर्ध । चतस्रश्चतस्रो व्याहृतयः ।
ता यो वेद ।
स वेद ब्रह्म । सर्वेऽस्मैदेवा बलिमावहन्ति ॥ ३॥
इति पञ्चमोऽनुवाकः ॥
maha iti brahma . brahmaṇā vāva sarvevedā mahīyante .
bhūriti vai prāṇaḥ . bhuva ityapānaḥ . suvariti vyānaḥ .
maha ityannam . annena vāva sarve prāṇa mahīyante .
tā vā etāścatasraścaturdha . catasraścatasro vyāhṛtayaḥ .
tā yo veda .
sa veda brahma . sarve'smaidevā balimāvahanti .. 3..
iti pañcamo'nuvākaḥ ..
Maha is Brahman (i.e. Om), for by Brahman (Om), indeed, are all the Vedas nourished. Bhuh, indeed, is Prana; Bhuvah is Apana; Suvah is Vyana; Maha is food; for by food, indeed, are all the vital forces nourished. These, then, that are four, are (each) fourfold. The Vyahritis are divided into four groups of four (each). He who knows these knows Brahman. All the gods carry presents to him.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Maha is Brahman. Brahman means Om, for this being a context of words, any other meaning is inadmissible. The remaining portion stands already explained. Tah vai etah, these above-mentioned ones-Bhuh, bhuvah, Suvah, Mahah; these catasrah, foureach individually; are caturdha, of four kinds, the suffix dha implying mode. The meaning is that they, forming groups of four (things), become fourfold (individually). The instruction, over again, regarding those very things that were thought of before, is for the sake of making a strick rule about the sequence of their meditation. Yah veda, anyone who knows; tah, those-the Vyahrtis as mentioned; sah veda, he knows. Knows what? Brahma, Brahman. Objection:- Is it not a fact that when Brahman has been already known in (the text), 'It is Brahman, it is the Self', there should not be the statement again, 'he knows Brahman', as though It is still unknown? Answer:- No, there is no fault, since the intention is to state some specially about Brahman. It is true that Brahman has been known as identified with the fourth vyahrti (Mohah), but the special fact of Its being realizable within the heart has not been known; nor are the attributes beginning with 'who is realizabe through knowledge' etc., and ending with enriched with peace' (I.vi.1-2) which are being presented through a relationship of substance and qualities. Therefore, with a view to speaking of these, the scripture assumes as though Brahman is unknown, and says, 'he knows Brahman'. Thus there is no defect. The idea is this:- He, indeed, knows Brahman who knows It as qualified by the attributes to be mentioned hereafter. Hence the present chapter is connnected with the succeeding one through a single idea; for in both the chapters there is but a single meditation. And this is borne out by an indication (linga), too. For (the results spoken in) the statement, 'He resides in fire in the form of the Vyahrti Bhuh' etc., (occuring in the sixth chapter) points to the unity of the meditation. Moreover, this (unity) follows from the absence of any (independent) verb of injunction, for (in the sixth chapter) there is no such imperative word as veda (should meditate), upasitavyah (is to be meditated on). ['We do not find two independent verbs of injunction, from which to get the idea of two independent meditations. Besides, the division of the two chapters can be justified by holding one as dealing with a primary injunction and the other with a subsidiary injunction. Accordingly, there is no justification for splitting up the meditation'-A.G.] And again, since in the chapter dealing with the Vyahrtis the statement tah yah veda (he who knows these) (I.v.3) implies something that has still to be stated, there is nothing to lead to a splitting up of the meditation (into two). And by asserting that there is an intention of stating some specially, it has already been shown (by us) how this chapter has an ideological connection with what follows. Asmai, to this one-who has known thus:- sarve devah, all the deities-who form the limbs; avahanti, carry, bring; balim, offering-i.e. when 'he attains sovereignty' (I.vi.2).
Max Müller
3. Mahas is Brahman. All the Vedas are increased by the Brahman. (1-2) Bhû is Prâna (up-breathing), Bhuvas is Apâna, (down-breathing), Suvas is Vyâna (back-breathing). Mahas is food. All breathings are increased by food. Thus there are these four times four, the four and four sacred interjections. He who knows these, (1-2) Knows the Brahman. All Devas bring offerings to him.
In the space that there is in the heart, is this Person who is realisable through knowledge, and who is immortal and effulgent. This thing that hangs down between the palates like a teat, through it runs the path of Brahman; and reaching where the hairs part, it passes out by separating the skulls. (Passing out through that path, a man) becomes established in Fire as the Vyahriti Bhuh; he becomes established in Air as the Vyahriti Bhuvah; in the sun as the Vyahriti Suvah; in Brahman as the Vyahriti Mahah. He himself gets independent sovereignty; he attains the lord of the mind; he becomes the ruler of speech, the ruler of eyes, the ruler of ears, the ruler of knowledge. Over and above all these he becomes Brahman which is embodied in Akasa, which is identified with the gross and the subtle and has truth as Its real nature, which reveals in life, under whose possession the mind is a source of bliss, which is enriched with peace and is immortal. Thus, O Pracinayogya, you worship.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
It has been said that the other deities, viz those of Bhuh, Bhuvah and Suvah, are the limbs of Brahman as identified with the Vyahrti called Mahah. Just as a Salagrama (a stone symbol of Visnu) is in the case of Visnu, so the cavity of the heart is being presented as the place for the direct realization of and the meditation on Brahman of which those Vyahrtis are the limbs. For when Brahman is meditated on there, It is directly realized as possessed of such attributes as being 'realizable through knowledge' etc., like a myrobalan fruit in the hand. Moreover, the way to the realization of Self-identification with all has to be stated. Hence begins this chapter:- 1.6.1-2 The word sah (he) is to be construed with ayampurusah (this person), skipping over the intermediate worlds. Yah esah, this (space); that is antah hrdaye, inside the heart-. The heart is a lump of flesh in the shape of a lotus, which is the seat of the vital force, which opens out through many nerves, which has its stalk upwards and face downwards, and which is seen as a familiar thing when an aninmal is dissected. Within that is the akasah, space-quite familiar like the space within a water-pot; tasmin, within that; exists ayam purusah, this person-who was mentioned earlier. Purusa is (derivatively) so called because of sleeping (sayana) within puri, the city (of the heart); or He by whom the worlds, such as the earth, are filled up (purna) is the Purusa. (He is) manomayah:- manah means knowledge, being derived from the root man implying, to know; manomaya means 'consisting of that knowledge', because of being realized through it. [Since Brahman pervades the mind. It is realized in the mind which becomes transformed as knowledge (of Brahman).] Or manah may mean the internal organ (mind), being derived from the root man in the sense of that through which one thinks; and one who presides over the mind, is identified with it, or is indicated by it, is manomayah. (He is) amrtah, deathless; hiranmayah, effulgent. A path is being indicated which leads to the realization of that Indra (i.e.) Brahman) in his aforesaid nature who has these attributes, and who is realized within the cavity of the heart, and who is the Self of the man of knowledge. The nerve, called susumna, goes upward from the heart and is well known in the scriptures on Yoga. And that nerve runs, antarena, in the well-known middle part; talutke (should be talukayoh), of the two palates; and also through yah esah, that one-the pience of flesh which; stanah iva avalambate, hangs down like a teatbetween the palates. This is the idea. And yatra, where; kesantah, the ends or roots, of the hairs; vivartate, divide-i.e. the crown of the head; reaching that place, (the path) emerges out of it, vyapohya, splitting; sirsakapale, the skull-bones on the head; sa, that which (thus) issues forth; is indrayonih, the path of Indra, Brahman-i.e. the path for the realization of His true nature. The man of knowledge, who thus realizes the Self as identified with the mind, passes through the head, and pratitisthati, gets established; agnau, in Fire-(the deity) who presides over this world, who is identified with the Vyahrti Bhuh, and who is a limb of the great Brahman (as identified with Mahah). The idea is that the enlightened man pervades this world through his identity with Fire. Similarly, vayau, in Air; identified with the second Vyahrti, bhuvah iti, which is Bhuvah; 'he gets established'-this is understood. He becomes established, aditye, in the Sun; indetified with the third Vyahrti, suvah iti, which is Suvah. He becomes establised brahmani, in Brahman; identified with the fourth Vyahrti, maha iti, which is Maha, and of which the others are parts. Remaining in identification with them and becoming Brahman, apnoti, he attains; svarajyam, the state of a sovereign-he himself becomes a king, a ruler over all others, just as Brahman is over the gods who form Its limbs. And the deities that become his limbs carry offerings to him just as they do to Brahman. Apnoti manasaspatim, he attains the lord of the mind; since Brahman is all-pervasive, It is the lord of all the minds; indeed, It thinks through all the minds. A man who meditates thus attains It. Moreover, bhavati, he becomes; vakpatih, the ruler of all the organs of speech. Similarly, also caksupatih, the ruler of the eyes; srotrapatih, the ruler of the ears; and vijnanapatih, the ruler of intellects. [See s] The idea is that he, being the Self of all, becomes possessed of the (respective) organs through identification with the organs of all beings. Besides, tatah, over and above even all that; etat bhavati, he becomes this. What is that? The answer is being given; (He becomes) akasasariram-that which has akasa (space) as its body or whose body is as subtle as akasa. Who is that? Brahma, the Brahman, that is being discussed. It is satyatma:- that which has satya, the gross and the subtle as also truth as Its atma, real characteristic, is this satyatma. (That Brahman is) pranaramam:- that which has its aramana, disport, in the pranas, vital forces, is pranarama; or that in which the vital forces find their arama, delight, is pranarama. (It is) mana-anandam:- that whose mind (manah) has become bliss (ananda), a producer of happiness is manaananda. (It is) santi-samrddham:- santih is peace; the very entity which is peace, being also prosperous (samrddha), it is santi-samrddha; or that which is experienced to be enriched (samrddha) with peace is santi-samrddha. (It is) amrtam, immortal by nature. These additional attributes are to be understood as belonging to the earlier context beginning with manomayah, etc. Thus Pracina-yogya, O Pracinayogya; upassva, meditate on the aforesaid Brahman as possessed of the qualities of being realizable through knoweldge etc. This is a presentation of the teacher's utterance by way of demonstrating his love (for meditation). The meaning of the word upasana (meditation) has already been explained.
Max Müller
1. There is the ether within the heart, and in it there is the Person (purusha) consisting of mind, immortal, golden. Between the two palates there hangs the uvula, like a nipple--that is the starting-point of Indra (the lord) [1]. Where the root of the hair divides, there he opens the two sides of the head, and saying Bhû, he enters Agni (the fire); saying Bhuvas, he enters Vâyu (air); 2. Saying Suvas, he enters Âditya (sun); saying Mahas, he enters Brahman. He there obtains lordship, he reaches the lord of the mind. He becomes lord of speech, lord of sight, lord of hearing, lord of knowledge. Nay, more than this. There is the Brahman whose body is ether, whose nature is true, rejoicing in the senses (prâna), delighted in the mind, perfect in peace, and immortal. (1) Worship thus, O Prâkînayogya!
The earth, sky, heaven, the primary quarters, and the intermediate quarters; fire, air, the sun, the moon, and the stars; water, herbs, trees, sky, and Virat – these relate to natural factors. Then follow the individual ones:- Prana, Vyana, Apana, Udana and Samana; the eye, the ear, the mind, speech and sense of touch; skin, flesh, muscles, bones and marrow. Having imagined these thus, the seer said, “All this is constituted by five factors; one fills up the (outer) fivefold ones by the (individual) fivefold ones.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Of that very Brahman which has been presented for meditation as (Hiranyagarbha) identified with the Vyahrtis, another meditation, identifying It with the groups of five things beginning with the earth, is being stated. Because of the similarity of the number five, they are equated with the metre called Pankti. [Sampat is a kind of meditation in which a lower thing is thought of as some other higher thing because of some point of similarlity. Here the point of similarity is the number five. The different five factors, constituting the lower human personality, are here identified with the factors making up the higher cosmic Virat.] There by everything becomes identified with Pankti. And a sacrifice, too, is identified with Pankti, because the (metre) Pankti has five feet (with five letters is each), and a Vedic text says:- 'The sacrifice is equated with Pankti' [Since a sacrifice is performed with five factors-the sacrificer and his wife, the son, divine wealth, and human wealth. Thus everything can be eqauted not only with the metre Pankti, but also with sacrifice.] (Br I.vi.17). As a result, all things beginning from the worlds and ending with the atma (Virat) that are thought of as reduced to Pankti, are thereby virtually imagined to be a sacrifice. Through the sacrifice thus imagined, one becomes Prajapati (Virat) who is identified with all that is equated with Pankti. As to that, it is being shown how all this Universe consists of Pankti (five factors):- 1.7.1 The earth, sky, heaven, the (primary) quarters, and the inermediate quarters-these constitute the groups of five in the context of the worlds. Fire, Air, Sun, Moon, Starsthese constitute the group of five deities (lit. shining ones). Water, herbs, trees, space, and atma, constitute the collection of five natural things. The word atma implies the cosmic gross body (Virat) because this is a context of natural factors. Iti adhibhutam, this is with regard to natural things-this expression is used to imply the two groups of five worlds and the five deities as well, because the groups of the worlds and the five deities as well, because the groups of the five worlds and the five deities, too, have been mentioned earlier. Atha, after that; adhyatmam, with regard to the personal, the three groups of five each, are being stated:- Those beginning with prana (function of exhaling) constitute the group of five vital forces. Those starting with caksu (eye) make up the group of five sense organs. Those commencing with carma (skin) form the group of five constituents of the body. This much, indeed, is all that pertains to the personal. And the external also is fivefold. Therefore, etat adhividhaya, having imagined these thus; rsih, the Vedas, or some seer endowed with this vision; avocat, said. What? That is being said:- Panktam vai idam sarvam, all this is verily constituted by five factors; panktena eva, through the fivefold ones-the ones relating to the personal; sprnoti, one strengthens, fills up; panktam, the external fivefold ones, because of the similarity of number; that is to say, they are realizes as identical. The meaning is that, he who realizes all this (existence) as fivefold becomes identified with Prajapati Himself (who is constituted by the five gross elements).
Max Müller
1. 'The earth, the sky, heaven, the four quarters, and the intermediate quarters,'--'Agni (fire), Vâyu (air), Âditya (sun), Kandramas (moon), and the stars,'--'Water, herbs, trees, ether, the universal Self (virâg),'--so much with reference to material objects (bhûta). Now with reference to the self (the body):- 'Prâna (up-breathing), Apâna (down-breathing), Vyâna (back-breathing), Udâna (out-breathing), and Samâna (on-breathing),'--'The eye, the ear, mind, speech, and touch,'--'The skin, flesh, muscle, bone, and marrow.' Having dwelt on this (fivefold arrangement of the worlds, the gods, beings, breathings, senses, and elements of the body), a Rishi said:- 'Whatever exists is fivefold (pâṅkta) [1].' (1) By means of the one fivefold set (that referring to the body) he completes the other fivefold set.
Om is Brahman. Om is all this. Om is well known as a word of imitation (i.e. concurrence). Moreover, they make them recite (to the gods) with the words, “Om, recite (to the gods)”. They commence singing Samas with Om. Uttering the words “Om som” they recite the Shastras. The (priest) Brahma approves with the word Om. One permits the performance of the Agnihotra sacrifice with the word Om. A Brahmana, when about to recite the Vedas utters Om under the idea, I shall attain Brahman”. He does verily attain Brahman.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The meditation on Brahman as identified with the Vyahrtis was stated (I. v, vi). Then followed a meditation on the same Brahman, conceived of as a fivefold entity (I.vii). Now is being sought to be enjoined a meditation on Om which is involved as a factor in all meditations. For though Om is a mere word, it becomes a means for the attainment of the supreme Brahman or of Hiranyagarbha in accordance as it is meditated on with the idea of the supreme Brahman or of Hiranyagarbha. Just as an image is a symbol of Visnu, so is Om verily a symbol of Brahman and Hiranyagarbha, in accordance with the Vedic text:- '(the illumined soul) attains either of the two through this one means alone (viz Om)' (pr. V. 2). 1.8.1 Om iti:- the word iti (this) is used for distinguishing the word Om as such (and not its meaning). One should contemplate in one's mind, i.e. meditate, that Om, as a word, is Brahman. For Om iti idam sarvam, all this, that consists of sound, is Om-since everything is permeated by Om, in accordance with another Vedic text :- 'For instance, (as all leaves are held together) by (their) midribs, (in this way all the words are joined together by Om)' (Ch. II. xxiii. 3). Since all that is nameable is dependent on names, it is said that all this is Om. The remaining passage is for the praise of Om, for it is to be meditated on. Om iti etat, this word that is Om; is anukrtih, a word of concurrence (lit. imitation). When somebody says, 'I do', or 'I shall go', another approves the act or speech by uttering the word Om. Therefore Om is imitation (approval). Ha, sma, and vai indicate something well known, for Om is well known as a word of imitation (concurrence). Api, moreover; asravayanti, (they) make them recite; with the words of direction, 'O sravaya iti, Om, make (the gods) hear' [The priests offering oblations get the direction from their leader thus:- 'Om, make the gods hear the formulas for oblations', and then they chant the mantras.]. Similarly, the singers of Samas, gayanti, sing, (start singing); Om iti, uttering the word Om. The reciters of the sastras, too, samsanti, intonate; sastrani, the sastras; [The Rg-mantras set to tune are the Samas; those that are not so set are the sastras.] om som iti, by uttering the words 'Om som'. [Sam meaning bliss, changes to som, in om som, uttered as an acceptance of the directions of the leading priest.] Similarly, the priest, Adhvaryu, pratigrnati, utters; pratigaram, the encouraging words; om iti, with the word Om. [Adhvaryu is the priest in charge of the Yajur-mantras. The priest in charge of the Rg-mantras seeks his permission withe the words 'Om, may we pray?' And he replies, 'Om, this will be pleasing to us.' Sankarananda, however, gives an alternative meaning thus:- 'Pratigara is a rite; prati pratigaram, with regard to this rite; grnati, he utters (Om).'] By uttering Om, Brahma, the priest called Brahma (who is versed in all the Vedas and supervises the rites); prasauti, approves- makes them recite under direction. When told, 'I shall pour oblation', Om iti agnihotram anujanati, he gives permission for the Agnihotra sacrifice by uttering the word Om. Brahmanah, a Brahmana; pravaksyan, when about to recite the Vedas, when intent on studying; aha, utters; om iti, the word Om; that is, he takes refuge in Om for the sake of study; under the idea, upapnavani iti, may I get-I shall acquire; brahma, teh Vedas; upapnoti eva brahma, he verily masters the Vedas, Or, brahma means the supreme Self. (In this case the meaning is this) :- Pravaksyam, wishing to make the Self attained; under the idea upapnavani iti, 'May I attain, the supreme Self'; Om iti aha, he utters the word Om; and he verily attains Brahman by means of that Om. The purport of the passage is that, since the activities which are undertaken with the utterance of Om become fruitful, Om should be meditated on as Brahman.
Max Müller
1. Om means Brahman. 2. Om means all this. 3. Om means obedience. When they have been told, 'Om, speak,' they speak. 4. After Om they sing Sâmans. 5. After Om they recite hymns. 6. After Om the Adhvaryu gives the response. 7. After Om the Brahman-priest gives orders. 8. After Om he (the sacrificer) allows the performance of the Agnihotra. 9. When a Brâhmana is going to begin his lecture, he says, 10. 'Om, may I acquire Brahman (the Veda).' He thus acquires the Veda.
Righteousness and learning and teaching (are to be practised). Truth and learning and teaching (are to be practised). Austerity and learning and teaching (are to be resorted to). Control of the outer senses and learning and teaching (are to be practised). Control of the inner organs and learning and teaching (are to be resorted to). The fires (are to be lighted up), and learning and teaching (are to be followed). The Agnihotra (is to be performed), and learning and teaching (are to be carried on). Guests (are to be entertained), and learning and teaching (are to be practised). Social good conduct (is to be adhered to), and learning and teaching (are to be practised). Children (are to be begotten), and learning and teaching (are to carried on). Procreation and learning and teaching (are to carried on). A grandson (is to be raised), and learning and teaching (are to be practised). Truth (is the thing) – this is what Satyavacha, of the line of Rathitara, thinks. Austerity (is the thing) – this is what Taponitya, son of Purusisti, thinks. Learning and teaching alone (are the things) – this is what Naka, son of Mudgala, thinks. For that indeed is the austerity; for that indeed is the austerity.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
From the statement that knowledge alone leads to the attainment of sovereignty (I. vi), it may follow that the duties enjoined by Vedas and Smrtis are useless. In order to avoid such a contingency, the duties are being presented here, so that they may be shown as contributory to the attainment of human goals. 1.9.1 The word rtam has been explained. Svadhyayah is study (of the scriptures). Pravacanam is teaching (of the scriptures), or self-recital of the Vedas (called brahmayajna). These, viz rta etc., are to be practised-this much is understood at the end of the sentence. And satyam means truthfulness in speech, or what has been explained earlier; tapah is austerity etc.; damah is the control of the outer organs; samah is the control of the inner organs. Agnayah, the fires-are to be kept up. And agnihotram, the Agnihotra sacrifice-is to be performed. And atithayah, the guests-are to be adored. Manusam means social good conduct; that too should be practised as the occasion demands. And praja, progeny-is to be begotten. Prajanah ca, and procreation in due time. Prajatih is the raising of a grandson; in other words, the son is to be married. Learning and teaching are mentioned in all the contexts in order to imply that these two are to be carefully practised even by one who is engaged in all these duties; for the comprehension of meaning is dependent on study, and the supreme goal (emanicipation) is dependent on the understanding of the meaning. And teaching is for the preservation of that memory and for the increase of virtue. Therefore one has to entertain a love for learning and teaching. Satyam, truth alone-is to be practised; iti, this is what; satyavacah, one whose speech consists of truth, or one whose name is Satyavaca; rathitarah, the teacher Rathitara, born in the line of Rathitara, thinks. Tapah, austerities alone-are to be undertaken; iti; this is what; taponityah, one who is ever (nitya) steeped in austerity (tapah), or whose name is Taponitya; the teacher paurusistih, who is the son of Purusisti, thinks. Svadhyaya-pravacane eva, learning and teaching alone-are to be practised; iti, this is what; the teacher nakah, Naka by name; and Maudgalyah, the son of Mudgala, thinks. Hi, since; tat, that-learning and teaching; verily constitute tapah, austerity; therefore they alone are to be followed-this is the idea. Although truth, austerity, learning, and teaching were mentioned earlier, they are dealt with over again in order to show solicitude for them.
Max Müller
1. (What is necessary?) The night, and learning and practising the Veda. The true, and learning and practising the Veda. Penance, and learning and practising the Veda. Restraint, and learning and practising the Veda. Tranquillity, and learning and practising the Veda. The fires (to be consecrated), and learning and practising the Veda. The Agnihotra sacrifice, and learning and practising the Veda. Guests (to be entertained), and learning and practising the Veda. Man's duty, and learning and practising the Veda. Children, and learning and practising the Veda. (1-6) Marriage, and learning and practising the Veda. Children's children, and learning and practising the Veda. Satyavakas Râthîtara thinks that the true only is necessary. Taponitya Paurasishti thinks that penance only is necessary. Nâka Maudgalya thinks that learning and practising the Veda only are necessary,--for that is penance, that is penance.
I am the invigorator of the tree (of the world). My fame is high like the ridge of a mountain. My source is the pure (Brahman). I am like that pure reality (of the Self) that is in the sun. I am the effulgent wealth. I am possessed of a fine intellect, and am immortal and undecaying. Thus was the statement of Trisanku after the attainment of realisation.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The mantra commencing with aham urksasya reriva is introduced for the sake of selfrecital (japa), and from the context it follows that the self-recital is for the sake of development of knowledge; for the present topic is concerned with knowledge, and no other purpose appears to be implied; moreover, it is considered that knowledge arises in one whose mind is purified by self-recital. 1.10.1 Aham, I-as the Self that rules from within-am; reriva, the invigorator; vrksasya, of the tree-the tree of samsara (the world) which is subject to uprooting. My kirtih, fame-is high; iva, like; prstham, the ridge; gireh, of a mountain. Urdhapavitrah, I, the all-pervaisve Self, whose urdhvam (cause) is the pure supreme Brahman that is pavitram (purifying, revealable through knowledge), am urdhavapavitrah. Vajini iva is the same as vajavati iva; vajam is food, and (vajini means) in one that is possessed of food-that is to say, in the sun. Just as it is a fact, well known from hundreds of Vedic and Smrti texts, that the amrtam, nectar, the reality of the Self, which is lodged in the sun, is pure; similarly, asmi, and I; the svamrtam, beautiful, holy, reality of the Self. Savarcasam means effulgent; and dravinam is wealth; (and) 'I am that (wealth) which is the reality of the self'-the expression 'I am' is to be supplied. Or, Savarcasam means the knowledge of Brahman which is effulgent, inasmuch as it reveals the reality of the Self; and it is called wealth, being comparable to wealth because of its producing the bliss emancipation. On this interpretation, '(this wealth) has been attained by me', (and not 'I am') has to be supplied at the end. I, whose wisdom (medhas) is beautiful (su), charaterized by omniscience, that I am sumedhah; this fine wisdom being due to (my) being endued with the skill of preserving, creating and, destroying the world. Therefore, I am amrtah, possessed of the attribute of immortality; (and) aksitah, inexhaustible, undecaying. Or, the (latter) word may be uksitah, soaked in, i.e. soaked in amrta, nectar; for there is a Brahmana text, too; 'I am soaked in nectar.' Iti, thus; was the vedanuvacanam-the statement (vacanam) after (anu) the attainment of the realization (vedah, i.e. vedanam) of the unity of the Self-; trisankoh, of Trisanku-a seer who had known Brahman and become Brahman. This statement (of his) was for the sake of expressing the fact that he had reached fulfilment, just like Vamadeva (Ai. II. 5). The idea is that the traditional text in the form of the mantra, as visualized by Trisanku with the eyes of a seer, reveals the knowledge of the Self. And it is understood that the self-repetition of this mantra is calculated to lead to knowledge. From the introduction of duty in the chapter commencing with, 'Righteousness and ....' (I. ix), and the conclusion later on with the text, 'Thus was the statement after the attainment of realization', it becomes evident that the visions of the seers, with regad to the Self etc., become revealed to one who engages thus in the obligatory duties enjoined in the Vedas and Smrtis, who is devoid of selfish motives, and who hankers after the realization of the supreme Brahman.
Max Müller
1. 'I am he who shakes the tree (i.e. the tree of the world, which has to be cut down by knowledge). 2. My glory is like the top of a mountain. 3. I, whose pure light (of knowledge) has risen high, am that which is truly immortal, as it resides in the sun. 4. I am the brightest treasure. 5. I am wise, immortal, imperishable [1].' 6. This is the teaching of the Veda, by the poet Trisaṅku.
kuśalānna pramaditavyam . bhūtyai na pramaditavyam .
svādhyāyapravacanābhyāṃ na pramaditavyam .. 1..
Having taught the Vedas, the preceptor imparts this post-instruction to the students:- “Speak the truth. Practise righteousness. Make no mistake about study. Having offered the desirable wealth to the teacher, do not cut off the line of progeny. There should be no inadvertence about truth. There should be no deviation from righteous activity. There should be no error about protection of yourself. Do not neglect propitious activities. Do not be careless about learning and teaching.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The instruction about duties in the text commencing with 'Having taught the Vedas', is meant to indicate that before the realization of Brahman the duties inculcated in the Vedas and Smrtis are to be performed regularly; because the Vedic reference to postinstruction (i.e. instruction after the study of the Vedas, implied in anusasti) is meant for creating proper tendencies is a man; for in accordance with the Smrti, 'He eradicates sin through austerities, and attains immortality through knowledge' (M.XII. 104), the knowledge of the Self dawns easily on one who has the proper mental disposition and whose mind is purified. And this Upanisad will say, 'Crave to know Brahman well through concentration' (III.ii). Therefore, duties are to be undertaken so that knowledge may emerge. From the mention of injunction implied in the expression, 'imparts this postinstruction', it follows that guilt will be the consequence of transgression of the command. Moreover, there is the fact of the earlier treatment of the rites etc. Rites etc. have been dealt with before the introduction of the absolute knowledge of Brahman. And this Upanisad will show the absence of rites etc., after the rise of knowledge, in such passages as, '(whenever the aspirant) gets fearlessly establised (in Brahman)' (II. vii), '(The enlightened man) is not afraid of anything' (II. ix). '(Him, indeed, this remorse does not afflict):- Why did I not perform good deeds?' (II.ix). Hence it is known that duties are calculated to lead to the dawn of knowledge through the eradication of sins accumulated in the past. And this is borne out by the Vedic text:- 'Crossing over death through rites etc., one attains immortality through meditation' (I's. 11). The earlier inculation of rta (righteousness) etc., (I.ix) was for the sake of avoiding the idea of their uselessness. And the present instruction is for making an abligatory rule about their performance, they being ordained for leading to the rise of knowledge. 1.11.1 Anucya, having instructed; vedam, the Vedas; acaryah, the teacher; anusasti, imparts a post-instruction; i.e. after (anu) the mastery of the verbal text, makes (sasti) the antevasinam, disciple, understand its meaning. Hence it is implied that a student who has studied the Vedas should not leave his preceptor's house without inquiring into the scriptural duties. And this is suported by the Smrti:- 'One should begin the duties after understanding them' (Ap. II. xxi. 5). How does he instruct? The answer is:- Satyam vada, speak the truth; satyam, is that which accords with what is grasped through valid means of knowledge and is fit to be uttered; that thing vada, (you) speak. Similarly, dharmam cara, practise righteousness. Inasmuch as truth etc. are specifically mentioned, the word dharma (righteousness) is a generic term for all that is to be practised. Svadhyayat, from study; ma pramadah, make no deviation. Acaryaya, for the preceptor; ahrtya, having brought, having, offered; priyam dhanam, the desirable wealth, in exchange for the knowledge; and having taken a worthy wife with his permission, ma vyavacchetsih, do not break; prajatantum, the line of progeny; the family line should not be broken. The idea is that even though a son is not begotten, effort should be made for his birth through such rites as the Purtresti, which conclusion follows from the mention of the son, procreating, and getting a grandson (in I. ix); for, otherwise, the single word procreation would have been mentioned (there). Satyat na pramaditavyam, there should be no negligence about truth. Inadvertence about truth is tantamount to falsehood. From the force of the word pramada, inadvertence, it follows that a falsehood should not be uttered even through forgetfulness; this is the idea. Else there would have been a mere prohibition of untruthfulness. Dharmat na pramaditavyam:- Since the word dharma relates to practices to be undertaken, the pramada, inadvertence, consists in not undertaking the practices, that should not be done. That is to say, righteous actions must be undertaken. Similarly, kusalat, about an action meant for one's own protection; na pramaditavyam. Bhutih means vibhutih, welfare; bhutyai about that welfare, an activity meant for welfare, about propitous work; na pramaditavyam. Svadhyaya-pravacanabhyam na pramaditvyam:- Svadhyaya is learning, and pravacana is teaching; there should be no carelessness about them. The idea is that they should be regularly practised.
Max Müller
1. After having taught the Veda, the teacher instructs the pupil:- 'Say what is true! Do thy duty! Do not neglect the study of the Veda! After having brought to thy teacher his proper reward, do not cut off the line of children! Do not swerve from the truth! Do not swerve from duty! Do not neglect what is useful! Do not neglect greatness! Do not neglect the learning and teaching of the Veda!
There should be no error in the duties towards the gods and manes. Let your mother be a goddess unto you. Let your father be a god unto you. Let your teacher be a god unto you. Let your guest be a god unto you. The works that are not blameworthy are to be resorted to, but not the others. These actions of ours that are commendable are to be followed by you, but not the others. You should, by offering seats, remove the fatigue of those Brahmanas who are more praiseworthy among us. The offering should be with honour; the offering should not be with dishonour. The offering should be in plenty. The offering should be with modesty. The offering should be with awe. The offering should be with sympathy. Then, should you have any doubt with regard to duties or customs, you should behave in those matters just as Brahmanas do, who may happen to be there and who are able deliberators, who are adepts in those duties and customs, who are not directed by others, who are not cruel, and who are desirous of merit. Then, as for the accused people, you should behave with regard to them just as the Brahmanas do, who may happen to be there and who are able deliberators, who are adepts in those duties and customs, who are not directed by others, who are not cruel, who are desirous of merit. This is the injunction. This is the instruction. This is the secret of the Vedas. This is divine behest. This is how the meditation is to be done. This is how this must be meditated on.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
So also devapitr-karyabhyam, from duties towords the gods and manes; na pramaditavyam, there should be no deviation; the duties towards the gods and manes must be performed. Matra-devah is one to whom the mother is a deity; as such, you bhava, do become; matr-devah. Similarly, you become pitrdevah, acaryadevah, atithidevah:- the idea is that these (father, teacher and guest) are to be worshipped as gods. Moreover, yani karmani, those activities; which are anavadyani, not blameworthy, which constitute the conduct of the good people; tani sevitavyani, they are to be resorted to-by you; no itarani, not the others-the others that are censurable are to be shunned, though they may be followed by the good people. Yani, those that are; asmakam, our-of us teachers; sucaritani, good conduct-not opposed to the scriptures; tani, those-alone; upasyani tvaya, are to be performed by you, for the sake of unseen results; that is to say, they are to be undertaken regularly; no itarani, not the others, which are opposed (to these), though they are done by the teachers; Ye ke ca asmat-sreyamsah, those who are superior to, or more praiseworthy than, us-whoever they may be-by virtue of their distinction in teachership etc.; and are brahmanah, Brahmanas-not Ksatriyas and others; tesam, of them; prasvasitavyam tvaya, the fatigue must be removed by you; asanena, by the offering of a seat etc.; prasvasanam is the same as prasvasah, the removal of fatigue. The idea is that (their) fatigue should be removed by you. Besides (the sentence may be construed thus):- Tesam asane, in their assemblage, when they are assembled for a meeting; na prasvasitvyam tvaya, (so much as) deep breathing should not be done by you-you should only try to grasp the essence of what they say. Moreover, whatever is to be given, deyam, should be given; sraddhaya, with reverence; it adeyam, should not be given; asraddhaya, disrespectfully. It deyam, should be offered; sriya, according to (one's) prosperity. And deyam, it should be given; hriya, with modesty; also deyam, it should be given; bhiya, with fear; and samvida, with samvid, which means friendly action, etc. Atha, then-while you are conducting yourself thus; yadi, if-at any time; syat, should there be; te, in you; karma-vicikitsa va vrtta-vicikitsa va-vicikitsa, a doubt, with regard to the karmas, rites and duties, inculcated by the Vedas or Smritis, or with regard to vrtta, conduct, consisting in customary behaviour-; then vartethah, you should behave; tatha, in that manner; yatha, as, the manner in which; tatra, with regard to that work or conduct; te, they-those Brahmanas; varteran, may behave; ye brahmanah, the Brahmanas, who; syuh, may happen to be; tatra, at that time or place; (-this is to be connected with remote word-) yuktah, adept; tatra, in those works etc.; (the Brahmanas who are) sammarsinah, able deliberators; yuktah, adepts in duties or customs; ayuktah, not directed by others; aluksah, i.e. aruksah, not cruel (or not crooked) in disposition; dharmakamah, desirous of merit, i.e. not moved by passion. Atha, then; abhyakhyatesuabhyakhyatah are those who are charged by somebody with some doubtful guilt; with regard to them also-; you should apply all the text, ye tatra etc;, in the way as shown before. Esah, this is; upadesah, instruction-to sons and others by fathers and others; esa, this is; veda-upanisat, the secret of the Vedas, i.e. the meaning of the Vedas. Etat, this is, verily; anusasnam, the behest of God-for the word adesa has already been explained as (scriptural) injunction. Or, anusasanam means the direction of all those who are accepted as authoritative. Since this is so, therefore, (all this) upasitavyam, is to be done; evam, thus; this is not to be neglected. The repetition is to show regard. KARMA, KNOWLEDGE, AND LIBERATION Here, for the sake of distinguishing between knowledge and karma (i.e. scriptural rites and duties) we eter into a consideration of the question as to whether the superme goal (emancipation) results from karmas alone, or from karmas aided by knowledge, or from karmas aided by knowledge, or from karmas and knowledge in combination, or from knowledge aided by karmas, or from knowledge alone. First opponent:- As to that, the supreme goal must be the result of karmas alone, since a man who is versed in the full import of the Vedas is competent for karmas, in accordance with the Smrti, 'The Vedas, togehter with their secret, are to be mastered by the twiceborn.' And the mastery must be along with the purport of the Upanisads, which consists in the knowledge of the Self etc. Besides, in such terms as, 'The man of knowledge performs a sacrifice,' 'The knowing man gets the sacrifice performed', it is shown everwhere that a man of knowledge alone has competence for karma. And there is the further text, 'After knowing, follows the practice.' [Seems to be an echo of G. XVI.24). Some people verily consider that the Vedas, as a whole, are meant for karma. Now, if the supreme goal be unattainable through karma, the Vedas will become useless. Answer:- No, for freedom is a permanent entitiy. That freedom is eternal is surely an admitted fact. It is a matter of common experience that anything that is produced by action is impermanent. Should liberation be a result of action, it will be transitory; and this is undesirable, since it contradicts the logically justifiable Vedic text, 'As in this world the result acquired through action gets exhausted, in the very same way the result acquired through virtue gets exhausted in the other world' (Ch. VIII. i.6). Objection:- Since the obligatory karmas are undertaken, [Thereby warding off all potential suffering] and since the works that are promoted by motives and those that are prohibited are not resorted to, and since the works that have begun to bear fruit (in this life) get consumed through enjoyment and suffering, emancipation follows independently of knowledge. Answer:- That, too, is inadmissible. For this was refuted by us by saying that, since there is the possibility of residual results of work, there lies the contingency of the production of a fresh body by them, and by saying that since the residual results of work are not opposed to the performance of obligatory duties, their elimination (by the letter) is illogical (see Introduction). As for the assertion that a man, possessed of the full import of the Vedas, is competent for karma (and that, therefore, the supreme goal must be the result of karma), that, too, is wrong; for there is such a thing as meditation which is different from what is acquired by merely hearing the Vedas (at the house of the teacher). Indeed, one becomes competent to undertake karmas from a mere knowledge got through hearing, and he need not have to wait for meditation; whereas meditation is enjoined apart from such Vedic study (at the teacher's house). [There is the general injunction about the study of the Vedas, to be sure. But the study may be merely of the verbal text or of its meaning as well. Besieds, one need not know the meaning of all the texts to be qualified for rites and duties, since he can proceed to them after understanding those texts only that bear on them; the portion dealing with meditation may well be left over, since that portion is not necessary for these rites and duties.] And this meditation has emancipation as its result and is well known as different (from mere study). Moreover, after having said, '(The Self) is to be heard (of)', other efforts are enjoined by saying, 'It is to be taught of and meditated on' (Br. II. iv. 5); and deliberation and meditation are well known (in life) to be different from the knowledge acquired through hearing. [Sravana (lit. hearing) means intelligent understanding of the import; manana (lit. thinking) means bringing conviction to oneself by deliberating on it and counteracting opposite ideas; and nididhyasana (lit. concetrated meditation) means making it part of one's being by constant meditation.] Second opponent:- In that case, emancipation can result from karma aided by knowledge. Karma, as assoicated with knowledge, should have the power of producing a different result. Just as position, curd, etc., which by themselves are calculated to effect death, fever, etc., can produce different results when mixed with sacred formulae, sugar, etc., similarly, emancipation is generated by karma when associated with knoweldge. Answer:- No, for the defect was pointed out (by us) by stating that whatever is produced is impermanent. Objection:- On the authority of scriptural text-[e.g. 'He does not return again' (CH. VIII.xv.1)]-emancipation is eternal, though it is produced. Answer:- No, for a scriptural text is only informative. A scriptural passage supplies information of a thing existing as such; it cannot creat a thing that does not exist. Anything that is eternal cannot have a beginning, nor can anything be indestructible if it has a beginning-despite a hundred texts (to the contrary). The third opponent answers:- Hereby is refuted the view that knowledge and karma is their combination can produce emancipation. Objection:- Knowledge and karma remove the causes that hinder emancipation. ['The hindrances are ignorance, vice, etc. Knowledge and karma remove them; but they do not produce emancipation itself. Thus the continuance in one's natural state (of freedom) can be eternal, since non-existence in the form of destruction (here- destruction of vice etc.) is known to be everlasting.'-A.G. (See p.7.footnote 1.)] Answer:- No, because karma is known to have a different effect; for karma is seen to result in creation, improvement (purification), transformation, or acquisition. And liberation is opposed to such results as creation etc. Objection:- Liberation is achievable in accordance with Vedic texts that speaks of courses (that are followed by departing souls). That liberation can be acquired is proved by such texts as:- "They proceed by the path of the sun' (MU. I. ii. 11), 'Going up through that (nerve)' (Ka. II. iii., 16). Answer:- No, because if (i.e. liberation, being identical with Brahman) is all-pervasive and non-different from the goers. Brahman is omnipresent, because It is the (material) cause of akasa (space etc., and all conscious souls are non-different from Brahman. And hence liberation is not (an) achievable (result). A traveller has to reach a place which is different from himself. Not that the very place that is non-different from oneself can be reached by oneself. And this follows from the well-known fact of identify (of the individual and Brahman) gathered from hundreds of Vedic and Smrti texts such as:- 'That (Brahman), having creaed that (the world), entered into it' (II.vi), 'Know the individual soul also to be Myself' (G. XIII. 2). Objection:- This (conclusion) runs counter to the Vedic texts about courses (that the departing souls follow), and the glory (that they attain), etc., Moreover, if emancipation be unobtainable, not only will the texts mentioning courses be contradicted, it will also contradict such Vedic texts as:- 'He becomes one, (three-fold, etc.), (Ch. VIII. xxvi. 2); 'Should he become desirous of the manes as objects of enjoyment, (the forefathers appear by his very wish)' (Ch. VIII. ii. 1); '(he moves about......) with women, or vehicles....(Ch. VIII. xii. 3). Answer:- No, for they (i.e. those texts) relate to the conditioned Brahman. Women or others can exist only in the conditioned Brahman, but not in the unconditioned, according to such Vedic texts as:- 'One only, without a second' (Ch. VI. ii. 1); 'Where one does not see anything else' (Ch. VII. xxiv. 1); 'What will one see there and with what?' (Br. II. iv. 14; IV. v. 15). Besides, the combination of knowledge and karma is not possible, because of their mutual contradiction. For knowledge-which relates to an entity in which all distinction of accessories, such as the agent, get merged-is antithetical to karma that has to be accomplished with accessories which are opposed to it (knowledge). Indeed, the same thing cannot be visualized as being in reality both possessed of such distinctions as agentship etc., and as devoid of them. Either of the two must of necessity be false. And when one or the other has to be false, it is reasonable that falsehood should pertain to duality which is the object of natural ignorance, n accordance with hundreds of Vedic texts such as:- 'Because when there is duality, as it were, (then one smells something, one sees something, etc.)' (Br. II. iv. 14); 'He who sees as though there is difference here (in Brahman), goes from death to death (Ka. II. i. 10; Br. IV. iv. 19); 'Hence, the finite is that where one sees something else' (Ch. VII. xxiv. 1); 'While he who worships another god (thinking), He is one and I am another (does not know)' (Br. I . iv. 10); 'For whenever this one (i.e. the aspirant) creates the slightest difference in It, (he is smitten with fear)' (II. vii). And truth belongs to unity, according to such Vedic texts as:- 'It should be realized in one form only' (Br. IV. iv. 20), 'One only, without a second' (Ch. VI. ii. 1), 'All this is but Brahman' (See Mu. II. ii. 11); 'All this is but the Self' (Ch. VII. xxv. 2). Nor is karma possible without perceiving the difference implied by such (grammatical) cases as the Dative etc. Besides, the denunciation of the perception of difference in the sphere of knowledge is to be met with at a thousand places in the Vedas. Hence there is an opposition between knoweldge and karma, and hence also is their combination impossible. This being so, the statement that liberation is brought about by a combination of knowledge and karma is not justifiable. Objection:- (One such an assumption) there is a contradiction of the Vedas, for karmas are enjoined (by them). If like the knowledge of the rope etc., meant for eradicating the false the knowledge of the snake etc., the knowledge of the unity of the Self is inculcated for eradicating the distinction of such accessories as the agent etc., then a contradiction becomes inevitable, since the Vedic injunctions about karma are left without any scope. But as a matter of fact, karmas are enjoined, and that contradiction is inadmissible, since Vedic texts are all means of valid knowledge. Answer:- No, for the aim of the Vedas is to impart instruction is respect of human goals. That being so, the Vedic texts which are devoted to the communication of knowledge engage themselves in the revelation of knowledge under the belief that since a man has to be liberated from the world, ignorance, which is the cause of the world, must be eradicated through knowledge. Hence there is no contradiction. Objection:- Even so, the scriptures establishing the existence of the accessories, viz agent etc., are certainly contradicted. Answer:- No; the scriptures, assuming the hypothetical existence of the accessories, enjoin rites and duties for the wearing away of the accumulated sins of those who aspire for liberation, and also as a means for the achievement of fruits by those who hanker after results. (But) they do not concern themselves with establishing the reality of those accessories. For, the rise of knowledge cannot be imagined with regard to one who has the hindrance of accumulated sins. On the wearing away of those sins, knowledge will emerge; from that will follow the cessation of ignorance, and from that the absolute cessation of the world. Moreover, only a man who perceives something as non-Self has craving for that non-Self. And a man, impelled by desire, engages himself in works. From that follows the worldly state, consisting in embodiment etc., for the sake of enjoying the fruits of that desire. Contrariwise, for a man who sees the unity of the Self, there can arise no desire, since objects (of desire) do not exist. Besides, since desire cannot rise with regard to oneself, owing to non-difference, there ensues liberation consisting in being established in one's own Self. From this also follows that knowledge and karma are contradictory. And just because of this opposition knowledge does not depend on karma so far as emancipation is concerned. But in the matter of attainment of one's Self, the obligatory karma becomes the cause for the dawn of knowledge by way of removing the hindrance of accumulated sins. We have pointed out that this is the reason why karmas have been introduced in the present context. Thus the Vedic texts enjoining karmas are not at variance (with the Upanisads). Hence it is established that the highest goal is achievable through knowledge alone. Objection:- In that case there is no possibility of any other stage of life (asrama). Inasmuch as the rise of knowledge is contingent on karma, and karma is enjoined in connection with the life of the householders, there can be only one stage of life. And from this point of view, the Vedic texts such as, 'One should perform the Agnihotra sacrifice throughout one's life', become more apposite. Answer:- No, for karmas are multifarious. Not that Agnihotra etc. are the only karmas. There exist also such practices as celibacy, austerity, truthfulness, control of the external and internal organs, and non-injury, which are familarly assoicated with the other stages of life, besides such practices as concentration, meditation, etc.-all of which are best calculated to serve as means for the origination of knowledge, since they are unadulterated (with sinful acts). This Upanisad also will declare, 'Crave to know Brahman well through concentration' (III. ii.). And since, even before entering the householders life, knowledge can emerge from the karmas undertakne in earlier lives, and since one embrances the householder's life for the performance of karmas, its acceptance becomes certainly meaningless when one has already acquired the knowledge that is (held to be) the result of karmas (to be perfomed in doemstic life). Moreover, since sons etc. are meant for the (attainment of) worlds, how can there be any lingering inclination for karma in one who has (already) desisted from all desires for these worlds-to wit, this world, the world of the manes, and the world of the gods, which are attainable through such means as sons (and karma and meditation) (Br. I. v. 16)-who has attained the world of the Self that exists eternally, and who finds no need for karma? Even for one who has accepted the life of a householder, there will surely be a cessation from karma after the rise of knowledge and after the renunciation of everything on the maturity of knowledgewhen one feels no need for any karma, in accordance with the indication in such Vedic texts as, 'My dear (Maitreyi), I am going to renounce this life for monasticism' (Br. IV. v. 2). Objection:- This is unsound, since the Vedas are at so much pains to prescribe karma. The Vedas display much solicitude for such karmas as Agnihotra; and karmas involve great effort, since Agnihotra etc., have to be performed wiht a veriety of accessories. And since the practices pertaining to the other stages of life, such as austerity, celibacy, etc., are equally present in the householder's life, and since the other practces involve little trouble, it follows that a householder should not be placed on an equal (and) alternative footing with those in other stages of life. Answer:- No, for (the dispassionate man) there is the favourableness ensured by practices in his previous lives. As for the statement that 'the Vedas are much at pains to enjoin karma' etc., that is nothing damaging; for the karmas such as Agnihotra, as also the practices of celibacy etc., undertaken in the past lives, become helpful to the rise of knowledge, becasue of which fact, some are seen to be non-attached to the world from their very birth, while others are seen to be engaged in karma, attached to the world, and averse to enlightenment. Accordingly, in the case of those who have becme detached, owing to the tendencies created in the past lives, it is desirable only to resort to the other stage of life. Since there is a profuseness of the results of karma-(i.e.) since there is a plethora of the results of karma, comprising progeny, heaven, glory of holiness, etc.-, and since people have an abundance of desire for those results, the great solicitude for karma evinced by the Sruti for achieving those results is reasonable:- for it is a matter of experience that peoples' desires expressed in such forms as 'Let this be mine' 'May that one be mine' are multifarious. Moreover, since karmas are a means-(i.e.) since we have said that karmas are helpful to the rise of enlightenment-, one should pay more attention to the means rather than to the end. Objection:- Since enlightenment is caused by karma, there is no need for any other effort. If it is a fact that enlightenment emerges on the wearing away of obstacle of past acculmulated sins through karmas alone, then apart from the karmas, it is needless to make any effort for the hearing (i.e. understanding) etc. of the Upanisads. Answer:- No, for there is no restrictive rule about that. There is surely no such rule that knowledge arises from the mere elimination of the obstructions alone, and not from the grace of God or the practice of austerity, meditation, etc., for (as a matter of fact) noninjury, celibacy, etc. are aids to enlightenment; and hearing, thinking, and meditating are the direct causes of it. Hereby is established the need of other stages of life, and it is also proved that people in all the stages of life can aspire for knowledge, and that the supreme goal is attainable through knowledge alone.
Max Müller
2. 'Do not neglect the (sacrificial) works due to the Gods and Fathers! Let thy mother be to thee like unto a god! Let thy father be to thee like unto a god! Let thy teacher be to thee like unto a god! Let thy guest be to thee like unto a god! Whatever actions are blameless, those should be regarded, not others. Whatever good works have been performed by us, those should be observed by thee,-- 3. 'Not others. And there are some Brâhmanas better than we. They should be comforted by thee by giving them a seat. Whatever is given should be given with faith, not without faith,--with joy, with modesty, with fear, with kindness. If there should be any doubt in thy mind with regard to any sacred act or with regard to conduct,-- 4. 'In that case conduct thyself as Brâhmanas who possess good judgment conduct themselves therein, whether they be appointed or not [1], as long as they are not too severe, but devoted to duty. And with regard to things that have been spoken against, as Brâhmanas who possess good judgment conduct themselves therein, whether they be appointed or not, as long as they are not too severe, but devoted to duty, (1-7) Thus conduct thyself 'This is the rule. This is the teaching. This is the true purport (Upanishad) of the Veda. This is the command. Thus should you observe. Thus should this be observed.'
Footnotes
1. Aparaprayuktâ iti svatantrâh. For other renderings, see Weber, Ind. Stud. II, p. 216.
May Mitra be blissful to us. May Varuna be blissful to us. May Aryaman be blissful to us. May Indra and Brihaspati be blissful to us. May Vishnu, of long strides, be blissful to us. Salutation to Brahman. Salutation to you, O Vayu. You, indeed, are the immediate Brahman. You alone I shall call the direct Brahman. I shall call you righteousness. I shall call you truth. May He protect me. May He protect the teacher. May He protect me. May He protect the teacher. Om, peace, peace, peace!
Shankaracharya
Commentary
An invocation is being read for warding off the obstructions to the knowledge already dealt with:- 1.12.1 This has been explained before [The verbs in the second half are, however, put in the past sense. The translation of this half is:- 'I spoke of you as the immediate Brahman. I spoke of you as rta. I spoke of you as satya. He protected me. He protected the teacher. He protected me, protected the teacher.'].
Max Müller
1. May Mitra be propitious to us, and Varuna, Aryaman also, Indra, Brihaspati, and the wide-striding Vishnu! Adoration to Brahman! Adoration to thee, O Vâyu! Thou indeed art the visible Brahman. I proclaimed thee alone as the visible Brahman. (1-5) I proclaimed the right. I proclaimed the true. It protected me. It protected the teacher. Yes, it protected me, it protected the teacher. Om! Peace! peace! peace!
oṃ saha nāvavatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha vīryaṃ karavāvahai .
tejasvināvadhītamastu mā vidviṣāvahai .
oṃ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ ..
May He protect us both together. May He nourish us both together. May we both acquire strength together. Let our study be brilliant. May we not cavil at each other. Om! Peace ! Peace ! Peace !
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The invocation beginning with sam no mitrah was recited (at the end of the last Part) in order to avert the impediments to the acquisition of the knowledge set forth earlier. Now is being recited the invocation, sam no mitrah etc., as also saha navavatu etc., for averting the obstacles to the acquisition of the knowledge of Brahman that is going to be stated:- (For "Sam no" etc. see I. i.). May He protect us both together. May He nourish us both together. May we both acquire strength together. Let our study be brilliant. May we not cavil at each other. Om! Peace! Peace! Peace! Sam no etc., Just as beore, is easy to understand. Saha navavatu:- Avatu, may He protect, nau, us both-the teacher and the taught; saha, together. Bhunaktu, may He nourish; nau saha. Karavavahai, may we both accomplish; viryam, streangth-arrising from knowledge etc.; saha. Let the adhitam, study; nau, of us both-who are both bright; tejasvi astu, be brilliant;-let what we read be well read, i.e. let it be conducive to the comprehension of the meaning. There is occasion for ill-feeling on the part of the student in the matter of learning, as also on the part of the teacher, consequent on unwitting lapses; hence this prayer, 'May we not cavil' etc. is made in order to forestall this. Ma vidvisavahai, may we never entertain ill-feeling against each other. The three repetitions, santih, santih, santih-peace, peace, peace-, have been explained already (as meant for averting bodily, natural, and super natural hindrances). Moreover, this invocation is for warding off the impediments of the knowledge that is going to be imparted. An unobstructed acquisition of the knowledge of the Self is being prayed for, since the supreme goal is dependent on that. The meditations relating to conjoining etc. that are not opposed to rites and duties have been stated (I. iii). After that, with the help of the Vyahrtis, has been described the meditation on the conditioned Self within the heart (I. v-vi), which (meditation) culminates in the attainment of one's sovereignty (I. vi. 2). But thereby one does not achieve the total eradication of the seed of worldly existence. Hence is begun the text, brahmavidapnoti param, etc., for the sake of realizing the Self as freed from the distinctions created by various limiting adjuncts, so that (as a result of the realization), ignorance which is the seed of all miseries, may cease. And the utility of this knowledge of Brahman is the cessation of ignorance; from that results the total eradication of worldly existence. And the Upanisad will declare, 'The enlightened man is not afraid of' (II. ix), and that it is inconceivable to be established is a state of fearlessness so long as the causes of worldly existence persist (II. vii), and that things done and not done, virtue and vice, do not fill him with remorse (II. ix). Therefore it is understood that the absolute cessation of the worldly existence follows from this knowledge which has for its content Brahman that is the Self of all. And in order to apprise us of its own relation and utility at the very beginning, the Upanisad itself declares its utility in the sentence, brahmavid apnoti param-the knower of Brahman reaches the highest. For one engages in hearing, mastering, cherishing, and practising a science only when its utility and relation are well known. The result of knowledge certainly succeeds hearing etc., in accordance with such other Vedic text as, 'It is to be heard of, reflected on and meditated upon' (Br. II. iv. 5, IV. v. 6).
The knower of Brahman attains the highest. Here is a verse uttering that very fact:- “Brahman is truth, knowledge, and infinite. He who knows that Brahman as existing in the intellect, lodged in the supreme space in the heart, enjoys, as identified with the all - knowing Brahman, all desirable things simultaneously. From that Brahman, which is the Self, was produced space. From space emerged air. From air was born fire. From fire was created water. From water sprang up earth. From earth were born the herbs. From the herbs was produced food. From food was born man. That man, such as he is, is a product of the essence of food. Of him this indeed, is the head, this is the southern side; this is the northern side; this is the Self; this is the stabilising tail. Here is a verse pertaining to that very fact:-
Shankaracharya
Commentary
From that Brahman indeed, which is this Self, was produced space. From space emerged air. From air was born fire. From fire was created water. From water sprang up earth. From earth were born the herbs. From the herbs was produced food. From food was born man. That man, such as he is, is surely a product of the essence of food. Of him this indeed, in the head; thsi is the southern (right) side [Paksah is interpreted as 'wing' by A. G. and S.]; this is the northern (left) side; this is the self; this is the stabilizing tail. He also is a verse pertaining to that very fact:- Brahmavit, the knower of Brahman:- Brahman is that whose characteristics will be stated and who is called Brahman because of (the etymological sense of) brahattamattva, being the greatest. He who vetti, knows, that Brahman is brahmavit. He apnoti, attains; param, the absolutely highest. That very Brahman (that occurs as the object of the verb, vid, to know) must be the highest (goal as well), since the attainment of something does not logically follow from the knowledge of something else and since another Vedic text, viz 'Anyone who knows that supreme Brahman becomes Brahman indeed' etc., (Mu. III. ii. 9), clearly shows the attainment of Brahman Itself by the knower of Brahman. Objection:- The Upanisad will say that Brahman permeates everything and is the Self of all; hence It is not attainable. Moreover, one thing is seen to be attained by another-one limited thing by another limited thing. And Brahman is unlimited and indentical with all; hence Its attainment-as of something that is limited and is different from one's Self-is incongruous. Answer:- This is no fault. Objection:- How? Answer:- Because the attainment or non-attainment of Brahman is contingent on Its realization or nonrealization. The individual soul, though intrinsically none other than Brahman, still identifies itself with, and becomes attached to, the sheaths made of food etc., which are external, limited, and composed of the subtle elements; and as (in the story) a man, whose mind is engrossed in the counting of others, misses counting himself, though that personality is the nearnest to him and supplies the missing number, [Ten men, after crossing a river, were faced with the question, 'Have we lost one of us in the stream?' So they went on counting themselves. But each one missed taking himself into account and concluded that they were only nine, one having actually been drowned. They then began wailing, when a passerby found out their foolishness, counted them one by one, and then turning to the last counter said, 'You are the tenth.' That reassured them.] just so, the individual soul, under a spell of ignorance characterized by the nonperception of one's own true nature as Brahman, accepts the external non-Selves, such as the body composed of food, as the Self, and as a consequence, begins to think, 'I am none other than those non-Selves composed of food etc.' In this way, even though Brahman is one's Self, It can remain unattained through ignorance. Just as through ignorance, there is a non-discovery (in the story) of the individual himself who makes up the requisite number, and just as there is the discovery of the selfsame person through knowledge when he is reminded of that personage by someone, similarly in the case of one, to whom Brahman in Its own nature remains thus unattained owing to his ignorance, there can quite reasonably be a discovery of that very Brahman by realizing that omnipresent Brahman to be none other than one's own Self-a realization that comes through enlightenment consequent on the instruction of the scriptures. The sentence, 'The knower of Brahman attains the highest', is a statement in brief of the purport of the whole part (II). The idea involved in quoting a Rg-mantra with the words, 'Tad esa abhyukta-here is a verse uttering that very fact', are (as follows) :- (First) It is sought to determine the true nature of Brahman through the presentation of a definition that is capable of indicating the totally free intrinsic nature of that very Brahman which was briefly referred to as a knowable entity in the sentence, 'The knower of Brahman attains the highest', but of which any distinct feature remained undetermined; (secondly) the knowledge of that Brahman having been spoken of (earlier) in an indefinite way, it is now sought to make that very Brahman, whose definition is going to be stated, realizable specifically as non-different from one's own indewelling Self; (and lastly) the idea is to demonstrate that the attainment of supreme Brahman by a knower of Brahman- which (attainment) is spoken of as the result of the realization of Brahman-is really nothing but identity with the Self of all, which is Brahman Itself transcending all worldly attributes. Tat, with regard to what has been said by the brahmana portion (of the Upanisad); esa, this Rk (mantra); is abhyukta, uttered-. The sentence satyam jnanam anantam brahma - Brahman is truth, knowledge, infinite - is meant as a definition of Brahman. For the three words beginning with satya are meant to distinguish Brahman which is the substantive. And from the fact that Brahman is intended to be spoken of as the thing to be known, it follows that Brahman is the substantive. Since Brhaman is sought to be presented as the chief object of knowledge, the knowable must be the substantive. And just because (Brahman and satya etc.) are related as the substantive and its attributes, the words beginning with satya have the same case-ending, and they stand in apposition. Brahman, being qualified by the three adjectives, satya, etc., is marked out from other nouns. Thus, indeed, does a thing become known when it is differentiated from others; as for instance, in common parlance, a particular lotus is known when it is described as blue, big, and sweet-smelling. Objection:- A noun can be distinguished only when there is the possibility of its ruling out some other adjective (that does not belong to it), as for instance a blue or red lotus. An adjective is meaningful when there are many nouns which belong to the same class and which are capable of having many adjectives; but it can have no meaning with regard to a single noun, wher there is no possibility of any alternative adjective. There is single Brahman, just as there is a single sun; there do not exist other Brahmans from which It can be distinguished, unlike a blue lotus that can be (marked out from a red one). Answer:- No, there is nothing wrong, since the adjectives are used by way of definition (also). Objection:- How? Answer:- Since the adjectives (here) bear only a predominatingly defining sense and not a predominatingly qualifying sense. Objection:- What again is the difference betweeen the two relations-(1) that existing between the definition and the thing defined; and (2) that between the quality and the thing qualified? The answer is:- An adjective distinguishes a noun from things of its own class, whereas a definition marks it out from everything else, as for instance, (the definition-) akasa is that which provides space. And we said that the sentence (under discussion) stands for a definition. The words satya etc. are unrelated among themselves, since they subserve something else; they are meant to be applied to the substantive only. Accordingly, each of the attributive words is related with the word 'Brahman', independently of the others thus:- satyam brahma, jnanam brahma, anantam brahma. As for satya a thing is said to be satya, true, when it does not change the nature that is ascertained to be its own; and a thing is said to be unreal when it changes the nature that is ascertained to be its own. Hence a mutable thing is unreal, for in the text, 'All transformation has speech as its basis, and it is name only. Earth as such is the reality' (Ch. VI.i.4), it has been emphasised that, that alone is true that exists (Ch.VI.ii.1). So the phrase satyam brahma (Brahman is truth) distinguishers Brahman from mutable things. From this it may follow that (the unchanging) Brahman is the (material) cause (off all subsequent chages); and since a material cause is a substance; it can be an accessory as well, thereby becoming insentient like earth. Hence it is said that Brahman is jnanam. Jnana means knowledge, consciousness. The word jnana conveys the abstract notion of the verb (jna, to know); and being an attribute of Brahman along with truth and infinitude, it does not indicate the agent of knowing. If Brahman be the agent of knowing, truth and infinitude cannot justly be attributed to It. For as the agent of knowing, It becomes changeful; and, as such, how can It be true and infinite? That, indeed, is infinite which is not seperated from anything. If it be the agent of knowing, It becomes delimited by the knowable and the knowledge, and hence there cannot be infinitude, in accordance with another Vedic text:- 'The Infinite is that where one does not understand anything else. Hence, the finite is that where one understands something else' (Ch. VII.xxiv.1). Objection:- From the denial of particulars in the (above) statement, 'One does not understand anything else', it follows that one knows the Self. Answer:- No, for the sentence is intended to enunciate a definition of the Infinite. The sentence, 'in which one does not see anything else' etc., is devoted wholly to the presentation of the distinguishing char. acteristics of Brahman. Recognizing the wellknown principle that one sees something that is different form oneself, the nature of the Infinite is expressed in that text by declaring that the Infinite is that in which that kind of action does not exist. Thus, since the expression, 'anything else', is used (in the above sentence) for obviating the recongnized fact of duality, the sentence is not intended to prove the existence of action (the act of knowing) in one's self. And since there is no split in one's Self, cognition is impossible (in It). Moreover, if the Self be a knowable, there will remain no one else (as a knower) to know It, since the Self is already postulated as the knowable. Objection:- The same self can exist both as the knower and the known. Answer:- No, this cannot be simultaneously, since the Self is without parts. A featureless (indivisible) thing cannot simultaneously be both the knower and the known. Moreover, if the Self can be cognized in the sense that a pot is, (scriptural) instruction about Its knowledge becomes useless. For if an object is already familiar, just as a pot for instance is, the (Vedic) instruction about knowing it can have no meaning. Hence if the Self be a knower, It cannot reasonably be infinite. Besides, if It has such distinctive attributes as becoming the agent of knowing, It cannot logically be pure existence. And pure existence is truth, according to another Vedic text, 'That is Truth' (Ch. VI.viii.7). Therefore the word jnana (knowledge), having been used adjectivally along with truth and infinitude, is derived in the cognate sense of the verb, and it is used to form the phrase, jnanam brahma (Brahman is knowledge), in order to rule out (from Brahman) any relationship [A noun may be related wiht a verb by way of becoming the agent, object, instrument, receiver, possessor, or locus.] between noun and verb as that of an agent etc., as also for denying non-consciousness like that of earth etc. From the phrase, jnanam brahma, it may follow that Brahman is limited, for human knowledge is seen to be finite. Hence, in order to obviate this, the text says, anantam, infinite. Objection:- Since the words, satya, (truth) etc., are meant only for negating such qualities as untruth, and since the substantive Brahman is not a well-known entity like a lotus, the sentence beginning with satya has nothing but a non-entity as its content, just as it is the case with the sentence, 'Having bathed in the water of the mirage, and having put a crown of sky flowers on his head, there goes the son of a barren woman, armed wiht a bow made of a hare's horn.' Answer:- No, for the sentence is meant as a definition. And we said that even though satya etc. are attributive words, their chief aim is to define. Since a setence, stating the differentia of a non-existing substantive, is useless, and since the present sentence is meant to define, it does not, in our opinion, relate to a nonentity. Should even satya etc. have an adjectival sense, they certainly do not give up their own meanings. ['Etymologically, the word satya indicates an existing entity that is not sublated; the word jnana means the self-revealing cognition of things; and the word ananta is used with regard to something pervasive, as (in the expression) "the sky is infinite", etc. Hence they negate opposite ideas by the very fact of their imparting their own meanigs to the substantives. Therefore they cannot be reduced to mere negation.'-A.G.] If the words satya etc. mean a non-entity, they cannot logically distinguish their substantive. But if they are meaningful, as having the senses of truth etc., they can justifiably differentiate their substantive Brahman from other substantives that are possessed of opposite qualities. And the word Brahman, too, has its own individual meaning. [Derived from the root brh, having the sense of growth, vastness, Brahman is that which is not limited by time, space or causation. Thus the word has its own positive import and cannot refer to a void.] Among these words, the word ananta becomes an adjective by way of negating finitude; whereas the words satya and jnana become adjectives even while imparting their own (positive) senses (to the substantive). Since in the text, 'From that Brahman indeed which is this Self, (was produced this space)' (II. i. 1), the word Self (atma) is used with regard to Brahman Itself, it follows that Brahman is the Self of the cognizing individual;and this is supported by the text, 'He attains this Self made of bliss' (II. viii. 5), where Brahman is shown to be the Self. Moreover, it is Brahman which has entered (into men); the text, 'having created that, (He) entered into that very thing' (II. vi), shows the entry of that very Brahman into the body as the individual soul. Hence the cognizer, in his essential nature, is Brahman. Objection:- If thus Brahman be the Self, It becomes the agent of cognition, since it is a well-known fact that the Self is a knower. And from the text, 'He desired' (II. vi), it stands established that the one who desires is also an agent of cognition. Thus, Brahman being the cognizer, it is improper to hold that Brahman is consciousness. Besides, that (later conclusion) leads to Its impermanence. For even if it be conceded that jnana (cognition) is nothing but consciousness, and thus Brahman has (only) the cognate sense (- knowledge-) of the verb (to know, and not the verbal sense of knowing), It (Brahman) will still be open to the charge of impermanence and dependence. For the meanings of verbs are dependent on the (grammatical) cases (of the nouns). And knowledge is a sense conveyed by a root (dependent on a noun). Accordingly, Brahman becomes impermanents as well as dependent. Answer:- No, since without implying that knowledge is separable from Brahman, it is referred to as an activity by way of courtesy. To explain:- Knowledge, which is the true natue of the Self, is inseparable from the Self, and so it is everlasting. Still, the intellect, which is the limiting adjunct (of the Self) becomes transformed into the shape of the objects while issuing out through the eyes etc. (for cognizing things). These configurations of the intellect in the shape of sound etc., remain objectively illumined by the Consciousness that is the Self, even when they are in an incipient state; and when they emerge as cognitions, they are still enlightened by that Consciousness. [In the incipient stage, they have the fitness to be illumined; and after emergence, they remain soaked in consciousness.] Hence these semblances of Consciousness- a Consciousness that is really the Self are imagined by the non-discriminating poeple to be referable by the word knowledge bearing the root meaning (of the verb to know); to be attributes of the Soul Itself; and to be subject to mutation. But the Consciousness of Brahman is inherent in Brahman and is inalienable from It, just as the light of the sun is from the sun or the heat of fire is form fire. Consciousness is not dependent on any other cause (for its revelation), for it is by nature eternal (light). And since all that exists is inalienable from Brahman in time or space, Brahman being the cause of time, space, etc., and since Brahman is surpassingly subtle, there is nothing else whether subtle or screened or remote or past, present or future which can be unknowable to It. Therefore Brahman is omniscient. Besides, this follows from the text of the mantra:- 'Though He is without hands and feet, still He runs and grasps; though He is without eyes, still He sees; though He is without ears, still He hears. He knows the knowable, and of Him there is no knower. Him they called the first, great Person' (Sv. III. 19). There are also such Vedic texts as:- 'For the knower's function of knowing can never be lost, because It is immortal; but (It does not know, as) there is not that second thing, (separated from It which It can know)' (Br. IV. iii. 30). Just because Brahman's nature of being the knower is inseparable and because there is no dependence on other accessories like the sense-organs, Brahman, though intrinsically identical with knowledge, is well known to be eternal. Thus, since this knowledge is not a form of action, it does not also bear the root meaning of the verb. Hence, too, Brahman is not the agent of congnition. And because of this, again, It cannot even be denoted by the word jnana (knowledge). Still Brahman is indicated, but not denoted, by the word knowledge which really stands for a verisimilitude of consciousness as referring to an attribute of the intellect; for Brahman is free from such things as class etc., which make the use of the word (knowledge) possible. Similarly, Brahman is not denoted even by the word satya (truth), since Brahman is by nature devoid of all distinctions. In this way, the word satya, which means external reality in general, can indirectly refer to Brahman (in such expressions) as 'Brahman is truth', but it cannot denote It. Thus the words truth etc., occurring in mutual proximity, and restricting and being restricted in truns by each other, distinguish Brahman from other objects denoted by the words, truth etc., and thus become fit for defining It as well. So, in accordance wiht the Vedic texts, 'Failing to reach which (Brahman), words, along with the mind turn back' (II. iv. 1), and '(Whenever an aspirant gets fearlessly established in this changeless, bodiless,) inexpressible, and unsupporting Brahman' (II. vii), it is proved that Brahman is indescribable, and that unlike the construction of the expression, 'a blue lotus', Brahman is not to be construed as the import of any sentence. [Brahman cannot be comprehended through the common relationship of words and things denoted by them. Nor can It be denoted through the relationship of substance and quality.] Yah veda, anyone who knows-that Brahman, described before; as nihitam, (hidden) existing; parame vyoman (i.e. vyomni), in the supreme space (which permeates its own effect, the intellect)-in the space which is called the Unmanifested (i.e. Maya), that, indeed, being the supreme space in accordance with the Vedic text, 'By this Immutable (Brahman), O Gargi, is the (Unmanifested) space (akasa, i.e. Maya) pervaded' (Br. III. viii. 11), where akasa occurs in the proximity of aksara (Immutable) ['The Unmanifested called vyoma (space, akasa) is inherent in the intellect (guha), which is the effect of former. In that Unamanifested is placed Brahman. The element called akasa is not accepted here as the meaning of vyoma, since the element akasa cannot be called parama (supreme), it being an effect of Unmanifested akasa. Besides, in the Brhadaranyaka, the Unmanifested akasa and not the element akasa, occurs in the proximity of Immutable Brahman (aksara)'. -A.G.]; guhayam, in the intellect. Guha, being derived from the root guha in the sense of hiding, means the intellect, because in that intellect are hidden the categories, viz knowledge, knowable and knower; or because in this intellect are hidden the two human objectives, enjoyment and liberation. Or, from the apposition (of guha and vyoma) in the expression, guhayam vyomni, the Unmanifested space (Maya) itself is the guha (cavity); for in that, too are hidden all things during the three periods (of creation, existence, and dissolution), it being their cause as well as more subtle. In that (Maya) is hidden Brahman. It is, however, reasonable to accept the space circumscribed by the cavity of the heart as the supreme space, for the text wants to present space here as a part of knowledge. [Brahman is placed, i.e. manifest as the witness, in the cavity of the intellect that is loged in the space circumscribed by the heart, and It is directly perceived there as such. If, however, Brahman is placed in the Cosmic Unmanifested, i.e. in the principle called Maya, It will become an object of indirect perception. And an indirect realization cannot negate the direct superimposition that a man suffers from.] The space within the heart is well known as the supreme space from the other Vedic texts:- 'The space that it outside the individual (Ch. III. xii. 7) ... is the same as the space within the individual (Ch. III. xii. 8) (and that again) is the same as the space within the heart' (Ch. III. xii. 9). (Thus the meaning of the sentence is:-) Within the cavity that is the intellect, which is within the space defined by the heart, is nihitam, lodged, placed , Brahman; in other words, Brahman is perceived clearly through the function of that intellect; for apart from this perception, Brahman can have no connection, (in the sense of being lodged in), with any particular time or space, Brahman being all-pervasive and beyond all distinctions. Sah, he, one who has known Brahman thus-what does he do? The answer is-asnute, he enjoys; sarvan, all without any exception; kaman, desires, i.e. all enjoyable things. Does he enjoy the sons, heavens, etc. in sequence as we do? The text says:- No; he enjoys all the desirable things, which get focussed into a single moment, saha, simultaneouslythrough a single perception which is eternal like the light of the sun, which is nondifferent from Brahman Itself, and which we called 'truth, knowledge, infinite'. That very fact is described here as brhamana saha, in identification with Brahman. The man of knowledge, having become Brahman, enjoys as Brahman, all the desirable things simultaneously; and he does not enjoy in sequence the desirable things that are dependent on such causes as merit etc. and such sense-organs as the eyes etc., as does an ordinary man identified with the wordly self which is conditioned by limiting adjuncts, and which is a reflection (of the supreme Self) like that of the sun on water. How then does he enjoy? As identified with the eternal Brahman which is omniscient, all-pervasive, and the Self on all, he enjoys simultaneously, in the manner described above, all the desirable things that are not dependent on all such causes as merit etc., and that are independent of the organs like the eyes etc. This is the idea. Vipascita means 'with the intelligent One, (i.e.) with the Omniscient; for, that indeed is true intelligence which is omniscience. The idea is that, he injoys in his identity with that all-knowing Brahman. The word iti is used to indicate the end of the mantra. The entire purport of the chapter is summed up in the sentence, 'The knower of Brahman attains the highest', occurring in the brahmana portion. And that pithy statement (aphorism) is briefly explained by the mantra (the Rk verse). Since the meaning of that very statement has to be elaborately ascertained again, the succeeding text, tasmad va etasmat etc., is introduced as a sort of a gloss to it. As to that , it has been said at the beginning of the mantra that Brahman is truth, knowledge, and infinite. As to that, there are three kinds of infinitude-from the standpoint of space, time, and objects. To illustrate:- The sky is unlimited from the point of view of space, for it is not limited in space. But the sky is not infinite as regards time or as regards (other) objects. Why? Since it is a product. Brahman is not thus limited in time like the sky, since It is not a product. For, a created thing is circumscribed by time, but Brahman is not created. Hence It is Infinite from the point of view of time as well. Similarly, too, from the point of view of objects. How, again, is established Its infinitude from the point of view of objects? Since It is non-different from the point of view of objects? Since It is non-different from everything. A thing that is different acts as a limitation to another. Indeed, when the intellect gets occupied with something, it becomes detached from something else. That (idea), because of which another idea becomes circumscribed, acts as limit to the (latter) idea. To illustrate:- The idea of cowhood is repelled by the idea of horsehood; hence horsehood debars cowhood, and the idea (of cowhood) becomes delimited indeed. That limitation is seen in the case of distinct objects. Brahman is not differentiated in this way. Hence It has infinitude even from the standpoint of substances. How, again is Brahman non-different from everything? The answer is:- Because It is the cause of everything. Brahman is verily the cause of all things-time, space, etc. Objection:- From the standpoint of objects, Brahman is limited by Its own effects. Answer:- No, since the objects that are effects are unreal. For apart from the cause, there is really no such thing as an effect by which the idea of the cause can become delimited. This is fact is borne out by another Vedic text which says that 'All transformation has speech as its basis, and it is name only. Earth (inhering in its modifications), as such, is the reality' (Ch. VI. 1. 4); similarly, existence (i.e. Brahman that permeaters everything) alone is true (Ch. VI. ii. 1). Brahman, then is spatially infinite, being the cause of space etc. For space is known to be spatially infinte; and Brahman is the cause of that space. Hence it is proved that the Self is spatially infinte. Indeed, no all-pervading thing is seen in this world to originate from anything that is not so. Hence the spatial infinitude of Brahman is absolute. Similarly, temporally, too, Brahman's infinitude is absolute, since Brahman is not a product. And because there is nothing different from Brahman, It is infinte substantially as well. Hence Its reality is absolute. By the word tasmat, from that, is called to mind the Brahman that was aphoristically stated in the first sentence; and by the word etasmat, from this, is called to memory the Brahman just as It was defined immediately afterwards in the mantra. Atmanah, from the Self-from Brahman that was enunciated in the beginning in the words of the brahmana portion, and that was defined immediately afterwards as truth, knowledge, infinite (in the mantra); (i.e.) from that Brahman which is called the Self, for It is the Self of all, according to another Vedic text, 'It is truth, It is the Self' (Ch. VI. vii-xvi). Hence Brahman is the Self. From that Brahman which is identical with the Self, akasah, space; sambhutah, was created. Akasa means that which is possessed of the attribute of sound and provides space for all things that have forms. Akasat, from that space; vayuh, air-which has two attributes, being possessed of its own quality, touch, and the quality, sound, of its cause (akasa). The verb, 'was created', is understood. Vayah, from that air; was created agnih, fire-which has three attributes, being possessed of its own quality, colour, and the two earlier ones (of its cause, air). Agneh, from fire; was produced, apah, water-with four attributes, being endowed with its own quality, taste, and the three earlier ones (of fire). Adbhyah, from water; was produced prthivi, earth-with five attributes, consisting of its own quality, smell, and the four earlier qualities (of its casue, water). Prthivyah, from the earth; osadhayah, the herbs. Osadhibhyah, from the herbs; annam, food. Annat, from food, transformed into human seed; (was created), purusah, the human being, possessed of the limbs-head, hands etc. Sah vai esah purusah, that human being, such as he is; annarasamayah, consists of the essence of food, is a transformation of the essence of food. Since the semen, the seed, emerging as it does as the energy from all the limbs, is assumed to be of the human shape, therefore the one that is born from it should also have the human shape; for in all classes of beings, the offsprings are seen to be formed after the fathers. Objection:- Since all beings without exception are modifications of the essence of food and since all are equally descendants of Brahma, why is man alone specified? Answer:- Because of his pre-eminence. Objection:- In what, again, does the pre-eminence consist? Answer:- In his competence for karma and knowledge. For man alone, who is desirous (of results) and possessed of learning and capacity, is qualified for rites and duties as also for knowledge, by virtue of his ability, craving (for results), and non-indifference (to results). (This is proved) by the evidence of another Vedic text:- 'In man alone is the Self most manifest, for he is the best endowed with intelligence. He speaks what he knows, he sees what he knows; he knows what will happen tomorrow; he knows the higher and lower worlds; he aspires ot achieve immortality through mortal things. He is thus endowed (with discrimination), while other beings have consciousness of hunger adn thirst only' (Ai. A. II. iii. 2.5) etc. The intention here is to make that very human being enter into the inmost Brahman through knowledge. But his intellect, that thinks of the outer particular forms, which are not selves, as selves, cannot without the support of some distinct object, be suddenly made contentless and engaged in the thoughts of the inmost indwelling Self. Therefore, on the analogy of the moon on the bough, [Though the moon is far away, it is at times spoken of as 'the moon on the bough', because she appears to be near it. The point is that, the idea of something which escapes ordinary comprehesion is sought to be communicated with the help of something more tangible, though, in reality, the two are entirely disparate.] the text takes the help of a fiction that has an affinity with the identification of the Self and the perceived body; and leading thereby the intellect inward, the text says, tasya idam eva sirah:- tasya, of that human being who is such and who is an modification of the essence of food, idam eva sirah, this is verily the head-that is well known. The text, 'This is verily the head', is stated lest somebody should think that the head is to be imagined here just as it is in the case of the vital body etc., where things that are not heads are imagined to be so. Similar is the construction in the case of the side etc. Ayam, this, the right hand of a man facing east. is the daksinah paksah, the southern side. Ayam, this-the left hand; is the uttarah paksah, the northern side. Ayam, this-the middle portion (trunk) of the body; is the atma, self, soul of the limbs, in accordance with the Vedic text, 'The middle of these limbs is verily their soul'. Idam, this-the portion of the body below the navel; is the puccham pratistha, the tail that stablizes. Pratistha derivatively means that by which one remains in position. The puccha (here) is that which is comparable to a tail, on the anology of hanging down, as does the tail of a cow. On this pattern is established the symbolism in the case of the succeeding vital body etc., just as an image takes its shape from molten copper poured into a crucible. Tat api, as to that also, illustrative of that very idea contained in the brahmana portion; esah bhavati slokah, here occurs a verse- which presents the self made of food.
Max Müller
1. He who knows the Brahman attains the highest (Brahman). On this the following verse is recorded:- 'He who knows Brahman, which is (i.e. cause, not effect), which is conscious, which is without end, as hidden in the depth (of the heart), in the highest ether, he enjoys all blessings, at one with the omniscient Brahman.' From that Self [1] (Brahman) sprang ether (âkâsa, that through which we hear); from ether air (that through which we hear and feel); from air fire (that through which we hear, feel, and see); from fire water (that through which we hear, feel, see, and taste); from water earth (that through which we hear, feel, see, taste, and smell). From earth herbs, from herbs food, from food seed, from seed man. Man thus consists of the essence of food. This is his head, this his right arm, this his left arm, this his trunk (Âtman), this the seat (the support) [2]. On this there is also the following Sloka:-
Footnotes
1. Compare with this srishtikrama, Khând. Up. VI, 2; Ait. Âr. II, 4, 1. 2.
All beings that rest on the earth are born verily from food. Besides, they live on food, and at the end, they get merged in food. Food was verily born before all creatures; therefore it is called the medicine for all, those who worship food as Brahman acquire all the food. Food was verily born before all creatures; therefore it is called the medicine for all. Creatures are born of food; being born, they grow by food. Since it is eaten and it eats the creatures, it is called food. As compared with this self made of the essence of food, as said before, there is another inner self which is made of air. By that is this one filled. This Self is also of the human form. Its human form takes after the human form of that (earlier one). Of this, Prana is the head, Vyana is the southern side, Apana is the northern side, space is the self, the earth is the tail that stabilises. Pertaining to that is this (following) verse:-
Shankaracharya
Commentary
As compared wiht this self made of the essence of food, as said before, there is another inner self which is made of air. By that is this one filled. That (self) which is this, is also verily of the human form. It s human form takes after the human form of that (earlier one). Of this, prana is indeed the head, vyana is the right side, apana is the left side, space is the self, the earth is the tail that stabilizes. Pertaining to that also is this (following) verse:- Annat, from food-transformed into the state of chyle etc.; prajah, the living beingsmoving or stationary; prajayante, take birth; (the living beings) yah kah ca, whichever (they be)-without distinction; who, prthivim sritah, rest on, have taken as their resort, the earth-all of them are verily born from food. The word vai is used for calling up to memory (something mentioned earlier). Atho, moreover, when born; annenaeva, by food, indeed; they jivanti, live- preserve their lives, i.e. grow. Atha, besides; antatah, at the end, at the conclusion of the growth that is indicative of life; apiyanti, (they) move towardsthe prefix api being used in the sense of towards; enat, it, i.e. food; the idea is that they get absorbed advancing in the direction of food, (and culminating in food). Why? Hi, since; annam, food; is jyestham, the first born; bhutanam, of all beings. Since food is the source of all the other creatures beginning with those made of food, therefore all living beings originate from food, live on food, and merge into food. Since this is so, tasmat, therefore; food is vcyate, called; sarvausadham, a medicine for all, a curative that alleviates the bodily discomfort of all creatures. The goal achieved by the knower of food as Brahman is being stated:- Te, they; apnuvanti, acquire; sarvam vai annam, all the food. Who? Ye, those who; upasate, meditate on; annam brahma, food as Brahman- as shown earlier. How? Thus:- 'I am born of food, am identical with food, and merge in food. Therefore food is Brahman.' How, again, does the meditation on food, as identical with oneself, result in the acquisition of all the food? The answer is:- Hi annam jyestham bhutanam, since food is the first born of all beings-since it is the eldest, being born before all the creatures; tasmat sarvausadham ucyate (see ante). Therefore it is logical that one who worships all food as identical with oneself should acquire all food. The repetition of 'annat bhutani jayante, from food orginate all creatures; jatani annena vardhante, when born they grow through food' is for the sake of summing up. The etymology of the word anna is now being shown. Since food is adyate, eaten, by creatures; and itself atti, eats; bhutani, the creatures; tasmat, therefore-by virtue of being eaten by creatures and of eating the creatures; tat annam ucyate, it is called food. The word iti is to indicate the end of the first sheath. The scripture starts with the text tasmat va etasmat annarasamayat etc., with a veiw to revealing, through knowledge, Brahman-which is the inmost of all the selves beginning from the physical sheath and ending with the blissful one-as the indwelling Self, by following a process of eliminating the five sheaths just as rice is extracted from the grain called kodrava that has many husks. Tasmat vai etasmat, as compared with this body made of the essence of food, as described above; there is anyah, another, separate atma, self; antarah, which is inside, (which is) imagined through ignorance to be a self, just as the physical body is; (which latter self is) pranamayah:- prana is air (vital force), and pranamaya means constitued by air, possessed predominantly of air. Tena, by that airy (vital) self; purnah, is filled; esah, this one-the self constituted by the essence of food, just as a bellow is filled with air. Sah vai esah, that (self) which is this-the vital self. is purusavidhah eva, also of a human form- possessing a head,sides, etc. Is it so naturally? The text says, no. Now then, the self constituted by the essence of food is well known to have a human shape; anu, in accordance with; purusavidhatam tasya, the human shape to that self, constituted by the essence of food; ayam, this, (the self) constituted by air; is purusavidhah, humanly shaped-like an image cast in a crucible, but not naturally. Similarly, the succeeding selves become human in shape in accordance with the human shapes of the preceding ones; and the earlier ones are filled up by the succeeding ones. How, again, is constituted its human form? The answer is tasya, of him, of the self constituted by the vital force, which is a transformation of air; pranah eva, the special function of exhaling through the mouth nd nostrils; is imagined, on the authority of the text, as sirah, head. The imagination of the sides etc., at every turn, is only on scriptural authority. Vyanah, the function called vyana (pervading the whole body); is daksinah paksah, the right side. apanah, apana (the function of inhaling); is uttarah paksah, the left side. Akasah, space, i.e. the function (of air) existing in space as samana; is atma, the self-being comparable of the Self. (Akasa means samana), for it is the context of the functions of the vital force, and it is the self, being in the middle as compared with the other functions that are in the periphery. The one that exists in the middle is recognized as the self in the Vedas, in accordance with the text, 'The middle (i.e. the trunk) of these limbs is verily their soul'. Prthivi puccham pratistha:- prthivi means the deity of the earth; and this deity supports the physical vital force, since this deity is the cause of its stability according to another Vedic text, 'That deity favours by attracting the apana in a man' (Pr. III. viii). Else the body would ascend upwards because of the action of the vital function called udana, or there would be falling down because of its weight. Therefore the deity of the earth is the stabilizing tail of the vital self. Tat, pertaining to that very idea-with regard to the vital self; here is esah slokah, this verse:-
Max Müller
1. 'From food [1] are produced all creatures which dwell on earth. Then they live by food, and in the end they return to food. For food is the oldest of all beings, and therefore it is called panacea (sarvaushadha, i.e. consisting of all herbs, or quieting the heat of the body of all beings).' They who worship food as Brahman [2], obtain all food. For food is the oldest of all beings, and therefore it is called panacea. From food all creatures are produced; by food, when born, they grow. Because it is fed on, or because it feeds on beings, therefore it is called food (anna). Different from this, which consists of the essence of food, is the other, the inner Self, which consists of breath. The former is filled by this. It also has the shape of man. Like the human shape of the former is the human shape of the latter. Prâna (up-breathing) is its head. Vyâna (back-breathing) is its right arm. Apâna (down-breathing) is its left arm. Ether is its trunk. The earth the seat (the support). On this there is also the following Sloka:-
Footnotes
1. Anna is sometimes used in the more general sense of matter. 2. Worship consisting in the knowledge that they are born of food, live by food, and end in food, which food is Brahman.
The senses act by following the vital force in the mouth; all human beings and animals that are there act similarly; since on the vital force depends the life of all creatures, therefore it is called the life of all; those who worship the vital force as Brahman, attain the full span of life; since on the vital force depends the life of all, it is called the life of all. Of the preceding (physical) one, this one, indeed, is the embodied self. As compared with this vital body, there is another internal self constituted by mind. By that one is this one filled up. That self constituted by mind is also of a human shape. The human shape of the mental body takes after the human shape of the vital body. Of the mental body, the Yajur-mantras are the head. The Rig-mantras are the right side, the Sama-mantras are the left side, the Brahmana portion is the self (trunk), the mantras seen by Atharvangiras are the stabilising tail. Pertaining to this there is a verse:-
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Devah, the gods-Fire etc.; prananti, perform the act of breathing-become active through the functioning of the vital force; anu pranam, after the self that is constituted by air; that is to say, the gods perform the vital functions by becoming identified with that which possesses the power of sustaning life. Or, because this is the context of the physical body, devah means the sense-organs; (they) pranam anu prananti, become active by following the function of breathing that subsists in the mouth. Similarly, ye manusyah pasavah ca, those that are human beings and animals, they become active through the function of breathing. Hence, also, it is not simply by possessing the limited self in the form of the body built up by food that creatures become dowered with selves. What then? Human beings and others are endowed with their selves by virtue of possessing a vital body within each physical body, which former is common to, and pervades, each physical body as a whole. Similarly, all creatures are possessed of their selves by virtue of being provided wih the bodies beginning with the mental and ending with the blissful, which successively pervade the preceding ones and which are made up of the elements counting from akasa that are the creations of ignorance. So also are they blessed with their selves by the Self that is common to all, self-existent, the source of space etc., everlasting, unchanging, all-pervading, defined as 'truth, knowledge, and infinite', and beyond the five sheaths. And by implication it is also said that this is the Self of all in the real sense. It has been said that the senses act by following the activity of the vital force. How is that so? This is being answered:- Hi, since, according to another Vedic text, 'Life lasts so long as the vital force resides in the body' (Kau. III. 2); pranah, the vital force; is ayuh, the life; bhutanam, of creatures; therefore, it (the vital force) is ucyata, called; sarvayusam. Sarvayuh, means the life of all; sarvayuh is the same as sarvayusam, the life of all. Since death is a known consequence of the departure of the vital force, the latter is universally recognized as the life of all. Hence those who, after detaching themselves from this external, personal, physical self, meditate on the inner, common vital self as Brahman with the idea, 'I am the vital force that is the self of all beings and their life-being the source of life', get verily the full span of life in this world, i.e. they do not meet with any accidental death before the ordained span of life. The word sarvayuh, (full span of life), should, however, properly mean one hundred years, in accordance with the well-recognized fact in the Vedic text, 'He gets a full span of life' (Ch. II. xi-xx, IV. xi-xiii). What is the reason (of attaining the full life)? Pranah hi bhutanam ayuh tasmat sarvayusam ucyate (see ante). The repetition of the expression pranah, hi etc., is to indicate the ligic of the attainment of the fruit of meditation, to wit:- Anyone who worships Brahman as possessed of certain qualities, himself shares in them. Tasya purvasya, of the physical body described above; esah eva, this verily is; the sarirah atma, the self existing in the body made of food. Which is it? Yah esah that which is this one-constituted by the vital force. The rest beginning with tasmat vai etasmat is to be construed as before. Anyah antarah atma, there is another inner self; manomayah, constituted by mind. Manah means the internal organ comprising volition etc. That which is constituted by mind is manomaya, just as in the case of annamaya. This that is such is the inner self of the vital body. Tasya, of that (mental body); yajuh eva sirah, the Yajurmantras are the head. Yajuh means a kind of mantra in which the number of letters and feet, and length (of lines) are not restricted; the word yajuh denotes (prose) sentences of that class. It is the head because of its preeminence, and the pre-eminence is owing to its subserving a sacrifice directly, for an oblation is offered with a Yajur-mantra uttered along with a svaha etc. Or the imagination of the head etc., everywhere, is only on the authority of the text. (Yajuh is a constituent of the mental sheath) since yajuh is that state of the mind which is related to organs (of utterance), effort (involved in utterance), sound (produced thereby), intonation, letters, words, and sentences; which consists of a volition with regard to these factors; which is pre-occupied wiht their thoughts; which has the organs of hearing etc. for its communication; and which has the characteristics of the Yajur-mantras. Thus are (to be understood) the Rg-mantras, and thus also the Samamantras. In this way, when the mantras are considered as mental states, their mental repetition (japa) becomes possible, since that implies that those states alone are continued in the mind. Else, mental repetition of a mantra would not be possible, since the mantra would then be outside the mind just as much as pot etc;, are. [The words in the mantra would be outside the mind, and as the mind would have no independence with regard to them, there would be no mental repetition of them.] But, as a matter of fact, the repetition of mantras has to be undertaken (since it) is enjoined variously in connection with rites. Objection:- The (mental) repetition of a mantra can be accomplished by the repetition of the memory of letters (constituting it). Answer:- No, since (on that assumption) there is no possibility of repetition in the primary sense. The repetition of Rg-mantra is enjoined in the text, 'The first Rg-mantra is to be repeated thrice and the last Rg-mantra is to be repeated thrice.' That being so, if the Rg-mantras themselves be not made the objects of repetition, and if the repetition of their memory be undertaken, the repetition of the Rg-mantra, in the primary sense, which is enjoined in 'the first Rg-mantra is to be repeated thrice', will be discarded. Hence the (Yajur)mantras are (in the last analysis) nothing but the knowledge of the Self, which is identical with the beginningless and eldless Consciousness that is the Self lodged in and conditioned by the mental functions referred to as Yajus that act as Its limiting adjuncts. Thus is the eternality of the Vedas justifiable. Else, If they are objects like colour etc., they will be impermanent. This is not correct. And the Vedic text, 'where all the Veda get united is the Self in the mind, [Where the Self exists as the witness of all mental functions] (Cit. XI.1, Tai.A. III.ii.1), which declares the identity of the Rgmantras etc., with the eternal Self, can be reconciled only if the mantras are eternal. And there is also the mantra text, 'The Rg-mantras exist in that undecaying and supreme space (Brahman) where all the gods reside' (Sv. IV. 8). Adesah here (means the brahmana portion of the Vedas, since (in consonance with the etymological meaning of adesa, command) the brahmana, portion inculcates all that has to be enjoined. Atharvangirasah, the mantra and the brahmana portions seen by Atharvangirasah; the mantra and the brahmana portions seen by Atharvangiras; are puccham pratistha, the stabililizing tail, since they are chiefly concerned with rites performed for acquiring peace, prosperity, etc., which bring about stability. Pertaining to this is a verse, just as before, which reveals the self that is constituted by the mind.
Max Müller
1. 'The Devas breathe after breath (prâna), so do men and cattle. Breath is the life of beings, therefore it is called sarvâyusha (all-enlivening).' They who worship breath as Brahman, obtain the full life. For breath is the life of all beings, and therefore it is called sarvâyusha. The embodied Self of this (consisting of breath) is the same as that of the former (consisting of food). Different from this, which consists of breath, is the other, the inner Self, which consists of mind. The former is filled by this. It also has the shape of man. Like the human shape of the former is the human shape of the latter. Yagus is its head. Rik is its right arm. Sâman is its left arm. The doctrine (âdesa, i.e. the Brâhmana) is its trunk. The Atharvâṅgiras (Atharva-hymns) the seat (the support). On this there is also the following Sloka:-
One is not subjected to fear at any time if one knows the Bliss that is Brahman failing to reach which (Brahman, as conditioned by the mind), words, along with the mind, turn back. Of that preceding (vital) one, this (mental one is verily the embodied self. As compared with this mental body, there is another internal self constituted by valid knowledge. By that one is this one filled up. This one as aforesaid, has verily a human shape. It is humanly shaped in accordance with the human shape of the earlier one. Of him faith is verily the head; righteousness is the right side; truth is the left side; concentration is the self (trunk); (the principle, called) Mahat, is the stabilising tail. Pertaining to this, here is a verse:-
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Yatah vacah nivartante etc., (For commentary see II. ix). Tasya purvasya, of that preceding one-of the one constituted by the vital force; esah eva atma, this one is verily the self; sarirah, existing in the body-the vital body. Which? yah esah manomayah, that which is constituted by mind. 'Tasmad vai etasmat, as compared with this one' etc.-is to be explained as before-; anyah antarah atma, there is another self that is internal; the intelligence-self exists within the mental-self. It has been mentioned that the mental self consists of the Vedas. The wisdom about the contents of the Vedas, amounting to certitude, is vijnana; and that (vijnana), again, in the form of certitude is a characteristic of the internal organ. Vijnanamayah is the self consisting of such vijnana, and it is constituted by well-ascertained knowledge that is authoritative by nature. For sacrifice etc. are undertaken where there exists knowledge arising from a valid source. And the (next) verse will declare that it is the source of sacrifices. In one who is possessed of well-ascertained knowledge, there arises first sraddha, faith, with regard to the things to be performed. Since that faith precedes all duties, it is the sirah, head, i.e. comparable to a head. Rta and satya, righteousness and truth, are as they have been explained before (I. ix). Yogah is conjunction, concentration. It is the atma, self (the middle part), as it were. Faith etc., like the limbs of a body, become fit for the acquisition of valid knowledge in a man who is possessed of a self by virtue of his concentration. Therefore, yogah, concentration, is the self (i.e. the trunk) of the body constituted by knowledge. Mahah puccham pratistha:- Mahah means the principle called Mahat-the first born, in accordance with another Vedic text, '(He who knows) this Mahat (great), adorable, first-born being (as the Satya-Brahman) [The Cosmic person comprising all gross and subtle things.] (Br. V. iv. 1). It is puccham pratistha, the supporting tail, since it is the cause (of the intelligence-self). For the cause is the support of the effects, as for instance, the earth is of trees and creepers. The principle called Mahat is the cause of all intellectual cognitions. Thereby it becomes the support of the cognitive self (consisting of intelligence). Pertaining to that there occurs this verse, just as before. Just as there are verses expressive of the physical self etc., that are mentioned in the brahmana portion, so also is there a verse with regard to the cognitive one.
Max Müller
1. 'He who knows the bliss of that Brahman, from whence all speech, with the mind, turns away unable to reach it, he never fears! The embodied Self of this (consisting of mind) is the same as that of the former (consisting of breath). Different from this, which consists of mind, is the other, the inner Self, which consists of understanding. The former is filled by this. It also has the shape of man. Like the human shape of the former is the human shape of the latter. Faith is its head. What is right is its right arm. What is true is its left arm. Absorption (yoga) is its trunk. The great (intellect?) is the seat (the support). On this there is also the following Sloka:-
Knowledge actualises a sacrifice, and it executes the duties as well. All the gods meditate on the first-born Brahman, conditioned by knowledge. If one knows the knowledge-Brahman, and if one does not err about it, one abandons all sins in the body and fully enjoys all enjoyable things. Of that preceding (mental) one this (cognitive one) is verily the embodied self. As compared with this cognitive body, there is another internal self constituted by bliss. By that one is this one filled up. This one, as aforesaid, has verily a human shape. It is humanly shaped in accordance with the human shape of the earlier one. Of him joy is verily the head, enjoyment is the right side, hilarity is the left side; bliss is the self (trunk). Brahman is the tail that stabilises. Apropos of this here is a verse:-
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Vijnanam yajnam tanute, knowledge actualizes a sacrifice; for a man of knowledge executes it with faith etc. Hence knowledge is presented as the doer in (the expression) 'Knowledge actualizes the sacrifice'. Ca, and; karmani tanute, it executes the duties (as well). Since everything is a accomplished by knowledge, it is reasonable to say that the cognitive self is Brahman. Moreover, sarve devah, all the gods, Indra and other; upasate, meditate on; vijnanam brahma, Brahman as conditioned by cognition; (which is) jyestham, the first born-since it was born before all or because all actions presuppose it. That is to say, they meditate on that knowledge Brahman, by identifying themselves with it. Hence, through the worship of the Mahat-Brahman (Hiranyagarbha), they become possessed of knowledge and glory. Cet, if; veda, one knows; that vijnanam brahma, Brahman as conditioned by cognition; and not only does one know, but also, cet, if; na pramadyati tasmat, one does not err about that Brahman-does not deviate from that Brahman-. Since one is prone to thinking the external non-Selves as the Self, there arises the possibility of swerving from the thought of the knowledge-Brahman as identified with one's Self; in order to bar out that possibility, the text says, 'If one does not err about that Brahman', that is to say, if one has eschewed all ideas of identity of the physical selves etc. with his own Self and goes on thinking of the knowledge-Brahman only as his Self-. What will happen thereby? The answer is:- sarire papmanah hitva, abandoning all sins in the body-. All sins are verily caused by the identification of oneself with the body. And on the analogy of the removal of the shade, on the removal of the umbrella, their eradication is possible when their cause is removed as a result of the indentification of oneself with the knowledge-Brahman. Therefore, having abandoned in the body itself, all the sins which arise from the body, which are caused by the indentification of oneself with the body, and becoming identified with the knoweldge-Brahman (i.e. Hiranyagarbha), one samasnute, fully attains, i.e. fully enjoys, through the cognitive self itself; sarvan kaman, all the desirable things that there are in the knowledge Brahman. Tasya purvasya, of that preceding one, of the mental self; esah eva atma, this is verily the self, that is lodged in the mental sarira, body, and is hence the sarirah, embodied. Which? Yah esah, that which is this; vijnanamayah, the cognitive one. Tasmat vai etasmat etc. is as already explained. From the context and form the use of the suffix, mayat (made of), it is to be understood that a conditioned self is implied by the word anandamayah (made of bliss). Indeed, the conditioned selves-made of food etc.- which are material, are dealt with here. And this self made of bliss also is included in that context. Besides, the suffix mayat is used here in the sense of transmutation (and not abundance) as in the case of annamaya. Hence the anandamaya is to be understood as a conditioned self. This also follows from the fact of samkramana (attaining). The text will say, 'He attains the self made of bliss' (II. viii. 5). And the conditioned selves that are not the Self are seen to be attained. Moreover, the self made of bliss is mentioned in the text as the object of the act of attaining, just as it is in the text, annamayam atmanam upasamkramati, he attains the self made of food (II. viii. 5). Besides, the (unconditioned) Self Itself is not attainable, since such an attainment is repugnant to the trend of the passage and it is impossible. For the (unconditioned) Self cannot be attained by the Self Itself, inasmuch as there is no division within the Self, and Brahman (the goal) is the Self of the attainer. Moreover, (on the supposition that the unconditioned Self is spoken of), the fancying of head etc., becomes illogical. For such imagination of limbs, head, etc., is not possible in that (Self) which has the characteristics mentioned earlier, which is the cause of space etc., and which is not included in the category of effects. And this is borne out by such Vedic texts, denying distinctive attributes in the Self, as the following:- '(Whenever an aspirant gets fearlessly established) in this unperceivable, bodiless, inexpressible, and unsupporting (Brahman)' (II. vii), 'it is neither gross nor minute' (Br. III. viii. 8), 'The Self is that which has been descried as "not this", "not this"' (Br. III. ix. 26). This also follows from the illogicality (otherwise) of quoting the (succeeding) mantra; surely, the quotation of the mantra, 'If anyone knows Brahman as non-existing, he himself becomes non-existent' (II. vi. 1), cannot be justified, since the doubt that 'Brahman does not exist)' cannot arise with regard to Brahman which is directly perceived as the self made of bliss and possessed of such limbs as joy for its head and so on. Besides, it is unjustifiable to refer separately to Brahman as the stabilizing tail in, 'Brahman is the stabilizing tail'. So the anandamaya (made of bliss, or blissful) (atma, self) belongs to the category of effects; it is not the supreme Self. Ananda (bliss) is an effect of meditation and rites, and anandamaya is constituted by that bliss. And this self is more internal than the cognitive self, since it has been shown by the Upanisad to be indwelling the cognitive self which is the cause of sacrifices etc. Inasmuch as the fruit of meditation and rites is meant for the enjoyer, it must be the inmost of all; and the blissful self is the inmost as compared with the earlier ones. Further, this follows from the fact that meditation and rites are meant for the acquisition of joy etc.; indeed, meditation and rites are promted by (the desire for) joy etc. Thus since joy etc., which are the fruits ( of rites and meditation), are nearer to the Self, it is logical that they should be within the cognitive self; for the blissful self, revived by [I.e. associated with.] the impression of joy etc., is perceived in dream to be dependent on the cognitive self. ['The self possessed of joy etc. is not the primary self, since it is perceived by the witness-Self in dream'-A.G.] Tasya, of him, of the self made of bliss; the priyam, joy-arising from seeing such beloved objects as a son; is the sirah, head-comparable to a head, because of its preeminence. Modah, enjoyment, means the happiness that follows the acquisition of an object of desire. When that enjoyment reaches it acme it is pramodah, exhilaration. Anandah, Bliss-pleasure in general, is the soul (trunk) of the different limbs, (i.e. expressions) of happiness in the form of joy etc., for this ananda, (i.e. common Bliss) permeates them all. Ananda (Bliss) is supreme Brahman; for it is Brahman which manifests Itself in the various mental modifications, when such limiting adjuncts as the particular objects like a son, a friend, etc. are presented by the (past) good deeds and the mind, freed from tamas (gloom, darkness, etc.), becomes placid. And this is well known in the world as objective happiness. This happiness is momentary, since the result of past deeds that brings about those particular modifications of the mind is unstable. That being so, in proportion as that mind becomes purified through meditation, continence, and faith, so much do particular joys attain excellence and gain in volume in that calm and free mind. And this Upanisad will say, 'That is verily the source of joy; for one becomes happy by coming in contact with that source of joy. This one, indeed, enlivens people' (II. vii). There is also this other Vedic text to the point, 'On a particle of this very Bliss other beings live' (Br. IV. iii. 32). Thus, too, it will be said that bliss increases a hundredfold in every successive stage, in proportion to the perfection of detachment from desires (II. viii). [If the increase of bliss were dependent on things alone, the Upanisad would not have spoken of bliss with reference to a man of detachment as it does in fact in II. viii. In reality, bliss becomes higher in proportion as the heart becomes purer, calm, and more freed from objects, whereby it becomes abler to reflect the Bliss that is Brahman.] Thus, speaking from the standpoint of the knowledge of the Supreme Brahman, Brahman is certainly the highest as compared with the blissful self that attains excellence gradually. The Brahman under discussion-which is difined as 'Truth, knowledge, infinite' (II. i), for whose realization have been introduced the five sheaths, commencing with the one made of food, which is the inmost of them all, and by which they become endowed with their selves (being)-that brahma, Brahman; is puccham pratistha, the tail that stabilizes. Again, that very nondual Brahman, which is the farthest limit of all negation of duality superimposed by ignorance, is the support (of the blissful self), for the blissful self culminates in unity. (It follows, therefore, that) there does exist that one, non-dual Brahman, as the farthest limit of the negation of duality called up by ignorance, and this Brahman supports (the duality) like a tail. Illustrative of this fact, too, here is a verse:-
Max Müller
1. 'Understanding performs the sacrifice, it performs all sacred acts. All Devas worship understanding as Brahman, as the oldest. If a man knows understanding as Brahman, and if he does not swerve from it, he leaves all evils behind in the body, and attains all his wishes.' The embodied Self of this (consisting of understanding) is the same as that of the former (consisting of mind). Different from this, which consists of understanding, is the other inner Self, which consists of bliss. The former is filled by this. It also has the shape of man. Like the human shape of the former is the human shape of the latter. joy is its head. Satisfaction its right arm. Great satisfaction is its left arm. Bliss is its trunk. Brahman is the seat (the support). On this there is also the following Sloka:-
If anyone knows Brahman as non-existing, he himself becomes non-existent. If anyone knows that Brahman does exist, then they consider him as existing by virtue of that (knowledge). Of that preceding (blissful) one, this one is the embodied self. Hence hereafter follow these questions:- After departing (from here) does any ignorant man go to the other world (or does he not) ? Alternatively, does any man of knowledge, after departing (from here) reach the other world (or does he not) ? He (the Self) wished, “Let me be many, let me be born. He undertook a deliberation. Having deliberated, he created all this that exists. That (Brahman), having created (that), entered into that very thing. And having entered there, It became the formed and the formless, the defined and the undefined, the sustaining and the non-sustaining, the sentient and the insentient, the true and the untrue. Truth became all this that there is. They call that Brahman Truth. Pertaining to this, there occurs this verse:-
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Sah he; bhavati, becomes; asan eva, non-existing indeed-like something non-existent; just as a nonentity has no relation wiht any human objective, similarly, he remains dissociated from the human objective (viz liberation). Who is that? He who, cet, perchance; veda, knows; brahma, Brahman; asat iti, as non-existing. As opposed to that, cet veda, if he known; That-that Brahman, which is the basis of all diversification and the seed of all activity, though in Itself It is devoid of all distinctions; asti iti, does exist, (then the knowers of Brahman consider him as existing). Why, again, should there be any apprehension of Its non-existence? We say that (this is so, because) Brahman is beyond all empirical relationships. The intellect that is prone to think of existence with regard to only the empirical objects having speech alone as their substance, may assume nonexistence with regard to anything that is opposed to this and is transcendental. For instance, it is well-known that a pot, comprehended as a thing that man can deal with, is true, while anything of an oppsite natural is false. Thus, by a parity of reasoning, there may arise here also an apprehension of the non-existence of Brahman. Therefore it is said, 'If anyone knows that Brahman does exist'. What again, will happen to one who knows Brahman as existing? That is being answered:- Tatah, because of that realization of exisence; the knowers of Brahman viduh, know; enam, this one-who has this realization; as santam, existing- identified with the Self that is absolutely real,-, by virtue of his having become one with the Brahman that exists. The idea is that he becomes worthy to be known by others, just as Brahman is. Or (the alternative meaning is):- If a man thinks, 'Brahman is nonexistence', then that man, because of his faithlessness the entire righteous path consisting of the scheme of castes, stages of life, etc., becomes non-existent inasmch as that path is not calculated to lead him to Brahman. Hence this atheist is called asat, unrighteous-in this world. As opposed to such a man, if anyone knows that 'Brahman does exist', then, he, because of his faith, accepts properly the righteous path comprising the scheme of castes, stages of life, etc. and leading to the realization of Brahman. Since this is so, tatah, therefore; the good people know this one as santam, treading the righteous path. The purport of the sentence is:- Because of this fact, Brahman is to be accepted as surely existing. Tasya purvasya, of the preceding one-of the cognitive one; esah eva, this one, indeed; is sarirah atma, the self existing in the body made of knowledge. Which is that? Yah esah, that which is this one-the self made of bliss. As to this self there is no apprehension of non-existence. But Brahman's non-existence may be suspected, since It is devoid of all distinctions, and since it is common to all. [Since Brahman pervades eveything, Its utility should be perceptible at every turn. But actually this is not so. Hence Its existence can be questioned. But the anandamaya's (the blisful self's) existence is not doubted in this sense. Hence anandamaya is not the subject-matter of the verse quoted above.] Since this is so, atah, therefore; atha, afterwards; there are these anuprasnah:- prasnah means questions, by the disciple who is the hearer, and anu means after; the questions after what the teacher has spoken are the anuprasnah. Brahman, being the cause of space etc., is equally common to the man of knoweldge and the ignorant. Therefore, it may be suspected that the ignorant. Therefore, it may be suspected that the ignorant man, too, reaches Brahman. Uta has the meaning of api (used in introducing a question). Cana is used in the sense of api (implying even). Pretya, departing, from here; does kah cana avidvan, evev one who is ignorant; gacchati, reach; amum lokam, that world-the supreme Self? The question, 'Or does he not go?' is implied because of the use of the plural number in 'anuprasnah, questions put after the teacher's instruction.' The remaining two questions are with regard to the inlightened man. It the ignorant man fails to reach Brahman, though It is the common source of all, then the attainment of Brahman by an enlightened man may as well be doubted. Hence with regard to him is the question:- Aho vidvan etc. Does kah cit, someone; who is a vidvan, an enlightened man, a knower of Brahman; pretya, departing, from here; amum lokam samasnute, reach the other world? In the expression samasnute u, the e (in te) is replaced by ay, of which the y having been dropped out, the a becomes lengthened, and the expression becomes samasnuta u. And the letter u, occuring later, should be transferred from the bottom and the letter ta should be detached from uta, occuring earlier, (to form a new word uta). Placing this (new) uta before the word aho, the question is being put:- 'Uta aho vidvan.... Or does the enlightened man attain the other world?' The other question is:- 'Or does the enlightened man not attain it, just as the ignorant man does not?' Alternatively, there are only two questions relating to the enlightened and the unenlightened men. But the plural occurs with reference to other questions that may crop up by implication. From hearing, 'If one knows Brahman, as nonexisting', and 'If one knows that Brahman does exist', the doubt arises as to whether It exists or does not exist. From that, by implication, crops up this first question after the teacher's instruction:- 'Does Brahman exist or does It not?' The second one is:- 'Since Brahman is impartial, does the unenlightened man reach It or does he not?' Even if Brahman is equal to all, Its non-attainment in the case of the enlightened man can be suspected as much as much as in the case of the unelightened one; and hence the third question following on the teacher's instruction, is, 'Does the man of knowledge attain or does he not?' The succeeding text is introduced for answering these questions. Apropos of this, existence is being first spoken of. It remains to be explained as to what kind of truth is meant in the assertion that was made thus:- 'Brahman is truth, knowledge, infinite'. Hence it is being said:- Brahman's truth is affirmed by speaking of Its existence; for it has been asserted that the existing is the true (an echo of Ch. VI. ii. 1). Therefore, the very affirmation of existence amounts to an avowal of reality. How is it known that this text bears such as import? From the trend of the words of this text. For the succeeding sentences such as, 'They call that (Brahman) Truth' (II. vi), '(Who indeed will inhale and who exhale) if this Bliss (Brahman) be not there in the supreme space (within the heart)?', are connected with this very purport. Objection:- While on this topic, the suspicion arises that Brahman is surely non-existent. Why? Because whatever exists is perceived as possessed of distinctive attributes, as for instance a pot etc. Whatever is nonexistent is not perceived, as for instance the horn of a hare etc. Similarly, Brahman is not perceived. So It does not exist, since It is not perceived as possessed of distinguishing attributes. Answer:- This is not tenable, since Brahman is the cause of space etc. It is not a fact that Brahman does not exist. Why? Since all the products issuing from Brahman, such as space etc., are perceived. It is a matter of common experience in this world that any thing from which something is produced does exist, as for instance, earth, seed, etc., which are the causes of a pot, a sprout, etc. So Brahman does exist, since It is the cause of space etc. And, no effect is perceived in this world as having been produced from a nonentity. If such effects as name and form had originated from a nonentity, they should not have been perceived since they have no reality. But they are perceived. Hence Brahman exists. Should any effect originate from a nonentity, it should remain soaked in unreality even while being perceived. But facts point otherwise. Therefore Brahman exists. Pertaining to this another Vedic text - 'How can a thing that exists come out of a thing that does not?' (Ch. VI. ii. 2)-points out logically the impossiblity of the creation of something out of nothing. Therefore, it stands to reason that Brahman is verily a reality. Objection:- Should that Brahman be a cause like earth, seed, etc., It will be insentient. Answer:- No, since It is capable of desiring. Certainly it is not a matter of experience that one who can desire can be insentient. We have said that Brahman is indeed omniscient; and so it is but reasonable that It should be capable of desiring. Objection:- Since Brahman has desires, It has unfulfilled desires like ourselves. Answer:- Not so, for It is independent. Such defects as desire cannot impel Brahman (to action) just as they do others by subjecting them to their influence. What then are these (desires of Brahman)? They are by nature truth and knowledge, and they are pure by virtue of their identity with Brahman. [Brahman, as reflected on Maya, is the material cause of the world, and It is possessed of desires that are the modifications of Maya. But these modifications are not distinguishable from truth and knowledge, since they are permeated by Consciousness that is not subject to ignorance etc.; and they are pure, since they are untouched by unrigtheousness etc. by virtue of their non-distinction from Brahman.'-A.G.] Brahman is not impelled to action by them. But Brahman ordains them in accordance with the results of actions of the creatures. Therefore, Brahman has dependence with regard to desires. So Brahman has no want. And this follows also from the fact of Brahman's non-dependence on any other means. Further, Brahman has no dependence on accessories etc., as others have whose desires are not identified with themselves but are dependent on such causes as righteousness, and require the extraneous body and senses as their instruments. How do they exist then (in Brahman)? They are non-different from Itself. ['Since Maya, as possessed of the impressions of desires, has identity with Brahman (through superimposition), the desires, too, that are the modifications of this Maya, have identity with Brahman. Therefore, there is no need for a physical body etc. (for making possible the existence of desires in Brahman, as it is in our case)'-A.G.] That fact is stated in sah akamayata:- sah, the Self from which space originated; akamayata, desired. How? Bahu syam:- syam, I shall become; bahu, many. Objection:- How can the One become many, unless It enters into something else? The answer is, 'prajayeya, I shall be born'. The multiplication here does not refer to becoming something extraneous as one does by begetting a son. How then? Through the manifestation of name and form that are latent in Itself. When name and form existing latently in the Self get manifested, they evolve-by retaining their intrinsic nature as the Self under all conditions-in time and space which are inseparable from Brahman. Then that evolution of name and form is (what is called) the appearence of Brahman as the many. In no other way is it possible for the partless Brahman to become either multiple or finite; as for instance, the finitude and plurality of space are surely the creations of extraneous factors. Hence the Self becomes multiple through these alone. For no such subtle, disconnected and remote thing exists as a non-Self, in the past, present, or future, which is different from the Self and separated from It by time or space. Therefore, it is only because of Brahman that name and form have their being under all circumstances, but Brahman does not consist of them. They are said to be essentially Brahman, since they cease to exist when Brahman is eliminated. And, conditioned by these two limiting adjuncts, Brahman becomes a factor in all emperical dealings involving such words as knower, knowable and knowledge, as also their implications etc. Having such a desire, sah, He-that Self; tapah, atapyata:- by tapah is meant knowledge since another Vedic text says, 'He whose tapah consists of knowledge' (Mu.I.i.9), and since the other kind of tapah (austerity) is out of place in one in whom all desires remain fulfilled. That kind of tapah, knowledge; he atapyata, practised. The idea is that the Self reflected on the plan etc. of the world being created. Sah tapah taptva, He, having reflected thus; asrjata, created, in consonance with such contributory factors as the results of actions of creatures; idam sarvam, all this; yat idam kim ca, whatever there is, without any exception-this universe, together with space, time, name, and form as He perceived it, and as it is perceived by all beings under various circumstences. Brahman, srstva, having created; tat, that, this world; -what did He do? the answer is-tat eva, into that very world, which had been created; anupravisat, He entered. With regard to this, it is a matter for consideration as to how He entered. Did the Creator enter in that very form of His or in some other form? Which is the reasonable position? Pseudo-Vedantin:- From the use of the suffix ktva(-ing), it follows that the Creator Himself entered. [Grammar indicates that the finite verb and the verb ending with ktva (- ing), in the same sentence, refer to the same nominative.] Objection:- Is that not illogical, since on the supposition that Brahman is a (material) cause in the same sense as clay is (of pot etc.), the effects are non-different from Brahman? For it is the cause that becomes transformed into the effect. Hence it is illogical that, after the production of the effect, the cause should enter over again into the effect as a separate entity, as though it had not done so already. [The action denoted by the verb having the suffix ktva precedes the action of the finite verb. This is not possible here, since the production of the effect and the entry of the cause into it are simultaneous.] Apart from being shaped into a pot, the clay has no other entry into the pot, to be sure. Pseudo-Vedantin:- Just as earth, in the form of dust, enters into a pot (made of earth), similarly, the Self can enter into name and form under some other guise. And this also follows from another Vedic text, 'By entering in the form of the soul of each individual being....' (Ch. VI. iii. 2). Objection:- This is not proper, since Brahman is one. In the case of earth, however, it is possible to enter into a pot in the form of dust, since lumps of earth are many and have parts, and since powder of earth has places still unoccupied by it. In the case of the Self, however, there cannot possibly be any entry, since It is one at the same time that It has no dimension and has nowhere to enter into. Pseudo-Vedantin:- What kind of entry will it be then? And, the fact of entry has to be upheld in view of the Upanisadic statement:- 'He entered into that very thing.' That being so, Brahman may as well have dimensions, and having dimensions, it is but proper that Brahman's entry in the form of an individual soul into name and form should be like that of a hand into the mouth. Objection:- No, since there is no empty space. For Brahman, which has become transformed into effects, has no other space-apart from that occupied by the effects, consisting of name and form-which is devoid of It and into which It can enter as an individual soul. Should It (i.e. Brahman as the individual soul) enter into the cause (viz Brahman as name and form), [Brahman is the common cause of eveything including the individual souls. Now, the individual soul may enter into Brahman which, though transformed as name and form, is still its cause.], It will cease to be an individual soul, just as a pot ceases to be a pot on entering into (i.e. on being reduced to) earth. Hence the text, 'He entered into that very thing', cannot justifiably imply into the cause. Pseudo-Vedantin:- Let (the entry be into) another effect. The text, 'He entered into that very thing', means that one effect, viz the individual soul, entered into another effect made of name and form. Objection:- No, since this involves a contradiction; for a pot does not become merged into another pot. Besides, this runs counter to the Vedic texts that speak of their distinction; so, the Vedic texts that reaffirm the difference of the individual soul from the effect, name and form, will be contradicted. Furthermore, if the soul merges into name and form, liberation will be impossible. It does not stand to reason that one merges into what one tries to get freed from. A chained thief does not enter into fetters. [The freedom of a thief, when captured, does not lie in his entering into the fetters.] Pseudo-Vedantin:- Suppose Brahman is transformed into two parts, external and internal. To explain, that very Brahman which is the cause, has become diversified as the receptacle in the shape of body etc., and as the thing contained in the shape of the embodied soul. Objection:- No, for entry is possible only for what is outside. Not that a thing which is (naturally) contained within another is said to have entered there. The entry should be of something that is outside, for the word entry (pravesa) is seen to carry that sense, as for instance in the sentence, 'He entered into the house after erecting it.' Pseudo-Vedantin:- The entry may be like that of the reflections of the sun etc. in water. Objection:- No, since Brahman is not limited, and since It has no configuration. A distinct thing that is limited and has features can be a production of reflection on something else which is by nature transparent, as for istance, the sun etc. can be reflected on water; but of the Self there can be no reflection, since It has no form. Moreover, the entry of the Self in the form of a reflection is not possible, since the Self is all-pervasive, being the cause of space etc., and since there is no other substance which can hold the Self's reflection by being placed somewhere unconnected with the Self. This being so, there is no entry whatsoever. Nor do we find any other interpretation possible for the text, 'He entered into that very thing.' And a Vedic text is meant to enligthen us about supersensuous realities. But from this sentence, not even diligent people can derive any enlightenment. Well, then, this sentence, 'Having created it, He entered into that very thing,' has to be discarded, since it conveys no meaning. Vedantin's answer:- No, (it need not be discarded). As the sentence bears a different meaning, why should there be this discussion that is out of context? You should remember the other meaning which is implied in this sentence and which is the subject under discussion here, as stated in the text:- 'The knower of Brahman attains the highest......Brahman is truth, knowledge and infinite....He who knows (that Brahman) as existing in the intellect (lodged in the supreme space in the heart)' (II. i). The knowledge of that Brahman is sought to be imparted, and that is also the topic under discussion. And the effects, beginning with space and ending with the body made of food, have been introdued with a view to acquiring the knowledge of the nature of that Brahman, and the topic started with is also the knowledge of Brahman. Of these, the self made of the vital force indwells and is different from the self made of food; within that is the self made of mind and the self made of intellect. Thus (by stages) the Self has been made to enter into the cavity of the intellect. And there, again, has been presented a distinct self that is made of bliss. After this, through the comprehension of the blissful self which acts as a pointer (to the Bliss-Brahman), one has to realize, within this very cavity (of the heart), that Self as the culmination of the growth of bliss, which is Brahman (conceived of) as the stabilizing tail (of the blissful self), which is the support of all modifications and which is devoid of all modifications. it is with this idea that the entry of the Self is imagined. Inasmuch as Brahman has no distinctive attribute, It cannot be realized anywhere else. It is a matter of experience that knowledge of a thing is dependent on its particular associations. Just as the knowledge of Rahu arises from its associations with the distinct entities, the sun, and the moon, [Rahu is a mythological being that has no limb except a head. During eclipses it swallows the sun or the moon, and then alone we are conscious of its existence] similarly, the association of the Self with the cavity of the internal organ causes the knowledge of Brahman, for the internal organ has proximity (to the Self) and the nature of illumination. Just as pot etc. are perceived when in contact with light, so also the Self is perceived when in contact with the light of intellectual conviction. [A thing becomes illumined with the light of knowledge, only when the internal organ is in contact with it, but not otherwise. A reflecting medium must be transparent enough to catch an image properly. The intellect alone can reflect the Self best. Again, light removes darkness, though both are insentient, similarly, intellectual conviction removes ignorance, though both are insentient. The intellect cannot reveal Brahman objectively.] Hence, it suits the context to say that the Self is lodged in the cavity of the intellect which is the cause of Its experience. In the present passage, however, which is a sort of elaboration of that theme, the same idea is repeated in the form, 'Having created it, He entered into that very thing.' Tat, that very Brahman Itself-which is the cause of space; and which, srstva, after creating the effect, has entered into the creation, as it were, is perceived within the cavity of intellect, as possessed of such distinctions as being a seer, a hearer, a thinker, a knower, etc. That, indeed, is Its entry. Hence Brahman, as the cause of this (phenomenon), must exist. Accordingly, just because It exists, It should surely be apprehended as such. What did It do after entering the creation? It abhavat, became; sat ca, the formed (gross); tyat ca, and the formless (subtle). The formed and the formless, existing in the Self in their state of unmanifested name and form, are manifested by the indwelling Self; and even when manifested and known as the formed and the formless, they still continue to be inseparable from the Self in time and space. Having this fact in view, it is said that the Self became these two. Moreover, the (Self became) niruktam and aniruktam ca, the definable and the undefinable. Nirukta is that which is definable as 'this is that', by distinguishing it from things of its own class as also from things of other classes, and by associating it with a certain time and space. Anirukta is its opposite. Nirukta and anirukta, too, are but attributes of the formed and the formless. Just as the formed and the formless are the visible and invisible, so also are the nilayanam ca anilayanam ca, the sustaining and the non-sustaining. Nilayana means a nest, that which supports; and this is an attribute of the formed. Anilayana, a non-supporting thing-is opposed to that (nilayana) and is an attribute of the formless. Though 'invisible', 'undefinable', and 'nonsupporting' are the attributes of the formless, they relate only to the manifested state, for they are referred to in the Vedas as occuring after creation. By tyat, the formless, are meant the vital force etc. which are inexpressible, and it is non-sustaining as well. So, all these adjectives belonging to the formless, relate to the manifested (created). Vijnanam is sentient, and avijnanam is devoid of that (sentience), insentient stone etc. It follows from the context that satyam is truth falling within the range of the empirical, and not absolute truth. For the absolute truth is only one, which is Brahman. But here the relative truth, as found in the empirical world, is referred to; as for instance, water is said to be true in comparison with the water in a mirage which is false. Anrtam, untruth, is the opposite of that. Again, what is it that abhavat,became, all this? That which is satyam, the absolute truth. What is that, again? It is Brahman; for it is Brahman that has been introuced as the topic of discussion by the sentence, 'Brahman is truth, knowledg, infinite.' The knowers of Brahman acaksate, call It; satyam, truth; because it is the one Brahman, called satya, truth, that abhavat, became; yat kim ca idam, all this that there is-all modifications, without any exception, starting with the visible and the invisible, all of which are the features of the formed and the formless-, there being no existence for any of these modifications of name and form apart form that Brahman. The question that was mooted after the teacher's instruction concerned existence and nonexistence. As an answer to this, it has been said that the Self desired, I shall become many.' After creating, in accordance with His wish, such products as space etc. which are characterized as the visible and invisible etc., and then entering into them, He became many through His acts of seeing, hearing thinking, and knowing. Hence it is implied thereby that this Self must be accepted as existing, since It is the cause of space etc., exists in this creation, is lodged in the supreme space within the cavity of the heart, and is perceived through Its diverse reflections on the mental concepts. [The mental concepts are 'I am a doer', 'I am an enjoyer', etc.; and these, again, being the different appearances of the light of the Self, reveal the Self in Its conditioned form, and not in Its unconditioned essence.] Tat, pertaining to this-concerning this idea expressed in the brahmana portion; esah slokah bhavati, occurs this verse. Just as in the preceding five chapters occured verses expressive of the selves, counting from the one constituted by food, so, too, is there this verse which indicates through Its effects the existence of the Self as the inmost of all.
Max Müller
1. 'He who knows the Brahman as non-existing, becomes himself non-existing. He who knows the Brahman as existing, him we know himself as existing.' The embodied Self of this (bliss) is the same as that of the former (understanding). Thereupon follow the questions of the pupil:- 'Does any one who knows not, after he has departed this life, ever go to that world? Or does he who knows, after he has departed, go to that world [1]?' The answer is:- He wished, may I be many [2], may I grow forth. He brooded over himself (like a man performing penance). After he had thus brooded, he sent forth (created) all, whatever there is. Having sent forth, he entered into it. Having entered it, he became sat (what is manifest) and tyat (what is not manifest), defined and undefined, supported and not supported, (endowed with) knowledge and without knowledge (as stones), real and unreal [3]. The Sattya (true) became all this whatsoever, and therefore the wise call it (the Brahman) Sat-tya (the true). On this there is also this Sloka:-
Footnotes
1. As he who knows and he who knows not, are both sprung from Brahman, the question is supposed to be asked by the pupil, whether both will equally attain Brahman. 2. 3.
In the beginning all this was but the Unmanifested (Brahman). From that emerged the manifested. That Brahman created Itself by Itself. Therefore It is called the self-creator. That which is known as the self-creator is verily the source of joy; for one becomes happy by coming in contact with that source of joy. Who, indeed, will inhale, and who will exhale, if this Bliss be not there in the supreme space (within the heart). This one, indeed, enlivens (people). For whenever an aspirant gets fearlessly established in this un-perceivable, bodiless, inexpressible, and un-supporting Brahman, he reaches the state of fearlessness. For, whenever the aspirant creates the slightest difference in It, he is smitten with fear. Nevertheless, that very Brahman is a terror to the (so-called) learned man who lacks the unitive outlook. Illustrative of this is this verse here:-
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Asat vai idam agre asit, in the beginning all this was but the unmanifested (Brahman). By the word "asat" is meant the unmanifested state of Brahman as contrasted with the state in which distinctions of name and form become manifested. Not that absolute non-existence (the root meaning of the word, asat) is meant, for the existent cannot come out of the non-existent. Idam, this standing for the manifested world possessed of the distinctions of name and form; agre, in the beginning-before creation; asit asat, was but Brahman that could be called asat. Tatah, from that-from that Unmanifested; vai, indeed; sat, that which is distinguished by manifested name and form; ajayata, was born. Is the effect entirely separate from that (cause), just as a son is from the father? The answer is being given negatively:- Tat, that which is called the Unmanifested (Brahman); svayam, Itself; akuruta, created; atmanam, Itself. Since this is so, tasmat, therefore; tat, that Brahman Itself; ucyate, is called. the sukrtam, self-creator. [Sukrtam (standing for svakrta) should mean 'self-created'. But Sankara takes it as a Vedic licence for 'self-creator'.-A.G.] By virtue of being the cause of everything, Brahman is well recognized in this world as the self-creator. Or, since Brahman Itself created everything by virtue of Its being everything, therefore that very Brahman, which is the cause from the standpoint of virtue as well, is called sukrta (merit). [Sukra (lit. well-done) means merit, which is one of the causes of creation.] At all events, whether the meaning of sukrta be 'merit' or it be the other one (self-creator), that cause which brings (one) into association etc. with a result is familiarly known in the world as sukrta. That well known fact is possibly only if there is an eternal consciousness acting as the cause. Hence, from the well known fact of sukrta, it follows that Brahman exists. It exists because of this further reason. Of which reason? Since It is the source of joy. How is Brahman well known as the source of joy? The answer is:- Yat vai tat sukrtam, that which is known as the self-creator; rasah vai sah, is verily the rasah, (a source of joy). Rasah stands for anything that is a means for satisfaction, i.e. a source of joy, such as sweet and sour things which are well known to be so in the world. Rasam labdhva, getting a thing of joy; ayam bhavati, one becomes; anandi, happy. A nonentity is not seen in this world to be a cause of happiness. Inasmuch as those Brahmanas who have realized Brahman are seen to be as happy as one is from obtaining an external source of joy-though, in fact, they do not take help of any external means of happiness, make no effort, and cherish no desire-, it follows, as a matter of course, that Brahman is, indeed, the source of their joy. Hence there does exist that Brahman which is full of joy [Taking the expression, rasavat, to mean 'like a juice, i.e. like a sweet thing' (instead of 'full of joy'), the concluding portion may be translated thus:- '....Brahman which is the spring of their happiness just as a sweet thing is.'] and is the spring of their happiness. Brahman exists because of this additional reason. Of which? Since such actions as exhaling are seen. This body, too, of a living being, exhales through that function of the vital force called prana and inhales through that other called apana. Thus are the body and senses, in their association, seen to perform their vital and organic functions. This coming into association for serving a common purpose is not possible unless there is a sentient being which is not a part of this conglomeration. For such is not the case anywhere else. [Building materials themselves, for instance, do not erect a structure. A house stands here because somebody built it and yet did not form a part of it] That fact is being stated:- yat, if; esah anandah this Bliss; na syat, should not be there; akase, in the (supreme) space that is lodged in the cavity of the heart; then in this world, kah hi eva, who indeed; anyat, would inhale, i.e. perform the function of apana; or kah pranyat, who would exhale, i.e. perform the function of prana? Therefore that Brahman, for whose purpose there are such activities of the body and senses, as exhaling etc., does exist; and the happiness of people is caused by That itself. How? Esah hi eva, this one, this supreme Self, indeed; anandayati (i.e. anandayati), enlivens-people, in accordance with their merit. The idea is this:- That very Self, which is Bliss by nature, is thought of as limited and diversified by poeple because of their ignorance. The Brahman exists as the cause of fear and fearlessness of the men of ignorance and knowledge (respectively). For fearlessness comes as a result of taking refuge in something that exists, whereas fear cannot cease by resorting to some thing that does not exist. How does Brahman become the cause of fearlessness? The answer is:- Hi, since; yada eva, at the very time; that esah, this one-an aspirant; etasmin, in this one-in Brahman-. (In Brahman) of what kind? Adrsye:- drsya is anything that is meant to be seen, that is to say, any modification; for a modification is meant to be perceived; what is not a drsya is adrsya, i.e. changeless. In this adrsye, changeless, that which is not an object of cognition. Anatmye, in the unembodied. Since It is imperceptible, It is incorporeal. Since It is incorporeal, It is aniruktam, inexpressible. Anything possessed of attributes can alone be expressed in words,and anything possessed of attributes is mutable, whereas Brahman is changeless, It being the source of all modifications. Hence, It is inexpressible. That being so, It is anilayanam:- nilayana is a nest, refuge; anilayana is the opposite of that; It is without support. The meaning of the sentence is:- (When) in that entity which is this changeless, unembodied, inexpressible, unsustaining Brahman, which is distinct from all the attributes of a product, (the aspirant) vindate, gets; pratistham, stability, Self-absorption; abhayam, in a fearless way-. The word abhayam (fearlessly) is used adverbially (to modify the verb vindate, gets); or it has to be changed in gender to abhayam (fearless) to qualify the noun (pratistham, stability). (When the aspirant gets this fearless stability in Brahman) atha, then; since he does not see diversity which is the creation of ignorance and the cause of fear, therefore, sah, he; abhayam gatah bhavati, becomes established in fearlessness. When he becomes established in his true nature, then he does not see anything else, does not hear anything else, does not know anything else. Someone gets afraid of someone else, but it is not logical that the Self should be afraid of the Self. Hence the Self is the source of fearlessness for the Self. In spite of the existence of the cause of fear, there are Brahmanas to be found who are indeed free of fear from all quarters. This would be unjustifiable if Brahman, the protector from fear were not there. Therefore, from the fact of noticing their fearlessness, it follows that Brahman exists as the source of that intrepidity. When does that aspirant reach fearlessness? When he does not perceive anything else and does not create any antaram, difference, in the Self, then he attains fearlessness. This is the idea. On the contrary, hi, since; yada, when, in the state of ignorance; esah, this one, the ignorant man; sees in the Self something presented by nescience, like the vision of a second moon seen by a man suffering from the eye-disease called timira; and etasmin, in this, in Brahman; kurute, he perceives; ut aram, even a slight; antaram, hole, difference-since the perception of difference is the cause of fear, [Another reading is bhedadarsanam eva hi antarakaranam-'the seeing of difference itself is the creator of difference'.] it means that even if he sees the slightest difference-; atha, then, because of that seeing of difference; bhayam bhavati, fear crops up for this soul that perceives difference. So the Self alone is the cause of fear to the self in the case of an ignorant man. The Upanisad states that very fact here:- Tu nevertheless; tat eva, that very Brahman; is bhayam, a terror; vidusah, to the man of (apparent) learning, who perceives difference; that very Brahman, when perceived through (a sense of) duality and called God, becomes a terror for the (apparently) learned man who knows thus, 'God is different from me, and I am a wordly creature different from God', and who creates the slightest difference. (It becomes a terror) amanvanasya, for him who does not view from the stand point of unity. Accordingly, the man who does not realize the reality that is the Self, which is one and undifferentiated, is surely unenlightened, though he may be learned. Anyone who considers oneself destructible becomes struck with fear at the very sight of a destructive agency. A destroyer (in the ultimate analysis) can be so, only if it is itself indestructible. [The ultimate cause of fear must itself be indestructible, since a contrary supposition will lead to an infinte regress. And such an eternal agent is Brahman.] Now, if there be no cause of destruction, there should be no such fear in the destructible as issues from a perception of a destroyer. The whole world, however, is seen to be sticken with fear. Therefore, from the perceived fact of fear in the world, it follows that there does exist a terrifying thing which is by nature an indestructible agent of destruction, because of which the world shudders. Expressive of this idea, too, there is this verse:-
Max Müller
1. 'In the beginning this was non-existent (not yet defined by form and name). From it was born what exists. That made itself its Self, therefore it is called the Self-made [1].' That which is Self-made is a flavour [2] (can be tasted), for only after perceiving a flavour can any one perceive pleasure. Who could breathe, who could breathe forth, if that bliss (Brahman) existed not in the ether (in the heart)? For he alone causes blessedness. When he finds freedom from fear and rest in that which is invisible, incorporeal, undefined, unsupported, then he has obtained the fearless. For if he makes but the smallest distinction in it, there is fear for him} [3]. But that fear exists only for one who thinks himself wise [4], (not for the true sage.) On this there is also this Sloka:-
Footnotes
1. Cf. Ait. Up. I, 2, 3. 2. As flavour is the cause of pleasure, so Brahman is the cause of all things. The wise taste the flavour of existence, and know that it proceeds from Brahman, the Self-made. See Kaushîtaki-upanishad I, 5; Sacred Books, vol. i, p. 277. 3. Fear arises only from what is not ourselves. Therefore, as soon as there is even the smallest distinction made between our Self and the real Self, there is a possibility of fear. The explanation ud = api, aram = alpam is very doubtful, but recognised in the schools. It could hardly be a proverbial expression, 'if he makes another stomach' meaning as much as, 'if he admits another person.' According to the commentator, we should translate, 'for one who knows (a difference), and does not know the oneness.' 4. I read manvânasya, the commentator amanvânasya.
sa eko mānuṣa ānandaḥ . te ye śataṃ mānuṣā ānandāḥ .. 1..
sa eko manuṣyagandharvāṇāmānandaḥ . śrotriyasya cākāmahatasya .
te ye śataṃ manuṣyagandharvāṇāmānandāḥ .
sa eko devagandharvāṇāmānandaḥ . śrotriyasya cākāmahatasya .
te ye śataṃ devagandharvāṇāmānandāḥ .
sa ekaḥ pitṛṇāṃ ciralokalokānāmānandaḥ .
śrotriyasya cākāmahatasya .
te ye śataṃ pitṛṇāṃ ciralokalokānāmānandāḥ .
sa eka ājānajānāṃ devānāmānandaḥ .. 2..
śrotriyasya cākāmahatasya .
te ye śataṃ ājānajānāṃ devānāmānandāḥ .
sa ekaḥ karmadevānāṃ devānāmānandaḥ .
ye karmaṇā devānapiyanti . śrotriyasya cākāmahatasya .
te ye śataṃ karmadevānāṃ devānāmānandāḥ .
sa eko devānāmānandaḥ . śrotriyasya cākāmahatasya .
te ye śataṃ devānāmānandāḥ . sa eka indrasyā''nandaḥ .. 3..
śrotriyasya cākāmahatasya . te ye śatamindrasyā''nandāḥ .
sa eko bṛhaspaterānandaḥ . śrotriyasya cākāmahatasya .
te ye śataṃ bṛhaspaterānandāḥ . sa ekaḥ prajāpaterānandaḥ .
śrotriyasya cākāmahatasya .
te ye śataṃ prajāpaterānandāḥ .
sa eko brahmaṇa ānandaḥ . śrotriyasya cākāmahatasya .. 4..
Out of His fear the Wind blows. Out of fear the Sun rises. Out of His fear runs Fire, as also Indra, and Death, the fifth. This, then, is an evaluation of that Bliss:- Suppose there is a young man – in the prime of life, good, learned, most expeditious, most strongly built, and most energetic. Suppose there lies this earth for him filled with wealth. This will be one unit of human joy. If this human joy be multiplied a hundred times, it is one joy of the man-Gandharvas, and so also of a follower of the Vedas unaffected by desires. If this joy of the man-Gandharvas be multiplied a hundred times, it is one joy of the divine-Gandharvas, and so also of a follower of the Vedas unaffected by desires. If the joy of the divine-Gandharvas be increased a hundredfold, it is one joy of the manes whose world is everlasting, and so also of a follower of the Vedas unaffected by desires. If the joy of the manes that dwell in the everlasting world be increased a hundredfold, it is one joy of those that are born as gods in heaven, and so also of a follower of the Vedas untouched by desires. If the joy of those that are born as gods in heaven be multiplied a hundredfold, it is one joy of the gods called the Karma-Devas, who reach the gods through Vedic rites, and so also of a follower of the Vedas unaffected by desires. If the joy of the gods, called the Karma-Devas, be multiplied a hundredfold, it is one joy of the gods, and so also of a follower of the Vedas untarnished by desires. If the joy of the gods be increased a hundred times, it is one joy of Indra, and so also of a follower of the Vedas unaffected by desires. If the joy of Indra be multiplied a hundredfold, it is one joy of Brihaspati and so also of a follower of the Vedas unaffected by desires. If the joy of Brihaspati be increased a hundred times, it is one joy of Virat, and so also of a follower of the Vedas untarnished by desires. If the joy of Virat be multiplied a hundred times, it is one joy of Hiranyagarbha, and so also of a follower of the Vedas unsullied by desires.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Bhisa, through fear; asmat, of Him; vatah pavate, (the god of) Wind blows. Bhisa, through fear; udeti, rises; suryah, the Sun. Bhisa asmat, through fear of Him; dhavati, runs; agnih ca indrah ca, Fire as also Indra; (and) mrtyuh pancamah, Death, the fifth. Since Wind etc., greatly adorable and lordly though they themselves are, engage regularly in such highly strenuous works as blowing, it is reasonable to conclude that this is possible on the supposition of a ruler different from them, because of whom they have their disciplined activity. Since they engage (in their duties) out of fear of this Brahman, just as servants do out of fear of a king, therefore, Brahman does exist as their ruler as a terrifying entity. And that Brahman, the source of fear, is Bliss. Esa bhavati, this is; mimamsa, an evaluation; anandasya, of Bliss, of the aforesaid Brahman. What is there to be assessed about Bliss? The answer is:- Bliss can be studied thus from this point of view-whether It arises from the contact of subject and object, as is the case with worldly happiness, or whether It is natural. As to that, the worldly bliss attains excellence owing to a concurrence of external and internal means. The bliss, thus attained, is being instanced here as an approach to the Bliss that is Brahman; for through this familiar bliss can be approached the Bliss that is comprehensible by an intellect free from objective thought. Even worldly bliss is particle of the Bliss that is Brahman, which becomes transmuted into impermanent worldly bliss, consequent on knowledge becoming covered up by ignorance, and ignorance becoming successively thicker accordingly as the individuals, starting with Hiranyagarbha, think diversely of this Bliss under the impulsion of the result of their past actions and in conformity with their past contemplations, and under the influence of contact with accessories like objects etc. That very Bliss which is visualized by one who is learned, versed in the Vedas and free from passion, appears diversely as increasing more and more-a hundredfold each time in the planes starting with that of man-Gandharvas till the bliss of Hiranyagarbha, Brahma, is reached-, in accordance with the attenuation of ignorance, desire and action. But when the division of subject and object, created by ignorance is eliminated by elightenment, there is only the intrinsic all pervading Bliss that is one without a second. In order to impart this idea, the text says:- yuva syat, etc. Yuva, a youth-one in the prime of life. Sadhu-yuva is an adjective of the youth, and means one who is both young and good. Even a youth may be bad, and even a good man may bot be young. Hence the specification, 'Suppose there is a young man who is a good youth.' Adhyayakah is one who has studied the Vedas. Asisthah, the best ruler (or, 'the quickest in action'). [See S.] Drdhisthah, most hardy (i.e. having all the senses intact). Balisthah, strongest. (suppose the youth is) blessed with such physical accessories. (And let there be) tasya, for him; iyam sarva prthivi, this whole earth; purna, filled; vittasya, (should rather be vittena), with wealth meant for enjoyment, and with the means of karmas leading to seen and unseen results. The idea is that he is a king ruling over the earth. Sah, the joy that he has; is ekah manusah anandah, a single human bliss, one unit of the highest human bliss. Te Ye satam manusah anandah, that human bliss multiplied a hendredfold; is sah ekah manusya-gandharvanam anandah, one unit of the bliss of the man-Gandharvas. The happiness of man-Gandharvas becomes a hundred times better than that of man. Man-Gandharvas are those human beings who become Gandharvas through some special karmas and meditations. As they are possessed of the power of disappearance etc., being endowed with sublte bodies and senses, so obstacles in their way are few, and they are endowed with the power and means of resisting dualities (such as heat and cold, etc.). Therefore, a man-Gandharva will have mental tranquillity inasmuch as he remains unopposed and can withstand duality. From that excellence of tranquillity follows an abundant expression of Bliss. Thus it stands to reason that in proportion to the abundance of tranquillity on the succeeding planes as compared with that on the preceding ones, the excellence of bliss also progresses a hundredfold. However, the man free from desire has not been taken into consideration at the initial stage wiht a view to showing that the bliss of one, who observes Vedic duties and is untouched by desire and enjoyment of human objects, is a hundred times higher than the human bliss and is comparable to that of a man-Gandharva. Devotion to Vedic duties and sinlessness (Br. IV. iii. 33) are implied by the two terms 'learned' and 'young and good'. These two qualities are, indeed, common to all (the planes). But desirelessness has been treated distinctively in order to point out that increase of bliss is independent of the superiority or inferiority of objects. Thus since happiness is seen to improve a hundredfold, proportionately with the advance of desirelessness, it is treated here with a view to enjoining dispassionateness as a means for the attainment of supreme Bliss. The rest has been already explained. Deva-Gandharvah, the divine-Gandharvas, are so from their very birth. The term ciralokalokanam, of those whose world lasts for ever, is an adjective of pitrnam, of the manes, the manes being so qualified since their world lasts (relatively) for ever. Ajana is the world of the gods; those who are born there-born in the regions of gods as a result of special rites prescribed by the Smrtis-are the Ajanaja gods. The karmadevah are those who reach the gods by mere Vedic Karma, such as Agnihotra etc. The devah, gods, are those who are thirtythree in number [Eight Vasus, eleven Rudras, twelve Adityas, Indra, and Prajapati.] and recieve oblations. Indra is their lord. His preceptor is Brhaspati. Prajapati is Virat who has the three worlds (earth, heaven, and intermediate space) as his body. [See Commentary on Br. III. iii. 2.] Brahma pervades the whole universe in the form of the cosmic and indvidual persons. This Brahma is Hiranyagarbha in whom all these varieties of bliss become unified, and in whom resides virtue which is the cause of that bliss, consciousness of that bliss, and dispassionateness of the highest order. This bliss of His is directly experienced everwhere by one who is versed in the Vedas, free from sin and unsullied by desire. Hence it is understood that these three qualities are the means (for the attainment of Bliss). Of these, Vedic learning and sinlessness are invariable (in all the planes), whereas desirelessness increases; and hence the last is known to be the best means. The bliss of Brahma, experienced on the perfection of desirelessness and also open to the direct vision of one who follows the Vedas, is a particle or bit of the supreme Bliss, in accordance with the Vedic text, 'On a particle of this very Bliss other beings live' (Br. IV. iii. 32). This bliss (of Brahma and others) is a particle of that Supreme Bliss that is natural, from which it has separated like spray from the sea and into which it merges again. In It (the supreme Bliss) there is no bifurcation of the joy and the enjoyer, since It is non-dual. The result of this evaluation is being concluded here:-
Max Müller
1. 'From terror of it (Brahman) the wind blows, from terror the sun rises; from terror of it Agni and Indra, yea Death runs as the fifth [1].' Now this is an examination of (what is meant by) Bliss (ânanda):- Let there be a noble young man, who is well read (in the Veda), very swift, firm, and strong, and let the whole world be full of wealth for him, that is one measure of human bliss. One hundred times that human bliss (2) is one measure of the bliss of human Gandharvas (genii), and likewise of a great sage (learned in the Vedas) who is free from desires. One hundred times that bliss of human Gandharvas is one measure of the bliss of divine Gandharvas (genii), and likewise of a great sage who is free from desires. One hundred times that bliss of divine Gandharvas is one measure of the bliss of the Fathers, enjoying their long estate, and likewise of a great sage who is free from desires. One hundred times that bliss of the Fathers is one measure of the bliss of the Devas, born in the Âgâna heaven (through the merit of their lawful works), (3) and likewise of a great sage who is free from desires. One hundred times that bliss of the Devas born in the Âgâna heaven is one measure of the bliss of the sacrificial Devas, who go to the Devas by means of their Vaidik sacrifices, and likewise of a great sage who is free from desires. One hundred times that bliss of the sacrificial Devas is one measure of the bliss of the (thirty-three) Devas, and likewise of a great sage who is free from desires. One hundred times that bliss of the (thirty-three) Devas is one measure of the bliss of Indra, (4) and likewise of a great sage who is free from desires. One hundred times that bliss of Indra is one measure of the bliss of Brihaspati, and likewise of a great sage who is free from desires. One hundred times that bliss of Brihaspati is one measure of the bliss of Pragâpati, and likewise of a great sage who is free from desires. One hundred times that bliss of Pragâpati is one measure of the bliss of Brahman, and likewise of a great sage who is free from desires.
He that is here in the human person, and He that is there in the sun, are one. He who knows thus attains, after desisting from this world, this self made of food, attains this self made of vital force, attains this self made of mind, attains this self made of intelligence, attains this self made of bliss. Expressive of this there occurs this verse:-
Shankaracharya
Commentary
He who, after projecting all the creation-beginning with space and ending with the body made of (the essence of) food entered into it and is lodged in the supreme space within the cavity of the heart, is here indicated by the words sah yah, He who. Who is He? Ayam puruse yah ca asau aditye, He who is in the human person, and He who resides in the sun. The supreme Bliss, that has been indicated as directly perceptible to the follower of the Vedas, and on a particle of which subsist all the beings worthy of joy-counting from Brahma-, that supreme Bliss is being described as 'He who resides in the sun'. He is one in the same sense that the space in a pot, standing separately, is one with space (as such). Objection:- In the matter of describing that Bliss, the corporeal soul should not be referred to in general terms by saying, 'He that is in the human person'; rather it is proper to indicate that soul by saying, 'And He that is in the right eye' (Br.II.iii.5,IV.ii.2,V.v.2), that being better known. Answer:- No, for the discussion is here about the supreme Self. [The other text quoted above refers to a meditation based on the indentity of the individual soul and Hiranyagarbha, and not to the identity, as such, of the individual Self and the supreme Self.] The supreme Self certainly forms the subject matter here in the texts, 'In the unperceivable, bodiless' (II.vii), 'Out of His fear the Wind blows' (II. viii. 1), 'This, then, is an evaluation of that Bliss'. It is not reasonable to refer suddenly to something out of context. And the subject sought to be taught is the knoweledge of the supreme Self. ['The same unsurpassing Bliss of the conscious Reality that is reflected on a superior medium, viz the sun, is also reflected on an inferior medium, viz a human being possessing head, hands, etc. Thus, from the standpoint of supreme Bliss, the two distinct entities are on a par, and intrinsically they are the same. This is what is taught.'-A.G.] Therefore, it is verily the supreme Self that is referred to in the expression, sah, ekah, He is one. Objection:- Is not the topic started with an estimation of Bliss? The result of that estimation, too, has to be concluded by saying:- 'The Bliss that is non-different and intrinsic, and not a product of the contact between the subject and the object, is the supreme Self.' Counter-objection:- Is not this indication (of the Self) by eliminating the distinctions pertaining to the different loci,-which we come across here in the sentence, 'He that is here in the human person, and He that is there is the sun, are one'-, quite in line with that? Objection:- Even so, is it not useless to single out the sun? Answer:- No, it is not useless, because it is meant for obviating (notions of) superiority and inferiority. In the sun is found the highest perfection of duality, consisting of the formed and the formless. If, from the standpoint of the supreme Bliss, that perfection can be placed on the same footing with the human personality, after eliminating the peculiarities of the latter, there will remain no superiority or inferiority for one who attains that goal; and hence it becomes reasonable to say that 'he reaches a state of fearlessness' (II. vii). The question as to whether Brahman exists or not, raised after the teacher's instruction, has been dealt with. One of these post-questions has been dismissed by saying that from the reasonings which justify the phenomena of creation, acquisition of joy, functioning of life, reaching a state of fearlessness, and experience of fear, it follows that Brahman does exist as the cause of those space etc. There are two other post-questions relating to the attainment or non-attainment of Brahman by the enlightened man and the unenlightened man. Of these, the last post-question is, 'Does the enlightened man attain or does he not?' In order to settle this, it is being said (as below). The middle post question is settled by the answer to the last one; and hence no (separate) effort is made for solving it. Sah yah, anyone who; is evamvit, a knower of this kind; who, havig discarded all ideas of superiority and inferiority, knows Brahman, described earlier, evam, in this manner, 'I am the non-dual truth, knowledge, infinity';-for the word, 'evam, thus', is used for alluding to some topic already mooted-; what does he become?-he, pretya, (lit. after departing), desisting, without expecting anything; asmat lokat, from this world-the totality of things seen and unseen is verily indicated by the term 'this world'; without expecting anything from that world-; upasamkramati, attains; etam annamayam atmanam, this body built up by food, as explained already. The idea is that he does not perceive the totality of objects as different from the self, i.e. the body, built up by food; he sees all the gross elements as identical with the self built up by food. [He attains identity with Virat, the gross Consmic Person, whose body is constituted by the three worlds-earth, heaven, and intermediate space.] Then he attains etam pranamayam atmanam, this body constituted by the vital force, which is itself individed and is inside the (cosmic) body built up by all the food. Then he attains this body made of mind, the body made of intelligence, [Hiranyagarbha, conceived of as possessing the powers of action, will, and knowledge, has a subtle body constituted by the totality of vital, mental, and intellectual energy.] the body made of bliss. Then he reaches the state of fearlessness in the unperceivable, bodiless, inexpressible, and unsupporting (Self) (II.vii). With regard to that, this has got to be considered:- What is he who knows thus, and how does he attain? Is the attainer different from or the same as the supreme. Self? What follows from that? Should the attainer be different, the conclusion will run counter to such Vedic text as 'Having created that, He entered into that very thing' (II.vi), '(One who worships another god thinking), "He is one, I am another", he does not know' (Br. I. iv.10), 'One only, without a second' (Ch. VI.ii.1), and 'Thou art that' (Ch. VI.viii-xvi). On the contary, if the Self Itself attains the blissful self, we shall be faced with the unsoundness of the same entity being both subject and object; moreover, the supreme Self will either be reduced to a transmigratory soul or a nonentity. Objection:- This discussion is useless if the fault that arises on either assumption be unavoidable. On the other hand, if either of the assumptions is free from defect, or if a third flawless assumption is so, then that alone is the meaning of the scripture, and hence that the discussion is uncalled for. Answer:- No, for the discussion is meant for its ascertainment. True it is that the accruing defect cannot be avoided by accepting either of the two positions, and that the discussion becomes useless if a third flawless position is ascertained; but that third alternative has not been determined. Hence this consideration is fruitful as it is calculated to lead to that ascertainment. Objection:- True it is that an investigation is fruitful so far as it culminates in the fixing of the meaning of a scripture. But in your case, you will simply cogitate wihout ever hitting upon any meaning. Answer:- It it your view that there can occur any Vedic sentence whose meaning need not be determined? Objection:- No. Counter-objection:- How then (is the discussion useless)? Objection:- Because there are many opponents. You are a monist, since you follow the Vedic ideas, while the dualists are many who are outside the Vedic pale and who are opposed to you. Therefore I apprehend that you will not be able to determine. Answer:- This itself is a bliessing for me that you brand me as sworn to monism and faced by many who are wedded to plurality. Therefore I shall conquer all; and so I begin the discussion. The attainer must be the supreme Self alone, inasmuch as merger into that state is the idea implied. what is sought to be imparted here in the text, 'The knower of Brahman attains the highest' (II.i), is becoming the supreme Self through Its knowledge. Surely, it is not possible that one thing can become something else. Objection:- Is it not also unsound to say that the individual soul becomes the supreme Self? Answer:- No, for the idea conveyed is that of removal of the indentity (with the body etc.) created by ignorance. The attainment of one's onw Self through the knowledge of Brahman, that is taught, is meant for the elimination of the distinct selves-such as the foodself, the products of nescience-which are really non-Selves, superimposed as Selves. Objection:- How is such a meaning understood? Answer:- Because knowledge alone is prescribed. The effect of knowledge is seen to be the eradication of ignorance; and here that knowledge alone is prescribed as the means for the attainment of the Self. Objection:- May not that be like the communicating of information about a path? So the mere prescription of knowledge as a means does not amount to showing that the supreme Self is the Self of the attainer. Counter-objection:- Why? Oppnonent:- For it seen that, in the matter of reaching a different place, the information about the way is communicated. Not that the village itself can be the goer. [The traveller is not the village, though the knowledge of the path to the village is valuable to him. Similarly, the individual is not Brahman, though the instruction about knoweldge of Brahman is valuable; for by practising it he can reach Brahman.] Answer:- Not so, for the analogy is inept. [One does not say, 'You are the village', when talking about the path leading to it, whereas the identity of the two is taught here explicitly.] In the illustration cited, the information imparted is not of the village, but the knowledge imparted there is only of the path, leading to one's arrival there. But in this case, no information about any other means apart from the knowledge of Brahman is imparted. Objection:- The knowledge of Brahman, as depending on such means as rites etc. enjoined earlier, is taught as a means for the attainment of the highest. Answer:- No, for this was refuted earlier by saying, 'Since liberation is eternal,' etc. And the text, 'Having created that, He entered into that very thing' (II. vi), shows that the Self, immanent in creation, is identical with That (Supreme Brahman). And this follows also from the logic of attaining the state of fearlessness. For if the man of enlightenment sees nothing as different from his own Self, then the statement, 'He gets established in that state of fearlessness', becomes appropriate, since (for him) nothing exists as a separate entity which can cause fear. Moreover, if duality is a creation of nescience, then only is the realization of its insubstantiality through knowledge reasonable; for (the proof of) the non-existence of a second moon consists in its not being seen by one whose eyes are not affected by the disease called timira. Objection:- But non-perception of duality is not thus a matter of experience. Answer:- No, for duality is not perceived by a person who is deeply asleep or absorbed in the Self. Objection:- The non-perception of duality in deep sleep is comparable to the nonperception by one who is preoccupied with something else. Answer:- Not so, for then (i.e. in sleep and samadhi) there is non-perception of everything (so that there can be no preoccupation with anything). Objection:- Duality has existence because of its perception in the dream and waking states. Answer:- No, for the dream and waking states are creations of ignorance. The perception of duality that occurs in the dream and waking states is the result of ignorance, because it ceases on the cessation of ignorance. Objection:- The non-perception (of duality) in sleep is also a result of ignorance. Answer:- No, for it is intrinsic. The reality of a substance consists in its not being mutable, for it does not depend on anything else. Mutability is not a reality, since that depends on other factors. The reality of a substance surely cannot be dependent on external agencies. Any peculiarity that arises in an existing substance is a result of external agencies, and a peculiarity implies change. The perceptions occuring in the dream and waking states are but modal expressions, for the reality of a thing is that which exists in its own right, and the unreality is that which depends on others, inasmuch as it ceases with the cessation of others. Hence, unlike what happens in the dream and waking states, no modality occurs in deep sleep, for the nonperception in the latter state is natural. For those, however, for whom God is different from the self, and creation, too, is distinct, there is no elimination of fear, since fear is caused by something different. And, something different that is true, cannot have its reality annihilated, nor can a non-existent emerge into being. Objection:- Something external becomes the source of fear when it is supplemented by others. [God, in association with merits and demerits of creatures, causes fear. But the liberated man has no fear of God since he is independent of merit etc.] Answer:- No, for that, too, stands on an equal footing. Because, that permanent or impermanent agency [Adrsta, unseen future result, whose help God takes], in the form of demerit etc., depending on which that something else (i.e. God) becomes the cause of fear for others, cannot have self-effacement by the very fact of what that agency (adrsta) is assumed to be; [This above view cannot be advanced either by the samkhyas or the Naiyayikas; for the former do not believe that an existing demerit can be wholly annihilated; and the latter do not say that so long as demerit persists, its effect will be totally absent. Adrsta also creates the same difficulty.] or should that have self extinction, the rea and the unreal will become mutually convertible, so that nobody will have any faith in anything. From the standpoint of nonduality, however, that objection has no bearing, since the world along with its cause is a superimposition through ignorance. For second moon, seen by a man afflicted by the eye-disease called timira, does not attain any reality, nor is it annihilated. Objection:- Knowledge and ignorance are qualities of the Self. Answer:- No so, for they are perceived. Discrimination (i.e. knowledge) and nondiscrimination (i.e. ignorance) are directly perceived, like colour etc., as existing in the mind. Not that colour, perceived as an object, can be an attribute of the perceiver. And ignorance is ascertained by such forms of its perception as, 'I am ignorant', 'My knowledge is indistinct'. Similarly, the distinction of knoweldge (from the Self) is perceived, and the enlightened people communicate the knowledge of the Self to others; and so, too, do others grasp it. Accordingly, knowledge and ignorance are to be ranked with name and form; and name and form are not attributes of the Self, ['The beginningless and inscrutable nescience, dependent on pure Consciousness for its existence, gets transformed as the internal organ. That organ, again, gets modified in the form of real knowledge and error in accordance with the preponderance of its sattvika or tamasika qualities. The substance called Consciousness, when reflected on such as organ, is either called enlightened or deluded. In reality Consciousness is neither enlightened nor unelightened.' -A.G.] in accordance with another Vedic text, '(That which is indeed called Space) is the manifester of name and form. That in which they two exist is Brahman' (Ch. VIII.xiv.1). And those name and form are imagined to exist in Brahman like night and day in the sun, though in reality they are not there. Objection:- If (the Self and Brahman are) non-different, then there arises the absurdity of the same entity becoming the subject and object, as mentioned in the text, 'He attains this self made of Bliss' (II. viii 5). Answer:- Not so, for the attainment consists in mere enlightenment. The reaching taught here is no like that by a leech. How then? The text treating of attainment means merely realization. ['The blissful self is not the supreme Self, nor is there any samkramana in the sense of entry. But what is meant here is the transcendence or negation of the blissful self, accepted falsely as the Self, through the realization of Brahman-not as an object, but as identical with the Self.'-A.G.] Objection:- Attainment in the literal sense is meant here by the expression upasamkramati. Answer:- Not so, for this is not seen in the case of the body made of food; for in the case one reaching the (cosmic) food-body (i.e. Virat), one is not see to reach out from this external world like a leech or in any other manner. Objection:- (Attainment is possible in the sense that) the mental body or the intellectual body, when it has gone out (in dream etc.), can return to acquire its own natural state again. Answer:- No for there can be no action on one's own Self. (Moreover), the topic rasied (by you) was that somebody, different from the food-body reaches the food-body; to say now that either the mental body or the intellectual body reaches its own state involves a contradiction. Similarly, the reaching its own state by the blissful-self is not possible. [The opponent might say that the samkramana, in the case of the blissful self, means the attainment of its natural composure after a sorrowful experience. But this also is open to the objection that this runs counter to the opponent's line of argument, and the existence in one's own nature is not an attainment in the real sense.] Therefore, samkramana does not mean acquisition, nor does it mean 'reaching' by anyone of them beginning with the food-body. As a last resort, samkramana can reasonably consist only in the realization by some entity, other than the selves beginning with the foodself and ending with the blissful-self. If samkramana means realization alone, then through that samkramana, i.e. through the rise of knowledge about the difference of the Self (from the non-Self), is removed from that all-pervasive Self-which verily resides within the blissful-self and has entered into creation after projecting all things counting from space to food-the error of thinking of the non-Selves such as the foodbody as Itself, which (error) arises from Its association with the cavity of the heart. The word samkramana is used figuratively with regard to this eradication of error created by ignorance, for in no other way can the attainment of the all-pervading Self be justified. Moreover, there is no other thing (that can reach the Self). Besides, the attainment cannot be of oneself; for a leech does not reach itself. Hence, it is with a view to realizing the Self, which has been defined above in the text, 'Brahman is truth, knowledge, infinity' (II.i), that becoming many, entering into creation, acquisition of bliss, fearlessness, attainment, etc. have been attributed to Brahman conceived of as the basis of all empirical dealings; but with regard to the really transcendental Brahman, beyond all conditions, there can be no such ascription. Tat api, with regard to this also-with regard to the fact that by reaching, i.e. realizing, the unconditioned Self by stages in this way, one ceases to have any fear from anywhere, and one gets established in the state that is fearlessness-; esah slokah bhavati, there occurs this verse. This verse stands for expressing briefly the meaning of the whole topic, the gist of this Part called the Anandavalli, the Part On Bliss.
Max Müller
5. He [1] who is this (Brahman) in man, and he who is that (Brahman) in the sun, both are one [2]. He who knows this, when he has departed this world, reaches and comprehends the Self which consists of food, the Self which consists of breath, the Self which consists of mind, the Self which consists of understanding, the Self which consists of bliss. On this there is also this Sloka:-
Footnotes
1. Cf. III, 10, 4. 2. In giving the various degrees of happiness, the author of the Upanishad gives us at the same time the various classes of human and divine beings which we must suppose were recognised in his time. We have Men, human Gandharvas, divine Gandharvas, Fathers (pitaraskiralokalokâh), born Gods (âgânagâ devâh), Gods by merit (karmadevâh), Gods, Indra, Brihaspati, Pragâpati, Brahman. Such a list would seem to be the invention of an individual rather than the result of an old tradition, if it did not occur in a very similar form in the Satapatha-brâhmana, Mâdhyandina-sâkhâ XIV, 7, 1 ,31, Kânva-sâkhâ (Brih. Âr. Up. IV, 3, 32). Here, too, the highest measure of happiness is ascribed to the Brahmaloka, and other beings are supposed to share a certain measure only of its supreme happiness. The scale begins in the Mâdhyandina-sâkhâ with men, who are followed by the Fathers (pitaro gitalokâh), the Gods by merit (karmadevâh), the Gods by birth (âgânadevâh, with whom the Srotriya is joined), the world of Gods, the world of Gandharvas, the world of Pragâpati, the world of Brahman. In the Brihad-âranyaka-upanishad we have Men, Fathers, Gandharvas, Gods by merit, Gods by birth, Pragâpati, and Brahman. The commentators do not help us much. Saṅkara on the Taittirîyaka-upanishad explains the human Gandharvas as men who have become Gandharvas, a kind of fairies; divine Gandharvas, as Gandharvas by birth. The Fathers or Manes are called Kiraloka, because they remain long, though not for ever, in their world. The âgânaga Gods are explained as born in the world of the Devas through their good works (smârta), while the Karmadevas are explained as born there through their sacred works (vaidika). The Gods are the thirty-three, whose lord is Indra, and whose teacher Brihaspati. Pragâpati is Virâg, Brahman Hiranyagarbha. Dvivedagaṅga, in his commentary on the Satapatha-brâhmana, explains the Fathers as those who, proceeding on the Southern path, have conquered their world, more particularly by having themselves offered in their life sacrifices to their Fathers. The Karmadevas, according to him, are those who have become Devas by sacred works (srauta), the Âgânadevas those who were gods before there were men. The Gods are Indra and the rest, while the Gandharvas are not explained. Pragâpati is Virâg, Brahman is Hiranyagarbha. Lastly, Saṅkara, in his commentary on the Brihadâranyakaupanishad, gives nearly the same explanation as before; only that he makes âgânadevâh still clearer, by explaining them as gods âgânatah, i.e. utpattitah, from their birth. The arrangement of these beings and their worlds, one rising above the other, reminds us of the cosmography of the Buddhists, but the elements, though in a less systematic form, existed evidently before. Thus we find in the so-called Gargî-brâhmana (Satapatha-brâhmana XIV, 6, 6, 1) the following succession:- Water, air, ether
oṃ saha nāvavatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha vīryaṃ karavāvahai .
tejasvināvadhītamastu mā vidviṣāvahai .
oṃ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ ..
The enlightened man is not afraid of anything after realising that Bliss of Brahman, failing to reach which, words turn back along with the mind. Him, indeed, this remorse does not afflict:- “Why did I not perform good deeds, and why did I perform bad deeds ? He who is thus enlightened strengthens the Self with which these two are identical; for it is he, indeed, who knows thus, that can strengthen the Self which these two really are. This is the secret teaching.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Yatah, that from which-from the Self, which is unconditioned, has the aforesaid definition, and is non-dual and Bliss; vacah, words that stand for conditioned objects, (turn back). Though words are applied by their users even with regard to the uncontioned and non-dual Brahman, expecting to express It by taking for granted Its parity with other substances, still those words aprapya, without reaching, without expressing (that Brahman); nivartante, turn back, become despoiled of their power. The word manah stands for a notion, a cognition. And as a word proceeds to anything, supersensuous though it be, conceptual knowledge also strives to encompass that thing for expressing it as well; and words, too, become active where there is knowledge. Hence words and ideas, speech and mind, move together everywhere. Therefore, that Brahman which is beyond all concepts and all words, and which has such attributes as invisibility, from which words, though used by their utterers in all possible ways for expressing Brahman, return manasa saha, together with the mind-with conceptual knowledge that is able to express everything (else); the vidvan, one who has known, through the aforesaid process; the brahmanah anandam, Bliss of that Brahman-the supreme Bliss of Brahman that is the Self of the follower of the Vedas, who is sinless, unaffected by desire, and wholly free from all craving-, the Bliss that is free from the relation of subject and object, is natural, eternal, and indivisible; (the man of knowledge) having known that Bliss, na bibheti kutascana, is not afraid of anything, for there remains no cause of fear. There certainly does not exist anything, distinct from that man of knowledge, of which he can be afraid; for it has been said that, when anyone creates the slightest difference (in this Brahman) through ignorance, then one is subject to fear (II.vii). But since for the enlightened man the cause of fear, which is the effect of ignorance, has been removed like the second moon seen by a man with diseased eyes, it is proper that he has no fear of anything. This verse was quated in the context of the mental self as well, because the mind is an aid to the knowledge of Brahman. But there the idea of Brahman was superimposed on the mental self, and then by saying by way of eulogy of that imaginary Brahman that 'one is not subject to fear at any time' (II.iv), fear alone was denied; but by saying, 'he is not afraid of anything', in the (present) context of the nondual (Brahman), the cause itself of fear is negated, Objection:- But causes of fear, viz omission of good deeds and commission of bad deeds, do persist (even in his case). Answer:- Not so. Objection:- How? The answer is:- (Such omission and commission) na tapati, do not worry or afflict; etam, such a man, who is a knower as aforesaid. Ha and vava are particles implying emphasis. Objection:- How, again, omission of virtue and commission of sin do not afflict (him)? The answer is:- When death approaches, remorse comes in the form-'Kim, why; na akaravam, did I not perform; sadhu, good deeds?' Similarly, repentance in the form-'Kim, why; akaravam, I did; papam, prohibited things?-comes to him from fear of affliction in the form of falling into hell etc. These two-omission of the good and commission of the bad-do not torment this one, as they do the ignorant man. Objection:- Why, again, do they not afflict the enlightened man? The answer is:- Sah yah evam vidvan, he who knows (Brahman) thus; sprnute, delights or strengthens; ete atmanam, these two-virtue and vice, the causes of grief-which are (really) the Self. The idea is that he considers both as identified with the supreme Self, Hi, since, he who, having divested both virtue and vice of their individual distinctions; has known ete atmanam eva, these two as verily the Self. he atmanam sprnute, strengthens the Self. Who? Yah evam veda, he that knows Brahman thus-as non-dual and Bliss as described earlier. Virtue and vice, seen by him as identified with the Self, become powerless and harmless, and they do not bring about rebirth. Iti upanisat, this is the secret instruction-this is the knowledge of Brahman, called upanisad, which has been stated thus thus in this Part. The idea is that the most secret of all knowledge has been revealed; for in it is ingrained the highest consummation.
Max Müller
1. He who knows the bliss of that Brahman, from whence all speech, with the mind, turns away unable to reach it, he fears nothing [1].' He does not distress himself with the thought, Why did I not do what is good? Why did I do what is bad? He who thus knows these two (good and bad), frees himself. He who knows both, frees himself [2]. This is the Upanishad [3].
Footnotes
1. Even if there is no fear from anything else, after the knowledge of Self and Brahman has been obtained, it might be thought that fear might still arise from the commission of evil deeds, and the omission of good works. Therefore the next paragraphs have been added. 2. The construction of these two sentences is not clear to me. 3. Here follows the Anukramanî, and in some MSS. the same invocation with which the next Vallî begins.
sa tapo'tapyata . sa tapastaptvā .. 1.. iti prathamo'nuvākaḥ ..
Bhrigu, the well-known son of Varuna, approached his father Varuna with the (formal) request, “O, revered sir, teach me Brahman”. To him he (Varuna) said this:- “Food, vital force, eye, ear, mind, speech – (these are the aids to knowledge of Brahman)”. To him he (Varuna) said:- “Crave to know that from which all these beings take birth, that by which they live after being born, that towards which they move and into which they merge. That is Brahman”. He practised concentration. He, having practised concentration,
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Since Brahman, that is truth, knowledge, and infinity, brought about this creation - starting with space and ending with the body made of food-, then It entered into it, and seems to be possessed of distinctions because of this fact of entry, therefore one should realize thus:- 'I am that very Brahman which is the Bliss that is distinct from all creation and is possessed of such characteristics as invisibility.' For the (subject of) entry (of Brahman) is meant to imply this. In the case of one who knows thus, good and bad deeds do not bring about rebirth. This was the idea intended to be conveyed in the Part On Bliss (Ananda-valli). The knoweldge of Brahman, too, has been concluded. After this is to be taught concentration which is hlepful to the knowledge of Brahman, as also such meditations with regard to food etc. which have not been dealt with so far. Therefore this Part begins. The story is meant to eulogize knowledge by showing that it was imparted [As a valuable heritage out of affection.] to a dear son by a father. 3.1.1 The particle vai, alluding to a recognised fact, calls up to memory one who is well known by the name Bhrgu. Varunih is the son of Varuna. Varuna's son, becoming anxious to know Brahman, upasasara, approached; his pitaram varunam, father Varuna; with, iti, this sacred formula (mantra):- 'Adhihi bhagavah brahma, teach (me) Brahman, O revered sir.' Adhihi means teach, tell. And tasmai, to him, who had approached in due form; the father, too, provaca, spoke; etat, this-this sentence:- 'Annam,' etc. He spoke of annam, food, i.e. the body; of pranam, the vital force, which is within that body and which is the eater. and of the aids to cognition, viz caksuh, srotram, manah, vacam, eye, ear, mind, speech; he spoke of these as the doors to the realization of Brahman. ['These are doors in the sense that they are helpful in distinguishing the object aimed at. For it is from the fact of the impossiblity of the activities of the body etc. continuing in any other way (than) through the consciousness of the Self) that consciousness becomes distinguished from them as a separate entity.' A.G.] And having spoken of food etc. as doors, he uvaca, told; the definition of Brahman, tam, to him, Bhrgu. What is that (definition)? Yatah vai, that from which, indeed; imani bhutani, all these beings-starting with Brahma and ending with a clump of grass; jayante, take birth; jatani, being born; yena jivanti, that by which they live, grow; yat, that Brahman towards which; prayanti,they proceed; into which they abhisamvisanti, enter, become fully identified, at the time of their dissolution-that with which the beings do not lose their identity during the times of creation, existence, and dissolution. This, then, is the definition of Brahman. Vijijnasasva, crave to know well; tat, that; brahma, Brahman. Realize, through the help of food etc., that Brahman which is defined thus-this is the idea. Another Vedic text, too, shows that these are doors to the realization of Brahman:- 'Those who have known the Vital Force of the vital force, the Eye of the eye, the Ear of the ear, the Food of the food, and the Mind of the mind, have realized the ancient, primordial Brahman' (Br. IV. iv. 18). Having heard from his father the doors to the realization of Brahman, as also the definition of Brahman, sah he, Bhrgu; atapyata, practised; tapah, (lit. austerity), concentration-as a means to the realization of Brahman. Objection:- How could Bhrgu, again, accept tapah (concentration) as a means, since it was not taught to be so? Answer:- (He accepted this) because of the incompleteness of the instruction. Varuna said that food etc. are the doors to the realization of Brahman, and that Its definition is, 'That from which all these beings take birth,' etc. That, indeed, is incomplete; for Brahman was not directly pointed out there. Otherwise, Brahman, in Its true nature, should have been indicated by saying, 'This Brahman is of this kind', to the son who was desirous of knowing. Not that he indicated thus. How did he do then? He said in an incomplete manner. So it is to be understood that for the knowledge of Brahman the father certainly had some other discipline in view. As for singling out tapah (concentration), this is because it is the best discipline, for it is well kown in the world that of all the means that are causally related with definite ends, concentration is the best. [Form the father's description of Brahman, Bhrgu could not arrive at any non-composite, unitary conception of Brahman which ruled out all duality and which could not be analysed back into its component parts; for the description itself was soaked in plurality. Bhrgu aimed at an irresolvable concept, and hence he went on revolving in his mind what he had heard. That was his tapah.] so Bhrgu accepted tapah as a means to the knowledge edge of Brahman though it was not taught by his father. This tapah consists in the concentration of the outer and inner organs, for that forms the door to the knowledge of Brahman in accordance with the Smrti, 'The concentration of the mind and the senses is the highest tapah. Since it is higher than all the virtues, it is called the highest virtue' (Mbh. Sa. 250.4). And sah, he; tapah taptva, having practised concentraton.
Max Müller
1. Bhrigu Vâruni went to his father Varuna, saying:- Sir, teach me Brahman.' He told him this, viz. Food, breath, the eye, the ear, mind, speech. Then he said again to him:- 'That from whence these beings are born, that by which, when born, they live, that into which they enter at their death, try to know that. That is Brahman.' He performed penance. Having performed penance--
स तपोऽतप्यत । स तपस्तप्त्वा ॥ १॥ इति द्वितीयोऽनुवाकः ॥
pañcakośāntaḥsthitabrahmanirūpaṇam
annaṃ brahmeti vyajānāt . annāddhyeva khalvimāni
bhutāni jāyante . annena jātāni jīvanti .
annaṃ prayantyabhisaṃviśantīti . tadvijñāya .
punareva varuṇaṃ pitaramupasasāra .
adhīhi bhagavo brahmeti . tagͫhovāca .
tapasā brahma vijijñāsasva . tapo brahmeti .
sa tapo'tapyata . sa tapastaptvā .. 1.. iti dvitīyo'nuvākaḥ ..
He realised food (i.e. Virat, the gross Cosmic person) as Brahman. For it is verily from food that all these beings take birth, on food they subsist after being born and they move towards and merge into food. Having realised that, he again approached his father Varuna with the (formal) request. “O, revered sir, teach me Brahman”. To him he (Varuna) said:- “Crave to know Brahman through concentration; concentration is Brahman”. He practised concentration. He, having practised concentration,
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Vyajanat, he knew; annam brahma iti, food as Brahman; for food is endowed with the aforesaid characteristics. How? Hi, for; annat, from food; khalu eva, indeed; imani bhutani jayante, these beings are born; jatani jivanti, having been born; they live annena, by food; and prayanti abhisamvisanti, they move towards and enter into; annam, food. Hence it is reasonable that food is Brahman. This is the idea. He having practised concentration in this way, and tat vijnaya, having known that food as Brahman, from its characteristics as well as reasoning; varunam pitaram upasasara, approached his father Varuna; punah eva, over again, being under doubt; with, iti, this (formal request); 'Adhihi bhagavah brahma, O revered sir, teach me Brahman? Objection:- What was, again, the occasion for his doubt? The answer is:- Because food is see to have an origin. Concentration is repeatedly inculcated in order to emphasise the fact of its being the best discipline. The idea is this:- 'Concentration alone is your discipline till the description of Brahman can be pushed no further and till your desire to know becomes quietened. Through concentration alone, you crave to know Brahman.' The rest is easy.
Max Müller
1. He perceived that food is Brahman, for from food these beings are produced; by food, when born, they live; and into food they enter at their death. Having perceived this, he went again to his father Varuna, saying:- 'Sir, teach me Brahman.' He said to him:- 'Try to know Brahman by penance, for penance is (the means of knowing) Brahman.' He performed penance. Having performed penance--
स तपोऽतप्यत । स तपस्तप्त्वा ॥ १॥ इति तृतीयोऽनुवाकः ॥
prāṇo brahmeti vyajānāt . prāṇāddhyeva khalvimāni
bhūtāni jāyante . prāṇena jātāni jīvanti .
prāṇaṃ prayantyabhisaṃviśantīti . tadvijñāya .
punareva varuṇaṃ pitaramupasasāra .
adhīhi bhagavo brahmeti . tagͫhovāca .
tapasā brahma vijijñāsasva . tapo brahmeti .
sa tapo'tapyata . sa tapastaptvā .. 1.. iti tṛtīyo'nuvākaḥ ..
He knew the vital force as Brahman; for from the vital force, indeed, spring all these beings; having come into being, they live through the vital force; they move towards and enter into the vital force, Having known thus, he again approached his father Varuna with the (formal) request. “O, revered sir, teach me Brahman”. To him he (Varuna) said:- “Crave to know Brahman through concentration; concentration is Brahman”. He practised concentration. Having practised concentration,
Max Müller
1. He perceived that breath [1] is Brahman, for from breath these beings are born; by breath, when born, they live; into breath they enter at their death. Having perceived this, he went again to his father Varuna, saying:- 'Sir, teach me Brahman.' He said to him:- 'Try to know Brahman by penance, for penance is (the means of knowing) Brahman.' He performed penance. Having performed penance--
स तपोऽतप्यत । स तपस्तप्त्वा ॥ १॥ इति चतुर्थोऽनुवाकः ॥
mano brahmeti vyajānāt . manaso hyeva khalvimāni
bhūtāni jāyante . manasā jātāni jīvanti .
manaḥ prayantyabhisaṃviśantīti . tadvijñāya .
punareva varuṇaṃ pitaramupasasāra .
adhīhi bhagavo brahmeti . tagͫhovāca .
tapasā brahma vijijñāsasva . tapo brahmeti .
sa tapo'tapyata . sa tapastaptvā .. 1.. iti caturtho'nuvākaḥ ..
He knew mind as Brahman; for from mind, indeed, spring all these beings; having been born, they are sustained by mind; and they move towards and merge into mind. Having known that, he again approached his father Varuna with the (formal) request. “O, revered sir, teach me Brahman”. To him he (Varuna) said:- “Crave to know Brahman through concentration; concentration is Brahman”. He practised concentration. Having practised concentration,
Max Müller
1. He perceived that mind (manas) is Brahman, for from mind these beings are born; by mind, when born, they live; into mind they enter at their death. Having perceived this, he went again to his father Varuna, saying:- 'Sir, teach me Brahman.' He said to him:- 'Try to know Brahman by penance, for penance is (the means of knowing) Brahman.' He performed penance. Having performed penance--
sa tapo'tapyata . sa tapastaptvā .. 1.. iti pañcamo'nuvākaḥ ..
He knew knowledge as Brahman; for from knowledge, indeed, spring all these beings; having been born, they are sustained by knowledge; they move towards and merge in knowledge. Having known that, he again approached his father Varuna with the (formal) request. “O, revered sir, teach me Brahman”. To him he (Varuna) said:- “Crave to know Brahman through concentration; concentration is Brahman”. He practised concentration. Having practised concentration,
Max Müller
1. He perceived that understanding (vigñâna) was Brahman, for from understanding these beings are born; by understanding, when born, they live; into understanding they enter at their death. Having perceived this, he went again to his father Varuna, saying--'Sir, teach me Brahman.' He said to him:- 'Try to know Brahman by penance, for penance is (the means of knowing) Brahman.' He performed penance. Having performed penance--
sa ya evaṃ veda pratitiṣṭhati . annavānannādo bhavati .
mahānbhavati prajayā paśubhirbrahmavarcasena .
mahān kīrtyā .. 1.. iti ṣaṣṭho'nuvākaḥ ..
He knew Bliss as Brahman; for from Bliss, indeed, all these beings originate; Having been born, they are sustained by Bliss; they move towards and merge in Bliss. This knowledge realised by Bhrigu and imparted by Varuna (starts from the food-self and) terminates in the supreme (Bliss), established in the cavity of the heart. He who knows thus becomes firmly established; he becomes the possessor of food and the eater of food; and he becomes great in progeny, cattle and the lustre of holiness, and great in glory.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Thus becoming pure in mind through concentration and failing to find the definition of Brahman, in its fullness, in the selves composed of the vital force etc., Bhrgu penetrated inside by degrees, and with the help of concentration alone realized the innermost Bliss that is Brahman. Therefore, the idea conveyed by this topic is that anyone who is desirous of knowing Brahman should undertake concentration of the internal and external organs as the most excellent practice of tapah (austerity). Now, standing aside from the story, the Upanisad states the purport of the story in its own words:- sa esa, this, then, is ; the vidya, knowledge; (which was) bhargavi, realized by Bhrgu; (and) varuni, imparted by Varuna; (which) commencing from the self constituted by food, pratisthita, culminates; in the supreme, non-dual Bliss that is lodged parame vyoman, in the cavity that is the supreme space within the heart. Anybody else. too, who realizes the Bliss that is Brahman by entering through this very process and through concentration alone as his aid-that man, too, in consequence of his knoweldge culminating thus, gets established in the Bliss that is the supreme Brahman; that is to say, he becomes Brahman Itself. Moreover, a visible result is being vouchsafed for him:- Annavan has to be taken in the sense of one who is possessed of plently of food, since knowledge would get no credit if the term meant simply possession of food as such, for that is a patent fact in the case of everybody. Similarly, annadah, (derived in the sense of an eater of food), means that he is blest with good digestion. Mahan bhavati, he becomes great. In what does the greatness consist? The answer is:- prajaya, in sons etc.; pasubhih, in cows, horses, etc.; brahmavarcasena, in the lustre resulting from the control of external and internal organs, knowledge, etc. He becomes mahan, great; kirtya, through fame due to a virtuous life.
Max Müller
1. He perceived that bliss is Brahman, for from bliss these beings are born; by bliss, when born, they live; into bliss they enter at their death. This is the knowledge of Bhrigu and Varuna [1], exalted in the highest heaven (in the heart). He who knows this becomes exalted, becomes rich in food, and able to eat food (healthy), becomes great by offspring, cattle, and the splendour of his knowledge (of Brahman), great by fame.
sa ya etadannamanne pratiṣṭhitaṃ veda pratitiṣṭhati .
annavānannādo bhavati . mahānbhavati prajayā
paśubhirbrahmavarcasena . mahān kīrtyā .. 1..
iti saptamo'nuvākaḥ ..
His vow is that, he should not deprecate food. The vital force is verily the food, and the body is the eater; for the vital force is lodged in the body. (Again, the body is the food and the vital force is the eater, for) the body is fixed on the vital force. Thus (the body and vital force are both foods; and) one food is lodged in another. He who knows thus that one food is lodged in another, gets firmly established. He becomes a possessor and an eater of food. He becomes great in progeny, cattle, and the lustre of holiness and great in glory.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Moreover, since Brahman is realized through the portal of food, na nindyat, one should not deprecate; annam, food, just as one would not cavil at his teacher. (This is) tad-vratam, a vow that is enjoined for him who knows Brahman thus. The inculcation of the vow is meant for the praise of food; and food is worthy of praise, since it is an aid to the realization of Brahman. Pranah vai annam, the vital force is verily food, for the vital force is encased in the body. Anything that is encompassed by another becomes food of the latter; and sarire pranah pratisthitah, the vital force is lodged in the body; therefore the vital force is food, and sariram annadam, the body is the eater. Similarly,the body, too, is food and the vital force is an eater. Why? Since prane sariram pratisthitam, the body is fixed on the vital force, the continuation of the body being dependent on the later. Therefore both of these two-the body and the vital force-are (mutually) food and the eater. In the aspect of their being lodged in each other, they are food; and in the aspect of being the support of each other they are eaters. Hence both the vital force and the body are food and the eater. Sah Yah, he who; veda, knows; etat annam anne pratisthitam, this food as established on food; pratitisthati, becomes firmly established- in the very form of food and the eater. Moreover, he bhavati, becomes; annavan, a possessor of (plenty of) food; annadah, an eater (i.e. a digester) of food. All these are to be explained as before.
Max Müller
1. Let him never abuse food, that is the rule. Breath is food [1], the body eats the food. The body rests on breath, breath rests on the body. This is the food resting on food. He who knows this food resting on food [2], rests exalted, becomes rich in food, and able to cat food (healthy), becomes great by offspring, cattle, and the splendour of his knowledge (of Brahman), great by fame.
sa ya etadannamanne pratiṣṭhitaṃ veda pratitiṣṭhati .
annavānannādo bhavati . mahānbhavati prajayā
paśubhirbrahmavarcasena . mahān kīrtyā .. 1..
ityaṣṭamo'nuvākaḥ ..
His vow is that he should not discard food. Water, indeed, is food; fire is the eater; for water is established on fire. (Fire is food and water is the eater, for) fire resides in water. Thus one food is lodged in another food. He who knows thus that one food is lodged in another, gets firmly established. He becomes a possessor and an eater of food. He becomes great in progeny, cattle, and the lustre of holiness and great in glory.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Annam na paricaksita, he should not discard food. This is a vow for him, which is meant as a praise (of food) just as before. Thus the food, that is not ignored through ideas of good or bad, becomes eulogised and heightened in esteem. The idea, as explained before, should be similarly understood to be implied in the subsequent texts:- apah vai annam, water indeed is food, etc.
Max Müller
on food [1]. He who knows this food resting on food, rests exalted, becomes rich in food, and able to eat food (healthy), becomes great by offspring, cattle, and the splendour of his knowledge (of Brahman), great by fame.
sa ya etadannamanne pratiṣṭhitaṃ veda pratitiṣṭhati .
annavānannādo bhavati . mahānbhavati prajayā
paśubhirbrahmavarcasena . mahān kīrtyā .. 1..
iti navamo'nuvākaḥ ..
His vow is that he should make food plentiful. Earth is food; space is eater; for earth is placed in space. (Space is food; and earth is eater, for) space is placed on earth. Thus one food is lodged in another food. He who knows thus that one food is lodged in another, gets firmly established. He becomes a possessor and an eater of food. He becomes great in progeny, cattle, and the lustre of holiness and great in glory.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The vow to make food plentiful is meant for one who worships fire and water as possessed of the attributes of food and the eater of food in the way that was mentioned by the text, 'fire resides in water,' etc. (in the preceding chapter).
Max Müller
1. Let him acquire much food, that is the rule. Earth is food, the ether eats the food. The ether rests on the earth, the earth rests on the ether. This is the food resting on food. He who knows this food resting on food, rests exalted, becomes rich in food, and able to eat food (healthy), becomes great by offspring, cattle, and the splendour of his knowledge (of Brahman), great by fame.
His vow is that he should not refuse anyone come for shelter. Therefore one should collect plenty of food by whatsoever means he may. (And one should collect food for the further reason that) they say, “Food is ready for him”. Because he offers cooked food in his early age with honour, food falls to his share in the early age with honour. Because he offers food in his middle age with medium courtesy, food falls to his share in his middle age with medium honour. Because he offers food in his old age with scant esteem, food falls to his share in old age with scant consideration. To him who knows thus (comes the result as described). (Brahman is to be meditated on) as preservation in speech; as acquisition and preservation in exhaling and inhaling; as action in the hands; as movement in the feet; discharge in the anus. There are meditations on the human plane. Then follow the divine ones. (Brahman is to be meditated on) as contentment in rain; as energy in lightning.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
So also there is a vow for one who meditates on earth and space (as mutually the food and the eater) :- na pratyacaksita, he should not refuse; kam cana, anybody, whomsoever; vasatau, in the matter of dwelling. The meaning is that he should not turn back anybody who may come for shelter. Since, if shelter is given, food, too, must be supplied, therefore yaya kaya ca vidhaya, by any means whatsoever; prapnuyat bahu annam, he should get, i.e. collect, plenty of food. Since the enlightened people (i.e. meditators) possessed of food, acaksate, say; 'Annam aradhi asmai, food has been cooked for this man', and they do not refuse him by saying, 'There is no food', therefore, also, one should acquire plenty of food. This is how this portion should be construed with the earlier. Moreover, the greatness of the gift of food is being stated :- Food greets one back in that very manner and at that very period (of life) in which it is offered. How? that is being explained :- Etat vai, the fact that; annam, food; raddham, cooked; mukhatah, in early age, or with the best attitude, with veneration-; 'he offers to the guest seeking food', this much is to be added to complete the sentence. What result will he get? The answer is :- Asmi for this one-for the giver of food; annam radhyate, food is cooked; mukhatah, in the early age, or in the best manner. The idea is that food falls to his share just as it was offered. Similarly, madhyatah means during the middle part of life, and with middling courtesy. Thus, too, antatah means in the old age, and with scant courtesy, i.e. with discourtesy. In that very manner annam radhyate asmai, food is cooked for him, food accrues to him. Yah evam veda, he who knows-thus-knows the greatness of food and the result of that gift as stated-, to him befalls the aforesaid result (of that gift). Now is being stated a process of meditation on Brahman :- Ksemah means the preservation of what has been acquired; Brahman is to be meditated on as existing vaci, in speech, in the form of preservation. Yogah means the acquisition of what is not is possession. Though these acquisition and preservation occur so long as exhaling and inhaling function, still they are not braught about by the mere fact of living. What are they, then, due to? They are caused by Brahman. Therefore Brahman is to be meditated on an existing pranapanayoh, in exhalation and inhalation, in the form of acquisition and preservation. Similarly, with regard to the other succeeding cases Brahman is to be meditated on as identified with those (respective) things. Since work is done by Brahman, Brahman is to be meditated on as existing hastayoh, in the hands; karma iti, in the form of work; gatih iti, as movement; padayoh, in the feet :- vimuktih iti, as discharge; payau, in the anus; Iti, these are :- samajnah, cognitions, perceptions, i.e. meditations; which are manusih (should be rather manusyah), pertaining to men, belonging to the physical body. Atha, after this; daivih, (should be rather daivyah), the divine, the meditations pertaining to the gods-are being related. Trptih iti vrstau, as satisfaction in rain. Since rain causes contentment by producing food etc., Brahman is to be meditated on as existing in rain in the form of contentment. Similarly, in the case of other things, Brahman is to be meditated on an existing in those forms. So also It is to be meditated on as energy is lightning.
Max Müller
1. Let him never turn away (a stranger) from his house, that is the rule. Therefore a man should by all means acquire much food, for (good) people say (to the stranger):- 'There is food ready for him.' If he gives food amply, food is given to him amply. If he gives food fairly, food is given to him fairly. If he gives food meanly, food is given to him meanly. 2. He who knows this, (recognises and worships Brahman [1]) as possession in speech, as acquisition and possession in up-breathing (prâna) and down-breathing (apâna); as action in the hands; as walking in the feet; as voiding in the anus. These are the human recognitions (of Brahman as manifested in human actions). Next follow the recognitions (of Brahman) with reference to the Devas, viz. as satisfaction in rain; as power in lightning;
sa yaścāyaṃ puruṣe . yaścāsāvāditye . sa ekaḥ .. 4..
Brahman is to be worshipped as fame in beasts; as light in the stars; as procreation, immortality, and joy in the generative organ; as everything in space. One should meditate on that Brahman as the support; thereby one becomes supported. One should meditate on that Brahman as great; thereby one becomes great. One should meditate on It as thinking; thereby one becomes able to think. One should meditate on It as bowing down; thereby the enjoyable things bow down to one. One should meditate on It as the most exalted; Thereby one becomes exalted. One should meditate on It as Brahman’s medium of destruction; thereby the adversaries that envy such a one die, and so do the enemies whom this one dislikes. This being that is in the human personality, and the being that is there in the sun are one.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
(Brahman is to be worshipped) as yasah, fame; pasusu, among animals; [I.e. as existing in cattle-wealth, since wealth makes a man famous.] as jyotih, light, naksatresu, in the stars. Prajatih, procreation; amrtam, immortality, getting of immortality-this being brought about by the son's repaying the debts; anandah, happiness-all these originate from the organ of generation, and Brahman is to be meditated on as existing in those froms in the generative organ. Since sarvam, everything; is placed akase, in space (or the Unmanifested), therefore one should meditate thus:- 'All that is in space is Brahman.' And that space, too, is Brahman. Therefore that (space-Brahman) is to be meditated on as the support of all. By meditating on the attribute of 'being the sustainer', one becomes well established. So also with regard to the previous cases, it is to be understood that any effect that is produced by any of the factors, [E.g. preservation, produced by speech, is Brahman] is but Brahman only; and by meditating on that (effect as Brahman) one becomes possessed of it. This also follows from another Vedic text, 'As he worships Him, so he becomes' (Mud. III.3). Upasita, one should worship; tat, that (Brahman), mahah iti, as possessed of greatness; (thereby) bhavati mahan, one becomes great. (Brahman should be meditated on as) manah, thinking; (thereby) bhavati manavan, he becomes able to think. Tat namah, etc.:- namah means bowing down, (possessed of suppleness); Brahman is to be worshipped as possessed of suppleness; (thereby) kamah, desires, things that are desired, i.e. enjoyable things; namyante, bow down; asmai, to such a meditator. One should meditate on tat, that Brahman; brahman iti, as the most exalted; (thereby) one bhavati, brahmavan, becomes possessed of that quality of being the most exalted. [Like Virat, possessed of all gross means of enjoyment.] Tat brahmanah etc.:- parimarah is derived in the sense of that in which die, from all sides, the five gods, viz Lightning, Rain, Moon, Sun, and Fire. Therefore air is their parimarah, destruction-in accordance with another Vedic text, ('Air [Virat] is, indeed, the place of merger'), (Ch. IV. iii. 1). Again, this very air is non different from space; hence space is brahmanah parimarah, Brahman's medium of destruction. Upasita, one should meditate on; tat, that space, which is non different from air, [Since air comes out of space] as Brahman's medium of destruction. (As a result) sapatnah, adversaries; who are dvisatah, envious; enam, towards this man; pari mriyante, part with their lives. There may be adversaries who are not envious; hence the singling out in this form, 'the envious adversaries'. Those adversaries that are envious towards this man (die). Moreover, ye bhratrvyah, those adversaries of this man; who are apriyah, disliked (by him), though they may not be spiteful-they, too, die. Beginning with the text, 'the vital, force is, indeed, food, and the body is the eater of food', and ending with space, creation has been shown as food and the eater of food. Objection:- It might have been said so; what of that? Answer:- Thereby is proved this:- Wordly existence, comprising enjoyment and enjoyership, pertain only to created things, but not to the Self; yet it is superimposed on the Self through ignorance. Objection:- The Self, too, is a product of the supreme Self, and hence the Self's worldly existence is quite in order. Answer:- No, for the Upanisad refers to the entry of the Transcendental (Brahman). In the text, 'Having created that, He entered into that very thing' (II.vi.1), the entry into creation is predicated verily of the transcendental supreme Self which is, indeed, the cause of space etc. Hence the Self which has entered into creation as the individual soul is none other than the supermundane, supreme Self. Moreover, this follows from the propriety of the same entity being the subject of the two verbs in the expression, 'having created, he entered'. If the two verbs implying creation and entry have the same subject, then only is the suffix ktva (-ing) justifiable. Objection:- But the one which enters undergoes a change. Answer:- No, since entry has been explained away by-giving it a different meaning (II.vi.). Objection:- May not the entry be through a change of attributes, since there is such a categorical text, 'entering in the form of this individual soul....(Ch. VI.iii.2)? Answer:- No, since reinstatement into the earlier mode is spoken of in 'Thou art That' (Ch. VI. viii-xvi). Objection:- It is a meditation, involving the superimposition of the greater on the less, which is calculated to remove a chage that has come over one (of the two). Answer:- No, for the two are placed on the same pedestal in the text, 'That is truth, That is the Self; and thou art That'. Objection:- The worldly state of the individual soul is a perceived reality. Answer:- No, for the perceiver cannot be perceived (Br. II.iv.14). Objection:- The (individual) Self, as endowed with worldly attributes, is perceived. Answer:- Not so; (for if they are real attributes of the Self, then), since the attributes of a thing are nonseparable from the substratum, they cannot reasonably become objects of perception, just as heat and light (of fire) cannot be subjected to burning or illumination (by fire). Objection:- The soul is inferred to be possessed of sorrow etc., since fear etc. are seen (in it). Answer:- No, for fear etc. and sorrow cannot be the qualities of the perceiver (soul), since they are perceived (by it). Objection:- This runs counter to the (Samkhya) scripture promulgated by Kapila, and to the science of logic built up by Kanada and others. Answer:- No so; for if they have no (logical) basis or if they are opposed to the Vedas, it is reasonable to call them erroneous. And from the Vedas as well as from reasoning, the Self is proved to be transcendental. Besides, this follows from the unity of the Self. Objection:- How is that unity? Answer:- That is being stated (in sah yah ca ayam etc.). The whole of the text, sah yah ca ayam etc., is to be construed as already explained (II.viii.5).
Max Müller
3. As glory in cattle; as light in the stars; as procreation, immortality, and bliss in the member; as everything in the ether. Let him worship that (Brahman) as support, and he becomes supported. Let him worship that (Brahman) as greatness (mahah), and he becomes great. Let him worship that (Brahman) as mind, and he becomes endowed with mind. 4. Let him worship that (Brahman) as adoration, and all desires fall down before him in adoration. Let him worship that (Brahman) as Brahman, and he will become possessed of Brahman. Let him worship this as the absorption of the gods [1] in Brahman, and the enemies who hate him will die all around him, all around him will die the foes whom he does not love. He [2] who is this (Brahman) in man, and he who is that (Brahman) in the sun, both are one.
Footnotes
1. Cf. Kaush. Up. II, 12. Here the absorption of the gods of fire, sun, moon, and lightning in the god of the air (vâyu) is described. Saṅkara adds the god of rain, and shows that air is identical with ether. 2. Cf. II, 8.
एतत् साम गायन्नास्ते । हा ३ वु हा ३ वु हा ३ वु ॥ ५॥
अहमन्नमहमन्नमहमन्नम् ।
अहमन्नादोऽ३हमन्नादोऽ३अहमन्नादः ।
अहꣳश्लोककृदहꣳश्लोककृदहꣳश्लोककृत् ।
अहमस्मि प्रथमजा ऋता३स्य ।
पूर्वं देवेभ्योऽमृतस्य ना३भाइ ।
यो मा ददाति स इदेव मा३अऽवाः ।
अहमन्नमन्नमदन्तमा३द्मि ।
अहं विश्वं भुवनमभ्यभवा३म् ।
सुवर्न ज्योतीः । य एवं वेद । इत्युपनिषत् ॥ ६॥
इति दशमोऽनुवाकः ॥
॥ इति भृगुवल्ली समाप्ता ॥
sa ya evaṃvit . asmāllokātpretya .
etamannamayamātmānamupasaṅkramya .
etaṃ prāṇamayamātmānamupasaṅkramya .
etaṃ manomayamātmānamupasaṅkramya .
etaṃ vijñānamayamātmānamupasaṅkramya .
etamānandamayamātmānamupasaṅkramya .
imām̐llokankāmānnī kāmarūpyanusañcaran .
etat sāma gāyannāste . hā 3 vu hā 3 vu hā 3 vu .. 5..
ahamannamahamannamahamannam .
ahamannādo'3hamannādo'3ahamannādaḥ .
ahagͫślokakṛdahagͫślokakṛdahagͫślokakṛt .
ahamasmi prathamajā ṛtā3sya .
pūrvaṃ devebhyo'mṛtasya nā3bhāi .
yo mā dadāti sa ideva mā3a'vāḥ .
ahamannamannamadantamā3dmi .
ahaṃ viśvaṃ bhuvanamabhyabhavā3m .
suvarna jyotīḥ . ya evaṃ veda . ityupaniṣat .. 6..
iti daśamo'nuvākaḥ ..
.. iti bhṛguvallī samāptā ..
He who knows thus, attains, after desisting from this world, this self made of food. After attaining this self made of food then, attaining this self made of vital force, then attaining this self made of mind, then attaining this self made of intelligence, then attaining this self made of bliss, and roaming over these worlds with command over food at will and command over all forms at will, he continues singing this Sama song:- “Halloo ! Halloo ! Halloo ! I am the food, I am the food, I am the food; I am the eater, I am the eater, I am the eater; I am the unifier, I am the unifier, I am the unifier; I am (Hiranyagarbha) the first born of this world consisting of the formed and the formless, I (as Virat) am earlier than the gods. I am the navel of immortality. He who offers me thus (as food), protect me just as I am. I, food as I am, eat him up who eats food without offering. I defeat (i.e. engulf) the entire universe. Our effulgence is like that of the sun. This is the Upanishad.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Starting from the self constituted by food, and by degrees anandamayam atmanam upasamkramya, reaching the self, constituted by joy; [II.viii.5 refers to liberation after death, whereas this portion of the present text refers to liberation even while living (jivanmukti).] aste, he sits (continues); gayan, singing on; etat sama, this sama (song). The meaning of the Rg-mantra-'Satyam jnanam etc.-Brahman is truth, knowledge,' etc. (II.i)-has been explained elaborately in the Part On Bliss, which is an exposition of it. But the meaning of the statement of its result contained in the text, 'He enjoys, as idetified with the all-knowing Brahman, all desirable things simultaneously' (II.i.), has not been elaborated. Now the following text begins, since it remains to be shown what these results are, what the objects of all those desires are, and how he enjoys them simultaneously in his identity with Brahman. As to that, in the story of the father and the son (in Part III), which is supplementary to the knowledge imparted earlier (in Part II), concentration has been spoken of as a means for the knowledge of Brahman. Besides, it has been shown how creation, counting from the vital force and ending with space, can be divided into the eater and the eaten; and the meditations on Brahman have been referred to. Furthermore, all the enjoyments that there are and pertain to diverse products like space etc., have been shown to be the results of multifarious means that are systematically related to their results. On the attainment of unity, however, there cannot logically remain any desire or desirer, since all diversity becomes merged in the Self. So how can such a knower enjoy all desires simultaneously in the state of identity with Brahman? In answer to this question it is being said that this is possible because of his becoming the Self of all. To the question, 'How is there an attainment of identity with the Self of all?'-the answer is:- As a result of the knowledge of the identity of the Self existing in the individual and the sun, having discarded excellence and non-excellence, having attained in succession the selves-starting with the one made of food and ending with the one constituted by bliss- which are fancied through ignorance, and having realized, as a result, Brahman which is truth, knowledge, and infinity, which is unperceivable etc. by nature, which is natural Bliss, and which is birthless, immortal, fearless, and non-dual; and then (that man of knowledge) anusamcaran, wandering; on iman lokan, these worlds-the earth etc.; this is how the expression iman lokan is to be construed with the remote word anusamcaran. Wandering how? (Becoming) kamanni- one who gets anna, food, according to kama, wish, is kamanni, (having command over food at will); similarly, (becoming kamarupi) one who gets rupas, forms according to his wish is kamarupi; wandering on all these worlds, in his identity with all; i.e. perceiving all these worlds as the Self. 'What does he do? Etat sama gayan aste:- aste, he continues; gayan, singing, uttering; etat sama, this sama (song). Brahman Itself is the sama, because It is sama, equal, non-different from everything. (So the idea is):- He continues declaring the unity of the Self as also announcing, for the good of others, the result of that knowledge consisting in absolute contentment. How does he sing? (He sings):- Ha-a-a-vu, ha-a-a-vu, ha-a-a-vu; the expression is used in the sense of 'oho' to indicate supreme surprise. What, again, is that surprise? The answer is:- Although I am really the untainted, nondual Self, still I am annam, food; as also annadah, the eater of food. Moreover, aham, I myself; am the slokakrt:- sloka means union-union of food and the eater of food; the conscious being encompassing that union is the slokakrt. Or the expression may mean this:- I bring about the assemblage of food itself, which is naturally meant for somebody other than itself, viz the eater, and which becomes diversified owing to this very fact. The three repetitions are meant for expressing astonishment. Aham asmi, I am; prathamajah (i.e. prathamajah), the first born (Hiranyagarbha); rtasya, of this world, consisting of the formed and the formless; and (I am Virat which is) purvam, earlier; devebhyah, than the gods. (I am) nabhih (nabhayi) the navel, centre; amrtasya, of immortality, i.e. the immortality of living beings is in my keeping. Yah, anyone who; dadati ma, offers me as food, to those who beg food-talks of me as the food; sah, he; iti, in this way; avah, i.e. avati, protects (me); evam, intact and just as I am. On the contrary, aham, I; who am but annam, the food, for the present; admi, eat up; adantam annam, that eater of food-any other man, who eats food without offering me in the form of food-at the proper time-to those who ask. At this point someone may say:- 'If this be so, I am afraid of liberation that consists in becoming the Self of all. Let my worldly existence itself continue; for even though liberated, I shall still be food to be eaten by somebody.' (The answer is:-) Do not entertain such a fear, for the enjoyment of all the desirable things falls within the range of relative existence. But this man of knowledge has become Brahman by transcending, through illumination, all that is described as the eater and the eaten which fall within the domain of empirical experience and which are the creations of ignorance. For him there exists no separate thing of which he can be afraid. Hence there is nothing to be afraid of in liberation. Objection:- If this be so, then what is meant by saying, 'i am the eaten and the eater'? Answer:- This phenomenal existence, constituted by the eater and the eaten, which endures as a product , is nothing but a phenomenon; it is not a real substance. But though it is so, still, having in view the fact that it exists because of Brahman and that it is reduced to a nonentity apart from Brahman, this phenomenon is referred to in the text, 'I am food,' etc., for the sake of recommending the state of identity with Brahman which follows from the knowledge of Brahman. Therefore, when ignorance is eradicated, there cannot exist for the man indentified with Brahman any remnant of such taints as fear which are the creations of ignorance. Accordingly, aham, I; abhyabhavam, overwhelm, engulf in my supreme nature as God; visvam, the whole; bhuvanam, universe-derivatively meaning that which is enjoyed by all beings counting from Brahma, or that on which all creatures are born. Suvah na joytih:- Suvah is the sun; na expresses similitude. The meaning is:- Our jyotih, effulgence; is ever-shining suvah na like the sun. Iti upanisad, this is the knowledge of the supreme Self, inculcated in the two Parts (II and III). To him come the aforesaid fruits who, like Bhrgu, masters the above mentioned Upanisad through pratice of great concentration after the acquisition of control over the inner and outer organs, dispassionateness, imperturbability, and concentration.
Max Müller
5. He who knows this, when he has departed this world, after reaching and comprehending the Self which consists of food, the Self which consists of breath, the Self which consists of mind, the Self which consists of understanding, the Self which consists of bliss, enters and takes possession of these worlds, and having as much food as he likes, and assuming as many forms as he likes, he sits down singing this Sâman (of Brahman):- 'Hâvu, hâvu, hâvu! 6. 'I am food (object), I am food, I am food! I am the eater of food (subject), I am the eater of food, I am the eater of food! I am the poet (who joins the two together), I am the poet, I am the poet! I am the first-born of the Right (rita). Before the Devas I was in the centre of all that is immortal. He who gives me away, he alone preserves me:- him who eats food, I eat as food. 'I overcome the whole world, I, endowed with golden light [1]. He who knows this, (attains all this).' This is the Upanishad [2].
Footnotes
1. If we read suvarnagyotih. The commentator reads suvar na gyotih. i.e. the light is like the sun. 2. After the Anukramanî follows the same invocation as in the beginning of the third Vallî, 'May it protect us both,' &c.
ॐ सह नाववतु । सह नौ भुनक्तु । सह वीर्यं करवावहै ।
तेजस्वि नावधीतमस्तु मा विद्विषावहै ।
॥ ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥
॥ हरिः ॐ ॥
oṃ saha nāvavatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha vīryaṃ karavāvahai .
tejasvi nāvadhītamastu mā vidviṣāvahai .
.. oṃ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ ..
.. hariḥ oṃ ..
8 - Aitareya Upanishad
The Aitareya Upanishad, belonging to the Rig Veda, presents a profound inquiry into the origin of the universe, the nature of the Self (Atman), and the primacy of consciousness. It explores creation not as a physical process alone, but as a manifestation of awareness, culminating in the declaration that consciousness itself is the ultimate reality.
Editorial Note:
The Aitareya Upanishad is one of the principal Upanishads associated with the
Rig Veda, forming part of the Aitareya Aranyaka. Specifically, it
comprises the fourth, fifth, and sixth chapters of the second book of the
Aranyaka.
While earlier portions of the Aranyaka deal with external rituals and
sacrifices, this Upanishad shifts the focus inward, interpreting those rituals
symbolically as processes within consciousness. It marks a transition from
ritualistic religion to philosophical introspection.
The text is best known for its mahavakya: “prajñānam brahma” (3.3) —
“Consciousness is Brahman,” which is regarded as one of the central declarations
of Vedanta and the essence of the Rig Vedic vision.
Structure of the Text
The Aitareya Upanishad is a concise prose text divided into three chapters
(adhyayas), further organized into sections (khandas):
First Chapter (Adhyaya 1) - Creation of the Universe (23 verses)
1st Khanda - 4 verses
2nd Khanda - 5 verses
3rd Khanda - 14 verses Explains how the universe emerges from the Atman, including the creation of
cosmic elements, deities, and the human being as the highest manifestation.
Second Chapter (Adhyaya 2) - The Threefold Birth of the Self (6 verses) Describes the three stages of existence: conception, birth into the world, and
continuation through progeny, presenting a deeper understanding of life and
continuity.
Third Chapter (Adhyaya 3) - Nature of Consciousness (4 verses) Culminates in the realization that consciousness itself is the essence of
the Self (Atman), leading to the mahavakya “prajñānam brahma.”
Flow of Ideas
The Upanishad follows a clear philosophical progression:
Creation - The universe originates from the Self (Atman).
Embodiment - The Self enters and experiences life through the human form.
Realization - The Self is ultimately recognized as pure consciousness.
Core Philosophical Themes
Creation from Atman - The world and all beings arise from a single
conscious source.
Threefold Birth - Life is a continuous process beyond physical birth.
Primacy of Consciousness - Awareness is not a byproduct, but the
fundamental reality.
Simple Summary (For Easy Understanding)
The Aitareya Upanishad explains that everything in the universe comes from one
ultimate reality called the Atman, or the inner Self.
First, it describes how the world and human beings are created from this Self.
It shows that humans are special because they have the ability to be aware and
understand.
Then, it explains that life is not just a single birth. The Self passes through
different stages — from being in the womb, to living in the world, and
continuing through future generations.
Finally, the Upanishad gives its most important teaching: Consciousness itself
is the ultimate truth. What we truly are is not the body or mind, but pure
awareness.
This insight is captured in the great statement: “prajñānam brahma” — Consciousness is Brahman.
This edition presents the original Sanskrit text alongside IAST transliteration,
with translation and commentary based on the Advaita Vedanta tradition of
Shankaracharya, as translated by Swami Gambhirananda.
Reading Mode - Change for details
ऐतरेयोपनिषत्
वाङ् मे मनसि प्रतिष्ठिता मनो मे वाचि प्रतिष्ठितमाविरावीर्म एधि ॥
वेदस्य म आणीस्थः श्रुतं मे मा प्रहासीरनेनाधीतेनाहोरात्रान्
संदधाम्यृतं वदिष्यामि सत्यं वदिष्यामि ॥ तन्मामवतु
तद्वक्तारमवत्ववतु मामवतु वक्तारमवतु वक्तारम् ॥
॥ ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः॥
aitareyopaniṣat
vāṅ me manasi pratiṣṭhitā mano me vāci pratiṣṭhitamāvirāvīrma edhi ||
vedasya ma āṇīsthaḥ śrutaṃ me mā prahāsīranenādhītenāhorātrān
oṃ ātmā vā idameka evāgra āsīnnānyatkiṃcana miṣat . sa īkṣata
lokānnu sṛjā iti || 1||
In the beginning this was but the absolute Self alone. There was nothing else whatsoever that winked. He thought, "Let Me create the worlds."
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Atma vai, the absolute [Vai is used to present the absolute by way of ruling out the conditioned.] Self. The word atma, Self, is derived in the sense of comprehending, engulfing or pervading, and by it is signified one that is the highest, omniscient, omnipotent, and devoid of all such worldly attributes as hunger; by nature eternal, pure, conscious, and free; birthless, undecaying, immortal, deathless, fearless, and without a second. Idam, this --- all that has been referred to as this world, diversified through the differences of name, form, and action; asit, was; agre, in the beginning, before the creation of this world; atma ekah eva, but the one Self. Objection:- Has It ceased to be the same one entity ? Answer:- No. Objection:- Why is it then said, `It was'? Answer:- Though even now that very same single entity endures, still there is some distinction. The distinction is this:- The universe in which the differences of name and form were not manifest before creation, which was then one with the Self, and which was denotable by the single word and idea `Self', has now become denotable by many words and concepts as well as by the single word and concept `Self', because of its diversification through the multiplicity of names and forms. Foam is denoted by the single word and concept `water', before the manifestation of names and forms distinct from water; but when that foam becomes manifested as (an entity) distinct from water, owing to the difference of name and form, then the very same foam becomes denotable by many words and concepts, viz foam and water, as well as by only one word and one concept, viz water. The same is the case here. Na anyat kimcana, there was nothing else whatsoever; misat, winking, that was active or tractive. Unlike the Pradhana of the Samkhyas, which is an independent entity and not of the same class as the selves, and unlike the atoms of the followers of Kanada, there remained here nothing whatsoever apart from the Self. What (existed) then? The Self alone existed. This is the idea Sah, that Self; being naturally omniscient, iksata, thought; even though It was but one. Objection:- Since the Self was devoid of body and senses, how could It think before creation? Answer:- This is no fault, because of Its nature of omniscience, in support of which fact is the mantra text, `Without hands and feet He goes and grasps' etc. (Sv. III. 19). With what motive (did He think)? The answer is:- srjai, let Me create; lokan, the worlds --- (viz) ambhas etc., which are the places for the enjoyment of the fruits of work done by creatures. Having visualized, i.e. deliberated, thus,
Max Müller
1. (1.) Verily, in the beginning [1] all this was Self, one only; there was nothing else blinking [2] whatsoever. (2.) He thought:- 'Shall I send forth worlds?' (1)
स इमाँ ल्लोकानसृजत । अम्भो मरीचीर्मापोऽदोऽम्भः परेण दिवं
द्यौः प्रतिष्ठाऽन्तरिक्षं मरीचयः ॥
पृथिवी मरो या अधस्तात्त आपः ॥ २॥
sa imām̐ llokānasṛjata . ambho marīcīrmāpo'do'mbhaḥ pareṇa divaṃ
dyauḥ pratiṣṭhā'ntarikṣaṃ marīcayaḥ ||
pṛthivī maro yā adhastātta āpaḥ || 2||
He created these world, viz. ambhas, marici, mara, apah. That which is beyond heaven is ambhas. Heaven is its support. The sky is marici. The earth is mara. The worlds that are below are the apah.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Sah, that Self; asrjata, created; iman lokan, these worlds; just as in the world an intelligent architect or others think, `I shall construct a palace etc. according to this plan', and build up the palace etc. after that deliberation. Objection:- It is logical that architects and others, possessed of materials, should raise up palaces etc. But how can the Self, devoid of materials, create the worlds? Answer:- This is nothing wrong. Name and form --- which remain identified with the Self in their unmanifested state just like the (undiversified) foam with water, and are hence denotable by the word `Self' --- can become the material cause of the universe, as water becomes that of the manifested foam. Therefore, there is nothing incongruous in saying that the omniscient Being creates the universe by virtue of Its oneness with the materials --- viz name and form --- which are identified with Itself. Or the more reasonable position is this:- Just as an intelligent juggler, who has no material, transforms himself, as it were, into a second self ascending into space, similarly the omniscient and omnipotent Deity, who is a supreme magician, creates Himself as another in the form of the universe. On this view, the schools that hold such beliefs as the unreality of both cause and effect have no legs to stand on and are totally demolished. Which are the worlds that He created? They are being enumerated:- Ambhas, maricih, maram, apah. Starting with space, he created in due order the cosmic egg, and then created the worlds --- ambhas etc. As for these, the Upanishad itself explains the words ambhas etc. Adah, that one --- the world that is there; parena divam, beyond heaven; is ambhas, is denoted by the word ambhas. It is called ambhas because it holds ambhas, water (cloud). Of that world, viz ambhas, dyauh pratistha, heaven is the support. Antariksam, the sky, which is there below heaven, is the (world called) marici (lit. sunrays). Though this (last) world is one, it is used in the plural number as maricih (or rather maricayah) because of the diversity of the space covered by it. Or it is so used because of its association with the maricayah, rays (of the sun). Prthivi, the earth, is marah since beings die (mriyante) on it. Yah adhastat, the worlds that are below --- below the earth; tah, they (are); apah, called apah, (lit. water) the word being derived (from the root ap) in the sense of being attained [Attained by the denizens of the nether worlds.]. Though the worlds are constituted by the five elements, still, because of the predominance of water (etc. in them), they are referred to, by the synonyms of water (etc.) as ambhas, maricih, maram, apah.
Max Müller
2. He sent forth these worlds, (3.) Ambhas (water), Marîki (light), Mara (mortal), and Ap (water). (4.) That Ambhas (water) is above the heaven, and it is heaven, the support. The Marîkis (the lights) are the sky. The Mara (mortal) is the earth, and the waters under the earth are the Ap world [1]. (2)
sa īkṣateme nu lokā lokapālānnu sṛjā iti || so'dbhya eva puruṣaṃ
samuddhṛtyāmūrchayat || 3||
He thought, "These then are the worlds. Let Me create the protectors of the worlds." Having gathered up a (lump of the) human form from the water itself, He gave shape to it.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Having created the four worlds that provide support for the fruits of action as well as the materials for those fruits [And the accessories for achieving those fruits.] of all creatures, sah, He, God; iksata, deliberated; again iti, thus:- `Ime nu lokah, these then are the worlds, viz ambhas etc., created by Me, which will perish if they are devoid of protectors. According, for their preservation, nu srjat, let Me create; lokapalan, the protectors of the worlds.' After deliberating thus, sah, He; samuddhrtya, having gathered up; purusam, a human form, possessed of head, hands, etc.; adbhyah, from the water, itself --- from the five elements in which water predominated, and from which He had created (the worlds, viz) ambhas etc. --- just as a potter gathers up a lump of clay from the earth; amurchayat, (He) gave shape to it --- that is to say, fashioned it by endowing it with limbs [He created Virat].
Max Müller
3. (5.) He thought:- 'There are these worlds; shall I send forth guardians of the worlds?' He then formed the Purusha (the person) [1], taking him forth from the water [2]. (3)
He deliberated with regard to Him (i.e. Virat of the human form). As He (i.e. Virat) was being deliberated on, His (i.e. Virat'') mouth parted, just as an egg does. From the mouth emerged speech; from speech came Fire. The nostrils parted; from the nostrils came out the sense of smell; from the sense of smell came Vayu (Air). The two eyes parted; from the eyes emerged the sense of sight; from the sense of sight came the Sun. The two ears parted; from the ears came the sense of hearing; from the sense of hearing came the Directions. The skin emerged; from the skin came out hair (i.e. the sense of touch associated with hair); from the sense of touch came the Herbs and Trees. The heart took shape; from the heart issued the internal organ (mind); from the internal organ came the Moon. The navel parted; from the navel came out the organ of ejection; from the organ of ejection issued Death. The seat of the procreative organ parted; from that came the procreative organ; from the procreative organ came out Water.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Tam, with regard to Him, (Virat of) that human form; He abhyatapat, undertook tapas (lit. austerity), i.e. He deliberated over, or resolved about, Him; for a Vedic text says, `Whose tapas is constituted by knowledge' (Mu. I. i. 9). Tasya abhitaptasya, of that (Virat), of the lump (that was Virat's body), when subjected to the tapas or resolution of God; mukham nirabhidyata, the mouth parted --- a hole in the shape of the mouth emerged, just as the bird's egg bursts. Mukhat, from that mouth emerged, which had parted; was brought into existence vak, the organ of speech; vacah, from that vak; was produced agnih, Fire, (the deity) that presides over vak and is a regional protector. Similarly nasike nirabhidyetam, the nostrils parted; nasikabhyam pranah, from the nostrils, emerged the sense of smell (The sense of smell together with Prana); pranat vayuh, from the sense of smell was formed Vayu, Air. Thus, in all cases, the seat of the organs, the organs, and the deity --- these, three emerged in succession. Aksini, the two eyes; karnau, the two orifices of the ears; tvak, skin --- (all these which are the seats of the organs), (and) hrdayam, heart (which is the) seat of the internal organ; manah, mind, the internal organ; nabhih, the navel (i.e. the root of the anus [See A.G]), which is the focal point of the vital forces. The organ of ejection (seated at the anus) is called apanah, because of its association with Apana (the vital force that moves down). From that originated its presiding deity mrtyuh, Death. As in the other cases, so sisnam, the seat of the organ of generation was formed. Its organ is retas, semen --- the organ, meant for discharging semen being called semen from the fact of its association with semen. From semen (i.e. the procreative organ) emerged (its deity) apah, Water.
Max Müller
4. (6.) He brooded on him [1], and when that person had thus been brooded on, a mouth burst forth [2] like an egg. From the mouth proceeded speech, from speech Agni (fire) [3]. Nostrils burst forth. From the nostrils proceeded scent (prâna) [4], from scent Vâyu (air). Eyes burst forth. From the eyes proceeded sight, from sight Âditya (sun). Ears burst forth. From the ears proceeded hearing, from hearing the Dis (quarters of the world), Skin burst forth. From the skin proceeded hairs (sense of touch), from the hairs shrubs and trees. The heart burst forth. From the heart proceeded mind, from mind Kandramas (moon). The navel burst forth. From the navel proceeded the Apâna (the down-breathing) [5], from Apâna death. The generative organ burst forth. From the organ proceeded seed, from seed water. (4)
These deities, that had been created, fell into this vast ocean. He subjected Him (i.e. Virat) to hunger and thirst. They said to Him (i.e. to the Creator), "Provide an abode for us, staying where we can eat food."
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Tah etah devatah, these deities --- Fire and others; srstah, that had been created as the rulers of the regions, by God after deliberation; (fell) asmin, into this; mahati arnave, vast ocean --- the world which is like a vast ocean, that is filled with the water of sorrow arising from ignorance, desire, and action; that is infested with huge sea animals in the form of acute disease, and age, and death; that has no beginning, end, and limit, and provides on resting place; that affords only momentary respite through the little joys arising from the contact of senses and objects; that is full of the high waves in the shape of hundreds of evils, stirred up by the gale of hankering for the objects of the five senses; that resounds with the noise of cries and shrieks of `alas! alas!' etc., issuing from the beings condemned to various hells like Maharaurava; that has the raft of knowledge --- which is furnished with such provisions for the way as truth, simplicity, charity, compassion, non-injury, control of inner and outer organs, fortitude, etc. that are the embellishments of the heart, and which has good company and renunciation of everything as its course --- and that has emancipation as its shore. Into this vast ocean, prapatan, (they) fell. Hence, the idea sought to be imparted here is that even the attainment of the state of merger in the deities, viz Fire and others, which was explained (earlier), and which is the result of the combined practice of meditation and karma --- (even this) is not adequate for the removal of the sorrows of the world. Since this is so, therefore, after having grasped this fact, one should, for the eradication of all the worldly miseries, realize the supreme Brahman as the Self of one's own as also of all beings --- the Self which is possessed of the characteristics to be mentioned hereafter, and which has been introduced as the source of the origination, continuance, and dissolution of the universe. Therefore in accordance with the Vedic text, `There is no other path for reaching there' (Sv. III. 8, VI. 15), it follows that, `This that is the knowledge of the oneness of Brahman and the Self, is the path, this is the karma, this is Brahman, this is truth' (Ai. A. II. i. 1). (He, the Creator) anvavarjat, suffused, i.e. endowed; tam, Him --- who was the source of the organs, their seats, and their deities, the Being (i.e. Virat) who was the first begotten and the Self in the form of a lump; asanayapipasabhyam, with hunger and thirst. Since He (the first begotten), the source of all, was afflicted with the defects of hunger etc. His products, the deities are also subject to hunger etc. Thereafter, tah, those (deities); being afflicted with hunger and thirst; abruvan, said; iti, this; enam, to Him, to the grandsire, to the Creator (of the body of Virat); `Prajanihi, provide; nah, for us; ayatanam, an abode; pratisthitah yasmin, staying where --- and becoming able; annam adama, we can eat food.'
Max Müller
1. (1.) Those deities (devatâ), Agni and the rest, after they had been sent forth, fell into this great ocean [1]. Then he (the Self) besieged him, (the person) with hunger and thirst. (2.) The deities then (tormented by hunger and thirst) spoke to him (the Self):- 'Allow us a place in which we may rest and eat food [2].' (1)
tābhyo'śvamānayattā abruvanna vai no'yamalamiti || 2||
For them He (i.e. God) brought a cow. They said, "This one is not certainly adequate for us." For them He brought a horse. They said, "This one is not certainly adequate for us."
Shankaracharya
Commentary
God, having been told so, tabhyah, for them, for the deities; anayat gam, brought a cow; having gathered up a lump of the size of a cow from that very water, just as before, and having fashioned it, He showed it (to them). Tah, they, on their part, having seen the bovine form; abruvan, said; `Ayam, this one --- this lump; na vai, is certainly not; alam, adequate; nah, for us --- not fit to serve as a seat while eating food; that is to say, it is not sufficient so far as eating is concerned.' The cow having been rejected, He anayat, brought; asvam, a horse; tabhyah, for them. Tah, they; abruvan, said; iti, this --- just as before; `Ayam na vai alam nah, this is certainly not enough for us.'
Max Müller
2. He led a cow towards them (the deities). They said:- 'This is not enough.' He led a horse towards them. They said:- 'This is not enough.' (2)
For them He brought a man. They said "This one is well formed; man indeed is a creation of God Himself". To them He said, "Enter into your respective abodes".
Shankaracharya
Commentary
When all else had been rejected, tabhyah, for them; anayat, (He) brought; purusam, a man, their progenitor [Who conformed in features to Virat, their origin]. Having seen that man, who was their source, they became free from misery, and tah, they; abruvan, said; iti, this; `This abode is sukrtam bata, well created, to be sure.' As a result purusah vava, man is indeed; sukrtam, virtue itself --- he having become the source of all virtuous deeds [Since they pronounced man as sukrta, therefore man acts virtuously even today]. Or, he is called sukrta, (lit.) created by oneself, because God created man by Himself, through His own Maya [Man was a good product since God created him independently of servants and accessories. Sukrta is thus explained in three senses --- good product, virtue, created by oneself (sva)]. God thought that this abode was liked by them, since all beings love the source (from which they spring); and so He abravit, said; tah, to them, to the deities; iti, this; `Pravisata, enter; yathayatanam, into the respective abode --- into the dwelling that suits each for such activities as speaking etc.'
Max Müller
3. He led man [1] towards them. Then they said:- 'Well done [2], indeed.' Therefore man is well done. (3.) He said to them:- 'Enter, each according to his place.' (3)
Fire entered into the mouth taking the form of the organ of speech; Air entered into the nostrils assuming the form of the sense of smell; the Sun entered into the eyes as the sense of sight; the Directions entered into the ears by becoming the sense of hearing; the Herbs and Trees entered into the skin in the form of hair (i.e. the sense of touch); the Moon entered into the heart in the shape of the mind; Death entered into the navel in the form of Apana (i.e. the vital energy that presses down); Water entered into the limb of generation in the form of semen (i.e. the organ of procreation).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Just as the commander and others of armies etc. (enter) into a city (at the bidding of the king), so having got the permission of God with the words, `Let this be so', agnih, Fire, the deity that identifies himself with the organ of speech; bhutva, becoming; vak, speech itself; pravisat, entered; mukham, into the mouth, which was his source. Similarly are the rest to be explained. Vayuh, Air, entered nasike, into the nostrils. Adityah, the Sun; aksini, into the eyes; disah, the Directions; karnau, into the ears; osadhivanaspatayah, the Herbs and Trees; tvacam, into the skin; candramah, the Moon; hrdayam, into the heart; mrtyuh, Death; nabhim, into the navel (i.e. the root of the anus); apah, Water; sisnam, into the generative organ.
Max Müller
4. Then Agni (fire), having become speech, entered the mouth. Vâyu (air), having become scent, entered the nostrils. Âditya (sun), having become sight, entered the eyes. The Dis (regions), having become hearing, entered the ears. The shrubs and trees, having become hairs, entered the skin. Kandramas (the moon), having become mind, entered the heart. Death, having become down-breathing, entered the navel. The waters, having become seed, entered the generative organ. (4)
To Him, Hunger and Thirst said, "Provide for us (some abode)." To them He said, "I provide your livelihood among these very gods; I make you share in their portions." Therefore when oblation is taken up for any deity whichsoever, Hunger and Thirst become verily sharers with that deity.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
When the gods had thus found their abodes, asanayapipase, Hunger and Thirst, being without abodes; abrutam, said, to that God; `Avabhyam, for us; abhiprajanihi, think of, i.e. provide; some abode.' He, God, having been told thus, abravit, said, te, to those two --- to Hunger and Thirst:- `Since you are but feelings, you cannot possibly eat food without being supported by some conscious being. Therefore etasu eva, among these beings themselves; devatasu, among the deities, viz Fire etc. --- in the corporeal context, as also in the divine context; abhajami vam, I favour you by apportioning your livelihood. Karomi, I make you; bhaginyau, sharers; etasu, among these gods. Whatever allotment, consisting of oblation etc., is assigned to any deity, I make you share in that very portion.' Since God ordained thus in the beginning of creation, tasmat, therefore; even today; yasyai kasyai ca devatayai, for whichsoever deity; havih, an oblation --- such as porridge, cake, etc.; grhyate, is taken up; ; asyam, with that deity; asanaya-pipase, Hunger and Thirst; bhaginyau eva bhavatah, become sharers indeed; asyam.
Max Müller
5. Then Hunger and Thirst spoke to him (the Self):- 'Allow us two (a place).' He said to them:- 'I assign you to those very deities there, I make you co-partners with them.' Therefore to whatever deity an oblation is offered, hunger and thirst are co-partners in it. (5)
sa īkṣateme nu lokāśca lokapālāścānnamebhyaḥ sṛjā iti || 1||
He thought, "This, then, are the senses and the deities of the senses. Let Me create food for them.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Sah, He, God; iksata, thought thus. How? `Ime nu, these then are; lokah ca lokapalah ca, the senses and their deities --- which have been created by Me and dowered with hunger and thirst; therefore these cannot subsist without food. Accordingly, srjai (which is the same as srje), let Me create; annam, food; ebhyah, for these--- the deities of the senses.' Thus is seen in the world the independence of lordly persons with regard to extending favor or disfavor to their own people. Therefore, the supreme Lord, too, has independence in the matter of favoring or disfavouring all, since He is the Lord of all.
Max Müller
1. He thought:- 'There are these worlds and the guardians of the worlds. Let me send forth food for them.' (1)
He deliberated with regard to the water. From the water, thus brooded over, evolved a form. The form that emerged was verily food.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Sah, He, God; being desirous of creating food; abhyatapat, deliberated with regard to; apah, the water, already mentioned. Tabhyah abhitaptabhyah, from the water that was brooded over, and that formed the material; ajayata, evolved; murtih, a solid form --- which could provide support (for others) and which comprised the moving and the unmoving. Ya vai sa murtih ajayata, the form that evolved; tat annam vai, that formed thing is verily food.
Max Müller
2. He brooded over the water [1]. From the water thus brooded on, matter [2] (mûrti) was born. And that matter which was born, that verily was food [3]. (2)
स यद्धैनद्वाचाऽग्रहैष्यदभिव्याहृत्य हैवान्नमत्रप्स्यत् ॥ ३॥
tadenatsṛṣṭaṃ parāṅtyajighāṃsattadvācā'jighṛkṣat
tannāśaknodvācā grahītum .
sa yaddhainadvācā'grahaiṣyadabhivyāhṛtya haivānnamatrapsyat || 3||
This food, that was created, turned back and attempted to run away. He tried to take it up with speech. He did not succeed in taking it up through speech. If He had succeeded in taking it up with the speech, then one would have become contented merely by talking of food.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Tat enat annam, this aforesaid food; that was srstam, created --- in the presence of the senses and their deities. As a mouse, for instance, when in the presence of a cat, thinks, `This is an eater of food and is Death to me', and moves back, similarly, this food turned parak, back; and atyajighamsat, wanted to go beyond the reach of the devourers; it began to run away. When that aggregate of the organs and their deities, that mass (Virat) in the form of the body and senses (of Virat), realized that intention of the food, but did not notice other eaters of food, He Himself being the first begotten, He ajighrksat, tried to take up; tat, that food; vaca, through speech, through the act of speaking. Na asaknot, He did not succeed; grahitum tat, to take up that; vaca, through speech, through speaking. Yat, if; sah, He, the First Born, the first embodied Being; agrahaisyat, had taken up; enat, this food; vaca, through speech; then everyone, being a product of the First Born; atrapsyat, would have become satisfied; abhivyahrtya ha eva annam, merely by talking of food. But, as a mater of fact, this is not the case. Hence we understand that the First Born, too, did not succeed in grasping (food) through speech. The remaining portions are to be similarly explained.
Max Müller
3. (2.) When this food (the object matter) had thus been sent forth, it wished to flee [1], crying and turning away. He (the subject) tried to grasp it by speech. He could not grasp it by speech. If he had grasped it by speech, man would be satisfied by naming food. (3)
तत्प्राणेनाजिघृक्षत् तन्नाशक्नोत्प्राणेन ग्रहीतुं स
यद्धैनत्प्राणेनाग्रहैष्यदभिप्राण्य
हैवान्नमत्रप्स्यत् ॥ ४॥
tatprāṇenājighṛkṣat tannāśaknotprāṇena grahītuṃ sa
yaddhainatprāṇenāgrahaiṣyadabhiprāṇya
haivānnamatrapsyat || 4||
He tied to grasp that food with the sense of smell. He did not succeed in grasping it by smelling. If He had succeeded in grasping it by smelling, then everyone should have become contented merely by smelling food.
Max Müller
4. He tried to grasp it by scent (breath). He could not grasp it by scent. If he had grasped it by scent, man would be satisfied by smelling food. (4)
He wanted to take up the food with the eye. He did not succeed in taking it up with the eye. If He had taken it up with the eye, then one would have become satisfied by merely seeing food.
Max Müller
5. He tried to grasp it by the eye. He could not grasp it by the eye. If he had grasped it by the eye, man would be satisfied by seeing food. (5)
He wanted to take up the food with the ear. He did not succeed in taking it up with the ear. If He had taken it up with the ear, then one would have become satisfied by merely by hearing of food.
Max Müller
6. He tried to grasp it by the ear. He could not grasp it by the ear. If he had grasped it by the ear, man would be satisfied by hearing food. (6)
He wanted to take it up with the sense of touch. He did not succeed in taking it up with the sense of touch. If He had taken it up with touch, then one would have become been satisfied merely by touching food.
Max Müller
7. He tried to grasp it by the skin. He could not grasp it by the skin. If he had grasped it by the skin, man would be satisfied by touching food. (7)
He wanted to take it up with the mind. He did not succeed in taking it up with the mind. If He had taken it up with the mind, then one would have become satisfied by merely thinking of food.
Max Müller
8. He tried to grasp it by the mind. He could not grasp it by the mind. If he had grasped it by the mind, man would be satisfied by thinking food. (8)
He wanted to take it up with the procreative organ. He did not succeed in taking it up with the procreative organ. If He had taken it up with the procreative organ, then one would have become satisfied by merely ejecting food.
Max Müller
9. He tried to grasp it by the generative organ. He could not grasp it by the organ. If he had grasped it by the organ, man would be satisfied by sending forth food. (9)
He wanted to take it up with Apana. He caught it. This is the devourer of food. That vital energy which is well known as dependent of food for its subsistence is this vital energy (called Apana).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Being unable to take up the food through the nose, the eye, the ear, the skin, the mind and the generative apparatus, that is to say, through the activity of the respective organs, at last He ajighrksat, wanted to take up the food; apanena, by Apana (the indrawing energy of) air --- through the cavity of the mouth. Tat avayat, (He) took up that food thus; He ate it. Therefore sah esah, this Apana air; annasya grahah, (is) the seizer of food, i.e. the devourer of food. Yat vayuh (should be rather yah vayuh), the vital energy that is; annayuh vai, well known as dependent of food, for its subsistence; is esah, this one; yat vayuh, which is the vital energy, called Apana [The eater of food is not the Self, but the vital energy that manifests itself as inhaling etc].
Max Müller
10. He tried to grasp it by the down-breathing (the breath which helps to swallow food through the mouth and to carry it off through the rectum, the pâyvindriya). He got it. (3.) Thus it is Vâyu (the getter [1]) who lays hold of food, and the Vâyu is verily Annâyu (he who gives life or who lives by food). (10)
He thought, "How indeed can it be there without Me?" He thought, "Through which of the two ways should I enter?" He thought, "If utterance is done by the organ of speech, smelling by the sense of smell, seeing by the eye, hearing by the ear, feeling by the sense of touch, thinking by the mind, the act of drawing in (or pressing down) by Apana, ejecting by the procreative organ, then who (or what) am I?"
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Having thus made the existence of the congress of the senses and their deities dependent on food, like the existence of a city, its citizens, and its rulers, sah, He; iksata, thought --- like the ruler of the city while cogitating thus:- `Katham nu, how indeed; mat-rte, without Me, the master of the city; syat, can there be; idam, this thing --- this activity belonging to the body and the senses that will be spoken of --- since it is meant for somebody else? Yadi vaca abhivyahrtam, if speaking is encompassed by the organ of speech, and so on, then use of speech etc. will become useless, will not take place in any way, just as offerings and praises that are made and sung by citizens and bards in honor of their lord become useless when the lord is not there. Therefore, just as a king is with regard to a city, so I should by there as the supreme lord, the ruler, the witness of whatever has been done or not done as also their results, and the enjoyer. It is a logical necessity that the combination of the products (i.e. the body and the organs) should be meant for somebody else. If this necessity can be fulfilled even without Myself --- who am a conscious being and by whom enjoyment through them is sought for --- just as much as the activities of a city and its citizens can be without their lord, atha, then; kah aham, who or what, and whose lord am I? If, after entering into the combination of the body and the organs, I do not witness of the fruits of utterances, etc. made by speech, etc., just as a king, after entering a city, observes the omissions and commissions of the officers, then nobody will understand or think of Me as, ``This one is a reality and is of this kind." Contrariwise, I shall become cognizable as the conscious reality who knows as His objects such activities as utterance etc. of the organs of speech etc., and for whose sake exist these utterances etc. of such composite things as speech and so on, just as the pillars, walls, etc., that enter into the construction of a palace etc. exist for the sake of somebody else who (is sentient and) does not form a part of that structure.' Having reasoned thus, sah, He; iksata, thought; iti, thus; `Katarena prapadyai, through which shall I enter? There are two ways of entrance into this composite thing --- the forepart of the foot and the head. Katarena, by which of these two paths; prapadyai (or rather, prapadyeyam), should I enter; into this city of the aggregate of body and organs?' Having considered thus, `That being so, I should not enter through the lower way --- viz the two tips of the feet --- that is the path of entry for My servant Prana (the Vital Force), that is commissioned to act in every way on My behalf. What then (should I do)? As a last resort, let me enter by splitting up (the crown of ) its head', (He entered) just like a human being who performs what he thinks.
Max Müller
11. (4.) He thought:- 'How can all this be without me?' (5.) And then he thought:- 'By what way shall I get there [1]?' (6.) And then he thought:- 'If speech names, if scent smells, if the eye sees, if the ear hears, if the skin feels, if the mind thinks, if the off-breathing digests, if the organ sends forth, then what am I?' (11)
Having split up this very end, He entered through this door. This entrance is known as vidriti (the chief entrance). Hence it is delightful. Of Him there are three abodes - three (states of) dream. This one is an abode, this one is an abode. This one is an abode.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Sah, He, the Creator god; etam eva simanam vidarya, having cleft this very end, having made a hole at the farthest point where the hair is parted; etaya dvara, through this gate, this entrance; prapadyata, entered --- into this world, i.e. into this conglomeration of body and organs. This one is that entrance that becomes well known from the fact of the perception inside (the mouth) of the taste etc. of oil and other things when these are applied on the crown of the head (for a long time). Sa esa dvah, this door; vidrtih nama, is well known as vidrti (the cleft one), because of its having been cleft. As for the other entrances --- viz the ear etc.--- they are not rich, i.e. not sources of joy, since they are common passages meant for those occupying the places of servants etc. But this passage is only for the supreme Lord; tat, hence; etat nandanam, this one is productive of joy. Nandana is the same as nandana, the lengthening being a Vedic licence. It is called because one revels (nandati) by going to the supreme Brahman through this door. Tasya, of Him, who, after having created thus, entered (the body) as an individual soul, like a king entering a city; there are trayah avasathah, three abodes --- viz the right eye, the seat of the sense (of vision), during the waking state; the mind inside, during the dream state; and the space within the heart, during the state of deep sleep. Or the three abodes may be the ones that will be enumerated, viz the body of the father, the womb of the mother, and one's own body. (He has) trayah svapnah, three (states of) dream, known as waking, dream, and deep sleep. Objection:- The waking state is not a dream, it being a state of consciousness. Answer:- Not so, it is verily a dream. Objection:- How? Answer:- Since there is no consciousness of one's own supreme Self, and in it are perceived unreal things as in a dream. Ayam, this one --- the right eye; is the first avasathah, abode; the second is the mind inside, and the space within the heart is the third. `Ayam avasathah, this is an abode' is only a recounting of what has been already enumerated. Residing alternately as identified with those abodes, this individual soul sleeps deeply for long through natural ignorance and does not wake up, though experiencing the blows of sorrow which arise from the concurrence of many hundreds of thousands of calamities and which fall like the thumps of a heavy club.
Max Müller
12. (7.) Then opening the suture of the skull, he got in by that door. (8.) That door is called the Vidriti (tearing asunder), the Nândana (the place of bliss). (9.) There are three dwelling-places for him, three dreams; this dwelling-place (the eye), this dwelling-place (the throat), this dwelling-place (the heart) [1]. (12)
Being born, He manifested all the beings; for did He speak of (or know) anything else? He realized this very Purusha as Brahman, the most pervasive, thus:- "I have realized this".
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Sah jatah, He being born, having entered into the body as the individual soul; abhivyaikhyat, manifested; bhutani, the beings. When, by good luck, a teacher of supreme compassion beat near his ears the drum of the great sayings of the Upanisads whose notes were calculated to wake up the knowledge of the Self, then the individual apasyat, realized; etam eva, this very; purusam, Purusa (as Brahman) --- the Purusa that is being discussed as the Lord of creation etc., who is called Purusa because of residence (sayana, i.e. existence) in the city (puri) (of the heart). (He realized Him) as brahma, Brahman, the Great; which is tatamam (by adding the missing ta, and taking the form tatatamam, the word means) the most pervasive, the fullest, like space. How (did he realize) ? `Iti, O!; I adarsam, have seen; idam, this one --- this Brahman, that is the real nature of my Self.' The elongation (of i in iti) is in accordance with the rule that in the case of a word suggesting deliberation, the vowel gets lengthened. [The elongation suggests that he first considered whether Brahman had been fully realized or not and then got the conviction, `It is fully realized'. This conviction led to full satisfaction, expressed through the exclamation, `O!'].
Max Müller
13. (10.) When born (when the Highest Self had entered the body) he looked through all things, in order to see whether anything wished to proclaim here another (Self). He saw this person only (himself) as the widely spread Brahman. 'I saw it,' thus he said [1]; (13)
Therefore His name is Idandra. He is verily known as Idandra. Although He is Idandra, they call Him indirectly Indra; for the gods are verily fond of indirect names, the gods are verily fond of indirect names.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Since He realized Brahman as `this', i.e. directly --- `the Brahman that is immediate and direct, the Self that is within all' (Br. III. iv. 1) --- therefore, from the fact of seeing as `idam, this', the supreme Self is idandrah nama, called Idandra. God is idandrah ha vai nama, verily known as Idandra; in the world. Tam idandram santam, Him who is Idandra; they, the knowers of Brahman, acaksate, call; paroksena, indirectly, by an indirect name; indrah iti, as Indra. (They call Him thus) for the sake of conventional dealings, they being afraid of referring by a direct name, since He is the most adorable. So it follows that, hi, inasmuch as; devah, the gods; are paroksapriyah iva, verily fond of the use of indirect names; it needs no mention that the great Lord, the God of all the gods, must be much more so. The repetition (in paroksapriyah etc.) is to indicate the end of the present Part (I) that is being dealt with.
Max Müller
14. Therefore he was Idam-dra (seeing this). (11.) Being Idamdra by name, they call him Indra mysteriously. For the Devas love mystery, yea, they love mystery. (14)
In man indeed is the soul first conceived. That which is the semen is extracted from all the limbs as their vigour. He holds that self of his in his own self. When he sheds it into his wife, then he procreates it. That is its first birth.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
This very man performs such karmas as sacrifice etc. owing to his self-identification with ignorance, desire, and action; then he reaches the lunar region after passing from this world through smoke and the rest in succession; and then, when the fruits of his action become exhausted, he reaches this world to become food after passing in succession through rain etc.; then he is poured as a libation in the fire that is man. Puruse ha vai, in that man indeed; ayam, that, transmigrating soul; aditah garbhah bhavati, is first conceived, in the form of semen after passing through the (state of being the) essence of food etc. This is being stated by saying that he takes birth in that form, in the text, `Yat etat retah.' Tat etat retah, that which is this semen; sambhutam, is accomplished, (extracted); as tejah, vigour, essence, of the body; sarvebhyah angebhyah, from all the limbs, from all the component parts, such as the juice of the body which is the product of food. Being identified with the man himself, this (semen) is called his self. He bibharti, bears; that atmanam, self that has been conceived in the form of semen; atmani eva, in his own self; (in other words) he holds his own self (the semen) in his own body. Yada, when --- when his wife is in the proper state; he sincati, sheds, while in union; tat, that semen; striyam, in the wife --- in the fire of the woman; atha, then; the father janayati, procreates; enat, this one --- the semen that was conceived by him as identified with himself. Asya, of that transmigrating soul; tat, that, that issuing out of its own place, in the form of semen, when it is being poured out; is the prathamam janma, the first birth --- the first manifested state. This fact was stated earlier by the text, `This self (that is the man), (offers) this self of his (that is the semen), to that self of his (that is the wife).'
Max Müller
1. Let the women who are with child move away [1]! (2.) Verily, from the beginning he (the self) is in man as a germ, which is called seed. (3.) This (seed), which is strength gathered from all the limbs of the body, he (the man) bears as self in his self (body). When he commits the seed to the woman, then he (the father) causes it to be born. That is his first birth. (1)
That becomes non-different from the wife, just as much as her own limb is. Therefore (the fetus) does not hurt her. She nourishes this self of his that has entered here (in her womb).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Tat, that, the semen; gacchati, becomes; atmabhuyam, non-different --- from the wife into whom it is shed; yatha svam angam tatha, just like her own limb --- her breast etc. --- as it was in the case of the father. Tasmat, because of this fact; the fetus na hinasti, does not hurt --- like a boil; enam, this one --- the mother. Since it has become a part of herself just like her breast etc., therefore it does not hurt her; this is the idea. Sa, she, that pregnant women; understanding etam atmanam, this self, on her husband; atra gatam, as having entered here --- into her womb; bhavayati, nourishes, protects it --- by avoiding food, etc. that are injurious to the fetus and by accepting such food, etc. as are favorable to it.
Max Müller
2. (4.) That seed becomes the self of the woman, as if one of her own limbs. Therefore it does not injure her. (5.) She nourishes his (her husband's) self (the son) within her. (2)
She, the nourisher, becomes fit to be nourished. The wife bears that embryo (before the birth). He (the father) protects the son at the very start, soon after his birth. That he protects the son at the very beginning, just after birth, thereby he protects his own self for the sake of the continuance of these worlds. For thus is the continuance of these worlds ensured. That is his second birth.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Sa, she; the bhavayitri, nourisher, of the self of her husband, conceived in her womb; bhavayitavya bhavati, becomes fit to be nourished, to be protected, by the husband for, in this world, on one can have any relation with another unless it be through the reciprocity of benefit. Stri, the wife; bibharti, bears; tam garbham, that fetus; agre, before its birth, by following the method of protecting the fetus mentioned earlier. Sah, he, the father; bhavayati, protects, through natal rites etc.; kumaram, the son; agre eva, at the very start, as soon as he is born; janmanah adhi, after the birth. Yat, that; sah, he, the father; bhavayati, protects; kumaram, the son, through natal rites etc.; agre janmanah adhi, at the very start, just after the birth; tat, thereby; he bhavayati atmanam eva, protects his own self. For it is the father's self that takes birth as the son. And so has it been said, `The husband enters into the wife' (Hair. III. 1xxiii. 31). Now is being stated why the father protects after having begotten himself as the son:- esam lokanam santatyai, for the continuance of these worlds. This is the idea. For these worlds will cease to continue if everyone should stop procreating sons etc. The idea is this:- Since these worlds thus continue to flow like a current through the continuity of such acts as the begetting of sons, therefore these acts should be undertaken for the non-stoppage of the worlds, but not for the sake of emancipation. Tat, that fact, the issuing out; asya, of him, of the transmigrating soul, as a son from the mother's womb; is the dvitiyam janma, second birth, the manifestation of the second state, relatively to his form as semen.
Max Müller
3. She who nourishes, is to be nourished. (6.) The woman bears the germ. He (the father) elevates the child even before the birth, and immediately after [1]. (7.) When he thus elevates the child both before and after his birth, he really elevates his own self, (8.) For the continuation of these worlds (men). For thus are these worlds continued. (9.) This is his second birth. (3)
sa itaḥ prayanneva punarjāyate tadasya tṛtīyaṃ janma || 4||
This self of his (viz. the son) is substituted (by the father) for the performance of virtuous deeds. Then this other self of his (that is the father of the son), having got his duties ended and having advanced in age, departs. As soon as he departs, he takes birth again. That is his (1.e. the son's) third birth.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Sah ayam atma, that self which is the son; asya, of his, of the father; pratidhiyate, is deputed, by the father, in his own place; punyebhyah karmabhyah, for the performance of virtuous deeds, as prescribed by the scriptures, i.e. for the accomplishment of all that was the father's duty. Similarly it is seen in the Vajasaneyaka, in the portion dealing with the substitution (of the son), that on being instructed by the father, the son admits thus :- `I am Brahman (i.e. the Vedas), I am the sacrifice [The father's idea is this :- `Let the study of the Vedas (Brahman) which so long was my duty, devolve on you, for you are Brahman. Similarly, whatever sacrifices there are, that were to be performed by me, be henceforth performed by you, for you are the sacrifices.' All this the son accepts.] (Br. I. v. 17). Atha, after that, after the father's responsibility has been entrusted to the son; ayam itarah atma, this other self that is the father; asya, of this one, of the son; krtakrtyah, becoming freed from duties, from the three debts (to the gods, to the seers, and to the manes), i.e. having got all his duties fulfilled; vayogatah, having advanced in age, being afflicted with decrepitude; praiti, dies. Sah itah prayan eva, as soon as he departs from here, no sooner does he leave the body than; he punah jayate, takes birth again, by adopting another body according to the results of his actions (by moving from one body to the other) just like a leech. Tat, that, the birth that he gets after death; is asya trtiyam janma, the third birth of this one. Objection :- Is it not a fact that for the transmigrating soul the first birth is in the form of semen from the father? And his second birth has been stated to be as a son from the mother. The turn now being for stating the third birth of that very soul (which became the son), why is the birth of the dead father enumerated as the third? Answer :- That is not wrong, for the intention is to speak of the identity of the father and the son. That son, too, just like his father, entrusts his responsibility to his son (in his own turn) and then departing from here takes birth immediately after. The Upanisad thinks that this fact which is stated with regard to another (viz the father) is implied here (with regard to the son) also; for the father and the son are same self.
Max Müller
4. (10.) He (the son), being his self, is then placed in his stead for (the performance of) all good works. (11.) But his other self (the father), having done all he has to do, and having reached the full measure of his life, departs. (12.) And departing from hence he is born again. That is his third birth. (13.) And this has been declared by a Rishi (Rv. IV, 27, 1):- (4)
This fact was stated by the seer (1.e. mantra):- "Even while lying in the womb, I came to know of the birth of all the gods. A hundred iron citadels held me down. Then, like a hawk, I forced my way through by dint of knowledge of the Self". Vamadeva said this while still lying in the mother's womb.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Transmigrating in this way, involved in the chain of birth and death through the manifestation of the three states, everyone remains merged in the ocean of this world. If he ever succeeds somehow, in any of the states, to realize the Self as revealed in the Vedas, he becomes freed then and there from all worldly bondages and accomplishes his object. The Upanisad says that tat, this fact; uktam, was declared; rsina, by the seer, by the (following) mantra, also; `Garbhe nu san, while still in the womb, of my mother --- the indeclinable word nu implies deliberation; by virtue of the fruition of my meditations in many previous births, aham, I; anvavedam, knew, i.e. had the knowledge of; visva janimani, all the births; esam devanam, of these gods --- of Speech, Fire, etc. What a good luck! Satam, a hundred, many; ayasuh (or rather ayasyah) purah, citadels made of iron, araksan ma, kept me guarded; adhah, in the lower worlds; guarded me from getting freed from the meshes of the world. (Or adhah, later on [Ananda Giri gives these two alternative explanations of the word adhah occuring in the commentary. There are two readings, adho' dhah and adho' tha.] ); syenah, like a hawk; javasa, forcefully, through the power generated by the knowledge of the Self; niradiyam, I came out, by tearing through the net. O! the wonder!' Vamadevah, Vamadeva, the seer; garbhe eva sayanah, while still lying in the womb; uvaca, said; etat, this; evam, in this way.
Max Müller
5. (14.) 'While dwelling in the womb, I discovered all the births of these Devas. A hundred iron strongholds kept me, but I escaped quickly down like a falcon.' (15.) Vâmadeva, lying in the womb, has thus declared this. (5)
He who had known thus (had) become identified with the Supreme, and attained all desirable things (even here); and having (then) ascended higher up after the destruction of the body, he became immortal, in the world of the Self. He became immortal.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Sah, he, the seer Vamadeva; evam vidvan, having known thus, known the Self as spoken of earlier; asmat sarirabhedat, after the destruction of this body --- of this body that is conjured up by ignorance, that is impenetrable like iron; on the dissolution of the bondage of the bodies --- subject to hundreds of multifarious evils consisting in birth, death, etc. --- through the power generated by the tasting of the nectar of knowledge of the supreme Self; that is to say, on the destruction of the body following the destruction of such causes as ignorance that are the seeds of the creation of the body; he urdhvah (san), having already become identified with the supreme Self; (then) utkramya, having ascended higher up as compared with the lowly worldly state, becoming established in the state of the pure, all-pervasive Self, shining with knowledge; amusmin, in that Reality, which was declared as ageless, deathless, immortal, fearless, and omniscient, which has no cause or effect; inside or outside, which is of the nature of the unalloyed nectar of consciousness; he became merged like the blowing out of a lamp. He samabhavat, became; amrtah, immortal; svarge loke, in his own Self, in his own reality; sarvan kaman aptva, after the attainment of all desires; that is to say, after having got all the desirable things, even earlier (when still living), by virtue of his becoming desireless through the knowledge of the Self. The repetition in `he became', is to show the end of the knowledge of the Self together with its fruit and its illustration.
Max Müller
6. And having this knowledge he stepped forth, after this dissolution of the body, and having obtained all his desires in that heavenly world, became immortal, yea, he became immortal. (6)
What is It that we worship as this Self? Which of the two is the Self? Is It that by which one sees, or that by which one hears, or that by which one smells an odour, or that by which one utters speech, or that by which one tastes sweet or the sour?
Shankaracharya
Commentary
The Self which vayam upasmahe, we worship; directly ayam atma iti, as this Self; kah, which is It? And we worship that very Self, by meditating on which directly as `This is the Self', Vamadeva became immortal. Which indeed is that Self? When they were thus questioning one another with such eagerness to know, then from the impressions formed by having heard about the (two) specific entities dealt with earlier, there flashed in their minds the memory that here in the text, `Brahman [Prana, the inferior Brahman, Hiranyagarbha.] entered into this person through the two ends of the feet', and `Having split up this end, He entered through this door' (I. iii. 12), have been mentioned two Brahmans which have entered into this very person from the opposite sides. And these two are the souls in this body. One of these selves is fit to be worshipped. While still engaged in discussion, they again asked one another with a view to determining clearly the Self that was to be worshipped out of the two. As they were discussing, there arose in them another thought regarding the one that should be the object of close inquiry. How? Two entities are perceived in this body:- One is the instrument (Prana), diversified into many forms, through which one perceives; and the other is the perceiver, inferable from the fact of the occurrence of recognition through memory of what was perceived with different senses [A man, with eyes, plucked out, remembers the color he had perceived before with his eyes. So also he thinks, `I who saw before am hearing now.' This is impossible unless the perceiver is the same in different situations.]. Of these two, that through which one perceives cannot be the Self. Through what, again, does one perceive? That is being stated:- Yena va pasyati, is it that by which, transformed as eye, one sees color; yena va, that by which, transformed as the ear; srnoti, one hears sound; yena va, also, that by which, transformed as the sense of smell; ajighrati gandhan, one smells the odors; yena va, and that by which, transformed as the organ of speech; one vyakaroti vacam, utters speech, consisting of names, such as `cow', `horse', etc., and `good', `bad', etc.; yena va, and that by which, transformed as the sense of taste; vijanati, one perceives; svadu ca asvadu ca, the sweet and the sour (tastes). Which, again, is that one organ that has become diversely differentiated? That is being answered:-
Max Müller
1. Let the women go back to their place. (2.) Who is he whom [1] we meditate on as the Self? Which [2] is the Self? (3.) That by which we see (form), that by which we hear (sound), that by which we perceive smells, that by which we utter speech, that by which we distinguish sweet and not sweet, (1)
It is this heart (intellect) and this mind that were stated earlier. It is sentience, rulership, secular knowledge, presence of mind, retentiveness, sense-perception, fortitude, thinking, genius, mental suffering, memory, ascertainment resolution, life-activities, hankering, passion and such others. All these verily are the names of Consciousness.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Etat, it is; hrdayam manah ca, the heart and the mind [The entity you asked about is the same as was referred to earlier as the heart (i.e. intellect), or the mind. This entity is the Prana that assumes various aspects. It entered through the tip of the feet, whereas Brahman entered through the crown of the head.]; yat, that were spoken of earlier in `The essence (i.e. the product) of all beings is the heart; the essence of the heart is the mind; by the mind was created water and Varuna; from the heart came the mind; and from the mind, Moon.' That very thing, which is but one, has become multi formed. Through this single internal organ, as transformed into the eye, one sees color; through this, transformed into the ear, one hears; through this, transformed into the sense of smell, one smells; through this, transformed into the sense of taste, one tastes; through this very one, in its aspect as the organ of deliberation, one deliberates; and in its aspect as the heart (i.e. the intellect), one decides. Therefore this is the one single organ that acts with regard to all objects of the senses, so that the perceiver may perceive everything. Similar is the text of the Kausitaki Upanisad:- `Becoming identified with the organ of speech through the intellect (as reflecting the consciousness of the Self), the Self reaches (i.e. becomes identified with) the names [The intellect becomes transformed into the organ of speech, and speech into words. The Self, too, through superimposed self-identification, seems to assume those forms, though It still remains as their illuminator.] etc.' (III. 6). And in the Vajasaneyaka occur these:- `It is through the mind that one hears' (Br. I. v. 3), `for one knows colors through the heart' (Br. III. ix. 19), etc. Accordingly, the entity that is called the heart and the mind is well known as the agent producing all perceptions. And the Prana consists of these two, for there occurs the brahmana text:- `That which is the Prana is the intellect; that which is the intellect is the Prana (Kau. III. 3). And we said in the texts dealing with the conversations with the Prana is of the form of a combination of the organs. Therefore the entity, (in the form of which) Brahman entered through the feet, cannot be the Self to be worshipped, since it is a subsidiary thing, being an instrument of perception for the perceiver. As a last resort, they arrived at this certitude:- `That witnessing Self is worthy of worship by us, for whose perception the functions of this instrument, in its aspects as the heart and the mind, are being stated.' The functions of that inner organ --- with regard to internal and external objects --- which take place for bearing witness to the witnessing Brahman [Brahman cannot be perceived since It is not an object of cognition, and It is an attributeless. Still, without being objectified, It is perceivable as the witness of mental states --- A.G.] that is consciousness by nature and that exists in the midst of Its limiting adjunct, viz the internal organ, are (these that are) being enumerated:- Samjnanam, sentience, the state of consciousness; ajnanam, rulership, the state of lordliness; vijnanam, (secular) knowledge of arts etc.; prajnanam, presence of mind; medha, ability to understand and retain the purport of books; drstih, perception, of all objects through the senses; dhrtih, fortitude, by which the drooping body and senses are buoyed up --- for they say, `By fortitude, they buoyed up the body'; matih, thinking; manisa, independent thinking (genius); jutih, mental suffering, owing to disease etc.; smrtih, memory; samkalpah, ascertainment, of colors etc. as white, black, etc.; kratuh, resolution; asuh, any function calculated to sustain life's activity, such as breathing etc.; kamah, desire for a remote object, hankering; vasah, passion for the company of women; iti, etc., and other functions of the inner organ. Since these are the means for the perception of the witness who is mere Consciousness, they are the limiting adjuncts of Brahman that is pure Consciousness, and therefore samjnana etc. become the indirect names of Brahman, created by limiting adjuncts. Sarvani eva etani, all these verily; bhavanti, become; namadheyani, the names; prajnanasya, of Consciousness; but not so naturally and directly. And so has it been said, `When It does the function of living. It is called the vital force' (Br. I. iv. 7) etc.
Max Müller
2. and what comes from the heart and the mind, namely, perception, command, understanding, knowledge, wisdom, seeing, holding, thinking, considering, readiness (or suffering), remembering, conceiving, willing, breathing, loving, desiring? (4.) No, all these are various names only of knowledge (the true Self). (2)
This One is (the inferior) Brahman; this is Indra, this is Prajapati; this is all these gods; and this is these five elements, viz. earth, air, space, water, fire; and this is all these (big creatures), together with the small ones, that are the procreators of others and referable in pairs - to wit, those that are born of eggs, of wombs, of moisture of the earth, viz. horses, cattle, men, elephants, and all the creatures that there are which move or fly and those which do not move. All these have Consciousness as the giver of their reality; all these are impelled by Consciousness; the universe has Consciousness as its eye and Consciousness is its end. Consciousness is Brahman.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Esah, this One, the Self, which is essentially Consciousness; is brahma, Brahman, the inferior one (who is Hiranyagarbha and) who as Prana (possessed of the power of action) and the conscious soul (possessed of the power of knowledge) exists in (the sum total of) all the bodies (i.e. in the cosmic gross body) after having entered into all the limiting adjuncts of the internal organs (i.e. into the cosmic subtle body) like the reflection of the sum on diverse waters. He is the power of action and knowledge (in the individual). Esah, this One; is verily indrah, Indra, who is called so because He possesses the qualities (mentioned earlier in I. iii. 13-14); or `Indra' means the lord of the gods. Esah, this One; is prajapatih, Prajapati (Virat) who is the first embodied Being [Hiranyagarbha identifies Himself with the cosmic subtle body, but Virat with the cosmic gross body]. That Prajapati, from whom the presiding deities of the organs, viz Fire and others, were born after the formation of the cavity of the mouth etc., is verily this One. And ete sarve devah, all these gods, viz Fire and others, that there are, are but this One; ca, and; imani panca mahabhutani, these five great elements; viz etani, these --- starting with earth --- which are the materials of all the bodies and which constitute the foods and the eaters; besides, ca imani, these also, e.g. snakes etc.; ksudramisrani iva, together with the tiny creatures --- the word iva being meaningless; and which are bijani, the seeds, causes (of others); ca itarani itarani, as well as those others and others, that are mentionable in pairs (e.g. the moving and the stationary). Which are they ? They are being enumerated:-- andajani, born of eggs --- birds and others; jarujani, born of wombs --- men and others; svedajani, born of moisture --- lice etc.; and udbhijjani, born of earth --- e.g. trees etc.; asvah, horses; gavah, cattle; purusah, human beings; hastinah, elephants; yat kim ca idam, and whatever living creature there may be. Which are they ? Whichever is jangamam, moving on feet; and whichever is jangamam, moving on feet; and whichever is patatri, flying in the sky; and whatever is sthavaram, motionless --- all that is but this One. Tat sarvam, all that, without exception; is prajnanetram, made to exist by Consciousness --- (the phrase being derived thus):-- Prajna is Consciousness that is the same as Brahman; netra is that by which one is dowered with substance, or that by which one is impelled (to one's natural activity):-- therefore that which has Consciousness as the giver of its substance or as its impeller is prajnanetram. Prajnane pratisthitam, on Consciousness it is established, that is to say, it is supported by Brahman during creation, existence, and dissolution. The sentence, `prajnanetrah lokah, the universe has Consciousness as its impeller', is to be understood as before; or the meaning is that all the universe has got consciousness as its netra, eye (i.e. the source of revelation). Prajna, Consciousness; is pratistha, the support, of the whole universe [Consciousness is self-revealing and is not dependent on any other factor for the revelation of Itself or of others. Or the sentence may mean that Consciousness is the one reality in which all phenomenal things end, just as the superimposed snake etc. end in their bases, the rope etc., after the dawn of knowledge.]. Therefore prajnanam brahma, Consciousness is Brahman. That Entity, thus dealt with, when freed from all distinctions created by the limiting adjuncts, is without stain, without taint, without action, quiescent, one without a second, to be known as `Not this, not this' (Br. III. ix. 26), by the elimination of all attributes, and (It is) beyond all words and thoughts. That very Entity which is the omniscient God --- because of the association with the limiting adjunct of very pure intelligence --- and is the ordainer of the common seed of all unmanifested universe, assumes the name of antaryami (the Inner Controller) by virtue of being the Guide. That Entity Itself assumes the name of Hiranyagarbha, who identifies Himself with (cosmic) intelligence which is the seed of the manifested world. That Entity Itself gets the name of Virat, Prajapati, who has as His limiting adjunct the (gross, cosmic) body born first within the cosmic egg; and It comes to be known as the deities, Fire, etc., by assuming their (respective) limiting adjuncts (viz speech etc.) born from that egg. Similarly, Brahman gets the respective names and forms as conditioned by the divergent bodies, ranging from that of Brahma to that of a clump of grass. It is the same Entity that has become diversified according to the variety of the limiting adjuncts and is known in every way and is thought of multifariously by all creatures as well as the logicians. And there are the Smrti texts, `Some call this very Entity Fire, some call It Manu, and some Prajapati. Some call It Indra, while others call It Prana and still others, the eternal Brahman', etc. (M. XII. 123).
Max Müller
3. (5.) And that Self, consisting of (knowledge), is Brahman (m.) [1], it is Indra, it is Pragâpati [2]. All these Devas, these five great elements, earth, air, ether, water, fire, these and those which are, as it were, small and mixed [3], and seeds of this kind and that kind, born from eggs, born from the womb., born from heat, born from germs [4], horses, cows, men, elephants, and whatsoever breathes, whether walking or flying, and what is immoveable--all that is led (produced) by knowledge (the Self). (6.) It rests on knowledge (the Self). The world is led (produced) by knowledge (the Self). Knowledge is its cause [5]. (7.) Knowledge is Brahman. (3)
स एतेन प्राज्ञेनाऽऽत्मनाऽस्माल्लोकादुत्क्रम्यामुष्मिन्स्वर्गे लोके सर्वान्
कामानाप्त्वाऽमृतः समभवत् समभवत् ॥ ४॥
॥ इत्यैतरोपनिषदि तृतीयोध्यायः ॥
sa etena prājñenā''tmanā'smāllokādutkramyāmuṣminsvarge loke sarvān
kāmānāptvā'mṛtaḥ samabhavat samabhavat || 4||
|| ityaitaropaniṣadi tṛtīyodhyāyaḥ ||
Through this Self that is Consciousness, he ascended higher up from this world, and getting all desires fulfilled in that heavenly world, he became immortal, he became immortal.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Sah, he, Vamadeva, or somebody else, knew thus the Brahman as described, through the Self that is Consciousness --- through that very conscious Self by which the seers of old became immortal. Similarly, this enlightened one, too, etena prajnena atmana, through (i.e. in identification with) this (very) Self that is Consciousness; asmat lokat utkramya, ascending higher up from this world --- the portion starting from here was explained before (II. i. 6). Ascending higher up from this world and sarvam kaman aptva, attaining all the desires; amusmin svarge loke, in that heavenly world; (he) samabhavat, became; amrtah, immortal; samabhavat, (he) became (immortal). Om.
Max Müller
4. (8.) He (Vâmadeva), having by this conscious self stepped forth from this world, and having obtained all desires in that heavenly world, became immortal, yea, he became immortal. Thus it is, Om. (4)
ॐ वाङ् मे मनसि प्रतिष्ठिता मनो मे वाचि प्रतिष्ठितमाविरावीर्म
एधि वेदस्य म आणीस्थः श्रुतं मे मा प्रहासीरनेनाधीतेनाहोरात्रान्
संदधाम्यृतं वदिष्यामि सत्यं वदिष्यामि तन्मामवतु
तद्वक्तारमवत्ववतु मामवतु वक्तारमवतु वक्तारम् ॥
॥ ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः॥
oṃ vāṅ me manasi pratiṣṭhitā mano me vāci pratiṣṭhitamāvirāvīrma
edhi vedasya ma āṇīsthaḥ śrutaṃ me mā prahāsīranenādhītenāhorātrān
The Chandogya Upanishad, one of the longest and most detailed Upanishads, presents a rich combination of symbolic teachings, stories, and philosophical inquiry. It explores meditation, the nature of Brahman and Atman, and the unity of existence, culminating in the teaching “Tat Tvam Asi” - You are That.
Editorial Note:
The Chandogya Upanishad is one of the largest and most comprehensive
Upanishads, forming the last eight chapters of the Chandogya Brahmana of the
Sama Veda.
It combines ritual symbolism, meditation practices, stories, and deep
philosophical teachings, making it both rich and diverse.
Mahavakya
The Upanishad contains one of the most famous declarations: “tat tvam asi” (6.8.7) - You are That
This statement expresses the identity of the individual Self (Atman) with the
ultimate reality (Brahman).
Structure of the Text
The text is divided into eight chapters (Prapathakas), each containing
multiple sections (Khandas):
Chapter 1 - 13 sections
Chapter 2 - 24 sections
Chapter 3 - 19 sections
Chapter 4 - 17 sections
Chapter 5 - 24 sections
Chapter 6 - 16 sections
Chapter 7 - 26 sections
Chapter 8 - 15 sections
Each section contains varying numbers of verses and covers different themes.
Key Themes and Teachings
1. Symbolism of Rituals
Explains deeper meanings behind Vedic sacrifices
Connects rituals with inner processes and life energy
2. Meditation on Sound and Prana
Emphasizes Om (Pranava) as a symbol of reality
Links sound, breath (prana), and the Sun as expressions of the same truth
3. Stories and Practical Teaching
Satyakama Jabala - truthfulness as the mark of spiritual worth
Svetaketu and Uddalaka - step-by-step teaching of Brahman
4. Nature of Atman and Brahman
Teaches that the Self is present in all beings
Explains unity through examples and analogies
5. Discipline and Realization
Emphasizes brahmacharya (focused living and discipline)
Distinguishes:
Devas - those who seek truth
Asuras - those who identify only with the body
Flow of Ideas
The Upanishad does not follow a single linear structure but unfolds through
themes and teachings:
Ritual to Symbolism - Moving from outer practices to inner meaning
Symbolism to Meditation - Understanding deeper connections
Stories to Insight - Learning through examples
Insight to Realization - Understanding unity of existence
Core Philosophical Teachings
Tat Tvam Asi - You are not separate from ultimate reality
Unity of Life - Same essence exists in all beings
Importance of Truth - Truthfulness leads to knowledge
Om as Meditation - Sound as a gateway to realization
Inner Meaning of Rituals - External actions reflect internal processes
Simple Summary (For Easy Understanding)
The Chandogya Upanishad is like a large collection of teachings, stories, and
examples that help us understand the truth of life.
It starts with rituals but slowly explains their deeper meaning.
Through stories like that of Satyakama and teachings given to Svetaketu, it
shows that truth and understanding are more important than birth or status.
The central idea is simple: The same reality exists in everything, and that
reality is within you.
The famous teaching “Tat Tvam Asi” reminds us that we are not separate from the
universe.
By understanding this, a person moves from confusion to clarity and from
separation to unity.
This edition presents the original Sanskrit text with IAST transliteration,
along with translation and commentary based on the Advaita Vedanta tradition of
Shankaracharya, as presented through the teachings of Swami
Lokeswarananda.
Reading Mode - Change for details
छान्दोग्योपनिषत्
॥ अथ छान्दोग्योपनिषत् ॥
ॐ आप्यायन्तु ममाङ्गानि वाक्प्राणश्च्क्षुः
श्रोत्रमथो बलमिन्द्रियाणि च सर्वाणि ।
सर्वं ब्रह्मौपनिषदं माहं ब्रह्म निराकुर्यां मा मा ब्रह्म
1. Om is the closest word to Brahman. Recite this Om as if you are worshipping Brahman. [That is, treat this Om as the symbol of Brahman and concentrate on the idea of their oneness.] How you recite this Om is being explained.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Om iti, this Om [is closest to Brahman]; etat akṣaram udgītham upāsīta, recite this syllable as part of your upāsanā [ritual]; hi om iti udgāyati, how you recite this Om; tasya upavyākhyānam, is being explained. Commentary:-Om is as good as Brahman. To begin with, it is a symbol of Brahman. But it is not just a symbol; it is Brahman itself. The Upaniṣad says to recite Om as if you are worshipping Brahman. This recitation is called udgītha, and it is loud recitation. You recite Om aloud, but you do it with the feeling that you are worshipping Brahman. This worship then eventually purifies the mind. The importance of Om is being explained in the following verses.
Max Müller
1. LET a man meditate on the syllable [1] Om, called the udgîtha; for the udgîtha (a portion of the Sâma-veda) is sung, beginning with Om. The full account, however, of Om is this:--
2. The earth is the essence of all things, living or non-living; water is the essence of the earth; plants are the essence of water; human beings are the essence of plants; speech is the essence of human beings; the Ṛg Veda is the essence of speech; the Sāma Veda is the essence of the Ṛg Veda; and the udhītha is the essence of the Sāma Veda.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Eṣām bhūtānām, of these beings; pṛthivī rasaḥ, the earth is the essence; pṛthivyāḥ, of the earth; āpaḥ, water; rasaḥ, is the essence; apām oṣadhayaḥ rasaḥ, plants are the essence of water; oṣadhīnām puruṣaḥ rasaḥ, human beings are the essence of plants; puruṣasya vāk rasaḥ, speech is the essence of human beings; vācaḥ ṛg rasaḥ, the Ṛg Veda is the essence of speech; ṛcaḥ sāma rasaḥ, the Sāma Veda is the essence of the Ṛg Veda; sāmnaḥ udgīthaḥ rasaḥ, the part known as udgītha is the essence of the Sāma Veda. Commentary:-There are both living and non-living things on the earth. What sustains them? Obviously the earth. They all come out of the earth, are sustained by the earth, and finally dissolve into the earth. But what sustains the earth? Water. The earth is a mixture of water and earth, and there can be no earth without water. Plants are said to be the essence of water, for they grow from water. Similarly, human beings are the essence of plants, because the human body is the outcome of the food eaten by human beings. Speech is the essence of human beings, for it is the best part of them. The best speech is the Ṛg Veda, and the essence of the Ṛg Veda is the Sāma Veda. Finally, udgītha—that is, Om—is the essence of the Sāma Veda.
Max Müller
2. The essence [1] of all beings is the earth, the essence of the earth is water, the essence of water the plants, the essence of plants man, the essence of man speech, the essence of speech the Rig-veda, the essence of the Rig-veda the Sâma-veda [2], the essence of the Sâma-veda the udgîtha (which is Om).
3. This udgītha [Om] is the best of all essences. It is the best of all that exists. It is the eighth, and it has the highest status.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ, that; eṣaḥ, this; rasānām, of all the essences; rasatamaḥ, the best essence; paramaḥ, the best; parārdhyaḥ, ranking the highest; aṣṭamaḥ, the eighth [in the order of earth, water, plants, human beings; speech, the Ṛg Veda, the Sāma Veda, and udgītha]; yāt, that; udgīthaḥ, udgītha [Om]. Commentary:-The best of all essences is the udgītha, which is Om. It is the highest and best because it is the same as Brahman.
Max Müller
3. That udgîtha (Om) is the best of all essences, the highest, deserving the highest place [1], the eighth.
4. Which are the Ṛks? Which are the Sāmas? Which are the udgīthas? This is the question.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Katamā, which; katamā ṛk, which are the Ṛks; katamat katamat sāma, which are the Sāmas; katamaḥ katamaḥ udgīthaḥ, which are the udgīthas; iti vimṛṣṭam bhavati, this is the question. Commentary:-It has been stated that speech is the essence of the Ṛg Veda. The question now arises:- Which ones are the Ṛk, which ones are the Sāma, and which ones are the udgītha? The word katama, ‘which,’ is repeated to emphasize the importance of the question. But why is the word ‘which’ being used here? ‘Which’ is used when you have to pinpoint one thing out of many. The Ṛg Veda is taken as a single whole, so how is the use of ‘which’ justified here? The answer is that here ‘which’ refers to individual Ṛk mantras, and not to the whole body of the Ṛg Veda.
Max Müller
4. What then is the Rik? What is the Sâman? What is the udgîtha? 'This is the question.
तद्वा एतन्मिथुनं यद्वाक्च प्राणश्चर्क्च साम च ॥ १.१.५॥
vāgevarkprāṇaḥ sāmomityetadakṣaramudgīthaḥ .
tadvā etanmithunaṃ yadvākca prāṇaścarkca sāma ca .. 1.1.5..
5. [In answer to the foregoing question:-] Speech is the same as Ṛk; prāṇa [life] is the same as Sāma; and Om is nothing but udgītha [Brahman] itself. They are pairs:- speech and life, Ṛk and Sāma.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Vāk eva ṛk, speech is Ṛk [being the cause of the Ṛk]; prāṇaḥ sāma, prāṇa [breath, or the life force] is Sāma [for you can sing the Sāma if your prāṇa is strong]; om iti etat akṣaram udgīthaḥ, the syllable ‘Om’ is the udgītha [for you recite it out of love for the Sāma]; tat etat vai mithunam, it is like a couple; yat vāk ca prāṇaḥ ca ṛk ca sāma ca, which are speech and prāṇa, Ṛk and Sāma. Commentary:-The word ‘couple,’ or ‘pair,’ is being used to suggest a relationship of cause and effect. Cause and effect are, in fact, one and the same. Speech is the cause, According to this Upaniṣad, the evolution of the gross world is in this order:- earth, water, plants, human beings, speech, Ṛk, Sāma, and udgītha (Om). Udgītha is rasatamā, the essence of all essences, the cause of all causes. It occupies the eighth position—that is, it is the ultimate in the evolution of things. It is the Paramātman, the Self of all selves.
Max Müller
5. The Rik indeed is speech, Sâman is breath, the udgîtha is the syllable Om. Now speech and breath, or Rik and Sâman, form one couple.
6. This dual combination of speech and life merge into each other and become one in this syllable Om. It is like a male and a female meeting and satisfying each other’s desires.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tat, that; etat, this; mithunam, dual combination [i.e., speech and life]; om iti etasmin akṣare saṃsṛjyate, meet in this syllable Om; yadā vai, whenever; mithunau samāgacchataḥ, a couple [a male and a female] come together; tau, they; anyonyasya kāmam āpayataḥ vai, naturally satisfy each other’s desires. Commentary:-Those two, speech and life, merge into each other in Om. They attain their fulfilment in this way. Om thus stands for the fulfilment of all things.
Max Müller
6. And that couple is joined together in the syllable Om. When two people come together, they fulfil each other's desire.
7. He who worships Om as the udgītha [Brahman], knowing it as the one who receives everything, himself [finally] receives everything he desires.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Āpayitā, he receives; ha vai kāmānām, all he desires; bhavati, this happens; yaḥ, he who; etat, this; evam, this way [as the one who receives everything]; vidvān, knows; akṣaram, Om; udgītham, as udgītha [Brahman]; upāste, worships. Commentary:-If you worship Om, you acquire the qualities of Om. If you worship Om as the one who receives everything, you also, like Om, receive everything you desire. The śruti says:- ‘You become whatever or whomever your object of worship is.’ (Maṇḍala Brāhmaṇa 20)
Max Müller
7. Thus he who knowing this, meditates on the syllable (Om), the udgîtha, becomes indeed a fulfiller of desires.
tadāhaiṣo eva samṛddhiryadanujñā samardhayitā ha vai
kāmānāṃ bhavati ya etadevaṃ vidvānakṣaramudgīthamupāste .. 1.1.8..
8. That akṣaram [Om] stands for assent. A person says Om whenever he wants to say yes. This Om is the key to progress. He who worships Om as the udgītha [Brahman], knowing it thus [as the fulfiller of all desires], has all his desires fulfilled.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tat, that; vai etat, this; anujñā akṣaram, syllable [Om] indicates assent; yat, when; hi kim ca anujānāti, assent is to be indicated; om iti, this Om; eva tadā āha, is then uttered; eṣā u eva, this; samṛddhiḥ, progress; yat, that; anujñā, assent; samardhayitā, makes it possible; ha vai kāmānām bhavati, one attains those desires; yaḥ, he who; etat, this; evam, this way; vidvān, having known; akṣaram udgītham upāste, worships the syllable Om as the udgītha [Brahman], Commentary:-The word Om means ‘yes.’ Once someone named Śākalya asked the sage Yājñavalkya, ‘How many gods and goddesses are there?’ Yājñavalkya replied, ‘Thirty-three.’ Then Śākalya indicated his agreement by saying ‘Om.’ When you say Om it is also an indication of your faith in yourself. It is proof of your strength and vigour, and proof also of your prosperity. Om is therefore a symbol of certain basic qualities. When you worship Om you acquire those qualities, and you begin to progress and also prosper.
Max Müller
8. That syllable is a syllable of permission, for whenever we permit anything, we say Om, yes. Now permission is gratification. He who knowing this meditates on the syllable (Om), the udgîtha, becomes indeed a gratifier of desires.
9. With Om one begins the threefold Vedic ritual, and with Om one starts reciting the Vedas. With Om one starts singing the Vedic hymns, and again with Om one sings the udgān [from the Vedas, in praise of Om, or Brahman]. All this is a tribute to Om. Again, all this is possible by virtue of the essence derived from Om [in the form of wheat and other food].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tena, by this [Om]; iyam, this; trayī vidyā vartate, threefold Vedic ritual begins; om iti, with Om; āśrāvayati, the recitation begins; om iti śaṃsati, with Om begins the singing of the hymn; om iti udgāyati, with Om the udgān [the praise to Om] begins; etasya akṣarasya, to this akṣara [Brahman]; eva apacityai, to pay homage; mahimnā, for its greatness; rasena, with the essence [of Om], Commentary:-To create some interest in Om, it is being praised here. Om is indispensable even if you are performing a Vedic ritual. You begin reciting a Vedic verse with Om, singing a Vedic hymn with Om, and closing your final udgān with Om. In short, the whole procedure is dedicated to Om. Not only that, those who participate in this ritualistic worship derive their strength and vigour from Om, for the butter or barley syrup they drink as a stimulant is from Om. How? Om is the medium through which sacrifices are performed, and the effects of the sacrifices are carried to the sun. These then return to the earth as rain. From rain come life and food. Again, because of life and food, a person is able to perform sacrifices. Thus, it is the essence of Om that makes ritualistic worship, such as sacrifices, possible. Ritualistic worship is therefore a testimony to the greatness of Om. Om is both the cause and the effect.
Max Müller
9. By that syllable does the threefold knowledge (the sacrifice, more particularly the Soma-sacrifice, as founded on the three Vedas) proceed. When the Adhvaryu priest gives an order, he says Om. When the Hotri priest recites, he says Om. When the Udgâtri priest sings, he says Om, --all for the glory of that syllable. The threefold knowledge (the sacrifice) proceeds by the greatness of that syllable (the vital breaths), and by its essence (the oblations) [1].
10. He who knows about Om and he who does not know about it both work with strength they derive from Om. But knowledge and ignorance produce different results. Anything done with knowledge [about Om], with faith in the teachers and in the scriptures, and according to the principles of the Upaniṣads [or of yoga] is more fruitful. This certainly is the right tribute to Om.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Ubhau, both [kinds of persons]; tena, by the power of that [Om]; kurutaḥ, work; yaḥ ca, whoever; evam, as such; veda, knows; etat, this [i.e., about Om]; yaḥ ca na veda, he who does not know; vidyā ca avidyā ca nānā tu, knowledge and ignorance are entirely different things; yat eva, anything; vidyayā karoti, one does with knowledge [about Om]; śraddhayā, with respect for one’s teachers and the scriptures; upaniṣadā, as taught by the Upaniṣads [i.e., according to yoga]; tat eva, that [work]; vīryavattaram bhavati,. is more powerful [i.e., more fruitful]; iti, this; khalu, certainly; etasya eva akṣarasya upavyākhyānam bhavati, is the right tribute to this Om. Iti prathamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the first section. Commentary:-Two kinds of people work:- one kind knowing what Om means and another kind knowing nothing about it. Both kinds of people, however, are able to work because of Om. What is the difference between the two? What special advantage does a person who knows about Om have? Someone may argue:- Suppose a person takes a medicine knowing what medicine he is taking and why he is taking it, and another person takes it without any knowledge of what he is taking and why he is taking it. Will the medicine produce different results in them? The answer is:- The analogy does not apply here. Knowledge is always an advantage, especially knowledge about Om. If you work because you are told to work, and if you work because you want to use the work as a stepping-stone to the attainment of Om—there is a vast difference between the two approaches. In the first instance, you are content with whatever the work produces; in the second, you are content only if it paves the way to your attainment of Om.
Max Müller
10. Now therefore it would seem to follow, that both he who knows this (the true meaning of the syllable Om), and he who does not, perform the same sacrifice [1]. But this is not so, for knowledge and ignorance are different. The sacrifice which a man performs with knowledge, faith, and the Upanishad [2] is more powerful. This is the full account of the syllable Om.
1. The gods and goddesses and the demons are both children of Prajāpati, yet they fought among themselves. The gods and goddesses then adopted the path of the udgītha, thinking they would thereby be able to overcome the demons.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Devāsurāḥ. the gods and goddesses and the demons; ha vai yatra saṃyetire, fought among themselves; ubhaye, [though] both; prājāpatyāḥ, were Prajāpati’s children; tat, at that time; ha devāḥ, the gods and goddesses then; udgītham ājahruḥ, adopted the path of the udgītha; anena, by this; enān, them [the demons]; abhibhaviṣyāmah, will overcome; iti, thinking thus. Commentary:-The gods and goddesses are ‘bright’ by virtue of their self-control, while the demons are ‘dark’ because they have no control over themselves. Though they were offspring of the same Prajāpati, they often clashed with each other. The gods and goddesses represent virtue; the demons represent vice. This conflict between virtue and vice is eternal, but it is virtue that always prevails. Virtue is here said to be the udgītha—that is, reciting Om while performing sacrifices. The gods and goddesses choose the path prescribed by the scriptures, whereas the demons do just the opposite and defy the scriptures. No wonder then the demons lose. The udgītha is supreme because it is Om. It is the Paramātman, the Cosmic Self.
Max Müller
1. When the Devas and Asuras [1] struggled together, both of the race of Pragâpati, the Devas took the udgîtha [2] (Om), thinking they would vanquish the Asuras with it.
surabhi ca durgandhi ca pāpmanā hyeṣa viddhaḥ .. 1.2.2..
2. The gods and goddesses worshipped the prāṇa presiding over the nostrils as udgītha. The demons, however, misused it. [To them it was only an organ of smelling.] That is why [because of this misuse] people smell both good and bad odours through the nostrils.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Te, they [the gods and goddesses]; ha nāsikyam prāṇam udgītham upāsāñcakrire, worshipped as udgītha the prāṇa [life principle] presiding over the nostrils; asurāḥ ha, the asuras, however; tam pāpmanā vividhuḥ, pierced it with evil [i.e., misused it, as if it were meant only for sense pleasure such as enjoying fragrance]; hi, this is why; eṣaḥ, this [prāṇa presiding over the nostrils]; pāpmanā viddhaḥ, is tainted with evil; tasmāt, therefore; tena, by it [i.e., the nostrils]; jighrati, smells; surabhi ca, good odour; durgandhi ca, and also bad odour. Commentary:-Mark the contrast between the attitude of the gods and goddesses and of the demons. To the demons, the nostrils were only an organ for smelling. Being what they are, it is natural that they would think so. But to the gods and goddesses, the nostrils are the seat of prāṇa, the vital breath, and they worship prāṇa there. The nostrils are also holy to them for another reason:- they use the nostrils in reciting the udgītha to prāṇa. The demons know nothing about prāṇa or udgītha. To them, prāṇa is merely that which carries good and bad odours.
Max Müller
2. They meditated on the udgîtha [1] (Om) as the breath (scent) in the nose [2], but the Asuras pierced it (the breath) with evil. Therefore we smell by the breath in the nose both what is good-smelling and what is bad-smelling. For the breath was pierced by evil.
atha ha vācamudgīthamupāsāṃcakrire tāgͫ hāsurāḥ pāpmanā
vividhustasmāttayobhayaṃ vadati satyaṃ cānṛtaṃ ca
pāpmanā hyeṣā viddhā .. 1.2.3..
3. Next the gods and goddesses worshipped speech as udgītha [i.e., they used speech in praise of Om]. The demons, however, pierced it with evil [i.e., misused it out of ignorance]. This is why people use the organ of speech to speak both truth and untruth. This happens beacuse speech was pierced with evil.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha ha, next; vācam, speech; udgītham upāsāñcakrire, [the gods and goddesses] worshipped as udgītha; tām ha asurāḥ pāpmanā vividhuḥ, the asuras pierced it with evil [i.e., misused it]; tasmāt, that is why; tayā, by it [the organ of speech]; vadati, one speaks; ubhayam satyam ca anṛtam ca, both truth and untruth; pāpmanā hi eṣā viddhā, because this [speech] was pierced with evil [by the ignorant demons]. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
3. Then they meditated on the udgîtha (Om) as speech, but the Asuras pierced it with evil. Therefore we speak both truth and falsehood. For speech is pierced by evil.
4. Next the gods and goddesses worshipped the eye as udgītha [as a praise to Om]. The demons, however, pierced it with evil [i.e., misused it out of ignorance]. This is why people see both good and bad things with the eyes. They see both because of ignorance.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha ha, next; cakṣuḥ udgītham upāsāñcakrire, [the gods and goddesses] worshipped the eye as udgītha [in praise of Om]; asurāḥ ha, the demons, however; tat, that [eye]; pāpmanā vividhuḥ, pierced with evil [misused it from ignorance]; tasmāt, this is why; tena, by this [eye]; paśyati, one sees; ubhayam darśanīyam ca adarśanīyam ca, both good and bad sights; hi, because; etat, this [eye]; pāpmanā viddham, was pierced by evil. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
4. Then they meditated on the udgîtha (Om) as the eye, but the Asuras pierced it with evil. Therefore we see both what is sightly and unsightly. For the eye is pierced by evil.
5. Next the gods and goddesses worshipped the faculty of hearing as udgītha [in order to praise Om]. The demons, however, pierced it with evil [i.e., misused it out of ignorance]. As a result, people hear both pleasant and unpleasant things with the ears. This happens because of ignorance.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha ha, next; śrotram udgītham upāsāñcakrire, [the gods and goddesses] worshipped the faculty of hearing as their udgītha [praise to Om]; asurāḥ ha, the asuras, however; tat, that faculty; pāpmanā vividhaḥ, pierced with evil [misused from ignorance]; tasmāt, that is why; tena, by it [the organ of hearing]; ubhayam śṛṇoti śravaṇīyam ca aśravaṇīyam ca, one hears both pleasant and unpleasant things; hi, because; etat, this [faculty]; pāpmanā viddham, was pierced by evil [i.e., was misused by the ignorant], Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
5. Then they meditated on the udgîtha (Om) as the ear, but the Asuras pierced it with evil. Therefore we hear both what should be heard and what should not be heard. For the car is pierced by evil.
cāsaṃkalpanīyaṃ ca pāpmanā hyetadviddham .. 1.2.6..
6. Next, the gods and goddesses worshipped the mind, because the mind makes it possible for them to chant the udgītha [the praise to Om]. But the demons even vitiated the mind. As a result, the mind has both good and bad thoughts. This happens because of ignorance.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha ha, next; manaḥ udgītham upāsāñcakrire, [the gods and goddesses] worshipped the mind for its role in chanting the udgītha; asurāḥ ha, the asuras, however; tat, that [mind]; pāpmanā vividhuḥ, poisoned it with bad thoughts; tasmāt, for that reason; tena, in the mind; ubhayam saṅkalpanīyam ca asaṅkalpanīyam ca saṅkalpayate, one thinks both good and bad thoughts; pāpmanā hi etat viddham, because the mind is vitiated by evil [ignorance], Commentary:-Prāṇa is another name for Brahman. Prāṇa is pure, but when it is associated with the sense organs it is not pure. Similarly, Brahman as Brahman is pure, but with adjuncts it is not pure. It is not pure in the sense that it is subject to change. Here, these adjuncts are referred to as pāpma, impure or evil, because they are limitations imposed on Brahman. These limitations are not real, however, but only apparent. When the Upaniṣad speaks of the organs, it means the organs with their presiding deities. Both are described as pāpma. In these verses, some of the organs are mentioned, but it is to be understood that what is stated here about some organs applies to all the organs and their presiding deities.
Max Müller
6. Then they meditated on the udgîtha (Om) as the mind, but the Asuras pierced it with evil. Therefore we conceive both what should be conceived and what should not be conceived. For the mind is pierced by evil.
7. Next, the gods and goddesses worshipped the chief prāṇa as udgītha. As regards the demons, they all met their end in prāṇa, just as [chunks of earth] break into pieces when they hit an unbreakable stone.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha ha, next; yaḥ eva mukhyaḥ prāṇaḥ, the chief prāṇa [the vital force, inclusive of its five aspects—prāṇa, apāna, vyāna, udāna, and samāna]; tam udgītham upāsāñcakrire, [the gods and goddesses] worshipped him as udgītha; yathā, just as; ākhaṇam, unbreakable; aśmānam, stone; ṛtvā, hit against; vidhvaṃseta, broken into pieces [and are destroyed]; [in the same way] asurāḥ ca, the demons also; tam ha ṛtvā vidadh vaṃsuḥ, hit against it [prāṇa] and were destroyed. Commentary:-The gods and goddesses worshipped pure prāṇa—that is, prāṇa without the organs—as udgītha. As before, the demons tried to hurt prāṇa, but they failed. In fact, they got lost in prāṇa. They met the same fate as chunks of earth thrown against granite. When the chunks hit the granite, they break into pieces and are destroyed. Similarly, it is beyond the power of the demons to do any harm to prāṇa.
Max Müller
7. Then comes this breath (of life) in the mouth [1]. They meditated on the udgîtha (Om) as that breath. When the Asuras came to it, they were scattered, as (a ball of earth) would be scattered when hitting a solid stone.
8. Just as when chunks of earth are thrown against an unbreakable stone they are themselves reduced to dust, similarly, if anyone wishes ill or causes an injury to a person who knows prāṇa, he invites his own destruction thereby. The person who knows prāṇa is immune to injury like a piece of unbreakable stone.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Evam yathā, just as [chunks of earth]; ākhaṇam, unbreakable; aśmānam, stone; ṛtvā, having hit; vidhvaṃsate, are smashed; evam ha eva, in the same way; saḥ vidhvaṃsate, a person gets totally destroyed; yaḥ pāpam kāmayate, who wishes ill; evamvidi, of a person who knows thus [the true nature of prāṇa]; yaḥ ca enam abhidāsati, or who causes an injury to such a person; saḥ eṣaḥ, he [who knows] this [prāṇa]; aśmā ākhaṇaḥ, [is like] a stone that can never be broken. Commentary:-What is the difference between mukhya prāṇa (the chief prāṇa) and the prāṇa that is associated with our breathing, or smelling? Mukhya prāṇa is supreme prāṇa—that is, it is Brahman. It is pure, all-pervasive, and self-sufficient. But our breathing is associated with the organ of smelling and is not independent. It is also not pure. It has limitations and is susceptible to pāpma, impurities—that is, it is sometimes good and sometimes bad. Mukhya prāṇa, however, is always pure, always the same. One who knows the true nature of prāṇa is immune to injury. And anyone trying to hurt him will end up hurting himself.
Max Müller
8. Thus, as a ball of earth is scattered when hitting on a solid stone, will he be scattered who wishes evil to one who knows this, or who persecutes him; for he is a solid stone.
9. So far as the chief prāṇa is concerned, there is no good or bad odour for it. This is because it is pure [i.e., it is never touched by anything evil born of egotism]. If this prāṇa eats and drinks anything, it does so only to sustain the sense organs [such as the eyes, the ears, and so on]. When death occurs, the chief prāṇa does not eat or drink anything [and as a result, the sense organs collapse]. They seem to have left the body. [They still want to eat and drink, however, so that they may live, and] this is indicated by the fact that a person dies with the mouth open.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Etena eva, by this [chief prāṇa]; nā surabhi, no sweet odour; na durgandhi, no bad odour; vijānāti, is known; hi, because; eṣaḥ, this [prāṇa]; apahata-pāpmā, is pure [untouched by evil]; tena, by that [prāṇa]; yat aśnāti, whatever a person eats; yat pibati, whatever a person drinks; tena, by this [eating and drinking]; itarān prāṇān, the sense organs; avati, sustains; u antataḥ, at the time of death; etam, this [chief prāṇa]; avittvā eva, without receiving any food and drink; utkrāmati, goes out of the body; [this is why] antataḥ, at the time of death; vyādadāti eva, a person has the mouth open. Commentary:-For the chief prāṇa, there is no good or bad odour because it is pure. Egotism is the source of impurity, and the chief prāṇa is free from egotism. And being free from egotism, the chief prāṇa is selfless. People eat and drink because of the chief prāṇa. But the chief prāṇa does not eat or drink for itself. It enables But how do we know that the food and drink the chief prāṇa consumes goes to sustain the organs? When death occurs the chief prāṇa stops eating and drinking. As a result, the sense organs stop functioning, as if they have left the body. It is seen, however, that when a person dies his mouth is open. This is indicative of the desire of the chief prāṇa to eat and drink.
Max Müller
9. By it (the breath in the mouth) he distinguishes neither what is good nor what is bad-smelling, for that breath is free from evil. What we eat and drink with it supports the other vital breaths (i. e. the senses, such as smell, &c.) When at the time of death he [1] does not find that breath (in the mouth, through which he eats and drinks and lives), then he departs. He opens the mouth at the time of death (as if wishing to eat).
10. The sage Aṅgirā worshipped the chief prāṇa as udgītha [i.e., Brahman, to whom the udgītha is addressed]. The chief prāṇa is referred to as āṅgirasa, for it is the rasa [i.e., the essence, or support] of all the aṅgas [organs].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tam, that [the chief prāṇa]; ha aṅgirāḥ, the sage Aṅgirā; udgītham, as udgītha [the Supreme]; upāsāñcakre, worshipped; etam, this [Supreme Being, the chief prāṇa]; u eva āṅgirasam, as Āṅgirasa; manyante, [people] regard; aṅgānām yat rasaḥ, for it is the essence [support] of all the aṅgas [the organs]. Commentary:-The word āṅgirasa is derived from aṅga + rasa. That is, āṅgirasa is the rasa (essence) of the aṅgas (organs). It is the support of the organs. It is the same as prāṇa. When the sage Aṅgirā worships prāṇa, he is worshipping himself.
Max Müller
10. Aṅgiras [1] meditated on the udgîtha (Om) as that breath, and people hold it to be Aṅgiras, i. e. the essence of the members (angânâm rasah);
11. This is why Bṛhaspati worshipped prāṇa as udgītha. Prāṇa is regarded as Bṛhaspati, for vāk [speech] is great [bṛhatī] and prāṇa is its lord [pati].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tena, for that reason; bṛhaspatiḥ, Bṛhaspati; ha tam, that [prāṇa]; udgītham upāsāñcakre, worshipped prāṇa as udgītha [as Brahman, to whom Om is sung]; etam u eva bṛhaspatim manyante, they regard this [prāṇa] as Bṛhaspati; hi, for; vāk, speech; bṛhatī, is powerful; tasyāḥ eṣaḥ patiḥ, prāṇa is its lord. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
11. Therefore Brihaspati meditated on udgîtha (Om) as that breath, and people hold it to be Brihaspati, for speech is brihatî, and he (that breath) is the lord (pati) of speech;
tena tagͫ hāyāsya udgīthamupāsāṃcakra etamu evāyāsyaṃ
manyanta āsyādyadayate .. 1.2.12..
12. This is why Āyāsya worshipped prāṇa as udgītha. They regarded this as Āyāsya for it is that which comes [ayate] out of the mouth [āsyāt].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tena, for that reason; tam, that [i.e., the chief prāṇa]; ha āyāsya, the sage Āyāsya [or, that which comes out of the mouth]; udgītham, as udgītha; upāsāñcakre, worshipped; etam u eva āyāsyam manyante, they regarded this as Āyāsya; yat āsyāt ayate, that which comes out of the mouth. Commentary:-Prāṇa is also Bṛhaspati because it is the lord of all speech. Āyāsya means ‘that which comes out of the mouth.’ It is prāṇa, but it is also the name of a sage. Aṅgirā, Bṛhaspati, and Āyāsya—these sages worshipped prāṇa as udgītha. They, in fact, worshipped themselves.
Max Müller
12. Therefore Ayâsya meditated on the udgîtha (Om) as that breath, and people hold it to be Ayâsya, because it comes (ayati) from the mouth (âsya);
13. The sage Baka, son of Dalbha, came to know prāṇa as it was. That is why the sages of Naimiṣa forest selected him as the singer of their udgītha. He, in his turn, fulfilled their wishes.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Dālbhyaḥ, the son of Dalbha; bakaḥ, the sage Baka; ha tam, that [prāṇa]; tena, with the qualities as stated; vidāñcakāra, came to know; saḥ, he [Baka]; ha naimiṣīyānām, of the sages of Naimiṣa forest; udgātā, the singer of the udgītha; babhūva, became; ha ebhyaḥ kāmān, according to the wishes [of the forest dwellers]; saḥ āgāyati sma, he sang [the udgītha]. Commentary:-Not only did Aṅgirā and other sages worship prāṇa, but Baka, son of Dalbha, also did the same. That is, he recognized the power of prāṇa. The sages of Naimiṣa forest were pleased with him, and appointed him to sing the udgītha for them. He thus sang the udgītha in praise of prāṇa and pleased the sages by his performance.
Max Müller
13. Therefore Vaka Dâlbhya knew it. He was the Udgâtri (singer) of the Naimishîya-sacrificers, and by singing he obtained for them their wishes.
14. If a person knows the real meaning of prāṇa and worships it as udgītha akṣara [i.e., as Akṣara Brahman] he himself becomes Akṣara Brahman. He then worships everyone he wants to worship [i.e., in singing for prāṇa he sings for all], and he attains all he desires. This is the attainment on the level of the body [adhyātma]. [The inner attainment is that he becomes one with prāṇa—that is, Akṣara Brahman.]
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yaḥ, he who; evam, as such; vidvān, knows;; etat, this [prāṇa]; udgītham akṣaram, as udgītha akṣara [akṣara means both ‘syllable’ and ‘the undecaying,’ which is a name of Brahman]; upāste, worships [or meditates on]; vai kāmānām āgātā ha bhavati, he thereby becomes the udgātā [singer] of all that he desires; iti adhyātmam, this is so far as the udgītha relating to the body is concerned. Iti dvitīyaḥ khaṇḍaḥ here ends the second section. Commentary:-Singing for prāṇa is the same as singing for all, for prāṇa is all. You may even achieve all you desire through it. This is so far as the individual is concerned. Praising Om has a threefold reward:- relating to the body (adhyātma), relating to animals (adhibhūta), and relating to the elements (adhidaiva).
Max Müller
14. He who knows this, and meditates on the syllable Om (the imperishable udgîtha) as the breath of life in the mouth, he obtains all wishes by singing. So much for the udgîtha (Om) as meditated on with reference to the body [1].
udyagͫstamo bhayamapahantyapahantā ha vai bhayasya
tamaso bhavati ya evaṃ veda .. 1.3.1..
1. Next, how you worship from the standpoint of the forces of nature:- There is the sun rising to give us heat. Worship it as udgītha. The sun rises to pray, as it were, for the welfare of all living beings. As it rises, it dispels the fear of darkness. One who knows this overcomes the fear of ignorance about birth and death.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; adhidaivatam, relating to the elements [such as rain, lightning, and other forces of nature]; yaḥ eva asau, that [i.e., the sun] over there which; tapati, gives us heat; tam, to that; udgītham upāsīta, worship as udgītha; udyan, as it rises; vai eṣaḥ, this [sun]; prajābhyaḥ, for all living beings; udgāyati, [as if] it prays for their well-being; udyan, as [the sun] rises; tamaḥ bhayam apahanti, it removes the fear of darkness; yaḥ, one who; evam veda, knows this; vai bhayasya, the fear [of birth and death]; tamasaḥ, ignorance; apahantā bhavati, overcomes. Commentary:-There are many ways of using udgītha as worship. This verse gives an example of how you use it in worshipping the forces of nature (adhidaivata). There is the sun above giving us heat. The Upaniṣad says to worship udgītha as the sun. But if udgītha is Om, how can it stand for the sun? The sun helps the plants, such as paddy, to grow. Without the sun, life on this planet would be impossible. It is as if the sun sings the udgītha for us to sustain us. This is why the sun is referred to as the udgītha. As udgītha, the sun also dispels our fear of darkness. One who knows this is no longer afraid of birth and death. That is, he knows he is immortal.
Max Müller
1. Now follows the meditation on the udgîtha with reference to the gods. Let a man meditate on the udgîtha (Om) as he who sends warmth (the sun in the sky). When the sun rises it sings as Udgâtri for the sake of all creatures. When it rises it destroys the fear of darkness. He who knows this, is able to destroy the fear of darkness (ignorance).
2. This prāṇa and that sun are alike. Prāṇa is warm, and the sun is also warm. Prāṇa is called svara [when it is ‘going out’ at the time of death]. The sun is also described as svara [when it ‘sets’] and pratyāsvara [when it ‘comes back’]. Therefore, worship both prāṇa and the sun as udgītha.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Ayam, this [prāṇa]; ca asau, and that [sun]; samānaḥ eva, are equivalent; u ayam, this [prāṇa]; uṣṇaḥ, is warm; ca asau, and that [sun]; uṣṇaḥ, is warm; imam, this [prāṇa]; svaraḥ iti ācakṣate, [sages] call it svara [‘outgoing,’ at the time of death]; amum, that [sun]; svaraḥ iti, has set; pratyāsvaraḥ iti, [and] has returned [this is what people say]; tasmāt vai, for that reason; etam, this [going out]; imam, this [prāṇa]; ca amum, and that [sun]; udgītham upāsīta, worship as udgītha. Commentary:-Prāṇa and āditya (the sun) are similar. Both are warm. Sages call both svara, which means ‘going out.’ The difference is that while prāṇa goes out (at the time of death), the sun goes out (when it sets) and also returns (pratyāsvara, when it rises). Thus, prāṇa and āditya are similar in name and quality. It is therefore appropriate to worship both as udgītha. Both are Om.
Max Müller
2. This (the breath in the mouth) and that (the sun) are the same. This is hot and that is hot. This they call svara (sound), and that they call pratyâsvara [1] (reflected sound). Therefore let a man meditate on the udgîtha (Om) as this and that (as breath and as sun).
3. Worship vyāna [the breath held between prāṇa and apāna that enables you to speak] as udgītha. Prāṇa is the breath drawn in and apāna is the breath drawn out. Vyāna is the breath held between prāṇa and apāna. This vyāna is also called vāk [speech], for in speaking a person has to hold the breath.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, indirectly; khalu vyānam eva udgītham upāsīta, one should worship vyāna [the bridge between prāṇa (breathing in) and apāna (breathing out)] as udgītha; yat vai prāṇiti, that which is breathed in; saḥ prāṇaḥ, that is prāṇa; yat apāniti, that which is breathed out; saḥ apānaḥ, that is apāna; atha yat prāṇa-apānayoḥ sandhiḥ, then the bridge between prāṇa and apāna; saḥ vyānaḥ, that is vyāna; yaḥ vyānaḥ sā vāk, that which is vyāna is speech; tasmāt, therefore; aprāṇan, without inhaling; anapānan, without exhaling; vācam abhivyāharati, a person speaks. Commentary:-Here vyāna is being presented for worship as udgītha, for vyāna is only a form of prāṇa. What is vyāna? Vyāna is the bridge between prāṇa and apāna, between breathing in and breathing out. Vyāna is the state in which you hold your breath. Vyāna is also called vāk, speech, for when you speak you have to hold your breath. Śaṅkara says prāṇa is breathing out and apāna is breathing in. According to Monier-Williams, it is the other way around—prāṇa is breathing in and apāna is breathing out. Macdowell is of the same opinion. Both meanings are correct, depending on the context in which the word is used.
Max Müller
3. Then let a man meditate on the udgîtha (Om) as vyâna indeed. If we breathe up, that is prâna, the up-breathing. If we breathe down, that is apâna, the down-breathing. The combination of prâna and apâna is vyâna, back-breathing or holding in of the breath. This vyâna is speech. Therefore when we utter speech, we neither breathe up nor down.
yatsāma sa udgīthastasmādaprāṇannanapānannudgāyati .. 1.3.4..
4. Whatever is vāk [speech] is also the Ṛk [part of the Ṛg Veda]. This is why a person stops breathing in and breathing out when reciting the Ṛk mantras. Whatever is the Ṛk is also the Sāma. This is why one recites the Sāma without breathing in or breathing out. That which is the Sāma is also the udgītha. This is why when one sings the udgītha one stops both breathing in and breathing out.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yā vāk sā ṛk, that which is speech is Ṛk; tasmāt, because [they are one]; aprāṇan anapānan, breathing in and out are suspended; ṛcam, the Ṛg Veda; abhivyāharati, one recites; yā ṛk tat sāma, that which is the Ṛk is also the Sāma; tasmāt, because [they are one and the same]; aprāṇan anapānan sāma gāyati, one suspends breathing in and out when singing the Sāma; yat sāma saḥ udgīthaḥ, that which is the Sāma is the udgītha; tasmāt aprāṇan anapānan udgāyati, because one sings the udgītha by suspending both breathing in and breathing out. Commentary:-The Ṛk is a collection of words, and the Sāma is based on the Ṛk. Again, the Sāma and the udgītha are the same. To recite any of these, or even to speak, you have to resort to vyāna—that is, you must hold your breath.
Max Müller
4. Speech is Rik, and therefore when a man utters a Rik verse he neither breathes up nor down. Rik is Sâman, and therefore when a man utters a Sâman verse he neither breathes up nor down. Sâman is udgîtha, and therefore when a man sings (the udgîtha, Om) he neither breathes up nor down.
5. This is why, while doing feats demanding great strength—such as producing a fire by rubbing one stick of wood against another, running up to a target, or bending a stiff bow—a person does not breathe in or breathe out. For this reason, one should worship this holding of breath, called vyāna, as udgītha [Om].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Ataḥ, this is why; yāni, those; anyāni, other; vīryavanti, demanding great strength; karmāṇi, feats; yathā, such as; agneḥ manthanam, igniting a fire by rubbing one piece of wood against another; ājeh, a target; saraṇam, running up to; dṛḍhasya dhanuṣaḥ āyamanam, bending a stiff bow; aprāṇan anapānan, without breathing in or breathing out; tāni, all those [feats]; karoti, one accomplishes; etasya hetoḥ, for this reason; vyānam eva, vyāna; udgītham, as udgītha [Om]; upāsīta, one should worship. Commentary:-Whenever you do something that demands much application of strength, you must resort to vyāna. Take, for instance, deeds such as producing fire by grinding one piece of wood against another, or running up to a target, or bending a stiff bow. In doing each of these feats, you have to hold your breath. Even when you speak, you hold your breath. This distinguishes vyāna from other forms of breathing. Vyāna, therefore, deserves special worship, for vyāna is in a class by itself. It gives you strength.
Max Müller
5. And other works also which require strength, such as the production of fire by rubbing, running a race, stringing a strong bow, are performed without breathing up or down. Therefore let a man meditate on the udgîtha (Om) as vyâna.
6. Now, one should worship the syllables ut, gī and tha separately in the word udgītha. Prāṇa is represented by ut, for prāṇa is responsible for the
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, now; khalu udgīthākṣarāṇi ‘ut-gī-tha’ iti upāsīta, worship the syllables ut, gī, and tha separately in the word udgītha; prāṇaḥ eva ut, prāṇa is this ut; prāṇena hi, because by prāṇa; uttiṣṭhati, arises [everything]; vāk gīḥ, vāk [speech] is gī; vācaḥ ha giraḥ iti ācakṣate, because words are called ‘gira’; annam tham, food is tha; hi idam sarvam, for all this [i.e., this world]; anne sthitam, is supported by food. Commentary:-The word udgītha is comprised of the syllables ut, gī, and tha. It is worthwhile meditating on these syllables, for each one is significant. For instance, ut, in brief, is uttham, rising. It stands for prāṇa, because out of prāṇa everything comes into being. From prāṇa everything ‘rises’; otherwise it goes down. The syllable gī stands for speech, because scholars prefer to use the word gira to mean speech. Similarly, the syllable tha stands for food, for tha means ‘that which supports.’ It is well known that food supports everything. Thus the syllables ut, gī, and tha stand for the whole word udgītha. It is like thinking of the name ‘Ram Misra.’ As you think of the name, you also think of the person who bears that name. Try to think of each syllable in the word udgītha as above.
Max Müller
6. Let a man meditate on the syllables of the udgîtha, i. e. of the word udgîtha. Ut is breath (prâna), for by means of breath a man rises (uttishthati). Gî is speech, for speeches are called girah. Tha is food, for by means of food all subsists (sthita).
7. Heaven is ut, the space between heaven and the earth is gī, and the earth is tha. The sun is ut, air is gī, and fire is tha. The Sāma Veda is ut, the Yajur Veda is gī, and the Ṛg Veda is tha. The scriptures reveal their meaning to the seeker if he knows all this. One who worships ut-gī-tha as above gets plenty of food and also eats plenty of food. [Such a person also gets enlightenment.]
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Dyauḥ, heaven; eva ut, is ut; antarikṣam gīḥ, the space between heaven and earth is gī; pṛthivī tham, the earth is tha; ādityaḥ eva ut, the sun is ut; vāyuḥ gīḥ, air is gī; agniḥ tham, fire is tha; sāma vedaḥ eva ut, the Sāma Veda is ut; yajur vedaḥ gīḥ, the Yajur Veda is gī; ṛg vedaḥ tham, the Ṛg Veda is tha; vāk, the Ṛg Veda and other scriptures; asmai, to him [the spiritual seeker]; doham, the goal [he is seeking]; dugdhe, gives him of itself; yaḥ vācaḥ dohaḥ, the goal is the knowledge of the scriptures; yaḥ evam vidvān, the seeker who knows this; etāni udgīthākṣarāṇi ut + gī + tha iti upāste, [and] worships these syllables of udgītha; annavān, he has plenty of food; annādaḥ bhavati, [and] he enjoys eating that food [i.e., he becomes illumined]. Commentary:-Heaven is said to be ut because it is high above. Space is gī because it envelops the whole world. And the earth is tha because it is the support of all beings. Āditya, the sun, is ut because it is far above everything. Vāyu, air, is gī because it envelops everything. Agni, fire, is tha because it is the common element in every sacrificial rite. The Sāma Veda is said to be ut because it is known even in heaven. The Yajur Veda is gī because the butter used in performing the Yajur Vedic rites is eaten by the gods and goddesses. The Ṛg Veda is tha because it supports the Sāma Veda. What do you gain by worshipping ut-gī-tha? You gradually understand the meaning of the Ṛg Veda and other Vedas. You also have plenty to eat, and you become like ‘a blazing fire’—that is, you become an illumined person.
Max Müller
7. Ut is heaven, gî the sky, tha the earth. Ut is the sun, gî the air, tha the fire. Ut is the Sâma-veda,, gî the Yagur-veda, tha the Rig-veda [1]. Speech yields the milk, which is the milk of speech itself [2], to him who thus knowing meditates on those syllables of the name of udgîtha, he becomes rich in food and able to eat food.
8. Now here are instructions about how one attains one’s desired objectives:- Keep meditating on the objectives. Also, pray for the objectives by singing the appropriate Sāma, and remember that the Sāma is the source of the things you are asking for.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha khalu, now; āśīḥ samṛddhiḥ, instructions about how desired objectives can be obtained; upasaraṇāni, the things desired; iti, in this way; upāsīta, one should meditate upon; yena sāmnā, by that Sāma; stoṣyan syāt, one sings; tat sāma upadhāvet, one should meditate upon that Sāma. Commentary:-You sing a particular Sāma for a particular thing you wish to get. Sing it always, and remember that it is the source of what you are wishing for.
Max Müller
8. Next follows the fulfilment of prayers. Let a man thus meditate on the Upasaranas, i. e. the objects which have to be approached by meditation:- Let him (the Udgâtri) quickly reflect on the Sâman with which he is going to praise;
9. The Ṛk from which this Sāma is derived, the sage who conceived of this Sāma prayer, and the deity to whom the prayer is addressed—meditate on all of them.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tām ṛcam, that Ṛk; yasyām ṛci, on which Ṛk [the Sāma is based]; tam ṛṣim yat ārṣeyam, that sage who conceived of it; yām devatām abhiṣṭoṣyan syāt, the deity to whom the prayer is addressed; tām devatām, that deity; upadhāvet, one should meditate on. Commentary:-When you recite a Sāma mantra, you should remember the Ṛk mantra from which it is derived, the sage
Max Müller
9. Let him quickly reflect on the Rik in which that Sâman occurs; on the Rishi (poet) by whom it was seen or composed; on the Devatâ (object) which he is going to praise;
10. One may use the Gāyatrī or some other hymn when praying, but one should meditate on it. Again, one may use a number of Sāma mantras while praying, but one must meditate on them [along with the deities to whom they are addressed].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yena chandasā, by the Gāyatrī or whatever other hymn; stoṣyan syāt, one is going to pray; tat chandaḥ upadhāvet, one should meditate on that hymn; yena stomena stoṣyamāṇaḥ syāt, the group of Sāmas by which a person is going to pray; tam stomam upadhāvet, one should meditate on those Sāmas [along with the deities to whom they are addressed]. Commentary:-Whether you use the Gāyatrī or some other hymn while praying, you should not forget to meditate on that hymn. In fact, whatever mantras you use, you should meditate on them as well as on the deities to whom they are directed.
Max Müller
10. On the metre in which he is going to praise; on the tune with which he is going to sing for himself;
11. No matter what direction one may face while praying, one should meditate on that direction [along with the presiding deities of that direction].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yām diśam abhiṣṭoṣyan syāt, whatever direction a person may face while praying; tām diśam upadhāvet, one should worship that direction [and also the deities presiding over that direction]. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
11. On the quarter of the world which he is going to praise. Lastly, having approached himself (his name, family, &c.) by meditation, let him sing the hymn of praise, reflecting on his desire, and avoiding all mistakes in pronunciation, &c.
dhyāyannapramatto'bhyāśo ha yadasmai sa kāmaḥ samṛdhyeta
yatkāmaḥ stuvīteti yatkāmaḥ stuvīteti .. 1.3.12..
12. Finally, as a person ends his prayer, he should ask for whatever he desires, making sure, however, that his pronunciation is correct. He should also think of himself [including his name, lineage, and caste]. Then whatever desire he has while praying is promptly and surely fulfilled.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Antataḥ, as one ends one’s prayer; kāmam dhyāyan apramattaḥ, one should think of whatever one desires, making sure that the pronunciation of words is correct; ātmānam, oneself; upasṛtya, thinking of [one’s name, lineage, and caste]; stuvīta, praise; yat kāmaḥ, whatever desire one has; stuvīta, while praying; kāmaḥ, that desire; abhyāsaḥ, promptly; ha, surely; asmai, to the person concerned; samṛdhyeta, prosperity goes. [The repetition is for emphasis.] Iti tṛtīyaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the third section. Commentary:-Here the udgātā (the singer) is told how he should pray. He should first repeat the Sāma songs, and then he should pray for whatever he desires. His prayer should be correct in every detail. And while praying, he should mention his own name, his lineage, and his caste. If these conditions are fulfilled, his prayer will be promptly granted. That this will happen is indicated by the repetition of the statement.
Max Müller
12. Quickly [1] will the desire be then fulfilled to him, for the sake of which he may have offered his hymn of praise, yea, for which he may have offered his hymn of praise [2].
1. Om is the closest word to Brahman. Recite this Om as if you are worshipping Brahman. [That is, treat this Om as the symbol of Brahman and concentrate on the idea of their oneness.] How you recite this Om is being explained.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Om iti, this Om [is closest to Brahman]; etat akṣaram udgītham upāsīta, recite this syllable as part of your upāsanā [ritual]; hi om iti udgāyati, how you recite this Om; tasya upavyākhyānam, is being explained. Commentary:-This akśara is Brahman, and Om is that Brahman. Akṣara, Brahman, and Om are interchangeable words. As Brahman is abhaya, without fear, and amṛta, immortal, so Om and akṣara are also without fear and immortal.
Max Müller
1. Let a man meditate on the syllable Om, for the udgîtha is sung beginning with Om. And this is the full account of the syllable Om--
2. The gods and goddesses were afraid of death, so they took refuge in the rites and rituals of the three Vedas. They covered themselves, as it were, with mantras. Because they covered themselves with mantras, the mantras came to be known as chandas.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Devāḥ, the gods and goddesses; vai mṛtyoḥ bibhyataḥ, are afraid of death; trayīm vidyām prāviśan, they took refuge in the three Vedas [i.e., they decided to perform Vedic rites and rituals in order to escape death]; te, they; chandobhiḥ acchādayan, covered themselves with the mantras; yat, because; ebhiḥ, Commentary:-In ancient times the gods and goddesses decided to perform the sacrifices mentioned in the three Vedas to save themselves from death. It was as if they took ‘cover’ behind the Vedic mantras. It is from this word ‘cover’ (acchādan) that the mantras have come to be known as chandas.
Max Müller
2. The Devas, being afraid of death, entered upon (the performance of the sacrifice prescribed in) the threefold knowledge (the three Vedas). They covered themselves with the metrical hymns. Because they covered (khad) themselves with the hymns, therefore the hymns are called khandas.
tānu tatra mṛtyuryathā matsyamudake paripaśyedevaṃ
paryapaśyadṛci sāmni yajuṣi .
te nu viditvordhvā ṛcaḥ sāmno yajuṣaḥ svarameva
prāviśan .. 1.4.3..
3. Just as a person can see a fish swimming in shallow water [i.e., the fish is exposed to the risk of being caught], in the same way, Death could see the gods and goddesses when they depended on Vedic rituals [i.e., they were in easy reach of Death]. Realizing this, the gods and goddesses switched over to the recitation of Om.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yathā, just as; udake, in shallow water; matsyam, a fish [swimming]; paripaśyet, a person can see; evam, in the same way; tatra, in those [Vedic rites and rituals]; ṛci sāmni yajuṣi, in the Ṛg, Sāma, and Yajur Vedas; tān, those gods and goddesses; mṛtyuḥ, Death; paryapaśyat, saw [i.e., they could not escape death through Vedic rituals]; te, they [the gods and goddesses]; nu viditvā, having realized [that they were still susceptible to death]; ṛcaḥ sāmnaḥ yajuṣaḥ ūrdhvāḥ, turned away from Ṛk, Sāma, and Yajur rituals; svaram eva prāviśan, took to [reciting] Om. Commentary:-Fish in shallow water are never safe, for people can easily catch them. Similarly, those who depend on karma (i.e., Vedic rituals) are always liable to being caught by death. When people realize this, they stop performing the rites and rituals and concentrate on reciting Om. They know that Om is a symbol of immortality and fearlessness.
Max Müller
3. Then, as a fisherman might observe a fish in the water, Death observed the Devas in the Rik, Yagus, and Sâman-(sacrifices). And the Devas seeing this, rose from the Rik, Yagus, and Sâman-sacrifices, and entered the Svara [1], i.e. the Om (they meditated on the Om).
yajureṣa u svaro yadetadakṣarametadamṛtamabhayaṃ tatpraviśya
devā amṛtā abhayā abhavan .. 1.4.4..
4. When people recite the Ṛk, they start with Om, reciting it with great enthusiasm. They do the same when they recite the Sāma and Yajus. This Om is akṣara and also svara. It is a symbol of immortality and fearlessness. When the gods and goddesses took refuge in it, they attained immortality and fearlessness.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yadā vai, whenever; ṛcam āpnoti, a person recites Ṛk mantras; om iti eva atisvarati, that person recites Om with great enthusiasm; evam sāma evam yajuḥ, so also the Yajus and Sāma mantras; eṣaḥ u svaraḥ yat etat akṣaram, this akṣara [Om] is svara; etat amṛtam abhayam, this is immortal and fearless; tat praviśya, having taken shelter in it; devāḥ amṛtāḥ abhayāḥ abhavan, the gods and goddesses became immortal and fearless. Commentary:-Akṣara, Om, and svara are the same. When people recite Vedic mantras, they always start with the akṣara Om. By taking refuge in Om, one attains immortality and fearlessness.
Max Müller
4. When a man has mastered the Rig-veda, he says quite loud Om; the same, when he has mastered the Sâman and the Yagus. This Svara is the imperishable (syllable), the immortal, free from fear. Because the Devas entered it, therefore they became immortal, and free from fear.
5. Even now anyone who knows this Om and worships it thus can attain the fearlessness and immortality of Om, which is akṣara, or svara. By becoming one with Om, a person can attain immortality, just as the gods and goddesses did.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ, one who; evam etat akṣaram vidvān praṇauti, knows this akṣara and respects it as such; etat eva svaram, that known as svara; amṛtam abhayam akṣaram praviśati, becomes one with the immortal and fearless akṣara [Om]; tat, that [akṣara]; praviśya, having become one with [akṣara]; devāḥ yat amṛtāḥ, by which the gods and goddesses became immortal; tat amṛtaḥ bhavati, that person also becomes immortal. Iti caturthaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the fourth section. Commentary:-By worshipping svara (Om), the gods and goddesses entered into svara, which means they became one with it. And by becoming one with it, they became fearless and immortal. The same thing may happen to anyone who follows in their footsteps—that is, anyone who worships svara. The transformation is the same as in the case of the gods and goddesses—no more, no less.
Max Müller
5. He who knowing this loudly pronounces (pranauti) [1]- that syllable, enters the same (imperishable) syllable, the Svara, the immortal, free from fear, and having entered it, becomes immortal, as the Devas are immortal.
atha khalu ya udgīthaḥ sa praṇavo yaḥ praṇavaḥ sa udgītha
ityasau vā āditya udgītha eṣa praṇava omiti
hyeṣa svaranneti .. 1.5.1..
1. That which is udgītha is also praṇava [Om]. So also, that which is praṇava is udgītha. That sun is udgītha, and it is also praṇava, because it seems to say Om [or, has the word Om in its mind] when it appears.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; yaḥ khalu udgīthaḥ, that which is udgītha; saḥ praṇavaḥ, is praṇava [Om]; yaḥ praṇavaḥ saḥ udgīthaḥ, that which is praṇava is also udgītha; asau vai ādityaḥ udgīthaḥ, that sun is udgītha; eṣaḥ praṇavaḥ, it is also praṇava; hi, for; eṣaḥ, the sun; om iti svaran eti, appears with the word Om in its mind. Commentary:-This is how udgītha is to be worshipped:- According to many scholars of the Ṛg Veda, udgītha is the same as praṇava (Om). What is praṇava to them is udgītha according to the Chāndogya. Similarly, according to many scholars, the sun is udgītha and also praṇava. How can the sun be referred to as udgītha? When the sun appears, it looks as if it is saying Om, or it has Om in its thoughts. According to Śaṅkara, the word svaran may also mean ‘uttering.’
Max Müller
1. The udgîtha is the pranava [1], the pranava is the udgîtha. And as the udgîtha is the sun [2], So is the pranava, for he (the sun) goes sounding Om.
ha kauṣītakiḥ putramuvāca raśmīgͫstvaṃ paryāvartayādbahavo
vai te bhaviṣyantītyadhidaivatam .. 1.5.2..
2. The sage Kauṣītaki said to his son:- ‘I worshipped the sun and its rays as one. That is why I had only one son, which is you. If you worship the sun and its rays separately, you will then have many children.’ This is the worship of the forces of nature.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Kauṣītakiḥ putram uvāca, the sage Kauṣītaki said to his son; etam, this [sun with its rays]; eva, as one; aham abhyagāsiṣam, I greeted [welcomed]; tasmāt, because [of my worshipping it as one]; tvam mama ekaḥ asi, you are my only son; tvam raśmīn paryāvartayāt, if you worship the sun and its rays separately; te bahavaḥ vai bhaviṣyanti, you will have many children; iti adhidaivatam, this is the worship of the forces of nature. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
2. 'Him I sang praises to, therefore art thou my only one,' thus said Kaushîtaki to his son. 'Do thou revolve his rays, then thou wilt have many sons.' So much in reference to the Devas.
3. Next, this is how worship concerning the physical body is performed:- One should worship the chief prāṇa as udgītha, for it seems to say Om as it makes the organs [of perception and action] function.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, now; adhyātmam, concerning one’s own body; yaḥ eva ayam mukhyaḥ prāṇaḥ, that which is the chief prāṇa [which divides itself into five functions:- prāṇa, apāna, vyāna, udāna, and samāna]; tam udgītham upāsīta, one should worship as udgītha; hi, for; eṣaḥ, this [prāṇa]; om iti svaran, uttering Om; eti, activates [all the organs—of speech, vision, etc.]. Commentary:-As far as the physical body is concerned, the Upaniṣad says to treat the chief prāna as Om. The chief prāṇa is responsible for what the organs of perception (the eyes, ears, nose, etc.) and the organs of action (the hands, feet, speech, etc.) do. It makes them active. Just as some people say Om before they do or say anything, so prāṇa seems to say Om as it makes the organs function. Not that it really says Om, but because the organs cannot act without its support, it is suggested that the chief prāṇa has to give the signal (that is, by saying Om) and then only do the organs start operating.
Max Müller
3. Now with reference to the body. Let a man meditate on the udgîtha as the breath (in the mouth), for he goes sounding Om [1].
etamu evāhamabhyagāsiṣaṃ tasmānmama tvameko'sīti ha
kauṣītakiḥ putramuvāca prāṇāgͫstvaṃ
bhūmānamabhigāyatādbahavo vai me bhaviṣyantīti .. 1.5.4..
4. The sage Kauṣītaki said to his son:- ‘I worshipped prāṇa as just one entity, and therefore I had only one son. I suggest that you worship prāṇa as one with manifold qualities and with many forms while thinking, “May my children be many”’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Kauṣītakiḥ ha putram uvāca, Kauṣītaki said to his son; aham u etam eva abhyagāsiṣam, I worshipped this [prāṇa] as one; tasmāt, that is why; tvam mama ekaḥ, you are my only son; tvam prāṇān bhūmānam abhigāyatāt, you should worship prāṇa as many [i.e., with manifold qualities and forms]; me bahavaḥ vai bhaviṣyanti iti, thinking, ‘May my children be many.’ Commentary:-The sun and its rays are not separate, but if a person wants more than one child, he or she will have to worship the sun and its rays as separate entities. The same applies to the worship of the chief prāṇa and its subsidiaries (vyāna, udāna, etc.).
Max Müller
4. 'Him I sang praises to, therefore art thou my only son,' thus said Kaushîtaki to his son. 'Do thou therefore sing praises to the breath as manifold, if thou wishest to have many sons.'
5. For certain, that which is udgītha is praṇava, and that which is praṇava is also udgītha. Should the person performing a sacrifice make mistakes in pronunciation, that can be rectified [when he has the knowledge that udgītha and praṇava are the same].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha khalu, for certain; yaḥ udgīthaḥ saḥ praṇavaḥ, that which is udgītha is praṇava; yaḥ praṇava saḥ udgīthaḥ, that which is praṇava is also udgītha; hotṛṣadanāt api eva ha durudgītam, it is not unlikely that the person performing a sacrifice will err in pronunciation; anusamāharati iti, that can be rectified [the statement is repeated to emphasize its importance]. Iti pañcamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the fifth section. Commentary:-It has already been stressed that praṇava and udgītha should be regarded as one. Where the consciousness of this sameness prevails, any mistakes made while reciting the mantras may easily be rectified. The statement is intended to illustrate how it helps to have the knowledge of the sameness of udgītha and praṇava.
Max Müller
5. He who knows that the udgîtha is the pranava, and the pranava the udgîtha, rectifies from the seat of the Hotri priest any mistake committed by the Udgâtri priest in performing the udgîtha, yea, in performing the udgîtha.
1. This earth is like the Ṛg Veda, and fire is like the Sāma Veda. The Sāma is based on the Ṛg Veda, and this is why the Sāṃa is sung based on the Ṛg Veda. The earth is sā and fire is ama. This sā and ama together make Sāma.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Iyam, this [earth]; eva ṛk, is like the Ṛg Veda; agniḥ sāma, fire is like the Sāma Veda; tat etat sāma etasyām ṛci adhyūḍham, the Sāma Veda is based on the Ṛg Veda; tasmāt, therefore; ṛci adhyūḍham sāma gīyate, the Sāma Veda is sung based on the Ṛg Veda; iyam eva sā, this [earth] is the sā [of Sāma]; agniḥ amaḥ, fire is ama [of Sāma]; tat sāma, that [if joined together] is Sāma [i.e., sā + ama]. Commentary:-The Upaniṣad says to treat the earth as the Ṛg Veda and fire as the Sāma Veda. But how are they so related? The Sāma is based on the Ṛg Veda, and fire is based on the earth. Because of this relationship between them, they are thought of as identical.
Max Müller
1. The Rik (veda) is this earth, the Sâman (veda) is fire. This Sâman (fire) rests on that Rik (earth) [1]. Therefore the Sâman is sung as resting on the Rik. Sâ is this earth, ama is fire, and that makes Sâma.
2. The space between heaven and earth is the Ṛk, and air is the Sāma. This Sāma [called air] is based on the Ṛk [called the space between heaven and earth]. This is why the Sāma is sung based on the Ṛk. The space between heaven and earth is sā, and earth is ama. Together they are Sāma.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Antarikṣam, the space between heaven and earth; eva ṛk, is nothing but the Ṛk; vāyuḥ sāma, air is the Sāma; tat etat sāma, this Sāma [called air]; etasyām ṛci adhyūḍham, is based on the Ṛk [called the antarikṣa]; tasmāt, this is why; ṛci adhyūḍham sāma gīyate, the Sāma is sung as based on the Ṛk; antarikṣam eva sā, the space between heaven and earth is sā; vāyuḥ amaḥ, air is ama; tat sāma, that [if joined together] is Sāma. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
2. The Rik is the sky, the Sâman air. This Sâman (air) rests on that Rik (sky). Therefore the Sâman is sung as resting on the Rik. Sâ is the sky, ama the air, and that makes Sâma.
3. Heaven is the Ṛk, and the sun is the Sāma. This Sāma [called the sun] is based on the Ṛk [called heaven]. This is why Sāma scholars sing songs based on the Ṛk. Heaven is sā, and the sun is ama. Together they are Sāma.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Dyauḥ, the heaven; eva ṛk, is Ṛk; ādityaḥ sāma, the sun is Sāma; tat etat sāma, that Sāma [which is known as the sun]; etasyām ṛci adhyūḍham, is based on the Ṛk [heaven]; tasmāt, that is why; ṛci adhyūḍham sāma [sāmagaiḥ] gīyate, the Sāma scholars sing the Sāma based on the Ṛk; dyauḥ eva sā, heaven is nothing but sā; ādityaḥ amaḥ, the sun is ama; tat sāma, that [if joined together] is Sāma. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
3. Rik is heaven, Sâman the sun. This Sâman (sun) rests on that Rik (heaven). Therefore the Sâman is sung as resting on the Rik. Sâ is heaven, ama the sun, and that makes Sâma.
4. The stars are the Ṛk, and the moon is the Sāma. This Sāma [called the moon] is based on the Ṛk [called the stars]. This is why Sāma scholars sing songs based on the Ṛk. The stars are the sā, and the moon is ama. Together they are Sāma.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Nakṣatrāṇi era ṛk, the stars together constitute the Ṛk; candramāḥ sāma, the moon is the Sāma; tat etat sāma, that Sāma; etasyām ṛci adhyūḍham, is based on the Ṛk; tasmāt, that is why; ṛci adhyūḍham sāma gīyate, the Sāma scholars sing the Sāma based on the Ṛk; nakṣatrāṇi eva sā, the stars are the sā; candramaḥ amaḥ, the moon is the ama; tat sāma, that [if joined together] is Sāma. Commentary:-The moon is the lord of the stars. This is why it is given the status of the Sāma Veda.
Max Müller
4. Rik is the stars, Sâman the moon. This Sâman (moon) rests on that Rik (stars). Therefore the Sâman is sung as resting on the Rik. Sâ is the stars, ama the moon, and that makes Sâma.
5. The white glow of the sun is the Ṛk, and its deep blue glow is the Sāma. The black glow called the Sāma is based on the white glow called the Ṛk. That is why the Sāma is sung based on the Ṛk.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; yat etat, that which is this; ādityasya śuklam, whiteness of the sun; bhāḥ, the glow; sā eva ṛk, that is the Ṛk; atha, next; yat nīlam, that which is blue; paraḥ, deep; kṛṣṇam, black; tat sāma, that is the Sāma; tat etat sāma, this Sāma; etasyām ṛci adhyūḍham, is based on the Ṛk; tasmāt, that is why; ṛci adhyūḍham sāma gīyate, the Sāma is sung based on the Ṛk. Commentary:-The Upaniṣad gives another way of worshipping the udgītha:- The white glow of the sun is compared to the Ṛk. But the sun also has a deep blue or black glow, which the Upaniṣad compares to the Sāma. This deep blue glow is not seen by many, people. Only a few persons who have studied the scriptures and have acquired an enlightened mind can see it.
Max Müller
5. Rik is the white light of the sun, Sâman the blue exceeding darkness [1] (in the sun). This Sâman (darkness) rests on that Rik (brightness). Therefore the Sâman is sung as resting on the Rik.
6. Then, [worship of the effulgent being in the sun]:- The white glow of the sun is sā, and the dark bluish-black glow is ama. These two together make up the word Sāma. There is a deity within the orb of the sun, who is seen by yogīs. His whole body glitters like gold, even to his toe-nails. He has a bright golden beard and bright golden hair.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, then; yat eva etat ādityasya śuklam bhāḥ, that which is this white glow of the sun; sā eva sā, that is the ‘sā’ [of Sāma]; atha yat nīlam paraḥ kṛṣṇam, and that which is the deep black glow; tat amaḥ, that is ‘ama’; tat sāma, [when they are put together] that is Sāma; atha antarāditye, again inside the orb of the sun; yāḥ eṣaḥ hiraṇmayaḥ, there is a bright figure; hiraṇyaśmaśruḥ, bright gold beard; hiraṇyakeśaḥ puruṣaḥ dṛśyate, the person with bright gold hair seen [by the yogīs]; āpraṇakhāt sarva eva suvarṇaḥ, bright gold all over the body, including even his nails. Commentary:-The sun is partly white and partly dark. These colours together make up ‘Sāma.’ The Upaniṣad does not mean to say that the sun is made of gold, and neither is the person in the orb of the sun. This is not to be taken literally. What is meant here is that the person in the sun is brilliant—brilliant in terms of moral and spiritual qualities. The word gold refers to his character and not to the colour of his skin. The word puruṣa means ‘one who covers the whole
Max Müller
6. Sâ is the white light of the sun, ama the blue exceeding darkness, and that makes Sâma. Now that golden [1] person, who is seen within the sun, with golden beard and golden hair, golden altogether to the very tips of his nails,
udeti ha vai sarvebhyaḥ pāpmabhyo ya evaṃ veda .. 1.6.7..
7. His eyes are like lotuses blossomed by the sun. He is called ut because he is above all weakness. He who knows this truth is also above all weakness.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tasya, his; yathā, like; kapyāsam [kapi, which means ‘he who drinks water’ (i.e, the sun) + āsa, which means blossomed], blossomed by the sun; puṇḍarīkam evam, like the lotus; akṣinī the eyes; tasya ut iti nāma, his name is ‘ut’; saḥ eṣaḥ sarvebhyaḥ pāpmabhyaḥ uditaḥ, he is above all weakness; udeti, he rises; ha vai sarvebhyaḥ pāpmabhyaḥ, above all weakness; yaḥ, who; evam veda, knows thus. Commentary:-It has been said that fire rests on the earth, space rests on air, the moon on the stars, and the dark glow of the sun on its white glow. But the Being in the orbit of the sun does not rest on anything He is above all that is evil, above everything. To signify this he is given the name ut (that which is above everything). This ‘ut’ suggests supremacy. It is the kind of supremacy which Vedānta attributes to Brahman. This ‘ut’ and Brahman are the same. Here, Rāmānuja’s interpretation has been followed for the word kāpyāsam. Śaṅkara gives another interpretation.
Max Müller
7. Whose eyes are like blue lotus's [1], his name is ut, for he has risen (udita) above all evil. He also who knows this, rises above all evil.
8. The Ṛk and the Sāma are his two singers who sing in praise of this god. This is why he is called udgītha, and this is why a singer of the udgītha is called an udgātā. There are worlds above the solar region, but the god in the solar region rules over them [and also supports them]. He also decides the wishes of the gods and goddesses. This is from the standpoint of the gods and goddesses.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tasya, his; ṛk ca sāma ca geṣṇau, the Ṛk and the Sāma are two singers [who sing his praise]; tasmāt, this is why; udgīthaḥ, he is [called] udgītha [the great God in whose praise songs are sung]; tasmāt, this is why; etasya hi gātā, the singers of it; tu eva udgātā, are called udgātā, the musicians; sāḥ eṣaḥ, he; ye ca, who; amuṣmāt parāñcaḥ, high above that [solar region]; teṣām lokāḥ, those worlds; ca iṣṭe, governs [decides]; devakāmānām ca, the desires Commentary:-The word ut suggests supremacy. It is applied to that being who is the overlord of everything and also the source of everything—the earth, the- air, and fire; the Ṛk and Sāma; the gods and goddesses; and even the worlds above the sun. This ‘ut’ rules everything and is therefore identical with Brahman.
Max Müller
8. Rik and Sâman are his joints, and therefore he is udgîtha. And therefore he who praises him (the ut) is called the Ud-gâtri[1] (the out-singer). He (the golden person, called ut) is lord of the worlds beyond that (sun), and of all the wishes of the Devas (inhabiting those worlds). So much with reference to the Devas.
1. Now an explanation with reference to the body:- Speech is Ṛk, and prāṇa is Sāma. This Sāma [called prāṇa] is based on the Ṛk [called speech]. This is why Sāma scholars sing songs based on the Ṛk. Speech is sā, and prāṇa is ama. Together they are Sāma.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha adhyātmam, now what relates to the body; vāk eva ṛk, speech is Ṛk; prāṇaḥ sāma, prāṇa is Sāma; tat etat sāma, this Sāma [called prāṇa]; etasyām ṛci adhyūdham, is based on Ṛk [speech]; tasmāt, this is why; ṛci adhyūḍham sāma gīyate, the Sāma is sung as based on the Ṛk; vāk eva sā, speech is sā; prāṇaḥ amaḥ, prāṇa is ama; tat sāma, that [if joined together] is Sāma. Commentary:-The word prāṇa means both the vital breath and the organ by which we smell. Physically, the organ of speech is below the organ of smell. Similarly, Sāma is known to be based on the Ṛk. In view of their respective positions, Ṛk is equated with speech, and Sāma is equated with prāṇa.
Max Müller
1. Now with reference to the body. Rik is speech, Sâman breath [1]. This Sâman (breath) rests on that Rik (speech). Therefore the Sâman is sung as resting on the Rik. Sâ is speech, ama is breath, and that makes Sâma.
2. The eyes are like the Ṛg Veda, and the self [i.e., the form seen in the eyes] is like the Sāma, which is based on the Ṛk. This is why the Sāma is sung based on the Ṛk. The eyes are the sā, and the self [the form in the eyes] is the ama. The two together are Sāma.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Cakṣuḥ eva ṛk, the eyes are like the Ṛg Veda; ātmā sāma, the self [as seen in the eyes] is the Sāma; tat etat sāma, this Sāma [called the ātmā]; etasyām ṛci adhyūḍham, is based on Ṛk [i.e., on the eyes]; tasmāt, this is why; ṛci adhyūḍham sāma gīyate, the Sāma is sung as based on the Ṛk; cakṣuḥ eva sā, the eyes are sā; ātmā amaḥ, the self [the form reflected in the eyes] is ama; tat sāma, that [if joined together] is Sāma. Commentary:-The ātmā, or self, here means the form which is reflected in the eyes. This is why the Upaniṣad says the eyes are the Ṛg Veda„ and the self is the Sāma Veda.
Max Müller
2. Rik is the eye, Sâman the self [1]. This Sâman (shadow) rests on that Rik (eye). Therefore the Sâman is sung as resting on the Rik. Sâ is the eye, ama the self, and that makes Sâma.
3. The organ of hearing is the Ṛk, and the mind is Sāma. This Sāma [called the mind] is based on the Ṛk [called the organ of hearing]. This is why Sāma scholars sing songs based on the Ṛk. The organ of hearing is sā, and the mind is ama. Together they are Sāma.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Śrotram eva ṛk, the organ of hearing is the Ṛg Veda; manaḥ sāma, the mind is the Sāma; tat etat sāma, this Sāma [called the mind]; etasyām ṛci adhyūḍham, is based on the Ṛk [the organ of hearing]; tasmāt, this is why; ṛci adhyūḍham sāma gīyate, the Sāma is sung as based on the Ṛk; śrotram eva sā, the organ of hearing is sā; manaḥ amaḥ, the mind is ama; tat sāma, that [if joined together] is Sāma. Commentary:-The mind is said to be the Sāma because it controls the organ of hearing.
Max Müller
3. Rik is the ear, Sâman the mind. This Sâman (mind) rests on that Rik (ear). Therefore the Sâman is sung as resting on the Rik. Sâ is the ear, ama the mind, and that makes Sâma.
4. Further, there is a white glow in the eyes, and this is compared with the Ṛg Veda. Then there is a similar glow which is a deep, dark blue. This is compared to the Sāma Veda. This dark glow is based on the white glow. This is why the Sāma is said to be based on the Ṛk. Sā of Sāma stands for the white glow in the eye, and ama stands for the deep blue glow. These two together are Sāma.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, then; akṣṇaḥ yat etat śuklam bhaḥ, that which is the white glow in the eyes; saḥ eva ṛk, that is the Ṛg Veda; atha yat nīlam paraḥ kṛṣṇam, then that which is blue and very dark; tat sāma, that is the Sāma; tat etat sāma, this Sāma; etasyām ṛci adhyūḍham, is based on the Ṛk; tasmāt, this is why; ṛci adhyūḍham sāma gīyate, the Sāma is sung as based on the Ṛk; atha yat eva etat akṣṇaḥ śuklam bhāḥ, then this white glow in the eye; sā eva sā, that is sā; atha yat nīlam paraḥ kṛṣṇam, and that which is blue and very dark; tat amaḥ, that is ama; tat sāma, that [if joined together] is Sāma. Commentary:-The sun is the support of the power of vision, because without the sun we cannot see. Similarly, the deep blue glow, which is identified with the Sāma, is supported by the white glow, which is the Ṛk.
Max Müller
4. Rik is the white light of the eye, Sâman the blue exceeding darkness. This Sâman (darkness) rests on the Rik (brightness). Therefore the Sâman is sung as resting on the Rik. Sâ is the white light of the eye, ama the blue exceeding darkness, and that makes Sâma.
yāvamuṣya geṣṇau tau geṣṇau yannāma tannāma .. 1.7.5..
5. The person seen in the eye is the Ṛk, the Sāma, the uktha [a part of the Sāma], and the Yajus. He is also the three Vedas. The person who is in the sun and the person who is in the eye are the same. The same two singers [i.e., the Ṛk and the Sāma] sing in praise of each of them, and they have the same names.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, now; yaḥ eṣaḥ puruṣaḥ, that person who; antarakṣiṇi, inside the eye; dṛśyate, is seen; saḥ, that person; eva ṛk, is the Ṛk; tat sāma, he is the Sāma; tat uktham, he is the uktha [a part of the Sāma]; tat yajuḥ, he is the Yajus [i.e., mantras ending with svāhā, svadhā, and vaṣaṭ]; tat brahma, he is Brahman [i.e., the three Vedas]; tasya etasya, of this person [seen in the eye]; tat eva rūpam, that same form; yat amuṣya rūpam, of the form of that person [in the sun, having golden hair, etc.]; amuṣya, of that one [in the sun]; yau geṣṇau, two singers [i.e., the Ṛk and the Sāma sing in his praise]; tau geṣṇau, the same two singers [sing in praise of that one]; yat nāma tat nāma, the name of this is the same as the name of that. Commentary:-The Lord who rules the solar region is seen also in the eye. That Lord stands for the Ṛk. He controls the organ of speech and other organs of the body, as well as the earth and other planets. They are all parts of him. The three Vedas—Ṛk, Sāma, and Yajus—are often referred to as Brahman, so Brahman and the Vedas are the same. Brahman includes everything. It is in the sun, in the human body, and in the planets. It is here referred to as the Lord called Hiraṇmaya, the Lord with a golden body, because he is luminous. The words uk and uktha, and also svāhā, svadhā, and vaṣat, are all used in different Vedas in praise of the same Lord who is in the sun (ādhidaivika) as well as in the eye (ādhyātmika).
Max Müller
5. Now the person who is seen in the eye, he is Rik, he is Sâman, Uktha [1], Yagus, Brahman. The form of that person (in the eye) is the same [2] as the form of the other person (in the sun), the joints of the one (Rik and Sâman) are the joints of the other, the name of the one (ut) is the name of the other.
स एष ये चैतस्मादर्वाञ्चो लोकास्तेषां चेष्टे मनुष्यकामानां
चेति तद्य इमे वीणायां गायन्त्येतं ते गायन्ति
तस्मात्ते धनसनयः ॥ १.७.६॥
sa eṣa ye caitasmādarvāñco lokāsteṣāṃ ceṣṭe manuṣyakāmānāṃ
ceti tadya ime vīṇāyāṃ gāyantyetaṃ te gāyanti
tasmātte dhanasanayaḥ .. 1.7.6..
6. The person in the eye rules the world below him and also rules the desires of the human mind. Those who sing accompanied by the vīṇā, are, in fact, singing in his honour. This is why such musicians become wealthy.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ eṣaḥ, the person [in the eye]; etasmāt arvāñcaḥ ye ca lokāḥ, those worlds below him; teṣām ca iṣṭe, rules over them; manuṣya-kāmānām ca, as well as all human desires; iti, this marks the limit; tat, therefore; ye ime, those people who; vīṇāyām gāyanti, sing with the vīṇā; te etam gāyanti, they in fact sing in his honour; tasmāt, therefore; te, they [the musicians]; dhanasanayaḥ, become wealthy. Commentary:-That person in the eye is the Lord of the world below and also of the minds of human beings. When people sing accompanied by the vīṇā, that music is dedicated to him. And because they sing in honour of him, they acquire much wealth.
Max Müller
6. He is lord of the worlds beneath that (the self in the eye), and of all the wishes of men. Therefore all who sing to the vînâ (lyre), sing him, and from him also they obtain wealth.
7. [This is what a worshipper achieves:-] He who knows the Truth mentioned above [i.e., the Truth about Āditya, the sun], sings the Sāma in honour of both Āditya and the person in the eye. He then becomes one with Āditya. Not only that, he also attains mastery of the planes above Āditya and attains everything the gods and goddesses wish for. [In other words, such a person becomes divine].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha yaḥ, now he who; etat evam vidvān, knows this in this way; sāma gāyati, sings the Sāma; saḥ, he [the musician]; ubhau, to both [to Āditya, the sun, and to the person in the eye]; gāyati, sings; saḥ, he [the musician]; amunā eva, as that [Āditya]; ye ca amuṣmāt, from that [Āditya]; parāñcaḥ, above; lokāḥ, the planes; tām devakāmān, the things the gods and goddesses wish for; ca, also; saḥ eṣaḥ, that musician; āpnoti, attains [i.e., he finds a place in the solar orb, and he becomes divine]. Commentary:-When a person knows the real identity of the deity to whom he is singing the Sāma—that is, when he knows he is singing the Sāma in praise of both Āditya, the sun, and the deity in the eye—what does he gain? He becomes one with Āditya and becomes the master of the worlds above Āditya. He is also entitled to the things that the gods and goddesses desire. He, in fact, becomes divine.
Max Müller
7. He who knowing this sings a Sâman, sings to both (the adhidaivata and adhyâtma self, the person in the sun and the person in the eye, as one and the same person). He obtains through the one, yea, he obtains the worlds beyond that, and the wishes of the Devas;
8. Now, [the same worshipper] also attains, by the grace of the Lord in the eye, all the worlds below that Lord. Again, he attains all that human beings may desire. This is why the singer will ask:-
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, now; anena eva, by this [i.e., by the grace of the Lord in the eye]; ye ca etasmāt arvāñcaḥ lokāḥ, those planes which are below [him—i.e., the person in the eye]; tām ca, those [planes] also; āpnoti manuṣyakāmān ca, he also attains things desired by human beings; tasmāt, this is why; u ha udgātā evamvit, the singer who knows this; brūyāt, will say. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
8. And he obtains through the other the worlds beneath that, and the wishes of men. Therefore an Udgâtri priest who knows this, may say (to the sacrificer for whom he officiates);
9. [A learned udgātā, who sings the Sāma, will ask the person for whose benefit he is singing:-] ‘What shall I ask for on your behalf through my songs?’ He says this [because he knows the Lord in the eye presides over the Sāma and is capable of granting whatever the person wants] and he sings the Sāma, he sings the Sāma.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Kam, what; te, for yon; kāmam, desire; āgāyāni iti, shall I sing for; eṣaḥ hi eva, he is the person who; kāmāgānasya iṣṭe, influences the fulfilment of the desires as expressed through songs; yaḥ, the musician [udgātā]; evam, this; vidvān, having known; sāma gāyati sāma gāyati, he sings the Sāma, he sings the Sāma. Iti saptamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the seventh section. Commentary:-The Lord in the eye controls everything—the earth and other worlds, those who live in them, and also the desires of those people. This is the purport of the verse.
Max Müller
9. 'What wish shall I obtain for you by my songs?' For he who knowing this sings a Sâman is able to obtain wishes through his song, yea, through his song.
vai kuśalāḥ smo hantodgīthe kathāṃ vadāma iti .. 1.8.1..
1. In ancient times, these three—Śilaka, the son of Salāvat, Caikitāyana, the son of Cikitāyana of the Dalbha clan, and Pravāhaṇa, the son of Jīvala—were skilled in the art of the udgītha. They said:- ‘We have mastered the art of the udgītha. If you so wish, we can discuss the udgītha’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Trayaḥ ha udgīthe kuśalāḥ bābhūvuḥ, in early days there were three sages skilled in the udgītha; śilakaḥ śālāvatyaḥ, Śilaka, the son of Śalāvat; caikitāyanaḥ dālbhyaḥ, Caikitāyana, the son of Cikitāyana, of the Dalbha clan; pravāhaṇaḥ jaivaliḥ, Pravāhaṇa, the son of Jīvala; iti te ha ūcuḥ, they declared; udgīthe vai kuśalāḥ smaḥ, we have mastered the art of the udgītha; hanta udgīthe kathām vadāmaḥ iti, if you so wish we can discuss the udgītha. Commentary:-Śilaka, Caikitāyana Dālbhyah, and Pravāhaṇa—these three scholars had studied the udgītha very well, and in an assembly of scholars, they offered to discuss the subject, if the others so desired. It was not that they were trying to show off their knowledge. They just wanted the others to know that they were prepared to speak on this subject if the other scholars present so wished.
Max Müller
1. There were once three men, well-versed in udgîtha [1], Silaka Sâlâvatya, Kaikitâyana, Dâlbhya, and Pravâhana Gaivali. They said:- 'We are well-versed in udgîtha. Let us have a discussion on udgîtha.'
2. They said, ‘Let it be so,’ and then sat down. Pravāhaṇa, the son of Jīvala, said:- ‘You two may please begin the debate. I would like to listen to the debate between you two brāhmins’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tathā iti, saying, ‘Let it be so’; samupaviviśuḥ, they sat down; saḥ pravāhaṇaḥ jaivaliḥ ha uvāca, Pravāhaṇa, the son of Jīvala, said; bhagavantau agre vadatām, you two respected ones may kindly start the discussion; vadatoḥ brāhmaṇayoḥ vācam śroṣyāmi iti, I will listen to the debate of you two brāhmins. Commentary:-The scholars agreed to the debate, and sat down. Lest this be construed as impertinence, Prince Pravāhaṇa said to the other two that he wanted to hear the two brāhmins debating. The fact that Pravāhaṇa addressed them as brāhmins, shows that he regarded himself as inferior, being a kṣatriya.
Max Müller
2. They all agreed and sat down. Then Pravâhana Gaivali [1] said:- 'Sirs, do you both speak first, for I wish to hear what two Brâhmanas [2] have to say.
sa ha śilakaḥ śālāvatyaścaikitāyanaṃ dālbhyamuvāca
hanta tvā pṛcchānīti pṛccheti hovāca .. 1.8.3..
3. Śalāvat’s son Śilaka said to the sage Caikitāyana Dālbhya, ‘If you permit, I would like to ask you a question.’ Dālbhya replied, ‘Yes, ask’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ śilakaḥ śālāvatyaḥ ha caikitāyanam dālbhyam uvāca, Śilaka, the son of Śalāvat, said to Caikitāyana Dālbhya; hanta tvā pṛcchāni iti, if you permit, I would like to ask you this question; pṛccha iti ha uvāca, yes, ask, [replied Dālbhya]. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
3. Then Silaka Sâlâvatya said to Kaikitâyana Dâlbhya:- 'Let me ask you.' 'Ask,' he replied.
4. Śilaka asked, ‘What is the support of Sāma?’ ‘It is the voice,’ replied Dālbhya. ‘What is the support of the voice?’ ‘The vital breath,’ answered Dālbhya. ‘What is the support of the vital breath?’ asked Śilaka. Dālbhya replied, ‘Food.’ Then Śilaka asked, ‘What is the support of food?’ Dālbhya said, ‘Water’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Sāmnaḥ kā gatiḥ iti, [Śilaka asked,] what is it that supports Sāma [i.e., the udgītha of the Sāma]; svaraḥ iti ha uvāca, [Dālbhya] replied, it is the voice; svarasya kā gatiḥ iti, what is the support of the voice; prāṇaḥ iti ha uvāca, [Dālbhya] said, prāṇa [the vital breath]; prāṇasya kā gatiḥ iti, what is the support of prāṇa [asked Śilaka]; annam iti ha uvāca, [Dālbhya] replied, it is food; annasya kā gatiḥ iti, what is the support of food; āpaḥ iti ha uvāca, [Dālbhya] replied, water. Commentary:-Sāma here means the udgītha, the chanting. Dālbhya was asked what supported the chanting, and he replied, ‘The voice.’ Just as a pot is supported by the material of which it is made, which is earth, similarly, the chanting is supported by the voice. But what supports the voice? The vital breath. And the vital breath is supported by food. Similarly, food is supported by water, because it is from water that food grows.
Max Müller
4. 'What is the origin of the Sâman?' 'Tone (svara),' he replied. 'What is the origin of tone?' 'Breath,' he replied. 'What is the origin of breath?' 'Food,' he replied. 'What is the origin of food?' 'Water,' he replied.
5. [Śilaka:-] ‘What is the support of water?’ [Dālbhya:-] ‘That world, heaven.’ [Śilaka:-] ‘What is the support of that world?’ [Dālbhya:-] ‘Don’t go beyond that heaven. We know Sāma is in heaven, and this is why Sāma is respected as heaven’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Apām kā gatiḥ iti, what is the support of water; asau lokaḥ, that world [i.e., heaven]; iti ha uvāca, said [Dālbhya]; amuṣya lokasya kā gatiḥ iti, what is the support of that heaven; svargam lokam na atinayet iti ha uvāca, one should not go beyond that heaven, replied [Dālbhya]; svargam lokam, in that heavenly world; vayam sāma abhisaṃsthāpayāmaḥ, we install Sāma; svargasaṃstāvam hi sāma iti, this Sāma is worshipped as heaven. Commentary:-The next question Śilaka asked was about the support of water. To this Dālbhya replied, ‘That world—that is, heaven.’ Rain is said to come from heaven, so that is why heaven is called the support. But what supports heaven? When Śilaka put this question, Dālbhya replied that the question was irrelevant. There is nothing beyond heaven. Heaven is the ultimate. It is the real resort of Sāma. And this is why we say that Sāma is in heaven and why the scriptures show the same respect to heaven as to Sāma.
Max Müller
5. 'What is the origin of water?' 'That world (heaven),' he replied. 'And what is the origin of that world?'-- He replied:- 'Let no man carry the Sâman beyond the world of svarga (heaven). We place (recognise) the Sâman in the world of svarga, for the Sâman is extolled as svarga (heaven).'
यस्त्वेतर्हि ब्रूयान्मूर्धा ते विपतिष्यतीति मूर्धा ते
विपतेदिति ॥ १.८.६॥
tagͫ ha śilakaḥ śālāvatyaścaikitāyanaṃ
dālbhyamuvācāpratiṣṭhitaṃ vai kila te dālbhya sāma
yastvetarhi brūyānmūrdhā te vipatiṣyatīti mūrdhā te
vipatediti .. 1.8.6..
6. Śilaka Śālāvatya said to Caikitāyana Dālbhya:- ‘O Dālbhya, your Sāma is then without a base. If someone knowledgeable about Sāma would now say [that your statement is wrong, and if he curses you saying,] “Your head will fall [if what you say turns out to be wrong],” your head will really fall’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tam ha śilakaḥ śālāvatyaḥ caikitāyanam dālbhyam uvāca, Śilaka Śālāvatya said to Caikitāyana Dālbhya; vai kila te dālbhya sāma, your Sāma is, O Dālbhya; apratiṣṭhitam, without a base; yaḥ tu etarhi brūyāt, if anyone says now; te mūrdhā vipatiṣyati iti, your head will fall [if your statement about Sāma is found to be wrong]; te mūrdhā vipatet iti, your head will surely fall. Commentary:-Śilaka said to Dālbhya that Sāma cannot have heaven as its support. He then quotes scriptures that what he says is true. He also adds that Dālbhya might be careful not to give the impression that he has any doubt about this. If he does, he will then risk being cursed by people who know the Sāma very well. They may curse him saying that his head will fall. Whether Dālbhya’s head will fall or not is a different matter. If you commit a mistake, you surely have to pay for it. The measure of your punishment, however, is decided by many factors.
Max Müller
6. Then said Silaka Sâlâvatya to Kaikitâyana Dâlbhya:- 'O Dâlbhya, thy Sâman is not firmly established. And if any one were to say, Your head shall fall off (if you be wrong), surely your head would now fall.'
lokasya kā gatirityayaṃ loka iti hovācāsya lokasya
kā gatiriti na pratiṣṭhāṃ lokamiti nayediti hovāca
pratiṣṭhāṃ vayaṃ lokagͫ sāmābhisagͫsthāpayāmaḥ
pratiṣṭhāsagͫstāvagͫ hi sāmeti .. 1.8.7..
7. Dālbhya said, ‘Sir, if you permit, I would like to ask you about this.’ Śilaka replied, ‘Yes, ask.’ Dālbhya then asked, ‘What is the support of that heaven?’ Śilaka said, ‘This earth.’ ‘What supports this earth?’ asked Dālbhya. Śilaka replied:- ‘Don’t think Sāma’s base is beyond this earth. We think Sāma is based on this earth, and we respect it as so’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Hanta, if you permit; aham etat bhagavataḥ vedāni iti, I would like to learn this from you, revered sir [said Dālbhya]; viddhi iti ha uvāca, yes, learn from me, said [Śilaka]; amuṣya lokasya kā gatiḥ iti, what is the support of that world [Dālbhya asked]; ayam lokaḥ iti ha uvāca, this earth, said [Śilaka]; asya lokasya kā gatiḥ iti, what is the support of this earth [Dālbhya asked]; pratiṣṭhām lokam na atinayet iti ha uvāca, [in order to find the support of Sāma] don’t go beyond the earth, replied [Śilaka]; pratiṣṭhām lokam vayam sāma abhisaṃsthāpayāmaḥ, we see Sāma based on this earth; pratiṣṭhāsaṃstāvam hi sāma iti, Sāma is respected because it is based on this earth. Commentary:-Heaven is supported by the various Vedic rites performed on the earth, and this is why the earth is said here to be the support of heaven. To be more precise, however, the gods and goddesses in heaven depend upon what men and women on earth offer them through their Vedic rites. In this sense, the earth is the support of heaven. The earth is the support of everything, and it is also the base of the Sāma. This is why the earth is described as a kind of chariot (rathantara) in the Sāma Veda.
Max Müller
7. 'Well then, let me know this from you, Sir,' said Dâlbhya. 'Know it,' replied Silaka Sâlâvatya. 'What is the origin of that world (heaven)?' 'This world,' he replied. 'And what is the origin of this world?'-- He replied:- 'Let no man carry the Sâman beyond this world as its rest. We place the Sâman in this world as its rest, for the Sâman is extolled as rest.'
शालावत्य साम यस्त्वेतर्हि ब्रूयान्मूर्धा ते विपतिष्यतीति
मूर्धा ते विपतेदिति हन्ताहमेतद्भगवतो वेदानीति
विद्धीति होवाच ॥ १.८.८॥
tagͫ ha pravāhaṇo jaivaliruvācāntavadvai kila te
śālāvatya sāma yastvetarhi brūyānmūrdhā te vipatiṣyatīti
mūrdhā te vipatediti hantāhametadbhagavato vedānīti
viddhīti hovāca .. 1.8.8..
8. Pravāhaṇa Jaivali said:- ‘O Śālāvatya, your Sāma is not endless. If someone should now say that your head will fall off, it will fall off.’ Śilaka Śālāvatya then said, ‘O Lord, I want to learn from you [the truth about the Sāma].’ Jaivali replied, ‘Yes, learn from me’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tam ha pravāhaṇaḥ jaivaliḥ uvāca, Pravāhaṇa Jaivali said to him; antavat vai kila te sāma śālāvatya, O Śālāvatya [Śilaka], your Sāma is not without an end; yaḥ tu, if anyone; etarhi, now; brūyāt, says; mūrdhā te vipatiṣyati iti, your head will fall; mūrdhā te vipatet, your head will fall off; hanta aham bhagavataḥ vadāni iti, [Śilaka said,] if you please, O Lord, I would like to learn from you; viddhi iti ha uvāca, yes, learn [from me, Pravāhaṇa replied]. Iti aṣṭamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the eighth section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
8. Then said Pravâhana Gaivali to Silaka Sâlâvatya:- 'Your Sâman (the earth), O Sâlâvatya, has an end. And if any one were to say, Your head shall fall off (if you be wrong), surely your head would now fall.' 'Well then, let me know this from you, Sir,' said Sâlâvatya. 'Know it,' replied Gaivali.
1. Śilaka Śālāvatya asked Pravāhaṇa, ‘What is the end of this earth?’ Pravāhaṇa said:- ‘Space, for everything that exists arises from space and also goes back into space. Space is superior to everything. Space is the highest goal’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Asya lokasya kā gatiḥ iti, [Śilaka Śālāvatya asked,] what is the end of this earth; ākāśaḥ iti ha uvāca, [Pravāhaṇa] replied, space; sarvāṇi ha vai imāni bhūtānī, all these beings; ākāśāt eva samutpadyante, issue from space; ākāśani prati astam yanti, they disappear into space; ākāśaḥ hi eva ebhyaḥ jyāyān, Space is superior to these; ākāśaḥ parāyaṇam, space is the highest goal. Commentary:-Space is described here as the source of everything. It is the source as well as the end of everything. In short, it is Paramātman, the Cosmic Self. Because space is the biggest thing visible, it can rightly claim to be the symbol of the Paramātman. All the other elements (air, fire, water, and earth) come from space and go back to space. But the scriptures also say that the Cosmic Self is the source and the end of the elements—indeed, of everything.
Max Müller
1. 'What is the origin of this world?' 'Ether [1], 'he replied. For all these beings take their rise from the ether, and return into the ether. Ether is older than these, ether is their rest.
sa eṣa parovarīyānudgīthaḥ sa eṣo'nantaḥ parovarīyo
hāsya bhavati parovarīyaso ha lokāñjayati
ya etadevaṃ vidvānparovarīyāgͫsamudgīthamupāste .. 1.9.2..
2. Earlier, mention was made of the udgītha being the best as also endless. He who is aware of this and worships the udgītha as such keeps attaining higher and higher worlds, and he becomes increasingly a better individual.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ udgīthaḥ, that udgītha; parovarīyān [paraḥ + varīyān], the best; eṣaḥ, the Paramātman [i.e., the Supreme Self, earlier referred to as endless]; saḥ eṣaḥ, the udgītha [which is also the Cosmic Self]; anantaḥ, [is] endless; yaḥ, the worshipper; evam, as mentioned earlier; vidvān, having known; etat, this; parovarīyāṃsam udgītham upāste, worships this udgītha knowing it as the best; parovarīyasaḥ lokān jayati, he attains increasingly higher and higher worlds; asya, the life of that worshipper; parovarīyaḥ ha bhavati, also becomes higher and higher. Commentary:-It is important to realize that the udgītha is the Paramātman itself. When we know this we attain the highest—both materially and spiritually.
Max Müller
2. He is indeed the udgîtha (Om = Brahman), greater than great (parovarîyas), he is without end. He who knowing this meditates on the udgîtha, the greater than great, obtains what is greater than great, he conquers the worlds which are greater than great.
3. [In ancient times there was a sage named Atidhanvā, who was the son of Śunaka and who knew the science of udgītha very well.] Once when he was teaching this to his disciple Udaraśāṇḍilya, he declared:- ‘So long as you and your family preserve this knowledge, the quality of life in the world of your family will be higher than that of average people’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Śaunakaḥ, the son of Śunaka; atidhanvā, Atidhanvā [the sage having that name]; tam, of that kind; etam, this [udgītha]; udaraśāṇḍilyāya, to Udaraśāṇḍilya [the disciple having that name]; uktvā, having taught; uvāca, he said; ha yāvat, as long as; te prajāyām, your progeny; enam udgītham vediṣyante, will know this udgītha; tāvat, so long; [tāsām prajān, the life of those progeny]; asmin loke, in this world; jīvanam ebhyaḥ parovarīyaḥ ha bhaviṣyati, will grow better and better in quality judged by the standard of ordinary people. Commentary:-This udgītha is an invaluable asset which can uplift people both materially and spiritually for generations.
Max Müller
3. Atidhanvan Saunaka, having taught this udgîtha to Udara-sândilya, said:- 'As long as they will know in your family this udgîtha, their life in this world will be greater than great.
तथामुष्मिꣳल्लोके लोक इति स य एतमेवं विद्वानुपास्ते
परोवरीय एव हास्यास्मिꣳल्लोके जीवनं भवति
तथामुष्मिꣳल्लोके लोक इति लोके लोक इति ॥ १.९.४॥
tathāmuṣmigͫlloke loka iti sa ya etamevaṃ vidvānupāste
parovarīya eva hāsyāsmigͫlloke jīvanaṃ bhavati
tathāmuṣmigͫlloke loka iti loke loka iti .. 1.9.4..
4. As in this world, so also in the other world. He who knows the place of the udgītha and worships it accordingly enjoys the best in life in this world, and he enjoys the best in life in the other world also [after death].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tathā, in the same way; amuṣmin loke, in that other world; lokaḥ iti, the place; saḥ yaḥ, he who; etat evam vidvān upāste, knows this and worships [the udgītha] accordingly; parovarīyaḥ eva ha asya asmin loke jīvanam bhavati, his life in this world is the best possible; tathā amuṣmin loke lokaḥ iti loke lokaḥ iti, his life in the other world [i.e., his life after death] is likewise the best, his life in the other world is likewise. Iti navamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the ninth section. Commentary:-The sage Atidhanvā told his disciple Udaraśāṇḍilya about the benefits of worshipping udgītha. He said that the benefits were not only material, but also spiritual. The worshipper is benefitted in this life as well as in his life after death. But the question may be raised, is this still valid today? What was true in earlier times may not be true now. Śaṅkara dispels this doubt. He says that even now people are enjoying the same benefits of worshipping the udgītha (that is, of chanting the Sāma Veda)—especially that part which is addressed to the Supreme Being.
Max Müller
4. 'And thus also will be their state in the other world.' He who thus knows the udgîtha, and meditates on it thus, his life in this world will be greater than great, and also his state in the other world, yea, in the other world.
1. Once the land of the Kurus was hit by a bad thunderstorm, and a young man living there named Uṣasti, the son of Cakra, was in great distress. He left home accompanied by his child-wife and moved to a prosperous village.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Maṭacīhateṣu, destroyed [hateṣu] by a thunderstorm [maṭacin]; kuruṣu, in the land of the Kurus; ātikyā jāyayā saha, with his child-wife; uṣastiḥ, Uṣasti [a young man by that name]; cākrāyaṇaḥ, the son of Cakra; pradrāṇakaiḥ in great misery; ibhyagrāme [ibhyaḥ, prosperous (i.e., where people owned elephants) + grāme, in a village], in a prosperous village; uvāsa, lived. Commentary:- So far, much praise has been given to the udgītha, the purpose being to show the importance of the Sāma Veda. Now, prastāva and pratihāra are being introduced with the same object in view—that is, worship of the Sāma Veda. In order to introduce the subject, however, and to make it easy to understand, a story is given:- At one time the land of the Kurus was hit by a very bad storm, which destroyed all the crops, and the country was in the grip of a famine. The son of Cakra, named Uṣasti, was starving and on the verge of death. He then moved with his child-wife to a prosperous village (that is, it was prosperous because people there owned elephants—ibha). According to Śaṅkara, the word maṭacī means ‘fire from thunder.’ According to the Śabdakalpadruma, it refers to a species of small red birds, and according to Ānandagiri it means ‘locusts.’ Another meaning is ‘hail.’
Max Müller
1. When the Kurus had been destroyed by (hail) stones [1], Ushasti Kâkrâyana lived as a beggar with his virgin [2] wife at Ibhyagrâma.
sa hebhyaṃ kulmāṣānkhādantaṃ bibhikṣe tagͫ hovāca .
neto'nye vidyante yacca ye ma ima upanihitā iti
.. 1.10.2..
2. Uṣasti saw an elephant-driver eating some pulses of poor quality, and he begged for a share of his food. The elephant-driver replied:- ‘This food in my bowl is all I have to eat. Besides this, I have nothing. [What should I do?]’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ, he [Uṣasti]; kulmāṣān, bad food grains; khādantam, eating; ibhyam, an elephant[-driver]; bibhikṣe, begged; ha tam uvāca, that [elephant-driver] said to him; itaḥ, besides these [pulses]; na anye vidyante, nothing further exists; yat ye ca ime, that which [the pulses]; me, my; upanihitāḥ, thrown [into my eating bowl]; [kim karomi, what should I do]. Commentary:-The food itself was bad, and besides that, it was hardly enough for the elephant-driver, but there was nothing else he could give Uṣasti. By implication, he regretted his inability to help.
Max Müller
2. Seeing a chief eating beans, he begged of him. The chief said:- 'I have no more, except those which are put away for me here.'
hantānupānamityucchiṣṭaṃ vai me pītagͫsyāditi hovāca
.. 1.10.3..
3. Uṣasti said to the elephant-driver, ‘Please give me some [of the pulses].’ The driver then gave away the pulses and said, ‘Here is some water.’ [But Uṣasti declined it, saying,] ‘That will amount to my drinking unclean water’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Ha uvāca, [Uṣasti] said; eteṣām, out of this; me dehi iti, give me [some]; tān, those [pulses]; asmai, to him [i.e., to Uṣasti]; pradadau, gave away; hanta, [the elephant-driver said] here is; anupānam iti, drinking water; iti ha uvāca, [Uṣasti] said; me ucchiṣṭam vai pītam syāt, [if I drink the water you are offering] I would be drinking unclean water [because someone else has drunk from it]. Commentary:-Uṣasti must have been very hungry. Although the elephant-driver said he had no other food than what was in his bowl, Uṣasti begged for that anyway. The driver kindly obliged and then also offered him some water to drink. This, however, Uṣasti declined. He said he would then be drinking unclean (ucchiṣṭa) water—that is, water that someone else had already drunk from. But the driver raised the question:- If Uṣasti could take the unclean (according to him) food, why could he not take the unclean water also?
Max Müller
3. Ushasti said:- 'Give me to eat of them.' He gave him the beans, and said:- 'There is something to drink also! Then said Ushasti:- 'If I drank of it, I should have drunk what was left by another, and is therefore unclean.'
4. The elephant-driver asked, ‘Aren’t the pulses also unclean?’ Uṣasti replied:- ‘I would die if I did not have these grains to eat. As regards drinking water, [it is not that important]. I can get it when I like’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Svit ete api na ucchiṣṭāḥ iti, [the driver said, by the same token] aren’t these [pulses] also unclean; ha uvāca, [Uṣasti] replied; imān, these [pulses]; akhādan, [if I] do not eat; na vai ajīviṣyam iti, I will not survive; udapānam, drinking water [on the other hand]; me kāmaḥ iti, is left to me. Commentary:-Normally a person should not eat or drink, anything unclean (ucchiṣṭa)—that is, something which someone else has already eaten or drunk a part of. But when it is a question of survival, the scriptures condone such eating or drinking. Uṣasti was aware of the injunctions of the scriptures in this respect, and he knew they would permit his eating the unclean pulses, but not his drinking the unclean water. Clean water was easily available, so he would not have died if he refrained from drinking it. The scriptures take much pains to point out when eating or drinking unclean things is permissible. In this connection, the reader’s attention is drawn to sūtra 3.4.28 of the Brahma Sūtras.
Max Müller
4. The chief said:- 'Were not those beans also left over and therefore unclean?' 'No,' he replied; 'for I should not have lived, if I had not eaten them, but the drinking of water would be mere pleasure [1].'
5. After eating some of the food, he [Uṣasti] brought back what was left for his wife. The wife, however, had meanwhile obtained good alms. She accepted the food [from her husband] and put it aside [for future use].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Ha khāditvā, having eaten; atiśeṣān, whatever was left over; saḥ jāyāyai ājahāra, he [Uṣasti] brought for his wife; sā, she; agre eva subhikṣā babhūva, had already obtained good alms; tān, them [the pulses]; pratigṛhya, she accepted; nidadhau, [and] put them aside. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
5. Having eaten himself, Ushasti gave the remaining beans to his wife. But she, having eaten before, took them and put them away.
sa ha prātaḥ saṃjihāna uvāca yadbatānnasya labhemahi
labhemahi dhanamātrāgͫrājāsau yakṣyate sa mā
sarvairārtvijyairvṛṇīteti .. 1.10.6..
6. While leaving bed the next morning, Uṣasti said to his wife:- ‘Oh, if only I could get something to eat, I could then earn some money. The king over there is going to perform a sacrifice, and very likely he would have entrusted to me all the work of a ṛtvik [a priest at a sacrifice]’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ, he [Uṣasti]; prātaḥ, in the morning; sañjihānaḥ, while getting up from bed; ha uvāca, said [to his wife]; yat bata, oh, if only; annasya labhemahi, I could get some food; labhemahi dhanamātrām, I could earn a little money; asau, over there; rājā, the king; yakṣyate, is performing a sacrifice; saḥ, he [the king]; mā, me; sarvaiḥ ārtvijyaiḥ, all the work of a ṛtvik [a priest who sings hymns or otherwise helps with the performance of a sacrifice]; vṛṇīta iti, would have appointed. Commentary:-Uṣasti was a highly qualified ṛtvik, and he hoped the king would appoint him to assist at the sacrifice he was going to perform. If that hope of his materialized, he would then be able to earn some money. The snag was, however, that he was too weak from hunger to do anything. If he could only get something to eat!
Max Müller
6. Rising the next morning, Ushasti said to her:- 'Alas, if we could only get some food, we might gain a little wealth. The king here is going to offer a sacrifice, he should choose me for all the priestly offices.'
7. The wife said to him, ‘O dear husband, here are those pulses you gave me.’ Having eaten the pulses, Uṣasti left for the place where the sacrifice was being held [other priests having already started it].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Jāyā tam uvāca, the wife said to him; hanta pate, O dear husband; ime eva kulmāṣāḥ iti, here are those pulses [you gave me]; tān, them [the pulses]; khāditvā, having eaten; amum vitatam yajñam, that ensuing sacrifice; eyāya, he went. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
7. His wife said to him:- 'Look, here are those beans of yours.' Having eaten them, he went to the sacrifice which was being performed.
8. There at the sacrifice, he found those [the udgātṛs] who were singing the [Sāma] hymns and took a seat among them. Turning to the one who was singing the prastāva, he asked:-
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tatra, there [at the site of the sacrifice]; āstāve, at the place where hymns were being sung; udgātṛn stosyamāṇān, those who were singing the hymns; upa, near; upaviveśa, he sat; prastotāram, to him who was reciting the prastāva; saḥ ha uvāca, he said. Commentary:-Prastāva, pratihāra, and udgītha—these are some of the Sāma mantras recited during a sacrifice. One who recites the prastāva is called the prastotā, one who recites the pratihāra is called the pratihartā, and one who recites the udgītha is called the udgātā.
Max Müller
8. He went and sat down on the orchestra near the Udgâtris, who were going to sing their hymns of praise. And he said to the Prastotri (the leader):-
9. ‘O Prastotā, if you recite the prastāva without knowing anything about the god to whom this hymn relates, your head will fall’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Prastotaḥ, O Prastotā; yā devatā, that god who; prastāvam anvāyattā, underlies this prastāva hymn; tām avidvān, without knowing anything about him; cet, if; prastoṣyasi, you recite the prastāva; te, your; mūrdhā, head; vipatiṣyati iti, will fall. Commentary:-Here the question arises whether or not an ignorant person is permitted to recite the scriptures. According to Śaṅkara, he is permitted, but if he commits errors, he will be liable to punishment. It may not cost him his head, but he may go after death to the world of his ancestors, rather than to the world of the gods. But perhaps he would have gone there anyway because of his other errors. As to the falling of the head, the curse need not be taken literally.
Max Müller
9. 'Prastotri, if you, without knowing [1] the deity which belongs to the prastâva (the hymns &c. of the Prastotri), are going to sing it, your head will fall off.'
tāṃ cedavidvānudgāsyasi mūrdhā te vipatiṣyatīti .. 1.10.10..
10. Next Uṣasti said the same thing to the person singing the udgītha:- ‘O Udgātā, if you do not know anything about the god related to the udgītha and yet you sing the udgītha, your head will fall’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Evam eva udgātāram uvāca, he then said the same thing to the udgātā [who sings the udgītha]; udgātaḥ, O Udgātā; yā devatā udgītham anvāyattā, the god who is related to the udgītha; tām avidvān, without knowing anything about him; cet udgāsyasi, if you sing about him; te mūrdhā vipatiṣyati iti, your head will fall. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
10. In the same manner he addressed the Udgâtri:- 'Udgâtri, if you, without knowing the deity which belongs to the udgîtha (the hymns of the Udgâtri), are going to sing it, your head will fall off.'
प्रतिहारमन्वायत्ता तां चेदविद्वान्प्रतिहरिष्यसि मूर्धा ते
विपतिष्यतीति ते ह समारतास्तूष्णीमासांचक्रिरे
॥ १.१०.११॥
evameva pratihartāramuvāca pratihartaryā devatā
pratihāramanvāyattā tāṃ cedavidvānpratihariṣyasi mūrdhā te
vipatiṣyatīti te ha samāratāstūṣṇīmāsāṃcakrire
.. 1.10.11..
11. He again said the same thing to the person singing the pratihāra:- ‘O Pratihartā, if you sing the pratihāra without knowing anything about the deity relating to it, your head will fall.’ At this, they stopped their respective hymns and remained silent.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Evam eva pratihartāram uvāca, he said the same thing to the person who was singing the pratihāra; pratihartaḥ, O Pratihartā; yā devatā pratihāram anvāyattā, that god to whom your pratihāra relates; tām avidvān, without knowing anything about him; cet pratihariṣyasi, if you sing the pratihāra; te mūrdhā vipatiṣyati iti, your head will fall; te, they [the singers]; ha samāratāḥ, stopped; āsāñcakrire tūṣṇīm, [and] remained silent. Iti daśamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the tenth section. Commentary:-When Uṣasti spoke thus to the singers, they all stopped their hymns. They were afraid they would lose their heads because they did not know about the deities
Max Müller
11. In the same manner he addressed the Pratihartri:- 'Pratihartri, if you, without knowing the deity which belongs to the pratihâra (the hymns of the Pratihartri), are going to sing it, your head will fall off.' They stopped, and sat down in silence.
1. Then the prince performing the sacrifice said, ‘Sir, I would like to know who you are.’ He [Uṣasti] replied, ‘I am Uṣasti, the son of Cakra’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, then; yajamānaḥ, the person performing the sacrifice [the prince]; ha enam uvāca, said to him [to Uṣasti]; bhagavantam vai aham vividiṣāṇi iti, Sir, I want to know who you are; iti ha uvāca, [Uṣasti] replied; uṣastiḥ cākrāyaṇaḥ asmi, I am Uṣasti, the son of Cakra. Commentary:-Uṣasti’s reply suggests that he assumes the prince already knows him by name.
Max Müller
1. Then the sacrificer said to him:- 'I should like to know who you are, Sir.' He replied:- 'I am Ushasti Kâkrâyana.'
2. He [the prince] said:- ‘I looked for you, revered sir, to give you all the work of the priests. As I could not find you, I entrusted the work to other [brāhmins]’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ ha uvāca, he [the prince] said; aham, I; bhagavantam, you, revered sir; vai ebhiḥ sarvaiḥ ārtvijyaiḥ, for all the work of the priests; paryaiṣiṣam, looked for; bhagavataḥ, you, sir; avittyā, not being able to locate; aham vai anyān avṛṣi, I chose others. Commentary:-The prince had obviously heard of Uṣasti’s reputation as a versatile scholar, and had wanted to give the responsibility of the sacrifice to him. As he could not find him, however, he had no option but to entrust the work to other brāhmins.
Max Müller
2. He said:- 'I looked for you, Sir, for all these sacrificial offices, but not finding you [1], I chose others.'
bhagavāgͫstveva me sarvairārtvijyairiti tathetyatha
tarhyeta eva samatisṛṣṭāḥ stuvatāṃ yāvattvebhyo dhanaṃ
dadyāstāvanmama dadyā iti tatheti ha yajamāna uvāca
.. 1.11.3..
3. [The prince said,] ‘O Lord, please do for me all the work of the priest.’ [Uṣasti replied:-] ‘Let it be so. Now let the priests already engaged by you recite as I instruct. But you will have to pay me as much as you promised to pay these priests.’ ‘It will be so,’ said [the prince].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Bhagavān, O Lord; eva tu, for certain; sarvaiḥ ārtvijyaiḥ me iti, [take on] all the work of the ṛtvik for me; tathā iti, [Uṣasti said] let it be so; atha tarhi, now therefore; ete eva, these [priests already engaged by you]; samatisṛṣṭāḥ, as instructed [by me]; stuvatām, may recite; tu ebhyaḥ yāvat dhanam dadyāḥ, but as much money as you are giving these [priests]; tāvat, that much [money]; mama dadyāḥ iti, you have to give me [also]; yajamānaḥ, the performer of the sacrifice [the prince]; iti ha uvāca, said; tathā, it will be so. Commentary:-Uṣasti did not want the priests who had already been engaged to be dismissed. He only wanted them to follow his instructions about their recitations.
Max Müller
3. 'But now, Sir, take all the sacrificial offices.' Ushasti said:- 'Very well; but let those, with my permission, perform the hymns of praise. Only as much wealth as you give to them, so much give to me also.' The sacrificer assented.
प्रस्तावमन्वायत्ता तां चेदविद्वान्प्रस्तोष्यसि मूर्धा ते
विपतिष्यतीति मा भगवानवोचत्कतमा सा देवतेति
॥ १.११.४॥
atha hainaṃ prastotopasasāda prastotaryā devatā
prastāvamanvāyattā tāṃ cedavidvānprastoṣyasi mūrdhā te
vipatiṣyatīti mā bhagavānavocatkatamā sā devateti
.. 1.11.4..
4. Then the Prastotā came to [Uṣasti and said:-] ‘Revered sir, you told me, “O Prastotā, if you sing the prastāva without knowing anything about the deity to whom the hymn is addressed, your head will fall.” Please tell me who that deity is’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, then; prastotā, the person reciting the prastāva; ha enani upasasāda, came to him [i.e., to Uṣasti, and said]; prastotaḥ yā devatā prastāvam anvāyattā, O Prastotā, that deity to whom the prastāva is related; tām avidvān, without knowing anything about him; cet prastoṣyasi, if you sing [about him]; te mūrdhā vipatiṣyati iti, your head will fall; bhagavān mā avocat, revered sir, you said to me; katamā sā devatā iti, what is that deity? Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
4. Then the Prastotri approached him, saying:- 'Sir, you said to me, "Prastotri, if you, without knowing the deity which belongs to the prastâva, are going to sing it, your head will fall off,"--which then is that deity?'
mūrdhā te vyapatiṣyattathoktasya mayeti .. 1.11.5..
5. Uṣasti said:- ‘It is prāṇa [the vital force]. In prāṇa all things that we see around us [moving or unmoving], disappear [at the time of their destruction. And at the time of their appearance,] they appear from prāṇa. Prāṇa is that deity to whom the prastāva is addressed. If you had sung the hymn not knowing the deity to whom it is addressed, in spite of being warned by me, your head would surely have fallen’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Prāṇa iti ha uvāca, [Uṣasti] said, it is prāṇa [the vital force]; ha vai, for; imāni sarvāṇi bhūtāni, all these beings [moving or unmoving]; prāṇam eva, in prāṇa; abhi, totally; saṃviśanti, disappear [at the time of destruction]; prāṇam abhi ujjihate, [and] out of prāṇa they appear [when they come into existence]; sā eṣā devatā, that [prāṇa] is the deity; prastāvam anvāyattā, the prastāva is addressed to; cet, if; tām, that [deity]; avidvān, from ignorance; prastoṣyaḥ, you had praised; [then] tathā, like that; mayā uktasya, in spite of being warned by me; te mūrdhā vyapatiṣyat iti, your head would surely have fallen. Commentary:-The prastotā had immediately stopped singing and then had approached Uṣasti in a humble manner. This pleased Uṣasti, and he gladly proceeded to teach the brāhmin.
Max Müller
5. He said:- 'Breath (prâna). For all these beings merge into breath alone, and from breath they arise. This is the deity belonging to the prastâva. If, without knowing that deity, you had sung forth your hymns, your head would have fallen off, after you had been warned by me.'
6. Then the udgātā came to [Uṣasti and said:-] ‘Revered sir, you told me, “O Udgātā, if you sing the udgītha without knowing anything about the deity to whom the hymn is addressed, your head will fall.” Please tell me who that deity is’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, then; udgātā, the person reciting the udgītha; ha enam upasasāda, came to him [i.e., to Uṣasti, and said]; bhagavān mā avocat, revered sir, you said to me; udgātaḥ yā devatā udgītham anvāyattā, O Udgātā, that deity to whom the udgītha is related; tām avidvān, without knowing anything about him; cet udgāsyasi, if you sing [about him]; te mūrdhā vipatiṣyati iti, your head will fall; katamā sā devatā iti, what is that deity? Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
6. Then the Udgâtri approached him, saying:- 'Sir, you said to me, "Udgâtri, if you, without knowing the deity which belongs to the udgîtha, are going to sing it, your head will fall off,"--which then is that deity?'
mūrdhā te vyapatiṣyattathoktasya mayeti .. 1.11.7..
7. Uṣasti said:- ‘It is āditya [the sun], for all these beings pay homage to the sun, which is high above. Āditya is that deity to whom the udgītha is addressed. If you had sung the udgītha not knowing the deity to whom it is addressed, your head would surely have fallen, as I had told you’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Ādityaḥ iti ha uvāca, [Uṣasti] said, it is āditya [the sun]; ha vai for; imāni sarvāṇi bhūtāni, all these beings [moving and unmoving]; uccaiḥ santam ādityam gāyanti, sing in praise of āditya, who is high above; sā eṣā devatā, that [āditya] is the deity; udgītham anvāyattā, the udgītha is addressed to; cet, if; tām, that [deity]; avidvān, from ignorance;’ udgāsyaḥ you had sung the udgītha; [then] tathā, like that; mayā uktasya, in spite of being warned by me; te mūrdhā vyapatiṣyat iti, your head would surely have fallen. Commentary:-Earlier, prāṇa was described as the deity of the prastāva. The word prāṇa begins with pra, and prastāva also begins with pra. It is surmised that this is why prāṇa is the deity of the prastāva. By the same token, the udgītha is addressed to āditya, the sun, for āditya is urdhatva, which is ut (high), and udgītha is also ut. Therefore it is reasonable that the deity of the udgītha should be āditya.
Max Müller
7. He said:- 'The sun (âditya). For all these beings praise the sun when it stands on high. This is the deity belonging to the udgîtha. If, without knowing that deity, you had sung out your hymns, your head would have fallen off, after you had been warned by me.'
8. Next, the pratihartā came to [Uṣasti and said:-] ‘Revered sir, you told me, “O Pratihartā, if you sing the pratihāra without knowing anything about the deity to whom the hymn is addressed, your head will fall.” Please tell me who that deity is’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; pratihartā, the person reciting the pratihāra; ha enam upasasāda, came to him [i.e., to Uṣasti, and said]; bhagavān mā avocat, revered sir, you said to me; pratihartaḥ yā devatā pratihāram anvāyattā, O Pratihartā, that deity to whom the pratihāra is related; tām avidvān, without knowing anything about him; cet pratihariṣyasi, if you sing the pratihāra; te mūrdhā vipatiṣyati iti, your head will fall; katamā sā devatā iti, what is that deity? Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
8. Then the Pratihartri approached him, saying:- 'Sir, you said to me, "Pratihartri, if you, without knowing the deity belonging to the pratihâra, are going to sing it, your head will fall off,"--Which then is that deity?'
tāṃ cedavidvānpratyahariṣyo mūrdhā te vyapatiṣyattathoktasya
mayeti tathoktasya mayeti .. 1.11.9..
9. Uṣasti said:- ‘It is anna [food], for all these beings support themselves by eating food. Anna is that deity to whom the pratihāra is addressed. If you had sung the pratihāra not knowing the deity to whom it is addressed, your head would surely have fallen, as I had told you’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Annam iti ha uvāca, [Uṣasti] said, it is anna [food]; ha vai, for; imāni sarvāṇi bhūtāni, all these beings; annam eva pratiharamāṇāni jīvanti, support themselves by collecting food; sā eṣā devatā, that [food] is the deity; pratihāram anvāyattā, the pratihāra is addressed to; cet, if; tām, that [deity]; avidvān, from ignorance; pratyahariṣyaḥ, you had sung the pratihāra; [then] tathā, like that; mayā uktasya, in spite of being warned by me; te mūrdhā vyapatiṣyat iti, your head would surely have fallen [the repetition is for the sake of emphasis]. Iti ekādaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the eleventh section. Commentary:-Every living being has to support itself by collecting food. It involves much effort, but each one has to make that effort. Prati means ‘each and every.’ The deity is pratihāra because each and every being has to ‘collect’ (āharam) food for himself. In short, you worship prāṇa (the vital force) through the prastāva, āditya (the sun) through the udgītha, and anna (food) through the pratihāra. What is the result of this? The result is progress in every way.
Max Müller
9. He said:- 'Food (anna). For all these beings live when they partake of food. This is the deity belonging to the pratihâra. If, without knowing that deity, you had sung your hymns, your head would have fallen off, after you had been warned by me [1].'
1. Now, an udgītha [to food] sung by dogs. The story is:- Baka Dālbhya, who was also known as Glāva Maitreya, went one day to a quiet place to study the scriptures [the udgītha].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha ataḥ, since then; tat ha, in this connection; śauvaḥ udgīthaḥ, an udgītha [to food] sung by dogs [i.e., sages in the form of dogs]; bakaḥ dālbhyaḥ, Baka, the son of Dalbha; glāvaḥ maitreyaḥ vā, or Glāva, the son of Mitrā; svādhyāyam udvavrāja, went to a quiet place to study the scriptures [i.e., the udgītha]. Commentary:-Sometimes people are driven by hunger to eat ‘unclean’ food. The story of Uṣasti is an example. Here, in this section, a story is told of how some dogs avoid such a situation:- There was a sage who was known as Baka on his father’s side and Glāva on his mother’s side. Wanting to learn an udgītha that would bring him food, he went to a quiet place to study the scriptures.
Max Müller
1. Now follows the udgîtha of the dogs. Vaka Dâlbhya, or, as he was also called, Glâva Maitreya, went out to repeat the Veda (in a quiet place).
2. A white dog appeared before him, as if he wanted to do the sage a favour. Then several other smaller dogs came to the white dog and said:- ‘O Lord, please sing for us. We are hungry and we want some food’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tasmai, [as a favour] to him; śvā, a dog; śvetāḥ, white; prādurbabhūva, appeared; tam, to him [i.e., to the white dog]; anye śvānaḥ, other dogs; upasametya, came; ūcuḥ, [and] said; annam, food; naḥ, for us; bhagavān, O Lord; āgāyatu, please sing; aśanāyāma vai iti, we are hungry [and want to eat]. Commentary:-It would seem that some god or sage was pleased with Baka’s Vedic studies and as a favour, appeared before him as a white dog. Then, as if by coincidence, some other smaller dogs approached the white dog and told him they were very hungry and needed food. They asked the white dog to sing the appropriate Sāma so that they could get some food immediately. Very likely, these small dogs were also sages in disguise. Another explanation is also possible:- The white dog represents prāṇa, and the smaller dogs are the sense organs controlled by prāṇa. Prāṇa is pleased when someone studies the scriptures. And if prāṇa is pleased, the sense organs are able to perceive their respective sense objects well. Like dogs, the sense organs are ‘hungry’ and enjoy perceiving. In order to express their appreciation of the scholar’s efforts, they appear before him as dogs.
Max Müller
2. A white (dog) appeared before him, and other dogs gathering round him, said to him:- 'Sir, sing and get us food, we are hungry.'
3. [The white dog] replied, ‘All of you meet me here tomorrow morning.’ Baka Dālbhya, who was also known as Glāva Maitreya, waited there too [for the white dog].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tān, to them [the other dogs]; ha uvāca, [the white dog] said; iha eva, here; prātaḥ, tomorrow morning; mā upasamīyāta iti, all of you come to me; bakaḥ dālbhyaḥ glāvaḥ maitreyaḥ vā, Baka, the son of Dalbha, who was also known as Glāva, the son of Mitrā; pratipālayāñcakāra, waited [for the white dog]; tat ha, there. Commentary:-The smaller dogs were obviously very hungry, so why didn’t the white dog sing immediately? He asked them to come back in the morning because the morning is the best time to sing the udgītha. In the afternoon the sun turns away from us. He is the one who gives us food, and if he has already begun to turn away, it is too late to ask him to give us anything. Morning is the time when we are face to face with him, and that is why morning is the best time to make a request of him. The sage Baka came early the next morning also and waited for the white dog.
Max Müller
3. The white dog said to them:- 'Come to me to-morrow morning.' Vaka Dâlbhya, or, as he was also called, Glâva Maitreya, watched.
te ha yathaivedaṃ bahiṣpavamānena stoṣyamāṇāḥ sagͫrabdhāḥ
sarpantītyevamāsasṛpuste ha samupaviśya
hiṃ cakruḥ .. 1.12.4..
4. Just as those who recite the hymn called bahiṣpavamāna move forward while touching each other, so the dogs also did the same. Then, sitting down, they said him.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Te ha, they; yathā era, just as; idam, this; bahiṣpavamānena, by the hymn called bahiṣpavamāna; stoṣyamāṇaḥ, while reciting; saṃrabdhāḥ, touching each other; sarpanti, proceed; iti evam āsasṛpuḥ, went about this way; te ha, they; samupaviśya, sitting down; him, the word ‘him’; cakruḥ, uttered. Commentary:-When sages sing the hymn baḥiṣpavamāna, they join their hands together, or otherwise touch each other, and then they move forward. The dogs did likewise. Each took the tail of the one in front in its mouth and started moving. Finally they sat down and uttered the sound him.
Max Müller
4. The dogs came on, holding together, each dog keeping the tail of the preceding dog in his mouth, as the priests do when they are going to sing praises with the Vahishpavamâna hymn [1]. After they had settled down, they began to say Hiṅ.
5. ‘Om, we will eat. Om, we will drink. Om, Deva [the sun], Varuṇa, Prajāpati, Savitā, bring us food here. O Lord of food [the sun], bring us food here. Bring us food here. Om’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Om adāma, Om, we will eat; om pibāma, Om, we will drink; om devaḥ varuṇaḥ prajāpatiḥ savitā, Om Deva [the shining one], Varuṇa, Prajāpati, Savitā; annam iha āharat, bring food here; annapate annam iha āhara āhara om, O Lord of food, bring food here, bring [food here], Om. Iti dvādaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the twelfth section. Commentary:-This verse is also known as the hiṃkāra. The sun is the only thing that shines, so he is called here deva (that which shines). Varuṇa is the deity who gives rain, and Prajāpati protects all beings. Because Āditya, the sun, gives birth to all, he is known as Savitā. It is, in fact, Āditya who at one point gives us light, and at another gives us rain. It is because of him that there is food. This is why we ask him to bring us food (anna). As a mark of special respect, and also urgency, the request is repeated.
Max Müller
5. 'Om, let us eat! Om, let us drink! Om, may the divine Varuna, Pragâpati, Savitri[1] bring us food! Lord of food, bring hither food, bring it, Om!'
1. This planet, the earth, is represented by the syllable hāu, air is represented by the syllable hāi, the moon
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Ayam vāva lokaḥ hāukāraḥ, this earth [is known by] the syllable ‘hāu’; vāyuḥ hāikāraḥ, air by the syllable ‘hāi’; candramā athakāraḥ, the moon by the syllable ‘atha’; ātmā ihakāraḥ, the individual self by the syllable ‘iha’; agniḥ īkāraḥ, fire by the syllable ‘ī’. Commentary:-So long the Upaniṣad has shown how Sāma can be worshipped through the udgītha. Now another way of worshipping Sāma is being shown—through stobhas. Stobhas are syllables such as hiṃ, hāu, hāi, and so forth, and they are all from the Sāma Veda. By themselves these syllables have no meaning. They are symbols representing objects, or they are used to fill in gaps in sentences. The idea here is that stobhas like hāu should be applied to the earth, fire, etc. A symbol has to have something in common with the object it represents. The Sāma Veda says, ‘This earth is also called rathantara.’ And in the Sāma, the stobha hāu stands for rathantara. Thus, it is reasonable to say that hāu stands for the earth. The stobha hāi occurs in the Sāma called Vāmadevya. The Vāmadevya Sāma is about the relationship of air with water. This is why vāyu (air) is represented by the symbol hāi. Why is the moon represented by atha? This world is sustained by food (anna), and the moon and food are identical. A stands for anna, and tha stands for stha in sthita, which means ‘sustained.’ A plus tha is atha. Thus, atha can rightly be said to represent the moon. Then the self is said to be iha, which means ‘here’ or ‘this,’ for the self is obvious to everyone. And the stobha ī represents fire, because wherever fire is referred to in the Sāma, the words end with ī. The syllable ī then is rightly used as a symbol of fire, and to meditate on this symbol is to meditate on fire.
Max Müller
1. The syllable Hâu [1] is this world (the earth), the syllable Hâi [2] the air, the syllable Atha the moon, the syllable Iha the self, the syllable Î [3] is Agni, fire.
2. Āditya, the sun, is represented by the stobha ū; nihava, the welcoming hymn, by the stobha e; the Viśvadeva gods by the stobha auhoyi; Prajāpati by the stobha hiṃ; prāṇa by the stobha svara; food by the stobha yā; and Virāṭ by the stobha vāk.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Ādityaiḥ Āditya, the sun; ūkāraḥ, [is represented by] the stobha ‘ū’; nihavaiḥ the welcoming address; ekāraḥ, [is represented by] the stobha ‘e’; viśvedevāḥ, the Viśvadevas [i.e., a class of gods]; auhoyi-kāraḥ, [are represented by] the stobha ‘auhoyi’; prajāpatiḥ, Prajāpati [the Lord of all beings]; hiṃkāraḥ, [is represented by] the stobha ‘hiṃ’; prāṇaḥ, prāṇa [the presiding deity of life]; svaraḥ, [is represented by] the stobha ‘svara’; annam, food; yā, [is represented by] the stobha ‘yā’; virāṭ Virāṭ; vāk, [is represented by] the stobha ‘vāk’. Commentary:-Āditya, the sun, is far above in the sky. The letter ū suggests urdhvam, which means ‘above.’ So. in The word nihava means ‘welcome,’ which in Sanskrit is ehi. For this reason e stands for the nihava, the welcoming hymn. The stobha auhoyi stands for the Viśvadevas, the gods, for it occurs in the Sāma in honour of the Viśvadevas. The stobha hiṃ represents Prajāpati. No one knows the meaning of the word hiṃ; similarly, no one knows what Prajāpati, the Lord of all beings, is like. Prāṇa is represented by svara, because svara, the musical scale, is derived from prāṇa (the Lord of life, or the vital breath). Yā represents anna, food, for yāti (going) is possible because of food. The stobha vāk occurs in the Sāma called Vairāja or Virāṭa. Thus vāk stands for Virāṭ.
Max Müller
2. The syllable Û is the sun, the syllable E is the Nihava or invocation, the syllable Auhoi [1] is the Visve Devas, the syllable Hiṅ is Pragâpati, Svara [2] (tone) is breath (prâna), the syllable Yâ is food, the syllable Vâg [3] is Virâg.
3. The thirteenth stobha huṃ is not clearly defined. Various scholars have defined it in various ways. [Thus, it is up to people to meditate on it as they like.]
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Sañcaraḥ, variously interpreted; aniruktaḥ, not clearly defined; trayodaśaḥ stobhaḥ, the thirteenth stobha; huṅkāraḥ, the syllable ‘huṃ’. Commentary:-Earlier, twelve stobhas were explained along with how they could be used for meditation. Those stobhas are:- hāu, hāi, atha, iha, ī, ū, e, auhoyi, hiṃ, svara, yā, and vāk. Now the thirteenth stobha, huṃ, is being discussed. The Upaniṣad says here, however, that no one knows for certain what huṃ means, so people are free to meditate on it as they please.
Max Müller
3. The thirteenth stobha syllable, viz. the indistinct syllable Huṅ, is the Undefinable (the Highest Brahman).
dugdhe'smai vāgdohaṃ yo vāco doho'nnavānannādo bhavati
ya etāmevagͫsāmnāmupaniṣadaṃ vedopaniṣadaṃ vedeti .. 1.13.4..
4. To a person who knows the Sāma with its stobhas, as mentioned earlier, the organ of speech gives of its best. Such a person gets plenty of food to eat and can also eat much food.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yaḥ, that person who; etām evam, this as stated earlier; sāmnām, the Sāma with its stobhas; upaniṣadam, the science of it; veda, knows; vācaḥ, of the organ of speech; yaḥ dohaḥ, the essence; doham, [that] essence; vāk, the organ of speech; asmai, to him [who knows]; dugdhe, gives; [saḥ, he]; annavān, rich with food; annādaḥ, a great eater of food; bhavati, becomes. Iti trayodaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the thirteenth section. Iti chāndogya upaniṣadi prathamaḥ adhyāyaḥ, here ends the first chapter of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad. Commentary:-In the previous verses, mention was made of the stobhas. Now the benefit of meditating on them is being described. A person who knows the real import of those stobhas receives the best that the organ of speech has to offer.
Max Müller
4. Speech yields the milk, which is the milk of speech itself to him who knows this Upanishad (secret doctrine) of the Sâmans in this wise. He becomes rich in food, and able to eat food [1],--yea, able to eat food.
1. It is good to worship the Sāma with all its parts. All that is good, according to scholars, is called sāma. Similarly, all that is bad is asāma.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Samastasya khalu sāmnaḥ upāsanam, the worship of the Sāma as a whole [inclusive of all its parts]; sādhu, [is] good; yat khalu sādhu, whatever is good; tat sāma iti ācakṣate, that is called sāma; yat asādhu, whatever is bad; tat asāma iti, that is asāma. Commentary:-Much has been said already about the Sāma and the udgītha. And it has also been said that much good follows from their worship. Similarly, the Upaniṣad has discussed the stobhas and shown their importance. So long, the Sāma has been discussed in parts. Now it will be discussed as a whole. The point of this verse is to emphasize how beautiful it is to worship the Sāma. The Sāma is beautiful and to worship the Sāma is beautiful. The qualifying word used is sādhu. Sādhu means ‘good,’ ‘beautiful,’ ‘chaste,’ ‘elegant,’ and so on. It also means ‘honest,’ ‘morally sound,’ ‘beneficial,’ ‘perfect,’ and ‘above reproach.’ Anything opposed to sādhu is asāma.
Max Müller
1. Meditation on the whole [1] of the Sâman is good, and people, when anything is good, say it is Sâman; when it is not good, it is not Sâman.
2. This is why people say, ‘He has succeeded in getting access to that distinguished person by virtue of sāma,’ when they mean he has gone to that distinguished person by honest and legitimate means. Similarly, they say, ‘By virtue of asāma he went to that distinguished person,’ when they mean he got to that person by unethical means.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tat uta āhuḥ api, this is why people say; sāmnā, by virtue of sāma; enam, a [high-placed] person; upāgāt iti, someone got access to; sādhunā, [they mean] by good conduct; enam upāgāt iti eva, he got access to him; tat āhuḥ, [similarly] this is what people say; asāmnā, by virtue of asāma; enam upāgāt iti, he got access to him; asādhunā, [when they mean] by bad conduct; enam upāgāt iti eva, he got access to him; tat āhuḥ, this is what people say. Commentary:-The question is:- What is good and what is bad? Suppose you have to meet a very distinguished person who is far above you in status. It is very difficult to meet that person, but without doing anything wrong you are, somehow or other, able to meet him. This is called sādhu—fair, honest, good, beautiful, decent, elegant. The opposite of this is asādhu—bad, ugly, dishonest, condemnable.
Max Müller
2. Thus they also say, he approached him with Sâman, i. e. becomingly; and he approached him without Sâman, i. e. unbecomingly.
athotāpyāhuḥ sāma no bateti yatsādhu bhavati sādhu batetyeva
tadāhurasāma no bateti yadasādhu bhavatyasādhu batetyeva
tadāhuḥ .. 2.1.3..
3. Then when something good happens, people say, ‘It is sāma for us,’ when they mean that it is good for them. But when something bad happens, people say, ‘It is asāma for us,’ when they mean that it is bad for them.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha uta api, then also; āhuḥ, [people] say; naḥ bata sāma iti, it is sāma for us; yat sādhu bhavati, that which is good; sādhu bata id eva tat āhuḥ, the words mean that what is good has happened; naḥ bata asāma iti, [similarly, people say] it is asāma for us; yat asādhu bhavati, that which is bad; asādhu bata id eva tat āhuḥ, they mean to say that what is bad has happened. Commentary:-The words sādhu and sāma are synonymous. When people say, ‘We have had something sāma happen,’ they mean that they have had something sādhu happen. Both the words mean the same thing:- good, beautiful, fair, and so on.
Max Müller
3. And they also say, truly this is Sâman for us, i.e. it is good for us, when it is good; and truly that is not Sâman for us, i. e. it is not good for us, when it is not good.
स य एतदेवं विद्वानसाधु सामेत्युपास्तेऽभ्याशो ह यदेनꣳ
साधवो धर्मा आ च गच्छेयुरुप च नमेयुः ॥ २.१.४॥
sa ya etadevaṃ vidvānasādhu sāmetyupāste'bhyāśo ha yadenagͫ
sādhavo dharmā ā ca gaccheyurupa ca nameyuḥ .. 2.1.4..
4. If a person knows the Sāma as such and worships it with the awareness of the great qualities it possesses, those qualities very soon manifest themselves in him and become a source of happiness.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ, whoever; etat, this [Sāma]; evam vidvān, knows in this way; sādhu sāma iti upāste, [and] worships Sāma as ‘sādhu’; enam, to this worshipper; sādhavaḥ dharmāḥ, the good qualities that are associated with a perfect [sādhu] person; abhyāśaḥ ha, quickly; yat āgaccheyuḥ ca, come; upa ca nameyuḥ, and are a source of satisfaction. Iti prathamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the first section. Commentary:-First and foremost, a person should know the good qualities of the Sāma. But that is not enough. He should also worship the Sāma along with those good qualities. Then those qualities will soon manifest themselves in him, and they will eventually become a great source of satisfaction too.
Max Müller
4. If any one knowing this meditates on the Sâman as good, depend upon it all good qualities will approach quickly, aye, they will become his own [1].
1. One should worship the Sāma in a fivefold manner, treating the different parts as symbols of the worlds.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Pañcavidham sāma upāsīta, one should worship the Sāma in a fivefold manner; lokeṣu, as the worlds [such as the earth]; hiṃkāraḥ, [for instance, thinking of] the syllable hiṃ; pṛthivī, [as] the earth; prastāvaḥ agniḥ, the prastāva as fire; udgīthaḥ antarikṣam, the udgītha as the sky; pratihāraḥ ādityaḥ, the pratihāra as the sun; nidhanam dyauḥ, the nidhana as heaven; ūrdhveṣu iti, which is up above. Commentary:-What is the meaning of sādhu? It may mean either dharma or Brahman. Both, however, mean the same thing, more or less. Those who worship Sāma should know that they are worshipping either of these two, and that they are worshipping something uplifting, something propitious (sādhu). When a person worships thus, he becomes what he is worshipping. He becomes a new person altogether. He is totally transformed. But where is a person to find the Sāma? This Sāma is everywhere, in everything—in the earth, in fire, in the sky, in the sun, and in heaven. But since you cannot approach all of these, you can worship them through their symbols. In this verse, five symbols have been mentioned, which can be used for worship:- hiṃkāra, prastāva, udgītha, pratihāra, and nidhana. This fivefold worship of Sāma is being recommended here for everyone.
Max Müller
1. Let a man meditate on the fivefold Sâman [1] as the five worlds. The hiṅkâra is, the earth, the prastâva the fire, the udgîtha the sky, the pratihâra the sun, the nidhana heaven; so in an ascending line.
2. Now, the fivefold worship from the highest world to the lowest:- heaven is hiṃkāra, the sun is prastāva, the sky is udgītha, fire is pratihāra, and the earth is nidhana.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; āvṛtteṣu, from the highest [world] to the lowest; dyauḥ hiṃkāraḥ, the heaven is the syllable hiṃ; ādityaḥ prastāvaḥ, the sun is the prastāva; antarikṣam udgīthaḥ, the sky is the udgītha; agniḥ pratihāraḥ, fire is the pratihāra; pṛthivī nidhanam, the earth is nidhana. Commentary:-As Sāma is everywhere, it is also in the five worlds most familiar to us. Starting from the top, these five worlds are dyauḥ (heaven), āditya (the sun), antarikṣa (the sky), agni (fire), and pṛthivī (the earth). To meditate on Sāma in these worlds, then, we can use the five symbols, which are respectively:- hiṃkāra, prastāva, udgītha, pratihāra, and nidhana. When we use the term symbol, we understand that there is always a connection between the symbol and the thing symbolized. In this case, hiṃkāra is the first among the symbols, and heaven is the highest among the worlds. This is why hiṃkāra stands for heaven. Prastāva stands for the sun, for when the sun rises everyone gets ready to work. The word prastāva means ‘getting ready.’ The sky is gagana. It begins with ga, and the word udgītha also contains ga. So udgītha stands for gagana, the sky. Pratihāra stands for fire, because fire makes people ‘scatter’ (pratiharim). The earth is nidhana (extinction), for all things fall from above and finally disappear on the earth.
Max Müller
2. In a descending line, the hiṅkâra is heaven, the prastâva the sun, the udgîtha the sky, the pratihâra the fire, the nidhana the earth.
kalpante hāsmai lokā ūrdhvāścāvṛttāśca ya etadevaṃ
vidvāgͫllokeṣu pañcavidhaṃ sāmopāste .. 2.2.3..
3. He who worships Sāma with the above knowledge, and worships it in the fivefold manner as described, has all these worlds, from the lowest to the highest and from the highest to the lowest, for his enjoyment.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yaḥ, he who; etaṭ, this [Sāma]; evam, as such [i.e., as good]; vidvān, having known; lokeṣu, the worlds [the earth, etc.]; pañcavidham, fivefold [i.e., using hiṃ and the other four symbols]; sāma upāste, worships the Sāma; ūrdhvāḥ ca, going upwards; āvṛttāḥ ca, and coming downwards; lokāḥ ha asmai kalpante, the worlds are there for him to enjoy. Iti dvitīyaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the second section. Commentary:-What benefit do you derive from worshipping Sāma in the worlds? The benefit is that you have all the five worlds—from the lowest to the highest and from the highest to the lowest—for your enjoyment. This is because you know Sāma is the essence of everything in these worlds.
Max Müller
3. The worlds in an ascending and in a descending line belong to him who knowing this meditates on the fivefold Sâman as the worlds [1].
megho jāyate sa prastāvo varṣati sa udgītho vidyotate
stanayati sa pratihāra udgṛhṇāti tannidhanam .. 2.3.1..
1. One can perform the fivefold Sāma worship during the rain. Think of the wind that comes before the rain as hiṃkāra. The clouds that gather are the prastāva, and the rain that follows is the udgītha. Then, when the lightning flashes and the thunder roars, that is pratihāra.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Vṛṣṭau, in the rain; pañcavidham sāma upāsīta, one can perform the fivefold Sāma worship; purovātaḥ, the wind that starts before the rainfall; hiṃkāraḥ, is hiṃkāra; meghaḥ jāyate, the clouds that gather; saḥ prastāvaḥ, that is the prastāva; varṣati saḥ udgīthaḥ, [when] the rain falls that is the udgītha; vidyotate, [when] the lightning flashes; stanayati, [and] roars; saḥ pratihāra, that is the pratihāra. Commentary:-The syllable hiṃ indicates the beginning of something. When the wind starts blowing hard, we know that it will soon rain, so that is hiṃkāra. Then, when the clouds start gathering, that is the prastāva, for it means that rain is just about to start. Soon the rain follows. That is the udgītha, for the udgītha is always welcome. It is a blessing. The clouds produce lightning, and lightning is accompanied by thunder. That is the pratihāra, for the pratihāra is that which ‘scatters,’ or ‘spreads out,’ or is ‘extensive.’
Max Müller
1. Let a man meditate on the fivefold Sâman as rain. The hiṅkâra is wind (that brings the rain); the prastâva is, 'the cloud is come;' the udgîtha is, 'it rains;' the pratihâra, 'it flashes, it thunders;'
varṣati hāsmai varṣayati ha ya etadevaṃ vidvānvṛṣṭau
pañcavidhagͫsāmopāste .. 2.3.2..
2. When the rain stops, that is the nidhana. If a person performs the fivefold Sāma worship, keeping all this in mind, clouds favour him with rain as he likes when the rain is due, and they may do him this favour even when rain is not due.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Udgṛhṇāti tat nidhanam, the end of the rainfall is the nidhana [literally, ‘the end’]; varṣati, it pours; ha asmai, for him [i.e., for the worshipper]; varṣayati, he causes rain to fall; ha yaḥ etat evam vidvān, he who, knowing all this as such; vṛṣṭau, in the rain; pañcavidham sāma upāste, performs the fivefold Sāma worship. Iti tṛtīyaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the third section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
2. The nidhana is, 'it stops.' There is rain for him, and he brings rain for others who thus knowing meditates on the fivefold Sâman as rain.
sa hiṃkāro yadvarṣati sa prastāvo yāḥ prācyaḥ syandante
sa udgītho yāḥ pratīcyaḥ sa pratihāraḥ
samudro nidhanam .. 2.4.1..
1. One can perform the fivefold Sāma worship in all kinds of water. The coming together of scattered clouds is hiṃkāra. That which pours forth rain is the prastāva. The udgītha is that [river] running eastward, and that which runs westward is the pratihāra. The sea is the nidhana.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Sarvāsu apsu, in all kinds of water; pañcavidham sāma upāsīta, a person should perform the fivefold Sāma worship; meghaḥ yat saṃplavate, the clouds which join together and consolidate; saḥ hiṃkāraḥ, that is hiṃkāra; yat varṣati, that which pours rain; saḥ prastāvaḥ, that is the prastāva; yāḥ prācyaḥ syandante, that [water, or river] which goes eastward; saḥ udgīthaḥ, that is the udgītha; yāḥ pratīcyaḥ, that which goes westward; saḥ pratihāraḥ, that is the pratihāra; samudraḥ nidhanam, the sea is the nidhana. Commentary:-The fivefold Sāma worship can be performed in all forms of water. For instance, when clouds come together to produce rain, that can be thought of as hiṃkāra, because the syllable hiṃ marks the beginning. And when rain starts falling, that is thought of as the prastāva, because the rain is ‘ready’ to scatter in all directions. (This ‘readiness’ is prastāva.) The water, or river, that flows eastward (the Ganges, for instance) is called the udgītha, because both represent excellence. The water flowing westward (pratīcya) is the pratihāra, because of the prefix prāti being common to both. The sea is the nidhana, because when the water flows into the sea it loses its separate identity, which is ‘death’ (nidhana).
Max Müller
1. Let a man meditate on the fivefold Sâman in all waters. When the clouds gather, that is the hiṅkâra; when it rains, that is the prastâva that which flows in the east [1], that is the udgîtha that which flows in the west [2], that is the pratihâra the sea is the nidhana.
न हाप्सु प्रैत्यप्सुमान्भवति य एतदेवं विद्वान्सर्वास्वप्सु
पञ्चविधꣳसामोपास्ते ॥ २.४.२॥
na hāpsu praityapsumānbhavati ya etadevaṃ vidvānsarvāsvapsu
pañcavidhagͫsāmopāste .. 2.4.2..
2. He who performs the fivefold Sāma worship in all forms of water, knowing it thus, will never be drowned in water unless he wishes to be, and he will have as much water as he wants.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yaḥ, he who; evam, as mentioned; etat, this [Sāma]; vidvān, having known; sarvāsu apsu, in all forms of water; pañcavidham sāma upāste, performs the fivefold worship of Sāma; [saḥ, that worshipper]; apsu, in water; na ha praiti, does not die [unless he wants to]; apsumān bhavati, he has much water at his disposal. Iti caturthaḥ khaṇḥaḥ, here ends the fourth section. Commentary:-A person who performs this Sāma worship, taking water as the object of worship, will never be drowned unless he himself seeks his death that way. Also, he may be so lucky about water that he will even get it in a desert.
Max Müller
2. He does not die in water [1], nay, he is rich in water who knowing this meditates on the fivefold Sâman as all waters.
1. One can apply the same fivefold Sāma worship formula to the seasons. Treat spring as hiṃkāra, summer as the prastāva, the rainy season as the udgītha, autumn as the pratihāra, and winter as the nidhana.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Ṛtuṣu, in the seasons [spring, etc.]; pañcavidham sāma upāsīta, one should perform the fivefold Sāma worship; vasantaḥ hiṃkāraḥ, spring is hiṃkāra; grīṣmaḥ prastāvaḥ, summer is the prastāva; varṣāḥ udgīthaḥ, the rainy season is the udgītha; śarat pratihāraḥ, autumn Commentary:-Spring is the first among the seasons, just as hiṃkāra is the first among the Sāma stobhas. Summer is the prastāva, because in summer people ‘get ready’ to harvest. Then, the rainy season is very important for crops, just as the udgītha is important. Autumn is thought of as pratihāra, for that is the time when the old and the sick start being ‘taken away.’ Finally, winter is the nidhana, for that is the time when many people die.
Max Müller
1. Let a man meditate on the fivefold Sâman as the seasons. The hiṅkâra is spring, the prastâva summer (harvest of yava, &c.), the udgîtha the rainy season, the pratihâra autumn, the nidhana winter.
2. To the person who knows this principle of the fivefold Sāma worship and applies it to the seasons thus, the seasons become a source of enjoyment, and the best things that each of them has to offer present themselves to him.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yaḥ, he who; etat evam vidvān, having known this [Sāma] as above; ṛtuṣu, in the seasons; pañcavi- dham sāma upāste, performs this fivefold Sāma worship; asmai, to him; ṛtavaḥ kalpante, the seasons come for his enjoyment; ha ṛtumān bhavati, and he also gets the pleasant things of those seasons for his enjoyment. Iti pañcamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the fifth section. Commentary:-The change of seasons does not bother such a worshipper. Each of them is pleasant to hiṃ, and the best things that each of them has are easily available to him.
Max Müller
2. The seasons belong to him, nay, he is always in season (successful) who knowing this meditates on the fivefold Sâman as the seasons.
1. This is how a person can perform the fivefold Sāma worship in animals. Think of goats as hiṃkāra, sheep as the prastāva, cows as the udgītha, horses as the pratihāra, and human beings as the nidhana.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Paśuṣu, in animals; pañcavidham sāma upāsīta, one can perform the fivefold Sāma worship; ajāḥ, goats; hiṃkāraḥ, are the syllable hiṃ; avayaḥ prastāvaḥ, sheep are the prastāva; gāvaḥ udgīthaḥ, cows are the udgītha; aśvāḥ pratihāraḥ, horses are the pratihāra; puruṣaḥ nidhanam, a human being is the nidhana. Commentary:-Goats are the most common of these animals, and they are also the most widely used in sacrifices. This is why they are given the first place as hiṃkāra. Ajā, goats, and avi, sheep, are often seen together, and they are very similar. So also, hiṃkāra and the prastāva are often together. This is why avi, sheep, are said to be the prastāva. Cows are the udgītha because they are superior to other animals, as the udgītha is superior. Then horses ‘carry’ (pratiharaṇa) people, so they are the pratihāra. And as animals ‘depend’ entirely upon human beings, so human beings are their nidhana (here, nidhana means ‘support’).
Max Müller
1. Let a man meditate on the fivefold Sâman in animals. The hiṅkâra is goats, the prastâva sheep, the udgîtha cows, the pratihâra horses, the nidhana man.
2. He who performs the fivefold Sāma worship in animals, knowing it in this way, gets many animals for his enjoyment, and he also has a large number of animals as his personal wealth.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yaḥ, he who; etat evam vidvān, having known this [Sāma] in this way; paśuṣu pañcavidham sāma upāste, performs the fivefold Sāma worship in animals; asya paśavaḥ bhavanti ha, he has many animals [for his enjoyment]; paśumān bhavati, he acquires a large number of animals [for his personal wealth]. Iti ṣaṣṭhaḥ khaṇḍaiḥ here ends the sixth section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
2. Animals belong to him, nay, he is rich in animals who knowing this meditates on the fivefold Sâman as animals.
1. One should perform the fivefold worship of Sāma in the organs in an increasingly higher way. The organ of smell is hiṃkāra, the organ of speech is the prastāva, the eyes are the udgītha, the ears are the pratihāra, and the mind is the nidhana. These organs should be worshipped, each with greater respect than the previous one.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Prāṇeṣu pañcavidham sāma upāsīta, one should perform the fivefold worship of Sāma in all forms of prāṇa, the vital breath [or, the organs]; parovarīyaḥ, in an increasingly better way; prāṇaḥ hiṃkāraḥ, prāṇa [or, the organ of smell] is hiṃkāra; vāk prastāvaḥ, the organ of speech is the prastāva; cakṣuḥ udgīthaḥ, the eyes are the udgītha; śrotram pratihāraḥ, the ears are the pratihāra; manaḥ nidhanam, the mind is the nidhana; etāni parovarīyāṃsi vai, all these should be worshipped, each more than the one before. Commentary:-The first prāṇa is the organ of smelling. This may be regarded as hiṃkāra. Then the organ of speech may be regarded as the prastāva, for through speech we propose (prastāva) to do something. The organ of speech is superior to the organ of smelling because we express our thoughts through speech. The eyes are better than the organ of speech, because through the eyes we can express even more than what we can through speech, so the eyes are the udgītha. The ears are the pratihāra, and they are superior to the eyes because the ears can hear more than the eyes can see. The mind is the nidhana, and it is superior to all other organs. Whatever the other organs collect is all stored in the mind. Also the mind can grasp things that no other organ can perceive.
Max Müller
1. Let a man meditate on the fivefold Sâman, which is greater than great, as the prânas (senses). The hiṅkâra is smell [1] (nose), the prastâva speech (tongue), the udgîtha sight (eye), the pratihâra hearing (ear), the nidhana mind. These are one greater than the other.
parovarīyo hāsya bhavati parovarīyaso ha lokāñjayati
ya etadevaṃ vidvānprāṇeṣu pañcavidhaṃ parovarīyaḥ
sāmopāsta iti tu pañcavidhasya .. 2.7.2..
2. When a person knows the fivefold Sāma worship and performs it in the organs, paying to each of the organs more respect than to the last, his life becomes more and more excellent, and he also attains better and better worlds.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yaḥ, he who; etat evam vidvān, having known this thus; prāṇeṣu, in the organs; pañcavidham sāma upāste, performs the fivefold Sāma worship; parovarīyaḥ, in an increasingly higher order; asya, his [life]; parovarīyaḥ ha bhavati, becomes increasingly more excellent; parovarīyasaḥ ha lokān jāyati, he also attains increasingly higher worlds; iti tu pañcavidhasya, this is the benefit of the fivefold [Sāma worship]. Iti saptamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the seventh section. Commentary:-Here much attention has been given to the fivefold Sāma worship. This is only to prepare the worshipper for the next step, in which he will be asked to perform the sevenfold Sāma worship. It would be quite all right, however, if he bypasses the fivefold worship and goes straight to the sevenfold worship.
Max Müller
2. What is greater than great belongs to him, nay, he conquers the worlds which are greater than great, who knowing this meditates on the fivefold Sâman, which is greater than great, as the prânas (senses).
यत्किंच वाचो हुमिति स हिंकारो यत्प्रेति स प्रस्तावो
यदेति स आदिः ॥ २.८.१॥
.. iti saptamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ ..
atha saptavidhasya vāci saptavidhgͫ sāmopāsīta
yatkiṃca vāco humiti sa hiṃkāro yatpreti sa prastāvo
yadeti sa ādiḥ .. 2.8.1..
1. Now begins a discussion on the sevenfold Sāma worship. One can perform this sevenfold Sāma worship in speech. Wherever the syllable huṃ occurs in speech, that is hiṃkāra. Similarly, wherever the syllable pra occurs, that is to be taken for the prastāva. And wherever ā occurs, that is ādi [the beginning].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; saptavidhasya, [a discussion] on the sevenfold [Sāma worship]; saptavidham sāma upāsīta, one should perform the sevenfold worship of Sāma; vāci, in speech; yāt kiṃca vācaḥ huṃ iti, in whatever speech occurs the syllable ‘huṃ’; saḥ hiṃkāraḥ, that is the syllable ‘hiṃ’; yat pra iti, where the syllable ‘pra’ occurs; saḥ prastāvaḥ, that is the prastāva; yat ā iti, where ‘ā’ occurs; saḥ ādiḥ, that is to be taken for ādi [the beginning]. Commentary:-The fivefold Sāma worship has been discussed. Now The first meditation is on speech. Sometimes you may come across the sound huṃ in speech. This sound is to be thought of as hiṃkāra, because the letter h is common in both. Then, when you come across the sound pra, that is to be thought of as the prastāva. The sound ā in speech is to be thought of as ādi. But what is ādi? Ādi is that with which you begin something. It is Om, for everything in the Vedas starts with Om.
Max Müller
1. Next for the sevenfold Sâman. Let a man meditate on the sevenfold Sâman in speech. Whenever there is in speech the syllable huṅ [1], that is hiṅkâra, pra is the prastâva, â is the âdi, the first, i.e. Om,
yadupeti sa upadravo yannīti tannidhanam .. 2.8.2..
2. Wherever the syllable ut occurs, that is the udgītha. Where there is prati, that is the pratihāra. Where you find upa, that is the upadrava. And where you find ni, that is the nidhana.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yat ut iti, where there is the sound ‘ut’; saḥ udgīthaḥ, that is the udgītha; yat prati iti, where there is the sound ‘prati’; saḥ pratihāraḥ, that is the pratihāra; yat upa iti, where there is the sound ‘upa’; saḥ upadravaḥ, that is the upadrava [upadrava is anything in praise of the Sāma]; yat ni iti, where there is the syllable ‘ni’; tat nidhanam, that is the nidhana. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
2. Ud is the udgîtha, pra the pratihâra, upa the upadrava, ni the nidhana.
dugdhe'smai vāgdohaṃ yo vāco doho'nnavānannādo bhavati
ya etadevaṃ vidvānvāci saptavidhagͫ sāmopāste .. 2.8.3..
3. He who knows Sāma in this way, and performs the sevenfold Sāma worship in speech, gets from speech whatever good things it has to offer. He also gets plenty of food to eat, and he eats that food [and thereby looks radiant in health].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yaḥ, the person who; etat evam vidvān, having known this [about the Sāma]; vāci, in speech; saptavidham sāma upāste, performs the sevenfold Sāma worship; asmai, to him [i.e., to the worshipper]; vāk, speech; doham, milk [i.e., a good, precious gift]; yaḥ vācaḥ dohaḥ, which is the essence of the words; dugdhe, presents; annavān annādaḥ bhavati, he has plenty of food and he eats it [thereby becoming radiant]. Iti aṣṭamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the eighth section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
3. Speech yields the milk, which is the milk of speech itself, to him who knowing this meditates on the sevenfold Sâman in speech. He becomes rich in food, and able to eat food.
1. Next, without fail, worship the sevenfold Sāma in the sun. The sun is the Sāma because it is always the same. Again, the sun makes each of us think, ‘It is looking at me. It is looking at me.’ Because it is the same to all, it is called Sāma.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; khalu, for certain; amum ādityam, the sun over there; saptavidham sāma upāsīta, worship as the sevenfold Sāma; sarvadā samaḥ, [the sun is] always the same; tena, therefore; sāma, [the sun is] Sāma; mām prati mām prati, [for instance, ‘It is looking] at me, [it is looking] at me’; iti, in this way [it makes everyone think]; sarveṇa samaḥ, it is the same to all; tena, for this reason; sāma, [the sun is called] Sāma. Commentary:-The question is, how can the sun be identified with the Sāma? The sun is always the same [i.e., sama], for it never changes. This is where the sun and the Sāma are the same. Again, when we look at the sun, we all think it is turned towards us. Similarly, the Sāma is also the same for everyone.
Max Müller
1. Let a man meditate on the sevenfold Sâman as the sun. The sun is Sâman, because he is always the same (sama); he is Sâman because he is the same, everybody thinking he looks towards me, he looks towards me [1].
2. One should know that all beings that exist are dependent on the sun. The sun has a distinctive look before it rises, and that look is its hiṃkāra. The animals, who are dependent on the sun, also have their share in this hiṃkāra. That is why they make the sound hiṃ.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tasmin, on that [i.e., the sun]; imāni sarvāṇi bhūtāni, all these beings; anvāyattāni, are dependent; iti vidyāt, one should know this; tasya, of that [sun]; yat, the way [it looks then]; purodayāt, before it rises; saḥ, that [form]; hiṃkāraḥ, is hiṃkāra; paśavaḥ, the animals; tat asya anvāyattāḥ, are dependent on that [form] of it [i.e., of the sun as Sāma]; tasmāt, this is why; te, they; hiṃ kurvanti, make the sound hiṃ; hiṃkārabhājinaḥ hi etasya sāmnaḥ, they share in the hiṃkāra of the Sāma. Commentary:-As the sun rises, it has a very pleasant and favourable look. This is called hiṃkāra. It is an expression of love and adoration for the Sāma. The animals are devoted to this hiṃkāra, for they also make the sound hiṃ as the sun rises. This is how they pay their tribute to the hiṃkāra of the Sāma.
Max Müller
2. Let him know that all beings are dependent on him (the sun). What he is before his rising, that is the hiṅkâra. On it animals are dependent. Therefore animals say hiṅ (before sunrise), for they share the hiṅkâra of that Sâman (the sun).
3. Next, the form that the sun has shortly after it rises is the prastāva. Human beings are charmed by that form. Because they join in the praise and adoration of the prastāva, they seek adoration and praise for themselves.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Athā, next; yatprathamodite [i.e., prathama + udite], that [form] which [the sun has] when it first rises; saḥ prastāvaḥ, that is the prastāva; manuṣyāḥ, all human beings; tat asya anvāyattāḥ, are charmed by that [form] of it [i.e., of the sun, which is the Sāma]; tasmāt, this is why; te, they; prastutikāmāḥ, wanting praise; praśaṃsākāmāḥ, wanting adoration; prastāvabhājinaḥ hi etasya sāmnaḥ, they join in the prastāva of the Sāma. Commentary:-The beauty that the sun has as it rises in the morning is the Sāma prastāva addressed to the sun god (Āditya). Human beings are under the spell of this beauty. And as they have the habit of praising and adoring the prastāva of the Sāma, they also desire praise and adoration for themselves. Praise means the good words you say about a person in his presence, and adoration means the good thoughts you cherish in your mind about that person.
Max Müller
3. What he is when first risen, that is the prastâva. On it men are dependent. Therefore men love praise (prastuti) and celebrity, for they share the prastâva of that Sâman.
atha yatsaṃgavavelāyāgͫ sa ādistadasya vayāgͫsyanvāyattāni
tasmāttānyantarikṣe'nārambaṇānyādāyātmānaṃ
paripatantyādibhājīni hyetasya sāmnaḥ .. 2.9.4..
4. Next, when the sun-rays spread all over a short while after sunrise, that form of the sun is the ādi of the Sāma. This form is connected with the birds. They somehow or other feel they have a safe shelter then, and that is why they are able to fly freely about in the sky without any support. They also behave as if they are joining in the ādi offered to the Sāma.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; yat, that; saṅgavavelāyām, in the morning [i.e., after sunrise, when the sunlight has spread far and wide]; saḥ ādiḥ, that is the ādi [of the Sāma worship]; vayāṃsi, birds; tat asya, that form of the sun [at that time]; anvāyattāni, makes them feel secure; tasmāt, this is why; tāni, they [the birds]; anārambaṇāni, without any support; ātmānam, their own bodies; ādāya, Commentary:-The sight of the sun after sunrise fascinates the birds. The form of the sun at this time is the ādi (or Om) of the Sāma, and the birds feel they are a part of this ādi. They feel secure. Though they have no support, they are able to fly about in the sky freely. It is as if they are joining in the ādi hymn offered to the Sāma. As the birds fly, they depend on their own ‘self’ (ātman). Because the words ātman and ādi have the common ā, the birds feel drawn towards the ādi.
Max Müller
4. What he is at the time of the saṅgava [1], that is the âdi, the first, the Om. On it birds are dependent. Therefore birds fly about in the sky without support, holding themselves, for they share the âdi [2] (the Om) of that Sâman.
5. Next, that form of the sun which it has exactly at noon is the udgītha. That form is connected with the gods and goddesses. Therefore, among all of Prajāpati’s children, the gods and goddesses are considered to be the best, because they take part in singing the udgītha of the Sāma.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; yat, that; samprati madhyandine, precisely at noon; saḥ udgīthaḥ, that [form of the sun] is the udgītha; devāḥ, the gods and goddesses; tat asya, that form of the sun [at that time]; anvāyattāni, are part of; tasmāt, therefore; prājāpatyānām, among all of Prajāpati’s children; te, they [the gods and goddesses]; sattamāḥ, are deemed the best; hi, because; etasya sāmnaḥ udgīthabhājinaḥ, they join in the udgītha of the Sāma. Commentary:-At midday the sun is at its brightest, and its form suggests that it is offering an udgītha. The gods and goddesses are devoted to the sun at this time, so they join in the offering of the udgītha. This is why they are the dearest to Prajāpati of all his children.
Max Müller
5. What he is just at noon, that is the udgîtha. On it the Devas are dependent (because they are brilliant). Therefore they are the best of all the descendants of Pragâpati, for they share the udgîtha of that Sâman.
6. Next, between the noon and the afternoon, the sight the sun presents is that of the pratihāra. The foetuses in the wombs are attached to this pratihāra. This is why they are held up and do not drop down, and why they are entitled to take part in the pratihāra addressed to the Sāma.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; yat, that; ūrdhvam madhyandināt, after midday; prāk aparāhṇāt, before afternoon; saḥ pratihāra, that is the pratihāra; garbhāḥ, the foetuses in the womb; tat asya, that [form] of [the sun]; anvāyattāḥ are attached to; tasmāt, that is why; te, those [foetuses]; pratihṛtāḥ, are held up; na avapadyante, [and] do not drop down; hi, for that reason; etasya sāmnaḥ pratihārabhājinaḥ, they are entitled to share in the pratihāra of the Sāma. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
6. What he is after midday and before afternoon, that is the pratihâra. On it all germs are dependent. Therefore these, having been conceived (pratihrita), do not fall, for they share the pratihâra of that Sâman.
7. Next, the form that the sun has between the afternoon and sunset is called the upadrava. Wild animals are fond of this form, for when the sun is in that position, the wild animals are able to scurry away into the forest or into their holes if they see a human being. These animals are also able to take part in the upadrava to the Sāma.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; yat, that; ūrdhvam aparāhṇāt, as the afternoon begins; prāk astamayāt, before sunset; saḥ upadravaḥ, that is the upadrava; āraṇyāḥ, wild animals; tat asya, that [form] of [the sun]; anvāyattāḥ, are attached to; tasmāt, that is why; te, those [wild animals]; puruṣam, a human being; dṛṣṭvā, seeing; kakṣam, into their lair [or, the forest]; śvabhram, a hole; upadravanti, quickly run to; hi, for this reason; etasya sāmnaḥ upadravabhājinaḥ, they join in the upadrava offered to the Sāma. Commentary:-In the later part of the afternoon, the animals are able to find food to sustain themselves, and they can also watch out for human beings. If they see one, they hurry back to the forest or to any place where they feel safe. Their going away in haste (upadruta) suggests that they worship the upadrava (i.e., ‘going back’) of the Sāma.
Max Müller
7. What he is after the afternoon and before sunset, that is the upadrava. On it the animals of the forest are dependent. Therefore, when they see a man, they run (upadravanti) to the forest as a safe hiding-place, for they share the upadrava of that Sâman.
8. Next, the nidhana is the form of the sun as it sets. The ancestors love this form of the sun, and this is why, as the sun sets, offerings are made to them [or, are placed on straws in honour of them at the time the śrāddha rites are performed]. For this reason, the ancestors participate in the nidhana in honour of the Sāma. This is how the sun is offered the sevenfold Sāma worship.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; yat, that; prathamāstamite [he., prathama + astamite], just as the sun sets; tat nidhanam, that is the nidhana; pitaraḥ, the ancestors; tat asya, that [form] of [the sun]; anvāyattāḥ, are attached to; tasmāt, therefore; tān, them; nidadhati, one places on straws [or, one places offerings to the ancestors on straws while performing special rites in their honour]; hi, for this reason; etasya sāmnaḥ nidhanabhājinaḥ, they participate in the nidhana in honour of the Sāma; khalu amum ādityam saptavidham sāma upāste, this is how the sun is offered the sevenfold Sāma worship. Iti navamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the ninth section. Commentary:-Because the ancestors love the form of the sun as it sets, people honour them at that time of the day by placing offerings to them on straw. And while doing so, they sing the nidhana hymn of the Sāma. If a person performs the sevenfold Sāma worship with the feeling that he is worshipping the sun this way, he becomes one with the sun.
Max Müller
8. What he is when he first sets, that is the nidhana. On it the fathers are dependent. Therefore they put them [1] down (nidadhati), for they share the nidhana of that Sâman. Thus a man meditates on the sevenfold Sâman as the sun.
1. After worshipping the Sāma as the sun, one should perform the sevenfold Sāma worship by using words of the same number of syllables. By this one overcomes death. The word hiṃkāra has three syllables; so also,
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next [i.e., after worshipping the sun as the Sāma]; khalu, for certain; ātma-sammitam, with an equal number of parts [i.e., syllables]; atimṛtyu, that which overcomes death; saptavidham sāma upāsīta, one should perform the sevenfold Sāma worship; hiṃkāraḥ, the word hiṃkāra; iti tryakṣaram, is three-syllabled; prastāvaḥ, the word prastāva; iti tryakṣaram, is [also] three-syllabled; tat samam, therefore they [hiṃkāra and prastāva] are equal. Commentary:-Śaṅkara says that the sun divides time into units. It therefore distinguishes between life and death, and it is death itself. Is there any way of overcoming death? Yes, it can be overcome by worshipping the Sāma, and that is why these instructions are being given here.
Max Müller
1. Next let a man meditate on the sevenfold Sâman which is uniform in itself [1] and leads beyond death. The word hiṅkâra has three syllables, the word prastâva has three syllables:- that is equal (sama).
2. The word ādi is two-syllabled, and the word pratihāra is four-syllabled. If you take away one syllable from pratihāra and add it to ādi, then they will have the same number of syllables.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Ādiḥ iti dvi-akṣaram, the word ādi is two-syllabled; pratihāraḥ iti catuḥ-akṣaram, the word pratihāra is four-syllabled; tataḥ, from that [i.e., from the word pratihāra]; ekam, [take away] one [syllable]; iha, [and add] here [to the word ādi]; tat samam, that makes them equal [both three-syllabled]. Commentary:-Om is the ādi of the sevenfold Sāma. It is ādi (the beginning) because a person begins singing the Sāma with Om.
Max Müller
2. The word âdi (first, Om) has two syllables, the word pratihâra has four syllables. Taking one syllable from that over, that is equal (sama).
3. The word udgītha has three syllables. The word upadrava has four syllables. If they are taken as three-syllabled they are equal. In that case, the syllable va in upadrava becomes superfluous. They are equal so far as their three syllables are concerned.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Udgīthaḥ iti tri-akṣaram, the word udgītha is three-syllabled; upadravaḥ iti cataḥ-akṣaram, the word upadrava is four-syllabled; tribhiḥ tribhiḥ samam bhavati, if they are taken as three-syllabled they become the same; akṣaram atiśiṣyate, one syllable becomes superfluous; tri-akṣaram tat samam, taken as three-syllabled they become identical. Commentary:-The syllable va, if taken away, makes no difference when a person recites the hymn.
Max Müller
3. The word udgîtha has three syllables, the word upadrava has four syllables. With three and three syllables it should be equal. One syllable being left over, it becomes trisyllabic. Hence it is equal.
4. The word nidhana has three syllables. All words, having three syllables each, are the same [when used in praise of the Sāma]. All these together have twenty-two syllables.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Nidhanam iti tri-akṣaram, the word nidhana is three-syllabled; tat samam eva bhavati, that makes it the same [as the other three-syllabled words forming parts of the Sāma]; tāni ha vai etāni, all these together constitute; dvāviṃśatiḥ akṣarāṇi, twenty-two syllables. Commentary:-There are seven ways of worshipping the Sāma:- through hiṃkāra, prastāva, ādi, pratihāra, udgītha, upadrava, and nidhana. Taken together these words have twenty-two syllables. Taken separately each of them may be treated as three-syllabled and recited accordingly. They are therefore all equal for purposes of the Sāma worship.
Max Müller
4. The word nidhana has three syllables, therefore it is equal. These make twenty-two syllables.
5. With the help of those twenty-one syllables, one can attain the status of the sun [which is also Death]. The sun occupies the twenty-first place after the things that come between the earth and the sun [those things being the twelve months, the five seasons, and the three worlds]. One can then go beyond the sun if one knows the twenty-second syllable. That world is full of joy and free from all sorrows.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Ekaviṃśatyā, by twenty-one [syllables]; ādityam āpnoti, one attains union with the sun [because the sun marks the end of everything, and it is therefore death]; ekaviṃśaḥ vai, [the sun is] the twenty-first [after the twelve months, the five seasons, and the three worlds]; itaḥ, from this [world]; asau ādityaḥ, the sun over there; dvāviṃśena, by [knowing] the twenty-second [syllable]; ādityāt param jayati, one attains the next higher world from the sun; tat nākam, that [place is] joyful; tat viśokaṃ, that [place is] free from all suffering. Commentary:-The Upaniṣad says that if you worship Sāma with these twenty-one syllables, you attain the sun, which is the same as death. But how is the number significant? It is significant because the sun occupies the twenty-first position after the things that intervene between the earth and the sun. According to the Vedas those things are the twelve months, the five seasons, and the three worlds. But if you worship the Sāma with twenty-two syllables, you then go beyond the sun. Where? To a place called Nāka, where there is only happiness and no suffering.
Max Müller
5. With twenty-one syllables a man reaches the sun (and death), for the sun is the twenty-first [1] from here; with the twenty-second he conquers what is beyond the sun:- that is blessedness, that is freedom from grief
6. If a person knows all about the Sāma, and performs the sevenfold Sāma worship, treating the Sāma as himself and as something beyond death, he wins the state of the sun and then wins a place even higher than the sun.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Āpnoti ha ādityasya jayam, one wins the state of the sun; paraḥ ha ādityajayāt asya jayaḥ bhavati, one wins a world even higher than the sun; yaḥ, one who; etat evam vidvān, knows this [Sāma] thus; ātmasammitam, as oneself; atimṛtyu saptavidham sāma upāste sāma upāste, performs the deathless sevenfold Sāma worship [the repetition marks the end of the section]. Iti daśamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the tenth section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
6. He obtains here the victory over the sun (death), and there is a higher victory than the victory over the sun for him, who knowing this meditates on the sevenfold Sâman as uniform in itself, which leads beyond death, yea, which leads beyond death.
1. The mind is hiṃkāra, the organ of speech is the prastāva, the eyes are the udgītha, the ears are the pratihāra, and the vital breath [in its fine (five?) forms] is the nidhana. The Gāyatrī prayer is controlled by the vital breath.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Manaḥ hiṃkāraḥ, the mind is the hiṃkāra; vāk prastāvaḥ, the organ of speech is the prastāva; cakṣuḥ udgīthāḥ, the eyes are the udgītha; śrotram pratihāraḥ, the ears are the pratihāra; prāṇaḥ nidhanam, the vital breath is the nidhana; etāt gāyatram, this Gāyatrī prayer; prāṇeṣu protam, is rooted in the vital breath. Commentary:-So long the fivefold and the sevenfold Sāma worships have been discussed, but the names of those worships have not been mentioned. Gāyatra is the first among them. Corresponding to the Gāyatra is the hiṃkāra, with which the worship begins. Similarly, in any act of worship, the mind may be regarded as the hiṃkāra, for it is the mind that must act first before all the other organs. Next to the mind is the organ of speech. A person first thinks and then speaks out his intentions. The organ of speech is therefore the prastāva. The eyes are the udgītha because of their importance. The ears are the pratihāra, for you can ‘turn away from’ things you don’t want to hear. Prāṇa, the vital breath, is the nidhana, for when you have suṣupti, dreamless sleep, all the organs merge into the vital breath. The Gāyatrī is worshipped as the vital breath. This is why the Sāma called Gāyatra is. said to be rooted in the vital breath.
Max Müller
1. The hiṅkâra is mind, the prastâva speech, the udgîtha sight, the pratihâra hearing, the nidhana breath. That is the Gâyatra Sâman, as interwoven in the (five) prânas [1].
2. This Gāyatra Sāma is rooted in the prāṇas. He who knows this becomes full of vitality, has a long life, and his life is brilliant. Also, he is fortunate in his children, and he has many domestic animals. He is one of the most famous people. To be noble-minded is the aim of his life.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ, he who; evam, this way; etat gāyatram, this Gāyatra Sāma; prāṇeṣu protam, rooted in the prāṇas; veda, knows; prāṇī, with life; bhavati, is endowed; sarvam āyuḥ, the full span of life; eti, attains; jyok jīvati, a bright [life]; mahān prajayā, great in progeny; paśubhiḥ, [and] animals; bhavati, becomes [rich with]; mahān kīrtyā, with a good reputation; mahāmanāḥ syāt, is noble in character; tat vratam, that is the aim of his life. Iti ekādaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the eleventh section. Commentary:-Whoever knows that the Sāma named Gāyatra is based on the prāṇas is truly alive—that is, all his organs are strong and healthy and he is never physically handicapped. The full span of a person’s life is said to be a hundred years. A person who worships the Sāma lives that long. And he lives a wonderful life, able to influence many people. He is respected as one of the greatest people in the world. He has many children and many domestic animals, but his sole aim in life is to have a large heart, without a trace of meanness in his mind.
Max Müller
2. He who thus knows this Gâyatra interwoven in the prânas, keeps his senses, reaches the full life, he lives long [1], becomes great with children and cattle, great by fame. The rule of him who thus meditates on the Gâyatra is, 'Be not high-minded.'
1. When one rubs two pieces of wood against each other to light a fire, that is the hiṃkāra. When it produces smoke, that is the prastāva. Then when the flame appears, that is the udgītha. The charcoals that result are the pratihāra, and when the fire begins to go out, that is the nidhana. When the flame is completely extinguished, that also is the nidhana. This Sāma called Rathantara is rooted in fire.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Abhimanthati, rubbing [one piece of wood against another to produce fire]; saḥ hiṃkāraḥ, that is the hiṃkāra; dhūmaḥ jāyate, the smoke it produces; saḥ prastāvaḥ, that is the prastāva; jvalati, the flames that appear; saḥ udgīthaḥ, that is the udgītha; aṅgārāḥ bhavanti, the charcoals that result; saḥ pratihāraḥ, that is the pratihāra; upaśāmyati, when the fire begins to go out; tat nidhanam, that is the nidhana; saṃśāmyati, when the fire is completely extinguished; tat nidhanam, that [also] is the nidhana; etat rathantaram, this [Sāma] called Rathantara; agnau protam, is rooted in fire. Commentary:-The rubbing of two pieces of wood together to produce fire is the hiṃkāra, for that is the beginning of the fire. And the smoke that results is the prastāva, for both are likely to continue. When the fire bursts into flame, that is the udgītha, because when there are flames the oblations are offered into them for the gods and goddesses. This is why this part is superior and why the flames are called the udgītha. The charcoals that are formed are called the pratihāra, for the charcoals are collected for future use. Upaśām means the process of subsiding—that is, the fire begins to subside but does not quite go out. Then the word saṃśām means ‘completely extinguished.’ The fire is then dead, so it is like the nidhana (death). The Rathantara Sāma is said to be based on fire, for when fire is being produced by rubbing the two sticks, the Rathantara Sāma is recited.
Max Müller
1. The hiṅkâra is, he rubs (the fire-stick); the prastâva, smoke rises; the udgîtha, it burns; the pratihâra, there are glowing coals; the nidhana, it goes down; the nidhana, it is gone out. This is the Rathantara Sâman as interwoven in fire [1].
स य एवमेतद्रथंतरमग्नौ प्रोतं वेद ब्रह्मवर्चस्यन्नादो
भवति सर्वमायुरेति ज्योग्जीवति महान्प्रजया
पशुभिर्भवति महान्कीर्त्या न प्रत्यङ्ङग्निमाचामेन्न
निष्ठीवेत्तद्व्रतम् ॥ २.१२.२॥
sa ya evametadrathaṃtaramagnau protaṃ veda brahmavarcasyannādo
bhavati sarvamāyureti jyogjīvati mahānprajayā
paśubhirbhavati mahānkīrtyā na pratyaṅṅagnimācāmenna
niṣṭhīvettadvratam .. 2.12.2..
2. He who knows that this Rathantara Sāma is rooted in fire, acquires the kind of glow that Vedic scholarship produces. He also enjoys eating. He lives the full span of his life, and his life is brilliant. He is well known for his children and for his animal wealth, and he commands great respect in society. His vow is that he will never eat with fire in front of him and he will never spit.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ evam etat rathantaram agnau protam veda, he who knows that this Rathantara Sāma is rooted in fire; brahmavarcasī, acquires the glow that Vedic knowledge gives; annādaḥ bhavati, he enjoys eating food; sarvam āyuḥ eti, he lives the full span of his life; jyok jīvati, he lives a bright life; mahān prajayā paśubhiḥ bhavati, he distinguishes himself by his children and by the animal wealth he acquires; mahān kīrtyā, his reputation spreads far and wide; tat vratam, his principle is; na pratyak agnim ācāmet, never to Commentary:-By his moral character and his scholarship in the Vedas, he acquires a radiance about him. [The underlying thought in these two mantras is that everything a person does is spiritual. This includes even physical experiences.]
Max Müller
2. He who thus knows this Rathantara interwoven in fire, becomes radiant [1] and strong. He reaches the full life, he lives long, becomes great with children and cattle, great by fame. The rule is, 'Do not rinse the mouth or spit before the fire.'
1. A man's beckoning to a woman is the syllable Him; his gratifying her is the Prastava; his lying with her is the Pratihara; his spending time with her is the Nidhana; and the finishing of the sexual act is also the Nidhana. This is the Vamadevya Saman as interwoven in sexual intercourse.
Max Müller
1. Next follows the Vâmadevya as interwoven in generation [1].
mahānkīrtyā na kāṃcana pariharettadvratam .. 2.13.2..
2. He who thus knows the Vamadevya Saman as interwoven in sexual intercourse does not suffer from the pang of separation and procreates from every intercourse; he reaches the full length of life, lives brightly, becomes great in children and cattle, great in fame. For him the injunction is:- "Do not reject a woman who comes to you seeking intercourse".
Max Müller
2. Next follows the Vâmadevya as interwoven in generation [1].
1. The rising sun is the hiṃkāra, the sun that has already risen is the prastāva, the midday sun is the udgītha, the afternoon sun is the pratihāra, and the setting sun is the nidhana. This Sāma called Bṛhat is based on the sun.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Udyan, the rising sun; hiṃkāraḥ, [is] the hiṃkāra; uditaḥ, the sun that has already risen; prastāvaḥ, [is] the prastāva; madhyandina, the midday sun; udgīthaḥ, [is] the udgītha; aparāhṇaḥ, the afternoon sun; pratihāraḥ, [is] the pratihāra; yat astam, that which is setting; nidhanam, [is] the nidhana; etat bṛhat, Commentary:-The rising sun is the hiṃkāra, for that is the time when we first see the sun. When the sun has risen it is the prastāva, for that is when people start performing their daily religious riteṣ and rituals. The midday sun is the udgītha, because that is the best time of the day. Then the afternoon sun is the pratihāra, because that is the time when cattle are driven back home. And the setting sun is the nidhana, for at night domestic animals are kept confined in their pens. This Bṛhat Sāma is based on the sun, because the sun is its presiding deity.
Max Müller
1. Rising, the sun is the hiṅkâra, risen, he is the prastâva, at noon he is the udgîtha, in the afternoon he is the pratihâra, setting, he is the nidhana. That is the Brihat Sâman as interwoven in the sun [1].
पशुभिर्भवति महान्कीर्त्या तपन्तं न निन्देत्तद्व्रतम्
॥ २.१४.२॥
sa ya evametadbṛhadāditye protaṃ veda tejasvyannādo
bhavati sarvamāyureti jyogjīvati mahānprajayā
paśubhirbhavati mahānkīrtyā tapantaṃ na nindettadvratam
.. 2.14.2..
2. He who knows that the Sāma called Bṛhat is rooted in the sun is spirited and has a great appetite. He lives the full span of his life, has a brilliant career, and is renowned for his children and for his animal wealth. His success in life brings him much fame. The vow he observes is that he will never utter a word against the sun, which gives us heat.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ evam etat bṛhat āditye protam veda, he who knows that the Sāma called Bṛhat is rooted in the sun; tejasvi, is spirited; annādaḥ bhavati, has a great appetite; sarvam āyuḥ etḥ lives the full span of his life; jyok jīvati, has a brilliant life; mahān prajayā paśubhiḥ bhavati, becomes famous for his children and for his animal wealth; mahān kīrtyā, is highly respected; tapantam na nindet, he never uses a bad word against the hot sun; tat vratam, that is his vow. Iti caturdaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the fourteenth section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
2. He who thus knows the Brihat as interwoven in the sun, becomes refulgent [1] and strong, he reaches the full life, he lives long, becomes great with children and cattle, great by fame. His rule is, 'Never complain of the heat of the sun.'
स प्रतिहार उद्गृह्णाति तन्निधनमेतद्वैरूपं पर्जन्ये प्रोतम्
॥ २.१५.१॥
.. iti caturdaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ ..
abhrāṇi samplavante sa hiṃkāro megho jāyate
sa prastāvo varṣati sa udgītho vidyotate stanayati
sa pratihāra udgṛhṇāti tannidhanametadvairūpaṃ parjanye protam
.. 2.15.1..
1. When light clouds consolidate, that is the hiṃkāra. When clouds likely to pour rain collect, that is the prastāva. When the rain begins, that is the udgītha. Then there are flashes of lightning and the roar of thunder. This is the pratihāra. When it all stops, that is the nidhana. This Sāma called Vairūpa is rooted in the clouds.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Abhrāṇi, light clouds [bearing water]; saṃplavante, when they consolidate; saḥ hiṃkāraḥ, that is the hiṃkāra; meghaḥ jāyate, when clouds likely to pour rain appear; saḥ prastāvaḥ, that is the prastāva; varṣati saḥ udgīthaḥ, when it starts raining that is the udgītha; vidyotate, when lightning flashes; stanayati, [and] thunder roars; saḥ pratihāraḥ, that is the pratihāra; ut gṛhṇāti, when everything is over; tat nidhanam, that is the nidhana; etat vairūpam, this [Sāma called] Vairūpa; parjanye protam, is rooted in the clouds. Commentary:-The word abhra means a cloud which bears ap, water. A cloud that pours rain is called megha. The English word ‘cloud’ is actually in Sanskrit parjanya. Abhra, megha, parjanya—these different names all mean cloud, but indicate the cloud in a different state. This is why the cloud is described here as vairūpa, with different forms. It is the sun that produces the cloud, and this is why the Sāma is first worshipped as the sun and then as the cloud.
Max Müller
1. The mists gather, that is the hiṅkâra; the cloud has risen, that is the prastâva; it rains, that is the udgîtha; it flashes and thunders, that is the pratihâra; it stops, that is the nidhana. That is the Vairûpa Sâman, as interwoven in Parganya, the god of rain.
mahānkīrtyā varṣantaṃ na nindettadvratam .. 2.15.2..
2. He who knows that this Sāma called Vairūpa has its source in the clouds comes to acquire a large variety of animals, and all beautiful animals too. He has a long and brilliant life, and his children and animals are such that he becomes famous for them. His achievements also mark him as a great person.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ evam etat vairūpam parjanye protam veda, he who knows that this [Sāma called] Vairūpa is rooted in the clouds; virūpān ca surūpān ca paśūn avarundhe, he comes to possess a large variety of animals and beautiful animals also; sarvam āyuḥ eti, he lives the full span of his life; jyok jīvati, he has a brilliant life; mahān prajayā paśubhiḥ bhavati, he becomes famous for his children and for his animal wealth; mahān kīrtyā, he is renowned for his achievements; varṣantam na nindet tat vratam, his vow is not to criticize the clouds that pour rain. Iti pañcadaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the fifteenth section. Commentary:-It is a characteristic of those who worship the Sāma that they never find fault with others. This is why they do not say anything bad about even the clouds that give rain.
Max Müller
2. He who thus knows the Vairûpa as interwoven in Parganya, obtains all kinds of cattle (virûpa), he reaches the full life, he lives long, becomes great with children and cattle, great by fame. His rule is, 'Never complain of the rain.'
1. Spring is the hiṃkāra, summer the prastāva, the rainy season the udgītha, autumn the pratihāra, and winter the nidhana. This Sāma known as Vairāja is rooted in the seasons.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Vasantaḥ hiṃkāraḥ, spring is the hiṃkāra; grīṣmaḥ prastāvaḥ, summer is the prastāva; varṣāḥ udgīthaḥ, the rainy season is the udgītha; śarat pratihāraḥ, autumn is the pratihāra; hemantaḥ nidhanam, winter is the nidhana; etat vairājam, this [Sāma called] Vairāja; ṛtuṣu protam, is rooted in the seasons. Commentary:-The clouds determine the seasons. This is why the Sāma is first worshipped as the clouds and after that as the seasons.
Max Müller
1. The hiṅkâra is spring, the prastâva summer, the udgîtha the rainy season, the pratihâra autumn, the nidhana winter. That is the Vairâga Sâman, as interwoven in the seasons.
2. He who knows that the Sāma called Vairāja is rooted in the seasons is surrounded by his children and animals and has a radiance about him which is born of Vedic scholarship. He lives a long and brilliant life, and he is considered great for his children and for his animals. He is also highly respected for his great deeds. He follows the vow of never criticizing the seasons.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ evani etat vairājam ṛtuṣu protam veda, he who knows that this [Sāma called] Vairāja is rooted in the seasons; virājati, he lives; prajayā paśubhiḥ, surrounded by his children and animals; brahmavarcasena, he has the kind of radiance that is born of Vedic scholarship; sarvam āyuḥ eti, he lives the full span of his life; jyok jīvati, he lives a brilliant life; mahān prajayā paśubhiḥ bhavati, he is known to be great for his children and animals; mahān kīrtyā, he is famous for his deeds; ṛtūn na nindet tat vratam, his vow is that he will never criticize the seasons. Iti ṣoḍhśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the sixteenth section. Commentary:-The person who knows that the Vairāja Sāma is rooted in the seasons becomes like the seasons himself. Each season has a beauty of its own. Similarly, this person has within him the beauty and grandeur of the good things he possesses, such as his wealth, good children, scholarship, and character. The rules of the Sāma forbid him from saying anything bad about the seasons, and he follows this.
Max Müller
2. He who thus knows the Vairâga, as interwoven in the seasons, shines (virâgati) through children, cattle, and glory of countenance. He reaches the full life, he lives long, becomes great with children and cattle, great by fame. His rule is, 'Never complain of the seasons.'
1. The earth is the hiṃkāra, the space between the earth and heaven is the prastāva, heaven is the udgītha, the quarters are the pratihāra, and the ocean is the nidhana. The Sāma known as Śakvarī is rooted in the earth and other worlds.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Pṛthivī hiṃkāraḥ, the earth is the hiṃkāra; antarikṣam prastāvaḥ, the space between the earth and heaven is the prastāva; dyauḥ udgīthaḥ, heaven is the udgītha; diśaḥ pratihāraḥ, the quarters are the pratihāra; samudraḥ nidhanam, the ocean is the nidhana; etāḥ śakvaryaḥ lokeṣu protāḥ, these [the Sāma called] Śakvarī are rooted in the earth and other worlds. Commentary:-If the seasons come and go, as they ought to, then things on the earth and the other worlds remain in balance. This is why the Sāma is first worshipped as the seasons and then as the worlds. But the question is:- Sāma is singular. Why then has a plural word, śakvarī, been used here for the Sāma? Doesn’t it imply that there are many Sāmas? No, the Sāma is always one and the same. There are not many Sāmas. The word śakvarī has a plural form, but it stands for the singular Sāma. Śaṅkara gives the example of the word revatī, which is similarly always used in the plural.
Max Müller
1. The hiṅkâra is the earth, the prastâva the sky, the udgîtha heaven, the pratihâra the regions, the nidhana the sea. These are the Sakvarî Sâmans, as interwoven in the worlds [1].
2. He who knows that the Sāma known as Śakvarī is located in the worlds goes to the best world. He also has a long and brilliant life and is well known for his children and for his animal wealth. He is considered to be a great person because of his great deeds. He takes a vow that he will never criticize the worlds.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ evam etāḥ śakvaryaḥ lokeṣu protāḥ veda, he who knows that these [i.e., the Sāma] known as Śakvarī are rooted in the worlds; lokī bhavati, goes to the best world; sarvam āyuḥ eti, lives the full span of his life; jyok jīvati, has a brilliant life; mahān prajayā paśubhiḥ bhavati, is well known for his children and for his animal wealth; mahān kīrtyā, is well known for his great deeds; lokān na nindet tat vratam, his vow is that he will never criticize the worlds. Iti saptadaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the seventeenth section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
2. He who thus knows the Sakvarîs, as interwoven in the worlds, becomes possessed of the worlds, he reaches the full life, he lives long, becomes great with children and cattle, great by fame. His rule is, 'Never complain of the worlds.'
1. Goats are the hiṃkāra, sheep are the prastāva, cows represent the udgītha, horses are the pratihāra, and a human being is the nidhana. The Sāma called Revatī is established in animals.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Ajāḥ hiṃkāraḥ, goats are the hiṃkāra; avayaḥ prastāvaḥ, sheep are the prastāva; gāvaḥ udgītha, cows are the udgītha; aśvāḥ pratihāraḥ, horses are the pratihāra; puruṣaḥ nidhanam, a human being is the nidhana; etāḥ revatyaḥ paśuṣu protāḥ, these [i.e., the Sāma known as] Revatī are established in animals. Commentary:-Animals are useful to all the worlds. That is why, after worshipping the Sāma as the worlds, the worship as animals is suggested. As in the previous section in which the word śakvarī is always used in the plural (as śakvaryaḥ), here also, the word revatī is always used in the plural (revatyaḥ).
Max Müller
1. The hiṅkâra is goats, the prastâva sheep, the udgîtha cows, the pratihâra horses, the nidhana man. These are the Revatî Sâmans, as interwoven in animals.
2. He who knows that the Sāma called Revatī is rooted in animals acquires many animals. He has a long and brilliant life and becomes well known for his children and for his animal wealth. He also becomes a truly great person for his great deeds. His vow is that he will never say anything bad about animals.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ evam etaḥ revatyaḥ protāḥ veda, he who knows that these [i.e., the Sāma] called Revatī are rooted in animals; paśumān bhavati, comes to possess many animals; sarvam āyuḥ eti, lives the full span of his life; jyok jīvati, has a brilliant life; mahān prajayā paśubhiḥ bhavati, becomes a highly respected person because of his children and also his animal wealth; mahān kīrtyā, becomes a truly great person for his great deeds; paśūn na nindet tat vratam, he observes the vow of never saying anything bad about animals. Iti aṣṭādaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the eighteenth section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
2. He who thus knows these Revatîs, as interwoven in animals, becomes rich in animals [1], he reaches the full life, he lives long, becomes great with children and cattle, great by fame. His rule is, 'Never complain of animals.'
1. Hair is the hiṃkāra, skin is the prastāva, flesh is the udgītha, bone is the pratihāra, and marrow is the nidhana. The Sāma called Yajñāyajñīya is spread all over the limbs of the body.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Loma hiṃkāraḥ, hair is the hiṃkāra; tvak prastāvaḥ, skin is the prastāva; māṃsam udgīthaḥ, flesh is the udgītha; asthi pratihāraḥ, bone is the pratihāra; majjā nidhanam, marrow is the nidhana; etat yajñāyajñīyam, this [Sāma called] Yajñāyajñīya; aṅgeṣu protam, is spread all over the limbs of the body. Commentary:-We get much nourishment from animals to sustain our bodies. That is why, in the previous section, the Sāma has been worshipped in the animals, and now it is being worshipped in the various parts of the body. Hair is on top of the body, so it is given first place—the place given to the hiṃkāra when the Sāma is recited. Next to the hair is the skin. Similarly, next to the hiṃkāra is the prastāva. The flesh is the udgītha, for both are the most important part. Then the bones are the pratihāra, because after a body is cremated there will still be pieces of bone left, and these are ‘collected’ by the relatives. The marrow is the nidhana, for that is the end of everything.
Max Müller
1. The hiṅkâra is hair, the prastâva skin, the udgîtha flesh, the pratihâra bone, the nidhana marrow. That is the Yagñâyagñîya Sâman, as interwoven in the members of the body.
2. He who knows that the Sāma known as Yajñāyajñīya is located in different parts of the body becomes possessed of a firm body and none of his organs has any defect. He has a long and brilliant life; and he becomes great because of his children and his animal wealth. He also becomes famous for his great deeds. His vow is that he will not eat meat for one whole year, or he will not eat it at all.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ evam etat yajñāyajñīyam aṅgeṣu protam veda, he who knows that this Sāma called Yajñāyajñīya is located in the different parts of the body; aṅgī bhavati, has a firm body; na aṅgena vihūrchati, has no defect in his limbs or organs; sarvam āyuḥ eti, he lives the full span of his life; jyok jīvati, he has a brilliant life; mahān prajayā paśubhiḥ bhavati, he becomes great in respect of his children and his animal wealth; mahān kīrtyā, he becomes great because of his great deeds; saṃvatsaram, for one whole year; majjñaḥ, meat; na aśnīyāt, will not eat; majjñaḥ na aśnīyāt iti vā, or will not eat meat at all; tat vratam, this is his vow. Iti ekonaviṃśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the nineteenth section. Commentary:-‘A firm body’ means a good, sound body with none of its organs or limbs defective. Even his nails and his hair will be normal. The word majjña, meat, is in the plural here. This implies that both fish and meat should be avoided.
Max Müller
2. He who thus knows the Yagñâyagñîya, as interwoven in the members of the body, becomes possessed of strong limbs, he is not crippled in any limb, he reaches the full life, he lives long, becomes great with children and cattle, great by fame. His rule is, 'Do not eat marrow for a year,' or 'Do not eat marrow at all.'
1. Fire is the hiṃkāra, air is the prastāva, the sun is the udgītha, the stars are the pratihāra, and the moon is the nidhana. This Sāma known as Rājana is rooted in the gods and goddesses.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Agniḥ hiṃkāraḥ, fire is the hiṃkāra; vāyuḥ prastāvaḥ, air is the prastāva; ādityaḥ udgīthaḥ, the sun is the udgītha; nakṣatrāṇi pratihāraḥ, the stars are the pratihāra; candramāḥ nidhanam, the moon is the nidhana; etat rājanam, this [Sāma called] Rājana; devatāsu protam, is rooted in the gods and goddesses. Commentary:-In the previous section the Sāma was worshipped in the parts of the body. Now it is being worshipped in the deities—that is, in the forces of nature. Fire is the first among the forces of nature, so it is the hiṃkāra. Next to the hiṃkāra is the prastāva. Air is called the prastāva because it comes next after fire, and it is also infinite. The sun is the udgītha, for just as the udgītha is the best among the Sāma songs, so also the sun is the best among the forces of nature. The stars lie scattered, and as we locate them it seems that we are ‘collecting’ (pratihāra) them. That is why the stars are said to be the pratihāra. The moon is said to be the nidhana, because active people go to Candraloka, the world of the moon, after death. The Sāma called Rājana is rooted in the gods and goddesses, for the deities are by nature luminous (rājana).
Max Müller
1. The hiṅkâra is fire, the prastâva air, the udgîtha the sun, the pratihâra the stars, the nidhana the moon. That is the Râgana Sâman, as interwoven in the deities.
2. He who knows that the Sāma known as Rājana is established in the gods and goddesses shares the same worlds with these gods and goddesses, has the same rights and privileges with them, or has the same form. He also has a long and brilliant life. And he becomes great by virtue of his children and his animal wealth, and also by virtue of his great deeds. His vow is that he will never speak ill of the brāhmins.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ evam etat rājanam devatāsu protam veda, he who knows that this Sāma known as Rājana is established in the gods and goddesses [such as Agni (fire), Vāyu (air), etc.]; etāsām eva devatānām salokatām gacchati, he shares with those gods and goddesses the same worlds; sārṣṭitām, the same rights and privileges; [vā] sāyujyam, [or] the same form; sarvam āyuḥ eti, he lives the full span of his life; jyok jīvati, he has a brilliant life; mahān prajayā paśubhiḥ bhavati, he becomes great by virtue of his children and also his animal wealth; mahān kīrtyā, he is great by his great deeds; brāhmaṇān na nindet tat vratam, it is his vow that he will not speak ill of the brāhmins. Iti viṃśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the twentieth section. Commentary:-What does a person gain from worshipping the Sāma in such a way? He gets the right to live with the gods and goddesses in the same world, or to share the same rights and privileges with them, or to have the same form. It is not that he would get all these things. He would get any one of them. The scriptures say that the brāhmins themselves are the gods and goddesses. Obviously then one should not say anything derogatory about the brāhmins. Section Twenty-One
Max Müller
2. He who thus knows the Râgana, as interwoven in the deities, obtains the same world, the same happiness, the same company as the gods, he reaches the full life, he lives long, becomes great with children and cattle, great by fame. His rule is, 'Do not speak evil of the Brâhmanas.'
1. The three vidyās [the Ṛk, the Yajuḥ, and the Sāma] are together the hiṃkāra; these three worlds [the earth, the space between the earth and heaven, and heaven] are together the prastāva; fire, air, and the sun are together the udgītha; the stars, the birds, and the rays are together the pratihāra; serpents, gandharvas, and the ancestors are together the nidhana. This Sāma resides in everything.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Trayī vidyā hiṃkāraḥ, the three Vedas [the Ṛk, the Yajuḥ, and the Sāma] are the hiṃkāra; trayaḥ ime lokāḥ, these three worlds [bhūḥ, bhuvaḥ, svaḥ]; saḥ prastāvaḥ, [together] that is the prastāva; agniḥ vāyuḥ ādityaḥ, fire, air, and the sun; saḥ udgīthaḥ, [together] that is the udgītha; nakṣatrāṇi vayāṃsi marīcayaḥ, the stars, the birds, and the rays; saḥ pratihāraḥ, [together] that is the pratihāra; sarpaḥ gandharvāḥ pitaraḥ, serpents, gandharvas [celestial musicians], and the ancestors; tat nidhanam, [together] that is the nidhana; etat sāma sarvasmin protam, this Sāma rests in everything. Commentary:-According to the scriptures the Ṛg Veda comes from fire, the Yajur Veda comes from air, and the Sāma Veda comes from the sun. In the previous section the worship of the Sāma as fire, air, etc., was discussed. Now the worship of the Sāma as the three Vedas is taken up. Knowledge of the three Vedas may be regarded as the hiṃkāra, for you have to use the hiṃkāra before you start doing any worship. After the hiṃkāra comes the prastāva. Similarly, after the three Vedas come the three worlds, so they are said to be the prastāva. Fire, air, and the sun are like the udgītha, for among all things they are of a higher order. The stars, the birds, and the rays come and go, so they are like the pratihāra. The serpents, the gandharvas, and The word Sāma does not refer to any specific Sāma. It refers to anything bearing that name. The word is meant according to the context, just as oblations are offered according to the deities for whom they are meant.
Max Müller
1. The hiṅkâra is the threefold knowledge, the prastâva these three worlds, the udgîtha Agni (fire), Vâyu (air), and Âditya (sun), the pratihâra the stars, the birds, and the rays, the nidhana the serpents, Gandharvas, and fathers. That is the Sâman, as interwoven in everything.
sa ya evametatsāma sarvasminprotaṃ veda sarvagͫ ha
bhavati .. 2.21.2..
2. He who knows that this Sāma is in everything becomes one with everything [or, becomes the Lord of everything].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ evam etat sāma sarvasmin protam veda, he who knows that this Sāma resides in everything; sarvam ha bhavati, he becomes everything. Commentary:-This is an example of how far the benefit of the knowledge of the Sāma can extend:- If you know that the Sāma is everywhere and in everything, you become the supreme Lord of everything.
Max Müller
2. He who thus knows this Sâman, as interwoven in everything, he becomes everything.
3. Here is a verse in this connection:- There are five parts of Sāma, and each of these is divided into three parts. There is nothing higher than these [fifteen forms of Sāma].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tat eṣaḥ ślokaḥ, here is a verse on the subject; yāni pañcadhā, that [Sāma] which is divided into five parts [hiṃkāra, prastāva, udgītha, pratihāra, and nidhana]; trīṇi trīṇi, each again divided into three parts [such as hiṃkāra representing the three Vedas]; tebhyaḥ jyāyaḥ param anyat na asti, there is nothing higher than these. Commentary:-So long we have discussed the five forms of the Sāma:- hiṃkāra, prastāva, udgītha, pratihāra, and nidhana. In the present verse the Upaniṣad says that each of these five can be divided further into three:- hiṃkāra as the Ṛk, the Yajuḥ, and the Sāma; prastāva as the earth, the intermediate space (between the earth and heaven), and heaven; udgītha as fire, air, and the sun; pratihāra as the stars, the birds, and the rays; and nidhana as the snakes, the celestial musicians, and the ancestors. It is Sāma which is manifest in all of these fifteen
Max Müller
3. And thus it is said in the following verse:- There are the fivefold three (the three kinds of sacrificial knowledge, the three worlds &c. in their fivefold form, i. e. as identified with the hiṅkâra, the prastâva, &c.), and the other forms of the Sâman. Greater than these there is nothing else besides.'
4. He who knows Sāma knows everything, and gifts come to him from all quarters. His vow will be to constantly say to himself, ‘I am one with all’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yaḥ tat veda, he who knows that [Sāma]; saḥ veda sarvam, he knows all; sarvāḥ diśaḥ, all the quarters; balim, gifts; asmai, for him; haranti, bring; sarvam asmi, I am all; iti upāsīta, this is how he will meditate; tat vratam tat vratam, this is his vow, this is his vow. Iti ekaviṃśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the twenty-first section. Commentary:-Sāma is the inmost being of all, and he who knows it as such becomes like Sāma—that is, he becomes the inmost being of all, and he knows everything. People come from everywhere with gifts to show him their respect. ‘I am Sāma, the inmost being of all’—this is how Sāma is to be worshipped. One should constantly repeat this to oneself. In fact, it should be treated as a vow. Section Twenty-Two
Max Müller
4. He who knows this, knows everything. All regions offer him gifts. His rule is, 'Let him meditate (on the Sâman), knowing that he is. everything, yea, that he is everything [1].'
1. The vinardi voice for singing the Sāma is good for animals, and Agni, the god of fire, is its presiding deity. I bear this in mind and pray that I may have this voice. The god Prajāpati presides over the udgītha sung in the anirukta [unclear] voice. The one having Soma as its presiding deity is nirukta [clear]. That of Vāyu, the god of air, is soft and pleasant, and Indra’s is strong. That which has Bṛhaspati as its presiding deity is like the voice of the krauñca bird, and that of Varuṇa is like the sound of a broken metal pot. Cultivate all of these, but avoid the one of Varuṇa.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Vinardi, the voice called vinardi, which is deep, like that of a bull; sāmnaḥ, for [singing] the Sāma; vṛṇe iti, I pray for; paśavyam, good for animals; agneḥ, of the god of fire; udgītha aniruktaḥ, the udgītha sung in the anirukta voice, which is not very distinct; prajāpateḥ, of Prajāpati, the Lord of all; niruktaḥ, the voice called nirukta, which is clear; somasya, of the god Soma; mṛdu ślakṣṇam, the voice called ślakṣṇa that is soft and soothing; vāyoḥ, of the god Vāyu, air; ślakṣṇam balavat, the voice called ślakṣṇa that is soothing yet powerful; indrasya, of Indra; krauñcam, the voice called krauñca, which is like that of the krauñca bird; bṛhaspateḥ, of Bṛhaspati; apadhvāntam, the voice called apadhvānta, which sounds like a broken metal pot; varuṇasya, of the god Varuṇa; tān sarvān era upaseveta, practise on all of them; tu eva vāruṇam, except that of Varuṇa; varjayet, one should avoid. Commentary:-When you sing the udgītha, be careful that you sing it in the right voice. The voice is important because it determines the benefit you derive from your singing. For instance, there is a type of voice that sounds like that of a bull. Agni, fire, is the presiding deity of this voice. If you sing the udgītha in this type of voice, it means you are singing for the good of the animals and you are also praying that you may have that kind of voice. Similarly, there is a type of voice called anirukta, which has Prajāpati as its presiding deity. Prajāpati, the Lord of all beings, has no form of his own. Similarly, he does not have a distinct voice. This is why it is called anirukta, indistinct. The voice of Soma, the moon, is nirukta, clear; that of Indra is powerful; and that of Bṛhaspati sounds like a krauñca, a bird similar to a crane. Varuṇa’s voice is the worst. It is like the sound of a broken brass vessel. All these voices can be used except that of Varuṇa.
Max Müller
1. The udgîtha, of which a poet said, I choose the deep sounding note of the Sâman as good for cattle, belongs to Agni; the indefinite note belongs to Pragâpati, the definite note to Soma, the soft and smooth note to Vâyu, the smooth and strong note to Indra, the heron-like note to Brihaspati, the dull note to Varuna. Let a man cultivate all of these, avoiding, however, that of Varuna.
2. One should sing with the resolve:- ‘By singing I will get immortality for the gods and goddesses, food offerings for the ancestors, hope for humanity, food and water for the animals, heaven for those who perform sacrifices, and food for myself. All this I will get by singing.’ Thinking thus, one should sing without raising the voice too much [or, without being too excited].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Āgāyet, one should sing [with the resolve]; amṛtatvam devebhyaḥ āgāyāni iti, I will get immortality for the gods and goddesses by singing; svadhām, offerings; pitṛbhyaḥ, for the ancestors; āśām manuṣyebhyaḥ, hope for humanity; tṛṇodakam paśubhyaḥ, food and water for the animals; svargam lokam, heavenly worlds; yajamānāya, for those who perform sacrifices; annam ātmane, food for myself; āgāyāni iti, I shall win by singing thus; etāni, all these; manasā dhyāyan, thinking mentally; apramattaḥ, without raising the voice too much; stuvīta, one should sing. Commentary:-When you sing the Sāma, you should keep in mind the things you are singing for—such as immortality for the gods and goddesses, etc. But you must also take care that when you sing, your pronunciation and accents are correct, and that you do not miss any syllables.
Max Müller
2. Let a man sing [1], wishing to obtain by his song immortality for the Devas. 'May I obtain by my song oblations (svadhâ) for the fathers, hope for men, fodder and water for animals, heaven for the sacrificer, food for myself,' thus reflecting on these in his mind, let a man (Udgâtri priest) sing praises, without making mistakes in pronunciation, &c.
3. All the vowels are like Indra’s body with its various parts. The sibilants [śa, ṣa, etc.] are like Prajāpati’s body with its various parts. The consonants, starting with ka, are the body and limbs of Death. If someone finds fault with the way the udgātā pronounces the vowels, he may say to that person:- ‘As I began singing, I took refuge in Indra [i.e., I sought Indra’s blessings]. Ask him and he will give you the right answer [to your criticism].’
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Sarve svarāḥ, all the vowels; indrasya ātmānaḥ, are like the body [with its limbs] of Indra; sarve ūṣmāṇaḥ, all the sibilants; prajāpateḥ ātmānaḥ, are like the body [with its limbs] of Prajāpati; sarve sparśāḥ, all the consonants, starting with ka; mṛtyoḥ ātmānaḥ, are like the body [with all its limbs] of Death; yadi upālabheta, if anyone criticizes; tam, him [the udgātā, who is singing the Sāma]; svareṣu, regarding his pronunciation of the vowels; indram śaraṇam prapannaḥ abhūvam, [the udgātā will then say:-] I took refuge in Indra [when I started singing the vowels]; saḥ, he [Indra]; tvā prativakṣyati iti, will give you the right reply; enam brūyāt, say to him. Commentary:-The vowels are said to be Indra’s body, for when you start doing something, including even a recitation, you have to feel strong enough to do the job fully and correctly. And in order that you may feel that you have the requisite strength, you pray for Indra’s blessings, and you feel that he is transmitting his strength to you. You feel that the vowels you are using are his body, the sibilants are the body of Prajāpati, and the consonants are the body of Death. Then if anyone criticizes your pronunciation of the vowels, you can tell him to ask Indra for the reason
Max Müller
3. All vowels (svara) belong to Indra, all sibilants (ûshman) to Pragâpati, all consonants (sparsa) to Mrityu (death). If somebody should reprove him for his vowels, let him say, 'I went to Indra as my refuge (when pronouncing my vowels):- he will answer thee.'
prapanno'bhūvaṃ sa tvā prati dhakṣyatītyenaṃ brūyāt
.. 2.22.4..
4. Then, if someone finds fault with his pronunciation of the sibilants, the singer will say to him:- ‘When I started singing I sought Prajāpati’s blessings. He will therefore crush you.’ Then, if someone finds fault with his pronunciation of the consonants, the singer will say to him:- ‘I sought Death’s protection while singing. He will therefore burn you to ashes’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, then; yadi enam ūṣmasu upālabheta, if a person criticizes him for his pronunciation of the sibilants; prajāpatim śaraṇam prapanṇaḥ abhūvam, I took refuge in Prajāpati [when I started singing]; saḥ, he [Prajāpati]; tvā pratipekṣati iti, will crush you; enam brūyāt, he will say to him; atha, then; yadi enam sparśeṣu upālabheta, if someone criticizes him for his pronunciation of the consonants; mṛtyum śaraṇam prapannaḥ abhūvam, I took refuge in Death [when I started singing]; saḥ, he [Death]; tvā pratidhakṣyati iti, will burn you to ashes; enam brūyāt, he will say to him. Commentary:-If you are reciting a hymn, seek Prajāpati’s protection concerning the sibilants. Then, even if you err, he will protect you. Similarly, you should seek Death’s protection concerning the consonants. He will protect you from harm for any mistakes you might make. In fact, those who find fault with you will themselves be punished, for by criticizing your singing, they are insulting Prajāpati or Death.
Max Müller
4. And if somebody should reprove him for his sibilants, let him say, 'I went to Pragâpati as my refuge:- he will smash thee.' And if somebody should reprove him for his consonants, let him say, 'I went to Mrityu as my refuge:- he will reduce thee to ashes.'
5. Each vowel should be articulated clearly and powerfully, [and while doing so, you should think,] ‘I will give some of my strength to Indra.’ The sibilants also should be uttered fully and distinctly, without sounding as if you are swallowing part of them or spitting them out. [While uttering them, you should think,] ‘I surrender myself to Prajāpati.’ Then each of the consonants also should be uttered separately and clearly, [and while doing so, you should think,] ‘I will save myself from death’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Sarve svarāḥ, all the vowels; ghoṣavantaḥ balavantaḥ, clearly and powerfully; vaktavyāḥ, articulated; indre balam dadāni iti, [say to yourself] I have to give strength to Indra [as if you are stronger than Indra and can afford to give him some of your strength]; sarve ūṣmāṇaḥ, all the sibilants; agrastaḥ, clearly uttered [i.e., no part of the letter left within the mouth, as if you are swallowing it]; anirastāḥ, not uttering the letter as if you are throwing it out of your mouth; vivṛtāḥ vaktavyāḥ, clearly expressed; prajāpateḥ ātmānam paridadāni iti, I surrender myself to Prajāpati; sarve sparśāḥ leśena anabhinihitāḥ vaktavyāḥ, each of the consonants should be uttered separately and distinctly; mṛtyoḥ ātmānam pariharāṇi iti, [while thinking] I save myself from Death. Iti dvāviṃśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the twenty-second section. Commentary:-It is important that when we recite a hymn, we recite the vowels, consonants, and the sibilants clearly and loudly. Care has to be taken that no two letters get mixed up, or that any part of a letter remains inside the mouth or seems to be spat out. Here it is said that the vowels are to be pronounced powerfully and that you should pray to Indra while singing, offering him some of your strength. This suggests that you feel very strong, as if you are stronger than Indra. You should also try to surrender yourself to Prajāpati while singing. You will then attain immortality. Section Twenty-Three
Max Müller
5. All vowels are to be pronounced with voice (ghosha) and strength (bala), so that the Udgâtri may give strength to Indra. All sibilants are to be pronounced, neither as if swallowed (agrasta) [1], nor as if thrown out (nirasta) [2], but well opened [3] (vivrita), so that the Udgâtri may give himself to Pragâpati. All consonants are to be pronounced slowly, and without crowding them together [4], so that the Udgâtri may withdraw himself from Mrityu.
1. There are three divisions of religion:- The first comprises sacrifices, study, and charity; the second consists of austerities, such as fasting; and the third is the life of celibacy and living with the teacher in his house till death. People devoted to these three divisions of religion go to heaven after death. But one who is devoted to Brahman attains immortality.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Trayaḥ dharmaskandhaḥ, three divisions of religion; yajñaḥ adhyayanam dānam iti prathamaḥ, the first [division comprises] sacrifices, study, and charity; tapaḥ eva dvitīyaḥ, the second is austerities; tṛtīyaḥ, the third; brahmacārī ācāryakulavāsī atyantam ātmānam ācāryakule avasādayan, the life of celibacy and living with the teacher in his house till death; sarve ete, all these; puṇyalokāḥ bhavanti, attain heavenly worlds; brahmasaṃsthaḥ, [but] one devoted to Brahman; amṛtatvam eti, attains immortality. Commentary:-You may practise religion in three ways:- First, by performing sacrifices, studying the scriptures, and giving in charity; second, by performing austerities; and third, by observing celibacy and living with the teacher till death. All these are good, but they only lead to heaven. If you want immortality (that is, liberation), you have to devote yourself to realizing Brahman. There are certain words in our language that clearly distinguish one thing from another. For instance, barley is a particular type of grain. If you see the word ‘grain,’ it could mean wheat or rice or barley. But if you see the word ‘barley,’ you know exactly what is referred to. Similarly, the words brahmaniṣṭhā, or brahmasaṃstha, refer to a certain type of person whose only concern in life is to realize Brahman. This type of person may be of any age, any class, any caste, or any station of life. What distinguishes this type of person from any other is his or her total commitment to Brahman.
Max Müller
1. There are three branches of the law. Sacrifice, study, and charity are the first [1],
2. Prajāpati [i.e., Virāṭ] thought about the worlds [he would have]. Out of his thinking, the three Vedas took shape. He then began to think about the Vedas. As a result of this thinking, the Vedas gave birth to the three vyāhṛtis:- bhūḥ, bhuvaḥ, and svaḥ.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Prajāpatiḥ lokān abhyatapat, Prajāpati meditated on the worlds; tebhyaḥ abhitaptebhyaḥ, from [the worlds] which he meditated on; trayī vidyā samprāsravat, emerged the three Vedas; tām abhyatapat, [Prajāpati] meditated on them [the three Vedas]; tasyāḥ abhitaptāyāḥ, out of [the Vedas] which he meditated upon; etāni akṣarāṇi, these akṣaras [syllables]; samprāsravanta, emerged; bhūḥ bhuvaḥ svaḥ, bhūh, bhuvaḥ, and svaḥ; iti, that is all. Commentary:-How can you attain liberation? You can attain it when you surrender everything for its sake. To make this clear, the story of how the world came into being is narrated:- God (or Virāṭ, or Kaśyapa) created this world by practising austerities. What kind of austerities? He simply planned the creation in his mind. This planning, this mental exercise, is enough austerity for him. And as thinking is doing for him, whatever he thinks immediately comes into being. The worlds emerge from within him. The first to manifest, however, were the three Vedas:- Ṛk, Yajuḥ, and Sāma. When these emerged, the Creator thought about them, and from the Vedas came the three vyāhṛtis (lit., utterances):- bhūḥ, bhuvaḥ, and svaḥ. Then from these came Om, the symbol of Brahman. If we concentrate on Om, we attain Brahman. But we have to surrender everything for the sake of Brahman. This is the conclusion to be drawn from this story. Even the Creator has to concentrate on what he is going to create, and he has to surrender everything else.
Max Müller
2. Austerity the second, and to dwell as a Brahmakârin in the house of a tutor, always mortifying the body in the house of a tutor, is the third. All these obtain the worlds of the blessed; but the Brahmasamstha alone (he who is firmly grounded in Brahman) obtains immortality.
3. [Prajāpati then] meditated on those three vyāhṛtis [bhūḥ, bhuvaḥ, and svaḥ]. Out of the vyāhṛtis, which he thought about, emerged Oṃkāra. Just as a network of ribs is spread all over a leaf, similarly, Oṃkāra permeates every form of speech [or, everything]. All this is Oṃkāra. All this is Oṃkāra.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tāni abhyatapat, he thought about those [vyāhṛtis]; tebhyaḥ abhitaptebhyaḥ, out of those which he thought about; oṃkāra samprāsravat, the syllable Om emerged; tat yathā, just as; śaṅkunā, by the ribs [of a leaf]; sarvāṇi parṇāni saṃtṛṇṇāni, all parts of the leaf are held together; evam, similarly; oṃkāreṇa sarvā vāk saṃtṛṇṇā, Oṃkāra permeates every form of speech; oṃkāraḥ eva idam sarvam oṃkāraḥ eva idam sarvam, all this is Oṃkāra, all this is Oṃkāra [the repetition is for emphasis]. Iti trayoviṃśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the twenty-third section. Commentary:-Om is the essence of everything. Because Prajāpati meditated to create the three worlds, Om manifested itself. Om, in fact, is the support of everything. Section Twenty-Four
Max Müller
3. Pragâpati brooded on the worlds. From them, thus brooded on, the threefold knowledge (sacrifice) issued forth. He brooded on it, and from it, thus brooded on, issued the three syllables, Bhûh, Bhuvah, Svah.
1. Those who believe in Brahman say:- The morning savana is for the Vasus, the midday savana is for the Rudras, and the third, the evening savana, is for the Ādityas and the Viśvadevas [i.e., all the gods and goddesses].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Brahmavādinaḥ, those who believe in Brahman; vadanti, say; yat vasūnām prātaḥsavanam, the morning savana [i.e., the time when the soma juice is extracted from the soma creeper for the sacrifice] is meant for the eight Vasus; mādhyandinam savanam rudrāṇām, the noon savana is meant for the eleven Rudras; tṛtīya savanam, the third [i.e., the evening] savana; ādityānām ca viśveṣām devānām, is meant for the twelve Ādityas and the Viśvadevas. Commentary:-‘The morning savana belongs to the eight Vasus.’ This means that the Vasus control the earth. In the same way, since the midday savana belongs to the eleven Rudras, they control the interspace—the space between the earth and heaven. And as the evening savana belongs to the twelve Ādityas and the Viśvadevas, that means they control heaven. It follows then that there is no world left for the performer of the sacrifice.
Max Müller
1. The teachers of Brahman (Veda) declare, as the Prâtah-savana (morning-oblation) belongs to the Vasus, the Mâdhyandina-savana (noon-libation) to the Rudras, the third Savana (evening-libation) to the Âdityas and the Visve Devas,
kva tarhi yajamānasya loka iti sa yastaṃ na vidyātkathaṃ
kuryādatha vidvānkuryāt .. 2.24.2..
2. Where then is the place for the yajamāna [one who performs a sacrifice]? How can he who does not know that place perform a sacrifice? He who knows can perform a sacrifice.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Kva tarhi yajamānasya lokaḥ iti, where then is the place for one who performs a sacrifice; saḥ yaḥ, he who; tam, that [place for the yajamāna]; na vidyāt, does not know; katham, how [can he]; kuryāt, perform [a sacrifice]; atha vidvān kuryāt, one who knows can [of course] perform [a sacrifice]. Commentary:-When a person performs a sacrifice, he does so in order that he may attain a certain world for himself. But if the three worlds—bhūḥ, bhuvaḥ, and svaḥ—are already occupied by the Vasus and other gods, where is the place left for the sacrificer? In such a situation he would hardly have any inclination to perform a sacrifice, or even to sing attendant hymns such as the Sāma, or to. engage in rituals connected with a sacrifice. Ignorance on the part of a person is no bar to his performing a sacrifice. Rather, this verse is intended to praise knowledge. If a person knows how to recite the Sāma, that is a great help. It should be clearly understood, however, that though the Sāma or Oṃkāra is recited while a sacrifice is being performed, the
Max Müller
2. Where then is the world of the sacrificer? He who does not know this, how can he perform the sacrifice? He only who knows, should perform it [1].
3. Before starting the morning chant, the sacrificer sits behind the Gārhapatya fire facing north and sings the Sāma about the Vasus.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Prātaḥ anuvākasya upākaraṇāt purā, before beginning the morning chant; jaghanena, behind; gārhapatyasya, the Gārhapatya fire; udaṅmukhaḥ, facing north; upaviśya, sits; saḥ, he [the sacrificed; vāsavam, about the Vasus; sāma abhigāyati, sings the Sāma. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
3. Before the beginning of the Prâtaranuvâka, (matin-chant), the sacrificer, sitting down behind the household altar (gârhapatya), and looking towards the north, sings the Sâman, addressed to the Vasus:-
4. O Fire, please open the door for us—that is, make the path clear—so that we may see you for obtaining full control of the earth.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Lokadvāram apāvṛṇu, [O Fire,] please open the door of the world [i.e., make the path clear]; vayam Commentary:-The additional syllables in the verse have no special meaning. They merely serve to make the Sāma complete.
Max Müller
4. 'Open the door of the world (the earth), let us see thee, that we may rule (on earth).'
5. Then the sacrificer begins the offerings [with this mantra]:- ‘O Agni, you are in this world. I salute you. Please acquire the right world for me, who am performing a sacrifice. I am ready to go to a world appropriate for one who performs sacrifices’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha juhoti, now the sacrificer begins the offerings; pṛthivīkṣite, living on the earth; lokakṣite, living in the loka [world]; agnaye namaḥ, salutations to fire; yajamānāya me, for me, the sacrificer; lokam vinda, acquire the right world; eṣaḥ vai yajamānasya lokaḥ etā asmi, I am going to this world fit for a sacrificer. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
5. Then he sacrifices, saying:- 'Adoration to Agni, who dwells on the earth, who dwells in the world! Obtain that world for me, the sacrificer! That is the world for the sacrificer!'
6. ‘I, the yajamāna, have run the full course of my life in this world.’ With these words, he will say, ‘Svāhā,’ [and offer his oblation]. Then he will rise, saying, ‘Please unbolt the door to the world for which I am destined.’ The Vasus then give him the ownership of the earth, which is the result of the savana performed in the morning.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atra, here [in this world]; yajamānaḥ parastāt āyuṣaḥ, I, the sacrificer, have lived the full course of life; svāhā, [with these words, he will say] svāhā; parigham, the bolt [of the gateway to the world]; apajahi, remove; iti uktvā, saying this; uttiṣṭhati, he rises; vasavaḥ, the Vasus [to whom the morning savana is offered]; tasmai, to him [the sacrificer]; prātaḥsavanam samprayacchanti, give away the morning savana [i.e., give away this earth]. Commentary:-The yajamāna (the sacrificer) keeps performing his sacrifices till he feels that it is time for him to die. He then offers his last oblation, saying, ‘Svāhā.’ Getting up, he says he is going to the world for which he is destined and demands that the door to that world be unbolted. The Vasus own the earth by virtue of the morning savana (that is, extracting the soma juice and having a morning wash with it). They are pleased with the yajamāna for his performance of the rituals, so they surrender the ownership of the earth to him.
Max Müller
6. 'I (the sacrificer) shall go thither, when this life is over. Take this! (he says, in offering the libation.) Cast back the bolt!' Having said this, he rises. For him the Vasus fulfil the morning-oblation.
7. Before starting the midday savana, the yajamāna sits behind the Dakṣiṇāgni fire, facing north. He then sings the Sāma addressed to the Rudras.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ, he [the yajamāna]; upākaraṇāt purā, before beginning; mādhyandinasya savanasya, the midday savana; āgnīdhrīyasya jaghanena, behind the Dakṣiṇāgni fire; udaṅmukhaḥ, facing north; upaviśya, sitting; raudram sāma abhigāyati, sings the Sāma to the Rudras. Commentary:-Earlier, the way the yajamāna conquers the earth was shown. Now how the mid-region can be won is described. After sitting behind the Dakṣiṇāgni fire, facing north, he starts singing the Sāma addressed to the Rudras. He continues doing this with the idea of attaining union with Virāṭ.
Max Müller
7. Before the beginning of the Mâdhyandina-savana, the noon-oblation, the sacrificer, sitting down behind the Âgnidhrîya altar, and looking towards the north, sings the Sâman, addressed to the Rudras:-
8. O Fire, please open the door for us—that is, make the path clear—so that we may see you for obtaining full control of the world of Virāṭ.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Lokadvāram apāvṛṇu, [O Fire,] please open the door of the world [i.e., make the path clear]; vayam vairājyāya, so we may gain control of the world of Virāṭ; tvā paśyema, [and for that purpose] may see you. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
8. 'Open the door of the world (the sky), let us see thee, that we may rule wide (in the sky).'
9. Then the sacrificer begins the offerings [with this mantra]:- ‘O Vāyu, you are in the mid-region. I salute you. Please acquire the right world for me, who am performing a sacrifice. I am ready to go to a world appropriate for one who performs sacrifices’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha juhoti, now the sacrificer begins the offerings; antarikṣakṣite, living in the mid-region; lokakṣite, living in the loka [world]; vāyave namaḥ, salutations to Vāyu [air]; yajamānāya me, for me, the sacrificer; lokam vinda, acquire the right world; eṣaḥ vai Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
9. Then he sacrifices, saying:- 'Adoration to Vâyu (air), who dwells in the sky, who dwells in the world. Obtain that world for me, the sacrificer! That is the world for the sacrificer!'
10. ‘I, the yajamāna, have run the full course of my life in this world.’ With these words, he will say, ‘Svāhā,’ [and offer his oblation]. Then he will rise, saying, ‘Please unbolt the door to the world for which I am destined.’ The Rudras then give him the ownership of the mid-region, which is the result of the savana performed at midday.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atra, here [in this world]; yajamānaḥ parastāt āyuṣaḥ, I, the sacrificer, have lived the full course of life; svāhā, [with these words, he will say] svāhā; parigham, the bolt [of the gateway to the world]; apajahi, remove; iti uktvā, saying this; uttiṣṭhati, he rises; rudrāḥ, the Rudras [to whom the midday savana is offered]; tasmai, to him [the sacrificer]; mādhyandinam savanam samprayacchanti, give away the midday savana [i.e., give away the mid-region]. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
10. 'I (the sacrificer) shall go thither, when this life is over. Take this! Cast back the bolt!' Having said this, he rises. For him the Rudras fulfil the noon-oblation.
11. Before starting the third [i.e., the evening] savana, the yajamāna sits behind the Āhavanīya fire, facing the north. He then sings the Sāma addressed to the Ādityas and the Viśvadevas.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ, he [the yajamāna]; upākaraṇāt purā, before beginning; tṛtīyasavanasya, the third savana; āhavanīyasya jaghanena, behind the Āhavanīya fire; udaṅmukhaḥ, facing north; upaviśya, sitting; saḥ ādityam vaiśvadevam sāma abhigāyati, he sings the Sāma to the Ādityas and the Viśvadevas. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
11. Before the beginning of the third oblation, the sacrificer, sitting down behind the Âhavanîya altar, and looking towards the north, sings the Sâman, addressed to the Âdityas and Visve Devas:-
12. [Addressing the Ādityas:-] ‘O Fire, please open the door to the world [i.e., heaven] for us so that we may see you for attaining sovereignty’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Lokadvāram apāvṛṇu, [O Fire,] please open the door of the world [of heaven]; vayam svārājyāya, so we may attain sovereignty; tvā paśyema, [and for that purpose] may see you. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
12. 'Open the door of the world (the heaven), let us see thee, that we may rule supreme (in heaven).' This is addressed to the Âdityas.
13. The earlier verse was addressed to the Ādityas. Now, addressing the Viśvadevas, [the yajamāna says,] ‘O Fire, please open the door to the world [i.e., heaven] for us so that we may see you for attaining sovereignty’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Ādityam, that was addressed to the Ādityas; atha, next; vaiśvadevam, to the Viśvadevas; lokadvāram apāvṛṇu, [O Fire,] please open the door of the world [of heaven]; vayam sāmrājyāya, so we may attain sovereignty; tvā paśyema, [and for that purpose] may see you. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
13. Next the Sâman addressed to the Visve Devas:- 'Open the door of the world (heaven), let us see thee, that we may rule supreme (in heaven).'
atha juhoti nama ādityebhyaśca viśvebhyaśca devebhyo
divikṣidbhyo lokakṣidbhyo lokaṃ me yajamānāya
vindata .. 2.24.14..
14. Then the sacrificer begins the offerings [with this mantra]:- ‘Salutations to those who are in heaven and other worlds, to the Ādityas and the Viśvadevas. May I acquire the yajamāna’s world’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha juhoti, then the sacrificer begins the offerings; namaḥ ādityebhyaḥ ca viśvebhyaḥ ca devebhyaḥ, salutations to the Ādityas and the Viśvadevas; divikṣidbhyaḥ, to those living in heaven; lokakṣidbhyaḥ, to those living in the worlds; lokam me yajamānāya vindata, help me, the yajamāna, acquire the right world. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
14. Then he sacrifices, saying:- 'Adoration to the Âdityas and to the Visve Devas, who dwell in heaven, who dwell in the world. Obtain that world for me, the sacrificer!'
15. ‘I am ready to go to a world appropriate for one who performs sacrifices. I will live in this world after my death.’ Saying ‘Svāhā,’ he completes the sacrifice. Then he rises, praying, ‘May the bolt be removed’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Eṣaḥ vai yajamānasya loke etā asmi, I am ready to go to a world appropriate for one who performs sacrifices; atra yajamānaḥ parastāt āyuṣaḥ, I, the yajamāna, will live here after my death; svāhā, [saying] Svāhā [he completes the sacrifice]; uttiṣṭhati, he rises; iti uktvā, saying this; apahata parigham, may the bolt be removed. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
15. 'That is the world for the sacrificer! I (the sacrificer) shall go thither, when this life is over. Take this! Cast back the bolt!' Having said this, he rises.
सम्प्रयच्छन्त्येष ह वै यज्ञस्य मात्रां वेद य एवं वेद
य एवं वेद ॥ २.२४.१६॥
tasmā ādityāśca viśve ca devāstṛtīyasavanagͫ
samprayacchantyeṣa ha vai yajñasya mātrāṃ veda ya evaṃ veda
ya evaṃ veda .. 2.24.16..
16. The Ādityas and the Viśvadevas then present to him, the sacrifices, the result of the third savana. He who knows this knows the true purport of the sacrifice.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tasmai, to him; ādityāḥ ca viśve devāḥ ca, the Ādityas and the Viśvadevas; tṛtīya savanam sampra- yacchanti, present the result of the third savana; yaḥ evam veda, he who knows this; eṣaḥ ha vai yajñasya mātrām veda, he knows the true purport of the sacrifice. Iti caturviṃśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the twenty-fourth section. Iti chāndogyopaniṣadi dvitīyaḥ adhyāyaḥ, here ends the second chapter of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad. Commentary:-
Max Müller
16. For him the Âdityas and the Visve Devas fulfil the third oblation. He who knows this, knows the full measure of the sacrifice, yea, he knows it.
1. The sun over there is honey to the gods. Heaven is the crossbeam, the mid-region is the beehive, and the rays are the eggs.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Asau vai ādityaḥ devamadhu, the sun over there is the honey of the gods; tasya dyauḥ eva tiraścinavaṃśaḥ, heaven is its crossbeam [that supports it]; antarikṣam apūpaḥ, the mid-region is the beehive; marīcayaḥ putrāḥ, the rays are the eggs. Commentary:-This section begins the praise of the sun. The sun represents the sum total of the good work done by human beings. This is why the sun is like honey to the gods and why they love it. Heaven is said to be the crossbeam. It supports the mid-region, which is the beehive. The sun-rays attract water from the earth, and the water-drops in these rays are like the eggs of the bees.
Max Müller
1. The sun is indeed the honey [1] of the Devas. The heaven is the cross-beam (from which) the sky (hangs as) a hive, and the bright vapours are the eggs of the bees [2].
तस्य ये प्राञ्चो रश्मयस्ता एवास्य प्राच्यो मधुनाड्यः ।
ऋच एव मधुकृत ऋग्वेद एव पुष्पं ता अमृता
आपस्ता वा एता ऋचः ॥ ३.१.२॥
tasya ye prāñco raśmayastā evāsya prācyo madhunāḍyaḥ .
ṛca eva madhukṛta ṛgveda eva puṣpaṃ tā amṛtā
āpastā vā etā ṛcaḥ .. 3.1.2..
2. The rays of the sun in the east are the eastern honey-cells [of the beehive]. The Ṛk mantras are the bees, and the Ṛg Veda is the flower. The water [from the sacrifice, such as the soma juice and other things] is the nectar [of the flower]. These Ṛk mantras—
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tasya, of that [sun]; ye, those which are; prāñcaḥ raśmayaḥ, the rays in the east; tāḥ eva, they all; asya prācyaḥ madhunāḍyaḥ, are its eastern honey-cells; ṛcaḥ eva madhukṛtaḥ, the Ṛk mantras are the bees; ṛgvedaḥ eva puṣpam, the Ṛg Veda is the flower; tāḥ āpaḥ amṛtāḥ, the water [of the soma and other things offered as oblations] is the nectar; tāḥ vai etāḥ ṛcaḥ, these Ṛks— Commentary:-The first rays of the sun seen in the east are like the honey cells of a beehive. In these cells are the bees, which are compared to the Ṛk mantras. The sun in the morning is red, like honey. The Ṛk mantras are called bees because bees produce honey, and the Ṛg Veda is called the flower because that is where the bees get the nectar to make the honey. Here, the term Ṛg Veda does not mean words. It means work—that is, the rituals prescribed in the Veda. It is the result of the rituals that is described as honey. Just as the bees collect the juice from the flowers and change it into honey, so the Ṛks seem to collect from the sacrificial fire the liquid, consisting of the soma juice, butter, etc., from the oblations. This is called nectar because after the ingredients have been in the fire, they are transformed into the sweetest and purest thing possible. The result of the sacrificial ritual is the nectar (amṛta), because it leads to immortality. The word amṛta means both ‘nectar’ and ‘immortality.’
Max Müller
2. The eastern rays of the sun are the honey-cells in front. The Rik verses are the bees, the Rig-veda (sacrifice) is the flower, the water (of the sacrificial libations) is the nectar (of the flower).
3.—stimulated this Ṛg Veda. Out of that Ṛg Veda so stimulated came fame, vitality, the power of the organs, energy, and the essence of food.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Etam ṛgvedam, this Ṛg Veda; abhyatapan, stimulated; tasya abhitaptasya, from that [Ṛg Veda] so stimulated; yaśaḥ, fame; tejaḥ, vitality; indriyam, the power of the organs; vīryam, energy; annādyam rasaḥ, the essence of food; ajāyata, grew. Commentary:-Earlier the Ṛk mantras were described as the bees and the Ṛg Veda as the flower, and so on. What then is produced from all this? Fame in the worlds, the beauty that comes from strength, the power of the organs, the strength and vigour which give the gods and goddesses supremacy, and so on. The essence of all this comes from the sacrifices performed according to the Ṛg Veda.
Max Müller
3. Those very Rik verses then (as bees) brooded over the Rig-veda sacrifice (the flower); and from it, thus brooded on, sprang as its (nectar) essence, fame, glory of countenance, vigour, strength, and health [1].
4. All this [fame, etc.] spread out to the sun and took shelter there. It is this that accounts for the red look of the sun.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tat, that [fame, etc.]; vyakṣarat, spread out; tat, it; ādityam abhitaḥ, towards [in] the sun; aśrayat, took shelter; tat vai etat, it is this; yat etat, which is that; rohitam rūpam, red look; ādityasya, of the sun. Iti prathamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the first section. Commentary:-The idea here is to praise good work done according to the scriptures. Such work gives people name and fame, strength, vigour, good health, and so on. And with these qualities a person can attain supremacy in the world. These qualities all collect around the sun in the morning, and this is why the sun looks red at that time. Name and fame, strength, etc., are there waiting for those who do virtuous work. This verse is to encourage people to do such work.
Max Müller
4. That (essence) flowed forth and went towards the sun [1]. And that forms what we call the red (rohita) light of the rising sun.
madhunāḍyo yajūgͫṣyeva madhukṛto yajurveda eva puṣpaṃ
tā amṛta āpaḥ .. 3.2.1..
1. Then the rays of the sun in the south are the southern honey-cells [of the beehive]. The Yajuh mantras are the bees, and the Yajur Veda is the flower. The water [from the sacrifice, such as the soma juice and other things] is nectar [of the flower].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, then; ye, that which; asya, of it [the sun]; dakṣiṇāḥ raśmayaḥ, the rays in the south; tāḥ eva, they all; asya dakṣiṇāḥ madhunādyaḥ, are its southern honey-cells; yajūṃṣi eva madhukṛtaḥ, the Yajuḥ mantras are the bees; yajurvedaḥ eva puṣpam, the Yajur Veda is the flower; tāḥ āpaḥ amṛtāḥ, the water [of the soma and other things offered as oblations] is the nectar. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
1. The southern rays of the sun are the honey-cells on the right. The Yagus verses are the bees, the Yagur-veda sacrifice is the flower, the water (of the sacrificial libations) is the nectar (of the flower).
2. Those Yajuḥ mantras stimulated the Yajur Veda. Out of that Yajur Veda so stimulated came fame, vitality, the power of the organs, energy, and the essence of food.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tāni vai etāni, all these; yajūṃṣi, Yajuḥ mantras; etam yajurvedam, this Yajur Veda; abhyatapan, stimulated; tasya abhitaptasya, from that [Yajur Veda] so stimulated; yaśaḥ, fame; tejaḥ, vitality; indriyam, the power of the organs; vīryam, energy; annādyam rasaḥ, the essence of food; ajāyata, grew. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
2. Those very Yagus verses (as bees) brooded over the Yagur-veda sacrifice (the flower); and from it, thus brooded on, sprang as its (nectar) essence, fame, glory of countenance, vigour, strength, and health.
3. All this [fame, etc.] spread out to the sun and took shelter there. It is this that accounts for the white look of the sun.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tat, that [fame, etc.]; vyakṣarat, spread out; tat, it; ādityam abhitaḥ, towards [in] the sun; aśrayat, took shelter; tat vai etat, it is this; yat etat, which is that; śuklam rūpam, white look; ādityasya, of the sun. Iti dvitīyaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the second section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
3. That flowed forth and went towards the sun. And that forms what we call the white (sukla) light of the sun.
madhunāḍyaḥ sāmānyeva madhukṛtaḥ sāmaveda eva puṣpaṃ
tā amṛtā āpaḥ .. 3.3.1..
1. Then the rays of the sun in the west are the western honey-cells [of the beehive]. The Sāma mantras are the bees, and the Sāma Veda is the flower. The water [from the sacrifice, such as the soma juice and other things] is the nectar [of the flower].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, then; ye, that which; asya, of it [the sun]; pratyañcaḥ raśmayaḥ, the rays in the west; tāḥ eva, they all; asya pratīcyaḥ madhunāḍyaḥ, are its western honey-cells; sāmāni eva madhukṛtaḥ, the Sāma mantras are the bees; sāmavedaḥ eva puṣpam, the Sāma Veda Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
1. The western rays of the sun are the honey-cells behind. The Sâman verses are the bees, the Sâma-veda sacrifice is the flower, the water is the nectar.
2. Those Sāma mantras stimulated the Sāma Veda. Out of that Sāma Veda so stimulated came fame, vitality, the power of the organs, energy, and the essence of food.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tāni vai etāni, these very; sāmāni, Sāma mantras; etam sāmavedam, this Sāma Veda; abhyatapan, stimulated; tasya abhitaptasya, from that [Sāma Veda] so stimulated; yaśaḥ, fame; tejaḥ, vitality; indriyam, the power of the organs; vīryam, energy; annādyam rasaḥ, the essence of food; ajāyata, grew. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
2. Those very Sâman verses (as bees) brooded over the Sâma-veda sacrifice; and from it, thus brooded on, sprang as its (nectar) essence, fame, glory of countenance, vigour, strength, and health.
3. All this [fame, etc.] spread out to the sun and took shelter there. It is this that gives rise to the black spots in the sun.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tat, that [fame, etc.]; vyakṣarat, spread out; tat, it; ādityam abhitaḥ, towards [in] the sun; aśrayat, took shelter; tat vai etat, it is this; yat etat, which is that; kṛṣṇam rūpam, black look; ādityasya, of the sun. Iti tṛtīyaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the third section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
3. That flowed forth and went towards the sun. And that forms what we call the dark (krishna) light of the sun.
1. Then the northern rays of the sun are the northern honey-cells [of the beehive]. The mantras envisioned by the sages Atharvā and Aṅgirā are the bees, and the Itihāsas and Purāṇas [i.e., history and legends] are the flower. The water [from the sacrifice, such as the soma juice and other things] is the nectar [of the flower].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, then; ye, that which; asya, of it [the sun]; udañcaḥ raśmayaḥ, the rays in the north; tāḥ eva, they all; asya udīcyaḥ madhunāḍyaḥ, are its northern honey-cells; atharvāṅgirasaḥ eva madhukṛtaḥ, the mantras envisioned by Atharvā and Aṅgirā are the bees; itihāsapurāṇam eva puṣpam, history and legends are the flower; tāḥ āpaḥ amṛtāḥ, the water [of the soma and other things offered as oblations] is the nectar. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
1. The northern rays of the sun are the honey-cells on the left. The (hymns of the) Atharvâṅgiras are the bees, the Itihâsa-purâna [1] (the reading of the old stories) is the flower, the water is the nectar.
te vā ete'tharvāṅgirasa etaditihāsapūrāṇamabhyatapagͫ
stasyābhitaptasya yaśasteja indriyāṃ
vīryamannādyagͫraso'jāyata .. 3.4.2..
2. Those Atharvā-Aṅgirasā mantras stimulated the Itihāsas and Purāṇas [i.e., the history and the legends]. Out of that so stimulated emerged fame, vitality, the power of the organs, energy, and the essence of food.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Te vai ete, these very; atharvāṅgirasaḥ, mantras of Atharvā and Aṅgirā; etat itihāsapurāṇam, the Itihāsas and Purāṇas; abhyatapan, stimulated; tasya abhitap- tasya, from that so stimulated; yaśaḥ, fame; tejaḥ, vitality; indriyam, the power of the organs; vīryam, energy; annādyam rasaḥ, the essence of food; ajāyata, grew. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
2. Those very hymns of the Atharvâṅgiras (as bees) brooded over the Itihâsa-purâna; and from it, thus brooded on, sprang as its (nectar) essence, fame, glory of countenance, vigour, strength, and health.
3. All this [fame, etc,] spread out to the sun and took shelter there. It is this that gives rise to the deep black spots in the sun.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tat, that [fame, etc.]; vyakṣarat, spread out; tat, it; ādityam abhitaḥ, towards [in] the sun; aśrayat, took shelter; tat vai etat, it is this; yat etat, which is that; param kṛṣṇam rūpam, deep black look; ādityasya, of the sun. Iti caturthaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the fourth section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
3. That flowed forth, and went towards the sun. And that forms what we call the extreme dark (parah krishnam) light of the sun.
1. Next, the rays of the sun which are in the higher region are also its honey-cells in the higher region. The secret instructions are the bees, and Brahman [praṇava] is the flower. The water [from the sacrifice] is the nectar.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; asya ye urdhvāḥ raśmayaḥ, those rays [of the sun] which are in the higher region; tāḥ eva asya urdhvāḥ madhunāḍyaḥ, they are its honeycomb in the higher region; guhyāḥ ādeśāḥ eva madhukṛtaḥ, all secret directions are the bees; brahma eva puṣpam, Brahman [i.e., praṇava, Om] is the flower; tāḥ āpaḥ amṛtāḥ, the water [used in this connection] is the nectar. Commentary:-The mantras used in the sacrifices are both secret and mystical. So also are the directions for a successful performance of a sacrifice. The mantras and the directions together constitute the bees in the illustration given here. The word brahman is used here in the sense of ‘word,’ so it means here praṇava, or Om. It is the flower.
Max Müller
1. The upward rays of the sun are the honey cells above. The secret doctrines are the bees, Brahman (the Om) is the flower, the water is the nectar.
2. These very secret directions stimulated Brahman [in the form of praṇava]. Out of that so stimulated emerged fame, vitality, the power of the organs, energy, and the essence of food.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Te vai ete, these very; guhyāḥ ādeśāḥ, secret directions; etat brahma, this Brahman [as praṇava]; abhyatapan, stimulated; tasya abhitaptasya, from that so stimulated; yaśaḥ, fame; tejaḥ, vitality; indriyam, the power of the organs; vīryam, energy; annādyam rasaḥ, the essence of food; ajāyata, grew. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
2. Those secret doctrines (as bees) brooded over Brahman (the Om); and from it, thus brooded on, sprang as its (nectar) essence, fame, glory of countenance, brightness, vigour, strength, and health.
3. All this [fame, etc.] spread out to the sun and took shelter there. It is this that seems to be vibrating within the sun.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tat, that [fame, etc.]; vyakṣarat, spread out; tat, it; ādityam abhitaḥ, towards [in] the sun; aśrayat, took shelter; tat vai etat, it is this; yat etat, which is that; kṣobhate iva, seems to be vibrating; ādityasya madhye, within the sun. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
3. That flowed forth, and went towards the sun. And that forms what seems to stir in the centre of the sun.
4. These colours [red, etc.] are the essence of all essences. The Vedas are the essence, and the colours are the essence of the Vedas. These colours are the nectar of the nectar [the Vedas]. The Vedas are the nectar [and therefore eternal], but the colours are the nectar of the Vedas.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Te ete, these [the red and other colours]; vai rasānām rasāḥ, are the essence of the essences; vedāḥ hi rasāḥ, since the Vedas are the essence; teṣām ete rasāḥ, these [colours] are the essence of them [the Vedas]; tāni etāni vai amṛtānām amṛtāni, these [colours] are the nectar of the nectar [the Vedas]; hi vedāḥ amṛtāḥ, as the Vedas are the nectar [or, eternal]; etāni, these [colours]; teṣām amṛtāni, are the nectar of them [the Vedas]. Iti pañcamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the fifth section. Commentary:-Honey has been shown to be in different directions. This is just to stimulate our interest in seeking the essence of everything. The essence of everything is the Vedas, because through the Vedas we attain immortality. The term Vedas here means the Vedic ceremonies. Through these ceremonies we attain only relative immortality—that is, a long life, but a life that must end sooner or later. The expression ‘essence of the essences’ means that results which follow from the ceremonies are better than the ceremonies themselves. They are better, but they are short-lived. The implication is that we must not stop there.
Max Müller
4. These (the different colours in the sun) are the essences of the essences. For the Vedas are essences (the best things in the world); and of them (after they have assumed the form of sacrifice) these (the colours rising to the sun) are again the essences. They are the nectar of the nectar. For the Vedas are nectar (immortal), and of them these are the nectar.
तद्यत्प्रथमममृतं तद्वसव उपजीवन्त्यग्निना मुखेन न वै
देवा अश्नन्ति न पिबन्त्येतदेवामृतं दृष्ट्वा
तृप्यन्ति ॥ ३.६.१॥
.. iti pañcamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ ..
tadyatprathamamamṛtaṃ tadvasava upajīvantyagninā mukhena na vai
devā aśnanti na pibantyetadevāmṛtaṃ dṛṣṭvā
tṛpyanti .. 3.6.1..
1. Led by fire, the Vasus enjoy the first nectar [which is the red colour]. As a matter of fact, the gods and goddesses neither eat nor drink. They are pleased merely by seeing the nectar.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tat yat, that which; prathamam amṛtam, the first nectar [i.e., the red colour of the sun]; tat, that; vasavaḥ, the Vasus; upajīvanti, enjoy; agninā mukhena, led by fire; vai, as a matter of fact; devāḥ, the gods and goddesses; na aśnanti na pibanti, neither eat nor drink; etat amṛtam, this nectar; eva dṛṣṭvā tṛpyanti, they are pleased by only seeing. Commentary:-Earlier it was described what the nectar is and how it may be meditated upon. The gods and goddesses enjoy this nectar. How these gods and goddesses may be meditated upon is now being stated. Early in the morning the sun is red, and this red colour is the first nectar, which is enjoyed by the Vasus led by fire. They enjoy it by seeing, not by eating and drinking. They, in fact, enjoy it by using all their organs. The body is a source of bad odour and bad secretions, but because the gods are all under the protection of the sun, they are therefore exempt from them.
Max Müller
1. On the first of these nectars (the red light, which represents fame, glory of countenance, vigour, strength, health) the Vasus live, with Agni at their head. True, the Devas do not eat or drink, but they enjoy by seeing the nectar.
त एतदेव रूपमभिसंविशन्त्येतस्माद्रूपादुद्यन्ति ॥ ३.६.२॥
ta etadeva rūpamabhisaṃviśantyetasmādrūpādudyanti .. 3.6.2..
2. They enter into this [red] colour [of the sun], and they also come out of this colour, [i.e., They look at this red colour and are satisfied. They make no effort to get it. Nevertheless, they are at times attracted to it and try to reach it].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Te, they [the gods and goddesses]; etat eva rūpam, this [red] colour; abhisaṃviśanti, enter into [i.e., they keep looking at it and make no further attempt to enjoy it]; etasmāt rūpāt, from this colour [i.e., attracted by this colour]; udyanti, they come out [i.e., they try to reach it]. Commentary:-The gods and goddesses look at the red colour and keep quiet. Why do they keep quiet? Why do they not try to reach it? Because they feel that the time is not yet ripe for them to get it. When they feel it is the right time, then they start trying. They are fully aware that they must try, and try hard, to attain the things they desire.
Max Müller
2. They enter into that (red) colour, and they rise from that colour [1].
sa ya etadevamamṛtaṃ veda vasūnāmevaiko bhūtvāgninaiva
mukhenaitadevāmṛtaṃ dṛṣṭvā tṛpyati sa ya etadeva
rūpamabhisaṃviśatyetasmādrūpādudeti .. 3.6.3..
3. He who knows this nectar thus, becomes one of the Vasus [because only the Vasus know the meaning of this nectar]. Led by fire, he then enjoys looking at the nectar and is happy. He goes into this colour and again comes out of it.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ, he who; evam, thus; etat amṛtam veda, knows this nectar; vasūnām eva ekaḥ bhūtvā, having become one of the Vasus; agninā eva mukhena, led by fire; etat eva amṛtam dṛṣṭvā tṛpyati, enjoys by seeing the nectar; saḥ etat eva rūpam abhisaṃviśati, he enters into this [red] colour; etasmāt rūpāt udeti, he also comes out of this colour. Commentary:-Anyone can perform the ceremonies mentioned in the Ṛg Veda and thus attain the results mentioned earlier. These ceremonies are like flowers, and by reciting the Ṛk mantras, you can collect the honey in the form of fame, strength, etc. Not only that, when you attain these things, you are also able to preserve them by the grace of the sun. Further, the beauty and grandeur of the sun in the early morning is like a special gift meant just for you. You are then one of the gods known as the Vasus. You can enjoy this state at will, and if you wish, can enjoy whatever the sun has to give. If you do not want to enjoy anything, you can merely look at it and that is enough enjoyment for you.
Max Müller
3. He who thus knows this nectar, becomes one of the Vasus, with Agni at their head, he sees the nectar and rejoices. And he, too, having entered that colour, rises again from that colour.
4. As long as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, so long will that person enjoy the sovereignty and freedom of the Vasus.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yāvat, so long as; ādityaḥ, the sun; purastāt udetā, rises in the east; paścāt astam-etā, sets in the west; eva tāvat, that long; saḥ, he; vasūnām, of the Vasus; ādhipatyam, sovereignty; svārājyam, freedom; pari-etā, will enjoy. Iti ṣaṣṭhaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the sixth section. Commentary:-There is a difference between those who merely perform sacrifices and those who perform sacrifices but are, at the same time, deeply concerned with their spiritual development. The former may attain heaven, but only for a short while. The latter attain a status like the Vasus and become sovereigns. They attain liberation as and when they like.
Max Müller
4. So long as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west [1], so long does he follow the sovereign supremacy of the Vasus.
mukhena na vai devā aśnanti na pibantyetadevāmṛtaṃ
dṛṣṭvā tṛpyanti .. 3.7.1..
1. With Indra as their leader, the Rudras enjoy the second nectar [which is the white colour of the sun]. As a matter of fact, the gods and goddesses neither eat nor drink. They are pleased merely by seeing the nectar.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; yat, that which; dvitīyam amṛtam, the second nectar [i.e., the white colour of the sun]; tat, that; rudrāḥ, the Rudras; upajīvanti, enjoy; indreṇa mukhena, led by Indra; vai, as a matter of fact; devāḥ, the gods and goddesses; na aśnanti na pibanti, neither eat nor drink; etat amṛtam, this nectar; eva dṛṣṭvā tṛpyanti, they are pleased by only seeing. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
1. On the second of these nectars the Rudras live, with Indra at their head. True, the Devas do not eat or drink, but they enjoy by seeing the nectar.
त एतदेव रूपमभिसंविशन्त्येतस्माद्रूपादुद्यन्ति ॥ ३.७.२॥
ta etadeva rūpamabhisaṃviśantyetasmādrūpādudyanti .. 3.7.2..
2. They enter into this [white] colour of the sun, and they also come out of this colour.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Te, they [the Rudras]; etat eva rūpam, this [white] colour; abhisaṃviśanti, enter into [i.e., they keep looking at it and make no further attempt to enjoy it]; etasmāt rūpāt, from this colour [i.e., attracted by this colour]; udyanti, they come out [i.e., they try to reach it]. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
2. They enter into that white colour, and they rise from that colour.
sa ya etadevamamṛtaṃ veda rudrāṇāmevaiko bhūtvendreṇaiva
mukhenaitadevāmṛtaṃ dṛṣṭvā tṛpyati sa etadeva
rūpamabhisaṃviśatyetasmādrūpādudeti .. 3.7.3..
3. He who knows this nectar thus, becomes a Rudra himself. With Indra as the leader, he looks at the nectar and is happy. He goes into this colour and again comes out of it.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ, he who; evam, thus; etat amṛtam veda, knows this nectar; rudrāṇām eva ekaḥ bhūtvā, becomes one of the Rudras; indreṇa eva mukhena, led by Indra; etat eva amṛtam dṛṣṭvā tṛpyati, enjoys by seeing the nectar; saḥ etat eva rūpam abhisaṃviśati, he enters into this [white] colour; etasmāt rūpāt udeti, he also comes out of this colour. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
3. He who thus knows this nectar, becomes one of the Rudras, with Indra at their head, he sees the nectar and rejoices. And he, having entered that colour, rises again from that colour.
4. As long as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, twice that long will he [who knows this] rise in the south and set in the north. That person will also attain sovereignty and freedom like the Rudras.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yāvat, so long as; ādityaḥ, the sun; purastāt udetā, rises in the east; paścāt astam-etā, sets in the west; saḥ, he [who knows this]; dviḥ-tāvat, twice that long; dakṣiṇataḥ udetā, will rise in the south; uttarataḥ astam-etā, [and] set in the north; eva tāvat, that long; rudrāṇām, of the Rudras; ādhipatyam, sovereignty; svārājyam, freedom; pari-etā, will attain. Iti saptamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the seventh section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
4. So long as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, twice as long does it rise in the south and set in the north; and so long does he follow the sovereign supremacy of the Rudras.
mukhena na vai devā aśnanti na pibantyetadevāmṛtaṃ
dṛṣṭvā tṛpyanti .. 3.8.1..
1. With Varuṇa as their leader, the Ādityas enjoy the third nectar [which is dark in colour]. As a matter of fact, the gods and goddesses neither eat nor drink. They are pleased merely by seeing the nectar.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; yat, that which; tṛtīyam amṛtam, the third nectar [i.e., the dark colour of the sun]; tat, that; ādityāḥ, the Ādityas; upajīvanti, sustain themselves with; varuṇena mukhena, led by Varuṇa; vai, as a matter of fact; devāḥ, the gods and goddesses; na aśnanti na pibanti, neither eat nor drink; etat amṛtam, this nectar; eva dṛṣṭvā tṛpyanti, they become happy by only seeing. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
1. On the third of these nectars the Âdityas live, with Varuna at their head. True, the Devas do not eat or drink, but they enjoy by seeing the nectar.
त एतदेव रूपमभिसंविशन्त्येतस्माद्रूपादुद्यन्ति ॥ ३.८.२॥
ta etadeva rūpamabhisaṃviśantyetasmādrūpādudyanti .. 3.8.2..
2. They enter into this [dark] colour of the sun, and they also come out of this colour.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Te, they [the Ādityas]; etāt eva rūpam, this [dark] colour; abhisaṃviśanti, enter into [i.e., they keep looking at it and make no further attempt to enjoy it]; etasmāt rūpāt, from this colour [i.e., attracted by this colour]; udyanti, they come out [i.e., they try to reach it]. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
2. They enter into that (dark) colour, and they rise from that colour.
sa ya etadevamamṛtaṃ vedādityānāmevaiko bhūtvā varuṇenaiva
mukhenaitadevāmṛtaṃ dṛṣṭvā tṛpyati sa etadeva
rūpamabhisaṃviśatyetasmādrūpādudeti .. 3.8.3..
3. He who knows this nectar thus, becomes one of the Ādityas. With Varuṇa as the leader, he enjoys the nectar by looking at it. He goes into this colour and again comes out of it.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ he who; evam, thus; etat amṛtam veda, knows this nectar; ādityānām eva ekaḥ bhūtvā, becomes one of the Ādityas; varuṇena era mukhena, led by Varuṇa; etat era amṛtam dṛṣṭvā tṛpyati, enjoys by seeing the nectar; saḥ etat eva rūpam abhisaṃviśati, he enters into this [dark] colour; etasmāt rūpāt udeti, he also comes out of this colour. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
3. He who thus knows this nectar, becomes one of the Âdityas, with Varuna at their head, he sees the nectar and rejoices. And he, having entered that colour, rises again from that colour.
4. As long as the sun rises in the south and sets in the north, twice that long will he [who knows this] rise in the west and set in the east. That person will also attain sovereignty and freedom like the Ādityas.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yāvat, so long as; ādityaḥ, the sun; dakṣiṇataḥ udetā, rises in the south; uttarataḥ astam-etā, [and] sets in the north; saḥ, he [who knows this]; dviḥ-tāvat, twice that long; paścāt udetā, will rise in the west; purastāt astam-etā, [and] set in the east; eva tāvat, that long; ādityānām, of the Ādityas; ādhipatyam, sovereignty; svārājyam, freedom; pari-etā, will attain. Iti āṣṭamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the eighth section. Commentary:-The sun neither rises nor sets; it is always stationary. It merely gives the impression of rising and setting.
Max Müller
4. So long as the sun rises in the south and sets in the north, twice as long does it rise in the west and set in the east; and so long does he follow the sovereign supremacy of the Âdityas.
mukhena na vai devā aśnanti na pibantyetadevāmṛtaṃ
dṛṣṭvā tṛpyanti .. 3.9.1..
1. With Soma as their leader, the Maruts enjoy the fourth nectar [which is deep black in colour]. As a matter of fact, the gods and goddesses neither eat nor drink. They enjoy merely by seeing the nectar.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; yat, that which; caturtham amṛtam, the fourth nectar [i.e., the deep black colour of the sun]; tat, that; marutaḥ, the Maruts; upajīvanti, enjoy; somena mukhena, led by Soma; vai, as a matter of fact; devāḥ, the gods and goddesses; na aśnanti na pibanti, neither eat nor drink; etat amṛtam, this nectar; eva dṛṣṭvā tṛpyanti, they become happy by only seeing. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
1. On the fourth of these nectars the Maruts live, with Soma at their head. True, the Devas do not eat or drink, but they enjoy by seeing the nectar.
त एतदेव रूपमभिसंविशन्त्येतस्माद्रूपादुद्यन्ति ॥ ३.९.२॥
ta etadeva rūpamabhisaṃviśantyetasmādrūpādudyanti .. 3.9.2..
2. They enter into this [deep black] colour of the sun, and they also come out of this colour.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Te, they [the Maruts]; etat eva rūpam, this [deep black] colour; abhisaṃviśanti, enter into [i.e., they keep looking at it and make no further attempt to enjoy it]; etasmāt rūpāt, from this colour [i.e., attracted by this colour]; udyanti, they come out [i.e., they try to reach it]. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
2. They enter in that (very dark) colour, and they rise from that colour.
sa ya etadevamamṛtaṃ veda marutāmevaiko bhūtvā somenaiva
mukhenaitadevāmṛtaṃ dṛṣṭvā tṛpyati sa etadeva
rūpamabhisaṃviśatyetasmādrūpādudeti .. 3.9.3..
3. He who knows this nectar thus, becomes one of the Maruts. With Soma as the leader, he enjoys the nectar by looking at it. He goes into this colour and again comes out of it.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ, he who; evam, thus; etat amṛtam veda, knows this nectar; marutām eva ekaḥ bhūtvā, becomes one of the Maruts; somena eva mukhena, led by Soma; etat eva amṛtam dṛṣṭvā tṛpyati, he enjoys by seeing the nectar; saḥ etat eva rūpam abhisaṃviśati, he enters into this [deep black] colour; etasmāt rūpāt udeti, he also comes out of this colour. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
3. He who thus knows this nectar, becomes one of the Maruts, with Soma at their head, he sees the nectar and rejoices. And he, having entered that colour, rises again from that colour.
4. As long as the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, twice that long will he [who knows this] rise in the north and set in the south. That person will also attain sovereignty and freedom like the Maruts.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yāvat, so long as; ādityaḥ, the sun; paścāt udetā, rises in the west; purastāt astam-etā, [and] sets in the east; saḥ, he [who knows this]; dviḥ-tāvat, twice that long; uttarataḥ udetā, will rise in the north; dakṣiṇataḥ astam-etā, [and] set in the south; eva tāvat, that long; marutām, of the Maruts; ādhipatyam, sovereignty; svārājyam, freedom; pari-etā, will attain. Iti navamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the ninth section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
4. So long as the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, twice as long does it rise in the north and set in the south; and so long does he follow the sovereign supremacy of the Maruts.
mukhena na vai devā aśnanti na pibantyetadevāmṛtaṃ
dṛṣṭvā tṛpyanti .. 3.10.1..
1. With Brahman [in the form of praṇava, Om] as their leader, the Sādhyas enjoy the fifth nectar [that which seems to be trembling within the sun]. As a matter of fact, the gods and goddesses neither eat nor drink. They enjoy merely by seeing the nectar.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; yat, that which; pañcamam amṛtam, the fifth nectar [i.e., what appears to be vibrating within the sun]; tat, that; sādhyāḥ, the Sādhyas; upajīvanti, enjoy; brahmaṇā mukhena, led by Brahman [i.e., praṇava]; vai, as a matter of fact; devāḥ, the gods and goddesses; na aśnanti na pibanti, neither eat nor drink; etat amṛtam, this nectar; eva dṛṣṭvā tṛpyanti, they become happy by only seeing. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
1. On the fifth of these nectars the Sâdhyas live, with Brahman at their head. True, the Devas do not eat or drink, but they enjoy by seeing the nectar.
त एतदेव रूपमभिसंविशन्त्येतस्माद्रूपादुद्यन्ति ॥ ३.१०.२॥
ta etadeva rūpamabhisaṃviśantyetasmādrūpādudyanti .. 3.10.2..
2. They enter into this form of the sun [which seems to be vibrating], and they also come out of this form.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Te, they [the Sādhyas]; etat eva rūpam, this form [of the sun which seems to be vibrating]; abhisaṃviśanti, enter into [i.e., they keep looking at it and make no further attempt to enjoy it]; etasmāt rūpāt, from this form [i.e., attracted by this form]; udyanti, they come out [i.e., they try to reach it]. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
2. They enter into that colour, and they rise from that colour.
ब्रह्मणैव मुखेनैतदेवामृतं दृष्ट्वा तृप्यति स एतदेव
रूपमभिसंविशत्येतस्माद्रूपादुदेति ॥ ३.१०.३॥
sa ya etadevamamṛtaṃ veda sādhyānāmevaiko bhūtvā
brahmaṇaiva mukhenaitadevāmṛtaṃ dṛṣṭvā tṛpyati sa etadeva
rūpamabhisaṃviśatyetasmādrūpādudeti .. 3.10.3..
3. He who knows this nectar thus, becomes one of the Sādhyas. With Brahman [in the form of praṇava] as the leader, he enjoys the nectar by looking at it. He goes into this form [of the sun] and again comes out of it.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ, he who; evam, thus; etat amṛtam veda, knows this nectar; sādhyānām eva ekaḥ bhūtvā, becomes one of the Sādhyas; brahmaṇā eva mukhena, led by Brahman [as praṇava]; etat eva amṛtam dṛṣṭvā tṛpyati, he enjoys by seeing the nectar; saḥ etat eva rūpam abhisaṃviśati, he enters into this form [of Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
3. He who thus knows this nectar, becomes one of the Sâdhyas, with Brahman at their head; he sees the nectar and rejoices. And he, having entered that colour, rises again from that colour.
4. As long as the sun rises in the north and sets in the south, twice that long will he [who knows this] rise above and set below. That person will also attain sovereighnt and freedom like the Sādhyas [i.e., he can move up and down as he likes].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yāvat, so long as; ādityaḥ, the sun; uttarataḥ udetā, rises in the north; dakṣiṇataḥ astam-etā, [and] sets in the south; saḥ, he [who knows this]; dviḥ-tāvat, twice that long; ūrḍhvaḥ udetā, will rise above; arvāk astam-etā, [and] set down below; eva tāvat, that long; sādhyānām, of the Sādhyas; ādhipatyam, sovereignty; svārājyam, freedom; pari-etā, will attain. Iti daśamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the tenth section. Commentary:-The sun is stationary. It neither rises nor sets. If it appears to rise or set, it is because of how we perceive it. Similarly, the sun may seem to rise in a different direction, depending on where we are when we see it. The Vasus, Rudras, Ādityas, etc., are minor gods and goddesses. They have not yet attained the status of Brahman, but they are on their way to doing so. However, anyone can attain the status of a minor god or godddess—that is, he can be like a Rudra, for instance. By performing sacrifices mentioned in the scriptures a person can share with those minor gods and goddesses the special worlds reserved for them. Such a person may even enjoy many powers and privileges, but he is still far away from the status of Brahman.
Max Müller
4. So long as the sun rises in the north and sets in the south, twice as long does it rise above, and set below; and so long does he follow the sovereign power of the Sâdhyas [1].
atha tata ūrdhva udetya naivodetā nāstametaikala eva
madhye sthātā tadeṣa ślokaḥ .. 3.11.1..
1. Next, after giving to all living beings the fruits of their work, the sun will be above such obligations. It will no longer rise nor set, and will stay by itself midway. Here is a verse on the subject:-
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Atha, next; tataḥ, after that [i.e., after giving the living beings the fruits of their work]; ūrdhvaḥ udetyā, [and] having risen above [such tasks]; na eva udetā, it [the sun] will not rise again; na astam-etā, nor will it set; ekalaḥ, alone; eva madhye sthātā, it will stay midway; tat eṣaḥ ślokaḥ, here is a verse on the subject. Commentary:- There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
1. When from thence he has risen upwards, he neither rises nor sets. He is alone, standing in the centre. And on this there is this verse:-
2. [In answer to a question]—No, indeed, in Brahmaloka the sun never rose, nor did it ever set. O gods, [listen and bear witness to me]. What I am saying is true, and by it may I have no hindrance to my realization of Brahman.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- [You ask about the sunrise and sunset in Brahmaloka]—na vai, no indeed; tatra, there [in Brahmaloka]; kadācana na nimloca, [the sun] never set; na udiyāya, nor did it rise; devāḥ, O gods [listen to me]; tena satyena, by this which is true; aham brahmaṇā mā virādhiṣi, may I not have any hindrance to my realization of Brahman. Commentary:- This is an assertion that there is no day or night in Brahmaloka. When a person makes a statement like this, he invokes the gods to bear witness to what he is saying. He is confident that what he is saying is true and that it will be no bar to his being one with Brahman.
Max Müller
2. 'Yonder he neither rises nor sets at any time. If this is not true, ye gods, may I lose Brahman.'
na ha vā asmā udeti na nimlocati sakṛddivā haivāsmai
bhavati ya etāmevaṃ brahmopaniṣadaṃ veda .. 3.11.3..
3. For him who knows the secret teachings of Brahman there is no sunrise or sunset [or day or night]. For him there is always day [i.e., light].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Na, not; ha vai asmai, so far as he is concerned; udeti, does [the sun] rise; na nimlocati, nor does it set; asmai, for him; sakṛt divā ha eva bhavati, there is always day [i.e., light]; yaḥ, he who; etām, this; evam, in this way; brahmopaniṣadam, the secret teachings about Brahman; veda, knows. Commentary:-Earlier it was described how Brahman manifests itself in various forms—as a crossbeam, a honeycomb, etc., or as various gods enjoying various nectars. If you understand the underlying meaning of such manifestations, you then attain the knowledge of Brahman. To you then there is no day or night. You are like the sun—self-luminous. You are, in fact, one with Brahman—always the same, eternal, infinite.
Max Müller
3. And indeed to him who thus knows this Brahma-upanishad (the secret doctrine:- of the Veda) the sun does not rise and does not set. For him there is day, once and for all [1].
4. First, Brahmā taught this instruction on honey to Prajāpati. Then Prajāpati taught it to Manu, and Manu taught it to his children. The father Aruṇa then taught this knowledge of Brahman to his eldest son Uddālaka Āruṇi.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tat ha etat, that [i.e., the teaching on honey]; brahmā prajāpataya uvāca, Brahmā [first] taught to Prajāpati; prajāpatiḥ manave, Prajāpati [taught it] to Manu; manuḥ prajābhyaḥ, Manu [taught it] to his children; tat ha etat, that; brahma, [knowledge of] Brahman; pitā provāca, the father [Aruṇa] taught; jyeṣṭhāya putrāya uddālakāya āruṇaye, to his eldest son Uddālaka Āruṇi. Commentary:-Starting from Brahmā, this knowledge has passed from generation to generation. The mention of this is only to emphasize its importance. This instruction on honey is nothing but Brahma-vidyā, the knowledge of Brahman. It is the secret of how to attain Brahman.
Max Müller
4. This doctrine (beginning with III, 1, 1) Brahman (m. Hiranyagarbha) told to Pragâpati (Virâg), Pragâpati to Manu, Manu to his offspring (Ikshvâku, &c.) And the father told that (doctrine of) Brahman (n.) to Uddâlaka Âruni.
5. This knowledge of Brahman a father will pass on to his eldest son or to a competent resident student.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tat vāva idam brahma, this knowledge of Brahman [previously mentioned as passing from teacher to student]; pitā jyeṣṭhāya putrāya, the father to his eldest son; vā, or; praṇāyyāya, a fit; antevāsine, resident student; prabrūyāt, will teach [or, pass on]. Commentary:-The knowledge of Brahman is the highest gift a person can confer on another. A father who has this knowledge can give it to his eldest son, or a competent teacher can pass it on to a competent student living with him.
Max Müller
5. A father may therefore tell that doctrine of Brahman to his eldest son [1], or to a worthy pupil.
dhanasya pūrṇāṃ dadyādetadeva tato bhūya ityetadeva
tato bhūya iti .. 3.11.6..
6. This should never be taught to anyone else, even if one is tempted with the whole world full of riches and surrounded by water. For this knowledge is more precious than that. This knowledge is surely more precious than that.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Na anyasmai kasmaicana, to nobody else; yadi api asmai, even if to him [to the teacher]; imām, this [world]; adbhiḥ parigṛhītām, surrounded by water; dhanasya pūrṇām, full of gold; dadyāt, gives; etat, this [instruction on honey]; eva tataḥ bhūyaḥ. iti, is more precious than that [the repetition is for emphasis]. Iti ekādaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the eleventh section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
6. But no one should tell it to anybody else, even if he gave him the whole sea-girt earth, full of treasure, for this doctrine is worth more than that, yea, it is worth more.
गायत्री वा ईदꣳ सर्वं भूतं यदिदं किं च वाग्वै गायत्री
वाग्वा इदꣳ सर्वं भूतं गायति च त्रायते च ॥ ३.१२.१॥
.. iti ekādaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ ..
gāyatrī vā īdagͫ sarvaṃ bhūtaṃ yadidaṃ kiṃ ca vāgvai gāyatrī
vāgvā idagͫ sarvaṃ bhūtaṃ gāyati ca trāyate ca .. 3.12.1..
1. All that exists in this world, whatever there is, is gāyatrī. It is the word that is gāyatrī, for the word gives names to all things and it also tells them not to fear.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Gāyatrī vai idam sarvam bhūtam, all these beings are gāyatrī; yat idam kiñca, whatever is there; vāk vai gāyatrī, the word is gāyatrī; vāk vai idam sarvam bhūtam gāyati ca, it is vāk that gives names [or sings] to all things; trāyate ca, and also gives protection. Commentary:-Here the importance of the gāyatrī is Being emphasized. True, the gāyatrī is poetry, but it is that poetry which leads to Brahman. This gāyatrī is also called vāk, word, because it is vāk which identifies everything that exists. Vāk gives everything a name and thereby gives it a status. The word gāyatrī means gāyati ca trāyate ca—that which gives names (or sings) to things and also gives them protection. It also means gāyantam trāyate—that is, he who repeats the gāyatrī is saved. (Ga means singing, and tra means saving or protecting.)
Max Müller
1. The Gâyatrî [1] (verse) is everything whatsoever here exists. Gâyatrî indeed is speech, for speech sings forth (gâya-ti) and protects (trâya-te) everything that here exists.
2. That which is this gāyatrī is that which is this earth. For all things [moving or unmoving] are attached to this earth and cannot get away from it.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yā vai sā gāyatrī, that which is this gāyatrī; iyam vāva sā, it is that; yā iyam pṛthivī, which is this earth; hi, for; asyām, to this [earth]; sarvam bhūtam, all things [moving or unmoving]; pratiṣṭhitam, are attached; etām eva na atiśīyate, cannot get away from it. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
2. That Gâyatrî is also the earth, for everything that here exists rests on the earth, and does not go beyond.
3. That which is this earth is this human body, because all the prāṇas are based in this body and cannot exist independent of it.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yā vai sā pṛthivī, that which [has earlier been referred to as] this earth; iyam vāva sā, it is that; yat idam asmin puruṣe śarīram, the body which is associated with a human being; hi, because; asmin, on this [body]; ime prāṇāḥ, these prāṇas [i.e., prāṇa, apāna, etc., and also the five elements—ākāśa, vāyu, etc.]; pratiṣṭhitāḥ, are based; etat eva na atiśīyante, they cannot go beyond this [body—i.e., they cannot exist independent of this body]. Commentary:-The earth is the gāyatrī and this gāyatrī is also the human body because the human body is born of the earth. How is the human body borm of the earth? This body is made up of the same elements (space, air, fire, etc.) that the earth is. The five prāṇas (prāṇa, apāna, vyāna, udāna, and samāna) are also known as elements, and they rest on this body. The body is therefore the gāyatrī like the earth. It is the gāyatrī because the prāṇas cannot exist without the body.
Max Müller
3. That earth again is the body in man, for in it the vital airs (prânas [1], which are everything) rest, and do not go beyond.
4. That which is in this human body is in this human heart, for all these prāṇas are based in this heart and cannot exist independent of it.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yat vai tat puruṣe śarīram, that which is in this human body; idam vāva tat, it is that; yat idam asmin antaḥ puruṣe hṛdayam, which is in this human heart; hi, because; asmin, in this [heart]; ime prāṇāḥ, these prāṇas [the vital forces]; pratiṣṭhitāḥ, are based; etat eva na atiśīyante, they cannot go beyond this [heart—i.e., they cannot exist independent of this heart]. Commentary:-The human body has been described as the gāyatrī. But where is that gāyatrī? It is in the heart. In fact, the heart is the gāyatrī. In what sense can the heart be called the gāyatrī? In the sense that all the prāṇas are in the heart and cannot exist separate from it. And since the body is the gāyatrī, the heart is also the gāyatrī.
Max Müller
4. That body again in man is the heart within man, for in it the prânas (which are everything) rest, and do not go beyond.
5. The gāyatrī has four quarters, each being sixfold. This is what is stated in a Ṛk mantra:-
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Sā eṣā gāyatrī catuṣpadā, this gāyatrī has four feet [i.e., quarters]; ṣaṣvidhā, each of them sixfold; tat etat ṛcā abhyanūktam, this is what is stated in a Ṛk mantra [Ṛg Veda 10.10.3]. Commentary:-The gāyatrī is also known as Brahma-gāyatrī. It is one with everything. The Upaniṣad says here that the gāyatrī has four quarters and each quarter has six parts (that is, it
Max Müller
5. That Gâyatrî has four feet [1] and is sixfold [2]. And this is also declared by a Rik verse (Rig-Veda X, 90, 3):--
6. Its glory is like this. But the glory of the puruṣa [i.e., Brahman, who fills the whole world] is still greater. All creatures constitute one quarter of him. The remaining three quarters are nectar in heaven.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tāvān, like this; asya mahimā, its glory; tataḥ jyāyān ca puruṣaḥ, that [i.e., the glory] of the puruṣa [i.e., Brahman, who fills the whole world] is still greater; pādaḥ asya sarvā [i.e., sarvāṇi] bhūtāni, all things constitute one foot [or, quarter] of him; tripād asya, [the remaining] three feet [or, quarters] of him; amṛtam divi, are like nectar in heaven. Commentary:-Brahman has been described as the gāyatrī, having four feet (or, quarters) and being sixfold. This is just figurative, however. Brahman is Brahman and there is no way of describing it. In reality, it is without name and form, beyond thought and speech. It is the Absolute. Brahman can be conceived as both the cause and the effect. As the cause (karaṇa) nothing can be predicated about it; it is nirupādhika, without attributes. As the effect (kārya) it is sopādhika, with attributes. Similarly, the gāyatrī is said here to have four quarters and six parts. These are attributes used to help a disciple understand. As the Pañcadaśi says (verse II.58), ‘Niraṃśe api aṃśam āropya....’ (that is, parts are superimposed on that which has no parts in order to explain what cannot be described).
Max Müller
6. 'Such is the greatness of it (of Brahman, under the disguise of Gâyatrî [1]); greater than it is the Person [2] (purusha). His feet are all things. The immortal with three feet is in heaven (i. e. in himself).'
पुरुषादाकाशो यो वै स बहिर्धा पुरुषादाकाशः ॥ ३.१२.७॥
yadvai tadbrahmetīdaṃ vāva tadyoyaṃ bahirdhā
puruṣādākāśo yo vai sa bahirdhā puruṣādākāśaḥ .. 3.12.7..
7-9. That which is Brahman is also the space outside the body. That which is the space outside the body is also the space inside the body. And that which is the space inside the body is also the space within the heart. That treasure within the heart is full and unchanging. He who knows this is always full and not subject to change.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yat vai tat brahma iti, that which is Brahman; idam vāva tat, it is that; yaḥ, which; ayam, is this; ākāśaḥ, space; bahirdhā puruṣāt, outside the human body; yaḥ vai saḥ ākāśaḥ, that which is the space; bahirdhā puruṣāt, outside the human body; ayam vāva saḥ, it is that; yaḥ ayam ākāśaḥ, which is this space; antaḥ puruṣe, inside the human body; yaḥ vai saḥ antaḥ puruṣe ākāśaḥ, that which is the space inside the human body; ayam vāva saḥ, it is that; yaḥ ayam ākāśaḥ, which is this space; antaḥ hṛdaye, inside the heart; tat etat, it is that; pūrṇam, full; apravarti, unchanging; śriyam, treasure; yaḥ evam veda, he who knows this; pūrṇām apravartinīm labhate, becomes full and is not subject to change. Iti dvādaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the twelfth section. Commentary:-Earlier Brahman was described as the gāyatrī with four quarters and also as amṛta, nectar. Here it is described as space. It is the same space which is inside as well as outside the human body, and also within the heart. The Upaniṣad says that this ākāśa in the heart is full and never changes. That is to say, it is free from desire and because of that it is never subject to change. Anyone who knows that ākāśa in the heart as such is himself always full and free from desire.
Max Müller
7. The Brahman which has been thus described (as immortal with three feet in heaven, and as Gâyatrî) is the same as the ether which is around us;
अयं वाव स योऽयमन्तर्हृदय आकाशस्तदेतत्पूर्णमप्रवर्ति
पूर्णमप्रवर्तिनीꣳश्रियं लभते य एवं वेद ॥ ३.१२.९॥
ayaṃ vāva sa yo'yamantarhṛdaya ākāśastadetatpūrṇamapravarti
pūrṇamapravartinīgͫśriyaṃ labhate ya evaṃ veda .. 3.12.9..
Max Müller
9. That is the ether within the heart. That ether in the heart (as Brahman) is omnipresent and unchanging. He who knows this obtains omnipresent and unchangeable happiness.
1. In the heart there are five doors guarded by the gods. The door in the east is prāṇa. It is also the eyes, and it is Āditya. Worship this as the source of brightness and food. He who knows this becomes bright and enjoys food.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tasya ha vai etasya hṛdayasya, of this heart; pañca devasuṣayaḥ, five passages guarded by the gods; saḥ yaḥ, that which; asya prāṅsuṣiḥ, is its eastern passage; saḥ prāṇaḥ, that is prāṇa; tat cakṣuḥ, that is [also] the eye; saḥ ādityaḥ, [and] that is Āditya [the sun]; tat etat, it is that; tejaḥ annādyam iti upāsīta, meditate on as the source of brightness and food; yaḥ evam veda, he who knows this; tejasvī annādaḥ bhavati, becomes bright and an eater of food. Commentary:-If you want to enter a house, you must please those who are at the gates. Similarly, if you want to enter heaven, you must worship Brahman as prāṇa. As you do so, you should attribute to prāṇa the qualities of Àditya and annāda—that is, of brightness and strength. If. prāṇa is pleased with you, you have no difficulty attaining heaven.
Max Müller
1. For that heart there are five gates belonging to the Devas (the senses). The eastern gate is the Prâna (up-breathing), that is the eye, that is Âditya (the sun). Let a man meditate on that as brightness (glory of countenance) and health. He who knows this, becomes bright and healthy.
2. Next, the southern door of the heart is vyāna. It is also the ears, and it is the moon. Worship it as the source of prosperity and fame. He who knows this becomes prosperous and famous.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; yaḥ asya dakṣiṇaḥ suṣiḥ, that which is its southern passage; saḥ vyānaḥ, that is vyāna; tat śrotram, that is [also] the ear; saḥ candramāḥ, [and] that is the moon; tat etat, it is that; śrīḥ ca yaśaḥ iti upāsīta, meditate on as prosperity and fame; yaḥ evam veda, he who knows this; śrīmān yaśasvī bhavati, becomes fortunate and famous. Commentary:-Vyāna is the air that is spread all over the body. It is also the breath you need when you are doing some hard work. Vyāna is the door, or passage, in the southern part of the heart, and it is connected with hearing and the moon. A person learns by hearing, so the ear is said to be the source of knowledge. The moon is the source of food, which gives a person strength, and from strength and knowledge a person acquires prosperity and fame. By worshipping vyāna as Brahman a person can attain heaven, which is his primary concern, and secondarily he attains prosperity and fame.
Max Müller
2. The southern gate is the Vyâna (back-breathing), that is the ear, that is the moon. Let a man meditate on that as happiness and fame. He who knows this, becomes happy and famous.
brahmavarcasyannādo bhavati ya evaṃ veda .. 3.13.3..
3. Next, the western door of the heart is apāna. It is also vāk, and it is fire. Worship this [Brahman in the form of apāna] as the radiance of Brahman and as food. He who knows this becomes radiant with the light of Brahman and a great eater of food.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; yaḥ asya prātyāṅsuṣiḥ, that which is its western passage; saḥ apānaḥ, that is apāna; sā vāk, that is [also] vāk [word]; saḥ agniḥ, [and] that is fire; tat etat, it is that [Brahman as apāna]; brahmavarcasam ca annādyam iti upāsīta, meditate on as the radiance of Brahman [that comes from living a disciplined life and from scholarship] and as food; yah evam veda, he who knows this; Commentary:-Apāna’s function is to remove all waste from the body. It is connected with speech and fire. Brahmavarcasa is the radiance a person acquires when he has much scholarship and has led a disciplined life. One who meditates on apāna as Brahman acquires this radiance and also food.
Max Müller
3. The western gate is the Apâna (down-breathing), that is speech, that is Agni (fire). Let a man meditate on that as glory of countenance and health. He who knows this, becomes glorious and healthy.
4. Next, the northern door of the heart is samāna. It is also the mind, and it is the god of rain. Worship this [Brahman in the form of samāna] as fame and beauty. He who knows this becomes famous and beautiful.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; yaḥ asya udaṅsuṣiḥ, that which is its northern passage; saḥ samānaḥ, that is samāna; tat manaḥ, that is [also] the mind; saḥ parjanyaḥ, [and] that is the god of rain; tat etat, it is that [Brahman as samāna]; kīrtiḥ ca vyuṣṭiḥ ca iti upāsīta, meditate on as fame and beauty; yaḥ evam veda, he who knows this; kīrtimān vyuṣṭimān bhavati, becomes famous and beautiful. Commentary:-Samāna is so called because it digests all food and drink and makes them equal (sama). The mind and rain are connnected with samāna, and since fame is connected with the mind, it is attributed to samāna. Like fame, physical beauty is also the result of samāna.
Max Müller
4. The northern gate is the Samâna (on-breathing), that is mind, that is Parganya (rain). Let a man meditate on that as celebrity and beauty. He who knows this, becomes celebrated and beautiful.
5. Next, the door at the top of the heart is udāna. It is also vāyu [air], and it is ākāśa [space]. Worship this [Brahman in the form of udāna] as strength and greatness. He who knows this becomes strong and great.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; yaḥ asya ūrdhvaḥ suṣiḥ, that which is its passage at the top [of the heart]; saḥ udānaḥ, that is udāna; saḥ vāyuḥ, that is [also] vāyu [air]; saḥ ākāśaḥ, [and] that is ākāśa [space]; tat etat, it is that [Brahman as udāna]; ojaḥ ca mahaḥ ca Commentary:-There is an aperture at the upper part of the heart, and this is known as udāna. Air passes through this aperture from the feet to the head to help maintain the necessary operations of the body. The air that passes thus is also called udāna. Ākāśa (space) is the support of this udāna. Because udāna is one of the gateways to Brahman, it is meditated on as Brahman. If you do this, you become strong and famous. But, more important, you also attain heaven.
Max Müller
5. The upper gate is the Udâna (out-breathing), that is air, that is ether. Let a man meditate on that as strength and greatness. He who knows this, becomes strong and great.
svargaṃ lokaṃ ya etānevaṃ pañca brahmapuruṣānsvargasya
lokasya dvārapānveda .. 3.13.6..
6. These five prāṇas are themselves like Brahman, and they are the gatekeepers of heaven. Anyone who regards these prāṇas as Brahman and as the gatekeepers to heaven has a heroic child born in his family. Knowing these prāṇas as Brahman and as the gatekeepers of heaven, a person attains heaven himself.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Te vai ete pañca brahma-puruṣāḥ, these five [prāṇas] are the employees of Brahman; svargasya lokasya dvārapāḥ, the gatekeepers of the heavenly world; sāḥ yaḥ veda, he who knows; etān pañca brahma-puruṣān, these five Brahma-puruṣas; svargasya lokasya dvārapān, as gatekeepers of the heavenly world; evam, thus; asya kule vīraḥ jāyate, a heroic child is born in his family; yaḥ etān pañca brahma-puruṣān evam svargasya lokasya dvārapān veda, he who knows these five Brahma-puruṣas thus as the gatekeepers of the heavenly world; svargam lokam pratipadyate, attains the heavenly world. Commentary:-Here the advice is to regard everything as Brahman. If you practise thinking that everything is Brahman, you acquire self-restraint, which is the sine qua non of Self-realization. The advice here is to treat the five prāṇas with great respect, so that they may allow you to enter straight into heaven.
Max Müller
6. These are the five men of Brahman, the doorkeepers of the Svarga (heaven) world. He who knows these five men of Brahman, the door-keepers of the Svarga world, in his family a strong son is born. He who thus knows these five men of Brahman, as the door-keepers of the Svarga world, enters himself the Svarga world.
7. Then, higher than this heaven, above the world, higher than everything, in the highest world, higher than which nothing exists—the light that shines there is the same light that is in a human being.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; ataḥ paraḥ divaḥ, higher than this heaven; yat jyotiḥ dīpyate, the light which shines; viśvataḥ pṛṣṭheṣu, above the world; sarvataḥ pṛṣṭheṣu, above everything; anuttameṣu uttameṣu lokeṣu, in the highest worlds not excelled by any other world [known as satyaloka]; idam vāva tat, it is that; jyotiḥ, light; yat idam asmin antaḥ puruṣe, which is the same as in a human being. Commentary:-Brahman is said to be above everything else. It is the highest and the best. It shines in the highest world and it also shines in the heart of a human being.
Max Müller
7. Now that light which shines above this heaven, higher than all, higher than everything, in the highest world, beyond which there are no other worlds, that is the same light which is within man. And of this we have this visible proof [1]:-
nadathurivāgneriva jvalata upaśṛṇoti tadetaddṛṣṭaṃ ca
śrutaṃ cetyupāsīta cakṣuṣyaḥ śruto bhavati ya evaṃ veda
ya evaṃ veda .. 3.13.8..
8. Here is proof of it:- When you touch the body you can feel heat in it. There is also an audible proof of it:- When you cover your ears you can hear a sound like a moving chariot, or like the bellowing of a bullock, or like a burning fire. A person should meditate on that light in the body as something that is seen and heard. He who knows this becomes a distinguished person—people want to see him and he is widely known.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tasya, its [i.e., of the Self in the bodies]; eṣā dṛṣṭiḥ, this visible [proof]; yatra, when; etat asmin śarīre, in this body; saṃsparśena, by touch; uṣṇimānam, warmth; vijānāti, one can feel; tasya eṣā śrutiḥ, this audible [proof] of it; yatra etat karṇau apigṛhya, when one covers the ears; ninadam iva, like the sound of a moving chariot; nadathuḥ iva, like the bellowing of a bullock; agneḥ iva jvalataḥ, like the sound of a burning fire; upaśṛṇoti, one can hear; tat etat, that [light]; iti upāsīta, one should meditate on; dṛṣṭam ca śrutam ca, as seen and as heard; yaḥ evam veda, he who knows this; cakṣuṣyaḥ śrutaḥ bhavati, becomes worth seeing and famous. Iti trayodaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the thirteenth section. Commentary:-What proof is there that there is any light in the heart? One proof is the warmth of the body. This warmth comes from the light within. But there is yet another proof:- If you cover your ears you will hear all manner of sounds. The sounds and the feeling of warmth both prove that Brahman is within.
Max Müller
8. Namely, when we thus perceive by touch the warmth here in the body [1]. And of it we have this audible proof:- Namely, when we thus, after stopping our ears, listen to what is like the rolling of a carriage, or the bellowing of an ox, or the sound of a burning fire [2] (within the ears). Let a man meditate on this as the (Brahman) which is seen and heard. He, who knows this, becomes conspicuous and celebrated, yea, he becomes celebrated.
puruṣo bhavati tathetaḥ pretya bhavati sa kratuṃ kurvīta
.. 3.14.1..
1. All this is Brahman. Everything comes from Brahman, everything goes back to Brahman, and everything is sustained by Brahman. One should therefore quietly meditate on Brahman. Each person has a mind of his own. What a person wills in his present life, he becomes when he leaves this world. One should bear this in mind and meditate accordingly.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Sarvam idam, all this; khalu; no doubt; brahma, is Brahman; tajjalān, from this everything comes, into this everything disappears, and on this everything is sustained; iti śāntaḥ upāsīta, meditate on this fact quietly; atha khalu kratumayaḥ puruṣaḥ, because each person has a mind of his own; asmin loke, [therefore] in his present life; yathā kratuḥ puruṣaḥ bhavati, just as a person wills; itaḥ pretya tathā bhavati, he becomes that when he leaves this world; saḥ kratum kurvīta, [therefore] he should be careful about what he wants. Commentary:-The word brahman means ‘the oldest,’ ‘the biggest.’ Tejas (fire), jala (water), and pṛthivī (earth) emerged from Brahman in that order, so they are called tajja. Then they disappear in Brahman in the reverse order, so they are called talla. In the past, in the present, and in the future—they are sustained in Brahman. They are, therefore, one with Brahman. The Upaniṣad says here to think over this with kratu—that is, with great effort, and with deep concentration. Kratu also means will, or will power. It is your will that decides your destiny. Śrī Kṛṣṇa said to Arjuna (Bhagavad Gītā 8.6):- ‘O son of Kunti, at the time of death when a person leaves the body, he attains whatever object he thinks of, as he has been [previously] constantly absorbed in its thought.’ This shows the importance of your kratu.
Max Müller
1. All this is Brahman (n.) Let a man meditate on that (visible world) as beginning, ending, and breathing [1] in it (the Brahman). Now man is a creature of will. According to what his will is in this world, so will he be when he has departed this life. Let him therefore have this will and belief:-
2. He is controlled by the mind [i.e., his mind decides what he should and should not do]. He has a subtle body, and he is luminous. If he wants something, he never fails to get it. His Self is spotless like the sky. The whole world is his creation. [Desires are many, and] all those desires are his desires. All odours are his; similarly, all tastes are his. He is everywhere in the world. He has no sense organs, and he is free from desires.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Manomayaḥ, dominated by the mind; prāṇaśarīraḥ, with a subtle body; bhārūpaḥ, whose body is luminous; satyasaṅkalpaḥ, whose thoughts always prove true; ākāśātmā, spotless like the sky; sarvakarmā, whose creation is this world; sarvakāmaḥ, whose desires are always pure; sarvagandhaḥ, who possesses good odours; sarvarasaḥ, whose tastes are all pure; idam sarvam abhyāttaḥ, this is all-pervasive; avākī anādaraḥ, has no sense organs and no desires. Commentary:-This is how you meditate on your Self. You have a mind, and with the help of that mind you can decide what you will or will not do. You have a subtle body consisting of the five organs of action (pañca karmendriyas), the five organs of perception (pañca jñānendriyas), the vital breath in its five forms (prāṇa, apāna, vyāna, udāna, and samāna), plus the mind and the intellect. You are luminous. Whatever you wish for, you acquire. You are spotless, like the sky, and all-pervasive. You are the sole doer of things. You are the source of all desires, and all your desires are pure. You are also the source of all odours and tastes. You have no organs, and you are everywhere. There is nothing you have not already achieved.
Max Müller
2. The intelligent, whose body is spirit, whose form is light, whose thoughts are true, whose nature is like ether (omnipresent and invisible), from whom all works, all desires, all sweet odours and tastes proceed; he who embraces all this, who never speaks, and is never surprised,
3. My Self within my heart is smaller than a grain of rice, smaller than a grain of barley, smaller than a mustard seed, smaller than a grain of millet, smaller even than the kernel of a grain of millet. The Self in my heart is larger than the earth, larger than the mid-region, larger than heaven, and larger even than all these worlds.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Eṣaḥ me ātmā, this my Self; antaḥ hṛdaye, inside the heart; aṇīyān, smaller than; vrīheḥ vā, a grain of rice; yavāt vā, or a grain of barley; sarṣapāt vā, or a mustard seed; śyāmākāt vā, or a grain of millet; śyāmākataṇḍulāt vā, or the kernel of a grain of millet; eṣaḥ me ātmā antaḥ hṛdaye, this Self within my heart; jyāyān pṛthivyā, is larger than the earth; jyāyān antarikṣāt, larger than the mid-region; jyāyān divaḥ, larger than heaven; jyāyān ebhyaḥ lokebhyāḥ, larger than all these worlds. Commentary:-The underlying idea in the verse is that the Self is everything and everywhere. It is therefore smaller than the smallest and bigger than the biggest.
Max Müller
3. He is my self within the heart, smaller than a corn of rice, smaller than a corn of barley, smaller than a mustard seed, smaller than a canary seed or the kernel of a canary seed. He also is my self within the heart, greater than the earth, greater than the sky, greater than heaven, greater than all these worlds.
4. He who is the sole creator, whose desires are the desires of all, whose odours are the odours of all, whose tastes are the tastes of all, who is everywhere, who has no sense organs, and who is free from desires—he is my Self and is in my heart. He is no other than Brahman. When I leave this body, I shall attain him. He who firmly believes this has no doubt in his mind. [He will surely attain Brahman.] This is what Śāṇḍilya has said.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yaḥ, he who; sarvakarmā, is the sole creator of everything; sarvakāmaḥ, whose desires are the desires of all; sarvagandhaḥ, whose odours are the odours of all; sarvarasaḥ, whose tastes are the tastes of all; sarvam idam abhyāttaḥ, who is in all this; avākī, who is without any organs; anādaraḥ, who is not interested in anything; eṣaḥ me ātmā antaḥ hṛdaye, this Self of mine is within my heart; etat brahma, this is Brahman; itaḥ pretya, upon leaving this body; etam abhisambhavitāsmi iti, I shall attain him; yasya syāt addhā, one who has this kind of belief; na vicikitsā asti, has no doubt in his mind; iti ha sma āha śāṇḍilyaḥ, this is what Śāṇḍilya said; śāṇḍilyaḥ, [this is what] Śāṇḍilya [said]. Iti caturdaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the fourteenth section. Commentary:-The word Self here means the Cosmic Self (Paramātman). If you believe that you are the Cosmic Self, and that you will be free as soon as your prārabdha karma (the results of your past actions that are now bearing fruit) is exhausted and your
Max Müller
4. He from whom all works, all desires, all sweet odours and tastes proceed, who embraces all this, who never speaks and who is never surprised, he, my self within the heart, is that Brahman (n.) When I shall have departed from hence, I shall obtain him (that Self). He who has this faith [1] has no doubt; thus said Sândilya [2], yea, thus he said.
hyasya sraktayo dyaurasyottaraṃ bilagͫ sa eṣa kośo
vasudhānastasminviśvamidagͫ śritam .. 3.15.1..
1. There is a chest which has the mid-region as its inside and the earth as its bottom. It never decays. The quarters are its sides and the heaven its opening above. This chest is the container of treasures, for in it rests the whole universe.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Kośaḥ, the chest; antarikṣa-udaraḥ, with the midregion as its inside; bhūmi-budhnaḥ, the earth as its bottom; na jīryati, never decays; diśaḥ, the quarters; hi asya sraktayaḥ, are its sides; dyauḥ, the heaven; asya uttaram bilam, is its opening above; saḥ eṣaḥ kośaḥ, this chest; vasudhānaḥ, [is] the container of treasures; tasmin, in it; viśvam idam śritam, rests this universe. Commentary:-The universe is here compared to a chest. Whatever you put inside a chest is safe there. Similarly, whatever is in the universe is safe and sound. It may change its form, but it does not totally disappear.
Max Müller
1. The chest which has the sky for its circumference and the earth for its bottom, does not decay, for the quarters are its sides, and heaven its lid above. That chest is a treasury, and all things are within it.
2. The eastern quarter of the chest is called juhū, the southern quarter is called sahamānā, the western quarter is called rājñī, and the northern quarter is called subhūtā. Vāyu [air] is the son of these quarters. He who knows this, that Vāyu is the child of the quarters, does not have to weep over the loss of his child. ‘I know that Vāyu is the child of the quarters. May I never have to weep over the loss of my child.’
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Prācī dik, the eastern quarter; tasya, of it [i.e., of the chest]; juhūḥ nāma, is called juhū [after the vessel used for offering oblations facing the east]; dakṣiṇā, the southern [quarter]; sahamānām nāma, is named sahamānā; pratīcī, the western [quarter]; rājñī nāma, is named rājñī [because the western sky is red in the evening]; udīcī, the northern [quarter]; subhūtā nāma, is named subhūtā [because those who are rich dominate this quarter]; vāyaḥ, air; tāsām, their [i.e., the quarters’]; vatsaḥ, son; saḥ yaḥ etam veda, he who knows this; vāyum diśām vatsam, that Vāyu is the child of the quarters; putrarodam na roditi, does not have to weep over the loss of his child; saḥ aham etam evam veda, I know this thus; vāyum diśām vatsam, that Vāyu is the son of the quarters; mā putrarodam rudam, may I not have to weep over the loss of my child. Commentary:-The eastern quarter is called juhū because you face that direction when you offer that oblation in the sacrifice. The southern side is sahamānā because sinners go to that quarter to suffer the consequences of the sins they commit. The western side is called rājñī because when the sun sets in that direction, the sky becomes red. Subhūtā is the name of the northern side, because it is dominated by Śiva, Kubera, and other deities of good fortune. Vāyu (air) is considered the child of the quarters because it arises from the quarters. If you believe that Vāyu is immortal and is the child of the quarters, you will then never suffer the loss of your child.
Max Müller
2. Its eastern quarter is called Guhû, its southern Sahamânâ, its western Râgñî, its northern Subhûtâ [1]. The child of those quarters is Vâyu, the air, and he who knows that the air is indeed the child of the quarters, never weeps for his sons. 'I know the wind to be the child of the quarters, may I never weep for my sons.'
3. For the sake of my child’s life, I take refuge in that immortal kośa [i.e., the chest, representing the universe]. For the sake of my child’s life, I take refuge in prāṇa [the vital breath]. For the sake of my child’s life, I take refuge in bhūh [the earth]. For the sake of my child’s life, I take refuge in bhuvaḥ [the mid-region]. For the sake of my child’s life, I take refuge in svaḥ [heaven].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Amunā amunā amunā, for the sake of that [child’s life], for the sake of that [child’s life], for the sake of that [child’s life]; ariṣṭam kośam, in the immortal chest; prapadye, I take refuge; amunā amunā amunā, for the sake of that [child’s life—etc.]; prāṇam prapadye, I take refuge in prāṇa; amunā amunā amunā, for the sake of that [child’s life—etc.]; bhūḥ prapadye, I take refuge in bhūh [the earth]; amunā amunā amunā, for the sake of that [child’s life—etc.]; bhuvaḥ prapadye, I take refuge in bhuvaḥ [the mid-region]; amunā amunā amunā, for the sake of that [child’s life—etc.]; svaḥ prapadye, I take refuge in svah [heaven]. Commentary:-For the welfare of your child, surrender to every power on earth, in the mid-region, and in heaven. Repeat this three times, each time saying the name of the child thrice. Here the word amunā has been used instead of the name of the child.
Max Müller
3. 'I turn to the imperishable chest with such and such and such [1].' 'I turn to the Prâna (life) with such and such and such.' 'I turn to Bhûh with such and such and such.' 'I turn to Bhuvah with such and such and such.' 'I turn to Svah with such and such and such.'
4. When I said, ‘I take refuge in prāṇa,’ I meant that prāṇa is everything visible, whatever there is, and therefore I have taken refuge in everything.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yat avocam, when I said; prāṇam prapadye iti, I take refuge in prāṇa; prāṇaḥ vai idam sarvam bhūtam, I meant prāṇa is everything; yat idaṃ kiñca, whatever is here [visible]; tat, therefore; tam eva prāpatsi, I am under the care of that [prāṇa]. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
4. 'When I said, I turn to Prâna, then Prâna means all whatever exists here--to that I turn.'
5. Then, when I said, ‘I take refuge in bhūḥ,’ what I meant was that I take refuge in the earth, I take refuge in the mid-region, and I take refuge in heaven.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; yat avocam, when I said; bhūḥ prapadye hi, I take refuge in bhūḥ [the earth]; iti eva tat avocam, it is this that I meant; pṛthivīm prapadye, I take refuge in the earth; antarikṣam prapadye, I take refuge in the mid-region; divam prapadye, I take refuge in heaven. Commentary:-That is to say, I meant that I had taken refuge in all the three worlds.
Max Müller
5. 'When I said, I turn to Bhûh, what I said is, I turn to the earth, the sky, and heaven.'
6. Then, when I said, ‘I take refuge in bhuvaḥ,’ what I meant was that I take refuge in fire, I take refuge in air, and I take refuge in the sun.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; yat avocam, when I said; bhuvaḥ prapadye hi, I take refuge in bhuvaḥ [the mid-region]; hi eva tat avocam, it is this that I meant; agnim prapadye, I take refuge in fire; vāyum prapadye, I take refuge in air; ādityam prapadye, I take refuge in the sun. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
6. 'When I said, I turn to Bhuvah, what I said is, I turn to Agni (fire), Vâyu (air), Âditya (sun).'
7. Then, when I said, “I take refuge in svaḥ,” what I meant was that I take refuge in the Ṛg Veda, I take refuge in the Yajur Veda, and I take refuge in the Sāma Veda. It is this that I meant.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; yat avocam, when I said; svaḥ prapadye iti, I take refuge in svaḥ [heaven]; iti eva tat avocam, it is this that I meant; ṛg vedam prapadye, I take refuge in the Ṛg Veda; yajur vedam prapadye, I take refuge in the Yajur Veda; sāma vedam prapadye, I take refuge in the Sāma Veda; tat avocam tat avocam, it is this that I meant, this that I meant. Iti pañcadaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the fifteenth section. Commentary:-One should first meditate on the immortal chest, and then repeat the mantras following the meditation. To emphasize the importance of the worship, the mantras are repeated again and again.
Max Müller
7. 'When I said, I turn to Svah, what I said is, I turn to the Rig-veda, Yagur-veda, and Sâma-veda. That is what I said, yea, that is what I said.'
1. The human body is like a sacrifice, and the first twenty-four years are like the morning libation. The gāyatrī has twenty-four syllables, and the morning libation is accompanied by the gāyatrī. The Vasus reside in this morning libation. The Vasus are the vital breaths and the sense organs, for the word vasu means those who make others live and who live themselves.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Puruṣaḥ vāva yajñaḥ, the human body is like a sacrifice; tasya yāni cāturviṃśati varṣāṇi, its first twenty-four years; tat, that; prātaḥ savanam, is the morning libation; gāyatrī caturviṃśati akṣarā, the gāyatrī is constituted of twenty-four syllables; gāyatram prātaḥ savanam, the morning libation is accompanied by the gāyatrī; asya, of this [i.e., this sacrifice of the human body]; tat, it [the morning libation covering the first twenty-four years]; vasavaḥ, the deities called Vasus; anvāyattāḥ, are connected; prāṇāḥ vāva vasavaḥ, the prāṇas [together with the sense organs] are the Vasus; hi, for; ete, these [Vasus]; idam sarvam, everything in this [world]; vāsayanti, cause to live [and they themselves also live (vasu)]. Commentary:-In the previous section, meditation and repetition of certain mantras was recommended for the long life of one’s children. The same thing is being recommended now for one’s own life. Here the meditation is that one’s life is a sacrifice, and that the first twenty-four years are the morning offering. This offering is connected with the gāyatrī, which has twenty-four syllables. The Vasus are also connected with this offering, and they are thought of as the organs, which abide (vasu) and which also make others abide.
Max Müller
1. Man is sacrifice. His (first) twenty-four years are the morning-libation. The Gâyatrî has twenty-four syllables, the morning-libation is offered with Gâyatrî hymns. The Vasus are connected with that part of the sacrifice. The Prânas (the five senses) are the Vasus, for they make all this to abide (vâsayanti).
2. If, within these first twenty-four years of his life, he has some ailment, he should then say:- ‘O Prāṇas, O Vasus, please extend this first libation to the midday libation. As the sacrifice, may I not disappear among the Vasus, who are my prāṇas [i.e., who are like my life].’ [If he prays like this,] he gets rid of his ailment and becomes fully well.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Cet, if; etasmin vayasi, within these [twenty-four] years of his life; tam kiñcit upatapet, something troubles him; saḥ brūyāt, he will say; prāṇāḥ, O Prāṇas; vasavaḥ, O Vasus; idam me prātaḥ savanam, this, my morning libation; mādhyandinam savanam, to the midday libation; anusantanuta iti, extend; mā aham, may I not; yajñaḥ, as the sacrifice; madhye prāṇānām vasūnām, in the midst of the prāṇas, who are the Vasus; vilopsīya iti, disappear; tataḥ ha eva ut-eti, he gets rid of that [ailment]; agadaḥ ha bhavati, [and] becomes well. Commentary:-W SRrīTñī:- 5fFTT ^ ^ iūḍpñ II 3 II
Max Müller
2. If anything ails him in that (early) age, let him say:- 'Ye Prânas, ye Vasus, extend this my morning-libation unto the midday-libation, that I, the sacrificer, may not perish in the midst of the Prânas or Vasus.' Thus he recovers from his illness, and becomes whole.
3. Then the next forty-four years are like the midday libation. The triṣṭubh metre has forty-four syllables, and the midday libation is accompanied by a hymn which is in the triṣṭubh metre. The Rudras are connected with this midday libation. The prāṇas are called Rudras because they [are cruel and] make everyone in this world weep.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, then; yāni catuścatvāriṃśat varṣāṇi, that which is the next forty-four years; tat, that; mādhyandinam savanam, is the midday libation; triṣṭup catuścatvāriṃśat akṣarā, the triṣṭubh metre is constituted of forty-four syllables; traiṣṭubham mādhyandinam savanam, the midday libation is accompanied by a hymn in the triṣṭubh metre; asya, of this [i.e., this sacrifice of the human body]; tat, it [the midday libation covering the next forty-four years]; rudrāḥ, the deities called Rudras; anvāyattāḥ, are connected; prāṇāḥ vāva rudrāḥ, the prāṇas [together with the sense organs] are the Rudras; hi, for; ete, these [Rudras]; idam sarvam rodayanti, make everyone in this world weep. Commentary:-The sense organs become very powerful when a person has reached middle age, and they may make him do things he will regret and for which he will have to ‘weep.’ In this sacrifice, these next forty-four years correspond to the midday worship. The libation offered at this worship is accompanied by a hymn in the triṣṭubh metre, which has forty-four syllables. In this way, one can easily meditate on a human being as a ritualistic sacrifice.
Max Müller
3. The next forty-four years are the midday-libation. The Trishtubh has forty-four syllables, the midday-libation is offered with Trishtubh hymns. The Rudras are connected with that part of it. The Prânas are the Rudras, for they make all this to cry (rodayanti).
4. If, within these next forty-four years of his life, he has some ailment, he should then say:- ‘O Prāṇas, O Rudras, please extend my midday libation and join it to the third libation. As the sacrifice, may I not disappear among the Rudras, who are my prāṇas [i.e., who are like my life].’ [If he prays like this,] he gets rid of his ailment and becomes fully well.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Cet, if; etasmin vayasi, within these [forty-four] years of his life; tam kiñcit upatapet, something troubles him; saḥ brūyāt, he will say; prāṇāḥ, O Prāṇas; rudrāḥ, O Rudras; idam me mādhyandinam savanam, this, my midday libation; tṛtīya savanam, to the third libation; anusantanuta iti, extend; mā aham, may I not; yajñaḥ, as the sacrifice; prāṇānām rudrāṇām madhye, in the midst of the prāṇas, who are the Rudras; vilopsīya iti, disappear; tataḥ ha eva ut-eti, he gets rid of that [ailment]; agadaḥ ha bhavati, [and] becomes well. Commentary:-The idea behind this prayer is:- ‘O Rudras, you are like my life. I am the sacrifice, and now the midday libation is going on. Will you please extend this libation so that I may do the third libation without a break [that is, may I live long enough to do the evening libation]? I am the sacrifice, and I don’t want the sacrifice to be stopped before it reaches the end. And I don’t want to be separated from the Rudras, who are like my life.’ If the afflicted person (who is the sacrifice) keeps praying like this, he will then get well and be fully fit again.
Max Müller
4. If anything ails him in that (second) age, let him say:- 'Ye Prânas, ye Rudras, extend this my midday-libation unto the third libation, that I, the sacrificer, may not perish in the midst of the Prânas or Rudras.' Thus he recovers from his illness, and becomes whole.
5. Then the next forty-eight years are the third libation. The jagatī metre has forty-eight syllables, and the third libation is accompanied by a hymn which is in the jagatī metre. The Ādityas are connected with this third libation. The prāṇas are called Ādityas because they accept [ādā] all things.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; yāni aṣṭācatvāriṃśat varṣāṇi, that which is the next forty-eight years; tat, that; tṛtīya savanam, is the third libation; jagatī aṣṭācatvāriṃśat akṣarā, the jagatī metre is constituted of forty-eight syllables; jāgatam tṛtīya savanam, the third libation is accompanied by a hymn in the jagatī metre; asya, of this [i.e., this sacrifice of the human body]; tat, it [the third libation covering the next forty-eight years]; ādityāḥ, the deities called Ādityas; anvāyattāḥ, are connected; prāṇāḥ vāva ādityāḥ, the prāṇas are the Ādityas; hi, for; ete, these [Ādityas]; idam sarvam ādadate, accept [ādā] all objects. Commentary:-A human being is supposed to live a total of a hundred and sixteen years, which has three phaṣes:- the first twenty-four years, the next forty-four years, and the last forty-eight years. When this life is thought of as a sacrifice, the first twenty-four years would be the morning offering, the next forty-four years would be the midday offering, and the last forty-eight years would be the evening offering. Just as the morning libation is connected with the Vasus, so the first twenty-four years of one’s life are also connected with the Vasus. The gāyatrī is sung during the morning offering, and it has twenty-four syllables. The offering made at midday is connected with the Rudras, and it is accompanied by a hymn in the triṣṭubh metre, having forty-four syllables. Then the evening offering is connected with the Ādityas, and it is sung in the jagatī metre, having forty-eight syllables. The concept of a human life as a sacrifice arises from the similarity to the components of a ritualistic sacrifice.
Max Müller
5. The next forty-eight years are the third libation. The Gagatî has forty-eight syllables, the third libation is offered with Gagatî hymns. The Âdityas are connected with that part of it. The Prânas are the Âdityas, for they take up all this (âdadate).
6. If, within the next forty-eight years of his life, he has some ailment, he should then say:- ‘O Prāṇas, O Ādityas, please extend my evening libation to the end of my life. As the sacrifice, may I not disappear among the Ādityas, who are my prāṇas [i.e., who are like my life].’ [If he prays like this,] he gets rid of his ailment and becomes well.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Cet, if; etasmin vayasi, within these [forty-eight] years of his life; tam kiñcit upatapet, something troubles him; saḥ brūyāt, he should say; prāṇāḥ, O Prāṇas; ādityāḥ, O Ādityas; idam me tṛtīya savanam, this, my evening libation; āyuḥ, to the full length; anusantanuta iti, extend; mā aham, may I not; yajñaḥ, as the sacrifice; prāṇānām ādityānām madhye, in the midst of the prāṇas, who are the Ādityas; vilopsīya iti, disappear; tataḥ ha eva ut-eti, he gets rid of that [ailment]; agadaḥ ha eva bhavati, [and] becomes well. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
6. If anything ails him in that (third) age, let him say:- 'Ye Prânas, ye Âdityas, extend this my third libation unto the full age, that I, the sacrificer, may not perish in the midst of the Prânas or Âdityas.' Thus he recovers from his illness, and becomes whole.
7. Having known this, Itarā’s son Mahidāsa said:- ‘O disease, why are you troubling me so? Rest assured, I am not going to die [of this disease].’ He lived for one hundred and sixteen years. A person who knows this also lives that long.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Etat ha vai vidvān, having known this; mahidāsaḥ aitareyaḥ, Mahidāsa Aitareya, the son of Itarā; āha sma, said; saḥ [i.e;, tvam] kim me etat upatapasi, O disease, why are you troubling me; yaḥ aham anena na preṣyāmi iti, who for certain will not die of this; saḥ, he [Mahidāsa Aitareya]; ha ṣoḍaśam varṣaśatam, one hundred and sixteen years; ajīvat, lived; yaḥ evam veda, he who knows thus; ha -ṣoḍaśam varṣaśatam prajīvati, also lives one hundred and sixteen years Iti ṣoḍaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the sixteenth section. Commentary:-Mahidāsa is an example of one who conquered death by his knowledge and strong will.
Max Müller
7. Mahidâsa Aitareya (the son of Itarâ), who knew this, said (addressing a disease):- 'Why dost thou afflict me, as I shall not die by it?' He lived a hundred and sixteen years (i.e.
1. That he has the desire to eat, the desire to drink, and no desire to indulge in sense pleasures—this is his initiation [i.e., this is how he has to begin practising self-restraint].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ, he [the person who is performing the puruṣa sacrifice just mentioned]; yat aśiśiṣati, that he wants to eat; yat pipāsati, that he wants to drink; yat na ramate, that he has no desire to indulge in sense pleasure; tāḥ, all these; asya dīkṣaḥ, are the initiation rites [to perform the sacrifice]. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
1. When a man (who is the sacrificer) hungers, thirsts, and abstains from pleasures, that is the Dîkshâ (initiatory rite).
2. After this he will eat, he will drink, or he will enjoy pleasure, as if he is observing upasad [when he can only take milk or water].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, after this; yat aśnāti, what he eats; yat pibati, what he drinks; yat ramate, the pleasure he enjoys; tat upasadaiḥ eti, that is his upasad [when one fasts by only taking milk or water]. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
2. When a man eats, drinks, and enjoys pleasures, he does it with the Upasadas (the sacrificial days on which the sacrificer is allowed to partake of food).
3. After this, he laughs, he eats, and he even enjoys some sense pleasure—these represent the sounds coming from the stutas and śastras.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; yat hasati, he laughs; yat jakṣati, he eats; yat maithunam carati, he indulges in sense pleasure; stuta-śastraiḥ eva tat eti, they are like [the sounds of] the stutas and śastras [certain hymns and mantras recited during the sacrifice]. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
3. When a man laughs, eats, and delights himself, he does it with the Stuta-sastras (hymns sung and recited at the sacrifices).
4. Next, austerity, charity, straightforwardness, nonviolence, and truthfulness—these are his dakṣiṇā.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; yat tapaḥ, the austerity; dānam, charity; ārjavam, straightforwardness; ahiṃsā, non-violence; satyavacanam, truthfulness; iti tāḥ, all these [good qualities]; asya, of him [the person who regards his life as a sacrifice]; dakṣiṇāḥ, are the special fee paid after the sacrifice. Commentary:-These qualities of austerity, charity, etc., are an additional gain, besides what you get by living a life as if it is a sacrifice. These moral qualities and the life you live both contribute much to the growth of your religious life.
Max Müller
4. Penance, liberality, righteousness, kindness, truthfulness, these form his Dakshinâs (gifts bestowed on priests, &c.)
5. Therefore people say, ‘He will give birth,’ or ‘He has given birth.’ In either case, it is a rebirth [in the sense that when he starts living his life as a sacrifice, that is his rebirth]. When death overtakes him, that is the conclusion of the sacrifice.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tasmāt, therefore; āhuḥ, it is said; soṣyati, will give birth to; asoṣṭa iti, has given birth to; punaḥ utpādanam eva, [because] it is a rebirth; tat maraṇam eva asya, the death of the person; avabhṛthaḥ, is the conclusion of the sacrifice. Commentary:-Life is a kind of sacrifice, but when a person dedicates his life as such, he is said to be reborn. The words soṣyati and asoṣṭa are used when a mother is about to give birth, or has given birth, to a child. But they are also used at the time when someone is about to begin performing a sacrifice (soṣyati), or has already begun performing it (asoṣṭa), because it is his rebirth. When death comes to the person who treats his life as a sacrifice, it is the end of the sacrifice, just as it is the end of his life. Just as aṭ the end of a sacrifice, a person bathes and puts on new clothes, so also, when a person dies, his body is bathed and new clothes are put on it. The treatment is the same, whether the sacrifice is that person’s life or it is the usual sacrificial ritual. And the words used on both occasions are the same. This makes the similarity between the ritualistc sacrifice and life as a sacrifice more meaningful.
Max Müller
5. Therefore when they say, 'There will be a birth,' and 'there has been a birth' (words used at the Soma-sacrifice, and really meaning, 'He will pour out the Soma-juice,' and 'he has poured out the Soma-juice'), that is his new birth. His death is the Avabhritha ceremony (when the sacrificial Vessels are carried away to be cleansed).
prāṇasagͫśitamasīti tatraite dve ṛcau bhavataḥ .. 3.17.6..
6. The sage Ghora, of the family of Aṅgirasa, taught this truth to Kṛṣṇa, the son of Devakī. As a result, Kṛṣṇa became free from all desires. Then Ghora said:- ‘At the time of death a person should repeat these three mantras:- “You never decay, you never change, and you are the essence of life.”’ Here are two Ṛk mantras in this connection:-
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tat ha etat, this [truth]; ghoraḥ āṅgirasaḥ, the sage Ghora, of the family of Aṅgirasa; kṛṣṇāya devakīputrāya uktvā, having taught to Kṛṣṇa, the son of Devakī; apipāsaḥ, free from desire; eva saḥ babhūva, he [Kṛṣṇa] became; uvāca, [Ghora] said; saḥ, a person; antavelāyām, at the time of death; etat trayam, these three [mantras]; pratipadyeta, should take refuge in; akṣitam asi, you never decay; acyutam asi, you never change; prāṇasaṃśitam asi iti, you are the essence of life; tatra, in this connection; ete dve ṛcau bhavataḥ, there are these two Ṛk mantras. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
6. Ghora Âṅgirasa, after having communicated this (view of the sacrifice) to Krishna, the son of Devăkî [1]--and he never thirsted again (after other knowledge)--said:- 'Let a man, when his end approaches, take refuge with this Triad [2]:- "Thou art the imperishable," "Thou art the unchangeable," "Thou art the edge of Prâna."' On this subject there are two Rik verses (Rig-veda VIII, 6, 30):---
7-8. [Those who know Brahman] see that the light shining in Para-Brahman is the seed of the world. This light is all-pervasive like daylight. It is eternal. It is that great light which is the cause of the world.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Ādit, [has no meaning except that it introduces a new line of thought]; pratnasya, ancient; retasaḥ, seed [of the world]; jyotiḥ, light [manifestation]; paśyanti, they see [eveṛywhere]; vāsaram, daylight [i.e., as all-pervasive]; paraḥ, the best; yat, that which; idhyate, shines; divi, in heaven [i.e., in Para-Brahman], Tamasaḥ, darkness [i.e., ignorance]; pari, beyond [dispels]; uttaram, the best; jyotiḥ, light; paśyantaḥ, having seen; svaḥ, in oneself [i.e., in one’s own heart]; devam, bright; devatrā, among all the gods; sūryam, the sun; vayam ut-aganma, we have attained; jyotiḥ uttamam iti jyotiḥ uttamam iti, the best light, the best light. Iti saptadaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the seventeenth section. Commentary:-The greatest light is that which dispels the darkness of ignorance. Having seen this light within our own hearts, we have attained that shining god who is the Supreme Light of all. There is an eternal light which is the cause of this universe. This light is the source of the light we see in the luminous Jodies such as the sun, the moon, and the stars. This light is everywhere. Everything in this phenomenal universe moves and works the way it does because of this light. Those who have lived a life of self-discipline, with their minds on the highest thoughts, and have thereby acquired a pure heart, can see this light. They see it within themselves and they also see it outside. They know this light as their own Self and as the Self of all. They know this light as Para Brahman.
Max Müller
7. 'Then they see (within themselves) the ever-present light of the old seed (of the world, the Sat), the highest, which is lighted in the brilliant (Brahman).' Rig-veda I, 50, 10:-- 'Perceiving above the darkness (of ignorance) the higher light (in the sun), as the higher light within the heart, the bright source (of light and life) among the gods, we have reached the highest light, yea, the highest light [1].'
mano brahmetyupāsītetyadhyātmamathādhidaivatamākāśo
brahmetyubhayamādiṣṭaṃ bhavatyadhyātmaṃ cādhidaivataṃ ca
.. 3.18.1..
1. The mind is Brahman—this worship is called adhyātma. Next is that called adhidaivata:- Space is Brahman. [That is, meditate on space as Brahman.] These two ways of meditation are advised:- adhyātma and adhidaivata.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Manaḥ brahma iti upāsīta, meditate on the mind as Brahman; iti adhyātmam, this is so far as the body and mind is concerned; atha adhidaivatam, next is [the meditation] on the elements and the worlds; ākāśaḥ brahma iti, space is Brahman; ubhayam ādiṣṭam bhavati, two ways [of meditation] are advised; adhyātmam ca adhidaivatam ca, adhyātma and adhidaivata. Commentary:-Brahman is extremely subtle. Similarly, the mind is also subtle. And it is in the mind that Brahman can be realized. This is why it is comparatively easy to think that the mind is Brahman. In the same way, ākāśa (space) is also close to Brahman. Like Brahman, it is vast, invisible, all-pervasive, and without any attributes whatsoever. It is therefore appropriate to meditate on ākāśa as Brahman.
Max Müller
1. Let a man meditate on mind as Brahman (n.), this is said with reference to the body. Let a man meditate on the ether as Brahman (n.), this is said with reference to the Devas. Thus both the meditation which has reference to the body, and the meditation which has reference to the Devas, has been taught.
ityubhayamevādiṣṭaṃ bhavatyadhyātmaṃ caivādhidaivataṃ ca
.. 3.18.2..
2. Brahman as the mind has four feet [or, quarters]. The organ of speech is one foot; prāṇa is the next foot; the eyes are the third foot; and the ears are the fourth foot. This is the adhyātma [the physical and mental] aspect of Brahman. Next is the adhidaivata aspect. Fire is one foot; air is another foot; the sun is the next foot; and the quarters are the fourth foot. These two ways of meditation are advised:- adhyātma and adhidaivata.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tat etat catuṣpāt brahma, this Brahman [as the mind] is fourfold; vāk pādaḥ, speech is a foot; prāṇaḥ pādaḥ, prāṇa [the vital force] is a foot; cakṣuḥ pādaḥ, the eyes are a foot; śrotram pādaḥ, the ears are a foot; iti adhyātmam, this is the adhyātma [meditation—i.e., on the body and mind]; atha adhidaivatam, next, the meditation relating to the elements and worlds; agniḥ pādaḥ, fire is a foot; vāyuḥ pādaḥ, air is a foot; ādityaḥ pādaḥ, the sun is a foot; diśaḥ pādaḥ, the quarters are a foot; ubhayam ādiṣṭam bhavati, two ways [of meditation] are advised; adhyātmam ca adhidaivatam ca, adhyātma and adhidaivata. Commentary:-The word pāda is not to be taken literally, for Brahman has no feet. Brahman is infinite, but here it is conceived as having four feet—as if it is covering the whole universe with them. Pāda also means a quarter, or a part. First let us imagine our mind and body together as Brahman. This is a meditation on the adhyātma level. Then let us imagine that this Brahman has four feet. What are the four feet? They are the organ of speech, the vital breath, the eyes, and the ears. We can also do this meditation on the adhidaivata level—that is, as the worlds and the elements. First, let us imagine Brahman as ākāśa, space. Brahman’s four feet would then be fire (agni), air (vāyu), the sun (āditya), and the quarters (diśa). A cow has four feet to take it where it wants to go. Similarly, a human being is guided to where he wants to go by his organ of speech, his organ of smelling, his eyes, and his ears. Again, just as the four legs and feet of a cow come out of her body, in the same way, fire, air, the sun, and the quarters seem to come out of space
Max Müller
2. That Brahman (mind) has four feet (quarters). Speech is one foot, breath is one foot, the eye is one foot, the car is one foot-so much with reference to the body. Then with reference to the gods, Agni (fire) is one foot, Vâyu (air) is one foot, Âditya (sun) is one foot, the quarters are one foot. Thus both the worship which has reference to the body, and the worship which has reference to the Devas, has been taught.
bhāti ca tapati ca bhāti ca tapati ca kīrtyā yaśasā
brahmavarcasena ya evaṃ veda .. 3.18.3..
3. Vāk is one of the four feet of Brahman [as the mind]. It shines in the light of fire and also radiates heat. He who knows this shines and radiates warmth with his good work, with his fame, and with the radiance he acquires from leading a scholarly and disciplined life.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Vāk eva brahmaṇaḥ caturthaḥ pādaḥ, speech is the fourth foot of [manomaya] Brahman; agninā jyotiṣā, by the light it gets from fire; saḥ bhāti ca tapati ca, it shines and gives heat; yaḥ evam veda, he who knows thus; bhāti ca tapati ca, shines and radiates warmth; kīrtyā, through good work; yaśasā, through fame; brahmavarcasena, through the radiance that comes from a scholarly and disciplined life. Commentary:-Animals move where they want by their feet. Similarly, people find their way to Brahman by hearing someone speak about it. This is why the organ of speech is called one of the four feet of Brahman. Fire gives both light and heat. And because fire is the presiding deity of speech, speech also is said to give light and heat. A person who can speak well acquires fame and popularity; It is as if he has done much good work, or has given away much money in charity, or is a great scholar and has lived a disciplined life. Such a person has a shining personality and radiates heat (i.e., energy).
Max Müller
3. Speech is indeed the fourth foot of Brahman. That foot shines with Agni (fire) as its light, and warms. He who knows this, shines and warms through his celebrity, fame, and glory of countenance.
prāṇa eva brahmaṇaścaturthaḥ pādaḥ sa vāyunā jyotiṣā
bhāti ca tapati c bhāti ca tapati ca kīrtyā yaśasā
brahmavarcasena ya evaṃ veda .. 3.18.4..
4. Prāṇa [the organ of smelling] is one of the four feet of Brahman [as the mind]. It shines by the light of vāyu [air] and also radiates heat. He who knows this shines and radiates warmth with his good work, with his fame, and with the radiance he acquires from leading a scholarly and disciplined life.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Prāṇaḥ eva brahmaṇaḥ caturthaḥ pādaḥ, prāṇa [the organ of smelling] is the fourth foot of [manomaya] Brahman; vāyunā jyotiṣā, by the light it gets from air [its presiding deity]; saḥ bhāti ca tapati ca, it shines and gives heat; yaḥ evam veda, he who knows thus; bhāti ca tapati ca, shines and radiates warmth; kīrtyā, through good work; yaśasā, through fame; brahmavarcasena, through the radiance that comes from a scholarly and disciplined life. Commentary:-Vāyu, air, is the presiding deity of the organ of smell, because vāyu carries odours and reveals them.
Max Müller
4. Breath is indeed the fourth foot of Brahman. That foot shines with Vâyu (air) as its light, and warms. He who knows this, shines and warms through his celebrity, fame, and glory of countenance.
चक्षुरेव ब्रह्मणश्चतुर्थः पादः स आदित्येन ज्योतिषा
भाति च तपति च भाति च तपति च कीर्त्या यशसा
ब्रह्मवर्चसेन य एवं वेद ॥ ३.१८.५॥
cakṣureva brahmaṇaścaturthaḥ pādaḥ sa ādityena jyotiṣā
bhāti ca tapati ca bhāti ca tapati ca kīrtyā yaśasā
brahmavarcasena ya evaṃ veda .. 3.18.5..
5. The organ of vision is one of the four feet of Brahman [as the mind]. It shines by the light of the sun and also radiates heat. He who knows this shines and radiates warmth with his good work, with his fame, and with the radiance he acquires from leading a scholarly and disciplined life.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Cakṣuḥ eva brahmaṇaḥ caturthaḥ pādaḥ, the organ of vision is the fourth foot of [manomaya] Brahman; ādityena jyotiṣā, by the light it gets from the sun [its presiding deity]; saḥ bhāti ca tapati ca, it shines and gives heat; yaḥ evam veda, he who knows thus; bhāti ca tapati ca, shines and radiates warmth; kīrtyā, through good work; yaśasā, through fame; brahmavarcasena, through the radiance that comes from a scholarly and disciplined life. Commentary:-The eyes can distinguish colours because of the light they get from the sun. Just as cows can feel their way with their feet, similarly, human beings can recognize things through their eyes. When a person knows how the eyes serve as feet, he acquires fame, glory, and the brightness of Brahman, for he can then make good use of his eyes. He can read and learn the best things possible, things that transform him into a realized soul.
Max Müller
5. The eye is indeed the fourth foot of Brahman. That foot shines with Âditya (sun) as its light, and warms. He who knows this, shines and warms through his celebrity, fame, and glory of countenance.
श्रोत्रमेव ब्रह्मणश्चतुर्थः पादः स दिग्भिर्ज्योतिषा
भाति च तपति च भाति च तपति च कीर्त्या यशसा
ब्रह्मवर्चसेन य एवं वेद य एवं वेद ॥ ३.१८.६॥
śrotrameva brahmaṇaścaturthaḥ pādaḥ sa digbhirjyotiṣā
bhāti ca tapati ca bhāti ca tapati ca kīrtyā yaśasā
brahmavarcasena ya evaṃ veda ya evaṃ veda .. 3.18.6..
6. The organ of hearing is one of the four feet of Brahman [as the mind]. It shines by the light of the quarters and also radiates heat. He who knows this shines and radiates warmth with his good work, with his fame, and with the radiance he acquires from leading a scholarly and disciplined life.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Śrotram eva brahmaṇaḥ caturthaḥ pādaḥ, the organ of hearing is the fourth foot of [manomaya] Brahman; digbhiḥ jyotiṣā, by the light it gets from [its presiding deity,] the quarters; sāḥ bhāti ca tapati ca, it shines and gives heat; yaḥ evam veda yaḥ evam veda, he who knows thus, he who knows thus; bhāti ca tapati ca, shines and radiates warmth; kīrtyā, through good work; yaśasā, through fame; brahmavarcasena, through the radiance that comes from a scholarly and disciplined life. Iti aṣṭādaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the eighteenth section. Commentary:-The organ of hearing derives its power from the quarters, and through this organ we get knowledge. The results of that knowledge may be direct or indirect. True knowledge, however, is knowledge of Brahman. To emphasize this, ‘he who knows’ is repeated. This emphasis suggests that it is the knowledge of Brahman. The organ of hearing is our ‘foot’ because it is the means by which we can know Brahman. Those who know the importance of the organ of hearing and use it in the right way, acquire name, fame, and become radiant like Brahman. They will also eventually realize Brahman.
Max Müller
6. The ear is indeed the fourth foot of Brahman. That foot shines with the quarters as its light, and warms. He who knows this, shines and warms through his celebrity, fame, and glory of countenance.
tatsaṃvatsarasya mātrāmaśayata tannirabhidyata te āṇḍakapāle
rajataṃ ca suvarṇaṃ cābhavatām .. 3.19.1..
1. It has been said, ‘Āditya is Brahman.’ Now this is being explained:- This universe was at first non-existent, being without names and forms. [It was not visible, but it existed in a subtle form.] Slowly it manifested itself, as a shoot comes out of a seed. Next it developed into an egg and remained for a whole year like that. It then split in two, one half becoming silver and the other half becoming gold.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Ādityaḥ brahma, Āditya [the sun] is Brahman; iti ādeśaḥ, so it is said; tasya upavyākhyānam, [here is] an explanation of that [statement]; idam, this [universe of name and form]; agre asat eva āsīt, was at first unmanifested [i.e., it was without its names and forms]; [lest the word asat give the impression that the universe was like ‘a flower in the sky,’ it is said,] tat, this [universe with its names and forms in a subtle state]; sat āsīt, became manifest; tat, that [subtle universe]; samabhavat, first emerged as a seed; tat āṇḍam niravartata, that developed into an egg; tat, it [i.e., the egg]; saṃvatsarasya mātrām aśayata, lay still for a period of a year; tat, it [the egg]; nirabhidyata, split open; te āṇḍakapāle, those two parts of the egg; rajatam ca suvarṇam ca abhāvatām, turned silver and gold respectively. Commentary:-Earlier Āditya, the sun, was described as a foot of Brahman. Now this is being explained. Many people think that the universe was created. But Vedānta says that something cannot be created out of nothing. The universe has always existed, though sometimes it exists like a seed—invisible and without any names and forms. But why is the sun being called Brahman? Because without the sun there is only darkness, and we are then not conscious of this universe with its names and forms. The universe is non-existent then. And in the absence of the universe, there is no way of knowing that Brahman exists, for it is this universe with its names and forms that makes us aware that Brahman is behind everything. Brahman manifests itself as this universe.
Max Müller
1. Âditya (the sun [1]) is Brahman, this is the doctrine, and this is the fuller account of it:-- In the beginning this was non-existent [2]. It became existent, it grew. It turned into an egg [3]. The egg lay for the time of a year. The egg broke open. The two halves were one of silver, the other of gold.
te parvatā yadulbagͫ samegho nīhāro yā dhamanayastā
nadyo yadvāsteyamudakagͫ sa samudraḥ .. 3.19.2..
2. Of these two parts of the egg, the one that is silver is this earth, and the one that is gold is heaven. The thick membranes are the mountains. The thin membranes are the clouds and mist. The veins are the rivers, and the fluid in the bladder is the ocean.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tat yat rajatam, that [half] which is silver; sā iyam pṛthivī, that is this earth; yat suvarṇam, that [half] which is gold; sā dyauḥ, that is heaven; yat jarāyu, that which is the thick membrane; te parvatāḥ, they are the mountains; yat ulbam, that which is the thin membrane; sameghaḥ nīhāraḥ, are the clouds and mist; yāḥ dhamanayaḥ, that which are the veins; Commentary:-It has already been stated that at a certain point in time the cosmos takes the shape of an egg, and after remaining in that state for a while, the egg splits in two. The lower part iṣ silver and represents the earth. The upper half is gold and represents heaven. The thick outer membrane around the baby represents the mountains, and the thin inner membrane represents the clouds and mist. The veins of the infant are likened to rivers, and the fluid inside the bladder to the ocean. It is to be noted that these diverse things have all come from one source.
Max Müller
2. The silver one became this earth, the golden one the sky, the thick membrane (of the white) the mountains, the thin membrane (of the yoke) the mist with the clouds, the small veins the rivers, the fluid the sea.
kāmāstasmāttasyodayaṃ prati pratyāyanaṃ prati ghoṣā
ulūlavo'nūttiṣṭhanti sarvāṇi ca bhūtāni sarve ca kāmāḥ
.. 3.19.3..
3. Then that which was born was the sun. Its appearance was greeted by joyous sounds from all beings, and many desirable things appeared. Since then, the sunrise and the sunset are both marked by joyous sounds from all beings, and many enjoyable things also appear at that time.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; yat tat ajāyata, that which was born; saḥ asau ādityaḥ, it is that sun; tam jāyamānam anu, after it was born; ulūlavaḥ ghoṣāḥ, the sounds of ‘uh’; sarvāṇi ca bhūtāni’, from all beings; sarve ca kāmāḥ, and all desirable things; udatiṣṭhan, came forth; tasmāt, therefore; udayam prati, at the rising; pratyāyanam prati, at the setting; tasya, of that [sun]; ulūlavaḥ ghoṣāḥ, the sounds of ‘ulu’; sarvāṇi ca bhūtāni, from all beings; sarve ca kāmāḥ, and all desirable things; anūttiṣṭhanti, appear. Commentary:-Here it is said that the sun was born from the egg. When a child is born, there is much jubilation in the house, and also in the neighbourhood. Even today, people in India sometimes make the sound of ‘ulu’ on such occasions. Not only that, many precious gifts are also exchanged.
Max Müller
3. And what was born from it that was Âditya, the sun. When he was born shouts of hurrah arose, and all beings arose, and all things which they desired. Therefore whenever the sun rises and sets, shouts of hurrah arise, and all beings arise, and all things which they desire.
स य एतमेवं विद्वानादित्यं ब्रह्मेत्युपास्तेऽभ्याशो ह
यदेनꣳ साधवो घोषा आ च गच्छेयुरुप च
निम्रेडेरन्निम्रेडेरन् ॥ ३.१९.४॥
sa ya etamevaṃ vidvānādityaṃ brahmetyupāste'bhyāśo ha
yadenagͫ sādhavo ghoṣā ā ca gaccheyurupa ca
nimreḍerannimreḍeran .. 3.19.4..
4. One who knows the sun as Brahman and worships it as such very soon hears sounds pleasing to the ears and also has many good things to enjoy.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ etam evam vidvān, he who knows this as such; ādityam brahma iti upāste, [and] worships the sun as Brahman; abhyāśaḥ, soon; ha, surely; ya, enam āgaccheyuḥ, to him come; sādhavaḥ ghoṣāḥ, pleasant sounds; ca upa-nimreḍeran ca nimreḍeran and also good things to enjoy, good things to enjoy. [The repetition marks the end of the chapter.] It ekonaviṃśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the nineteenth section. Iti chāndogyopaniṣadi tṛtīyaḥ adhyāyaḥ, here ends the third chapter of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad. Commentary:-
Max Müller
4. If any one knowing this meditates on the sun as Brahman, pleasant shouts will approach him and will continue, yea, they will continue.
1. In ancient times there was a king who was the great-grandson of Janaśruta. He was a highly charitable person, who gave many gifts in charity, and always with due respect. He also had large quantities of food cooked for people. With the thought in mind, ‘People all over will eat my food,’ he had many rest-houses built in different places.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Pautrāyaṇaḥ, the grandson; jānaśrutiḥ, the son of Janaśruta; śraddhādeyaḥ, gave away in charity with due respect; bahudāyī, gave many gifts; bahupākyaḥ, cooked large quantities of food for free distribution; āsa ha, it happened like this; saḥ, he [Jānaśruti]; sarvataḥ, from all quarters; me annam, my food; atsyanti, [people] will eat; iti, this [i.e., with this thought in mind]; sarvataḥ eva, in all directions; āvasathān, rest-houses; māpayāñcakre, built. Commentary:-There was once a king named Jānaśruti, who was the great-grandson of Janaśruta. He was a highly charitable person. He not only made large donations, but whatever he gave he gave with love and respect. Every day large quantities of food were cooked and he fed many people. He also had rest-houses built all over the country. He wanted people to come, stay in those rest-houses, and enjoy his food.
Max Müller
1. There lived once upon a time Gânasruti Pautrâyana (the great-grandson of Ganasruta), who was a pious giver, bestowing much wealth upon the people, and always keeping open house. He built places of refuge everywhere, wishing that people should everywhere eat of his food.
ho ho'yi bhallākṣa bhallākṣa jānaśruteḥ pautrāyaṇasya
samaṃ divā jyotirātataṃ tanmā prasāṅkṣī stattvā
mā pradhākṣīriti .. 4.1.2..
2. Once he saw some swans flying overhead at night. The swan flying behind called out to the one ahead:- ‘Hey, you short-sided one! Don’t you see that the brightness of Jānaśruti has spread all over the sky like daylight? Beware you don’t touch it. See that it doesn’t bum you’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha ha, once; haṃsāḥ, swans [i.e., some sages who had taken the form of swans]; niśāyām, at night; atipetuḥ, were flying; tat, then; haṃsaḥ, one of the swans; evam ha abhyuvāda, loudly said; haṃsam, to the other swan; ho ho ayi bhallākṣa bhallākṣa, hey, you short-sided one [don’t you see?]; jānaśruteḥ pautrāyaṇasya jyotiḥ, the light [emanating] from Jānaśruti; divā, in the sky; samam ātatam, has spread like daylight; tat, that [light]; mā prasāṅkṣīḥ, don’t touch; tat tvā mā pradhākṣī iti, don’t let it burn you. Commentary:-One evening the king was resting on the roof of his palace and he noticed a couple of swans flying above him in the sky. These swans were actually sages or gods in disguise. Just then the swan flying behind joked with the one ahead about the king, within the king’s hearing.
Max Müller
2. Once in the night some Hamsas (flamingoes) flew over his house, and one flamingo said to another:- 'Hey, Bhallâksha, Bhallâksha (short-sighted friend). The light (glory) of Gânasruti Pautrâyana has spread like the sky. Do not go near, that it may not burn thee.'
रैक्वमात्थेति यो नु कथꣳ सयुग्वा रैक्व इति ॥ ४.१.३॥
tamu ha paraḥ pratyuvāca kamvara enametatsantagͫ sayugvānamiva
raikvamāttheti yo nu kathagͫ sayugvā raikva iti .. 4.1.3..
3. The swan in front replied:- ‘Say, who is this person? From the way you are talking one would think he was Raikva with the cart.’ Then the other swan asked, ‘And who is this Raikva with the cart you are referring to?’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Paraḥ, the other [i.e., the swan in front]; pratyuvāca, replied; are kam u enam etat santam, [feigning contempt and a mood to debate] say, who is this one; sayugvānam raikvam iva āttha iti, you are talking as if he were Raikva with the cart; yaḥ nu katham sayugvā raikvaḥ iti, [the other swan asked] who is this Raikva with the cart that you are referring to? Commentary:-What the swan in front meant was:- ‘This prince is a worthless fellow. He by no means deserves the honour you are paying him. You are talking of him as if he had attained Self-knowledge—as if he were a great person like Sayugvā Raikva (that is, Raikva who rides the small cart).’ But the other swan did not know who this Sayugvā Raikva was.
Max Müller
3. The other answered him:- 'How can you speak of him, being what he is (a râganya, noble), as if he were like Raikva with the car [1]?'
4. ‘Just as in a game of dice, when a person wins the toss called kṛta he automatically wins the lower tosses also, in the same way, whatever good work people do goes to the credit of Raikva. If anyone knows what Raikva knows, he becomes like Raikva. This is how I would describe Raikva.’
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yathā, just as; kṛtāya-vijitāya, if a person wins the toss of dice called kṛta; adhareyāḥ, all lower tosses [i.e., tretā, three; dvāpara, two; and kali, one]; samyanti, are included [i.e., are also won]; evam, in the same way; yat kiñca prajāḥ sādhu kurvanti, whatever good work people do; enam sarvam tat abhisamaiti, all that comes under that one [i.e., it Commentary:-Kṛta is the highest number possible in a toss of dice, so it is said to include all the lower numbers within it. The swan says that Raikva is a person like kṛta, because he includes within himself all the good things that other people do. He is the sum total of all that is good in the world. If anyone has the knowledge that Raikva has, then he becomes the same as Raikva.
Max Müller
4. The first replied:- 'How is it with this Raikva with the car of whom thou speakest?' The other answered:- 'As (in a game of dice) all the lower casts [1] belong to him who has conquered with the Krita cast, so whatever good deeds other people perform, belong to that Raikva. He who knows what he knows, he is thus spoken of by me.'
रैक्वमात्थेति यो नु कथꣳ सयुग्वा रैक्व इति ॥ ४.१.५॥
tadu ha jānaśrutiḥ pautrāyaṇa upaśuśrāva
sa ha saṃjihāna eva kṣattāramuvācāṅgāre ha sayugvānamiva
raikvamāttheti yo nu kathagͫ sayugvā raikva iti .. 4.1.5..
5-6. Jānaśruti Pautrāyaṇa overheard what the swan said. He got up from his bed and the first thing he did was to ask his attendant [who was standing nearby]:- ‘O my child, can I be compared to Raikva with the cart? Who is this Raikva with the cart? What sort of person is he?’ [Then he quoted what the swan had said:-] ‘Just as in a game of dice, if a person wins the toss called kṛta, he automatically wins the lower tosses also, in the same way, whatever good work people do goes to the credit of Raikva. If anyone knows what Raikva knows, he becomes like Raikva. This is how I would describe Raikva.’
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-U tat, that [what the swan said]; jānaśrutiḥ pautrāyaṇa upaśuśrāva, the great-grandson of Janaśruta overheard; saḥ ha sañjihānaḥ, he got up from his bed; eva kṣattāram uvāca, and immediately said to his charioteer; aṅga are, O my child; sayugvānam iva raikvam āttha ha iti, do you compare me with Raikva with the cart; yaḥ sayugvā raikva iti, who is this Raikva with the cart; nu katham, what sort of person is he?; Yathā, just as; kṛtāya-vijitāya, if a person wins the toss of dice called kṛta; adhareyāḥ, all lower tosses [i.e., tretā, three; dvāpara, two; and kali, one]; samyanti, are included [i.e., are also won]; evam, in the same way; yat kiñca prajāḥ sādhu kurvanti, whatever good work people do; enam sarvam tat abhisamaiti, all that comes under that one [i.e., it goes to the credit of Raikva]; yaḥ tat veda, he who knows that; yat saḥ veda, whatever he [Raikva] knows; saḥ mayā etat uktaḥ iti, this is said of him by me. Commentary:-Jānaśruti was disturbed by what the swans had said about him. Maybe he could not be compared with Raikva, but in what way did Raikva excel over him? Who was this Raikva with a cart? Jānaśruti had a sleepless night. The next morning when he got up, the first thing he did was to question his attendant about this Raikva. He wanted to somehow find out in what respect Raikva was superior to him.
Max Müller
5. Gânasruti Pautrâyana overheard this conversation, and as soon as he had risen in the morning, he said to his. door-keeper (kshattri):- 'Friend, dost thou speak of (me, as if I were) Raikva with the car?' He replied:- 'How is it with this Raikva, with the car?'
6. The king said:- 'As (in a game of dice), all the lower casts belong to him who has conquered with the Krita cast, so whatever good deeds other people perform, belong to that Raikva. He who knows what he knows, he is thus spoken of by me.'
7. [Jānaśruti asked his attendant to go and look for Raikva.] Having looked for him, the attendant thought, ‘I can’t find him,’ and returned to his master. Jānaśruti then said to him:- ‘Well, why don’t you go to places where brāhmins are to be found—in forests and solitary places? Look for him there’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ ha kṣattā, that attendant; anviṣya, having looked [for Raikva]; na avidam iti, thought ‘I have not found him’; pratyeyāya, came back; tam ha uvāca, [then Jānaśruti] said to him; are yatra brāhmaṇasya anveṣaṇā, well, wherever brāhmins are to be found [i.e., in Commentary:-Jānaśruti’s attendant looked for Raikva in many places, but obviously they were unlikely places. Raikva could be found only in a quiet place, such as a forest or by the side of a river. It would be there that such a person would prefer to stay. So Jānaśruti asked the attendant to search in those places.
Max Müller
7. The door-keeper went to look for Raikva, but returned saying, 'I found him not.' Then the king said:- 'Alas! where a Brâhmana should be searched for (in the solitude of the forest), there go for him.'
ityahagͫ hyarā3 iti ha pratijajñe sa ha kṣattāvidamiti
pratyeyāya .. 4.1.8 ..
8. The attendant noticed a man sitting under a cart, scratching a rash on his body. Sitting down close to him, the attendant asked, ‘Sir, are you Raikva with the cart?’ The man answered, ‘Well, yes, I am.’ The attendant thought, ‘I have found him,’ and returned.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ, he [the attendant]; śakaṭasya adhastāt, [noticed a man sitting] under a cart; pāmānam, with a rash on his skin; kaṣamāṇam, scratching; upa upaviveśa, he sat close to him; tam ha abhyuvāda, he said to him; tvam nu bhagavaḥ sayugvā raikva iti, Sir, are you Raikva with the cart; aham hi arā iti, well, yes, I am the same; pratijajñe, he admitted [rather contemptuously]; saḥ ha kṣattā, that attendant; avidam iti, thought ‘I have found him’; pratyeyāya, came back. Iti prathamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, heṛe ends the first section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
8. The door-keeper came to a man who was lying beneath a car and scratching his sores [1]. He addressed him, and said:- 'Sir, are you Raikva with the car? ' He answered:- 'Here I am.' Then the door-keeper returned, and said:- 'I have found him.'
1. Then Jānaśruti Pautrāyaṇa went to that place, taking with him six hundred cows, a gold necklace, and a chariot drawn by mules. He said to him [Raikva]:-
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tat u ha, next; jānaśrutiḥ pautrāyaṇaḥ, the great-grandson of Janaśruta; ṣaṭ śatāni gavām, six hundred cows; niṣkam, a gold necklace; aśvatarīratham, a chariot drawn by mules; tat ādāya, that with him; praticakrame, went [there]; tam ha abhyuvāda, he said to him. Commentary:-Hearing the report from his attendant, and thinking that Raikva might be poor and in need of money, Jānaśruti went with some gifts to offer Raikva, so that Raikva would teach him.
Max Müller
1. Then Gânasruti Pautrâyana took six hundred cows, a necklace, and a carriage with mules, went to Raikva and said:-
ma etāṃ bhagavo devatāgͫ śādhi yāṃ devatāmupāssa iti
.. 4.2.2..
2. ‘O Raikva, all these—six hundred cows, a gold necklace, and a chariot drawn by mules—are for you. Please tell me about the god you worship’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Raikva, O Raikva; imāni, all these; ṣaṭ śatāni gavām, six hundred cows; ayam niṣkaḥ, this gold necklace; ayam aśvatarīrathaḥ, this chariot drawn by mules; bhagavaḥ, sir; anuśādhi me, please teach me; etām devatām, about the god; yām devatām upāsse iti, that god which you worship. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
2. 'Raikva, here are six hundred cows, a necklace, and a carriage with mules; teach me the deity which you worship.'
3. Raikva said to him, ‘You śūdra, the necklace and chariot along with the cows—let all these be yours.’ Jānaśruti left and then again came back—this time with one thousand cows, a gold necklace, a chariot drawn by mules, and his own daughter.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tam u, to him [Jānaśruti]; ha paraḥ, the other [i.e., Raikva]; pratyuvāca, replied; aha śūdra, O you śūdra; hāra-itvā, the necklace and chariot; saha gobhiḥ, along with the cows; tava eva astu iti, they may be with you; tat u ha jānaśrutiḥ pautrāyaṇaḥ, then Jānaśruti Pautrāyaṇa; punaḥ eva, again; sahasram gavām, one thousand cows; niṣkam, a gold necklace; aśvatarīratham, a chariot drawn by mules; duhitaram, his own daughter; tat ādāya, taking that with him; praticakrame, he went back. Commentary:-Jānaśruti was a kṣatriya. Why then did Raikva address him as a śūdra? Because Jānaśruti thought he could tempt Raikva to teach him Brahmavidyā, the knowledge of Brahman, through wealth. He did not understand
Max Müller
3. The other replied:- 'Fie, necklace and carriage be thine, O Sûdra, together with the cows.' Then Gânasruti Pautrâyana took again a thousand cows, a necklace, a carriage with mules, and his own daughter, and went to him.
4. He said to Raikva:- ‘I am giving you these thousand cows, this gold necklace, this chariot drawn by mules, this daughter of mine to be your wife, and also this village in which you live. Now, sir, please teach me’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tam, to him [Raikva]; ha abhyuvāda, [Jānaśruta] said; raikva, O Raikva; idam sahasram gavām, these thousand cows; ayam niṣkaḥ, this gold necklace; ayam aśvatarīrathaḥ, this chariot drawn by mules; iyam jāyā, this wife [my daughter]; ayam grāmaḥ, this village; yasmin āsse, where you live; [I am presenting all these to you]; bhagavaḥ, sir; eva anuśādhi iti, now please teach me. Commentary:-Jānaśruti offered Raikva many things, but most important, he offered his daughter in marriage and
Max Müller
4. He said to him:- 'Raikva, there are a thousand cows, a necklace, a carriage with mules, this wife, and this village in which thou dwellest. Sir, teach me!'
tasyā ha mukhamupodgṛhṇannuvācājahāremāḥ śūdrānenaiva
mukhenālāpayiṣyathā iti te haite raikvaparṇā nāma
mahāvṛṣeṣu yatrāsmā uvāsa sa tasmai hovāca .. 4.2.5 ..
5. Lifting the face of the princess, Raikva said:- ‘You have brought me many things [but they are not making me speak]. It is this face that is making me speak.’ The villages in the Mahāvṛṣa province, where Raikva lived, were known thenceforth as Raikvaparṇā. It was here Raikva taught Jānaśruti. Raikva said to him:-
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tasyāḥ ha mukham upodgṛhṇan, lifting her face; uvāca, [Raikva] said; śūdra, O śūdra; ajahāra, you have brought; imāḥ, all these; anena eva mukhena, by this face [or, mouth]; ālāpayiṣyathā iti, you will make me speak; te ha ete raikvaparṇāḥ nāma, these [villages] known as Raikvaparṇā; mahāvṛṣeṣu, in the province of Mahāvṛṣa; yatra, where; uvāsa, [Raikva] lived; asmai, [and where Raikva taught] him [i.e., Jānaśruti]; tasmai ha uvāca, he said to him. Iti dvitīyaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the second section. Commentary:-Raikva was a brahmacārin. He had no home, and he lived an austere life. He had, however, attained Self-knowledge. When Jānaśruti approached him for spiritual instructions, he was unwilling. He did not like Jānaśruti’s offering him wealth. This is why he called him a śūdra. But When Jānaśruti offered him his daughter in marriage, Raikva was impressed by his keenness. He then agreed to teach him.
Max Müller
5. He, opening her mouth [1], said:- 'You have brought these (cows and other presents), O Sûdra, but only by that mouth did you make me speak.' These are the Raikva-parna villages in the country of the Mahâvrishas (mahâpunyas) where Raikva dwelt under him [2]. And he said to him:-
1. The air swallows everything. When fire is extinguished, it disappears into the air. When the sun sets, it disappears into the air. And when the moon sets, it disappears into the air.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Vāyuḥ vāva samvargaḥ, the air swallows everything; yadā vai agniḥ udvāyati, when fire is extinguished; vāyum eva apyeti, it disappears into the air; yadā sūryaḥ astam eti, when the sun sets; vāyum eva apyeti, it disappears into the air; yadā candraḥ astam eti, when the moon sets; vāyum eva apyeti, it disappears into the air. Commentary:-Earlier, the question of imparting spiritual instructions has been discussed. Here, how the instruction is given is being shown. The instruction begins with the forces of nature (adhidaivata)—by stressing the importance of air. Air can overcome everything, including even the sun, the moon, and fire.
Max Müller
1. 'Air (vâyu) is indeed the end of all [1]. For when fire goes out, it goes into air. When the sun goes down, it goes into air. When the moon goes down, it goes into air.
2. When water dries up, it disappears into the air. The air swallows all these. This is the worship of the forces of nature (adhidaivata).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yadā āpaḥ ucchuṣyanti, when water dries up; vāyum eva apiyanti, it goes into the air; vāyuḥ hi etān sarvān saṃvṛṅkte, the air swallows all these; iti adhidaivatam, this is the worship of the forces of nature. Commentary:-This is to show that air is supreme. It can even destroy such a powerful thing as fire.
Max Müller
2. 'When water dries up, it goes into air. Air indeed consumes them all. So much with reference to the Devas.
3. Next is the worship concerning the body. Prāṇa swallows everything. When a person sleeps, speech, the eyes, the ears, and the mind—all these go into prana. Prāṇa swallows all these.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha adhyātmam, now, that relating to the body; prāṇaḥ vāva samvargaḥ, prāṇa [the vital force] swallows everything; saḥ yadā svapiti, when a person is sleeping; prāṇam eva vāk apyeti, speech disappears into prāṇa; prāṇam cakṣuḥ, the eyes [disappear] into prāṇa; prāṇam śrotram, the ears [disappear] into prāṇa; prāṇam manaḥ, the mind [disappears] into prāṇa; prāṇaḥ hi eva etān sarvān saṃvṛṇkte iti, prāṇa swallows all these. Commentary:-When a person falls asleep, the sense organs stop working. They retire into prāṇa, as if they have been swallowed by it.
Max Müller
3. 'Now with reference to the body. Breath (prâna) is indeed the end of all. When a man sleeps, speech goes into breath, so do sight, hearing, and mind. Breath indeed consumes them all.
तौ वा एतौ द्वौ संवर्गौ वायुरेव देवेषु प्राणः प्राणेषु
॥ ४.३.४॥
tau vā etau dvau saṃvargau vāyureva deveṣu prāṇaḥ prāṇeṣu
.. 4.3.4..
4. These two swallow everything:- air among the gods and prāṇa among the organs.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tau vai etau dvau, these are those two; samvargau, all-swallowing; vāyuḥ eva deveṣu, the air among the gods; prāṇaḥ prāṇeṣu, prāṇa [the vital breath] among the organs. Commentary:-Briefly, vāyu, air, is the source of fire, the sun, the moon, and water. Therefore one should worship vāyu as outside, in nature (adhidaivata). Likewise, prāṇa, the vital breath, is the source of speech, the eyes, the ears, and the mind, and therefore one should worship this prāṇa as within oneself (adhyātma).
Max Müller
4. 'These are the two ends, air among the Devas, breath among the senses (prânâh).'
परिविष्यमाणौ ब्रह्मचारी बिभिक्षे तस्मा उ ह न ददतुः
॥ ४.३.५॥
atha ha śaunakaṃ ca kāpeyamabhipratāriṇaṃ ca kākṣaseniṃ
pariviṣyamāṇau brahmacārī bibhikṣe tasmā u ha na dadatuḥ
.. 4.3.5..
5. Once Śaunaka, the son of Kapi, and Abhipratārin, the son of Kakṣasena, were being served their meals when a brahmacārin appeared and begged for some food. They, however, refused to give him any.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha ha, once; śaunakam kāpeyam ca abhipratāriṇam kākṣasenim ca pariviṣyamāṇau, food was being served to Śaunaka, the son of Kapi, and Abhipratārin, the son of Kaksasena; brahmacārī bibhikṣe, a brahmacārin Commentary:-Śaunaka and Abhipratārin were having their meals, and the cook was serving. Just then a brahmacārin came to them for some food. He was one who had attained the knowledge of Brahman. Śaunaka and Abhipratārin, however, wanted to see if the brahmacārin’s knowledge was genuine, so they did not give him anything.
Max Müller
5. Once while Saunaka Kâpeya and Abhipratârin Kâkshaseni were being waited on at their meal, a religious student begged of them. They gave him nothing.
6. The brahmacārin said:- ‘One god has swallowed four sages. Who is he who protects this world? O Kāpeya, O Abhipratārin, that god exists in many forms, but human beings cannot see him. The food is meant for him, but you are not giving it to him’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ ha uvāca, he [the brahmacārin] said; ekaḥ devaḥ, one god; mahātmanaḥ caturaḥ, four sages; jagāra, swallowed; kaḥ saḥ, who is that [god]; bhuvanasya gopāḥ, the guardian of the world; kāpeya abhipratārin, O Kāpeya, O Abhipratārin; martyāḥ tam na abhipaśyanti, human beings cannot see him; bahudhā vasantam, existing in many forms; yasmai, for whom; vai etat annam, this food; tasmai, to him; etat na dattam iti, did not give it. Commentary:-Fire, the sun, the moon, and water—these are said to be four sages. Air controls all these, and air is called the god Prajāpati. Similarly, prāṇa is also the god Prajāpati, and the sages are speech, the eyes, the ears, and the mind. Prajāpati is the protector of all, and he resides in diverse forms—sometimes within the human body (ādhyātmika), Sometimes in the forces of nature (ādhidaivika), and sometimes within other living beings (ādhibautika). People are ignorant about him and do not recognize him. They prepare food for him but do not know it, and they refuse to give it to him.
Max Müller
6. He said:- 'One god--who is he?--swallowed the four great ones [1], he, the guardian of the world. O Kâpeya, mortals see him not, O Abhipratârin, though he dwells in many places. He to whom this food belongs, to him it has not been given [2].'
7. After thinking this over, Śaunaka Kāpeya went to the brahmacārin and said, ‘He who is the self of all the gods and goddesses, the creator of all things moveable and immoveable, who eats with his golden [i.e., firm] teeth, who is intelligent, whom others cannot eat, who eats things which are not food, whose greatness wise people think highly of—O brahmacārin, we worship him.’ After this he said, ‘Give this man alms’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tat u ha, that [statement]; śaunaka kāpeyaḥ pratimanvānaḥ, thought over; pratyeyāya, [and then] went to him; ātmā devānām, the self of all the gods and goddesses; janitā, the creator; prajānām, of all things [moving or unmoving]; hiraṇyadaṃstraḥ, with teeth made of gold; babhasaḥ, the eater; anasūriḥ, intelligent; mahāntam, great; asya, its; mahimānam, greatness; āhuḥ, is so described; anadyamānaḥ, uneatable; yat, that; anannam, no food; atti, eats; brahmacārin, O brahmacārin; vayam, we; idam vai ā-upāsmahe iti, worship this one; datta asmai bhikṣām iti, give alms to him. Commentary:-Śaunaka told the brahmacārin:- ‘It is not correct that we do not know him. We do know him. He is Prajāpati. He creates and also destroys everything. He is the self of all, and he is also the destṛoyer of all. He is supreme. All wise people worship him as such.’ Śaunaka then told his servant to give the brahmacārin some food.
Max Müller
7. Saunaka Kâpeya, pondering on that speech, went to the student and said:- 'He is the self of the Devas, the creator of all beings, with golden tusks, the eater, not without intelligence. His greatness is said to be great indeed, because, without being eaten, he eats even what is not food [1]. Thus do we, O Brahmakârin, meditate on that Being.' Then he said:- 'give him food.'
bhavatyannādo bhavati ya evaṃ veda ya evaṃ veda .. 4.3.8..
8. Then they gave him alms. The first five [Vāyu, etc.] and the second five [prāṇa, etc.] together make ten. That is kṛta [the throw of dice of the highest denomination]. These ten are the ten directions, and they are the food. This kṛta is Virāṭ. As Virāṭ is all-pervasive, everything is its food. By that Virāṭ all this is seen. He who knows this Virāṭ becomes Virāṭ himself. He becomes all-pervasive and everything becomes his food.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tasmai, to him [the brahmacārin]; u ha daduḥ, they gave [alms]; te vai ete, all these; pañca anye, five other [i.e., air, plus the four others (fire, the sun, the moon, and water) constituting its food]; pañca anye, five other [i.e., prāṇa, plus the four others (speech, the eyes, the ears, and the mind) constituting its food]; daśa santaḥ, make ten; tat kṛtam, that is kṛta [the turn of the dice that swallows all others]; tasmāt, therefore; sarvāsu dikṣu daśa, these which are in the ten directions; annam eva, are the food; kṛtam, [and also] kṛta; sā eṣā virāṭ, that is Virāṭ; annādi, that which swallows; tayā, by that [Virāṭ]; sarvam idam dṛṣṭam, all this is seen; yaḥ evam veda, he who knows thus; asya sarvam idam dṛṣṭam bhavati, all this to him becomes seen; annādaḥ bhavati, [and] he becomes an eater of food. Iti tṛtīyaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the third section. Commentary:-Prāṇa (the vital force), speech, the eyes, the ears, and the mind—these five represent our physical (adhyātmika) self. Air, fire, the sun, the moon, and water—these five represent nature (adhidaivika), which surrounds us. These ten together are compared to the dice throw called kṛta. Being the highest number, kṛta ‘swallows’ the other throws of dice, adds their numbers to itself, and then becomes ten. (Kṛta is 4, so the other numbers are 3, 2, and 1; therefore 4+3+2+1 = 10.) Then if is said that the adhyātmika and adhidaivika elements together are the ten quarters. They represent the whole world, so they are Virāṭ. This Virāṭ is both the eater and the food. The person who knows this then becomes Virāṭ.
Max Müller
8. They gave him food. Now these five (the eater Vâyu (air), and his food, Agni (fire), Âditya (sun), Kandramas (moon), Ap (water)) and the other five (the eater Prâna (breath), and his food, speech, sight, hearing, mind) make ten, and that is the Krita (the highest [1]) cast (representing the ten, the eaters and the food). Therefore in all quarters those ten are food (and) Krita (the highest cast). These are again the Virâg[2] (of ten syllables) which eats the food. Through this all this becomes seen. He who knows this sees all this and becomes an eater of food, yea, he becomes an eater of food.
1. Once Satyakāma Jābāla said to his mother Jabālā:- ‘Revered mother, I would like to live with a teacher as a celibate student. What is my lineage?’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Satyakāmaḥ jābālaḥ ha, once Satyakāma Jābāla; jabālām mātaram āmantrayāñcakre, said to his mother Jabālā; brahmacaryam bhavati vivatsyāmi, O revered mother, I want to live as a brahmacārin [with a teacher]; kim gotraḥ nu aham asmi iti, what is my lineage? Commentary:-To attain Self-realization, one has to practise austerities, study the scriptures, and live a life of self-discipline. The story of Satyakāma illustrates this.
Max Müller
1. Satyakâma, the son of Gabâlâ, addressed his mother and said:- 'I wish to become a Brahmakârin (religious student), mother. Of what family am I?'
sāhametanna veda yadgotrastvamasi jabālā tu nāmāhamasmi
satyakāmo nāma tvamasi sa satyakāma eva jābālo
bravīthā iti .. 4.4.2..
2. Jabālā said to him:- ‘My son, I don’t know what your lineage is. I was very busy serving many people when I was young, and I had you. As this was the situation, I know nothing about your lineage. My name is Jabālā, and your name is Satyakāma. When asked about your lineage, say, “I am Satyakāma Jābāla.”’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Sā, she [Jabālā]; ha enam uvāca, said to him; na aham etat veda, I don’t know this; tāta, my son; yat gotraḥ tvam asi, what your lineage is; bahu aham carantī paricāriṇī, I was busy serving many people; yauvane tvām alabhe, I had you when I was young; sā etat, for this reason; aham yat gotraḥ tvam asi na veda, I know nothing about what your lineage is; jabālā tu nāma aham asmi, but my name is Jabālā; satyakāmaḥ nāma tvam asi, your name is Satyakāma; saḥ satyakāmaḥ eva jābālaḥ bruvīthāḥ iti, [when asked about your lineage] say this that you are Satyakāma Jābāla. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
2. She said to him:- 'I do not know, my child, of what family thou art. In my youth when I had to move about much as a servant (waiting on the guests in my father's house), I conceived thee. I do not know of what family thou art. I am Gabâlâ by name, thou art Satyakâma (Philalethes). Say that thou art Satyakâma Gâbâlâ.'
sa ha hāridrumataṃ gautamametyovāca brahmacaryaṃ bhagavati
vatsyāmyupeyāṃ bhagavantamiti .. 4.4.3..
3. Satyakāma went to Gautama, the son of Haridrumata, and said:- ‘Revered sir, I wish to live with you as a celibate. I have come, revered sir, to be your disciple’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ ha hāridmmatam gautamam etya, he went to Gautama, the son of Haridrumata; uvāca, [and] said; brahmacaryam bhagavati vatsyāmi, revered sir, I wish to live [with you] as a celibate student; upeyām bhagavantam iti, I have come to you, revered sir, [as a disciple]. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
3. He going to Gautama Hâridrumata said to him, 'I wish to become a Brahmakârin with you, Sir. May I come to you, Sir?'
tvāmalabhe sāhametanna veda yadgotrastvamasi jabālā tu
nāmāhamasmi satyakāmo nāma tvamasīti so'hagͫ
satyakāmo jābālo'smi bho iti .. 4.4.4..
4. Gautama asked him, ‘O Somya, what is your lineage?’ Satyakāma said:- ‘Sir, I do not know what my lineage is. When I asked my mother, she said to me:- “I was very busy serving many people when I was young, and I had you. As this was the situation, I know nothing about your lineage. My name is Jabālā, and your name is Satyakāma.” So, sir, I am Satyakāma Jābāla’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tam ha uvāca, he [Gautama] said to him; kim gotraḥ nu somya asi iti, O Somya, what is your lineage; saḥ ha uvāca, he [Satyakāma] said; na aham etat veda bhoḥ, I do not know this, sir; yat gotraḥ aham asmi, of what lineage I am; apṛccham mātaram, I asked my mother; sā mā pratyabravīt, she said to me; bahu aham carantī paricāriṇī, I was busy serving many people; yauvane tvām alabhe, I had you when I was young; sā etat, for this reason; aham yat gotraḥ tvam asi na veda, I know nothing about what your lineage is; jabālā tu nāma aham asmi, but my name is Jabālā; satyakāmaḥ nāma tvam asi, your name is Satyakāma; saḥ aham satyakāmaḥ jābālaḥ asmi bhoḥ iti, so I am Satyakāma Jābāla, sir. Commentary:-Jabālā told Satyakāma the truth and, should anyone ask him, she told him to tell the truth also—irrespective
Max Müller
4. He said to him:- 'Of what family are you, my friend?' He replied:- 'I do not know, Sir, of what family I am. I asked my mother, and she answered:- "In my youth when I had to move about much as a servant, I conceived thee. I do not know of what family thou art. I am Gabâlâ by name, thou art Satyakâma," I am therefore Satyakâma Gâbâlâ, Sir.'
nāsahasreṇāvarteyeti sa ha varṣagaṇaṃ provāsa tā yadā
sahasragͫ sampeduḥ .. 4.4.5..
5. Gautama said to him:- ‘No non-brāhmin could speak like this. [Therefore, you must be a brāhmin.] O Somya, go and get me some fuel [for the sacrificial fire]. I will initiate you [as a brāhmin by presenting you with the sacred thread], as you have not deviated from truth.’ After the initiation, he selected four hundred feeble and famished cows. Addressing Satyakāma, Gautama said, ‘O Somya, take these cows away [and look after them].’ As. Satyakāma was taking them away, he said, ‘I will not come back until there are a thousand of them.’ He lived away for many years until they had become a thousand.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tam ha uvāca, he [Gautama] said to him; na etat abrāhmaṇaḥ vivaktum arhati, no non-brāhmin could speak like this; samidham āhara, get some fuel; somya, O Somya; tvā upaneṣye, I shall initiate you; na satyāt agāḥ iti, you have not deviated from truth; tam upanīya, having initiated him; kṛśānām abalānām catuḥśatāḥ gāḥ, four hundred thin and famished cows; nirākṛtya uvāca, having chosen, he said; somya, O Somya; anusaṃvraja iti, take these away; tāḥ abhiprasthāpayan, as he was leaving with them; uvāca, he [Satyakāma] said; na āvarteya asahasreṇa, I will not come back until they are a thousand in number; saḥ ha varṣagaṇam provāsa, he lived away for a long time; tāḥ yadā sahasram sampeduḥ, until they were a thousand. Iti caturthaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the fourth section. Commentary:-The point is, no matter what Satyakāma’s birth was, he had the qualities of a brāhmin—love of truth and learning. Though he had to suffer much hardship living in the forest looking after the cows, he was more concerned with keeping his word than with seeking physical comforts.
Max Müller
5. He said to him:- 'No one but a true Brâhmana would thus speak out. Go and fetch fuel, friend, I shall initiate you. You have not swerved from the truth.' Having initiated him, he chose four hundred lean and weak cows, and said:- 'Tend these, friend.' He drove them out and said to himself, 'I shall not return unless I bring back a thousand.' He dwelt a number of years (in the forest), and when the cows had become a thousand,
bhagava iti ha pratiśuśrāva prāptāḥ somya sahasragͫ smaḥ
prāpaya na ācāryakulam .. 4.5.1..
1. Then a bull called to Satyakāma, saying, ‘O Satyakāma!’ He replied, ‘Yes, lord.’ [The bull then said:-] ‘We are now a thousand. Take us to the teacher’s house’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, then; ha enam ṛṣabhaḥ abhyuvāda iti, a bull called to him [Satyakāma] saying; satyakāma, O Satyakāma; bhagavaḥ iti ha pratiśuśrāva, he replied, ‘Yes, lord’; prāptāḥ somya sahasram smaḥ, we are now a thousand; prāpaya naḥ ācāryakulam, lead us to the teacher’s house. Commentary:-Vāyu (air) is the presiding deity of the quarters (the directions). Being pleased with Satyakāma for the way he fulfilled his promise to his teacher, Vāyu entered the body of a bull and spoke to Satyakāma in a very heavy voice. Satyakāma recognized the deity, and so he addressed him as ‘lord.’
Max Müller
1. The bull of the herd (meant for Vâyu) said to him:- 'Satyakâma!' He replied:- 'Sir!' The bull said:- 'We have become a thousand, lead us to the house of the teacher;
brahmaṇaśca te pādaṃ bravāṇīti bravītu me bhagavāniti
tasmai hovāca prācī dikkalā pratīcī dikkalā
dakṣiṇā dikkalodīcī dikkalaiṣa vai somya catuṣkalaḥ
pādo brahmaṇaḥ prakāśavānnāma .. 4.5.2..
2. The bull said, ‘Let me also tell you about one foot of Brahman.’ Satyakāma replied,’Yes, lord, please tell me.’ Then the bull said to him:- ‘The east is one part of Brahman, the west is another, the south is another, and the north is yet another. O Somya, this is one foot of Brahman, consisting of four parts. This foot is called Prakāśavān, the shining’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Brahmaṇaḥ ca te pādam bravāṇi iti, [the bull said,] let me also tell you about a foot [a quarter] of Brahman; bravītu me bhagavān iti, yes, lord, please tell me; tasmai ha uvāca, [the bull] said to him; prācī dik kalā, the east is one part [i.e., one sixteenth—a quarter of a quarter]; pratīcī dik kalā, the west is one part; dakṣiṇā dik kalā, the south is one part; udīcī dik kalā, the north is one part; eṣaḥ vai somya catuṣkalaḥ pādaḥ brahmaṇaḥ, O Somya, this is one foot of Brahman having four parts; prakāśavān nāma, it is called Prakāśavān [the shining]. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
2. 'And I will declare to you one foot of Brahman.' 'Declare it, Sir,' he replied. He said to him:- 'The eastern region is one quarter, the western region is one quarter, the southern region is one quarter, the northern region is one quarter. This is a foot of Brahman, consisting of the four quarters, and called Prakâsavat (endowed with splendour).
prakāśavato ha lokāñjayati ya etamevaṃ vidvāgͫścatuṣkalaṃ
pādaṃ brahmaṇaḥ prakāśavānityupāste .. 4.5.3..
3. ‘He who knows this foot of Brahman, which has four parts and is called “the Shining,” and worships it as such becomes famous in this world. He who knows this foot of Brahman, which has four parts and is called “the Shining,” and worships it as such attains other worlds which are luminous’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ etam evam vidvān, he who knows this thus; catuṣkalam pādam brahmaṇaḥ, one foot [or quarter] of Brahman having four parts; prakāśavān iti, known as the shining; upāste, [and] meditates on it; prakāśavān asmin loke bhavati, becomes famous in this world; yaḥ etam evam vidvān, he who knows this thus; catuṣkalam pādam brahmaṇaḥ, one foot of Brahman having four parts; prakāśavān iti, known as the shining; upāste, [and] meditates on it; prakāśavataḥ ha lokān jayati, wins luminous worlds after death. Iti pañcamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the fifth section. Commentary:-If you worship Brahman as luminous, you yourself become luminous—that is, you become famous. But not only that, after your death you go to those luminous worlds where gods and goddesses live.
Max Müller
3. 'He who knows this and meditates on the foot of Brahman, consisting of four quarters, by the name of Prakâsavat, becomes endowed with splendour in this world. He conquers the resplendent worlds, whoever knows this and meditates on the foot of Brahman, consisting of the four quarters, by the name of Prakâsavat.
1. [Then the bull said,] ‘Agni [fire] will tell you about another foot of Brahman.’ The next day Satyakāma collected the cows and drove them towards his teacher’s house. At dusk they arrived at a place [where they halted for the night]. Having confined the cows and collected some fuel, he lit a fire and sat down just behind it facing east.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Agniḥ te pādam vaktā iti, Agni [fire] will tell you about [another] foot; saḥ ha śvaḥ-bhūte gāḥ abhiprasthāpayāñcakāra, the next day he led the cows [towards his teacher’s house]; yatra sāyam, when it was dusk; tāḥ abhi-babhūvuḥ, they arrived at a place; tatra agnim upasamādhāya, having made a fire there; gāḥ uparudhya, keeping the cows confined; samidham ādhāya, having collected fuel; paścāt agneḥ, behind the fire; prāk upa-upaviveśa, sat facing the east. Commentary:-The next day Satyakāma finished his morning rites and then started for the teacher’s house with the cows. They halted for the night at a suitable spot, and after gathering the cows together, Satyakāma lit a fire and sat by it facing east. The bull had told him that Agni (fire) would teach him about another foot of Brahman. He began to wonder what Agni would say and when he would say it. He could not think of anything else.
Max Müller
1. 'Agni will declare to you another foot of Brahman.' (After these words of the bull), Satyakâma, on the morrow, drove the cows (toward the house of the teacher). And when they came towards the evening, he lighted a fire, penned the cows, laid wood on the fire, and sat down behind the fire, looking to the east.
2. Fire called to him, ‘O Satyakāma.’ He replied, ‘Yes, lord’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Agniḥ, fire; tam abhyuvāda, called to him; satyakāma iti, O Satyakāma; bhagavaḥ iti ha pratiśuśrāva, he replied, ‘Yes, lord.’ Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
2. Then Agni (the fire) said to him:- 'Satyakâma!' He replied:- 'Sir.'
3. [Fire said,] ‘O Somya, let me tell you about one foot of Brahman.’ [Satyakāma replied,] ‘Yes, lord, please tell me.’ [Fire] said to him:- ‘The earth is one part, the mid-region is another part, heaven is a third part, and the ocean is a fourth part. O Somya, these are the four parts that make up a foot of Brahman. This foot is named Anantavān, the Unlimited’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Somya, O Somya; brahmaṇaḥ te pādam bravāṇi iti, I will now tell you about a foot of Brahman; bravītu me bhagavān iti, yes, lord, please tell me; tasmai ha uvāca, [fire] said to him; pṛthivī kalā, the earth is one part; antarikṣam kalā, the space between heaven and earth is one part; dyauḥ kalā, heaven is one part; samudraḥ kalā, the ocean is one part; eṣaḥ vai somya catuṣkalaḥ pādaḥ brahmaṇaḥ, O Somya, these are the four parts that make up one foot of Brahman; anantavān nāma, named Anantavān, the Unlimited. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
3. Agni said:- 'Friend, I will declare unto you one foot of Brahman.' 'Declare it, Sir,' he replied. He said to him:- 'The earth is one quarter, the sky is one quarter, the heaven is one quarter, the ocean is one quarter. This is a foot of Brahman, consisting of four quarters, and called Anantavat (endless).'
bhavatyanantavato ha lokāñjayati ya etamevaṃ vidvāgͫścatuṣkalaṃ
pādaṃ brahmaṇo'nantavānityupāste .. 4.6.4..
4. ‘He who knows this foot of Brahman, which has four parts and is known as “the Unlimited,” and worships it as such becomes long-lived in this world. He who knows this foot of Brahman, which has four parts and is known as “the Unlimited,” and worships it as such attains worlds which are long-lasting’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ etam evam vidvān, he who knows this thus; catuṣkalam pādam brahmaṇaḥ, one foot of Brahman having four parts; anantavān iti, known as the Unlimited; upāste, [and] meditates on it; anantavān asmin loke bhavati, becomes long-lived in this world; yaḥ etam evam vidvān, he who knows this thus; catuṣkalam pādam brahmaṇaḥ, one foot of Brahman having four parts; anantavān iti, known as the Unlimited; upāste, [and] meditates on it; anantavataḥ ha lokān jayati, wins long-lasting worlds after death. Iti ṣaṣṭhaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the sixth section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
4. 'He who knows this and meditates on the foot of Brahman, consisting of four quarters, by the name of Anantavat, becomes endless in this world. He conquers the endless worlds, whoever knows this and meditates on the foot of Brahman, consisting of four quarters, by the name of Anantavat.
1. [Then the fire said,] ‘The swan will tell you about another foot of Brahman.’ The next day Satyakāma collected the cows and drove them towards his teacher’s house. At dusk they arrived at a place [where they halted for the night]. Having confined the cows and collected some fuel, he lit a fire and sat down just behind it facing east.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Haṃsaḥ te pādam vaktā iti, the swan will tell you about [another] foot; saḥ ha śvaḥ-bhūte gāḥ abhiprasthāpayāñcakāra, the next day he led the cows [towards his teacher’s house]; yātra sāyam, when it was dusk; tāḥ abhi-babhūvuḥ, they arrived at a place; tatra agnim upasamādhāya, having made a fire there; gāḥ uparudhya, keeping the cows confined; samidham ādhāya, having collected fuel; paścāt agneḥ, behind the fire; prāk upa-upaviveśa, sat facing the east. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
1. 'A Hamsa (flamingo, meant for the sun) will declare to you another foot of Brahman.' (After these words of Agni), Satyakâma, on the morrow, drove the cows onward. And when they came towards the evening, he lighted a fire, penned the cows, laid wood on the fire, and sat down behind the fire, looking toward the east.
2. The swan came flying to him and said, ‘O Satyakāma.’ Satyakāma replied, ‘Yes, lord’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Haṃsaḥ upanipatya, the swan flew near; tam abhyuvāda satyakāma iti, [and] called to him, ‘O Satyakāma’; bhagavaḥ iti ha pratiśuśrāva, he replied, ‘Yes, lord.’ Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
2. Then a Hamsa flew near and said to him 'Satyakâma.' He replied:- 'Sir.'
ब्रह्मणः सोम्य ते पादं ब्रवाणीति ब्रवीतु मे भगवानिति
तस्मै होवाचाग्निः कला सूर्यः कला चन्द्रः कला
विद्युत्कलैष वै सोम्य चतुष्कलः पादो ब्रह्मणो
ज्योतिष्मान्नाम ॥ ४.७.३॥
brahmaṇaḥ somya te pādaṃ bravāṇīti bravītu me bhagavāniti
tasmai hovācāgniḥ kalā sūryaḥ kalā candraḥ kalā
vidyutkalaiṣa vai somya catuṣkalaḥ pādo brahmaṇo
jyotiṣmānnāma .. 4.7.3..
3. [The swan said,] ‘O Somya, let me tell you about one foot of Brahman.’ [Satyakāma replied,] ‘Yes, lord, please tell me.’ [The swan] said to him:- ‘Fire is one part, the sun is another part, the moon is a third part, and lightning is a fourth part. O Somya, these are the four parts that make up a foot of Brahman. This foot is named Jyotiṣmān, the Luminous’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Somya, O Somya; brahmaṇaḥ te pādam bravāṇi iti, I will now tell you about a foot [quarter] of Brahman; bravītu me bhagavān iti, yes, lord, please tell me; tasmai ha uvāca, [the swan] said to him; agniḥ kalā, fire is one part; sūryaḥ kalā, the sun is one part; candraḥ kalā, the moon is one part; vidyut kalā, ūghtning is one part; eṣaḥ vai somya catuṣkalaḥ pādaḥ brahmaṇaḥ, O Somya, these are the four parts that make up a foot of Brahman; jyotiṣmān nāma, named Jyotiṣmān, the Luminous. Commentary:-The swan is speaking here of luminous things, such as fire, the sun, etc. Its partiality for luminous things gives rise to the suspicion that it is itself something luminous. It is, in fact, Āditya, the sun.
Max Müller
3. The Hamsa said:- 'Friend, I will declare unto you one foot of Brahman.' 'Declare it, Sir,' he replied. He said to him:- 'Fire is one quarter, the sun is one quarter, the moon is one quarter, lightning is one quarter. This is a foot of Brahman, consisting of four quarters, and called Gyotishmat (full of light).
jyotiṣmato ha lokāñjayati ya etamevaṃ vidvāgͫścatuṣkalaṃ
pādaṃ brahmaṇo jyotiṣmānityupāste .. 4.7.4..
4. ‘He who knows this foot of Brahman, which has four parts and is known as “the Luminous,” and worships it as such becomes illustrious in this world. He who knows this foot of Brahman, which has four parts and is known as “the Luminous,” and worships it as such attains worlds which are luminous.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ etam evam vidvān, he who knows this thus; catuṣkalam pādam brahmaṇaḥ, one foot [or quarter] of Brahman having four parts; jyotiṣmān iti, known as the Luminous; upāste, [and] meditates on it; jyotiṣmān asmin loke bhavati, becomes illustrious in this world; yaḥ etam evam vidvān, he who knows this thus; catuṣkalam pādam brahmaṇaḥ, one foot of Brahman having four parts; jyotiṣmān iti, known as the Luminous; upāste, [and] meditates on it; jyotiṣmataḥ ha lokān jayati, wins luminous worlds after death. Iti saptamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the seventh section. Commentary:-If you know luminous things well, you yourself become luminous—that is to say, famous—in this world. Then after death you win a luminous world. The idea is that you attain whatever you worship.
Max Müller
4. 'He who knows this and meditates on the foot of Brahman, consisting of four quarters, by the name of Gyotishmat, becomes full of light in this world. He conquers the worlds which are full of light, whoever knows this and meditates on the foot of Brahman, consisting of four quarters, by the name of Gyotishmat.
1. [Then the swan said,] ‘The madgu will tell you about another foot of Brahman.’ The next day Satyakāma collected the cows and drove them towards his teacher’s house. At dusk they arrived at a place [where they halted for the night]. Having confined the cows and collected some fuel, he lit a fire and sat down just behind it facing east.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Madguḥ te pādam vaktā iti, the diver-bird will tell you about [another] foot; saḥ ha śvaḥ-bhūte gāḥ abhiprasthāpayāñcakāra, the next day he led the cows [towards his teacher’s house]; yatra sāyam, when it was dusk; tāḥ abhi-babhūvuḥ, they arrived at a place; tatra agnim upasamādhāya, having made a fire there; gāḥ uparudhya, keeping the cows confined; samidham ādhāya, having collected fuel; paścāt agneḥ, behind the fire; prāk upa-upaviveśa, sat facing the east. Commentary:-The madgu, or diver-bird, is most of the time in water. Because of its close connection with water, and because water sustains life, the diver-bird stands for life (prāṇa).
Max Müller
1. 'A diver-bird (Madgu, meant for Prâna) will declare to you another foot of Brahman.' (After these words of the Hamsa), Satyakâma, on the morrow, drove the cows onward. And when they came towards the evening, he lighted a fire, penned the cows, laid wood on the fire, and sat down behind the fire, looking toward the east.
2. The madgu came flying to him and said, ‘O Satyakāma.’ Satyakāma replied, ‘Yes, lord’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Madguḥ upanipatya, the diver-bird flew down; tam abhyuvāda satyakāma iti, [and] called to him, ‘O Satyakāma’; bhagavaḥ iti ha pratiśuśrāva, he replied, ‘Yes, lord.’ Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
2. Then a diver flew near and said to him 'Satyakâma.' He replied:- 'Sir.'
kalaiṣa vai somya catuṣkalaḥ pādo brahmaṇa āyatanavānnāma
.. 4.8.3..
3. [The madgu said,] ‘O Somya, let me tell you about one foot of Brahman.’ [Satyakāma replied,] ‘Yes, lord, please tell me.’ [The madgu] said to him:- ‘Prāṇa is one part, the eyes are another part, the ears are a third part, and the mind is a fourth part. O Somya, these are the four parts that make up a foot of Brahman. This foot is named Āyatanavān, the Support’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Somya, O Somya; brahmaṇaḥ te pādam bravāṇi iti, I will now tell you about a foot [or quarter] of Brahman; bravītu me bhagavān iti, yes, lord, please tell me; tasmai ha uvāca, [the madgu] said to him; prāṇaḥ kalā, prāṇah [the vital force] is one part; cakṣuḥ kalā, the eyes are one part; śrotram kalā, the ears are one part; manaḥ kalā, the mind is one part; eṣaḥ vai somya catuṣkalaḥ pādaḥ brahmaṇaḥ, O Somya, these are the four parts that make up a foot of Brahman; āyatanavān nāma, named Āyatanavān, the Support. Commentary:-This part of the story, about the madgu, is devoted to the teaching of prāṇa. In fact, the madgu represents prāṇa. Here the role of the mind has to be understood. The mind is the fourth part of this foot of Brahman, and it is the repository of all that we experience through our diverse organs. This is why it is called Āyatanavān, the Support.
Max Müller
3. The diver said:- 'Friend, I will declare unto you one foot of Brahman! 'Declare it, Sir,' he replied. He said to him:- 'Breath is one quarter, the eye is one quarter, the ear is one quarter, the mind is one quarter. This is a foot of Brahman, consisting of four quarters, and called Âyatanavat (having a home).
4. ‘He who knows this foot of Brahman, which has four parts and is known as “the Support,” and worships it as such becomes a support [to others] in this world. He who knows this foot of Brahman, which has four parts and is known as “the Support,” and worships it as such attains worlds which are spacious’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ etam evam vidvān, he who knows this thus; catuṣkalam pādam brahmaṇaḥ, one foot [or quarter] of Brahman having four parts; āyatanavān iti, known as the Support; upāste, [and] meditates on it; āyatanavān asmin loke bhavati, becomes āyatanavān [i.e., a support to others] in this world; yaḥ etam evam vidvān, he who knows this thus; catuṣkalam pādam brahmaṇaḥ, one foot of Brahman having four parts; āyatanavān iti, known as the Support [i.e., it is spacious and therefore able to support things]; upāste, [and] meditates on it; āyatanavataḥ ha lokān jayati, wins spacious worlds after death. Iti aṣṭamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the eighth section. Commentary:-If a person worships this foot of Brahman as āyatanavān—that is, as spacious—he himself becomes spacious. Being spacious means that he can give shelter to many. He has this advantage as long as he is alive. Then when he dies he is able to attain many larger worlds.
Max Müller
4. 'He who knows this and meditates on the foot of Brahman, consisting of four quarters, by the name of Âyatanavat, becomes possessed of a home in this world. He conquers the worlds which offer a home, whoever knows this and meditates on the foot of Brahman, consisting of four quarters, by the name of Âyatanavat.'
1. [In due course, Satyakāma] reached his teacher’s house. The teacher greeted him, saying, ‘O Satyakāma.’ He replied, ‘Yes, lord’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Prāpa ha, he reached; ācāryakulam, the teacher’s house; tam ācāryaḥ abhyuvāda, the teacher greeted him; satyakāma iti, O Satyakāma; bhagavaḥ iti ha pratiśuśrāva, [Satyakāma] replied,’Yes, lord.’ Commentary:-Satyakāma tended his teacher’s cattle, but while doing so he lived an austere life and a life of deep meditation.
Max Müller
1. Thus he reached the house of his teacher. The teacher said to him:- 'Satyakâma.' He replied:- 'Sir.'
ब्रह्मविदिव वै सोम्य भासि को नु त्वानुशशासेत्यन्ये
मनुष्येभ्य इति ह प्रतिजज्ञे भगवाꣳस्त्वेव मे कामे ब्रूयात्
॥ ४.९.२॥
brahmavidiva vai somya bhāsi ko nu tvānuśaśāsetyanye
manuṣyebhya iti ha pratijajñe bhagavāgͫstveva me kāme brūyāt
.. 4.9.2..
2. The teacher said:- ‘Somya, you shine like one who has known Brahman. Who taught you?’ Satyakāma assured him:- ‘Certainly no human being. But will you, O Lord, please teach me now about Brahman, the subject closest to my heart?’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Brahmavit iva vai somya bhāsi, [the teacher, Gautama, said to Satyakāma,] Somya, you are shining like one who has known Brahman; kaḥ nu tvā anuśaśāsa iti, who taught you; anye manuṣyebhyaḥ, somebody other than a human being; iti ha pratijajñe, he assured him; bhagavān tu eva me kāme bruyāt, but, Lord, teach me now about Brahman, the subject closest to my heart. Commentary:-The look on Satyakāma’s face surprised his teacher. He looked like a knower of Brahman. He was shining. What are the signs of a person who has known Brahman? According to Śaṅkara, that person is happy and cheerful, with a smile on his face all the time. His mind is always under control, as are his sense organs. He is also free from desires and therefore from worries. Satyakāma had these signs. This is why his teacher asked him who had taught him. Satyakāma emphatically said that no human being had taught him. He meant thereby that so long as his teacher was there he needed no other human being to teach him. He also assured his teacher that he had now come to him to learn about Brahman, the subject dearest to him.
Max Müller
2. The teacher said:- 'Friend, you shine like one who knows Brahman. Who then has taught you [1]?' He replied:- 'Not men. But you only, Sir, I wish, should teach me [2];
श्रुतꣳह्येव मे भगवद्दृशेभ्य आचार्याद्धैव विद्या विदिता
साधिष्ठं प्रापतीति तस्मै हैतदेवोवाचात्र ह न किंचन
वीयायेति वीयायेति ॥ ४.९.३॥
śrutagͫhyeva me bhagavaddṛśebhya ācāryāddhaiva vidyā viditā
sādhiṣṭhaṃ prāpatīti tasmai haitadevovācātra ha na kiṃcana
vīyāyeti vīyāyeti .. 4.9.3..
3. [Satyakāma said,] ‘I have heard from revered ones like you that a person learns best when he learns from a competent teacher.’ The teacher then, taught Satyakāma everything. Nothing was left out.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Śrutām hi eva me, I have heard; bhagavat-dṛśebhyaḥ, from revered ones like you; ācāryāt ha eva vidyā viditā sādhiṣṭham prāpati iti, knowledge learned from a competent teacher is the best; tasmai, to him [Satyakāma]; ha etat eva uvāca, he taught all this [i.e., what Satyakāma had already learnt from the bull, fire, the swan, and the madgu]; atra ha na kiñcana vīyāya iti vīyāya iti, nothing was left out, nothing was left out. Iti navamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the ninth section. Commentary:-You learn things best when you learn them from a good teacher. This is why Satyakāma asked Gautama to teach him. Gautama then taught him all sixteen kalās, or parts, about Brahman. That is to say, he taught him everything. Earlier, the bull, fire, the swan, and the madgu had taught him about Brahman. Gautama did not leave that out. He taught him everything. The word vīyāya is repeated twice to emphasize that Gautama did not leave out anything.
Max Müller
3. 'For I have heard from men like you, Sir, that only knowledge which is learnt from a teacher (Âkârya), leads to real good.' Then he taught him the same knowledge. Nothing was left out, Yea, nothing was left out.
brahmacāryamuvāsa tasya ha dvādaśa vārṣāṇyagnīnparicacāra
sa ha smānyānantevāsinaḥ samāvartayagͫstaṃ ha smaiva na
samāvartayati .. 4.10.1..
1. Upakosala Kāmalāyana lived twelve years with Satyakāma Jābāla as a celibate disciple, studying the scriptures and looking after his teacher’s sacrificial fires. On the completion of that period, other students were permitted to go home. The only exception was Upakosala. He was detained.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Upakosalaḥ kāmalāyanaḥ ha vai satyakāme jābāle brahmacaryam uvāsa, Upakosala Kāmalāyana lived with Satyakāma Jābāla as a celibate student; tasya ha dvādaśa varṣāṇi agnīn paricacāra, for twelve years he looked after his [teacher’s] sacrificial fires; saḥ, he [Satyakāma]; ha sma anyān antevāsinaḥ samāvartayan, permitted the other disciples to return home [after the completion of their Vedic studies]; tam ha eva na samāvartayati sma, but did not let him [Upakosala] go home. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
1. Upakosala Kâmalâyana dwelt as a Brahmakârin (religious student) in the house of Satyakâma Gâbâla. He tended his fires for twelve years. But the teacher, though he allowed other pupils (after they had learnt the sacred books) to depart to their own homes, did not allow Upakosala to depart.
2. Satyakāma’s wife said to him:- ‘The brahmacārin is much reduced by austerities and has looked after the fires with great care. Lest the fires blame you, I suggest you teach him.’ But Satyakāma did not teach him. Instead, he left on a journey.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tam, to him [Satyakāma]; jāyā uvāca, his wife said; taptaḥ, much reduced by austerities; brahmacārī; the brahmacārin; kuśalam, with great efficiency; agnīn paricacārīt, has tended the fires; mā tvā agnayaḥ paripravocan, may the fires not speak ill of you; prabrūhi asmai iti, please teach him; tasmai ha aprocya eva, he did not teach him; pravāsāñcakre, he left on a journey. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
2. Then his wife said to him:- 'This student, who is quite exhausted (with austerities), has carefully tended your fires. Let not the fires themselves blame you, but teach him.' The teacher, however, went away on a journey without having taught him.
3. Upakosala was upset and started fasting. His teacher’s wife said to him:- ‘Brahmacārin, eat something. Why are you not eating?’ Upakosala said:- ‘There are too many desires in me and they are pulling me in different directions. I am like one suffering from many ailments. I don’t want to eat’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ, he [Upakosala]; ha vyādhinā, due to mental affliction; anaśitum dadhre, started fasting; tam ācārya-jāyā uvāca, the teacher’s wife said to him; brahmacārin aśāna, brahmacārin, start eatine; kim nu na āśnāsi iti, why are you not eating; saḥ ha uvāca, he [Upakosala] said; bahavaḥ ime asmin puruṣe kāmāḥ there are many desires in this person; nānātyayāḥ, they are pulling me in different directions; vyādhibhiḥ pratipūrṇaḥ asmi, I am full of ailments; na aśiṣyāmi iti, I will not eat anything. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
3. The student from sorrow was not able to eat. Then the wife of the teacher said to him:- 'Student, eat! Why do you not eat?' He said:- 'There are many desires in this man here, which lose themselves in different directions. I am full of sorrows, and shall take no food.'
4. Then the fires—the Dakṣiṇāgni, the Gārhapatya, and the Āhavanīya—began to say to each other:- ‘This brahmacārin has become thin from practising austerities. He has so long looked after us with great care. Let us teach him.’ They said to Upakosala, ‘Prāṇa is Brahman, ka [happiness] is Brahman, and kha [space] is Brahman.’
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha ha agnayaḥ samūdire, then the fires [the Dakṣiṇāgni, the Gārhapatya, and the Āhavanīya] began to say; taptaḥ brahmacārī, the austere brahmacārin; kuśalam, with great care; naḥ paryacārīt, looked after us; hanta asmai prabravāma iti, so we will teach him; tasmai ha ucuḥ, they said to him; prāṇaḥ brahma, prāṇa is Brahman; kam brahma, happiness is Brahman; kham brahma iti, ākāśa [space] is Brahman. Commentary:-The three fires that had been so well taken care of by Upakosala were moved to see his condition. They also felt that a great injustice had been done to him by his teacher, Satyakāma. They then decided to take it upon themselves to teach him.
Max Müller
4. Thereupon the fires said among themselves:- 'This student, who is quite exhausted, has carefully tended us. Well, let us teach him.' They said to him:-
स होवाच विजानाम्यहं यत्प्राणो ब्रह्म कं च तु खं च न
विजानामीति ते होचुर्यद्वाव कं तदेव खं यदेव खं तदेव
कमिति प्राणं च हास्मै तदाकाशं चोचुः ॥ ४.१०.५॥
sa hovāca vijānāmyahaṃ yatprāṇo brahma kaṃ ca tu khaṃ ca na
vijānāmīti te hocuryadvāva kaṃ tadeva khaṃ yadeva khaṃ tadeva
kamiti prāṇaṃ ca hāsmai tadākāśaṃ cocuḥ .. 4.10.5..
5. Upakosala said:- ‘I know that prāṇa is Brahman. But that ka and kha are Brahman I do not know.’ The fires replied, ‘That which is ka is also kha, and that which is kha is also ka.’ Then the fires taught him that Brahman was both prāṇa and ākāśa [space].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ ha uvāca, he [Upakosala] said; vijānāmi aham yat prāṇa brahma, I know that prāṇa is Brahman; kam ca tu kham ca na vijānāmi iti, but I don’t know that ‘ka’ and ‘kha’ are Brahman; te ha ucaḥ, they [the fires] said; yat vāva kam tat eva kham, that which is ‘ka’ is also ‘kha’; yat eva kham tat eva kam iti, that which is ‘kha’ is also ‘ka’; prāṇam ca ha asmai tat ākāśam ca ucaḥ, then they taught him about prāṇa and ākāśa [space]. Iti daśamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the tenth section. Commentary:-Upakosala had no difficulty accepting that prāṇa was Brahman, for prāṇa is the vital breath and Without the vital breath, life is impossible. In view of its importance it may be conceded that prāṇa is Brahman. But how can ka and kha be Brahman? Upakosala thought to himself:- ‘Ka is happiness, but what kind of happiness? It is happiness born of sense experience. It is therefore transitory. It cannot be the same as Brahman. Similarly, kha is also transitory, for it means ākāśa, space. Ākāśa is material and therefore transitory.’ The fires then said that ka and kha are used as both nouns and adjectives, and sometimes they qualify each other. Kha as an adjective may qualify ka when ka stands for Brahman. What does ka mean here? Here it means Brahman without any attributes. Similarly, when we say kha, we mean ākāśa. When we say ka is kha, we mean ‘pleasure’ is ākāśa. But this is not the material ākāśa. Here it means the ākāśa, space, inside the heart. The idea is that Brahman and joy (ka) are both in the space inside the heart (khā).
Max Müller
5. 'Breath is Brahman, Ka (pleasure) is Brahman, Kha (ether) is Brahman.' He said:- 'I understand that breath is Brahman, but I do not understand Ka or Kha [1].' They said:- 'What is Ka is Kha, what is Kha is Ka [2].' They therefore taught him Brahman as breath, and as the ether (in the heart) [3].
1. Then the Gārhapatya fire said to him [Upakosala]:- ‘The earth, fire, food, and the sun—these are all part of my [i.e., part of Brahman’s] body. The person seen in the solar orb is me. I am that’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha ha enam gārhapatyaḥ anuśaśāsa, next the Gārhapatya fire gave him this instruction; pṛthivī agniḥ annam ādityaḥ iti, the earth, fire, food, and the sun [are all part of me—i.e., of Brahman]; yaḥ eṣaḥ āditye puruṣaḥ dṛśyate, the person seen in the sun; saḥ aham asmi saḥ eva aham asmi iti, I am he, I am he. Commentary:-First the fires taught Upakosala together. Now they are teaching him separately. The Gārhapatya fire begins. He said:- ‘The earth, fire, food, and the sun—these constitute my body. I divide myself into these things. There in the solar region is a person. That is me. I am known as the Gārhapatya fire and I am also this person in the solar region. Earth and food are both objects of enjoyment and consumption, but fire and the sun are not in this category. They are similar to each other, however, just as food and the earth are similar to each other, being objects that people can enjoy.’
Max Müller
1. After that the Gârhapatya fire [1] taught him Earth, fire, food, and the sun (these are my forms, or forms of Brahman). The person that is seen in the sun, I am he, I am he indeed [2].
vayaṃ taṃ bhuñjāmo'smigͫśca loke'muṣmigͫśca ya etamevaṃ
vidvānupāste .. 4.11.2..
2. ‘He who knows this Gārhapatya fire and worships it thus has all his sins removed, and he attains the world of the Gārhapatya fire. He lives a long and bright life, and his descendants do not perish. In this world and the next, we look after that person who knows this fire and worships it thus’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ, he who; etam evam vidvān, knowing this in this way; upāste, [and] worships; apahate pāpa-kṛtyām, he destroys his sins; lokī bhavati, becomes a dweller in the world of the god of fire; sarvam āyuḥ eti, lives the full range, of his life; jyok jīvati, he lives a bright life; asya āvarapuruṣāḥ, his descendants; na kṣīyante, do not perish [i.e., his line is never broken]; asmin ca loke amuṣmin ca, in this world and also in the other world; vayam tam upabhuñjāmaḥ, we will look after him; yaḥ etam evam vidvān upāste, he who knows this [fire] thus and worships it. Iti ekādaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the eleventh section. Commentary:-Here the benefit of worshipping the Gārhapatya fire in the right manner is being given. The first benefit is that all the worshipper’s sins are burned away. He also attains the world reserved for the worshippers of this fire. When the fire says that the worshipper’s descendants do not perish, he means that his line will not be broken.
Max Müller
2. 'He who knowing this meditates on him, destroys sin, obtains the world (of Agni Gârhapatya), reaches his full age, and lives long; his descendants do not perish. We guard him in this world and in the other, whosoever knowing this meditates on him.'
candramā iti ya eṣa candramasi puruṣo dṛśyate so'hamasmi
sa evāhamasmīti .. 4.12.1..
1. Next the Dakṣiṇāgni [Southern] fire said to Upakosala:- ‘Water, the quarters, the stars, and the moon—these are all part of my [i.e., part of Brahman’s] body. The person seen in the moon is me. I am that’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha ha enam anvāhārya-pacanaḥ anuśaśāsa, next the Anvāhārya Pacana [the Dakṣiṇāgni, or Southern] fire gave him this instruction; āpaḥ diśaḥ nakṣatrāṇi candramā iti, water, the quarters, the stars, and the moon [are all part of me—i.e., of Brahman]; yaḥ eṣaḥ candramasi puruṣaḥ dṛśyate, the person seen in the moon; saḥ aham asmi saḥ eva aham asmi iti, I am he, I am he. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
1. Then the Anvâhârya fire [1] taught him:- Water, the quarters, the stars, the moon (these are my forms). The person that is seen in the moon, I am he, I am he indeed.
vayaṃ taṃ bhuñjāmo'smigͫśca loke'muṣmigͫśca ya etamevaṃ
vidvānupāste .. 4.12.2..
2. ‘He who knows this Dakṣiṇāgni fire and worships it thus has all his sins removed, and he attains the world of the Dakṣiṇāgni fire. He lives a long and bright life, and his descendants do not perish. In this world and the next, we look after that person who knows this fire and worships it thus’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ, he who; etam evam vidvān, knowing this in this way; upāste, [and] worships; apahate pāpakṛtyām, he destroys his sins; lokī bhavati, becomes a dweller in the world of the god of fire; sarvam āyuḥ eti, lives the full range of his life; jyok jīvati, he lives a bright life; asya āvarapuruṣāḥ, his descendants; na kṣīyante, do not perish [i.e., his line is never broken]; asmin ca loke amuṣmin ca, in this world and also in the other world; vayam tam upabhuñjāmaḥ, we will look after him; yaḥ etam evam vidvān upāste, he who knows this [fire] thus and worships it. Iti dvādaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the twelfth section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
2. 'He who knowing this meditates on him, destroys sin, obtains the world (of Agni Anvâhârya), reaches his full age, and lives long; his descendants do not perish. We guard him in this world and in the other, whosoever knowing this meditates on him.'
1. Next the Āhavanīya fire said to Upakosala:- ‘Prāṇa, space, heaven, and lightning—these are all part of my [i.e., part of Brahman’s] body. The person seen in lightning is me. I am that’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha ha enam āhavanīyaḥ ānuśaśāsa, next the Āhavanīya fire gave him this instruction; prāṇaḥ ākāśaḥ dyauḥ vidyut iti, prāṇa, space, heaven, and lightning [are all part of me—i.e., of Brahman]; yaḥ eṣaḥ vidyuti puruṣaḥ dṛśyate, the person seen in lightning; saḥ aham asmi saḥ eva aham asmi iti, I am he, I am he. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
1. Then the Âhavanîya [1] fire taught him:- 'Breath, ether, heaven, and lightning (these are my forms). The person that is seen in the lightning, I am he, I am he indeed.
vayaṃ taṃ bhuñjāmo'smigͫśca loke'muṣmigͫśca ya etamevaṃ
vidvānupāste .. 4.13.2..
2. ‘He who knows this Āhavanīya fire and worships it thus has all his sins removed, and he attains the world of the Āhavanīya fire. He lives a long and bright life, and his descendants do not perish. In this world and the next, we look after that person who knows this fire and worships it thus’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ, he who; etam evam vidvān, knowing this in this way; upāste, [and] worships; apahate pāpa- kṛtyām, he destroys his sins; lokī bhavati, becomes a dweller in the world of the god of fire; sārvam āyuḥ eti, lives the full range of his life; jyok jīvati, he lives a bright life; asya āvarapuruṣāḥ, his descendants; na kṣīyante, do not perish [i.e., his line is never broken]; asmin ca loke amuṣmin ca, in this world and also in the other world; vayam tam upabhuñjāmaḥ, we will look after him; yaḥ etam evam vidvān upāste, he who knows this [fire] thus and worships it. Iti trayodaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the thirteenth section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
2. 'He who knowing this meditates on him, destroys sin, obtains the world (of Agni Âhavanîya), reaches his full age, and lives long; his descendants do not perish. We guard him in this world and in the other, whosoever knowing this meditates on him.'
1. The fires said:- ‘O Somya Upakosala, we have just told you the knowledge of fire. That is also Self-knowledge. Your teacher will tell you about the way to the next world.’ In due course, his teacher returned, and he called him, saying, ‘Upakosala’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Te ha ucuḥ, they [the fires] said; upakosala somya, O Somya Upakosala; eṣā te asmat vidyā, this knowledge about us [we have given] to you; ca ātma-vidyā, that is also Self-knowledge; ācāryaḥ tu te gatim vakta iti, but the teacher will tell you about the way [to the next world]; asya ācāryaḥ, his teacher; ājagāma ha, returned; ācāryaḥ abhyuvāda tam upakosala iti, the teacher called him, ‘O Upakosala.’ Commentary:-What the fire meant was that Upakosala’s teacher would give him the final lesson. He would tell Upakosala what he should do to get the full benefit of what he had learned from the fires.
Max Müller
1. Then they all said:- 'Upakosala, this is our knowledge, our friend, and the knowledge of the Self, but the teacher will tell you the way (to another life).'
भगव इति ह प्रतिशुश्राव ब्रह्मविद इव सोम्य ते मुखं भाति
को नु त्वानुशशासेति को नु मानुशिष्याद्भो इतीहापेव
निह्नुत इमे नूनमीदृशा अन्यादृशा इतीहाग्नीनभ्यूदे
किं नु सोम्य किल तेऽवोचन्निति ॥ ४.१४.२॥
bhagava iti ha pratiśuśrāva brahmavida iva somya te mukhaṃ bhāti
ko nu tvānuśaśāseti ko nu mānuśiṣyādbho itīhāpeva
nihnuta ime nūnamīdṛśā anyādṛśā itīhāgnīnabhyūde
kiṃ nu somya kila te'vocanniti .. 4.14.2..
2. [Upakosala] replied, ‘Yes, lord.’ [His teacher said:-] ‘O Somya, your face is shining like that of a knower of Brahman. Who has taught you?’ ‘Sir, who will teach me?’ He said this as if he was trying to hide the truth. Then, pointing to the fires, he said:- ‘Earlier they looked, different. Now they look like this.’ In this way, he indicated the fires. [The teacher asked,] ‘Somya, what did the fires teach you?’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Bhagavaḥ iti ha pratiśuśrāva, ‘Yes, lord,’ he replied; brahmavidaḥ iva somya te mukham bhāti, your face is shining like that of a knower of Brahman; kaḥ nu tvā anuśaśāsa iti, who has taught you; kaḥ nu mā anuśiṣyāt bho iti, who will teach me, sir; iha iva apanihnute, [he said this] as if he was trying to hide [the truth]; ime, these [pointing to the fires]; nūnam īdṛśāḥ, look like this [as if they are frightened]; anyādṛśāḥ iti, looked different before; iha agnīn abhyūde, in this way he spoke about the fires; kim nu somya kila te avocan iti, Somya, what did they teach you? Commentary:-Upakosala knew the limitations of the fires, and that is why he did not want to tell his teacher what they had taught him, or that they had taught him anything at all. Further, he noticed that in the presence of his teacher the fires appeared to be frozen with fear. This is why he was vague and evasive in his reply.
Max Müller
2. In time his teacher came back, and said to him:- 'Upakosala.' He answered:- 'Sir.' The teacher said:- 'Friend, your face shines like that of one who knows Brahman. Who has taught you?' 'Who should teach me, Sir?' he said. He denies, as it were. And he said (pointing) to the fires:- 'Are these fires other than fires?' The teacher said:- 'What, my friend, have these fires told you?'
तु ते तद्वक्ष्यामि यथा पुष्करपलाश आपो न श्लिष्यन्त
एवमेवंविदि पापं कर्म न श्लिष्यत इति ब्रवीतु मे
भगवानिति तस्मै होवाच ॥ ४.१४.३॥
idamiti ha pratijajñe lokānvāva kila somya te'vocannahaṃ
tu te tadvakṣyāmi yathā puṣkarapalāśa āpo na śliṣyanta
evamevaṃvidi pāpaṃ karma na śliṣyata iti bravītu me
bhagavāniti tasmai hovāca .. 4.14.3..
3. Upakosala replied, ‘This is what they said.’ [And he told his teacher all that the fires had taught him.] The teacher said:- ‘O Somya, they taught you only about the worlds, but I will teach you about Brahman.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Idam iti ha pratijajñe, ‘This [is what they taught,]’ he [Upakosala] replied; lokān vāva kila somya te avocan, they have only told you about the worlds, O Somya; aham tu te tat vakṣyāmi, but I will tell you about that [Brahman]; yathā puṣkara-palāśe āpaḥ na śliṣyante, as water does not stick to the lotus leaf; evam, in the same way; vidi, one who knows [Brahman]; evam, thus; pāpam karma na śliṣyate iti, is not tainted by sinful work; bravītu me bhagavān iti, sir, please teach me; tasmai ha uvāca, he said to him. Iti caturdaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the fourteenth section. Commentary:-Just as water never sticks to a lotus leaf, similarly, sin never sticks to one who knows Brahman thus.’ Upakosala replied, ‘Sir, please teach me about Brahman.’ The teacher said— A person who has known Brahman is always pure. Nothing can taint him. He is incapable of doing anything wrong.
Max Müller
3. He answered:- 'This' (repeating some of what they had told him). The teacher said:- 'My friend, they have taught you about the worlds, but I shall tell you this; and as water does not cling to a lotus leaf, so no evil deed clings to one who knows it.' He said:- 'Sir, tell it me.'
तद्यद्यप्यस्मिन्सर्पिर्वोदकं वा सिञ्चति वर्त्मनी एव
गच्छति ॥ ४.१५.१॥
.. iti caturdaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ ..
ya eṣo'kṣiṇi puruṣo dṛśyata eṣa ātmeti
hovācaitadamṛtamabhayametadbrahmeti
tadyadyapyasminsarpirvodakaṃ vā siñcati vartmanī eva
gacchati .. 4.15.1..
1. The teacher said:- ‘The person seen in the eyes is the Self. It is immortal and fearless. It is Brahman. This is why, if anyone puts clarified butter or water in the eyes, it goes to the corners of the eyes’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yaḥ eṣaḥ akṣiṇi puruṣaḥ dṛśyate, this person who is seen in the eyes; eṣaḥ ātmā, this is the Self; iti ha uvāca, he [the teacher] said; etat amṛtam abhayam, this is immortal and fearless; etat brahma iti, this is Brahman; tat, this is why; asmin, into this [eye]; yadi api sarpiḥ vā udakam vā siñcati, if anyone puts clarified butter or water; vartmanī eva gacchati, it goes into the comers [of the eye]. Commentary:-How do you know the Self? You have to have full self-control. You have to have a gentle nature, and you must withdraw your mind completely from the external world. Then you can see the Self in the eyes. That Self is immortal, fearless, and it is Brahman (literally, ‘the biggest’). As water does not stick to a lotus leaf, so also, if water or something else is put in the eyes, it does not hurt them because the eyelids protect them. This is why the eyelids are called ‘lotuses.’ The eyes are the seat of the Self. What the Upaniṣad is saying is that if the seat of the Self is pure and not susceptible to any impurity, the Self is naturally the same.
Max Müller
1. He said:- 'The person that is seen in the eye, that is the Self. This is the immortal, the fearless, this is Brahman [1]. Even though they drop melted butter or water on him, it runs away on both sides [2].
2. They call him Saṃyadvāma, for everything that is good and beautiful comes to him. One who knows this has everything that is good and beautiful come to him.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Etam saṃyadvāmaḥ iti ācakṣate, they call him Saṃyadvāma [i.e., one in whom everything that is good is concentrated]; hi, because; etam sarvāṇi vāmāni abhisaṃyanti, all good and beautiful things come to him; yaḥ evam veda, he who knows thus; sarvāṇi enam vāmāni abhisaṃyanti, all good and beautiful things come to him. Commentary:-The word vāma means ‘attractive,’ ‘beautiful,’ or ‘desirable.’ The Self is Saṃyadvāma because all good things become concentrated in it. And one who knows the Self also becomes the receptacle of all good things.
Max Müller
2. 'They call him Samyadvâma, for all blessings (vâma) go towards him (samyanti). All blessings go towards him who knows this.
3. This person in the eyes is Vāmanī, the source of all that is good and pure, for he inspires in people all that is good and pure. One who knows this grants all that is good and pure to others.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Eṣaḥ u eva vāmanīḥ, and this [person in the eyes] is Vāmanī [the source of all that is good and pure]; hi, for; eṣaḥ, this [person in the eyes]; eva, surely; sarvāṇi vāmāni nayati, grants all that is good and pure; yaḥ evam veda, he who knows thus; sarvāṇi vāmāni nayati, grants all that is good and pure. Commentary:-The word vāmanī means one who carries the fruits of good work to all beings according to what they deserve. He is the support of all that is good. One who knows this conveys the fruits of good work to others.
Max Müller
3. 'He is also Vâmanî, for he leads (nayati) all blessings (vâma). He leads all blessings who knows this.
4. The person in the eyes is Bhāmanī, shining, for he shines in all the worlds [including the sun]. One who knows this shines in all the worlds.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Eṣaḥ u eva bhāmanīḥ, and this [person in the eyes] is Bhāmanī [shining]; eṣaḥ hi sarveṣu lokeṣu bhāti, for he shines in all the worlds [including the sun]; yaḥ evam veda, he who knows thus; sarveṣu lokeṣu bhāti, shines in all the worlds. Commentary:-This person in the eyes is the source of all light. The Kaṭha Upaniṣad [II.2.15] says, ‘All this shines because he shines.’
Max Müller
4. 'He is also Bhâmanî, for he shines (bhâti) in all worlds. He who knows this, shines in all worlds.
5. Then, for those who know this, whether proper funeral rites are performed or not, they go after death to the world of light. From the world of light they go to the world of day; from the world of day to the world of the bright fortnight; from the world of the bright fortnight to the six months when the sun moves northward; from there they go to the year; from the year to the sun; from the sun to the moon; and from the moon to lightning. There someone, not human, receives them and leads them to brahmaloka. This is the way of the gods. This is also the way to Brahman. Those who go by this path never return to this mortal world. They never return.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, then; yat, if; u ca eva asmin, in this situation [i.e., for those who know the Self in the eyes]; śavyam, funeral rites; kurvanti, they perform; yadi ca na, or if not; arciṣam, to light; eva abhisambhavanti, they go; arciṣaḥ, from light; ahaḥ, to day; ahnaḥ, from day; āpūryamāṇapakṣam, to the bright fortnight; āpūryamāṇapakṣāt, from the bright fortnight; ṣaṭ māsān, to the six months; yān udan eti, [when the sun] moves to the north; tān, to that; māsebhyaḥ, from those months; saṃvatsaram, to the year; saṃvatsarāt, from the year; ādityam, to the sun; ādityāt, from the sun; candramasam, to the moon; candramasaḥ, from the moon; vidyutam, to lightning; tat, there; puruṣaḥ, a person [existing there]; amānavaḥ, not human; enān, those [human beings]; saḥ gamayati, he leads; brahma, to brahmaloka; eṣaḥ devapathaḥ, this is the path of the gods; brahmapathaḥ, the way to Brahman; etena, by this [path]; pratipadyamānāḥ, those who go; imam mānavam āvartam, to this world of human beings; na āvartante, do not return; na āvartante, do not return. Iti pañcadaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the fifteenth section. Commentary:-Normally when a person dies, his funeral rites should be performed with great care. This, however, does not apply in the case of one who has known Brahman. If the funeral rites are performed for him, it is good. But if for one reason or another they are not, it As regards those who worship the Self in the eyes by attributing to it qualities such as saṃyadvāma, vāmanī, or bhāmanī, or those who worship the fires as earth, water, prāṇa, etc., they go after death to the deity of light. From there they go to the deities of day, the bright fortnight, the six months of the northern solstice, and so on. Finally they reach a point where someone appears who is higher than a human being. He leads them to satyaloka, which is the realm of Brahmā. This is not, however, Para Brahman (Pure Consciousness). To attain liberation, one must realize one’s identity with Para Brahman, where there is no going or coming from one realm to another.
Max Müller
5. 'Now (if one who knows this, dies), whether people perform obsequies for him or no, he goes to light (arkis) [1], from light to day, from day to the light half of the moon, from the light half of the moon to the six months during which the sun goes to the north, from the months to the year, from the year to the sun, from the sun to the moon, from the moon to the lightning. There is a person not human,
eṣa ha vai yajño yo'yaṃ pavate eṣa ha yannidagͫ sarvaṃ punāti
yadeṣa yannidagͫ sarvaṃ punāti tasmādeṣa eva yajñastasya
manaśca vākca vartanī .. 4.16.1..
1. He who blows [i.e., air] is the sacrifice. While moving, he purifies all this. Since he purifies all this while moving, he is the sacrifice. The mind and speech are both his paths.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Eṣaḥ ha vai yajñaḥ, he is a sacrifice; yaḥ ayam pavate, this one who blows [i.e., air]; eṣaḥ ha, he; yan, while moving; idam sarvam, all this; punāti, purifies; yat, since; eṣaḥ yan idam sarvam punāti, he purifies all this while moving; tasmāt, therefore; eṣaḥ eva yajñaḥ, he is the sacrifice; manaḥ ca vāk ca, mind and speech; tasya vartanī, are his paths. Commentary:-Anything that moves can clean or purify things, and this process of cleaning or purifying is a kind of sacrifice. Air is called here a sacrifice because it moves and by moving it purifies. There are two ways by which the air purifies—by speech and by the mind. By speech we utter mantras, and by the mind we understand them. Speech and the mind both operate by the power derived from air.
Max Müller
1. Verily, he who purifies (Vâyu) is the sacrifice, for he (the air) moving along purifies everything. Because moving along he purifies everything, therefore he is the sacrifice. Of that sacrifice there are two ways, by mind and by speech.
2-3. The priest called brahmā in a sacrifice purifies one of these two paths [i.e., the path of the mind] by his [discriminating] mind. The hotā, the adhvaryu, and the udgātā priests purify the other [i.e., the path of speech] by [chaste and elegant] speech. If, however, the brahmā priest breaks his silence when the morning anuvāka has begun, before the paridhānīya Ṛk hymn has been read, then only one path [the path of speech] has been purified. The other is ruined. Just as a one-legged person trying to walk, or a one-wheeled chariot trying to move, is doomed, in the same way the sacrifice is ruined. And when the sacrifice is ruined, the sacrificer is also ruined. In fact, the sacrificer is even liable for having committed a sin by performing the sacrifice in that way.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Brahmā, the priest called brahmā [in a sacrifice]; tayoḥ anyatarām, one of these two; manasā, mentally; saṃskaroti, purifies; vācā, by speech; hotā adhvaryuḥ udgātā anyatarām, the hotā, the adhvaryu, and the udgātā priests [purify] the other; yatra, when; prātaḥ anuvāke upākṛte, the anuvāka which is read in the morning has begun; purā paridhānīyāyāḥ, before the Ṛk hymn called paridhānīya; saḥ, he [the brahmā priest]; vyavavadati, breaks his silence; anyatarām eva vartanīm saṃskaroti, only one path [i.e., the path of speech] he purifies; anyatarā, the other [the path of the mind]; hīyate, is spoiled; yathā, just as; ekapāt, a person with one leg; vrajan, walking; vā, or; rathaḥ ekena cakreṇa vartamānaḥ, a chariot moving on one wheel; riṣyati, is doomed; evam, likewise; asya yajñaḥ riṣyati, his sacrifice is ruined; yajñam riṣyantam, when the sacrifice is ruined; yajamānaḥ anu-riṣyati, the sacrificer is also ruined; saḥ, he [the sacrificed; iṣṭvā, having performed the sacrifice in this way; pāpīyān bhavati, becomes a sinner. Commentary:-In the previous verse, two paths were mentioned for the performance of a sacrifice—the path of speech (vāk) and the path of the mind (manas). In a sacrifice, there are four types of priests:- brahmā, hotā, adhvaryu, and udgātā. The brahmā priest is supposed to purify the path of the mind by his own purified mind, while observing silence. The other three priests take care of the path of speech, purifying it by their pure words. But suppose the brahmā priest breaks his silence while the reading of the morning anuvāka is going on, before the paridhānīya Ṛk hymn has begun. He is supposed to remain silent then, with his mind on a high level. Through this he is to purify the path of the mind. But if he breaks his silence, his mind is no longer ‘pure.’ Then the sacrificer has to make do with only one path—the path of speech. His position is now like that of a one-legged man trying to walk, or like a one-wheeled chariot trying to move. Both the sacrificer and the sacrifice are doomed, and the sacrificer is to be regarded as having committed a sin.
Max Müller
2. The Brahman priest performs one of them in his mind [1], the Hotri, Adhvaryu, and Udgâtri priests perform the other by words. When the Brahman priest, after the Prâtaranuvâka ceremony has begun, but before the recitation of the Paridhânîyâ hymn, has (to break his silence and) to speak,
sa yathaikapādvrajanratho vaikena cakreṇa vartamāno
riṣyatyevamasya yajñoriṣyati yajñagͫ riṣyantaṃ
yajamāno'nuriṣyati sa iṣṭvā pāpīyānbhavati .. 4.16.3..
Max Müller
3. He performs perfectly the one way only (that by words), but the other is injured. As a man walking on one foot, or a carriage going on one wheel, is injured, his sacrifice is injured, and with the injured sacrifice the sacrificer is injured; yes, having sacrificed, he becomes worse.
अथ यत्रोपाकृते प्रातरनुवाके न पुरा परिधानीयाया ब्रह्मा
व्यवदत्युभे एव वर्तनी सꣳस्कुर्वन्ति न हीयतेऽन्यतरा
॥ ४.१६.४॥
atha yatropākṛte prātaranuvāke na purā paridhānīyāyā brahmā
vyavadatyubhe eva vartanī sagͫskurvanti na hīyate'nyatarā
.. 4.16.4..
4. But in the case of the sacrifice in which the reading of the morning anuvāka has already begun, and the brahmā priest does not break his silence before the paridhānīya has started, then both paths are purified. Neither of them becomes destroyed.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha yatra, in the case of that sacrifice; upākṛte prātaḥ anuvāke, in which the reading of the morning anuvāka has begun; purā paridhānīyāyāḥ, before the beginning of the paridhānīya Ṛk hymn; brahmā na vyavavadati, the brahmā priest does not speak; ubhe eva vartanī, both the paths; saṃskurvanti, they purify; na hīyate anyatarā, neither of them is destroyed. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
4. But when after the Prâtaranuvâka ceremony has begun, and before the recitation of the Paridhânîyâ hymn, the Brahman priest has not (to break his silence and) to speak, they perform both ways perfectly, and neither of them is injured.
yajamāno'nupratitiṣṭhati sa iṣṭvā śreyānbhavati .. 4.16.5..
5. Just as a person with two legs can walk, or a chariot with two wheels can move, and attain the goal, so also his sacrifice succeeds. And if the sacrifice succeeds, the sacrificer also succeeds. He attains much greatness through his sacrifice.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yathā, as; ubhayapāt, a person with both legs; vrajam, walking; vā, or; rathaḥ ubhābhyām cakrābhyām, a chariot with both wheels; vartamānaḥ, moving; pratitiṣṭhati, succeeds; evam, so also; asya yajñaḥ pratitiṣṭhati, his [the sacrificer’s] sacrifice succeeds; yajñam pratitiṣṭhantam yajamānaḥ anupratitiṣṭhati, if the sacrifice succeeds, the sacrificer also succeeds; saḥ, he [the sacrificer]; iṣṭvā śreyān bhavati, becomes greater through his sacrifice. Iti ṣoḍaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the sixteenth section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
5. As a man walking on two legs and a carriage going on two wheels gets on, so his sacrifice gets on, and with the successful sacrifice the sacrificer gets on; yes, having sacrificed, he becomes better.
1. Prajāpati worshipped the worlds, and from those which he worshipped he was able to extract their essence. From earth he took fire, from the interspace he took air, and from heaven he took the sun.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Prajāpatiḥ lokān abhyatapat, Prajāpati worshipped the worlds; teṣām tapyamānānām, from those which were worshipped; rasān prāvṛhat, he extracted the essence; agnim pṛthivyāḥ, fire from the earth; vāyum antarikṣāt, air from the space between the earth and heaven; ādityam divaḥ, and the sun from heaven. Commentary:-The brahmā priest must observe silence to maintain the sanctity of the sacrifice he is performing. If the sanctity is lost, then the purpose of the sacrifice will be defeated. So if, for some reason or other, the sanctity is lost, due amends have to be made. One way to make amends is to seek the blessings of the lokas, the worlds. You pray to the worlds and then you are able to get their essence to support Your worship of the worlds is the amends you make, and the extracts you get in return are the blessings that protect you.
Max Müller
1. Pragâpati brooded over the worlds, and from them thus brooded on he squeezed out the essences, Agni (fire) from the earth, Vâyu (air) from the sky, Âditya (the sun) from heaven.
2. Then he worshipped these three deities. From those which he worshipped he extracted the essence. He got the Ṛk mantras from fire, the Yajuḥ mantras from air, and the Sāma mantras from the sun.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ etāḥ tisraḥ devatāḥ abhyatapat, [then] he worshipped these three deities [fire, air, and the sun]; tāsām tapyamānānām, from those which he worshipped; rasān prāvṛhat, he extracted the essence; agneḥ ṛcaḥ, the Ṛk mantras from fire; vāyoḥ yajūṃṣi, the Yajuḥ mantras from air; sāmāni ādityāt, the Sāma mantras from the sun. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
2. He brooded over these three deities, and from them thus brooded on he squeezed out the essences, the Rik verses from Agni, the Yagus verses from Vâyu, the Sâman verses from Âditya.
3. Then Prajāpati worshipped these three Vedas. And from those Vedas that were worshipped he extracted the essence. From the Ṛg Veda he got ‘bhūḥ,’ from the Yajur Veda he got ‘bhuvaḥ,’ and from the Sāma Veda he got ‘svaḥ’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ etām trayīm vidyām abhyatapat, [then] he worshipped the knowledge from these three; tasyaḥ tapyamānāyāḥ, from these that he worshipped; rasān prāvṛhat, he extracted the essence; bhūḥ iti ṛgbhyaḥ, ‘bhūḥ’ from the Ṛg Veda; bhuvaḥ iti yajurbhyaḥ, ‘bhuvaḥ’ from the Yajur Veda; svaḥ iti sāmabhyaḥ, ‘svaḥ’ from the Sāma Veda. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
3. He brooded over the threefold knowledge (the three Vedas), and from it thus brooded on he squeezed out the essences, the sacred interjection Bhûs from the Rik verses, the sacred interjection Bhuvas from the Yagus verses, the sacred interjection Svar from the Sâman verses.
4. This is why, if it seems likely that there will be any harm done to the sacrifice because of a mistake in the Ṛk, the priest should offer oblations in the Gārhapatya fire saying, ‘Bhūḥ svāhā.’ Then, by the essence and strength of the Ṛk, any likely harm done to the sacrifice from a mistake in the Ṛk will be averted.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tat, that is why; yat ṛktaḥ riṣyet, if there should be any harm done [to the sacrifice] because of [a mistake] in the Ṛk; bhūḥ svāhā iti gārhapatye juhuyāt, then he should offer oblations in the Gārhapatya fire saying, ‘Bhūḥ svāhā’; ṛcām eva tat rasena, by that essence of the Ṛk; ṛcām vīryeṇa, by the strength of the Ṛk; ṛcām yajñasya viriṣṭam, the harm done to the sacrifice by the mistake in the Ṛk; sandadhāti, is averted. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
4. If the sacrifice is injured from the Rig-Veda side, let him offer a libation in the Gârhapatya fire, saying, Bhûh, Svâha! Thus does he bind together and heal, by means of the essence and the power of the Rik verses themselves, whatever break the Rik sacrifice may have suffered.
5. Then if it seems likely that there will be any harm done to the sacrifice because of a mistake in the Yajuḥ, the priest should offer oblations in the Dakṣiṇāgni fire saying, ‘Bhuvaḥ svāhā.’ Then, by the essence and strength of the Yajuḥ, any likely harm done to the sacrifice from a mistake in the Yajuḥ will be averted.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha yadi yajuṣṭaḥ riṣyet, then if there should be any harm done [to the sacrifice] because of [a mistake] in the Yajuḥ; bhuvaḥ svāhā iti dakṣiṇāgnau juhuyāt, then he should offer oblations in the Dakṣiṇāgni fire saying, ‘Bhuvaḥ svāhā’; yajuṣām eva tat rasena, by that essence of the Yajuḥ; yajuṣām vīryeṇa, by the strength of the Yajuḥ; yajuṣām yajñasya viriṣṭam, the harm done to the sacrifice by the mistake in the Yajuḥ; sandadhāti, is averted. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
5. If the sacrifice is injured from the Yagur-veda side, let him offer a libation in the Dakshina fire, saying, Bhuvah, Svâhâ! Thus does he bind together and heal, by means of the essence and the power of the Yagus verses themselves, whatever break the Yagus sacrifice may have suffered.
6. Then if it seems likely that there will be any harm done to the sacrifice because of a mistake in the Sāma, the priest should offer oblations in the Āhavanīya fire saying, ‘svaḥ svāhā.’ Then, by the essence and strength of the Sāma, any likely harm done to the sacrifice from a mistake in the Sāma will be averted.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha yadi sāmataḥ riṣyet, then if there should be any harm done [to the sacrifice] because of [a mistake] in the Sāma; svaḥ svāhā iti āhavanīye juhuyāt, then he should offer oblations in the Āhavanīya fire saying, ‘svaḥ svāhā’; sāmnām eva tat rasena, by that essence of the Sāma; sāmnām vīṛyeṇa, by the strength of the Sāma; sāmnām yajñasya viriṣṭam, the harm done to the sacrifice by the mistake in the Sāma; sandadhāti, is averted. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
6. If the sacrifice is injured by the Sâma-veda side, let him offer a libation in the Âhavanîya fire, saying, Svah, Svâhâ! Thus does he bind together and heal, by means of the essence and the power of the Sâman verses themselves, whatever break the Sâman sacrifice may have suffered.
7. It is like joining gold with the help of borax, silver with the help of gold, tin with the help of silver, lead with the help of tin, iron with the help of lead, wood with the help of iron, and wood with the help of leather.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tat yathā, it is like; lavaṇena, with the help of borax; suvarṇam sandadhyāt, one joins gold; suvarṇena rajatam, silver with the help of gold; rajatena trapu, tin with the help of silver; trapuṇā sīsam, lead with the help of tin; sīsena loham, iron with the help of lead; lohena dāru, wood with the help of iron; dāru carmaṇā, [and] wood with the help of leather. Commentary:-Two things can join together when the right combination of materials is used. In the same way, if there is
Max Müller
7. As one binds (softens) gold by means of lavana [1] (borax), and silver by means of gold, and tin by means of silver, and lead by means of tin, and iron (loha) by means of lead, and wood by means of iron, or also by means of leather,
vīryeṇa yajñasya viriṣṭagͫ saṃdadhāti bheṣajakṛto ha vā
eṣa yajño yatraivaṃvidbrahmā bhavati .. 4.17.8..
8. Similarly, by the power of these worlds, these deities, and these three holy scriptures, any flaws in the sacrifice are made up. Where there is a knowledgeable brahmā priest, that sacrifice gets the right medicine.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Evam, in this way; vīryeṇa, by the strength; eṣām lokānām, of these worlds; āsām devatānām, of these deities; asyāḥ trayyāḥ vidyāyāḥ, of these three holy scriptures; yajñasya viriṣṭam sandadhāti, he [the brahmā priest] makes up for the flaws of a sacrifice; yatra evamvit brahmā bhavati, when there is a knowledgeable brahmā priest; eṣaḥ yajñaḥ, this sacrifice; bheṣajakṛtaḥ ha vai, gets the right medicine. Commentary:-When a person is sick he must take the appropriate medicine. Similar is the case of a sacrifice that has gotten off to a bad start. If the priest is a knowledgeable one, he will take the right steps to rectify the errors. Like a good doctor, he will apply the right medicine—that is, the combined powers of the worlds, the deities, and the scriptures.
Max Müller
8. Thus does one bind together and heal any break in the sacrifice by means of (the Vyâhritis or sacrificial interjections which are) the essence and strength of the three worlds, of the deities, and of the threefold knowledge. That sacrifice is healed [1] in which there is a Brahman priest who knows this.
एष ह वा उदक्प्रवणो यज्ञो यत्रैवंविद्ब्रह्मा भवत्येवंविदꣳ
ह वा एषा ब्रह्माणमनुगाथा यतो यत आवर्तते
तत्तद्गच्छति ॥ ४.१७.९॥
eṣa ha vā udakpravaṇo yajño yatraivaṃvidbrahmā bhavatyevaṃvidagͫ
ha vā eṣā brahmāṇamanugāthā yato yata āvartate
tattadgacchati .. 4.17.9..
9. That sacrifice which is directed by a capable brahmā priest leads to the uttarāyaṇa [the path of the gods]. There is a verse in praise of such a learned priest:- ‘Wherever the sacrifice goes wrong, this priest goes there to set things right’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Eṣaḥ ha vai yajñaḥ udakpravaṇaḥ, this sacrifice is the way to the uttarāyaṇa [the path of the gods]; yatra evamvit brahmā bhavati, where there is a knowledgeable brahmā priest; evam vidam ha vai eṣaḥ brahmāṇam anu gāthā, there is this praise for such a learned brahmā priest; yataḥ yataḥ āvartate, wherever there is a flaw [in the sacrifice]; tat tat gacchati, he [the brahmā priest] goes there [to make amends]. Commentary:-Whenever a sacrifice is to be held, a competent priest should be placed in charge. This will ensure A capable priest is always in demand wherever a sacrifice is being held, because, first, he can avoid mistakes, and second, should there be any mistake, in spite of all the care taken, the priest knows how to correct it.
Max Müller
9. That sacrifice is inclined towards the north (in the right way) in which there is a Brahman priest who knows this. And with regard to such a Brahman priest there is the following Gâthâ [1]:- 'Whereever it falls back, thither the man [2] goes,'--viz. the Brahman only, as one of the Ritvig priests.
10. A good brahmā priest is one who is able to observe silence, or one who is thoughtful. Just as a horse protects the soldiers, a learned brahmā priest protects the sacrifice, the sacrifices, and all the other priests. Therefore, one should appoint only such a learned brahmā for one’s sacrifice. One should not appoint anyone else.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Mānavaḥ brahmā eva ekaḥ ṛtvik, a true brahmā priest is one who is thoughtful [or, is able to observe silence]; kurūn aśvā abhirakṣati, [just as] a horse protects the soldiers; evamvit ha vai brahmā, such a learned brahmā priest; yajñam yajamānam sarvān ca ṛtvijaḥ abhirakṣati, protects the sacrifice, the sacrificer, and all the other priests; tasmāt, therefore; evam vidam eva brahmāṇam kurvīta, one should appoint only such a learned brahmā priest; na anevam vidam, not one who is otherwise; na anevam vidam, not one who is otherwise. Iti saptadaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the seventeenth section. Iti chāndogyopaniṣadi caturthaḥ adhyāyaḥ, here ends the fourth chapter of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad. Commentary:-When a priest is able to maintain silence and is by nature thoughtful, he may be appointed as the brahmā for a sacrifice. He is the chief priest by virtue of his scholarship and his character. The Upaniṣad compares him to a horse which protects his master when he is in trouble. A good brahmā priest can take care of the sacrifice, the sacrifices, and the subordinate priests. For this reason, only one who is qualified should be appointed. One who is not fit should not be given the honour.
Max Müller
10. 'He saves the Kurus as a mare' (viz. a Brahman priest who knows this, saves the sacrifice, the sacrificer, and all the other priests). Therefore let a man make him who knows this his Brahman priest, not one who does not know it, who does not know it.
1. Om. He who knows the oldest and the best himself becomes the oldest and the best. It is prāṇa which is the oldest and the best.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yaḥ ha vai, he who; jyeṣṭham ca śreṣṭham ca veda, knows the oldest and the best; jyeṣṭhaḥ ca ha vai śreṣṭhaḥ ca bhavati, himself becomes the oldest and the best; prāṇaḥ vāva jyeṣṭhaḥ ca śreṣṭhaḥ ca, prāṇa is indeed the oldest and the best. Commentary:-The importance of prāṇa has been mentioned earlier. True, it works in conjunction with the organs of speaking, hearing, seeing, etc., but it is the first and foremost of all of them. Prāṇa is in a child even when it is still in it’s mother’s womb. It is active before the various organs are active. Prāṇa therefore commands respect from all. The reason why so much importance is given to prāṇa is to teach us to show respect where respect is due. We should respect both age and merit. Then we also shall command respect from all because of our age and merit. Indirectly, this is a hint that we should respect knowledge.
Max Müller
1. He who knows the oldest and the best becomes himself the oldest and the best. Breath indeed is the oldest and the best.
yo ha vai vasiṣṭhaṃ veda vasiṣṭho ha svānāṃ bhavati
vāgvāva vasiṣṭhaḥ .. 5.1.2..
2. He who knows that which is of high standing himself becomes of high standing among his own relatives. Eloquence gives one this high standing [in society].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yaḥ ha vai, he who; vasiṣṭham veda, knows that which is of high standing; vasiṣṭhaḥ ha svānām bhavati, becomes of high standing among his own relatives; vāk vāva vasiṣṭhaḥ, speech [i.e., eloquence] is surely of high standing [i.e., it is the secret of high standing]. Commentary:-If a person respects another for his power to influence others, he himself some day has the same power and commands respect from others. It is, in fact, the power of eloquence which is behind this influence.
Max Müller
2. He who knows the richest, becomes himself the richest. Speech indeed is the richest.
yo ha vai pratiṣṭhāṃ veda prati ha tiṣṭhatyasmigͫśca
loke'muṣmigͫśca cakṣurvāva pratiṣṭhā .. 5.1.3..
3. He who knows the support attains a support in this world and also in the other world [i.e., heaven]. The eye is indeed the support.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yaḥ ha vai, he who; pratiṣṭhām veda, knows the support; asmin ca loke, in this world; amuṣmin ca, and in the other [world]; pratitiṣṭhati, attains a support; cakṣuḥ vāva pratiṣṭhā, the eye is surely the support. Commentary:-Good sight is necessary for success in life. A sharp eye is not merely a physical asset; it is also a mental asset. It means a good and sharp sense of judgement. One can easily avoid the pitfalls of life, physical as well as moral, with good sight. Given this quality, you are safe in this world as well as in the other.
Max Müller
3. He who knows the firm rest, becomes himself firm in this world and in the next. The eye indeed is the firm rest.
4. He who knows affluence has all things desired by human beings and gods come to him. Affluence is represented by the ears.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yaḥ ha vai, he who; sampadam veda, knows affluence; asmai, to him; kāmāḥ, desirable things; sam-padyante, come; daivāḥ ca, [things meant for] gods; mānuṣāḥ ca, and [things meant for] human beings; śrotram vāva sampat, the ears are surely affluence. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
4. He who knows success, his wishes succeed, both his divine and human wishes. The ear indeed is success.
5. He who knows the abode becomes the shelter of his family. The mind is the abode.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yaḥ ha vai, he who; āyatanam veda, knows the abode; āyatanam ha svānām bhavati, becomes the abode [i.e., shelter] of his family; manaḥ ha vai āyatanam, the mind is surely the abode. Commentary:-There is something in the body-mind complex of human beings called āyatana. If a person knows this ‘āyatana,’ it is to be understood that he is a wise person. And such a person is able to serve as an āyatana to his own relatives. That is to say, he is The mind is the āyatana of the body-mind complex. Why? Because the sense organs have their experiences, but all those experiences take shelter in the mind.
Max Müller
5. He who knows the home, becomes a home of his people. The mind indeed is the home.
atha ha prāṇā ahagͫśreyasi vyūdire'hagͫśreyānasmyahagͫ
śreyānasmīti .. 5.1.6..
6. Once the sense organs began to quarrel among themselves, each one claiming it was supreme. They each said, ‘I am the best. I am the best’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha ha, once; prāṇāḥ, the sense organs; vyūdire, began to quarrel [among themselves]; aham-śreyasi, each thinking it was the best; aham śreyān asmi aham śreyān asmi iti, saying, ‘I am the best, I am the best.’ Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
6. The five senses quarrelled together [1], who was the best, saying, I am better, I am better.
te ha prāṇāḥ prajāpatiṃ pitarametyocurbhagavanko naḥ
śreṣṭha iti tānhovāca yasminva utkrānte śarīraṃ
pāpiṣṭhataramiva dṛśyeta sa vaḥ śreṣṭha iti .. 5.1.7..
7. The organs then went to their father Prajāpati and said, ‘Revered sir, who among us is the best?’ He replied, ‘He is the best among you on whose departure the body becomes totally untouchable’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Te ha prāṇāḥ, those organs; pitaram prajāpatim etya, coming to their father Prajāpati; ucuḥ, said; bhagavan, revered sir; naḥ, among us; kaḥ śreṣṭhaḥ iti, who is the best; tān ha uvāca, he said to them; vaḥ, among you; yasmin utkrānte, on whose leaving; śarīram pāpiṣṭhataram iva dṛśyeta, the body appears to be untouchable; saḥ vaḥ śreṣṭhaḥ, he is the best among you. Commentary:-We all know what happens when life leaves the body. It is not the same body. It shrinks. It becomes ugly. And soon it starts decomposing. No one wants to touch it. Prajāpati indirectly declared in this way that prāṇa was the best among them. When Prajāpati said this, he changed his voice lest he hurt the other organs. The way he changed his voice is called kaku.
Max Müller
7. They went to their father Pragâpati and said:- 'Sir, who is the best of us?' He replied:- 'He by whose departure the body seems worse than worst, he is the best of you.'
dhyāyanto manasaivamiti praviveśa ha vāk .. 5.1.8..
8. First speech left the body. After staying away one whole year, he came back and asked the other organs, ‘How did you sustain yourselves in my absence?’ The rest of the organs said:- ‘Just as mute people do without speaking, but they are able to survive by breathing, and see with the eyes, hear with the ears, and think with the mind. We did the same.’ Hearing all this, speech re-entered the body.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Sā ha vāk, that speech; ut-cakrāma, left [the body]; saṃvatsaram proṣya, after staying away one year; sā paretya uvāca, he came back and said; mat ṛte, in my absence; katham, how; jīvitum aśakata iti, did you manage to survive; yathā kalāḥ, [the other organs said:-] just as the mute; avadantaḥ, do not speak; praḥantaḥ prāṇena, [but] are able to survive with the help of prāṇa, the vital force; paśyantaḥ cakṣuṣā, to see with the help of the eyes; śṛṇvantaḥ śrotreṇa, to hear with the help of the ears; dhyāyantaḥ manasā, to think with the help of the mind; evam iti, in the same way; vāk praviveśa ha, [hearing this] speech re-entered the body. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
8. The tongue (speech) departed, and having been absent for a year, it came round and said:- 'How have you been able to live without me?' They replied:- 'Like mute people, not speaking, but breathing with the breath, seeing with the eye, hearing with the ear, thinking with the mind. Thus we lived.' Then speech went back.
dhyāyanto manasaivamiti praviveśa ha cakṣuḥ .. 5.1.9..
9. Next the organ of vision left the body. After staying away one whole year, it came back and asked the other organs, ‘How did you sustain yourselves in my absence?’ The rest of the organs said:- ‘Just as blind people do without seeing, but they are able to survive by breathing, and speak with the organ of speech, hear with the ears, and think with the mind. We did the same.’ Hearing all this, the organ of vision re-entered the. body.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Cakṣuḥ ha, the organ of vision; ut-cakrāma, left [the body]; saṃvatsaram proṣya, after staying away one year; tat paretya uvāca, it came back and said; mat ṛte, in my absence; katham, how; jīvitum aśakata iti, did you manage to survive; yathā andhāḥ, [the other organs said:-] just as the blind; apaśyantaḥ, do not see; prāṇantaḥ prāṇena, [but] are able to survive with the help of prāṇa, the vital force; vadantaḥ vācā, to speak with the help of the organ of speech; śṛṇvantaḥ śrotreṇa, to hear with the help of the ears; dhyāyantaḥ manasā, to think with the help of the mind; evam iti, in the same way; cakṣuḥ praviveśa ha, [hearing this] the organ of vision re-entered the body. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
9. The eye (sight) departed, and having been absent for a year, it came round and said:- 'How have you been able to live without me?' They replied:- 'Like blind people, not seeing, but breathing with the breath, speaking with the tongue, hearing with the ear, thinking with the mind. Thus we lived.' Then the eye went back.
dhyāyanto manasaivamiti praviveśa ha śrotram .. 5.1.10..
10. Next the organ of hearing left the body. After staying away one whole year, it came back and asked the other organs, ‘How did you sustain yourselves in my absence?’ The rest of the organs said:- ‘Just as deaf people do without hearing, but they are able to survive by breathing, and speak with the organ of speech, see with the eyes, and think with the mind. We did the same.’ Hearing all this, the organ of hearing re-entered the body.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Śrotram ha, the organ of hearing; ut-cakrāma, left [the body]; saṃvatsaram proṣya, after staying away one year; tat paretya uvāca, it came back and said; mat ṛte, in my absence; katham, how; jīvitum aśakata iti, did you manage to survive; yathā badhirāḥ, [the other organs said:-] just as the deaf; aśṛṇvantaḥ, do not hear; prāṇantaḥ prāṇena, [but] are able to survive with the help of prāṇa, the vital force; vadantaḥ vācā, to speak with the help of the organ of speech; paśyantaḥ cakṣuṣā, to see with the help of the eyes; dhyāyantaḥ manasā, to think with the help of the mind; evam iti, in the same way; śrotram praviveśa ha, [hearing this] the organ of hearing re-entered the body. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
10. The ear (hearing) departed, and having been absent for a year, it came round and said:- 'How have you been able to live without me?' They replied:- 'Like deaf people, not hearing, but breathing with the breath, speaking with the tongue, thinking with the mind. Thus we lived.' Then the ear went back.
śṛṇvantaḥ śrotreṇaivamiti praviveśa ha manaḥ .. 5.1.11..
11. Next the mind left the body. After staying away one whole year, he came back and asked the other organs, ‘How did you sustain yourselves in my absence?’ The rest of the organs said:- ‘Just as children do without thinking for themselves, but they are able to survive by breathing, and speak with the organ of speech, see with the eyes, and hear with the ears. We did the same.’ Hearing all this, the mind re-entered the body.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Manaḥ ha, the mind; ut-cakrāma, left [the body]; saṃvatsaram proṣya, after staying away one year; tat paretya uvāca, he came back and said; mat ṛte, in my absence; katham, how; jīvitum aśakata iti, did you manage to survive; yathā bālāḥ, [the other organs said:-] just as the children; amanasaḥ, do not receive much support from the mind; prāṇantaḥ prāṇena, [but] are able to survive with the help of prāṇa, the vital force; vadantaḥ vācā, to speak with the help of the organ of speech; paśyantaḥ cakṣuṣā, to see with the help of the eyes; śṛṇvantaḥ śrotreṇa, to hear with the help of the ears; evam iti, in the same way; manaḥ praviveśa ha, [hearing this] the mind re-entered the body. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
11. The mind departed, and having been absent for a year, it came round and said:- 'How have you been able to live without me?' They replied:- 'Like children whose mind is not yet formed, but breathing with the breath, speaking with the tongue, seeing with the eye, hearing with the ear. Thus we lived.' Then the mind went back.
12. Now prāṇa, the vital force, decided to leave. Just as a good horse is able to uproot the pegs to which its feet are tied, similarly, the chief prāṇa was about to carry the other organs away with him. Those other organs then came to him and with great humility said:- ‘O lord, be our leader. You are the greatest among us. Please don’t leave us’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha ha saḥ prāṇaḥ, now that prāṇa, the vital force; uccikramiṣan, wishing to go out; yathā, just as; suhayaḥ, a good horse; paḍvīśa-śaṅkūn, the pegs to which his feet are tied; saṃkhidet, uproots; evam, in the same way; itarān prāṇān, the other organs; samakhidat, began to leave with him; tam abhisametya, coming to him [with great humility]; ucuḥ ha, land] said; bhagavan, lord; edhi, be our leader; naḥ tvam śreṣṭhaḥ asi, you are the best among us; mā utkramīḥ iti, please do not leave us. Commentary:-The organs, beginning with vāk (speech), left the body one after another. But that made little or no difference to the body or to the rest of the organs. Then prāṇa decided to leave. Just as he started to go, all the other organs felt that they were being forced to leave also. They realized then that they were not free; they were utterly dependent on the chief prāṇa. Coming to him, they showed him respect and said that they now recognized his superiority.
Max Müller
12. The breath, when on the point of departing, tore up the other senses, as a horse, going to start, might tear up the pegs to which he is tethered [1]. They came to him and said:- 'Sir, be thou (our lord); thou art the best among us. Do not depart from us!'
13. The organ of speech then said to the chief prāṇa, ‘If I have the quality of high standing, it is because you have that quality.’ Next the organ of vision said to him, ‘True, I have the quality of supporting others, but I owe that quality to you’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha ha enam vāk uvāca, next vāk [speech] said to him [i.e., to prāṇa]; yat aham vasiṣṭhaḥ asmi, I am as much endowed with [the quality of] high standing; tat tvani vasiṣṭhaḥ asi iti, as you are endowed with [the quality of] high standing; atha ha enam cakṣuḥ uvāca, next the organ of vision said to him; yat aham pratiṣṭhā asmi, I am as much endowed with [the quality of] support; tat tvam pratiṣṭhā asi iti, as you are a support. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
13. Then the tongue said to him:- 'If I am the richest, thou art the richest.' The eye said to him:- 'If I am the firm rest, thou art the firm rest [1].'
tatsampadasītyatha hainaṃ mana uvāca yadahamāyatanamasmi
tvaṃ tadāyatanamasīti .. 5.1.14..
14. The organ of hearing then said to the chief prāṇa, ‘If I have the quality of affluence, it is because you have that quality.’ Next the mind said to him, ‘True, I have the quality of being a shelter to many, but that quality is, in fact, yours’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha ha enam śrotram uvāca, next the organ of hearing said to him [i.e., to prāṇa]; yat aham sampat asmi, I am as much endowed with [the quality of] affluence; tat tvam sampat asi iti, as you are endowed with [the quality of] affluence; atha ha enam manaḥ uvāca, next the mind said to him; yat aham āyatanam asmi, I am as much endowed with [the quality of] a shelter; tat tvam āyatanam asi iti, as you are a shelter. Commentary:-Tenants may go to their landlord and say many things to please him and exhibit their loyalty. Like that, the various sense organs which had earlier fought among themselves, each claiming superiority, are now, with great humility, declaring that they have nothing of their own—that whatever good qualities they have they owe to their master, the chief prāṇa.
Max Müller
14. The ear said to him:- 'If I am success, thou art success.' The mind said to him:- 'If I am the home, thou art the home.'
15. Scholars do not call them organs of speech, eyes, ears, or minds. They call them ‘prāṇas,’ for prāṇa has become all these organs.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Na vai vācaḥ, not organs of speech; na cakṣūṃṣi, not eyes; na śrotrāṇi, not ears; na manāṃsi, not minds; iti eva ācakṣate, they say; prāṇāḥ iti eva ācakṣate, they say the prāṇas; hi, for; prāṇaḥ bhavati, prāṇa has become; etāni sarvāṇi, all these. Iti prathamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the first section. Commentary:-The Self is the source of everything that exists, living or non-living. The Self manifests itself in many forms—as human beings, animals, plants, etc. And it is because of the Self that we live, speak, and act. Human beings have two sets of organs—organs of perception and organs of action. We also have a mind. These organs are powerful, but the most powerful is the mind. Yet none of these organs is independent. Each one exists and functions only to serve the Self, the master. The Self is within the body as well as without. Within the body it is the Ātman, which functions through prāṇa, the vital breath. As prāṇa, it animates the body and all the organs. Without prāṇa, the body with all its organs is dead, useless.
Max Müller
15. And people do not call them, the tongues, the eyes, the ears, the minds, but the breaths (prâna, the senses). For breath are all these.
ha vai nāma pratyakṣaṃ na ha vā evaṃvidi kiṃcanānannaṃ
bhavatīti .. 5.2.1..
1. Prāṇa then asked, ‘What will be my food?’ The other organs said:- ‘Anything that even dogs, birds, and other animals can eat in this world is your food.’ All that is food for ana. Ana is a name of prāṇa. For one who knows this nothing is uneatable. [That is, he can eat any food that an animal can eat.]
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ ha uvāca, he [prāṇa] asked; kim me annam bhaviṣyati iti, what will be my food; iti ucuḥ ha, [the other organs] replied; ā-śvabhyaḥ ā-śakunibhyaḥ, for dogs as well as birds; yat idam kiñcit, whatever there is; tat vai, all that; etat anasya annam, is this food for prāṇa; anaḥ ha vai nāma pratyakṣam, ‘ana’ is the name of prāṇa itself; ha vai evam vidi, for one who knows thus; kiñcana na anannam bhavati iti, nothing becomes uneatable [i.e., anything an animal can eat is food for him]. Commentary:-There is some difference between the words prāṇa and ana. Prāṇa has a limited meaning. It refers to something characterized by breathing. It breathes, and in order to keep breathing it needs food. It may be a specific kind of food. It may not eat every kind of food. Ana, however, is that which can eat any kind of food. The Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (1.5.23) says, ‘The sun rises and sets in prāṇa.’ It also says that the person who knows the true nature of prāṇa is one from whom the sun rises and into whom it sets.
Max Müller
1. Breath said:- 'What shall be my food?' They answered:- 'Whatever there is, even unto dogs and birds.' Therefore this is food for Ana (the breather). His name is clearly Ana [1]. To him who knows this there is nothing that is not (proper) food.
lambhuko ha vāso bhavatyanagno ha bhavati .. 5.2.2..
2. Prāṇa asked, ‘What will be my covering?’ The organs replied, ‘Water.’ This is why, before and after eating their meals, people cover him with water [i.e., they sip water]. He then becomes covered with a cloth and is no longer naked.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ ha uvāca, he [prāṇa] said; kim me vāsaḥ bhaviṣyati iti, what will be my covering; āpaḥ iti ha ucuḥ, [the other organs] replied, ‘Water’; tasmāt, that is why; vai aśiṣyantaḥ purastāt ca, people before eating; upariṣṭāt ca, and after [eating]; etat adbhiḥ paridadhati, cover him [prāṇa] with water [i.e., they sip water]; lambhukaḥ ha vāsaḥ bhavati, thereby he becomes covered with a cloth; anagnaḥ ha bhavati, he is no longer naked. Commentary:-The water that is sipped before the meal is said to be the lower cloth, and that which is sipped afterwards is said to be the upper cloth.
Max Müller
2. He said:- 'What shall be my dress?' They answered:- 'Water.' Therefore wise people, when they are going to eat food, surround their food before and after with water [1].' He (prâna) thus gains a dress, and is no longer naked [2]'.
3. Having told this to Vyāghrapada’s son Gośruti, Satyakāma Jābāla said, ‘If a person tells this even to a dry stump [of a tree], branches and leaves will grow off it’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tat ha etat, this [teaching]; satyakāmaḥ jābālaḥ, Satyakāma Jābāla; gośrutaye vaiyāhrapadyāya uktva, saying to Vyāghrapada’s son Gośruti; uvāca, he said; yadi api, even if; etat, this [teaching]; śuṣkāya athāṇave brūyāt, a person gives to a dry stump; śākhāḥ praroheyuḥ palāśān, branches and leaves; jāyeran eva asmin, will grow off it. Commentary:-This verse is meant to praise the philosophy of prāṇa. Teaching this philosophy to Gośruti, the son of Vyāghrapada, Satyakāma said that this teaching is capable of restoring life to a dead tree. Even if there is only a dry stump of a tree, leaves and branches will begin to sprout from it on hearing this teaching. Imagine then what effect it will produce if it is taught to a living human being.
Max Müller
3. Satyakâma Gâbâla, after he had communicated this to Gosruti Vaiyâghrapadya, said to him:- 'If you were to tell this to a dry stick, branches would grow, and leaves spring from it.'
4. Then if anyone wishes to attain greatness, he should first become initiated on a new moon day, and after that, on the night of a full moon, he should prepare a paste of various herbs and mix them together with curd and honey. He should then offer this oblation to the fire saying, ‘Jyeṣṭhāya śreṣṭhāya svāhā,’ [i.e., Svāhā to the oldest and to the best]. Whatever is left over in the offering spoon he should put into the homa pot.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha yadi, then if; mahat jigamiṣet, a person wants to attain greatness; amāvāsyāyām dīkṣitvā, having been initiated on the day of a new moon; paurṇamāsyām rātrau, on the night of the full moon; sarvauṣadhyasya mantham, a paste of various herbs; dadhi-madhunoḥ upamathya, [and] mixing with curd and honey; jyeṣṭhāya śreṣṭhāya svāhā iti, say ‘Svāhā to the oldest and the best’; agnau ājyasya hutvā, offer this as oblations to the fire; manthe sampātam avanayet, put the residue from the offering spoon in the pot. Commentary:-If a person wants to attain greatness, it should not be for worldly gain, but for his spiritual benefit. Here, some instructions are given concerning the sacrifices he should perform. Prior to those sacrifices, however, he should practise strict self-control for some time. This whole discipline is intended to take him to a higher world after death, but the over-all result is that he becomes a better person spiritually.
Max Müller
4. If [1] a man wishes to reach greatness, let him perform the Dîkshâ [2] (preparatory rite) on the day of the new moon, and then, on the night of the full moon, let him stir a mash of all kinds of herbs with curds and honey, and let him pour ghee on the fire (âvasathya laukika), saying; 'Svâhâ to the oldest and the best.' After that let him throw all that remains (of the ghee) [3] into the mash.
5. Saying, ‘Vasiṣṭhāya svāhā’ [i.e., svāhā to high standing], one should offer the oblation to the fire and then put whatever is left over in the offering spoon into the homa pot. Saying, ‘Pratiṣṭhāyai svāhā’ [i.e., svāhā to the support], one should offer the oblation to the fire and then put whatever is left over in the offering spoon into the homa pot. Saying, ‘Sampade svāhā’ [i.e., svāhā to affluence], one should offer the oblation to the fire and then put whatever is left over in the offering spoon into the homa pot. Saying, ‘Āyatanāya svāhā’ [i.e., svāhā to the abode], one should offer the oblation to the fire and then put whatever is left over in the offering spoon into the homa pot.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Vasiṣṭhāya svāhā iti, saying ‘Vasiṣṭhāya svāhā’ [i.e., Svāhā to high standing]; agnau ājyasya hutvā, one should offer the oblation to the fire; manthe sampātam avanayet, and put whatever is left over in the offering spoon into the homa pot; pratiṣṭhāyai svāhā iti, saying ‘Pratiṣṭhāyai svāhā’ [i.e., Svāhā to the support]; agnau ājyasya hutvā, one should offer the oblation to the fire; manthe sampātam avanayet, and put whatever is left over in the offering spoon into the homa pot; sampade svāhā iti, saying ‘Sampade svāhā’ [i.e., Svāhā to affluence]; agnau ājyasya hutvā, one should offer the oblation to the fire; manthe sampātam avanayet, and put whatever is left over in the offering spoon into the homa pot; āyatanāya svāhā iti, saying ‘Āyatanāya svāhā’ [i.e., Svāhā to the abode]; agnau ājyasya hutvā, one should offer the oblation to the fire; manthe sampātam avanayet, and put whatever is left over in the offering spoon into the homa pot. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
5. In the same manner let him pour ghee on. the fire, saying, 'Svâhâ to the richest.' After that let him throw all that remains together into the mash. In the same manner let him pour ghee on the fire, saying, 'Svâhâ to the firm rest.' After that let him throw all that remains together into the mash. In the same manner let him pour ghee on the fire, saying, 'Svâhâ to success.' After that let him throw all that remains together into the mash.
hi te sarvamidagͫ sa hi jyeṣṭhaḥ śreṣṭho rājādhipatiḥ
sa mā jyaiṣṭhyagͫ śraiṣṭhyagͫ rājyamādhipatyaṃ
gamayatvahamevedagͫ sarvamasānīti .. 5.2.6..
6. Then, moving some distance from the fire and holding the homa pot in his hands, he keeps repeating the mantra:- ‘You are named ama, because all this rests on you. You are the first, the best, outstanding, and supreme. May I also be the first, the best, outstanding, and supreme. May I be all all this.’
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, then; pratisṛpya, moving away [from the fire]; añjalau mantham ādhāya, holding the homa pot in his hands; japati, he keeps repeating; amaḥ nāma asi, you are named ‘ama’; amā hi te, because on you [as prāṇa]; sarvam idam, all this [rests]; saḥ hi jyeṣṭhaḥ śreṣṭhaḥ, he [i.e., prāṇa, called here ‘ama’] is the oldest and the best; rājā, princely; adhipatiḥ, supreme; saḥ, that [prāṇa]; mā gamayatu, make me; jyaiṣṭhyam śraiṣṭhyam rājyam ādhipatyam, the first, the best, outstanding, and supreme; aham eva idam sarvam asāni iti, may I be all this. Commentary:-According to Śaṅkara, ama is another name for prāṇa. The whole world rests on prāṇa. This is why prāṇa is also called ama (all). Prāṇa is the best and the highest. Prāṇa is this world.
Max Müller
6. Then going forward and placing the mash in his hands, he recites:- 'Thou (Prâna) art Ama [1] by name, for all this together exists in thee. He is the oldest and best, the king, the sovereign May he make me the oldest, the best, the king, the sovereign. May I be all this.'
7. Then, while saying this Ṛk mantra foot by foot, he eats some of what is in the homa pot. He says, ‘We pray for that food of the shining deity,’ and then eats a little of what is in the homa pot. Saying, ‘We eat the food of that deity,’ he eats a little of what is in the homa pot. Saying, ‘It is the best and the support of all,’ he eats a little of what is in the homa pot. Saying, ‘We quickly meditate on Bhaga,’ he eats the rest and washes the vessel or spoon. Then, with his speech and mind under control, he lies down behind the fire, either on the skin of an animal or directly on the sacrificial ground. If he sees a woman in his dream, he knows that the rite has been successful [and that he will succeed in whatever he does].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha khalu etayā ṛcā, then while [saying] this Ṛk mantra; pacchaḥ foot by foot; ācāmati, he eats a little [of what is in the homa pot]; tat savituḥ vṛṇīmahe, we pray for that [food] of the shining deity; iti ācāmati, saying this he eats a little [of what is in the homa pot]; vayam devasya bhojanam, we eat the food of the deity; iti ācāmati, saying this he eats a little [of what is in the homa pot]; śreṣṭham sarvadhātamam, it is the best and the support of all; iti ācāmati, saying this he eats a little [of what is in the homa pot]; turam, quickly; bhagasya dhīmahi, we meditate on Bhaga; iti sarvam pibati, saying this he drinks the rest; nirṇijya kaṃsam, [and] washing the vessel [i.e., the homa pot]; vā camasam, or spoon; aprasāhaḥ, with his mind under control; vācaṃyamaḥ, [and] his speech under control; agneḥ paścāt, behind the fire; carmaṇi vā sthaṇḍile vā, on the skin of an animal or directly on the sacrificial ground; saṃviśati, he sleeps; saḥ yadi, if he; striyam paśyet, sees a woman [in his dream]; karma samṛddham, the sacrificial rite is successful; iti vidyāt, he knows that. Commentary:-While eating, the sacrificer should repeat the appropriate mantra. That is, he should eat a little and then repeat one foot of the Ṛk mantra; then eat a little more and repeat another foot, and so on. What is this mantra? It is a prayer to Savitā, the sun god. If you repeat this prayer with the appropriate rite, you will become as bright and pure as the sun.
Max Müller
7. Then he eats with the following Rik verse at every foot:- 'We choose that food'--here he swallows--'Of the divine Savitri (prâna)'--here he swallows--'The best and all-supporting food'--here he swallows--'We meditate on the speed of Bhaga (Savitri, prâna)'--here he drinks all.
paśyanti samṛddhiṃ tatra jānīyāttasminsvapnanidarśane
tasminsvapnanidarśane .. 5.2.8..
8. Here is a verse in this connection:- When one sees a woman in a dream while performing a rite for the fulfillment of a desire, that means it is successful. One can know this from the dream.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tat eṣaḥ ślokaḥ, here is a verse on the subject; yadā, when; karmasu kāmyeṣu, in a rite for fulfilling a desire; striyam svapneṣu paśyati, one sees a woman in a dream; samṛddhim tatra, there is success; jānīyāt tasmin svapnanidarśane tasmin svapnanidarśane, one knows from seeing this in a dream, from seeing this in a dream. Iti dvitīyaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the second section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
8. Having cleansed the vessel, whether it be a kamsa or a kamasa, he sits down behind the fire on a skin or on the bare ground, without speaking or making any other effort. If in his dream he sees a woman, let him know this to be a sign that his sacrifice has succeeded.
1. Once Śvetaketu, the grandson of Aruṇa, went to the court of the Pañcālas. Pravāhaṇa, the son of Jīvala, asked him, ‘Young man, did your father teach you?’ [Śvetaketu replied:-] ‘Yes, revered sir, he did’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Śvetaketuḥ āruṇeyaḥ ha, once Śvetaketu, the grandson of Aruṇa; pañcālānām samitim eyāya, went to the court of the Pañcālas; tam ha, to him; pravāhaṇaḥ jaivaliḥ uvāca, Pravāhaṇa, the son of Jīvala, said; kumāra, young man; tvā pitā anu-aśiṣat iti, did your father teach you; bhagavaḥ anu hi iti, yes, revered sir, he did. Commentary:-Those who want liberation should have a strong spirit of renunciation, and they should know the nature of everything, from Brahmā to a blade of grass. Earlier there was a discussion on prāṇa. Now a discussion on agni, fire, begins. The story of Śvetaketu and his father is being introduced here for that purpose.
Max Müller
1. Svetaketu Âruneya went to an assembly [1] of the Pañkâlas. Pravâhana Gaivali [2] said to him:- 'Boy, has your father instructed you?' 'Yes, Sir,' he replied.
vettha yadito'dhi prajāḥ prayantīti na bhagava iti vettha
yathā punarāvartanta3 iti na bhagava iti vettha
pathordevayānasya pitṛyāṇasya ca vyāvartanā3 iti
na bhagava iti .. 5.3.2..
2. [Pravāhaṇa asked,] ‘Do you have any idea where, from this world, human beings go in heaven?’ ‘No, sir, I have no idea,’ [replied Śvetaketu]. ‘Do you know how they come back?’ ‘No, sir, I don’t.’ ‘Have you any idea where the two paths—the path of the gods and the path of the ancestors—part?’ ‘No, sir, I don’t know’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Vettha, do you know; yat, where; itaḥ, from this place; adhi, high up; prajāḥ, living beings; prayanti iti, go; na bhagavaḥ iti, no, revered sir, I don’t; vettha, do you know; yathā, the way; punaḥ āvartante iti, they come back; na bhagavaḥ iti, no, revered sir, I don’t; vettha, do you know; pathoḥ, of the two paths; devayānasya, the path of the gods; pitṛyāṇasya ca, and the path of the ancestors; vyāvartanā iti, where they part; na bhagavaḥ iti, no, revered sir, I don’t. Commentary:-The path of the gods and the path of the manes both go the same way for some distance. They separate only towards the end. Śvetaketu did not know at what point they separate, nor did he know what path those who are reborn take while coming back to the earth.
Max Müller
2. 'Do you know to what place men go from here?' 'No, Sir,' he replied. 'Do you know how they return again?' 'No Sir,' he replied. 'Do you know where the path of Devas and the path of the fathers diverge?' 'No, Sir,' he replied.
vettha yathāsau loko na sampūryata3 iti na bhagava iti
vettha yathā pañcamyāmāhutāvāpaḥ puruṣavacaso
bhavantīti naiva bhagava iti .. 5.3.3 ..
3. [Pravāhaṇa asked,] ‘Do you know why the other world [the world of the moon] is not filled with people?’ [Śvetaketu replied,] ‘No, revered sir, I don’t know.’ ‘Do you know why after the fifth oblation water comes to be called “puruṣa” [man]?’ ‘No, sir, I don’t know’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Vettha yathā, do you know why; asau lokaḥ, that world [i.e., the world of the moon]; na sampūryate iti, is not filled up; na bhagavaḥ iti, no, revered sir; vettha yathā, do you know why; pañcamyām āhutau, after the fifth oblation; āpaḥ puruṣavacasaḥ bhavanti iti, water becomes known as ‘man’; na eva bhagavaḥ iti, no, revered sir, I don’t. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
3. 'Do you know why that world [1] never becomes full?' 'No, Sir,' he replied. 'Do you know why in the fifth libation water is called Man [2]? No, Sir,' he replied.
piturardhameyāya tagͫ hovācānanuśiṣya vāva kila mā
bhagavānabravīdanu tvāśiṣamiti .. 5.3.4 ..
4. [Pravāhaṇa said:-] ‘Why did you say then, “I have been taught”? How can one who does not know these things say, “I have been taught”?’ Śvetaketu was hurt. He went back to his father and said, ‘You have not really taught ṃe, yet you said, “I have taught you.”’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha kim anuśiṣṭaḥ anu avocathāḥ, then why did you say, ‘I have been taught’; yaḥ hi imāni na vidyāt, for he who does not know these things; katham saḥ anuśiṣṭaḥ bruvīta iti, how can he say ‘I have been taught’; saḥ, he [Śvetaketu]; ha āyastaḥ, was hurt; pituḥ ardham eyāya, went back to his father’s place; tam ha uvāca, he said to him [i.e., to his father]; mā ananuśiṣya vāva kila, without really teaching me; bhagavān, revered sir; abravīt tvā anu aśiṣam iti, you said, ‘I have taught you.’ Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
4. 'Then why did you say (you had been) instructed? How could anybody who did not know these things say that he had been instructed?' Then the boy went back sorrowful to the place of his father, and said:- 'Though you had not instructed me, Sir, you said you had instructed me.
naikaṃcanāśakaṃ vivaktumiti sa hovāca yathā mā tvaṃ
tadaitānavado yathāhameṣāṃ naikaṃcana veda
yadyahamimānavediṣyaṃ kathaṃ te nāvakṣyamiti .. 5.3.5..
5. [Śvetaketu said:-] ‘That friend of the princes put five questions to me. I was not able to answer a single one of them.’ [He then told his father the five questions. After pondering over them for some time, his father] said:- ‘Those questions you told me about on your return from the court—I am not able to answer even one of them. If I knew the answers, why should I have not told you?’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Rājanyabandhuḥ, the friend of princes; pañca praśnān mā aprākṣīt, asked me five questions; teṣām na ekañcana aśakam vivaktum iti, I was not able to answer a single one of them; saḥ ha uvāca, he [his father] said; yathā mā tvam tadā, [on your return from the court] as you were then; etān, all these [questions]; avadaḥ, you told [me]; yathā, so; aham eṣām na ekañcana veda, I do not know even one of them; yadi aham imān avediṣyam, if I knew them; katham te na avakṣyam iti, why should I not have told you? Commentary:-The word rājanyabandhuḥ, a friend of kings or princes, is not to be taken literally. Here the word is used sarcastically. Actually, the man is a rogue.
Max Müller
5. 'That fellow of a Râganya, asked me five questions, and I could not answer one of them.' The father said:- 'As you have told me these questions of his, I do not know any one of them [1]. If I knew these questions, how should I not have told you [2]?'
स ह गौतमो राज्ञोऽर्धमेयाय तस्मै ह प्राप्तायार्हां चकार
स ह प्रातः सभाग उदेयाय तꣳ होवाच मानुषस्य
भगवन्गौतम वित्तस्य वरं वृणीथा इति स होवाच तवैव
राजन्मानुषं वित्तं यामेव कुमारस्यान्ते
वाचमभाषथास्तामेव मे ब्रूहीति स ह कृच्छ्री बभूव
॥ ५.३.६॥
sa ha gautamo rājño'rdhameyāya tasmai ha prāptāyārhāṃ cakāra
sa ha prātaḥ sabhāga udeyāya tagͫ hovāca mānuṣasya
bhagavangautama vittasya varaṃ vṛṇīthā iti sa hovāca tavaiva
rājanmānuṣaṃ vittaṃ yāmeva kumārasyānte
vācamabhāṣathāstāmeva me brūhīti sa ha kṛcchrī babhūva
.. 5.3.6..
6. Gautama then went to the king’s palace. On his arrival, the king welcomed him respectfully. The next morning, when the king was in his court, Gautama went there to meet him. The king said to him, ‘Revered Gautama, ask for a boon from me—anything a person might wish for.’ Gautama replied:- ‘Let those things be with you. Please tell me whatever you said to my son.’ Hearing this, the king turned pale.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ ha gautamaḥ, then Gautama; rājñaḥ ardham eyāya, went to the king’s palace; prāptāya, when he arrived; tasmai ha arhām cakāra, the king respectfully welcomed him; saḥ, he [Gautama]; ha prātaḥ, the next morning; sabhāge udeyāya, went to see the king in the court; tam ha uvāca, he [the king] said to him [Gautama]; bhagavan gautama, revered Gautama; mānuṣasya vittasya varam vṛṇīthāḥ iti, ask for any precious thing a person may wish for as a boon; saḥ ha uvāca, he [Gautama] said; rājan, O king; tava eva mānuṣam vittam, let the human wealth be yours; yām eva kumārasya ante vācam abhāṣathāḥ, that which you said to my son; tām eva, the same; me brūhi iti, tell me; saḥ ha kṛcchrī babhūva, he [the king] was very depressed. Commentary:-It was against the custom for a kṣatriya, a king, to teach a brāhmin. This is why the king became depressed.
Max Müller
6. Then Gautama went to the king's place, and when he had come to him, the king offered him proper respect. In the morning the king went out on his way to the assembly [1]. The king said to him:- 'Sir, Gautama, ask a boon of such things as men possess.' He replied:- 'Such things as men possess may remain with you. Tell me the speech which you addressed to the boy.'
7. The king then issued orders that Gautama should stay with him for a long time [as a brahmacari. Gautama did that. One day] the king said to him:- ‘O Gautama, regarding the matter which you asked about, no brāhmin before you had access to this knowledge. This is why in the past, in all the worlds, it was only the kṣatriyas who had the right to impart this knowledge.’ Having said this, he proceeded to teach Gautama.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tam, to him [to Gautama]; ciram vasa ha iti, stay for a long time; ājñāpayāñcakāra, he issued orders; tam ha uvāca, he said to him [to Gautama]; gautama, O Gautama; yathā mā tvam āvadaḥ, as you said to me; yathā iyam vidyā, because this knowledge; prāk tvattaḥ, before you; brāhmaṇān na gacchati, did not go to the brāhmins; purā, in the past; tasmāt u, that is why; sarveṣu lokeṣu, in all the worlds; kṣatrasya eva praśāsanam abhūt iti, only kṣatriyas had the right to teach it; tasmai ha uvāca, he said to him. Iti tṛtīyaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the third section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
7. The king was perplexed, and commanded him, saying:- 'Stay with me some time.' Then he said:- 'As (to what) you have said to me, Gautama, this knowledge did not go to any Brâhmana before you, and therefore this teaching belonged in all the worlds to the Kshatra class alone. Then he began:-
1. O Gautama, heaven is the [sacrificial] fire; the sun is its fuel; the rays are the smoke; day is the flame; the moon is the embers; and the stars are the sparks.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Gautama, O Gautama; asau vāva lokaḥ agniḥ, that world there [i.e., heaven] is the fire; ādityaḥ eva tasya samit, the sun is its fuel; raśmayaḥ dhūmaḥ, the rays are the smoke; ahaḥ arciḥ, the day is the flame; candramāḥ aṅgārāḥ, the moon is the embers; nakṣatrāṇi visphuliṅgāḥ, the stars are the sparks. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
1. 'The altar (on which the sacrifice is supposed to be offered) is that world (heaven), O Gautama; its fuel is the sun itself, the smoke his rays, the light the day, the coals the moon, the sparks the stars.
2. The gods [i.e., the organs of the sacrificer] offer water as a token of respect to the fire [heaven]. Out of that oblation appears King Soma [the shining moon].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tasmin etasinin agnau, in that fire [which is also heaven]; devāḥ, the gods [i.e., the organs of the sacrificer]; śraddhām juhvati, offer faith [as water] as the oblation; tasyāḥ āhuteḥ, out of that oblation; rājā somaḥ, King Soma [i.e., the shining moon]; sambhavati, appears. Iti caturthaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the fourth section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
2. 'On that altar the Devas (or prânas, represented by Agni, &c.) offer the sraddha libation (consisting of water). From that oblation rises Soma, the king [1] (the moon).
1. O Gautama, the god of rain is the [sacrificial] fire; air is its fuel; the cloud is the smoke; lightning is the flame; the thunderbolt is the embers; and thunder is the sparks.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Gautama, O Gautama; parjanyaḥ vāva agniḥ, the god of rain is the fire; vāyuḥ eva tasya samit, air is its fuel; abhram dhūmaḥ, the cloud is the smoke; vidyut arciḥ, lightning is the flame; aśaniḥ aṅgārāḥ, the thunderbolt is the embers; hrādanayaḥ visphuliṅgāḥ, thunder is the sparks. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
1. 'The altar is Parganya (the god of rain), O Gautama; its fuel is the air itself, the smoke the cloud, the light the lightning, the coals. the thunderbolt, the sparks the thunderings [1].
2. The gods offer King Soma [the shining moon] as the oblation to the fire. Out of that oblation appears rain.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tasmin etasmin agnau, in that fire; devāḥ, the gods; somam rājānam juhvati, offer King Soma [the shining moon] as the oblation; tasyāḥ āhuteḥ, out of that oblation; varṣam, rain; sambhavati, appears. Iti pañcamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the fifth section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
2. 'On that altar the Devas offer Soma, the king (the moon). From that oblation rises rain [1].
1. O Gautama, the earth is the [sacrificial] fire; the year is its fuel; the sky is the smoke; night is the flame; the quarters are the embers; and the intermediate directions are the sparks.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Gautama, O Gautama; pṛthivī vāva agniḥ, earth is the fire; saṃvatsaraḥ eva tasyāḥ samit, the year is its fuel; ākāśaḥ dhūmaḥ, the sky is the smoke; rātriḥ arciḥ, night is the flame; diśaḥ aṅgārāḥ, the quarters are the embers; avāṅtaradiśaḥ visphuliṅgāḥ, the intermediate directions are the sparks. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
1. 'The altar is the earth, O Gautama; its fuel is the year itself, the smoke the ether, the light the night, the coals the quarters, the sparks the intermediate quarters.
2. The gods offer rain as the oblation to the fire. Out of that oblation appears food.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tasmin etasmin agnau, in that fire; devāḥ, the gods; varṣam juhvati, offer rain as the oblation; tasyāḥ āhuteḥ, out of that oblation; annam, food; sambhavati, appears. Iti ṣaṣṭhaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the sixth section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
2. 'On that altar the Devas (prânas) offer rain. From that oblation rises food (corn, &c.)
1. O Gautama, man is the [sacrificial] fire; speech is his fuel; prāṇa is the smoke; the tongue is the flame; the eyes are the embers; and the ears are the sparks.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Gautama, O Gautama; puruṣaḥ vāva agniḥ, man is the fire; vāk eva tasya samit, speech is his fuel; prāṇaḥ dhūmaḥ, prāṇa is the smoke; jihvā arciḥ, the tongue is the flame; cakṣuḥ aṅgārāḥ, the eyes are the embers; śrotram visphuliṅgāḥ, the ears are the sparks. Commentary:-Speech is said to be the fuel because it is the source of strength. A person who cannot speak is helpless. Prāṇa is the smoke because the breath comes out of the mouth just as smoke comes out of fire. The tongue is the flame because both are red. The eyes are the embers because both appear to be shining. And the ears are the sparks because both spread out and cover a large area.
Max Müller
1. 'The altar is man, O Gautama; its fuel speech itself, the smoke the breath, the light the tongue, the coals the eye, the sparks the ear.
2. The gods offer food as the oblation to the fire. Out of that oblation appears semen.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tasmin etasmin agnau, in that fire; devāḥ, the gods; annam juhvati, offer food as the oblation; tasyāḥ āhuteḥ, out of that oblation; retaḥ, semen; sambhavati, appears. Iti saptamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the seventh section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
2. 'On that altar the Devas (prânas) offer food. From that oblation rises seed.
iti tu pañcamyāmāhutāvāpaḥ puruṣavacaso bhavantīti
sa ulbāvṛto garbho daśa vā nava vā māsānantaḥ śayitvā
yāvadvātha jāyate .. 5.9.1..
1. Thus, after the fifth oblation, water becomes known as ‘man.’ The foetus lies within the mother’s womb, covered with membrane, for about nine or ten months, and then it is born.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Iti tu, thus [the fifth question has been answered]; pañcamyām āhutau, after the fifth oblation; āpaḥ, water; puruṣavacasaḥ bhavanti iti, becomes known as ‘man’; ulbāvṛtaḥ, covered with membrane; saḥ garbhaḥ, that foetus; daśa vā nava vā māsān, for nine or ten months; yāvat vā, or so; antaḥ śayitvā, lying inside [the mother’s womb]; atha jāyate, is then born. Commentary:-If all five oblations have been offered, then the water of the first oblation becomes a puruṣa, a human being. It lies in its mother’s womb for nine or ten months and is then born as a child. This is the answer to the last of the five questions that Pravāhaṇa asked Śvetaketu. By answering the last question first, he could answer the others more easily.
Max Müller
1. 'For this reason is water in the fifth oblation called Man. This germ, covered in the womb, having dwelt there ten months, or more or less, is born.
sa jāto yāvadāyuṣaṃ jīvati taṃ pretaṃ diṣṭamito'gnaya
eva haranti yata eveto yataḥ saṃbhūto bhavati .. 5.9.2..
2. When a person is born, he lives as long as he is destined to live. Then, when he dies as ordained, they [his sons or disciples] take him from his home to the fire from which he came. It is that same fire from which he was born [and to which he owes his birth].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ jātaḥ, [when] he is born; yāvat-āyuṣam jīvati, he lives as long as he is destined; diṣṭam pretam, dying as ordained; itaḥ, from here [his home]; taw agnaye eva haranti, they take him to the fire; yataḥ eva itaḥ, from which he came here; yataḥ sambhūtaḥ bhavati, that from which he was born. Iti navamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the ninth section. Commentary:-From each oblation, something is born that is offered as the next oblation in the fire. The last thing born is a human being. This is why it is said that a human being is born of fire. In the end, when that person dies, his body also is offered in that same fire.
Max Müller
2. 'When born, he lives whatever the length of his life may be. When he has departed, his friends carry him, as appointed, to the fire (of the funeral pile) from whence he came, from whence he sprang.
तद्य इत्थं विदुः। ये चेमेऽरण्ये श्रद्धा तप इत्युपासते
तेऽर्चिषमभिसंभवन्त्यर्चिषोऽहरह्न
आपूर्यमाणपक्षमापूर्यमाणपक्षाद्यान्षडुदङ्ङेति
मासाꣳस्तान् ॥ ५.१०.१॥
.. iti navamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ ..
tadya itthaṃ viduḥ. ye ceme'raṇye śraddhā tapa ityupāsate
te'rciṣamabhisaṃbhavantyarciṣo'harahna
āpūryamāṇapakṣamāpūryamāṇapakṣādyānṣaḍudaṅṅeti
māsāgͫstān .. 5.10.1..
1-2. Those who know this [about the five fires], and those who live in the forest practising austerities with faith—they go after death to the world of light. From the world of light they go to the world of day; from the world of day to the world of the bright fortnight; from the world of the bright fortnight to the six months when the sun moves northward; from there they go to the year; from the year to the sun; from the sun to the moon; and from the moon to lightning. There someone, not human, receives them and leads them to brahmaloka. This is the path of the gods.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tat ye viduḥ, those who know this [i.e., about the five fires]; ittham, thus; ye ca ime, and these people who; araṇye, in the forest; śraddhā tapaḥ iti upāsate, practise austerities with faith; te arciṣam abhisambhavanti, they become [attain] light; arciṣaḥ, from light; ahaḥ, to the day; ahnaḥ, from the day; āpūryamāṇapakṣam, to the bright fortnight; āpūryamāṇapakṣāt, from the bright fortnight; yān ṣaṭ māsān, to the six months; udan eti, [when the sun] moves to the north; tān, to that; māsebhyaḥ, from those months; saṃvatsaram, to the year; saṃvatsarāt, from the year; ādityam, to the sun; ādityāt, from the sun; candramasam, to the moon; candramasaḥ, from the moon; vidyutam, to lightning; tat, there; puruṣaḥ, a person [existing there]; amānavaḥ, not human; enān, those [human beings]; saḥ gamayati, leads; brahma, to brahmaloka; eṣaḥ devayānaḥ panthāḥ iti, this is the path of the gods Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
1. 'Those who know this [1] (even though they still be grihasthas, householders) and those who in the forest follow faith and austerities (the vânaprasthas, and of the parivrâgakas those who do not yet know the Highest Brahman) go [2] to light (arkis), from light to day, from day to the light half of the moon, from the light half of the moon to the six months when the sun goes to the north, from the six months when the sun goes to the north to the year, from the year to the sun, from the sun to the moon, from the moon to the lightning. There is a person not human [3],--
3. On the other hand, those who live in the village and perform acts of public service, charity, and so on, attain the world of smoke. From there they go to the world of the night; from night they go to the world of the dark fortnight; and from the dark fortnight they go to the world of the six months when the sun moves to the south. This means that they never attain the world of the year.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, then; ye ime, these who; grāme, live in the village; iṣṭāpūrte dattam iti upāsate, perform works of public service and give in charity, and so on; te, they; dhūmam abhisambhavanti, go to the world of smoke; dhūmāt rātrim, from the world of smoke to the world of night; rātreḥ aparapakṣam, from the world of night to the world of the dark fortnight; aparapakṣāt yān ṣaḍ māsān tān, from the world of the dark fortnight to the world of the six months when; dakṣiṇa eti, [the sun] moves to the south; ete, they; saṃvatsaram abhiprāpnuvanti, never attain the world of the year. Commentary:-Here, ‘smoke,’ ‘night,’ and so on mean the presiding deities of those realms. This is how ordinary human beings are raised to divine realms through good work.
Max Müller
3. 'But they who living in a village practise (a life of) sacrifices, works of public utility, and alms, they go to the smoke, from smoke to night, from night to the dark half of the moon, from the dark half of the moon to the six months when the sun goes to the south. But they do not reach the year.
4. From the six months of the southern solstice, they go to the world of the ancestors, and from there they go to the sky. Then from the sky they go to the moon. This is King Soma. This is the food of the gods. The gods enjoy eating this food.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Māsebhyaḥ, from the months [of the southern solstice]; pitṛlokam, [they go] to the world of the ancestors; pitṛlokāt ākāśam, from the world of the ancestors to the sky; ākāśāt candramasam, from the sky to the world of the moon; eṣaḥ somaḥ rājā, this is King Soma [the shining moon]; tat, that; devānām annam, is the food of the gods [i.e., Indra and others]; tam devāḥ bhakṣayanti, the gods eat that [food]. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
4. 'From the months they go to the world of the fathers, from the world of the fathers to the ether, from the ether to the moon. That is Soma, the king. Here they are loved (eaten) by the Devas, yes, the Devas love (eat) them [1].
5. Living in the world of the moon until the fruits of his work are exhausted, he then goes back to this world along the path he came. First going to the sky, he then goes to air. Having become air, he next becomes smoke. Having become smoke, he then becomes mist.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tasmin, in that [world of the moon]; yāvat sampātam, until the fruits of their work are exhausted; uṣitvā, living; atha, thereafter; etam eva punaḥ nivartante, they return again to this [world]; adhvānam, along this path; yathā itam, as one came; ākāśam, to the sky; ākāśāt vāyum, from the sky to the air; vāyuḥ bhūtvā dhūmaḥ bhavati, having become air he becomes smoke; dhūmaḥ bhūtvā, having become smoke; abhram bhavati, he becomes mist. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
5. 'Having dwelt there, till their (good) works are consumed, they return again that way as they came [1], to the ether, from the ether to the air. Then the sacrificer, having become air, becomes smoke, having become smoke, he becomes mist,
jāyante'to vai khalu durniṣprapataraṃ yo yo hyannamatti
yo retaḥ siñcati tadbhūya eva bhavati .. 5.10.6..
6. Having become mist, it changes into clouds. Then from clouds, it becomes rain and falls to the earth. Finally it grows as paddy, barley, plants, trees, sesame, beans, and so forth. The change from this state is very difficult. Those who eat these things produce children just like themselves.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Abhram bhūtvā meghaḥ bhavati, having become mist, it becomes a cloud; meghaḥ bhūtvā pravarṣati, having become a cloud, it comes down as rain; te, they; iha, in this world; vrīhi-yavāḥ, paddy and barley; oṣadhi-vanaspatayaḥ, plants and trees; tila-māṣaḥ iti, sesame, beans, and so forth; jāyante, this.is how they are born; ataḥ, from this [state]; vai khalu, for sure; durniṣprapataram, the way is difficult; yaḥ yaḥ, whoever [humans or animals]; hi annam atti, eats this food; yaḥ retaḥ siñcati, as it procreates; tat bhūyaḥ eva bhavati, he becomes like that [its parents]. Commentary:-Here Śaṅkara explains that a person does not become the mist or cloud or paddy, etc. He merely becomes associated with these things as a person is associated with a vehicle he is riding on. Śaṅkara also says that when a person ascends to the higher worlds, he does so in full consciousness. But when he descends, to return to this earth, he is like a person who falls from a tree and immediately becomes unconscious. His friends come and pick him up and carry him to his home without his ever being aware of it. Similarly, a person who descends from the lunar world is never aware of how he returns to the earth.
Max Müller
6. 'Having become mist, he becomes a cloud, having become a cloud, he rains down. Then he is born as rice and corn, herbs and trees, sesamum. and beans. From thence the escape is beset with most difficulties. For whoever the persons may be that eat the food, and beget offspring, he henceforth becomes like unto them.
vātha ya iha kapūyacaraṇā abhyāśo ha yatte kapūyāṃ
yonimāpadyerañśvayoniṃ vā sūkarayoniṃ vā
caṇḍālayoniṃ vā .. 5.10.7..
7. Among them, those who did good work in this world [in their past life] attain a good birth accordingly. They are born as a brāhmin, a kṣatriya, or a vaiśya. But those who did bad work in this world [in their past life] attain a bad birth accordingly, being born as a dog, a pig, or as a casteless person.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tat, among them; ye, those who; iha, in this world; ramaṇīyacaraṇāḥ, did good work; abhyāśaḥ ha yat, like that; te, they; ramaṇīyām yonim, a good birth; āpadyeran, get; brāhmaṇa yonim vā, a birth as a brāhmin; kṣatriya yonim vā, or a birth as a kṣatriya; vaiśya yonim vā, or a birth as a vaiśya; atha, but; ye iha kapūyacaraṇāḥ, those who did bad work here in this world; abhyāśaḥ ha yat, like that; te, they; kapūyām yonim āpadyeran, get a bad birth; śva yonim yā, a birth as a dog; sūkara yonim vā, or a birth as a pig; caṇḍāla yonim vā, or a birth as a casteless person. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
7. 'Those whose conduct has been good, will quickly attain some good birth, the birth of a Brâhmana, or a Kshatriya, or a Vaisya. But those whose conduct has been evil, will quickly attain an evil birth, the birth of a dog, or a hog, or a Kandâla.
म्रियस्वेत्येतत्तृतीयꣳस्थानं तेनासौ लोको न सम्पूर्यते
तस्माज्जुगुप्सेत तदेष श्लोकः ॥ ५.१०.८॥
athaitayoḥ pathorna katareṇacana tānīmāni
kṣudrāṇyasakṛdāvartīni bhūtāni bhavanti jāyasva
mriyasvetyetattṛtīyagͫsthānaṃ tenāsau loko na sampūryate
tasmājjugupseta tadeṣa ślokaḥ .. 5.10.8..
8. But those who do not follow either of these two paths are born among small animals and insects again and again. [This can be said about those who are born in] this third state:- ‘Be born and die.’ This is why the other world does not get filled up. Therefore one should despise this state. Here is a verse on the subject—
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, then; etayoḥ pathoḥ, of these two paths [the path of light (i.e., the path of the gods) or the path of smoke (i.e., the path of the ancestors)]; na katareṇa ca na, not by either; tāni imāni, all these; kṣudrāṇi bhūtāni, small beings [i.e., animals and insects, etc.]; asakṛt āvartīni, which are born again and again; jāyasva mriyasva iti, ‘be born and die’; etat tṛtīyaṃ sthānum, this is the third position [which is neither of the two previous paths]; tena, this is why; asau lokaḥ, that world; na sampūryate, is not filled up [with people]; tasmāt, therefore; jugupseta, one should despise it; tat eṣaḥ ślokaḥ, here is a verse on the subject. Commentary:-Those born in this state are so short-lived that no sooner are they born than they die, as if life has no other purpose for them. This completes the answers to the five questions.
Max Müller
8. 'On neither of these two ways those small creatures (flies, worms, &c.) are continually returning of whom it may be said, Live and die. Theirs is a third place. 'Therefore that world never becomes full [1] (cf. V, 3, 2). 'Hence let a man take care to himself [2]! And thus it is said in the following Sloka [3]:--
9. A person who steals gold, or drinks liquor, or goes to bed with his teacher’s wife, or kills a brāhmin—these four are lost. Also lost is the fifth—one who keeps company with such people.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Stenaḥ, a thief; hiraṇyasya, of gold; surām piban ca, and one who drinks liquor; guroḥ talpam āvasan, uses his teacher’s bed [i.e., goes to bed with his teacher’s wife]; brahmahā ca, and a murderer of a brāhmin; ete, these; catvāraḥ, four; patanti, are lost; pañcamaḥ ca, and the fifth; ācaran taiḥ iti, is one who mixes with them. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
9. 'A man who steals gold, who drinks spirits, who dishonours his Guru's bed, who kills a Brahman, these four fall, and as a fifth he who associates with them.
10. But he who knows the five fires remains pure even if he is in the company of these people. He who knows this is pure and innocent, and after death he goes to a holy world.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha ha, but; yaḥ, he who; evam, thus; etān pañcāgnīn veda, knows these five fires; pāpmanā na lipyate, is not tainted with sin; saha taiḥ api, even with them [the previous five people]; ācaran, he mixes; śuddhaḥ, pure; pūtaḥ, innocent; puṇyalokaḥ, an inhabitant of a holy world; bhavati, he becomes; yaḥ evam veda yaḥ evam veda, he who knows thus, Commentary:-
Max Müller
10. 'But he who thus knows the five fires is not defiled by sin even though he associates with them. He who knows this, is pure, clean, and obtains the world of the blessed, yea, he obtains the world of the blessed.'
sametya mīmāgͫsāṃ cakruḥ ko na ātmā kiṃ brahmeti .. 5.11.1..
1. Upamanyu’s son, Prācīnaśāla; Puluṣa’s son, Satyayajña; Bhāllavi’s son, Indradyumna; Śarkarākṣa’s son, Jana; and Aśvatarāśva’s son, Buḍila—these eminent householders, who were Vedic scholars, once met to decide the issue:- Who is our Self? And what is Brahman?
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Prācīnaśālaḥ aupamanyavaḥ, Upamanyu’s son, Prācīnaśāla; satyayajñaḥ pauluṣiḥ, Puluṣa’s son, Satyayajña; indradyumnaḥ bhāllaveyaḥ, Bhāllavi’s son, Indradyumna; janaḥ śārkarākṣyaḥ, Śarkarākṣa’s son, Jana; buḍilaḥ āśvatarāśviḥ, Aśvatarāśva’s son, Buḍila; te ha ete, these; mahāśālā, eminent householders; mahāśrotriyāḥ, well read in the Vedas; sametya, got together; mīmāṃsām cakruḥ, to decide the issue; kaḥ, who; naḥ ātmā, is our Self; kim brahma iti, what is Brahman? Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
1. Prâkînasâla Aupamanyava, Satyayagña Paulushi, Indradyumna Bhâllaveya, Gana Sârkarâkshya, and Budila Âsvatarasvi, these five great householders and great theologians came once together and held a discussion as to What is our Self, and what is Brahman [1].
te ha sampādayāṃcakruruddālako vai bhagavanto'yamāruṇiḥ
sampratīmamātmānaṃ vaiśvānaramadhyeti tagͫ
hantābhyāgacchāmeti tagͫ hābhyājagmuḥ .. 5.11.2..
2. They talked among themselves and decided what to do. One of them said:- ‘Revered sirs, Uddālaka Āruṇi is the person who now knows about this Vaiśvānara Self. Let us go to him then.’ So they all went to him.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Te ha, they; sampādayān cakruḥ, decided about the matter; bhagavantaḥ, [one of them said to the others:-] revered sirs; ayam, this; uddālakaḥ āruṇiḥ, Uddālaka, the son of Aruṇa; samprati, at the moment; imam ātmānam vaiśvānaram adhyeti, knows about the Vaiśvānara Self; tam, to him; hanta abhyāgacchāma iti, then let us go; tam ha abhyājagmuḥ, they all went to him. Commentary:-The word vaiśvānara has three meanings:- (a) he who is within all; (b) he who leads all; and (c) the friend of all.
Max Müller
2. They reflected and said:- 'Sirs, there is that Uddâlaka Âruni, who knows at present that Self, called Vaisvânara. Well, let us go to him.' They went to him.
महाशाला महाश्रोत्रियास्तेभ्यो न सर्वमिव प्रतिपत्स्ये
हन्ताहमन्यमभ्यनुशासानीति ॥ ५.११.३॥
sa ha sampādayāṃcakāra prakṣyanti māmime
mahāśālā mahāśrotriyāstebhyo na sarvamiva pratipatsye
hantāhamanyamabhyanuśāsānīti .. 5.11.3..
3. [Uddālaka understood that they had come to ask him about the Vaiśvānara Ātman.] He decided:- ‘These eminent householders and Vedic scholars will ask me questions, and I may not be able to answer all of them. Therefore I will direct them to another teacher’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ, he [Uddālaka]; ha sampādayāñcakāra, decided; ime mahāśālāḥ, these eminent householders; mahāśrotriyāḥ, and Vedic scholars; mām prakṣyanti, will ask me questions; tebhyaḥ, to them; sarvam iva na pratipatsye, I will not be able to answer everything; hanta aham anyam abhyanuśāsāni iti, therefore I will direct them to another [teacher]. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
3. But he reflected:- 'Those great householders and great theologians will examine me, and I shall not be able to tell them all; therefore I shall recommend another teacher to them.'
4. Uddālaka told them:- ‘Sirs, at the present time King Aśvapati, the son of Kekaya, alone knows about the Vaiśvānara Ātman. With your permission, we will go to him.’ They then left to see Aśvapati.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tān, to them [the Vedic scholars]; ha uvāca, he said; bhagavantaḥ, O sirs; samprati, at the present time; ayam kaikeyaḥ, this son of Kekaya; aśvapatiḥ, Aśvapati; imam, this; vaiśvānaram ātmānam, Vaiśvānara Self [the Self that iṣ in the heart of everyone]; adhyeti, knows; tam hanta abhyāgacchāma iti, if you permit, we will go to him; tam ha abhyājagmuḥ, they went to him. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
4. He said to them:- 'Sirs, Asvapati Kaikeya knows at present that Self, called Vaisvânara. Well, let us go to him.' They went to him.
कर्दर्यो न मद्यपो नानाहिताग्निर्नाविद्वान्न स्वैरी स्वैरिणी
कुतो यक्ष्यमाणो वै भगवन्तोऽहमस्मि यावदेकैकस्मा
ऋत्विजे धनं दास्यामि तावद्भगवद्भ्यो दास्यामि
वसन्तु भगवन्त इति ॥ ५.११.५॥
tebhyo ha prāptebhyaḥ pṛthagarhāṇi kārayāṃcakāra
sa ha prātaḥ saṃjihāna uvāca na me steno janapade na
kardaryo na madyapo nānāhitāgnirnāvidvānna svairī svairiṇī
kuto yakṣyamāṇo vai bhagavanto'hamasmi yāvadekaikasmā
ṛtvije dhanaṃ dāsyāmi tāvadbhagavadbhyo dāsyāmi
vasantu bhagavanta iti .. 5.11.5..
5. When they arrived, Aśvapati had each of his guests worshipped separately. The next morning, after getting up from bed, he said to them:- ‘There is no thief in my state, no miserly person, no drunkard, no brāhmin who does not perform the agnihotra sacrifice, no one who is uneducated, no adulterer, and therefore no adulteress. Sirs, I am performing a sacrifice. The amount of money I will be giving to each priest in this sacrifice, I will give to each one of you. Revered sirs, please stay here’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tebhyaḥ ha prāptebhyaḥ, when they arrived; pṛthak arjāṇikārayāñcakāra, he had each one of them worshipped; prātaḥ, the next morning; sañjihānaḥ, getting up from bed; saḥ ha uvāca, he said; na me stenaḥ janapade, there is no thief in my kingdom; na kadaryaḥ, no miserly person; na madyapaḥ, no drunkard; na anāhitāgniḥ, no brāhmin who does not perform the agnihotra sacrifice; na avidvān, no one who is uneducated; na svairī, no adulterer; kutaḥ svairiṇī how can there be an adulteress; bhagavantaḥ, O sirs; aham yakṣyamāṇaḥ vai asmi, I am performing a sacrifice; yāvat dhanam, as much wealth; eka-ekasmai ṛtvije dāsyāmi, I will give to each priest; tāvat, that same amount; bhagavadbhyaḥ dāsyāmi, I will give to each of you revered sirs; vasantu bhagavantaḥ iti, sirs, please stay here. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
5. When they arrived (the king) ordered proper presents to be made separately to each of them. And rising the next morning [1] he said:- 'In my kingdom there is no thief, no miser, no drunkard, no man without an altar in his house, no ignorant person, no adulterer, much less an adulteress. I [2] am going to perform a sacrifice, Sirs, and as much wealth as I give to each Ritvig priest, I shall give to you, Sirs. Please to stay here.'
vadedātmānamevemaṃ vaiśvānaragͫ sampratyadhyeṣi tameva no
brūhīti .. 5.11.6..
6. They said:- ‘When a person visits someone, first and foremost, he states why he has come. At the present time, you are the one who knows about the Vaiśvānara Ātman. Please tell us about it’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Te ha ūcuḥ, they said; yena ha eva arthena, the purpose for which; puruṣaḥ caret, a person visits [another]; tam ha eva vadet, he should state that [first]; imam eva ātmānam vaiśvānaram, this Vaiśvānara Ātman; samprati, now; adhyeṣi, you know; tam eva naḥ brūhi iti, please tell us about it. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
6. They replied:- 'Every man ought to say for what purpose he comes. You know at present that Vaisvânara Self, tell us that.'
7. He said to them, ‘I will give you my answer tomorrow morning.’ The next day they went back to him in the forenoon with some fuel in their hands. Without initiating them, he said this—
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tān ha uvāca, he said to them; prātaḥ, in the morning; vaḥ prativaktā asmi iti, I will give you the answer; te, they; ha samitpāṇayaḥ, with fuel in their hands; pūrvāhṇe praticakramire, came again the next day in the forenoon; tān ha anupanīya eva, without initiating them; etat uvāca, he said this. Iti ekādaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the eleventh section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
7. He said:- 'To-morrow I shall give you an answer.' Therefore on the next morning they approached him, carrying fuel in their hands (like students), and he, without first demanding any preparatory rites [1], said to them:-
1. The king said, ‘O son of Upamanyu, whom do you worship as the Vaiśvānara Self?’ The son of Upamanyu replied, ‘O King, I worship heaven.’ The king said:- ‘The Self you worship is the Vaiśvānara Self which is Suteja—i.e., bright and beautiful. That is why whoever is born in your family is bright, brighter, and still brighter’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Aupamanyava, O son of Upamanyu; kam, whom; tvam, you; ātmānam, as your self; upāsse iti, worship; bhagavaḥ rājan, revered king; divam eva iti, [I worship] heaven; ha uvāca, he [the king] said; yam tvam ātmānam upāsse, the Self which you worship; eṣaḥ, this [heaven]; vai, for sure; ātmā vaiśvānaraḥ, is Vaiśvānara Ātman; sutejāḥ, as Suteja [i.e., beautiful and bright]; tasmāt, therefore; tava kule, in your family; sutam, soma juice [i.e., children]; prasutam, better soma juice; āsutam, and much better soma juice; dṛśyate, are seen [i.e., better, much better, and still better children are seen]. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
1. 'Aupamanyava, whom do you meditate on as the Self?' He replied:- 'Heaven only, venerable king.' He said:- 'The Self which you meditate on is the Vaisvânara Self, called Sutegas (having good light). Therefore every kind of Soma libation is seen in your house [1].
brahmavarcasaṃ kule ya etamevamātmānaṃ vaiśvānaramupāste
mūdhā tveṣa ātmana iti hovāca mūrdhā te
vyapatiṣyadyanmāṃ nāgamiṣya iti .. 5.12.2..
2. ‘You enjoy eating food and you see your dear ones and everything pleasant. He who worships the Vaiśvānara Self thus enjoys eating food and is able to see his dear ones. He also has children in his family who shine with the radiance of Brahman [i.e., they become well known for their good conduct and scholarship]. But heaven is like the head of the Self.’ Then the king said, ‘If you had not come to me your head would have fallen off’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Annam atsi, [the king said:-] you eat food; priyam paśyasḥ you see everything pleasant [i.e., your children, grandchildren, etc.]; yaḥ, he who; etam evam vaiśvānaram ātmānam upāste, worships this Vaiśvānara Ātman thus; annam atti, eats food; priyam paśyati, [and] sees everything pleasant [or, sees his dear ones]; asya kule, in his family; brahmavarcasam bhavati, are born those who shine with the brightness of Brahman; eṣaḥ tu ātmanaḥ mūrdhā iti, but this [heaven] is like the head of the Self; ha uvāca, he [the king] said; te mūrdhā vyapatiṣyat, your head would have fallen; yat mām na āgamiṣyaḥ iti, if you had not come to me. Iti dvādaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the twelfth section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
2. 'You eat food, and see your desire (a son, &c.), and whoever thus meditates on that Vaisvânara Self, eats food, sees his desire, and has Vedic glory (arising from study and sacrifice) in his house. That, however, is but the head of the Self, and thus your head would have fallen (in a discussion), if you had not come to me.'
1. The king then said to Satyayajña Pauluṣi, ‘O Prācīnayogya, whom do you worship as the Self?’ Satyayajña replied, ‘I worship Āditya, the sun, revered king.’ The king said:- ‘That which you worship as the Vaiśvānara Ātman is named Viśvarūpa. This is why you have in your family wealth in many forms’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; ha uvāca, he [the king] said; satyayajñam pauluṣim, to Satyayajña Pauluṣi; prācīnayogya, O Prācīnayogya; kam, whom; tvam ātmānam upāsse iti, do you worship as the Self; bhagavaḥ rājan, revered king; ādityam eva iti, [I worship] Āditya [the sun]; ha uvāca, [the king] said; yam tvam ātmānam upāsse, the Self which you worship; eṣaḥ, this [Āditya]; vai, for sure; ātmā vaiśvānaraḥ, is the Vaiśvānara Ātman; viśvarūpaḥ, as Viśvarūpa [having many forms]; tasmāt, therefore; tava kule, in your family; bahu viśvarūpam, wealth in many forms; dṛśyate, is seen. Commentary:-Āditya, the sun, has many colours—white, blue, etc. For that reason Āditya is called Viśvarūpa, ‘of many forms.’ And this is why, by the favour of Āditya, one who worships him is able to have good fortune, both spiritual and material.
Max Müller
1. Then he said to Satyayagña Paulushi:- 'O Prâkînayogya, whom do you meditate on as the Self?' He replied:- 'The sun only, venerable king.' He said:- 'The Self which you meditate on is the Vaisvânara Self, called Visvarûpa (multiform). Therefore much and manifold wealth is seen in your house.
2. ‘You now have chariots drawn by mules. You are served by maidservants, and you have a necklace. You enjoy eating food and you see your dear ones and everything pleasant. He who worships the Vaiśvānara Self thus enjoys eating food and is able to see his dear ones. He also has children in his family who shine with the radiance of Brahman [i.e., they become well known for their good conduct and scholarship]. But this Āditya is like the eye of the Self.’ Then the king said, ‘If you had not come to me you would have become blind’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Aśvatarīrathaḥ, a chariot drawn by mules; dāsī-niṣ-kaḥ, maidservants and a necklace; pravṛttaḥ, you have; annam atsi, you eat food; priyam paśyasi, you see everything pleasant [i.e., your children, grandchildren, etc.]; yaḥ, he who; etam evam vaiśvānaram ātmānam upāste, worships this Vaiśvānara Ātman thus; annam atti, eats food; priyam paśyati, [and] sees everything pleasant [or, sees his dear ones]; asya kule, in his family; brahmavarcasam bhavati, are born those who shine with the brightness of Brahman; eṣaḥ tu ātmanaḥ cakṣuḥ iti, but this [Āditya] is like the eye of the Self; ha uvāca, he [the king] said; andhaḥ abhaviṣyaḥ, you would have become blind; yat mām na āgamiṣyaḥ iti, if you had not come to me. Iti trayodaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the thirteenth section. Commentary:-Āditya is like the eye of the Vaiśvānara Ātman, but it is not the whole of it. If one mistakes the part for the whole, that is a great blunder. He misses the truth and is like one who is blind. The king says to Satyayajña, ‘Luckily you have come to me and have been saved from that misfortune.’
Max Müller
2. 'There is a car with mules, full of slaves and jewels. You eat food and see your desire, and whoever thus meditates on that Vaisvânara Self, eats food and sees his desire, and has Vedic glory in his house. 'That, however, is but the eye of the Self, and you would have become blind, if you had not come to me.'
1. The king then said to Indradyumna Bhāllaveya, ‘O Vaiyāghrapadya, whom do you worship as the Self?’ Indradyumna replied, ‘I worship Vāyu [air], revered king.’ The king said:- ‘That which you worship as the Vaiśvānara Ātman is named Pṛthagvartmā [one who changes direction]. This is why you receive gifts from all directions. And this is also why different kinds of chariots follow you in rows’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; ha uvāca, he [the king] said; indradyumnam bhāllaveyam, to Indradyumna Bhāllaveya; vaiyāghrapadya, O Vaiyāghrapadya; kam, whom; tvam ātmānam upāsse iti, do you worship as the Self; bhagavaḥ rājan, revered king; vāyum eva iti, [I worship] Vāyu [air]; ha uvāca, [the king] said; yam tvam ātmānam upāsse, the Self which you worship; eṣaḥ, this [Vāyu]; vai, for sure; ātmā vaiśvānaraḥ, is the Vaiśvānara Ātman; pṛthagvartmā, as Pṛthagvartmā [going in many directions]; tasmāt, therefore; pṛthak, from different directions; balayaḥ, gifts; tvām, to you; āyanti, come; pṛthak rathaśreṇayaḥ anuyanti, different lines of chariots follow you [i.e., they are at your disposal]. Commentary:-Air is always the same, but it can change its direction and also serve different purposes. This is why one who worships it as the Self is rewarded with gifts coming from different directions.
Max Müller
1. Then he said to Indradyumna Bhâllaveya:- 'O Vaiyâghrapadya, whom do you meditate on as the Self?' He replied:- 'Air only, venerable king.' He said:- 'The Self which you meditate on is the Vaisvânara Self, called Prithagvartman (having various courses). Therefore offerings come to you in various ways, and rows of cars follow you in various ways.
brahmavarcasaṃ kule ya etamevamātmānaṃ vaiśvānaramupāste
prāṇastveṣa ātmana iti hovāca prāṇasta
udakramiṣyadyanmāṃ nāgamiṣya iti .. 5.14.2..
2. ‘You enjoy eating food and you see your dear ones and everything pleasant. He who worships the Vaiśvānara Self thus enjoys eating food and is able to see his dear ones. He also has children in his family who shine with the radiance of Brahman [i.e., they become well known for their good conduct and scholarship]. But Vāyu [air] is like the life [i.e., the vital force] of the Self.’ Then the king said, ‘If you had not come to me your vital force would have left the body’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Annam atsi, [the king said:-] you eat food; priyam paśyasi, you see everything pleasant [i.e., your children, grandchildren, etc.]; yaḥ, he who; etam evam vaiśvānaram ātmānam upāste, worships this Vaiśvānara Ātman thus; annam atti, eats food; priyam paśyati, [and] sees everything pleasant [or, sees his dear ones]; asya kule, in his family; brahmavarcasam bhavati, are born those who shine with the brightness of Brahman; eṣaḥ tu ātmanaḥ prāṇaḥ iti, but this [Vāyu] is like the life of the Self; ha uvāca, he [the king] said; te prāṇaḥ udakramiṣyat, your life would have left the body; yat mām na āgamiṣyaḥ iti, if you Commentary:-
Max Müller
2. 'You eat food and see your desire, and whoever thus meditates on that Vaisvânara Self, eats food and sees his desire, and has Vedic glory in his house. 'That, however, is but the breath of the Self, and your breath would have left you, if you had not come to me.'
ityākāśameva bhagavo rājanniti hovācaiṣa vai bahula
ātmā vaiśvānaro yaṃ tvamātmānamupasse tasmāttvaṃ
bahulo'si prajayā ca dhanena ca .. 5.15.1..
1. The king then said to Jana, ‘O Sārkarākṣya, whom do you worship as the Self?’ Jana replied, ‘I worship Ākāśa [space], revered king.’ The king said:- ‘That which you worship as the Vaiśvānara Ātman is named Bahula [pervasive]. This is why you have so many children and so much wealth’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; ha uvāca, he [the king] said; janam, to Jana; śārkarākṣya, O Śārkarākṣya; kam, whom; tvam ātmānam upāsse iti, do you worship as the Self; bhagavaḥ rājan, revered king; ākāśam eva iti, [I worship] Ākāśa [space]; ha uvāca, [the king] said; yam tvam ātmānam upāsse, the Self which you worship; eṣaḥ, this [Ākāśa]; vai, for sure; ātmā vaiśvānaraḥ, is the Vaiśvānara Ātman; bahulaḥ, as Bahula [pervasive]; tasmāt, therefore; tvam, you; bahulaḥ asi prajayā ca dhanena ca, have a great number of children and much wealth. Commentary:-The qualifying word bahula is applied to ākāśa (space) because it is vast and pervasive and it also has many other qualities. Those who worship space acquire some of those qualities.
Max Müller
1. Then he said to Gana Sârkarâkshya:- 'Whom do you meditate on as the Self?' He replied:- 'Ether only, venerable king.' He said:- 'The Self which you meditate on is the Vaisvânara Self, called Bahula (full). Therefore you are full of offspring and wealth.
2. ‘You enjoy eating food and you see your dear ones and everything pleasant. He who worships the Vaiśvānara Self thus enjoys eating food and is able to see his dear ones. He also has children in his family who shine with the radiance of Brahman [i.e., they become well known for their good conduct and scholarship]. But Ākāśa [space] is like the mid part of the Self.’ Then the king said, ‘If you had not come to me the middle part of your body would have shrunk’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Annam atsi, [the king said:-] you eat food; priyam paśyasi, you see everything pleasant [i.e., your children, grandchildren, etc.]; yaḥ, he who; etam evam vaiśvānaram ātmānam upāste, worships this Vaiśvānara Ātman thus; annam atti, eats food; priyam paśyati, [and] sees everything pleasant [or, sees his dear ones]; asya kule, in his family; brahmavarcasam bhavati, are born those who shine with the brightness of Brahman; eṣaḥ tu ātmanaḥ sandehaḥ iti, but this [Ākāśa] is like the mid part of the Self; ha uvāca, he [the king] said; te sandehaḥ vyaśīryat, the middle part of your body would have shrunk; yat mām na āgamiṣyaḥ iti, if you had not come to me. Iti pañcadaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the fifteenth section. Commentary:-Space is only the middle part of the Vaiśvānara Ātman, and is not the whole of it. Anyone who makes the
Max Müller
2. 'You eat food and see your desire, and whoever thus meditates on that Vaisvânara Self, eats food and sees his desire, and has Vedic glory in his house. 'That, however, is but the trunk of the Self, and your trunk would have perished, if you had not come to me.'
tvamātmānamupāssa ityapa eva bhagavo rājanniti hovācaiṣa
vai rayirātmā vaiśvānaro yaṃ tvamātmānamupāsse
tasmāttvagͫrayimānpuṣṭimānasi .. 5.16.1..
1. The king then said to Buḍila Āśvatarāśvi, ‘O Vaiyāghrapadya, whom do you worship as the Self?’ Buḍila replied, ‘I worship water, revered king.’ The king said:- ‘That which you worship as the Vaiśvānara Ātman is named Rayi [wealth]. This is why you are rich and healthy’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; ha uvāca, he [the king] said; buḍilam āśvatarāśvim, to Buḍila Āśvatarāśvi; Vaiyāghrapadya, O Vaiyāghrapadya; kam, whom; tvam ātmānam upāsse iti, do you worship as the Self; bhagavaḥ rājan, revered king; apaḥ eva iti, [I worship] water; ha uvāca, [the king] said; yam tvam ātmānam upāsse, the Self which you worship; eṣaḥ, this [water]; vai, for sure; ātmā vaiśvānaraḥ, is the Vaiśvānara Ātman; rayiḥ, as Rayi [wealth]; tasmāt, therefore; tvam, you; rayimān puṣṭimān asi, are rich and have a strong, healthy body. Commentary:-Water is ‘wealth’ (rayi) because it is from water that we get food and all the good things we need.
Max Müller
1. Then he said to Budila Âsvatarâsvi, 'O Vaiyâghrapadya, whom do you meditate on as the Self?' He replied:- 'Water only, venerable king.' He said; 'The Self which you meditate on is the Vaisvânara Self, called Rayi (wealth). Therefore are you wealthy and flourishing.
2. ‘You enjoy eating food and you see your dear ones and everything pleasant. He who worships the Vaiśvānara Self thus enjoys eating food and is able to see his dear ones. He also has children in his family who shine with the radiance of Brahman [i.e., they become well known for their good conduct and scholarship]. But water is like the bladder of the Self.’ Then the king said, ‘If you had not come to me your bladder would have burst’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Annam atsi, [the king said:-] you eat food; priyam paśyasi, you see everything pleasant [i.e., your children, grandchildren, etc.]; yaḥ, he who; etam evam vaiśvānaram ātmānam upāste, worships this Vaiśvānara Ātman thus; annam atti, eats food; priyam paśyati, [and] sees everything pleasant [or, sees his dear ones]; asya kule, in his family; brahmavarcasam bhavati, are born those who shine with the brightness of Brahman; eṣaḥ tu ātmanaḥ bastiḥ itḥ but this [water] is like the bladder of the Self; ha uvāca, he [the king] said; te bastiḥ vyabhetsyat, your bladder would have burst; yat mām na āgamiṣyaḥ iti, if you had not come to me. Iti ṣoḍaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the sixteenth section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
2. 'You eat food and see your desire, and whoever thus meditates on that Vaisvânara Self, eats food and sees his desire, and has Vedic glory in his house. 'That, however, is but the bladder of the Self, and your bladder would have burst, if you had not come to me.'
tasmāttvaṃ pratiṣṭhito'si prajayā ca paśubhiśca 5.17.1..
1. The king then said to Uddālaka Āruṇi, ‘O Gautama, whom do you worship as the Self?’ Uddālaka replied, ‘I worship the earth, revered king.’ The king said:- ‘That which you worship as the Vaiśvānara Ātman is named Pratiṣṭhā [the support]. This is why you have so many children and animals to support you’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; ha uvāca, he [the king] said; uddālakam āruṇim, to Uddālaka Āruṇi; gautama, O Gautama; kam, whom; tvam ātmānam upāsse iti, do you worship as the Self; bhagavaḥ rājan, revered king; pṛthivīm eva iti, [I worship] the earth; ha uvāca, [the king] said; yam tvam ātmānam upāsse, the Self which you worship; eṣaḥ, this [earth]; vai, for sure; ātmā vaiśvānaraḥ, is the Vaiśvānara Ātman; pratiṣṭhā, as Pratiṣṭhā [the support]; tasmāt, therefore; tvam, you; pratiṣṭhitaḥ prajayā ca paśubhiḥ ca asi, are supported by children and animals. Commentary:-The earth is like the feet of Vaiśvānara Ātman. This is why it is ‘the support.’
Max Müller
1. Then he said to Auddâlaka Âruni:- 'O Gautama, whom do you meditate on as the Self?' He replied:- 'The earth only, venerable king.' He said:- 'The Self which you meditate on is the Vaisvânara Self, called Pratishthâ (firm rest). Therefore you stand firm with offspring and cattle.
brahmavarcasaṃ kule ya etamevamātmānaṃ vaiśvānaramupāste
pādau tvetāvātmana iti hovāca pādau te vyamlāsyetāṃ
yanmāṃ nāgamiṣya iti 5.17.2..
2. ‘You enjoy eating food and you see your dear ones and everything pleasant. He who worships the Vaiśvānara Self thus enjoys eating food and is able to see his dear ones. He also has children in his family who shine with the radiance of Brahman [i.e., they become well known for their good conduct and scholarship]. But the earth is like the feet of the Self.’ Then the king said, ‘If you had not come to me your feet would have become extremely weak’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Annam atsi, [the king said:-] you eat food; priyam paśyasi, you see everything pleasant [i.e., your children, grandchildren, etc.]; yaḥ, he who; etam evam vaiśvānaram ātmānam upāste, worships this Vaiśvānara Ātman thus; annam atti, eats food; priyam paśyati, [and] sees everything pleasant [or, sees his dear ones]; asya kule, in his family; brahmavarcasam bhavati, are born those who shine with the brightness of Brahman; eṣaḥ tu ātmanaḥ pādau iti, but this [earth] is like the two feet of the Self; ha uvāca, he [the king] said; te pādau vyamlāsyetām, your feet would have become very weak; yat mām na āgamiṣyaḥ iti, if you had not come to me. Iti saptadaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the seventeenth section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
2. 'You eat food and see your desire, and whoever thus meditates on that Vaisvânara Self, eats food and sees his desire, and has Vedic glory in his house. 'That, however, are but the feet of the Self, and your feet would have given way, if you had not come to me.'
1. The king said to the brāhmins:- ‘Those of you who are here meditate on the Vaiśvānara Self only in part. [That is why when you eat you think you are eating separately.] He who worships the Self as all-pervasive and infinite, enjoys eating through whoever eats in the worlds, through all beings, and through all selves.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tān, to them [the brāhmins]; ha uvāca, [the king] said; ete yūyam vai khalu, those of you here; imam vaiśvānaram ātmānam vidvāṃsaḥ, have known this [undivided] Vaiśvānara Ātman; pṛthak iva, only in part [and as separate in each individual]; annam attha, [and that is why] you eat food [thinking you are eating separately; yaḥ tu, but he who; etam evam vaiśvānaram ātmānam upāste, worships this Vaiśvānara Ātman thus; prādeśamātram, as all-pervasive [i.e., as covering the various worlds]; abhivimānam, [and] infinite; saḥ, he; sarveṣu lokeṣu, in all the worlds; sarveṣu bhūteṣu, in all beings; sarveṣu ātmasu, in all selves; annam atti, eats food. Commentary:-Prādeśamātra means one who covers all the worlds, from heaven to the earth—including everything and every being. Abhivimāna means infinite, beyond measure. Here the principle is that if you worship God as finite, you remain finite; if you worship him as infinite, you become infinite. Another principle suggested is that you are one with all. You are happy if all are happy. You cannot expect anything for yourself to the exclusion of others. Yet another principle is to regard your body as the place of an Agnihotra sacrifice, and the food you eat as the oblation. The six scholars mentioned here worshipped the Vaiśvānara Ātman in part—as either heaven, the sun, air, space, water, or the earth. Aśvapati told them their worship was not complete. They should include their own self also as the Vaiśvānara Ātman. In fact, they should realize that there is but one Self and that Self is in everything and in every being.
Max Müller
1. Then he said to them all:- 'You eat your food, knowing that Vaisvânara Self as if it were many. But he who worships the Vaisvânara Self as a span long, and as [1] identical with himself, he eats food in all worlds, in all beings, in all Selfs.
2. Suteja [i.e., ‘the bright and beautiful’—heaven] is the head of this Vaiśvānara Self; Viśvarūpa [‘having many forms’—the sun] is the eye; Pṛthagvartmā [‘one who changes direction’—air] is the prāṇa; Bahula [‘pervasive’—space] is the middle part; Rayi [‘wealth’—water] is the bladder; the earth [Pratiṣṭhā—‘the support’] is the feet; the sacrificial altar is the chest; the kuśa grass is the hair on the chest; the Gārhapatya fire is the heart; the Anvāhāryapacana [i.e., the Dakṣiṇāgni] fire is the mind; and the Āhavanīya fire is the mouth.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tasya etasya ha vai vaiśvānarasya ātmanaḥ, of this Vaiśvānara Ātman; sutejāḥ eva mūrdhā, heaven is the head; viśvarūpaḥ cakṣuḥ, the sun is the eye; pṛthakvartmātmā prāṇaḥ, air is prāṇa; bahulaḥ sandehaḥ, the sky is the middle part of the body; rayiḥ bastiḥ eva, water is the bladder; pṛthivī eva pādau, the earth is the feet; vediḥ, the sacrificial altar; ura eva, is the chest; barhiḥ lomāni, the kuśa grass [used in the sacrifice] is the hair [on the chest]; gārhapatyaḥ hṛdayam, the Gārhapatya fire is the heart; anvāhāryapacana manaḥ, the Anvāhāryapacana fire [i.e., the Dakṣiṇāgni fire] is the mind; āhavanīyaḥ āsyam, the Āhavanīya fire is the mouth. Iti aṣṭādaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the eighteenth section. Commentary:-The implication is that none of these taken separately can be the Vaiśvānara Self. It is only a part of it.
Max Müller
2. 'Of that Vaisvânara Self the head is Sutegas (having good light), the eye Visvarûpa (multiform), the breath Prithagvartman (having various courses), the trunk Bahula (full), the bladder Rayi (wealth), the feet the earth, the chest the altar, the hairs the grass on the altar, the heart the Gârhapatya fire, the mind the Anvâhârya fire, the mouth the Âhavanîya fire.
tadyadbhaktaṃ prathamamāgacchettaddhomīyagͫ sa yāṃ
prathamāmāhutiṃ juhuyāttāṃ juhuyātprāṇāya svāheti
prāṇastṛpyati .. 5.19.1..
1. The first part of the food is like the first oblation. One who eats should offer it as an oblation to prāṇa, saying, ‘Prāṇāya svāhā’ [i.e., I offer this as an oblation to prāṇa]. With this, your prāṇa becomes pleased.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tat, therefore; yat bhaktam, that food which; prathamam āgacchet, comes first; tat, that; homīyam, is meant as an oblation; saḥ, he [who eats]; yām prathamām āhutim, that first oblation; juhuyāt, offers; tām, that; juhuyāt, offers; prāṇāya svāhā iti, [with the mantra] ‘Prāṇāya svāhā’; prāṇaḥ tṛpyati, [then] prāṇa is pleased. Commentary:-Here eating is being compared to performing a sacrifice. Every time you put food into your mouth, it is as if you are offering an oblation. Prāṇa is the deity to whom you offer the first oblation. The word prāṇa in this context means that aspect of the vital force which is responsible for respiration.
Max Müller
1. 'Therefore [1] the first food which a man may take, is in the place of Homa. And he who offers that first oblation, should offer it to Prâna (up-breathing), saying Svâhâ. Then Prâna (up-breathing) is satisfied,
2. When prāṇa is pleased, the eye is pleased; when the eye is pleased, the sun is pleased; when the sun is pleased, heaven is pleased; when heaven is pleased, whatever there is ruled by heaven and the sun is pleased. Then when that is pleased, the eater derives pleasure from his children, from his animals, from an abundance of food, from physical strength, and from his good life and scholarship.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Prāṇe tṛpyati, when prāṇa is pleased; cakṣuḥ tṛpyati, the eye is pleased; cakṣuṣi tṛpyati, when the eye is pleased; ādityaḥ tṛpyati, the sun is pleased; āditye tṛpyati, when the sun is pleased; dyauḥ tṛpyati, heaven is pleased; divi tṛpyantyām, when heaven is pleased; yat kiñca, whatever; dyauḥ ca ādityaḥ ca adhitiṣṭhataḥ, is there ruled by heaven and the sun; tat tṛpyati, that is pleased; tasya anu tṛptim, with its being pleased; tṛpyati, he [the eater] is pleased; prajayā, by children; paśubhiḥ, by animals; annādyena, by food; tejasā, by vigour; brahmavarcasena iti, by the radiance of Brahman derived from good character and scholarship. Iti ekonaviṃśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the nineteenth section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
2. 'If Prâna is satisfied, the eye is satisfied, if the eye is satisfied, the sun is satisfied, if the sun is satisfied, heaven is satisfied, if heaven is satisfied, whatever is under heaven and under the sun is satisfied.. And through their satisfaction he (the sacrificer or eater) himself is satisfied with offspring, cattle, health, brightness, and Vedic splendour.
1. When he [the eater] offers the second oblation, he offers it saying, ‘Vyānāya svāhā’ [I offer this as an oblation to vyāna]. With this, vyāna becomes pleased.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; yām dvitīyām juhuyāt, when he offers the second [oblation]; tām juhuyāt, he offers that; vyānāya svāhā iti, [with the mantra] ‘Vyānāya svāhā’; vyānaḥ tṛpyati, [then] vyāna is pleased. Commentary:-Vyāna is the aspect of the vital force responsible for our speech and for feats requiring great effort. It operates on the nerves.
Max Müller
1. 'And he who offers the second oblation, should offer it to Vyâna (back-breathing), saying Svâhâ. Then Vyâna is satisfied,
2. When vyāna is pleased, the ear is pleased; when the ear is pleased, the moon is pleased; when the moon is pleased, the quarters are pleased; with the quarters being pleased, whatever there is ruled by the quarters and the moon is pleased. Then when that is pleased, the eater derives pleasure from his children, from his animals, from an abundance of food, from physical strength, and from his good life and scholarship.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Vyāne tṛpyati, when vyāna is pleased; śrotram tṛpyati, the ear is pleased; śrotre tṛpyati, when the ear is pleased; candramāḥ tṛpyati, the moon is pleased; candramasi tṛpyati, when the moon is pleased; diśaḥ tṛpyanti, the quarters are pleased; dikṣu tṛpyantīṣu, if the quarters are pleased; yat kiñca, whatever; diśaḥ ca candramāḥ ca adhitiṣṭhanti, there is ruled by the quarters and the moon; tat tṛpyati, that is pleased; tasya anu tṛptim, with its being pleased; tṛpyati, he [the eater] is pleased; prajayā, by children; paśubhiḥ, by animals; annādyena, by food; tejasā, by vigour; brahmavarcasena iti, by the radiance of Brahman derived from good character and scholarship. Iti viṃśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the twentieth section. Commentary:-Section Twenty-One
Max Müller
2. 'If Vyâna is satisfied, the ear is satisfied, if the ear is satisfied, the moon is satisfied, if the moon is satisfied, the quarters are satisfied, if the quarters are satisfied, whatever is under the quarters and under the moon is satisfied. And through their satisfaction he (the sacrificer or eater) himself is satisfied with offspring, cattle, health, brightness, and Vedic splendour.
1. When he [the eater] offers the third oblation, he offers it saying, ‘Apānāya svāhā’ [I offer this as an oblation to apāna]. With this, apāna becomes pleased.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; yām tṛtīyām juhuyāt, when he offers the third [oblation]; tām juhuyāt, he offers that; apānāya svāhā iti, [with the mantra] ‘Apānāya svāhā’; apānaḥ tṛpyati, [then] apāna is pleased. Commentary:-Apāna is the aspect of the vital force responsible for elimination of waste from the body.
Max Müller
1. 'And he who offers the third oblation, should offer it to Apâna (down-breathing), saying Svâhâ. Then Apâna is satisfied. If Apâna is satisfied, the tongue is satisfied, if the tongue is satisfied, Agni (fire) is satisfied, if Agni is satisfied, the earth is satisfied, if the earth is satisfied, whatever is under the earth and under fire is satisfied.
2. When apāna is pleased, the organ of speech is pleased; the organ of speech being pleased, fire is pleased; when fire is pleased, the earth is pleased; the earth being pleased, whatever is under the control of the earth and fire is pleased. Then when that is pleased, the eater derives pleasure from his children, from his animals, from an abundance of food, from physical strength, and from his good -life and scholarship.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Apāne tṛpyati, when apāna is pleased; vāk tṛpyati, the organ of speech is pleased; vāci tṛpyantyām, the organ of speech being pleased; agniḥ tṛpyati, fire is pleased; agnau tṛpyati, when fire is pleased; pṛthivī tṛpyati, the earth is pleased; pṛthivyām tṛpyantyām, the earth being pleased; yat kiñca, whatever; pṛthivī ca agniḥ ca adhitiṣṭhataḥ, is under the control of the earth and fire; tat tṛpyati, that is pleased; tasya anu tṛptim, with its being pleased; tṛpyāti, he [the eater] is pleased; prajayā, by children; paśubhiḥ, by animals; annādyena, by food; tejasā, by vigour; brahmavarcasena iti, by the radiance of Brahman derived from good character and scholarship. Iti ekaviṃśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the twenty-first section. Commentary:-Section Twenty-Two
Max Müller
2. 'And through their satisfaction he (the sacrificer or eater) himself is satisfied with offspring, cattle, health, brightness, and Vedic splendour.
1. When he [the eater] offers the fourth oblation, he offers it saying, ‘Samānāya svāhā’ [I offer this as an oblation to samāna]. With this, samāna becomes pleased.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; yām caturthīm juhuyāt, when he offers the fourth [oblation]; tām juhuyāt, he offers that; samānāya svāhā iti, [with the mantra] ‘Samānāya svāhā’; samānaḥ tṛpyati, [then] samāna is pleased. Commentary:-Samāna is the aspect of the vital force responsible for digestion and assimilation of food.
Max Müller
1. 'And he who offers the fourth oblation, should offer it to Samâna (on-breathing), saying Svâhâ. Then Samâna is satisfied,
2. When samāna is pleased, the mind is pleased; when the mind is pleased, the cloud is pleased; when the cloud is pleased, lightning is pleased; lightning being pleased, whatever is under the control of lightning and the cloud is pleased. Then when that is pleased, the eater derives pleasure from his children, from his animals, from an abundance of food, from physical strength, and from his good life and scholarship.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Samāne tṛpyati, when samāna is pleased; manaḥ tṛpyati, the mind is pleased; manasi tṛpyati, when the mind is pleased; parjanyaḥ tṛpyati, the cloud is pleased; parjanye tṛpyati, when the cloud is pleased; vidyut tṛpyati, lightning is pleased; vidyuti tṛpyantyām, lightning being pleased; yat kiñca, whatever; vidyut ca parjanyaḥ ca adhitiṣṭhataḥ, is under the control of lightning and the cloud; tat tṛpyati, that is pleased; tasya am tṛptim, with its being pleased; tṛpyati, he [the eater] is pleased; prajayā, by children; paśubhiḥ, by animals; annādyena, by food; tejasā, by vigour; brahmavarcasena iti, by the radiance of Brahman derived from good character and scholarship. Iti dvāviṃśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the twenty-second section. Commentary:-Section Twenty-Three
Max Müller
2. 'If Samâna is satisfied, the mind is satisfied, if the mind is satisfied, Parganya (god of rain) is satisfied, if Parganya is satisfied, lightning is satisfied, if lightning is satisfied, whatever is under Parganya and under lightning is satisfied. And through their satisfaction he (the sacrificer or cater) himself is satisfied with offspring, cattle, health, brightness, and Vedic splendour.
1. When he [the eater] offers the fifth oblation, he offers it saying, ‘Udānāya svāhā’ [I offer this as an oblation to udāna]. With this, udāna becomes pleased.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; yām pañcamīm juhuyāṭ when he offers the fifth [oblation]; tām juhuyāt, he offers that; udānāya svāhā iti, [with the mantra] ‘Udānāya svāhā’; udānaḥ tṛpyati, [then] udāna is pleased. Commentary:-Udāna is the aspect of the vital force responsible for helping the individual self leave the body at the time of death.
Max Müller
1. 'And he who offers the fifth oblation, should offer it to Udâna (out-breathing), saying Svâhâ. Then Udâna is satisfied,
2. When udāna is pleased, the organ of touch is pleased; the organ of touch being pleased, air is pleased; when air is pleased, space is pleased; when space is pleased, whatever is under the control of air and space is pleased. Then when that is pleased, the eater derives pleasure from his children, from his animals, from an abundance of food, from physical strength, and from his good life and scholarship.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Udāne tṛpyati, when udāna is pleased; tvak tṛpyati, the organ of touch [i.e., the skin] is pleased; tvaci tṛpyantyām, the organ of touch being pleased; vāyuḥ tṛpyati, air is pleased; vāyau tṛpyati, when air is pleased; ākāśaḥ tṛpyati, space is pleased; ākāśe tṛpyati, when space is pleased; yat kiñca, whatever; vāyuḥ ca ākāśaḥ ca adhitiṣṭhataḥ, is under the control of air and space; tat tṛpyati, that is pleased; tasya anu tṛptim, with its being pleased; tṛpyati, he [the eater] is pleased; prajayā, by children; paśubhiḥ, by animals; annādyena, by food; tejasā, by vigour; brahmavarcasena iti, by the radiance of Brahman derived from good character and scholarship. Iti trayoviṃśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the twenty-third section. Commentary:-Section Twenty-Four
Max Müller
2. 'If Udâna is satisfied, Vâyu (air) is satisfied, if Vâyu is satisfied, ether is satisfied, if ether is satisfied, whatever is under Vâyu, and under the ether is satisfied. And through their satisfaction he (the sacrificer or eater) himself is satisfied with offspring, cattle, health, brightness, and Vedic splendour.
sa ya idamavidvāgnihotraṃ juhoti yathāṅgārānapohya
bhasmani juhuyāttādṛktatsyāt .. 5.24.1..
1. If a person performs the Agnihotra sacrifice without knowing anything about the Vaiśvānara Self, it will be like offering oblations into ashes instead of the fire.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ, he who; agnihotram juhoti, performs the Agnihotra sacrifice; idam avidvān, without knowing this [i.e., about the Vaiśvānara Ātman]; yathā, just Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
1. 'If, without knowing this, one offers an Agnihotra, it would be as if a man were to remove the live coals and pour his libation on dead ashes.
2. But he who performs the Agnihotra sacrifice with full knowledge of the Vaiśvānara Self is deemed to have offered oblations to all the worlds, to all beings, and to all selves.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, but; yaḥ, he who; agnihotram juhoti, performs the Agnihotra sacrifice; etat evam vidvān, knowing it accordingly; tasya, his; hutam bhavati, oblation is offered; sarveṣu lokeṣu, to all the worlds; sarveṣu bhūteṣu, to all beings; sarveṣu ātmasu, to all selves. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
2. 'But he who offers this Agnihotra with a full knowledge of its true purport, he offers it (i.e. he eats food) [1] in all worlds, in all beings, in all Selfs.
pāpmānaḥ pradūyante ya etadevaṃ vidvānagnihotraṃ juhoti
.. 5.24.3..
3. Just as the cotton fibres of the iṣīkā grass are totally consumed when thrown into the fire, similarly all sins are consumed of one who performs the Agnihotra sacrifice with the knowledge of the Vaiśvānara Self.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tat yathā, just as; iṣīkā-tūlam, the cotton-like fibre of the iṣīkā grass; agnau, into the fire; protam, on being thrown; pradūyeta, is totally consumed; evam, like this; asya ha, his; sarve pāpmānaḥ, all sins; pradūyante, are burnt up; yaḥ, he who; etat evam vidvān, having known this in this way; agnihotram juhoti, performs the Agnihotra sacrifice. Commentary:-Iṣīkā is a kind of grass that grows very tall and has a cotton-like substance coming from it which is easily consumed when thrown into fire. Similarly, the knowledge that a person is one with all easily consumes the fruits of his sañcita (accumulated) karma and his āgāmī (future) karma. But a person may have to suffer from prārabdha karma, which is already in the process of bearing fruit. Prārabdha karma is like an arrow that has already been shot.
Max Müller
3. 'As the soft fibres of the Ishîkâ reed, when thrown into the fire, are burnt, thus all his sins are burnt whoever offers this Agnihotra with a full knowledge of its true purport.
4. Therefore, even if a person who knows the Vaiśvānara Ātman gives the remnants of his food after eating to a person who has no caste, that will be like his oblation offered to his own Vaiśvānara Self. Here is a verse on the subject:-
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tasmāt, therefore; u ha evam vit, one who knows [the Vaiśvānara Self]; yadi api, even if; caṇḍālāya, to a caṇḍāla [an outcaste]; ucchiṣṭam, part of the food left after eating; prayacchet, one gives; tat, that [leftover food]; asya ha eva hutam syāt, will be his oblation offered; vaiśvānare ātmani iti, to the Vaiśvānara Ātman; tat eṣaḥ ślokaḥ, here is a verse on the subject. Commentary:-Normally food that is left over after eating should not be given to anyone. But suppose a person has realized his Vaiśvānara Self and he gives such food to an outcaste. That is not a breach of any rule. Rather, it will be like an oblation offered to his own Self, for it is the same Self who is giving and who is receiving.
Max Müller
4. 'Even if he gives what is left of his food to a Kandâla, it would be offered in his (the Kandâla's) Vaisvânara Self. And so it is said in this Sloka:--
5. Just as here in this world, when children are hungry they go to their mother and beg for food, in the same way, all living beings beg that the Agnihotra sacrifice may be performed without any delay.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yathā, just as; iha, in this world; kṣudhitāḥ bālāḥ, hungry children; mātaram paryupāsate, go to their mother [for food]; evam, in the same way; sarvāṇi bhūtāni, all living beings; agnihotram upāsate iti, wait for the Agnihotra sacrifice to begin; agnihotram upāsate iti, wait for the Agnihotra sacrifice to begin. Iti caturviṃśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the twenty-fourth section. Iti chāndogyopaniṣadi pañcamaḥ adhyāyaḥ, here ends the fifth chapter of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad. Commentary:-Here the reference is to a person who has attained Self-knowledge. When such a person performs his Agnihotra sacrifice as described before, by taking his meal, it is as if all living beings are eating. This happens because he is one with all.
Max Müller
5. 'As hungry children here on earth sit (expectantly) round their mother, so do all beings sit round the Agnihotra, yea, round the Agnihotra.'
1. Āruṇi had a son named Śvetaketu. Once Āruṇi told him:- ‘Śvetaketu, you should now live as a brahmacārin. No one in our family has not studied the scriptures and has not been a good brāhmin’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Śvetaketuḥ ha Āruṇeyaḥ āsa, Āruṇi had a son named Śvetaketu; tam ha pita uvāca, his father said to him [to Śvetaketu]; śvetaketo, O Śvetaketu; vasa brahmacaryam, live as a brahmacārin [i.e., a celibate student]; na vai somya asmat kulīnaḥ, no one in our family, my child; ananūcya, has not studied the scriptures; brahma-bandhuḥ iva bhavati iti, and has not been a good brāhmin. Commentary:-Om. The word brahma-bandhu literally means a relative or friend of a brāhmin—in other words, one who is a brāhmin in name only. The question arises here, why did Āruṇi himself not invest his son with the sacred thread, initiating him into the life of a brahmacārin? Why did he suggest that his son go to another brāhmin for his sacred thread and for his education and training? Śaṅkara says, it is likely that Āruṇi was about to start on a journey and would be away from home for some time, and that is why he decided to send his son to another brāhmin.
Max Müller
1. Harih, Om. There lived once Svetaketu Âruneya (the grandson of Aruna). To him his father (Uddâlaka, the son of Aruna) said:- 'Svetaketu, go to school; for there is none belonging to our race, darling, who, not having studied (the Veda), is, as it were, a Brâhmana by birth only.'
2. Śvetaketu went to his teacher’s house at the age of twelve. After studying all the Vedas, he returned home when he was twenty-four, having become very serious and vain, and thinking himself to be a great scholar. [Noticing this,] his father said to him:- ‘O Śvetaketu, you have now become very serious and vain, and you think you are a great scholar. But did you ask your teacher for that teaching [about Brahman]—
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ ha, he [Śvetaketu]; dvādaśa-varṣaḥ, at the age of twelve; upetya, having gone [to his teacher as directed by his father]; caturviṃśati-varṣaḥ, till he was twenty-four; sarvān vedān adhītya, having studied all the Vedas; eyāya, returned home; mahāmanāḥ, very serious; anūcānamānī, vain; stabdhaḥ, having a high opinion of his scholarship; tam ha pita uvāca, his father said to him; śvetaketo, O Śvetaketu; yat nu idam somya, now young man; mahāmanāḥ asi, you have become very serious; anūcānamānī, vain; stabdhaḥ, thinking yourself to be a great scholar; tam ādeśam, that teaching; aprākṣyaḥ uta, did you ask [your teacher]. Commentary:-Āruṇi must have been disappointed to see Śvetaketu’s manners when he returned home. In order to instil into Śvetaketu the spirit of humility, Āruṇi put a question to him. He wanted to remind his son that scholarship was not the same as Self-knowledge. He also wanted Śvetaketu to understand that unless he knew the secret of Self-knowledge, his education was pointless. This secret of Self-knowledge is ādeśa.
Max Müller
2. Having begun his apprenticeship (with a teacher) when he was twelve years of age [1], Svetaketu returned to his father, when he was twenty-four, having then studied all the Vedas,--conceited, considering himself well-read, and stern.
bhavatyamataṃ matamavijñātaṃ vijñātamiti kathaṃ nu bhagavaḥ
sa ādeśo bhavatīti .. 6.1.3..
3.‘—that teaching by which what is never heard becomes heard, what is never thought of becomes thought of, what is never known becomes known?’ [Śvetaketu asked,] ‘Sir, what is that teaching?’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yena, [that teaching] by which; aśrutam, what is never heard; śrutam bhavati, becomes heard; amatam matam, what is never thought of [becomes] thought of; avijñātam vijñātam iti, what is never known [becomes] known; bhagavaḥ, O lord; katham nu saḥ ādeśaḥ bhavati iti, what is that teaching? Commentary:-How can there be such a thing by knowing which you know everything else? This is what is puzzling Śvetaketu. Is it possible that by knowing one thing you also know something else? Separate things are to be known separately. But the claim is being made here that unless you know the Self you know nothing. And if you know the Self you know everything. This sounds like an absurd proposition. This ādeśa, or teaching, that Āruṇi is talking about is the secret that opens up one’s eyes, that makes one conscious of the fact that until and unless one knows the Self, one knows nothing.
Max Müller
3. His father said to him:- 'Svetaketu, as you are so conceited, considering yourself so well-read, and so stern, my dear, have you ever asked for that instruction by which we hear what cannot be heard, by which we perceive what cannot be perceived, by which we know what cannot be known?'
4. O Somya, it is like this:- By knowing a single lump of earth you know all objects made of earth. All changes are mere words, in name only. But earth is the reality.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Somya, young man; yathā, just as; ekena mṛtpiṇḍena, from one single lump of earth; sarvam mṛnmayam vijñātam, all objects made of earth are known; vācārambhaṇam nāmadheyam vikāraḥ, all changes are mere words, in name only; mṛttika iti eva satyam, the earth is the reality. Commentary:-What is this ādeśa that Śvetaketu’s father wanted him to learn from his teacher? It is that there is only one single reality in this world, and that reality appears to be many because of the different names and forms superimposed on it. Here he is using earth as an example. If you know a single thing made of earth—for instance, a pot—then you know all things made of earth. How? The word ‘pot’ is merely a name; the real object is earth. Earth may assume different names and forms, but it remains the same earth.
Max Müller
4. 'What is that instruction, Sir?' he asked. The father replied:- 'My dear, as by one clod of clay all that is made of clay is known, the difference [1] being only a name, arising from speech, but the truth being that all is clay;
5. O Somya, it is like this:- By knowing a single lump of gold you know all objects made of gold. All changes are mere words, in name only. But gold is the reality.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Somya, young man; yathā, just as; ekena lohamaṇinā, from one single lump of gold; saryam lohamayam vijñātam, all objects made of gold [bangles, crowns, necklaces, etc.] are known; vācārambhaṇam nāmadheyam vikāraḥ, all changes are mere words, in name only; loham iti eva satyam, the gold is the reality. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
5. 'And as, my dear, by one nugget of gold [1] all that is made of gold is known, the difference being only a name, arising from speech, but the truth being that all is gold?
6. O Somya, it is like this:- By knowing a single nail-cutter you know all objects made of iron. All changes are mere words, in name only. But iron is the reality. O Somya, this is the teaching I spoke of.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Somya, young man; yathā, just as; ekena nakhanikṛntanena, from one single nail-cutter; sarvam kārṣṇāyasam vijñātam, all objects made of iron are known; vācārambhaṇam nāmadheyam vikāraḥ, all changes are mere words, in name only; kṛṣṇāyasam iti eva satyam, the iron is the reality; somya, O Somya; evam saḥ ādeśaḥ bhavati iti, this is that teaching [I told you of]. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
6. 'And as, my dear, by one pair of nail-scissors all that is made of iron (kârshnâyasam) is known, the difference being only a name, arising from speech, but the truth being that all is iron,--thus, my dear, is that instruction.'
न वै नूनं भगवन्तस्त एतदवेदिषुर्यद्ध्येतदवेदिष्यन्कथं
मे नावक्ष्यन्निति भगवाꣳस्त्वेव मे तद्ब्रवीत्विति तथा
सोम्येति होवाच ॥ ६.१.७॥
na vai nūnaṃ bhagavantasta etadavediṣuryaddhyetadavediṣyankathaṃ
me nāvakṣyanniti bhagavāgͫstveva me tadbravītviti tathā
somyeti hovāca .. 6.1.7..
7. [Śvetaketu said:-] ‘Surely my revered teachers did not know this truth. If they knew it, why should they not have told me? So please explain it to me, sir.’ His father said, ‘Let it be so, my son’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Bhagavantaḥ te, those revered teachers; na vai nūnam avediṣuḥ, surely did not know; etat, this [fact that if you know one you know all]; yat, if; hi, for sure; etat avediṣyan, they knew this; me, to me [their favourite disciple]; katham, why; na avakṣyan iti, did they not impart it; bhagavān, sir; tu eva me tat bravītu iti, so please explain it to me; tathā, let it be so; somya, young man; iti ha uvāca, he [the father] said. Iti prathamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the first section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
7. The son said:- 'Surely those venerable men (my teachers) did not know that. For if they had known it, why should they not have told it me? Do you, Sir, therefore tell me that.' 'Be it so,' said the father.
1. Somya, before this world was manifest there was only existence, one without a second. On this subject, some maintain that before this world was manifest there was only non-existence, one without a second. Out of that non-existence, existence emerged.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Somya, young man; idam, this [world as we see it, with its names and forms]; agre, before [its manifestation]; sat eva, was existence only; ekam eva advitīyam, one without a second; āsīt, existed; tat, about that; eke, some [Buddhists and others]; āhuḥ, say; idam, this [world]; agre, first [before its manifestation]; asat eva, nothingness only; ekam eva advitīyam, one without a second; āsīt, existed; tasmāt, from that; asataḥ, nothingness; sat jāyata, existence emerged. Commentary:-‘Something out of nothing’ is an absurd idea. If there is a tree, it must have come out of a seed, whether the seed was seen by anyone or not. Sometimes you see a tree sprouting from a crack on the roof of a building. Where did it come from? From a seed which the wind must have blown on to the roof. A tree can only grow from a seed. Similarly, existence can only come from existence. This is what the Upaniṣad is suggesting when it says that before the world was manifest there was existence, one without a second. The word means ‘existence.’ The Vedānta scriptures describe this existence as a state of being. It is one without a second. It is pure, all-pervasive, beyond thought and speech, and formless. It is consciousness. Some philosophers maintain, however, that before the world originated there was nothing, one without a second. They claim that the world emerged from this nothing. Vedānta says, suppose you are passing by a potter’s house and you see him with a huge lump of clay. Then you return that same way a few hours later, and you are surprised to see that the nameless and formless lump of clay is transformed into a number of pots, plates, bowls, cups, etc.—each distinct with a name and a form. Similarly, existence becomes manifest as this world, but it remains existence. It The Naiyāyikas, the Buddhists, and others think just the opposite—that existence has come out of non-existence. But how can they know anything about a past non-existence? And how can they know, in particular, that it is one only without a second? In fact, the concept of non-existence is being introduced here only to make a stronger foundation for the concept of existence. In order to know what to avoid, one must be able to see it. Similarly, the concept of non-existence is added only to make it clear what is meant by existence.
Max Müller
1. 'In the beginning,' my dear, 'there was that only which is (τὸ ὄν), one only, without a second. Others say, in the beginning there was that only which is not (τὸ μὴ ὄν), one only, without a second; and from that which is not, that which is was born.
2. The father said:- ‘O Somya, what proof is there for this—that from nothing something has emerged? Rather, before this world came into being, O Somya, there was only existence, one without a second’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Somya, O Somya; kutaḥ tu, but what [proof is there]; khalu, indeed; evam syāt, could this be so; iti ha uvāca, he [Āruṇi] said; katham, in what way; asataḥ, from non-existence; sat, existence; jāyata iti, will come; tu, on the other hand; somya, O Somya; idam agre, before this [world]; sat eva āsīt, there Commentary:-Let us say the world was not here before, but it came into existence at a certain point of time. What does this mean? Does this mean that there was a void and out of that void the world as we now see it emerged? As has been stated already, the idea of something coming out of nothing is absurd. Yet some Buddhist scholars, who believe that existence comes from non-existence, argue that unless a seed is destroyed, a tree cannot grow from it. So according to them something comes out of nothing. Śaṅkara argues that it is only the form of the seed that is destroyed. The material that makes up the seed goes on to produce the tree. There is no example anywhere of something coming from nothing. A potter makes pots out of clay. Can he make a pot out of nothing? No. But then the Buddhists argue, can a pot produce another pot? Vedānta says, no, but a pot can change its form. It can become potsherds or it can go back to the form of clay. Vedānta says, the world always existed, but it did not always exist in the form we see it now. A snake is always a snake, whether it is lying like a long rope or it is coiled up. The world is Sat (Existence), and it is nameless and formless. But how it does come to have names and forms? The answer is that Existence is the only reality, but if it seems to have different names and forms, they are merely superimpositions and are not real.
Max Müller
2. 'But how could it be thus, my dear?' the father continued. 'How could that which is, be born of that which is not? No, my dear, only that which is, was in the beginning, one only, without a second.
tasmādyatra kvaca śocati svedate vā puruṣastejasa eva
tadadhyāpo jāyante .. 6.2.3..
3. That Existence decided:- ‘I shall be many. I shall be born.’ He then created fire. That fire also decided:- ‘I shall be many. I shall be born.’ Then fire produced water. That is why whenever or wherever a person mourns or perspires, he produces water.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tat, that [existence]; aikṣata, decided; bahu syām, I shall be many; prajāyeya iti, I shall be born; tat, that [existence]; asṛjata, created; tejaḥ, fire; tat tejaḥ, that [existence as] fire; aikṣata, decided; bahu syām, I shall be many; prajāyeya iti, I shall be born; tat, that [fire]; apaḥ, water; asṛjata, created; tasmāt, that is why; yatra kva ca, whenever and wherever; puruṣaḥ, a person; śocati, grieves; svedate vā, or perspires; tat, [it happens] that; tejasaḥ eva, from fire; āpaḥ adhijāyante, water comes. Commentary:-The word aikṣata means ‘saw,’ ‘thought,’ or ‘decided.’ It can only apply to a conscious principle, because only a conscious principle can decide or think or see. And only a conscious being can say that he will be many. The scriptures say that this Existence, or Brahman, is one without a second, always the same, unchanging, and unchangeable. So how can it at the same time be many? Vedānta says that it is like a lump of earth sometimes taking different forms of pots, cups, etc. Or it is like a rope which sometimes looks like a snake. The change is only in names and forms. It is not a real change. Vedānta says, this applies to all that we see in this world. Underlying the seeming diversity there is unity. This unity—this One—supports the diversity. It is this One that has become many, but only in appearance. To go back to the example of the earth, the earth remains earth, though in appearance it may take the form of a lump or of some pots or of some other things. An apt description of this is ‘unity in diversity.’ It is Brahman that has become everything—space, air, fire, water, earth. Then the question arises, how can fire, which is inanimate, think? The answer is that here fire stands for Brahman. Brahman as fire is making things happen. Brahman is the source of everything. It is the base, the reality. Just as earth can be in the form of a lump or a pot, similarly, Brahman can be in the form of fire, water, or something else. It is not that Brahman undergoes any change. Brahman remains Brahman. It is Sat, eternal Existence. It is the Absolute. It is never conditioned by anything. When it says it will be ‘many,’ it means it will appear in many forms, just as earth or gold can be in many forms. But it must be borne in mind that this Existence is also pure consciousness.
Max Müller
3. 'It thought [1], may I be many, may I grow forth. It sent forth fire [2]. 'That fire [3] thought, may I be many, may I grow forth. It sent forth water [4]. 'And therefore whenever anybody anywhere is hot and perspires, water is produced on him from fire alone.
अन्नमसृजन्त तस्माद्यत्र क्व च वर्षति तदेव भूयिष्ठमन्नं
भवत्यद्भ्य एव तदध्यन्नाद्यं जायते ॥ ६.२.४॥
tā āpa aikṣanta bahvyaḥ syāma prajāyemahīti tā
annamasṛjanta tasmādyatra kva ca varṣati tadeva bhūyiṣṭhamannaṃ
bhavatyadbhya eva tadadhyannādyaṃ jāyate .. 6.2.4..
4. That water decided:- ‘I shall be many; I shall be born.’ That water then created food. This is why whenever and wherever there is rain, at once food grows in great abundance. It is from water that food is produced.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tāḥ āpaḥ, that water; aikṣanta, decided; bahvyaḥ syāma, I shall be many; prajāyemahi iti, I shall be born; tāḥ, that [water]; annam asṛjanta, produced food; tasmāt, that is why; yatra kva ca, whenever and wherever; varṣati, it rains; taṭ at once; bhūyiṣṭham, in great abundance; annam bhavati, food grows; adbhyaḥ eva, it is from water; tat, then; annādyam adhijāyate, food is produced. Iti dvitīyaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the second section. Commentary:-Here, food represents earth.
Max Müller
4. 'Water thought, may I be many, may I grow forth. It sent forth earth [1] (food). 'Therefore whenever it rains anywhere, most food is then produced. From water alone is eatable food produced.
1. Living beings have their origin in three ways:- from eggs, from parents, and from plants.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Teṣām khalu eṣām bhūtānām, of these living beings; trīṇi eva bījāni bhavanti, there are three kinds of origin; āṇḍajam, birth from eggs; jīvajam, from parents; udbhijjam iti, from plants. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
1. 'Of all living things there are indeed three origins only [1], that which springs from an egg (oviparous), that which springs from a living being (viviparous), and that which springs from a germ.
2. That god [Existence] decided:- ‘Entering into these three deities [fire, water, and earth], as the individual self, I shall manifest myself in many names and forms’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Sā iyam devatā, that deity [i.e., Sat, Existence]; aikṣata, decided; hanta, so; aham, I; imāḥ tisraḥ devatāḥ, these three gods [i.e., fire, water, and earth]; anena jīvena ātmanā, as the jīvātman [i.e., the individual self]; anupraviśya, having entered; nāmarūpe, as names and forms; vyākaravāṇi iti, I shall manifest. Commentary:-The Self (Sat) is within fire, water, and earth, but that is not to say that it is in any way affected by them. If you stand before a mirror, you see your reflection. The reflection may be good or it may not be good, but does that affect the mirror? The sun gives light to the eyes, but if there is anything wrong with the eyes, does that affect the sun? Similarly, the Self is everywhere and in everything. But wherever it is, it is the same. Names and forms, apart from the Self, are false. But there is, in reality, nothing apart from the Self. Everything is the Self. In that sense, the names and forms are also the Self and therefore real.
Max Müller
2. 'That Being [1] (i. e. that which had produced fire, water, and earth) thought, let me now enter those three beings [2], and let me then reveal (develop) names and forms.
3. Sat [Existence] thought, ‘I shall divide each of these three deities threefold.’ Then, having entered into these three deities as the individual self, he manifested himself as names and forms.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tāsām, of these [three deities]; trivṛtam trivṛtam, dividing them threefold; ekaikām, each of them; karavāṇi iti, I shall make; sā iyam devatā, that deity [Existence]; imāḥ tisraḥ devatā, these three deities; anena jīvena eva ātmanā, as the individual self; anupraviśya, having entered; nāmarūpe vyākarot, manifested himself as names and forms. Commentary:-Trivṛtam is applied in the case of fire, water, and earth as follows:- gross fire = 1/2 subtle fire + 1/4 subtle water + 1/4 subtle earth gross water = 1/2 subtle water + 1/4 subtle fire + 1/4 subtle earth gross earth = 1/2 subtle earth + 1/4 subtle fire + 1/4 subtle water This mixture turns the subtle elements into gross elements. It makes them separate and yet one. A similar process, called pañcikaraṇa, is applied in the case of the five elements—space, air, fire, water, and earth. Sat, or Brahman, is present in all the elements as their Self. First he is manifest as their sum total, called Virāṭ He then manifests himself as names and forms.
Max Müller
3. 'Then that Being having said, Let me make each of these three tripartite (so that fire, water, and earth should each have itself for its principal ingredient, besides an admixture of the other two) entered into those three beings (devatâ) with this living self only, and revealed names and forms.
tāsāṃ trivṛtaṃ trivṛtamekaikāmakarodyathā tu khalu
somyemāstisro devatāstrivṛttrivṛdekaikā bhavati
tanme vijānīhīti .. 6.3.4 ..
4. [Having so decided,] he made each of these three elements threefold. But as to how each of these three deities becomes threefold, O Somya, learn this from me.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tāsām of those [three elements]; ekaikām, each one of them; trivṛtam trivṛtam akarot, he made threefold; somya, O Somya; yathā tu khalu, but as to how; imāḥ tisraḥ devatā, these three deities; trivṛt trivṛt ekaikā bhavati, each becomes threefold; tat me vijānīhi iti, learn this from me. Iti tṛtīyaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the third section. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
4. 'He made each of these tripartite; and how these three beings become each of them tripartite, that learn from me now, my friend!
1. The red colour of gross fire is from subtle fire, the white colour is from subtle water, and the dark colour is from subtle earth. Thus that which constitutes the ‘fire’-ness of fire is gone. All changes are mere words, in name only [i.e., fire is only a name indicating a certain condition]. The three colours are the reality.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yat agneḥ rohitam rūpam, that red colour of [gross] fire; tat rūpam tejasaḥ, that colour is from [subtle] fire; yat śuklam, that which is white; tat apām, that is from [subtle] water; yat kṛṣṇam, that which is dark; tat annasya, that is from [subtle] earth [lit., food]; agneḥ agnitvam apāgāt, [thus] the ‘fire’-ness of fire is gone; vācārambhaṇam nāmadheyam vikāraḥ, all changes are mere words, in name only; trīṇi rūpāṇi iti eva satyam, only the three colours are the reality [i.e., outside of the three colours, there is no fire]. Commentary:-When fire is gross it has a red colour which comes from its subtle aspect. But there is also a white colour in it which comes from the subtle water element. Similarly, sometimes it has a dark colour which comes from the subtle earth element. The Upaniṣad says, in reality, fire is nothing beyond these three colours—red, white, and black. This proves the falsity of the idea of gross fire.
Max Müller
1. 'The red colour of burning fire (agni) is the colour of fire, the white colour of fire is the colour of water, the black colour of fire the colour of earth. Thus vanishes what we call fire, as a mere variety, being a name, arising from speech. What is true (satya) are the three colours (or forms).
2. The red colour of the sun is from fire, the white colour is from water, and the dark colour is from earth. Thus that which constitutes the ‘sun’-ness of the sun is gone. All changes are mere words, in name only. The three colours are the reality.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yat ādityasya rohitam rūpam, that red colour of the sun; tat rūpam tejasaḥ, that colour is from fire; yat śuklam, that which is white; tat apām, that is from water; yat kṛṣṇam, that which is dark; tat annasya, that is from earth [lit., food]; ādityāt ādityatvam apāgāt, [thus] the ‘sun’-ness of the sun is gone; vācārambhaṇam nāmadheyam vikāraḥ, all changes are mere words, in name only; trīṇi rūpāṇi iti eva satyam, only the three colours are the reality [i.e., outside of the three colours, there is no sun]. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
2. 'The red colour of the sun (âditya) is the colour of fire, the white of water, the black of earth. Thus vanishes what we call the sun, as a mere variety, being a name, arising from speech. What is true are the three colours.
3. The red colour of the moon is from fire, the white colour is from water, and the dark colour is from earth. Thus that which constitutes the ‘moon’-ness of the moon is gone. All changes are mere words, in name only. The three colours are the reality.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yat candramasaḥ rohitam rūpam, that red colour of the moon; tat rūpam tejasaḥ, that colour is from fire; yat śuklam, that which is white; tat apām, that is from water; yat kṛṣṇam, that which is dark; tat annasya, that is from earth [lit., food]; candrāt candratvam apāgāt, [thus] the ‘moon’-ness of the moon is gone; vācārambhaṇam nāmadheyam vikāraḥ, all changes are mere words, in name only; trīṇi rūpāṇi iti eva satyam, only the three colours are the reality [i.e., outside of the three colours, there is no moon]. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
3. 'The red colour of the moon is the colour of fire, the white of water, the black of earth. Thus vanishes what we call the moon, as a mere variety, being a name, arising from speech. What is true are the three colours.
4. The red colour of lightning is from fire, the white colour is from water, and the dark colour is from earth. Thus that which constitutes the ‘lightning’-ness of lightning is gone. All changes are mere words, in name only. The three colours are the reality.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yat vidyutaḥ rohitam rūpam, that red colour of lightning; tat rūpam tejasaḥ, that colour is from fire; yat śuklam, that which is white; tat apām, that is from water; yat kṛṣṇam, that which is dark; tat annasya, that is from earth [lit., food]; vidyutaḥ vidyuttvam apāgāt, [thus] the ‘lightning’-ness of lightning is gone; vācārambhaṇam nāmadheyam vikāraḥ, all changes are mere words, in name only; trīṇi rūpāṇi iti eva satyam, only the three colours are the reality [i.e., outside of the three colours, there is no lightning]. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
4. 'The red colour of the lightning is the colour of fire, the white of water, the black of earth. Thus vanishes what we call the lightning, as a mere variety, being a name, arising from speech. What is true are the three colours.
5. The earlier great householders, who were well read in the Vedas, knew this. They said, ‘There is nothing anyone can mention that is not heard of or thought of or already known to us.’ I his is because they came to know about the three colours.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tat etat vidvāṃsaḥ ha, having known this; vai pūrve, the earlier; mahāśālāḥ, great householders; mahāśrotriyāḥ, who were well read in the Vedas; āhuḥ sma, said; adya, now; kaścana, anyone [i.e., any scholar]; naḥ, to us; aśrutam, unheard of; amatam, unthought of; avijñātam, unknown; udāhariṣyati iti, can speak of; hi, since; ebhyaḥ, these three [colours]; vidāñcakraḥ, they came to know [that by knowing one, a person knows all]. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
5. 'Great householders and great theologians of olden times who knew this, have declared the same, saying, "No one can henceforth mention to us anything which we have not heard, perceived, or known [1]." Out of these (three colours or forms) they knew all.
6. They knew that whatever else was seen as red was the colour of fire; whatever else was seen as white was the colour of water; and whatever else was seen as dark was the colour of earth.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yat u rohitam iva abhūt iti, whatever else was seen as red; tat rūpam tejasaḥ iti, that is the colour of fire; tat vidāñcakruḥ, they knew that; yat u śuklam iva abhūt iti, whatever else was seen as white; tat apām rūpam iti, that is the colour of water; vidāñcakruḥ, they knew; yat u kṛṣṇam iva abhūt iti, whatever else was seen as dark; tat annasya rūpam iti, that is the colour of earth [lit., food]; vidāñcakruḥ, they knew. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
6. 'Whatever they thought looked red, they knew was the colour of fire. Whatever they thought looked white, they knew was the colour of water. Whatever they thought looked black, they knew was the colour of earth.
7. And whatever else was not properly known they understood was the combination of those three deities [fire, water, and earth]. O Somya, now learn from me how these three deities enter into a person and become threefold.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yat u avijñātam iva abhūt iti, and whatever they saw that was not properly known; samāsaḥ iti, the combination; etāsām eva devatānām, of these deities [fire, water, and earth]; tat vidāñcakruḥ, that they knew; somya, my son; yathā, as to how; imāḥ khalu nu, these very; tisraḥ devatāḥ, three deities; puruṣam, a living being; prāpya, entering [as food]; trivṛt trivṛt ekaikā bhavati, each one becomes threefold; tat me vijānīhi iti, learn that from me. Iti caturthaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the fourth section. Commentary:-Previously the scholars did not know these deities—the three elements—separately. They began to understand better when they saw the elements working in living beings.
Max Müller
7. 'Whatever they thought was altogether unknown, they knew was some combination of those three beings (devatâ). 'Now learn from me, my friend, how those three beings, when they reach man, become each of them tripartite.
1. When we eat food, it divides itself into three parts. The grossest part of it becomes excreta; that which is less gross becomes our flesh; and the finest part becomes our mind.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Annam aśitam, when food is eaten; tredhā, in three ways; vidhīyate, is divided; tasya, of it; yaḥ sthaviṣṭhaḥ, that which is the grossest; dhātuḥ, part; tat purīṣam bhavati, that becomes excreta; yaḥ madhyamaḥ, that which is less gross [lit., middle]; tat māṃsam, that [becomes] flesh; yaḥ aṇiṣṭhaḥ, that which is the subtlest; tat manaḥ, that [becomes] the mind. Commentary:-When we eat, the food nourishes the body in different ways. How? First, the grossest part of the food is rejected by the body. Then that which is less gross, a bit finer, becomes our flesh. And finally the finest part becomes the mind. According to Vedānta, the mind is material. It functions through the nervous system, which is called hitā. How does this food get transformed into the mind? Śaṅkara says that the subtlest part of the food becomes blood and enters into the heart. From there it goes through the veins and nerves, nourishing the mind. The term mind refers here to the phenomena of our thinking, feeling, willing, etc., plus the aggregate of our sense organs—our seeing, hearing, and so forth. Suppose you do not eat anything. What happens? Slowly you will feel that your mind is becoming more and more feeble. Your memory starts failing, and you cannot concentrate. The finest part of your system is affected. Then the body begins to shrink. You become thinner and thinner, and finally you die. Food nourishes all these. This is why Vedānta says that the mind is material.
Max Müller
1. 'The earth (food) when eaten becomes threefold; its grossest portion becomes feces, its middle portion flesh, its subtilest portion mind.
धातुस्तन्मूत्रं भवति यो मध्यमस्तल्लोहितं योऽणिष्ठः
स प्राणः ॥ ६.५.२॥
āpaḥ pītāstredhā vidhīyante tāsāṃ yaḥ sthaviṣṭho
dhātustanmūtraṃ bhavati yo madhyamastallohitaṃ yo'ṇiṣṭhaḥ
sa prāṇaḥ .. 6.5.2..
2. When we drink water, it becomes divided in three parts. The grossest part of it becomes urine; that which is less gross becomes blood; and the finest part becomes prāṇa, the vital force.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Āpaḥ, water; pītāḥ, when drunk; tredhā, in three ways; vidhīyante, is divided; tāsām, of it; yaḥ sthaviṣṭaḥ dhātuḥ, that which is the grossest part; tat mūtram bhavati, that becomes urine; yaḥ madhyamaḥ, that which is less gross; tat lohitam, that [becomes] blood; yaḥ aṇiṣṭhaḥ, that which is the finest part; saḥ prāṇaḥ, that is prāṇa. Commentary:-Water also has a threefold function. When we drink water, the grossest part of it flushes our whole system and at last passes out of the body as urine. Then that which is less gross becomes blood. If I do not drink water, the blood would clot and there would be no more blood supply. Then the finest aspect becomes prāṇa, the vital force. Without water, we could not breathe or live.
Max Müller
2. 'Water when drunk becomes threefold; its grossest portion becomes water, its middle portion blood, its subtilest portion breath.
3. When we eat fire [i.e., butter, oil, etc.], it divides itself into three parts. The grossest part of it becomes bone; that which is less gross becomes marrow; and the subtlest part becomes speech.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tejaḥ aśitam, when fire [i.e., oil, butter, etc., which produce energy] is eaten; tredhā, in three ways; vidhīyāte, is divided; tasya, of it; yaḥ sthaviṣṭhaḥ, that which is the grossest; dhātuḥ, part; tat asthi bhavati, that becomes bone; yaḥ madhyamaḥ, that which is midway; saḥ majjā, that [becomes] marrow; yaḥ aṇiṣṭhaḥ, that which is the subtlest; sā vāk, that is speech. Commentary:-Tejas literally means ‘fire.’ The idea here is that if you eat butter or fatty substances such as oil, it is like eating fire. Why? Because butter and oil are sources of tejas—that is, they provide us energy and vitality. These substances, when eaten, also become transformed into three different things. That which is gross becomes our bones; that which is between the gross and the subtle becomes our marrow; and that which is subtle becomes our speech. If our organ of speech is supported by the right kind of food, we are able to speak logically and articulately. The Upaniṣad is showing us here how we depend on these elements—earth, water, and fire. We. are able to think, speak, and move about all because of the support we get from them. But all these things depend on Brahman, pure Spirit. If you think of the way nature functions, and how the planets rotate in their orbits, and so forth, you are extremely impressed. Everything is so well organized. But we must remember, it is Brahman that is manifesting as nature, as the planets, as you and me and each individual—as even the tiny insects. The idea is that the One has become the many. Let us not be deluded by seeing the many.
Max Müller
3. 'Fire (i. e. in oil, butter, &c.) when eaten becomes threefold; its grossest portion becomes bone, its middle portion marrow, its subtilest portion speech [1].
4. ‘O Somya, the mind is nourished by food, prāṇa by water, and speech by fire.’ [Śvetaketu then said,] ‘Sir, will you please explain this to me again?’ ‘Yes, Somya, I will explain again,’ replied his father.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Somya, O Somya; manaḥ hi annamayam, the mind is nourished by food; prāṇaḥ āpomayaḥ, the vital force is nourished by water; vāk tejomayī iti, speech is nourished by fire; bhagavān, sir; bhūyaḥ eva, again; mā, to me; vijñāpayatu iti, will you please explain; tathā, so be it; somya iti, O Somya; ha uvāca, he [the father] said. Iti pañcamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the fifth section. Commentary:-In the Vedānta philosophy there are said to be five elements. The first two—ākāśa (space, or ether) and vāyu (air)—are not visible to us. The other three—pṛthivī (earth—here referred to as annam, food), āpa (water), and agni, or tejas (fire, or energy)—are visible, and this is why they have been discussed here. These three elements, however, are never to be found in their pure form. When we perceive them, they are always in a combined state. For instance, the water that we see always has some earth and other elements mixed with it. In reality, though, it is pure Spirit which we see as earth, water, or fire. The father has been telling his son that the mind is the finest product of food, that prāṇa, the vital force, is the finest product of water, and that speech is the finest product of fire. Naturally the son is confused. It is not very clear. So he asks his father to explain it further.
Max Müller
4. 'For truly, my child, mind comes of earth, breath of water, speech of fire.' 'Please, Sir, inform me still more,' said the son. Be it so, my child,' the father replied.
dadhnaḥ somya mathyamānasya yo'ṇimā sa urdhvaḥ samudīṣati
tatsarpirbhavati .. 6.6.1..
1. When curd is churned, the finest part of it rises to the surface. That becomes butter.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Somya, O Somya; dadhnaḥ mathyamānasya, of curd when it is churned; yaḥ aṇimā, what is the finest part; sāḥ ūrdhvaḥ samudīṣati, that rises to the surface; tat sarpiḥ bhavati, that becomes butter. Commentary:-Even now, in many homes in India, people make their own butter by churning curd. When you churn the curd, cream starts appearing on the surface. Gradually that cream turns into butter. It was already in the curd. In fact, it was the finest part of the curd. Only the churning was needed to make it rise to the top.
Max Müller
1. 'That which is the subtile portion of curds, when churned, rises upwards, and becomes butter.
एवमेव खलु सोम्यान्नस्याश्यमानस्य योऽणिमा स उर्ध्वः
समुदीषति तन्मनो भवति ॥ ६.६.२॥
evameva khalu somyānnasyāśyamānasya yo'ṇimā sa urdhvaḥ
samudīṣati tanmano bhavati .. 6.6.2..
2. O Somya, in the same way, the finest part of the food that is eaten rises to the surface and becomes the mind.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Evam eva khalu, in the same way; somya, O Somya; annasya aśyamānasya, of the food that is eaten; yaḥ aṇimā, that which is the finest part; saḥ ūrdhvaḥ samudīṣati, it rises to the surface; tat manaḥ bhavati, that becomes the mind. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
2. 'In the same manner, my child, the subtile portion of earth (food), when eaten, rises upwards, and becomes mind.
apāgͫsomya pīyamānānāṃ yo'ṇimā sa urdhvaḥ samudīṣati
sā prāṇo bhavati .. 6.6.3 ..
3. O Somya, the finest part of water that is drunk rises to the surface and becomes our prāṇa.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Anna means the food that you eat—any food. Wheat, rice, fish, meat, vegetables, milk, and so on—all this is anna. The Upaniṣad says, that which is the finest part of the food rises to the surface, like the butter in curd. It then becomes the mind. It is the subtlest part of the food, the essence. According to Vedānta, the mind is material. It is a by-product of food and is nourished by food. Somya, O Somya; apām pīyāmānānām, of the water that is drunk; yaḥ aṇimā, that which is the finest part; saḥ ūrdhvaḥ samudīṣati, it rises to the surface; saḥ prāṇaḥ bhavati, that becomes prāṇa, the vital force. Commentary:-Similarly, if you drink water, the finest part of that water becomes separated from the rest and rises to the surface to become prāṇa, the vital force. This is why in Sanskrit water and life (jala and jīvana) are synonymous. Without water, life cannot exist. In fact, science says that life first appeared in water.
Max Müller
3. 'That which is the subtile portion of water, when drunk, rises upwards, and becomes breath.
tejasaḥ somyāśyamānasya yo'ṇimā sa urdhvaḥ samudīṣati
sā vāgbhavati .. 6.6.4..
4. O Somya, the finest part of fire [butter, etc.] that is eaten rises to the surface and becomes our speech.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Somya, O Somya; tejasaḥ aśyamānasya, of the fire [butter, etc.] that is eaten; yaḥ aṇima, that which is the finest part; saḥ ūrdhvaḥ samudīṣati, it rises to the surface; sā vāk bhavati, that becomes speech. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
4. 'That which is the subtile portion of fire, when consumed, rises upwards, and becomes speech.
annamayagͫ hi somya mana āpomayaḥ prāṇastejomayī vāgiti
bhūya eva mā bhagavānvijñāpayatviti tathā somyeti hovāca
.. 6.6.6..
6. ‘O Somya, the mind is certainly nourished by food, pṛāṇa by water, and speech by fire.’ [Śvetaketu then said,] ‘Sir, will you please explain this to me again?’ ‘Yes, I will explain again, O Somya,’ replied his father.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Somya, O Somya; manaḥ hi annamayam, the mind is certainly nourished by food; prāṇaḥ āpomayaḥ, the vital force is nourished by water; vāk tejomayī iti, speech is nourished by fire; bhagavān, sir; bhūyaḥ eva, again; mā, to me; vijnāpayatu iti, will you please explain; tathā, so be it; somya iti, O Somya; ha uvāca, he [the father] said. Iti ṣaṣṭhaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the sixth section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
6. 'For mind, my child, comes of earth, breath of water, speech of fire.' 'Please, Sir, inform me still more,' said the son. 'Be it so, my child,' the father replied.
1. O Somya, a person has sixteen parts, [and all your sixteen parts are intact]. Do not eat anything for fifteen days, but drink as much water as you like. Life is dependent on water. If you do not drink water, you will lose your life.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Somya, O Somya; puruṣaḥ, a person; ṣoḍaśakalaḥ, has sixteen parts; pañcadaśa ahāni, for fifteen days; mā aśīḥ, do not eat; apaḥ piba, drink water; kāmam, as much as you like; prāṇaḥ āpomayaḥ, life is dependent on water; na pibataḥ, if you do not drink water; vicchetsyate iti, it will leave. Commentary:-Now the son says, ‘I still can’t understand.’ So the father tries something else. A normal human being in good health is said, in Vedānta, to be made up of sixteen parts. If a person neither eats nor drinks water for fifteen days, he will die. But if he does not eat yet continues to drink water during that time he will remain alive. When Gandhiji used to fast, he would drink plenty of water and would put some lemon juice in it. That would keep him alive. But what happens to a person when he drinks water but does not eat? His mind fails. He cannot remember anything. So, to convince his son, the father asks him to fast for fifteen days but to drink water.
Max Müller
1. 'Man (purusha), my son, consists of sixteen parts. Abstain from food for fifteen days, but drink as much water as you like, for breath comes from water, and will not be cut off, if you drink water.'
sa ha pañcadaśāhāni naśātha hainamupasasāda kiṃ bravīmi
bho ityṛcaḥ somya yajūgͫṣi sāmānīti sa hovāca na vai
mā pratibhānti bho iti .. 6.7.2..
2. Śvetaketu did not eat anything for fifteen days. After that he came to his father and said, ‘O Father, what shall I recite?’ His father said, ‘Recite the Ṛk, Yajuḥ, and Sāma mantras.’ Śvetaketu replied, ‘I can’t recall any of them, sir’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ, he [Śvetaketu]; ha pañcadaśa ahāni, for fifteen days; na āśa, did not eat anything; atha, then [on the sixteenth day]; enam ha upasasāda, he went to him [his father]; bhoḥ, O Father; kim bravīmi iti, what shall I recite; somya, O Somya; ṛcaḥ yajūṃṣi sāmāni iti, the Ṛk, the Yajuḥ, and the Sāmas; saḥ ha uvāca, [Śvetaketu] said; bhoḥ, O Father; na vai mā pratibhānti iti, they do not come to my mind. Commentary:-Now the father says to his son, ‘Will you please recite to me the Ṛk, Yajuḥ, and Sāma mantras?’ But the son replies:- ‘They are completely gone. I do not remember them. They do not appear in my mind at all.’ Having been without food for fifteen days, Śvetaketu’s mind was almost gone. The mind is the finest part, the essence, of food—not of water, not of anything else. Therefore, the mind must be material.
Max Müller
2. Svetaketu abstained from food for fifteen days. Then he came to his father and said:- 'What shall I say?' The father said:- 'Repeat the Rik, Yagus, and Sâman verses.' He replied:- 'They do not occur to me, Sir.'
khadyotamātraḥ pariśiṣṭaḥ syāttena tato'pi na bahu
dahedevagͫsomya te ṣoḍaśānāṃ kalānāmekā kalātiśiṣṭā
syāttayaitarhi vedānnānubhavasyaśānātha me vijñāsyasīti
.. 6.7.3..
3. The father said to Śvetaketu:- ‘O Somya, from a blazing fire, if there is but a small piece of ember left, the size of a firefly, it cannot bum anything bigger than that. Similarly, O Somya, because only one small part of your sixteen parts remains, you cannot remember the Vedas. Eat something and then you will understand what I am saying’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tam ha uvāca, he said to him [to Śvetaketu]; somya, O Somya; yathā, as; mahataḥ abhyāhitasya, of a big blazing fire; ekaḥ aṅgāraḥ, one ember; khadyotamātraḥ, the size of a firefly; pariśiṣṭaḥ syāt, that is left; tena, by that; tataḥ api bahu, anything larger than its size; na dahet, cannot bum; evam, like that; somya, my son; ekā kalā, only one part; ṣoḍaśānām kalānām, of [yourl sixteen parts; atiśiṣṭā syāt, has remained; etarhi, now; tayā, by that [small part]; vedān, the Vedas; na anubhavasi, you do not remember; aśāna, eat; atha, then; me, my [words]; vijñāsyasi iti, you will grasp. Commentary:-Suppose you have a big pile of wood, and you start a fire with it. After awhile practically the whole pile is consumed, and there is only a small spark left—a spark as small as a firefly. Very little can be burnt with such a tiny spark, yet even so, if you add some fuel to it you can again start a big fire. ‘Similarly,’ Uddālaka says to his son, ‘your mind is like that tiny spark. It is not functioning now because you have not given it any fuel these last fifteen days. There is just a flicker of your mind working, and it cannot serve any useful purpose. If you eat something now, everything will come back to your mind.’
Max Müller
3. The father said to him:- 'As of a great lighted fire one coal only of the size of a firefly may be left, which would not burn much more than this (i. e. very little), thus, my dear son, one part only of the sixteen parts (of you) is left, and therefore with that one part you do not remember the Vedas. Go and eat!
sa haśātha hainamupasasāda tagͫ ha yatkiṃca papraccha
sarvagͫha pratipede .. 6.7.4..
4. Śvetaketu ate something and then went to his father. Whatever his father asked him, he was able to follow.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ, he [Śvetaketu]; ha āśa, ate; atha, then; enam, to him [his father]; ha upasasāda, he went; tam, to him [to Śvetaketu]; yat kiñca, whatever; papraccha, he asked; sarvam ha pratipede, he was able to follow everything. Commentary:-After eating, Śvetaketu’s mind was back to normal. He then approached his father, and everything his father said was clear to him.
Max Müller
4. 'Then wilt thou understand me.' Then Svetaketu. ate, and afterwards approached his father. And whatever his father asked him, he knew it all by heart. Then his father said to him:-
5. The father said to him:- ‘O Somya, from a blazing fire, if there is but a small piece of ember left, the size of a firefly, the fire can again blaze up when you add some grass. The fire, in fact, can then blaze up even more than it did before’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tam ha uvāca, he said to him [to Śvetaketu]; somya, O Somya; yathā, just as; mahataḥ abhyāhitasya, of a big blazing fire; ekam aṅgāram, one ember; khadyotamātram, the size of a firefly; pariśiṣṭam, that is left; tam, that; tṛṇaiḥ upasamādhāya, with some grass; prājvalayet, becomes blazing; tena, by that [grass]; tataḥ api bahu, even more than before; dahet, bums. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
5. 'As of a great lighted fire one coal of the size of a firefly, if left, may be made to blaze up again by putting grass upon it, and will thus burn more than this,
6. ‘In the same way, O Somya, of your sixteen parts, only one remained. But that, when nourished by food, has revived, and by that you are now able to follow the Vedas. O Somya, this is why I said that the mind was nourished by food, prāṇa was nourished by water, and speech was nourished by fire.’ Śvetaketu now understood what his father was saying.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Evam, in the same way; somya, O Somya; ekā kalā, one part; te ṣoḍaśānām kalānām, of your sixteen parts; atiśiṣṭā abhūt, remained; sā, it; upasamāhitā annena, nourished by food; prājvālī, has revived; etarhi, now; tayā, by that [remaining part]; vedān, the Vedas; anubhavasi, you can understand; somya, O Somya; hi, this is why [I said]; manaḥ annamayam, the mind is nourished by food; prāṇaḥ āpomayaḥ, prāṇa is nourished by water; vāk tejomayī iti, speech is nourished by fire; asya, of that [what his father had said]; tat ha vijajñau iti, he understood it; vijajñau iti, he understood. Iti saptamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the seventh section. Commentary:-Just as a fire will go out if fuel is not added to it, so also the mind will cease to function if you do not eat. After fasting for fifteen days, Śvetaketu still had a small portion of his mind left working. It was reduced to a fragment, as it were. But after eating, his memory returned and his mind was again active and vigorous. The idea is, this human body is a very powerful instrument. The mind is powerful; speech is powerful; life itself is powerful. But it is all dependent on food (i.e., earth), water, and energy (i.e., fire). Yet even these gross elements are not independent. As we have seen earlier, earth is a mixture of water and fire with earth. Water also is a mixture of earth and fire with water. Similarly, fire is a mixture of earth and water with fire. This process is called trivṛta, or triplication. It is the permutation and combination of the three elements. Vedānta says, we cannot see these elements in their pure form, because that pure form is Existence, sat. What the Upaniṣad is saying is suggestive:- That which we do not see in its pure form, but in a form which is a by-product of a combination of other things, really does not exist. This is the argument Buddhism also advances. They say:- ‘You talk about a chariot, but where is the chariot? Is it a reality? No, it can’t be a reality, because a chariot is a combination of different things put together. Where is the chariot? Is it the wheels? The platform? The canopy? No. When you speak of an object which is not independent, which is dependent on factors combining together, then it is not real.’ Here is the same argument. All objects are dependent. What exists then? Vedānta says it is sat, Existence. That Existence is our own Self, the real Self, the essence, the real being, pure Spirit. When the Upaniṣad refers to our mind, our life force, and our speech, it is referring to this phenomenal world. We have to look at these things from two levels:- From the cosmic level there is one Reality, one Existence. From the individual level we owe our mind, life force, and speech to these elements. But in reality all these elements, all these manifestations of creation, are pure Spirit. One Reality, pure Spirit, has assumed diverse forms. The whole manifestation of this universe is dependent. Even the mind. Where does the mind come from? Science has not yet been able to answer this question. According to Vedānta, the mind is nothing but matter; yet consciousness, which is pure Spirit, is the source. Vedānta does not make any distinction between matter and consciousness. We say it is one and the same. Consciousness is the source, and out of that one source, all that exists—call it matter, call it energy, call it mind—has come. Science has its own terms. They may call the source of life DNA or something else. Vedānta says it is tat, That. Or it is sat, Existence. From Existence, everything has emerged. In essence there is one—the same thing appearing in different forms. You may ask, how did the. One became manifest as many? Why did it happen? The fact that we can ask this question shows that that One is conscious. Only a conscious being can think, plan, and wish. Because that one Reality is consciousness it can say, ‘I will be many.’ If it were inert, it could not wish to become many. So Vedānta says, that one Reality, pure Spirit, is consciousness. Yet, that consciousness can also take the form of something inert. Matter and consciousness are not different. For instance, if you break a paperweight into atoms, and then smash even those atoms, you will find so much energy—so much motion. So, whether the manifestations of this creation are conscious or unconscious, intelligent or unintelligent, they all have their source in that one conscious Reality.
Max Müller
6. 'Thus, my dear son, there was one part of the sixteen parts left to you, and that, lighted up with food, burnt up, and by it you remember now the Vedas.' After that, he understood what his father meant when he said:- 'Mind, my son, comes from food, breath from water, speech from fire.' He understood what he said, yea, he understood it [1].
1. Uddālaka Āruṇi said to his son Śvetaketu:- ‘O Somya, let me explain to you the concept of deep sleep. When a person is said to be sleeping, O Somya, he becomes one with Sat [Existence], and he attains his real Self. That is why people say about him, “He is sleeping.” He is then in his Self’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Uddālakaḥ āruṇih, Uddālaka Āruṇi [the son of Aruṇa]; śvetaketum putram, to his son Śvetaketu; ha uvāca, said; svapnāntam, the concept of [deep] sleep; me, from me; somya, O Somya; vijānīhi iti, learn; yatra, when; etat puruṣaḥ, this person; svapiti nāma, is said to be in deep sleep; somya, O Somya; tadā, then; sampannaḥ bhavati, he is merged; satā, with Sat [Existence, Paramātmā]; svam apītaḥ bhavati, he attains his real Self; tasmāt, for this, reason; ācakṣate, people say; enam, about him; svapiti iti, he is sleeping; svam hi apītaḥ bhavati, he attains his real Self. Commentary:-In ancient India, all skills were passed from the father to the son. This is how the caste system eventually became so rigid. A father tended to be selfish and favour his son over his other students, especially if the father was a great scholar. Unless he had a student who was exceptionally good and intelligent, he would generally pass on the best things to his own son. Why does Uddālaka call his son Śvetaketu by the name Somya? The name Somya means one who is quiet, humble, very good, and gentle. If you want to learn something, you must be quiet and modest. So the father is saying, vijānīhi—‘learn from me, you who are so quiet and humble.’ The word puruṣa means pure, ‘in the heart,’ and śayate, ‘residing.’ That which resides in the heart—i.e., the Self. It is a living being. It could be a man, a woman, an animal, or an insect. The word svapnāntam means the concept of deep sleep, or dreamless sleep. When we dream, our sleep is disturbed, and it does not give us any rest. But dreamless sleep is very restful. If we have that kind of sleep for even a few minutes, we become temporarily free from this world. When we wake up then, it takes us some time to realize where we are and what time of day it is. While we were sleeping, the whole world was wiped out for us. When we say, ‘This person is sleeping,’ what does that mean? What happens when we sleep? Where does the mind go? That is what is being discussed here. The Upaniṣad says, during deep sleep a person becomes united with the Self. The individual self—that is, the jīva who is ignorant—merges into the Cosmic Self. The individual self has to have a body and a mind, and it is the mind that is closest to the Self. In fact, many people think the mind is the Self. The mind, however, is like a crystal. A crystal has no colour of its own, but suppose you put a red flower next to it. What happens? The crystal assumes the colour of the flower. Similarly, the mind has no consciousness of its own. But because it is close to the Paramātman, the Supreme Self, it gets the reflection of consciousness from the Self. Then, through the mind, all our organs function—the eyes, the ears, the hands, the feet, etc. The organs and the mind are all dependent on the Self. When we are awake, the body and mind are both functioning. Then when we are dreaming, the body is not functioning but the mind is still functioning. But when we are in deep sleep, the mind also ceases to function. We then become one with our own Self. That is why deep sleep is so refreshing. Yet when we wake up we are the same individual that we were before we slept. The Self is there. We are always one with it. Yet sleep does not give us any knowledge of our Self. Why? Because our ignorance creates a barrier that keeps us from knowing our real nature. But if we are one with the Self, how can we be separate from it? In reality, we are never separate from the Self, but when we are attached to our names and forms, we have desires. And when we have desires, ignorance has its full grip on us. During dreamless sleep the barrier that keeps us from the Self is temporarily removed, but we are not conscious of it. That is why, when we wake up, we are exactly the same person we were before we slept. If I was a tiger before I went to sleep, I am a tiger again when I get up. A sleeping tiger cannot do any harm, but if it wakes up, beware! Similarly, if I was a bad person before, I am still a bad person when I wake up. So, when I sleep, for the time being my ignorance is also sleeping, as it were. Only Self-knowledge can dispel my ignorance and give me true peace. It is a common belief in India that if you bathe in the Ganga, you will get rid of all your sins. Sri Ramakrishna used to say, though, that the sins are very clever. As you go to the river the sins say to each other:- ‘Well, this person is going into the Ganga. Let’s take shelter on that tree.’ So they fly off and perch on a tree. Then, when you come out of the river, they all pounce back on you and once again you are in their grip. Similarly, deep sleep can give us temporary rest, but it cannot remove our ignorance. Only if we have real knowledge, knowledge of the Self, can we remove the seeds of our karma. Knowledge is like a sword. With that sword we can cut off the roots of our ignorance and become free. Once we attain Self-knowledge we are totally transformed, because it goes to the root of our being. And when we wake up from our sleep of ignorance we are no longer the same individual.
Max Müller
1. Uddâlaka Âruni said to his son Svetaketu:- Learn from me the true nature of sleep (svapna). When a man sleeps here, then, my dear son, he becomes united with the True [1], he is gone to his own (Self). Therefore they say, svapiti, he sleeps, because he is gone (apîta) to his own (sva) [2].
2. Just as a bird tied to a rope flutters here and there, and when it cannot get any shelter anywhere, it surrenders itself to its bondage; in the same way, O Somya, the mind runs in every direction, and when it fails to get a resting place anywhere, it surrenders itself to prāṇa, the vital force. The mind, O Somya, is tied to prāṇa.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yathā, it is like; śakuniḥ, a bird; sūtreṇa prabaddhaḥ, tied to a rope; diśam diśam, in all directions; patitvā, fluttering; anyatra, elsewhere; āyatanam, a shelter; alabdhvā, without getting; bandhanam eva upaśrayate, surrenders to its bondage; evam eva khalu, similarly; somya, O Somya; tat manaḥ, this mind; diśam diśam, in all directions; patitvā, running about; anyatra, elsewhere; āyatanam, a shelter; alabdhvā, without getting; prāṇam eva upaśrayate, surrenders to prāṇa; somya, O Somya; prāṇa-bandhanam hi manaḥ iti, the mind is tied to prāṇa. Commentary:-When we are sound asleep, what happens to the mind? The mind withdraws; it retires and temporarily goes back to the Self. Is this the same as samādhi, the superconscious state? Vedānta says, no, there is a distinction between samādhi and this experience of sound sleep. Both experiences bring great joy and peace, but deep sleep is only temporary. It is just for a while. We are still held by the rope of ignorance, and we do not know our real Self. When we come back from deep sleep, we are just as tightly bound as we were before we slept. The Upaniṣad gives the example here of a bird tied to a rope, struggling to get free. It starts flying in all directions, seeking a safe place—any place, anywhere else than where it is bound. At last it must give up and return to its place of bondage. Sri Ramakrishna used to give an illustration very similar to this. A bird is sitting on the mast of a ship and soon falls asleep. It does not notice that the ship has set sail. Finally, when the ship has gone far out to sea, it wakes up and starts looking around for land. Flying to the east, it eventually gets tired, and, not finding any land, comes back to the ship. In the same way, it flies out to the west, to the north, and to the south, but all it sees is water everywhere. At last the bird decides to take refuge on the mast of the ship. Swami Vivekananda says that all of us are struggling to be free. Freedom is our birthright. You are trying to be free; a student is trying to be free; a teacher is trying to be free. All of us, irrespective of our situation in life, are trying in one way or another to attain freedom. The Upaniṣad is saying that when we are awake, we are like the bird flying in different directions. We are constantly fluttering around, doing this and doing that. Sometimes we are attracted by something here, and then again by something there. Our minds are always roaming about. But finally we get tired and surrender our minds to prāṇa—that is, we lie down and go to sleep. And if we are lucky, we have good sound sleep. The word prāṇa here means the Self. Meister Eckhart once said that the mind has two eyes. One eye is always looking outside, looking at the things around. But the other eye is looking inside, looking and searching, as it were, into one’s own Being. Finally one discovers the ‘Castle of Security.’ What is this Castle of Security? It is the Self. When we enter into this castle we are at peace. That is what the Upaniṣad also says here. When a person is able to retreat into his own Self, even temporarily, he attains a state of peace and joy. In deep sleep, we temporarily enter the castle. It
Max Müller
2. 'As a bird when tied by a string flies first in every direction, and finding no rest anywhere, settles down at last on the very place where it is fastened, exactly in the same manner, my son, that mind (the gîva, or living Self in the mind, see VI, 3, 2), after flying in every direction, and finding no rest anywhere, settles down on breath [1]; for indeed, my son, mind is fastened to breath.
3. O Somya, now learn from me about hunger and thirst. When a person is said to be hungry, it is to be understood that the food he ate has been earned away by water. Just as people refer to a leader of cows, or a leader of horses, or a leader of people, similarly, people say that water is the leader of food. So also, O Somya, know that this sprout [i.e., the body] is the product of something [i.e., of food and drink]. It cannot be without a root.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Somya, O Somya; me, from me; aśanā pipāse, about hunger and thirst; vijānīhi iti, learn; yatra, when; puruṣaḥ, a person; aśiśiṣati etat nāma, is said to be hungry; tat, then; āpaḥ eva aśitam, the water which has been drunk; nayante, has carried [the food that he ate] away; tat yathā, just as, for example; go-nāyaḥ, a leader of cows; aśva-nāyaḥ, a leader of horses; puruṣa-nāyaḥ, one who leads other people; iti, these terms people use; evam, similarly; tat apaḥ, that water; ācakṣate, people say; aśanāya iti, is the leader of food; tatra, so also; vijānīhi, know; somya, O Somya; etat śuṅgam, this sprout [i.e., the body]; Commentary:-In this universe we always see two things—one is the cause, and the other is the effect. These two forces are always at work. The cause becomes the effect, and again the effect becomes the cause of something else. For instance, a duck is the effect of an egg, and again, that same duck is the cause of another egg. Buddhism also emphasizes this point. Many people are under the impression that Buddhism is an entirely new religion. But really speaking, it is not a new religion, as Buddha himself pointed out. In Buddhism, the cause and effect theory is termed pratītya-samutpāda, ‘dependent-arising’—that is, an effect arises dependent on its cause. The Upaniṣad here takes the example of a sprout and its roots. When you see a sprout, you know at once that there must be roots, and out of those roots the sprout has come. Similarly, we see ṃ this universe many things. They seem to have come from different sources, but in reality the ultimate source is one and the same. It is Sat, pure Existence, Brahman. In this verse, the father begins by telling his son about hunger and thirst. What does it mean when a person says, ‘I am hungry’? A few hours previously he ate something, but again he is hungry. What happened? It means that whatever he ate before has been carried away by water. Some of the water becomes blood and distributes the food to different parts of the body, and then the water carries away the waste part of the food and takes it out of the body. Then the person feels hungry again. This is why. water is said to be the leader of food. The Upaniṣad says it is like a herd of cows. Wherever there is a herd of cows, you will find that the herd chooses a particular cow as the leader. When the cows move from place to place, the leader is ahead and all the others follow behind. Similarly, water is the leader, and the food you eat is distributed and then taken away by the water. The idea is, this body comes from food, and water is what gives it life. They go together. Nothing is independent. Just as this body has a source, this universe also has a source. The Upaniṣad says that when you see a sprout, you know it has its source in a root. Similarly, this universe and everything that makes up this universe—such as food and water—has a source, and that source is Sat, pure Existence.
Max Müller
3. 'Learn from me, my son, what are hunger and thirst. When a man is thus said to be hungry, water is carrying away (digests) what has been eaten by him. Therefore as they speak of a cow-leader (go-nâya), a horse-leader (asva-nâya), a man-leader (purusha-nâya), so they call water (which digests food and causes hunger) food-leader (asa-nâya). Thus (by food digested &c.), my son, know this offshoot (the body) to be brought forth, for this (body) could not be without a root (cause).
4. Where else, except in food, can the body have its root? In the same way, O Somya, when food is the sprout, search for water as the root; when water is the sprout, O Somya, search for fire as the root; when fire is the sprout, O Somya, search for Sat [Existence] as the root. O Somya, Sat is the root, Sat is the abode, and Sat is the support of all these beings.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tasya, of it [the body]; annāt, [besides] from food; anyatra kva, where else; mūlam syāt, can the root [of the body] be; evam eva khalu, in this way; somya, O Somya; annena śuṅgena, with food as the sprout; apaḥ mūlam, water as the root; anviccha, search for; adbhiḥ śuṅgena, water as the sprout; somya, O Somya; tejaḥ mūlam, fire as the root; anviccha, search for; tejasā śuṅgena, fire as the sprout; somya, O Somya; sat mūlam, Sat [Existence] as the root; anviccha, search for; somya, O Somya; imāḥ sarvāḥ prajāḥ, all these beings; sat mūlam, have Sat as the root; sat āyatanāḥ, Sat as the abode; sat pratiṣṭhāḥ, Sat as the support. Commentary:-Where there is a sprout, you know there is a root. Similarly, where there is a body, you know there is a root—that is, a source, and that source is food. Then what is the root of food? It is water. Again, water has its root in fire, and fire has its root in Existence. The Upaniṣad gives a number of links here. They follow one after another. But the ultimate root, the ultimate source, is Sat, Existence—pure Spirit. All beings—men, women, children, trees, animals, everything—are based on Sat. Praja means what is born. All that are born (sarvā prajā) are dependent on and resting on Sat.
Max Müller
4. 'And where could its root be except in food (earth) [1]? And in the same manner, my son, as food (earth) too is an offshoot, seek after its root, viz. water. And as water too is an offshoot, seek after its root, viz. fire. And as fire too is an offshoot, seek after its root, viz. the True. Yes, all these creatures, my son, have their root in the True, they dwell in the True, they rest in the True.
5. Then when a person is said to be thirsty, it is to be understood that the water he drank has been carried away by fire. Just as people refer to a leader of cows, or a leader of horses, or a leader of people, similarly, people say that fire is the leader of water. So also, O Somya, know that this sprout [i.e., the body] is the product of something [i.e., of food and drink]. It cannot be without a root.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; yatra, when; puruṣaḥ, a person; pipāsati etat nāma, is said to be thirsty; tat, then; tejaḥ eva pītam nayate, fire has earned away [the water that he drank]; tat yathā, just as, for example; go-nāyaḥ, a leader of cows; aśva-nāyaḥ, a leader of horses; puruṣa-nāyaḥ, one who leads other people; iti, these terms people use; evam, similarly; tat tejaḥ, that fire; ācaṣṭe, is called; udanyā iti, the leader of water; tatra, so also; vijānīhi, know; somya, O Somya; etat eva śuṅgam, this sprout [i.e., the body]; utpatitam, is produced [by something]; idam, it; amūlam na bhaviṣyati iti, is not without a root. Commentary:-When does a person feel thirsty? When there is a shortage of water in his body. How does this shortage occur? It occurs when the heat in the body turns the water into blood and other things. As soon as the water is consumed in this way a person feels that he has to drink more water.
Max Müller
5. 'When a man is thus said to be thirsty, fire carries away what has been drunk by him. Therefore as they speak of a cow-leader (go-nâya), of a horse-leader (asva-nâya), of a man-leader (purusha-nâya), so they call fire udanyâ, thirst, i. e. water-leader. Thus (by water digested &c.), my son, know this offshoot (the body) to be brought forth:- this (body) could not be without a root (cause).
6. Where else, except in water, can the body have its root? O Somya, when water is the sprout, search for fire as the root; when fire is the sprout, O Somya, search for Sat [Existence] as the root. O Somya, Sat is the root, Sat is the abode, and Sat is the support of all these beings. As to how, O Somya, these three deities [fire, water, and earth] enter a body and each becomes threefold, this has already been explained. O Somya, as this person is dying, his speech merges into the mind, his mind into prāṇa, his prāṇa into fire, and then fire merges into Brahman, the Supreme Deity.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tasya, of it [the body]; adbhyaḥ, [besides] from water; anyatra kva, where else; mūlam syāt, can the root [of the body] be; somya, O Somya; adbhiḥ śuṅgena, with water as the sprout; tejaḥ mūlam, fire as the root; anviccha, search for; tejasā śuṅgena, fire as the sprout; somya, O Somya; sat mūlam, Sat [Existence] as the root; anviccha, search for; somya, O Somya; imāḥ sarvāḥ prajāḥ, all these beings; sat mūlam, have Sat as the root; sat āyatanāḥ, Sat as the abode; sat pratiṣṭhāḥ, Sat as the support; yathā nu khalu, as to how; somya, O Somya; imāḥ tisraḥ devatāḥ, these three deities [fire, water, and earth]; puruṣam prāpya, enter a person; ekaikā bhavati, each one becomes; trivṛt trivṛt, threefold; tat uktam purastāt eva bhavati, this has been explained already; somya, O Somya; asya puruṣasya prayataḥ, as this person is dying; vāk, the organ of speech; manasi sampadyate, merges into the mind; manaḥ prāne, the mind into prāṇa; prāṇaḥ tejasi, prāṇa into fire; tejaḥ parasyām devatāyām, fire into the Supreme Deity [Brahman], Commentary:-What happens when a person dies? First, his speech merges into his mind. He cannot speak any more, but his mind is still active. Sometimes when a person has a stroke, he cannot speak but his mind is alert. Then the mind merges into prāṇa, his life force. The mind ceases to function, but he is still breathing. Then prāṇa merges into fire. Fire here means the heat in the body. If the body is still warm, you
Max Müller
6. 'And where could its root be except in water? As water is an offshoot, seek after its root, viz. fire. As fire is an offshoot, seek after its root, viz. the True. Yes, all these creatures, O son, have their root in the True, they dwell in the True, they rest in the True. 'And how these three beings (devatâ), fire, water, earth, O son, when they reach man, become each of them tripartite, has been said before (VI, 4, 7). When a man departs from hence, his speech [1] is merged in his mind, his mind in his breath, his breath in heat (fire), heat in the Highest Being.
7. ‘That which is the subtlest of all is the Self of all this. It is the Truth. It is the Self. That thou art, O Śvetaketu.’ [Śvetaketu then said,] ‘Sir, please explain this to me again.’ ‘Yes, Somya, I will explain again,’ replied his father.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ, that which; eṣaḥ, this; aṇimā, the subtlest of all; idam sarvam aitadātmyam, the Self of all this; tat satyam, that is the Truth; saḥ ātmā, that is the Self; tat, that; tvam, you; asi, are; śvetaketo iti, O Śvetaketu; bhagavān, sir; bhūyaḥ eva, again; mā, to me; vijñāpayatu iti, will you please explain; tathā, so be it; somya iti, O Somya; ha uvāca, he [the father] said. Iti aṣṭamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the eighth section. Commentary:-That which is the finest of all things, the subtlest, has that Existence, Sat, as its Self. That is the Truth, the Reality. We see all these forms before us. They are constantly changing. But that which we cannot see, which is the essence of everything, does not change. And that is our real identity. ‘That thou art’—this is the final message that Vedānta has to give. That Self, that essence, that pure Spirit, is your real identity. The phenomena we see before us are nothing but names and forms—nāma and rūpa. They are attributes superimposed on that which is constant, unchanging, unchangeable. You may call a person by one name today, but tomorrow he may have another name. And as regards forms, these are always changing. We are never the same. Then again, after some time these forms are gone. Vedānta defines satya, real, as that which existed in the past, which exists now, and which will exist in the future. But the names and forms we see before us are ephemeral. One day they are here and the next they are gone, so they cannot be real. Vedānta says, forget about your name and form. You are that eternal, unchanging Reality. Our form, our body, is the starting point of all our troubles. As soon aṣ we identify ourselves with the body we feel we are separate and different from others. ‘I am a brāhmin.’ ‘I am learned.’ ‘I am ignorant.’ ‘I come from such-and-such a place.’ Then you go on adding and adding—‘I am tall.’ ‘I am short.’ ‘I am fair.’ ‘I am dark.’ Remove these. Go to the essence, to the root—mūlā. Sir P.C. Roy did not believe in the caste system. In fact, he had contempt for it. Sometimes he would get together with some students and argue with them. Among the students, some were brāhmins and some were non-brāhmins. He would say:- ‘Look, I am a chemist. I can prove that the blood of the brāhmin and the blood of the śūdra are both the same. They are composed of the same elements. But you say that this is a person of brāhmin blood and this is a person of śūdra blood. These distinctions are not real.’ Vedānta also says these differences are mere upādhis, attributes. They are superimpositions. What is real? Pure Spirit. In essence we are all one.
Max Müller
7. 'Now that which is that subtile essence (the root of all), in it all that exists has its self. It is the True. It is the Self, and thou, O Svetaketu, art it.' 'Please, Sir, inform me still more,' said the son. 'Be it so, my child,' the father replied.
1. O Somya, as bees produce honey by collecting the juice from various trees and mixing them together to make one juice—
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yathā, as; somya, O Somya; madhukṛtaḥ, bees; madhu nistiṣṭhanti, produce honey; nānātyayānām Commentary:-Śvetaketu was still having a hard time understanding, so his father gave another example:- You see bees going around to different places. They collect pollen from many different trees and put it all together to make honey. Can you distinguish which flower a particular drop of honey came from? No, The pollen has become mixed together to make the honey.
Max Müller
1. 'As the bees [1], my son, make honey by collecting the juices of distant trees, and reduce the juice into one form,
somyemāḥ sarvāḥ prajāḥ sati sampadya na viduḥ sati
sampadyāmaha iti .. 6.9.2 ..
2.—O Somya, and just as those juices now are no longer conscious of their separate identities, thinking, ‘I am the juice from such-and-such tree,’ and ‘I am the juice from such-and-such tree’; similarly, when all these beings attain unity in the Self, they are not conscious of it. They do not think, ‘We [were once separate, but] now we are all one with the Self’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Te, those [juices which have mixed together]; yathā tatra, now as [honey]; aham amuṣya vṛkṣasya rasaḥ asmi iti, I am the juice of such-and-such tree; aham amuṣya vṛkṣasya rasaḥ asmi iti, I am the juice of such-and-such tree; vivekam na labhante, this kind of consciousness [i.e., discrimination] they do not have; somya, O Somya; evarn eva, like this; khalu, surely; imāḥ sarvāḥ prajāḥ, all these beings; sati, in the Self [Brahman]; sampadya, having attained unity; sati sampadyāmahe, we are now all one with the Self; na viduḥ iti, are not conscious of this. Commentary:-Can a drop of honey say, ‘I am from one tree, and you are from another tree’? No, there is no such discrimination there. The pollen from different flowers becomes one mass of honey. Similarly, we may seem to come from different sources, but in essence we are all one. When we merge into pure Being, we are free from all such discriminating ideas. There is no more diversity there.
Max Müller
2. 'And as these juices have no discrimination, so that they might say, I am the juice of this tree or that, in the same manner, my son, all these creatures, when they have become merged in the True (either in deep sleep or in death), know not that they are merged in the True.
3. Whatever they were before in this world—whether a tiger or lion or leopard or boar or bug or insect or flea or mosquito—they are born again. [They never know that they came from Sat].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Te, these; iha, here [in this world]; vyāghraḥ vā, a tiger; siṃhaḥ vā, or a lion; vṛkaḥ vā, or a leopard; varāhaḥ vā, or a boar; kīṭaḥ vā, or a bug; pataṅgaḥ vā, or an insect; daṃśaḥ vā, or a flea; maśakaḥ vā, or a mosquito; yat yat, whatever; bhavanti, they are [before]; tat, that; ābhavanti, they are after [because they do not yet know the Self]. Commentary:-We are born again and again till we overcome our ignorance and attain Self-knowledge. Death, for an ignorant person, is not liberation. It is like going into deep sleep. And when you are reborn it is as if you are waking up. You die again and again, and again and again you are reborn. This goes on until you attain Self-knowledge. Once you know the Self, you are free—free from birth and death.
Max Müller
3. 'Whatever these creatures are here, whether a lion, or a wolf, or a boar, or a worm, or a midge, or a gnat, or a musquito, that they become again and again.
तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो इति भूय एव मा भगवान्विज्ञापयत्विति
तथा सोम्येति होवाच ॥ ६.९.४॥
sa ya eṣo'ṇimaitadātmyamidagͫ sarvaṃ tatsatyagͫ sa ātmā
tattvamasi śvetaketo iti bhūya eva mā bhagavānvijñāpayatviti
tathā somyeti hovāca .. 6.9.4..
4. ‘That which is the subtlest of all is the Self of all this. It is the Truth. It is the Self. That thou art, O Śvetaketu.’ [Śvetaketu then said,] ‘Sir, please explain this to me again.’ ‘Yes, Somya, I will explain it again,’ replied his father.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ, that which; eṣaḥ, this; aṇimā, the subtlest of all; idam sarvam aitadātmyam, the Self of all this; tat satyam, that is the Truth; saḥ ātmā, that is the Self; tat, that; tvam, you; asi, are; śvetaketo iti, O Śvetaketu; bhagavān, sir; bhūyaḥ eva, again; mā, to me; vijñāpayatu iti, will you please explain; tathā, so be it; somya iti, O Somya; ha uvāca, he [the father] said. Iti navamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the ninth section. Commentary:-“Tat tvam asi”—thou art that. This is called the mahāvākya, the great saying, it is the magic formula. If your mind has been purified, as soon as the mahāvākya is uttered your eyes are opened and you realize your own Self. But this can happen only after a long process of preparation. It does not come by a fluke. After years of hard work and after shedding many tears, at last one day your mind becomes pure and free from ego. You have attained cittaśuddhi, purification of the mind. Your mind is then like a clean mirror. Now there is a layer of dust on the Once you know who you are you can never be deluded. Can there be darkness where there is light? If you are really enlightened there can be no room for ignorance in your mind. But without cittaśuddhi, even if the teacher tells you that you are the Self, you will not believe it. You will think:- ‘No, that is nonsense. I am this body.’ The father is again telling Śvetaketu, ‘You are That,’ but still it is not clear to him. How does it become clear? First we must study the Upaniṣads. Then we have to try and grasp the ideas intellectually. So long as the teacher is giving us instructions the idea fascinates us. That’s fine, but it’s not enough. We must realize it. We must feel it in the very depth of our being. Spiritual knowledge does not come through an intellectual process. It’s something more, something deeper, something that touches the very root of our being. It’s an experience. When you have this experience you are totally transformed. You are not the same individual anymore.
Max Müller
4. 'Now that which is that subtile essence, in it all that exists has its self. It is the True. It is the Self, and thou, O Svetaketu, art it.' 'Please, Sir, inform me still more,' said the son. 'Be it so, my child,' the father replied.
पश्चात्प्रतीच्यस्ताः समुद्रात्समुद्रमेवापियन्ति स समुद्र
एव भवति ता यथा तत्र न विदुरियमहमस्मीयमहमस्मीति
॥ ६.१०.१॥
.. iti navamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ ..
imāḥ somya nadyaḥ purastātprācyaḥ syandante
paścātpratīcyastāḥ samudrātsamudramevāpiyanti sa samudra
eva bhavati tā yathā tatra na viduriyamahamasmīyamahamasmīti
.. 6.10.1..
1. O Somya, those rivers belonging to the east run to the east, and those belonging to the west run to the west. Rising from the sea, they go back to it and become one with it. Just as, when they reach the sea, they do not know their separate identities—‘I am this river,’ or ‘I am that river’—
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Imāḥ, these; somya, O Somya; nadyaḥ, rivers; purastāt, of the east; prācyaḥ syandante, flow to the east; pratīcyaḥ, of the west; paścāt, to the west; tāḥ, they; samudrāt, [rising] from the sea; samudram eva apiyanti, go to the sea; saḥ samudraḥ eva bhavati, become one with that sea; yathā, as; tatra, there; tāḥ, they; na viduḥ, do not know; iyam aham asmi iyam aham asmi iti, I am this [river], I am this [river]. Commentary:-Uddālaka gives another illustration. There are so many rivers in this country, and each originates from a different area. Ultimately, however, they all flow into the sea. They then lose their separate identities and become one with the sea. When the Ganga flows into the sea, you can no longer identify it as such. Can a drop of water in the sea say, ‘I am the Ganga,’ or ‘I am the Sindhu’? No. So also, when we die our sense of identity disappears temporarily. Then again, where did these rivers come from? They came from the sea. Sea water becomes vapour, rises, and forms into clouds. The clouds then go over the land and pour down rain, which eventually goes into the rivers and at last into the sea. The rivers come from the sea and go back to the sea. The sea is the source, but the rivers do not know this. This cycle is going on all the time. So also we come from pure Spirit and go back to pure Spirit, but we are not aware of it. We are only conscious of our separate identities. In dreamless sleep, our separate identities are wiped out for the time being. We sleep so soundly we do not even know we exist. We are then part of the Cosmic Self. Then when we wake up, we resume our separate identities again. Similarly, when we die, it is the body that dies. The individual self continues and is one with Existence. This does not mean liberation, however. We do not know that we have become one with Existence. It is as if we are in deep sleep. As the water rises from the sea and again falls down to become the Ganga or the Sindhu, so also, we again become some individual with a new body. Why are we not liberated? Because ignorance is there. When we die our ignorance is suspended for some time, and we are temporarily not conscious of our separate existence. But when we are reborn we resume our life from the point where we left off. We then have a new body but we retain all the impressions that we had in our previous life. These impressions manifest themselves again in our new birth because they have become part of our being. This is why we often find so much difference between one brother and another. Two brothers may be close in age but poles apart in temperament. One may be very studious, with scholarly inclinations, and the other may be very outgoing, more interested in sports and other activities. Even in terms of physical appearance they may be quite different. They are two separate identities. So, unless we attain Self-knowledge and become free, death is like going into deep sleep. It is a temporary pause in our life’s struggle. But the struggle must go on because of our ignorance.
Max Müller
1. 'These rivers, my son, run, the eastern (like the Gangâ) toward the east, the western (like the Sindhu) toward the west. They go from sea to sea (i. e. the clouds lift up the water from the sea to the sky, and send it back as rain to the sea). They become indeed sea. And as those rivers, when they are in the sea, do not know, I am this or that river,
2.—In the same way, O Somya, all these beings, having come from Sat [Brahman], never know this. They never think, ‘We have come from Sat.’ Whatever they were before in this world—whether a tiger or lion or leopard or boar or bug or insect or flea or mosquito—they are born again [according to their karma. They never know that they came from Sat].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Evam eva khalu, in the same way; somya, O Somya; imāḥ sarvāḥ prajāḥ, all these beings; sataḥ, from Sat [Brahman]; āgamya, having come; sataḥ āgacchāmahe iti, we have come from Sat; na viduḥ, do not know; te, these [beings]; iha, here [in this world]; vyāghraḥ vā, a tiger; siṃhaḥ vā, or a lion; vṛkaḥ vā, or a leopard; varāhaḥ vā, or a boar; kīṭaḥ vā, or a bug; pataṅgaḥ vā, or an insect; daṃśaḥ vā, or a flea; maśakaḥ vā, or a mosquito; yatyat, whatever; bhavanti, they are [before]; tat, that; ābhavanti, they are after [because they do not yet know the Self]. Commentary:-The Upaniṣad does not mean to imply in this example of the rivers that we are not divine now and we are trying to become divine. No, we are always divine. Whether we know it or not, we are never separate from pure Spirit. But it is our misfortune that we do not know it. Here the Upaniṣad is giving us a warning. Our goal is Self-knowledge. Death or deep sleep is not our goal.
Max Müller
2. 'In the same manner, my son, all these creatures, when they have come back from the True, know not that they have come back from the True. Whatever these creatures are here, whether a lion, or a wolf, or a boar, or a worm, or a midge, or a gnat, or a musquito, that they become again and again.
तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो इति भूय एव मा भगवान्विज्ञापयत्विति
तथा सोम्येति होवाच ॥ ६.१०.३॥
sa ya eṣo'ṇimaitadātmyamidagͫ sarvaṃ tatsatyagͫ sa ātmā
tattvamasi śvetaketo iti bhūya eva mā bhagavānvijñāpayatviti
tathā somyeti hovāca .. 6.10.3..
3. ‘That which is the subtlest of all is the Self of all this. It is the Truth. It is the Self. That thou art, O Śvetaketu.’ [Śvetaketu then said,] ‘Sir, please explain this to me again.’ ‘Yes, Somya, I will explain it again,’ replied his father.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ, that which; eṣaḥ, this; aṇimā, the subtlest of all; idam sarvam aitaḍātmyam, the Self of all this; tat satyam, that is the Truth; saḥ ātmā, that is the Self; tat, that; tvam, you; asi, are; śvetaketo iti, O Śvetaketu; bhagavān, sir; bhūyaḥ eva, again; mā, to me; vijñāpayatu iti, will you please explain; tathā, so be it; somya iti, O Somya; ha uvāca, he [the father] said. Iti daśamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the tenth section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
3. 'That which is that subtile essence, in it all that exists has its self. It is the True. It is the Self, and thou, O Svetaketu, art it.' 'Please, Sir, inform me still more,' said the son. 'Be it so, my child,' the father replied.
1-2. O Somya, if someone strikes at the root of a big tree, it will continue to live, though it may exude some juice. If he strikes at the middle, it will still live, though it may exude some juice. If he strikes at the top of the tree, it will survive, though it may exude some juice. Pervaded by the self, the tree will keep drinking juice and living happily. But if the self leaves a branch of a tree, that branch withers away and dies. If it leaves a second branch, that branch too will die. If it leaves a third branch, that branch also will die. If the self withdraws from the whole tree, then the whole tree will die.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Somya, O Somya; asya mahataḥ vṛkṣasya, of this big tree; yaḥ mūle abhyāhanyāt, [if] a person strikes at the root; jīvan, it [the tree] continues to live; sravet, [though] it exudes juice; yaḥ madhye abhyāhanyāt, [if] a person strikes in the middle; jīvan, it [the tree] continues to live; sravet, [though] it exudes juice; yaḥ agre abhyāhanyāt, [if] a person strikes at the top; jīvan, it [the tree] continues to live; sravet, [though] it exudes juice; saḥ eṣaḥ, this [tree]; jīvena ātmanā anuprabhūtaḥ, is pervaded by the living Self; pepīyamānaḥ, it continues drinking; modamānaḥ tiṣṭhati, [and] living happily, Yat, if; jīvaḥ, the self [life]; asya ekām śākhām, one branch of it [the tree]; jahāti, abandons; atha, then; sā śuṣyati, it [the branch] withers away; dvitīyām, a second [branch]; jahāti, [if] it leaves; atha sā śuṣyati, then it [the branch] withers away; tṛtīyām, a third [branch]; jahāti, [if] it leaves; atha sā śuṣyati, then it [the branch] withers away; sarvam jahāti, [if] it leaves all [the whole tree]; sarvaḥ śuṣyati, the whole tree withers away. Commentary:-Suppose you strike at a tree. If the tree is not dead, water will come out of the wound, and eventually the wound will heal. According to Vedānta, a tree is a living individual, like a human being. It has life; it has a self. As my self permeates the whole of my body, similarly, the self of a tree permeates the whole body of the tree. If one part of my body becomes paralyzed, it means that the self which previously permeated the whole of my body has withdrawn itself from that part. So also, if the self of a tree leaves a limb of the tree, that limb becomes dried up. The Upaniṣad is trying to say here that death merely means the withdrawal of the individual self from the whole body. Suppose you are living at a certain house. If you leave that house and move somewhere else, that house becomes vacant and useless. It’s exactly like that. When the Self leaves the body, the body becomes empty and useless.
Max Müller
1. 'If some one were to strike at the root of this large tree here, it would bleed, but live. If he were to strike at its stem, it would bleed, but live. If he were to strike at its top, it would bleed, but live. Pervaded by the living Self that tree stands firm, drinking in its nourishment and rejoicing;
2. 'But if the life (the living Self) leaves one of its branches, that branch withers; if it leaves a second, that branch withers; if it leaves a third, that branch withers. If it leaves the whole tree, the whole tree withers [1]. In exactly the same manner, my son, know this.' Thus he spoke:-
3. The father said; ‘O Somya, know this:- When the self leaves the body, the body surely dies. The self, however, never dies. That which is the subtlest of all is the Self of all this. It is the Truth. It is the Self. That thou art, O Śvetaketu.’ [Śvetaketu then said,] ‘Sir, please explain this to me again.’ ‘Yes, Somya, I will explain it again,’ replied his father.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Evam eva khalu, like this; somya, O Somya; viddhi, know; iti ha uvāca, he said; jīva-apetam, deserted by the self; idam, this [body]; vāva kila mriyate, is truly dead; jīvaḥ na mriyate, the self never dies; saḥ yaḥ, that which; eṣaḥ, this; aṇimā, the subtlest of all; idam sarvam aitadātmyam, the Self of all this; tat satyam, that is the Truth; saḥ ātmā, that is the Self; tat, that; tvam, you; asi, are; śvetaketo iti, O Śvetaketu; bhagavān, sir; bhūyaḥ eva, again; mā, to me; vijñāpayatu iti, will you please explain; tathā, so be it; somya iti, O Somya; ha uvāca, he [the father] said. Iti ekādaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the eleventh section. Commentary:-The self is immortal. It is the body that dies, and it dies when the self leaves it. Suppose you go to sleep leaving some of your work incomplete. As soon as you wake up, you remember that it was not finished, and you immediately start doing the work from where you left off. Your sleep was like the death of your body, for it was inactive and you were totally unconscious of your body. But the self never dies, and that is why when you wake up you remember your work is unfinished. Whether you are awake or asleep, you are the same self. The self never changes. You may have seen how a new-born kitten behaves. It knows where to get its mother’s milk. No one teaches it, but how does it know? It knows from its past life. Some of the scriptures say to perform sacrifices such as the Agnihotra. They say we will be duly rewarded for this. But we are asked to perform them to the last day of our life. If we perform them till we die, when are we going to get the reward? Obviously in our future life. The individual is born again and again to receive rewards and punishments, but the real Self remains the same.
Max Müller
3. 'This (body) indeed withers and dies when the living Self has left it; the living Self dies not. 'That which is that subtile essence, in it all that exists has its self. It is the True. It is the Self, and thou, Svetaketu, art it.' 'Please, Sir, inform me still more,' said the son. 'Be it so, my child,' the father replied.
1. Uddālaka said, ‘Bring me a fruit from this banyan tree.’ Śvetaketu replied, ‘I have brought it, sir.’ Uddālaka:- ‘Break it.’ Śvetaketu:- ‘I’ve broken it, sir.’ Uddālaka:- ‘What do you see inside?’ Śvetaketu:- ‘There are tiny seeds, sir.’ Uddālaka:- ‘Break one of them, my son.’ Śvetaketu:- ‘Sir, I’ve broken it.’ Uddālaka:- ‘What do you see in it?’ Śvetaketu:- ‘Nothing, sir’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Nyagrodha-phalam ataḥ āhara iti, [Uddālaka said,] bring me a fruit from this banyan tree; idam bhagavaḥ iti, [Śvetaketu replied,] here it is, sir; bhinddhi iti, break it; bhinnam bhagavaḥ iti, I have broken it sir; kim atra paśyasi iti, what do you see in it; aṇvyaḥ iva imāḥ dhānāḥ, these tiny seeds; bhagavaḥ iti, sir; āsām ekām bhinddhi, break one of them; aṅga iti, my child; bhinnā bhagavaḥ iti, it is broken, sir; kim atra paśyasi iti, what do you see in it; na kiñcana bhagavaḥ iti, nothing, sir. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
1. 'Fetch me from thence a fruit of the Nyagrodha tree.' 'Here is one, Sir.' Break it.' 'It is broken, Sir.' 'What do you see there?' 'These seeds, almost infinitesimal.' 'Break one of them.' 'It is broken, Sir.' 'What do you see there?' 'Not anything, Sir.'
tagͫ hovāca yaṃ vai somyaitamaṇimānaṃ na nibhālayasa
etasya vai somyaiṣo'ṇimna evaṃ mahānyagrodhastiṣṭhati
śraddhatsva somyeti .. 6.12.2..
2. Uddālaka said:- ‘O Somya, the finest part in that seed is not visible to you. But in that finest part lies hidden the huge banyan tree. Have faith in what I say, O Somya’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tam, to him [his son]; ha uvāca, [Uddālaka] said; somya, O Somya; etam vai aṇimānam, that subtle part; yam na nibhālayase, which you do not see; etasya vai, of this very; aṇimnaḥ, subtle part; somya, O Somya; eṣaḥ mahānyagrodhaḥ, this big banyan tree; tiṣṭhati, exists; śraddhatsva somya iti, have faith [in what I say], O Somya. Commentary:-A banyan tree is such a huge tree, but its seed is very tiny. If you split open the seed what do you see? Nothing. Yet the essence of that big tree is there in that tiny seed. How do you know? If you put the seed in the ground, very soon a sprout will appear. Then that sprout will grow and gradually become a big tree. Though there seems to be nothing inside the seed, the essence of the tree must be there; otherwise a tree could not grow from it. Then the father says, ‘Have śraddhā, faith—faith in what I am saying.’ Śaṅkara says that faith makes the mind concentrated. If your mind is restless and always running after sense pleasures, you will never realize the Self. How can a mind that is outgoing and attached to gross external things, see that which is fine? It can’t. In the Kaṭha Upaniṣad, Yama said to Naciketā that our senses are all outgoing. The eyes, the ears, the mind—they are all going to the sense objects. We must reverse the process—that is, we must turn the senses inward. But this is very difficult to do if you lack faith. Sri Ramakrishna used to say that the mind was like a bag of mustard seeds. Suppose there is a leak in a bag of mustard seeds. The mustard seeds will fall out and be scattered all over the place, and it is then very difficult to gather them up again. Similarly, the leak in the bag is like our attachment to sense enjoyments. Once the mind is scattered on external things, it is difficult to bring it back and focus it on the Self. But if you have faith—faith that the Self is the Reality—then it becomes easy to concentrate the mind. Once you have control over the mind, you can grasp the subtleties of spiritual truths very quickly. In fact, it is said that the Truth reveals itself to you. This is quite rational. If you really want to know something, your mind will automatically be focussed on it. And if you are not interested, your mind will be elsewhere. You may be sitting in front of the teacher, but if your mind is on a cricket game you will not hear anything the teacher says.
Max Müller
2. The father said:- 'My son, that subtile essence which you do not perceive there, of that very essence this great Nyagrodha tree exists.
तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो इति भूय एव मा भगवान्विज्ञापयत्विति
तथा सोम्येति होवाच ॥ ६.१२.३॥
sa ya eṣo'ṇimaitadātmyamidadgͫ sarvaṃ tatsatyagͫ sa ātmā
tattvamasi śvetaketo iti bhūya eva mā bhagavānvijñāpayatviti
tathā somyeti hovāca .. 6.12.3..
3. ‘That which is the subtlest of all is the Self of all this. It is the Truth. It is the Self. That thou art, O Śvetaketu.’ [Śvetaketu then said,] ‘Sir, please explain this to me again.’ ‘Yes, Somya, I will explain it again,’ replied his father.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ, that which; eṣaḥ, this; aṇimā, the subtlest of all; idam sarvam aitadātmyam, the Self of all this; tat satyam, that is the Truth; saḥ ātmā, that is the Self; tat, that; tvam, you; asi, are; śvetaketo iti, O Śvetaketu; bhagavān, sir; bhūyaḥ eva, again; mā, to me; vijñāpayatu iti, will you please explain; tathā, so be it; somya iti, O Somya; ha uvāca, he [the father] said. Iti dvādaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the twelfth section. Commentary:-This idea is very difficult to grasp, but how much patience the father has. Now Śvetaketu has another doubt:- You say that the Self exists, but it cannot be seen. You say it is aṇimā, extremely fine—finer than an atom. Yet everything has come from the Self. How then did the Self become so gross? How did it become this physical universe that we can see? Here we must remember the principle of cause and effect. The cause becomes the effect. The cause is subtle, fine, but when it becomes the effect it becomes gross. The tiny seed becomes the vast banyan tree. The Self manifests itself as everything that exists. The goal of life is to realize the Self. Life is useless otherwise. This is why Śvetaketu keeps bothering his father. Again and again he says, ‘Father, please explain further.’ Uddālaka is patient. The relationship between the Self and the world is quite a riddle. How the invisible Self becomes the visible world is difficult to comprehend. The example of the seed and the banyan tree helps, but it is still not clear, so Śvetaketu pesters his father for more explanation. His father then tells him to have faith. ‘Faith’ means faith in the teacher, in the scriptures, and even in oneself. Faith is what at last clears all doubts.
Max Müller
3. 'Believe it, my son. That which is the subtile essence, in it all that exists has its self. It is the True. It is the Self, and thou, O Svetaketu, art it.' 'Please, Sir, inform me still more,' said the son. 'Be it so, my child,' the father replied.
sa ha tathā cakāra tagͫ hovāca yaddoṣā lavaṇamudake'vādhā
aṅga tadāhareti taddhāvamṛśya na viveda .. 6.13.1..
1-2. [Uddālaka said,] ‘Put this lump of salt into water and come to me in the morning.’ Śvetaketu did as he was told. Uddālaka said to him, ‘My son, bring me the salt that you put in the water.’ Śvetaketu looked, but he could not find it, as the salt had dissolved in the water. [Uddālaka said,] ‘My son, drink the water at the surface.’ [Śvetaketu did that, and Uddālaka asked,] ‘How does it taste?’ [Śvetaketu replied,] ‘It is saline.’ [Uddālaka then said:-] ‘Drink it from the middle. How does it taste?’ ‘It is saline.’ ‘Drink it from the bottom. How does it taste?’ ‘It is saline.’ ‘Throw the water away and then come to me.’ Śvetaketu did so. The father said to him:-
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Lavaṇam etat, this salt; udake, in water; avadhāya, put; atha mā, then to me; prātaḥ, in the morning; upasīdathāḥ iti, come; saḥ, he [Śvetaketu]; tathā, that way; ha cakāra, did; tam ha uvāca, he said to him [to Śvetaketu]; yat lavaṇam, that salt which; doṣā, at night; udake avādhāḥ, you put into water; aṅga, my son; tat, that; āhara iti, bring it back; tat, that; ha avamṛśya, having searched for; na viveda, he did not find, Yathā, since; vilīnam eva, it had disappeared [in the water]; aṅga, my son; asya antāt ācāma iti, drink from its surface; katham iti, how is it; lavaṇam iti, saline; madhyāt ācāma iti, drink from the middle; katham iti, how is it; lavaṇam iti, saline; antāt ācāma iti, drink from the bottom; katham iti, how is it; lavaṇam iti, saline; abhiprāya etat, throw this away; atha mā upasīdathāḥ iti, then come to me; tat ha tathā cakāra, he did likewise; tat, that [salinity]; śaśvat, always; saṃvartate, prevails everywhere; tam ha uvāca, he said to him [to Śvetaketu]; atra vāva kila, here [in this body]; somya, O Somya; sat, the self [exists]; na nibhālayase, [but] you do not see it; atra eva kila iti, here [in the body]. Commentary:-‘There is salt in every part of the water, yet you cannot see it. Similarly, O Somya, Sat [the Self] is here in this body, yet you cannot see it in the body.’ The question that is being examined is, why are we not able to perceive the Self, which is the essence of our being? It is because the Self is all-pervasive. The Self and I are one and the same. If the Self were something separate from me, then I could see it. Can I see myself? I can see myself if I have a mirror—something else. But there is nothing but the Self, so how can I see it? It’s not possible. Because you don’t see something that doesn’t mean it does not exist. The process of seeing involves separate entities:- the seer and the seen—that is, the subject and the object. These two must be separate. Then only the process of seeing can take place. But if there is only one, who sees whom? The Upaniṣad gives two examples of how things may exist that we do not perceive. One is of the banyan tree and the seed, and the other is of salt in water. Suppose you put a lump of salt in a glass of water. Soon the salt dissolves. You no longer see it, but that doesn’t mean it is not there. If you taste the water you will find that it tastes salty throughout. Similarly, just because we do not see the Self, that doesn’t prove it does not exist. Reality is not something that is perceptible to our sense organs. It is vākyamanātīta—beyond speech and mind, beyond thought. Words fail to describe it and our mind cannot grasp it, because it is so fine, so subtle. The Self is not something on the relative plane that we can see or touch. Our sense organs are very limited. Our eyes can see things only up to a point and beyond that they cannot see any more. There are many things around us that our eyes cannot see. Similarly with our hearing and other organs. So, in order to perceive the Self we must go beyond the relative plane to the transcendental level. Śaṅkara says that this body is a product of food (or, earth), water, and fire, and the Self is within this body. Though you cannot see the Self, it permeates the body—just as the salt permeates the water
Max Müller
1. 'Place this salt in water, and then wait on me in the morning.' The son did as he was commanded. The father said to him:- 'Bring me the salt, which you placed in the water last night.' The son having looked for it, found it not, for, of course, it was melted.
vāva kila tatsomya na nibhālayase'traiva kileti .. 6.13.2..
Max Müller
2. The father said:- 'Taste it from the surface of the water. How is it?' The son replied:- 'It is salt.' 'Taste it from the middle. How is it?' The son replied:- 'It is salt.' 'Taste it from the bottom. How is it?' The son replied 'It is salt.' The father said Throw it away [1] and then wait on me.' He did so; but salt exists for ever. Then the father said:- 'Here also, in this body, forsooth, you do not perceive the True (Sat), my son; but there indeed it is.
तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो इति भूय एव मा भगवान्विज्ञापयत्विति
तथा सोम्येति होवाच ॥ ६.१३.३॥
sa ya eṣo'ṇimaitadātmyamidagͫ sarvaṃ tatsatyagͫ sa ātmā
tattvamasi śvetaketo iti bhūya eva mā bhagavānvijñāpayatviti
tathā somyeti hovāca .. 6.13.3..
3. ‘That which is the subtlest of all is the Self of all this. It is the Truth. It is the Self. That thou art, O Śvetaketu.’ [Śvetaketu then said,] ‘Sir, please explain this to me again.’ ‘Yes, Somya, I will explain it again,’ replied his father.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ, that which; eṣaḥ, this; aṇimā, the subtlest of all; idam sarvam aitadātmyam, the Self of all this; tat satyam, that is the Truth; saḥ ātmā, that is the Self; tat, that; tvam, you; asi, are; śvetaketo iti, O Śvetaketu; bhagavān, sir; bhūyaḥ era, again; mā, to me; vijñāpayatu iti, will you please explain; tathā, so be it; somya iti, O Somya; ha uvāca, he [the father] said. Iti trayodaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the thirteenth section. Commentary:-Again, the same idea:- Just as salt is everywhere in the glass of water, pervading all the particles of the water, so also, the Self is all-pervasive. It is the essence. That is the Reality, and you are that.
Max Müller
3. 'That which is the subtile essence, in it all that exists has its self. It is the True. It is the Self, and thou, O Svetaketu, art it.' 'Please, Sir, inform me still more,' said the son. 'Be it so, my child,' the father replied.
1. O Somya, as when a person is brought blindfolded from the Gandhāra country and left in a deserted place, he turns sometimes to the east, sometimes to the north, sometimes to the south, and sometimes to the west, shouting:- ‘I have been brought here blindfolded! I have been left here blindfolded!’—
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yathā, just as; somya, O Somya; puruṣam, a person, gandhārebhyaḥ, from the Gandhāra region; abhinaddha-akṣam-ānīya, is brought blindfolded; tataḥ, from there; tam visṛjet, [and] leaves him; atijane, in a deserted place; yathā, as; saḥ, he; tatra, there; prāṅ vā, facing the east; udaṅ vā, or facing the north; adharāṅ vā, or facing the south; pratyaṅ vā, or facing the west; pradhmāyīta, shouts; abhinaddhākṣaḥ ānītaḥ, I have been brought blindfolded; abhinaddhākṣaḥ visṛṣṭaḥ, I have been left blindfolded. Commentary:-The Upaniṣad is trying to convey a very difficult idea, but fortunately it gives many illustrations. Here is another one:- Suppose you have been seized by some robbers. They put a blindfold on your eyes and then take you away into the forest and leave you there. Perhaps the forest is infested with wild animals. Somehow or other you have to get out, but you don’t know where you are and you can’t see anything. What do you do? You run around in every direction, shouting:- ‘I am so-and-so. I belong to such-and-such village. I can’t see anything. Please help me get out of here.’ Then at last someone takes pity on you and leads you out of the forest. That someone is the teacher. You are ignorant and don’t know the way. You don’t know how to reach God, how to attain the Truth. But someone has compassion on you—someone who knows the way. You say, ‘I must go back home.’ But what is this home? It is the Self. The small self wants to return to the Cosmic Self. It is as if the self is alienated from itself—as if there is a barrier between one self and the other. The individual self and the Cosmic Self are the same, but there seems to be a barrier between them. We have to remove that barrier.
Max Müller
1. 'As one might lead a person with his eyes covered away from the Gandhâras [1], and leave him then in a place where there are no human beings; and as that person would turn towards the east, or the north, or the west, and shout, "I have been brought here with my eyes covered, I have been left here with my eyes covered,"
2.—And as someone may remove that person’s blindfold and say, ‘Gandhāra is this way; go this way,’ and the intelligent man goes from one village to another, asking his way and relying on the information people give, until he reaches Gandhāra; similarly, a person who gets a teacher attains knowledge. His delay is only as long as he is not free of his body. After that he becomes merged in the Self.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yathā, as; tasya, his; abhinahanam, blindfold; pramucya, having removed; prabrūyāt, someone says; etām diśam, this way; gandhārāḥ, is the Gandhāra country; etām diśam vraja iti, go this way; saḥ, he; grāmāt grāmam pṛcchan, asking from village to village; paṇḍitaḥ medhāvī, the enlightened person who gets knowledge [of what direction to go in]; gandhārān eva upasampadyeta, reaches Gandhāra itself; evam eva, in the same way; iha, in this world; puruṣaḥ veda, a person knows; ācāryavān, guided by a teacher; tasya, his; tāvat eva, that long; ciram, delay; yāvat, as long as; na vimokṣye, he is hot free [from the body]; atha sampatsye iti, then he becomes merged in the Self. Commentary:-The question being considered here is, if I am ignorant how will my ignorance be removed? It can be removed through the instructions of a teacher. But he must be a competent teacher. Can a blind person lead another blind person? No. There is sure to be a disaster if they try. In this verse the Upaniṣad gives an example of a person led blindfolded into a forest and left there. We are like that person. We are blind, ignorant, and we are unhappy and suffer because of our ignorance. This world of attachment is like a dense forest. Though it is self-created, we do not know the way out. We need someone to help us—someone who knows the way. We need a good teacher. Śaṅkara says the word medhāvī means one who is capable of understanding. You may have a good teacher, and you may have been given instructions, but you have to use your intelligence also. Now suppose you have a good teacher and you have attained Self-knowledge. According to Vedānta, when you attain Self-knowledge you automatically attain liberation. But the Upaniṣad says there is still one snag. What is that snag? Our prārabdha karma. Karma means the results of our actions. If I do something good, I will experience a good result; and if I do something bad, I must suffer. Vedānta says, there are three kinds of karma. One kind is called sañcita karma. It is our karma that has been accumulated from one birth to another. We have done so many things, and all these actions are waiting to bear fruit. Another kind of karma is called āgāmī karma. While we are experiencing the fruits of our past actions, we are also creating new karma now by our present actions. Some of these actions will bear fruit immediately, but others will take time. The third kind of karma is called prārabdha karma. It is that which has already started bearing fruit in our present life. According to Vedānta, if you have attained Self-knowledge, both your sañcita karma and your āgāmī karma are destroyed. Śaṅkara says they are burned in the fire of knowledge (jñānāgni). But your prārabdha karma will continue. It is the momentum. If you are to suffer from cancer or something else, you cannot escape it. You have to wait till your prārabdha karma exhausts itself. There are two examples of prārabdha karma. One example is:- Suppose you are sawing a tree down. You saw it through completely, but it keeps standing there. It does not immediately fall down. Then a little breeze comes and it falls over. Prārabdha is like the tree standing for a while before falling down. Then there is the example of the arrow that has been shot. Once you shoot an arrow, you cannot call it back. The same is the case with prārabdha karma. It goes on till the force that has put it into motion is expended. Now, if you have attained Self-knowledge, your actions will not be like those of an ordinary person. Whatever you do from then on is for the good of others. Śaṅkara says a liberated person does nothing out of desire. If you do something out of desire, that action binds you, even if it is something good. Very often a person does something good out of desire for fame, for power, or for some other selfish motive. A liberated person, according to Śaṅkara, will do nothing that is against the spirit of the scriptures. His actions will always be right. And they will be only for the good of others (lokahitārtham), or for God (Īśvarārtham).
Max Müller
2. 'And as thereupon some one might loose his bandage and say to him, "Go in that direction, it is Gandhâra, go in that direction;" and as thereupon, having been informed and being able to judge for himself, he would by asking his way from village to village arrive at last at Gandhâra,--in exactly the same manner does a man, who meets with a teacher to inform him, obtain the true knowledge [1]. For him there is only delay so long as he is not delivered (from the body); then he will be perfect [2].
तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो इति भूय एव मा भगवान्विज्ञापयत्विति
तथा सोम्येति होवाच ॥ ६.१४.३॥
sa ya eṣo'ṇimaitadātmyamidagͫ sarvaṃ tatsatyagͫ sa ātmā
tattvamasi śvetaketo iti bhūya eva mā bhagavānvijñāpayatviti
tathā somyeti hovāca .. 6.14.3..
3. ‘That which is the subtlest of all is the Self of all this. It is the Truth. It is the Self. That thou art, O Śvetaketu.’ [Śvetaketu then said,] ‘Sir, please explain this to me again.’ ‘Yes, Somya, I will explain it again,’ replied his father.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ, that which; eṣaḥ, this; aṇimā, the subtlest of all; idam sarvam aitadātmyam, the Self of all this; tat satyam, that is the Truth; saḥ ātmā, that is the Self; tat, that; tvam, you; asi, are; śvetaketo iti, O Śvetaketu; bhagavān, sir; bhūyaḥ eva, again; mā, to me; vijñāpayatu iti, will you please explain; tathā, so be it; somya iti, O Somya; ha uvāca, he [the father] said. Iti caturdaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the fourteenth section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
3. 'That which is the subtile essence, in it all that exists has its self. It is the True. It is the Self, and thou, O Svetaketu, art it.' 'Please, Sir, inform me still more,' said the son. 'Be it so, my child,' the father replied.
1. When a person is seriously ill, O Somya, his relatives sit around him and ask:- ‘Do you recognize me? Do you recognize me?’ So long as his speech does not merge with his mind, his mind with his prāṇa, his prāṇa with the heat in his body, and the heat with the Supreme Self, he will be able to recognize them.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Puruṣam, a person; uta, also; somya, O Somya; upatāpinam, who is sick; jñātayaḥ, relatives; pari-upāsate, sit around him; jānāsi mām jānāsi mām iti, saying ‘Do you recognize me, do you recognize me?’; yāvaṭ, so long as; tasya, his; vāk, speech; manasi na sampadyate, does not merge in his mind; manaḥ prāṇe, the mind into prāṇa; prāṇaḥ tejasi, prāṇa into heat; tejaḥ parasyām devatāyām, heat into the Supreme Deity; tāvat jānāti, that long he knows [them]. Commentary:-The Upaniṣad has previously said that from the Self comes heat, from heat comes prāṇa (the life force), from prāṇa comes the mind, and from the mind comes speech. Then at the time of death, these things go back in the reverse order—speech goes back into the mind, etc. The resting place is the Self, Pure Spirit. Everything goes back there, and everything comes from there. When a person is dying, it is common for his relatives to gather round and ask the person, ‘Do you recognize me?’ How long does he recognize them? So long as heat has not left the body. Even though his breathing has stopped, as long as the body is warm, the person is still alive.
Max Müller
1. 'If a man is ill, his relatives assemble round him and ask:- "Dost thou know me? Dost thou know me?" Now as long as his speech is not merged in his mind, his mind in breath, breath in heat (fire), heat in the Highest Being (devatâ), he knows them.
tejaḥ parasyāṃ devatāyāmatha na jānāti .. 6.15.2..
2. Then when his speech merges into his mind, his mind into prāṇa, his prāṇa into the heat in his body, and the heat into the Supreme Self, he no longer knows them.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, then; yadā, when; asya, his; vāk manasi sampadyate, speech merges into the mind; manaḥ prāṇe, the mind into prāṇa; prāṇaḥ tejasi, prāṇa into heat; tejaḥ parasyām devatāyām, heat into the Supreme Self; atha na jānāti, then he does not know. Commentary:-After heat leaves the body, a person can no longer recognize anyone. Heat merges in the Self. The Self is the final resting place. Then what is the difference between the death of an ignorant person and the death of one who has attained Self-knowledge? Śaṅkara says a person who is ignorant merges in the Self only to re-emerge again and be reborn. But when a person who is enlightened dies, that is his mokṣa, his liberation. Why are we born again and again? Because we have unfulfilled desires. Suppose we die now—what happens to those desires? They have to be fulfilled, so again we seek a body. Perhaps we want to be rich, or we want to rule over people, or we want to eat good food, or we want to be a great scholar. Unless we have a body, we cannot fulfil these desires. But our goal is desirelessness. Only when we become desireless can we attain Self-knowledge. Holy Mother, Sri Sarada Devi, used to say, ‘If you have to pray for anything, pray for desirelessnes But some people say:- ‘What’s the harm in being reborn? Life is fun.’ The scriptures say:- ‘All right, go ahead. But how long will the fun last? At some point you will be tired of all this and realize what a bondage life is. Then you will seek liberation from this cycle of birth and death.’ On the other hand, there are a few people who, after becoming free themselves, want to help others become free. In Mahāyāna Buddhism, these people are called bodhisattvas. They have knowledge, but as long as others are suffering, they will not take the benefit of that knowledge to attain final release. They will return to this world for the good of others. There is a very interesting story about Rāmānuja, the expounder of Viśiṣṭādvaita (qualified monism). When Rāmānuja was initiated, his guru said to him:- ‘You see, this is a very great mantra. You must keep it a secret and not tell it to others.’ Then Rāmānuja asked, ‘What would happen if others hear this mantra?’ The teacher answered, ‘They would all be liberated, but you would go to hell.’ As soon as Rāmānuja left his teacher, he went to the top of a temple tower and called all the people to come. When everyone had gathered there, he repeated the mantra to them all. This is the ideal. There is a theory called sarvamuktivāda—all shall be liberated together. That is to say, I do not want to be liberated until all are liberated. Sri Ramakrishna used to say that some people are very selfish. Even when they go to a public feast they enjoy it themselves and then quietly leave without telling others about it. But there are others who, as soon as they hear about it, gather everyone together to enjoy it with them. One day Swami Vivekananda went to Sri Ramakrishna and begged him to let him remain absorbed in samādhi. But Sri Ramakrishna scolded him, saying:- ‘I thought you would be like a big banyan tree, giving shade and rest to many people who are scorched by the This is the ideal—to be like that tree, to make no distinction between a good person and a bad person, to be ready to give relief to everyone, whether friend or foe. That is a bodhisattva. When you have that ideal you do not care for your own liberation. That is true selflessness. What we have to remember is that we are all one in the Self. Unless we are conscious of this, we are not liberated.
Max Müller
2. 'But when his speech is merged in his mind, his mind in breath, breath in heat (fire), heat in the Highest Being, then he knows them not.
तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो इति भूय एव मा भगवान्विज्ञापयत्विति
तथा सोम्येति होवाच ॥ ६.१५.३॥
sa ya eṣo'ṇimaitadātmyamidagͫ sarvaṃ tat satyagͫ sa ātmā
tattvamasi śvetaketo iti bhūya eva mā bhagavānvijñāpayatviti
tathā somyeti hovāca .. 6.15.3..
3. ‘That which is the subtlest of all is the Self of all this. It is the Truth. It is the Self. That thou art, O Śvetaketu.’ [Śvetaketu then said,] ‘Sir, please explain this to me again.’ ‘Yes, Somya, I will explain it again,’ replied his father.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ, that which; eṣaḥ, this; aṇimā, the subtlest of all; idam sarvam aitadātmyam, the Self of all this; tat satyam, that is the Truth; saḥ ātmā, that is the Self; tat, that; tvam, you; asi, are; śvetaketo iti, O Śvetaketu; bhagavān, sir; bhūyaḥ eva, again; mā, to me; vijñāpayatu iti, will you please explain; tathā, so be it; somya iti, O Somya; ha uvāca, he [the father] said. Iti pañcadaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the fifteenth section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
3. 'That which is the subtile essence, in it all that exists has its self. It is the True. It is the Self, and thou, O Svetaketu, art it.' 'Please, Sir, inform me still more,' said the son.' 'Be it so, my child,' the father replied.
tapateti sa yadi tasya kartā bhavati tata evānṛtamātmānaṃ
kurute so'nṛtābhisaṃdho'nṛtenātmānamantardhāya
paraśuṃ taptaṃ pratigṛhṇāti sa dahyate'tha hanyate .. 6.16.1..
1. O Somya, suppose a man is brought with his hands tied, and they say:- ‘This man has stolen something. He has committed robbery. Heat up an axe for him.’ If he has committed the offence, then surely he will prove himself to be a liar. Being dishonest and trying to hide under the cover of falsehood, he will be burned when he grasps the hot axe, and then he will be killed.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Somya, O Somya; puruṣam, a person; hastagṛhītam, with his hands tied; ānayanti, they bring; apahārṣīt, he has stolen something; steyam akārṣīt, he has committed robbery; paraśum, an axe; asmai, for him; tapata iti, heat; yadi, if; saḥ, he; kartā tasya bhavati, is the one who has done it; tataḥ, then; eva, surely; anṛtam, false [a liar]; ātmānam kurute, proves himself; anṛta-abhisandhaḥ, having a dishonest character; saḥ ātmānam, he himself; anṛtena, by falsehood; antardhāya, under the cover [of falsehood]; paraśum taptam, the hot axe; pratigṛhṇāti, grasps; saḥ dahyate, he gets burned; atha hanyate, then he dies. Commentary:-What is liberation? Liberation is the state in which I know I am the Self—I know that I am never born and will never die. When I know that I am free, then I am aptakāma, fully satisfied. There is nothing more to achieve, because nothing more exists outside of myself. If there is something outside myself, then I might think, ‘Oh, let me have that.’ But if I am everything, if everything exists within me, what is there to desire? Sarvam khalu idam brahma—all this is Brahman. And I am that Brahman. I am free, immortal. There is no more birth and death for me. Now here the question arises, what is the test of whether you have Self-knowledge or not? The Upaniṣad gives another illustration:- Suppose someone is brought to you and you are told he has committed a theft. You ask him if he has done it and he denies it. But all the evidence seems to point to him as the culprit. What do you do? In ancient days they had a test, a rather cruel test. They put the blade of an axe in fire, and when it was very hot they would put it against the hand of the suspect. If his hand was burnt he was considered guilty, because he was covered, as it were, by falsehood. And if his hand was not burnt he was considered innocent, because he was protected by truth. Similarly, if we do not have Self-knowledge, we will continue to bum in this world. We will be born again and again. But if we have attained Self-knowledge, we will be liberated. Truth will set us free. Self-knowledge is not something you can demonstrate or take out and show. The only proof of it is that we do not have to continue in this cycle of birth and death. Nevertheless, when a person attains Self-knowledge, he is not the same any more. His attitude towards others changes. For instance, he can never hurt anyone, because if he hurts someone he hurts himself. Then again, no one is a stranger to him. He accepts everyone. If someone is happy, he is happy. If someone is in pain, he is also in pain. If someone has done well, he feels proud of that person—as if it is his own success. He can never be jealous, because he feels one with everybody.
Max Müller
1. 'My child, they bring a man hither whom they have taken by the hand, and they say:- "He has taken something, he has committed a theft." (When he denies, they say), "Heat the hatchet for him." If he committed the theft, then he makes himself to be what he is not. Then the false-minded, having covered his true Self by a falsehood, grasps the heated hatchet--he is burnt, and he is killed.
sa satyābhisandhaḥ satyenātmānamantardhāya paraśuṃ taptaṃ
pratigṛhṇāti sana dahyate'tha mucyate .. 6.16.2..
2. But if he has not committed the offence, then surely he will prove himself to be truthful. Being honest, he will be protected by the cover of truth and will not be burned when he grasps the hot axe. He will then be set free.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, but; yadi, if; akartā tasya bhavati, he is not the one who has done it; tataḥ, then; eva, surely; satyam, truthful; ātmānam kurute, proves himself; satya-abhisandhaḥ, having an honest character; saḥ ātmānam, he himself; satyena, by truth; antardhāya, under the cover [of truth]; paraśum taptam, the hot axe; pratigṛhṇāti, grasps; saḥ na dahyate, he does not get burned; atha mucyate, then he is set free. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
2. 'But if he did not commit the theft, then he makes himself to be what he is. Then the true-minded, having covered his true Self by truth, grasps the heated hatchet--he is not burnt, and he is delivered.
3. ‘That man, being honest, is not affected by the hot axe. That [Self] is the Self of all this. It is the Truth. It is the Self. That thou art, O Śvetaketu.’ Śvetaketu learnt this well from his father.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yathā, as; saḥ, he; tatra, in such circumstances; na adāhyet, is not burned; idam sarvarn aitadātmyam, the Self of all this; tat satyam, that is the Truth; saḥ ātmā, that is the Self; tat, that; tvam, you; asi, are; śvetaketo iti, O Śvetaketu; asya, from him [his father]; tat ha, that [Self]; vijajñau iti, he clearly learnt; vijajñau iti, he clearly leamt. Iti ṣoḍaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the sixteenth section. Iti chāndogyopaniṣadi ṣaṣṭhaḥ adhyāyaḥ, here ends the sixth chapter of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad. Commentary:-“Idam sarvam”—all this. ‘This’ refers to this phenomenal world which we see, with which we are familiar. Please remember, even in this unreal phenomenal world that one unchangeable essence exists. Tat satyam—that is the Reality. Sri Ramakrishna used to give the example of pillows. Pillows may be different sizes, different shapes, and have different functions, but inside all of them is the same silk-cotton, the same essence. Similarly, within this phenomenal world there is one essence, one Reality. And that is our Self. Tat tvam asi—you are that. This chapter stresses the idea that there is something—we call it pure Spirit—from which everything has emerged, on which everything rests, and into which everything finally merges. There is something common from which we have all come, on which we all rest, and into which we all go back. That something is always constant. Think of the ocean, for example. Where do the waves come from? The ocean. What supports them? The ocean. Where do they finally go? Back to the ocean. This coming and going, back and forth—we see this happening all the time, with everything. We are born, we remain for a while, and then we die. Over and over again—we come from Brahman, we are sustained by Brahman, and we go back to Brahman. But all the time we are that Brahman. As the waves are nothing but the ocean, similarly, we are nothing but Brahman. Sri Ramakrishna used to say that the relative and the Absolute are the same. The Absolute is compared to a snake coiled up, sleeping on the ground, and the relative is like a snake in motion, raising its hood. But when everything disappears, when there is no phenomenal world, what remains? We do not know. There is a vast, infinite One. We cannot describe it, because it has no name and no form. How can you describe something that is nameless and formless? Suppose you say ‘white.’ Can you understand ‘white’ without a white object? There must be a particularization. A white flower, or a white shirt, we can understand. Similarly, how can we understand pure Existence? This is why the Upaniṣad simply calls it tat, that. Vedānta says that the One has become many, but this many does not make a real modification or change in the One. The One remains One. It only appears to be many.
Max Müller
3. 'As that (truthful) man is not burnt, thus has all that exists its self in That. It is the True. It is the Self, and thou, O Svetaketu, art it.' He understood what he said, yea, he understood it.
hovāca yadvettha tena mopasīda tatasta ūrdhvaṃ vakṣyāmīti
sa hovāca .. 7.1.1..
1. Nārada went [for spiritual instruction] to Sanatkumāra and said, ‘Sir, please teach me.’ Sanatkumāra said to him:- ‘First tell me what you know already. I’ll teach you from that point.’ Nārada said—
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Bhagavaḥ, sir; adhīhi iti, please teach me; sanatkumāram, to Sanatkumāra; nāradaḥ ha upasasāda, Nārada went [and said]; tam ha uvāca, [Sanatkumāra] said to him; yat vettha, whatever you know; tena mā upasīda, tell me that; tataḥ ūrdhvam, from that point; te vakṣyāmi iti, I will teach you; saḥ ha uvāca, he [Nārada] said. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
1. Nârada approached Sanatkumâra and said, 'Teach me, Sir!' Sanatkumâra said to him:- 'Please to tell me what you know; afterward I shall tell you what is beyond.'
2. Sir, I have read the Ṛg Veda, the Yajur Veda, the Sāma Veda, and the fourth—the Atharva Veda; then the fifth—history and the Purāṇas; also, grammar, funeral rites, mathematics, the science of omens, the science of underground resources, logic, moral science, astrology, Vedic knowledge, the science of the elements, archery, astronomy, the science relating to snakes, plus music, dance, and other fine arts. Sir, this is what I know.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Bhagavaḥ, sir; adhyemi, I know; ṛg vedam yajur vedam sāma vedam ātharvaṇam caturtham, the Ṛg Veda, the Yajur Veda, the Sāma Veda, and the fourth, the Atharva Veda; itihāsa purāṇam pañcamam, history and the Purāṇas, as the fifth; vedānām vedam, grammar [lit., the Veda of the Vedas]; pitryam, rites offered out of respect to the ancestors; rāśim, mathematics; daivam, the science of meteors and other natural phenomena [and omens]; nidhim, the science of underground resources; vākovākyam, logic; ekāyanam, moral science; deva-vidyām, astrology; brahma-vidyām, knowledge of the Vedas; bhūta-vidyām, geology; kṣattra-vidyām, archery; nakṣatra-vidyām, astronomy; sarpa[-vidyām], snake-charming; devajana-vidyām, fine arts; bhagavaḥ, sir; etat adhyemi, I know all this. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
2. Nârada said:- 'I know the Rig-veda, Sir, the Yagur-veda, the Sâma-veda, as the fourth the Âtharvana, as the fifth the Itihâsa-purâna (the Bhârata); the Veda of the Vedas (grammar); the Pitrya (the rules for the sacrifices for the ancestors); the Râsi (the science of numbers); the Daiva (the science of portents); the Nidhi (the science of time); the Vâkovâkya (logic); the Ekâyana (ethics); the Deva-vidyâ (etymology); the Brahma-vidyâ (pronunciation, sikshâ, ceremonial, kalpa, prosody, khandas); the Bhûta-vidyâ (the science of demons); the Kshatra-vidyâ (the science of weapons); the Nakshatra-vidyâ (astronomy); the Sarpa and Devagana-vidyâ (the science of serpents or poisons, and the sciences of the genii, such as the making of perfumes, dancing, singing, playing, and other fine arts) [1]. All this I know, Sir.
3. ‘True, I have learnt much, but I know only the word meaning. I do not know the Self. Sir, I have heard from great persons like you that only those who know the Self are able to overcome sorrow. I am suffering from sorrow. Please take me across the ocean of sorrow.’ Sanatkumāra then said to Nārada, ‘Everything you have learnt so far is just words’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Bhagavaḥ, sir; saḥ aham mantravit eva asmi, [though I have studied much] I know only the word meaning; na ātmavit, I do not know the Self; śrutam hi eva me, I have also heard; bhagavat dṛśebhyaḥ, from people like you; tarati śokam ātmavit iti, one who knows the Self overcomes sorrow; bhagavaḥ, sir, saḥ aham śocāmi, I am suffering from sorrow; tam mā bhagavān śokasya pāram tārayatu iti, sir, please take me across [the ocean of] sorrow; tam ha uvāca, [Sanatkumāra] said to him; yat vai kiñca etat, whatever it is; adhyagīṣṭhāḥ etat nāma eva, you have learnt is only words. Commentary:- Nārada was a great scholar. But in spite of all his knowledge, he did not know the Self and was very unhappy. So, with great humility, he approached the sage Sanatkumāra and said, ‘Sir, would you please teach me?’ Sanatkumāra replied, ‘Tell me what you already know.’ The teacher must know what level the student is at so he can raise him from where he is. Then Nārada began to list all the subjects he had studied:- the Vedas, history and mythology, grammar, mathematics, astrology, and so forth. But Nārada felt that all this was pointless. It served no purpose, because if he did not know the Self he knew nothing. His knowledge was merely aparā vidyā, lower knowledge, and not parā vidyā, higher knowledge—that is, knowledge of the Self. Moreover, Nārada said:- ‘I know only the words. I do not know the Self.’ The finest, most subtle, knowledge is knowledge of the Self You begin with the gross and go step by step until you reach the finest. First you are only a mantra-vit—that is, you know only the word meanings of the scriptures. But this is nothing. The scriptures are all about the Self. If you don’t know the Self, your knowledge of the scriptures is useless. Being a scholar without knowing the real meaning of the scriptures is like being a beast of burden. A donkey may carry a load of sandalwood. In fact, his back may almost be breaking with the weight of it. Yet he does not enjoy the fragrance. Similarly, being a scholar is not the same as having Self-knowledge. Nārada has great yearning. He says:- ‘I have heard that saints like you have no more grief because you know the Self. Please take me across the ocean of sorrow. You alone can do that by giving me Self-knowledge. Life has a purpose. Please make me feel that I have achieved that purpose.’ Now Sanatkumāra says to Nārada:- ‘You have studied much, but you have studied only words. Each word has a meaning, and that meaning has to be grasped.’ How do we grasp the meaning? Śaṅkara gives an example here:- Suppose the king is coming by in a procession and you are very anxious to see him. But along with the king are thousands of other people, bands, vehicles, horses, elephants—so much pomp and grandeur. Where is the king? Śaṅkara says this world is like that procession. The king is there, but he is hidden from you—hidden behind all the pomp and pageantry. Similarly, in this world we perceive only names and forms—words, not substance. Merely knowing the word Brahman Now the question may arise:- Sanatkumāra says that this knowledge of the Vedas and other things is mere words. But perhaps you have studied all the scriptures and performed many sacrifices—is all this then futile? Śaṅkara says no, it’s not futile. He gives the example:- Suppose a child wants to know what the moon is. How do you show him the moon? First you say, ‘Do you see that big tree over there?’ When the child says yes, you say, ‘Do you see the top of the tree?’ Again, when the child says yes, you say:- ‘Do you see that big shining ball behind the branches? That is the moon.’ You go step by step. Can you teach an ignorant person the highest science? Will he be able to grasp it? You must start with something he can understand. Similarly, there is the world of sense experience before us, and it is very real to us. We don’t see the Self, so we can’t understand what it is. Self-knowledge is the highest knowledge. We cannot expect to attain it immediately. First we must know what this world is. First we must know what it is to have money, scholarship, fame, and other things. After experiencing these things of the world and finding them to be hollow, only then can we become disillusioned with this world. And only then can we renounce this world of name and form and fix our minds on the Self. We may hear about the Self, but first we must know that this world we are so
Max Müller
3. 'But, Sir, with all this I know the Mantras only, the sacred books, I do not know the Self. I have heard from men like you, that he who knows the Self overcomes grief. I am in grief. Do, Sir, help me over this grief of mine.' Sanatkumâra, said to him:- 'Whatever you have read, is only a name.
4. Name is the Ṛg Veda, the Yajur Veda, the Sāma Veda, and the fourth—the Atharva Veda; then the fifth—history and the Purāṇas; also, grammar, funeral rites, mathematics, the science of omens, the science of underground resources, logic, moral science, astrology, Vedic knowledge, the science of the elements, archery, astronomy, the science relating to snakes, plus music, dance, and other fine arts. These are only names. Worship name.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Nāma vai, name is; ṛg vedaḥ yajur vedaḥ sāma vedaḥ ātharvaṇaḥ caturthaḥ, the Ṛg Veda, the Yajur Veda, the Sāma Veda, and the fourth, the Atharva Veda; itihāsa purāṇaḥ pañcamaḥ, history and the Purāṇas, as the fifth; vedānām vedaḥ, grammar [lit., the Veda of the Vedas]; pitryaḥ, rites offered out of respect to the ancestors; rāśiḥ, mathematics; daivaḥ, the science of meteors and other natural phenomena [and omens]; nidhiḥ, the science of underground resources; vākovākyam, logic; ekāyanam, moral science; deva-vidyā, astrology; brahma-vidyā, knowledge of the Vedas; bhūta-vidyā, geology; kṣattra-vidyā, archery; nakṣatra-vidyā, astronomy; sarpa [-vidyā], snake-charming; devajana-vidyā, fine arts; nāma eva etat, these are mere names; nāma upāssva iti, worship name. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
4. 'A name is the Rig-veda, Yagur-veda, Sâma-veda, and as the fourth the Âtharvana, as the fifth the Itihâsa-purâna, the Veda of the Vedas, the Pitrya, the Râsi, the Daiva, the Nidhi, the Vâkovâkya, the Ekâyana, the Deva-vidyâ, the Brahma-vidyâ, the Bhûta-vidyâ, the Kshatra-vidyâ, the Nakshatra-vidyâ, the Sarpa and Devagana-vidyâ. All these are a name only. Meditate on the name.
5. ‘Anyone who worships name as Brahman can do what he pleases within the limits of the name.’ Nārada asked, ‘Sir, is there anything higher than name?’ ‘Of course there is something higher than name,’ replied Sanatkumāra. Nārada then said, ‘Sir, please explain that to me’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ, he who; nāma brahma iti upāste, worships name as Brahman; yāvat nāmnaḥ gatam, as far as name can go; tatra, that far; asya yathā-kāmacāraḥ bhavati, as he wishes he can go; yaḥ nāma brahma iti upāste, he who worships name as Brahman; bhagavaḥ, sir; nāmnaḥ bhūyaḥ asti iti, is there anything higher than name; nāmnaḥ vāva bhūyaḥ asti iti, there is certainly something higher than name; bhagavān, sir; tat me bravītu iti, please explain it to me. Iti prathamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the first section. Commentary:-If you worship name as Brahman then you can achieve anything you want within certain limits. But Brahman is the real purport. The names by themselves are not important. Names have a limited use. When you call a flower a rose, you are obviously referring to a particular species of flower. Within the limits of that species, you have as much freedom as you like. You may be referring to a rose of any colour you like—white, red, yellow, etc. You are free within the limits of the colours and other characteristics of the rose. But when you identify the rose as Brahman, you impose on Brahman the limitations that the name ‘rose’ has. As Brahman is nameless, you have no right to impose the limitations that name implies on it.
Max Müller
5. 'He who meditates on the name as Brahman [1], is, as it were, lord and master as far as the name reaches-he who meditates on the name as Brahman.' 'Sir, is there something better than a name?' 'Yes, there is something better than a name.' 'Sir, tell it me.'
divaṃ ca pṛthivīṃ ca vāyuṃ cākāśaṃ cāpaśca tejaśca
devāgͫśca manuṣyāgͫśca paśūgͫśca vayāgͫsi ca
tṛṇavanaspatīñśvāpadānyākīṭapataṅgapipīlakaṃ
dharmaṃ cādharmaṃ ca satyaṃ cānṛtaṃ ca sādhu cāsādhu ca
hṛdayajñaṃ cāhṛdayajñaṃ ca yadvai vāṅnābhaviṣyanna dharmo
nādharmo vyajñāpayiṣyanna satyaṃ nānṛtaṃ na sādhu nāsādhu
na hṛdayajño nāhṛdayajño vāgevaitatsarvaṃ vijñāpayati
vācamupāssveti .. 7.2.1..
1. Speech is certainly superior to name. Speech makes known the Ṛg Veda, the Yajur Veda, the Sāma Veda, and the fourth—the Atharva Veda; then the fifth—history and the Purāṇas; also, grammar, funeral rites, mathematics, the science of omens, the science of underground resources, logic, moral science, astrology, Vedic knowledge, the science of the elements, archery, astronomy, the science relating to snakes, plus music, dance, and other fine arts; also heaven and earth; air, space, water, and fire; the gods and human beings; cattle and birds; creepers and big trees; animals of prey as well as worms, fleas, and ants; merit and demerit; truth and untruth; good and evil; and the pleasant and the unpleasant. If speech did not exist there would be no awareness of merit and demerit, nor of truth and untruth, good and evil, the pleasant and the unpleasant. Speech alone makes it possible to understand all this. Worship speech.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Vāk vāva nāmnaḥ bhūyasī, speech is certainly superior to name; vāk vai vijñāpayati, speech makes known; ṛg vedam yajur vedam sāma vedam ātharvaṇam caturtham, the Ṛg Veda, the Yajur Veda, the Sāma Veda, and the fourth, the Atharva Veda; itihāsa purāṇam pañcamam, history and the Purāṇas, as the fifth; vedānām vedam, grammar [lit., the Veda of the Vedas]; pitryam, rites offered out of respect to the ancestors; rāśim, mathematics; daivam, the science of meteors and other natural phenomena [and omens]; nidhim, the science of underground resources; vākovākyam, logic; ekāyanam, moral science; deva-vidyām, astrology; brahma-vidyām, knowledge of the Vedas; bhūta-vidyām, geology; kṣattra-vidyām, archery; nakṣatra-vidyām, astronomy; sarpa [-vidyām], snake-charming; devajana-vidyām, fine arts; divam ca, heaven; pṛthivīm ca, and the earth; vāyum ca, and air; ākāśam ca, and space; āpaḥ ca, and water; tejaḥ ca, and fire; devān ca, and the gods; manuṣyān ca, and human beings; paśūn ca, and animals; vayāṃsi ca, and birds; tṛṇa-vanaspatīn, creepers and big trees; śvāpadāni, animals of prey; ākīṭa-pataṅga-pipīlikam, worms, fleas, and ants; dharmam ca adharmam ca, merit and demerit; satyam ca anṛtam ca, and truth and untruth; sādhu ca asādhu ca, and good and evil; hṛdayajnam ca ahṛdayajñam ca, pleasant and unpleasant; yat vai vāk, if speech; na abhaviṣyat, did not exist; na dharmaḥ na adharmaḥ vyajñāpayiṣyat, there would be no awareness of merit and demerit; satyani na anṛtam, nor of truth and untruth; sādhu na asādhu na, nor of good and evil; hṛdayajñaḥ na ahṛdayajñaḥ, nor of pleasant and unpleasant; vāk era etat sarvam vijñāpayati, speech alone makes it possible to understand all this; vāk upāssva iti, worship speech. Commentary:-Vāk is the organ of speech. It produces not only words, but words with deep meanings. For instance, we have access to the wisdom of the Vedas through these words. These words represent Brahman and should be worshipped as such.
Max Müller
1. 'Speech is better than a name. Speech makes us understand the Rig-veda, Yagur-veda, Sâma-veda, and as the fourth the Âtharvana, as the fifth the Itihâsa-purâna, the Veda of the Vedas, the Pitrya, the Râsi, the Daiva, the Nidhi, the Vâkovâkya, the Ekâyana, the Deva-vidyâ, the Brahma-vidyâ, the Kshatra-vidyâ, the Nakshatra-vidyâ, the Sarpa and Devagana-vidyâ; heaven, earth, air, ether, water, fire, gods, men, cattle, birds, herbs, trees, all beasts down to worms, midges, and ants; what is right and what is wrong; what is true and what is false; what is good and what is bad; what is pleasing and what is not pleasing. For if there were no speech, neither right nor wrong would be known [1], neither the true nor the false, neither the good nor the bad, neither the pleasant nor the unpleasant. Speech makes us understand all this. Meditate on speech.
2. ‘Anyone who worships speech as Brahman can do what he pleases within the limits of speech.’ Nārada asked, ‘Sir, is there anything higher than speech?’ ‘Of course there is something higher than speech,’ replied Sanatkumāra. Nārada then said, ‘Sir, please explain that to me’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yah, he who; vācam brahma iti upāste, worships speech as Brahman; yāvat vācaḥ gatam, as far as the power of speech goes; tatra, that far; asya yathā-kāmacāraḥ bhavati, as he wishes he can go; yaḥ vācam brahma iti upāste, he who worships speech as Brahman; bhagavaḥ, sir; vācaḥ bhūyaḥ asti iti, is there anything higher than speech; vācaḥ vāva bhūyaḥ asti iti, there is certainly something higher than speech; bhagavān, sir; tat me bravītu iti, please explain it to me. Iti dvitīyaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the second section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
2. 'He who meditates on speech as Brahman, is, as it were, lord and master as far as speech reaches he who meditates on speech as Brahman.' 'Sir, is there something better than speech 'Yes, there is something better than speech.' 'Sir, tell it me.'
lokamamuṃ ceccheyetyathecchate mano hyātmā mano hi loko
mano hi brahma mana upāssveti .. 7.3.1 ..
1. The mind is superior to speech. Just as a person can hold in his fist two āmalaka fruits, or two kola fruits [plums], or two akṣa fruits, so also the mind can hold within it both speech and name. If a person thinks, ‘I will read the mantras,’ he reads them. If he thinks, ‘I will do this,’ he does it. If he decides, ‘I will have children and animals,’ he can try to have them. If he decides, ‘I will conquer this world and the next,’ he can try to do it. [This is the characteristic of the mind. If it says it will do something, it can do it.] The mind is the self. The mind is the world. The mind is Brahman. Worship the mind.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Manaḥ vāva vācaḥ bhūyaḥ, the mind is certainly superior to speech; yathā vai, just as; dve vā āmalake, two āmalaka fruits; dve vā kole, or two kolas [plums]; dvau vā akṣau, or two akṣa fruits; muṣṭiḥ anubhavati, the fist can hold; evam, in the same way; manaḥ anubhavati, the mind can hold; vācam ca nāma ca, speech and mind; yadā, when; saḥ, someone; manasā, in his mind; manasyati, thinks; mantrān adhīyīya iti, I will read the mantras; atha, then; adhīte, he reads; karmāṇi kurvīya iti, I will work; atha, then; kurute, he works; putrān ca paśūn ca, children and animals; iccheya iti, let me wish for; atha icchate, then he wishes; imam ca lokam amum ca, this world and the other world; iccheya iti, let me wish for; atha icchate, then he wishes; manaḥ hi ātmā, the mind is the self; manaḥ hi lokaḥ, the mind is the world; manaḥ hi brahma, the mind is Brahman; manaḥ upāssva iti, worship the mind. Commentary:-Speech and name are important, but they are not enough. They will not take you very far. Suppose you repeat the name of God, but your mind is elsewhere, thinking of something else. Will that serve any purpose? No. The Upaniṣad says here, first you decide in your mind what you will do, and after that you act on the thought. Just as you hold fruits within your hand, similarly, you hold within your mind what you want—whether it is children, property, scholarship, or something else. So the mind is higher than speech.
Max Müller
1. 'Mind (manas) is better than speech. For as the closed fist holds two amalaka or two kola or two aksha fruits, thus does mind hold speech and name. For if a man is minded in his mind to read the sacred hymns, he reads them; if he is minded in his mind to perform any actions, he performs them; if he is minded to wish for sons and cattle, he wishes for them; if he is minded to wish for this world and the other, he wishes for them. For mind is indeed the self [1], mind is the world, mind is Brahman. Meditate on the mind.
sa yo mano brahmetyupāste yāvanmanaso gataṃ tatrāsya
yathākāmacāro bhavati yo mano brahmetyupāste'sti
bhagavo manaso bhūya iti manaso vāva bhūyo'stīti
tanme bhagavānbravītviti .. 7.3.2..
2. ‘Anyone who worships the mind as Brahman can dp what he pleases within the limits of the mind.’ Nārada asked, ‘Sir, is there anything higher than the mind?’ ‘Of course there is something higher than the mind,’ replied Sanatkumāra. Nārada then said, ‘Sir, please explain that to me’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ, he who; manaḥ brahma iti upāste, worships the mind as Brahman; yāvat manasaḥ gatam, as far as the mind goes; tatra, that far; asya yathā-kāmacāraḥ bhavati, as he wishes he can go; yaḥ manaḥ brahma iti upāste, he who worships the mind as Brahman; bhagavaḥ, sir; manasaḥ bhūyaḥ asti iti, is there anything higher than the mind; manasaḥ vāva bhūyaḥ asti iti, there is certainly something higher than the mind; bhagavān, sir; tat me bravītu iti, please explain it to me. Iti tṛtīyaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the third section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
2. 'He who meditates on the mind as Brahman, is, as it were, lord and master as far as the mind reaches--he who meditates on the mind as Brahman.' 'Sir, is there something better than mind?' 'Yes, there is something better than mind.' 'Sir, tell it me.'
saṃkalpo vāva manaso bhūyānyadā vai saṃkalpayate'tha
manasyatyatha vācamīrayati tāmu nāmnīrayati nāmni
mantrā ekaṃ bhavanti mantreṣu karmāṇi .. 7.4.1..
1. The will is certainly superior to the mind. When a person wills, he starts thinking. Then he directs the organ of speech, and finally he makes the organ of speech utter the name. All the mantras merge in the names and all the actions merge in the mantras.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saṅkalpaḥ vāva manasaḥ bhūyān, the will is indeed superior to the mind; yadā vai, when; saṅkalpayate, a person decides; atha, then; manasyati, he thinks; atha, then; vācam īrayati, he directs the organ of speech; tām u nāmni īrayati, he makes speech utter the name; nāmni, in the names; mantrāḥ, all the mantras; ekam bhavanti, are united; mantreṣu karmāṇi, the actions [are united] in the mantras. Commentary:-The mind is very important, but it heeds to be guided by the will. Why? Because the mind is always wavering. It cannot decide. In the Bhagavad Gītā the mind is described as being vāyoḥ iva, like the wind. It is restless and difficult to control. Sometimes the mind is even compared to a mad elephant. All of us have minds, no doubt, but not all have an equal degree of will power, or determination. For instance, anyone may utter some mantras, but unless they are recited with saṅkalpa, they do not mean anything. They are just words. When you add saṅkalpa to the mantras, then the words become active and powerful. This is why saṅkalpa is higher.
Max Müller
1. 'Will [1] (saṅkalpa) is better than mind. For when a man wills, then he thinks in his mind, then he sends forth speech, and he sends it forth in a name. In a name the sacred hymns are contained, in the sacred hymns all sacrifices.
saṃkalpate sa eṣa saṃkalpaḥ saṃkalpamupāssveti .. 7.4.2 ..
2. All these things [mind, speech, name, etc.] merge in saṅkalpa, arise from saṅkalpa, and are supported by saṅkalpa. [That is the will decides the direction of everything you do. It is the soul of everything.] Heaven and earth will, and so do air, space, water, and fire. [That is, it is their will that determines their work.] Through their will the rain wills, and through the will of the rain, food wills. The will of food is the will of life. The will of life is the will of the mantras, and the will of the mantras is the will of all activities. The will of the activities is the will of the worlds, and the will of the worlds determines the will of everything. Such is the will. Worship this will.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tāni ha vai etāni, all these [i.e., mind, speech, name, mantra, and karma]; saṅkalpa-ekāyanāni, merge in saṅkalpa; saṅkalpātmakāni, rise from saṅkalpa; saṅkalpe pratiṣṭhitāni, supported by saṅkalpa; dyāvāpṛthivī, heaven and the earth; samaklṛpatām, will; vāyuḥ cā ākāśam ca, the air and the sky; samakalpetām, will; āpaḥ ca tejaḥ ca, water and fire; samakalpanta, will; teṣām saṃklṛptyai, through their will; varṣam saṅkalpate, rain wills; varṣasya saṃklṛptyai, because the rain wills; annam saṅkalpate, food wills; annasya saṃklṛptyai, because of the will of food; prāṇāḥ saṅkalpante, the prāṇas will; prāṇānām saṃklṛptyai, because of the will of the prāṇas; mantrāḥ saṅkalpante, the mantras will; mantrāṇām saṃklṛptyai, because the mantras will; karmāṇi saṅkalpante, the karmas will; karmaṇām saṃklṛptyai, because the karmas will; lokaḥ saṅkalpate, the heaven and other worlds will; lokasya saṃklṛptyai, because the worlds will; sarvam saṅkalpate, everything wills; saḥ eṣaḥ, this is the way; saṅkalpaḥ, will [works]; saṅkalpam upāssva iti, worship will. Commentary:-Sanatkumāra says here that because of saṅkalpa, each of the forces of nature plays its role—as if each knows the duty it’s supposed to perform and has taken a vow to do it. For instance, the earth remains steady—as if it decided long ago that it would remain firm and unmoving. The world goes on, nature goes on, society goes on—all due to this saṅkalpa, to the principle of each doing his or her own duty.
Max Müller
2. 'All these therefore (beginning with mind and ending in sacrifice) centre in will, consist of will, abide in will. Heaven and earth willed, air and ether willed, water and fire willed. Through the will of heaven and earth &c. rain wills; through the will of rain food wills; through the will of food the vital airs will; through the will of the vital airs the sacred hymns will; through the will of the sacred hymns the sacrifices will; through the will of the sacrifices the world (as their reward) wills; through the will of the world everything wills [1]. This is will. Meditate on will.
3. ‘One who worships saṅkalpa as Brahman can attain any world he wills. He becomes true and attains the world of truth. He is firmly established and also attains a world which is firmly established. He is free from pain and attains also a world free from pain. One who worships saṅkalpa as Brahman can do what he pleases within the limits of saṅkalpa.’ Nārada asked, ‘Sir, is there anything higher than saṅkalpa?’ ‘Of course there is something higher than saṅkalpa,’ replied Sanatkumāra. Nārada then said, ‘Sir, please explain that to me’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ saṅkalpam brahma iti upāste, he who worships will-power as Brahman; klṛptān vai saḥ lokān dhruvān, the true worlds he wishes for; dhruvaḥ, being true himself; pratiṣṭhitān, the well-established [worlds]; pratiṣṭhitaḥ, [himself being] well-established; avyathamānān, [the worlds] free from pain; avyathamānaḥ, [himself being] free from pain; abhisidhyati, he attains; yāvat saṅkalpasya gatam, as far as will can go; tatra, that far; asya yathā-kāmacāraḥ bhavati, as he wishes he can go; yaḥ saṅkalpam brahma iti upāste, he who worships saṅkalpa as Brahman; bhagavaḥ, sir; saṅkalpāt bhūyaḥ asti iti, is there anything higher than saṅkalpa; saṅkalpāt vāva bhūyaḥ asti iti, there is certainly something higher than saṅkalpa; bhagavān, sir; tat me bravītu iti, please explain it to me. Iti caturthaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the fourth section. Commentary:-The will is the beginning and end of everything concerning the ṃind. Not only that—the will is the root of the earth, heaven, of all the worlds, of space, air, fire, water, food, life, the mantras, and work. The will is the origin and end of the phenomenal world. If you meditate on this, you learn the secret of progress in life. But if you are a true seeker of Truth, you soon begin to feel that there must be something higher. This is divine discontent. And this is why Nārada asks Sanatkumāra if there is anything higher. Sanatkumāra takes him step by step, from a lower truth to a higher truth.
Max Müller
3. 'He who meditates on will as Brahman, he, being himself safe, firm, and undistressed, obtains the safe, firm, and undistressed worlds which he has willed; he is, as it were, lord and master as far as will reaches--he who meditates on will as Brahman.' 'Sir, is there something better than will?' 'Yes, there is something better than will.' 'Sir, tell it me.'
1. Intelligence is certainly superior to will-power. A person first comprehends, and then he wills. Next he thinks it over again and again, and then he directs the organ of speech. Finally he makes the organ of speech utter the name. All the mantras then merge in the names, and all the actions merge in the mantras.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Cittam vāva saṅkalpāt bhūyaḥ, intelligence is certainly higher than saṅkalpa [will-power]; yadā vai cetayate, when one comprehends; atha saṅkalpayate, then one wills; atha, then; manasyati, he thinks; atha, then; vācam īrayati, he directs the organ of speech; tām u nāmni īrayati, he makes speech utter the name; nāmni, in the names; mantrāḥ, all the mantras; ekam bhavanti, are united; mantreṣu karmāṇi, the actions [are united] in the mantras. Commentary:-Higher than saṅkalpa is citta. Just as saṅkalpa is part of the mind, so also is citta. Śaṅkara says that here citta means intelligence. It is right understanding of what to do in a present situation in the light of past experience. You have in your mind your past experiences and your future plans, and according to that you weigh the pros and cons of your present condition and decide what to do. Citta is the power to judge what is good and bad, what is right and wrong, and then make a decision promptly and correctly. A person who has this intelligence never does things impulsively. Saṅkalpa, or will, is good, but suppose you cannot discriminate and you apply your will to a wrong purpose. A foolish person may be very obstinate, but that kind of will-power will eventually land him in trouble. Our will must be guided by our intelligence. You may have noticed that the order here is from gross to fine. First Sanatkumāra mentions words, which are gross; then the mind, which is finer; then saṅkalpa, which is more fine; and now citta, still finer. He does not reject the gross. The gross level is also truth, but it is a lower truth. Gradually he takes Nārada to the finest, the highest,
Max Müller
1. 'Consideration (kitta) [1] is better than will. For when a man considers, then he wills, then he thinks in his mind, then he sends forth speech, and he sends it forth in a name. In a name the sacred hymns are contained, in the sacred hymns all sacrifices.
2. All these [will-power, mind, etc.] merge in intelligence, are directed by intelligence, and are supported by intelligence. That is why, a person may be learned but if he is dull, people [ignore him and] say:- ‘He does not exist, no matter how much he seems to know. If he were really learned, he would not be so foolish.’ On the other hand, if a person is not learned but he is intelligent, people will listen to him [with respect]. It is intelligence that governs all these. It is their soul and their support. Therefore, worship intelligence.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tāni ha vai etāni, all these [saṅkalpa, mind, speech, etc.]; citta-ekāyanāni, merge in the citta [intelligence]; cittātmāni, citta is the self [of all these]; citte pratiṣṭitāni, they rest in citta; tasmāt, that is why; yadi api, even if; bahuvit, a person knows much; acittaḥ bhavati, but is dull [i.e., is lacking in true understanding]; na ayam asti iti, that person does not exist; eva enam āhuḥ, people say about him; yat ayam veda, no matter how much he knows; yat vai ayam vidvān, if he were really learned; na ittham acittaḥ syāt iti, he would not be foolish like this; atha, but; yadi alpavit bhavati, if there is a person without much knowledge; cittavān, [but] with intelligence; tasmā eva uta śuśrūṣante, they would like to hear him speak; eṣām, of all these; cittam hi eva ekāyanam, intelligence is where they merge; cittam ātmā, intelligence is their soul; cittam pratiṣṭhā, intelligence is their support; cittam upāssva iti, worship intelligence. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
2. 'All these (beginning with mind and ending in sacrifice) centre in consideration, consist of consideration, abide in consideration. Therefore if a man is inconsiderate, even if he possesses much learning, people say of him, he is nothing, whatever he may know; for, if he were learned, he would not be so inconsiderate. But if a man is considerate, even though he knows but little, to him indeed do people listen gladly. Consideration is the centre, consideration is the self, consideration is the support of all these. Meditate on consideration.
3. ‘One who worships intelligence as Brahman attains worlds of intelligence [i.e., things he regards as important]. He becomes true and attains the world of truth. He is firmly established and also attains a world which is firmly established. He is free from pain and also attains a world free from pain. One who worships intelligence as Brahman can do what he pleases within the limits of intelligence.’ Nārada asked, ‘Sir, is there anything higher than intelligence?’ ‘Of course there is something higher than intelligence,’ replied Sanatkumāra. Nārada then said, ‘Sir, please explain that to me’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ, he who; cittam brahma iti upāste, worships intelligence as Brahman; abhisidhyati, he attains; cittān vai lokān, worlds of intelligence; dhruvān, [worlds that are] true; dhruvaḥ, being true himself; pratiṣṭhitān, the well-established [worlds]; pratiṣṭhitaḥ, [himself being] well-established; avyathamānān, [the worlds] free from pain; avyathamānaḥ, [himself being] free from pain; yāvat cittasya gatam, as far as intelligence can go; tatra, that far; asya yathā-kāmacāraḥ bhavati, as he wishes he can go; yaḥ cittam brahma iti upāste, he who worships intelligence as Brahman; bhagavah, sir; cittāt bhūyaḥ asti iti, is there anything higher than intelligence; cittāt vāva bhūyaḥ asti iti, there is certainly something higher than intelligence; bhaga- Commentary:-
Max Müller
3. 'He who meditates on consideration as Brahman, he, being himself safe, firm, and undistressed, obtains the safe, firm, and undistressed worlds which he has considered; he is, as it were, lord and master as far as consideration reaches--he who meditates on consideration as Brahman.' 'Sir, is there something better than consideration?' 'Yes, there is something better than consideration.' 'Sir, tell it me.'
mahattāṃ prāpnuvanti dhyānāpādāgͫśā ivaiva te bhavantyatha
ye'lpāḥ kalahinaḥ piśunā upavādinaste'tha ye prabhavo
dhyānāpādāgͫśā ivaiva te bhavanti dhyānamupāssveti .. 7.6.1..
1. Meditation is certainly superior to intelligence. The earth seems to be meditating. The space between the earth and heaven seems to be meditating. So also, heaven seems to be meditating. Water seems to be meditating. The mountains seem to be meditating. Gods and human beings also seem to be meditating.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Dhyānam vāva cittāt bhūyaḥ, meditation is certainly superior to intelligence; dhyāyati iva pṛthivī, the earth seems to be meditating; antarikṣam dhyāyati iva, the space between the earth and heaven seems to be meditating; dyauḥ dhyāyati iva, the heaven seems to be meditating; āpaḥ dhyāyanti iva, water seems to be meditating; parvatāḥ dhyāyanti iva, the mountains seem to be meditating; deva-manuṣyāḥ dhyāyanti iva, gods and human beings seem to be meditating; tasmāt, this is why; ye, those who; iha, in this world; manuṣyāṇām, among human beings; mahattām prāpnuvanti, attain greatness; dhyānāpādāṃśāḥ iva eva te bhavanti, they seem to enjoy the fruits of meditation; atha, but; ye alpāḥ, those who are small; kalahinaḥ, are quarrelsome; piśunāḥ, crooked; upavādinaḥ, those who love scandel-mongering; atha, but; ye prabhavaḥ, those who are great; dhyānāpādāṃśāḥ iva eva te bhavanti, they seem to enjoy the fruits of meditation; dhyānam upāssva iti, worship meditation. Commentary:-This is why, those people in this world who attain greatness seem to enjoy the fruits of meditation. But there are people of small calibre. They are quarrelsome, crooked, and always finding fault with others. Those who are great, however, are so because of their habit of meditation. Therefore worship meditation. According to Śaṅkara, dhyāna is an uninterrupted stream of thought directed towards some object. Thinking of some idea, you concentrate your mind on it without breaking the flow, without any interruption—like pouring oil from one vessel to another in a continuous stream. In the same way, you must fix your mind on God. You may meditate on him as something abstract, as an idea. Or, if that is difficult, you may meditate on him with some kind of form. Sanatkumāra says here that everything seems to be meditating—the earth, the intermediate region, heaven, the mountains. Once Swami Vivekananda said:- ‘Look at the Himalayas. Does it not strike you that it is a yogi meditating?’ Śaṅkara also compares the earth to a yogi sitting in meditation, firm and unmoving. As the earth is steady and fixed, so we also should be steady and fixed when we meditate. Before Buddha attained illumination he vowed:- Ihāsane śuṣyatu me śarīraṃ tvagasthimāṃsaṃ pralayaṃ ca yātu; Aprāpya bodhiṃ bahukalpadurlabhāṃ naivāsanātkāyamataścaliṣyate. May my body shrivel up on this seat; may my skin, bones, and flesh disintegrate. Without attaining enlightenment, which is so hard to attain, I shall not leave this seat. This is the sort of determination we must have. If you can think of everything as meditating, then you also will be able to meditate. And those people who meditate attain greatness, because they constantly think of great things. Śaṅkara says that greatness comes through knowledge or wealth or some other thing. But in order to become great you must think in a great way, speak in a great way, and behave in a great way. Suppose you cannot think in terms of being great. You condemn yourself and think, ‘Oh, that is not for me.’ This is not humility. It is foolishness. It is being small-minded, and it is condemned by the scriptures. Swami Vivekananda used to say, ‘You may have faith in all the gods and goddesses, but if you do not have faith in yourself you will never achieve anything.’ Similarly, if you are jealous or speak ill of others, you will not be able to meditate on great things. And if you cannot meditate on great things, your nature will deteriorate. Someone once told Vidyasagar that a certain person was criticizing him. Vidyasagar said, ‘I don’t remember having helped him in any way, so why should he criticize me?’ Sometimes you find that the very people who have received your help try to harm you. This is the nature of small-minded people. Thinking shapes our character. If we meditate on noble things we become noble.
Max Müller
1. 'Reflection (dhyâna) [1] is better than consideration. The earth reflects, as it were, and thus does the sky, the heaven, the water, the mountains, gods and men. Therefore those who among men obtain greatness here on earth, seem to have obtained a part of the object of reflection (because they show a certain repose of manner). Thus while small and vulgar people are always quarrelling, abusive, and slandering, great men seem to have obtained a part of the reward of reflection. Meditate on reflection.
स यो ध्यानं ब्रह्मेत्युपास्ते यावद्ध्यानस्य गतं तत्रास्य
यथाकामचारो भवति यो ध्यानं ब्रह्मेत्युपास्तेऽस्ति
भगवो ध्यानाद्भूय इति ध्यानाद्वाव भूयोऽस्तीति
तन्मे भगवान्ब्रवीत्विति ॥ ७.६.२॥
sa yo dhyānaṃ brahmetyupāste yāvaddhyānasya gataṃ tatrāsya
yathākāmacāro bhavati yo dhyānaṃ brahmetyupāste'sti
bhagavo dhyānādbhūya iti dhyānādvāva bhūyo'stīti
tanme bhagavānbravītviti .. 7.6.2..
2. ‘One who worships meditation as Brahman can do what he pleases within the limits of meditation.’ Nārada asked, ‘Sir, is there anything higher than meditation?’ ‘Of course there is something higher than meditation,’ replied Sanatkumāra. Nārada then said, ‘Sir, please explain that to me’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ dhyānam brahma iti upāste, one who worships meditation as Brahman; yāvat dhyānasya gatam, as far as meditation can go; tatra, that far; asya yathā-kāmacāraḥ bhavati, as he wishes he can go; yaḥ dhyānam brahma iti upāste, he who worships meditation as Brahman; bhagavaḥ, sir; dhyānāt bhūyaḥ asti iti, is there anything higher than meditation; dhyānāt vāva bhūyaḥ asti iti, there is certainly something higher than meditation; bhagavān, sir; tat me bravītu iti, please explain it to me. Iti ṣaṣṭhaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the sixth section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
2. 'He who meditates on reflection as Brahman, is lord and master, as it were, as far as reflection reaches--he who meditates on reflection as Brahman.' 'Sir, is there something better than reflection?' 'Yes, there is something better than reflection.' 'Sir, tell it me.'
kṣatravidyāṃ nakṣatravidyāgͫsarpadevajanavidyāṃ divaṃ ca
pṛthivīṃ ca vāyuṃ cākāśaṃ cāpaśca tejaśca devāgͫśca
manuṣyāgͫśca paśūgͫśca vayāgͫsi ca
tṛṇavanaspatīñchvāpadānyākīṭapataṅgapipīlakaṃ
dharmaṃ cādharmaṃ ca satyaṃ cānṛtaṃ ca sādhu cāsādhu ca
hṛdayajñaṃ cāhṛdayajñaṃ cānnaṃ ca rasaṃ cemaṃ ca lokamamuṃ
ca vijñānenaiva vijānāti vijñānamupāssveti .. 7.7.1 ..
1. Vijñāna [the practical application of knowledge] is certainly superior to meditation. Through vijñāna one knows the Ṛg Veda, the Yajur Veda, the Sāma Veda, and the fourth—the Atharva Veda; then the fifth—history and the Purāṇas; also, grammar, funeral rites, mathematics, the science of omens, the science of underground resources, logic, moral science, astrology, Vedic knowledge, the science of the elements, archery, astronomy, the science relating to snakes, plus music, dance, and other fine arts; also heaven and earth; air, space, water, and fire; the gods and human beings; cattle and birds; creepers and big trees; animals of prey as well as worms, fleas, and ants; merit and demerit; truth and untruth; good and evil; the pleasant and the unpleasant; food and water; and this world and the other world. One knows all this through vijñāna. Worship vijñāna.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Vijñānam vāva dhyānāt bhūyaḥ, vijñāna [i.e., the practical application of knowledge] is certainly superior to meditation; vijñānena vai vijānāti, through vijñāna one knows; ṛg vedam yajur vedam sāma vedam ātharvaṇam caturtham, the Ṛg Veda, the Yajur Veda, the Sāma Veda, and the fourth, the Atharva Veda; itihāsa purāṇam pañcamam, history and the Purāṇas, as the fifth; vedānām vedam, grammar [lit., the Veda of the Vedas]; pitryam, rites offered out of respect to the ancestors; rāśim, mathematics; daivam, the science of meteors and other natural phenomena [and omens]; nidhim, the science of underground resources; vākovākyam, logic; ekāyanam, moral science; deva-vidyām, astrology; brahma-vidyām, knowledge of the Vedas; bhūta-vidyām, geology; kṣattra-vidyām, archery; nakṣatra-vidyām, astronomy; sarpa [-vidyām], snakecharming; devajana-vidyām, fine arts; divam ca, heaven; pṛthivīm ca, and the earth; vāyum ca, and air; ākāśam ca, and space; āpaḥ ca, and water; tejaḥ ca, and fire; devān ca, and the gods; manuṣyān ca, and human beings; paśūn ca, and animals; vayāṃsi ca, and birds; tṛṇa-vanaspatīn, creepers and big trees; śvāpadāni, animals of prey; ākīṭa-pataṅga-pipīlikam, worms, fleas, and ants; dharmam ca adharmam ca, merit and demerit; satyam ca anṛtam ca, and truth and untruth; sādhu ca asādhu ca, and good and evil; hṛdayajñam ca ahṛdayajñam ca, pleasant and unpleasant; annam ca rasam ca, food and water; imam ca lokam amum ca, this world and the other world; vijñānena eva vijānāti, one knows this through vijñāna; vijñānam upāssva iti, worship vijñāna. Commentary:-Vijñāna is higher than dhyāna, meditation. What is vijñāna? It is knowledge of the meaning of the scriptures (vjñānam śāstrārthaviṣayam jñānam). There are so many scriptures, but suppose you are able to recite all of them from memory. That is not enough. You must understand the real purport of what each is saying and then put the teachings into practice. Some people have one book that they read over and over again. It may be the Gītā or The Gospel When Swami Turiyananda was young he would read one verse at a time from the Gītā and spend the whole day, or the next several days, meditating on it. He would not go on to the next verse until he had realized the truth of the one he had just read. This is vijñāna, and this is why vijñāna is higher than meditation.
Max Müller
1. 'Understanding (vigñâna) is better than reflection. Through understanding we understand the Rig-veda, the Yagur-veda, the Sâma-veda, and as the fourth the Âtharvana, as the fifth the Itihâsa-purâna [1], the Veda of the Vedas, the Pitrya, the Râsi, the Daiva, the Nidhi, the Vâkovâkya, the Ekâyana, the Deva-vidyâ, the Brahma-vidyâ, the Bhûta-vidyâ, the Kshatra-vidyâ, the Nakshatra-vidyâ, the Sarpa and Devagana-vidyâ, heaven, earth, air, ether, water, fire, gods, men, cattle, birds, herbs, trees, all beasts down to worms, midges, and ants; what is right and what is wrong; what is true and what is false; what is good and what is bad; what is pleasing and what is not pleasing; food and savour, this world and that, all this we understand through understanding. Meditate on understanding.
yathākāmacāro bhavati yo vijñānaṃ brahmetyupāste'sti bhagavo
vijñānādbhūya iti vijñānādvāva bhūyo'stīti tanme
bhagavānbravītviti .. 7.7.2..
2. ‘One who worships vijñāna as Brahman attains the vijñānamaya and jñānamaya worlds. One who worships vijñāna as Brahman can do what he pleases within the limits of vijñāna.’ Nārada asked, ‘Sir, is there anything higher than vijñāna?’ ‘Of course there is something higher than vijñāna,’ replied Sanatkumāra. Nārada then said, ‘Sir, please explain that to me’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ, he who; vijñānam brahma iti upāste, worships vijñāna [i.e., the practical application of knowledge] as Brahman; saḥ vai vijñānavataḥ jñānavataḥ lokān abhisidhyati, attains the vijñānamaya and jñānamaya worlds; yāvat vijñānasya gatam, as far as vijñāna goes; tatra, that far; asya yathā-kāmacāraḥ bhavati, as he wishes he can go; yaḥ vijñānam brahma iti upāste, he who worships vijñāna as Brahman; bhagavaḥ, sir; vijñānāt bhūyaḥ asti iti, is there anything higher than vijñāna; vijñānāt vāva bhūyaḥ asti iti, there is certainly something higher than vijñāna; bhagavān, sir; tat me bravītu iti, please explain it to me. Iti saptamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the seventh section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
2. 'He who meditates on understanding as Brahman, reaches the worlds where there is understanding and knowledge [1]; he is, as it were, lord and master as far as understanding reaches--he who meditates on understanding as Brahman.' 'Sir, is there something better than understanding?' 'Yes, there is something better than understanding.' 'Sir, tell it me.'
1. Strength is certainly superior to understanding. One strong person can make even a hundred people of understanding shake with fear. If a person is strong, he will be enthusiastic and up and about. He will then start serving his teacher, and while serving his teacher he will be close to him. While sitting close to the teacher, he Will watch him and listen to what he says. Then he will think it over and try to understand. He will then act on it, and finally he will grasp the inner meaning. Strength supports the earth. It also supports the interspace, heaven, the mountains, gods and human beings, cattle, birds, creepers, and trees. It supports animals of prey as well as worms, fleas, and ants. It supports the whole world. Worship strength.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Balanm vāva vijñānāt bhūyaḥ, strength is superior to understanding; ekaḥ balavān, one strong person; api ha śatam vijñānavatāin ākampayate, can make even a hundred persons of understanding shake [with fear]; yadā saḥ balī bhavati, when a person is strong [he is full of enthusiasm]; atha utthātā bhavati, he is then up and about; uttiṣṭhan, being up; paricaritā bhavati, he looks after [his teacher]; paricaran, attending to the needs [of his teacher]; upasattā bhavati, he sits near [the teacher]; upasīdan, sitting near him; draṣṭā bhavati, he watches [what the teacher does]; śrotā bhavati, he listens [to what the. teacher says]; mantā bhavati, [and] thinks it over; boddhā bhavati, he tries to understand the meaning; kartā bhavati, he does what he is supposed to do; vijñātā bhavati, he grasps the meaning [of what the teacher had said]; balena vai pṛthivī tiṣṭhati, through power the whole world is sustained; balena antarikṣam, through power, the interspace [is sustained]; balena dyauḥ, through power, heaven; balena parvatāḥ, through strength, the mountains; balena deva-manuṣyāḥ, through strength, gods and human beings; balena paśavaḥ ca, through strength, cattle; vayāṃsi ca tṛṇa-vanaspatayaḥ, and birds and creepers and big trees; śvāpadāni, animals of prey; ākīṭa-pataṅga-pipīlikam, worms, fleas, and ants; balena lokaḥ tiṣṭhati, through strength the whole world is sustained; balam upāssva iti, worship strength. Commentary:-What is higher than understanding? Strength. You might remember that startling remark Swami Vivekananda made in the course of a lecture:- ‘You will reach heaven quicker by playing football than by reading the Gita.’ Why do we play football? To be strong, to have strong muscles and a healthy body. How will you understand what Śrī Kṛṣṇa is saying unless you have a strong body and nerves? If you are weak, you can never grasp the real meaning of the Gītā. As the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad (III.ii.4) says, ‘Nāyamātmā balahīnena labhyaḥ—This Self cannot be known by the weak.’ This, of course, does not mean just physical strength. Intellectual strength is also necessary—in fact, strength at all levels. Everyone follows a strong person. Gandhi was very strong-minded. If he made up his mind to do something, nothing on earth could make him change—even if he had to do it alone. He meant what he said, and that is why he commanded so much respect. It is very important to mean what you say and say what you mean. Weak people cannot do that. Sanatkumāra says that in the presence of a strong man, a hundred men of understanding tremble. If you are strong you will be enterprising, but weak people are always vacillating. They never know their minds. A strong person will start acting immediately. He is never idle. If a person wants to gain anything materially, he has to work hard. How often does someone gain something by a fluke? And this is even more important if one is seeking the Truth. Lots of us say, ‘Oh, when will I realize the Self?’ But are we prepared to work hard to do it? In ancient days if people wanted to learn the Vedas they would have to go to a teacher and live with him. Besides attending to their studies, the students would serve the teacher. They would have many duties to perform. It was a difficult life. There was a devotee who used to come with his classmates to Belur Math when Swami Brahmananda was there. He noticed that Swami Brahmananda would sometimes ask one of his disciples to bring him a glass of water, or do some other little service. This devotee always hoped that some day Swami Brahmananda would ask him to do something. Finally one day the postman came with a parcel for Swami Brahmananda, who wanted someone to unpack it for him. As if in answer to this devotee’s prayers, Swami Brahmananda turned to him and said:- ‘Would you do me this favour? Take this pared, unpack it, and bring me the contents. But look, be sure you don’t tear the paper or cut the ropes with which it is tied.’ So, with great care, the devotee did as he was asked. Sri Ramakrishna was also like this—punctilious. If you are a seeker of Truth, you have to be correct in every detail. You may think that attaining Self-knowledge is only a matter of renunciation and practice of meditation and so on. But how can you meditate if your mind is not attentive to every detail? Through service the teacher watches the student. He sees whether the student is careless or absent-minded or lazy. When you serve the teacher you become intimate, and if you are intimate, he will gladly share his knowledge with you. A good teacher is always looking for a good student, and he is happy when he finds a student who is attentive, humble, keen to learn, and who loves him. Swami Nirvanananda was considered the best of Swami Brahmananda’s attendants. Swami Brahmananda was always surrounded by young people who loved him and wanted to serve him. But none could surpass Swami Nirvanananda because he would not wait for Swami Brahmananda to tell him what he needed. Swami Nirvanananda would anticipate his needs beforehand. Whether it was a cup of tea, a glass of water, or something to eat, it would be there before Swami Brahmananda would ask. Most of the time Swami Brahmananda would be on a high spiritual plane, forgetful of his physical needs. A good attendant had to know what he needed beforehand and provide it. Religion is not just something intellectual. It is a transformation of the whole personality. The teacher is the mould, and you try to form yourself according to that mould. How? First you hear what the teacher says, and then you reason:- ‘Why did he say that? What did he mean by that?’ Then you watch what he does. Very soon the truth of what the teacher says reveals itself to you. You realize what he is saying, and then you act accordingly. This earth is an example of what strength can do. The earth sustains everything through its own strength. In fact, everything in nature is sustained by its own inherent strength. It is not strength borrowed from something else. Similarly, we must support ourselves by our own strength. So Sanatkumāra says first you rise. That is to say, once you have decided to attain Self-knowledge, don’t be idle. Begin immediately, As Swami Vivekananda
Max Müller
1. 'Power (bala) is better than understanding. One powerful man shakes a hundred men of understanding. If a man is powerful, he becomes a rising man. If he rises, he becomes a man who visits wise people. If he visits, he becomes a follower of wise people. If he follows them, he becomes a seeing, a hearing, a perceiving, a knowing, a doing, an understanding man. By power the earth stands firm, and the sky, and the heaven, and the mountains, gods and men, cattle, birds, herbs, trees, all beasts down to worms, midges, and ants; by power the world stands firm. Meditate on power.
स यो बलं ब्रह्मेत्युपास्ते यावद्बलस्य गतं तत्रास्य
यथाकामचारो भवति यो बलं ब्रह्मेत्युपास्तेऽस्ति भगवो
बलाद्भूय इति बलाद्वाव भूयोऽस्तीति तन्मे
भगवान्ब्रवीत्विति ॥ ७.८.२॥
sa yo balaṃ brahmetyupāste yāvadbalasya gataṃ tatrāsya
yathākāmacāro bhavati yo balaṃ brahmetyupāste'sti bhagavo
balādbhūya iti balādvāva bhūyo'stīti tanme
bhagavānbravītviti .. 7.8.2..
2. ‘One who worships strength as Brahman can do what he pleases within the limits of strength.’ Nārada asked, ‘Sir, is there anything higher than strength?’ ‘Of course there is something higher than strength,’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ, he who; balam brahma iti upāste, worships strength as Brahman; yāvat balasya gatam, as far as strength goes; tatra, that far; asya yathā-kāmacāraḥ bhavati, as he wishes he can go; yaḥ balam brahma iti upāste, he who worships strength as Brahman; bhagavaḥ, sir; balāt bhūyaḥ asti iti, is there anything higher than strength; balāt vāva bhūyaḥ asti iti, there is certainly something higher than strength; bhagavāṃ sir; tat me bravītu iti, please explain it to me. Iti aṣṭamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the eighth section. Commentary:-Strength here means strength produced by food. If you starve, you become weak and then you do not understand the scriptures. Perhaps your teacher will ask you to recite something from the scriptures, but you won’t be able to because of your weakness from fasting. A strong person, however, can please his teacher by his enthusiasm and service. He can also carry out his teacher’s instructions to the latter’s satisfaction. By virtue of his strength, he becomes an ideal person in all respects.
Max Müller
2. 'He who meditates on power as Brahman, is, as it were, lord and master as far as power reaches--he who meditates on power as Brahman.' 'Sir, is there something better than power?' 'Yes, there is something better than power.' 'Sir, tell it me.'
1. Food is certainly superior to strength. This is why if a person fasts for ten days and nights, he may survive but he will not be able to see, hear, think, understand, work, or fully grasp the meaning of what he is taught. But if he eats food, he can then see, hear, think, understand, work, and fully grasp the meaning of the teachings. Therefore worship food.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Annam vāva balāt bhūyaḥ, food is certainly superior to strength; tasmāt, that is why; yadi api, even if; daśa rātrīḥ na aśnīyāt, a person fasts for ten [days and] nights; yadi u ha jīvet, though he may live; atha vā adraṣṭā, he may not be able to see; aśrotā, or hear; amantā, think; aboddhā, understand; akartā, work; avijñātā bhavati, nor can he fully grasp [the meaning of what he is taught]; atha, but; annasya āyai, when he eats food; draṣṭā bhavati, he can see; śrotā bhavati, he can hear; mantā bhavati, he can think; boddhā bhavati, he can understand; kartā bhavati, he can work; vijñātā bhavati, he can grasp the meaning; annam upāssva iti, worship food. Commentary:-Food creates strength. Suppose you fast for ten days or so. What will happen? It is possible you could die, but even if you don’t, your sense organs will not function. You won’t be able to see, hear, or think. If you went to a teacher you would not be able to learn anything from him. But then if you resume eating, your organs and your mind would again start functioning. You could then study and serve the teacher and learn from him.
Max Müller
1. 'Food (anna) is better than power. Therefore if a man abstain from food for ten days, though he live, he would be unable to see, hear, perceive, think, act, and understand. But when he obtains food, he is able to see, hear, perceive, think, act, and understand. Meditate on food.
2. ‘One who worships food as Brahman attains worlds full of food and drink. One who worships food as Brahman can do what he pleases within the limits of food.’ Nārada asked, ‘Sir, is there anything higher than food?’ ‘Of course there is something higher than food,’ replied Sanatkumāra. Nārada then said, ‘Sir, please explain that to me’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ, he who; annam brahma iti upāste, worships food as Brahman; saḥ abhisidhyati, he attains; annavataḥ vai lokān pānavataḥ, worlds hill of food and drink; yāvat annasya gatam, as far as food goes; tatra, that far; asya yathā-kāmacāraḥ bhavati, as he wishes he can go; yaḥ annam brahma iti upāste, he who worships food as Brahman; bhagavaḥ, sir; annāt bhūyaḥ asti iti, is there anything higher than food; annāt vāva bhūyaḥ asti iti, there is certainly something higher than food; bhagavān, sir; tat me bravītu iti, please explain it to me. Iti navamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the ninth section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
2. 'He who meditates on food as Brahman, obtains the worlds rich in food and drink; he is, as it were, lord and master as far as food reaches--he who meditates on food as Brahman.' 'Sir, is there something better than food 'Yes, there is something better than food.' 'Sir, tell it me.'
1. Water is certainly superior to food. That is why if there is no rain, people worry and think, ‘There will not be enough food.’ But if there is a good rainfall, they are happy, thinking, ‘There will be plenty of food.’ All these are water in different forms:- the earth, the interspace, heaven, the mountains, gods and human beings, cattle and birds, creepers and trees, animals of prey, worms, insects, and ants. All these are water in different forms. Therefore worship water.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Āpaḥ vāva annāt bhūyaḥ, water is certainly superior than food; tasmāt, this is why; yadā suvṛṣṭiḥ na bhavati, when there is not enough rain; prāṇāḥ vyādhīyante, people are anxious; annam kanīyaḥ bhaviṣyati iti, [thinking,] there will not be much food; atha yadā suvṛṣṭiḥ bhavati, then when it rains; prāṇāḥ ānandinaḥ bhavanti, people become happy; annam bahu bhaviṣyati iti, [thinking,] there will be much food; āpaḥ eva imāḥ, water is all this; mūrtāḥ, different forms; yā iyam pṛthivī, this earth; yat antarikṣam, this interspace; yat dyauḥ, this heaven; yat parvatāḥ, these mountains; yat deva-manuṣyāḥ, these gods and human beings; yat paśavaḥ ca, these cattle; vayāṃsi ca, and birds; tṛṇa-vanaspatayaḥ, and creepers and trees; śvāpadāni, animals of prey; ākīṭa-pataṅga-pipīlikam, worms, insects, and ants; āpaḥ eva imāḥ mūrtāḥ, these are all water in different forms; apaḥ upāssva iti, worship water. Commentary:-Suppose one year there is very little rainfall. Everyone then becomes very worried. They say:- ‘What will happen to us? This is a bad year. The crops will fail and there will be a famine.’ On the other hand, if there is good rain during the year, then there is a good harvest. People say, ‘This year we will have plenty to eat.’ The bodies of all living beings are products of water and are dependent on water.
Max Müller
1. 'Water (ap) is better than food. Therefore if there is not sufficient rain, the vital spirits fail from fear that there will be less food. But if there is sufficient rain, the vital spirits rejoice, because there will be much food. This water, on assuming different forms, becomes this earth, this sky, this heaven, the mountains, gods and men, cattle, birds, herbs and trees, all beasts down to worms, midges, and ants. Water indeed assumes all these forms. Meditate on water.
2. ‘One who worships water as Brahman gets all he desires and is happy. One who worships water as Brahman can do what he pleases within the limits of water.’ Nārada asked, ‘Sir, is there anything higher than water?’ ‘Of course there is something higher than water,’ replied Sanatkumāra. Nārada then said, ‘Sir, please explain that to me’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ, he who; apaḥ brahma iti upāste, worships water as Brahman; sarvān kāmān āpnoti, gets all he wishes; tṛptimān bhavati, [and] he is happy; yāvat apām gatam, as far as water goes; tatra, that far; asya yathā-kāmacāraḥ bhavati, as he wishes he can go; yaḥ apaḥ brahma iti upāste, he who worships water as Brahman; bhagavaḥ, sir; adbhyaḥ bhūyaḥ asti iti, is there anything higher than water; adbhyaḥ vāva bhūyaḥ asti iti, there is certainly something higher than water; bhagavān, sir; tat me bravītu iti, please explain it to me. Iti daśamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the tenth section. Commentary:-The Upaniṣad says that if you worship water as Brahman all your desires are fulfilled and you become happy. You can also do whatever you please. This is an exaggeration, but the Upaniṣad is trying to entice you to understand the value of water.
Max Müller
2. 'He who meditates on water as Brahman, obtains all wishes, he becomes satisfied; he is, as it were, lord and master as far as water reaches--he who meditates on water as Brahman.' 'Sir, is there something better than water?' 'Yes, there is something better than water.' 'Sir, tell it me.'
stanayati varṣiṣyati vā iti teja eva tatpūrvaṃ darśayitvāthāpaḥ
sṛjate teja upāssveti .. 7.11.1..
1. Fire [or, heat] is certainly better than water. That fire, taking air as its support, heats the sky. Then people say:- ‘It is very hot. The body is burning. It will rain soon.’ Fire first produces these signs, and then creates the rain. This is why there is lightning going straight up or going sideways in a zigzag manner, and along with it thunder. This is why people say:- ‘There is lightning and thunder. It will rain soon’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tejaḥ vāva adbhyaḥ bhūyaḥ, fire is certainly superior to water; tat vai etat, that [fire]; vāyum āgṛhya, taking the support of air; ākāśam abhitapati, heats the sky; tadā, then; āhaḥ, people say; niśocati, it is very hot; nitapati, it is burning; varṣiṣyati vai iti, there will be rain; tejaḥ eva tat, there is fire; pūrvam, first; darśayitvā, showing; atha apaḥ, then water; sṛjate, creates; tat etat, that [fire]; ūrdhvābhiḥ ca tiraścībhiḥ ca, going upwards and sideways in an irregular way; vidyudbhiḥ, with lightning; āhrādāḥ, the roar of thunder; caranti, moves about; tasmāt, this is why; āhuḥ, people say; vidyotate, there is lightning; stanayati, there is thunder; varṣiṣyati vai iti, there will certainly be rain; tejaḥ eva tat pūrvam darśayitvā, first heat is seen; atha apaḥ sṛjate, then it creates water; tejaḥ upāssva iti, worship fire. Commentary:-In Indian philosophy, there is no such thing as creation—that is, something created out of nothing. But there is manifestation. This universe is always there, only sometimes it is manifest and sometimes it is not. When it is not manifest it is in a seed form. But Brahman is the essence of everything. It is infinite Existence, and that Existence is Consciousness. The first manifestation of Brahman is space. After that comes air and then fire. Water comes from fire, or energy. Finally, earth comes from water. Some things in this universe are gross, and some are subtle, but according to Indian philosophy all are by-products of earth, water, fire, air, and space. This universe is nothing but a permutation and combination of these five elements. Tejas means fire, heat, or energy. Fire is superior to water in the sense that it is the cause, and the cause is always superior to the effect. Fire is said to take air as its support and then make the air motionless through its power. The heat then spreads through space. We all know that when the atmosphere becomes very hot, it will soon rain. Also, before it rains we often see lightning and hear the roar of thunder. This indicates that the atmosphere is surcharged with electricity. So it is said that fire is the cause of water. Fire manifests itself as water. It is not that these elements are separate things.
Max Müller
1. 'Fire (tegas) is better than water. For fire united with air, warms the ether. Then people say, It is hot, it burns, it will rain. Thus does fire, after showing this sign (itself) first, create water. And thus again thunderclaps come with lightnings, flashing upwards and across the sky. Then people say, There is lightning and thunder, it will rain. Then also does fire, after showing this sign first, create water. Meditate on fire.
2. ‘One who worships fire as Brahman becomes bright himself, and he attains worlds that are bright, shining, and without a hint of darkness. One who worships fire as Brahman can do what he pleases within the range of fire.’ Nārada asked, ‘Sir, is there anything higher than tejas?’ ‘Of course there is something higher than tejas,’ replied Sanatkumāra. Nārada then said, ‘Sir, please explain that to me’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ, he who; tejaḥ brahma iti upāste, worships fire as Brahman; saḥ vai tejasi, he becomes energetic and bright; abhisidhyati, [and] attains; tejasvataḥ bhāsvataḥ lokān, worlds that are bright and shining; apahatatamaskān, and without a hint of darkness; yāvat tejasaḥ gatam, as far as tejas goes; tatra, that far; asya yathā-kāmacāraḥ bhavati, as he wishes he can go; yaḥ tejaḥ brahma iti upāste, he who worships fire as Brahman; bhagavaḥ, sir; tejasaḥ bhūyaḥ aṣṭi iti, is there anything higher than tejas; tejasaḥ vāva bhūyaḥ asti iti, there is certainly something higher Commentary:-From ancient times there has been the practice of worshipping fire in different cultures all over the world. In India during the Vedic period people performed sacrifices to fire and always kept their fire burning. But among the religions of the world now, the Parsees are especially known for their worship of fire. The Upaniṣad says that if you worship fire you become like fire—radiant, bright, strong, and shining. That is the Hindu idea. You choose some model, called an iṣṭa. My iṣṭa is my desired state of excellence. Suppose I choose Buddha as my iṣṭa. If I worship him and meditate on him, slowly my character will be changed and I will be transformed. But fire does not just give radiance. Fire, or light, is also a symbol of knowledge as well as a symbol of purity. Fire is said to burn away all impurities. When you meditate on fire as a symbol of knowledge, you meditate on all that is good, bright, and radiant. Slowly we are approaching Brahman. We are going to the source. Suppose we want to walk from Calcutta to Gangotri, the source of the Ganga. How do we do it? We follow the course of the river. Gradually, step by step, we leave Calcutta behind and go further and further north, until at last we find ourselves at Gangotri. In the same way, Sanatkumāra is taking Nārada step by step to the knowledge of the Self.
Max Müller
2. 'He who meditates on fire as Brahman, obtains, resplendent himself, resplendent worlds, full of light and free of darkness; he is, as it were, lord and master as far as fire reaches--he who meditates on fire as Brahman.' 'Sir, is there something better than fire?' 'Yes, there is something better than fire.' 'Sir, tell it me.'
ākāśo vāva tejaso bhūyānākāśe vai sūryācandramasāvubhau
vidyunnakṣatrāṇyagnirākāśenāhvayatyākāśena
śṛṇotyākāśena pratiśṛṇotyākāśe ramata ākāśe na ramata
ākāśe jāyata ākāśamabhijāyata ākāśamupāssveti
.. 7.12.1..
1. Ākāśa [space] is certainly superior to fire. The sun and the moon are both within ākāśa, and so are lightning, the stars, and fire. Through ākāśa one person is able to speak to another. Through ākāśa one is able to hear. And through ākāśa one is able to hear what others are saying. In ākāśa one enjoys, and in ākāśa one suffers. A person is born in ākāśa, and plants and trees grow pointing to ākāśa. Worship ākāśa.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Ākāśaḥ vāva tejasaḥ bhūyān, space is certainly superior to fire; ākāśe vai, within space; sūryā-candra-māsau ubhau, are both the sun and the moon; vidyut, lightning; nakṣatrāṇi, the stars; agniḥ, [and] fire; ākāśena, through space; āhvayati, one calls; ākāśena śṛṇoti, through space one hears; ākāśena pratiśṛṇoti, through space one hears what others are saying; ākāśe ramate, in space one enjoys; ākāśe na ramate, in space one suffers; ākāśe jāyate, in space one is born; ākāśam abhijāyate, [trees and plants] grow pointing to space; ākāśam upāssva iti, worship space. Commentary:-You may find what seem to be errors in every religion, because no religion can reveal the whole of the Ultimate Truth. No religion can exhaust God. It can reveal only one or two aspects of God. So we see here, Sanatkumāra is taking Nārada from a lower truth to a higher truth. He is showing how the cause is higher than the effect. Suppose there is no such thing as space. Where would fire be? Or lightning? Or the sun or the moon or the stars? So space is higher than fire, or energy. Without space there would be no sound, and no one could speak to another. Nor could anyone be born or grow.
Max Müller
1. 'Ether (or space) is better than fire. For in the ether exist both sun and moon, the lightning, stars, and fire (agni). Through the ether we call, through the ether we hear, through the ether we answer [1]. In the ether or space we rejoice (when we are together), and rejoice not (when we are separated). In the ether everything is born, and towards the ether everything tends when it is born [2]. Meditate on ether.
ya ākāśaṃ brahmetyupāste'sti bhagava ākāśādbhūya iti
ākāśādvāva bhūyo'stīti tanme bhagavānbravītviti
.. 7.12.2..
2. ‘One who worships ākāśa [space] as Brahman attains worlds that are spacious, shining, free from all drawbacks, and extensive. One who worships ākāśa as Brahman can do what he pleases within the range of ākāśa.’ Nārada asked, ‘Sir, is there anything higher than ākāśa?’ ‘Of course there is something higher than ākāśa,’ replied Sanatkumāra. Nārada then said, ‘Sir, please explain that to me’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ, he who; ākāśam brahma iti upāste, worships space as Brahman; saḥ vai lokān, he attains worlds; ākāśavataḥ prakāśavataḥ, that are spacious and shining; asambādhān, free from all hindrances; urugāyavataḥ, [and] extensive; yāvat ākāśasya gatam, as far as space goes; tatra, that far; asya yathā-kāmacāraḥ bhavati, as he wishes he can go; yaḥ ākāśam brahma iti upāste, he who worships space as Brahman; bhagavaḥ, sir; ākāśāt bhūyaḥ asti iti, is there anything higher than ākāśa; ākāśāt vāva bhūyaḥ asti iti, there is certainly something higher than ākāśa; bhagavān, sir; tat me bravītu iti, please explain it to me. Iti dvādaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the twelfth section. Commentary:-If you meditate on something vast, you become vast. Space is infinite, so when you meditate on space you gradually envelop the whole universe. You become so vast that you find there are no hurdles in your way. Why do we practise meditation? One reason is to quicken our growth, our inner development. When we meditate on the deity we like most, we are, in fact, meditating on the qualities that deity embodies. Then gradually we find we are acquiring those same qualities. There is a Sanskrit saying:- ‘As you think, so you are.’ If you think you are good, then you will be good. But if you start thinking you are bad, you will soon discover that you are deteriorating. This is why we must meditate on that which is good and noble. Again Nārada is not content. He asks if there is something higher. The student has to ask; otherwise, if he is not interested, there is no point in teaching him. The student must have the urge within himself
Max Müller
2. 'He who meditates on ether as Brahman, obtains the worlds of ether and of light, which are free from pressure and pain, wide and spacious [1]; he is, as it were, lord and master as far as ether reaches--he who meditates on ether as Brahman.' 'Sir, is there something better than ether?' Yes, there Is something better than ether.' 'Sir, tell it me.'
smaranto naiva te kaṃcana śṛṇuyurna manvīranna vijānīranyadā
vāva te smareyuratha śṛṇuyuratha manvīrannatha vijānīransmareṇa
vai putrānvijānāti smareṇa paśūnsmaramupāssveti .. 7.13.1..
1. Memory is certainly superior to ākāśa [space]. This is why, if many people get together but their memory fails, then they cannot hear or think or know anything. But if they remember, they can then hear, think, and know. Through memory one knows one’s children and animals. Therefore, worship memory.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Smaraḥ vāva ākāśāt bhūyaḥ, memory is certainly superior to ākāśa [space]; tasmāt, this is why; yadi api, even if; bahavaḥ, many people; āsīran, get together; na smarantaḥ, [but] they cannot remember; te, they; na eva kañcana śṛṇuyuḥ, cannot hear anything; na manvīran, nor think; na vijānīran, nor know; yadā vāva te smareyuḥ, but if they can remember; atha śṛṇuyuḥ, then they can hear; atha manvīran, then they can think; atha vijānīran, then they can know; smareṇa vai, by virtue of memory; putrān vijānāti, one knows one’s children; smareṇa paśūn, by virtue of memory [one knows one’s] animals; smaram upāssva iti, worship memory. Commentary:-Memory is the medium through which we learn. Without memory we cannot progress, because we cannot retain anything. Because we have the faculty of memory, we hear something, we understand it, and then we are prompted to action. Suppose someone tells me:- ‘Beware! There is a snake over there. Don’t go that way.’ If I cannot remember what that person has said, then I will go in that direction and be bitten by the snake. When the guru gives us spiritual instructions, we have to hear it correctly, think over it and ponder it, and then meditate on it again and again. We must think deeply on it. Without memory we cannot do that.
Max Müller
1. 'Memory [1] (smara) is better than ether. Therefore where many are assembled together, if they have no memory, they would hear no one, they would not perceive, they would not understand. Through memory we know our sons, through memory our cattle. Meditate on memory.
2. ‘One who worships memory as Brahman has free movement as far as memory goes.’ Nārada asked, ‘Sir, is there anything higher than memory?’ ‘Of course there is something higher than memory,’ replied Sanatkumāra. Nārada then said, ‘Sir, please explain that to me’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ, he who; smaram brahma iti upāste, worships memory as Brahman; yāvat smarasya gatam, as far as memory goes; tatra, that far; asya yathā-kāmacāraḥ bhavati, as he wishes he can go; yaḥ smaram brahma iti upāste, he who worships memory as Brahman; bhagavaḥ, sir; smarāt bhūyaḥ asti iti, is there anything higher than memory; smarāt vāva bhūyaḥ asti iti, there is certainly something higher than memory; bhagavān, sir; tat me bravītu iti, please explain it to me. Iti trayodaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the thirteenth section. Commentary:-Sanatkumāra says to meditate on memory as Brahman. Even the lowest truth is Brahman. But we must not stop there. That is not the goal. True knowledge is not a collection of information stored in our memory. True knowledge is attained through assimilation. We have to grasp it, absorb it. Knowledge has to become part and parcel of our being; otherwise we are like beasts of burden. It is no use knowing the truth unless we act in the light of that truth. Until scholarship has made some impact on our character, it is nothing. Only when it makes us a new individual do we become truly enlightened. Sri Ramakrishna used to give the example of a vulture. A vulture flies very high in the sky, but it is always looking down at the ground—looking for the dead body of some animal so that it can come down and eat the flesh. Similarly, merely going up won’t do. That is to say, merely stuffing your mind with information is not enough. You have to use that information to overcome the obstacles in your life. That’s what is meant.
Max Müller
2. 'He who meditates on memory as Brahman, is, as it were, lord and master as far as memory reaches;--he who meditates on memory as Brahman.' 'Sir, is there something better than memory?' 'Yes, there is something better than memory.' 'Sir, tell it me.'
āśā vāva smarādbhūyasyāśeddho vai smaro mantrānadhīte
karmāṇi kurute putrāgͫśca paśūgͫścecchata imaṃ ca
lokamamuṃ cecchata āśāmupāssveti .. 7.14.1..
1. Hope is certainly better than memory. Hope inspires a person’s memory, and one uses one’s memory to learn the mantras and perform rituals. One then wishes for children and animals, and one also wishes to attain this world and the next. Therefore, worship hope.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Āśā vāva smarāt bhūyasī, hope is certainly superior to memory; āśā-iddhaḥ vai, fired by hope; smaraḥ, memory; mantrān, the mantras; adhīte, learns; karmāṇi kurute, performs the rituals; putrān ca, children; paśūn ca, and animals; icchate, he wishes for; imam ca lokam amum ca, this world and the other [world]; icchate, he wishes for; āśām upāssva iti, worship hope. Commentary:-Suppose there is something you want. You have not got it, but you hope to get it. This kind of desire can be helpful. Maybe you have money, children, and a good reputation, but you are not happy. You discover that any amount of material prosperity you attain does not give you peace of mind. You see many people who are very prosperous but unhappy. You then start yearning for spiritual enlightenment. This is called divine discontent. This discontent pushes you on and on to make progress. Without burning desire, you cannot attain anything in spiritual life.
Max Müller
1. 'Hope (âsâ) is better than memory. Fired by hope does memory read the sacred hymns, perform sacrifices, desire sons and cattle, desire this world and the other. Meditate on hope.
2. ‘One who worships hope as Brahman has all his desires fulfilled. He gets whatever he wants without fail. One who worships hope as Brahman has free movement as far as hope goes.’ Nārada asked, ‘Sir, is there anything higher than hope?’ ‘Of course there is something higher than hope,’ replied Sanatkumāra. Nārada then said, ‘Sir, please explain that to me’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yaḥ, he who; āśām brahma iti upāste, worships hope as Brahman; āśayā, by that hope; asya sarve kāmāḥ, all his desires; samṛdhyanti, are fulfilled; amoghāḥ, without fail; ha asya āśiṣaḥ bhavanti, his desires are fulfilled; yāvat āśāyāḥ gatam, as far as hope goes; tatra, that far; asya yathā-kāmacāraḥ bhavati, as he wishes he can go; yaḥ āśām brahma iti upāste, he who worships hope as Brahman; bhagavaḥ, sir; āśāyāḥ bhūyaḥ asti iti, is there anything higher than hope; āśāyāḥ vāva bhūyaḥ asti iti, there is certainly something higher than hope; bhagavān, sir; tat me bravītu iti, please explain it to me. Iti caturdaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the fourteenth section. Commentary:-The message given here is that one must not lose heart. No doubt there are many difficulties in the way, but they can be overcome, and they are overcome
Max Müller
2. 'He who meditates on hope as Brahman, all his desires are fulfilled by hope, his prayers are not in vain; he is, as it were, lord and master as far as hope reaches--he who meditates on hope as Brahman.' 'Sir, is there something better than hope?' 'Yes, there is something better than hope.' 'Sir, tell it me.'
prāṇaḥ prāṇaṃ dadāti prāṇāya dadāti prāṇo ha pitā prāṇo
mātā prāṇo bhrātā prāṇaḥ svasā prāṇa ācāryaḥ
prāṇo brāhmaṇaḥ .. 7.15.1..
1. Prāṇa [the vital force] is certainly superior to hope. Just as spokes on a wheel are attached to the hub, similarly everything rests on prāṇa. Prāṇa works through its own power [i.e., prāṇa is the means as well as the end]. Prāṇa gives prāṇa to prāṇa, and prāṇa directs prāṇa to prāṇa. Prāṇa is the father, prāṇa is the mother, prāṇa is the brother, prāṇa is the sister, prāṇa is the teacher, and prāṇa is the brāhmin.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Prāṇaḥ vāva āśāyāḥ bhūyān, prāṇa [the vital force] is certainly superior to hope; yathā vai arāḥ, just as the spokes; nābhau samarpitāḥ, are attached to the hub; evam, in the same way; asmin prāṇe, on this prāṇa; sarvarn, all this; samarpitam, are resting; prāṇaḥ prāṇena yāti, prāṇa works by its own power; prāṇaḥ prāṇam dadāti, prāṇa gives prāṇa; prāṇāya, to prāṇa; dadāti, [and again] gives; prāṇaḥ ha pitā, prāṇa is the father; prāṇaḥ mātā, prāṇa is the mother; Commentary:-Prāṇa, the vital force, is superior to hope. Suppose you are dead. Can hope do anything for you then? You must have life. If you are not living then there can be no hope, no memory—nothing. The Upaniṣad says that prāṇa is the resting place of everything. It is like a wheel with its spokes. All the spokes are fixed on the hub of the wheel. Similarly, my mind and my organs are all fixed on prāṇa. My eyes are very powerful, but if I am dead they may still be intact but they cannot see. Prāṇa functions on the individual level in you, in me, in plants and insects and animals. But we represent only a small portion of this life force, because prāṇa also functions on the cosmic level. On the cosmic level prāṇa is Hiraṇyagarbha, the first manifestation of Brahman. The whole cosmos is governed and activated by prāṇa. Brahman is beyond thought and If I stop breathing my body and organs can no longer function, and eventually they disintegrate. Similarly, if the cosmic life force withdraws itself from this universe, everything comes to a halt. The sun does not shine; the air does not blow. The whole life process comes to a standstill. We see so many beings around us. Someone is your mother, someone your father, someone your brother, someone your sister, but they are all prāṇa. Prāṇa is in the form of your mother. Prāṇa is in the form of your father, or your sister, or your teacher, and so on. Our family, society, the entire humanity, all living beings—all are prāṇa in different forms. Prāṇa takes various forms and then assumes different relationships.
Max Müller
1. 'Spirit [1] (prâna) is better than hope. As the spokes of a wheel hold to the nave [2], so does all this (beginning with names and ending in hope) hold to spirit. That spirit moves by the spirit, it gives spirit to the spirit. Father means spirit, mother is spirit, brother is spirit, sister is spirit, tutor is spirit, Brâhmana is spirit.
sa yadi pitaraṃ vā mātaraṃ vā bhrātaraṃ vā svasāraṃ vācāryaṃ
vā brāhmaṇaṃ vā kiṃcidbhṛśamiva pratyāha
dhiktvāstvityevainamāhuḥ pitṛhā vai tvamasi mātṛhā vai
tvamasi bhrātṛhā vai tvamasi svasṛhā vai tvamasyācāryahā
vai tvamasi brāhmaṇahā vai tvamasīti .. 7.15.2..
2. If a person speaks rudely to his father, mother, brother, sister, teacher, or to a brāhmin, people say to him:- ‘Shame on you! You have murdered your father. You have murdered your mother. You have murdered your brother. You have murdered your sister. You have murdered your teacher. You have murdered a brāhmin’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ yadi, if anyone; pitaram vā mataram vā, his father or mother; bhrātaram vā svasāram vā, or brother or sister; ācāryam vā brāhmaṇam vā, or teacher or a brāhmin; kiñcit, anything; bhṛśam iva, discourteously; pratyāha, answers; dhik tvā astu iti, shame on you; enam eva āhuḥ, [people] say to him; pitṛhā vai tvam asi, you have killed your father; mātṛhā vai tvam asi, you have killed your mother; bhrātṛhā vai tvam asi, you have killed your brother; svasṛhā vai tvam asi, you have killed your sister; ācāryahā vai tvam asi, you have killed your teacher; brāhmaṇahā vai tvam asi iti, you have killed a brāhmin. Commentary:-According to Śaṅkara, using the informal tvam (you) instead of the more formal bhavān would be such an offense. Here the Upaniṣad means that you should treat everyone with respect. Being disrespectful to people is as good as murdering them.
Max Müller
2. 'For if one says anything unbecoming to a father, mother, brother, sister, tutor or Brâhmana, then people say, Shame on thee! thou hast offended thy father, mother, brother, sister, tutor, or a Brâhmana.
व्यतिषंदहेन्नैवैनं ब्रूयुः पितृहासीति न मातृहासीति
न भ्रातृहासीति न स्वसृहासीति नाचार्यहासीति
न ब्राह्मणहासीति ॥ ७.१५.३॥
atha yadyapyenānutkrāntaprāṇāñchūlena samāsaṃ
vyatiṣaṃdahennaivainaṃ brūyuḥ pitṛhāsīti na mātṛhāsīti
na bhrātṛhāsīti na svasṛhāsīti nācāryahāsīti
na brāhmaṇahāsīti .. 7.15.3..
3. But when they have died, if a person piles their bodies on a funeral pyre and bums them, piercing them with a spear [so that the body burns more quickly], no one will say to him, ‘You have killed your father,’ or ‘You have killed your mother,’ or ‘You have killed your brother,’ or ‘You have killed your sister,’ or ‘You have killed your teacher,’ or ‘You have killed a brāhmin’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, but; yadi api enān, if even all these; utkrāntaprāṇān, when life has departed; śūlena, with the help of a spear; vyatiṣan, tears the bodies to pieces; samāsam, puts them in a pile; dahet, [and] bums them; na eva enam brūyaḥ, people will not say to him; pitṛhā asi iti, you killed your father; na mātṛhā asi iti, nor you killed your mother; na bhrātṛhā asi iti, nor you killed your brother; na svasṛhā asi iti, nor you killed your sister; na ācāryahā asi iti, nor you killed your teacher; na brāhmaṇahā asi iti, nor you killed a brāhmin. Commentary:-Suppose you say something very rude to your father. People will say:- ‘Shame on you! You have killed your father.’ But suppose your father has died. You will then have to burn or bury his body. Yet no one will scold you or blame you for doing something wrong, because prāṇa has left the body. This is the difference between prāṇa existing in the body and prāṇa not existing in the body.
Max Müller
3. 'But, if after the spirit has departed from them, one shoves them together with a poker, and burns them to pieces, no one would say, Thou offendest thy father, mother, brother, sister, tutor or a Brâhmana.
4. It is prāṇa that is all this. He who sees thus, thinks thus, and knows thus becomes a superior speaker. If anyone says to him, ‘You are a superior speaker,’ he may say, ‘Yes, I am a superior speaker.’ He need not deny it.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Prāṇaḥ hi eva etāni sarvāṇi bhavati, prāṇa is all this; saḥ vai eṣaḥ, he who; evam, thus; paśyan, seeing; evam manvānaḥ, thus considering; evam vijānan, thus knowing; ativādī bhavati, becomes a superior speaker; cet, if; tarn brūyuḥ, anybody says to him; ativādī asi iti, you are a superior speaker; ativādī asmi iti brūyān, he will say, ‘Yes I am a superior speaker’; na apahnuvīta, he will not deny it. Iti pañcadaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the fifteenth section. Commentary:-Who is an ativādī? Here ativādī means ‘a superior speaker.’ It is one who has realized the Truth and has thereby acquired the ability to say nothing but the truth. When a holy person speaks, his words make sense. There is a ring of truth about them. They are authoritative. Such a person is an ativādī We all speak. We are speaking all the time. But for most of us our words are like the cawing of crows. Our words are just sounds. They make no sense. But when the speaker is a holy person, one who has realized God, who has seen the Truth face to face, everything he says is true. If you have read Josephine McLeod’s reminiscences of Swami Vivekananda, you will remember how she described the first time she heard Swamiji speak:- ‘He stood up and said something, and I thought, “Yes, this is true.” Again he said something, and I thought, “Yes, this is true too.” Yet again he said something and I said to myself, “This is also true.” Whatever he said was true.’ Such a person is an ativādī. In one of the Upaniṣads we find a ṛṣi calling to humanity:- ‘Hear me, O children of immortal bliss. I have known the Truth. If you know it you overcome
Max Müller
4. 'Spirit then is all this. He who sees this, perceives this, and understands this, becomes an ativâdin [1]. If people say to such a man, Thou art an ativâdin, he may say, I am an ativâdin; he need not deny it.'
1. ‘But a person must first know the Truth. Then he is truly an ativādī.’ Nārada said, ‘Sir, I want to be an ativādī by knowing the Truth.’ Sanatkumāra replied, ‘But one must earnestly desire to know the Truth.’ ‘Sir, I earnestly desire to know the Truth,’ Nārada said.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Eṣaḥ, this [person]; tu, but; vai ativadati, is truly an ativādī; yaḥ, who; satyena ativadati, who speaks of Truth after having known the Truth; bhagavaḥ, sir; saḥ aham, as I am that [i.e., one who is unhappy]; satyena ativadāni iti, I want to be an ativādī by knowing the Truth; satyam tu eva vijijñāsitavyam iti, but Truth must be thoroughly enquired into; bhagavaḥ, sir; satyam vijijñāse iti, I wish to thoroughly enquire into Truth. Iti ṣoḍaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the sixteenth section. Commentary:-Hearing Sanatkumāra’s words about prāṇa, Nārada concluded that prāṇa is everything, that it is the ultimate. Thinking he was now an ativādī, he kept quiet. He did not make any further enquiries. Sanatkumāra understood, however, and told him:- ‘No, you do not know it yet. This is not the ultimate. This is not Brahman. Prāṇa is a manifestation of Brahman but not Brahman itself. In order to know Brahman one must know the Truth.’ That is to say, one must know the meaning behind the words. You may speak of God, but have you seen God yourself? If you have not seen him, if you have not realized him, what right have you got to talk about him? You are like a blind man trying to lead another blind man. Have you yourself realized the Truth?—that is the criterion. You must have direct experience of the Truth—not just some information you have picked up from books or from other people. It must be a-parokṣa—that is, not through another source. It must be direct, personal, immediate. Nārada immediately understood his mistake and with great humility asked to learn the Truth. This spirit of humility is very important. As Sri Ramakrishna says, water cannot accumulate in a high place. It always runs down to a low place. Similarly, good qualities cannot remain in a proud person. They will soon run off. Only in a humble person can they be retained. If you are humble the teacher will be glad to teach you. So also, a good teacher will never say:- ‘I am supreme. I know everything.’
Max Müller
1. 'But in reality he is an ativâdin who declares the Highest Being to be the True (Satya, τὸ ὄντως ὄν).' 'Sir, may I become an ativâdin by the True?' 'But we must desire to know the True.' 'Sir, I desire to know the True.'
1. Sanatkumāra said:- ‘When a person knows for certain, then he can truly speak of the Truth. But without knowing well, he cannot speak of the Truth. One who knows for certain speaks of Truth. But one must seek knowledge in depth.’ Nārada said, ‘Sir, I seek knowledge in depth’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yadā, when; vai vijānāti, a person knows well; atha, then; satyam vadati, he speaks what he knows to be the Truth; avijānan, without knowing it well; satyam na vadati, he does not speak of Truth; vijānan eva, knowing it well; satyam vadati, one can speak of Truth; vijñānam tu eva vijijñāsitavyam iti, but one must seek knowledge in depth; vijñānam bhagavaḥ vijijñāse iti, sir, I seek knowledge in depth. Iti saptadaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the seventeenth section. Commentary:-Sanatkumāra says that when you know the Truth, whatever you say is nothing but the truth. You cannot say anything that is not the truth. Truth is Truth, and there is no compromise in it. Once you know this Truth, everything else is irrelevant. But what if that Truth is associated with names and forms? Is that Truth? The scriptures admit it as a relative truth. It is not, however, the Absolute Truth. The Absolute Truth is called ‘that’ because it is beyond the reach of the sense organs. As regards the relative truth, it is called ‘this’, because it is within the reach of the sense organs. The Absolute Truth is difficult to understand. For instance, the elements in their pure form are beyond the reach of the sense organs, so they are sometimes referred to as ‘that’, but they are not the Absolute Truth. Brahman is the Absolute Truth. In this connection it is to be remembered that fire was said to be red, water white, and earth black. Though it was said that the colours alone were real, this is not ‘real’ from the standpoint of Absolute Truth. These colours are also attributes. This is why the Absolute Truth is difficult to understand. Knowing the Absolute Truth is vijñāna.
Max Müller
1. 'When one understands the True, then one declares the True. One who does not understand it, does not declare the True [1]. Only he who understands it, declares the True. This understanding, however, we must desire to understand.' 'Sir, I desire to understand it.'
1. Sanatkumāra said:- ‘When a person learns to think well, then he can know deeply. Without thinking well, one cannot know deeply. One knows for certain when one thinks deeply. But one must want to know how to think well.’ Nārada replied, ‘Sir, I want to know how to think well’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yadā vai manute, when one learns to think well; atha vijānāti, then one can know deeply; amatvā, without applying the mind; na vijānāti, one cannot know deeply; matvā eva vijānāti, a person knows deeply when he thinks deeply; matiḥ tu eva vijijñāsitavya iti, but one must want to know how to think well; bhagavaḥ, sir; matim vijijñāse iti, I want to know what this thinking is. Iti aṣṭādaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the eighteenth section. Commentary:-How do we know something? We know it by applying our mind—that is, by concentrating our mind on it. Swami Turiyananda used to say that if you continue reading the Gītā with a concentrated mind, then whenever you read it new meanings will unfold, meanings which you never suspected. Sanatkumāra says that without applying your mind seriously, you will not understand what you are studying. At Belur Math, Swamiji used to have the monks debate on different issues. One person would say something, and another would contradict him. When two people debate about something, they both get excited and the heat rises. As one of the monks used to say, ‘When there is some heat there will also be some light.’ Debating is like churning milk. As you chum the milk the cream gradually begins to appear. So also, when there is a debate, truth gradually comes to the surface. Suppose you have a thorn stuck in your foot. What do you do? As Sri Ramakrishna used to say, you take another thorn and use it to remove the first thorn. Then you throw away both. Similarly, you have to use your mind to go beyond the mind. Vedānta says that Truth is within you. But you must first hear about it from a teacher. Then you must reflect on it. Think over it again and again:- ‘What does this mean? How can I be one with Brahman?’ You go on questioning, searching for the real meaning of the, words. After that you must deeply meditate on it. Then only the real meaning dawns on you. It comes as if in a flash. What else is this mind for? If we don’t think, we are as good as dead. Human beings are superior Śaṅkara gives a wonderful definition of reflection. He says it means having great love for the subject being considered.
Max Müller
1. 'When one perceives, then one understands. One who does not perceive, does not understand. Only he who perceives, understands. This perception, however, we must desire to understand.' 'Sir, I desire to understand it.'
1. Sanatkumāra said:- ‘When a person has respect [for what he hears], then he gives due thought to it. Without this respect he attaches ho importance to what he hears. One thinks deeply over something that one respects. But one must try to attain this respect.’ Nārada replied, ‘Sir, I want to have this respect’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yadā vai śraddadhāti, when a person has respect [for something or someone—or faith in something or someone]; atha manute, then he thinks deeply [of that thing or person]; aśraddadhat, if there is no respect; na manute, he does not think deeply; śraddadhat eva manute, one thinks deeply when one has respect; śraddhā tu eva vijijñāsitavya iti, but one must try to have this respect; śraddhām bhagavaḥ vijijñāse iti, sir, I want to have this respect. Iti ekonaviṃśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the nineteenth section. Commentary:-Reflecting is good, but one should do it with śraddhā, faith. Śraddhā also means respect. For instance, if my guru tells me something, I know it must be true because I know he will never mislead me. When you go to a guru you should have faith in what he says. Then later you will get the confirmation of what he has taught you from within, and at that point your own mind becomes the guru. But to begin with you must have respect for what the guru says. This does not mean, however, that you cannot ask him questions. You have every right to have things clarified. But if you say, ‘Well, after all, this person knows nothing; he is just trying to fool me,’ and so on, then you will never get anywhere. Rather, one must listen with an open mind, thinking, ‘This person is held in high respect, so I will listen and I will study.’ Ramakrishna, for instance, made many statements which some of his disciples, such as Swami Vivekananda, had difficulty accepting, so they would question him and argue. And Ramakrishna would welcome their questions and arguments. Others would protest and say, ‘When Ramakrishna has said something, why not accept it?’ But Ramakrishna would reply, ‘No, let them question.’ It was because their enquiry was done with śraddhā, respect, and with a keen desire to know. Suppose you don’t have śraddhā. Then you would not care. You would not even give a moment’s thought to finding out the Truth. Only when you have śraddhā can you go on thinking and reflecting on it.
Max Müller
1. 'When one believes, then one perceives. One who does not believe, does not perceive. Only he who believes, perceives. This belief, however, we must desire to understand.' 'Sir, I desire to understand it.'
1. Sanatkumāra:- ‘When a person is steady and devoted to his teacher, then he has respect. Without being steady, one cannot have respect. One has steadiness when one has genuine respect and devotion. But one must seek this steadiness with great earnestness.’ Nārada replied, ‘I seek this steadiness’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yadā vai nistiṣṭhati, when one is steady in one’s service and devotion to one’s teacher; atha śraddadhāti, then one has respect; anistiṣṭhan, where this steadiness and devotion is missing; na śraddadhāti, there is no respect; nistiṣṭhan era śraddadhāti, a person has respect when he has this steadiness; niṣṭhā tu era vijijñāsitavya iti, but one must be determined to have this steadiness Commentary:-It is difficult to translate the word niṣṭhā. The closest word in English is probably ‘steadiness.’ For instance, you say you want to know something, but actually it is only a passing mood on your part. You really don’t mean it. This is the opposite of steadiness. But if you really mean it, if you go on struggling to get that knowledge, no matter how difficult or frustrating it may be to acquire it, then this is niṣṭhā, steadiness. Śaṅkara says that niṣṭhā comes from serving the guru with devotion. When you devotedly serve your teacher, your love for the subject of your enquiry grows stronger and stronger, and your conviction also grows stronger and stronger. You begin to think:- ‘Yes, there is such a thing as Self-realization. How else can I explain my teacher being so good, so kind, so affectionate, so selfless?’ You find that your teacher is unfailing in his loyalty to the ideals which he professes, and slowly you are able to understand the real implication of the words tyāga, renunciation, titikṣā, forbearance, and so forth, because you see him putting them Section Twenty-one
Max Müller
1. 'When one attends on a tutor (spiritual guide), then one believes. One who does not attend on a tutor, does not believe. Only he who attends, believes. This attention on a tutor, however, we must desire to understand.' 'Sir, I desire to understand it.'
yadā vai karotyatha nistiṣṭhati nākṛtvā nistiṣṭhati
kṛtvaiva nistiṣṭhati kṛtistveva vijijñāsitavyeti
kṛtiṃ bhagavo vijijñāsa iti .. 7.21.1..
1. Sanatkumāra said:- ‘When a person keeps doing his duty, he becomes steady. If one does not do one’s duty, one cannot have steadiness. One attains steadiness by doing one’s duty. But one should try to know what duty means.’ Nārada replied, ‘Sir, I want to know about duty’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yadā vai karoti, when a person does his duty [i.e., when he practises self-restraint and concentration of the mind]; atha nistiṣṭḥati, then he is steady; akṛtvā, without doing one’s duty; na nistiṣṭhati, one cannot be steady; kṛtvā eva nistiṣṭhati, one becomes steady by doing one’s duty; kṛtiḥ tu eva vijijñāsitavya iti, but one should know well the nature of duty; bhagavaḥ kṛtim vijijñāse iti, sir, I want to know the nature of duty. Iti ekaviṃśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the twenty-first section. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
1. 'When one performs all sacred duties [1], then one attends really on a tutor. One who does not perform his duties, does not really attend on a tutor. Only he who performs his duties, attends on his tutor. This performance of duties, however, we must desire to understand.' 'Sir, I desire to understand it.'
1. Sanatkumāra said:- ‘A person works when he gets happiness. He does not care to work if he does not get happiness. By getting happiness one does one’s duty. But one must try to understand the true nature of this happiness.’ Nārada replied, ‘Sir, I want to know well the true nature of happiness’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Kṛtiḥ means ‘application,’ or ‘repeated practice.’ How do we get niṣṭhā, or steadiness? Śaṅkara says it comes through repeated practice of self-restraint and self-discipline—that is, through the control of the organs and the mind. Section Twenty-two Yadā vai sukham labhate, when a person gets happiness; atha karoti, he then works; asukham labdhvā, without getting happiness; na karoti, he does not do his duty; sukham eva labdhvā karoti, one works by getting happiness; sukham tu eva vijijñāsitavyam iti, but one should try to understand the nature of this happiness; bhagavaḥ sukham vijijñāse iti, sir, I want to understand the nature of this happiness. Iti dvādaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the twenty-second section. Commentary:-Section Twenty-three
Max Müller
1. 'When one obtains bliss (in oneself), then one performs duties. One who does not obtain bliss, does not perform duties. Only he who obtains bliss, performs duties. This bliss, however, we must desire to understand.' 'Sir, I desire to understand it.'
yo vai bhūmā tatsukhaṃ nālpe sukhamasti bhūmaiva sukhaṃ
bhūmā tveva vijijñāsitavya iti bhūmānaṃ bhagavo
vijijñāsa iti .. 7.23.1..
1. Sanatkumāra said:- ‘That which is infinite is the source of happiness. There is no happiness in the finite. Happiness is only in the infinite. But one must try to understand what the infinite is.’ Nārada replied, ‘Sir, I want to clearly understand the infinite’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yaḥ vai bhūmā, that which is infinite [lit., big, or the biggest]; tat sukham, that is happiness; na alpe sukham asti, there is no happiness in the finite [small]; bhūmā eva sukham, happiness is only in the infinite; bhūmā tu eva vijijñāsitavyaḥ iti, but one must try to understand the true nature of the infinite; bhūmānam bhagavaḥ vijijñāse iti, sir, I want to understand the true nature of the infinite. Iti trayoviṃśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the twenty-third section. Commentary:-If you attain bhūmā, then you have real happiness. What is bhūmā? It is Brahman. It is the biggest. It is infinite. Something is infinite when it is without any limitations in terms of time and space. Even our own lives are limited. We were born at a certain point in time and we shall live for a certain span of time. It may be for a hundred years or it may be less, but the body will not last forever. Then why should we bother about God or Brahman or something that is said to be infinite? Because we want to be happy. Perhaps you are very fond of sweets and enjoy eating them. But when you have finished eating them your joy is gone. Moreover, if you eat too many then you become sick and are miserable. Only in the infinite is there real joy, real happiness, real peace—peace that is constant, always there, and never disturbed. As Sanatkumāra says, ‘Na alpe sukham asti—there is no happiness in that which is small, limited, or short-lived.’ Śaṅkara says, anything that is finite causes tṛṣṇā, thirst—that is, it increases your desire for more. Whatever you get, you desire still more. Suppose you possess the whole world; even then you would not be happy. Therefore that which is finite is duḥkhabījam—the seed of unhappiness. As long as you are confined to the limited world of sense experience you can never be happy. You have to go beyond sense experience. When you attain the state of bhūmā you feel you have got everything you have ever wanted. As the Gītā says (VI.22):- ‘Attaining that, one does not regard anything to be higher.’ Section Twenty-four
Max Müller
1. 'The Infinite (bhûman) [1] is bliss. There is no bliss in anything finite. Infinity only is bliss. This Infinity, however, we must desire to understand.' 'Sir, I desire to understand it.'
tadalpaṃ yo vai bhūmā tadamṛtamatha yadalpaṃ tanmartygͫ sa
bhagavaḥ kasminpratiṣṭhita iti sve mahimni yadi vā
na mahimnīti .. 7.24.1..
1. Sanatkumāra said:- ‘Bhūmā [the infinite] is that in which one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, and knows [i.e., finds] nothing else. But alpa [the finite] is that in which one sees something else, hears something else, and knows something else. That which is infinite is immortal, and that which is finite is mortal.’ Nārada asked, ‘Sir, what does bhūmā rest on?’ Sanatkumāra replied, ‘It rests on its own power—or not even on that power [i.e., it depends on nothing else]’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yatra, where; na anyat paśyati, one sees nothing else; na anyat śṛṇoti, hears nothing else; na anyat vijānāti, knows nothing about other things; saḥ bhūmā, that is bhūmā [the infinite]; atha, but; yatra, where; anyat paśyati, one sees something else; anyat śṛṇoti, hears something else; anyat vijānāti, knows of something else; tat alpam, that is small [finite]; yaḥ vai bhūmā, that which is infinite; tat amṛtam, that is immortal; atha, but; yat alpam, that which is finite; tat martyam, that is mortal; bhagavaḥ, sir; kasmin saḥ pratiṣṭhitaḥ iti, on what does that [bhūmā] rest; sve mahimni, on its own power; yadi vā na mahimni iti, or not even on that power. Commentary:-At the level of bhūmā, the infinite, there is only bhūmā—nothing but bhūmā. And when you attain that level, you see nothing but bhūmā. If you see anything else, then you know at once it is alpa, finite. Suppose you are alone in a room with a hundred mirrors. What will you see? Only yourself—the same self multiplied a hundred times. But if you attain the state of bhūmā, or Brahman, this is just the experience you will have. You will see yourself everywhere—the same Self in all beings. We talk of love and compassion, but how can there be love unless there is a feeling of oneness? When you have this feeling of oneness, then if someone is in pain, you are also in pain. True love is possible only when we realize that ‘you’ and ‘I are one and the same. This is the supreme experience. Once at Dakshineswar two boatmen were having a quarrel and one of them started beating the other. Ramakrishna saw it from a distance and felt as if he were being beaten. Even the marks of the beating were seen on his body. Another day he saw someone walking on some grass, and he felt that the person was stepping on him. When Ramakrishna had throat cancer he could hardly eat a thing. One day some of his disciples went to him and begged him to ask Mother Kali to cure him. Ramakrishna replied that he could not ask such a thing from her, that he depended totally on her will. But the disciples would not let him alone. They pleaded again and again:- ‘Do it for our sake.’ They could not bear to see him suffer. Finally Ramakrishna agreed to say something to the Mother. When the disciples came back to him later to ask if he had talked to the Mother, Ramakrishna said, ‘I told Mother that I could not eat because of the pain in my throat, and I asked her to allow me to eat something.’ ‘What did she say?’ they asked. Ramakrishna replied:- ‘She showed me all of you, and then she said, “But you are eating through so many mouths.” I was ashamed and could not utter another word.’ There is a story about Ganesh and his mother Parvati. Once when Ganesh was playing with a cat, he became very rough and beat it. Later, when he went to his mother, he noticed wounds all over her body. Ganesh was alarmed and asked, ‘Who has beaten you, Mother?’ Parvati replied:- ‘Son, you have done this. You beat the cat, but I am also in the cat. If you hurt the cat you hurt me too.’ The Vedāntic idea is that the same Self is everywhere. It is the same consciousness. In some cases that consciousness is more manifest, and in other cases it is less, but it is the same Self permeating everything. From a tiny atom to the whole cosmos, it is all one. The difference is only in the degree of manifestation. Where there is duality there is conflict, so we must beware of the finite. We must beware of limiting ourselves to our own body. That is the small ‘I’. The body will die, and you think you will die. But if you are one with bhūmā, you are immortal. Nārada is a very intelligent person. He asks:- ‘There is this bhūmā. But who or what supports it?’ Sanatkumāra replies:- ‘Bhūmā is self-sufficient. It supports itself. In fact, there is nothing besides bhūmā to speak of supporting or not supporting. There is just one. If there are two things, then only does the question of supporting arise.’
Max Müller
1. 'Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else, that is the Infinite. Where one sees something else, hears something else, understands something else, that is the finite. The Infinite is immortal, the finite is mortal.' 'Sir, in what does the Infinite rest?' 'In its own greatness--or not even in greatness [1].'
2. In this world it is said that cattle, horses, elephants, gold, servants, wives, farmlands, and houses are a person’s glory. I do not mean this type of glory, for these things are not independent of each other. This is what I am talking about—
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Go-aśvam, cows and horses; iha, in this world; mahimā iti ācakṣate, are called the glory; hasti-hiraṇyam, elephants and gold; dāsa-bhāryam, servants and wives; kṣetrāṇi āyatanāni iti, farmlands and houses; aham evam na bravīmi, I am not speaking of this kind [of glory]; anyaḥ hi anyasmin pratiṣṭhitaḥ iti, something depending on something else; bravīmi iti ha uvāca, this is what I am saying. Iti caturviṃśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the twenty-fourth section. Commentary:-In those days in India if you had cattle and other animals, you were considered very rich because they supported you. They were a source of income. So also if you had gold or fields or other property. In this type of situation, there are two separate things—you, the owner, and the things you own. One supports the other. But if there is only one, then the question of supporting does not arise. Who supports whom? So Sanatkumāra tells Nārada, bhūmā is everything. It is one without a second, and it is self-sufficient. Section Twenty-five
Max Müller
2. 'In the world they call cows and horses, elephants and gold, slaves, wives, fields and houses greatness. I do not mean this,' thus he spoke; 'for in that case one being (the possessor) rests in something else, (but the Infinite cannot rest in something different from itself)
1. That bhūmā is below; it is above; it is behind; it is in front; it is to the right; it is to the left. All this is bhūmā. Now, as regards one’s own identity:- I am below; I am above; I am behind; I am in front; I am to the right; I am to the left. I am all this.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Saḥ, that [bhūmā]; eva adhastāt, is down below; saḥ upariṣṭāt, that is up above; saḥ paścāt, that is behind; saḥ purastāt, that is in front; saḥ dakṣiṇataḥ, that is to the right; saḥ uttarataḥ, that is to the left; saḥ eva idam sarvam iti, it is truly all this; atha ataḥ, next; ahaṅkāra ādeśaḥ eva, the instruction regarding one’s own identity; aham eva adhastāt, I am down below; aham upariṣṭāt, I am up above; aham paścāt, I am behind; aham purastāt, I am in front; aham dakṣiṇataḥ, I am to the right; aham uttarataḥ, I am to the left; aham eva idam sarvam iti, I am truly all this. Commentary:- Our Self is the Self of all. Our Self is in the sky, in the air, in the water, in the tiny insect, and in the biggest animal. It is all-embracing, everywhere, in every being, in everything. It is Existence itself. Imagine that the whole cosmos is a vast ocean, and in that ocean there are waves. Some of the waves are huge and some of them are very small, maybe only ripples. But it is the same water. Similarly, there is one Existence, but we see diversity. This diversity, however, is only in name and form. It is not real. Underlying the diversity is one Existence, and that Existence is our own Self. This is not just an intellectual theory. There are great saints who have actually experienced this. They say, suppose you throw a stone into the middle of a lake. Immediately the water surrounding the spot where you have thrown the stone becomes disturbed. Then gradually you discover that the entire mass of water is disturbed. Similarly, if someone is in pain somewhere, then you also are in pain. You may have noticed that if you play a stringed instrument in a room where there are other stringed instruments, you will find that sounds are coming from the other instruments. The sound vibration from one will affect the others. Swami Vivekananda had many such experiences. Once one of his brother disciples found him pacing back and forth outside his room at midnight. The brother disciple asked Swamiji why he was not sleeping, and Swamiji replied that he had suddenly woken up with the feeling that something terrible had just happened, that a great calamity had just happened somewhere. The next day when the newspaper arrived people found that there had been a terrible volcanic eruption that night in a certain place, and many people had died. A great person has that kind of sensitivity, because he feels that there is just one heart, one mind, one consciousness. What you think, he thinks. If you are suffering, he can at once see it when he looks at you. You may ask, ‘Is it possible for me to identify myself with everything?’ The scriptures say, ‘Yes, it is possible.’ Now you think of yourself as small, as alpa. You think you are an individual and separate from others. But when you identify yourself with the cosmos, you become bhūmā, infinite. Swamiji once said, suppose you are a small drop of water in a cloud in the sky. Then one day it rains. You start falling towards the ocean, and you cry, ‘Oh, I am lost, I am lost!’ But what happens when you reach the ocean? You are no longer a tiny drop. You are one with the vast ocean. It is the sense of separateness that makes us feel we are small. Then we become jealous of each other or afraid of others, and because of this we are unhappy. Vedānta says, when you have the feeling that you are one with the whole cosmos, that you alone exist, then you will be happy. It is all a question of how you think of yourself. The Upaniṣad says here to think:- ‘I am below. I am above. I am everywhere. I am everything.’ Many people have a hint of this experience at some time or other in their life. For instance, you may have seen someone in terrible pain. Maybe you didn’t even know the person, yet at the very sight of that person’s suffering, you felt that you were suffering. Though physically you were not affected, still you felt the pain. A human being’s development towards this sense of oneness is the sign of real progress. This is not to deny differences among us, however. Of course there are differences. Differences are accepted. They are natural. We would not like uniformity. But the differences are only minor details. Now we may think, ‘I am short and that person is tall.’ But when we begin to look at things as a whole, then we shall see that we are everywhere. Then we will think:- ‘Sometimes I am tall, and sometimes I am short.’ Instead of thinking, ‘Some people are very bright and others are dull,’ we will think:- ‘The bright person is me, and the dull person is also me. All are me in different forms.’ As long as you think you are separate from others, you will sometimes be good to others and sometimes be very selfish and not care about others. And even when you do something for others, you will do it only out of a temporary sense of pity. But when you feel your identity with others you never lose that feeling of oneness, and then there is never any room for selfishness. “Aham eva idam sarvam”—I am all this. Idam means ‘this.’ It is this physical world, this empirical world. It is all that you see and feel. It is the world of sense experience. We think we know this world, but in reality we do not. You may say something is hard, but to me it may be soft. You may say something looks red, but I may see it as orange. This is the nature of this world. No two people have the same experience of it. Yet, the Upaniṣad says, behind this world of sense experience is bhūmā. It is the same Self everywhere, in different forms and with different names.
Max Müller
1. 'The Infinite indeed is below, above, behind, before, right and left--it is indeed all this. 'Now follows the explanation of the Infinite as the I:- I am below, I am above, I am behind, before, right and left--I am all this.
2. Next is the instruction on the Self:- The Self is below; the Self is above; the Self is behind; the Self is in front; the Self is to the right; the Self is to the left. The Self is all this. He who sees in this way, thinks in this way, and knows in this way, has love for the Self, sports with the Self, enjoys the company of the Self, and has joy in the Self, he is supreme and can go about as he likes in all the worlds. But those who think otherwise are under the control of others. They cannot remain in the worlds they live in, nor can they move about in the worlds as they like [i.e., they are under many limitations].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha ataḥ, next; ātmādeśaḥ eva, the instruction regarding the Self; ātmā eva adhastāt, the Self is down below; ātmā upariṣṭāt, the Self is up above; ātmā paścāt, the Self is behind; ātmā purastāt, the Self is in front; ātmā dakṣiṇataḥ, the Self is to the right; ātmā uttarataḥ, the Self is to the left; ātmā eva idam sarvam iti, the Self is truly all this; saḥ vai eṣaḥ, that [worshipper] who; evam paśyan, sees in this way; evam manvānaḥ, thinks in this way; evam vijānan, knows in this way; ātmaratiḥ, has love for the Self; ātmakrīḍah, sports with the Self; ātmamithunaḥ, enjoys the company of the Self; ātmānandaḥ, has joy in the Self; saḥ svarāṭ bhavati, he becomes supreme [a sovereign]; sarveṣu lokeṣu, in all the worlds; tasya kāmacāraḥ bhavati, he can go about as he likes; atha, then; ye, those who; anyatha ataḥ vidaḥ, know otherwise; anyarājānaḥ, are under the control of others; te kṣayyalokāḥ bhavanti, they live in worlds that are not permanent; sarveṣu lokeṣu, in all the worlds; teṣām akāmacāraḥ bhavati, he cannot move about as he likes. Iti pañcaviṃśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the twenty-fifth section. Commentary:-The Upaniṣad says, you see yourself in all that exists. When you have the experience, ‘I am infinite, I am one with all,’ then there is no duality. You enjoy your own Self. Normally we look for friends so we can enjoy ourselves in their company. But when you realize bhūmā, you don’t need any companions. You know that everything is within and not outside. Now we are so dependent on things outside. If someone is harsh to us we feel bad, and if someone is good to us we are happy. Similarly, we may be addicted to cigarettes and are miserable if we don’t get them. So our happiness always depends on external conditions. Where is our freedom? This is not freedom. We are simply beggars. A free soul, however, is always happy within himself. He is not bothered by external conditions. Sri Ramakrishna was not dependent on anyone or anything. Once some servants came to him and told him that the owner of the temple garden said he must leave immediately. Sri Ramakrishna at once got up and started walking out of the temple compound, just as he was. He did not stop to pack anything or take a second look at his room. He simply started leaving. The owner happened to see him leaving, and asked:- ‘Sir, why are you leaving? I asked your nephew to leave, not you.’ Then Sri Ramakrishna replied, ‘Oh, you don’t want me to leave?’ and he immediately turned around and went back to his room as if nothing had happened. Suppose you enjoy a certain kind of music, but another person does not care for it. Why does this happen? It is because that music evokes in you a certain feeling or emotion which it does not evoke in the other person. The enjoyment is not in the music. It is within you. So also, sometimes you may sit and daydream, thinking of a pilgrimage you took in the Himalayas long back. You go on thinking and enjoying the memories even though the Himalayas are no longer in front of you. The enjoyment is totally within you. So when you realize your Self, you no longer need the world outside. In fact, it no longer exists for you. You alone exist. Some people may say this is selfishness, but it is not. Rather, your self has expanded. It has become all-embracing. It has become bhūmā. ‘Saḥ svarāṭ bhavati—he becomes a sovereign.’ When you attain sovereignty you no longer identify yourself with the body. You feel yourself to be one with the entire cosmos. This is the goal of life—to realize that there is only One which appears as many, with different names and forms. Section Twenty-six
Max Müller
2. 'Next follows the explanation of the Infinite as the Self:- Self is below, above, behind, before, right and left--Self is all this. 'He who sees, perceives, and understands this, loves the Self, delights in the Self, revels in the Self, rejoices in the Self--he becomes a Svarâg, (an autocrat or self-ruler); he is lord and master in all the worlds. 'But those who think differently from this, live in perishable worlds, and have other beings for their rulers.
1. For a person like this who sees in this way, thinks in this way, and has this knowledge, everything comes from the Self:- Life, hope, memory, space, fire, water, birth and death, food, strength, knowledge in depth, meditation, the heart, resolution, the mind, speech, name, mantras, and all work—all this comes from the Self.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tasya ha vai etasya, of a person like this; evam paśyataḥ, who sees in this way; evam manvānasya, who thinks in this way; evam vijānataḥ, who has such knowledge; ātmataḥ prāṇaḥ, life [comes] from the Self; ātmataḥ āśā, hope [comes] from the Self; ātmataḥ smaraḥ, memory [comes] from the Self; ātmataḥ ākāśaḥ, space [comes] from the Self; ātmataḥ tejaḥ, fire [comes] from the Self; ātmataḥ āpaḥ, water [comes] from the Self; ātmataḥ āvirbhāva-tirobhāvau, birth and death [come] from the Self; ātmataḥ annam, food [comes] from the Self; ātmataḥ balam, strength [comes] from the Self; ātmataḥ vijñānam, knowledge in depth [comes] from the Self; ātmataḥ dhyānam, meditation [comes] from the Self; ātmataḥ cittam, the heart [comes] from the Self; ātmataḥ saṅkalpaḥ, resolution [comes] from the Self; ātmataḥ manaḥ, the mind [comes] from the Self; ātmataḥ vāk, speech [comes] from the Self; ātmataḥ nāma, name [comes] from the Self; ātmataḥ mantrāḥ, the mantras [comes] from the Self; ātmataḥ karmāṇi, all work [comes] from the Self; ātmataḥ eva idam sarvam iti, all this [comes] from the Self. Commentary:-Just as waves rise from and fall back on the ocean, so also all these things—prāṇa, hope, memory, birth, death, happiness, unhappiness, etc.—come from the Self and go back to the Self. They are all within our own self. Once we know the Self, the phenomenal world no longer exists for us.
Max Müller
1. 'To him who sees, perceives, and understands this [1], the spirit (prâna) springs from the Self, hope springs from the Self, memory springs from the Self; so do ether, fire, water, appearance and disappearance [2], food, power, understanding, reflection, consideration, will, Mind, speech, names, sacred hymns, and sacrifices--aye, all this springs from the Self.
तदेष श्लोको न पश्यो मृत्युं पश्यति न रोगं नोत दुःखताꣳ
सर्वꣳ ह पश्यः पश्यति सर्वमाप्नोति सर्वश इति
स एकधा भवति त्रिधा भवति पञ्चधा
सप्तधा नवधा चैव पुनश्चैकादशः स्मृतः
शतं च दश चैकश्च सहस्राणि च
विꣳशतिराहारशुद्धौ सत्त्वशुद्धौ ध्रुवा स्मृतिः
स्मृतिलम्भे सर्वग्रन्थीनां विप्रमोक्षस्तस्मै
मृदितकषायाय तमसस्पारं दर्शयति
भगवान्सनत्कुमारस्तꣳ स्कन्द इत्याचक्षते
तꣳ स्कन्द इत्याचक्षते ॥ ७.२६.२॥
tadeṣa śloko na paśyo mṛtyuṃ paśyati na rogaṃ nota duḥkhatāgͫ
sarvagͫ ha paśyaḥ paśyati sarvamāpnoti sarvaśa iti
sa ekadhā bhavati tridhā bhavati pañcadhā
saptadhā navadhā caiva punaścaikādaśaḥ smṛtaḥ
śataṃ ca daśa caikaśca sahasrāṇi ca
vigͫśatirāhāraśuddhau sattvaśuddhau dhruvā smṛtiḥ
smṛtilambhe sarvagranthīnāṃ vipramokṣastasmai
mṛditakaṣāyāya tamasaspāraṃ darśayati
bhagavānsanatkumārastagͫ skanda ityācakṣate
tagͫ skanda ityācakṣate .. 7.26.2..
2. Here is a verse on the subject:- ‘He who has realized the Self does not see death. For him there is no disease or sorrow. Such a seer sees everything [as it is] and also attains everything in whatever way [he wants].’ He is one [i.e., before creation; but after creation], he is in three forms, five forms, seven forms, and nine forms. Then again, he is in eleven, a hundred and ten, and even a thousand and twenty forms. If one eats pure food, one’s mind becomes pure. If the mind is pure, one’s memory becomes strong and steady. If the memory is good, one becomes free from all bondages. The revered Sanatkumāra freed Nārada from all his shortcomings and led him beyond darkness [i.e., ignorance]. The wise say that Sanatkumāra is a man of perfect knowledge.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tat eṣaḥ ślokaḥ, here is a verse on the subject; paśyaḥ, a person who sees thus [i.e., who knows the Self]; mṛtyum na paśyati, does not see death; na rogam, nor disease; na uta duḥkhatam, nor suffering; paśyaḥ, a person who sees thus; sarvam ha paśyati, sees everything; sarvam āpnoti, he obtains all; sarvaśaḥ, in every way. Saḥ ekadhā bhavati, he is one [before the creation]; tridhā bhavati, [and] he is in three forms [fire, water, and earth]; pañcadhā, in five forms; saptadhā, in seven forms; ca eva navadhā, and in nine forms; punaḥ ca, also; ekādaśaḥ smṛtaḥ, he is thought of as having eleven forms; śatam ca daśa ca, and one hundred and ten forms; ekaḥ ca sahasrāṇi ca viṃśatiḥ, and also one thousand and twenty forms; āhāra-śuddhau, if the food is pure; sattva-śuddhiḥ, the mind is pure; sattva-śuddhau, if the mind is pure; dhruvā smṛtiḥ, the memory is strong and steady; smṛtilambhe, when the memory is good; sarva-granthīnām, from all bondages; vipramokṣaḥ, one is freed; tasmai, to him [to Nārada]; mṛditakaṣāyāya, who was free from all impurities; bhagavān sanatkumāraḥ, revered Sanatkumāra; tamasaḥ pāram, beyond darkness; darśayati, showed; tam, him [Sanatkumāra]; skanda iti ācakṣate, they refer to as ‘Skanda’ [the wise]; tam, him [Sanatkumāra]; skanda iti ācakṣate, they refer to as ‘Skanda’ [the wise]. Iti ṣaḍviṃśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the twenty-sixth section. Iti chāndogyopaniṣadi saptamaḥ adhyāyaḥ, here ends the seventh chapter of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad. Commentary:-But how do you attain this knowledge? You have to have pure food. Pure food makes the body and mind pure, and you are then able to keep the mind under control. By controlling the mind, you are able to go beyond ignorance and become free from bondage. Like Sanatkumāra, you earn the title ‘Skanda,’ the wise one.
Max Müller
2. 'There is this verse, "He who sees this, does not see death, nor illness, nor pain; he who sees this, sees everything, and obtains everything everywhere. '"He is one (before creation), he becomes three (fire, water, earth), he becomes five, he becomes seven, he becomes nine; then again he is called the eleventh, and hundred and ten and one thousand and twenty [1]." 'When the intellectual aliment has been purified, the whole nature becomes purified. When the whole nature has been purified, the memory becomes firm. And when the memory (of the Highest Self) remains firm, then all the ties (which bind us to a belief in anything but the Self) are loosened. 'The venerable Sanatkumâra showed to Nârada, after his faults had been rubbed out, the other side of darkness. They call Sanatkumâra Skanda, yea, Skanda they call him.'
1. Om. This body is the city of Brahman. Within it is an abode in the shape of a lotus [i.e., the heart], and within that there is a small space. One must search within this space and earnestly desire to know what is there.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, next; asmin brahmapure, in this city of Brahman [i.e., the body]; yat idam daharam, this small; puṇḍarīkam, lotus; veśma, an abode [i.e., the heart]; asmin, in this; daharaḥ antarākāśaḥ, is a small space; tasmin yat antaḥ, within that; tat anveṣṭavyam, one must seek that; tat vāva vijijñāsitavyam iti, one must earnestly desire to know that. Commentary:-The scriptures try to help us know our real identity, because when we know that, we know we are all one with Brahman. But first we must have a pure mind. The mind becomes purified by living a good life and by practising self-restraint and truthfulness. It is in the pure mind that the Self reveals itself. The heart is said to be like a lotus, and in that lotus resides the Self—as if this is the home of the Self.
Max Müller
1. Harih, Om. There is this city of Brahman (the body), and in it the palace, the small lotus (of the heart), and in it that small ether. Now what exists within that small ether, that is to be sought for, that is to be understood.
2. If the disciples ask, ‘This body is the city of Brahman; within it is an abode in the shape of a lotus [i.e., the heart], and within that there is a small space; what is it that one must search for within this space, and what should one earnestly desire to know?’—the teacher should reply:-
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Cet, if; tam, to him [the teacher]; brūyuḥ, [the disciples] ask; asmin brahmapure, in this city of Brahman [i.e., the body]; yat idam daharam, this small; puṇḍarīkam, lotus; veśma, an abode [i.e., the heart]; asmin, in this; daharaḥ antarākāśaḥ, is a small space; kim tat atra, what is it that is there; yat anveṣṭavyam, which one must seek; yat vāva vijijñāsitavyam iti, which one must earnestly desire to know; saḥ brūyāt, he [the teacher] should reply. Commentary:-The disciples wanted to know what was within the heart. The teacher had said there is a space there. But is there anything within this space? If so, is it something very special? Why is it necessary that they should know about it? They asked, ‘Should we investigate it?’ The scriptures say, ‘Yes, investigate it.’
Max Müller
2. And if they should say to him:- 'Now with regard to that city of Brahman, and the palace in it, i. e. the small lotus of the heart, and the small ether within the heart, what is there within it that deserves to be sought for, or that is to be understood?'
3. [The teacher replies:-] ‘The space in the heart is as big as the space outside. Heaven and earth are both within it, so also fire and air, the sun and the moon, lightning and the stars. Everything exists within that space in the embodied self—whatever it has or does not have’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yāvān, as much as; ayam ākāśaḥ, this space; tāvān, so that much; eṣaḥ antaḥ-hṛdaye ākāśe, this space inside the heart; ubhe, both; asmin, in this; dyāvā-pṛthivī, heaven and earth; antaḥ eva samāhite, are resting deep within; ubhau agniḥ ca vāyuḥ ca, both fire and air; sūryā-candramasau ubhau, both the sun and the moon; vidyut, lightning; nakṣatrāṇi, the stars; yat ca, whatever; asya, of it [of the self with the body]; iha, in this world; asti, exists; yat ca na asti, or whatever does not exist; sarvam tat, all that; asmin samāhitam iti, is resting within. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
3. Then he should say:- 'As large as this ether (all space) is, so large is that ether within the heart. Both heaven and earth are contained within it, both fire and air, both sun and moon, both lightning and stars; and whatever there is of him (the Self) here in the world, and whatever is not (i. e. whatever has been or will be), all that is contained within it [1].'
4. If the disciples ask the teacher, ‘If in this body [brahmapura] are all this, all things, and all desires, is there anything left behind when the body gets old or perishes?’—
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Cet, if; tam, to him [the teacher]; brūyuḥ, [the disciples] ask; asmin brahmapure, in this city of Brahman [i.e., the body]; idam sarvam cet, if all this; samāhitam, are lying; sarvāṇi ca bhūtāni, and all things; sarve ca kāmaḥ, and all desires [that people may have]; yadā, when; etat, this [body]; jarā, old age; āpnoti vā, attains; pradhvaṃsate vā, or it perishes; kim, what; tataḥ, then; atiśiṣyate iti, remains? Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
4. And if they should say to him:- 'If everything that exists is contained in that city of Brahman, all beings and all desires (whatever can be imagined or desired), then what is left of it, when old age reaches it and scatters it, or when it falls to pieces?'
5.—in reply the teacher will say:- ‘The body may decay due to old age, but the space within [i.e., brahmapura] never decays. Nor does it perish with the death of the body. This is the real abode of Brahman. All our desires are concentrated in it. It is the Self—free from all sins as well as from old age, death, bereavement, hunger, and thirst. It is the cause of love of Truth and the cause of dedication to Truth. If a person strictly follows whatever the ruler of the country commands, he may then get as a reward some land, or even an estate’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Saḥ, he [the teacher]; brūyāt, will say; asya, its [the body’s]; jarayā, by old age; etat, this [i.e., the space within the heart—the Self]; na jīryati, is not affected; vadhena asya na hanyate, nor does it meet death by being killed; etat, this; satyam brahmapuram, city of Brahman is real; asmin, in this; kāmāḥ, all desires; samāhitāḥ, are contained; eṣaḥ ātmā, this Self; apahatapāpmā, is free from all sins [or, sorrows]; vijaraḥ, free from old age; vimṛtyuḥ, deathless; viśokaḥ, free from bereavement; vijighatsaḥ, without hunger; apipāsaḥ, without thirst; satyakāmaḥ, love of Truth; satyasaṅkalpaḥ, committed to Truth; yathā, like; hi eva iha, in this world; prajāḥ, people; anu-āviśanti, come and go; yathā-anuśāsanam, according to the law of the country; yam yam, whatever; antam, province; abhikāmaḥ bhavanti, they desire; yam janapadam, any village; yam kṣetrabhāgam, [or] any field; tam tam eva, that very [place]; upajīvanti, they enjoy. Commentary:-The idea is that an ignorant person may get whatever he wants as the fruit of his actions, but he remains bound.
Max Müller
5. Then he should say:- 'By the old age of the body, that (the ether, or Brahman within it) does not age; by the death of the body, that (the ether, or Brahman within it) is not killed. That (the Brahman) is the true Brahma-city (not the body [1]). In it all desires are contained. It is the Self, free from sin, free from old age, from death and grief, from hunger and thirst, which desires nothing but what it ought to desire, and imagines nothing but what it ought to imagine. Now as here on earth people follow as they are commanded, and depend on the object which they are attached to, be it a country or a piece of land,
6. Everything perishes, whether it is something you have acquired through hard work in this world or it is a place in the other world which you have acquired through meritorious deeds. Those who leave this world without knowing the Self and the Truths which they should know are not free, no matter where they go. But those who leave this world after knowing the Self and the Truths which they should know are free, no matter where they are.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Tat yathā, just as; iha, in this world; karmajitaḥ, results acquired according to one’s efforts; lokaḥ, this world; kṣīyate, perishes; evam eva, similarly; amutra; in the other world; puṇyajitaḥ, what is earned by meritorious work [such as performing the Agnihotra and other sacrifices]; lokaḥ, heaven [or other worlds]; kṣīyate, perishes; tat ye, those; iha, in this world; ātmānam ananuvidya, without knowing the Self; etān ca satyān kāmān, and these worthwhile things; vrajanti, leave [this world]; teṣām, for them; sarveṣu lokeṣu, in all the worlds; akāmacāraḥ bhavati, there is bondage; atha, but; ye, those who; iha, in this world; ātmānam anuvidya, knowing the self; etān ca satyān kāmān, and these worthwhile things; vrajanti, leave this world; teṣām, for them; sarveṣu lokeṣu, in all the worlds; kāmacāraḥ bhavati, they are free to go anywhere. Iti prathamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the first section. Commentary:-
Max Müller
6. 'And as here on earth, whatever has been acquired by exertion, perishes, so perishes whatever is acquired for the next world by sacrifices and other good actions performed on earth. Those who depart from hence without having discovered the Self and those true desires, for them there is no freedom in all the worlds. But those who depart from hence, after having discovered the Self and those true desires [1], for them there is freedom in all the worlds.
sa yadi pitṛlokakāmo bhavati saṃkalpādevāsya pitaraḥ
samuttiṣṭhanti tena pitṛlokena sampanno mahīyate .. 8.2.1..
1. If that person wishes to be in the company of his forefathers, they appear before him as he wishes. Joining his forefathers in that world, he becomes great.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Yadi, if; saḥ, he [who has realized the Self and is free to go where he wants]; pitṛlokakāmaḥ bhavati, wishes for a place in the world of fathers; pitaraḥ sam-ut-tiṣṭhanti, the fathers appear; asya saṅkalpāt era, through his wish; tena pitṛlokena sampannaḥ, joining his forefathers in that world; mahīyate, he becomes great. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
1. 'Thus he who desires the world [1] of the fathers, by his mere will the fathers come to receive him, and having obtained the world of the fathers, he is happy.
samuttiṣṭhanti tena mātṛlokena sampanno mahīyate .. 8.2.2..
2. Then if he wishes to be in the company of mothers, they appear before him as he wishes. Joining the mothers in that world, he becomes great.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:-Atha, then; yadi, if; mātṛlokakāmaḥ bhavati, he wishes for a place in the world of mothers; mātaraḥ sam-ut-tiṣṭhanti, the mothers appear; asya. saṅkalpāt eva, through his wish; tena mātṛlokena sampannaḥ, joining the mothers in that world; mahīyate, he becomes great. Commentary:-There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
2. 'And he who desires the world of the mothers, by his mere will the mothers come to receive him, and having obtained the world of the mothers, he is happy.
samuttiṣṭhanti tena bhrātṛlokena sampanno mahīyate .. 8.2.3....
3. Then if he wishes to be in the company of brothers, they appear before him as he wishes. Joining the brothers in that world, he becomes great.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Atha, then; yadi, if; bhrātṛlokakāmaḥ bhavati, he wishes for a place in the world of brothers; bhrātaraḥ sam-ut-tiṣṭhanti, brothers appear; asya saṅkalpāt eva, through his wish; tena bhrātṛlokena sampannaḥ, joining brothers in that world; mahīyate, he becomes great. Commentary:- There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
3. 'And he who desires the world of the brothers, by his mere will the brothers come to receive him, and having obtained the world of the brothers, he is happy.
samuttiṣṭhanti tena svasṛlokena sampanno mahīyate .. 8.2.4..
4. Then if he wishes to be in the company of sisters, they appear before him as he wishes. Joining the sisters in that world, he becomes great.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Atha, then; yadi, if; svasṛlokakāmaḥ bhavati, he wishes for a place in the world of sisters; svasāraḥ sam-ut-tiṣṭhanti, sisters appear; asya saṅkalpāt eva, through his wish; tena svasṛlokena sampannaḥ, joining the sisters in that world; mahīyate, he becomes great. Commentary:- There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
4. 'And he who desires the world of the sisters, by his mere will the sisters come to receive him, and having obtained the world of the sisters, he is happy.
samuttiṣṭhanti tena sakhilokena sampanno mahīyate .. 8.2.5..
5. Then if he wishes to be in the company of friends, they appear before him as he wishes. Joining friends in that world, he becomes great.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Atha, then; yadi, if; sakhilokakāmaḥ bhavati, he wishes for a place in the world of friends; sakhāyaḥ sam-ut-tiṣṭhanti, friends appear; asya saṅkalpāt eva, through his wish; tena sakhilokena sampannaḥ, joining friends in that world; mahīyate, he becomes great. Commentary:- There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
5. 'And he who desires the world of the friends, by his mere will the friends come to receive him, and having obtained the world of the friends, he is happy.
6. Then if he wishes for a world of fragrant flower garlands, they appear before him as he wishes. By having fragrant flower garlands in that world, he becomes great.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Atha, then; yadi, if; gandhamālyalokakāmaḥ bhavati, he wishes for a world of fragrant flower garlands; gandhamālye sam -ut-tiṣṭhataḥ, the fragrant flower garlands appear; asya saṅkalpāt eva, through his wish; tena gandhamālyalokena sampannaḥ, by having fragrant flower garlands in that world; mahīyate, he becomes great. Commentary:- There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
6. 'And he who desires the world of perfumes and garlands (gandhamâlya), by his mere will perfumes and garlands come to him, and having obtained the world of perfumes and garlands, he is happy.
7. Then if he wishes for a world of food and drink, they appear before him as he wishes. By having food and drink in that world, he becomes great.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Atha, then; yadi, if; annapānalokakāmaḥ bhavati, he wishes for a world of food and drink; annapāne sam-ut-tiṣṭhataḥ, food and drink appear; asya saṅkalpāt eva, through his wish; tena annapānalokena sampannaḥ, by having food and drink in that world; mahīyate, he becomes great. Commentary:- There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
7. 'And he who desires the world of food and drink, by his mere will food and drink come to him, and having obtained the world of food and drink, he is happy.
8. Then if he wishes for a world of music, that world appears to him as he wishes. By enjoying music in that world, he becomes great.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Atha, then; yadi, if; gītavāditralokakāmaḥ bhavati, he wishes for a world of music; gītavāditre sam-ut-tiṣṭhataḥ, music comes; asya saṅkalpāt eva, through his wish; tena gītavāditralokena sampannaḥ, by having music in that world; mahīyate, he, becomes great. Commentary:- There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
8. 'And he who desires the world of song and music, by his mere will song and music come to him, and having obtained the world of song and music, he is happy.
samuttiṣṭhanti tena strīlokena sampanno mahīyate .. 8.2.9..
9. Then if he wishes for the company of women, they appear before him as he wishes. Being with women in that world, he becomes great.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Atha, then; yadi, if; strīlokakāmaḥ bhavati, he wishes for the company of women; striyaḥ sam-ut-tiṣṭhanti, Commentary:- There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
9. 'And he who desires the world of women, by his mere will women come to receive him, and having obtained the world of women, he is happy.
saṃkalpādeva samuttiṣṭhati tena sampanno mahīyate .. 8.2.10..
10. Whatever province he wishes for, whatever good thing he wishes to have, it appears before him just as he wishes. By acquiring it, he becomes great.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Yam yam antam abhikāmaḥ bhavati, whatever province he wishes for; yam kāmam kāmayate, [and] whatever good thing he wishes to have; saḥ sam-ut-tiṣṭhati, that appears; asya saṅkalpāt eva, through his wish; tena sampannaḥ, by acquiring that; mahīyate, he becomes great. Iti dvitīyaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the second section. Commentary:- There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
10. 'Whatever object he is attached to, whatever object he desires, by his mere will it comes to him, and having obtained it, he is happy.
satāmanṛtamapidhānaṃ yo yo hyasyetaḥ praiti na tamiha
darśanāya labhate .. 8.3.1..
1. But all these true desires are under a false cover. Though they rest on the Self, they are all false. This is why if a relative dies, one does not see him again in this world.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Te ime, all these; satyaḥ kāmāḥ, true desires; anṛtāpidhānāḥ, with a false look; teṣām satyānām satām, of those true desires [resting in the Self]; anṛtam apidhānam, have a false look; yaḥ yaḥ hi asya, whoever of one’s [relatives]; itaḥ, from this world; praiti, leaves; tam, he; iha, here [in this world]; darśanāya na labhate, cannot be seen again. Commentary:- There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
1. 'These true desires, however, are hidden by what is false; though the desires be true, they have a covering which is false. Thus, whoever belonging to us has departed this life, him we cannot gain back, so that we should see him with our eyes.
uparyupari sañcaranto na vindeyurevamevemāḥ sarvāḥ prajā
aharahargacchantya etaṃ brahmalokaṃ na vindantyanṛtena hi
pratyūḍhāḥ .. 8.3.2..
2. Further, those of his relatives who are still alive and those who are dead, and also those things a person cannot get even if he wishes for them—all these he gets by going within his heart. All true desires of a person are in his heart, though they are hidden. It is like when there is gold hidden someplace underground and people who are ignorant of it walk over that spot again and again, knowing nothing about it. Similarly, all these beings go to Brahmaloka every day, and yet they know nothing about it because they are covered by ignorance.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Atha, further; ye asya jīvāḥ ca, those of his [i.e., the relatives of one who knows the Self] who are alive; ye ca pretāḥ, and those who are dead; yat ca anyat, and whatever else; icchan, one wishes for; na labhate, [but] does not get; sarvam tat, all that; atra, here; gatvā, going; vindate, one gets; atra hi, for here; asya, his; ete satyāḥ kāmāḥ, these true desires; anṛtāpidhānaḥ, with a false look; tat yathā, as; akṣetrajñāḥ nihitam, those who have no idea about what is hidden underground; api hiraṇyanidhim, though precious as gold; upari-upari, again and again; sañcarantaḥ, going over it; na vindeyaḥ, do not get it; evam eva, in this way; imāḥ sarvāḥ prajāḥ, all these beings; ahaḥ ahaḥ, daily; gacchantyaḥ, going; etam brahmalokam, to this world of Brahman; na vindanti, do not attain it; hi, because; anṛtena, by falsehood [i.e., ignorance]; pratyūḍhaḥ, they are covered. Commentary:- Inside the heart is the whole universe. When we have suṣupti, dreamless sleep, we are then one with Bṛahman and one with the whole world. We are not conscious of it, however, because of our ignorance.
Max Müller
2. 'Those who belong to us, whether living or departed, and whatever else there is which we wish for and do not obtain, all that we find there (if we descend into our heart, where Brahman dwells, in the ether of the heart), There are all our true desires, but hidden by what is false [1]. As people who do not know the country, walk again and again over a gold treasure that has been hidden somewhere in the earth and do not discover it, thus do all these creatures day after day go into the Brahma-world (they are merged in Brahman, while asleep), and yet do not discover it, because they are carried away by untruth (they do not come to themselves, i. e. they do not discover the true Self in Brahman, dwelling in the heart).
3. The Self resides in the heart. The word hṛdayam is derived thus:- hṛdi + ayam—‘it is in the heart.’ Therefore the heart is called hṛdayam. One who knows thus goes daily to the heavenly world [i.e., in his dreamless sleep he is one with Brahman].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Saḥ vai eṣaḥ, it is this; ātmā hṛdi, the Self in the heart; tasya etat eva niruktam, this is the meaning of it; hṛdi + ayam iti, ‘it is in the heart’; tasmāt, therefore; hṛdayam, it is [known as] the heart; evam vit, one who knows this; ahaḥ ahaḥ vai, every day; svargam lokam eti, goes to the heavenly world. Commentary:- Where is the Self? It is within. Normally when we think of God, we look up in the sky or we go to a temple, thinking he is there. But in reality God is within us, in our own heart. The heart is the place where we experience the Self. It is the seat of Self-realization. So here the Upaniṣad says, for this reason we worship our own heart as Brahman. Svarga loka normally means the ‘heavenly world.’ But here it means that we go into our own Self. We become one with the Self. The word hṛdayam means hṛdi plus ayam. Hṛdi means ‘in the heart,’ and ayam means ‘this’—that is, this Self, the Cosmic Self, which is the source of everything, is within the heart.
Max Müller
3. 'That Self abides in the heart. And this is the etymological explanation. The heart is called hrid-ayam, instead of hridy-ayam, i. e. He who is in the heart. He who knows this, that He is in the heart, goes day by day (when in sushupti, deep sleep) into heaven (svarga), i.e. into the:- Brahman of the heart.
hovācaitadamṛtamabhayametadbrahmeti tasya ha vā etasya
brahmaṇo nāma satyamiti .. 8.3.4..
4. The teacher said:- ‘Then, this person, who is the embodiment of happiness, emerging from the body and attaining the highest light, assumes his real nature. This is the Self. It is immortal and also fearless. It is Brahman. Another name for Brahman is satya, Truth.’
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Atha, then; yaḥ eṣaḥ samprasādaḥ, this [Self] which is the embodiment of happiness [from dreamless sleep]; asmāt śarīrāt samutthāya, emerging from the body; param jyotiḥ upasampadya, attaining the highest light; svena rūpeṇa abhiniṣpadyate, he assumes his real nature; eṣaḥ ātmā, this is the Self; iti ha uvāca, he [the teacher] said; etat amṛtam, this is immortal; abhayam, fearless; etat brahma iti, this is Brahman; tasya ha vai etasya brahmaṇaḥ nāma satyam iti, this Brahman is [also] called ‘Truth.’ Commentary:- When the self leaves the body during deep sleep, it assumes its real nature. What is that nature? Does it have any form? Not exactly. It attains its real nature as light. Knowledge is very often associated with light. We sometimes repeat the prayer, ‘Tamasaḥ mā jyotiḥ gamaya—lead us from darkness to light.’ That is to say, lead us from the darkness of ignorance to the light of knowledge. When we are attached to the body, we are always trying to enjoy more and more sense objects. For that reason we are always disturbed and unhappy. There is no peace or calmness in us—no serenity. If you look at an image of Buddha, what do you see? His face is calm and peaceful. If you look at the face of any god or goddess you see that peace and serenity. That serenity is our very nature, but when we are attached to the body we rarely feel it. Sometimes we smile, but that smile often signifies more pain than pleasure. It is superficial. It does not come from within. Indian scriptures remind us again and again that everything is within. Strength, knowledge, joy—it is all within us. When we know our true nature, we are no longer attached to the body, and it is nothing for us to leave it behind. Once Sarada Devi was in a state of ecstasy and saw herself outside her body. She thought to herself:- ‘How can I go back to such a body?’ For people like her, leaving the body is a matter of choice. They can assume a body or reject it as they like. After a long time she persuaded herself to return to the body. When you can overcome the delusion that you are the body, you can reject it. You then get back your true nature, as it were. You realize you are free, full of bliss, and enlightened. You are then immortal (amṛtam) and fearless (abhayām). You have conquered fear. So long as you feel you are the body, you have fear. One day you may fall sick and die—that fear is always haunting you. When you know you are Brahman, however, you know you will never, die. The Upaniṣad says Brahman is named satya, Truth. Truth is that which was true in the past, is now true in the present, and will be true in the future. This Self is Truth itself.
Max Müller
4. 'Now that serene being [1] which, after having risen from out this earthly body, and having reached the highest light (self-knowledge), appears in its true form, that is the Self,' thus he spoke (when asked by his pupils). This is the immortal, the fearless, this is Brahman. And of that Brahman the name is the True, Satyam,
5. Sa, tī, and yam—these are the three syllables [which represent Brahman]. Sa stands for that which is immortal. Ti stands for that which is mortal. And yam stands for that which controls both the mortal and the immortal. As both [the mortal and the immortal] are controlled by it, it is called yam. The person who knows the significance of these three syllables enjoys divine bliss every day in dreamless sleep.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Tāni ha vai etāni trīṇi akṣarāṇi, these are the three syllables; sa tī yam iti, ‘sa’, ‘tī’, and ‘yam’; tat yat sat, that which is ‘sat’ [i.e., ‘sa’]; tat amṛtam, that is immortal; atha, then; yat ti, what is ‘ti’; tat martyam, that is mortal; atha, then; yat yam, what is ‘yam’; tena ubhe yacchati, both are controlled by it; yat anena ubhe yacchati, as both are controlled by it [i.e., by ‘yam’]; tasmāt, therefore; yam, it is ‘yam’; evamvit, one who knows thus; ahaḥ ahaḥ, daily; vai svargam lokam eti, goes to the heavenly world [in deep sleep]. Iti tṛtīyaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the third section. Commentary:- The Upaniṣad says there are three syllables that make up the word satyam—sa, tī, and yam. Sa stands for sat. Sat is derived from the root as, which means ‘existence.’ It is Existence Absolute, eternal. Here the Upaniṣad says, sa is that which is immortal and ti is that which is mortal. We have both immortal and mortal aspects to us. At the transcendental level we are immortal, but at the empirical, or phenomenal, level we are mortal. At the transcendental level there is no ‘I’ or ‘you’. There is no duality at all. There is only one. Where does this universe come from? It comes from that which is immortal. That is to say, the immortal becomes the mortal. The Absolute becomes the relative. The syllable yam stands for saṃyama, to control. It is the Self that controls both the relative and the Absolute. Similarly, one who has realized his true nature has control of both the transcendental and the relative. He is always the same, everywhere—whether in the transcendental world, in samādhi, which is here called sat, or in the phenomenal world, ti, the world that “Evamvit ahaḥ ahaḥ svargam lokam eti”—one who knows this goes every day into heaven. That is to say, when we are in deep sleep we are in svargaloka, the world of peace. We are then one with the Self, resting on the Self. It’s like a bird resting on its nest. It is happy and safe. But sometimes the bird has to go about after food. Similarly, when we wake up we have to be involved in this empirical world. Then there is diversity—no more unity. Śaṅkara says that when even the syllables of satyam, which is the name of Brahman, are so significant, how great then must be the state that the word signifies. Similarly, even the idea ‘I am Brahman’ is so inspiring—what to speak of having the experience itself. Suppose you have been hearing for a long time about Benaras but you have never been there. You have some idea about it and would love to go there. Even the word Benaras excites you. How thrilled you feel then when you at last get there. From our experience of deep sleep we have some idea of what Brahman is like. We know, even from this brief experience, how wonderful it is to be one with the Self. But when we are firmly established in Brahman and our ignorance is gone, what a wonderful thing it is. So, as Śaṅkara says, we have to go on meditating that we are one with Brahman, and gradually this meditation will lead us to the experience itself. The experience is what we need. We have to have that. Swami Vivekananda used to say that religion is realization. Suppose we go on talking about Brahman. This may help us and inspire us. It may even give us some impetus, but that’s all. We must not stop there. Our goal is the experience.
Max Müller
5. This name Sattyam consists of three syllables, sat-tî-yam [1]. Sat signifies the immortal, t, the mortal, and with yam he binds both. Because he binds both, the immortal and the mortal, therefore it is yam. He who knows this goes day by day into heaven (svarga).
1. Next, this Self is like a dam. It supports the worlds and protects them from getting mixed up. Day and night cannot cross over this dam, nor can old age, death, bereavement, good actions, and bad actions. All sins turn away from it, for this Brahmaloka is free from evil.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Atha, next; yaḥ ātmā, that Self; saḥ, it; setuḥ, [is like] a dam; vidhṛtiḥ, the support; eṣām lokānām, of these worlds; asambhedāya, for their protection [so that they may remain separate from one another]; ahorātre, day and night; etam setum na tarataḥ, cannot cross over this dam; na jarā, nor old age; na mṛtyuḥ, nor death; na śokaḥ, nor bereavement; na sukṛtam, nor good actions; na duṣkṛtam, nor bad actions; sarve Commentary:- In this world there are so many varieties of things, and each has its role to play. Human beings have their role to play; animals have theirs, and plants have theirs. The sun rises at a certain time. It never fails. Each thing is in its place, doing what it’s supposed to be doing. There should be no mix-up. If there were a mix-up, there would be chaos. Who supervises all this so that everything is in its proper place? It is the Self. The word setu usually means ‘bridge,’ but here it means a dam. Suppose you have a large river and you want to separate the water for some reason or other. You then erect a dam. This keeps the two sides apart and prevents them from mixing. Similarly, the Upaniṣad says, in this phenomenal world the Self acts as a dam so that everything functions as it should, without getting mixed up. The Self stands as a barrier, keeping each thing in its place. It is never failing. Day and night, sorrow, sin, the castes and stages of life, material things—animate or inanimate—whatever there is in the world of diversity, It is the Self that creates all the diversity—good, bad, rich, poor, educated, ignorant. There are so many kinds of people and so many kinds of plants, animals, and objects. The Self not only manifests all this diversity—it also maintains it. It does not want the diversity to disappear, because this diversity is necessary for the phenomenal world to go on. But these divisions do not touch the Self. Nothing can affect it. It is the Master, controlling everything, but it is not controlled by anything. Mṛtyu (death), for instance, is so powerful. Everyone is subject to death, but it cannot overcome this dam, the Self. No blemish or impurity can even approach the Self. It is never affected by the good or bad that exists in the world. It is always the same—constant and pure. The Self is also called here brahma-loka. The Self, the ātman, is Brahman. When you look at the world, you say, ‘Sarvam khalu idam brahma’—all this is Brahman. When you look inside, within you, you say, ‘Aham brahmāsmi’—I am Brahman, or ‘Ayam ātmā brahma’—this self is Brahman. It is the same Self, inside and outside. Śaṅkara says that if you know you are the Self, you are not affected by anything. But how do you realize the Self? Śaṅkara says you realize it by brahmacarya, by continence and self-control.
Max Müller
1. That Self is a bank [1], a boundary, so that these worlds may not be confounded. Day and night do not pass that bank, nor old age, death, and grief; neither good nor evil deeds. All evil-doers turn back from it, for the world of Brahman is free from all evil.
2. Therefore, by crossing this dam, if you are blind you do not feel you are blind. Similarly, if you are hurt, you do not feel you are hurt, and if you are mentally upset, you no longer feel the sorrow. This is why if you cross this dam, even night will be like day, for this world of Brahman is always full of light.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Tasmāt, this is why; vai etam setum tīrtvā, when crossing this dam; andhaḥ san, if a person is blind; anandhaḥ bhavati, he behaves as if he is not blind; viddhaḥ san, if a person is hurt; aviddhaḥ bhavati, he behaves as if he is not hurt; upatāpī san, if a person is mentally upset; anupatāpī bhavati, he behaves as if he is not mentally upset; tasmāt, this is why; vai etam setum tīrtvā, when crossing this dam; api naktam, even night; ahaḥ eva abhiniṣpadyate, looks like day; hi eva eṣaḥ brahmalokaḥ, for this Brahmaloka; sakṛt vibhātaḥ, is always manifest. Commentary:- Again and again the Upaniṣad stresses knowledge of the Self. Why? This knowledge is necessary for us to live in this world; otherwise we are not safe. We are vulnerable to all the forces of this phenomenal world. These forces may sweep us off our feet. Sri Ramakrishna used to say, ‘Tie the knowledge of Advaita in the corner of your cloth and then go wherever you like.’ That is, once we know we are the Self, nothing can affect us. We are like that dam, without any change. A person may be a householder or a monk—it doesn’t matter. He is safe. Here, the Upaniṣad says, you may be blind, but you do not feel you are blind. The blindness does not affect you. It affects the body, but you know you are not the body. Similarly, you may have some disease or illness in the body, but you do not feel you are ill. If you are conscious of the body then you will also be conscious of its limitations. Blindness is a limitation, so you will be conscious that you are blind. But the pure Self is not conditioned by anything. If you feel you are the Self you are not subject to the limitations of the body. This applies to the mind also. Swami Turiyananda would now and then get carbuncles that would have to be removed by surgery. He would not let the doctor give him any anaesthetic, however. He would ask the doctor to give him a few minutes’ warning, and he would meditate for a while. Then he would tell the doctor he was ready. The carbuncle might be large and require a long time for the surgery, but Swami Turiyananda would not show any sign When Swami Shivananda was old he suffered from asthma. Sometimes he had no sleep at all during the night, but in the morning people would come and find him very cheerful. They would ask him, ‘Sir, how are you?’ and he would smile and say, ‘I am fine.’ Then he would say:- ‘Look, if you are asking about the body, then I will say this body is old and diseased. But by the grace of my Master, I know I am not this body, so I am not affected by it.’ Suppose there is something wrong with the shirt you are wearing. You would not think there is something wrong with you. You know you are independent of the shirt. Similarly, your body is just a covering, as it were. You are independent of your body. The example the Upaniṣad gives of the dam is very apt. A dam stands supreme. Nothing can affect it. Similarly, if you know your true nature, you will stand firm like a rock even when waves of sorrow come and try to overwhelm you. Disease, poverty, humiliation—all kinds of misfortunes may come, but they will all be forced back without making any impression on you, as if there is a dam that stands between the world and your Self. The scriptures are constantly reminding us that this is what we are missing. Why else should we care for Self-knowledge? All this is just to encourage us and to invite us to taste the bliss of Self-knowledge. Lots of people say:- ‘What do you mean by Self-knowledge? I know who I am. What else should I know?’ But do they know they are not the body? Do they know they cannot be affected by old age, disease, or death, or by poverty or misfortune? Most people are slaves of their circumstances. Only one who knows his real Self is free. Most of our external conditions cannot be changed. They are not under our control. If it is summer it will be hot. Can you change it? No, but you can change yourself. Similarly, with other circumstances in our lives. Our attitude should be:- ‘Well, I don’t care. I will face this problem. It can never affect my real Self.’ When you have this attitude, you know you will not be cowed by adversities and external circumstances. This is the message of the Upaniṣads and also of the Gītā. In the Gītā Kṛṣṇa again and again talks about the sthitā-prajña, the person of steady wisdom, who is firmly rooted in Self-knowledge, and whom nothing can sway. When Alexander the Great came to India, he met a yogī and was so impressed with him that he wanted to bring him to Greece. Alexander tried in many ways to tempt the yogī to go to Greece, but nothing worked. Then Alexander threatened to kill him. The yogī just laughed and said:- ‘You have never told such a lie. You cannot kill me. You may kill the body, but I am not the body. I am the Self.’ The Upaniṣad says that when you know the Self, night and day are the same to you. It may appear to be night to others, but for you there is always light. You always have inner light. You always see yourself as Brahman. Śaṅkara says that the word Brahmaloka here means the state of Brahman. Whether you are blind or not, whether you are healthy or not, you are always conscious that you are Brahman. Not for a moment do you forget it.
Max Müller
2. Therefore he who has crossed that bank, if blind, ceases to be blind; if wounded, ceases to be wounded; if afflicted, ceases to be afflicted. Therefore when that bank has been crossed, night becomes day indeed, for the world of Brahman is lighted up once for all [1].
3. Those who attain this Brahmaloka through brahmacarya become the masters of Brahmaloka. They can visit all worlds as they like.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Tat ye, those who; era etain brahmalokam, this Brahmaloka; brahmacaryeṇa, through the practice of brahmacarya; anuvindanti, attain; teṣām era, for such people; eṣaḥ brahmalokaḥ, is this Brahmaloka; teṣām, for them; sarveṣu lokeṣu, to all the worlds; kāmacāraḥ bhavati, they can go as they like. Iti caturthaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the fourth section. Commentary:- There is a wonderful statement in one of the scriptures that says scholars talk about sweets but they never taste them. That is to say, the scholars talk about things they know nothing about. The scholars, it says, get only takra, whey. But the yogīs are the ones who taste the kṣīra, the thickened, sweet milk. Unless you eat the kṣīra, how do you know what it is like? Similarly, you may talk very well about Brahman. What you say may sound very good. But unless you have the experience of Brahman, you can’t understand what it is like. Here the Upaniṣad says, how do you get this experience? Through brahmacarya, self-control. The word brahmacarya means brahma carati—that is, one who is always at the level of Brahman. The scriptures say there are two paths open to us—śreyas, the good, and preyas, the pleasant, the attractive. One who practises brahmacarya will reflect on these two and say:- ‘I shall not accept that which is merely attractive. I shall only have śreyas, that which is the highest.’ Religion does not come by magic. It comes through self-discipline, and that means a lot of hard work, sweat, and tears. You have to yearn for it and cry for it, saying, ‘Oh when am I going to succeed?’ Sri Ramakrishna would often have no sleep at night and no food for the whole day. Sometimes someone would have to force food into his mouth in order to get him to eat. He had no body consciousness. Moreover, he would never accept money. The Upaniṣad says that if you practise brahmacarya you are free and everything is at your disposal. But, like Ramakrishna, your attitude is:- ‘I don’t care for all this. I don’t want anything in all these worlds. I want only Brahman.’ Vedānta says, you are free because you feel you are one with everything. Everything is within your grasp. There is no barrier between you and the world outside. Now there is a barrier. We want to see something because we think it is separate from us, outside of us. But when this idea of separation ceases, we feel we are everything.
Max Müller
3. And that world of Brahman belongs to those only who find it by abstinence--for them there is freedom in all the worlds.
1. Then that which is known as yajña [sacrifice] is brahmacarya. This is because one who knows the Self attains Brahmaloka through brahmacarya. Again, that which is known as iṣṭa [worship] is brahmacarya, for the desired Self is attained through brahmacarya.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Atha, then; yat, that which; yajñaḥ iti ācakṣate, is called ‘yajña’ [sacrifice]; tat brahmacaryam eva, that is brahmacarya; hi, because; yaḥ jñātā, one who knows this; brahmacaryeṇa, through brahmacarya; tam vindate, attains that [Brahmaloka]; atha, then; yat iṣṭam iti ācakṣate, that which is called ‘iṣṭa’ [worship]; tat brahmacaryam eva, that is brahmacarya; hi, because; brahmacaryeṇa eva, through brahmacarya; iṣṭvā ātmānam anuvindate, one attains the desired Self. Commentary:- Whatever you do with the idea of self-restraint is brahmacarya. Worship is brahmacarya; fasting is brahmacarya; observing silence is brahmacarya. If you retire from the world and go to the forest, that also is brahmacarya. The whole idea is self-restraint. Many people observe silence for a certain length of time. Gandhiji, for instance, would observe absolute silence once a week. Some people may say this is silly, but it’s not. Such observances bring strength. Suppose something has provoked you and you are angry, but through strength of mind you get control of your emotions and you do not retaliate. Similarly, you may feel tempted to do something you shouldn’t and you refuse to do it. Or you may see some good food and feel tempted to eat something that is bad for you, but then you restrain yourself. Self-control in any form is brahmacarya. It is brahmacarya because it ultimately leads to Self-realization and union with Brahman. The Upaniṣad says here that the performance of a sacrifice is also brahmacarya because there are many restrictions imposed on the sacrificer. For instance, he cannot eat until he finishes the worship. The word for sacrifice is yajña, which comes from yaḥ Another reason why worship is called brahmacarya is that the worship is done to a particular deity (iṣṭa), and you must meditate on that deity. That is, you are wishing (iṣ) for that deity, or wishing for your union with that deity. The only way to control the mind is through mental strength. According to Vedānta, strength is not outside. It is within. And self-control is the source of strength. First and foremost is brahmacarya. In fact, it is first and last. It’s not that you practise self-control for some time and then you say, ‘I don’t need to observe this any more.’ No, all through we need self-control. Gradually, however, it becomes natural. By constantly observing truthfulness, you find you are incapable of saying what is immoral or wrong.
Max Müller
1. What people call sacrifice (yagña), that is really abstinence (brahmakarya). For he who knows, obtains that (world of Brahman, which others obtain by sacrifice), by means of abstinence. What people call sacrifice (ishta), that is really abstinence, for by abstinence, having searched (ishtvâ), he obtains the Self.
2. Then, that which is known as ‘Sattrāyaṇa’ [a sacrifice lasting a long time] is brahmacarya, for it is through brahmacarya that the individual self gets liberated [attains union with the Cosmic Self]. Then, that which is called ‘mauna’ [silence] is brahmacarya, for through brahmacarya one realizes the Self, and having realized the Self one remains absorbed in the thought of it.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Atha, then; yat sattrāyaṇam iti ācakṣate, that which is called a ‘Sattrāyaṇa’ [a long sacrifice]; tat brahmacaryam eva, that is brahmacarya; hi, for; brahmacaryeṇa eva, through brahmacarya; sataḥ, from Sat [i.e., the Cosmic Self]; ātmanaḥ trāṇam vindate, the individual self attains its liberation [union with the Cosmic Self]; atha, then; yat maunam iti ācakṣate, that which is called ‘mauna’ [silence]; tat brahmacaryam eva, that is brahmacarya; hi, for; ātmānam anuvidya, knowing the Self; brahmacaryeṇa eva, through brahmacarya; manute, one remains absorbed in thinking. Commentary:- There is a particular sacrifice called Sattrāyaṇa, which involves the services of many priests. It is a big affair. The Upaniṣad says it is considered brahmacarya to perform this Sattrāyaṇa sacrifice because through Existence (sat) a person gets protection (trāṇa) for oneself (ātmana). You always feel you are protected by Sat, so you are sure of yourself. In the same way, when you are practising brahmacarya, you know nothing is going to sway you from the vow you have taken. As the Gītā says, the self is your own friend and it is also your own enemy. By practising brahmacarya you will gradually become stronger, and as you grow Mauna, a vow of silence, is also a form of brahmacarya. We all know that when we are doing something serious we like to be quiet. We don’t like to talk much, nor do we like our mind to be restless. We want to be able to fix our mind on what we are doing. Similarly, brahmacarya means that our mind is fixed on Brahman. We are in touch with Brahman, always reminding ourselves that we are not this body and not this mind. We are the Self. We are Brahman. So taking a vow of silence (mauna) means that a person contemplates, or meditates, (manute) on his identity with Brahman. Śaṅkara says that this meditation on Brahman comes after seeking the help of the scriptures and the teacher. Both are necessary. The scriptures give you guidelines, but the teacher takes you by the hand and leads you to the goal.
Max Müller
2. What people call sacrifice (sattrâyana), that is really abstinence, for by abstinence he obtains from the Sat (the true), the safety (trâna) of the Self. What people call the vow of silence (mauna), that is really abstinence, for he who by abstinence has found out the Self, meditates (manute).
3. Then, that which is known as ‘anāśakāyana’ [the path of fasting] is brahmacarya, for through brahmacarya one attains the Self which is immortal. Then, that which is called ‘araṇyāyana’ [life in the forest] is brahmacarya. This is because in Brahmaloka, which is the third world from the earth, there are two oceans called Ara and Ṇya. There also one finds a lake called Airammadīya [so-called because its waters are intoxicating], a peepal tree always exuding soma juice, a city called Aparājitā [the Invincible] belonging to Brahmā, and a canopy of gold specially made by the Lord.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Atha, next; yat anāśakāyanam iti ācakṣate, that which is called ‘anāśakāyana’ [i.e., anāśaka + ayana, the path of fasting]; tat brahmacaryam eva, that is brahmacarya; hi, for; eṣaḥ ātmā, this Self; yam brahmacaryeṇa anuvindate, which one attains through brahmacarya; na naśyati, never perishes; atha, then; yat araṇyāyanam iti ācakṣate, that which is called ‘araṇyāyana’ [i.e., araṇya + ayana, life in the forest]; tat brahmacaryam eva, that is brahmacarya; tat, there; araḥ ca ha vai ṇyaḥ ca, Ara and Ṇya; arṇavau, are the two oceans; brahmaloke, in Brahmaloka; tṛtīyasyām itaḥ divi, in the third heaven from here [i.e., from the earth]; tat, [and] there; airammadīyam saraḥ, is a lake called ‘Airammadīya’; tat aśvatthaḥ, [and] there is a peepal tree; somasavanaḥ, which exudes soma juice; tat aparājitā pūḥ, [and] there is the city Aparājitā [the ‘Invincible’]; brahmaṇaḥ, belonging to Brahmā; prabhu-vimitam, built specially by the Lord; hiraṇmayam, [a canopy] made of gold. Commentary:- When you practise brahmacarya, you are always moving on the plane of the Self. Fasting (anāśakāyana) is also called brahmacarya, because when you fast you attain (ayana) the Self that is protected (anāśaka). So also, if you retire to the forest, that is brahmacarya. You say, ‘I’ve had enough of this drama of life,’ so you go and live in the forest to meditate on Brahman. Then finally, by practising continence and self-control, you become transformed and you enter the realm of Brahman. In that world there is a vast lake which is filled with a sweet drink. When you taste that drink you are exhilarated. There is also a banyan tree from which streams of nectar flow. You are now in a world which is not meant for the weak. Only those with strong will-power, who have practised continence and self-control over the years, can enter this world. It is the world of bliss. The Upaniṣad says this is the third world. The first world is this earth, the second is the intermediate region, and the third is this heaven. You are close to Brahman here, and you are happy and enjoy yourself.
Max Müller
3. What people call fasting (anâsakâyana), that is really abstinence, for that Self does not perish (na nasyati), which we find out by abstinence. What people call a hermit's life (aranyâyana), that is really abstinence. Ara [1] and Nya are two lakes in the world of Brahman, in the third heaven from hence; and there is the lake Airanimadîya, and the Asvattha tree, showering down Soma, and the city of Brahman (Hiranyagarbha) Aparâgitâ [2], and the golden Prabhuvimita (the hall built by Prabhu, Brahman).
4. When they attain through brahmacarya the two oceans, Ara and Ṇya, in Brahmaloka, that Brahmaloka is theirs, and they can then move freely in all the worlds.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Tat ye, those who; etau arṇavau, these two oceans; aram ca ṇyam ca, Ara and Ṇya; brahmaloke, in Brahmaloka; anuvindanti, attain; brahmacaryeṇa, through brahmacarya; teṣām eva, for them; eṣaḥ brahmalokaḥ, is this Brahmaloka; sarveṣu lokeṣu, in all the worlds; teṣām kāmacāraḥ bhavati, they can go freely. Iti pañcamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the fifth section, Commentary:- Brahmaloka is not a physical region like this earth. It is a state of being. It is next to liberation. You are almost free there, but not quite. Vedānta says there are four states. The first and the highest is when a person merges immediately into Brahman at the time of death. The next state is Brahmaloka. After that is Svargaloka, heaven. This is where people who have done good things go after death. They are very happy there, but they must eventually come back to earth. The majority of people, however, fall into the fourth category. After death they must immediately come back to this world. They have desires, and in order to fulfil their desires they must have a body.
Max Müller
4. Now that world of Brahman belongs to those who find the lakes Ara and Nya in the world of Brahman by means of abstinence; for them there is freedom in all the worlds [1].
1. Then these veins connected with the heart are each filled with a thin liquid, coloured reddish-yellow, white, blue, yellow, and red. The sun there also has these colours—reddish-yellow, white, blue, yellow, and red.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Atha, then; yaḥ etāḥ hṛdayasya nāḍyaḥ, these veins which are in the heart; taḥ, they; piṅgalasya aṇimnaḥ tiṣṭhanti, are filled with a very thin, tawny-coloured liquid; śuklasya, of white; nīlasya, of blue; pītasya, of yellow; lohitasya iti, of red; asau vai ādityaḥ, the sun there; piṅgalaḥ, is tawny; eṣaḥ śuklaḥ, it is white; eṣaḥ nīlaḥ, it is blue; eṣaḥ pītaḥ, it is yellow; eṣaḥ lohitaḥ, it is red. Commentary:- The heart is the place where one meditates on Brahman. The heart is said to be shaped like a lotus bud, and it also has some similarities to the sun. The sun emits its rays, which spread out in all directions. Similarly, the veins arise from the heart and spread out in all directions. These veins are filled with a very thin substance. This substance changes its colour, and along with it, the veins also change colour. Sometimes it is reddish-yellow, sometimes blue, sometimes white, etc. The sun changes its colour likewise.
Max Müller
1. Now those arteries of the heart consist of a brown substance, of a white, blue, yellow, and red substance, and so is the sun brown, white, blue, yellow, and red.
2. Just as a big, broad road connects one village with another one which is far-off, in the same way, the rays emerge from the sun and reach out to a person, connecting one with the other. After entering the veins of that person, they emerge from them and then go back into the sun.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Tat yathā, just as; ātataḥ mahāpathaḥ, a long and broad road; ubhau grāmau gacchati, connects two villages; imam ca amum ca, this one with that; evam eva, like that; etāḥ ādityasya raśmayaiḥ these rays [which are blue, yellow, etc.] of the sun; ubhau lokau gacchanti, connect two worlds; imam ca amum ca, this [the human body] with that [the sun]; tāḥ, these [rays]; amuṣmāt ādityāt, from the solar region; pratāyante, emerge; āsu nāḍīṣu, into these veins; sṛptāḥ, enter; te, these [rays]; ābhyaḥ nāḍībhyaḥ pratāyante, emerge from the veins; te amuṣmin āditye sṛptāḥ, [and] they go back into the solar region. Commentary:- How are the rays of the sun related to the veins of a human body? The Upaniṣad compares the rays to a big, wide road connecting two villages far away from each other. The rays of the sun go out and enter the veins of a human body, and then they return to the sun.
Max Müller
2. As a very long highway goes to two places, to one at the beginning, and to another at the end, so do the rays of the sun go to both worlds, to this one and to the other. They start from the sun, and enter into those arteries; they start from those arteries, and enter into the sun.
तद्यत्रैतत्सुप्तः समस्त्ः सम्प्रसन्नः स्वप्नं न विजानात्यासु
तदा नाडीषु सृप्तो भवति तं न कश्चन पाप्मा स्पृशति
तेजसा हि तदा सम्पन्नो भवति ॥ ८.६.३॥
tadyatraitatsuptaḥ samastḥ samprasannaḥ svapnaṃ na vijānātyāsu
tadā nāḍīṣu sṛpto bhavati taṃ na kaścana pāpmā spṛśati
tejasā hi tadā sampanno bhavati .. 8.6.3..
3. When a person is sound asleep, all his organs are inactive and quiet. He is free from all worries, and he does not have any dreams. The organs then disappear into the veins. No sin can affect him then, for the rays of the sun have surrounded him.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Tat yatra; then when; etat suptaḥ, a person is sleeping; samastaḥ, with all the organs quiet; samprasannaḥ, free from worry; svapnam na vijānāti, has no dreams; tadā, then; āsu nāḍīṣu, into the [blue, yellow, etc.] veins; sṛptaḥ bhavati, he enters; tam, him; na kaścana pāpmā spṛśati, no sin whatever can touch; hi tadā, for then; tejasā sampannaḥ bhavati, he is surrounded by the rays of the sun. Commentary:- There are two kinds of sleep:- one kind in which you have dreams, and another in which you have no dreams. The latter is called suṣupti. In suṣupti all your organs merge within you, and this means you have no contact whatsoever with the world outside. The energy of the sun fills your veins, and your sense organs then remain inactive. As a result, there is no way anything good or bad can touch you or contaminate you. You are therefore in your true state—free and pure.
Max Müller
3. And when a man is asleep, reposing, and at perfect rest, so that he sees no dream [1], then he has entered into those arteries. Then no evil touches him, for he has obtained the light (of the sun).
4. Then when a person becomes weak, his relations sit around him and keep asking:- ‘Do you know me? Do you know me?’ As long as he has not left the body, he is able to recognize them.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Atha, then; yatra, when; etat, a person; abalimānam, weakness; nītaḥ bhavati, is reduced to; tam abhitaḥ, around him; āsīnāḥ, those sitting; āhaḥ, say; jānāsi mām jānāsi mām iti, do you know me, do you know me; saḥ, he; yāvat, as long as; asmāt śarīrāt, from this body; anutkrāntaḥ bhavati, does not leave; tāvat jānāti, that long he knows [them]. Commentary:- When a person is dying, he is surrounded by his relatives and friends, and they keep asking him:- ‘Do you know me? Do you recognize us?’ As long as there is life left in his body he can recognize them. But when he has left the body, he cannot answer, because the body cannot speak without him.
Max Müller
4. And when a man falls ill, then those who sit round him, say, 'Do you know me? Do you know me?' As long as he has not departed from this body, he knows them.
5. Then when a person leaves the body, he goes upward with the help of these rays. If he dies while meditating on Om, his going up is assured; otherwise not. In the amount of time it takes his mind to move from one thought to another he can reach the realm of the sun. The sun is the gateway to Brahmaloka. Those who known the meaning of Om and think of it at the time of death enter Brahmaloka, but those who are ignorant of it have no chance of entering.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Atha, then; yatra, when; etat, this [person]; asmāt śarīrāt, from this body; utkrāmati, leaves; atha, then; etaiḥ eva raśmibhiḥ, by these rays; ūrdhvam ākramate, is carried upward; saḥ, he; om iti, by meditating on Om; vā ha ut mīyate, he surely goes up; vā, or [i.e., otherwise not]; yāvat, in the time that; manaḥ kṣipyet, the mind moves; tāvat, in that time; saḥ ādityam gacchati, he goes to the realm of the sun; etat vai, that [sun]; lokadvāram khalu, is the gateway [to the world of Brahman]; viduṣām prapadanam, for those who know [this Om] it is the entrance; nirodhaḥ aviduṣām, for the ignorant, entry is barred. Commentary:- Brahmaloka. Those who know the meaning of Om and think of it at the time of death enter Brahmaloka, but those who are ignorant of it have no chance of entering. What happens to a person when he dies? If he is a good person and has been meditating on Om, at the time of death he will try to meditate on Om in the heart. In Hinduism, it is the practice for religious people to die thinking of God. Here the Upaniṣad suggests meditation on Om. Then when the dying person leaves the body, he quickly goes through the sun rays to the realm of the sun. How quickly? As quick as the mind can move. Suppose we think of someone who lives very close to us. Then we think of someone in England, or somewhere else far away. That is how fast the mind can move. Similarly, that is how fast it takes for a person to reach the sun. The Upaniṣad says that the sun is the door to Brahmaloka. If you have meditated on your oneness with Om, then you go through this door to Brahmaloka. But what if a person is not religious and does not think of God or Om at the time of death? Then that door is closed for him. He cannot enter within. Vedānta says, you are the architect of your own fate. A good person will have a good world to go to. And if he knows his true nature, he will go right to Brahmaloka. But those who still have desires are not free. They must stay in lower regions to wait for their rebirth.
Max Müller
5. But when he departs from this body, then he departs upwards by those very rays (towards the worlds which he has gained by merit, not by knowledge); or he goes out while meditating on Om [1] (and thus securing an entrance into the Brahmaloka). And while his mind is failing, he is going to the sun. For the sun is the door of the world (of Brahman). Those who know, walk in; those who do not know, are shut out.
6. There is a verse about this:- There are a hundred and one arteries connected with the heart. One of them goes up to the top of the head. A person who goes up following this artery attains immortality. The other arteries go in different directions and cause one to depart from the body in other ways.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Tat eṣaḥ ślokaḥ, there is a verse about this; śatam ca ekā ca, one hundred and one; hṛdayasya nāḍyaḥ, arteries of the heart; tāsām ekā, one of them; mūrdhānam abhiniḥsṛtā, extends to the top of the head; tayā, by that [artery]; urdhvam āyan, going up; amṛtatvam eti, one attains immortality; anyāḥ, as regards the others; viṣvan utkramaṇe bhavanti utkramaṇe bhavanti, they cause one to depart from the body in different directions, they cause one to depart. Iti ṣaṣṭhaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the sixth section. Commentary:- The Upaniṣad says, there are a hundred and one arteries, and one of these goes up to the crown of the head. That is the sūrya nāḍī, the passage to the sun, described in the previous verse. It goes from the heart to the top of the head. Those who depart from the body through this passage attain immortality—that is, liberation. But what happens to other people? Those who depart through other passages must be reborn. They may be reborn as a human being, or they may be reborn as an animal, or even as an insect. But please note:- It is the same Self that is a human being, an animal, and an insect. From an amoeba to the state of Brahman, it is the same Consciousness. You may start as an amoeba, never mind. If you are Brahman, you are always Brahman, whether you have a good body or not. You may not know you are Brahman. But that does not change the fact that you are Brahman. You may think you are just an amoeba, because you identify yourself with an amoeba body. Similarly, you may think you are a dog because you have a dog body. Or you may think you are a human being because you are in a human body. But this is all ignorance. Your goal is to realize yourself as Brahman, and, no matter what kind of body you have now, some day you will reach that goal.
Max Müller
6. There is this verse [1]:- 'There are a hundred and one arteries of the heart; one of them penetrates the crown of the head; moving upwards by it a man reaches the immortal; the others serve for departing in different directions, yea, in different directions [2].'
sarvāgͫśca kāmānyastamātmānamanuvidya vijānātīti ha
prajāpatiruvāca .. 8.7.1..
1. Prajāpati once said:- ‘The Self is free from sin, free from old age, free from death, free from sorrow, and free from hunger and thirst. It is the cause of desire for Truth and for commitment to Truth. This Self has to be sought for and thoroughly known. The person who has sought for and known the Self attains all worlds and all desires’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Yaḥ ātmā apahatapāpmā, the Self is free from sin; vijaraḥ, free from the effects of age; vimṛtyuḥ, free from death; viśokaḥ, free from sorrow; vijighatsaḥ, free from hunger; apipāsaḥ, free from thirst; satyakāmaḥ, is the cause of desire for Truth; satyasaṅkalpaḥ, is the cause of commitment to Truth; saḥ, that; anveṣṭavyaḥ, has to be sought; saḥ vijijñāsitavyaḥ, that has to be thoroughly investigated; saḥ, a person; sarvān ca lokān āpnoti, attains all worlds; sarvān ca kāmān, and all desires; yaḥ, who; tam ātmānam, that Self; anuvidya, having learned; vijānāti, [and] knows it; prajāpatiḥ iti ha uvāca, Prajāpati once said. Commentary:- Again and again the Upaniṣads glorify Self-knowledge, but what is the nature of the Self, and how do we attain that knowledge? Here the Upaniṣad begins a story to answer this. Once Prajāpati, the creator, decided to teach people about the Self. He described the Self as apahata-pāpmā, free from sins, or blemishes (pāpa)—that is to say, it is pure. Vijara—it never ages, or decays. Vimṛtyu—it is free from death. The body, of course, is subject to decay and it perishes. When you look at an old person you can tell at once that the body has decayed. It has become weak, and there are wrinkles and grey hair, and so on. Then gradually it must perish. That which has birth also has death. No matter when the body was born, it will eventually begin to fall apart and die. But the Self will never die. Then Prajāpati says, the Self is viśoka, without sorrow, vijighatsa, not subject to hunger, and apipāsa, not subject to thirst. Besides this, the Self is satyakāma and satyasaṅkalpa—seeking the Truth and always rooted in Truth. That is to say, it is Truth itself. It is always one with Truth, so it can never deviate from Truth. “Saḥ anveṣṭavyaḥ”—that has to be known. This is the purpose of life. Sri Ramakrishna used to say, ‘To realize God is the goal of life.’ The goal is not money, not power, not scholarship. It is nothing but God. Saḥ vijijñāsitavyaḥ—it has to be enquired about. You cannot sit back and wait for it to reveal itself to you. You must go and find someone to teach you about it. And when you have found a capable teacher, you must fall at his feet and beg him to teach you. Then you must ask again and again until your doubts are removed:- ‘Is it like this? Is it like that?’ But you must go to someone who knows the Self. Can a blind man lead another blind man? If the teacher does not know the Self, how will you learn? When you fulfil these conditions, what happens? You get everything you want. You become supreme. The Upaniṣad says, you conquer the whole universe. How? Because you realize you are the Self. And that Self is the Self of all that exists. You are everything. In this way too, all your desires are fulfilled. Self-knowledge gives you the highest. You may have everything else—friends, relatives, great political power, money, scholarship, a high social standing—but if you do not have Self-knowledge, everything is useless. Prajāpati has declared:- ‘This is the nature of the Self. And if you know the Self, you attain everything.’ He has sent out an invitation, as it were:- ‘Come and learn from me.’ Here, in order to teach the nature of the Self, and also to emphasize the need for self-discipline to attain Self-knowledge, the Upani-
Max Müller
1. Pragâpati said:- 'The Self which is free from sin, free from old age, from death and grief, from hunger and thirst, which desires nothing but what it ought to desire, and imagines nothing but what it ought to imagine, that it is which we must search out, that it is which we must try to understand. He who has searched out that Self and understands it, obtains all worlds and all desires.'
2. Both the gods and the demons came to know from people what Prajāpati had said. They said, ‘We shall search for that Self, by knowing which we can attain all the worlds and whatever things we desire.’ With this object in view, Indra among the gods and Virocana among the demons went to Prajāpati, carrying fuel in their hands. But they did not let each other know their plans.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Tat ha, that [what Prajāpati had said]; ubhaye deva-asurāḥ, both the gods and the demons; anububudhire, learned from what other people said; te ha ucuḥ, they said [among themselves]; hanta tam ātmānam anvicchāmaḥ, so let us search for the Self; yam ātmānam, that Self; anviṣya, by seeking; sarvān ca lokān āpnoti, a person attains all worlds; sarvān ca kāmān hi, and all desires; indraḥ, Indra; ha eva devānām, among all the gods; abhipravrāja, went [to Prajāpati]; virocanaḥ asurānām, [and] Virocana from among the asuras; tau, those two; ha asaṃvidānau, without letting each other know; eva samitpāṇī, with fuel in hand; prajāpati-sakāśam, to Prajāpati; ājagmatuḥ, went. Commentary:- Indra is the chief of the gods and goddesses, and Virocana is the chief of the demons. Though Prajāpati is the grandparent of both of them, they are adversaries. Both Indra and Virocana heard from people what Prajāpati had said about the Self, and they were curious. They each decided to go to Prajāpati for instructions. As they often fought with one another, they never let each other know what they were doing. Everything was secret and confidential. But by chance both Indra and Virocana came to Prajāpati at the same time. How did they go? Śaṅkara says they went with great humility. Both of them were rulers, yet they put aside their royal robes and regalia, and wore the simplest clothes. They also came samitpāṇī ‘with fuel in hand,’ as an offering and as a sign of humility. Why? To show that they knew this knowledge to be superior even to rulership of the three worlds. In the Kaṭha Upaniṣad, Yama told Naciketā he would give him anything he wanted instead of Naciketā’s request for knowledge of the Self. Naciketā could have been ruler of the three worlds if he wanted,
Max Müller
2. The Devas (gods) and Asuras (demons) both heard these words, and said:- 'Well, let us search for that Self by which, if one has searched it out, all worlds and all desires are obtained.' Thus saying Indra went from the Devas, Virokana from the Asuras, and both, without having communicated with each other, approached Pragâpati, holding fuel in their hands, as is the custom for pupils approaching their master.
3. Both of them spent thirty-two years there living as brahmacarins. One day Prajāpati said to them:- ‘For what purpose are you staying here?’ They replied:- ‘“The Self is free from sin, free from old age, free from death, free from sorrow, and free from hunger and thirst. It is the cause of desire for Truth and for commitment to Truth. This Self has to be sought for and thoroughly known. The person who has learned about the Self and known it attains all worlds and all desires.”—Sir, this is your message. We wish to know that Self, and this is why we are here’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Tau, those two; ha dvātriṃśatam varṣāṇi, for thirty-two years; brahmacaryam ūṣataḥ, lived there practising strict self-control; tau ha prajāpatiḥ uvāca, Prajāpati said to them; kim icchantau avāstam iti, for what purpose have you stayed here; tau ha ucatuḥ, they said; yaḥ ātmā apahatapāpmā, the Self is free from sin; vijaraḥ, free from the effects of age; vimṛtyuḥ, free from death; viśokaḥ, free from sorrow; vijighatsaḥ, free from hunger; apipāsaḥ, free from thirst; satyakāmaḥ, is the cause of desire for Truth; satyasaṅkalpaḥ, is the cause of commitment to Truth; saḥ, that; anveṣṭavyaḥ, has to be sought; saḥ vijijñāsitavyaḥ, that has to be thoroughly investigated; saḥ, a person; sarvān ca lokān āpnoti, attains all worlds; sarvān ca kāmān, and all desires; yaḥ, who; taw ātmānam, that Self; anuvidya, having learned; vijānāti iti, [and] knows it; bhagavataḥ, sir; vacaḥ vedayante, this is your message; tarn icchantau, wishing for that [knowledge of the Self]; avāstam iti, we have lived here. Commentary:- Indra and Virocana heard that Prajāpati had said the Self was pure, undecaying, without death, and so on, and they decided to go and learn from him. But a student must first go through some disciplines and prepare himself to receive these instructions. So for thirty-two years they practised brahmacarya, living with Prajāpati. They served him with humility, forgetting After thirty-two years, Prajāpati one day sent for them and asked:- ‘Why are you here? What do you want from me?’ Indra and Virocana replied:- ‘We heard from people that you said the Self is without decay, without death, and without sorrow. We want to know that Self. This is why we have come to you. We have been living here the past thirty-two years because we want to know the Self.’ Śaṅkara says that previously Indra and Virocana were hostile to each other. But now they are humble and no longer jealous, and they have even become friendly. Why has their nature changed? Because they have practised brahmacarya, self-control. “Brahmacarya” means brahma carati, one who moves around Brahman—that is, one who is always thinking of Brahman and trying to feel that he is Brahman. His whole life is centred around Brahman. Such a person lives a simple and austere life—with simple food, simple clothes, and so on. And he always practises self-restraint in everything he does. In Hinduism, self-restraint is the key to everything. If you want to achieve anything, even in secular life, you have to practise self-restraint.
Max Müller
3. They dwelt there as pupils for thirty-two years. Then Pragâpati asked them:- 'For what purpose have you both dwelt here?' They replied:- 'A saying of yours is being repeated, viz. "the Self which is free from sin, free from old age, from death and grief, from hunger and thirst, which desires nothing but what it ought to desire, and imagines nothing but what it ought to imagine, that it is which we must search out, that it is which we must try to understand. He who has searched out that Self and understands it, obtains all worlds and all desires." Now we both have dwelt here because we wish for that Self.'
ityeṣa u evaiṣu sarveṣvanteṣu parikhyāyata iti hovāca
.. 8.7.4..
4. Prajāpati said to those two, ‘That which is seen in the eyes is the Self.’ He also said:- ‘This Self is immortal and fearless. It is Brahman.’ Then they asked:- ‘Lord, we see something when we look in water and again when we look in a mirror. Which is it?’ Prajāpati replied, ‘The Self is seen in all these’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Tau, to those two; prajāpatiḥ ha uvāca, Prajāpati said; yaḥ eṣaḥ puruṣaḥ, that person which; akṣiṇi dṛśyate, is seen in the eye; eṣaḥ ātmā iti, that is the Self; ha uvāca, [then] he said; etat amṛtam, that is immortal; abhayam, [and] fearless; etat brahma iti, that is Brahman; atha, then [they asked]; bhagavaḥ, Lord; yaḥ ayam apsu parikhyāyate, that which is seen in water; yaḥ ca ayam ādarśe, and that which is in a mirror; katamaḥ eṣaḥ iti, which is it; eṣaḥ, this [Self]; u eva eṣu parikhyāyate, is that which is seen; sarveṣu anteṣu, in all these; iti ha uvāca, he said. Iti saptamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the seventh section. Commentary:- According to Hindu philosophy, Supreme Knowledge is not meant for people whose minds are not pure. Though Indra and Virocana had been with Prajāpati for thirty-two years and they had made some progress towards purity, their minds were not yet pure enough to receive Self-knowledge. So Prajāpati’s first instruction was neither here nor there. It didn’t help them much. To begin with, Prajāpati said the Self is in the eyes. We all know that if We stand in front of someone, we can see our own reflection on that person’s eyes, and this is what Indra and Virocana thought Prajāpati meant. They said:- ‘We see a similar reflection when we look in water or in a mirror. We see ourselves reflected there. Which of these is the Self?’ Prajāpati answered, ‘The Self is in all these.’ Here Śaṅkara raises the question:- What did he mean by this? Was he misleading them? No, he was not misleading them, because it is true the Self is everywhere and in everything. But a person has to search. They could take his statement literally, but that would be a mistake. He wanted them to ask questions and use their judgement. He knew they would not understand, however. They were not yet ready for the highest Truth. He felt they had to spend more time practising brahmacarya.
Max Müller
4. Pragâpati said to them:- 'The person that is seen in the eye [1], that is the Self. This is what I have said. This is the immortal, the fearless, this is Brahman.' They asked:- 'Sir, he who is perceived in the water, and he who is perceived in a mirror, who is he?' He replied:- 'He himself indeed is seen in all these [2].'
1. [Prajāpati said:-] ‘Look at yourselves in a vessel full of water. If you have any doubts about the Self then let me know.’ They then looked at themselves in the water, and Prajāpati asked, ‘What do you see?’ They replied, ‘We see the reflection of our whole self, including even our hair and nails’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Udaśarāve ātmānam avekṣya, look at yourself in a vessel filled with water; yat ātmanaḥ na vijānīthaḥ, what you do not understand about the Self; tat me prabrūtam iti, tell me what it is; tau ha udaśarāve avekṣāñcakrāte, [then] they looked [at themselves] in the water; tau ha prajāpatiḥ uvāca, Prajāpati said to them; kim paśyathaḥ iti, what do you see; tau ha ucatuḥ, the two of them said; āvām, we both; bhagavaḥ, Lord; sarvam eva idam ātmānam paśyāvaḥ, see the whole of our self; pratirūpam, a reflection; ālomabhyaḥ, from the hair; ānakhebhyaḥ, to the nails. Commentary:- Prajāpati told them to bring a pan of water. They brought it, and he said:- ‘Look in the water. What do you see? If you have any doubt, if it is not clear to you exactly what I mean when I say the Self is in the water, then ask me.’ A kind teacher is always ready to answer any question that a student may put. But instead of thinking and questioning, they simply said they saw the reflection of their own bodies—to the hair and the nails. When they even included the hair and nails, it should have been obvious to them that this could not be the Self. In the Vedānta philosophy there is the illustration of the pole-star. How do you show someone the pole-star? First you draw that person’s attention to a tree. Then you point to a big branch of the tree, and then to a smaller branch, and then to the pole-star beyond that. So you take the person step by step. This is what Prajāpati is trying to do. He is not trying to mislead them, but to take them from where they are, one step at a time.
Max Müller
1. 'Look at your Self in a pan of water, and whatever you do not understand of your Self [1], come and tell me.' They looked in the water-pan. Then Pragâpati said to them:- 'What do you see?' They said:- 'We both see the self thus altogether, a picture even to the very hairs and nails.'
tau ha prajāpatiruvāca sādhvalaṃkṛtau suvasanau pariṣkṛtau
bhūtvodaśarāve'vekṣethāmiti tau ha sādhvalaṃkṛtau
suvasanau pariṣkṛtau bhūtvodaśarāve'vekṣāṃcakrāte
tau ha prajāpatiruvāca kiṃ paśyatha iti .. 8.8.2..
2. Prajāpati said to them, ‘After getting well-dressed and putting on fine clothes and making yourselves neat and clean, then look into the pan of water.’ So the two of them got well-dressed in fine clothes, and made themselves neat and clean. Then they looked into the water. Prajāpati asked, ‘What do you see?’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Tau ha prajāpatiḥ uvāca, Prajāpati said to them; sādhu-alaṅkṛtau, well-dressed; suvasanau, wearing fine clothes; pariṣkṛtau bhūtvā, having become neat and clean; udaśarāve avekṣethām iti, look into the vessel of water; sādhu-alaṅkṛtau bhūtvā, having become well-dressed; suvasanau, wearing fine clothes; pariṣkṛtau, neat and clean; tau ha udaśarāve avekṣāñcakrāte, they looked in the vessel of water; tau ha prajāpatiḥ uvāca, Prajāpati said to them; kim paśyathaḥ iti, what do you see? Commentary:- Now Prajāpati tells them to wash themselves and put on fine clothes and ornaments, and then look again into the pan of water. He was trying to raise a doubt in their minds. This is one way of teaching the Truth.
Max Müller
2. Pragâpati said to them:- 'After you have adorned yourselves, have put on your best clothes and cleaned yourselves, look again into the water-pan. They, after having adorned themselves, having put on their best clothes and cleaned themselves, looked into the water-pan. Pragâpati said:- 'What do you see?'
3. The two of them said, ‘Revered sir, just as we are well-dressed in fine clothes, and neat and clean, in the same way, these two reflections are well-dressed in fine clothes, and neat and clean.’ Prajāpati said:- ‘That is the Self. It is immortal and fearless. It is Brahman.’ The two of them left then, happy in mind.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Tau ha ucatuḥ, they both said; bhagavaḥ, sir; yathā eva, just as; idam āvām, we two here; sādhu-alaṅkṛtau, well-dressed; suvasanau, wearing fine clothes; pariṣkṛtau svaḥ, are neat and clean; evam eva, like this; bhagavaḥ, lord; imau, these two [reflections]; sādhu-alaṅkṛtau, well-dressed; suvasanau, wearing fine clothes; pariṣkṛtau iti, neat and clean; iti ha uvāca, [Prajāpati] said; eṣaḥ ātmā, this is the Self; etat amṛtam, this is immortal; abhayam, fearless; etat brahma iti, this is Brahman; tau, both of them; śāntahṛdayau pravavrajatuḥ, left happy in mind. Commentary:- Now Indra and Virocana see themselves with fine clothes and ornaments on. Just as it should have been obvious to them that the Self is not the body with its hair and nails, even more so it should be obvious that the Self is not the body with its fine clothes, as they were not wearing those clothes before. Prajāpati was trying to provoke them into thinking. Is the body with its fine clothes deathless and free from fear? If it is unchanging, why does it look different when you put on different clothes? But they went away very happy, thinking they had the answer. Ordinarily our minds are wavering back and forth with doubts and indecision. That is the nature of the mind. But the Upaniṣad says Indra and Virocana went away śāntahṛdaya, with their minds at rest. That means without any doubt, without any question. It means they think they have received a satisfactory answer to their question, and the problem is solved.
Max Müller
3. They said:- 'Just as we are, well adorned, with our best clothes and clean, thus we are both there, Sir, well adorned, with our best clothes and clean.' Pragâpati said:- 'That is the Self, this is the immortal, the fearless, this is Brahman.' Then both went away satisfied in their hearts.
4. Seeing them leave, Prajāpati said to himself:- ‘They are going without realizing or knowing anything about the Self. Anyone among them, whether a god or a demon, who will understand the teaching this way [thinking the body to be the Self] will be lost.’ Virocana, the king of the demons, went back to the demons happy in mind and explained to them the upaniṣad:-
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Tau ha anu-īkṣya, having observed them; prajāpatiḥ uvāca, Prajāpati said; anupalabhya ātmānam, without realizing the Self; ananuvidya, without knowing; vrajatah, they have left; yatare, whoever among these two [gods or demons]; etat upaniṣadaḥ bhaviṣyanti, will understand this teaching this way; devāḥ vā asurāḥ vā, whether gods or demons; te parābhaviṣyanti iti, they will be destroyed; saḥ ha virocanaḥ, that Virocana; śāntahṛdayaḥ eva, with a happy mind; asurān jagāma, went to the demons; tebhyaḥ, to them; etām upaniṣadam ha provāca, explained the meaning of this upaniṣad; ātmā eva ha iha mahayyaḥ, the body is an object of worship in this world; ātmā paricaryaḥ, the body should be well taken care of; ātmānam eva iha mahayan, by treating the body with due respect in this world; ātmānam paricaran, by taking good care of it; ubhau lokau, both worlds; imam ca amum ca, this and the other; āpnoti iti, one attains. Commentary:- ‘The body is the Self, and in this world it should be worshipped and taken care of. If the body is worshipped and well taken care of in this world, one attains both this world and the next.’ Prajāpati deplored the fact that they had left without asking for clarification. He was their teacher and well-wisher, and he was also their grandfather. He said:- ‘Poor children, they have gone away without knowing anything. They should have asked me, “When the body changes, does that mean the Self also changes?” But they did not ask any questions. Because they do not understand, they will fall away from the right path.’ Virocana went back to the demons and said:- ‘I have got the answer. The body is the Self.’ Nourish this body, and look after it; eat, drink, and be merry; enjoy yourselves—this is the aim of life for a demon, that is, for a materialist. That which is gross, which can be perceived by the sense organs, that is the reality. And that which cannot be perceived is not real. This is the doctrine that Virocana preached. The Upaniṣad uses the word upaniṣad to refer to what Virocana taught the demons, but it uses the word ironically. The word upaniṣad means niḥśeṣa—that is to say, it ‘totally destroys’ your ignorance. An Upaniṣad is supposed to give you Self-knowledge. But Virocana took the teaching to mean that the body was the Self. He thought that by worshipping and taking care of the body one would gain not only this world, but the other world also.
Max Müller
4. And Pragâpati, looking after them, said:- 'They both go away without having perceived and without having known the Self, and whoever of these two [1], whether Devas or Asuras, will follow this doctrine (upanishad), will perish.' Now Virokana, satisfied in his heart, went to the Asuras and preached that doctrine to them, that the self (the body) alone is to be worshipped, that the self (the body) alone is to be served, and that he who worships the self and serves the self, gains both worlds, this and the next.
5. This is why in this world even today people say, ‘Oh, he is a demon,’ if that person is devoid of the feeling of charity, has no respect for others, and never cares to perform a sacrifice, because the demons have the idea that the body is the Self. When a person dies they decorate the body with all kinds of offerings, new clothes, and jewellery, for they think that by this, the person will conquer the other world.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Tasmāt, this is why; api adya, till today; iha, here in this world; adadānam, one incapable of giving anything in charity; aśraddadhānam, one who has no respect for others; ayajamānam, one who never performs a sacrifice; āhuḥ, they say; āsuraḥ bata iti, ‘Oh, he is like a demon’; asurānām hi eṣaḥ upaniṣat, because this knowledge is suited for the demons; pretasya, of a dead person; śarīram, the body; bhikṣayā, with gifts [flowers, food, drink, etc.]; vasanena, with clothes; alaṅkāreṇa, with jewellery; saṃskurvanti, they decorate; hi, for; etena, in this way; annum lokam, the other world; jeṣyantaḥ, they will win; manyante, they think. Iti aṣṭamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the eighth section. Commentary:- Here the Upaniṣad says that there is a class of people who are not interested in self-discipline. They are the demons. They are only interested in sense pleasure, and they only believe in what can be perceived by the senses and what is present before them. They do not believe in God, and they are not interested in higher things. They are selfish and do not give anything in charity. They do not have faith in higher things, nor do they have respect for anything that is good—for good people or for good deeds. And they do not believe in sacrifice. Their attitude is:- ‘Why should I share what I have? I want everything for myself.’ What is the aim of their life? What is their ideal? Only that which concerns their body. The body is everything to them. Even when someone dies, they decorate the body with all kinds of things they like—flowers, garlands, fragrance, ornaments, silk clothes. Everything is done to make the body appear beautiful, as if a dead body is beautiful! They think if the body is properly decorated in this way, the deceased will look like a prince and will conquer heaven. They think the gods and goddesses will receive him as their ruler, and so on. In ancient Egypt, when the Pharaohs died, their bodies were treated with special ointments to preserve them. Then when they were put in their tombs, the bodies of their servants and attendants were also put there so they could look after them. Besides this, all the vessels and things the Pharaohs used were put in the tomb. Everything went with them. The Hindu concept, however, is that the body will decay and perish, but the self is independent of the body. The self will never decay and never perish. It is a common experience that when a person dies, we see all his organs intact, but if we talk to him he does not answer. Why? Because the self has left the body. The Upaniṣad does not mean to say that the body is not important. As a means to attain Self-knowledge it is important. It is a tool that we need for progress in our spiritual life and also in our mundane life. As the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad says, ‘Nāyamātmā balahīnena labhyaḥ—this Self is not attained by one who has no strength.’ If you have a weak, feeble body, then you cannot struggle or make sustained effort in any vocation—whether spiritual or secular. But when too much importance is given to the body, we forget that we are not the body, but the Self.
Max Müller
5. Therefore they call even now a man who does not give alms here, who has no faith, and offers no sacrifices, an Âsura, for this is the doctrine (upanishad) of the Asuras. They deck out the body of the dead with perfumes, flowers, and fine raiment by way of ornament, and think they will thus conquer that world [1].
1. But even before Indra returned to the gods, a doubt arose in his mind:- ‘When the body is well decorated, the reflection is also well decorated. When the body is in fine clothes, the reflection is also in fine clothes. When the body is neat and clean, the reflection is also neat and clean. Again, suppose a person is blind. Then the reflection will show a blind body. Or if the body is lame, the reflection will show a lame body. Or if the body is hurt in some way, the reflection will show the same. Then again, if the body is destroyed, the reflection is gone. I don’t see that anything good will come from this’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Atha, but; indraḥ, Indra, the king of the gods; ha aprāpya eva, even before getting back; devān, to the gods; etat bhayam dadarśa, saw this fear [i.e., doubt]; yathā eva, just as; asmin śarīre sādhu-alaṅkṛte, with this body being well decorated; khalu ayam, this [reflection of the body]; sādhu-alaṅkṛtah bhavati, is also well decorated; suvasane suvasanaḥ, when the body is in fine clothes, the reflection is wearing fine clothes; pariṣkṛte pariṣkṛtaḥ, when the body is neat and clean, the reflection is neat and clean; evam eva, like this; asmin andhe, if [the body] is blind; ayam andhaḥ bhavati, this [reflection] is of a blind person; srāme srāmaḥ, if the body is lame, the reflection is of a lame person; parivṛkṇe parivṛkṇaḥ, if the body is hurt, the reflection is of an injured body; asya śarīrasya eva nāśam anu, on the body’s destruction; eṣaḥ naśyati, this [reflection] is destroyed; aham atra bhogyam na paśyāmi iti, I see nothing good in this. Commentary:- Virocana was happy. He had no more doubts or questions. He liked the idea of the body being the Self. But what about Indra? Indra was a higher being. He was a god and was endowed with some spiritual qualities. Whereas Virocana thought Prajāpati was saying the body was the Self, Indra thought he was saying the reflection was the Self. Indra also left Prajāpati and started to go back home, but then he was struck by a doubt:- ‘How can that reflection be my Self? It can’t be. When I first looked at the reflection in the water it looked one way. Then when I put on fine clothes it looked another way. Suppose I lose a limb. The reflection will show that there is a limb missing. Whatever change there is in the body will show on the reflection. And if the body perishes, the reflection will be gone. But Prajāpati himself spoke of the Self as something constant, free from all defects, and immortal. It is something that does not change. What did Prajāpati mean when he said, “This is the Self”? Surely the
Max Müller
1. But Indra, before he had returned to the Devas, saw this difficulty. As this self (the shadow in the water) [1] is well adorned, when the body is well adorned, well dressed, when the body is well dressed, well cleaned, if the body is well cleaned, that self will also be blind, if the body is blind, lame, if the body is lame [2], crippled, if the body is crippled, and will perish in fact as soon as the body perishes. Therefore I see no good in this (doctrine).
2. Indra returned with fuel in hand. Prajāpati asked:- ‘Indra, you left with Virocana happy in mind. What has made you come back?’ Indra replied:- ‘Lord, when the body is well decorated, the reflection is also well decorated. When the body is in fine clothes, the reflection is also in fine clothes. When the body is neat and clean, the reflection is also neat and clean. Again, suppose a person is blind. Then the reflection will show a blind body. Or if the body is lame, the reflection will show a lame body. Or if the body is hurt in some way, the reflection will show the same. Then again, if the body is destroyed, the reflection is gone. I don’t see anything good in this’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Saḥ, he [Indra]; punaḥ eyāya, again went back; samitpāṇiḥ, with fuel in hand; tam, to him; prajāpatiḥ ha uvāca, Prajāpati said; maghavan, O Maghavan [Indra]; yat prāvrājīḥ, you left; śāntahṛdayaḥ, satisfied; sārdham virocanena, along with Virocana; kim icchan, what do you want; punaḥ āgamaḥ iti, that you have come back again; saḥ ha uvāca, he [Indra] said; bhagavaḥ, lord; yathā era, just as; asmin śarīre sādhu-alaṅkṛte, with this body being well decorated; khalu ayam, this [reflection of the body]; sādhu-alaṅkṛtah bhavati, is also well decorated; suvasane suvasanaḥ, when the body is in fine clothes, the reflection is wearing fine clothes; pariṣkṛte pariṣkṛtaḥ, when the body is neat and clean, the reflection is neat and clean; evam era, like this; asmin andhe, if [the body] is blind; ayam andhaḥ bhavati, this [reflection] is of a blind person; srāme srāmaḥ, if the body is lame, the reflection is of a lame person; parivṛkṇe parivṛkṇaḥ, if the body is hurt, the reflection is of an injured body; asya śarīrasya eva nāśam anu, on the body’s destruction; eṣaḥ naśyati, this [reflection] is destroyed; aham atra bhogyam na paśyāmi iti, I see nothing good in this. Commentary:- Again Indra went to Prajāpati with fuel in hand as a symbol of surrender and humility. Śaṅkara makes a very significant comment here. The question is raised, ‘Virocana went away satisfied, but why did Indra come back?’ Śaṅkara says that we understand a thing according to our own level and inclination—according to our own nature. Śaṅkara cites the example given in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad of Prajāpati’s instruction to the gods, humans, and asuras. To all of them Prajāpati gave the same instruction:- he simply said, ‘da.’ The gods understood him to be saying dāmyata, be self-controlled. The human beings took it to mean datta, give in charity. And the asuras thought he was saying dayadhvam, be compassionate. They all heard the same thing, but they interpreted it differently, according to their nature. The gods have the purest nature. They are the closest to Brahman. What is preventing them from being united with Brahman? Just a very thin layer of ignorance. They have to have a full measure of purity, and self-discipline is what leads to this purity. This is why they took the instruction to mean they should practise self-control. The next are human beings. They are good, but they could be better. How? By practising selflessness. They should give whatever they can, share what they have with others, and not be selfish. But the demons are not ready for self-control or charity. They are very cruel and passionate by nature. Therefore they took the instruction to mean that they These are the three characteristics we find among people. One kind of person needs to practise self-control; another kind, charity; and a third kind, mercy. It all depends on the level one is at. Vedānta says you have to be ready to receive Self-knowledge. You have to be prepared. How a person understands the instructions is based on how much preparation he has had. Prajāpati was not trying to deceive Indra and Virocana. He was testing them, but he knew they were not prepared to receive Self-knowledge.
Max Müller
2. Taking fuel in his hand he came again as a pupil to Pragâpati. Pragâpati said to him:- 'Maghavat (Indra), as you went away with Virokana, satisfied in your heart, for what purpose did you come back?' He said:- 'Sir, as this self (the shadow) is well adorned, when the body is well adorned, well dressed, when the body is well dressed, well cleaned, if the body is well cleaned, that self will also be blind, if the body is blind, lame, if the body is lame, crippled, if the body is crippled, and will perish in fact as soon as the body perishes. Therefore I see no good in this (doctrine).'
sa hāparāṇi dvātrigͫśataṃ varṣāṇyuvāsa tasmai hovāca
.. 8.9.3..
3. Prajāpati said:- ‘Indra, it is so. I will explain the matter to you again. Stay here another thirty-two years.’ Indra lived another thirty-two years there. Then Prajāpati said to him—
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Evam eva eṣaḥ, it is like that; maghavan, O Maghavan; iti ha uvāca, [Prajāpati] said; etam tu eva bhūyaḥ anuvyākhyāsyāmi, I will explain it once again; te, to you; vasā, stay here; aparāṇi dvātriṃśatam, another thirty-two; varṣāṇi iti, years; saḥ, he [Indra]; ha aparāṇi dvātriṃśatam varṣāṇi, for another thirty-two years; uvāsa, lived there; tasmai ha uvāca, [Prajāpati] said to him. Iti navamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the ninth section. Commentary:- Prajāpati was obviously pleased that Indra had come back, but he wanted him to practise brahmacarya for another thirty-two years. Then he would again give him instructions.
Max Müller
3. 'So it is indeed, Maghavat,' replied Pragâpati; 'but I shall explain him (the true Self) further to you. Live with me another thirty-two years.' He lived with him another thirty-two years, and then Pragâpati said:-
1. ‘That person who goes about being worshipped in dreams is the Self. It is immortal and fearless. It is Brahman.’ Indra then left happy in mind. But even before he returned to the gods, a doubt arose in his mind:- ‘A person may be blind, but when he is dreaming he is not blind. He may be lame, but when he is dreaming he is not lame. There may be some defects in his body, but his dream body is not affected by them’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Yaḥ eṣaḥ, this [person] who; svapne mahīyamānaḥ, [appearing to be] worshipped in dreams; carati, goes about; eṣaḥ ātmā, this is the Self; iti ha uvāca, [Prajāpati] said; etat amṛtam abhayam, it is immortal and fearless; etat brahma iti, it is Brahman; saḥ ha śāntahṛdayaḥ pravavrāja, he left happy in mind; ha aprāpya eva, even before getting back; devān, to the gods; etat bhayam dadarśa, saw this fear [i.e., doubt]; yadi api, even if; tat idam śarīram, this body; andham bhavati, is blind; saḥ anandhaḥ bhavati, this [dream body] is not blind; yadi srāmam asrāmaḥ, if [the body] is lame, the [dream body] is not lame; na eva eṣaḥ asya doṣena duṣyati, nor is this [dream body] affected by the defects [of the body]. Commentary:- Then after thirty-two years, Prajāpati said to Indra, ‘When you are asleep you have dreams and you find yourself moving about, as if you are the ruler of all, as if you are very great and powerful. That Indra left satisfied, but on the way back home he began to think about what Prajāpati had said:- ‘When I saw the reflection in the water, it was just as my body was. If the body was decorated, the reflection also was decorated. That means if the body is blind, the reflection shows a blind body. But suppose I am blind and I am dreaming. At that time I can see so many things. So it is true, the condition of the body does not affect the Self. The Self is something different.’
Max Müller
1. 'He who moves about happy in dreams, he is the Self, this is the immortal, the fearless, this is Brahman.' Then Indra went away satisfied in his heart. But before he had returned to the Devas, he saw this difficulty. Although it is true that that self is not blind, even if the body is blind, nor lame, if the body is lame, though it is true that that self is not rendered faulty by the faults of it (the body),
2. ‘The body may be killed but the other is not killed. Nor is the dream body lame if the body is lame. Nevertheless, in dreams it may seem as if people are killing him; it may seem as if people are chasing him; it may seem as if there is something unpleasant. He may even seem to be weeping. I see nothing good in this’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Asya vadhena na hanyate, [the dream body] is not killed when [the body] is killed; na asya srāmyeṇa srāmaḥ, nor is it lame with [the body’s] lameness; tu, nevertheless; enam eva ghnanti, as if they are killing him; vicchādayanti iva, as if they are chasing him; apriyavettā iva bhavati, as if there is something unpleasant; api roditi iva, as if he is even weeping; aham atra bhogyam na paśyāmi iti, I see nothing good in this. Commentary:- Indra continued to think about what Prajāpati had said. This is the nature of someone who has discrimination. And this is what Prajāpati expected him to do. In fact, Prajāpati would have been disappointed if Indra had not questioned what he had said. A good teacher is ready to give his knowledge, but the student also has to be ready. He has to be mentally alert and ask questions. Indra thought:- ‘It is true, the dream-self is independent of the body. But I find that even in my dreams I am sometimes happy and sometimes unhappy. Sometimes I am in pain, and sometimes I am crying. And sometimes I even see myself being chased by someone and I am frightened. Prajāpati said the Self is free from fear, so how could this fear come? It should not happen. If the Self is subject to such limitations and unpleasant experiences, then it is not free and perfect. No, I cannot accept this answer.’
Max Müller
2. Nor struck when it (the body) is struck, nor lamed when it is lamed, yet it is as if they struck him (the self) in dreams, as if they chased him [1]. He becomes even conscious, as it were, of pain, and sheds tears. Therefore I see no good in this.
iti sa hovāca tadyadyapīdaṃ bhagavaḥ śarīramandhaṃ bhavatyanandhaḥ
sa bhavati yadi srāmamasrāmo naivaiṣo'sya doṣeṇa duṣyati
.. 8.10.3..
3. Indra returned with fuel in hand. Prajāpati asked:- ‘Indra, you left happy in mind. What has made you come back?’ Indra replied:- ‘Lord, a person may be blind, but when he is dreaming he is not blind. He may be lame, but when he is dreaming he is not lame. There may be some defects in his body, but his dream body is not affected by them’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Saḥ, he [Indra]; punaḥ eyāya, again went back; samitpāṇiḥ, with fuel in hand; tam, to him; prajāpatiḥ ha uvāca, Prajāpati said; maghavan, O Maghavan [Indra]; yat prāvrājīḥ, you left; śāntahṛdayaḥ, satisfied; kim icchan, what do you want; punaḥ āgamaḥ iti, that you have come back again; saḥ ha uvāca, he [Indra] said; bhagavaḥ, lord; yadi api, even if; tat idam śarīram, this body; andham bhavati, is blind; saḥ anandhaḥ bhavati, this [dream body] is not blind; yadi srāmam asrāmaḥ, if [the body] is lame, the [dream body] is not lame; na eva eṣaḥ asya doṣena duṣyati, nor is this [dream body] affected by the defects [of the body]. Commentary:- Most of us think the body is everything. But the idea of Vedānta is that we are independent of the body and the mind. The body and the mind are limitations. In reality, however, nothing can limit us. Our real Self is free and fearless. Prajāpati is happy that Indra has discovered this.
Max Müller
3. Taking fuel in his hands, he went again as a pupil to Pragâpati. Pragâpati said to him:- 'Maghavat, as you went away satisfied in your heart, for what purpose did you come back?' He said:- 'Sir, although it is true that that self is not blind even if the body is blind, nor lame, if the body is lame, though it is true that that self is not rendered faulty by the faults of it (the body),
sa hāparāṇi dvātrigͫśataṃ varṣāṇyuvāsa tasmai hovāca
.. 8.10.4..
4. ‘The body may be killed but the other is not killed. Nor is the dream body lame if the body is lame. Nevertheless, in dreams it may seem as if people are killing him; it may seem as if people are chasing him; it may seem as if there is something unpleasant. He may even seem to be weeping. I see nothing good in this.’ Prajāpati said:- ‘Indra, it is so. I will explain the matter to you again. Stay here another thirty-two years.’ Indra lived another thirty-two years there. Then Prajāpati said to him—
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Asya vadhena na hanyate, [the dream body] is not killed when [the body] is killed; na asya srāmyeṇa srāmaḥ, nor is it lame with [the body’s] lameness; tu, nevertheless; enam eva ghnanti, as if they are killing him; vicchādayanti iva, as if they are chasing him; apriyavettā iva bhavati, as if there is something unpleasant; api roditi iva, as if he is even weeping; āham ātra bhogyam na paśyāmi iti, I see nothing good in this; evam eva eṣaḥ, it is like that; maghavan, O Maghavan; iti ha uvāca, [Prajāpati] said; etam tu eva bhūyaḥ anuvyākhyāsyāmi, I will explain it once again; te, to you; vasa, stay here; aparāṇi dvātriṃśatam, another thirty-two; varṣāṇi iti, years; saḥ, he [Indra]; ha aparāṇi dvātriṃśatam varṣāṇi, for another thirty-two years; uvāsa, lived there; tasrnai ha uvāca, [Prajāpati] said to him. Iti daśamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the tenth section. Commentary:- Indra says to Prajāpati, ‘Sir, if your original statement is true that the Self is without any shortcomings and it never changes, then the dream self cannot be the real Self.’ Prajāpati’s first premise was that the Self was apahatapāpmā, without any limitations. Pāpa has a very comprehensive meaning. It is not just ‘sin.’ It may also mean weakness, shortcoming, or limitation. So in the light of this premise Indra has come back.
Max Müller
4. Nor struck when it (the body) is struck, nor lamed when it is lamed, yet it is as if they struck him (the self) in dreams, as if they chased him. He becomes even conscious, as it were, of pain, and sheds tears. Therefore I see no good in this.' 'So it is indeed, Maghavat,' replied Pragâpati; 'but I shall explain him (the true Self) further to you. Live with me another thirty-two years.' He lived with him another thirty-two years. Then Pragâpati said:-
no evemāni bhūtāni vināśamevāpīto bhavati nāhamatra
bhogyaṃ paśyāmīti .. 8.11.1..
1. Prajāpati said:- ‘When the self is sleeping, with all its organs inactive, it is free from worry and has no dreams. This is what the Self is like [i.e., it is spotless]. It is immortal and fearless. It is Brahman.’ Indra left happy in mind. But even before he got back to the gods, he was troubled by a doubt:- ‘When the self is in deep sleep, it is not able to recognize itself as “I am so-and-so,” as it does when it is awake. Not only that, it does not even recognize beings around it. It is as if the self has been obliterated. I don’t see that anything good will come from this’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Yatra tat etat, when this [self]; suptaḥ, is sleeping; samastaḥ, all organs inactive; samprasannaḥ, free from worry; svapnam na vijānāti, does not have any dreams; eṣaḥ ātmā, this is the Self [free from sin]; iti ha uvāca, [Prajāpati] said; etat amṛtam abhayam, it is immortal and fearless; etat brahma iti, it is Brahman; saḥ ha śāntahṛdayaḥ pravavrāja, he [Indra] left happy in mind; aprāpya eva devān, but even before getting back to the gods; saḥ etat bhayam dadarśa, he saw this fear [i.e., difficulty]; ayam, this [self]; nāha khalu samprati, does not while [in deep sleep]; evam, in this way [i.e., as when awake]; ātmānam jānāti, know itself; ayam aham asmi iti, I am so-and-so; na eva imāni bhūtāni, nor even all these beings; vināśam eva apītaḥ bhavati, as if he becomes obliterated; na aham atra bhogyam paśyāmi iti, I don’t see any good in this. Commentary:- Next, Prajāpati told Indra about deep sleep. Normally when we are awake, our sense organs are outgoing, as if they are constantly searching for something. Then when we are dreaming, our body is at rest but our mind is not at rest. But if we have sound, dreamless sleep, our body, our organs, and our mind are all resting. Prajāpati says:- ‘This is the Self [Ātman]. This is Brahman.’ According to Vedanta, Ātman and Brahman are one and the same. When we use the word Ātman, we are referring to the Self within us. The word Brahman, means ‘the biggest,’ The greatest,’ ‘the ultimate.’ There is nothing higher, nothing greater. Really speaking, we don’t know what the ultimate is like. But we use the word Brahman to convey the idea of its uniqueness, that it is superior to everything. What Prajāpati said seemed very convincing, and Indra left śāntahṛdaya—with his mind satisfied, with no more doubts. But as he was on his way back home, something began to trouble him. He thought:- ‘When I have dreamless sleep, why is it that I am not conscious of anything—even of myself? It’s as if I have been annihilated and everything around me has disappeared. Why should this be?’ When Sri Ramakrishna used to have samādhi, he had no external consciousness and there was almost no sign of life in his body, but his face was beaming with joy. What is the difference between samādhi and deep sleep? In samādhi you have Self-knowledge. You know your real Self. And when your consciousness of the external world returns you are liberated. You have no more attachments or hankering after worldly pleasures. You are in a state of supreme bliss. In suṣupti, deep sleep, all feelings, all experiences, all perceptions are temporarily wiped out. But when you wake up, you are the same person you were when you went to sleep. Your ignorance is still there, and there is no change in your outlook. You have the same attachments and fears, and you run after the same worldly pleasures that you did before you had deep sleep. Your bondage continues. That is the difference between the two.
Max Müller
1. 'When a man being asleep, reposing, and at perfect rest [1], sees no dreams, that is the Self, this is the immortal, the fearless, this is Brahman.' Then Indra went away satisfied in his heart. But before he had returned to the Devas, he saw this difficulty. In truth he thus does not know himself (his self) that he is I, nor does he know anything that exists. He is gone to utter annihilation. I see no good in this.
2. Indra returned with fuel in hand. Prajāpati asked:- ‘Indra, you left happy in mind. What has made you come back?’ Indra replied:- ‘Lord, when the self is in deep sleep, it is not able to recognize itself as “I am so-and-so,” as it does when it is awake. Not only that, it does not even recognize beings around it. It is as if the self has been obliterated. I don’t see anything good coming from this’.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Saḥ, he [Indra]; punaḥ eyāya, again went back; samitpāṇiḥ, with fuel in hand; tam, to him; prajāpatiḥ ha uvāca, Prajāpati said; maghavan, O Maghavan [Indra]; yat prāvrājīḥ, you left; śāntahṛdayaḥ, satisfied; kim icchan, what do you want; punaḥ āgamaḥ iti, that you have come back again; saḥ ha uvāca, he [Indra] said; bhagavaḥ, lord; ayam, this [self]; nāha khalu samprati, does not while [in deep sleep]; evam, in this way [i.e., as when awake]; ātmānam jānāti, know itself; ayam aham asmi iti, I am so-and-so; na eva imāni bhūtāni, nor even all these beings; vināśam eva apītaḥ bhavati, as if he becomes Commentary:- There is no commentary available for this verse.
Max Müller
2. Taking fuel in his hand he went again as a pupil to Pragâpati. Pragâpati said to him:- 'Maghavat, as you went away satisfied in your heart, for what purpose did you come back?' He said:- 'Sir, in that way he does not know himself (his self) that he is I, nor does he know anything that exists. He is gone to utter annihilation. I see no good in this!
3. Prajāpati said:- ‘Indra, it is so. I will explain the matter to you again. Stay here another five years.’ Indra lived there another five years. The total time Indra spent thus was one hundred and one years. This is what sages refer to when they say, ‘Indra lived with Prajāpati for one hundred and one years practising brahmacarya.’ Then Prajāpati said to him—
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Evam eva eṣaḥ, it is like that; maghavan, O Maghavan; iti ha uvāca, [Prajāpati] said; etam tu eva bhūyaḥ anuvyākhyāsyāmi, I will explain it once again; te, to you; vasa, stay here; aparāṇi pañca, another five; varṣāṇi iti, years; saḥ, he [Indra]; ha aparāṇi pañca varṣāṇi, for another five years; uvāsa, lived there; tāni ekaśatam sampeduḥ, one hundred and one [years] were completed; etat tat yat āhaḥ, this is what it is when people say; maghavān prajāpatau brahmacaryam uvāsa, Indra lived with Prajāpati practising brahmacārya; ekaśatam ha vai varṣāṇi iti, one hundred and one years; tasmai ha uvāca, [Prajāpati] said to him. Iti ekādaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the eleventh section. Commentary:- For the third time Indra returned. Prajāpati must have been very pleased with this. If the student comes back again and again with questions, then naturally the teacher is pleased. He thinks:- ‘I have a very clever student. He wants to know, and I am happy to be able to help him.’ This time he asked Indra to practise brahmacarya for just five years, as he could see Indra was almost ready. So Indra practised austerities for a total of a hundred and one years. Śaṅkara says that the reason this story has been introduced here is to show how important Self-knowledge is—that there is nothing higher and more desirable than Self-knowledge. The Indian scriptures are very clear:- If you are mainly interested in acquiring money they say:- ‘All right, have money. But remember, it will only give you happiness for a while. Very soon you will discover what a bondage it is.’ It is the same for other things—scholarship, political power, social standing, and so on. You may enjoy them if you want, but all the time you must know that they will not last long and they will not give you peace of mind. The scriptures say that it is only through Self-knowledge that you will get happiness which is eternal, which is always yours. This is why Self-knowledge is considered to be the highest goal of life.
Max Müller
3. 'So it is indeed, Maghavat,' replied Pragâpati; 'but I shall explain him (the true Self) further to you, and nothing more than this [1]. Live here other five years.' He lived there other five years. This made in all one hundred and one years, and therefore it is said that Indra Maghavat lived one hundred and one years as a pupil with Pragâpati. Pragâpati said to him:-
saśarīraḥ priyāpriyābhyāṃ na vai saśarīrasya sataḥ
priyāpriyayorapahatirastyaśarīraṃ vāva santaṃ na
priyāpriye spṛśataḥ .. 8.12.1..
1. Indra, this body is mortal. It has been captured by death. Yet it is the base of the Self, which is immortal and formless. One who has a body is subject to both happiness and unhappiness. In fact, there is no end to happiness and unhappiness so long as one has a body. But when a person is free from the body, nothing good or bad can touch him.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Maghavan, O Maghavan [Indra]; martyam vai idam śarīram, this body is mortal [subject to death]; āttam mṛtyunā, it has been captured by death; tat, that [body]; asya amṛtasya aśarīrasya ātmanaḥ adhiṣṭhānam, is the foundation of this immortal and formless Self; āttaḥ vai saśarīraḥ priya-apriyābhyām, one who has a body is subject to good and evil; saśarīrasya sataḥ, for one who has a body; priya-apriyayoḥ apahatiḥ na asti, there is no end to good and evil; aśarīram vāva santam, but one who is without a body; priya-apriye na spṛśataḥ, is not touched by good and evil. Commentary:- Prajāpati now starts teaching Indra about the nature of the Self. He says the Self has no body and no form, yet somehow or other the Self has identified itself with the body. Why? Because of ignorance. But if the Self is supposed to be pure consciousness, pure knowledge, where has this ignorance come from? Can light and darkness coexist? Similarly, can knowledge and ignorance coexist? No. There is, in fact, no ignorance at all in the Self. Yet, somehow or other, the formless Self identifies itself with the body and imagines that whatever happens to the body happens to it. It feels it is born when the body is born, and that it dies when the body dies. Vedānta says this ignorance is temporary and it can be removed. Vedānta calls this ignorance māyā. Māyā is often translated as ‘illusion,’ but this is not quite correct. Swami Vivekananda calls it ‘a statement of fact.’ You cannot say it does not exist, but again you cannot say exactly what it is. It is anirvacanīya, indescribable. Śaṅkara often uses the example of the rope and the snake to explain how māyā works. Suppose you are walking along a road on a dark night, and you suddenly see what you think is a snake lying across the road in front of you. You are frightened and you start yelling, ‘Snake! Snake!’ Then some people living nearby come running out of their homes with lights, and you discover it is not a snake after all. It is just a rope. Another example given is that of the mirage. Suppose you are walking in a desert and you are very thirsty. In the distance you see a lake and you start walking towards it. You go on and on, but you never reach the water. Finally you realize it is just a mirage. It is all due to the effect of the sunrays on the sand. Another example is that of thinking you see silver where there is just a piece of mother-of-pearl. When you see the mother-of-pearl, you are convinced that you are seeing silver. So māyā is an error with a semblance of truth. Yet, Vedānta says, the mother-of-pearl never becomes silver, nor does the rope ever become a snake or the sand become water. Māyā has two aspects—āvaraṇa and vikṣepa. Āvaraṇa means ‘covering.’ Māyā covers the rope and hides its real nature. Vikṣepa is the projecting power of māyā. It projects the appearance of a snake where there is just a rope. This is also called adhyāsa, superimposition. Vedānta says this ignorance is just temporary. As soon as light comes, we see the rope rather than the snake. Similarly, as soon as knowledge is awakened in us, our false identification with the body is gone and we realize our true nature. Prajāpati says to Indra, ‘This body has been captured by death.’ Here Śaṅkara asks:- ‘Why does Prajāpati say this? He says this so that we will try to get rid of our ignorance quickly.’ If we are merely told that we are mortal and that some day we will die, we may say:- ‘Well, I will not die soon. I still have many years at my disposal to live as I like. I will enjoy myself as long as possible.’ But if we are told that we are already in the grips of death, that death is already at our doorstep, that it has already conquered us, we will understand that there is no time to lose. We must attain Self-knowledge immediately. The Hindu idea is that anything that has a beginning also has an end. Anything that is born must some day die. This is something we don’t like to accept. When Yama asked King Yuddhiṣṭhira what the most amazing thing was, Yuddhiṣṭhira replied, ‘The most amazing thing is that people see others dying all around them, but somehow or other they believe they will never die.’ But the fact is, the moment we are born, the process of death begins. When we are born, death comes to us and says:- ‘Here I am. I am going to follow you like a shadow. Sooner or later you will be my victim, even if I have to wait a hundred years.’ Vedānta says, however, that the Self is never born and it never dies. It is immortal. Death is for the śārīra—that is, for one who feels he is a body. So also pleasure and pain. These changing conditions afflict only the person who identifies himself with the body. This empirical world is a world of sense experience, and it is always subject to change. One moment it is hot, the next moment it is cold. One moment there is pleasure, and the next there is pain. This is the way the world goes on, continuously. But if you can get rid of the delusion that you are an embodied being, then you are no longer swayed by the changing conditions of life. You are always the same, always calm. And there is no question of pleasure and pain for you. They cannot touch you. Even if the body is affected, you are not affected. Prajāpati says the body is the adhiṣṭhānam, the abode or resting place, of the Self. Foṛ the time being the Self chooses to live in this house. Though the Self is amṛtam, immortal, and aśarīram, without a body, it identifies itself with the body and thinks it is mortal. This fact of delusion has to be recognized. We cannot ignore it. But if delusion, or ignorance, were in the nature of the Self, how could we get How do we uncover that Knowledge? How do we remove our delusion and stop identifying ourself with the body? Śaṅkara says, first we must become free from desires. We identify ourself with the body because we have desires. For example, we want to eat something. How will we eat it if we do not have a body? For any sense desire we have, we must have a body to fulfil it. And as long as we have a body, we will sometimes have pleasure and sometimes have pain. We cannot always have pleasure. Along with pleasure comes pain. Then again, some of our desires will be fulfilled, but some of them will not. And if they are not fulfilled, we will be disappointed. Vedānta says, even the desire for liberation requires a body to fulfil it. But when we attain Self-knowledge we realize a state where there is no such change. We then know our true nature, our real Self, which is never touched by the changing conditions of the world. Then Śaṅkara says, if you want Self-knowledge you must go to a teacher. But not just any teacher. You must go to one who is himself free from desires—one who is a paramahaṃsa. The word paramahaṃsa literally means a swan. A swan is said to be able to separate milk from water. If there is milk mixed with water, it will drink only the milk and leave behind the water. So a teacher who is a paramahaṃsa has developed discrimination between the real and the unreal, the permanent and the impermanent. He rejects whatever is unreal, and accepts only that which is real and immortal. That is to say, he has no more desires for anything in this world. What does such a teacher do? He shows you your real nature. Sri Ramakrishna used to explain this with the story of the tiger and the goats. Once a pregnant tigress was running after a flock of goats when she fell down exhausted and died. But as she died, she gave birth to a baby tiger. The baby tiger was adopted by the goats, and in course of time he began to eat grass and bleat just like them. All the while he thought he was a goat. Even when he grew up he never realized he was a tiger. One day a big tiger came there and was about to spring on the flock when he noticed another tiger running away frightened and bleating like a goat. Disgusted, he ran and caught hold of the grass-eating tiger and said:- ‘What are you doing here with these goats? Shame on you! You are a tiger.’ But the grass-eating tiger started crying and said:- ‘No, no, I am a goat. Let me go.’ Then the big tiger dragged the other to a river and said:- ‘Look at your reflection in the water. You look just like me. You are not a goat. You are a tiger.’ He then forced a piece of meat into the grass-eating tiger’s mouth. Getting the taste of the meat, the grass-eating tiger started to roar. So this is what the guru does. He removes our ignorance and tells us who we really are—tat tvam asi, thou art that.
Max Müller
1. 'Maghavat, this body is mortal and always held by death. It is the abode of that Self which is immortal and without body [1]. When in the body (by thinking this body is I and I am this body) the Self is held by pleasure and pain. So long as he is in the body, he cannot get free from pleasure and pain. But when he is free of the body (when he knows himself different from the body), then neither pleasure nor pain touches him [2].
2. The air is formless. So also are clouds, lightning, and thunder. All these arise from the sky and assume their respective forms due to the heat of the sun.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Aśarīraḥ vāyuḥ, air is formless; abhram vidyut stanayitnuḥ, light clouds, lightning, and thunder; etāni, all these; aśarīrāṇi, are formless; tat yathā, just as; etāni, all these; amuṣmāt ākāśāt, from the sky; samutthāya, arise; param jyotiḥ upasampadya, attain the great light [i.e., are exposed to the heat of the sun in summer]; svena rūpeṇa abhiniṣpadyante, appear in their respective forms [in the rainy season]. Commentary:- Here the idea is that even though we don’t see the Self, it is always within us. The Upaniṣad compares it with air, clouds, lightning, and thunder. In winter the sky is clear. There are very few clouds, and there are no strong winds or storms. But then as summer begins the temperature starts rising, and slowly the clouds gather. Then come the storms with their high winds and lightning and thunder. Where were the clouds and lightning during winter? They were there, but they were not visible. We see them only when the conditions are right; otherwise they are in a latent form, one with the sky. They appear from the sky, and then they merge into the sun.
Max Müller
2. 'The wind is without body, the cloud, lightning, and thunder are without body (without hands, feet, &c.) Now as these, arising from this heavenly ether (space), appear in their own form, as soon as they have approached the highest light,
jyotirupasampadya svena rūpeṇābhiniṣpadyate sa uttamapuruṣaḥ
sa tatra paryeti jakṣatkrīḍanramamāṇaḥ strībhirvā yānairvā
jñātibhirvā nopajanagͫ smarannidagͫ śarīragͫ sa yathā
prayogya ācaraṇe yukta evamevāyamasmiñcharīre
prāṇo yuktaḥ .. 8.12.3..
3. In the same way, the joyful self arises from the body and, attaining the light of the Cosmic Self, appears in his own form. This is the Paramātman, the Cosmic Self. He then freely moves about eating, playing, or enjoying himself with women, carriages, or relatives, not remembering at all the body in which he was born. Just as horses or bullocks are harnessed to carriages, similarly prāṇa [life] remains harnessed to the body [due to karma].
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Evam eva, just like that; eṣaḥ samprasādaḥ, this serene one [i.e., the individual self, after attaining Self-knowledge]; asmāt śarīrāt, from this body; samutthāya, arising; param jyotiḥ, the radiance of the Cosmic Self; upasampadya, attains; svena rūpeṇa abhiniṣpadyate, appears in his own form; saḥ uttama puruṣaḥ, this is the Supreme Being; saḥ tatra paryeti, he goes about; jakṣat krīḍan ramamāṇaḥ, eating, playing, and enjoying himself; strībhiḥ vā, with women; yānaiḥ vā, or in carriages; jñātibhiḥ vā, or with relatives; na smaran, not remembering; upajānam idam śarīram, this body in which he was born; yathā, just as; saḥ prayogyaḥ, an animal [a horse or bullock]; ācaraṇe yuktaḥ, is harnessed to a carriage [or chariot]; evam eva, like that; ayam prāṇaḥ, this life; asmin śarīre yuktaḥ, is harnessed to the body. Commentary:- The question here is, who is the enjoyer? It is the self. This is something basic to Vedānta philosophy. The self is the master. The body is like a house, and the self is like the owner of the house. Just as the owner of a house can change his house at any time, so also, the self can change its body at any time. Here the relationship of the self with the body is clearly brought out. The self is immortal and aśarīra, without a body. But, like lightning or clouds, the self is sometimes manifest in a form. With ordinary people the distinction between the self and the body is not noticeable, but with an enlightened person the distinction is quite conspicuous. In all his manners and his way of speaking, you see that the enlightened person is using his body as his instrument. He is always conscious that he is the self. He may be eating or drinking or talking or moving about like anyone else, but still you see there is a difference. An ordinary person is not his own master. He is a slave to his body and mind. But a knower of the Self has conquered the body and the mind and can make them behave as he wants. He is merely the draṣṭā, the spectator. He sees the world going on with all its madness, and to him it is great fun, because he is totally unaffected and untouched. Vedānta keeps trying to convince us of the fact that happiness is not outside. It is not dependent on any objective circumstances. It is all within. If happiness were dependent on external conditions then why doesn’t the same thing give happiness to everyone? Some people are very happy if they get some sweets to eat. But there are other people who don’t care for sweets at all. If the sweets were the source of happiness they should make everyone happy, but they don’t. There are people who, in spite of seemingly unfavorable circumstances, are very happy. They know that they don’t have to seek for happiness outside. They find it within. But this is not to say a knower of the Self is cold and indifferent. Śaṅkara says, when you know your Self, when you know you are Brahman and that everything you see is nothing but Brahman, then you feel you are one with all. If others are happy, you are happy. If others are in pain, you are also in pain. Now we are separate from others because we think we are the body and we identify ourself with our body. Yet still we talk of love, compassion, of sharing the sorrows and sufferings of others. How can we share them? We can’t. We may have pity on someone, but often that pity is accompanied by a sense of superiority. By showing pity we are often merely showing our arrogance. This is why the Taittirīya Upaniṣad says that when you give someone something, give it with respect. You may give something to a beggar. He may be in rags. Never mind, he is God. You should feel grateful to him that he is accepting your offering. The Upaniṣad also says, if you cannot give with respect then it is better not to give at all. You will hurt the other person’s self-respect. So whatever you give, give with love and humility. When you give something, you are giving it to your own Self, because you are everywhere—in the small, in the big, in a human being, and in an insect.
Max Müller
3. 'Thus does that serene being, arising from this body, appear in its own form, as soon as it has approached the highest light (the knowledge of Self [1]) He (in that state) is the highest person (uttama pûrusha). He moves about there laughing (or eating), playing, and rejoicing (in his mind), be it with women, carriages, or relatives, never minding that body into which he was born [2]. 'Like as a horse attached to a cart, so is the spirit [3] (prâna, pragñâtman) attached to this body.
पुरुषो दर्शनाय चक्षुरथ यो वेदेदं जिघ्राणीति स आत्मा
गन्धाय घ्राणमथ यो वेदेदमभिव्याहराणीति स
आत्माभिव्याहाराय वागथ यो वेदेदꣳ शृणवानीति
स आत्मा श्रवणाय श्रोत्रम् ॥ ८.१२.४॥
atha yatraitadākāśamanuviṣaṇṇaṃ cakṣuḥ sa cākṣuṣaḥ
puruṣo darśanāya cakṣuratha yo vededaṃ jighrāṇīti sa ātmā
gandhāya ghrāṇamatha yo vededamabhivyāharāṇīti sa
ātmābhivyāhārāya vāgatha yo vededagͫ śṛṇavānīti
sa ātmā śravaṇāya śrotram .. 8.12.4..
4. Next, this organ of vision lies inside the space in the eyes. That is where the deity presiding over the eyes [i.e., the Self] is. The eye is the instrument through which the Self sees. Next, the one who knows ‘I am smelling this’ is the Self. The organ of smell is the instrument through which the Self smells. Next, the one who knows ‘I am speaking this’ is the Self. The organ of speech is the instrument through which the Self speaks. Next, the one who knows ‘I hear this’ is the Self. The organ of hearing is the instrument through which the Self hears.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Atha, then; yatra etat cakṣuḥ, where this organ of vision is; ākāśam anuviṣaṇṇam, lying inside the space [in the eye]; saḥ cākṣuṣaḥ puruṣaḥ, that is the deity presiding over the eye; darśanāya cakṣuḥ, the eye is the instrument of vision; atha, then; yaḥ veda, one who knows; idam jighrāṇi iti, I smell this; saḥ ātmā, that is the Self; gandhāya ghrāṇam, the organ of smell is the instrument of smelling; atha, then; yaḥ veda, one who knows; idam abhivyāharāṇi iti, I speak this; saḥ ātmā, that is the Self; abhivyāhārāya vāk, the organ of speech is the instrument of speaking; atha, then; yaḥ veda, one who knows; idam śṛṇavāni iti, I hear this; saḥ ātmā, that is the Self; śravaṇāya śrotram, the ear is the instrument of hearing. Commentary:- The Upaniṣad is saying that the Self is within us, and that the Self makes use of the organs for its experience in this empirical world. ‘I see, I hear, I speak’—who is this ‘I’? When I say, ‘I see,’ do I mean the eyes are seeing something by their own power? No. The Self is behind the eyes, and the Self uses them for its own purpose. The eyes are not independent. When we die, all our organs may be intact, yet we won’t be able to see or hear anything. You may ask, ‘How do I know that the Self is working through the organs?’ Vedānta says, suppose you are absent-minded and are absorbed in thinking something. Someone may come and stand before you and say something, but you don’t see him at all. Now who is it that is absorbed? It is the Self. The Self has withdrawn itself from the sense organs, and because of this they are not able to operate in the way they normally do. Earlier Prajāpati had told Indra and Virocana that the person in the eyes is the Self. Indra took it to mean that his own reflection was the Self. But this is not what Prajāpati meant. He meant that there is a being within us who sees through the eyes and hears through the ears. He says that within the eye there is a space, and that is where the Self is. The Self is hiding there, as it were. Prajāpati uses the word puruṣa to refer to the Self. Here puruṣa does not mean ‘male,’ as it does in Bengali. The word puruṣa literally means pure śayate—that is, ‘one who is lying,’ or ‘hidden’ (śayate) ‘in a place’ (pure). Who does the organ of smelling work for? The Self. All our organs are servants of the Self. The person in the eye uses the eye to see and the organ of smelling to smell. When the Self, the puruṣa, wants to speak, it uses the organ of speaking. And when it wants to hear, it uses the organ of hearing.
Max Müller
4. 'Now where the sight has entered into the void (the open space, the black pupil of the eye), there is the person of the eye, the eye itself is the instrument of seeing. He who knows, let me smell this, he is the Self, the nose is the instrument of smelling. He who knows, let me say this, he is the Self, the tongue is the instrument of saying. He who knows, let me hear this, he is the Self, the ear is the instrument of hearing.
स वा एष एतेन दैवेन चक्षुषा मनसैतान्कामान्पश्यन्रमते
य एते ब्रह्मलोके ॥ ८.१२.५॥
atha yo vededaṃ manvānīti sātmā mano'sya daivaṃ cakṣuḥ
sa vā eṣa etena daivena cakṣuṣā manasaitānkāmānpaśyanramate
ya ete brahmaloke .. 8.12.5..
5. Then, it is the Self which knows ‘I am thinking this.’ The mind is its divine eye. The Self, now free, enjoys seeing everything it wants to see in Brahmaloka through its divine mental eye.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Atha, next; yaḥ veda, that which knows; idam manvāni iti, I am thinking this; saḥ ātmā, that is the Self; manaḥ asya daivam cakṣuḥ, the mind is its divine eye; saḥ vai eṣaḥ, that [Self]; etena daivena cakṣuṣā manasā, with the help of the divine mental eye; etān kāmān paśyan ramate, enjoys seeing the things it likes; yaḥ ete brahmaloke, those which are in Brahmaloka. Commentary:- Next comes the mind. The mind is the principal organ. The Self works through the mind, and by means of the mind it works through the eyes, ears, and other organs. You may remember the example given in the Kaṭha Upaniṣad:- The Self is the master of the chariot, the mind is the charioteer, and the organs are the horses. The mind is directly responsible for keeping the organs under control. The mind is called here the daivam cakṣuḥ, the divine eye, because the Self sees through the mind. The mind is extraordinary. One who is firmly established in Self-knowledge can enjoy whatever he wants mentally. And for such a person everything is Brahman and every place is Brahmaloka.
Max Müller
5. 'He who knows, let me think this, he is the Self, the mind is his divine eye [1]. He, the Self, seeing these pleasures (which to others are hidden like a buried treasure of gold) through his divine eye, i. e. the mind, rejoices.
लोका आत्ताः सर्वे च कामाः स सर्वाꣳश्च लोकानाप्नोति
सर्वाꣳश्च कामान्यस्तमात्मानमनुविद्य विजानातीति ह
प्र्जापतिरुवाच प्रजापतिरुवाच ॥ ८.१२.६॥
taṃ vā etaṃ devā ātmānamupāsate tasmātteṣāgͫ sarve ca
lokā āttāḥ sarve ca kāmāḥ sa sarvāgͫśca lokānāpnoti
sarvāgͫśca kāmānyastamātmānamanuvidya vijānātīti ha
prjāpatiruvāca prajāpatiruvāca .. 8.12.6..
6. This Self is worshipped by the gods. This is why all worlds and all desirable things are within their grasp. One who fully understands and realizes this Self [with the help of teachers and the scriptures] is able to attain whatever worlds and whatever desirable things he wants. This is what Prajāpati taught Indra.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Tam vai etam devāḥ ātmānam upāsate, that is the Self which the gods worship; tasmāt, this is why; sarve ca lokāḥ, all the worlds; teṣām āttāḥ, are within the grasp of them [the gods]; sarve ca kāmāḥ, and all things they desire; sarvān ca lokān, all worlds; sarvān ca kāmān, and all things one desires; āpnoti, one attains; yaḥ tam ātmānam anuvidya, one who knows the Self; vijānāti iti, and has a direct, personal experience of it; prajāpatiḥ ha uvāca prajāpatiḥ uvāca, this is what Prajāpati taught. Iti dvādaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the twelfth section. Commentary:- Here the Upaniṣad is praising Self-knowledge in order to tempt us to attain it. Earlier the Upaniṣad said, ‘Na alpe sukḥam asti’—there is no happiness in the finite, in what is small or limited. Only in bhūmā, the infinite, is there happiness. Bhūmā is infinite in terms of both time and space. Whatever is limited by time and space cannot give us peace and happiness. Even the state of a god or goddess is a limitation, according to Hinduism. By virtue of the kind of life you have lived and the good things you have done, you may be elevated to the position of a god or goddess. But that position is only temporary. When your term expires, you are right back where you Śaṅkara says the Upaniṣad does not mean to say that this state can be attained only by gods and goddesses. It is for human beings also. In fact, it is our very birthright. The story of Indra and Virocana going to Prajāpati for Self-knowledge shows that we are all suffering from discontent. We are always seeking something, though we may not know exactly what it is. Even the gods and goddesses in heaven are not content. After many births they have attained the status of a god or goddess, and they seem to have everything they desire, yet still they are not satisfied. This is why Indra went to Prajāpati and spent a hundred and one years practising austerities to get the knowledge of the Self. The Upaniṣad says again and again that Self-knowledge is the highest. If you attain that you attain everything.
Max Müller
6. 'The Devas who are in the world of Brahman meditate on that Self (as taught by Pragâpati to Indra, and by Indra to the Devas). Therefore all worlds belong to them, and all desires. He who knows that Self and understands it, obtains all worlds and all desires.' Thus said Pragâpati, yea, thus said Pragâpati.
1. From the dark may I attain the diverse. From the diverse may I attain the dark. Like a horse shaking its fur [to remove the dirt], I will shake off whatever spot I may have on my character. Like the moon freeing itself from the mouth of Rāhu [and regaining its brightness], I will, having accomplished everything, lay down this body and attain that eternal Brahmaloka.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Śyāmāt śabalam prapadye, from the dark may I attain the diverse; śabalāt śyāmam prapadye, from the diverse may I attain the dark; aśvaḥ romāṇi iva, as a horse [shakes] its fur; pāpam vidhūya, I will shake off any shortcomings [I have]; candra iva rāhoḥ mukhāt pramucya, as the moon gets free from the mouth of Rāhu; dhūtvā śarīram, laying down the body; kṛtātmā, having accomplished everything; akṛtam, eternal; brahmalokam, Brahmaloka; abhisambhavāmi iti abhisambhavāmi iti, I will attain, I will attain. Iti trayodaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the thirteeenth section. Commentary:- This is a meditation mantra. It contains the essence of all that has been said before in this Upaniṣad. There are two important words used here—śyāma and śabala. Śyāma means ‘dark,’ or ‘black.’ Śyāmā is the feminine form, and it is also a name of Mother Kālī. Śaṅkara says that śyāma is gambhīraḥ varṇaḥ, a deep colour—that is to say, it is not perceptible to our sense organs. When we say something is dark, it suggests that it is difficult to know. Mother Kālī is said to be dark because we really do not know what or who she is. Here the word śyāma refers to Brahman, because Brahman also is difficult to know. Where do we realize Brahman? Within us, within the heart. Śabala means many-coloured, or with many forms. It stands for Brahmaloka. It is the multiplicity outside. The idea is, what is inside is also outside. The One becomes the many. Suppose you enter a room where there are a hundred mirrors. What do you see? You see a hundred reflections of yourself. Or suppose the moon is shining above and there are many pots of water on the ground. In each pot there is a reflection of the moon, but there is in reality only one moon. How do we realize this—that the One becomes the many? Through cittaśuddhi, purification of the mind. Your mind is like a mirror. If the mirror is clean you have a very clear reflection of yourself. But if there is dust and dirt on the mirror you cannot see your reflection very well. The Upaniṣad has again and again been emphasizing this need for purification of the mind. It is not something that is attained all of a sudden. It does not happen by a fluke. It comes only after years of hard struggle and self-discipline. Two illustrations are given here in this verse. The first is about a horse. When a horse has dirt on his body, he wants to get rid of it. He does not like something unnatural sticking to his fur. What does he do? He shakes his body. So also, we have the dirt of ignorance, egotism, and other things clinging to our mind, but they are not part of our real nature and we must get rid of them. We must shake them off. How? Through discrimination:- ‘I am not this body, nor am I identified with anything the body is identified with, such as caste or country. These are all superimpositions. My real Self is always pure, without birth, without death.’ When you practise this kind of discrimination, slowly the conviction grows on you that you are not the body, that you are the Self, separate from the body. The second illustration is taken from the myth of the churning of the ocean. In ancient times the gods and the demons decided to churn the ocean to obtain the nectar of immortality so that they would never die. After much difficulty they managed to get the nectar, and then the gods tricked the demons and snatched it away so they could have it all for themselves. When the nectar was being distributed among the gods, the sun and the moon noticed that Rāhu, a demon, was hiding among them and they shouted a warning. But it was too late. Rāhu was able to get a taste of the nectar just before his head was cut off. Thus the rest of his body perished but his head became immortal, and that head is forever chasing his enemies, the sun and the moon. When there is an eclipse of the moon, it is said that Rāhu has swallowed the moon. But because Rāhu has no body, the moon soon comes out from the bottom of his head and we again see the shining form of the moon. The Upaniṣad says that it is as if we were all within the mouth of Rāhu. We have all been swallowed by ignorance, as it were. By nature we are the luminous Self, but the light of the Self has been covered by the darkness of ignorance. Somehow or other we have to free ourselves from the mouth of Rāhu and we will then regain our inherent splendour. Vedānta says, if you are Brahman you have always been Brahman. It is not that you are attaining something new. When you realize Brahman, you realize what you have always been. It is like a prince kidnapped by some beggars when he is just a baby. As he grows up among the beggars, he behaves just like them. He never realizes he is a prince. But one day some people discover him and take him to the palace and tell him he is the prince. He was always the prince, only he did not know it. There is a wonderful example told by Holy Mother. There was a large diamond lying on the ground near a bathing ghat. Everyone thought it was a piece of glass, and those who came to bathe there used to scrape the dirt off their feet by rubbing them on the diamond. One day a jeweller saw it and realized it was a diamond. Hadn’t it always been a diamond? Similarly, you have always been Brahman, only you did not know it. Vedānta says we have placed our own hands over our eyes and we are saying:- ‘Help! I can’t see anything. I am blind.’ We have always been telling ourselves that we are worthless and good for nothing. Now we must reverse our thinking. We must tell ourselves that we are pure, free, and divine. Vedānta does not claim it can perform any miracles. It does not have any strange, magical formulas. What Vedānta says is very simple and straightforward—Tat tvam asi, thou art that. Vedānta tries to awaken the power that is already lying dormant within us. And in how many different ways it tries. Śaṅkara says the scriptures are ādaravati, affectionate, like a mother. Perhaps you want to eat only sweets and nothing else, but the doctor has said you should not eat sweets. What does your mother do? She will go on coaxing you in different ways to eat what is good for you. Similarly, the Upaniṣad goes on coaxing us to attain Self-knowledge. The Upaniṣad is telling us we are now mesmerized into thinking we are good for nothing, a sinner, a slave. We have to get out of the grips of this delusion, like the moon gets out of the mouth of Rāhu. We have to shake off this delusion, like the horse shaking off the dirt on its fur. We then attain a state which is called akṛtam, uncreated. Whatever is created will be destroyed. If we build a house, then some day or other it will be destroyed. But that which is uncreated, which is not the effect of anything, is eternal. It will never come to an end. Self-knowledge is not something created in us. It is not a product. Nor is it the result of anything.
Max Müller
1. From the dark (the Brahman of the heart) I come to the nebulous (the world of Brahman), from the nebulous to the dark, shaking off all evil, as a horse shakes his hairs, and as the moon frees herself from the mouth of Râhu [1]. Having shaken off the body, I obtain, self made and satisfied, the uncreated world of Brahman, yea, I obtain it.
1. That which is described as space manifests names and forms. These names and forms are within Brahman. Brahman is immortal; it is the Self. May I attend the court of Prajāpati. May I attain the fame of a brāhmin, and also of a prince and a merchant. I wish to have real fame. I want to be famous among all famous people. May I not have to be born again and have a body covered with blood and dirt, which is toothless and at the same time always wanting to eat.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Ākāśaḥ vai nāma, that which is described as ‘space’; nāmarūpayoḥ nirvahitā, is manifest through names and forms; te, those [names and forms]; yat antarā, are within that; tat brahma, that is Brahman; tat amṛtam, that [Brahman] is immortal; saḥ ātmā, it is the Self [the inmost being in everyone]; prapadye, may I be able to enter; sabhām veśma, the court; prajāpateḥ, of Prajāpati; aham bhavāmi yaśaḥ brāhmaṇānām, may I attain the fame of a brāhmin; yāśaḥ rājñām, the fame of a prince; yaśaḥ viśam, the fame of a merchant; aham yaśaḥ anuprāpatsi, I wish to have real fame; saḥ ha aham yaśasām yaśaḥ, I want to be famous among all famous people; mā abhigām, may I not be born again; śyetam adatkam adatkam śyetam lindu, so that I may not have a body covered with blood and dirt, and which is toothless yet always wanting to eat. Iti caturdaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the fourteenth section. Commentary:- How do we meditate on the infinite? One way is to think of ākāśa, space. Sri Ramakrishna used to advise this also. If we can think we are one with the infinite, then slowly the consciousness that we are the body, that we are limited and bound, will go. We must not make the mistake of thinking that Brahman and ākāśa are the same, however. They are by no means synonymous. Ākāśa is matter, and Brahman is not. Brahman is pure consciousness. But often we find that, just to give us some idea of what Brahman is like, ākāśa is used as an example. This is because we cannot see it or feel it, yet we know it is everywhere. How do we identify something or someone? Only by mentioning its name and form. If we take away the names and forms, there is just one vast Existence. I am Existence. You are Existence. Everything is Existence, Sat. And this Sat is one and undivided. But as soon as we give something a form and a name, it becomes individualized. Then one individual becomes separate from another. The Upaniṣad says, that in which all these names and forms exist, and which is unattached and unaffected by them, is Brahman.
Max Müller
1. He who is called ether [1] (âkâsa) is the revealer of all forms and names. That within which these forms and names are contained is the Brahman, the Immortal, the Self. I come to the hall of Pragâpati, to the house; I am the glorious among Brahmans, glorious among princes, glorious among men [2]. I obtained that glory, I am glorious among the glorious. May I never go to the white, toothless, yet devouring, white abode [3]; may I never go to it.
sa khalvevaṃ vartayanyāvadāyuṣaṃ brahmalokamabhisampadyate
na ca punarāvartate na ca punarāvartate .. 8.15.1..
1. Brahmā taught this knowledge of the Self to Prajāpati, and Prajāpati taught it to Manu. Manu, in his turn, taught it to all human beings. A young man goes to live at his teacher’s house and serves him, and when he is free he studies the Vedas in the prescribed manner. After finishing all his studies, he goes back home and marries. But he continues to study the scriptures in a sacred place. He also teaches his children and disciples in such a way that they will be religious. He keeps all his senses under control and avoids violence unless he is at a holy place. This is how he lives his whole life. Then after death he goes to Brahmaloka, and he is not born again, he is not born again.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Word-for-word explanation:- Tat ha etat, this [knowledge of the Self, which has so long been discussed]; brahmā prajāpataye uvāca, Brahmā taught Prajāpati [i.e., to Kaśyapa]; prajāpatiḥ manave, Prajāpati [taught] Manu; manuḥ prajābhyaḥ, Manu [taught] his own children [i.e., to all human beings]; yathā-vidhānam, strictly according to the prescribed rules; vedam adhītya, studying the Vedas; guroḥ karma atiśeṣena, in the time he is free after serving the teacher; abhisamāvṛtya ācāryakulāt, after returning home from the teacher’s house; kutumbe, he marries; śucau deṣe, in a holy place; svādhyāyam adhīyānaḥ, studying the scriptures regularly and as the occasion demands; dhārmikān vidadhāt, teaching his children and disciples to be truly religious; ātmani sarvendriyāṇi sampratiṣṭhāpya, withdrawing all organs into himself; ahiṃsan sarvabhūtāni, practising non-in-jury to all living beings; anyatra tīrthebhyaḥ, except at a holy place; saḥ khalu evam vartayan, he lives in this way; yāvat āyuṣam, to the end of his life; brahmalokam abhisampadyate, goes to Brahmaloka; na ca punaḥ āvartate na ca punaḥ āvartate, and he does not return, he does not return [to this world again]. Iti pañcadaśaḥ khaṇḍaḥ, here ends the fifteenth section. Iti chāndogya upaniṣadi aṣṭamaḥ adhyāyaḥ, here ends the eighth chapter of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad. Commentary:- The Chāndogya Upaniṣad has altogether eight chapters, the first five of them being devoted to karma (worship), and the last three being almost exclusively devoted to ātmā-jñāna (Self-knowledge). One may ask, ‘Why waste so much space on worship?’ The answer is that worship is necessary in order to attain citta-śuddhi (purification of the mind). A pure mind is like a clean mirror. If you stand before a clean mirror, you can see yourself clearly. Similarly, when your mind is purified, the Self reveals itself to you. You then know that your self is the Self of all and you are one with all. The Upaniṣad says here that as soon as you receive the sacred thread, you go and live with your teacher as a brahmacārin. You become part of his family. You serve him in various ways, and he teaches you all that you need to know. Though you must work hard serving the teacher and also studying the scriptures, in the long run you learn more from the way your teacher lives. He shows you what kind of person you have to be. If the teacher is satisfied with your progress, he permits you to go back home. This permission is called samāvartan—a convocation, in common parlance. You may or may not go back home. If you return home, you may marry and raise a family. The scriptures tell you what sort of life you have to live there. As a householder, you have many obligations to fulfil, and you fulfil them as best you can, following the scriptures. There are two kinds of brahmacārins:- The ṇaiṣṭhika brahmacārins never marry. They remain with the teacher and are life-long celibates. The upakurvāṇa brahmacārins live with the teacher for twelve years as celibates, and then they may return home and marry. But no matter whether you remain with the teacher or you return home and become a householder, you are required to continue studying the scriptures. And you must study them according to the rules laid down about place and time. This is called svadhyāya. Along with svadhyāya, you are also required to practise ahiṃsā, non-violence. The Upaniṣad says you must NOTE:- Missing pages!!! ॐ आप्यायन्तु ममाङ्गानि वाक्प्राणश्च्क्षुः श्रोत्रमथो बलमिन्द्रियाणि च सर्वाणि । सर्वं ब्रह्मौपनिषदं माहं ब्रह्म निराकुर्यां मा मा ब्रह्म निराकरोदनिकारणमस्त्वनिकारणं मेऽस्तु । तदात्मनि निरते य उपनिषत्सु धर्मास्ते मयि सन्तु ते मयि सन्तु ॥ ॥ इति अष्टमोऽध्यायः ॥ ॥ ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥ ॥ इति छान्दोग्योऽपनिषद् ॥ ॐ āpyāyantu mamāṅgāni vākprāṇaśckṣuḥ śrotramatho balamindriyāṇi ca sarvāṇi | sarvaṃ brahmaupaniṣadaṃ māhaṃ brahma nirākuryāṃ mā mā brahma nirākarodanikāraṇamastvanikāraṇaṃ me'stu | tadātmani nirate ya upaniṣatsu dharmāste mayi santu te mayi santu || || iti aṣṭamo'dhyāyaḥ || || ॐ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ || || iti chāndogyo'paniṣad ||
Max Müller
1. Brahmâ (Hiranyagarbha or Paramesvara) told this to Pragâpati (Kasyapa), Pragâpati to Manu (his son), Manu to mankind. He who has learnt the Veda from a family of teachers, according to the sacred rule, in the leisure time left from the duties to be performed for the Guru, who, after receiving his discharge, has settled in his own house, keeping up the memory of what he has learnt by repeating it regularly in some sacred spot, who has begotten virtuous sons, and concentrated all his senses on the Self, never giving pain to any creature, except at the tîrthas [1] (sacrifices, &c.), he who behaves thus all his life, reaches the world of Brahman, and does not return, yea, he does not return.
ॐ आप्यायन्तु ममाङ्गानि वाक्प्राणश्च्क्षुः
श्रोत्रमथो बलमिन्द्रियाणि च सर्वाणि ।
सर्वं ब्रह्मौपनिषदं माहं ब्रह्म निराकुर्यां मा मा ब्रह्म
The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, one of the largest and most profound Upanishads, presents an extensive exploration of the Self (Atman), ultimate reality (Brahman), and the nature of existence. Through dialogues, symbolism, and deep inquiry, it lays the foundation of Advaita Vedanta and declares the identity of the individual Self with Brahman.
Editorial Note:
The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is one of the oldest, largest, and most
philosophically significant Upanishads. It forms part of the Shatapatha
Brahmana of the Shukla Yajurveda and represents a major foundation of
Vedanta thought.
The text is a deep inquiry into the nature of the Self (Atman), Brahman,
and the ultimate purpose of life.
Famous Mahavakya
The Upanishad declares: “aham brahmasmi” (1.4.10) - I am Brahman
This expresses the direct identity of the individual Self with the ultimate
reality.
Famous Prayer
One of the most well-known verses appears here:
“asato ma sad gamaya tamaso ma jyotir gamaya mrityor ma amritam gamaya”
From the unreal lead me to the real
From darkness lead me to light
From death lead me to immortality
Structure of the Text
The Upanishad is divided into six chapters (Adhyayas) and traditionally
organized into three sections (Kandas):
1. Madhu Kanda (Chapters 1–2)
Focus on cosmic symbolism and creation
Explains the meaning of sacrifice and the universe
Introduces concepts like:
Vac (creative word)
Dharma (ethical order)
Prana (life energy)
2. Muni / Yajnavalkya Kanda (Chapters 3–4)
Contains dialogues, especially of Yajnavalkya
Discusses:
Nature of Atman and Brahman
The process of death and rebirth
Concept of Antaryami (inner controller)
3. Khila Kanda (Chapters 5–6)
Supplementary teachings and reflections
Includes:
Meditation practices
Symbolism such as Gayatri mantra
Ethical and philosophical insights
Internal Composition
Chapters are divided into Brahmanas (sections)
Each Brahmana contains multiple passages or teachings
Two major recensions exist:
Madhyandina
Kanva
Flow of Ideas
The Upanishad unfolds in a deep philosophical progression:
Cosmic Understanding - Origin and structure of the universe
Inner Inquiry - Nature of Self and consciousness
Life and Death - What happens after death
Inner Controller - Presence of the Self in all beings
Realization - Identity of Atman and Brahman
Core Philosophical Teachings
Identity of Atman and Brahman The individual Self is not separate from ultimate reality.
Nature of Reality Reality is beyond appearances and must be realized inwardly.
Role of Knowledge Knowledge leads to freedom and immortality.
Antaryami (Inner Controller) The same Self exists within all beings.
Cycle of Life Explains death, rebirth, and liberation.
Simple Summary (For Easy Understanding)
The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is a large and deep text that explores the biggest
questions of life.
It begins by explaining the universe and gradually moves toward understanding
the inner Self.
Through discussions and examples, it teaches that our true identity is not the
body or mind, but the Self (Atman).
It explains life, death, and what lies beyond, showing that there is a deeper
reality present in everything.
The central message is powerful: You are not separate from the ultimate
reality - you are that reality itself.
The famous prayer from this Upanishad reflects the journey of life: moving from
confusion to clarity, from darkness to understanding, and from mortality to
immortality.
This edition presents the original Sanskrit text with IAST transliteration,
along with translation and commentary based on the Advaita Vedanta tradition of
Shankaracharya, translated by Swami Madhavananda (1950).
Meaning:- Om. The head of the sacrificial horse is the dawn, its eye the sun, its vital force the air, its open mouth the fire called Vaisvanara, and the body of the sacrificial horse is the year. Its back is heaven, its belly the sky, its hoof the earth, its sides the four quarters, its ribs the intermediate quarters, its members the seasons, its joints the months and fortnights, its feet the days and nights, its bones the stars and its flesh the clouds. Its half-digested food is the sand, its blood-vessels the rivers, its liver and spleen the mountains, its hairs the herbs and trees. Its forepart is the ascending sun, its hind part the descending sun, its yawning is lightning, its shaking the body is thundering, its making water is raining, and its neighing is voice.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- The head of the sacrificial horse, i.e. one fit for a sacrifice, is the down, a period of about three quarters of an hour just before sunrise. The particle 'vai' recalls something well-known, here, the time of dawn. The similarity is due to the importance of each. The head is the most important part of the body (and so is the dawn of the day). The horse which is a part of the sacrifice has to be purified; hence its head and other parts of its body are to be looked upon as certain divisions of time etc. (and not vice versa). And it will be raised to the status of Prajapati by being meditated upon as such. In other words, the horse will be deified into Prajapati if the ideas of time, worlds and deities be superimposed on it, for Prajapati comprises these. It is like converting an image etc. into the Lord Visnu or any other deity. Its eye the sun, for it is next to the head (as the sun is next to, or rises just after the dawn), and has the sun for its presiding deity. Its vital force the air, because as the breath it is of the nature of air. Its open mouth the fire called Vaisvanara.
The word 'Vaisvanara' specifies the fire. The mouth is fire, because that is its presiding deity. The body of the sacrificial horse is the year consisting of twelve or thirteen (Including the intercalary month.) months. The word 'Atman' here means the body. The year is the body of the divisions of time; and the body is called Atman, as we see it in the Sruti passage, 'For the Atman (trunk) is the centre of these limbs' (Tai. A. II. iii. 5). The repetition of the phrase 'of the sacrificial horse' is intended to show that it is to be connected with all the terms. Its back is heaven, because both are high. Its belly the sky, because both are hollow. Its hoof the earth:- 'Pajasya' should be 'Padasya' by the usual transmutation of letters, meaning a seat for the foot. Its sides the four quarters, for they are connected with the quarters. It may be objected that the sides being two and the quarters four in number, the parallel is wrong. The answer to it is that since the head of the horse can be in any direction, its two sides can easily come in contact with all the quarters. So it is all right. Its ribs the intermediate quarters such as the south-east. Its members the seasons:- The latter, being parts of the year, are its limbs, which brings out the similarity. Its joints the months and fortnights, because both connect (the latter connect the parts of the year as joints do those of the body). Its feet the days and nights. The plural in the latter indicates that those (A month of ours makes a day and night of the Manas. A year of ours makes a day and night of the gods; and twenty-four million years of the latter make a day and night of Prajapti, equivalent to two Kalpas or cycles of ours.) pertaining to Prajapati, the gods, the Manes and men are all meant. 'Pratistha' literally means those by which one stands; hence feet. The deity representing time stands on the days and nights; as the horse does on its feet. Its bones the stars, both being white. Its flesh the clouds:- The word used in the text means the sky, but since this has been spoken of as the belly, here it denotes the clouds which float in it. They are flesh, because they shed water as the flesh sheds blood. Its half-digested food in the stomach is the sand, because both consist of loose parts. Its blood-vessels the rivers, for both flow. The word in the text, being plural, denotes blood-vessels here. Its liver and spleen the mountains, both being hard and elevated. 'Yakrt' and 'Kloman' are muscles below the heart on the right and left. The latter word, though always used in the plural, denotes a single thing. Its hairs the herbs and trees:- These, being small and large plants respectively, should be applied to the short and long hairs according to fitness. Its forepart, from the navel onward, is the ascending (lit. 'rising') sun, up to noon. Its hind part the descending (lit. 'setting') sun, from noon on. The similarity consists in their being the anterior and posterior parts respectively in each case. Its yawning or stretching or jerking the limbs is lightning, because the one splits the cloud, and the other the mouth. Its shaking the body is thundering, both producing a sound. Its making water is raining, owing to the similarity of moistening. And its neighing is voice or sound --- no fancying is needed here.
Max Müller
1. Verily [1] the dawn is the head of the horse which is fit for sacrifice, the sun its eye, the wind its breath, the mouth the Vaisvânara [2] fire, the year the body of the sacrificial horse. Heaven is the back, the sky the belly, the earth the chest [3], the quarters the two sides, the intermediate quarters the ribs, the members the seasons, the joints the months and half-months, the feet days and nights, the bones the stars, the flesh the clouds. The half-digested food is the sand, the rivers the bowels [4], the liver and the lungs [5] the mountains, the hairs the herbs and trees. As the sun rises, it is the forepart, as it sets, the hindpart of the horse. When the horse shakes itself [6], then it lightens; when it kicks, it thunders; when it makes water, it rains; voice [7] is its voice.
arvā'surān aśvo manuṣyān samudra evāsya bandhuḥ samudro yoniḥ .. 2..
iti prathamaṃ brāhamaṇam ..
atha dvitīyaṃ brāhmaṇam .
Meaning:- The (gold) vessel called Mahiman in front of the horse, which appeared about it (i.e. pointing it out), is the day. Its source is the eastern sea. The (silver) vessel Mahiman behind the horse, which appeared about it, is the night. Its source is the western sea. These two vessels called Mahiman appeared on either side of the horse. As a Haya it carried the gods, as a Vajin the celestial minstrels, as an Arvan the Asuras, and as an Asva men. The Supreme Self is its stable and the Supreme Self (or the sea) its source.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- The vessel called Mahiman, etc. Two sacrificial vessels called Mahiman, made of gold and silver respectively, are placed before and behind (That is, before and after the horse is killed.) the horse. This is a meditation regarding them. The gold vessel is the day, because both are bright. How is it that the vessel in front of the horse, which appeared about (lit. 'after') it, is the day? Because the horse is Prajapti. And it is Prajapati consisting of the sun etc. who is pointed out by the vessel that we are required to look upon as the day. --- The preposition 'anu' here does not mean 'after', but points out something. --- So the meaning is, the gold vessel (Mahiman) appeared pointing out the horse as Prajapati, just as we say lightning flashes pointing out (Anu) the tree. Its source, the place from which the vessel is obtained, is the eastern sea. Literally translated, it would mean, 'is in the eastern sea,' but the locative case-ending should be changed into the nominative to give the required sense. Similarly the silver vessel behind the horse, which appeared about it, is the night, because both ('Rajata' and 'Ratri') begin with the same syllable (Ra)2, or because both are inferior to the previous set. Its source is the western sea. The vessels are called Mahiman, because they indicate greatness. It is to the glory of the horse that a gold and a silver vessel are placed on each side of it. These two vessels called Mahiman, as described above, appeared on either side of the horse. The repetition of the sentence is to glorify the horse, as much as to say that for the above reasons it is a wonderful horse. The words 'As a Haya' etc. are similarly eulogistic. 'Haya' comes from the root 'hi,' meaning, to move. Hence the word means 'possessing great seed'. Or it may mean a species of horse. It carried the gods, i.e. made them gods, since it was Prajapati; or literally called them. It may be urged that this act of carrying is rather a reproach. But the answer is that carrying is natural to a horse; so it is not derogatory. On the contrary, the act, by bringing the horse into contact with the gods, was a promotion for it. Hence the sentence is a eulogy. Similarly 'Vajin' and the other terms mean species of horses. As a Vajin it carried the celestial minstrels; the ellipsis must be supplied with the intermediate words. Similarly as an Arvan (it carried) the Asuras, and as an Asva (it carried) men. The Supreme Self --- 'Samudra' here means that --- is its stable, the place where it is tied. And the Supreme Self its source, the cause of its origin. Thus it has sprung from a pure source and lives in a pure spot. So it is a tribute to the horse. Or 'Samudra' may mean the familiar sea, for the Sruti say, 'The horse has its source in water' (Tai. S. II. iii. 12).
Max Müller
2. Verily Day arose after the horse as the (golden) vessel [1], called Mahiman (greatness), which (at the sacrifice) is placed before the horse. Its place is in the Eastern sea. The Night arose after the horse as the (silver) vessel, called Mahiman, which (at the sacrifice) is placed behind the horse. Its place is in the Western sea. Verily, these two vessels (or greatnesses) arose to be on each side of the horse. As a racer he carried the Devas, as a stallion the Gandharvas, as a runner the Asuras, as a horse men. The sea is its kin, the sea is its birthplace.
hi mṛtyustanmano'kurutā''tmanvī syāmiti . so'rcannacarat
tasyārcata āpo'jāyantārcate vai me kamabhūditi . tadevārkyasyārkatvam .
kagͫ ha vā asmai bhavati ya evametadarkasyārkatvaṃ veda .. 1..
Meaning:- There was nothing whatsoever here in the beginning. It was covered only by Death (Hiranyagarbha), or Hunger, for hunger is death. He created the mind, thinking, 'Let me have a mind'. He moved about worshipping (himself). As he was worshipping, water was produced. (Since he thought), 'As I was worshipping, water sprang up', therefore Arka (fire) is so called. Water (or happiness) surely comes to one who knows how Arka (fire) came to have this name of Arka.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Now the origin of the fire that is fit for use in the horse sacrifice is being described. This story of its origin is meant as a eulogy in order to prescribe a meditation concerning it. There was nothing whatsoever differentiated by name and form here, in the universe, in the beginning, i.e. before the manifestation of the mind etc.
Question:- Was it altogether void? Nihilistic view:- It must be so, for the Sruti says, 'There was nothing whatsoever here.' There was neither cause nor effect. Another reason for this connection is the fact of origin. A jar, for instance, is produced. Hence before its origin it must have been non-existent.
The logician objects:- But the cause cannot be non-existent, for we see the lump of clay, for instance (before the jar is produced). What is not perceived may well be non-existent, as is the case with the effect here. But not so with regard to the cause, for it is perceived. The nihilist:- No, for before the origin nothing is perceived. If the non-perception of a thing be the ground of its non-existence, before the origin of the whole universe neither cause nor effectt is perceived. Hence everything must have been non-existent. Vedantin's Reply:- Not so, for the Sruti says, 'It was coverd only by Death.' Had there been absolutely nothing either to cover or to be covered, the Sruti would not have said, 'It was covered by Death.' For it never happens that a barren woman's son is covered with flowers springing from the sky. Yet the Sruti says, 'It was covered only by Death.' Therefore on the authority of the Sruti we conclude that the cause which covered, and the effect which was covered, were both existent before the origin of the universe. Inference also points to this conclusion. We can infer the existence of the cause and effect (These will be taken up one by one.) before creation. We observe that a positive effect which is produced takes place only when there is a cause and does not take place when there is no cause. From this we infer that the cause of the universe too must have existed before creation, as is the case with the cause of a jar, for instance.
Objection:- The cause of a jar also does not pre-exist, for the jar is not produced without destroying the lump of clay. And so with other things. Reply:- Not so, for the clay (or other material) is the cause. The clay is the cause of the jar, and the gold of the necklace, and not the particular lump-like form of the material, for they exist without it. We see that effects such as the jar and the necklace are produced simply when their materials, clay and gold, are present, although the lump-like form may be absent. Therefore this particular form is not the cause of the jar and the necklace. But when the clay and the gold are absent, the jar and the necklace are not produced, which shows that these materials, clay and gold, are the cause, and not the roundish form. Whenever a cause produces an effect, it does so by destroying another effect it produced just before, for the same cause cannot produce more than one effect at a time. But the cause, by destroying the previous effect, does not destroy itself. Therefore the fact that an effect is produced by destroying the previous effect, the lump, for instance, is not a valid reason to disprove that the cause exists before the effect is produced.
Objection:- It is not correct, for the clay etc. cannot exist apart form the lump and so on. In other words, you cannot say that the cause, the clay, for example, is not destroyed when its previous effect, the lump or any other form, is destroyed, but that it passes on to some other effect such as the jar. For the cause, the clay or the like, is not perceived apart from the lump or jar, and so on. Reply:- Not so, for we see those cause, the clay etc., persist when the jar and other things have been produced, and the lump or any other form has gone.
Objection:- The persistence noticed is due to similarity, and to acutal persistence of the cause. Reply:- No. Since the particles of clay or other material which belonged to the lump etc. are perceptible in the jar and other things, it is unreasonable to imagine similarity through a pseudo-inference. Nor is inference valid when it contradicts perception, for it depends on the latter, and the contrary view will result in a general disbelief. That is to say, if everything perceived as 'This is that' is momentary, then the notion of 'that' would depend on another notion regarding something else, and so on, thus leading to a regressus in infinitum; and the notion of 'This is like that' being also falsified thereby, there would be no certainty anywhere. Besides the two notions of 'this' and 'that' cannot be connected, since there is no abiding subject.
Objection:- They would be connected through the similarity between them. Reply:- No, for the notions of 'this' and 'that' cannot be the object of each other's perception, and (since according to you there is no abiding subject like the Self), there would be no perception of similarity.
Objection:- Although there is no similarity, there is the notion of it. Reply:- Then the notions of 'this' and 'that' would also, like the notion of similarity, be based on nonetities.
Objection (by the Yogacara school):- Let all notions be based on nonenties. (What is the harm?) Reply:- Then your view that everything is an idea would also be based on a nonentity.
Objection (by the nihilist):- Let it be. Reply:- If all notions are flase, your view that all notions are unreal cannot be established. Therefore it is wrong to say that recognition takes place through similarity. Hence it is proved that the cause exists before the effect is produced. The effect too exists before it is produced.
Question:- How? Reply:- Because its manifestation points out its pre-existence. Manifestation means coming within the range of perception. It is a common occurrence that a thing, a jar for instance, which was hidden by darkness or any other thing and comes within the range of perception when the obstruction is removed by the appearance of light or in some other way, does not preclude its pervious existence. Similarly this universe too, we can understand, existed before its manifestation. For a jar that is non-existent is not perceived even when the sun rises.
Objection:- No, it must be perceived, for you deny its previous non-existent. According to you, any effect, say a jar, is never non-existent. So it must be perceived when the sun rises. Its previous form, the lump of clay, is nowhere near, and obstructions like darkness are absent; so, being existent, it cannot but appear. Reply:- Not so, for obstruction is of two kinds. Every effect such as a jar has two kinds of obstruction. When it has become manifest from its component clay, darkness and the wall etc. are the obstructions; while before its manifestations from the clay the obstruction consitsts in the particles of clay remaining as some other effect such as a lump. Therefore the effect, the jar, although existent, is not perceived before its manifestation, as it is hidden. The terms and concepts 'destroyed,' 'produced,' 'existence' and 'non-existence' depend on this twofold character of manifestation and disappearance.
Objection:- This is incorrect, since the obstructions represented by particular forms such as the lump or the two halves of a jar are of a different nature. To be explicit:- Such obstructions to the manifestation of a jar as darkness or the wall, we see, do not occupy the same space as the jar, but the lump or the two halves of a jar do. So your statement that the jar, although present in the form of the lump or the two halves, is not perceived because it is hidden, is wrong, for the nature of the obstruction in this case is different. Reply:- No, for we see that water mixed with milk occupies the same space as the milk which conceals it.
Objection:- But since the component parts of a jar such as its two halves or pieces are included in the effect, the jar, they should not prove obstructions at all. Reply:- Not so, for being separated form the jar they are so many different effects, and can therefore serve as obstructions.
Objection:- Then the effort should be directed solely to the removal of the obstructions. That is to say, if as you say, the effect, the jar for instance, is actually present in the state of the lump or the two halves, and is not perceived because of an obstruction, then one who wants that effect, the jar, should try to remove the obstruction, and not make the jar. But as a matter of fact, nobody does so. Therefore your statement is wrong. Reply:- No, for there is no hard and fast rule about it. It is not always the case that a jar or any other effect manifests itself if only one tries to remove the obstruction; for when a jar, for instance, is covered with darkness etc., one tries to light a lamp.
Objection:- That too is just for destroying the darkness. This effort to light a lamp is also for removing the darkness, which done, the jar is automatically perceived. Nothing is added to the jar. Reply:- No, for the jar is perceived as covered with light when the lump is lighted. Not so before the lighting of the lamp. Hence this was not simply for removing the darknes, but for covering the jar with light, for it is since percieved as covered with light. Sometimes the effort is directed to the removal of the obstruction, as when the wall, for instance, is pulled down. Therefore it cannot be laid down as a rule that one who wants the manifestation of something must simply try to remove the obstruction. Besides, one should take such steps as will cause the manifestation for the efficacy of the established pracitce regarding it. We have already said that an effect which is patent in the cause serves as an obstruction to the manifestation of other effefcts. So if one tries only to destroy the previously manifested effect such as the lump or the two halves which stand between it and the jar, one may also have such effects as the potsherds or tiny pieces. These too will coneal the jar and prevent its being perceived; so a fresh attempt will be needed. Hence the necessary operation of the factors of an action has its utility for one who wants the manifestation of a jar or any other thing. Therefore the effect exists even before its manifestation. From our divergent notions of the past and future also we infer this. Our notions of a jar that was and one that is yet to be cannot, like the notion of the present jar, be entirely independent of objects. For one who desires to have a jar not yet made sets oneself to work for it. We do not see people strive for things which they know to be non-existent. Another reason for the pre-existence of the effect is the fact that the knowledge of (God and) the Yogins concerning the past and futur jar is infallible. Were the future jar non-existent, His (and their) perception of it would prove false. Nor is this perception a mere figure of speech. As to the reasons for inferring the existence of the jar, we have already stated them. Another reason for it is that the opposite view involves a self-contradiction. If on seeing a potter, for instance, at work on the production of a jar one is certain in view of the evidence that the jar will come into existence, then it would be a contradiction in terms to say that the jar is non-existent at the very time with which, it is said, it will come into relation. For to say that the jar that will be is non-existent, is the same thing as to say that it will not be. It would be like saying, 'This jar does not exist.' If, however, you say that before its manifestation the jar is non-existent, meaning thereby that it does not exist exactly as the potter, for instance, exists while he is at work on its production (i.e. as a ready-made jar), then there is no dispute between us.
Objection:- Why? Reply:- Because the jar exists in its own future (potential) form. It should be borne in mind that the present existence of the lump or the two halves is not the same as that of the jar. Nor is the future existence of the jar the same as theirs. Therefor you do not contradict us when you say that the jar is non-existent before its manifestation while the activity of the potter, for instance, is going on. You will be doing this if you deny to the jar its own futrue form as an effect. But you do not deny that. Nor do all things undergoing modification have an identical form of existence in the present or in the future. Moreover, of the four kinds (Mutual exclusion, between things of different classes, as, 'A jar is not cloth'; previous non-existence, as of a jar before it is made; the non-existence pertaining to destruction, as of a jar when it is broken; and aboslute negation as, 'There is no jar.') of negation relating to, say, a jar, we observe that what is called mutual exclusion is other than the jar:- The negation of a jar is a cloth or some other thing, not the jar itself. But the cloth, althoug it is the negation of a jar, is not a nonentity, but a positive entity. Similarly the previous non-existence, the non-existence due to destruction, and absolute negation must also be other than the jar; for they are spoken of in terms of it, as in the case of the mutual exclusion relating to it. And these negations must also (like the cloth, for instance) be positive entities. Hence the previous non-existence of a jar does not mean that it does not at all exist as an entity before it comes into being. If, however, you say that the previous non-existence of a jar means the jar itself, then to mention it as being 'of a jar' (instead of as 'the jar itself') is an incongruity. If you use it merely as a fancy, as in the expression, 'The body of the stone roller (The stone roller has no body, it is the body.),' then the phrase 'the previous non-existence of a jar' would only mean that it is the imaginary non-existence that is mentioned in terms of the jar, and not the jar itself. If, on the other hand, you say that the negation of a jar is something other than it, we have already answered the point. Moreover, if the jar before its manifestation be an absolute nonentity like the proverbial horns of a hare, it cannot be connected either with its cause or with existence (as the logicians hold), for connection requires two positive entities.
Objection:- It is all right with things that are inseparable. Reply:- No, for we cannot conceive of an inseparable connection between an existent and a non-existent thing. Separable or inseparble connection is possible between two positive entities only, not between an entity and a nonentity, nor between two nonentities. Therefore we conclude that the effect does exist before is is manifested. By what sort of Death was the universe covered? This is being answered:- By Hunger, or the desire to eat, which is a characteristic of death. How is hunger death? The answer is being given:- For hunger is death. The particle 'hi' indicates a well-known reason. He who desires to eat kills animals immediately after. Therefore 'hunger' refers to death. Hence the use of the expression. 'Death' here means Hiranyagarbha as identified with the intellect, because hunger is an attribute of that which is so identified. This effect, the universe, was covered by that Death, just as a jar etc. would be covered by clay in the form of a lump. He created the mind. The word 'Tat' (that) refers to the mind. That Death of whom we are talking, intending to project the effects which will be presently mentioned, created the inner organ called mind, characterised by deliberation etc. and possessing the power to reflect on those effects. What was his object in creating the mind? This is being stated:- Thinking, 'Let me have a mind --- through this mind (Atman) let me be possessed of a mind.' This was his object. He, Prajapati, being possessed of a mind after it was manifested, moved about worshipping himself, thinking he was blessed. As he was worshipping, water, an all-liquid substance forming an accessory of the worship, was produced. Here we must supply the words, 'After the manifestation of the ether, air and fire,' for another Sruti (Tai. II. i. 1) says so, and there can be no alternative in the order of manifestation. Since Death thought, 'As I was worshipping, water sprang up,' therefore Arka, the fire that is fit for use in the horse sacrifice, is so called. This is the derivation of the name 'Arka' given to fire. It is a descriptive epithet of fire derived from the performance of worship leading to happiness, and the connection with water. Water or happiness surely comes to one who knows (Meditates on the fact till one becomes identified with the idea. So also elsewhere.) how Arka (fire) came to have this name of Arka. This is due to the similarity of names. The particles 'ha' and 'vai' are intensive.
Max Müller
1. In the beginning there was nothing (to be perceived) here whatsoever. By Death indeed all this was concealed,--by hunger; for death is hunger. Death (the first being) thought, 'Let me have a body.' Then he moved about, worshipping. From him thus worshipping water was produced. And he said:- 'Verily, there appeared to me, while I worshipped (arkate), water (ka).' This is why water is called ar-ka [1]. Surely there is water (or pleasure) for him who thus knows the reason why water is called arka.
Meaning:- Water is Arka. What was there (like) forth on the water was solidified and became this earth. When that was produced, he was tired. While he was (thus) tired and distressed, his essence, or lustre, came forth. This was Fire.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- What is this Arka? Water, that accessory of worship, is Arka, being the cause of fire. For, it is said, fire rests on water. Water is not directly Arka, for the topic under discussion is not water, but fire. It will be said later on, 'This fire is Arka' (I. ii. 7). What was there like froth on the water, like the coagulated state of curds, was solidified, being subjected to heat internally and externally. Or the word 'Sara' may be the nominative (instead of a complement), if we change the gender of the pronoun 'Yad' (that). That solid thing became this earth. That is to say, out of that water came the embryonic state of the universe, compared to an egg. When that earth was produced, he, Death or Prajapati, was tired. For everyone is tired after work, and the projection of the earth was a great feat of Prajapati. What happened to him then? While he was (thus) tired and distressed, his essence, or lustre, came forth from his body. What was that? This was Fire, the first-born Viraj (The being identified with the sum total of all bodies.), also called Prajapati, who sprang up within that cosmic egg, possessed of a body and organs. As the Smrti says, 'He is the first embodied being' (Si. V. i. 8. 22).
Max Müller
2. Verily water is arka. And what was there as the froth of the water, that was hardened, and became the earth. On that earth he (Death) rested, and from him, thus resting and heated, Agni (Virâg) proceeded, full of light.
sa tredhā''tmānaṃ vyakurutā''dityaṃ tṛtīyaṃ vāyuṃ tṛtīyagͫ .
sa eṣa prāṇastredhā vihitastasya prācī dikṣiro'sau cāsau cermāva
athāsya pratīcī dikpucchamasau cāsau ca sakthyau dakṣiṇā codīcī
ca pārśve dyauḥ pṛṣṭhamantarikṣamudaramiyamuraḥ sa eṣo'psu
pratiṣṭhito yatra kva caiti tadeva pratitiṣṭhatyevaṃ vidvān .. 3..
Meaning:- He (Viraj) differentiated himself in three ways, making the sun the third form, and air the third form. So, this Prana (Viraj) is divided in three ways. His head is the east, and his arms that (north-east) and that (south-east). And his hind part is the west, his hip-bones that (north-west) and that (south-west), his sides the south and north, his back heaven, his belly the sky, and his breast this earth. He rests on water. He who knows (it) thus gets a resting place wherever he goes.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- He, the Viraj who was born, himself differentiated or divided himself, his body and organs, in three ways. How? Making the sun the third form, in respect of fire and air. The verb 'made' must be supplied. And air the third form, in respect of fire and the sun. Similarly we must understand., 'Making fire the third form,' in respect of air and the sun, for this also can equally make up the number three. So this Prana (Viraj), although the self, as it were, of all beings, is specially divided by himself as Death in three ways as fire, air and the sun, without, however, destroying his own form of Viraj. Now the meditation on this Fire, the first-born Viraj, the Arka fit for use in the horse sacrifice and kindled in it, is being described, like that on the horse. We have already said that the previous account of its origin is all for its eulogy, indicating that it is of such pure birth. His head is the east, both being the most important. And his arms that and that, the north-east and south-east. The word 'Irma' (arm) is derived from the root 'ir,' meaning motion. And his hind part is the west, because it points to that direction when he faces the east. His hip-bones that and that, the north-west and south-west, both forming angles with the back. His sides the south and north, both being so related to the east and west. His back heaven, his belly the sky, as in the case of the horse. And his breast this earth, both being underneath. He, this fire consisting of the worlds, or Prajapati, rests on water, for the Sruti says, 'Thus do these worlds lie in water.' (S. X. v. 4. 3). He gets a resting place wherever he goes. Who? Who knows that fire rests on water, thus, as described here. This is a subsidiary result (The main result will be stated in paragraph 7.).
Max Müller
3. That being divided itself threefold, Âditya (the sun) as the third, and Vâyu (the air) as the third [1]. That spirit (prâna) [2] became threefold. The head was the Eastern quarter, and the arms this and that quarter (i. e. the N. E. and S. E., on the left and right sides). Then the tail was the Western quarter, and the two legs this and that quarter (i. e. the N. W. and S. W.) The sides were the Southern and Northern quarters, the back heaven, the belly the sky, the dust the earth. Thus he (Mrityu, as arka) stands firm in the water, and he who knows this stands firm wherever he goes.
taṃ jātamabhivyādadāt sa bhāṇakarot saiva vāgabhavat .. 4..
Meaning:- He desired, 'Let me have a second form (body).' He, Death or Hunger, brought about the union of speech (the Vedas) with the mind. What was the seed there became the Year (Viraj). Before him there had been no year. He (Death) reared him for as long as a year, and after this period projected him. When he was born, (Death) opened his mouth (to swallow him). He (the babe) cried 'Bhan!' That became speech.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- It has been stated that Death, in the order of water and the rest, manifested himself in the cosmic egg as the Viraj or Fire possessed of a body and organs, and divided himself in three ways. Now by what process did he manifest himself? This is being answered:- He, Death, desired, 'Let me have a second form or body, through which I may become embodied.' Having desired thus, he brought about the union of speech, of the Vedas, with the mind that had already appeared. In other words, he reflected on the Vedas, that is, the order of creation enjoined in them, with his mind. Who did it? Death characterised by hunger. It has been said that hunger is death. The text refers to him lest someone else (Viraj) be understood. What was the seed, the cause of the origin of Viraj, the first embodied being, viz the knowledge and resultant of work accumulated in past lives, which Death visualised in his reflection on the Vedas, there, in that union, became the Year, the Prajapati of that name who makes the year. Death (Hiranyagarbha), absorbed in these thoughts, projected water, entered it as the seed and, transformed into the embryo, the cosmic egg, became the year. Before him, the Viraj who makes the year, there had been no year, no period of that name. Death reared him, this Viraj who was in embryo, for as long as a year, the well-known duration of time among us, i.e. for a year. What did he do after that? And after this period, i.e. a year, projected him, i.e. broke the egg. When he, the babe, Fire, the fiirst embodied being, was born, Death opened his mouth to swallow him, because he was hungry. He, the babe, being frightened, as he was possessed of natural ignorance, cried 'Bhan' --- made this sound. That became speech or word.
Max Müller
4. He desired [1], 'Let a second body be born of me,' and he (Death or Hunger) embraced Speech in his mind. Then the seed became the year. Before that time there was no year. Speech [2] bore him so long as a year, and after that time sent him forth. Then when he was born, he (Death) opened his mouth, as if to swallow him. He cried Bhân! and that became speech [3].
Meaning:- He thought, 'If I kill him, I shall be making very little food.' Through that speech and the mind he projected all this, whatever there is - the Vedas Rig, Yajus and Saman, the metres, the sacrifices, men and animals. Whatever he projected, he resolved to eat. Because he eats everything, therefore Aditi (Death) is so called. He who knows how Aditi came to have this name of Aditi, becomes the eater of all this, and everything becomes his food.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Seeing the babe frightened and crying, he, Death, thought, although he was hungry, 'If I kill him, this babe, I shall be making very little food.' --- The root 'man' with the prefix 'abhi' means to injure or kill. --- Thinking thus he desisted from eating him, for he must make not a little food, but a great quantity of it, so that he might eat it for a long time; and if he ate the babe, he would make very little food as there is no crop if the seeds are eaten up. Thinking of the large quantity of food necessary for his purpose, through that speech, the Vedas already mentioned, and that mind, uniting them, that is, reflecting on the Vedas again and again, he projected all this, the movable and immovable (animals, plants, etc. etc.), whatever there is. What is it? The Vedas Rc, Yajus and Saman, the seven metres, viz Gayatri and the rest, i.e. the three kinds of Mantras (sacred formulas) forming part of a ceremony, viz the hymns (Stotra), the praises (Sastra) (The hymns are Rces that are sung by one class of priests, the Udgatr etc. The Sastras are those very hymns, but only recited by another class of priests, the Hotr etc., not sung. There are other Rces too, which are used in a different way by a third class of priests, the Adhvaryu etc., in the sacrifices. These are the third group of Mantras.) and the rest, composed in Gayatri and other metres, the sacrifices, which are performed with the help of those Mantras, men, who perform these, and animals, domestic and wild, which are a part of the rites.
Objection:- It has already been said that Death projected Viraj through the union of speech (the Vedas) with the mind. So how can it now be said that he projected the Vedas? Reply:- It is all right, for the previous union of the mind was with the Vedas in all unmanifested state, whereas the creation spoken of here is the manifestation of the already existing Vedas so that they may be applied to the ceremonies. Understanding that now the food had increased, whatever he, Prajapati, projected, whether it was action, its means or its results, he resolved to eat. Because he eats everything, thereofre Aditi or Death is so called. So the Sruti says, 'Aditi is heaven, Aditi is the sky, Aditi is the mother, and he is the father,' etc. (R. I. Iix. 10). He who knows how Aditi, Prajapati or Death, came to have this name of Aditi, because of eating everything, becomes the eater of all this universe, which becomes his food --- that is, as identified with the universe, otherwise it would involve a contradiction; for nobody, we see, is the sole eater of everything. Therefore the meaning is that he becomes identified with everything. And for this very reason everything becomes his food, for it stands to reason that everything is the food of an eater who is identified with everything.
Max Müller
5. He thought, 'If I kill him, I shall have but little food.' He therefore brought forth by that speech and by that body (the year) all whatsoever exists, the Rik, the Yagus, the Sâman, the metres, the sacrifices, men, and animals. And whatever he (Death) brought forth, that he resolved to eat (ad). Verily because he eats everything, therefore is Aditi (Death) called Aditi. He who thus knows why Aditi is called Aditi, becomes an eater of everything, and everything becomes his food [1].
vai yaśo vīryam . tat prāṇeṣūtkrānteṣu śarīragͫ śvayitumadhriyata
tasya śarīra eva mana āsīt .. 6..
Meaning:- He desired, 'Let me sacrifice again with the great sacrifice'. He was tired, and he was distressed. While he was (thus) tired and distressed, his reputation and strength departed. The organs are reputation and strength. When the organs departed, the body began to swell, (but) his mind was set on the body.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- He desired, etc. This and part of the next paragraph are introduced to give the derivation of the words 'Asva' (horse) and 'Asvamedha' (horse sacrifice). 'Let me sacrifice again with the great sacrifice.' The word 'again' has reference to his performance in the previous life. Prajapati had performed a horse sacrifice in his pervious life, and was born at the beginning of the cycle imbued with those thoughts. Having been born as identified with the act of horse sacrifice, its factors and its results, he desired, 'Let me sacrifice again with the great sacrifice.' Having desried this great undertaking, he was tired, like other men, and he was distressed. While he was (thus) tired and distressed --- these words have already been explained (in par. 2) --- his reputation and strength departed. The Sruti itself explains the words:- The organs are reputation, being the cause of it, for one is held in repute as long as the organs are in the body; likewise, strength in the body. No one can be reputed or strong when the organs have left the body. Hence these are the reputation and strength in this body. So the reputation and strength consisting of the organs departed. When the organs forming reputation and strength departed, the body of Prajapati began to swell, and became impure or unfit for a sacrifice. (But) although Prajapati had left it, his mind was set on the body, just as one longs for a favourite object even when one is away.
Max Müller
6. He desired to sacrifice again with a greater sacrifice. He toiled and performed penance. And while he toiled and performed penance, glorious power [1] went out of him. Verily glorious power means the senses (prâna). Then when the senses had gone out, the body took to swelling (sva-yitum), and mind was in the body.
Meaning:- He desired, 'Let this body of mine be fit for a sacrifice, and let me be embodied through this', (and entered it). Because the body swelled (Asvat), therefore it came to be called Asva (horse). And because it became fit for a sacrifice, therefore the horse sacrifice came to be known as Asvamedha. He who knows it thus indeed knows the horse sacrifice. (Imagining himself as the horse and) letting it remain free, he reflected (on it). After a year he sacrificed it to himself, and dispatched the (other) animals to the gods. Therefore (priests to this day) sacrifice to Prajapati the sanctified (horse) that is dedicated to all the gods. He who shines yonder is the horse sacrifice; his body is the year. This fire is Arka; its limbs are these worlds. So these two (fire and the sun) are Arka and the horse sacrifice. These two again become the same god, Death. He (who knows thus) conquers further death, death cannot overtake him, it becomes his self, and he becomes one with these deities.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- What did he (Hiranyagarbha) do with his mind attached to that body? He desired. How? 'Let this body of mine be fit for a sacrifice, and let me be embodied through this.' And he entered it. Because that body, bereft in his absence of its reputation and strength, swelled (Asvat), therefore it came to be called Asva (horse). Hence Prajapati (Hiranyagarbha.) himself is named Asva. This is a eulogy on the horse. And because on account of his entering it, the body, although it had become unfit for a sacrifice by having lost its reputation and strength, again became fit for a sacrifice, therefore the horse sacrifice came to be known as Asvamedha. For a sacrifice consists of an action, its factors and its results. And that it is no other than Prajapati is a tribute to the sacrifice. The horse that is a factor of the sacrifice has been declared to be Prajapati in the passage, 'The head of the sacrificial horse is the dawn,' etc. (I. i. 1). The present paragraph is introduced to enjoin a collective meditation on that sacrificial horse which is Prajapati, and the sacrificial fire which has already been described (as such) --- viewing both as the result of the sacrifice. That this is the import of this section we understand from the fact that in the previous section no verb denoting an injunction has been used, and one such is necessary. The words, He who knows it thus indeed knows the horse sacrifice, mean:- 'He only, and none else, knows the horse sacrifice, who knows the horse and the Arka or fire, described above, as possessed of the features, to be presently mentioned, which are here shown collectively.' Therefore one must know the horse sacrifice thus --- this is the meaning. How? First the meditation on the animal is being described. Prajapati, desiring to sacrifice again with the great sacrifice, imagined himself as the sacrificial animal, and letting it, the consecrated animal, remain free or unbridled, reflected (on it). After a complete year he sacrificed it to himself, i.e. as dedicated to Prajapati (Hiranyagarbha), and dispatched the other animals, domestic and wild, to the gods, their respective deities. And because Prajapati reflected like this, therefore others also should likewise fancy themselves, in the manner described above, as the sacrificial horse and meditate:- 'While being sanctified (with the Mantras), I am dedicated to all the gods; but while being killed, I am dedicated to myself. The other animals, domestic and wild, are sacrificed to their respecttive deities, the other gods, who are but a part of myself.' Therefore priests to this day similarly sacrifice to Prajapati the sanctified horse that is dedicated to all the gods. He who shines yonder is the horse sacrifice. The sacrifice which is thus performed with the help of the animal is being directly represented as the result. Who is he? The sun who illumines the universe with his light. His body, the body of the sun, who is the result of the sacrifice, is the year, that period of time. The year is called his body, as it is made by him. Now, since the sun, as the horse sacrifice, is performed with the help of fire, (the latter also is the sun). Here the result of the sacrifice is being mentioned as the sacrifice itself:- This terrestrial fire is Arka, the accessory of the sacrifice. Its limbs, the limbs of this Arka, the fire that is kindled at the sacrifice, are these three worlds. So it has been explained in the passage, 'His head is the east,' etc. (I. ii. 3). So these two, fire and the sun, are Arka and the horse sacrifice, as described above --- the sacrifice and its result respectively. Arka, the terrestrial fire, is directly the sacrifice, which is a rite. Since the latter is performed with the help of fire, it is here represented as fire. And the result is achieved through the performance of the sacrifice. Hence it is represented as the sacrifice in the statement that the sun is the horse sacrifice. These two, fire and the sun, the means and the end, the sacrifice and its result, again become the same god. Who is it? Death. There was but one deity before, who later was divided into action, its means and its end. So it has been said, 'He differentiated himself in three ways' (I. ii. 3). And after the ceremony is over, he again becomes one deity, Death, the result of the ceremony. He who knows this one deity, horse sacrifice or Death, as, 'I alone am Death, the horse sacrifice, and there is but one deity identical with myself and attainable through the horse and fire' --- conquers further death, i.e. after dying once he is not born to die any more. Even though conquered, death may overtake him again. So it is said, death cannot overtake him. Why? Because it becomes his self, the self of one who knows thus. Further, being Death (Hiranyagarbha, See Par. 1.), the result, he becomes one with these deities. This is the result such a knower attains.
Max Müller
7. He desired that this body should be fit for sacrifice (medhya), and that he should be embodied by it. Then he became a horse (asva), because it swelled (asvat), and was fit for sacrifice (medhya); and this is why the horse-sacrifice is called Asva-medha. Verily he who knows him thus, knows the Asvamedha. Then, letting the horse free, he thought [1], and at the end of a year he offered it up for himself, while he gave up the (other) animals to the deities. Therefore the sacrificers offered up the purified horse belonging to Pragâpati, (as dedicated) to all the deities. Verily the shining sun is the Asvamedha-sacrifice, and his body is the year; Agni is the sacrificial fire (arka), and these worlds are his bodies. These two are the sacrificial fire and the Asvamedha-sacrifice, and they are again one deity, viz. Death. He (who knows this) overcomes another death, death does not reach him, death is his Self, he becomes one of those deities.
असुरास्त एषु लोकेष्वस्पर्धन्त । ते ह देवा ऊचुर्हन्तासुरान्यज्ञ
उद्गीथेनात्ययामेति ॥ १॥
mantra 1 [I.iii.1]
dvayā ha prājāpatyā devāścāsurāśca . tataḥ kānīyasā eva devā jyāyasā
asurāsta eṣu lokeṣvaspardhanta . te ha devā ūcurhantāsurānyajña
udgīthenātyayāmeti .. 1..
Meaning:- There were two classes of Prajapati's sons, the gods and the Asuras. Naturally, the gods were fewer, and the Asuras more in number. They vied with each other for (the mastery of these worlds. The gods said, 'Now let us surpass the Asuras in (this) sacrifice through the Udgitha'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- There were two classes:- 'Two' here means two clases. The particle 'ha' is an expletive referring to a past incident. It is here used to recall what happened in the past life of the present Prajapati. Of Prajapati's sons, in his past incarnation. Who are they? The gods and the Asuras, the organs, that of speech and the rest, of Prajapati himself. How can they be the gods and Asuras? They become gods when they shine uner the influence of thoughts and actions as taught by the scriptures. While those very organs become Asuras when they are influenced by their natural thoughts and actions, based only on perception and inference, and directed merely to visible (secular) ends. They are called Asuras, because they delight only in their own lives (Asu) or because they are other than the gods (Sura). And because the Asuras are influenced by thoughts and actions directed to visible ends, therefore the gods were fewer, and the Asuras more in number. --- The lengthened form of the two adjectives due to the addition of a vowel augment makes no change of meaning. --- The organs, as we know, have a stronger tendency to thoughts and actions that are natural, than to those that are recommended by the scriptures, for the former serve visible ends. Hence the gods are fewer, for the tendency that is cultivated by the scriptures is rare; it is attainable with great effort. They, the gods and the Asuras living in Prajapati's body, vied with each other for (the mastery of) these worlds, which are attainable through thoughts and actions prompted by one's natural inclinations as well as those cultivated by the scriptures. The rivalry of the gods and the Asuras here means the emergence and subsidence of their respective tendencies. Sometimes the organs manifest the impressions of thoughts and actions cultivated by the scriptures; and when this happens, the impressions, manifested by those very organs, of the thoughts and actions based on perception and inference, and producing visible resutls only --- those tendencies characteristic of the Asuras --- subside. That is the victory of the gods and the defeat of the Asuras. Sometimes the reverse happens. The characteristic tendencies of the gods are overpowered, and those of the Asuras emerge. That is the victory of the Asuras and the defeat of the gods. Accordingly, when the gods win, there is a preponderance of merit, and the result is elavation up to the status of Prajapati. And when the Asuras triumph, demerit prevails, and the result is degradation down to the level of stationary objects, while if there be a draw, it leads to human birth. What did the gods do when, being fewer, they were overwhelmed by the Asuras who outnumbered them? The gods, being overwhelmed by the Asuras, said to the one another, 'Now let us surpass the Asuras in this sacrifice, Jyotistoma, through the Udgitha, that is through identity with (the vital force), the chanter of this accessory of a sacrifice called the Udgitha. By overcoming the Asuras we shall realise our divinity as set forth in the scriptures.' This identity with the vital force is attained through meditation and rites. The rites consist of the repetition of Mantras that will be presently enjoined:- 'These Mantras are to be repeated,' etc. (I. iii. 28). The meditation is what is being described.
Objection:- This is a part of an injunction on the repetition of certain Mantras leading to the attainment of divinity, and is a mere eulogy; it has nothing to do with meditation. Reply:- No, for there occur the words, 'He who knows thus.'
Objection:- Since the text narrates an old story in this treatment of the Udgitha, it must be a part of an injunction on the latter. Reply:- No, for it is a different context. The Udgitha has been enjoined elsewhere (in the ceremonial portion), and this is a section on knowledge. Besides, the repetition of those Mantras for the attainment of identity with the gods is not an independent act, for it is to be practised (only) by one who meditates on the vital force as described in this section, and this meditation on the vital force is represented as being independent. And a separate result is mentioned for it in the passage, 'This (meditation on the vital force) certainly wins the world' (I. iii. 28). Moreover, the vital force has been stated to be pure, and the organs impure. This implies that the vital force is enjoined as an object of meditation, for otherwise there would be no sense in calling it pure and the organs such as that of speech, mentioned along with it, impure, nor in extolling it, as is evident, by the condemnation of the organ of speech, etc. The same remarks apply to the enunciation of the result of meditation on it, '(That fire) having transcended death shines,' etc. (I. iii. 12). For the identification of the organ of speech etc. with fire and so on is the result of attaining oneness with the vital force.
Objection:- Granted that the vital force is to be meditated upon, but it cannot possess the attributes of purity etc. Reply:- It must, for the Sruti says so.
Objection:- No, for the vital force being an object of meditation, the attributes referred to may just be a eulogy. Reply:- Not so, for in scriptural, as in secular matters, correct understanding alone can lead to our well-being. In common life one who understands things correctly attains what is good or avoids what is evil --- not if one understands things wrongly. Similarly here also one can attain well-being if only one correctly understands the meaning of scriptural passages, and not otherwise. Besides there is nothing to disprove the truth of objects corresponding to notions conveyed by the words of the scriptures enjoining a meditation. Nor is there any exception in the Srutis to meditation on the vital force as pure etc. Since that meditation, we see, is conducive to our well-being, we accept it as true. And we see that the opposite course leads to evil. We notice in life that one who misjudges things --- takes a man, for instance, for a stump; or an enemy for a friend --- comes to grief. Similarly, if the Self, God, the deities and so forth, of whom we hear from the scriptures, prove ficititious, then the scriptures, like secular things, would be a veritable source of evil; but this is acceptable to neither of us. Therefore we conclude that the scriptures present, for purposes of meditaton, the Self, God, the deities and so on, as real.
Objection:- What you say is wrong, for the name and other things are represented as Brahman. That is to say, the name and other things are obviously not Brahman, but the scriptures, we find, ask us, in direct opposition to fact, to look upon them as Brahman, which is analogous to regarding a stump etc. as a man. Hence it is not correct to say that one attains well-being by understanding things as they are from the scriptures. Reply:- Not so, for the difference is obvious, as in the case of an image. You are wrong to say that the scriptures ask us, in the face of fact, to look upon the name and other things, which are not Brahman, as Brahman, analogous to regarding a stump etc. as a man.
Objection:- How? Reply:- Because the scriptures enjoin meditation on the name etc. as Brahman for one who clearly knows that those things are different from Brahman; it is like meditation on the image etc. as Visnu. Just like the image etc., the name and other things are used merely as aids to meditation; it is not meant that they are Brahman. So long as one does not know a stump as a stump, one mistakes it for a man. But meditation on the name etc. as Brahman is not of that erroneous nature.
Objection (By the Mimamsaka.):- There is only that meditation on the name etc. as Brahman, but no Brahman. Regarding an image as Visnu and other gods, and a Brahmana as the Manes and so forth belongs to the same category. Reply:- No, for we are advised to look upon the Rc (hymn) etc. as the earth and so on. Here we see only a superimposition on the Rc etc. of the notions of actually existing things such as the earth. Therefore on the analogy of that we conclude that viewing the name etc. as Brahman and so forth is based on actually existing Brahman and the rest. This also proves that viewing an image as Visun and other gods, and a Brahmana as the Manes and so forth, has a basis in reality. Moreover, a figurative sense depends on a primary one. Since the five fires, for instance, are only figuratively such, they imply the existence of the real fire. Similarly, since the name and other things are Brahman only in a figurative sense, they merely prove that Brahman in a real sense must exist. Besides, matters pertaining to knowledge are akin to those pertaining to rites. That rites like the new and full moon sacrifices produce such and such results, and have to be performed in a certain definite way, with their parts following each other in a particular order, is a supersensuous matter beyond the range of our perception and inference, which we nevertheless understand as true solely from the words of the Vedas. Similarly it stands to reason that entities like the Supreme Self, God, the deities, etc. of which we learn, also from the worlds of the Vedas, as being characterised by the absence of grossness etc., being beyond hunger and the like, and so on, must be true, for they are equally supersensuous matters. There is no difference between texts relating to knowledge and those relating to rites as regards producing an impression. Nor is the impression conveyed by the Vedas regarding the Supreme Self and other such entities indefinite or contrary to fact.
Objection:- Not so, for there is nothing to be done. To be explicit:- The ritualistic passages mention an activity which, although relating to supersensuous matters, consist of three parts (What? Through what? And how? --- denoting respectively the result, the means and the method of a rite.) to be performed. But in the knowledge of the Supreme Self, God, etc., there is no such activity to be performed. Hence it is not correct to say that both kinds of passages are alike. Reply:- Not so, for knowledge is of things that already exist. The activity to which you refer is real, not because it is to be performed, but because it is known through proper testimony (the Vedas). Nor is the notion concerning it real because it relates to something to be performed, but solely because it is conveyed by Vedic sentences. When a thing has been known to be true from the Vedas, a person will perform it, should it admit of being performed, but will not do it if it is not a thing to be done.
Objection:- If it is not something to be done, then it will cease to have the support of Vedic testimony in the form of sentences. We do not understand how words in a sentence can be construed unless there is something to be done. But if there is something to be done, they are construed as bringing out that idea. A sentence is authoritative when it is devoted to an action --- when it says that a certain thing is to be done through such and such means in a particular way. But hundreds of such words denoting the object, means and method would not make a sentence unless there is one or other of such terms as the following, 'Should do, should be done, is to be done, should become and should be.' Hence such entities as the Supreme Self and God have not the support of Vedic testimony in the form of sentences. And if they are denoted by Vedic words (instead of sentences), they becomes the objects of other means (Such as perception. Isolated words do not add to our knowledge, but only serve to call up the things they denote, if we happen to know them already.) of knowledge. Therefore this (the fact of Brahman being the import of the Vedas) is wrong. Reply:- Not so, for we find sentences like, 'There is Mt. Meru (A fabulous mountain round which the sun and the planets are said to revolve. The direction east, west, etc. vary according to the relative position of the dwellers around this mountain, the east being that in which they see the sun rise. But the direction overhead is obviously constant to all of them.), which is of four colours, 'which relate to things other than an action. Nor has anyone, on hearing such sentences, the idea that Meru and the rest are something to be done. Similarly, in a sentence containing the very 'to be,' what is there to prevent the construing of its words denoting the Supreme Self, God, etc. as substantives and their qualifying words?
Objection:- This is not correct, for the knowledge of the Supreme Self etc. serves no useful purpose like that of Meru and so forth. Reply:- Not so, for the Sruti mentions such results as, 'The knower of Brahman attains the highest' (Tai. II. i. 1), and 'The knot of the heart (intellect) is broken,' etc. Mu. II. ii. 8. We also find the cessaton of ignorance and other evils which are the root of relative existence. Besides, since the knowledge of Brahman does not form part of anything else (e.g. an action), the results rehearsed about it cannotbe a mere eulogy as in the case of the sacrificial ladle (The passage, 'He whose ladle is made of Palasa (Butea Frondosa) wood never hears an evil verse' (Tai. S. III. v. 7. 2), is a eulogy, because it is subsidiary to an enjoined rite.).
Moreover, it is from the Vedas that we know that a forbidden act produces evil results; and it is not something to be done. A man who is about to do a forbidden act has (on recollecting that it is forbidden) nothing else to do except desisting from it. In fact, prohibitions have just that end in view, viz to create an idea that the acts in question must not be done. When a hungry man who has been chastened by a knowledge of prohibited acts comes across something not to be eaten in any way, such as Kalanja (the meat of an animal killed with a poisoned weapon), or food coming from a person under a curse, his first notion is that the food can be eaten, but it is checked by the recollection that it is a forbidden food, as one's first notion that one can drink from a mirage is checked by the knowledge of its true nature. When that natural erroneous notion is checked, the dangerous (From the spiritual standpoint. The physical danger is too patent to need a scriptural warning.) impulse to eat that food is gone. That impulse, being due to an erroneous notion, automatically stops; it does not require an additional effort to stop it. Therefore prohibitions have just the aim of communicating the real nature of a thing; there is not the least connection of human activity with them. Similarly here also, the injunction on the true nature of the Supreme Self etc. cannot but have that one aim. And a man who has been chastened by that knowledge knows that his impulses due to an erroneous notion are fraught with danger, and those natural impulses automatically stop when their cause, the false notion, has been exploded by the recollection of the true nature of the Supreme Self and the like.
Objection:- Granted that the dangerous impulse to eat Kalanja and the like may stop when the natural erroneous notion about their edibility has been removed by the recollection of their true nature as harmful things; but the tendency to do acts enjoined by the scriptures should not stop in that way, for they are not prohibited. Reply:- Not so, for both are due to erroneous notions and produce harmful effects. Just as the tendency to eat Kalanja etc. is due to a false notion and productive of harm, so is the tendency to do acts enjoined by the scriptures. Therefore, for a man who has a true knowledge of the Supreme Self, the tendency to do these acts, being equally due to a false notion and productive of harm, will naturally cease when that false notion has been removed by the knowledge of the Supreme Self.
Objection:- Let it be so with regard to those acts (which are done for material ends), but the regular rites (There are three kinds of actions, viz the regular (Nitya), the occasional (Naimittika) and those done for material ends (Kamya). Of these, the first two are obligatory and the third optional.), which are performed solely in obedience to the scriptures and produce no harmful effects, should on no account stop. Reply:- Not so, for they are enjoind on one who has defects such as ignorance, attachment and aversion. As the rites with material ends (Kamya), such as the new and full moon sacrifices, are enjoined on one who has the defect of desiring heaven etc., so are the regular rites enjoined on one who has the root of all evils, ignorance etc., and the consequent defects of attachment and aversion, manifesting themselves as the quest of what is good and the avoidance of what is evil etc., and who being equally prompted by these tries to seek good and avoid evil; they are not performed solely in obedience to the scriptures. Nor are rites such as the Agnihotra, the new and full moon sacrifices, Caturmasya, Pausbandha and Somayaga intrinsically either rites with material ends or regular rites. They come under the former category only because the man who performs them has the defect of desiring heaven and so forth. Similarly the regual rites performed by a man who has the defects of ignorace etc., and who out of natural promptings seeks to attain what is good and avoid what is evil, are intended for that purpose alone, for they are enjoined on him. On one who knows the true nature of the Supreme Self, we do not find any other work enjoined except what leads to the cessation of activities. For Self-knowledge is inculcated through the obliteration of the very cause of rites, viz the consciousness of all its means such as the gods. And one whose consciousness of action, its factors and so forth has been obliterated cannot presumably have the tendency to perform rites, for this presupposes a knowledge of specific actions, their means and so on. One who thinks that he is Brahman unlimited by space, time, etc. and notgross and so on has certainly no room for the performance of rites.
Objection:- He may, as he has for the inclination to eat and so on. Reply:- No, for the inclination to eat and so on is solely due to the defects of ignorance etc. and are not supposed to be compulsory. But the regular rites cannot be uncertain like that; they cannot be sometimes done and sometimes omitted (according to one's whim). Acts like eating, however, may be irregular, as they are solely due to one's defects, and these have no fixed time for appearing or disappearing, like desires for rites with material ends. But the regualar rites, although they are due to defects, cannot be uncertain, for they depend on specific times etc. prescribed by the scriptures, just as the Kamya Agnihotra (which is a rite with material ends) depends on such conditions as the morning and evening, because it is enjoined by the scriptures.
Objection:- As the inclination to eat etc. (although due to defects) is regulated by the scriptures, so the restrictions about that Agnihotra too may apply to the sage. Reply:- No, for restrictions are not action, nor are they incentives to action. Hence they are not obstacles to the attainment of knowledge (even by an aspirant). Therefore the Vedic dicta inculcating the true nature of the Supreme Self, because they remove the erroneous notions about Its being gross, dual and so on, automatically assume the character of prohibitions of all action, for both imply a cessation of the tendency to action. As is the case with prohibited acts (such as the eating of forbidden food). Hence we conclude that like the prohibitions, the Vedas delineate the nature of realities and have that ultimate aim.
Max Müller
1. There were two kinds of descendants of Pragâpati, the Devas and the Asuras [1]. Now the Devas were indeed the younger, the Asuras the elder ones [2]. The Devas, who were struggling in these worlds, said:- 'Well, let us overcome the Asuras at the sacrifices (the Gyotishtoma) by means of the udgîtha.'
ते ह वाचमूचुस्त्वं न उद्गायेति । तथेति । तेभ्यो वागुदगायद् यो वाचि
भोगस्तं देवेभ्य आगायद् यत्कल्याणं वदति तदात्मने । ते विदुरनेन
वै न उद्गात्राऽत्येष्यन्तीति । तमभिद्रुत्य पाप्मनाऽविध्यन् स यः स
पाप्मा यदेवेदमप्रतिरूपं वदति स एव स पाप्मा ॥ २॥
mantra 2[I.iii.2]
te ha vācamūcustvaṃ na udgāyeti . tatheti . tebhyo vāgudagāyad yo vāci
bhogastaṃ devebhya āgāyad yatkalyāṇaṃ vadati tadātmane . te viduranena
vai na udgātrā'tyeṣyantīti . tamabhidrutya pāpmanā'vidhyan sa yaḥ sa
pāpmā yadevedamapratirūpaṃ vadati sa eva sa pāpmā .. 2..
Meaning:- They said to the organ of speech, 'Chant (the Udgitha) for us'. 'All right', said the organ of speech and chanted for them. The common good that comes of the organ of speech, it secured for the gods by chanting, while the fine speaking it utilised for itself. The Asuras knew that through this chanter the gods would surpass them. They charged it and struck it with evil. That evil is what we come across when one speaks improper things.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- They, the gods, after deciding thus, said to the organ of speech, i.e. the deity identified with the organ, 'Chant (the Udgitha), or perform the function of the priest called Udgatr, for us.' That is, they thought that this function belonged to the deity of the organ of speech, and that it was the deity referred to by the Mantra for repetition, 'From evil lead me to good' (I. iii. 28). Here the organ of speech and the rest are spoken of as the agents of meditation and work. Why? Because in reality all our activities in the field of meditation and work are done by them and belong to them. That they are not done by the Self will be stated at length in the fourth chapter, in the passage, 'It thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were,' etc. (IV. iii. 7). Here too, at the end of the chapter it will be concluded that the whole universe of action, its factors and its results, beginning with the Undifferentiated, comes within the category of ignorance:- 'This (universe) indeed consists of these three:- name, form and action' (I. vi. 1). And the Supreme Self, which is beyond the Undifferentiated, does not consist of name, form and action, and is the subject-matter of knowledge, will be concluded separately by the denial of things other than the Self with the words, 'Not this, not this.' While the transmigrating self, which is conjured up by the limiting adjunct (Upadhi) of the aggregate of the organ of speech etc., will be shown as falling under the category of that aggregate in the passage, '(The Self) comes out (as a separate entity) from these elements, and (this separateness) is destroyed with them' (II. iv. 12; IV. v. 13). Therefore it is but proper to speak of the organ of speech etc. as being the agents of meditation and work and receiving their fruits. 'All right, so be it,' said the organ of speech, when requested by the gods, and chanted for them, for the sake of the gods who wanted it done. What was the particular effect of the chanting done by the organ of speech for the sake of the gods? This is being stated:- It is the common good of all the organs that comes through the instrumentality of the organ of speech, on account of the activities of speaking etc., for this is the fruit shared by all of them. That it secured for the gods by chanting the three hymns called Pavamana (In the sacrifice called Jyotistoma twelve hymns are chanted by the Udgatr. The fruits of chanting the first three of these, called Pavamana, go to the sacrificer, and those of the rest to the chanting priest.). While the result produced by chanting the remaining nine, which, as we know from the scriptures (Then through the remaining hymns (the chanter) should secure eatable food for himself by chanting' (I. iii. 28)., accrues to the priest --- the fine or articulated speaking --- it utilised for itself. Perfect enunciation of syllables is the special function of the deity of speech; hence that is specified by the expression, 'fine speaking.' While the effect of speaking that helps the body and organs in general belongs to the sacrificer as his share. Now, finding a loophole in the attachment of the deity in utilising its power of fine speaking for itself, the Asuras knew --- what? --- that through this chanter the gods would surpass them, overcome the natural thoughts and actions by the light of those acquired through the scriptures, as represented by the chanter. Knowing this they charged it, the chanter, and struck, i.e. touched, it with evil, their own attachment. That evil which was injected into the vocal organ of Prajapati in his former incarnation, is visible even to-day. What is it? What we come across when one speaks improper things, or what is forbidden by the scriptures; it is that which prompts one to speak, even against one's wishes, what is inelegant, dreadful, false and so on. That it still persists in the vocal organ of people who have descended from Prajapati is inferred from this effect of improper speaking. This evil that is so inferred is the one that got into the vocal organ of Prajapati, for an effect conforms to its cause.
Max Müller
2. They said to speech (Vâk):- 'Do thou sing out for us (the udgîtha).' 'Yes,' said speech, and sang (the udgîtha). Whatever delight there is in speech, that she obtained for the Devas by singing (the three pavamânas); but that she pronounced well (in the other nine pavamânas), that was for herself. The Asuras knew:- 'Verily, through this singer they will overcome us.' They therefore rushed at the singer and pierced her with evil. That evil which consists in saying what is bad, that is that evil.
te viduranena vai na udgātrā'tyeṣyantīti . tamabhidrutya
pāpmanā'vidhyan sa yaḥ sa pāpmā yadevedamapratirūpaṃ jighrati sa eva
sa pāpmā .. 3..
Meaning:- Then they said to the nose 'Chant (the Udgitha) for us'. 'All right', said the nose and chanted for them. The common good that comes of the nose, it secured for the gods by chanting, while the fine smelling it utilised for itself. The Asuras knew that through this chanter the gods would surpass them. They charged it and struck it with evil. That evil is what we come across when one smells improper things.
Max Müller
3. Then they (the Devas) said to breath (scent):- 'Do thou sing out for us.' 'Yes,' said breath, and sang. Whatever delight there is in breath (smell), that he obtained for the Devas by singing; but that he smelled well, that was for himself. The Asuras knew:- 'Verily, through this singer they will overcome us.' They therefore rushed at the singer, and pierced him with evil. That evil which consists in smelling what is bad, that is that evil.
tadātmane . te viduranena vai na udgātrā'tyeṣyantīti . tamabhidrutya
pāpmanā'vidhyan sa yaḥ sa pāpmā yadevedamapratirūpaṃ paśyati sa eva
sa pāpmā .. 4..
Meaning:- Then they said to the eye 'Chant (the Udgitha) for us'. 'All right', said the eye and chanted for them. The common good that comes of the eye, it secured for the gods by chanting, while the fine seeing it utilised for itself. The Asuras knew that through this chanter the gods would surpass them. They charged it and struck it with evil. That evil is what we come across when one sees improper things.
Max Müller
4. Then they said to the eye:- 'Do thou sing out for us.' 'Yes,' said the eye, and sang. Whatever delight there is in the eye, that he obtained for the Devas by singing; but that he saw well, that was for himself The Asuras knew:- 'Verily, through this singer they will overcome us.' They therefore rushed at the singer, and pierced him with evil. That evil which consists in seeing what is bad, that is that evil.
tadātmane . te viduranena vai na udgātrā'tyeṣyantīti . tamabhidrutya
pāpmanā'vidhyan sa yaḥ sa pāpmā yadevedamapratirūpagͫ śṛṇoti sa
eva sa pāpmā .. 5..
Meaning:- Then they said to the ear 'Chant (the Udgitha) for us'. 'All right', said the ear and chanted for them. The common good that comes of the ear, it secured for the gods by chanting, while the fine hearing it utilised for itself. The Asuras knew that through this chanter the gods would surpass them. They charged it and struck it with evil. That evil is what we come across when one hears improper things.
Max Müller
5. Then they said to the ear:- 'Do thou sing out for us.' 'Yes,' said the ear, and sang. Whatever delight there is in the ear, that he obtained for the Devas by singing; but that he heard well, that was for himself. The Asuras knew:- 'Verily, through this singer they will overcome us.' They therefore rushed at the singer, and pierced him with evil. That evil which consists in hearing what is bad, that is that evil.
अथ ह मन ऊचुस्त्वं न उद्गायेति । तथेति । तेभ्यो मन उदगायद्
यो मनसि भोगस्तं देवेभ्य आगायद् यत्कल्याणꣳ सङ्कल्पयति
तदात्मने । ते विदुरनेन वै न उद्गात्राऽत्येष्यन्तीति । तमभिद्रुत्य
पाप्मनाऽविध्यन् स यः स पाप्मा यदेवेदमप्रतिरूपꣳ सङ्कल्पयति स
एव स पाप्मैवमु खल्वेता देवताः पाप्मभिरुपासृजन् पाप्मभिसुपासृजन्
एवमेनाः पाप्मनाऽविध्यन् ॥ ६॥
mantra 6[I.iii.6]
atha ha mana ūcustvaṃ na udgāyeti . tatheti . tebhyo mana udagāyad
yo manasi bhogastaṃ devebhya āgāyad yatkalyāṇagͫ saṅkalpayati
tadātmane . te viduranena vai na udgātrā'tyeṣyantīti . tamabhidrutya
pāpmanā'vidhyan sa yaḥ sa pāpmā yadevedamapratirūpagͫ saṅkalpayati sa
eva sa pāpmaivamu khalvetā devatāḥ pāpmabhirupāsṛjan pāpmabhisupāsṛjan
evamenāḥ pāpmanā'vidhyan .. 6..
Meaning:- Then they said to the mind 'Chant (the Udgitha) for us'. 'All right', said the mind and chanted for them. The common good that comes of the mind, it secured for the gods by chanting, while the fine thinking it utilised for itself. The Asuras knew that through this chanter the gods would surpass them. They charged it and struck it with evil. That evil is what we come across when one thinks improper things. Likewise they also touched these (other) deities with evil - struck them with evil.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Likewise they tried one by one the deities of the noses etc., thinking that they were each the deity referred to by the Mantra enjoined for repetition and were to be medicated upon, since they too chanted the Udgitha. And the gods came to this conclusion that the deities of the organ of speech and the rest, whom they tried one by one, were incapable of chanting the Udgitha, because they contracted evil from the Asuras owing to their attachment to utilising their power of doing fine performances for themselves. Hence none of them was the deity referred to by the Mantra, 'From evil lead me to good.' etc. (I. iii. 28), nor were they to be meditated upon, since they were impure and did not include the others. Likewise, just as in the case of the organ of speech etc., they also touched these (other) deities that have not been mentioned, the skin and the rest, with evil, that is to say, struck them with evil. The gods, even after approaching one by one the deities of speech etc., were helpless as regards transcending death.
Max Müller
6. Then they said to the mind:- 'Do thou sing out for us.' 'Yes,' said the mind, and sang. Whatever delight there is in the mind, that he obtained for the Devas by singing; but that he thought well, that was for himself. The Asuras knew:- 'Verily, through this singer they will overcome us.' They therefore rushed at the singer, and pierced him with evil. That evil which consists in thinking what is bad, that is that evil. Thus they overwhelmed these deities with evils, thus they pierced them with evil.
bhavatyātmanā parā'sya dviṣanbhrātṛvyo bhavati ya evaṃ veda .. 7..
Meaning:- Then they said to this vital force in the mouth, 'Chant (the Udgitha) for us'. 'All right', said the vital force and chanted for them. The Asuras knew that through this chanter the gods would surpass them. They charged it and wanted to strike it with evil. But as a clod of earth, striking against a rock, is shattered, so were they shattered, flung in all directions, and perished. Therefore the gods became (fire etc.), and the Asuras were crushed. He who knows thus becomes his true self, and his envious kinsman is crushed.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Then they said to this --- pointing it out --- vital force in the mouth, having its seat in the oral cavity, 'Chant (the Udgitha) for us.' 'All right,' said the vital force to the gods who sought its protection, and chanted, etc. All this has been explained. The Asuras wanted to strike it, the vital force in the mouth, which was free from taint, with evil, the taint of their own attachment. Having succeeded with the organ of speech etc., they, through the persistence of that habit, desired to contaminate it too, but perished, were routed. How? This is being illustrated:- As in life a clod of earth, striking against a rock, hurled at it with the intention of crushing it, is itself shattered or crushed to atoms, so were they shattered, flung in all directions, and perished. Because it so happened, therefore, owing to this destruction of the Asuras --- i.e. dissociation from the evils due to natural attachment, which checked the manifestation of their divinity --- by virtue of taking refuge in the vital force in the mouth, which is ever unattached, the gods, the organs that are under consideration, became --- what? --- their own divine selves, fire and so forth, to be mentioned later on. Formerly also they had been fire and so on, but with their knowledge covered by natural evil, they had identified themselves with the body alone. On the cessation of that evil they gave up their identification with the body; and the organ of speech and the rest realised their identity with fire and so on, as taught by the scriptures. And the Asuras, their enemies, were crushed. The sacrificer of a past age who is mentioned in the story, coming across this Vedic allegory, tested in the same order the deity of speech and the rest, discarded them as striken with the taint of attachment, identified himself with the taintless vital force in the mouth, and thereby giving up his limited identification with the body only, as represented by the organ of speech and the rest, identified himself with the body of Viraj, his present status of Prajapati, which as the scriptures say, represents the identification of the organ of speech etc. with fire and so on. Similarly the sacrificer of to-day, by the same procedure, becomes his true self, as Prajapati. And his envious kinsman, the evil that opposes his attainment of the status of Prajapati, is crushed. A kinsman is sometimes friendly, as, for instance, Bharata (The half-brother of Rama in the Ramayana.). But the evil due to attachment to sense-objects is an envious kinsman, for it hides one's real nature as the Self. Iit is crushed like the clod of earth by one's union with the vital force. Who gets this result? He who knows thus, i.e. like the ancient sacrificer realises his identity with the vital force described above. Having finished with the result (of meditation on the vital force) the Sruti resumes its allegorical form and goes on. Why should the vital force in the mouth be resorted to as one's self, to the exclusion of the organ of speech and the rest? To explain this by stating reasons, the Sruti points out through the story that it is because the vital force is the common self of the organ of speech etc. as well as of the body.
Max Müller
7. Then they said to the breath in the mouth [1]:- 'Do thou sing for us.' 'Yes,' said the breath, and sang. The Asuras knew:- 'Verily, through this singer they will overcome us.' They therefore rushed at him and pierced him with evil. Now as a ball of earth will be scattered when hitting a stone, thus they perished, scattered in all directions. Hence the Devas rose, the Asuras fell. He who knows this, rises by his self, and the enemy who hates him falls.
ते होचुः क्व नु सोऽभूद् यो न इत्थमसक्तेत्ययमास्येऽन्तरिति सोऽयास्य
आङ्गिरसोऽङ्गानाꣳ हि रसः ॥ ८॥
mantra 8[I.iii.8]
te hocuḥ kva nu so'bhūd yo na itthamasaktetyayamāsye'ntariti so'yāsya
āṅgiraso'ṅgānāgͫ hi rasaḥ .. 8..
Meaning:- They said, 'Where was he who has thus restored us (to our divinity)?' (and discovered):- 'Here he is within the mouth'. The vital force is called Ayasya Angirasa, for it is the essence of the members (of the body).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- They, the organs of Prajapati, which were restored to their divinity by the vital force in the mouth, and thus attained their goal, said, 'Where was he who has thus restored us to our divinity?' The particle 'nu' indicates deliberation. People who have been helped by somebody generally remember their benefactor. The organs likewise remembered, and thinking on who it might be, realised the vital force within themselves, in the aggregate of body and organs. How? 'Here he is within the mouth, is visibly present within the ether that is in the mouth.' People decide after deliberation; so did the gods. Since the vital force was perceived by them as being present in the internal ether without assuming any particular form like that of the organ of speech etc., therefore the vital force is called Ayasya. And since it did not assume any particular form, it restored the organ of speech etc. to their real status. Hence it is Angirasa, the self of the body and organs. How? For it is, as is well known, the essence, i.e. the self, of the members, i.e. of the body and organs. And how is it the essence of the members? Because, as we shall say later on, without it they dry up. Since, being the self of the members and not assuming any particular form, the vital force is the common self of the body and organs and pure, therefore it alone, to the exclusion of the organ of speech etc., should be resorted to as ones' self --- this is the import of the passage. For the Self alone should be realised as one's self, since correct notions lead to well-being, and erroneous notions, as we find, lead to evil.
Max Müller
8. Then they (the Devas) said:- 'Where was he then who thus stuck to us [1]?' It was (the breath) within the mouth (âsye 'ntar [2]), and therefore called Ayâsya; he was the sap (rasa) of the limbs (aṅga), and therefore called Âṅgirasa.
सा वा एषा देवता दूर्नाम दूरꣳ ह्यस्या मृत्युर्दूरꣳ ह वा
अस्मान्मृत्युर्भवति य एवं वेद ॥ ९॥
mantra 9[I.iii.9]
sā vā eṣā devatā dūrnāma dūragͫ hyasyā mṛtyurdūragͫ ha vā
asmānmṛtyurbhavati ya evaṃ veda .. 9..
Meaning:- This deity is called Dur, because death is far from it. Death is far from one who knows thus.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Objection:- One may think that the purity of the vial force is not a proved fact. Reply:- Has this not been refuted by the statement that the vital force is free from the attachment that the organ of speech and the rest betray by utilising their power of fine speaking etc. for themselves?
Objection:- True, but since as Angirasa it is spoken of as the self of the organ of speech etc., it may be impure through contact with the latter, just as one touched by another who has touched a corpse is impure. Reply:- No, the vital force is pure. Why? Because this deity is called Dur. 'This' refers to the vital force, reaching which the Asuras were shattered like a clod of earth hitting a rock. It is the deity within the present sacrificer's body whom the gods concluded as their saviour saying, 'Here he is within the mouth.' And the vital force may well be called a deity, being a part (Just as a god is a part of a sacrifice distinct form the offerings etc. A sacrifice consists of the offerings and deities.) of the act of meditation as its object. Because the vital force is called Dur, i.e. is well known as Dur --- to be 'called' is synonymous with being 'celebrated as' --- therefore its purity is well known, from this name of Dur. Why is is called Dur? Because Death, the evil of attachment, is far from it, this deity, vital force. Death, although it is close to the vital force, is away from it, because the latter is ever unattached. Therefore the vital force is well-known as Dur. Thus its purity is conspicuous. The results accruing to a knower of this are being stated:- Death is far from one who knows thus, that is, who meditates upon the vital force endowed with purity, which is the topic of the section. Meditation is mentally approaching the form of the deity or the like as it is presented by the eulogistic portions of the Vedas relating to the objects of meditation, and concentrating on it, excluding conventional notions, till one is as completely identified with it as with one's body, conventionally regarded as one's self. Compare such Sruti passages as, 'Being a god, he attains the gods' (IV. i. 2), and 'What deity are you identified with in the east?' (III. ix. 20). It has been stated, 'This deity is called Dur ' Death is far from one who knows thus.' How is death far from one who knows thus? Being incongruous with this knowledge. In other words, the evil due to the attachment of the organs to contact with the sense-objects is incongruous with one who identifies oneself with the vital force, for it is caused by the identification with particular things such as the organ of speech, and by one's natural igorance; while the identification with the vital force comes of obedience to the scriptures. Hence, owing to this incongruity, it is but proper that the evil should be far from one who knows thus. This is being pointed out:-
Max Müller
9. That deity was called Dûr, because Death was far (dûran) from it. From him who knows this, Death is far off.
Meaning:- This deity took away death, the evil of these gods, and carried it to where these quarters end. There it left their evils. Therefore one should not approach a person (of that region), nor go to that region beyond the border, lest one imbibe that evil, death.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- This deity --- already explained ---- took away death, the evil of these gods such as the god of speech, identified with the vital force. Everybody dies because of the evil due to the attachment of the organs to contact with the sense-objects, prompted by is natural ignorance. Hence this evil is death. The vital force is here spoken of as taking it away from the gods, simply because they identified themselves with the vital force. As a matter of fact, evil keeps away from this knower just because it is out of place there. What did the vital force do after taking away death, the evil of the gods? It carried it to where these quarters, east and so forth, end. One may question how this was done, since the quarters have no end. The answer is that it is all right, for the quarters are here conceived as being that stretch of territory which is inhabited by people possessing Vedic knowledge; hence 'the end of the quarters' means the country inhabited by people who hold opposite views, as a forest is spoken of as the end of the country (That is, inhabited country.). Carrying them there it, the deity vital force, left their evils, the evils of these gods. --- The word 'Papmanah' is accusative plural. --- 'Left,' lit. placed in various humiliating ways, and, as is understood from the sense of the passage, among the inhabitants of that region beyond the border who do not identify themselves with the vital force. That evil is due to the contact of the senses (with their objects); hence it must reside in some living being. Therefore one should not approach, i.e. associate with by addressing or seeing, a person of the region beyond the border. Association with him would involve contact with evil, for it dwells in him. Nor go to that region beyond the border, where such people live, called 'the end of the quarters,' although it may be deserted; and the implication is, nor to any man out of that land. Lest one imbibe that evil, death, by coming into contact with such people. Out of this fear one should neither approach these people nor go to that region. 'Net' (less) is a particle denoting apprehension.
Max Müller
10. That deity, after having taken away the evil of those deities, viz. death, sent it to where the end of the quarters of the earth is. There he deposited their sins. Therefore let no one go to a man, let no one go to the end (of the quarters of the earth [1]), that he may not meet there with evil, with death.
Meaning:- This deity after taking away death, the evil of these gods, next carried them beyond death.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Now the result of this act of meditation on the vital force as one's own self, viz the identification of the organ of speech etc. with fire and so on, is being stated. This deity next carried them beyond death. Because death, or the evil that limits one to the body, is removed by the identification with the vital force, therefore the latter is the destroyer of the evil of death. Hence that vital force carried these gods, that of speech and the rest, beyond death, the evil which is being discussed, and made them realise their respective unlimited divine forms as fire and so on.
Max Müller
11. That deity, after having taken away the evil of those deities, viz. death, carried them beyond death.
Meaning:- It carried the organ of speech, the foremost one, first. When the organ of speech got rid of death, it became fire. That fire, having transcended death, shines beyond its reach.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- It, the vital force, carried the organ of speech, the foremost one, first. Its importance consists in being a better instrument in the chanting of the Udgitha than the other organs. What was its from after it was carried beyond death? When the organ of speech got rid of death, it became fire. Formerly also it was fire, and being dissociated from death it became fire itself, with only this difference:- That fire, having transcended death, shines beyond its reach. Before its deliverance it was hampered by death and, as the organ of speech pertaining to the body, was not luminous as now; but now, being freed from death, it shines beyond its reach.
Max Müller
12. He carried speech across first. When speech had become freed from death, it became (what it had been before) Agni (fire). That Agni, after having stepped beyond death, shines.
अथ प्राणमत्यवहत् स यदा मृत्युमत्यमुच्यत स वायुरभवत् सोऽयं
वायुः परेण मृत्युमतिक्रान्तः पवते ॥ १३॥
mantra 13[I.iii.13]
atha prāṇamatyavahat sa yadā mṛtyumatyamucyata sa vāyurabhavat so'yaṃ
vāyuḥ pareṇa mṛtyumatikrāntaḥ pavate .. 13..
Meaning:- Then it carried the nose. When it got rid of death, it became air. That air, having transcended death, blows beyond its reach.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Similarly the nose became air. It, having transcended death, blows beond its reach. The rest has been explained.
Max Müller
13. Then he carried breath (scent) across. When breath had become freed from death, it became Vâyu (air). That Vâyu, after having stepped beyond death, blows.
Meaning:- Then it carried the eye. When the eye got rid of death, it became sun. That sun, having transcended death, shines beyond its reach.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Likewise the eye became the sun. He shines.
Max Müller
14. Then he carried the eye across. When the eye had become freed from death, it became Âditya (the sun). That Âditya, after having stepped beyond death, burns.
Meaning:- Then it carried the ear When the ear got rid of death, it became the quarters. Those quarters, having transcended death, remain beyond its reach.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Similarly the ear became the quarters. The quarters remain, divided into the east and so forth.
Max Müller
15. Then he carried the ear across. When the ear had become freed from death, it became the quarters (space). These are our quarters (space), which have stepped beyond death.
अथ मनोऽत्यवहत् तद्यदा मृत्युमत्यमुच्यत स चन्द्रमा अभवत्
सोऽसौ चन्द्रः परेण मृत्युमतिक्रान्तो भात्येवꣳ ह वा एनमेषा
देवता मृत्युमतिवहति य एवं वेद ॥ १६॥
mantra 16[I.iii.16]
atha mano'tyavahat tadyadā mṛtyumatyamucyata sa candramā abhavat
so'sau candraḥ pareṇa mṛtyumatikrānto bhātyevagͫ ha vā enameṣā
devatā mṛtyumativahati ya evaṃ veda .. 16..
Meaning:- Then it carried the mind. When the mind got rid of death, it became the moon. That moon, having transcended death, shines beyond its reach. So does this deity carry one who knows thus beyond death.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- The mind became the moon and shines. As the vital force carried the ancient sacrificer beyond death by transforming the organ of speech etc. into fire and so on, so does this deity carry one, the sacrificer of to-day, who knows thus the vital force as including the five organs, that of speech etc. For the Sruti says, 'One becomes exactly as one meditates upon Him' (S. X. v. 2. 20).
Max Müller
16. Then he carried the mind across. When the mind had become freed from death, it became the moon (Kandramas). That moon, after having stepped beyond death, shines. Thus does that deity carry him, who knows this, across death.
Meaning:- Next it secured eatable food for itself by chanting, for whatever food is eaten, is eaten by the vital force alone, and it rests on that.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- As the organ of speech and the rest had chanted for their own sake, so the vital force in the mouth, after securing, by chanting the three hymns called Pavamana, the result to be shared by all the organs, viz identity with Viraj, next secured eatable food for itself by chanting the remaining nine hymns. We have already said that according to the Vedas the priests get the results of a sacrifice (This although they officiate in the sacrifice on behalf of the sacrificer. The latter afterwards purchases them on payment of a fee to the priests.). How do we know that the vital force secured that eatable food for itself by chanting? The reason is being stated:- For whatever food --- food in general is meant --- is eaten by creatures in the world is eaten by the vital force (Ana) alone. The particle 'hi' (for) denotes a reason. 'Ana' is a well-known name of the vital force. There is another word 'Anas' (The nominative singular of both is 'Anah.' Hence the explanation. It should be noted that the word 'Anena' is also the instumental singular of the pronoun 'Idam' (this or it).) ending in s, which means a cart, but this world ends in a vowel and is a synonym of the vital force. Besides, the vital force not only eats the eatable food, it also rests on that food, when it has been transformed into the body. Therefore the vital force secured the eatable food for itself by chanting, in order that it might live in the body. Although the vital force eats food, yet, because it is only in order that it might live in the body, there is no question of its contracting the evil due to attachment to fine performance, as was the case with the organ of speech and the rest.
Max Müller
17. Then breath (vital), by singing, obtained for himself eatable food. For whatever food is eaten, is eaten by breath alone, and in it breath rests [1]. The Devas said:- 'Verily, thus far, whatever food there is, thou hast by singing acquired it for thyself. Now therefore give us a share in that food.' He said:- 'You there, enter into me.' They said Yes, and entered all into him. Therefore whatever food is eaten by breath, by it the other senses are satisfied.
tenaitāstṛpyantyevagͫ ha vā enagͫ svā abhisaṃviśanti bhartā
svānāgͫ śreṣṭhaḥ pura etā bhavatyannādo'dhipatirya evaṃ veda .
ya u haivaṃvidagͫ sveṣu pratipratirbubhūṣati na haivālaṃ bhāryebhyo
bhavatyatha ya evaitamanubhavati yo vaitamanu bhāryān bubhūrṣati sa
haivālaṃ bhāryebhyo bhavati .. 18..
Meaning:- The gods said, 'Whatever food there is, is just this much, and you have secured it for yourself by chanting. Now let us have a share in this food.' 'Then sit around facing me', (said the vital force). 'All right', (said the gods and) sat down around it. Hence whatever food one eats through the vital force satisfies these. So do his relatives sit around facing him who knows thus, and he becomes their support, the greatest among them and their leader, a good eater of food and the ruler of them. That one among his relatives who desires to rival a man of such knowledge is powerless to support his dependants. But one who follows him, or desires to maintain one's dependants being under him, is alone capable of supporting them.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Is it wrong to assert that all food 'is eaten by the vital force alone,' since the organ of speech and the rest are also benefited by the food? The answer is:- No, for that benefit comes through the vital force. How the benefit done to the organ of speech etc. by the food comes through the vital force, is being explained:- The gods, the organ of speech etc., called gods because they bring their respective objects to light, said to the vital force in the mouth, 'Whatever food there is, is eaten in the world to sustain life, is just this much, and no more. ---- The particle 'vai' recalls what is well known. --- And you have secured it all for yourself by chanting, i.e. have appropriated it through chanting for your own use; and we cannot live without food. Therefore now let us have a share in this food that is for yourself.' ---- The absence of the causative suffix in the verb is a Vedic licence. --- The meaning is, make us also sharers of the food. The other said, 'Then, if you want food sit around facing me.' When the vital force said this, the gods said, 'All right,' and sat down around it, i.e. encircling the vital force. As they sit thus at the command of the vital force, the food eaten by it, while sustaining life, also satisifies them. The organ of speech and the rest have no independent relation to food. Therefore the assertion that all food 'is eaten by the vital force alone' is quite correct. This is what the text says:- Hence, because the gods, the organ of speech etc., at the command of the vital force, sat around facing it, being under its protection, therefore whatever food one eats through the vital force satisfies these, the organ of speech etc. So, as the organ of speech and the rest did with the vital force, do his relatives also sit around facing him who knows thus, knows the vital force as support of the organ of speech etc. --- knows that the five organs such as that of speech rest on the vital force; that is, he becomes the refuge of his relatives. And with his food he becomes the support of his relatives who sit around facing him, as the vital force was of the organ of speech etc. Also, the greatest among them and their leader, as the vital force was of the organs. Further, a good eater of food, i.e. free from disease, and the ruler of them, an absolute protector, or independent master, just as the vital force was of the organs of speech etc. All this result comes to one who knows the vital force in the above way. Moreover that one among his relatives who desires to rival a man of such knowledge, i.e. the knower of the vital force, is powerless to support his dependants, like the Asuras who had rivalry with the vital force. But, among his relatives, one who follows him, this knower of the vital force, as the organ of speech and the rest did the vital force, or who desires to maintain one's dependants being under him, just as the organs desired to support themselves by following the vital force, is alone capable of supporting them, and none else who is independent. All this is described as the result of knowing the attributes of the vital force. In order to demonstrate that the vital force is the self of the body and organs, it has been introduced as Angirasa, 'It is Ayasya Angirasa' (par. "8"). But it has not been specifically stated why it is called Angirasa. The following paragraph is introduced to furnish that reason. If that reason is valid, then only will the vital force be admitted to be the self of the body and organs. It has next been stated that the organ of speech and the rest depend on the vital force. To show how that can be proved the text says:-
Max Müller
18. If a man knows this, then his own relations come to him in the same manner; he becomes their supporter, their chief leader, their strong ruler [1]. And if ever anyone tries to oppose [2] one who is possessed of such knowledge among his own relatives, then he will not be able to support his own belongings. But he who follows the man who is possessed of such knowledge, and who with his permission wishes to support those whom he has to support, he indeed will be able to support his own belongings.
सोऽयास्य आङ्गिरसोऽङ्गानाꣳ हि रसः । प्राणो वा अङ्गानाꣳ रसः ।
प्राणो हि वा अङ्गानाꣳ रसस्तस्माद्यस्मात्कस्माच्चाङ्गात्प्राण उत्क्रामति
तदेव तच्छुष्यत्येष हि वा अङ्गानाꣳ रसः ॥ १९॥
mantra 19[I.iii.19]
so'yāsya āṅgiraso'ṅgānāgͫ hi rasaḥ . prāṇo vā aṅgānāgͫ rasaḥ .
prāṇo hi vā aṅgānāgͫ rasastasmādyasmātkasmāccāṅgātprāṇa utkrāmati
tadeva tacchuṣyatyeṣa hi vā aṅgānāgͫ rasaḥ .. 19..
Meaning:- It is called Ayasya Angirasa, for it is the essence of the members (of the body). The vital force is indeed the essence of the members. Of course it is their essence. (For instance), from whichever member the vital force departs, right there it withers. Therefore this is of course the essence of the members.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- It is called Ayasya Angirasa, etc. --- This is repeated here as it is (from paragraph "8") for the sake of the answer. The passage ending with, 'The vital force is indeed the essence of the members,' reminds us of what has already been explained. How? The vital force is indeed the essence of the members. Of course it is their essence. The particcle 'hi' denotes a well-known fact. Everybody knows that the vital force, and not the organ of speech etc., is the essence of the members. Therefore it is right to remind us of this fact with the words, 'The vital force is indeed.' How is it well known? From whichever member --- any part of the body without distinction is meant --- the vital force departs, right there it, that member, withers or dries up. The word 'therefore,' signifying conclusion, is construed with the last sentence. Therefore this is of course the essence of the members, is the conclusion. Hence it is proved that the vital force is the self of the body and organs. Because when the self departs, withering or death (of the body) takes place. Hence all creatures live through that. Therefore, leaving out the organ of speech and the rest, the vital force alone should be meditated upon. This is the sense of the whole passage. The vital force is the self not only of the body and organs, which represent form and action respectively, but also of the Vedas, Rc. Yajus and Saman, which consist of name. Thus the Sruti magnifies the vital force, extolling it as the self of all, to show that it is a fit object of meditation.
Max Müller
19. He was called Ayâsya Âṅgirasa, for he is the sap (rasa) of the limbs (aṅga). Verily, breath is the sap of the limbs. Yes, breath is the sap of the limbs. Therefore from whatever limb breath goes away, that limb withers, for breath verily is the sap of the limbs.
eṣa u eva bṛhaspatirvāgvai bṛhatī tasyā eṣa patistasmādu
bṛhaspatiḥ .. 20..
Meaning:- This alone is also Brihaspati (lord of the Rik). Speech is indeed Brihati (Rik) and this is its lord. Therefore this is also Brihaspati.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- This alone, the vital force in question called Angirasa, is also Brhaspati. How? Speech is indeed Brhati, the metre with thirty-six syllables. The metre Anustubh is speech. How? For the Sruti says, 'Speech is indeed Anustubh' (Tai. S. V. i. 3. 5). And this speech called Anustubh is included in the metre Brhati. Hence it is right to say, 'Speech is indeed Brhati,' as a well-known fact. And in Brhati all Rces are included, for it is extolled as the vital force. For another Sruti says, 'Brhati is the vital force.' (Ai. A. II. i. 6); 'One should know the Rces as the vital force' (Ibid. II. ii. 2). The Rces are included in the vital force, as they consist of speech. How this is so is being explained:- And this vital force is its lord, the lord of speech, i.e. of the Rces in the form of Brhati. For it gives rise to speech, since the Rces are recited through the air which is propelled by the fire in the stomach. Or the vital force may be the lord of speech, being its protector, for speech is protected by the vital force, since a dead man has no power to utter words. Therefore this is also Brhaspati, i.e. the vital force is the self of the Rces.
Max Müller
20. He (breath) is also Brihaspati, for speech is Brihatî (Rig-veda), and he is her lord; therefore he is Brihaspati.
eṣa u eva brahmaṇaspatirvāgvai brahma tasyā eṣa patistasmādu
brahmaṇaspatiḥ .. 21..
Meaning:- This alone is also Brahmanaspati (lord of the Yajus). Speech is indeed Brahman (yajus), and this is its lord. Therefore this is also Brahmanaspati.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Similarly the self of the Yajuses. How? This alone is also Brahmanaspati. Speech is Brahman or Yajus, which is a kind of speech. And this is its lord, the lord of that Yajus. Therefore this is indeed Brahmanaspati, as before. How is it known that the words 'Brhati' and 'Brahman' mean the Rc and the Yajus respectively, and nothing else? Because at the end (of the topic, in the next paragraph) the word 'speech' is used as co-ordinate with 'Saman,' 'Speech is indeed Saman.' Similarly in the sentences, 'Speech is indeed Brhati' and 'Speech is indeed Brahman,' the words 'Brhati,' and 'Brahman,' which are co-ordinate with 'speech', ought to mean the Rc and the Yajus respectively. On the principle of the residuum also this is correct. When the Saman is mentioned, the Rc and the Yajus alone remain. Another reason is that they are both forms of speech. The Rc and the Yajus are particular kinds of speech. Hence they can well be co-ordinated with speech. Moreover, unless they are taken in that sense, there will be no difference between the two terms of each sentence. (In the next two paragraphs) 'Saman' and 'Udgitha' clearly denote specific objects. Similarly the words 'Brhati' and 'Brahman' ought to denote specific objects. Otherwise, not conveying any specific object, they would be useless, and if that specific object be mere speech, both sentences would be tautological. And lastly, the words Rc, Yajus, Saman and Udgitha occur in the Vedas in the order here indicated.
Max Müller
21. He (breath) is also Brahmanaspati, for speech is Brahman (Yagur-veda), and he is her lord; therefore he is Brahmanaspati. He (breath) is also Sâman (the Udgîtha), for speech is Sâman (Sama-veda), and that is both speech (sâ) and breath (ama) [1]. This is why Sâman is called Sâman.
Meaning:- This alone is also Saman. Speech is indeed Sa, and this is Ama. Because it is Sa (speech) and Ama (vital force), therefore Saman is so called. Or because it is equal to a white ant, equal to a mosquito, equal to an elephant, equal to these three worlds, equal to this universe, therefore this is also Saman. He who knows this saman (vital force) to be such attains union with it, or lives in the same world as it.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- This alone is also Saman. How? This is being explained:- Speech is indeed Sa, whatever is denoted by feminine words is speech, for the pronoun Sa (she) refers to all objects denoted by them. Similarly this vital force is Ama. The word 'Ama' refers to all objects denoted by masculine words. For another Sruti says, 'How do you get my masucline names? He should reply:- Through the vital force. And how my feminine names? Through speech' (Kau. 1. 7). So this word 'Saman' denotes speech and the vital force. Again, the word 'Saman' denotes a chant consisting only of a combination of tones etc. that are produced by the vital force. Hence there is nothing called Saman except the vital force and speech, for the tone, syllables, etc. are produced by the vital force and depend on it. 'This' vital force 'alone is also Saman,' because what is generally known as Saman is a combination of speech and the vital force, Sa and Ama. Therefore Saman, the chant consisting of a combination of tones etc., is so called, well known in the world. Or because it is equal in all those respects to be presently mentioned, therefore this is also Saman. This is the construction. The word 'or' is gathered on the strength of the alternative reason indicated for the derivation of the word 'Saman'. In what respects is the vital force equal? This is being answered:- Equal to the body of a white ant, equal to the body of a mosquito, equal to the body of an elephant, equal to these three worlds, i.e. the body of Viraj, equal to this universe, i.e. the form of Hiranyagarbha. The vital force is equal to all these bodies such as that of the white ant in the sense that it is present in its entirely in them, as the essential characteristics of a cow (Gotva) are present in each individual cow. It cannot be merely of the size of these bodies, for it is formless and all-pervading. Nor does the equality mean just filling up those bodies by contraction or expansion like lamp-light in a jar, a mansion, etc. For the Sruti says, 'These are all equal, and all infinite' (I. v. 13). And there is nothing inconsistent in an all-pervading principle assuming in different bodies their particular size. He who knows this Saman, i.e. the vital force called Saman because of its equality, whose glories are revealed by the Vedas, to be such, gets this result:- attains union with it, identification with the same body and organs as the vital force, or lives in the same world as it, according to the difference in meditation. This is meant to be the result of meditation continued till identity with the vital force is established.
Max Müller
22. Or because he is equal (sama) to a grub, equal to a gnat, equal to an elephant, equal to these three worlds, nay, equal to this universe, therefore he is Sâman. He who thus knows this Sâman, obtains union and oneness with Sâman.
एष उ वा उद्गीथः । प्राणो वा उत् प्राणेन हीदꣳ सर्वमुत्तब्धम् ।
वागेव गीथोच्च गीथा चेति स उद्गीथः ॥ २३॥
mantra 23[I.iii.23]
eṣa u vā udgīthaḥ . prāṇo vā ut prāṇena hīdagͫ sarvamuttabdham .
vāgeva gīthocca gīthā ceti sa udgīthaḥ .. 23..
Meaning:- This indeed is also Udgitha. The vital force is indeed Ut, for all this is held aloft by the vital force, and speech alone is Githa. This is Udgitha, because it is Ut and Githa.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- This indeed is also Udgitha. The Udgitha is a particular division of the Saman, not chanting, for the topic under discussion is Saman. How is the vital force Udgitha? The vital force is indeed Ut, for all this universe is held aloft or supported by the vital force. This prefix 'ut', meaning holding aloft, denotes a characteristic of the vital force. Therefore the vital force is Ut. Speech alone is Githa, for the division of Saman called Udgitha is a variety of sound. 'Githa,' coming from the root 'gai,' denoting sound, is nothing but speech. The Udgitha cannot be conceived of as having any other form but sound. Hence it is right to assert that speech is Githa. The vital force is Ut, and Githa is speech dependent on the vital force; hence the two together are denoted by one word:- This is Udgitha.
Max Müller
23. He (breath) is Udgîtha [1]. Breath verily is Ut, for by breath this universe is upheld (uttabdha); and speech is Gîthâ, song. And because he is ut and gîthâ, therefore he (breath) is Udgîtha.
Meaning:- Regarding this (there is) also (a story):- Brahmadatta, the great-grandson of Cikitana, while drinking Soma, said, 'Let this Soma strike off my head if I say that Ayasya Angirasa chanted the Udgitha through any other than this (vital force and speech).' Indeed he chanted through speech and the vital force.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Regarding this subject described above a story is also narrated in the Sruti. Brahmadatta, the great-grandson (Whose great-grandfather (i.e. Cikitana) at least was living. This is implied by the suffix. See Panini IV. i. 163.) of Cikitana, while drinking Soma in a sacrifice, said, 'Let this Soma in the bowl that I am drinking strike off my head for being a liar, i.e. if I have told a lie.' --- The suffix of the verb is a substitute for an imperative suffix and expresses a wish (Panini VII. i. 35.). --- How can he become a liar? This is being explained:- 'If I say that Ayasya Angirasa chanted the Udgitha through any other deity than this vital force combined with speech, which is being discussed.' The term 'Ayasa Angirasa,' denoting the vital force in the mouth, refers to the priest who chanted in the sacrifice of the ancient sages who projected this world. 'If I say like this, I shall be a liar, and for entertaining this false notion let that deity strike of my head.' The mention of his taking this oath shows that one must have a firm conviction of this knowledge (That the vital force is the deity of the Udgitha.). This purport of the story the Sruti concludes in its own words:- He, that chanter, called here Ayasya Angirasa, chanted through speech, which is subordinate to the vital force, and the vital force, which is his own self, meaning this is the significance of the oath.
Max Müller
24. And thus Brahmadatta Kaikitâneya (the grandson of Kikitâna), while taking Soma (râgan), said:- 'May this Soma strike my head off, if Ayâsya Âṅgirasa sang another Udgîtha than this. He sang it indeed as speech and breath.'
Meaning:- He who knows the wealth of this Saman (vital force) attains wealth. Tone is indeed its wealth. Therefore one who is going to officiate as a priest should desire to have a rich tone in his voice, and he should do his priestly duties through that voice with a fine tone. Therefore in a sacrifice people long to see a priest with a good voice, like one who has wealth. He who knows the wealth of saman to be such attains wealth.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- He who knows the wealth of this Saman, the vital force under consideration, denoted by the word 'Saman,' which is here pointed out as being the one in the mouth --- what happens to him? --- he attains wealth. Having drawn his attention by tempting him with (a mention of) the result, the scripture tells the listener:- Tone is indeed its wealth. 'Tone' is sweetness of the voice; that is its wealth or ornament. For chanting, when attended with a good tone, appears as magnificent. Because this is so, therefore one who is going to officiate as a priest, i.e. a chanter, should desire to have a rich tone in his voice, in order to enrich the Saman with that tone. This is an incidental injunction; for if the vital force (identified with the chanter) is to be realised as having a good tone through the fact of Saman possessing it, a mere wish will not effect this, and therefore, it is implied, appropriate means such as cleaning the teeth and sipping oil should be adopted. And he should do his priestly duties through that cultured voice with a fine tone. Because tone is the wealth of Saman and the later is embellished by it, therefore in a sacrifice people long to see a priest with a good voice, as they do a rich man. It is a well-known fact that people want to see one who has wealth. The result, already declared, of the meditation on this characteristic of the vital force is repeated as a conclusion:- He who knows the wealth of Saman to be such attains wealth.
Max Müller
25. He who knows what is the property of this Sâman, obtains property. Now verily its property is tone only. Therefore let a priest, who is going to perform the sacrificial work of a Sama-singer, desire that his voice may have a good tone, and let him perform the sacrifice with a voice that is in good tone. Therefore people (who want a priest) for a sacrifice, look out for one who possesses a good voice, as for one who possesses property. He who thus knows what is the property of that Sâman, obtains property.
स्वर एव सुवर्णम् । भवति हास्य सुवर्णं य एवमेतत्साम्नः सुवर्णं
वेद ॥ २६॥
mantra 26[I.iii.26]
tasya haitasya sāmno yaḥ suvarṇaṃ veda bhavati hāsya suvarṇam . tasya vai
svara eva suvarṇam . bhavati hāsya suvarṇaṃ ya evametatsāmnaḥ suvarṇaṃ
veda .. 26..
Meaning:- He who knows the gold of this Saman (vital force) obtains gold. Tone is indeed its gold. He who knows the gold of Saman to be such obtains gold.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Now meditation on another attributte, viz possessing gold, is being enjoined. That too is having a good tone, but there is this difference:- The previous one was sweetness of the vocie; whereas this, denoted by the word 'Suvarna,' is correct articulation according to the laws of phonetics. He who knows the gold of this Saman obtains gold, for the word 'Suvarna' means both correct sound and gold. That is to say, the result of meditating upon this attribute is the obtaining of gold, which is the common meaning of the word 'Suvarna'. Tone is indeed its gold. He who knows the gold of Saman to be such obtains gold. All this has been explained.
Max Müller
26. He who knows what is the gold of that Sâman, obtains gold. Now verily its gold. is tone only. He who thus knows what is the gold of that Sâman, obtains gold.
वै वागेव प्रतिष्ठा वाचि हि खल्वेष एतत्प्राणः प्रतिष्ठितो गीयते
ऽन्न इत्यु हैक आहुः ॥ २७॥
mantra 27[I.iii.27]
tasya haitasya sāmno yaḥ pratiṣṭhāṃ veda prati ha tiṣṭhati . tasya
vai vāgeva pratiṣṭhā vāci hi khalveṣa etatprāṇaḥ pratiṣṭhito gīyate
'nna ityu haika āhuḥ .. 27..
Meaning:- He who knows the support of this Saman (vital force) gets a resting place. Speech (certain parts of the body) is indeed its support. For resting on speech is the vital force thus chanted. Some say, resting on food (body).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Similarly, in order to enjoin meditation on another feature of the vital force, viz its support, the text says:- He who knows the support of this Saman, i.e. speech on which the Saman rests, gets a resting place. The result is aptly in accordance with the meditation, for the Sruti says, '(One becomes) exactly as one meditates upon Him' (S. X. v. 2. 20). As before, when one has been tempted by a mention of the result and wants to hear what that support is, the scripture says:- Speech is indeed the support of the Saman. 'Speech' here means the different parts of the body such as the root of the tongue; those are the support. This is explained by the text:- For resting on speech, i.e. the root of the tongue and other places, is the vital force thus chanted, assumes the form of a chant. Therefore speech is the support of the Saman. Some say, it is chanted resting on food. It is but proper to say that the vital force rests on this. since this latter view is also unexceptionable, one should meditate at his option either speech or food as the support of the vital force.
Max Müller
27. He who knows what is the support of that Sâman, he is supported. Now verily its support is speech only. For, as supported in speech, that breath is sung as that Sâman. Some say the support is in food. Next follows the Abhyâroha [1] (the ascension) of the Pavamâna verses. Verily the Prastotri begins to sing the Sâman, and when he begins, then let him (the sacrificer) recite these (three Yagus-verses):- 'Lead me from the unreal to the real! Lead me from darkness to light! Lead me from death to immortality!' Now when he says, 'Lead me from the unreal to the real,' the unreal is verily death, the real immortality. He therefore says, 'Lead me from death to immortality, make me immortal.' When he says, 'Lead me from darkness to light,' darkness is verily death, light immortality. He therefore says, 'Lead me from death to immortality, make me immortal.' When he says, 'Lead me from death to immortality,' there is nothing there, as it were, hidden (obscure, requiring explanation) [2].
kāmaṃ kāmayeta tagͫ . sa eṣa evaṃvidudgātā''tmane vā yajamānāya vā
yaṃ kāmaṃ kāmayate tamāgāyati . taddhaitallokajideva na haivālokyatāyā
āśāsti ya evametatsāma veda .. 28..
iti tṛtīyaṃ brāhmaṇam ..
atha caturthaṃ brāhmaṇam .
Meaning:- Now therefore the edifying repetition (Adhyaroha) only of the hymns called Pavamanas. The priest called Prastotir indeed recites the Saman. While he recites it, these Mantras are to be repeated:- From evil lead me to good. From darkness lead me to light. From death lead me to immortality. When the Mantra says, 'From evil lead me to good', 'evil' means death, and 'good' immortality; so it says, 'From death lead me to immortality, i.e. make me immortal'. When it says, 'From darkness lead me to light', 'darkness' means death, and 'light', immortality; so it says, 'From death lead me to immortality, or make me immortal'. In the dictum, 'From death lead me to immortality', the meaning does not seem to be hidden. Then through the remaining hymns (the chanter) should secure eatable food for himself by chanting. Therefore, while they are being chanted, the sacrificer should ask for a boon - anything that he desires. Whatever objects this chanter possessed of such knowledge desires, either for himself or for the sacrificer, he secures them by chanting. This (meditation) certainly wins the world (Hiranyagarbha). He who knows the Saman (vital force) as such has not to pray lest he be unfit for this world.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- A repetition of Mantras is being prescribed for one who knows the vital forces as such. The meditation by knowing which one is entitled to this repetition of Mantras has been mentioned. Now, because this repetition of Mantras by one possessed of such knowledge produces the result of elevation of divinity, therefore it is being described here. This repetition, beign connected with chanting, may be thought applicable to every chant; so it is restricted by the mention of the Pavamanas. But since one may think that it should be done with all the three Pavamanas, the time is being further restricted:- The priest called Prastotr indeed recites the Saman. While he recites it, i.e. when he begins to chant the Saman, these Mantras are to be repeated. And this repetition of Mantras is called 'Abhyaroha,' because through this repetition one possessed of such knowledge 'advances towards' the realisation of one's innate divinity. The plural in 'these' indicates that there are three Yajus Mantras. The use of the accusative case and the fact that these Mantras occur in a Brahmana or explanatory portion of the Vedas, indicate that the usual accent should be used in these words, and not the special intonation (Which is indicated by the use of the instrumental case in the directions.) used in the hymns. This repetition of Mantras is to be done by the sacrificer. These are the Yazjus Mantras in question:- From evil lead me to good. From darkness lead me to light. From death lead me to immortality. The meaning of the Mantras is hidden. So the Brahmana itself explains them:- When the Mantra says, 'From evil lead me to good,' what is the meaning? 'Evil' means death, i.e. our natural actions and thoughts; 'evil,' because they degrade us very much; and 'good,' i.e. actions and thoughts as they are regulated by the scriptures, means immortality, because they lead to it. Therefore the meaning is, 'From evil actions and ignorance lead me to actions and thoughts that are regulated by the scriptures, i.e. help me to iidentify myself with those things that lead to divinity.' The import of the sentence is being stated:- So it says, 'Make me immortal.' Similarly, when it says, 'From darkness lead me to light,' 'darkness' means death. All ignorance, being of the nature of a veil, is darkness and it again is death, being the cause of it. And 'light' means immortality, the opposite of the above, one's divine nature. Knowledge being luminous, is called light; and it again is immortality, being of an imperishable nature. So it says, 'From death lead me to immortality, or make me immortal,' as before, i.e. help me to realise the divine status of Viraj. The first Mantra means, help me to identify myself with the means of realisation, instead of with things that are not such; while the second one means, help me to go that even --- for it is a form of ignorance ---- and attain identity with the result. The third Mantra, 'From death lead me to immortality,' gives the combined meaning of the first two, and is quite clear. In this the meaning does not seem to be hidden as in the first two, i.e. it should be taken literally. Then, after chanting for the sacrificer with the three Pavamanas, through the remaining hymns the chanter who knows the vital force and has become identified with it, should secure eatable food for himself by chanting, just like the vital force. Because this chanter knows the vital force as above described, therefore he is able to obtain that desired object. Therefore, while they are being chanted, the sacrificer should ask for a boon --- anything that he desires. Because whatever objects this chanter possessed of such knowledge desires, either for himself or for the sacrificer, he secures them by chanting. This sentence should precede the one before it (for the sake of sense). Thus it has been stated that meditation and rites together lead to identification with Hiranyagarbha. There is no possibility of a doubt regarding this. Therefore a doubt is being raised as to whether, in the absence of rites, meditation alone can lead to that result or not. To remove it, the text says:- This meditation on the vital force certainly wins the world (Hiranyagarbha) (Who is the cosmic form of the vital force.), even it it is disjoined from the rites. He has not to pray lest he be unfit for this world, for one who has already realised his identity with Hiranyagarbha cannot possibly pray for the attainment of him. A man who is already in a village is not eager about when he will reach it, as a man who is in a forest is. Expectation is always about something remote, something other than one's self; it is impossible with regard to one's own self. Therefore there is no chance of his fearing lest he should ever miss identity with Hiranyagarbha. Who gets this result? He who knows this Saman as such, meditates upon the vital force whose glories have been described above, till he realises his identity with it in the following way:- 'I am the pure vital force, not to be touched by the evils characteristic of the Asuras, viz the attachment of the senses to their objects. The five organs such as that of speech have, by resting on me, been freed from the defects of these evils which spring from one's natural thoughts, and have become fire and so forth; and they are connected with all bodies by partaking of the eatable fod that belongs to me. Being Angirasa, I am the self of all beings. And I am the self of speech manifesting itself as Rc, Yajus, Saman and Udgitha, for I pervade it and produce it. I am transformed into a chant as Saman, and have the external wealth or embellishment of a good voice; and I also have a more intimate treasure, consisting of fine articulation according to phonetics. And when I become the chant, the throat and other parts of the body are my support. With these attributes I am completely present in all bodies beginning with that of a white ant, being formless and all-pervading.'
Max Müller
28. Next come the other Stotras with which the priest may obtain food for himself by singing them. Therefore let the sacrificer, while these Stotras are being sung, ask for a boon, whatever desire he may desire. An Udgâtri priest who knows this obtains by his singing whatever desire he may desire either for himself or for the sacrificer. This (knowledge) indeed is called the conqueror of the worlds. He who thus knows this Sâman [1], for him there is no fear of his not being admitted to the worlds [2].
'hamayamityevāgra uktvā'thānyannāma prabrūte yadasya bhavati . sa
yatpūrvo'smātsarvasmātsarvānpāpmana auṣat tasmātpuruṣaḥ . oṣati ha
vai sa taṃ yo'smātpūrvo bubhūṣati ya evaṃ veda .. 1..
Meaning:- In the beginning, this (universe) was but the self (Viraj) of a human form. He reflected and found nothing else but himself. He first uttered, ''am he''. Therefore he was called Aham (I). Hence, to this day, when a person is addressed, he first says, 'It is I,' and then says the other name that he may have. Because he was first and before this whole (band of aspirants) burnt all evils, therefore he is called Purusha. He who knows thus indeed burns one who wants to be (Viraj) before him.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- It has been explained that one attains the status of Hiranyagarbha through a combination of meditation and rites. That the same result if attained only through meditation on the vital force has also been stated in the passage, 'This certainly wins the world,' etc. (I. iii. 28). The present section is introduced in order to describe the excellent results of Vedic meditations and rites by setting forth the independence and other powers of Hiranyagarbha, who is himself the result of his past actions, in the projection, maintenance and dissolution of the universe. The meditations and rites that are prescribed in the ceremonial portion (Including the previous sections of this book.) of the Vedas would thereby be extolled by implication. The import, however, is this:- The sum total of these results of meditation and rites belong to the relative world, for Viraj (The word used here is 'Prajapati,' which means both Hiranyagarbha and Viraj, the subtle and gross forms, respectively, of the same being. Sankara often uses these two terms almost interchangeably. This should be borne in mind to avoid confusion.) has been described as possessing fear, dissatisfaction, etc., has a body and organs, and consists of gross, differentiated and transient objects. This prepares the ground for what follows, since the knowledge of Brahman alone, which is going to be described can lead to liberation. For one who is not disgusted with things of the world consisting of a variety of means and ends is not entitled to cultivate the knowledge of the unity of the Self, as one who is not thirsty has no use for a drink. Therefore the delineation of the excellent results of meditation and rites is meant to introduce the succeeding portion. It will also be said later on, 'Of all these this Self alone should be realised' (I. iv. 7), 'This Self is dearer than a son' (I. iv. , and so on. In the beginning, before the manifestation of any other body, this universe of different bodies was but the self, was undifferentiated from the body of Viraj, the first embodied, being born out of the cosmic egg, who is here meant by the word 'self.' He is the product of Vedic meditations and rites. And this self was of a human form, with a head, hands, etc., i.e. Viraj. He, who is born first, reflected on who he was and what his features were, and found nothing else but himself, consisting of the body and organs. He found only himself, the self of all. And as he had been purified by Vedic knowledge in his past life, he first uttered, 'I am he,' the Viraj who is the self of all. And because owing to his past impressions he first declared himself as Aham, therefore he was called Aham (I). That this is his name as given out by the Sruti will be mentioned later:- 'His secret name is Aham' (V. v. 4). Hence, because this happened with Viraj, the cause, therefore, to this day, among men, his effects, when a person is addressed as, 'Who are you?' he first says, 'It is I,' describes himself as identified with his cause, Viraj, and then says, to one who inquires about his particular name, the other name, the name of his particular body, such as Devadatta or Yajnadatta, that he may have, as given to that a particular body by his parents. And because he, Viraj, in his past incarnation when he was an aspirant, by an adequate practice of meditation and rites was the first of those who wanted to attain the status of Viraj by the same method, and before this whole band of aspirants burnt --- what? --- all evils, viz attachment and ignorance, which obstructed his attainment of the status of Viraj --- because it was so, therefore he is called Purusa, i.e. one who burnt first. As this Viraj became Purusa and Viraj by burning all the obstructing evils, so another person, by the fire of his practice of meditation and rites, or by virtue of meditation alone, burns one --- whom? --- who wants to be Viraj before him, this sage. The text points out in the words, 'Who knows thus.' It is implied that he has perfected himself in the practice of meditation.
Objection:- The desire to attain the status of Viraj must be dangerous, if one is burnt by a sage possessing this knowledge. Reply:- There is nothing wrong in it, for burning here means only the failure to attain the status of Viraj first, due to a deficiency in the practice of meditation. The man who uses the best means attains it first, and the man who is deficient in his means does not. This is spoken of as the former burning the latter. It is not that one who uses the best means actually burns the other. As in the world, when several people are having a running contest, the man who first reaches the destination may be said to burn the others, as it were, for they are shorn of their strength, so is the case here. In order to show that the results, meant to be extolled here, of meditation and rites enjoined in the ceremonial portion of the Vedas, are not beyond the range of transmigratory existence, the text goes on:-
Max Müller
1. In the beginning this was Self alone, in the shape of a person (purusha). He looking round saw nothing but his Self. He first said, 'This is I;' therefore he became I by name. Therefore even now, if a man is asked, he first says, 'This is I,' and then pronounces the other name which he may have. And because before (pûrva) all this, he (the Self) burnt down (ush) all evils, therefore he was a person (pur-usha). Verily he who knows this, burns down every one who tries to be before him.
Meaning:- He was afraid. Therefore people (still) are afraid to be alone. He thought, 'If there is nothing else but me, what am I afraid of?' From that alone his fear was gone, for what was there to fear? It is from a second entity that fear comes.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- He, Viraj, who has been presented as the first embodied being of a human form, was afraid, just like us, says the text. Because this being with a human form, possessing a body and organs, was afraid owing to a false notion about his extinction, therefore, being similarly situated, people to this day are afraid to be alone. And the means of removing this false notion that caused the fear, was, as in our case, the right knowledge of the Self. He, Viraj, thought, 'If there is nothing else but me, no other entity but myself to be my rival, what am I afraid of, for there is nothing to kill me?' From that right knowledge of the self alone his, Viraj's fear was clean gone. That fear of Viraj, being due to sheer ignorance, was inconsistent with the knowledge of the Supreme Self. This is what the text says:- For what was there to fear? That is, why was he afraid, since there could be no fear when the truth was known? Because it is from a second entity that fear comes; and that second entity is merely projected by ignorance. A second entity that is not perceived at all cannot certainly cause fear, for the Sruti says, 'Then what delusion and what grief can there be for one who sees unity?' (Is. 7). That his fear was removed by the knowledge of unity was quite proper. Why? Because fear comes of a second entity, and that notion of a second entity was removed by the knowledge of unity; it was non-existent. Here some object:- What was Viraj's knowledge of unity due to? And who instructed him? If it came without any instruction, the same might also be true of us. If, however, it was due to the impressions of his past life, then the knowledge of unity would be useless. As Viraj's knowledge of unity acquired in his past life, although it was present, did not remove the cause of his bondage, ignorance --- for being born with that ignorance, he was afraid --- so the knowledge of unity would be useless in the case of everybody. Should it be urged that the knowledge prevailing at the last moment only removes ignorance, our answer is that it cannot be laid down as a rule, since ignorance may appear again just as it did before. Therfore we conclude that the knowledge of unity serves no useful purpose. Reply:- Not so, for, as in the world, his knowledge sprang from his perfected birth. That is to say, as we see that when a person has been born with a select body and organs as a result of his past merits, he excels in knowledge, intelligence and memory, similarly Viraj, having burnt all his evils which produce qualities the very opposite of righteousness, knowledge, dispassion and lordship, had a perfected birth in which he was possessed of a pure body and organs; hence he might well have the knowledge of unity without any instruction. As the Smrti says, 'The Lord of the universe is born with these four virtues --- infallible knowledge, dispassion, lordship and righteousness' (Va. I. i. 3).
Objection:- If he was born with those virtues, he could not have fear. Darkness never appears with the sun. Reply:- Not so, for the expression, 'He is born with these virtues,' means that he is not instructed about them by others. Objection:- In that case qualities like faith, devotion and prostration (to the teacher) cease to be the means of knowledge. The Gita, for instance, says, 'One who has faith and devotion and controls one's senses attains knowledge' (G. IV. 39), and 'Know it through prostration' (G. IV. 34). There are other texts from the Srutis as well as Smrtis which prescribe similar means for knowledge. Now, if knowledge is due to the merits of one's past life, as you say was the case with Viraj, then the above means become uselss. Reply:- No, for there may be differences as regards the means such as their alternation or combination, efficacy or inefficacy. We observe in life that effects are produced from various causes, which may operate singly or in combination. Of these causes operation singly or in combination, some may be more efficacious than others. Let us take a single instance of an effect produced from various causes, say, the perception of form or colour:- In the case of animals that see in the dark, the connection of the eye with the object alone suffices, even without the help of light, to cause the perception. In the case of Yogins the mind alone is the cause of it. While with us, there is a combination of causes such as the connection of the eye with the object, and light, which again may vary according as it is sunlight or moonlight, and so on. Similarly there would be differences due to that light being of a particular character, strong or feeble, and so on. Exactly in the same way with the knowledge of the unity of the Self. Sometimes the actions of one's past life are the causes, as in the case of Viraj. Sometimes it is reflection, for the Sruti says, 'Desire to know Brahman through reflection' (Tai. III. iii-v. 1). Sometimes faith and other things are the only causes of attaining knowledge, as we learn from such Sruti and Smrti texts as the following:- 'He only knows who has got a teacher' (Ch. VI. xiv. 2), 'One who has faith ' attains knowledge' (G. IV. 39), 'Know it through prostration' (G. IV. 34), '(Knowledge received) from the teacher alone (is best)' (Ch. IV. ix. 3), '(The Self) is to be realised through hearing,' etc. (II. iv. 5; IV. v. 6). For the above causes remove obstacles to knowledge such as demerit. And the hearing, reflection and meditation on Vedanta texts have a direct relation to Brahman which is to be known, for they are naturally the causes to evoke the knowledge of Reality when the evils, connected with the body and mind, that obstruct it have been destroyed. Therefore faith, prostration and the like never cease to be the means of knowledge.
Max Müller
2. He feared, and therefore any one who is lonely fears. He thought, 'As there is nothing but myself, why should I fear?' Thence his fear passed away. For what should he have feared? Verily fear arises from a second only.
sa vai naiva reme tasmādekākī na ramate . sa dvitīyamaicchat
sa haitāvānāsa yathā strīpumāgͫsau sampariṣvaktau .
sa imamevā''tmānaṃ dvedhā'pātayat . tataḥ patiśca patnī
cābhavatām . tasmādidamardhabṛgalamiva sva iti ha smā''ha
yājñavalkyastasmādayamākāśaḥ striyā pūryata eva . tāgͫ samabhavat
tato manuṣyā ajāyanta .. 3..
Meaning:- He was not at all happy. Therefore people (still) are not happy when alone. He desired a mate. He became as big as man and wife embracing each other. He parted this very body into two. From that came husband and wife. Therefore, said Yajnavalkya, this (body) is one-half of oneself, like one of the two halves of a split pea. Therefore this space is indeed filled by the wife. He was united with her. From that men were born.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Here is another reason why the state of Viraj is within the relative world, because he, Viraj, was not at all happy, i.e. was stricken with dissatisfaction, just like us. Because it was so, therefore, on account of loneliness etc., even to-day people are not happy, do not delight, when alone. Delight is a sport due to conjunction with a desired object. A person who is attached to it feels troubled in mind when he is separated from his desired object; this is called dissatisfaction. To remove that dissatisfaction, he desired a mate, able to take away that dissatisfaction, i.e. a wife. And as he thus longed for a wife, he felt as if he was embraced by his wife. Being of an infallible will, through that idea he became as big --- as what? --- as man and wife, in the world, embracing each other to remove their dissatisfaction. He became of that size. He parted this very body, of that size, into two. The emphatic word 'very' used after 'this' is for distinguishing between the new body and its cause, the originial body of Viraj. Viraj did not become of this size by wiping out his former entity, as milk turns into curd by wholly changing its former substance. What then? He reamined as he was, but being of an infallible resolve, he projected another body of the size of man and wife together. He remained the same Viraj, as we find from the sentence, 'He became as big as,' etc., where 'he' is co-ordinate with the complement. From that parting came husband (Pati) and wife (Patni). This is the derivation of terms denoting an ordinary couple. And because the wife is but one-half of oneself separated, therefore this body is one-half, like one of the two halves a split pea, before one marries a wife. Whose half? Of oneself. Thus said Yajnavalkya, the son of Yajnavalka, lit. the expounder of a sacrifice, i.e. the son of Devarata. Or it may mean a descendant of Hiranyagarbha (who is the expounder). Since one-half of a man is void when he is without a wife representing the other half, therefore this space is indeed again filled by the wife when he marries, as one-half of a split pea gets is complement when again joined to the other half. He, the Viraj called Manu, was united with her, his daugher called Satarupa, whom he conceived of as his wife. From that union men were born.
Max Müller
3. But he felt no delight. Therefore a man who is lonely feels no delight. He wished for a second. He was so large as man and wife together. He then made this his Self to fall in two (pat), and thence arose husband (pati) and wife (patnî). Therefore Yâgñavalkya said:- 'We two [1] are thus (each of us) like half a shell [2].' Therefore the void which was there, is filled by the wife. He embraced her, and men were born.
Meaning:- She thought, 'How can he be united with me after producing me from himself? Well let me hide myself'. She became a cow, the other became a bull and was united with her; from that cows were born. The one became a mare, the other a stallion; the one became a she-ass, the other became a he-ass and was united with her; from that one hoofed animals were born. The one became a she-goat, the other a he-goat; the one became a ewe, the other became a ram and was united with her; from that goats and sheep were born. Thus did he project every thing that exists in pairs, down to the ants.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Remembering the prohibition made in the Smrtis of union wirh one's daughter, she Satarupa, thought, 'How can he do this vile thing --- be united with me after producing me from himself?' Although he has no abhorrence, well, let me hide myself by changing into another species.' Thinking thus she became a cow. Impelled by the past work of the creatures that were to be produced, Satarupa and Manu had the same thought over and over again. Then the other became a bull and was united with her. The latter portion has been explained. From that cows were born. Similarly the one became a mare, the other a stallion; likewise the one became a she-ass, the other became a he-ass. From that union one-hoofed animals, viz the three species, horses, mules and asses, were born. Similarly the one became a she-goat, the other became a he-goat; likewise the one became a ewe, the other became a ram and was united with her. The word 'her' is to be repeated so as to apply to both she-goat and ewe. From that goats and sheep were born. Thus, through this process, did he project everything that exists in pairs, as male and female, down to the ants, i.e. the whole (animate) world.
Max Müller
4. She thought, 'How can he embrace me, after having produced me from himself? I shall hide myself.' She then became a cow, the other became a bull and embraced her, and hence cows were born. The one became a mare, the other a stallion; the one a male ass, the other a female ass. He embraced her, and hence one-hoofed animals were born. The one became a she-goat, the other a he-goat; the one became a ewe [1], the other a ram. He embraced her, and hence goats and sheep were born. And thus he created everything that exists in pairs, down to the ants.
tataḥ sṛṣṭirabhavat sṛṣṭyāgͫ hāsyaitasyāṃ bhavati ya evaṃ veda .. 5..
Meaning:- He knew, 'I indeed am the creation, for I projected all this'. Therefore he was called Creation. He who knows this as such becomes (a creator) in this creation of Viraj.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- He, Viraj after projecting this whole world knew, 'I indeed am the creation, i.e. the projected world. The world I have projected not being different from me, I myself am that; it is not something over and above myself. How? For I projected all this, the whole world.' Because Viraj designated himself by the word 'creation', therefore he was called Creation. Like Viraj, he becomes a creator of a world not different from himself, in this creation of Viraj, i.e. in this world. Who? He who, like Viraj, knows this, the world described above, in its threefold division relating to the body, the elements and the gods, as such, as identical with himself.
Max Müller
5. He knew, 'I indeed am this creation, for I created all this.' Hence he became the creation, and he who knows this lives in this his creation.
Meaning:- Then he rubbed back and forth thus, and produced fire from its source, the mouth and the hands. Therefore both these are without hair at the inside. When they talk of particular gods, saying, 'Sacrifice to him', 'sacrifice to the other one', (they are wrong, since) these are all his projection, for he is all the gods. Now all this that is liquid, he produced from the seed. That is Soma. This universe is indeed this much - food and the eater of food. Soma is food, and fire the eater of food. This is super-creation of Viraj that he projected the gods, who are even superior to him. Because he, although mortal himself, projected the immortals, therefore this is a super-creation. He who knows this as such becomes (a creator) in this super-creation of Viraj.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Then, having thus projected this world consisting of pairs, he, Viraj, desiring to project the gods controlling the Brahmana and other castes, first rubbed back and forth thus. The words 'then' and 'thus' show the process by a gesture. Putting his hands into his mouth he went on rubbing back and forth. Having rubbed the mouth with his hands, he produced fire, the benefactor of the Brahmana caste, from its source, the mouth and the hands. Because the mouth and the hands are the source of fire, which burns, therefore both these are without hair. Is it all over? No, only at the inside. Similarly the Brahmana also was born from the mouth of Viraj. Because both have sprung from the same source, the Brahmana is favoured by fire, as a younger brother is by his elder brother. Therefore it is well known from the Srutis and Smrtis that the Brahmanas have fire as their deity, and their strength lies in their mouth. Similarly from his arms, which are the abode of strength, he manifested Indra and other gods who control the Ksatriya caste, as well as that caste itself. Therefore we know from the Srutis and Smrtis that the Ksatriyas and physical strength are presided over by Indra. Similarly from his thighs, which are the source of effort, he manifested the Vasus and other gods who control the Vaisyas, as well as that caste itself. Therefore the Vaisyas are devoted to agriculture and other such pursuits, and have the Vasus etc. as their deities. Similarly from his feet he manifested Pusan, the deity of the earth, and the Sudras, who have the capacity to serve --- as we know from the Srutis and Smrtis. The manifestation of the deities of the Ksatriya etc. has not been described here; it will be described later on (In I. iv. 11 ' 13.). But the text concludes as if they were described, in order to deal with creation as a whole. The real aim of the text is (not to describe creation, but) to indicate that all the gods are but Viraj, as stated here, for manifested objects are not different from the manifestor, and the gods have been manifested by Viraj. Now, this being the import of the section, the views of some ignorant people are being put forward as a eulogy on that. The criticism of one serves as a tribute to another. When, in discussing ceremonials, the priests, who know only mechanical rites, talk of particular gods, saying at the time of performing a sacrifice, 'Sacrifice to him. viz Fire,' 'Sacrifice to the other one, viz Indra,' and so on, thinking, on account of differences regarding name, type of hymns recited or sung, function, and the like, that they are separate gods, it should not be understood that way, because these different gods are all his projection, manifestation of Viraj, for he, Viraj , the (cosmic) vital force, is all the gods. Here there is a difference of opinion. Some say that Hiranyagarbha is the Supreme Self, others that he is the transmigrating individual self. The first group says:- He must be the Supreme Self, for the Sruti says so, as for instance in the passage, 'They call It Indra, Mitra, Varuna and Fire' (R. I. c1xiv. 46), and also in, 'It is Hiranyagarbha, It is Indra, It is Viraj and all these gods' (Ai. V. 3). And the Smrti too, 'Some call It Fire, others Manu and Viraj' (M. XII. 123), and 'That (Supreme Self) which is beyond the organs, imperceptible, subtle, undifferentiated, eternal, consisting of all beings, and unthinkable, manifested Itself' (M. I. 7). Or, according to the second group:- He must be the individual self, for the Sruti says, 'He burnt all evils' (I. iv. 1). There can be no question of the burning of evils in the case of the Supreme Self. The Sruti also mentions his having fear and dissatisfaction, and also, 'That he, although mortal himself, projected the immortals' (this text), and 'Behold Hiranyagarbha as he is being born' (Sv. IV. 12; Mn. X. 3). Further, the Smrti treating of the results of rites says, 'Sages are of opinion that the attainment of oneness with Viraj, the world-projectors (Manu and others), Yama (the god of justice), Hiranyagarbha and the Undifferentiated is the highest result produced by Sattva or pure materials (rites coupled with meditation)' (M. XII. 50). Should it be urged that such contradictory statements being inadmissible, the scripture lose their authority, the answer is:- Not so, for they can be harmonised on the ground that different conceptions are possible. That is to say, through his relation to particular limiting adjuncts he can be conceived of as different. That the transmigratory character of Hiranyagarbha is not real, but due to limiting adjuncts, is known from such Sruti texts as the following:- 'Sitting, It roams far, and lying, It goes everywhere. Who else but me can know that effulgent entity which is endowed with joy and its absence as well?' (Ka. II. 21). Essentially he is but the Supreme Self. So Hiranyagarbha is one as well as many. The same is the case with all beings, as the Sruti says, 'Thou art That' (Ch. V. viii. 7 etc.). But Hiranyagarbha, possessing limiting adjuncts of extraordinary purity, is described by the Srutis and Smrtis mostly as the Supreme Self, and seldom as the transmigratory self. While ordinary individuals, owing to an excess of impurity in their limiting adjuncts, are mostly spoken of as the transmigratory self. But when divested of all limiting adjuncts, everyone is spoken of by the Srutis and Smrtis as the Supreme Self. The rationalists, however, who discard the authority of Revelation and rely on mere argument, say all sorts of conflicting things such as that the self exists or does not exist, that it is the agent or is not the agent, and mystify the meaning of the scriptures. This makes it extremely difficult to find out their real import. But those who only follow the scriptures and have overcome their pride find the meaning of the scriptures regarding the gods etc. as definite as objects of perception. Now the Sruti wishes to tell of one and the same god, Viraj, being differentiated as food and so forth. Fire, which is the eater of food, has already been described. Now Soma, the food, is being described:- Now all this that is liquid in the world, he produced from his seed, for the Srutis says, 'From the seed water' (Ai. I. 4), and Soma is liquid. Therefore whatever liquid was produced out of Viraj's seed is Soma. This universe is indeed this much, and no more. What is it? Food, i.e. Soma, which being liquid is appearing, and the eater of food, i.e. fire, because it is hot and dry. Now follows a decision on the point:- Soma is food, i.e. whatever is eaten is Soma. (And fire the eater of food) --- whoever eats is fire. This decision is based on sense. Sometimes fire too is offered as an oblation, when it falls into the category of Soma (food). And when a sacrifice is made to Soma, it too becomes fire, being the eater. One who thus regards the universe consisting of fire and Soma as oneself is not touched by evil, and becomes Viraj. This is the super-creation of Viraj, i.e. one that is even superior to him. What is it? That he projected the gods, who are even superior to him. This is why this manifestation of the gods is called a super-creation. How is this creation even superior to him? This is being explained:- Because he, although mortal himself, projected the immortals, the gods, by burning all his evils with the fire of meditation and rites, therefore this is a super-creation, i.e. the result of superior knowledge (and rites). Hence he who knows this super-creation of Viraj which is identical with him (i.e. identifies himself with Viraj, who projected the gods), becomes like him in this super-creation of Viraj, i.e. becomes a creator like Viraj himself.
Max Müller
6. Next he thus produced fire by rubbing. From the mouth, as from the fire-hole, and from the hands he created fire [1]. Therefore both the mouth and the hands are inside without hair, for the fire-hole is inside without hair. And when they say, 'Sacrifice to this or sacrifice to that god,' each god is but his manifestation, for he is all gods. Now, whatever there is moist, that he created from seed; this is Soma. So far verily is this universe either food or eater. Soma indeed is food, Agni eater. This is the highest creation of Brahman, when he created the gods from his better part [2], and when he, who was (then) mortal [3], created the immortals. Therefore it was the highest creation. And he who knows this, lives in this his highest creation.
hyetatsarvaṃ veda . yathā ha vai padenānuvindedevaṃ kīrtigͫ ślokaṃ
vindate ya evaṃ veda .. 7..
Meaning:- This (universe) was then undifferentiated. It differentiated only into name and form - it was called such and such, and was of such and such form. So to this day it is differentiated only into name and form - it is called such and such, and is of such and such form. This Self has entered into these bodies up to the tip of the nails - as a razor may be put in its case, or as fire, which sustains the world, may be in its source. People do not see It, for (viewed in Its aspects) It is incomplete. When It does the function of living. It is called the vital force; when It speaks, the organ of speech; when It sees, the eye; when It hears, the ear; and when It thinks, the mind. These are merely Its names according to functions. He who meditates upon each of this totality of aspects does not know, for It is incomplete, (being divided) from this totality by possessing a single characteristic. The Self alone is to be meditated upon, for all these are unified in It. Of all these, this Self should be realised, for one knows all these through It, just as one may get (an animal) through its foot-prints. He who knows It as such obtains fame and association (with his relatives).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- All Vedic means consisting of meditation and rites, which depend on several factors such as the agent and culminate in identity with Hiranyagarbha, a result achieved through effort, are but co-extensive with this manifested, relative universe. Now the Sruti wishes to indicate the causal state of this manifested universe consisting of means and ends, the state which existed before its manifestation, as the existence of a tree in a seed-form is inferred from its effects such as the sprout, in order that the tree of relative existence, which has one's actions as its seed and ignorance as the field where it grows, may be pulled up together with its roots. For in the uprooting of it lies the perfection of human achievement. As it has been said in the Upanisad as well as the Gita, 'With its roots above (i.e. the Undifferentiated) and branches below (Hiranyagarbha etc.)' (Ka. VI. I; G. XV. 1). And in the Purana also, 'The eternal tree of Brahman' (Mbh. XIV. x1vii. 14; Si. V. i. 10, 76). This was then:- 'Tat' (that) refers to the seed-form of the universe before its manifestation. Being remote, it is indicated by a pronoun denoting an object not directly perceived, for the universe that was to emanate from the Undifferentiated is related to past time. The particle 'ha' denoting tradition is used to make the meaning easily understood. When it is said, 'It was then like this,' one easily comprehends the causal state of the universe, although it is not an object of perception, just as when it is said, 'There was a king named Yudhisthira.' 'This' refers to the universe differentiated into name and form, consisting of means and ends, as described above. The co-ordination of the two words 'that' and 'this,' denoting respectively the remote and present states of the universe, indicates as identity of the universe in these two states, meaning that which was this, and this which was that was undifferentitated. From this it is clear that a non-existent effect is not produced, nor an existent effect lost. It, this sort of universe, having been undifferentiated, differentiated into name and form. The neuter-passive form of the verb indicates that it differentiated of itself, i.e. manifested itself till it could be clearly perceived in terms of name and form. (Since no effect can be produced without a cause) it is implied that this manifestation took place with the help of the usual auxiliaries, viz the controller, the agent and the operation of the means. It was called such and such. The use of a pronoun not specifying any particular name indicates that it got some name such as Devadatta or Yajnadatta. And was of such and such form:- No particular form such as white or black is mentioned. It had some form, say white or black. So to this day it, an undifferentiated thing, is differentiated into name and form --- it is called such and such, and is of such and such form. This Self, which it is the aim of all scriptures to teach, on which differences of agent, action and result have been superimposed by primordial ignorance, which is the cause of the whole universe, of which name and form consist as they pass from the undifferentiated to the differentiated state, like foam, an impurity, appearing from limpid water, and which is distinct from that name and form, being intrinsically eternal pure, enlightened and free by nature --- this Self, while manifesting undifferentiated name and form, which are a part of It, has entered into these bodies from Hiranyagarbha down to a clump of grass, which are the support of the results of people's actions, and are characterised by hunger etc.
Objection:- It was stated before that the undifferentiated universe differentiated to itself. How then is it now stated that the Supreme Self, while manifesting that universe, has entered into it? Reply:- There is nothing wrong in it, for really the Supreme Self was meant as being identical with the undifferentiated universe. We have already said that that universe was necessarily manifested with the help of the controller, the agent and the operation (of the means). This is also borne out by the fact that the word 'undifferentiated' has been co-ordinately used with 'this'. Just as this undifferentiated universe has several distinguishing features like the controller and other factors, which serve as its causes, similarly that undifferentiated universe also must not be without a single one of these distinguishing features. The only difference between them is that the one is differentiated and the other is not. Moreover, we see in the world that people use expressions according to their wish, as for instance, 'The village has come,' and 'The village is deserted.' Sometimes they mean only a habitation, as when they use the latter expression. Sometimes they mean the inhabitants, as when they use the former expression. Sometimes again the word 'village' is used in both the senses, as in the sentence, 'And one must not enter (Pravis) the village.' Similarly here too, this universe is spoken of as both differentiated and undifferentiated to indicate the identity of the Self and not-Self. Likewise only the (manifested) universe is meant when it is said that this universe is characterised by origin and dissolution. Again, only the Self is meant in such expressions as, '(That) great, birthless Self' (IV. iv. 22, 24, 25), 'Not gross, not minute' (III. viii. 8. adapted), 'This (self) is that which has been described as 'Not this, not this,' etc.' (III. ix. 26; IV. ii. 4; IV. iv. 22; IV. v. 15).
Objection:- The manifested universe is always completely pervaded by the Supreme Self, is manifestor. So how is It conceived of as entering into it? Only a limited thing can enter into a space that is not occupied by it, as a man can enter into a village etc. But the ether cannot ether into anything, since it is ever present in it. Tentative answer (From now on a set of prima facie views will be presented. The decision will come later.):- The entrance in question may be the assumption of a different feature, as in the case of a snake born in a rock. To explain:- The Supreme Self did not enter into the universe in Its own form, but, while in it, appeared under a different feature (That is, as the individual self.); hence It is metaphorically spoken of as having entered it, like the snake that is born in a rock and is within it, or like the water in a cocoanut. Objection:- Not so, for the Sruti says, 'After projecting it, the Self entered into it' (Tai. II. vi. 1). This text says that the Creator, after projecting the effect, entered into it unchanged. When it is said, 'After eating he goes,' the acts of eating and going, belonging to earlier and later periods, are separate from each other, but the agent is the same. This is an analogous case. It would not be possible if the Self remains in the universe and changes at the same time. Nor is an entity that has no parts and is unlimited ever seen to enter into something in the sense of leaving one place and being connected with another. Tentative answer:- Well, then, the Self has parts, for the Sruti speaks of Its entrance. Objection:- No, for there are Sruti texts like the following:- 'The Supreme Being is resplendent, formless' (Mu. II. i. 2), and 'Without parts, devoid of activity' (Sv. VI. 19). Also there are Sruti texts denying all particular nameable attributes to the Self. Tentative answer:- The entrance may be like that of a reflection. Objection:- No, for it cannot be admitted that the Self is ever removed from anything. Tentative answer:- May it not be like the entrance of an attribute in a substance? Objection:- No, for the Self is not supported by anything. An attribute, which is always dependent on and supported by something else (the substance), is metaphorically spoken of as entering it. But Brahman cannot enter like that, for the Srutis describe It as independent. Tentative answer:- Suppose we say that the Self has entered into the universe in the same sense as a seed enters into a fruit? Objection:- No, for then It would be subject to such attributes as being possessed of parts, growth and decay, birth and death. But the Self has no such attributes for it is against such Sruti texts as, 'Birthless, undecaying' (IV. iv. 25, adapted) as well as against reason. Tentative answer:- Well then, let us say some other entity that is relative and limited has entered into the universe. Reply (by the Advaitin):- Not so, for we find in the Sruti that beginning with, 'That deity (Existence) thought' (Ch. VI. iii. 2), and ending with, 'And let me manifest name and form' (Ibid.), the same deity is spoken of as the agent of entering as well as manifesting the universe. Similarly, 'After projecting it, the Self entered into it' (Tai. II. vi. 1), 'Piercing this dividing line (of the head), It entered through that gate' (Ai. III. 12), 'The Wise One, who after projecting all forms names them, and goes on uttering those names' (Tai. A. III. xii. 7), 'Thou art the boy, and Thou art the girl, Thou art the decrepit man trudging on his staff' (Sv. IV. 3), 'He made bodies with two feet' (II. v. 18), 'He transformed Himself in accordance with each form' (II. v. 19; Ka. V. ix. 10) --- these Sruti texts show that none other than the Supreme Self entered into the universe.
Objection:- Since the objects It has entered into mutually differ, the Supreme Self (being identical with them) must be many. Reply:- No, for there are such Sruti texts as the following:- 'The same Lord resides in various ways' (Tai. A. III. xiv. 1), 'Although one, It roamed in amy ways' (Ibid. III. xi. 1), 'Although one, Thou hast penetrated diverse things' (Ibid. III. xiv. 3), 'The one Lord is hidden in all beings, all-pervading and the Self of all' (Sv. VI. 11).
Objection:- Leaving aside the question whether the Supreme Self can or cannot consistently enter, since those objects that have been entered into are subject to transmigration, and the Supreme Self is identical with them, It too comes under transmigration. Reply:- No, for the Srutis speak of It as being beyond hunger etc. Objection:- It cannot be, for we see that It is happy or miserable, and so on. Reply:- Not so, for the Sruti says, 'It is not affected by human misery, being beyond it' (Ka. V. 11). Objection:- This is not correct, for it conflicts with perception etc. Reply:- No, perception and the like have for their object only the particular form (the apparent self) that It takes owing to Its being the support of Its limiting adjunct (mind). Such Sruti texts as, 'One cannot see the seer of sight' (III. iv. 2), 'Through what, O Maitreyi, should one know the knower?' (II. iv. 14; IV. v. 15), 'It is never known, but is the Knower' (III. viii. 11), show that the consciousness in question is not of the Self, but that such perceptions as that one is happy or miserable, concern only the reflection of the Self in limiting adjuncts like the intellect, for in the perception, 'I am this' the subject is metaphorically spoken of as co-ordinate with the object (body). Besides, any other self is refuted by the statement, 'There is no other witness but This' (III. viii. 11). Happiness or misery, being related to parts of the body, are attributes of the object.
Objection:- This is wrong, for the Sruti speaks of their beings for the satisfaction of the self, in the words, 'But it is for one's own sake (that all is loved)' (II. iv. 5; IV. v. 6). Reply:- Not so, for in the words, 'When there is something else, as it were' (IV. iii. 31), it is taken for granted that the happiness, misery, etc. are for the satisfaction of the self while it is in a state of ignorance. They are not attributes of the self, for they are denied of the enlightened self, as in such passages as, 'Then what should one see and through what?' (II. iv. 14; IV. v. 15), 'There is no difference whatsoever in It' (II. iv. 19; Ka. IV. 11), 'Then what delusion and what grief can there be for one who sees unity?' (Is. 7).
Objection:- It is wrong, for it clashes with the system of logic (In which the self is supposed to possesses fourteen attributes, viz intelligence, happiness, misery, and so on.). Reply:- No; from the standpoint of reason too the Self cannot be miserable. For misery, being an object of perception, cannot affect the Self, which is not an object of perception.
Objection:- The Self may have misery as the ether has the attribute of sound. Reply:- No, for the two cannot be objects of the same consciousness. The consciousness that perceives happiness and deals with objects of perception only, cannot certainly be supposed to cognise the Self, which is ever to be inferred (The view of the old school of Nyaya as also the Samkhyas.). If It were so cognised, there would be no subject left, since there is only one Self.
Objection:- Suppose we say that the same Self is both subject and object, like a lamp? Reply:- No, for It cannot be both simultaneously. Besides the Self cannot be supposed to have parts (As a lamp has, the flame illumining the rest of it.). This also refutes the (Buddhist) view that the same consciousness is both subject and object. Moreover, we have no reason to infer that happiness and the Self, which are the objects of perception and inference respectively, stand to each other in the relation of attribute and substance; for misery is always an object of perception and abides in the same substance (body) that has form or colour. Even if the misery of the Self is said to be due to Its contact with the mind (Vaisesika view.), it would make the Self a thing which has parts, is changeful and transitory, for no attribute is ever seen to come or go without making some change in the substance connected with it. And a thing which has no parts is never seen to change, nor is an eternal entity seen to possess transitory attributes. The ether is not accepted as enternal by those who believe in the Vedas, and there is no other illustration.
Objection:- Although a thing may change, yet, since the notion of its identity abides, it is eternal. Reply:- No, for change in a thing implies that its parts become otherwise. Objection:- Suppose we say that the same Self is eternal. Reply:- Not so, for a thing that has parts is produced by their combination, hence they may divide again. Objection:- It is wrong, for we do not see this in thunder, for instance. Reply:- Not so, for we can easily infer that it must have been preceded by a combination. Therefore the Self cannot be proved to have transitory attributes like misery. Objection:- If the Supreme Self has no misery, and there is no other entity to be miserable, then it is useless for the scriptures to try to remove misery. Reply:- Not so, for they are meant to remove the false notion of misery superimposed by ignorance. And the Self being admitted to imagine Itself as miserable, the scriptures help to remove that error, as in the case of the failure to count the tenth man, although he was there (Ten rustics swam across a stream, and one of them counted their number to see if everyone had safely crossed. To their dismay one was found missing. Then everyone took his turn at counting, but the result was the same. So they began to lament, when a kind passer-by inquired what it was all about. On being told what had happened, he readily understood the situation, and asked one of them to count again. When he stopped at nine, the new-comer said to him, 'You are the tenth man.' This he repeated with the rest of them. Then they saw their mistake and went away happy. Everyone had left himself out in the counting!). Like the reflection of the sun etc. in water, the entrance of the Self means only Its being perceived like a reflection in the differentiated universe. Before the manifestation of the latter the Self is not perceived, but after it is manifested, the Self is perceived within the intellect, like the reflection of the sun etc. in water and the like. Because It is thus perceived as having entered, as it were, into the universe after manifesting it, It is indicated in such terms as the following:- 'This Self has entered into these bodies' (this text), 'After projecting it, the Self entered into it' (Tai. II. vi. 1), 'Piercing this dividing line (of the head), It entered through what gate' (Ai. III. 12), and 'That deity (Existence) thought:- Well, let me enter into these three gods (fire, water, and earth) as this individual self' etc. (Ch. VI. iii. 2). The all-pervading Self, which is without parts, can never be supposed to enter in the sense of leaving a certain quarter, place or time and being joined to new ones. Nor is there, as we have said, any other seer but the Supreme Self, as is testified by such Sruti texts as, 'There is no other witness but This, no other hearer but This' etc. (III. viii. 11). The passages delineating the projection of the universe and the entrance of the Self into it as well as its continuance and dissolution, serve only as aids to the realisation of the Self, for this is described in the Srutis as the highest end of man. Witness such texts as the following:- 'It knew only Itself ' Therefore It became all' (I. iv. 10), 'The knower of Brahman attains the highest' (Tai. II. i. 1), 'He who knows that Supreme Brahman becomes Brahman' (Mu. III. ii. 9), 'He only knows who has got a teacher' (Ch. VI. xiv. 2), 'It takes him only so long (as he does not give up the body),' etc. (Ch. VI. xiv. 2). And the Smrtis, 'Then knowing Me truly, he enters into Me' (G. XVIII. 55), 'That (Self-knowledge) is the chief of all knowledge, for it leads to immortality' (M. XII. 85). Besides, since duality has been repudiated, the passages delineating the manifestation etc. of the universe can have the sole aim of helping the realisation of the unity of the Self. Therefore we conclude that the entrance of the Self into the universe is but a metaphorical way of stating that It is perceived in the midst of the latter. Up to the tip of the nails is the intelligence of the Self perceived. How It has entered is being explained:- As in the world a razor may be put in its case, the barber's instrument-bag --- the razor is perceived as being within it --- or as fire, which sustains the world, may be in its source, wood etc. --- the predicate is to be repeated with 'fire' where it is perceived through friction. As a razor lies in one part of the case, or as fire lies in wood pervading it, so does the Self reside in the body pervading it in a general and particular way. There It is perceived as doing the functions of living as well as sight etc. Therefore people do not see It, realise the Self (As It is in reality, although they see Its conditioned aspect.) that has thus entered into the body and does the above functions. It may be urged that this statement, 'People do not see It,' repudiates something for which there was no occasion, for the vision of It is not the topic under consideration. The answer to it is:- There is nothing wrong it it, for since the passages delineating the projection etc. of the universe are meant as aids to the realisation of the unity of the Self, the vision of the Self is the subject under consideration. Compare the Sruti, 'He transformed Himself in accordance with each form; that form of His was for the sake of making Him known' (II. v. 19). Now the reason is being given why people see It only as doing the functions of the vital force etc. (but not as a whole):- For It is incomplete when It does the above functions. Why incomplete? When It does the function of living, It is called the vital force. Because of doing this function only, and none other, the Self is called the vital force, from the derivative meaning of the term, as one is called a cutter or a cook. Therefore, not combining the other aspects doing other functions, It is incomplete. Similarly, when It speaks, the organ of speech (or speaker); when It sees, the eye, or seer; when It hears, the ear, or listener. In the two sentences, 'When It does the function of living, It is the vital force,' and 'When It speaks, the organ of speech,' the manifestation of its power of action is indicated. While the two sentences, 'When It sees, the eye' and 'When It hears, the ear,' indicate the manifestation of Its power of knowledge, for this is concerned with name and form. The ear and the eye are the instruments of knowledge, which has name and form as its material, for there is nothing to be known except these two, and the ear and the eye are the instruments to perceive them. And action has name and form as its auxiliaries and inheres in the vital force; the organ of speech is the instrument to manifest this action inherent in the vital force. Likewise the Self is called the hand, the foot and the organs of excretion and generation, which are all suggested by the organ of speech. The whole differentiated universe is this much. It will be said later on, 'This (universe) indeed consists of three things:- name, form, and action' (I. vi. 1). And when It thinks, the mind, that which thinks. The word 'mind' also means the common instrument of the different manifestations of the power of knowledge. But here it denotes the Self, the agent who thinks. These, the vital force etc., are merely Its names according to functions, not describing the Self as it is. Hence they do not express the entity of the Self as a whole. Thus the Self is differentiated by the activities of living etc. into name and form such as the vital force, which are engendered by those different activities, and is manifestated at the same time (but not realised as a whole). He who meditates through his mind upon each of this totality of aspects doing the functions of living etc., qualified as the vital force or the eye, without combining the other aspects doing particular functions --- meditates that this is the Self, does not know Brahman. Why? For It, this Self, is incomplete, being divided from this totality of aspects doing the functions of living etc. by possessing a single characteristic, and not including the other characteristics. As long as the man knows the Self as such, as possessed of the natural functions, and thinks that It sees, hears or touches, he does not really know the whole Self. Through what kind of vision can he know It? This is being explained:- The Self alone is to be meditated upon. That which possesses the characteristics such as living that have been mentioned --- includes them --- is the Self (The root-meaning of the word 'Atman' is that which pervades everything.). Combining all the characteristics, It then becomes the whole. It is as the Reality that It includes those characteristics due to the functions of particular limiting adjuncts such as the vital force. As it will be said later on 'It thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were' (IV. iii. 7). Therefore the Self alone is to be meditated upon. When perceived thus as the Reality, It becomes complete. How is It complete? This is being answered:- For all these differences due to the limiting adjuncts such as the vital force, and denoted by names arising from the functions of living etc., as described above, are unified in It, become one with the unconditioned Self, as the different reflections of the sun in water become one in the sun.
'The Self alone is to be meditated upon' --- this is not an original injunction (Apurva-vidhi:- It enjoins something totally unknown through any other source. There are two other kinds of injunction. One is the restrictive injunction (Niyama-vidhi), which only specifies which one among the possible known alternatives is to be adopted, and the other is exclusion (Parisamkhya), or limitation to what is expressly mentioned, so that everything else is excluded.) (but a restrictive one), for meditation on the Self is known as a possible alternative. (In fact, neither injunction is necessary on the point, for this meditation is inevitable, in the following way:-) The knowledge of the Self has been imparted by such Sruti passages dealing with the subject as, 'The Brahman that is immediate and direct' (III. iv. 1 ' 2; III. v. 1), 'Which is the Self? This (infinite entity) that is identified with the intellect,' etc. (IV. iii. 7). The very knowledge of the nature of the Self removes the ignorance about It, consisting in identification with the non-Self, and the superimposing of action, its factors, principal and subsidiary, and its results (on the Self). When that is removed, evils such as desire cannot exist, and consequently thinking of the non-Self is also gone. Hence on the principle of the residuum thinking of the Self follows as a matter of course. Therefore meditation on it, from this point of view, has not be enjoined, for it is already known (from other sources). On this some say:- Apart from the question whether meditation on the Self is known as just a possible alternative or as something that is always known, the present case must be an original injunction, for knowledge and meditation being the same, this (meditation on the Self) is not something already known. The clause, 'He does not know,' introduces knowledge, and the sentence, 'The Self alone is to be meditated upon,' coming just after that, indicates that the words 'knowledge' and 'meditation' have the same meaning. Such Sruti texts as, 'For one knows all these through It' (this text), and 'It knew only Itself' (I. iv. 10), show that knowledge is meditation. And this, not being familiar to people, requires an injunction. Nor is a man induced to act merely by a statement of the nature of a thing. Therefore this must be an original injunction. Its similarity to the injunctions about rites also corroborates this view. For instance, 'One should sacrifice,' 'One should offer oblations,' etc., are injunctions about rites, and we do not see any difference between these and the injunctions about meditation on the Self such as, 'The Self alone is to be meditated upon,' and 'The Self, my dear, is to be realised' (II. iv. 5; IV. v. 6). Besides knowledge is a mental act. Just as mental acts are enjoined by such (ritualistic) texts as, 'Just before uttering the invocation ending with 'Vasat' (the invoking priest) should meditate upon the deity to whom the offering is to made' (Ai. B. XI. viii.), similarly cognitive acts are enjoined by such texts as, 'This Self alone is to be meditated upon,' '(The Self) is to be reflected on and meditated upon' (II. iv. 5; IV. v. 6). And we have said that the words 'knowledge' and 'meditation' are synonymous. Another reason in support of this view is that the requisite effort (in meditation also) should have its three divisions. That is to say, just as in the effort in connection with the injunction, 'One should sacrifice,' we know that in order to satisfy our curiosity about the propsed act, it must have three divisions, viz 'What is it?' 'Through what means?' and 'In what way?' --- similarly, in the effort in connection with the injunction, 'One should meditate,' in answer to one's queries regarding what to meditate upon, through what means to meditate, and in what way to meditate, the scriptures themselves support these three divisions by saying that the Self is to be meditated upon, through the mind, and by the practice of renounciation (Giving up forbidden acts as well as rites with material ends.), continence, equanimity, self-control, self-withdrawal (Giving up the regular and occasional rites.), fortitude etc., and so on. And just as the entire section dealing with the new and full moon sacrifices etc. is used as part of the injunction regarding these sacrifices, similarly the section of the Upanisads dealing with meditation on the Self must be used only as part of the injunction regarding this meditation. Such passages as 'Not this, not this' (II. iii. 6), 'Not gross,' (III. viii. , 'One only without a second' (Ch. VI. ii. 1), 'Beyond hunger etc.' (III. v. 1, adapted), are to be used as setting forth the particular nature of the Self, the object of meditation. And the result is liberation or the cessation of ignorance.
Others say that meditation generates a new special kind of consciousness regarding the Self, through which the latter is known, and which alone removes ignorance, and not the knowledge due to the Vedic dicta about the Self. And in support of this view they cite such texts as the following:- '(The aspirant after Brahman) knowing about this alone, should attain intuitive knowledge' (IV. iv. 21), '(The Self) is to be realised --- to be heard of, reflected on and meditated upon' (II. iv. 5; IV. v. 6), 'That is to be sought, and That one should desire to realise' (Ch. VIII. vii. 1, 3). Both views are wrong, for there is no reference to anything else in the passage in question. To be explicit:- The sentence, 'The Self alone is to be meditated upon,' is not an original injunction. Why? Because except the knowledge that arises from the dictum setting forth the nature of the Self and refuting the non-Self, there is nothing to be done, either mentally or outwardly. An injunction is appropriate only where, over and above the knowledge that arises immediately from hearing a sentence of the nature of an injunction, an activity on the part of a man is easily understood, as in sentences like, 'One who desires heaven must perform the new and full moon sacrifices.' The knowledge arising from a sentence enjoining these sacrifices is certainly not the performance of them. This depends on considerations such as whether a person is entitled to perform them. But apart from the knowledge arising from such passages delineating the Self as 'Not this, not this,' there is no scope for human activity as in the case of the new and full moon sacrifices etc., because that knowledge puts a stop to all activity. For a neutral knowledge cannot initiate any activity, since such passages as, 'One only without a second,' and 'Thou art That' (Ch. VI. vii. 7), merely remove the consciousness of any other entity but the Self or Brahman. And when this is gone, no activity is possible, for they are contradictory to each other.
Objection:- The mere knowledge arising from those passages does not suffice to remove the consciousness of entities other than the Self or Brahman. Reply:- Not so, for such passages as, 'Thou art That,' 'Not this, not this,' 'All this is but the Self' (Ch. VII. xxv. 2), 'One only without a second,' 'This universe is but Brahman and immortal' (Mu. II. ii. 11), 'There is no other witness but This' (III. viii. 11), and 'Know that alone to be Brahman' (Ke. I. 5 ' 9), describe the Reality alone. Objection:- Do they not supply the object for the injunction about realising the Self. Reply:- No, for we have already answered that point by saying that there is no reference to anything else in those passages. That is to say, since sentences such as, 'Thou art That,' which only delineate the nature of the Self, immediately lead to Its realisation, there is no further action to be done with regard to the injunction about that realisation. Objection:- A man does not proceed to know the Self immediately on hearing a statement of the nature of the Self, unless there is an injunction to that effect. Reply:- Not so, for the knowledge of the Self is already attained by hearing the dictum about it. So what is the good of doing It over again? Objection:- He may not even proceed to hear about the Self. (So an injunction is necessary). Reply:- Not so, for it would lead to a regressus in infinitum. In other words, just as without an injunction he does not proceed to hear the meaning of a passage about the Self, similarly he would not, in the absence of another injunction, proceed to hear the meaning of a passage enjoining this; so another injunction is necessary. Similarly with that injunction too. Hence there would be a regressus in infinitum. Objection:- Is not the train of remembrance of the knowledge of the Self generated by the passage relating to It something different from the knowledge itself arising from the hearing of It (and hence that is to be prescribed)? Reply:- No, for the remembrance of the Self comes automatically. That is to say, as soon as the knowledge of the Self arises in consequence of hearing a dictum delineating It, it necessarily destroys the false notion about It. It could not arise otherwise. And when this false notion about the Self is gone, memories due to that, which are natural to man and concern the multitude of things other than the Self, cannot last. Moreover, everything else is then known to be an evil. In other words, when the Self is known, things other than It are realised as evils, being full of defects such as transitoriness, painfulness and impurity, while the Self is contrary to them. Therefore the memories of notions about the non-Self die out when the Self is known. As the only alernative left, the train of remembrance of the knowledge that the Self is one, which comes automatically, is not to be prescribed. Besides, the memory of the Self removes the painful defects such as grief, delusion, fear and effort, for these defects spring from the opposite kind of knowledge. Compare the Sruti texts, 'Then what delusion can there be?' (Is. 7), 'Knowing (the bliss of Brahman) he is not afraid of anything' (Tai. II. 9), 'You have attained That which is free from fear, O Janaka' (IV. ii. 4), 'The knot of the heart is broken' (Mu.II. ii. , and so on.
Objection:- Well then, the control of the mind may be something different. In other words, since the control of mental states is something different from the knowledge of the Self arising from the Vedic texts, and since we know this has been prescribed for practice in another system (Yoga), let this be enjoined. Reply:- No, for it is not known as a means of liberation. In the Upanisads nothing is spoken of as a means to the attainment of the highest end of man except the knowledge of the identity of the self and Brahman. Witness hundreds of Sruti texts like the following:- 'It knews only Itself ' Therefore It became all' (I. iv. 10), 'The knower of Brahman attains the highest' (Tai. II. i. 1), 'He who knows that Supreme Brahman becomes Brahman' (Mu. III. ii. 9), 'He only knows who has got a teacher. It takes him only so long (as he does not give up the body)' (Ch. VI. xiv. 2), 'He who knows it as such indeed becomes the fearless Brahman' (IV. iv. 25; Nr. Ut. VIII). Besides there is no other means for the control of mental states except the knowledge of the Self and the train of remembrance about it. We have said this as a tentative admission; really we know of no other means of liberation except the knowledge of Brahman. Moreover, there being no curiosity to know, no effort is necessary. To be explicit:- You said, in the effort in connection with injunction such as, 'One should sacrifice,' there is the curiosity to know what the sacrifice is about, what its means are, and how it is to be performed, and it is satisfied by the mention of the goal, the means and the method of the sacrifices; similarly here too, in the injunction about the knowledge of the Self, those things are necessary. But you are wrong, for all curiosity is ended as soon as one knows the meaning of such texts as, 'One only without a second,' 'Thou art That,' 'Not this, not this,' 'Without enterior or exterior' (II. v. 19; III. viii. , and 'This self is Brahman' (II. v. 19; Ma. 2). And a man does not proceed to know the meaning of those passages, prompted by an injunction. We have already said that if another injunction is needed for this, it would lead to a regressus in infintum. Nor is an injunction noticed in such sentences as 'Brahman is one only without a second,' for they finish by simply stating the nature of the Self.
Objection:- Do they not lose their authority (as Vedas) by being mere statements of the nature of a thing? In other words, just as passages like, 'He (the deity Fire) cried. That is why he was called Rudra' (Tai. S. I. v. 1. 1), being a mere narration of an event (And not an injunction, which is the sole test of authority for the Vedas according to the Mimamsakas.), have no authority, so also the passages delineating the Self have more. Reply:- Not so, for there is a difference (between the two sets of passages). The test of the authority or otherwise of a passage is not whether it states a fact or an action, but its capacity to generate certain and fruitful knowledge. A passage that has this is authoritative, and one that lacks it, is not. But we want to ask you:- Is or is not certain and fruitful knowledge generated by passages setting forth the nature of the Self, and if so, how can they lose their authority? Do you not see the result of knowledge in the removal of the evils which are the root of transmigartion, such as ignorance, grief, delusion and fear? Or do you not hear those hundreds of Upanisadic texts such as, 'Then what delusion and what grief can there be for one who sees unity?' (Is. 7), 'I am but a knower of (Vedic) Mantras, not of the Self, so I am tormented with grief, and you, sir, must take me beyond the reach of it' (Ch. VII. i. 3). Do passages like, 'He cried,' lead to this kind of certain and fruitful knowledge? If they do not, they may well be without authority. But how can the fact of their having no authority take away the authority of passages leading to certain and fruitful knowledge? And if these are without authority, what trust one can repose in passages dealing with the new and full moon sacrifices, for instance?
Objection:- These have authority because they generate knowledge leading to action on the part of a man. But passages inculcating the knowledge of the Self do not do that. Reply:- True, but it is nothing against them, for there is reason enough for their authority. And that reason is what we have already stated, and none other. It is not a reason to disprove the authority of passages inculcating the Self that they generate knowledge which has the effect of destroying the seeds of all activity, rather it is their ornament. You said sentences like, '(The aspirant after Brahman) knowing about this alone should attain intuitive knowledge,' convey the necessity of meditation in addition to knowing the meaning of the Vedic dicta. It is true, but they do not constitute an original injunction. Since meditation on the Self is already known as a possible alternative, they can only be restrictive.
Objection:- How is that meditation already known as a possible alternative, since, as you said, on the principle of the residuum the train of remembrance of the knowledge of the Self is an inevitable fact? Reply:- It is true, but nevertheless, since the resultant of past actions that led to the formation of the present body must produce definite results, speech, mind and the body are bound to work even after the highest realisation, for actions that have begun to bear fruit are stronger than knowledge; as for instance an arrow that has been let fly continues its course for some time. Hence the operation of knowledge, being weaker than they, (is liable to be interrupted by them and) becomes only a possible alternative. Therefore there is need to regulate the train of remembrance of the knowledge of the Self by having recourse to means such as renunciation and dispassion; but it is not something that is to be originally enjoined, being, as we said, already known as a possible alternative. Hence we conclude that passages such as, '(The aspirant after Brahman) knowing about this alone, should attain intuitive knowledge,' are only meant to lay down the rule that the train of remembrance --- already known (as a possible alternative) --- of the knowledge of the Self must be kept up, for they can have no other import.
Objection:-This should be a meditation on the non-Self, for the particle 'iti' (as) has been used. In passages such as, 'It should be meditated upon as dear' (IV. i. 3), the meaning is not that features such as dearness are to be meditated upon, but that the vital force etc. possessing these features should be meditated upon. Similarly here also, from the use of the particle 'iti' along with the word 'Self' it is understood that something other than the Self (i.e. the Undifferentiated) but having the features of the Self is to be meditated upon. Another reason in support of this view is the difference of the passage in question from another where the Self is presented as the object of meditation. For instance, it will be stated later on, 'One should meditate only upon the world of the Self' (I. iv. 15). In that passage the Self alone is meant to be the object of meditation, for there is the accusative inflextion in the word 'Self.' Here, however, there is no accusative inflexion, but the particle 'iti' is used along with the word 'Self.' Hence it is understood that the Self is not the object of meditation here, but something else having the features of the Self. Reply:- No, for at the end of this very passage (this text) the Self alone, we find, is presented as the object of meditation, 'Of all these, this Self alone should be realised,' (and elsewhere), 'This Self which is innermost' (I. iv. , and 'It knew only Itslef' (I. iv. 10).
Objection:- The Self is not the object of meditation, for the vision of that which entered is negated. In other words, the Sruti precludes the vision of that very Self whose entrance (into the universe) was described, for the words, 'People do not see It' (this text), refer to the Self which is under consideration. Hence the Self is certainly not to be meditated upon. Reply:- Not so, for this is because of the defect of incompleteness. In other words, the preclusion of the vision is only to indicate the defect of incompleteness in the Self, not to forbid It as an object of meditation, for It is qualified by possessing the functions of living etc. If the Self were not meant to be the object of meditation, the mention of Its incompleteness when endowed with single functions such as living, in the passage, 'For It is incomplete (being divided) from this totality by possessing a single characteristic' (this text), would be meaningless. Hence the conclusion is that Self alone which is not possessed of single features is to be meditated upon, for It is complete. The use of the particle 'iti' along with the word 'Self,' to which you referred, only signifies that the truth of the Self is really beyond the scope of the term and the concept 'Self.' Otherwise the Sruti would only say, 'One should meditate upon the Self.' But this would imply that the term and the conept 'Self' were permissible with regard to the Self. That, however, is repugnant to the Sruti. Witness such passages as 'Not this, not this' (II. iii. 6), 'Through what, O Maitreyi, should one know the Knower?' (II. iv. 14; IV. v. 15), 'It is never known, but is the Knower' (III. viii. 11), and 'Whence speech returns baffled together with the mind' (Tai. II, iv. 1 and ix. 1). As for the passage, 'One should meditate only upon the world of the Self,' since it is meant to preclude the possibility of meditation on things other than the Self, it does not convey a different meaning from the one we have been discussing.
Objection:- Since they are alike incompletely known, the Self and the non-Self are both to be known. Such being the case, why should care be taken to know the Self alone, as is evident from the passage, 'The Self alone is to be meditated upon,' and not the other? Reply:- Of all these, this entity called Self, which we are considering alone should be realised, and nothing else. The 'of' has a partitive force, meaning 'among all these.' Objection:- Is the rest not to be known at all? Reply:- Not so. Although it is to be known, it does not require a separate knowledge over and above that of the Self. Why? For one knows all these things other than the Self through It, when the Self is known. Objection:- But we cannot know one thing by knowing another. Reply:- We shall answer the point while explaining the passage relating to the drum etc. (II. iv. 7). Objection:- How is the Self the one that should be realised? Reply:- Just as in the world one may get a missing animal that is wanted back, by searching it through its footprints --- 'foot' here means the ground with the print of hoof-marks left by a cow etc. --- similarly when the Self is attained, everything is automatically attained. This is the idea. Objection:- The topic was knowledge --- when the Self is known, everything else is known. So why is a different topic, viz attainment, introduced here? Reply:- Not so, for the Sruti uses the words 'knowledge' and 'attainment' as synonymous. The non-attainment of the Self is but the ignorance of It. Hence the knowledge of the Self is Its attainment. The attainment of the Self cannot be, as in the case of things other than It, the obtaining of something not obtained before, for here there is no difference between the person attaining and the object attained. Where the Self has to attain something other than Itself, the Self is the attainer and the non-Self is the object attained. This, not being already attained, is separated by acts such as producing, and is to be attained by the initiation of a particular action with the help of particular auxiliaries. And that attainment of something new is transitory, being due to desire and action that are themselves the product of a false notion, like the birth of a son etc. in a dream. But this Self is the very opposite of that. By the very fact of Its being the Self, It is not separated by acts such as producing. But although It is always attained, It is separated by ignorance only. Just as when a mother-of-pearl through mistake as a piece of silver, the non-apprehension of the former, although it is being perceived all the while, is merely due to the obstruction of the false impression, and its (subsequent) apprehension is but knowledge, for this is what removes the obstruction of false impression, similarly here also the non-attainment of the Self is merely due to the obstruction of ignorance. Therefore the attainment of It is simply the removal of that obstruction by knowledge; in no other sense it is consistent. Hence we shall explain how for the realisation of the Self every other means but knowledge is useless. Therefore the Sruti, wishing to express the indubitable identity of meaning of knowledge and attainment, says after introducing knowledge, 'May get,' for the root 'vid' also means 'to get.' Now the result of meditation on the characteristic is being stated:- He who knows It as such, knows how this Self, entering into name and form, became famous through that name and form as the 'Self,' and got the association of the vital force etc., obtains fame and association with his dear ones. Or, he who knows the Self as described above obtains Kirti or the knowledge of unity coveted by seekers of liberation, and Sloka or liberation which results from that knowledge --- gets these primary results of knowledge.
Max Müller
7. Now all this was then undeveloped. It became developed by form and name, so that one could say, 'He, called so and so, is such a one [1].' Therefore at present also all this is developed by name and form, so that one can say, 'He, called so and so, is such a one.' He (Brahman or the Self) entered thither, to the very tips of the finger-nails, as a razor might be fitted in a razor-case, or as fire in a fire-place [2]. He cannot be seen, for, in part only, when breathing, he is breath by name; when speaking, speech by name; when seeing, eye by name; when hearing, ear by name; when thinking, mind by name. All these are but the names of his acts. And he who worships (regards) him as the one or the other, does not know him, for he is apart from this (when qualified) by the one or the other (predicate). Let men worship him as Self, for in the Self all these are one. This Self is the footstep of everything, for through it one knows everything [3]. And as one can find again by footsteps what was lost, thus he who knows this finds glory and praise.
yadayamātmā . sa yo'nyamātmanaḥ priyaṃ bruvāṇaṃ brūyāt priyagͫ
rotsyatītīśvaro ha tathaiva syādātmānameva priyamupāsīta . sa ya
ātmānameva priyamupāste na hāsya priyaṃ pramāyukaṃ bhavati .. 8..
Meaning:- This Self is dearer than a son, dearer than wealth, dearer than everything else, and is innermost. Should a person (holding the Self as dear) say to one calling anything else dearer than the Self, '(what you hold) dear will die' - he is certainly competent (to say so) - it will indeed come true. One should meditate upon the Self alone as dear. Of him who meditates upon the Self alone as dear, the dear ones are not mortal.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Here is another reason why the Self should be known to the exclusion of everything else. This Self is dearer than a son:- A son is universally held dear in the world; but the Self is dearer than he, which shows that It is extremely dear. Similarly dearer than wealth such as gold or jewels, and everything else, whatever is admittedly held dear in the world. Why is the Self dearer than those things, and not the organs etc.? This is being explained:- And is innermost. The body and the organs are inner and nearer to oneself than a son or wealth, for instance, which are external things. But this Self is nearer than those even. A thing which is extremely dear deserves to be attained by the utmost effort. So is this Self, which is dearer than everything else held dear in the world. Therefore one should make the utmost effort to attain It, even abandoning that which is imposed as a duty (By the scriptures; e.g. marriage, for the sake of having son.) on one, for the attainment of other dear objects. But one may ask, when both Self and non-self are dear, and the choice of one means the rejection of the other, why should the Self alone be chosen to the exclusion of the other, and not inversely? This is being answered:- Should a person holding the Self as dear say to one calling anything else but the Self, such as a son, dearer than the Self, 'What you hold dear, for instance, the son, will die (lit. will meet with the extinction of life)' --- Why does he say like this? Because he is certainly competent to say so. Hence --- it, what he said, will indeed come true, the dear one will dies, for he speaks the truth. Therefore he is in a position to say like that. Some say that the word 'Isvara' (competent) means 'swift.' It might if it was commonly used in that sense. Therefore, giving up all other dear things, one should meditate upon the Self alone as dear. Of him who meditates upon the Self alone as dear, who knows that the Self alone is dear and nothing else, and thinks of It with the full conviction that the other things commonly held dear are really anything but dear --- of one possessed of this knowledge the dear ones are not mortal. This is a mere restatement of a universal fact (Viz that everybody has dear ones and suffers when they die. Although the knower of Brahman has no such limited vision and therefore does not suffer on that account, yet he is here described in terms that are merely conventional.), for a knower of the Self has nothing else to call dear or the opposite. Or it may be a eulogy on the choice of the Self as dear (in preference to non-Self); or it may be the declaration of a result for one who is an imperfect knower of the Self, if he meditates upon the Self as dear, for a suffix signifying a habit has been used in the word 'Pramayuka' (mortal) (Since mortal things cannot be immortal, it only means that they attain longer life by virtue of this meditation.).
Max Müller
8. This, which is nearer to us than anything, this Self, is dearer than a son, dearer than wealth, dearer than all else. And if one were to say to one who declares another than the Self dear, that he will lose what is dear to him, very likely it would be so. Let him worship the Self alone as dear. He who worships the Self alone as dear, the object of his love will never perish [1].
Meaning:- They say:- Men think, 'Through the knowledge of Brahman we shall become all'. Well, what did that Brahman know by which It became all?
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- In the words, 'The Self alone is to be meditated upon' (I. iv. 7); the knowledge of Brahman which it is the aim of the whole Upanisad to impart, has been briefly indicated. With a view to explaining this aphorism, the Sruti, in order to state the necessity of this knowledge, makes this introduction:- They say. 'Tat' (that) is preparatory to what is going to be unfolded in the next clause. 'They' refers to those seekers of Brahman who, on getting a teacher who is like a boat on that boundless ocean which has for its water the painful struggle due to rotation in the cycle of birth, decay and death, desire to cross that ocean, and being disgusted with the world of means and ends consisting of righteousness and unrighteousness, their means and their results, long to attain the eternal, supreme good which is entirely, diffrerent from the above. What do they say? This is being stated:- Men think, 'Through the knowledge of Brahman or the Supreme Self we shall become all, excluding nothing.' The use of the word 'men' indicates their special aptitude for this as they are specially qualified for the achievement of prosperity and liberation. This is the idea. As those seekers think with regard to rites that they would bring sure results, similarly they think that the knowledge of Brahman is sure to lead to identity with all, for the Vedas are equally the authority for both. Now this seems to be something inconsistent, hence we ask, what did that Brahman by knowing which men think they will become all, know by which It became all? And the Srutis say that It is all. If It became all without knowing anything, let it be the same with others too, what is the use of the knowledge of Brahman? If, on the other hand, It became all by knowing something, then this identity with all which is the result of the knowledge of Brahman, being the product of knowledge, becomes just like the result of an action, and therefore transitory. There would also be a regressus in infinitum, viz that too had become all by knowing something else, that eariler thing, again, by knowing something else, and so on. We take it for granted than It did not become all without knowing something, for that would be distorting the meaning of the scriptures. But the charge of the result being transitory stands, does it not? --- Nor, none of those charges can be levelled at it, for there is a particular meaning to it. If indeed that Brahman became all by knowing something, we ask, what was it? To this objection the text gives the following absolutely faultless reply:-
Max Müller
9. Here they say:- 'If men think that by knowledge of Brahman they will become everything, what then did that Brahman know, from whence all this sprang?'
Meaning:- This (self) was indeed Brahman in the beginning. It knew only Itself as, 'I am Brahman'. Therefore It became all. And whoever among the gods knew It also became That; and the same with sages and men. The sage Vamadeva, while realising this (self) as That, knew, 'I was Manu, and the sun'. And to this day whoever in like manner knows It as, 'I am Brahman', becomes all this (universe). Even the gods cannot prevail against him, for he becomes their self. While he who worships another god thinking, 'He is one, and I am another', does not know. He is like an animal to the gods. As many animals serve a man, so does each man serve the gods. Even if one animal is taken away, it causes anguish, what should one say of many animals? Therefore it is not liked by them that men should know this.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Prima facie view:- Brahman here must be the conditioned Brahman (The view of an earlier commentator (Vrttikara), for then only can the identity with all be the product of effort. The Supreme Brahman cannot become all as a result of knowledge. But this identity with all is spoken of as a result of knowledge:- 'Therefore It became all.' Hence the Brahman referred to in the passage, 'This was indeed Brahman in the beginning,' must be the conditioned Brahman. Or, since men alone are qualified (for this identification with all), the word 'Brahman' may refer to a future knower of Brahman who will be identified with It. For in the passage, 'Men think ' we shall become all' (I. iv. 9), men have been introduced, and it has already been said that they alone are specially qualified for the practice of the means of prosperity and liberation --- neither the Supreme Brahman nor Hiranyagarbha, the conditioned Brahman. Therefore by the word 'Brahman' is meant a man who through the knowledge of the conditioned Brahman --- identified with the whole universe --- combined with rites, attained identity with the conditioned Brahman (Hiranyagarbha), and turning away from all enjoyments (in that state) and having broken his ties of desire and action by attaining everything, sought unity with the Supreme Brahman through the knowledge of It. It is a common occurrence in the world that words are used having reference to future states, as in the sentence, 'They are cooking rice ('Rice' here means the cooked grains.),' and in the scriptures too, 'The monk (He can be a monk only after the sacrifice.), after performing a sacrifice in which wishing fearlessness to all beings is his fee to the priests,' etc. (Va. X.). Similarly here also Brahman means a man desiring to know Brahman and aspiring identity with It. This is the view of some (Bhartrprapanca, another commentator.). Reply:- Not so, for that kind of identity with all would be open to the charge of transitoriness. There is no such thing in the world that really assumes a different state through some cause and still is eternal. Similarly, if identity with all be due to the knowledge of Brahman, it cannot at the same time by eternal. And if it be transitory, it would be, as we have already said, like the result of an action. But if by identity with all you mean the cessation, through the knowledge of Brahman, of that idea of not being all which is due to ignorance, then it would be futile to understand by the term 'Brahman' a man who will be Brahman. Even before knowing Brahman, everybody, being Brahman, is really always identical with all, but ignorance superimposes on him the idea that he is not Brahman and not all, as a mother-of-pearl is mistaken for silver, or as the sky is imagined to be concave, or blue, or the like. Similarly, if you think that here also the idea of not being Brahman and not being all that has been superimposed on Brahman by ignorance, is removed by the knowledge of Brahman, then, since the Vedas speak the truth, it is proper to say that what was really the Supreme Brahman is referred to in the sentence, 'This was indeed Brahman in the beginning,' for that is the primary meaning of the word 'Brahman.' But one must not think that the word 'Brahman' here means a man who will be Brahman, which would be contrary to the meaning of that term. For it is wrong to give up the plain meaning of a word used in the Sruti and put a new meaning in its place, unless there is a higher purpose behind it.
Objection:- But the fact of not being Brahman and not being all exists apart from the creation of ignorance. Reply:- No, for then it cannot be removed by the knowledge of Brahman. This knowledge has never been observed either directly to remove some characteristic of a thing or to create one. But everywhere it is seen to remove ignorance. Similarly here also let the idea of not being Brahman and not being all that is due to ignorance, be removed by the knowledge of Brahman, but it can neither create nor put a stop to a real entity. Hence it is entirely futile to give up the plain meaning of a word used in the Sruti and put a new meaning in its place.
Objection:- But is not ignorance out of place in Brahman? Reply:- Not so, for knowledge regarding Brahman has been enjoined. When there has been no superimposition of silver on a mother-or-pearl, and it is directly visible, no one takes the trouble to say it is a mother-of-pearl, and not silver. Similarly, were there no superimposition of ignorance on Brahman, the knowledge of unity regarding Brahman would not be enjoined in such terms as the following:- All this is Existence, All this is Brahman (Adapted from Ch. VI. ii. 1 and Mu. II. ii. 11 respectively.). 'All this is the Self' (Ch. VII. xxv. 2), and This duality has no existence apart from Brahman (An echo of IV. iv. 19.).
Objection:- We do not say that there is no superimposition on Brahman of attributes not belonging to It, as in the case of a mother-of-pearl, but that Brahman is not the cause of the superimposition of these attributes on Itself, nor the author of ignorance. Reply:- Let it be so. Brahman is not the author of ignorance nor subject to error. But it is not admitted that there is any other conscious entity but Brahman which is the author of ignorance or subject to error. Witness such Sruti texts as, 'There is no other knower but Him' (III. vii. 23), 'There is no other knower but This' (III. viii. 11), 'Thou art That' (Ch. VI. viii. 7), 'It knew only Itself as, 'I am Brahman' ' (this text), and 'He (who worships another god thinking), 'He is one, and I am another,' does not know' (Ibid.). And the Smrtis:- '(Living) the same in all beings' (G. XIII. 27), 'I am the self, O Arjuna (dwelling in the minds of all beings)' (G. X. 20), and '(Wise men are even-minded) to a dog as well as a Candala' (G. V. 18). And the Vedic Mantras:- 'He who (sees) all beings (in himself)' (Is. 6), and 'When all beings (have become his self)' (Is. 7).
Objection:- In that case scriptural instruction is useless. Reply:- Quite so, let it be, when the truth has been known. Objection:- But it is also useless to know the truth. Reply:- No, for we see it removes ignorance. Objection:- If there is unity, this removal of ignorance also is impossible. Reply:- Not so, for it contradicts experience. We actually see that the knowledge of unity alone dispels ignorance. If you deny an observed fact, saying it is impossible, you would be contradicting experience, a thing which nobody will allow. Nor is there any question of impossibility with regard to an observed fact, because it has actually been observed. Objection:- But this observation also is impossible. Reply:- There also the same logic will apply.
Objection:- 'One indeed becomes good through good work' (III. ii. 13), 'It is followed by knowledge, work' (IV. iv. 2), 'The individual self, the Purusa, is a thinker, knower and doer' (Pr. IV. 9) --- from such Sruti and Smrti texts as well as from reason we know that there is a transmigrating self other than and distinct from the Supreme Self. And the latter is known to be distinct from the former from such Sruti texts as the following:- 'This (Self) is That which has been described as 'Not this, not this,' ' (III. iv. 26), 'It transcends hunger etc. (Adapted from III. v. 1.),' 'The Self that is sinless, undecaying, deathless' (Ch. VIII. vii. 13), and 'Under the mighty rule of this Immutable' (III. viii. 9). Again, in the systems of logic (Vaisesika and Nyaya) advocated by Kanada and Gautama, the existence of a God distinct from the transmigrating self is established through argument. That the latter is different from God is clearly seen from its activity due to its desire to get rid of the misery of relative existence. Also from such Sruti and Smrti texts as:- 'It is without speech and without zeal' (Ch. III. xiv. 2), and 'I have no duties, O Arjuna' (G. III. 32). And from the distinct mention of God as the object of search and the individual self as the seeker, in such (Sruti) passages as:- 'That is to be sought, and That one should desire to realise' (Ch. VIII. vii. 1, 3), 'Knowing It one is not touched (by evil action)' (IV. iv. 23), 'The knower of Brahman attains the highest' (Tai. II. i. 1), 'It should be realised in one form only' (IV. iv. 20), 'He, O Gargi, who without knowing this Immutable' (III. viii. 10), 'Knowing It alone, the sage' (IV. iv. 21), and 'The syllable Om is called the bow, the individual self the arrow, and Brahman the target' (Mu. II. ii. 4). Another reason for the difference is the mention of a journey, particular routes and a destination for a seeker of liberation. If there is no difference, who should make the journey and how, and in the absence of this, two particular routes, viz the southern and northern, are meaningless, and the destination as well. But if the individual self is different from the Supreme Self, all this would be consistent. Also they must be different because the scriptures prescribe the two means, viz rites and knowledge. If the individual self is different from Brahman, the teaching of rites and knowledge as means to prosperity and liberation respectively may aptly apply to it, but not to God, for the objects of His desire are eternally attained. Therefore it is proper to understand the word 'Brahmann' in the sense of a man aspiring to be Brahman. Reply:- No, for then instruction about Brahman would be useless. If a man subject to transmigration and only aspiring to be identified with Brahman became all by knowing himself to be Brahman, although he was not It, then instruction about the Surpeme Brahman is certainly useless, for he attained identity with all as a result of knowing only the transmigrating self, and the knowledge of the Supreme Brahman is never utilised (By scriptural injunctions, making it a subsidiary part of rites.) for attaining human ends.
Objection:- The instruction is only meant for the man subject to transmigration, so that he may practise the meditation based on resemblance (This is a kind of meditation known as 'Sampad', in which an inferior thing is thought of as a superior thing through some common features, often fanciful.) with regard to Brahman as, 'I am Brahman.' For if he does not fully know the nature of Brahman, with what can he identify himself in fancy as, 'I am Brahman'? This meditation based on resemblance is possible only when the characteristics of Brahman are fully known. Reply:- Not so, for we know that the words 'Brahman' and 'self' are synonymous, being used thousands of times in co-ordination in such texts as the following:- 'This self is Brahman' (II. v. 19; Ma. 2), 'The Brahman that is immediate and direct' (III. iv. 1 ' 2; III. v. 1), 'The Self (that is sinless)' (Ch. VIII. vii. 1, 3), 'It is truth, It is the Self' (Ch. VI. viii. 7 etc.) and 'The knower of Brahman attains the highest' (Tai. II. i. 1), these last introductory words (to Tai. II.) being shortly after followed by the words, 'From this Self,' etc. (Ibid.). The meditation based on resemblance is performed when the two things concerned are different, not when they are identical. And the sentence, 'This all is the Self' (II. iv. 6), shows the unity of the Self under consideration that is to be realised. Therefore the Self cannot be regarded as Brahman through the meditation based on resemblance. Nor do we see any other necessity for instruction about Brahman, for the Sruti mentions identification with It in the passages, '(He who) knows (that Supreme) Brahman becomes Brahman' (III. ii. 9), 'You have attained That which is free from fear, O Janaka' (IV. ii. 4), and 'He ' becomes the fearless Brahman' (IV. iv. 25). If the meditation based on resemblance were meant, this identity would not take place, for one thing cannot become another.
Objection:- On the strength of scriptural statements, even the meditation based on resemblance may led to identity. Reply:- No, for this meditation is only an idea. And knowledge, as we have said, only removes the false notion, it does not create anything. Nor can a scriptural statement impart any power to a thing. For it is an accepted principle that the scriptures are only informative, not creative (They only give first-hand information about things unknown. They do not produce anything new.). Besides, in the passage, 'This Self has entered into these bodies,' etc. (I. iv. 7), it is clear that the Supreme Self alone has entered. Therefore the view that the word 'Brahman' means a man who will be Brahman, is not a sound one. Another reason is that it contradicts the intended meaning. The desired import of this whole Upanisad is the knowledge that Brahman is without interior or exterior and homogeneous like a lump of salt, as is known from, the assertion , made at the end of both Madhu and Muni Kandas (Consisting of chapter I --- II and III --- IV respectively.), 'This is the teaching' (II. v. 19), and 'This much indeed is (the means of) immortality, my dear' (IV. v. 15). Similarly, in the Upanisads of all recensions the knowledge of the unity of Brahman (self) is the certain import. If, therefore, the passage in question is interpreted to mean that the transmigrating self, which is different from Brahman, knew itself, the desired meaning of the Upanisads would be contradicted. And in that case the scripture, having its beginning and end not tallying with each other, would be considered inconsistent. Moreover, the name would be out of place. In other words, if in the passage, 'It knew only Itself', the word 'It' is supposed to refer to the transmigrating self, the name given to the knowledge would not be 'the knowledge of Brahman,' for then, 'It knew only Itself,' should mean that the transmigrating self was the entity that was known.
Objection:- Suppose we say that the word 'Self' refers to an entity other than the knower (Which, according to the opponent, is the individual self. Hence the entity known would be Brahman, thus justifying the name of the knowledge.). Reply:- Not so, for there is the specification, 'I am Brahman.' If the entity known were other than the knower, the specification should be, 'It is Brahman,' or 'That is Brahman,' and not 'I am Brahman.' But since it is, 'I am Brahman,' and there is the assertion, 'It knew only Itself,' we know it for certain that the self is Brahman. And then only the name 'the knowledge of Brahman' would be appropriate, not otherwise. In the other case it would be 'the knowledge of the transmigrating self.' Nor can the same entity really be both Brahman and not Brahman, just as the sun cannot be both bright and dark, for these are contradictory features. And if both were the cause of the name, there should not be the sure appellation 'the knowledge of Brahman.' It should then be 'the knowledge of Brahman and of the transmigrating self.' Nor in proceeding to expound the knowledge of Truth should one present the reality as an absurdity, like a woman, for instance, being one-half old and one-half young. That will only cause doubt in the mind of the listener. Whereas it is sure knowledge that is regarded as leading to liberation, the goal of human life, as is evidenced by the following Sruti and Smrti texts:- 'He who really has (the conviction that he will attain the conditioned Brahman after death) and has no doubt about it (does attain him)' (Ch. III. xiv. 4), and 'The doubting man perishes' (G. IV. 40). Hence one who wishes to do good to others should not use expressions of a doubtful import.
Objection:- To think that Brahman, like us, is a seeker of liberation, is not proper, and that is what we see in the passage, 'It knew only Itself ' Therefore It became all. Reply:- Not so, for by saying this you will be flouting the scriptures. It is not our idea, but that of the scriptures. Hence your fling hits them. And you who wish to please Brahman should not give up the real meaning of the scriptures by fancying things contrary to it. Nor should you lose your patience over this much only, for all plurality is but imagined in Brahman, as we know from hundreds of texts like the following:- 'It should be realised in one form only' (IV. iv. 20), 'There is no difference whatsoever in Brahman' (IV. iv. 19; Ka. IV. 11), 'When there is duality, as it were' (II. iv. 14; IV. v. 15), and 'One only without a second' (Ch. VI. ii. 1). Since the whole phenomenal world is imagined in Brahman alone and is not real, you say very little when you condemn this particular idea as improper. Therefore the conclusion is that the word 'Brahman' refers to that Brahman which projected the universe and entered into it. This, the Brahman (self) that is perceived as being in this body, was indeed --- this word is emphatic --- Brahman, and all, in the beginning, even before realisation. But owing to ignorance it superimposes on itself the notion that it is not Brahman, and that it is not all, and consequently thinks, through mistake, that it is an agent, possessed of activity, the experiencer of its fruits, happy or miserable, and transmigrating. But really it is Brahman different from all the foregoing and is all. Being somehow awakened by a merciful teacher who told it that it was not subject to transmigartion, 'It knew only Itself,' its own natural Self, that is, which is free from differentiations superimposed by ignorance. This is the meaning of the particle 'eva' (only). Objection:- Tell me, what is that natural Self which Brahman knew? Reply:- Do you not remember the Self? It has been pointed out as the one that entering into these bodies does the function of the Prana, Apana, Vyana, Udana and Samana (See commentary on I. v. 3.). Objection:- You are describing It as one would describe a cow or a horse by simply saying, 'It is a cow,' or 'It is a horse.' You do not show the Self directly. Reply:- Well then, the Self is the seer, hearer, thinker and knower. Objection:- Here also you do not directly point out the nature of that which does the function of seeing etc. Going is surely not the nature of one who goes, nor cutting that of a cutter. Reply:- In that case the Self is the seer of sight, the hearer of hearing, the thinker of thought and the knower of knowledge. Objection:- But what difference does it make in the seer? Whether it be the seer of sight or of a jar, it is but the seer under all circumstances. By saying 'The seer of sight' you are simply stating a difference as regards the object seen. But the seer, whether it be the seer of sight or of a jar, is just the same. Reply:- No, for there is a difference, and it is this:- If that which is the seer of sight is identical with that sight, it always visualises the latter, and there is never a time when sight is not visualised by the seer. So the vision of the seer must be eternal. It if were transitory, then sight, which is the object visualised, may sometimes not be seen, as a jar, for instance, may not always be perceived by the transitory vision. But the seer of sight never ceases to visualise sight like that.
Objection:- Has the seer then two kinds of vision, one eternal and invisible, and the other transitory and visible? Reply:- Yes. The transitory vision is familiar to us, for we see some people are blind, and others are not. If the eternal vision were the only one in existence, all people would be possessed of vision. But the vision of the seer is an eternal one, for the Sruti says, 'The vision of the witness can never be lost' (IV. iii. 23). From inference also we know this. For we find even a blind man has vision consisting of the impressions of a jar etc. in dreams. This shows that the vision of the seer is not lost with the loss of the other kind of vision. Through that unfailing eternal vision, which is identical with It and is called the self-effulgent light, the Self always sees the other, transitory vision in the dream and waking states, as idea and perception respectively, and becomes the seer of sight. Such being the case, the vision itself is Its nature, like the heat of fire, and there is no other conscious (or unconscious) seer over and above the vision, as the Vaisesikas maintain. It, Brahman, knew only Itself, the eternal vision, devoid of the transitory vision etc. superimposed on It.
Objection:- But knowing the knower is self-contradictory, for the Sruti says, 'One should not try to know the knower of knowledge' (III. iv. 2). Reply:- No, this sort of knowledge involves no contradiction. The Self is indeed known thus, as 'the seer of sight.' Also it does not depend on any other knowledge. He who knows that the vision of the seer is eternal, does not wish to see It in any other way. This wish to see the seer automatically stops because of its very impossibility, for nobody hankers after a thing that does not exist. And that sight which is itself an object of vision does not dare to visualise the seer, in which case one might wish to do it. Nor does anybody want to see himself. Therefore the sentence, 'It knew only Itself,' only means the cessation of the superimpostion of ignorance, and not the actual cognising of the Self as an object. How did It know Itself? As 'I am Brahman, the Self that is the seer of sight.' 'Brahman' is That which is immediate and direct, the Self that is within all, beyond hunger and the like, described as 'Not this, not this' neither gross nor subtle, and so on. 'I am, as you (The teacher) said, That and no other, not the transmigrating self.' Therefore, from knowing thus, It, Brahman, became all. Since by the cessation of the superimposed notion of not being Brahman, its effect, the notion of not being all, was also gone, therefore It became all. Hence men are justified in thinking that through the knowledge of Brahman they would become all. The question, 'Well, what did that Brahman know by which It became all?' has been answered:- 'This was indeed Brahman in the beginning. It knew only Itself as, 'I am Brahman.' Therefore It became all.' And whoever among the gods knew It, the Self, in the manner described above, that awakened self also became That, Brahman. And the same with sages and men. The words 'gods' etc. are used from the conventional point of view, not from that of the vision of Brahman. We have already said that it is Brahman which has entered everywhere, as set forth in the passage, 'That Supreme Being first entered the bodies' (II. v. 18). Hence the words 'gods' etc. are used from the conventional standpoint determined by the limiting adjuncts such as the body. Really it was Brahman which was in those divine and other bodies even before realisation, being only looked upon as something else. It knew only Itself and thereby became all. To strengthen the import of the passage that this knowledge of Brahman leads to identity with all, the Sruti quotes some Mantras. How? The sage called Vamadeva, while realising this, his own self, as identical with That, Brahman, knew, from this realisation of Brahman, i.e. in that state of realisation of the identity of the self, and Brahman, visualised these Mantras, 'I was Manu, and the sun,' etc. (R. IV. xxvi. 1). The expression, 'While realising this (self) as That' --- Brahman --- refers to the knowledge of Brahman. And the words, 'I was Manu, and the sun,' refer to its result, identity with all. By the use of the form (The suffix Satr, denoting concurrence.), 'While realising' It he attained this result, viz identity with all, the Sruti shows that liberation is attainable through the aid of the knowledge of Brahman, as in the expression, 'While eating he is getting satisfaction.' Someone may think that the gods, who are great, attained this identity with all through the knowledge of Brahman because of their extraordinary power, but those of this age, particularly men, can never attain it owing to their limited power. In order to remove this notion the text says:- And to this day whoever, curbing his interest in external things, in like manner knows It, the Brahman under consideration which has entered into all beings and is indicated by the functions of seeing etc., i.e. his own Self, as, 'I am Brahman,' which is untouched by the attributes of the phenomenal universe, is without interior or exterior and absolute, by discarding the differences superimposed by the false notion created by limiting adjuncts, becomes all this, owing to his notion of incompleteness --- the effect of ignorance --- being removed by the knowledge of Brahman. For there is no difference as regards Brahman or the knowledge of It between giants like Vamadeva and the human weaklings of to-day. But, one may suppose, the result of the knowledge of Brahman may be uncertain in the case of the present generation. This is answered as follows:- Even the gods, powerful as they may be, cannot prevail against him, the man who has known Brahman in the manner described above --- have not the capacity to stop his becoming Brahman and all, much less others.
Objection:- Is there any ground for supposing that the gods and others can thwart the attainment of the results of the knowledge of Brahman? Reply:- Yes, because men are indebted to them. The Sruti text, '(Every Brahmana --- twice-born --- by his very birth is indebted) to the sages in respect of continence, to the gods in respect of sacrifices, and to the Manes in respect of progeny' (Tai S. VI. iii. 10.5), shows that a man by his very birth is under certain obligations. And we know it from the illustration of animals (in this text). There is also the text, 'Now this self (the ignorant man),' etc. (I. iv. 16), describing him as an object of enjoyment for all, which shows that it is reasonable to suppose that the gods, in order to maintain their livelihood, may hinder men, who are dependent, from attaining immortality, as cerditors do with their debtors. The gods also protect their animals like their own bodies, for the Sruti will show that each man being equivalent to many animals, the gods have a great source of livelihood in the rites performed by him. It will presently be stated, 'Therefore it is not liked by them that men should know this' (this text), and 'Just as one wishes safety to one's body, so do all beings wish safety to him who knows it as such' (I. iv. 16). From the mention of dislike and safety we understand that the gods think that when a man attains the knowledge of Brahman, he will cease to be their object of enjoyment and their animal, for his dependence will end. Therefore the gods may very well hinder a prospective knower of Brahman from attaining the results of the knowledge of Brahman, for they are also powerful.
Objection:- In that case the gods may find it like drinking a beverage to obstruct the fruition of results in other spheres too, viz rites. Well, it would shake one's faith in the performance of the means of achieving prosperity and liberation. Similarly God also, being of inscrutable power, can put obstacles, as also time, action, sacred formulas, herbs and austerities, which, as we know from the scriptures as well as experience, can help or hinder the fruition of results. This too would shake one's faith in the performance of scriptural rites. Reply:- Not so, for all things spring from definite causes, and we also see variety in the universe. Both these will be inconsistent if things happen spontaneously. Since it is the accepted view of the Vedas, Smrtis, reasoning and tradition that happiness, misery, and the like are the outcome of one's past work, the gods, or God, or time by no means upset the results of work, for these depend on requisite factors. Work, good or bad, that men do cannot come into being without the help of factors such as the gods, time and God, and even if it did, it would not have the power to produce results, for it is the very nature of work to spring from many causes such as the different factors. Therefore the gods, God and others being auxiliaries to work, there is another to shake our faith in the attainment of its results. Sometimes also (in the matter of thwarting) they have to depend on the past work of men, for its inherent power cannot be checked. And there is no fixity about the relative predominance of past work, time, destiny and the nature of things etc.; it is inscrutable, and hence throws people into confusion. Some, for instance, say that in bringing about results one's past work is the only factor. Others say it is destiny. A third group mentions time. Still others say it is the nature of things etc. While yet another group maintains it is all these things combined. Regarding this the Vedas and Smrtis uphold the primacy of past work, as in the passage, 'One indeed becomes good through good work and evil through evil work' (III. ii. 13), and so on. Although one or other of these at times gains ascendancy in its own sphere over the rest, whose potential superiority lies in abeyance for the time being, yet there is no uncertainty about work producing results, for the importance of work is decided by the scriptures as well as reason (The variety that we see in the world can be explained only as the outcome of men's diverse past work.). Nor (can the gods check the result of knowledge), for the realisation of Brahman, which is this result, consists in the mere cessation of ignorance. It has been suggested that the gods may thwart the attainment of Brahman, which is the result expected from the knowledge of It; but they do not have that power. Why? Because this result, the attainment of Brahman, immediately follows the knowledge. How? As in the world a form is revealed as soon as the observer's eye is in touch with light, similarly the very moment that one has a knowledge of the Supreme Self, ignorance regarding It must disappear. Hence, the effects of ignorance being impossible in the presence of the knowledge of Brahman, like the effects of darkness in the presence of a lamp, whom should the gods thwart and by what means, for is not the knower of Brahman the self of the gods? This is what the text says:- 'For he, the knower of Brahman, becomes their self, the reality of these gods, the object of their meditation, the Brahman that is to be known from all scriptures, simultaneously with the knowledge of Brahman, since, as we have said, the only obstruction of ignorance vanishes then and there, like a mother-of-pearl mistaken for a piece of silver becoming itself again. Hence the gods cannot possibly try to stand against their own self. They succeed in their effort to put obstacles only in the case of one who seeks a result which is other than the Self and is separated by space, time and causation, but not with regard to this sage, who becomes their self simultaneously with the awakening of knowledge, and is not separated by space, time and causation for there is no room for opposition here.
Objection:- In that case, since there is not a stream of consciousness about knowledge (of Brahman), and since we see that a consciousness of an opposite nature together with its effects persists, let us say that only the last (The one arising at the moment of death.) consciousness of the Self removes ignorance, and not the first one. Reply:- No, for your ground of inference will be falsified on account of the first. If the first consciousness of the Self does not remove ignorance, neither will the last, for they are alike consciousness of the Self. Objection:- Well then, let us say, it is not the isolated consciousness that removes ignorance, but that which is continuous. Reply:- Not so, for there cannot be a continuity, since it would be broken by thoughts of self-preservation etc. So long as these crop up, there cannot be an unbroken stream of consciousness about knowledge, for the two are contradictory. Objection:- Suppose the latter continues till death to the exclusion of the former. Reply:- Not so, for the uncertainty about the requisite number of thoughts to make up that stream would be open to the charge of making the meaning of the scriptures indefinite. In other words, there being nothing to determine that so many thoughts would make up a stream that will remove ignorance, it would be impossible to determine the meaning of the scriptures, which is not desirable.
Objection:- The meaning is quite definite, for in so far as it is a stream of consciousness, it will remove ignorance. Reply:- No, for there is no difference between the first and the last stream of consciousness. There being nothing to determine whether it is the first stream of consciousness about knowledge that removes ignorance, or the last one ending with the moment of death, they too would be open to those two charges already mentioned with regard to the first and last thoughts.
Objection:- Well then, let us say that knowledge does not remove ignorance. Reply:- Not so, for the Sruti says, 'Therefore It became all,' as also, 'The knot of the heart is broken,' etc. (Mu. II. ii. , 'Then what delusion can there be?' (Is. 7), and so on. Objection:- These may be mere eulogies. Reply:- No, for then the Upanisads in all the recensions would be classed as such, for they have just this one aim. Objection:- Suppose we say that they are but eulogies, for they deal with the self which is already known through perception (As the basis of our ego-consiousness.). Reply:- No, for we have already refuted that contention (The ego-consciousness deals with the individual self, not the Supreme Self, the Witness.). Also we have said that knowledge produces palpable results, viz the cessation of such evils as ignorance, grief, delusion and fear. Therefore there can be no question about knowledge removing ignorance, whether it be first or last, continuous or non-continuous, for knowledge culminates in producing the cessation of ignorance and other evils. Any consciousness that produces this result, whether first or last, continuous or non-continuous, is knowledge according to us. Hence there is no scope whatsoever for any objection. You said, the first consciousness does not remove ignorance, because we see that a consciousness of an opposite nature to knowledge together with its effects persists. This is wrong, for the residue of Prarabdha work is the cause of the persistence of the body after knowledge. In other words, that resultant of past work which led to the formation of the present body (Prarabdha), being the outcome of false notions (Notions opposed to reality considering the non-Self to be the Self and vice versa.) and the evils (of attachment etc.), is able to bear fruit only as such, i.e. as coupled with those notions and evils; hence until the body falls, it cannot but produce, as part of one's experience of the results of past work, just so much of false notions and the evils of attachment etc., for the past work that made this body has already begun to bear fruit and must run its course like an arrow that has been shot. Therefore knowledge cannot stop that, for they are not contradictory. What does it do then? It stops the effects of ignorance which are contradictory to it and are about to spring up from (the ignorance lying in) the self, which is the substratum of that knowledge, for they have not yet appeared. But the other is past. Moreover, false notions do not arise in a man of realisation, for there is then no object for them. Whenever a false notion arises, it does so on account of a certain similarity of something to another, without ascertaining the particular nature of that thing, as when a mother-of-pearl is mistaken for a piece of silver. And this can nor more happen to one who has ascertained the particular nature of that thing, for the source of all false notions (that cursory resemblance) has been destroyed; as they no more appear when a right perception of the mother-of-pearl, for instance, has taken place. Sometimes, however, memories due to the impressions of false notions, antecedent to the dawning of knowledge, simulating those notions, suddenly appear and throw him into the error regarding them as actual false notions; as one who is familiar with the points of the compass sometimes all of a sudden gets confused about them. If even a man of realisation comes to have false notions as before, then faith in realisation itself being shaken, no one would care to understand the meaning of the scriptures, and all evidences of knowledge would cease to be such, for then there would be no distinction between things that are valid evidences and those that are not. This also answers the question why the body does not fall immediately after realisation. The destruction of actions done before, after and at the time of realisation as well as those accumulated in past lives --- actions that have not yet begun to bear fruit --- is proved by the very negation of obstructions to the attainment of results in the present text, as also from such Sruti texts as the following:- 'And his actions are destroyed' (Mu. II. ii. , 'It takes him only so long (as he does not give up his body)' (Ch. VI. xiv. 2), 'All demerits are burnt up' (Ch. V.xxiv. 3), 'Knowing It one is not touched by evil action' (IV. iv. 23), 'He is never overtaken by these two thoughts (of having done good and evil acts)' (IV. iv. 22), 'Actions done or omitted do not trouble him' (Ibid), '(Remorse for doing evil and not doing good) does not trouble him' (Tai. II. ix), and 'He is not afraid of anything' (Ibid.). Also from such Smrti texts as the following:- 'The fire of knowledge reduces all actions to ashes' (G. IV. 37). The objection that he is tied up by his obligations (to the gods etc.) is not valid, for they concern an ignorant man. It is he who is under those obligations, for he can be presumed to be an agent and so forth. It will be said later on, 'When there is something else, as it were, then one can see something' (IV. iii. 31). These last words show that the acts of seeing etc. together with their results, which are dependent on many factors created by ignorance, are possible only in the state of ignorance, when the Self, the Reality that has no second, appears as something else, like a second moon when one has got the disease of double vision (Timira). But the text, 'Then what should one see and through what?' (II. iv. 14; IV. v. 15) shows that work is impossible in the state of knowledge, when the illusion of manifoldness created by ignorance has been destroyed. Therefore the indebtedness in question belongs only to an ignorant man, for whom it is possible to work, and to none else. We shall show this at length while dealing with passages that are yet to be explained. As, for instance, here. While he, one is not a knower of Brahman, who worships another god, a god different from himself, approaches him in a subordinate position, offering him praises, salutations, sacrifices, presents, devotion, meditation, etc., thinking, 'He is one, non-self, different from me, and I am another, qualified for rites, and I must serve him like a debtor' --- worships him with such ideas, does not know the truth. He, this ignorant man, has not only the evil of ignorance, but is also like an animal to the gods. As a cow or other animals are utilised through their services such as carrying loads or yielding milk, so is this man of use to every one of the gods and others on account of his many services such as the performance of sacrifices. That is to say, he is therefore engaged to do all kinds of services for them. The scriptural rites, with or without the accompaniment of meditation, which this ignorant man, for whom the divisions of caste, order of life and so forth exist, and who is bound to those rites, performs, lead to progress beginning with human birth and ending with identity with Hiranyagarbha. While his natural activities, as distinguished from those prescribed by the scriptures, lead to degradation beginning with the human birth itself and ending with identity with stationary objects. That it is so we shall explain in the latter part of this chapter beginning with, 'There are indeed three worlds' (I. V. 16), and continuing right up to the end. While the effect of knowledge (meditation) has been briefly shown to be identity with all. The whole of this Upanisad is exclusively devoted to showing the distinction between the spheres of knowledge and ignorance. We shall show that this is the import of the whole book. Since it is so, therefore the gods can thwart as well as help an ignorant man. This is being shown:- As in the word many animals such as cows or horses serve a man, their owner and controller, so deos each ignorant man, equivalent to many animals, serve the gods. This last word is suggestive of the Manes and others as well. He thinks, 'This Indra and the other gods are different from me and are my masters. I shall worship them like a servant through praises, salutations, sacrifices, etc., and shall attain as results prosperity and liberation granted by them. Now, in the world, even if one animal of a man possessing many such is taken away, seized by a tiger, for instance, it causes great anguish. Similarly what is there to wonder at if the gods feel mortified when a man, equivalent to many animals, gets rid of the idea that he is their creature, as when a householder is robbed of many animals? Therefore it is not liked by them, these gods --- what? --- that men should somehow know this truth of the identity of the self and Brahman. So the revered Vyasa writes in the Anugita, 'The world of the gods, O Arjuna, is filled with those who perform rites. And the gods do not like that mortals should surpass them' (Mbh. XIV. xx. 59). Hence as men try to save animals from being seized by tigers etc., so the gods seek to prevent men from attaining the knowledge of Brahman lest they should cease to be their objects of enjoyment. Those, however, whom they wish to set free, they endow with faith and the like; while the opposite class they visit with lack of faith etc. Therefore a seeker of liberation should be devoted to worshipping the gods, have faith and devotion, be obedient (to the gods) and be alert about the attainment of knowledge or about knowledge itself. The mention of the dislike of the gods is an indirect hint at all this. In the sentence, 'The Self alone is to be meditated upon' (I. iv. 7) the gist (The knowledge of Brahman.) of the scriptures has been put in a nutshell. In order to explain it, its relation (To the resulting identification with the universe, and so on. The relation here is that of means and end.), and utility have also been stated in the eulogistic passage, 'They say:- Men think,' etc., (I. iv. 9). And that ignorance is the cause of one's belonging to the relative plane has been stated in the passage, 'While he who worships another god,' etc. (I. iv. 10). There it has been said that an ignorant man is indebted and dependent like an animal, having to do duties for the gods etc. What is the cause of their having to do those duties? The different castes and order of life. The following paragraphs are introduced in order to explain what these castes are, because of which this dependent man is bound to the rites connected with them, and transmigrates. It is to explain this in detail that the creation of Indra and other gods was not mentioned immediately after that of Fire. This last, however, was described to complete the picture of creation by Viraj. It should be understood that this creation of Indra and other gods also belongs to that, being a part of it. It is being described here only to indicate the reason why the ignorant man alone is qualified for the performance of rites.
Max Müller
10. Verily in the beginning this was Brahman, that Brahman knew (its) Self only, saying, 'I am Brahman.' From it all this sprang. Thus, whatever Deva was awakened (so as to know Brahman), he indeed became that (Brahman); and the same with Rishis and men. The Rishi Vâmadeva saw and understood it, singing, 'I was Manu (moon), I was the sun.' Therefore now also he who thus knows that he is Brahman, becomes all this, and even the Devas cannot prevent it, for he himself is their Self. Now if a man worships another deity, thinking the deity is one and he another, he does not know. He is like a beast for the Devas. For verily, as many beasts nourish a man, thus does every man nourish the Devas. If only one beast is taken away, it is not pleasant; how much more when many are taken! Therefore it is not pleasant to the Devas that men should know this.
gacchati brahmaivāntata upaniśrayati svāṃ yonim . ya u enagͫ hinasti
svāgͫ sa yonimṛcchati . sa pāpīyānbhavati yathā śreyāgͫsagͫ
higͫsitvā .. 11..
Meaning:- In the beginning this (the Kshatriya and other castes) was indeed Brahman, one only. Being one, he did not flourish. He specially projected an excellent form, the Kshatriya - those who are Kshatriyas among the gods:- Indra, Varuna, the moon, Rudra, Parjanya, Yama, Death, and Isana. Therefore there is none higher than the Kshatriya. Hence the Brahmana worships the Kshatriya from a lower position in the Rajasuya sacrifice. He imparts that glory to the Kshatriya. The Brahmana is the source of the Kshatriya. Therefore, although the king attains supremacy (in the sacrifice), at the end of it he resorts to the Brahmana, his source. He who slights the Brahmana, strikes at his own source. He becomes more wicked, as one is by slighting one's superior.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- In the beginning this, the Ksatriya and other castes, was indeed Brahman, identical with that Brahman (Viraj) who after manifesting Fire assumed the form of that. He is called Brahman, because he identified himself with the Brahmana caste. One only:- Then there was no differentiation into other castes such as the Ksatriya. Being one, i.e. without any protector etc. such as the Ksatriya, he did not flourish, i.e. could not do his work properly. Hence he, Viraj, thinking, 'I am a Brahmana, and these are my duties,' in order to create duties pertaining to a Brahmana by birth --- to glorify himself as a performer of rites --- specially, pre-eminently, projected an excellent form. What is that? The caste called Ksatriya. This is being pointed out by a reference to its individuals. Those who are well known in the world as Ksatriyas among the gods. The plural is used (in 'Ksatriyas'), as in grammar a word denoting a caste may be optionally in the plural (See Panini I. ii. 58.). Or because there are many individuals in a caste, the difference is figuratively transferred to the group. Who are they? This the text answers by mentioning particularly the anointed ones:- Indra, the King of gods; Varuna, of the aquatic animals; the moon, of the Brahmanas; Rudra, of the beasts; Parjanya, of lightning etc.; Yama, of the Manes; Death, of disease etc.; and Isana, of luminaries. These are some of the Ksatriyas, among the gods. It should be understood that after them the human Ksatriyas, Pururavas and others belonging to the Lunar and Solar dynasties, presided over by the Ksatriya gods, Indra and the rest, were also created. For the creation of the gods is mentioned for this very purpose. Because Viraj created the Ksatriyas with some special eminence attached to them, therefore there is none higher than the Ksatriya, who is the controller of the Brahmana caste even. Hence the Brahmana, although he is the source of him, worships the Ksatriya, who has a higher seat, from a lower position. Where? In the Rajasuya sacrifice. He imparts that glory or fame which belongs to him, viz the title of Brahman, to the Ksatriya. That is to say, when the king, anointed for the Rajasuya sacrifice, addresses the priest from his chair as 'Brahman,' the latter replies to him, 'You, O King, are Brahman.' This is referred to in the sentence, 'He imparts that glory to the Ksatriya.' The Brahmana, who is the topic under consideration, is indeed the source of the Ksatriya. Therefore, although the king attains supremacy, viz the distinction of being anointed for the Rajasuya sacrifice, at the end of it, when the ceremony is over, he resorts to the Brahmana, his source, i.e. puts the priest forward. But he who, proud of his strength, slights or looks down upon the Brahmana, his own source, strikes at or destroys his own source. He becomes more wicked by doing this The Ksatriya is already wicked on account of his cruelty, and he is more so by hurting his own source, as in life one is more wicked by slighting one's superior.
Max Müller
11. Verily in the beginning this was Brahman, one only. That being one, was not strong enough. It created still further the most excellent Kshatra (power), viz. those Kshatras (powers) among the Devas,--Indra, Varuna, Soma, Rudra, Parganya, Yama, Mrityu, Îsâna. Therefore there is nothing beyond the Kshatra, and therefore at the Râgasûya sacrifice the Brâhmana sits down below the Kshatriya. He confers that glory on the Kshatra alone. But Brahman is (nevertheless) the birth-place of the Kshatra. Therefore though a king is exalted, he sits down at the end (of the sacrifice) below the Brahman, as his birth-place. He who injures him, injures his own birth-place. He becomes worse, because he has injured one better than himself.
Meaning:- Yet he did not flourish. He projected the Vaisya - those species of gods who are designated in groups:- the Vasus, Rudras, Adityas, Visvadevas and Maruts.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Yet, even after projecting the Ksatriyas, he, Viraj, did not flourish in his work, as before, for want of someone to acquire wealth. He projected the Vaisya, in order to acquire wealth which is the means of performing rites. Who is that Vaisya? Those species of gods who are designated in groups. The Vaisyas abound in groups, for they succeed in acquiring wealth mostly in combination, not singly. --- The suffix in the word 'Jata' does not change the meaning. --- The Vasus, a group of eight:- similarly the eleven Rudras, the twelve Adityas, the thirteen Visvadevas, sons of Visva, or the word may mean 'all the gods,' and the forty-nine Maruts, in seven groups.
Max Müller
12. He [1] was not strong enough. He created the Vis (people), the classes of Devas which in their different orders are called Vasus, Rudras, Âdityas, Visve Devas, Maruts.
Meaning:- He did not still flourish. He projected the Sudra caste - Pusan. This (earth) is Pusan. For it nourishes all this that exists.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- For want of a servant he did not still flourish. He projected the Sudra caste. In the word 'Saudra' there is a lengthening of the vowel without any change of meaning. What was this Sudra caste that was projected? Pusan, he who nourishes. Who is this Pusan? He is being particularly pointed out:- This earth is Pusan. The Sruti itself gives the derivation:- For it nourishes all this that exists.
Max Müller
13. He was not strong enough. He created the Sûdra colour (caste), as Pûshan (as nourisher). This earth verily is Pûshan (the nourisher); for the earth nourishes all this whatsoever.
Meaning:- Yet he did not flourish. He specially projected that excellent form, righteousness (Dharma). This righteousness is the controller of the Kshatriya. Therefore there is nothing higher than that. (So) even a weak man hopes (to defeat) a stronger man through righteousness, as (one contending) with the king. That righteousness, as (one contending) with the king. That righteousness is verily truth. Therefore they say about a person speaking of truth, 'He speaks of righteousness', or about a person speaking of righteousness, 'He speaks of truth', for both these are but righteousness.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Yet, even after projecting the four castes, he did not flourish, fearing that the Ksatriya, being fierce, might be unruly. He specially projected that excellent form. What is it? Righteousness. This righteousness, the projected excellent form is the controller of even the Ksatriya, fiercer than that fierce race even. 'Yat' should be changed into 'Yah.' Therefore, since it is the controller of even the Ksatriya, there is nothing higher than that, for it controls all. The text proceeds to explain how it is:- So even a weak man hopes to defeat a stronger man than himself through the strength of righteousness, as in life a householder contending even with the king, who is the most powerful of all. Therefore it goes without saying that righteousness, being stronger than everything else, is the controller of all. That righteousness, which is expressed as conduct, being practised by people, is verily truth. 'Truth' is the fact of being in accordance with the scriptures. The same thing, when it is practised, is called righteousness, and when it is understood to be in accordance with the scriptures, is truth. Since it is so, therefore bystanders knowing the difference between them say about a person speaking of truth, i.e. what is in accordance with the scriptures in dealing with another, 'He speaks of righteousness,' or well-known conventional propriety. Conversely also, about a person speaking of righteousness or conventional conduct, they say, 'He speaks of truth,' or what is in accordance with the scriptures. For both these that have been described, that which is known and that which is practised, are but righteousness. Therefore that righteousness in its double aspect of knowledge and practice controls all, those that know the scriptures as well as those that do not. Therefore it is the 'controller of the Ksatriya.' Hence an ignorant man identified with righteousness, in order to practise its particular forms, identifies himself with one or other of the castes, Brahmana, Ksatriya, Vaisya or Sudra, which is the pre-condition of that practice; and these are naturally the means that quality one for the performance of rites.
Max Müller
14. He was not strong enough. He created still further the most excellent Law (dharma). Law is the Kshatra (power) of the Kshatra [1], therefore there is nothing higher than the Law. Thenceforth even a weak man rules a stronger with the help of the Law, as with the help of a king. Thus the Law is what is called the true. And if a man declares what is true, they say he declares the Law; and if he declares the Law, they say he declares what is true. Thus both are the same.
hi rūpābhyāṃ brahmābhavadatha yo ha vā asmāllokātsvaṃ
lokamadṛṣṭvā praiti sa enamavidito na bhunakti yathā vedo
vā'nanūkto'nyadvā karmākṛtam . yadi ha vā apyanevaṃvinmahatpuṇyaṃ
karma karoti taddhāsyāntataḥ kṣīyata evā''tmānameva lokamupāsīta . sa
ya ātmānameva lokamupāste na hāsya karma kṣīyate'smāddhyevā''tmano
yadyatkāmayate tattatsṛjate .. 15..
Meaning:- (So) these (four castes were projected) - the Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaisya and Sudra. He became a Brahmana among the gods as Fore, and among men as the Brahmana. (He became) a Kshatriya through the (divine) Kshatriyas, a Vaisya through the (divine) Vaisyas and a Sudra through the (divine) Sudra. Therefore people desire to attain the results of their rites among the gods through fire, and among men as the Brahmana. For Brahman was in these two forms. If, however, anybody departs from this world without realising his own world (the Self), It, being unknown, does not protect him - as the Vedas not studied, or any other work not undertaken (do not). Even if a man who does not know It as such performs a great many meritorious acts in the world, those acts of his are surely exhausted in the end. One should meditate only upon the world of the Self. He who meditates only upon the world called the Self never has his work exhausted. From this very Self he projects whatever he wants.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- (So) these four castes were projected --- the Brahmana, Ksatriya, Vaisya and Sudra. They are repeated here together in order to introduce what follows. He, Brahman, the Projector (Viraj), became a Brahmana among the gods as Fire, and in no other form, and became a Brahmana among men as the Brahmana, directly. In the other castes he appeared in a changed form (That is, having first become Fire and the Brahmana.):- (He became) a Ksatriya through the (divine) Ksatriyas, i.e. being presided over by Indra and other gods; a Vaisya through the (divine) Vaisyas (Presided over by the Vasus etc.) and a Sudra through the (divine) Sudra (Presided over by Pusan.). Because Brahman, the Projector, was changed in the Ksatriya and other castes, and was unchanged in Fire and the Brahmana, therefore people desire to attain the results of their rites among the gods through fire, i.e. by performing rites connected with it. It is for this purpose that Brahman abides in the form of fire, which is the receptacle in which sacrifical rites are performed. Therefore it stands to reason that people wish to attain results by performing those rites in the fire. And among men as the Brahmana:- If they want human results, there is no need for rites depending on fire etc., but simply by being born as a Brahmana they attain their life's ends. And it is only when they desire to attain results that depend on the gods, that they have to resort to rites connected with fire. The Smrti, too, says, 'But a Brahmana may undoubtedly attain perfection through the repetition of sacred formulas (This is suggestive also of the duties belonging to his caste.), whether he does other rites (connected with fire) or not. A Brahmana is one who is friendly to all' (M. II. 87). Also because the monastic life is open to him only. Therefore people seek to attain the results of their rites, so far as they belong to the human plane, by attaining Brahmanahood. For Brahman, the Projector, was directly in these two forms, the Brahmana and fire, that are respectively the agent and the receptacle of the rites. Some (Bhartrprapanca is meant.) explain the passage differently, saying that people wish to realise the world of the Supreme Self by means of fire and the Brahmana (By offering oblations and presents respectively.). This is wrong, for the division of castes has been introduced in order to defend the undertaking of rites by people who are under ignorance, and a specification also follows. If the word 'world' here refers to the Supreme Self, the specification that follows, viz 'Without realising one's own world (the Self),' would be meaningless. If the world in question that is prayed for as being dependent on fire, is any other world but the Self, then only the specification by the word 'own' would be consistent with refuting that extraneous world. The world that is the Self is always denoted by the words 'one's own,' while those that are created by ignorancce can never be 'one's own.' That the worlds attained through rites are not 'one's own' is stated by the words, '(Those acts) are surely exhausted.'
One may object:- Brahman projected the four castes for the sake of ritualistic work. And that work, called righteousness, being obligatory on all, controls all and helps them to achieve their life's ends. Therefore, it by that work one attains one's own world called the Supreme Self, although It may be unknown, what is the good of setting It up as the goal? This is being answered:- 'If, however, --- the word 'however' refutes the prima facie view --- anybody, owing to identification with the rites depending on fire, or with the duties belonging to the Brahmana caste, departs or dies from this transmigratory, adventitious and extraneous world consisting of the taking up of a body and caused by ignorance, desire and work, without realising his own world called the Self --- because It is always one's own Self --- as, 'I am Brahman,' It --- although It is his own world, yet --- being unknown, obstructed by ignorance and therefore virtually becoming extraneous to oneself, does not protect him by removing his evils such as grief, delusion and fear --- as the man in the story (the conventional 'self') fails to protect himself for not knowing that he is the missing tenth man. As the Vedas not studied do not protect a man by enlightening him on the rites etc., or any other, secular, work, e.g. agriculture, not undertaken, not manifested in its own form, does not protect anybody by bestowing its results, similarly the Supreme Self, although It is one's own world, on account of not being manifested in Its own form as the eternal Self, does not protect one by destroying one's ignorance etc.
Objection:- What is the good of seeking protection through the realisation of one's own world, the Self? Since the rites are sure to produce results, and there are a great many rites conducive to beneficent results, the protection that they will afford will be everlasting. Reply:- Not so, for anything made is perishable. This is being stated:- Even if a man, a wonderful genius, who does not know It, his own world, the Self, as such, in the manner described above, continuously performs a great many meritorious acts such as the horse sacrifice, producing only beneficent results, in the world, with the idea that through those alone he will attain eternity, those acts of his, of this ignorant man, being due to desire created by ignorance, are surely exhausted in the end, when he has enjoyed their fruits, like the splendour arising from the fantasy of a dream. They are bound to be perishable, for their causes, ignorance and desire, are unstable. Hence there is no hope whatsoever that the protection afforded by the results of meritorious acts will be eternal. Therefore one should meditate only upon the world of the Self, one's own world. The word 'Self' is here used in an identical sense with the last words, for 'one's own world' is the topic, and here the words 'one's own' are omitted. He who meditates only upon the world of the Self --- what happens to him? --- never has his work exhausted, simply because he has no work. This is a restatement of an eternal fact. That is to say, an ignorant man continously suffers from the misery of transmigration by way of exhaustion of the results of his work. Not so this sage. As Emperor Janaka said, 'If Mithila is ablaze, nothing of mine is burning' (Mbh. XII. c1xxvi. 56). Some say that the ritualistic work itself of a sage who meditates upon the world of his own Self never decays, because of its combination with meditation. And they interpret the word 'world' as inseparably connected with rites in a double aspect:- One is the manifested world called Hiranyagarbha, which is the repository of ritualistic work, and he who meditates upon this manifested, limited world connected with ritualistic work has his work exhausted, for he identifies himself with the result of limited work. But he who meditates upon that very world connected with work by reducing it to its causal form, the undifferentiated state, does not have his work exhausted, as he identifies himself with the result of unlimited work. This is a nice conceit, but not according to the Sruti, for the words 'one's own world' refer to the Supreme Self which is under consideration. Also, after introducing It in the words 'one's own world' the text again refers to It by dropping the qualifying phrase 'one's own' and using the word 'Self' in the sentence, 'One should meditate only upon the world of the Self.' So there is no scope for conceiving a world connected with ritulistic work. Another reason for this is the qualification further on by words signifying pure knowledge, 'What shall we achieve through children, we who have attained this Self, this world (result)?' (IV. iv. 22). The words 'this Self our world (A paraphrase of a portion of the previous sentence.)' mark It off from the worlds attainable through a son, ritualistic work and lower knowledge (meditation). Also, 'His world is not destroyed by any kind of work' (Kau. III. 1), and 'This is its highest world' (IV. iii. 32). The passage in question ought to have the same import as those just quoted, with the qualifying words. For, here also we find the specification 'one's own world.'
Objection:- You are wrong, for the sage desires objects through this. That is to say, if 'one's own world' is the Supreme Self, then by meditating upon It one will become That. In that case it is not proper to mention results apart from the attainment of the Self, as in the passage, 'From this (very) Self he projects whatever he wants' (this text). Reply:- Not so, for the passage extols meditation on the world of the Self. The meaning is that the world of the Self alone stands for all that is desirable to him, for he has nothing else but It to ask for, since he has already attained all his objects. Just as another Sruti puts it, 'From the Self is the vital force, from the Self is hope' (Ch. VII. xxvi. 1). Or the passage may indicate that he is identified with all, as before (I. iv. 10). If he becomes one with the Supreme Self, then only it is proper to use the word 'Self' in the phrase 'from this very Self,' meaning, 'from one's own world, the Self,' which is the topic. Otherwise the text would have specified it by saying, 'From the world of work in an undifferentiated state,' to distinguish it from the world of the Supreme Self as well as from work in a manifested state. But since the Supreme Self has already been introduced (as 'one's own world') and been subsequently specified (by the word 'Self'), you cannot assume an intermediate state not mentioned in the Sruti. It has been said that an ignorant man identifying himself with his caste, order of life, and so on, and being controlled by righteousness, thinks he has certain duties to the gods and others and is dependent on them like an animal. Now what are those duties that make him so dependent, and who are the gods and others whom he serves through his actions like an animal? To answer this the text deals with both at length:-
Max Müller
15. There are then this Brahman, Kshatra, Vis, and Sûdra. Among the Devas that Brahman existed as Agni (fire) only, among men as Brâhmana, as Kshatriya through the (divine) Kshatriya, as Vaisya through the (divine) Vaisya, as Sûdra through the (divine) Sûdra. Therefore people wish for their future state among the Devas through Agni (the sacrificial fire) only; and among men through the Brâhmana, for in these two forms did Brahman exist. Now if a man departs this life without having seen his true future life (in the Self), then that Self, not being known, does not receive and bless him, as if the Veda had not been read, or as if a good work had not been done. Nay, even if one who does not know that (Self), should perform here on earth some great holy work, it will Perish for him in the end. Let a man worship the Self only as his true state. If a man worships the Self only as his true state, his work does not Perish, for whatever he desires that he gets from that Self.
Meaning:- Now this self (the ignorant man) is an object of enjoyment to all beings. That he makes oblations in the fire and performs sacrifices is how he becomes such an object to the gods. That he studies the Vedas is how he becomes an object of enjoyment to the Rishis (sages). That he makes offerings to the Manes and desires children is how he becomes such an object to the Manes. That he gives shelter to men as well as food is how he becomes an object of enjoyment to men. That he gives fodder and water to the animals is how he becomes such an object to hem. And that beasts and birds, and even the ants, feed in his home is how he becomes an object of enjoyment to these. Just as one wishes safety to one's body, so do all beings wish safety to him who knows it as such. This indeed has been known, and discussed.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- `Now --- this word is introductory --- this self, the householder qualified for rites, who is the subject under consideration, and who being ignorant identifies himself with this microcosm consisting of the body, organs, and so on, is an object of enjoyment to all beings, from the gods down to the ants, being helpful to them through the performance of the duties of their caste, order of life, etc. Now, through what particular duties do they help each particular class, for which they are called the objects of enjoyment to them, and what are these particular classes? This is being answered:- That he, this householder, makes oblations in the fire and performs sacrifices, etc. The latter is dedicating some of his things to the gods, and the former is finally offering then in the fire. By this twofold imperative duty he is tied to the gods, being dependent on them like animals. Hence he is their object of enjoyment. That he studies the Vedas daily is how he becomes an object of enjoyment to the Rsis. That he makes offerings to the Manes, of cakes, water, etc., and desires children, tries to obtain them --- 'desire' here includes the having of them i.e. raises children, is how he becomes such an object to the Manes. Through this bounden duty he is subservient to the Manes as an object of enjoyment. That he gives shelter to men in his house by giving them a place to sit on, water for washing, and so on, as well as food to these people who stay, or to others who do not stay, but ask for food, is how he becomes an object of enjoyment to men. That he gives fodder and water to the animals is how he becomes such an object to them. And that beasts and birds, and even the ants, feed in his home on the crumbs, the offerings made to them, washings of utensils, etc. is how he becomes an object of enjoyment to these. Because he helps the gods and others by so many services, therefore just as one wishes safety, non-destruction, continuity of the idea of possession, to one's body, maintains it in all respects by nourishing and protecting it lest one should lose one's hold on it, so do all beings, the gods and the rest described above, wish safety, non-destruction, to him who knows it as such, who thinks that he is an object of enjoyment to all beings, and that he must discharge his obligations like a debtor as above. That is, they protect him in all respects to safeguard their rights on him, as a householder does his animals. It has been said, 'Therefore it is not liked by them,' etc. (I. iv. 10). This, that the above-mentined duties must be discharged like debts, indeed has been known from the section dealing with the five (Viz those meant for the gods, the Rsis, the Manes, men and animals. They have been described in the text.) great sacrifices (S. I. vii. 2. 6), and discussed in the section on the sacrificial offerings (S. I. vii. 2. 1). If by knowing Brahman he gets rid of that bondage of duty which makes him an animal, as it were, under what compulsion does he take up the bondage of ritualistic work as if he were helpless, and not the pursuit of knowledge which is the means of freedom from that?
Objection:-Has it not been said that the gods guard him? Reply:- Yes, but they too guard only those who, being qualified for rites, are under their authority. Otherwise this would be attaining the results of actions not done and forfeiting those of actions actually done. But they do not guard any and every man not particularly qualified for rites. Therefore there must be something, goaded by which a man becomes averse to one's own world, the Self, as if he were helpless. Objection:- Is it not ignorance, for only an ignorant man becomes averse to his own self and engages in activity? Reply:- That is not the motive power either, for it merely conceals the true nature of a things. But it indirectly becomes the root of initiating action, just as blindness is the cause of one's falling into a pit etc. Objection:- Well then, say what is the cause of a man's activity. Reply:- That is being stated here --- it is desire. As the Katha Upanisad (II. 5) says that fools, being under ignorance which is natural to man, are outgoing in their tendencies and pursue objects of desire. And the Smrti also says, 'It is desire, it is anger (Which is desire thwarted.),' etc. (G. III. 37). And the Manu Samhita (II. 4) also describes all activity as being due to desire. This import is being elaborated here up to the end of the chapter:-
Max Müller
16. Now verily this Self (of the ignorant man) is the world [1] of all creatures. In so far as man sacrifices and pours out libations, he is the world of the Devas; in so far as he repeats the hymns, &c., he is the world of the Rishis; in so far as he offers cakes to the Fathers and tries to obtain offspring, he is the world of the Fathers; in so far as he gives shelter and food to men, he is the world of men; in so far as he finds fodder and water for the animals, he is the world of the animals; in so far as quadrupeds, birds, and even ants live in his houses, he is their world. And as every one wishes his own world not to be injured, thus all beings wish that he who knows this should not be injured. Verily this is known and has been well reasoned.
Meaning:- This (aggregate of desirable objects) was but the self in the beginning - the only entity. He desired, 'Let me have a wife, so that I may be born (as the child). And let me have wealth, so that I may perform rites'. This much indeed is (the range of) desire. Even if one wishes, one cannot get more than this. Therefore to this day a man being single desires, 'Let me have a wife, so that I may be born. And let me have wealth, so that I may perform rites.' Until he obtains each one of these, he considers himself incomplete. His completeness also (comes thus):- The mind is his self, speech his wife, the vital force his child, the eye his human wealth, for he obtains it through the eye, the ear his divine wealth, for he hears of it through the ear, and the body is its (instrument of) rite, for he performs rites through the body. (So) this sacrifice has five factors - the animals have five factors, the men have five factors, and all this that exists has five factors. He who knows it as such attains all this.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- This was but the self in the beginning, before marriage. 'Self' here means a natural, ignorant man of the upper three castes identified with the body and organs (i.e. a student). There was nothing different from that self that could be desired, such as a wife, and the self was the only entity in existence, possessed of ignorance which is the root of the desire for a wife and so forth. Being tinged by the impressions of ignorance that are natural to one and consist in a superimposition on the Self of ideas of action, its factors such as the agent, and its results, he desired. How? Let me, the agent, have a wife who will qualify me for the rites. Without her I am not qualified for them. Hence let me have a wife, to confer on me this right. So that I myself may be born, as the child. And let me have wealth such as cattle, which are the means of performing the rites, so that I may perform rites (The regular and occasional rites.) that will give me prosperity and liberation, in order that I may perform rites that will wipe out my indebtedness and help me to attain the worlds of the gods and others, as well as rites that have material ends, such as those leading to the birth of a son, wealth and heaven. This much indeed, i.e. limited to these things only, is desire. Desirable objects are only these --- the things comprised by the desire for means, viz wife, son, wealth and rites. The three worlds, viz those of men, the Manes and the gods, are but the results of the above. For the desire for means, viz wife, son, wealth and rites, is for securing these. Therefore the desire for the worlds is the same as the previous one. That one and the same desire assumes a twofold aspect according to ends and means. Hence it will be asserted later on, 'For both these are but desires' (III. v. 1; IV. iv. 22). Since all undertakings are for the sake of results, the desire for the worlds, being implied by the former desire, is taken as mentioned; hence the assertion, 'This much indeed is desire.' When eating has been mentioned, the resulting satisfaction has not to be separately mentioned, for eating is meant for that. These two hankerings after the ends and means are the desire, prompted by which an ignorant man helplessly enmeshes himself like a silkworm, and through absorption in the path of rituals becomes outgoing in his tendencies and does not know his own world, the Self. As the Taittiriya Brahmana says, 'Being infatuated with rites performed with the help of fire, and choked by smoke, they do not know their own world, the Self' (III. x. 11. 1.). One may ask how are desires asserted to be so many, for they are infinite? This is being explained:- Because even if one wishes, one cannot get more than this, which consists of the results and means. There is nothing in life besides these results and means, either visible or invisible, that can be acquired. Desire is concerning things to be acquired, and since these extend no farther than the above, it is but proper to say, 'This much indeed is desire.' The idea is this:- Desire consists of the two hankerings after the ends and means, visible or invisible, which are the special sphere of an ignorant man. Hence the wise man should renounce them. In ancient times an ignorant man possessed of desire wished like this, and others before him had also done the same. Such is the way of the world. This creation of Viraj has been like this. It has been said that he was afraid on account of his ignorance; then, prompted by desire, he was unhappy in being alone, and to remove that boredom he wished for a wife; and he was united with her, which led to this creation. Because it was like this, therefore to this day, in his creation, a man being single, before marriage, desires, 'Let me have a wife, so that I may be born. And let me have wealth, so that I may perform rites.' This has already been explained. Desiring like this and trying to secure a wife and so forth, until he obtains each one of these, the wife and the rest, he considers himself incomplete. As a corollary to this, we understand that he is complete when he secures all of these things. But when he fails to attain this completeness, the Sruti suggests a method to bring this about:- His completeness, the completeness of this man who considers himself incomplete, is this --- comes about in this way. How? This body with organs etc. is being divided. Since the rest of them follow the mind, it, being their chief, is like the self, hence it is his self. As the head of a family is the self, as it were, of the wife and the rest (Son, human wealth and divine wealth.), for these four follow him, so here also the mind is conceived of as the self of this man for his completeness. Similarly speech is his wife, for speech follows the mind as a wife does her husband. 'Speech' here means words conveying an injunction or prohibition, which the mind receives through the ear, understands and uses. Hence speech is like a wife to the mind. These, speech and mind, standing for wife and husband, produce the vital force for performing rites. Hence the vital force is like a child. These rites, which represent the activity of the vital force etc., are performed with the help of wealth that is visible to the eye. Hence the eye is human wealth. Wealth is of two kinds, human and other than human; hence the qualifying word 'human' to keep out the other kind. Human wealth such as cattle, which is used in ceremonies, is seen by the eye. Hence the eye stands for it. Because of this relationship with it, the eye is called human wealth. For he obtains it, the human wealth, through the eye, i.e. sees cows etc. What is the other kind of wealth? The ear is divine wealth, for since meditation is concerning the gods, it is called divine wealth, and here the ear corresponds to that. How? For he hears of it, the divine wealth, or meditation, through the ear. Hence meditation being dependent on the ear, the latter is called divine wealth. Now in this matter of resemblances what is the rite that is performed by these beginning with the self and ending with wealth? This is being answered:- The body is his rite. 'Atman' (self) here means the body. How does the body stand for the rite? Because it is the cause of the rite. How? For he performs rites through the body. For the man who considers himself incomplete, completenss can be attained in this way through imagination, just as externally it can be brought about by having a wife and so on. Therefore this sacrifice has five factors, and is accomplished only through meditation even by one who does not perform rites. But how can it be called a sacrifice by being merely conceived as having fire factors? Because the external sacrifice too is performed through animals and men, and both these have five factors, being connected with the five things described above, such as the mind. This is expressed by the text:- The animals such as cows, have five factors, and the men have five factors. Although men also are animals, yet being qualified for rites, they are distinguished from the others, hence they are separately mentioned. In short, all this, the means and the results of rites, that exists has five factors. He who knows it as such, imagines himself to be the sacrifice consisting of five factors, attains all this universe as his own self.
Max Müller
17. In the beginning this was Self alone, one only. He desired, 'Let there be a wife for me that I may have offspring, and let there be wealth for me that I may offer sacrifices.' Verily this is the whole desire, and, even if wishing for more, he would not find it. Therefore now also a lonely person desires, 'Let there be a wife for me that I may have offspring, and let there be wealth for me that I may offer sacrifices.' And so long as he does not obtain either of these things, he thinks he is incomplete. Now his completeness (is made up as follows):- mind is his self (husband); speech the wife; breath the child; the eye all worldly wealth, for he finds it with the eye; the ear his divine wealth, for he hears it with the ear. The body (âtman) is his work, for with the body he works. This is the fivefold [1] sacrifice, for fivefold is the animal, fivefold man, fivefold all this whatsoever. He who knows this, obtains all this.
tasmintsarvaṃ pratiṣṭhitaṃ yacca prāṇiti yacca na .. kasmāttāni
na kṣīyante'dyamānāni sarvadā . yo vai tāmakṣitiṃ veda so'nnamatti
pratīkena sa devānapigacchati sa ūrjamupajīvatīti ślokāḥ .. 1..
Meaning:- That the father produced seven kinds of food through meditation and rites (I shall disclose). One is common to all eaters. Two he apportioned to the gods. Three he designed for himself. And one he gave to the animals. On it rests everything - what lives and what does not. Why are they not exhausted, although they are always being eaten? He who knows this cause of their permanence eats food with Pratika (pre-eminence). He attains (identity with) the gods and lives on nectar. These are the verses.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Ignorance has been discussed. It has been said in that connection that an ignorant man worships another god, thinking he is different from himself, and that prompted by desire, he, identifying himself with a particular caste and order of life and being regulated by a sense of duty, performs rites such as making offerings in the fire, which help the gods and others and make him an object of enjoyment to them. And as all beings by their rites individually projected him as their object of enjoyment, so did he by his performance of rites with five factors, such as making offerings in the fire, project all beings as well as the whole universe as his objects of enjoyment. Thus everyone according to his meditation and rites is both the enjoyer and the object of enjoyment of the whole universe. That is to say, everyone is alternately the cause as well as the effect of everyone else (Not Hiranyagarbha alone, but every being in a particular cycle who performs meditation and rites according to the scriptures, is here spoken of as the father of all in the next cycle.). This we shall describe in the section on knowledge, the meditation on things mutually helpful (II. v), showing, as a step to the realisation of the unity of the self, how everything is the effect of everything else and helpful to it. The universe which the ignorant man in question projected as his object of enjoyment through his meditation and rites with material ends having five factors, such as making offerings in the fire, being divided in its entirely into seven parts as causes and effects, is called the seven kinds of food, being an object of enjoyment. Hence he is the father of these different kinds of food. These are the verses, Mantras describing in brief these varieties of food together with their uses, and are called Slokas for that reason.
Max Müller
1. 'When the father (of creation) had produced by knowledge and penance (work) the seven kinds of food, one of his (foods) was common to all beings, two he assigned to the Devas, (1) 'Three he made for himself, one he gave to the animals. In it all rests, whatsoever breathes and breathes not. (2) 'Why then do these not perish, though they are always eaten? He who knows this imperishable one, he eats food with his face. (3) 'He goes even to the Devas, he lives on strength.' (4)
hi devebhyo'nnādyaṃ prayacchati . kasmāttāni na kṣīyante'dyamānāni
sarvadeti puruṣo vā akṣitiḥ sa hīdamannaṃ punaḥ punarjanayate .
yo vai tāmakṣitiṃ vedeti puruṣo vā akṣitiḥ . sa hīdamannaṃ dhiyā
dhiyā janayate karmabhiryaddhaitanna kuryāt kṣīyeta ha . so'nnamatti
pratīkeneti mukhaṃ pratīkaṃ mukhenetyetat sa devānapigacchati sa
ūrjamupajīvatīti praśagͫsā .. 2..
Meaning:- 'That the father produced seven kinds of food through meditation and rites' means that the father indeed produced them through meditation and rites. 'One is common to all eaters' means, this food that is eaten is the common food of all eaters. He who adores (monopolises) this food is never free from evil, for this is general food. 'Two he apportioned to the gods' means making oblations in the fire, and offering presents otherwise to the gods. Therefore people perform both these. Some, however, say, those two are the new and full moon sacrifices. Therefore one should not be engrossed with sacrifices for material ends. 'One he gave to the animals' - it is milk. For men and animals first live on milk alone. Therefore they first make a new-born babe lick clarified butter or suckle it. And they speak of a new-born calf as not yet eating grass. 'On it rests everything - what lives and what does not' means that on milk indeed rests all this that lives and that does not. It is said that by making offerings of milk in the fire for a year one conquers further death. One should not think like that. He who knows as above conquers further death the very day he makes that offering, for he offers all eatable food to the gods, 'Why are they not exhausted, although they are always being eaten?' - means that the being (eater) is indeed the cause of their permanence, for the produces this food again and again. 'He who knows this cause of their permanence' means that the being (eater) is indeed the cause of their permanence, for he produces this food through his meditation for the time being and rites. If he does not do this, it will be exhausted. 'He eats food with Pratika'; 'Pratika' means pre-eminence; hence the meaning is, pre-eminently. 'He attains the gods and lives on nectar' is a eulogy.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- That the father produced seven kinds of food through meditation and rites:- 'Yat' (that) is an adverb modifying the verb 'produced'. The words 'Medha' and 'Tapas' here mean meditation and rites respectively, for these are the topic, and the ordinary meanings of the words 'Medha' and 'Tapas' (intelligence and austerity) are out of place. For rites with five factors, viz the wife and so forth, were described, and just after that, meditation, referred to by the words, 'He who knows it as such' etc. (I. iv. 17). Therefore the familiar meanings of the two words 'Medha' and 'Tapas' must not be supposed here. Hence the meaning of the sentence is:- 'The seven kinds of food which the father produced through his meditation and rites, I shall disclose.' The last words should be supplied to complete the sentence. In the Vedas the meaning of the Mantras, being hidden, is generally difficult to understand, hence the Brahmana (A portion of the Vedas explaining the Mantras. The Vedas consist of Mantras and Brahmanas.) (this text) proceeds to explain them. Now what is the meaning of 'That the father produced seven kinds of food through meditation and rites'? This is being answered. The text explains the sentence only by the use of the particle 'hi' (indeed) signifying a well-known fact. That is to say, the meaning of this Mantra is well known. The words of the Mantra, 'That the father produced,' being of the form of a restatement, it also refers to something well known. Hence the Brahmana boldly says:- The father indeed produced them throguh meditation and rites.
Objection:- How is this meaning well known? Reply:- In the first place it is evident that the ignorant man is the father of the means, beginning with the wife and ending with the rites, whereby the worlds are achieved as the result, and it has also been stated in the passage. 'Let me have a wife,' etc. (I. iv. 17). There it has been said that meditation, which is divine wealth, rites and a son are the means whereby the father projects the worlds which are the results. And what will be stated later on (I. v. 16) is also well known. Hence it is right to say, 'The father indeed produced them through meditation and rites.' Moreover, it is well known in life that desire is concerning results. And the wife and so forth have been stated to be objects of desire in the passage, 'This much indeed is desire' (I. iv. 17). There can be no desire in the subject-matter of the knowledge of Brahman (liberation), for it is the oneness of everything. Hence it is implied that one's natural (That is, prompted by desire, which is the product of ignorance.) thoughts and actions, which are not according to the scriptures, of course lead to a projection of the relative universe (not liberation). This is also proved by the fact that the evil results ending in identity with stationary objects, are due to such thoughts and actions. But the text seeks to bring out that relation of end and means among objects which is according to the scriptures (The other kind being left out of account as being palpably injurious.), for it is sought to inculcate an aversion to them with a view to enjoining the knowledge of Brahman. For since this entire gross and subtle universe is impure, transitory, consisting of ends and means, painful and within the category of ignorance, one gets disgusted with it, and for such a one the knowledge of Brahman has to be introduced. Now the different uses of the varieties of food are being stated:- One is common to all eaters, is the wording of the Mantra. Its explanation is given by the words:- This food is the common food of all eaters. What is it? This that is eaten by all beings daily. The father, after producing the different kinds of food, designed this to be the common food of all eaters. He who adores or is devoted to this common food, which being eaten sustains the life of all living beings --- adoration, as we see in life, means devotion, as when we say:- 'One adores a teacher,' 'One adores a king,' etc.; hence the meaning is:- who is chiefly concerned with enjoying food to prolong his existence, instead of performing rites to store (good) unseen results --- such a man is never free from evil. Compare the Vedic Mantra, '(If an ignorant man) obtains food that is uselss (to the gods, it is veritably his death)' (R. X. cxvii. 6). And the Smrtis, 'One must not cook only for oneself' (Mbh. XII. ccx1ix. 5), 'He who eats without offering to the gods is a thief' (G. III. 12), 'The killer of a noble Brahmana (The commoner meaning of the word 'Bhruna' is a foetus.) wipes (his sin) in the man who eats his food,' and so on (M. VIII. 317). Why is he not free from evil? For this food which is eaten by all beings is general food, the common property of all. And just because it is the food of all, any morsel that is put into the mouth is seen to be painful to others, for everyone eagerly expects that it will be his. Therefore it is impossible even to eat without causing pain to others. The Smrti too says, 'Since the sins of men (abide in food, it is a greater sin not to share it with others).'
Some say that it refers to the food called Vaisvadeva, which is daily offered (in the fire) by householders for the beasts etc. This is wrong, for this particular food is not observed to be common to all eaters like that which is eaten by all creatures. Nor does the specification, 'This that is eaten' agree with it. Besides, as this food known as Vaisvadeva is included in that eaten by all creatures the latter kind of food, which is also eaten by outcasts, dogs, etc., should be understood, for we see that there is this kind of food over and above that known as Vaisvadeva. With regard to it the specification, 'This that is eaten,' is appropriate. It the words 'common to all eaters' do not mean this food, it will give rise to a suspicion that it was not produced and apportioned by the father. But there is unanimity on the point that all kinds of food were produced and apportioned by him. Besides it is not right that one performing the scriptural rite called Vaisvadeva should not be free from evils. And it has not been forbidden. Nor is it a naturally hateful type of work like fishing, for instance, for decent people practise it, and the Sruti says that sin accrues from its non-performance. But in the other case there is the possibility of sin, for the Vedic Mantra says, 'I eat that person as food who eats food (without givng part of it to others)' (Tai. III. x. 6). Two he apportioned to the gods, is the wording of the Mantra. Which are the two kinds of food that he produced and apportioned to the gods? Making oblations in the fire, and offering presents otherwise to the gods after finishing the former. Because the father distributed these two kinds of food to the gods, therefore to this day householders, at the proper time perform both these, make oblations in the fire, thinking that they are offering that food to the gods, and after that offer them presents. Some, however, say that the two kinds of food the father gave to the gods are not the above two offerings, but the new and full moon sacrifices. The first view holds that the above two offerings are meant, for the Sruti mentions both (food and offering) as two, and those offerings are very well known. (This is rebutted as follows:-) Although the number is all right with regard to those two offerings, still the fact that the new and full moon sacrifices --- which too are mentioned by the Sruti --- are the food of the gods, is better known, being revealed by the Mantras. Besides, when the choice lies between a principal and a subordinate object (denoted by the same word), the preference goes to the former. Now the new and full moon sacrifices are more important than the above two offerings. Hence it is proper to conclude that they alone are meant by the words, 'Two he apportioned to the gods.' Because these two kinds of food, the new and full moon sacrifices, were set apart by the father for the gods, therefore, to keep them intact for the gods, one should not be engrossed with sacrifices for material ends. The word 'Isti' here means 'Kamyesti,' sacrifices with material ends. This is well known from the Satapatha Brahmana (I. iii. 5. 10). From the use of a suffix denoting habit we understand that one must not be primarily engrossed with the performance of these sacrifices with material ends (So there is no antagonism with such Vedic texts as, 'One who desires heaven must sacrifice' (Ta. XVI. iii. 3). One he gave to the animals. What is that one food which the father gave to the animals? It is milk. How are we to know that the animals are the owners of it? This is being explained:- For men and animals first live on milk alone. It must be their food, for how else would they systematically live on that first? How do they live on it first? Because men and animals to this day live on that food, just as the father apportioned it in the beginning. Therefore men of the upper three castes make a new-born bable lick clarified butter, in contact with gold, in the post-natal ceremony, or, i.e. afterwards, suckle it. The other castes (who do not have this ceremony) do whichever is practicable. In the case of animals other than men, then only suckle the young one. And they speak of a new-born calf, when somebody asks them how old it is, as not yet eating grass, i.e. very young --- still living on milk. Whether they first take clarified butter in the post-natal and other ceremonies, or whether others drink milk, in either case they drink but milk, for clarified butter, being a modification of milk, is also milk. Why is the food of animals, which is the seventh in order, explained as the fourth? Because it is a means of rites. Rites such as the Agnihotra are performed with the help of milk. And these rites, which depend on wealth, are the means of the three kinds of food to be presently mentioned, which are the results --- as the two kinds of food, the new and full moon sacrifices mentioned above. Hence, falling under the category of rites, it is explained together with them. Moreover, since both (they and it) are equally means, mere order should give precedence to the natural sequence due to sense. Besides, this way of explaining facilitates understanding. The different kinds of food can thus be easily explained without a break, and their meaning (That four of them are means and three are results.) too will be easily grasped. What is the meaning of, On it rests everything --- what lives and what does not? That on milk indeed, the food of animals, rests all this, the whole universe in its threefold division according to the body, the elements and the gods --- that lives, the animate kingdom, and that does not live, stationary objects such as hills. The word 'indeed,' signifying something well known, furnishes the explanation. How is the substance called milk the support of everything? Because it is the cause. And it is a cause in that it is an integral part of rites such as the Agnihotra. That the whole universe is the result of the oblations offered in the Agnihotra and other rites, is proved by hundreds of Sruti and Smrti texts. Hence it is quite proper to explain the Mantra by the use of the word 'indeed.' It is said in some other Brahmanas that by making offerings of milk in the fire for a year one conquers further death. The reference is to the following:- In a year three hundred and sixty oblations are offered (counting morning and evening oblations as one). That accounts for double the number (splitting each into two). The bricks called Yajusmati, used in making the altar for the Agnihotra, being also of that number, the oblations are looked upon as these bricks, and so also are the days of the year. Through this meditation based on resemblance people attain identity with Fire, the Prajapati called the Year. By offering oblations for a year in this way one conqers further death, i.e. is born after death among the gods, no more to die. Thus do the Brahmana texts run. One should not think like that. He who knows as stated above, that everything rests on milk, being the result of the oblations of milk, conquers further death the very day he makes that offering --- he has not to wait for a year, but attains identity with the universe in one day. This is expressed by the text, 'Conquers further death,' i.e. the sage dying once or getting rid of the body, is identified with the universe, and does not take on another limited body to make further death possible. What is the reason of his conquering further death by attaining identity with the universe? This is being answered:- For he offers all eatable food to all the gods by means of the morning and evening oblations. Therefore it is proper that he, by making himself one with the oblations and attaining identity with all the gods as their food --- being the sum total of them --- does not die any more. This too has been stated in another Brahmana:- 'Brahman, the self-born (a man seeking identity with Hiranyagarbha) performed rites. He reflected, 'Rites do not produce eternal results. Well, let me offer myself in all beings (as in a fire) and all beings in me.' Offering himself in all beings and all beings in himself, he attained the highest place among all beings, independence and absolute rulership' (S. XIII. vii. 1. 1). Why are they not exhausted although they are always, continuously, being eaten? Since the time when the father producing the seven kinds of food distributed them to different groups of eaters, they have been eating those foods, for they live on them. And they ought to be exhausted, since everything that is made must wear out. But they are not dwindling, for we see the universe remains intact. So there must be a cause for their permanence. Hence the question, 'Why are they not exhausted?' It is answered as follows:- The being is indeed the casue of their permanence. Just as in the beginning the father was the producer of the different kinds of food through his meditation and rites with five factors such as the wife, and their eater too, so those to whom he gave the foods, although they are their eaters, are their fathers as well, for they produce them through their meditation and rites. This is expressed as follows:- The being who eats the food is indeed the cause of their permanence. How? This is being explained:- For he produces this food of seven kinds that is eaten, consisting of the body and organs, actions and results, again and again through his meditation for the time being and rites, i.e. the efforts of his speech, mind and body. It he does not do this, not produce for a moment the seven kinds of food mentioned above through his meditation and rites, it would be exhausted, or finished, being continously eaten. Therefore just as the being is continously eating the foods, he is also creating them according to his meditation and rites. Hence the being is the cause of their permanence by continously creating them. That is to say, for this reason the foods are not exhausted although they are being eaten. Therefore the whole universe consisting of a series of meditations and rites, means and ends, actions and results --- although, being held together by a stream of work and impressions of innumerable beings in combination, it is transient, impure, flimsy, resembling a flowing river or a burning lamp, flimsy like a banana stalk, and comparable to foam, illusion, a mirgae, a dream, and so on --- appears nevertheless to those who have identified themselves with it to be undecaying, eternal and full of substance. Hence for stimulating our renunciation the text says, 'He produces this food through his meditation for the time being and rites. If he does not do this, it will be exhausted,' for from the second chapter the knowledge of Brahman has to be inculcated for those who are disgusted with this universe. Although three kinds of food are yet to be described, still taking them as already explained along with the previous ones, the result of knowing these as they are, is being summed up:- He who knows this cause of their permanence as described above, means that the being (eater) is indeed the cause of their permanence, for he produces this food through his meditation for the time being and rites. If he does not do this, it will be exhausted. He eats food with Pratika is being explained:- 'Pratika' means pre-eminence; hence the meaning is, pre-eminently. He who knows that the being who is the father of the different kinds of food is the cause of their permanence, pre-eminently eats food and never becomes a subsidiary part of it. Unlike an ignorant man, this sage, being the self of the foods, becomes only their eater, but never a food. He attains the gods, is identified with the gods, and lives on nectar:- This statement is a eulogy; there is no new meaning in it.
Max Müller
2. When it is said, that 'the father produced by knowledge and penance the seven kinds of food,' it is clear that (it was he who) did so. When it is said, that 'one of his (foods) was common,' then that is that common food of his which is eaten. He who worships (eats) that (common food), is not removed from evil, for verily that food is mixed (property) [1]. When it is said, that 'two he assigned to the Devas,' that is the huta, which is sacrificed in fire, and the prahuta, which is given away at a sacrifice. But they also say, the new-moon and full-moon sacrifices are here intended, and therefore one should not offer them as an ishti or with a wish. When it is said, that 'one he gave to animals,' that is milk. For in the beginning (in their infancy) both men and animals live on milk. And therefore they either make a new-born child lick ghrita (butter), or they make it take the breast. And they call a new-born creature 'atrinâda,' i.e. not eating herbs. When it is said, that 'in it all rests, whatsoever breathes and breathes not,' we see that all this, whatsoever breathes and breathes not, rests and depends on milk. And when it is said (in another Brâhmana), that a man who sacrifices with milk a whole year [2], overcomes death again, let him not think so. No, on the very day on which he sacrifices, on that day he overcomes death again; for he who knows this, offers to the gods the entire food (viz. milk). When it is said, 'Why do these not perish, though they are always eaten,' we answer, Verily, the Person is the imperishable, and he produces that food again and again [3]. When it is said, 'He who knows this imperishable one, I then, verily, the Person is the imperishable one, for he produces this food by repeated thought, and whatever he does not work by his works, that perishes. When it is said, that 'he eats food with his face,' then face means the mouth, he eats it with his mouth. When it is said, that 'he goes even to the Devas, he lives on strength,' that is meant as praise.
Meaning:- 'Three he designed for himself' means:- the mind, the organ of speech and the vital force; these he designed for himself. (They say), 'I was absent-minded, I did not see it', 'I was absent-minded, I did not hear it'. It is through the mind that one sees and hears. Desires, resolve, doubt, faith, want of faith, steadiness, unsteadiness, shame, intelligence and fear - all these are but the mind. Even if one is touched from behind, one knows it through the mind; therefore (the mind exists). And any kind of sound is but the organ of speech, for it serves to determine a thing, but it cannot itself be revealed. Prana, Apana, Vyana, Udana, Samana and Ana - all these are but the vital forces. This body is identified with these - with the organ of speech, the mind and the vital force.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- The three kinds of food --- results of rites with five factors --- which have been spoken of, being effectts and extensive in scope, were kept separate from the previous ones. The succeeding portion up to the end of this section is devoted to the explanation of them. What is the meaning of. Three he designed for himself? It means:- The mind, the organ of speech and vital force are the three kinds of food; these the father, after producing them at the beginning of the cycle, designed for himself. Of these, there is a doubt regarding the existence and nature of the mind. Hence the text says:- There is a mind apart from the external organs such as the ear. For it is a well-known fact that even when there is a connection between the external organ, the object and the self, a man does not perceive that object, which may be just in front, and when asked, 'Have you seen this form?' he says, 'My mind was elsewhere --- I was absent-minded, I did not see it.' Similarly when asked, 'Have you heard what I have said?' he says, 'I was absent-minded, I did not hear it.' Therefore it is understood that that something else, viz the internal organ called mind, which joins itself to the objects of all the organs, exists, in the absence of which the eye and other organs fail to perceive their respective objects such as form and sound, although they have the capacity to do so and in the presence of which they succeed in it. Hence it is through the mind that everybody sees and hears, for vision and the like are impossible when the mind is engaged. After the existence of the mind has been proved, the text proceeds to described its nature:- Desire, sex-attraction and the like, resolve, deciding about a thing which is before us, that it is white or blue and so on, doubt, notion of uncertainty, faith, belief in the efficacy of rites directed to invisible ends (the hereafter) as well as in the existence of the gods and the like, want of faith, the opposite notion, steadiness, supporting the body etc. when they droop, unsteadiness, the opposite of that, shame, intelligence and fear --- all these, all such, are but the mind. They are forms of the mind or the internal organ. Another reason for the existence of the mind is being stated:- Because even if one is touched by anybody from behind invisibly, one knows it distinctly, that this is a touch of the hand, or that this is a touch of the knee, therefore the internal organ called mind exists. If there is no mind to distinguish them, how can the skin alone do this? That which helps us to distinguish between perceptions is the mind. The mind then exists, and its nature too has been known. Three kinds of food, which are the results of rites, viz the mind, the organ of speech and the vital force, were sought to be explained here in their divisions according to the body, the elements and the gods. Of these, only the mind, out of the group consisting of the organ of speech, the mind and the vital force as relating to the body, has been explained. Now the organ of speech is to be described. Hence the text says:- And any kind of sound in the world, whether it is of the articulate kind uttered by creatures with the help of the palate etc., or it is of the other kind produced by musical instruments or clouds etc., is but the organ of speech. So the nature of the organ of speech has been stated. Now its function is being described:- For it, the organ of speech, serves to determine or reveal a thing, but it cannot itself be revealed, like things; it only reveals them, for it is self-luminous like a lamp etc. The light of a lamp and so forth is not of course revealed by another light. Similarly the organ of speech only reveals things, but cannot itself be revealed by others (of the same category). Thus the Sruti avoids a regressus in infinitum by saying, 'It cannot itself be revealed.' That is to say, the very function of the organ of speech is to reveal. Now the vital force is being described:- Prana, the function of which is connected with the heart and is capable of moving to the mouth and nostrils, so called because it moves forward. Apana, which functions below the heart and extends up to the navel; it is called Apana, because it helps excretion. Vyana, that which regulates the Prana and Apana and is the nexus between them, as also the cause of actions requiring strength. Udana, that which causes nutrition, rising up, and so on; it extends from the sole of the feet to the head and functions upwards. Samana, so called because of assimilating what we eat and drink; it has its seat in the belly and helps the digestion of food. Ana is the generalisation of these particular functions and is concerned with the general activities of the body. Thus all these functions of the Prana and the rest, as described above, are but the vital force (Prana). The Prana, which means the Ana (general nerve function) in the body with particular functions, has been described. And its activity also has been explained by a reference to its different functions. So the three kinds of food called the mind, the organ of speech and the vital force as relating to the body, have been explained. Identified with these, i.e. their modifications, or composed of the mind, speech and vital force of Hiranyagarbha --- what is it? this body including the organs, the microcosm, called 'self' because it is accepted as their self by ignorant people. That which has been described in a general way as 'identified' with these,' is being elucidated by the specification with the organ of speech, the mind and the vital force. The manifestations of those foods belonging to Hiranyagarbha as they relate to the elements are being described:-
Max Müller
3. When it is said, that 'he made three for himself,' that means that he made mind, speech, and breath for himself. As people say, 'My mind was elsewhere, I did not see; my mind was elsewhere, I did not hear,' it is clear that a man sees with his mind and hears with his mind [1]. Desire, representation, doubt, faith, want of faith, memory [2], forgetfulness, shame, reflexion, fear, all this is mind. Therefore even if a man is touched on the back, he knows it through the mind. Whatever sound there is, that is speech. Speech indeed is intended for an end or object, it is nothing by itself. The up-breathing, the down-breathing, the back-breathing, the out-breathing, the on-breathing, all that is breathing is breath (prâna) only. Verily that Self consists of it; that Self consists of speech, mind, and breath.
trayo lokā eta eva vāgevāyaṃ loko mano'ntarikṣalokaḥ prāṇo'sau lokaḥ .. 4..
Meaning:- These are the three worlds. The organ of speech is this world (the earth), the mind is the sky, and the vital force is that world (heaven).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- These, the organ of speech, the mind and the vital force, are the three worlds called the earth, sky and heaven. This is being specified:- The organ of speech is this world, the mind is the sky, and the vital force is that world.
Max Müller
4. These are the three worlds:- earth is speech, sky mind, heaven breath.
Meaning:- These are what is known, what it is desirable to know, and what is unknown. Whatever is known is a form of the organ of speech, for it is the knower. The organ of speech protects him (who knows this) by becoming that (which is known).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- These are what is known, what it is desirable to know, and what is unknown. This is being specified:- Whatever is clearly known is a form of the organ of speech. The Sruti itself gives the reason:- For it is the knower, being self-luminous. How can that be other than a knower which brings to light other objects as well? It will be stated later on, 'Through the organ of speech, O Emperor, a friend is known' (IV. i. 2). He who knows the particulars of the organ of speech gets the following result:- The organ of speech protects him who knows its manifectations as given above, by becoming that which is known. That is, it becomes his food, or object of enjoyment, in that form.
Max Müller
8. These are what is known, what is to be known, and what is unknown. What is known, has the form of speech, for speech is known. Speech, having become this, protects man [1].
यत्किञ्च विजिज्ञास्यं मनसस्तद्रूपं मनो हि विजिज्ञास्यं मन एनं
तद्भूत्वाऽवति ॥ ९॥
mantra 9[I.v.9]
yatkiñca vijijñāsyaṃ manasastadrūpaṃ mano hi vijijñāsyaṃ mana enaṃ
tadbhūtvā'vati .. 9..
Meaning:- Whatever it is desirable to know is a form of the mind, for the mind is what it is desirable to know. The mind protects him (who knows this) by becoming that (which it is desirable to know).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Similarly, whatever it is desirable clearly to know is a form of the mind, for the mind, since it takes the form of a doubt (considers the pros and cons of a thing), is what it is desirable to know. As before, he who knows the manifestations of the mind gets the following result:- The mind protects him by becoming that which it is desirable to know, i.e. it becomes his food in that form.
Max Müller
9. What is to be known, has the form of mind, for mind is what is to be known. Mind, having become this, protects man.
Meaning:- Whatever is unknown is a form of the vital force, for the vital force is what is unknown. The vital force protects him (who knows this) by becoming that (which is unknown).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Likewise whatever is completely unknown, and not even suspected, is a form of the vital force, for the vital force is what is unknown, as the Sruti speaks of it as undefined (Ch. II. xxii. 1). Since the organ of speech, the mind and the vital force have been divided into the forms of what is known, what it is desirable to know, and what is unknown (This is a wider classification including all the previous ones mentioned in paragraphs 4 to 7, and involving a cross-division. Nevertheless we are to take them as they are, since the Sruti recommends them for meditation.), the statements, 'These are the three worlds,' and so on, are to be accepted solely on the authority of the Sruti. Since we see these three forms, viz what is known, etc., are applicable to everything, it is from the statement of the Sruti that we are to understand that the meditation is to be confined to the particular objects as indicated. The vital force protects him by becoming that, i.e. becomes his food in the form of what is unknown. We often see that teachers and parents, for instance, help their pupils and (very young) children, barely suspected by or unknown to them. Similarly the mind and vital force can be the food of the sage, barely suspected by and unknown to him (respectively). The manifestations of the organ of speech, the mind and the vital force relating to the elements have been described. The following (three) paragraphs deal with their manifestations relating to the gods:-
Max Müller
10. What is unknown, has the form of breath, for breath is unknown. Breath, having become this, protects man [1].
Meaning:- The earth is the body of that organ of speech, and this fire is its luminous organ. And as far as the organ of speech extends, so far extends the earth and so far does this fire.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- The earth is the body, or the external container, of that organ of speech which has been spoken of as the food of Hiranyagarbha, and this terrestrial fire is its luminous organ, the content of the earth. The vocal organ of Hiranyagarbha has two forms:- One is the effect (body), the container and non-luminous:- the other is the instrument (organ), the content and luminous. Both these, the earth and fire, are but the vocal organ of Hiranyagarbha. And as far as the organ of speech in its twofold aspect relating to the body and the elements extends, so far throughout extends the earth, the effect, as its container, and so far does this fire, which is the content and the instrument, pervading the earth in its luminous form. The rest is similar.
Max Müller
11. Of that speech (which is the food of Pragâpati) earth is the body, light the form, viz. this fire. And so far as speech extends, so far extends the earth, so far extends fire.
prāṇo'jāyata . sa indraḥ sa eṣo'sapatno dvitīyo vai sapatno nāsya
sapatno bhavati ya evaṃ veda .. 12..
Meaning:- Heaven is the body of this mind, and that sun is its luminous organ. And as far as the mind extends, so far extends heaven, and so far does that sun. The two were united, and from that the vital force emanated. It is the Supreme Lord. It is without a rival. A second being is indeed a rival. He who knows it as such has no rival.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Heaven is the body, the effect, the container, of this mind that has already been spoken of as the food of Hiranyagarbha, and that sun is its luminous organ, the content. And as far as the mind in its aspect relating to the body or the elements, extends, so far extends heaven, which is the container of the mind, the luminous organ, and so far does that sun, which is the luminous organ and the content. The two, fire and the sun, which are the forms of the organ of speech and the mind relating to the gods, the mother and father, were united, between the two halves of the cosmic shell (heaven and earth), the one resolving to do the function of generation belonging to the father, the mind, or the sun, and the other that of manifestation belonging to the mother, the organ of speech, or fire. And from that union the vital force or Vayu (The cosmic aspect of the vital force, symbolised by air.) emanated, to function as vibration. It, that which emanated, is the Supreme Lord, and not only that but it is also without a rival. What is a rival? A second being, appearing as an adversary, is called a rival.Hence the organ of speech and the mind, although they are different entities (from the vital force), never become its rivals, both being subordinate to the vital force (on the cosmic plane) as in the body. Incidentally, the result of meditation on this absence of rivalry is as follows:- He, the sage, who knows it, the vital force, as such, as being without a rival, has no rival.
Max Müller
12. Next, of this mind heaven is the body, light the form, viz. this sun. And so far as this mind extends, so far extends heaven, so far extends the sun. If they (fire and sun) embrace each other, then wind is born, and that is Indra, and he is without a, rival. Verily a second is a rival, and he who knows this, has no rival.
prāṇastāvatya āpastāvānasau candraḥ . ta ete sarva eva samāḥ
sarve'nantāḥ . sa yo haitānantavata upāste'ntavantagͫ sa lokaṃ
jayatyatha yo haitānanantānupāste'nantagͫ sa lokaṃ jayati .. 13..
Meaning:- Water is the body of this vital force, and that moon is its luminous organ. And as far as the vital force extends, so far extends water, and so far does that moon. These are all equal, and all infinite. He who meditates upon these as finite wins a finite world, but he who meditates upon these as infinite wins an infinite world.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Water it the body, the effect, the container of the organs, of this vital force that is the food of Hiranyagarbha, not of the vital force that has just beenn described as the child, and that moon is its luminous organ, as before. And as far as the vital force in its aspects relating to the body etc. extends, so far extends water, and so far does that moon, the content of the water, the organ, which in its aspects relating to the body and the elements pervades the water. So these are the three kinds of food, called the organ of speech, the mind, and the vital force, which were produced by the father through rites with five factors. And the whole universe in its aspects relating to the body and the elements is pervaded by these. There is nothing besides these, either of the nature of an effect or an instrument (body or organ), and Hiranyagarbha is the sum of these. These, the organ of speech, the mind, and the vital force, are all equal in extensity --- pervade whatever concerns the animate world in its aspects relating to the body and the elements, and for this very reason they are infinite, for they last as long as the relative universe. Surely we do not know of any relative universe apart from the bodies and organs. And it has been stated (pars. 11 ' 13) that speech, mind and the vital force consist of the body and organs. He who, whoever, meditates upon these --- which are a part and parcel of Hiranyagarbha --- in their aspect relating to the body or the elements, as finite, wins a finite world --- a result which is commensurate with that meditation. That is, he is born as finite, not as one with these. But he who meditates upon these as infinite, as consisting of the universe, a part and parcel of all beings, and unlimited, wins an infinite world. It has been said that the father, after producing seven kinds of food through rites with five factors, designed three of them for himself. These, the results of those rites, have been explained. Now how are these the results of those rites? This is being answered:- Because those three kinds of food also, we find, have five factors, for wealth and rites can also be included in them. Of them, the earth and fire, as has been explained, are the mother, heaven and the sun are the father, and the vital force (Vayu), which is between these two, is the child. In order to show how wealth and rites can be included in them the next two paragraphs are being introduced.
Max Müller
13. Next, of this breath water is the body, light the form, viz. this moon. And so far as this breath extends, so far extends water, so far extends the moon. These are all alike, all endless. And he who worships them as finite, obtains a finite world, but he who worships them as infinite, obtains an infinite world.
rātriṃ prāṇabhṛtaḥ prāṇaṃ na vicchindyādapi kṛkalāsasyaitasyā eva
devatāyā apacityai .. 14.. apacityai
Meaning:- This Prajapati (Hiranyagarbha) has sixteen digits and is represented by the year. The nights (and days) are his fifteen digits, and the constant one is his sixteenth digit. He (as the moon) is filled as well as wasted by the nights (and days). Through this sixteenth digit he permeates all these living beings on the new-moon night and rises the next morning. Therefore on this night one should not take the life of living beings, not even of a chameleon, in adoration of this deity alone.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- This Prajapati, consisting of the three kinds of food, who is under consideration, is being particularly described as the year. He has sixteen digits or members and is represented by the year, consists of the year, or is the Time. The nights and the days, i.e. the lunar days, are the fifteen digits of this Prajapati consisting of time, and the constant one, which is ever the same, is his sixteenth digit. He is filled as well as wasted by the nights, the lunar days, called the digits. In the bright fortnight the Prajapati who is the moon is filled by the lunar days beginning with the first, through the gradual increase of digits, i.e. waxes, till he attains the fullness of his orb on the full-moon night, and is also wasted by them in the dark fortnight through the gradual decrease of digits, till only the constant digit is left on the new-moon night. Through this abiding sixteenth digit called the constant one, he, the Prajapati who is the Time, permeates all these living beings by means of the water they drink and the herbs they eat --- pervades them in these two forms --- on the new-moon night and, staying there overnight, rises the next morning, joined to the second digit. Thus that Prajapati consists of five factors:- Heaven and the sun as well as mind are the father; the earth and fire as well as the organ of speech are his wife, the mother; the vital force is their child; the lunar days, or digits, are wealth, for they increase and decrease like it; and the fact that these digits, which are divisions of time, cause changes in the universe is the rite. Thus this Prajapati, as a whole, emerges as the result of rites with five factors, which is quite in accordance with his desire, 'Let me have a wife, so that I may be born. And let me have wealth, so that I may perform rites' (I. iv. 17). It is an accepted principle in life that the effect is commensurate with the cause. Because this moon on this night abides in her constant digit permeating all living beings, therefore on this new-moon night one should not take the life of living beings, not kill them, not even of a chameleon, which is naturally vicious and is killed by people, because the very sight of it is inauspicious. One may ask:- Is not the killing of animals forbidden by the dictum, 'One must not kill any animal except where it is prescribed by the scriptures' (Cf. Ch. VIII. xv. 1)? To this we reply:- Yes, it is; the present text, however, does not make an expcetion to that rule about the killing of animals at other times than the new-moon night, or even of the chameleon, but is only (a special prohibition) in adoration of this deity, the moon.
Max Müller
14. That Pragâpati is the year, and he consists of sixteen digits. The nights [1] indeed are his fifteen digits, the fixed point [2] his sixteenth digit. He is increased and decreased by the nights. Having on the new-moon night entered with the sixteenth part into everything that has life, he is thence born again in the morning. Therefore let no one cut off the life of any living thing on that night, not even of a lizard, in honour (pûgârtham) of that deity.
Meaning:- That Prajapati who has sixteen digits and is represented by the year is indeed this man who knows as above. Wealth constitutes his fifteen digits, and the body his sixteenth digit. He is filled as well as wasted by wealth. This body stands for a nave, and wealth is the felloe. Therefore if a man loses everything, but he himself lives, people say that he has only lost his outfit.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- He who has been remotely described as that Prajapati who has sixteen digits and is represented by the year, should not be considered to be altogether remote, because he is directly observed as this one Who is it? This man who knows the Prajapati consisting of the three kinds of food to be identical with himself, as described above. What is the similarity between them? This is being explained:- Wealth such as cattle constitutes the fifteen digits of this man who knows as above, for it increases and decreases and it aids the performance of rites. To contribute to his completeness, the body is the sixteenth digit of this sage, corresponding to the constant digit (of the moon). Like the moon he is filled as well as wasted by wealth. This is a familiar thing in everyday life. This stands for a nave, is fit to be such. What is it? This body. And wealth is the felloe, stands for the external outfit, like the spokes and felloes of wheet. Therefore even if a man loses everything, sufers that affliction, but he himself, corresponding to the nave of a wheel, lives, people say that he has only lost his outfit, been deprived of his outer trappings, like a wheel losing its spokes and felloes. That is to say, if he is alive, he again grows by means of wealth, corresponding to the spokes and felloes. Thus it has been explained how a man by the performance of rites with five factors combined with meditation, the divine wealth, becomes the Prajapati consisting of the three kinds of food. And it has also been said that wealth such as the wife stands for the outfit. In the previous portion it has only been known in a general way that sons, rites and meditation lead to the attainment of the worlds, but not there is a very definite relation between them and those results. This relation between the means such as the son and the particular results has to be stated. Hence the following paragraph:-
Max Müller
15. Now verily that Pragâpati, consisting of sixteen digits, who is the year, is the same as a man who knows this. His wealth constitutes the fifteen digits, his Self the sixteenth digit. He is increased and decreased by that wealth. His Self is the nave, his wealth the felly. Therefore even if he loses everything, if he lives but with his Self, people say, he lost the felly (which can be restored again).
devaloko devaloko vai lokānāgͫ śreṣṭhastasmādvidyāṃ praśagͫsanti .. 16..
Meaning:- There are indeed three worlds, the world of men, the world of the Manes and the world of the gods. This world of men is to be won through the son alone, and by no other rite; the world of the Manes through rites; and the world of the gods through meditation. The world of the gods is the best of the worlds. Therefore they praise meditation.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- The word 'Atha' is introductory. There are indeed three worlds attainable by means mentioned in the scriptures, neither more nor less. --- 'Indeed' is intensive. --- Which are they? The world of men, the world of the Manes and the world of the gods. Of these, this world of men is to be won or attained through the son alone as means, and by no other rite, nor meditation. The last two words are understood. How this world is to be won through the son we shall explain later on. The world of the Manes through rites alone such as the Agnihotra, neither through the son nor through meditation. And the world of the gods through meditation, neither through the son nor through rites. The world of the gods is the best of the three worlds. Therefore they praise meditation, as being the means of attaining it.
Max Müller
16. Next there are verily three worlds, the world of men, the world of the Fathers, the world of the Devas. The world of men can be gained by a son only, not by any other work. By sacrifice the world of the Fathers, by knowledge the world of the Devas is gained. The world of the Devas is the best of worlds, therefore they praise knowledge.
Meaning:- Now therefore the entrusting:- When a man thinks he will die, he says to his son, 'You are Brahman, you are the sacrifice, and you are the world'. The son replies, 'I am Brahman, I am the sacrifice, and I am the world.' (The father thinks 'Whatever is studied is all unified in the word "Brahman". Whatever sacrifices there are, are all unified in the word "sacrifice". And whatever worlds there are, are all unified in the world "world". All this (the duties of a householder) is indeed this much. He, being all this, will protect me from (the ties of) this world.' Therefor they speak of an educated son as being conducive to the world. Hence (a father) teaches his son. When a father who knows as above departs from this world, he penetrates his son together with the organ of speech, the mind and the vital force. Should anything be left undone by him through any slip the son exonerates him from all that. Therefore he is called a son. The father lives in this world through the son. Divine and immortal speech, mind and vital force permeate him.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Thus the three means called the son, rite and meditation have been connected with their respective results, the three worlds. A wife, being an aid to the obtaining of a son and the performance of rites, is not a separate means, and has therefore not been separately mentioned. Wealth too, being an aid to the performance of rites, is not a separate means. It is a well-known fact that meditation and rites lead to the winning of the worlds by merely coming into existence. But one does not know how a son, not being of the nature of an activity, can help to win them. This has to be explained. Now therefore follows the entrusting. This is the name of the rite which is going to be described. It is called 'entrusting,' because a father in this manner entrusts his own duties to his son. When should this be done? This is being stated:- When a man, a father, on account of some omen or otherwise, thinks he will die, he says to his son, calling him, 'You are Brahman, you are the sacrifice, and you are the world.' The son, thus addressed, replies, 'I am Brahman, I am the sacrifice, and I am the world.' Having already been instructed, he knows what to do; so he says these three sentences. Thinking the meaning of these sentences to be hidden, the Sruti proceeds to explain them. Whatever is studied has been or remains to be studied, is all unified in the word 'Brahman.' That is, let the study of the Vedas which so long was my duty, be henceforth done by you are Brahman. Similarly whatever sacrifices there are, that were to be performed by me, whether I have performed them or not, are all unified in the word 'sacrifice.' That is, let whatever sacrifices I used to perform, be henceforth performed by you, for you are the sacrifice. And whatever worlds there are, that were to be won by me, whether I have won them or not, are all unified in the word 'world.' Henceforth you should win them, for you are the world. From now on I entrust to you the resolve which was mine of dutifully undertaking study, sacrifices and the conquest of the worlds, and I am freed from the resolve concerning these ties of duty. All this the son accepted as it was, having been instructed to that effect.
Guessing this intention of the father, the Sruti says:- All this, the whole duty of a householder, is indeed this much, viz that he must study the Vedas, perform sacrifices and win the worlds. He, being all this, taking all this load of mine off me and putting it on himself, will protect me from this world. The past tense has been used in the sense of the future, there being no restriction about tense in the Vedas. Because a son who is thus trained will free his father from this world, i.e. from the ties of duty on earth, therefore Brahmanas speak of an educated son as being conducive to the world for his father. Hence a father teaches his son, hoping he will be conducive to his attainment of the world. When a father who knows as above, who has entrusted his resolve about his duties to his son, departs from this world, he penetrates or pervades his son together with the organ of speech, the mind and the vital force, which are under consideration. Owing to the cessation of the cause (false notion etc.) which limited them to the body, the father's organ of speech, mind and vital force pervade everything in their cosmic form as the earth, fire and so on, like the light of a lamp within a jar when the latter is broken. The father too pervades everything along with them, for he is identified with the organ of speech, the mind and the vital force. He thinks, 'I am the infinite organ of speech, mind and vital force, whose manifestations have various aspects such as that relating to the body.' Therefore it has been rightly said, 'He penetrates his son together with the organ of speech, the mind and the vital force,' for he follows these. He becomes the self of all including the son. The idea is this:- A father who has a son instructed in this way remains in this very world as that son; that is, he should not be considered to be dead. Witness another Sruti, 'This other self of his is his substitute for the performance of meritorios rites' (Ai. IV. 4, adapted). Now the derivation of the word 'Putra' (son) is being given:- Should anything , any duty, be left undone by him, the father, through any slip or slight omission in the middle, the son exonerates him from all that unfulfilled duty of his standing as an obstacle to his attainment of the world, by fulfilling it himself. Therefore, because he saves his father by fulfilling his duties, he is called a son. This is the derivative meaning of the word 'Putra' --- one who 'saves' the father by 'completing' his omissions. The father although dead, is immortal and lives in this world through such a son. Thus he wins this world of men through his son. The world of the Manes and that of the gods are not won in that way, but simply by the fact of existence of meditation and rites. These help to attain the worlds not by undertaking some other activity like the son, but by simply coming into existence. Divine and immortal speech, mind and vital force, those pertaining to Hiranyagarbha, permeate him, this father who has entrusted his duties to his son.
Max Müller
17. Next follows the handing over. When a man thinks he is going to depart, he says to his son:- 'Thou art Brahman (the Veda, so far as acquired by the father); thou art the sacrifice (so far as performed by the father); thou art the world.' The son answers:- 'I am Brahman, I am the sacrifice, I am the world.' Whatever has been learnt (by the father) that, taken as one, is Brahman. Whatever sacrifices there are, they, taken as one, are the sacrifice. Whatever worlds there are, they, taken as one, are the world. Verily here ends this (what has to be done by a father, viz. study, sacrifice, &c.) 'He (the son), being all this, preserved me from this world [1],' thus he thinks. Therefore they call a son who is instructed (to do all this), a world-son (lokya), and therefore they instruct him. When a father who knows this, departs this world, then he enters into his son together with his own spirits (with speech, mind, and breath). If there is anything done amiss by the father, of all that the son delivers him, and therefore he is called Putra, son [2]. By help of his son the father stands firm in this world [3]. Then these divine immortal spirits (speech, mind, and breath) enter into him.
pṛthivyai cainamagneśca daivī vāgāviśati . sā vai daivī vāgyayā
yadyadeva vadati tattadbhavati .. 18..
Meaning:- The divine organ of speech from the earth and fire permeates him. That is the divine organ of speech through which whatever he says is fulfilled.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- How does this take place? This will be explained in this and the next two paragraphs. The Sruti itself has shown that the son, rites and meditation lead respectively to the world of men, of the Manes and of the gods. Here some prattlers (the Mimamsakas) ignorant of the particular import of the Sruti say that the means such as the son lead to liberation. The Sruti has thus gagged them:- Beginning with the statement that rites with five factors are undertaken with material ends, in the passage, 'Let me have a wife,' etc. (I. iv. 17), it has, among other things, concluded by connecting the son and the rest with their respective results. Therefore it is proved that the Sruti text referring to the (three) debts applies to an ignorant man and not one who has realised the Supreme Self. It will also be stated later on, 'What shall we achieve through children, we who have attined this Self, this world?' (IV. iv. 22). Others (Bhartrprapanca is meant.) say that the winning of the worlds of the Manes and the gods means turning away from them. And if one has a son and at the same time performs rites and meditation together, one turns away from these three worlds, and through the knowledge of the Supreme Self attains liberation. Hence, they say, the means such as the son lead indirectly to liberation itself. To silence them also, this portion of the Sruti sets itself to show the results attained by a man who has a son to whom he has entrusted his own duties, who performs rites and who knows the meditation on the three kinds of food as identical with himself. And one cannot say that this very result is liberation, for it is connected with the three kinds of food, and all the foods are the effects of meditationn and rites since the father is stated to produce them again and again, and there is the statement about decay, 'If he does not do this, it would be exhausted' (I. v. 2). Thus only would the mention of the effect and instrument in the words, 'body' and 'luminous organ' (I. v. 11 ' 13), be appropriate. Besides, the topic is concluded by a representation of the foods as consisting of name, form and action:- 'This (universe) indeed consists of three things,' etc. (I. vi. 1). And it cannot be deduced from this one sentence in question (I. v. 16) that these three means being combined lead to liberation in the case of some, and identity with the three kinds of food in the case of others, for the sentence only admits of a single interpretation, viz that means such as the son lead to identity with the three kinds of food. The divine organ of speech, that which relates to the gods, from the earth and fire permeates him, this man who has entrusted his duties to his son. The divine organ of speech, consisting of the earth and fire, is the material of the vocal organs of all. But (in an ignorant man) it is limited by attachment and other evils pertaining to the body. In the case of the sage, these evils being eliminated, it becomes all-pervading, like water, or like the light of a lamp, when its obstruction has been removed. This is expressed by the text, 'The divine organ of speech from the earth and fire permeates him.' And that is the divine organ of speech, devoid of the evils of falsehood etc. and pure, through which whatever he says about himself or others is fulfilled. That is, his speech becomes infallible and irresistible.
Max Müller
18. From the earth and from fire, divine speech enters into him. And verily that is divine speech whereby, whatever he says, comes to be.
दिवश्चैनमादित्याच्च दैवं मन आविशति । तद्वै दैवं मनो
येनाऽऽनन्द्येव भवत्यथो न शोचति ॥ १९॥
mantra 19[I.v.19]
divaścainamādityācca daivaṃ mana āviśati . tadvai daivaṃ mano
yenā''nandyeva bhavatyatho na śocati .. 19..
Meaning:- The divine mind from heaven and the sun permeates him. That is the divine mind through which he only becomes happy and never mourns.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Similarly the divine mind from heaven and the sun permeates him. And that is the divine mind, being naturally pure, through which he only becomes happy and never mourns, not being connected with the causes of grief.
Max Müller
19. From heaven and the sun, divine mind enters into him. And verily that is divine mind whereby he becomes joyful, and grieves no more.
śocantyamaivā''sāṃ tadbhavati puṇyamevāmuṃ gacchati na ha vai
devānpāpaṃ gacchati .. 20..
Meaning:- The divine vital force from water and the moon permeates him. That is the divine vital force which, when it moves or does not move, feels no pain nor is injured. He who knows as above becomes the self of all beings. As is this deity (Hiranyagarbha), so is he. As all beings take care of this deity, so do they take care of him. Howsoever these beings may grieve, that grief of theirs is connected with them. But only merit goes to him. No demerit ever goes to the gods.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Likewise the divine vital force from water and the moon permeates him. It is being specified:- That is the divine vital force which, when it moves among the different beings taken individually, or does not move, when they are taken collectively --- or moves in moving animals and does not move in stationary objects --- feels no pain, is not affected by fear that causes sorrow, nor is injured or killed. He who knows the meditation on the three kinds of food as identical with himself, as described above, becomes the self of all beings, becomes their vital force, their mind and their speech, and thus, being the self of all beings, becomes omniscient and the doer of everything as well. This is the import. As is this deity, Hiranyagarbha, who attained this state first, so is he --- his omniscience or omnipotence is never thwarted. 'He' refers to the sage who is compared with the other. Moreover, as all beings take care of or worship this deity, Hiranyagarbha, through sacrifices etc., so do they take care of him, one who knows as above, constantly offer him worship consisting of sacrifices etc. Now a doubt arises:- It has been said that he becomes the self of all beings. Hence, being identified with their bodies and organs, he may be affected by their joys and sorrows. To which the answer is:- Not so, for his understanding is not limited. It is those that identify themselves with limited objects who are seen to be affected by sorrow when, for instance, they are abused by anybody, thinking he has abused them. But this sage who is the self of all has no particular notion of identity with either the object that is abused or the agency that abuses, and cannot therefore be miserable on that account. And there is no ground for sorrow as in the case of that due to someone's death. As when somebody dies, a man feels miserable, thinking that he was his son or brother --- the grief being due to his relationship, and where this cause is absent, one, although witnessing that death, is not afflicted, similarly this divine being, who is not identified with limited things, having nor defects such as the false notions about 'mine' or 'yours,' and so on, which lead to misery, is not affected by it. This is being expressed:- Howsoever these beings may grieve, that grief of theirs, the pain due to that grief and the like, is connected with them, for it is due to their identification with limited things. But in the case of one who is the self of all, what can be connected, or disconnected, and with what? But only merit, i.e. good results, goes to him, the sage who is enjoining the status of Hiranyagarbha. He has done exceedingly meritorious work; hence only the results of that go to him. No demerit ever goes to the gods, for there is no scope for the results of evil actions among them. That is, misery, which is the result of all evil actions, does not go to them. Meditation on all three --- the organ of speech, the mind and the vital force --- without any distinction has been described in the passage, 'These are all equal, and all infinite' (I. v. 13). No speciality attaching to any one of these has been mentioned. Should one understand this as it is, or upon examination may some distinction be found in any one of these either for the purpose of a vow or meditation? This is being answered:-
Max Müller
20. From water and the moon, divine breath (spirit) enters into him. And verily that is divine breath which, whether moving or not moving, does not tire, and therefore does not perish. He who knows this, becomes the Self of all beings. As that deity (Hiranyagarbha) is, so does he become. And as all beings honour that deity (with sacrifice, &c.), so do all beings honour him who knows this. Whatever grief these creatures suffer, that is all one [1] (and therefore disappears). Only what is good approaches him; verily, evil does not approach the Devas.
Meaning:- Now a consideration of the vow:- Prajapati projected the organs. These, on being projected, quarrelled with one another. The organ of speech took a vow, 'I will go on speaking'. The eye:- 'I will see'. The ear:- 'I will hear'. And so did the other organs according to their functions. Death captured them in the form of fatigue - it overtook the, and having overtaken them it controlled them. Therefore the organ of speech invariably gets tired, and so do the eye and the ear. But death did not overtake this vital force in the body. The organs resolved to know it. 'This is the greatest among us that, when it moves or does not move, feels no pain nor is injured. Well, let us all be of its form.' They all assumed its form. Therefore they are called by this name of 'Prana'. That family in which a man is born who knows as above, is indeed named after him. And he who competes with one who knows as above shrivels, and after shrivelling dies at the end. This is with reference to the body.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Now begins a consideration of the vow or act of meditation --- among these organs whose function is to be observed as a vow? Prajapati (Viraj), after projecting the beings, projected the organs such as that of speech, called here 'work,' because they are instruments of work. The particle 'ha' denotes tradition. These, on being projected, quarrelled with one another. How? The organ of speech took a vow, 'I will go on speaking, will never stop doing my function of speaking. If there is anybody who, like me, can keep at his function, let him show his strength.' Similarly the eye:- 'I will see.' The ear:- 'I will hear.' And so did the other organs according to their respective functions. Death, the destroyer, captured them, the organs, in the form of fatigue. How? It overtook them, appeared among those organs, as they were engaged in their functions, in the form of fatigue, and having overtaken them it, death, controlled them, i.e. stopped them from functioning. Therefore, to this day, the organ of speech, being engaged in its function of speaking, invariably gets tired, ceases to function, being affected by death in the form of fatigue. And so do the eye and the ear. But death in the form of fatigue did not overtake this vital force in the body, which functions in the mouth. Therefore even now it functions tirelessly. The other organs resolved to know it. 'This is the greatest, foremost, among us, because, when it moves or does not move, it feels no pain nor is injured. Well, let us now all be of its form, identify ourselves with the vital force.' Having decided thus, they all assumed its form, realised the vital force as their own self --- observed the function of the vital force as a vow, thinking their own functions as insufficient to ward off death. Because the other organs have the form of the vital force in so far as they are mobile, and have their own form in so far as they perceive objects, therefore they, the organ of speech and the rest, are called by this name of 'Prana.' Nothing can be mobil except the vital force. And we observe that the functions of the organs are always preceded by movement. That family in which a man is born who knows as above, that all the organs are but the vital force and are named after it, is indeed named after him by people. It is known by the name of the sage, that it is the family of such and such, as 'the line of Tapati (The daughter of the sun.).' This is the result accruing to one who knows as above, that the organ of speech and the rest are but forms of the vital force and are named afer it. And he who competes as a rival with one who knows as above, with the sage who identifies himself with the vital force, shrivels in this very body, and after shrivelling dies at the end, he does not die suddenly without suffering. This is with reference to the body:- Here is concluded the subject of meditation on the vital force as identical with oneself in so far as it relates to the body. That relating to the gods will be next taken up.
Max Müller
21. Next follows the consideration of the observances [1] (acts). Pragâpati created the actions (active senses). When they had been created, they strove among themselves. Voice held, I shall speak; the eye held, I shall see; the ear held, I shall hear; and thus the other actions too, each according to its own act. Death, having become weariness, took them and seized them. Having seized them, death held them back (from their work). Therefore speech grows weary, the eye grows weary, the ear grows weary. But death did not seize the central breath. Then the others tried to know him, and said:- 'Verily, he is the best of us, he who, whether moving or not, does not tire and does not perish. Well, let all of us assume his form.' Thereupon they all assumed his form, and therefore they are called after him 'breaths' (spirits). In whatever family there is a man who knows this, they call that family after his name. And he who strives with one who knows this, withers away and finally dies. So far with regard to the body.
hyanyā devatā na vāyuḥ . saiṣā'nastamitā devatā yadvāyuḥ .. 22..
Meaning:- Now with reference to the gods:- Fire took a vow, 'I will go on burning.' The sun:- 'I will give heat'. The moon:- 'I will shine'. And so did the other gods according to their functions. As is the vital force in the body among these organs, so is Vayu (air) among these gods. Other gods sink, but not air. Air is the deity that never sets.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Now the meditation with reference to the gods is being described. It is being decided which deity is the best for the purpose of observing his functions as a vow. Everything here is as in the preceding paragraph with reference to the body. Fire took a vow, 'I will go on burning.' The sun:- 'I will give heat.' The moon:- 'I will shine.' And so did the other gods according to their functions. As, with reference to the body, is the vital force in the body among these organs, not overtaken by death, nor stopped from functioning --- remaining intact in its vow of functioning as the vital force, so is Vayu (air) among these gods such as fire. Other gods such as fire sink, or set, cease to function, like the organ of speech etc. in the body, but not air, like the vital force in the body. Therefore air is the deity that never sets. Thus it is decided after consideration that the vow of one who identifies oneself with the vital force with reference to the body and with air with reference to the gods, is unbroken.
Max Müller
22. Now with regard to the deities. Agni (fire) held, I shall burn; Âditya (the sun) held, I shall warm; Kandramas (the moon) held, I shall shine; and thus also the other deities, each according to the deity. And as it was with the central breath among the breaths, so it was with Vâyu, the wind among those deities. The other deities fade, not Vâyu. Vâyu is the deity that never sets.
Meaning:- Now there is this verse; 'The gods observed the vow of that from which the sun rises and in which he sets. It is (followed) to-day, and it will be (followed) to-morrow.' The sun indeed rises from the vital force and also sets in it. What these (gods) observed then, they observe to this day. Therefore a man should observe a single vow - do the functions of the Prana and Apana (respiration and excretion), lest the evil of death (fatigue) should overtake him. And if he observes it, he should seek to finish it. Through it he attains identity with this deity, or lives in the same world with it.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Now there is this verse or Mantra that brings out this very meaning:- 'The gods, fire and the rest, and the organ of speech etc. (in the body), in ancient times, after consideration observed the vow of that, viz air and the vital force, from which the sun rises --- externally he rises from air, and as the eye in the body, from the vital force --- and in which, air and the vital force, he sets in the evening, and when a man goes to sleep. It is followed by the gods to-day, now, and it will be followed by them to-morrow, in future. The words 'followed by the gods' are understood. Now the Brahmana briefly explains this Mantra:- The sun indeed rises from the vital force and also sets in it. What is the meaning of the words, 'The gods observed the vow of that ' It is (followed) to-day, and it will be (followed) to-morrow?' this is being stated:- What vow these gods, fire and the rest and the organ of speech etc., observed then, i.e. the vow of air and of the vital force, they observe to this day, and will observe unbroken. But the vow of the organ of speech etc. and of fire and the rest is broken, for we see that at the time of setting, and when one falls asleep, they sink in air and the vital force respectively. Similarly it has been said elsewhere, 'When a man sleeps, his organ of speech is merged in the vital force, and so are the mind, the eye and the air. And when he awakes, these again arise from the vital force. This is with reference to the body. Now with reference to the gods:- When fire goes out, it sets in air. Hence they speak of it as having set. It indeed sets in air. And when the sun sets, he enters air, and so does the moon; the quarters too rest on air. And they again arise from the air' (S. X. iii. 3. 6 ' . Because this one vow of air and the vital force, consisting of vibration or movement, persists in the gods such as fire and in the organ of speech etc. --- since all the gods follow it alone, therefore a man, another person also, should observe a single vow. What is that? Do the functions of the Prana and Apana. The functions of these two viz respiration and excretion, never stop. Therefore, giving up the functions of all other organs, he should observe this one vow, lest the evil of death in the form of fatigue should overtake him. 'Lest' denotes apprehension. 'If I swerve from this vow, I am sure to be overtaken by death' --- with this dread at heart he should observe the vow of the vital force. This is the idea. And if he observes it, does take up the vow of the vital force, he should seek to finish it. If he desists from this vow, the vital force and the gods would be flouted. Therefore he must finish it. Through it, the observace of this vow of identificaion with the vital force, thinking, 'The vocal and other organs in all beings as well as fire and the other gods are but a part and parcel of me, and I, the vital force, the self, initiate all movement,' he attains identity with this deity, the vital force (Of which Hiranyagarbha is the cosmic aspect.), or lives in the same world with it. This latter result takes place when the meditation is not up to the mark.
Max Müller
23. And here there is this Sloka:- 'He from whom the sun rises, and into whom it sets' (he verily rises from the breath, and sets in the breath) 'Him the Devas made the law, he only is to-day, and he to-morrow also' (whatever these Devas determined then, that they perform to-day also [1]). Therefore let a man perform one observance only, let him breathe up and let him breathe down, that the evil death may not reach him. And when he performs it, let him try to finish it. Then he obtains through it union and oneness with that deity (with prâna).
Meaning:- This (universe) indeed consists of three things:- name, form and action. Of those names, speech (sound in general) is the Uktha (source), for all names spring from it. It is their Saman (common feature), for it is common to all names. It is their Brahman (self), for it sustains all names.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- The differentiated universe consisting of means and ends, which was introduced as the subject-matter of ignorance, with its results culminating in identification with the vital force, as well as its state prior to manifestation denoted by the word 'undifferentiated,' like a tree and its seed --- all this indeed consists of three things. What are they? Name, form and action, all non-Self, and not the Self that is the Brahman, immediate and direct. Therefore one should turn away from it. This is the impor of this section. One whose mind is not averse to this non-Self, has no inclination to meditate upon the Self, one's own world, as 'I am Brahman,' for the two tendencies --- one going outwards and the other devoting itself to the inner Self --- are contradictory. Compare the following from the Katha Upanisad (I. v. 1):- 'The self-born Lord injured the organs by making them outgoing in their tendencies. Therefore they perceive only external things, but not the inner Self. Once in a while some steady man, desiring immortality, turns his gaze inwards and sees the inner Self.'
How can one establish the fact that this differentiated and undifferentiated universe made up of actions, their factors and their results, consists only of name, form and action, and is not the Self? This is being answered:- Of those names as set forth (in the preceding portion), speech, i.e. sound in general --- for it has been stated, 'And any kind of sound is but the organ of speech' (I. v. 3) --- is the Uktha, the cause or material of these particular names, as the salt rock is of particles of salt. This is expressed by the text:- For all names, the differentiations such as Yajnadatta and Devadatta, spring from it, this generality of names, like particles of salt from the salt rock. And an effect is not separate from its cause. Also particulars are included in the general. How does the relation of general and particulars apply here? It should in general, is their Saman, so called because of sameness, i.e. common feature. For it is common to all names, which are its own particular forms. Another reason is that the particular names, being derived from it, are not different from it. And we see that something which is derived from another is not different from it, as a jar, for instance, is not different from clay. How are particular names derived from speech? This is being explained:- Because it, what is designated by the word 'speech,' is their Brahman, self, for names are derived from speech, since they have no reality apart from sound. This is being demonstrated:- For it, sound in general, sustains or supports all names or particular sounds by giving them reality. Thus on account of their relation as cause and effect, and as general and particulars, and the one giving the other reality, particular names are proved to be just sound. Similarly in the next two paragraphs all this is to be applied as here set forth.
Max Müller
1. Verily this is a triad, name, form, and work. Of these names, that which is called Speech is the Uktha (hymn, supposed to mean also origin), for from it all names arise. It is their Sâman (song, supposed to mean also sameness), for it is the same as all names. It is their Brahman (prayer, supposed to mean also support), for it supports all names.
Meaning:- Now of forms the eye (anything visible) is the Uktha (source), for all forms spring from it. It is their Saman (common feature), for it is common to all forms. It is their Brahman (self), for it sustains all forms.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Now of forms, white, black, etc., the eye, i.e. anything that is perceptible to the eye, form in general, or whatever is visible, which is here denoted by the word 'eye,' (is the Uktha). For all forms spring from it. It is their Saman, for it is common to all forms, It is their Brahman, for it sustains all forms.
Max Müller
2. Next, of the forms, that which is called Eye is the Uktha (hymn), for from it all forms arise. It is their Sâman (song), for it is the same as all forms. It is their Brahman (prayer), for it supports all forms.
Meaning:- And of actions the body (activity) is the Uktha (source), for all actions spring from it. It is their Saman (common feature), for it is common to all actions. It is their Brahman (self), for it sustains all actions. These three together are one - this body, and the body, although one, is these three. This immortal entity is covered by truth (the five elements):- The vital force is the immortal entity, and name and form and truth; (so) this vital force is covered by them.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Now all particular actions consisting of thought and perception as well as movement are being summed up in activity in general. How? Of all particular actions the body, i.e. activity in general, is the Uktha. The activity of the body is here called the 'body,' for it has been stated that one works through the body. And all activity is manifested in the body. Hence action or activity in general, having its seat in the body, is designated by the word 'body.' The rest is to be explained as before. These three, viz name, form and action described above, combining together, being the support of one another and the cause of one another's manifestation, and merging in one another, like three sticks supporting one another, are one. In what form are they unified? This is being stated:- This body, this aggregate of body and organs. This has been explained under the three kinds of food, 'This body is identified with these,' etc. (I. v. 3). The whole differentiated and undifferentiated universe is this much --- consists of name, form and action. And the body, although one, viz this aggregate of body and organs, yet existing in different forms in its aspects relating to the body, the elements and the gods, is these three, name, form and action. This immortal entity, presently to be mentioned, is covered by truth. This sentence is being explained:- The vital force, which is of the nature of an organ, which supports the body from within, and is (a limiting adjunct of) the Self, is the immortal entity. And name and form, represented by the body, which is an effect, are truth. (So) this vital force, which is active and supports name and form, is covered or hidden (by them), which are external, made up of the body, subject to origin and destruction, and mortal. Thus the nature of the relative universe, which is the subject-matter of ignorance, has been pointed out. After this the Self, which is the subject-matter of knowledge, has to be studied. Hence the second chapter is being commenced.
Max Müller
3. Next, of the works, that which is called Body is the Uktha (hymn), for from it all works arise. It is their Sâman (song), for it is the same as all works. It is their Brahman (prayer), for it supports all works. That being a triad is one, viz. this Self; and the Self, being one, is that triad. This is the immortal, covered by the true. Verily breath is the immortal, name and form are the true, and by them the immortal is covered.
ॐ दृप्तबालाकिर्हानूचानो गार्ग्य आस । स होवाचाजातशत्रुं काश्यं
ब्रह्म ते ब्रवाणीति । स होवाचाजातशत्रुः सहस्रमेतस्यां वाचि दद्मो
जनको जनक इति वै जना धावन्तीति ॥ १॥
mantra 1[II.i.1]
oṃ dṛptabālākirhānūcāno gārgya āsa . sa hovācājātaśatruṃ kāśyaṃ
brahma te bravāṇīti . sa hovācājātaśatruḥ sahasrametasyāṃ vāci dadmo
janako janaka iti vai janā dhāvantīti .. 1..
Meaning:- Om. There was a man of the Garga family called Proud Balaki, who was a speaker. He said to Ajatasatru, the king of Benares, 'I will tell you about Brahman'. Ajatasatru said, 'For this proposal I give you a thousand (cows). People indeed rush saying "Janaka, Janaka". (I too have some of his qualities.)'
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- There was at some past date a man holding the prima facie view and knowing only the conditioned Brahman which is the subject-matter of ignorance, of the Garga family, descended from Garga, called Proud Balaki. 'Proud,' because of his very ignorance about the real Brahman. 'Balaki' --- the son of Balaka. The particle 'ha' refers to tradition as set forth in the story. Who was a speaker, one skilled in expounding, eloquent. He said to Ajatasatru, the King of Benares, after approaching him, 'I will tell you about Brahman.' Thus accosted, Ajatasatru said, 'For this proposal that you have made to me I give you a thousand cows.' The idea is, that little statement is the reason for the gift of a thousand cows. Why is the instruction about Brahman itself not made the reason for this gift, instead of the mere proposal about it? Because the Sruti itself sets forth the king's intention. The two sentences, 'Janaka is benevolent,' and 'Janaka loves to hear', have been condensed into the two words 'Janaka, Janaka.' Inded signifies a well-known fact. The King means:- Janaka is benevolent, and he likes to hear about Brahman; so people who want to hear or speak about Brahman or want some present rush to him. Therefore (by your proposal) you have given me too a chance to demonstrate all those qualities.
Max Müller
1. There [1] was formerly the proud Gârgya Bâlâki [2], a man of great reading. He said to Agâtasatru of Kâsi, 'Shall I tell you Brahman?' Agâtasatru said:- 'We give a thousand (cows) for that speech (of yours), for verily all people run away, saying, Ganaka (the king of Mithilâ) is our father (patron) [3].'
Meaning:- Gargya said, 'That being who is in the sun, I meditate upon as Brahman'. Ajatasatru said, 'Please don't talk about him. I meditate upon him as all-surpassing, as the head of all beings and as resplendent. He who meditates upon him as such becomes all-surpassing, the head of all beings and resplendent.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- When the King was the eager to listen and turned towards him, Gargya said, 'The being who identifies himself both with the sun and the eye, and who having entered the body through the eye resides in the heart as the ego, the experiencer and agent --- that being I meditate or look upon as Brahman in this aggregate of body and organs. Therefore I ask you to meditate upon that being as Brahman.' Thus addressed, Ajatasatru replied stopping him by a gesture of the hand, 'Please don't talk about him, this Brahman, as something to be known.' The repetition of the negative particle is for stopping further speech. 'When both of us know the same Brahman, you insult me by trying to make me out as ignorant. Hence please don't discuss this Brahman. If you know of any other Brahman, you should tell me of that, and not of what I already known. If, however, you think that I know only Brahman, but not his particular attributes nor the results of meditating upon them, please don't think so, for I know all that you speak of. How? All-surpassing, who exists surpassing all beings; also the head of all beings; and resplendent, being endowed with resplendence. I meditate upon the Brahman with these attributes as the agent and experiencer in this aggregate of body and organs.' And one who meditates upon such conditioned Brahman obtains results accordingly. He who meditates upon him as such becomes all-surpassing, the head of all beings and resplendent, for the results must correspond with the particular attributes meditated upon. As the Sruti says, 'One becomes exactly as one meditates upon Him' (S. X. v. 2. 20).
Max Müller
2. Gârgya said:- 'The person that is in the sun [1], that I adore as Brahman.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'No, no! Do not speak to me on this. I adore him verily as the supreme, the head of all beings, the king. Whoso adores him thus, becomes Supreme, the head of all beings, a king.'
स होवाच गार्ग्यो य एवासौ चन्द्रे पुरुष एतमेवाहं ब्रह्मोपास इति ।
स होवाचाजातशत्रुर्मा मैतस्मिन्संवदिष्ठा । बृहन् पाण्डरवासाः
सोमो राजेति वा अहमेतमुपास इति । स य एतमेवमुपास्तेऽहरहर्ह
सुतः प्रसुतो भवति नास्यान्नं क्षीयते ॥ ३॥
mantra 3[II.i.3]
sa hovāca gārgyo ya evāsau candre puruṣa etamevāhaṃ brahmopāsa iti .
sa hovācājātaśatrurmā maitasminsaṃvadiṣṭhā . bṛhan pāṇḍaravāsāḥ
somo rājeti vā ahametamupāsa iti . sa ya etamevamupāste'haraharha
sutaḥ prasuto bhavati nāsyānnaṃ kṣīyate .. 3..
Meaning:- Gargya said, 'that being who is in the moon, I meditate upon as Brahman'. Ajatasatru said, "Please don't talk about him. I meditate upon him as the great, white-robed, radiant Soma.' He who meditates upon him as such has abundant Soma pressed in his principal and auxiliary sacrifices every day, and his food never gets short.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- When Ajatasatru in the course of the dialogue refuted the presentation of the sun as Brahman, Gargya put forward another viz the presentation of the moon as Brahman. That being who is in the moon and also in the mind as the experiencer and agent --- all this is as in the previous paragraph. His attributes are:- Great in size; white-robed, because the vital force (which identifies itself with the moon) has an aqueous body; and radiant Soma. Considering the moon and the drink-yielding creeper Soma that is pressed in sacrifices to be one, I meditate upon that as Brahman. He who meditates upon Brahman as such, with the above-mentioned attributes, has abundant Soma pressed in his principal sacrifices and all the more in his auxiliary sacrifices every day. That is, he has the means of performing both kinds of sacrifices. And his food never gets short, because he meditates upon Brahman as consisting of food.
Max Müller
3. Gârgya said:- 'The person that is in the moon (and in the mind), that I adore as Brahman.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'No, no! Do not speak to me on this. I adore him verily as the great, clad in white raiment, as Soma, the king.' Whoso adores him thus, Soma is poured out and poured forth for him day by day, and his food does not fail [1].
sa hovāca gārgyo ya evāsau vidyuti puruṣa etamevāhaṃ brahmopāsa iti .
sa hovācājātaśatrurmā maitasminsaṃvadiṣṭhāstejasvīti vā ahametamupāsa
iti . sa ya etamevamupāste tejasvī ha bhavati tejasvinī hāsya prajā
bhavati .. 4..
Meaning:- Gargya said, 'That being who is in lightning, I meditate upon as Brahman'. Ajatasatru said, "Please don't talk about him. I meditate upon him as powerful'. He who meditates upon him as such becomes powerful, and his progeny too becomes powerful.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Likewise there is one god in lightning, the skin and the heart. Powerful is the attribute. The result of this meditation is that he becomes powerful, and his progeny too becomes powerful. Because lightning may be of diverse forms, the result of the meditation reaches his progeny as well as himself.
Max Müller
4. Gârgya said:- 'The person that is in the lightning (and in the heart), that I adore as Brahman.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'No, no! Do not speak to me on this. I adore him verily as the luminous.' Whoso adores him thus, becomes luminous, and his offspring becomes luminous.
स होवाच गार्ग्यो य एवायमाकाशे पुरुष एतमेवाहं ब्रह्मोपास इति ।
स होवाचाजातशत्रुर्मा मैतस्मिन्संवदिष्ठाः । पूर्णमप्रवर्तीति
वा अहमेतमुपास इति । स य एतमेवमुपास्ते पूर्यते प्रजया
पशुभिर्नास्यास्माल्लोकात्प्रजोद्वर्तते ॥ ५॥
mantra 5[II.i.5]
sa hovāca gārgyo ya evāyamākāśe puruṣa etamevāhaṃ brahmopāsa iti .
sa hovācājātaśatrurmā maitasminsaṃvadiṣṭhāḥ . pūrṇamapravartīti
vā ahametamupāsa iti . sa ya etamevamupāste pūryate prajayā
paśubhirnāsyāsmāllokātprajodvartate .. 5..
Meaning:- Gargya said, 'This being who is in the ether, I meditate upon as Brahman'. Ajatasatru said, "Please don't talk about him. I meditate upon him as full and unmoving'. He who meditates upon him as such is filled with progeny and cattle, and his progeny is never extinct from this world.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Likewise there is one god in the ether, in the ether enclosed by the heart and in the heart. Full and unmoving are the two attributes. The result of meditation on Brahman with the attribute of fullness is that he is filled with progeny and cattle, while that of meditation on the attribute of immobility is that his progeny is never extinct from this world --- the continuity of his line.
Max Müller
5. Gârgya said:- 'The person that is in the ether (and in the ether of the heart), that I adore as Brahman.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'No, no! Do not speak to me on this. I adore him as what is full, and quiescent.' Whoso adores him thus, becomes filled with offspring and cattle, and his offspring does not cease from this world.
स होवाच गार्ग्यो य एवायं वायौ पुरुष एतमेवाहं ब्रह्मोपास
इति । स होवाचाजातशत्रुर्मा मैतस्मिन्संवदिष्ठा । इन्द्रो
वैकुण्ठोऽपराजिता सेनेति वा अहमेतमुपास इति । स य एतमेवमुपास्ते
जिष्णुर्हापराजिष्णुर्भवत्यन्यतस्त्यजायी ॥ ६॥
mantra 6[II.i.6]
sa hovāca gārgyo ya evāyaṃ vāyau puruṣa etamevāhaṃ brahmopāsa
iti . sa hovācājātaśatrurmā maitasminsaṃvadiṣṭhā . indro
vaikuṇṭho'parājitā seneti vā ahametamupāsa iti . sa ya etamevamupāste
jiṣṇurhāparājiṣṇurbhavatyanyatastyajāyī .. 6..
Meaning:- Gargya said, 'This being who is in air, I meditate upon as Brahman'. Ajatasatru said, "Please don't talk about him. I meditate upon him as the Lord, as irresistible, and as the unvanquished army.' He who meditates upon him as such ever becomes victorious and invincible, and conquers his enemies.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Likewise there is one god in air, the vital force and the heart. The Lord, irresistible and the unvanquished army, one that has never been defeated by enemies, are the attributes. 'Army,' because the Maruts (the air-gods) are known to be a group. And the result of the meditation is that he ever becomes victorious and invincible by enemies, and conquers his enemies.
Max Müller
6. Gârgya said:- 'The person that is in the wind (and in the breath), that I adore as Brahman.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'No, no! Do not speak to me on this. I adore him as Indra Vaikuntha, as the unconquerable army (of the Maruts).' Whoso adores him thus, becomes victorious, unconquerable, conquering his enemies.
स होवाच गार्ग्यो य एवायमग्नौ पुरुष एतमेवाहं ब्रह्मोपास इति ।
स होवाचाजातशत्रुर्मा मैतस्मिन्संवदिष्ठा । विषासहिरिति
वा अहमेतमुपास इति । स य एतमेवमुपास्ते विषासहिर्ह भवति
विषासहिर्हास्य प्रजा भवति ॥ ७॥
mantra 7[II.i.7]
sa hovāca gārgyo ya evāyamagnau puruṣa etamevāhaṃ brahmopāsa iti .
sa hovācājātaśatrurmā maitasminsaṃvadiṣṭhā . viṣāsahiriti
vā ahametamupāsa iti . sa ya etamevamupāste viṣāsahirha bhavati
viṣāsahirhāsya prajā bhavati .. 7..
Meaning:- Gargya said, 'This being who is in fire, I meditate upon as Brahman'. Ajatasatru said, "Please don't talk about him. I meditate upon him as forbearing'. He who meditates upon him as such becomes forbearing, and his progeny too becomes forbearing.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- There is one god in fire, speech and the heart. Forbearing, tolerant of others, is the attribute. As fire has many forms, the result includes the progeny, as before.
Max Müller
7. Gârgya said:- 'The person that is in the fire (and in the heart), that I adore as Brahman.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'No, no! Do not speak to me on this. I adore him as powerful.' Whoso adores him thus, becomes powerful, and his offspring becomes powerful.
Meaning:- Gargya said, 'This being who is in water, I meditate upon as Brahman'. Ajatasatru said, "Please don't talk about him. I meditate upon him as agreeable'. He who meditates upon him as such has only agreeable things coming to him, and not contrary ones; also from him are born children who are agreeable.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- There is one god in water, the seed and the heart. Agreeable, i.e. not contrary to the Srutis and Smrtis, is his attribute. The result is that only agreeable things, those in accordance with the injunctions of the Srutis and Smrtis, come to him, not adverse ones. Another result is that from him are born children who are such (i.e. obeying the scriptures).
Max Müller
8. Gârgya said:- 'The person that is in the water (in seed, and in the heart), that I adore as Brahman.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'No, no! Do not speak to me on this. I adore him as likeness.' Whoso adores him thus, to him comes what is likely (or proper), not what is improper; what is born from him, is like unto him [1].
Meaning:- Gargya said, 'This being who is in a looking-glass, I meditate upon as Brahman'. Ajatasatru said, "Please don't talk about him. I meditate upon him as shining'. He who meditates upon him as such becomes shining, and his progeny too becomes shining. He also outshines all those with whom he comes in contact.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- There is one god in a looking-glass and in other reflecting objects such as a sword, and in the intellect, which is pure of material. Shining, naturally bright, is the attribute. The result of the meditation is likewise. The progeny is included in the result, because there are many shining objects.
Max Müller
9. Gârgya said:- 'The person that is in the mirror, that I adore as Brahman.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'No, no! Do not speak to me on this. I adore him verily as the brilliant.' Whoso adores him thus, he becomes brilliant, his offspring becomes brilliant, and with whomsoever he comes together, he outshines them.
स होवाच गार्ग्यो य एवायं यन्तं पश्चाछब्दोऽनूदेत्येतमेवाहं
ब्रह्मोपास इति । स होवाचाजातशत्रुर्मा मैतस्मिन्संवदिष्ठा । असुरिति
वा अहमेतमुपास इति । स य एतमेवमुपास्ते सर्वꣳ हैवास्मिꣳल्लोक
आयुरेति नैनं पुरा कालात्प्राणो जहाति ॥ १०॥
mantra 10[II.i.10]
sa hovāca gārgyo ya evāyaṃ yantaṃ paścāchabdo'nūdetyetamevāhaṃ
brahmopāsa iti . sa hovācājātaśatrurmā maitasminsaṃvadiṣṭhā . asuriti
vā ahametamupāsa iti . sa ya etamevamupāste sarvagͫ haivāsmigͫlloka
āyureti nainaṃ purā kālātprāṇo jahāti .. 10..
Meaning:- Gargya said, 'This sound that issues behind a man as he walks, I meditate upon as Brahman'. Ajatasatru said, "Please don't talk about him. I meditate upon him as life'. He who meditates upon him as such attains his full term of life in this world, and life does not depart from him before the completion of that term.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Considering the sound that issues behind a man as he walks and the vital force which is the cause of life in this body to be one, he says, 'This sound,' etc. Life is the attribute. The result of the meditation is that he attains his full term of life in this world, as acquired through his past work, and even though troubled by disease, life does not depart from him before the completion of that term, measured by that past work.
Max Müller
10. Gârgya said:- 'The sound that follows a man while he moves, that I adore as Brahman.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'No, no! Do not speak to me on this. I adore him verily as life.' Whoso adores him thus, he reaches his full age in this world, breath does not leave him before the time.
स होवाच गार्ग्यो य एवायं दिक्षु पुरुष एतमेवाहं ब्रह्मोपास इति ।
स होवाचाजातशत्रुर्मा मैतस्मिन्संवदिष्ठा । द्वितीयोऽनपग इति
वा अहमेतमुपास इति । स य एतमेवमुपास्ते द्वितीयवान्ह भवति नास्माद्
गणश्छिद्यते ॥ ११॥
mantra 11[II.i.11]
sa hovāca gārgyo ya evāyaṃ dikṣu puruṣa etamevāhaṃ brahmopāsa iti .
sa hovācājātaśatrurmā maitasminsaṃvadiṣṭhā . dvitīyo'napaga iti
vā ahametamupāsa iti . sa ya etamevamupāste dvitīyavānha bhavati nāsmād
gaṇaśchidyate .. 11..
Meaning:- Gargya said, 'This being who is in the quarters, I meditate upon as Brahman'. Ajatasatru said, "Please don't talk about him. I meditate upon him as second and as non-separating'. He who meditates upon him as such gets companions, and his followers never depart from him.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- There is one god in the quarters, the ears and the heart, viz the Asvins, the twin-gods who are never separated from each other. His attributes are:- being attended with a companion and not being separated from one another, the quarters and the Asvins having these characteristics. And the man who meditates upon this gets that as a result, viz being attended by companions and not being deserted by his followers.
Max Müller
11. Gârgya said:- 'The person that is in space, that I adore as Brahman.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'No, no! Do not speak to me on this. I adore him verily as the second who never leaves us.' Whoso adores him thus, becomes possessed of a second, his party is not cut off from him,
स होवाच गार्ग्यो य एवायं छायामयः पुरुष एतमेवाहं ब्रह्मोपास
इति । स होवाचाजातशत्रुर्मा मैतस्मिन्संवदिष्ठा । मृत्युरिति वा
अहमेतमुपास इति । स य एतमेवमुपास्ते सर्वꣳ हैवास्मिꣳल्लोक
आयुरेति नैनं पुरा कालान्मृत्युरागच्छति ॥ १२॥
mantra 12[II.i.12]
sa hovāca gārgyo ya evāyaṃ chāyāmayaḥ puruṣa etamevāhaṃ brahmopāsa
iti . sa hovācājātaśatrurmā maitasminsaṃvadiṣṭhā . mṛtyuriti vā
ahametamupāsa iti . sa ya etamevamupāste sarvagͫ haivāsmigͫlloka
āyureti nainaṃ purā kālānmṛtyurāgacchati .. 12..
Meaning:- Gargya said, 'This being who identifies himself with the shadow, I meditate upon as Brahman'. Ajatasatru said, "Please don't talk about him. I meditate upon him as death'. He who meditates upon him as such attains his full term of life in this world, and death does not overtake him before the completion of that term.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- There is one god in the shadow or external darkness, internally in ignorance, which is a veil, and in the heart. His attribute is death. The result of the meditation is as before, the only difference being that in the absence of premature death he is free from suffering due to disease etc.
Max Müller
12. Gârgya said:- 'The person that consists of the shadow, that I adore as Brahman.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'No, no! Do not speak to me on this. I adore him verily as death.' Whoso adores him thus, he reaches his whole age in this world, death does not approach him before the time.
sa ya etamevamupāsta ātmanvī ha bhavatyātmanvinī hāsya prajā bhavati .
sa ha tūṣṇīmāsa gārgyaḥ .. 13..
Meaning:- Gargya said, 'This being who is in the self, I meditate upon as Brahman'. Ajatasatru said, "Please don't talk about him. I meditate upon him as self-possessed.' He who meditates upon him as such becomes self-possessed, and his progeny too becomes self-possessed. Gargya remained silent.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- There is one god in the self or Hiranyagarbha, in the intellect and the heart. His attribute is self-possessed. The result of the meditation is that he becomes self-possessed, and his progeny too becomes self-possessed. It should be noted that since the intellet is different according to each individual, the result is extended to the progeny also. When his conceptions of Brahman were thus rejected one by one owing to the King's having already known them, Gargya, with his knowledge of Brahman exhausted, had nothing more to say in reply and remained silent, with his head bent down.
Max Müller
13. Gârgya said:- 'The person that is in the body [1], that I adore as Brahman.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'No, no! Do not speak to me on this. I adore him verily as embodied.' Whoso adores him thus, becomes embodied, and his offspring becomes embodied [2]. Then Gârgya became silent.
स होवाचाजातशत्रुरेतावन्नू ३ इत्येतावद्धीति । नैतावता विदितं
भवतीति । स होवाच गार्ग्य उप त्वा यानीति ॥ १४॥
mantra 14[II.i.14]
sa hovācājātaśatruretāvannū 3 ityetāvaddhīti . naitāvatā viditaṃ
bhavatīti . sa hovāca gārgya upa tvā yānīti .. 14..
Meaning:- Ajatasatru said, 'is this all?' 'This is all'. 'By knowing this much one cannot know (Brahman)'. Gargya said, 'I approach you as a student'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Seeing Gargya in that state Ajatasatru said, 'Is this all the knowledge of Brahman that you have? Or is there anything else?' The other said, 'This is all.' Ajatasatru said, 'By knowing this much one cannot claim to know Brahman. Why then did you proudly say you would teach me about Brahman?
Objection:- Does it mean that this much knowledge amounts to nothing? Reply:- No, for the Sruti describes meditations with particular results. Those passages cannot certainly be construed as mere eulogy. For wherever a meditation has been set forth, we find phrases conveying original injunctions as for instance, 'All-surpassing, (the head) of all beings' (II. i. 2). And corresponding results are everywhere distinctly mentioned. This would be inconsistent were the passages merely eulogistic.
Objection:- Why then was it said, 'By knowing this much one cannot know (Brahman)?' Reply:- There is nothing wrong in it. It has a relation to the capacity of the aspirant. Gargya, who knew only the conditioned Brahman, proceeded to teach Ajatasatru, who was the listener, about Brahman. Therefore the latter, who knew the unconditioned Brahman, was right in saying to Gargya, 'You do not know the true or unconditioned Brahman that you proceeded to teach me about.' If he wanted to refute Gargya's knowledge of the conditioned Brahman too, he would not say, 'By knowing this much'; he would simply say, 'You know nothing.' Therefore we admit that in the sphere of ignorance there are these phases of Brahman. Another reason for saying, 'By knowing this much one cannot know (Brahman)', is that this knowledge of the conditioned Brahman leads to that of the Supreme Brahman. That these phases of Brahman consist of name, form and action and have to be known in the sphere of ignorance, has been shown in the first chapter. Therefore the statement, 'By knowing this much one cannot know (Brahman),' implies that there is some other phase of Brahman which should be known. Gargya, being versed in the code of conduct, knew that that knowledge must not be imparted to one who was not a regular student. So he himself said, 'I approach you as would any other student approach his teacher.'
Max Müller
14. Agâtasatru said:- 'Thus far only?' 'Thus far only,' he replied. Agâtasatru said:- 'This does not suffice to know it (the true Brahman).' Gârgya replied:- 'Then let me come to you, as a pupil.'
soma rājanniti . sa nottasthau . taṃ pāṇinā''peṣaṃ bodhayāṃcakāra .
sa hottasthau .. 15..
Meaning:- Ajatasatru said, 'It is contrary to usage that a Brahmana should approach a Kshatriya thinking, "he will teach me about Brahman". However I will instruct you'. Taking Gargya by the hand he rose. They came to a sleeping man. (Ajatasatru) addressed him by these names, Great, White-robed, radiant, Soma'. The man did not get up. (The King) pushed him with the hand till he awoke. Then he got up.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Ajatasatru said:- It is contrary to usage --- What is so? that a Brahmana, who comes of a superior caste qualified to be a teacher, should approach a Ksatriya, who is by custom not a teacher, in the role of a student, with a view to receiving instruction from him about Brahman. This is forbidden in the scriptures laying down rules of conduct. Therefore remain as a teahcer; I will anyway instruct you about the true Brahman which should be known, knowin which one can claim to have a knowledge of Brahman. Seeing Gargya abashed, in order to set him at ease, he took him by the hand and rose. They, Gargya and Ajatasatru, came to a man who was asleep in a certain part of the palace. Coming to him he addressed the sleeping man by these names, 'Great, White-robed, Radiant, Soma.' Even though thus addressed, the sleeping man did not get up. Finding he did not awake, (the King) pushed him again and again with the hand till he awoke. Then he got up. From this it was evident that the being whom Gargya wanted to convey was not Brahman, the agent and experiencer in this body.
Objection:- How do you know that the act of going to the sleeping man, calling him and his not getting up indicate that the Brahman advocated by Gargya is not (the true) Brahman? Reply:- In the waking state, as the being whom Gargya put forward as Brahman, the agent and experiencer is in touch with the organs, so is the being put forward by Ajatasatru --- who is the master of the other being --- in touch with them, as a king is with his servants. But the grounds of ascertaining the difference between the two beings put forward by Gargya and Ajatasatru, that stand in the relation of servant and master respectively, cannot be discriminated, because they are then mixed up. That is to say, the experiencer is the seer or subject, and not an object, and that which is not the experiencer is an object, and not the subject; but these two, being mixed up in the waking state, cannot be shown separately. Hence their going to a sleeping man.
Objection:- Even in the sleeping man there is nothing to determine that when addressed by special names, only the experiencer will perceive, and not the non-experiencer. Reply:- Not so, for the characteristics of the being whom Gargya means are well-defined. That vital force which is covered by 'truth' (name and form constituting the gross body), which is the self (the subtle body) and immortal, which does not set when the organs have set (are inactive), whose body is water, which is white-robed, great, on account of being without a rival, and is the radiant Soma consisting of sixteen digits --- that vital force remains just as it is known to be, doing its function, with its (active) nature intact. Nor does Gargya mean that any other agency contrary to the vital force is active at that time. Hence it should know when called by its own names; but it did not. Therefore by the principle of the residuum the Brahman meant by Gargya is proved not to be the experiencer. If the Brahman meant by Gargya were the experiencer by its very nature, it would perceive objects whenever it came in contact with the. For instance, fire, whose nature it is to burn and illumine, must always burn any combustible it gets, such as straw or tender grass, and also illumine things. If it does not, we cannot assert that fire burns or illumines. Likewise, if the vital force advocated by Gargya were by nature such that it would perceive sound and other objects that came within its range, it would perceive the words 'Great, White-robed,' etc., which are appropriate objects for it; just as fire invariably burns and illumines straw, tender grass, etc., that come in contact withit. Therefore, since it did not perceive sound etc. coming within its range, we conclude that it is not by nature an experiencer; for a thing can never change its nature. Therefore it is conclusively proved that the vital force is not the experiencer.
Objection:- May not the non-perception be due to its failure to associate the particular names by which it was addressed with itself? It may be like this:- As when one out of a number of persons sitting together is addressed, he may hear, but may not particularly understand that it is he who is being called, because of his failure to associate his particular name with himself, similarly the vital force does not perceive the words addressed to it, because it fails to understand that the names such as 'Great' are its own and to associate them with itself, and not because it is other than the knower. Reply:- Not so, for when the vital force is admitted to be a deity, the non-association in question is impossible. In other words, one who admits that the deity identifying himself with the moon etc. is the vital force in the body, and is the experiencer (self), must also admit, for the sake of intercouse with him, that he associates himself with his particular names. Otherwise no intercourse with him will be possible in the acts of invocation etc.
Objection:- The objection is not proper, since according to the view that makes the experiencer (self) other than the vital force, there is a similar non-perception. In other words, one who posits a different experiencer from the vital force must admit that it too, when called by such names as 'Great,' should hear them, because those names then apply to it. But we never see it do this when called by those names. Therefore the fact that the vital force fails to hear the call is no proof that it is not the experiencer. Reply:- Not so, for that which possesses something as a part of it cannot identify itself with only that much. According to the view that holds the experiencer to be other than the vital force, the latter is one of its instruments, and it is the possessor of them. It does not identify itself with only the deity of the vital force, as one does not with one's hand. Therefore it is quite reasonable that the experiencer, identifying itself with the whole, does not hear when addressed by the names of the vital force. Not so, however, with the latter when it is addressed by its special names. Besides, the self does not identify itself with just a deity.
Objection:- Such a view is untenable, because we sometimes see that the self does not hear even when called by its own name. For instance, when a man is fast asleep, he does not sometimes hear even when called by his conventional name, say Devadatta. Similarly the vital force, although it is the experiencer, does not hear. Reply:- Not so, for there is this difference between the self and the vital force that the former sleeps, but the latter does not. When the self is asleep, its organs do not function, being absorbed in the vital force. So it does not hear even when its own name is called. But if the vital force were the experiencer, its organs should never cease to function, nor shold it fail to hear the call, since it is ever awake.
Objection:- It was not proper to call it by its unfamiliar names. There are many familiar names denoting the vital force, such as Prana. Leaving them aside, to call it by unfamiliar names such as 'Great' was not proper, for it is against convention. Therefore we maintain that although it failed to hear, the vital force is the experiencer. Reply:- No, for the purpose of using those unfamiliar names was to refute the contention that the deity of the moon is the experiencer. To be explicit:- That the vital force which is in this body and ever awake is not the experiencer has already been proved simply by its failure to hear the call. But names denoting the deity of the moon were addressed to it to disprove Gargya's contention that the vital force, which is the same as the deity of the moon, is the experiencer in this body. This purpose could not be served if the vital force were addressed by its popular names. But the refutation of the vital force the contention that any other organ is the experiencer is also refuted, because no organ can function at that time, all being absorbed in the vital force. (And no other deity can be the experiencer,) for there is no such deity.
Objection:- There is, for a number of gods with particular attributes have been mentioned in the portion beginning with 'All-surpassing' and ending with 'Self-possessed.' Reply:- Not so, for all the Srutis admit them to be unified in the vital force, as in the illustration of the spokes and nave. Moreoever, in the passages, 'Covered by truth' (I. vi. 3), and 'The vital force is the immortal entity' (Ibid.), no other experiencer besides the vital force is admitted (In the position taken by Gargya.). Also, in the passages, 'This indeed is all the gods' (I. iv. 6), and 'Which is that one god? The vital force' (III. ix. 9), all the gods have been shown to be unified in the vital force. Similarly none of the organs can be put forward as the experiencer; for in that case it would be impossible to connect memory, perception, wish, etc. in the same subject, as in the case of different bodies. What one person has seen another cannot recollect, or perceive, or wish, or recognise. Therefore none of the organs can by any means be the experiencer. Nor can have (momentary) consciousness (Without an abiding substratum:- the view of the Yogacara school of Buddhism.) be such.
Objection:- Why not take the body itself to be the experiencer, why imagine something over and above it? Reply:- That cannot be, for we notice a difference made by the pushing. If this aggregate of body and organs were the experiencer, then, since this aggregate ever remains the same, pushing or not pushing would not make any difference as regards awaking. If, however, something other than the body were the experiencer, then, since it has different kinds of relation to the body, and may presumably get pleasure, pain or stupor as the varied result of its past actions, according as they were good, indifferent, or bad, there would naturally be a difference in the perception due to pushing or not pushing. But were the body itself the experiencer, there should not be any difference, since differences concerning relation and the result of past actions would be out of place in that case. Nor should there be any difference due to the strength or feebleness of the sound, touch, etc. But there is this difference, since Ajatasatru roused the sleeping man, whom a mere touch could not awaken, by repeatedly pushing him with the hand. Therefore it is proved that that which awoke through pushing --- blazing forth, as it were, flashing, as it were, and come from somewhere, as it were, rendering the body different from what it was, endowing it with consciousness, activity, a different look, etc. --- is an entity other than the body and different from the types of Brahman advocated by Gargya. Moreover the vital force, being a compound, must be for the benefit of some other entity. We have already said that it, like the post etc. of a house, is the internal supporter of the body and is combined with the body etc. It is also as a felloe is to the spokes. And in it, which is comparable to a nave, everything is fixed. Therefore we understand that like a house etc. it has been compounded for the benefit of some entity categorically different from its parts as also the aggregate. We see that the parts of a house such as posts, walls, straw and wood, as also the house itself, subserve the purpose of a person who sees, hears, thinks and knows them, and whose existence and manifestation are independent of the birth, growth, decay, death, name, form, effect and other attributes of those things. From this we infer that the parts of the vital force etc. as also the aggregates must subserve the purpose of some entity that sees, hears, thinks and knows them, and whose existence and manifestation are independent of the birth, growth, etc. of those things.
Objection:- But since the deity (called the vital force) is conscious, it is equal in status (to the self); so how can it be subordinate (to the other)? That the vital force is conscious has already been admitted when we see it addressed by particular names. And since it is conscious, it cannot subserve the purpose of another, for it is equal in status. Reply:- Not so, for the instruction that is sought to be conveyed is about the unconditioned, absolute Brahman. That the self identifies itself with action, its factors and its results, is due to the limitations of name and form and is superimposed by ignorance. It is this that causes people to come under relative existence, consisting in their identification with action and the rest. This has to be removed by a knowledge of the real nature of the unconditioned Self. Hence to teach about that this Upanisad (from this chapter) has been begun. For instance, it opens with, 'I will tell you about Brahman' (II. i. 1), and 'By knowing this much one cannot know (Brahman)' (II. i. 14) and concludes with, 'This much inded is (the means of) immortality, my dear' (IV. v. 15). And nothing else is either meant to be taught or expressed in between. Therefore there is no scope for the objection that one cannot be subordinate to the other, being equal in status. The relation of principal and subordinate is only for the dealings of the differentiated or conditioned Brahman, and not the opposite One; whereas the whole Upanisad seeks to teach about the unconditioned Brahman, for it concludes with, 'This (self) is That, which has been described as 'Not this, not this,' ' etc. (III. ix. 26; IV. ii. 4; IV. iv. 22; IV. v. 15). Therefore it is proved that there is a conscious Brahman other than and different from these types of unconscious Brahman such as sun etc.
Max Müller
15. Agâtasatru said:- 'Verily, it is unnatural that a Brâhmana should come to a Kshatriya, hoping that he should tell him the Brahman. However, I shall make you know him clearly,' thus saying he took him by the hand and rose. And the two together came to a person who was asleep. He called him by these names, 'Thou, great one, clad in white raiment, Soma, King [1].' He did not rise. Then rubbing him with his hand, he woke him, and he arose.
sa hovācājātaśatruryatraiṣa etat supto'bhūd ya eṣa vijñānamayaḥ
puruṣaḥ kvaiṣa tadā'bhūt kuta etadāgāditi . tadu ha na mene gārgyaḥ .. 16..
Meaning:- Ajatasatru said, 'When this being full of consciousness (identified with the mind) was thus asleep, where was it, and whence did it thus come?' Gargya did not know that.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Having thus proved the existence of the self other than the body, Ajatasatru said to Gargya, 'When this being full of consciousness was thus asleep, before being roused by pushing,' etc. 'Consciousness' here means the instrument of knowledge, i.e. the mind, or more specifically, the intellect. What then does the phrase 'full of consciousness' mean? It means:- which is perceived in the intellect, which is perceive through it, and which perceives through it.
Objection:- When the suffix 'mayat' has so many meanings, how do you know that it means 'full of'? Reply:- Because in such passages as, 'This self is indeed Brahman, as well as identified with the intellect, the Manas' (IV. iv. 5), we see the suffix used in the sense of fullness. Besides, the self is never known to be a modification of the consciousness that is the Supreme Self. Again, in the passage, 'This being full of consciousness,' etc., the self is mentioned as something already familiar. And lastly, the meanings, 'made of' and 'resembling,' are here impossible. Hence on the principle of the residuum the meaning is fullness only. Therefore the phrase means, 'Identified with the mind, which considers the pros and cons of a subject and does other functions.' 'Being (Purusa), because it dwells in the intellect as in a city. The question, 'Where was it then?' is intended to teach the nature of the self. By a reference to the absence of effects before awaking, it is intended to show that the self is of a nature opposed to action, its factors and its results. Before awaking (in profound sleep) it perceives nothing whatsoever like pleasure and so forth, which are the effects of past work. Therefore, not being caused by past work, we understand that that is the very nature of the self. In order to teach that the self was then in its nature, and that only when it deviates from it, it becomes --- contrary to its nature --- subject to transmigration, Ajatasatru asks Gargya, who was abashed, with a view to enlightening him on the point. These two questions, 'Where was it then?' and 'Whence did it thus come?' should have been asked by Gargya. But simply because he does not ask them, Ajatasatru does not remain indifferent. He proceeds to explain them, thinking that Gargya must be instructed, for he himself has promised, 'I will instruct you.' Although thus enlightened, Gargya did not understand where the self was before awaking and whence it came the way it did, either to tell or ask about them. He did not know that.
Max Müller
16. Agâtasatru said:- 'When this man was thus asleep, where was then the person (purusha), the intelligent? and from whence did he thus come back?' Gârgya did not know this?
svapiti nāma . tadgṛhīta eva prāṇo bhavati gṛhītā vāg gṛhītaṃ
cakṣurgṛhītagͫ śrotraṃ gṛhītaṃ manaḥ .. 17..
Meaning:- Ajatasatru said, 'When this being full of consciousness is thus asleep, it absorbs at the time the functions of the organs through its own consciousness, and lies in the Akasa (Supreme Self) that is in the heart. When this being absorbs them, it is called Svapiti. Then the nose is absorbed, the organ of speech is absorbed, the eye is absorbed, the ear is absorbed, and the mind is absorbed'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Ajatasatru, to convey his intended meaning, said:- I shall answer the question I asked, viz 'When this being full of consciousness was thus asleep, where was it, and whence did it come?' Listen. When this being full of consciousness is thus asleep, it absorbs at the time the functions of the organs, their capacity to perceive their respective objects, through its own consciousness, the particular manifestation in its limiting adjunct, the mind, caused by its material, ignorance, and lies in the Akasa that is in the heart. 'Akasa' here means the Supreme Self, which is identical with its own self. It lies in that Supreme Self, which is its own nature and transcendent; not in the ordinary ether, for there is another Sruti in its support:- 'With Existence, my dear, it is then united' (Ch. VI. viii. 1). The idea is that it gives up its differentiated forms, which are created by its connection with the limiting adjunct, the subtle body, and remains in its undifferntiated, natural, absolute self.
Objection:- How do you know that when it gives up the superintendence over the body and organs, it lives in its own self? Reply:- Through its name being well known. Objection:- What is that? Reply:- When this being absorbs them, the functions of the organs, it is called Svapiti. Then this is its (The word 'Purusa' in the text is explained as standing for the genitive case.) name that becomes widely known. And this name has reference to a certain attribute of its. It is called Svapiti, because it is merged in its own self.
Objection:- True, the fact of this name being well known tells us of the transcendent character of the self, but there are no arguments in favour of it. Reply:- There are. During sleep the nose (Prana) is absorbed. 'Prana' here means the organ of smell, for the context deals with the organs such as that of speech. It is only when it is connected with these organs that the self is seen to have relative attributes, because of those limiting adjuncts. And these organs are then abosrbed by it. How? The organ of speech is absorbed, the eye is absorbed, the ear is absorbed, and the mind is absorbed. Therefore it is clear that the organs being absorbed, the self rests in its own self, for then it is no more changed into action, its factors and its results.
Max Müller
17. Agâtasatru said:- 'When this man was thus asleep, then the intelligent person (purusha), having through the intelligence of the senses (prânas) absorbed within himself all intelligence, lies in the ether, which is in the heart [1]. When he takes in these different kinds of intelligence, then it is said that the man sleeps (svapiti) [2]. Then the breath is kept in, speech is kept in, the ear is kept in, the eye is kept in, the mind is kept in.
sa yatraitatsvapnyayā carati te hāsya lokāstaduteva mahārājo
bhavatyuteva mahābrāhmaṇa utevoccāvacaṃ nigacchati . sa yathā
mahārājo jānapadāngṛhītvā sve janapade yathākāmaṃ parivartetaivamevaiṣa
etatprāṇāngṛhītvā sve śarīre yathākāmaṃ parivartate .. 18.. gṛhītvā
sve śarīre yathākāmam parivartate
Meaning:- When it thus remains in the dream state, these are its achievements:- It then becomes an emperor, as it were, or a noble Brahmana, as it were, or attains states high or low, as it were. As an emperor, taking his citizens, moves about as he pleases in his own territory, so does it, thus taking the organs, move about as it pleases in its own body.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Objection:- Although it is dissociated from the body and organs in the dream state, which is a kind of experience, we observe it to be possessed of relative attributes:- it is happy, miserable, bereft of friends, as in the waking state, and grieves or is deluded. Therefore it must be possessed of attributes such as grief and delusion, and these as also pleasure, pain, etc. are not superimposed on it by the error brought on by its contact with the body and organs. Reply:- No, because those experiences are false. When it, the self in question, remains in the dream state, which is a kind of experience, these are its achievements, results of past work. What are they? It then becomes an emperor, as it were. This apparent suzerainty --- not actual suzerainty, as in the waking state --- is its achievement. Likewise a noble Brahmana, as it were. It also attains states high or low, such as that of a god or an animal, as it were. Its suzerainty and other achievements are absolutely false, for there is the clause 'as it were,' and they are contradicted by waking experience. Therefore it is not actually connected with the grief, delusion, etc., caused by the loss of friends and so forth, in dreams.
Objection:- As its achievements of the waking state are not contradicted in that state, so its achievements such as suzerainty, which occur in the dream state, are not contradicted in that state, and are a part of the self, not superimposed by ignorance. Reply:- By demonstrating that the self is a conscious entity distinct from the vital force etc., have we not indicated that its identification with the body and organs or with godhead in the waking state is superimposed by ignorance and is not real? How then can it start up as an illustration of the dream-world, like a dead man desiring to come back to life?
Objection:- True. Viewing the self, which is other than the body etc., as the body and organs or as a god, is superimposed by ignorance, like seeing a mother-of-pearl as a piece of silver. This is established by the very arguments that prove the existence of the self other than the body etc., but those arguments were not used specifically to prove the unattached nature of the self. Therefore the illustration of viewing the self as the body and organs or as a god in the waking state is again brought forward. Every argument ceases to be a mere repetition if there is some little distinction in it. Reply:- Not so. The achievements such as suzerainty, which are perceived in a dream, are not a part of the self, for then we see a world which is distinct from it and is but a reflection of the world perceived in the waking state. In reality, an emperor, lying in his bed while his subjects are asleep in different places, sees dreams, with his senses withdrawn, and in that state himself, as in the waking state, to be an emperor, again surrounded by his subjects, taking part in a pageant and having enjoyments, as it were. Except the emperor sleeping in his bed, there is no second one who, surrounded by his subjects, is known to move about among the objects of enjoyment in the day-time --- whom the former would visualise in sleep. Besides, one whose senses are withdrawn can never see objects having colour etc. Nor can there be in that body another like it, and one sees dreams remaining only in the body.
Objection:- But one lying in bed sees oneself moving in the street. Reply:- One does not see dreams outside. So the text goes on:- As an emperor, taking his citizens, his retinue and others who minister to his comforts moves about as he pleases in his own territory, acquinted through conquest etc., so does it, this individual self, thus taking the organs, withdrawing them from the places they occupy in the waking state --- 'Etat' (this) is here an adverb (meaning thus) ---- move about as it pleases in its own body, not outside. That is, it experiences impressions corresponding to things previously perceived, revived by its desires and the resultant of past actions. Therefore in dreams worlds that never exist are falsely superimposed as being a part of the self. One must know the worlds experienced in the waking state also to be such. Hence it goes without saying that the self is pure, and is never connected with action, its factors and its results. Since in both waking and dream states we observe that the gross and subtle worlds consisting of action, its factors and its results are but objects for the seer, therefore that seer, the self, is different from its objects, the worlds perceived in those states, and is pure. Since in a dream, which is a kind of experience, the impressions (of past experiences) are objects, we know that they are not attributes of the self, and that for this reason it is pure. Now in the passage, 'Then it moves about as it pleases,' movement at pleasure has been spoken of. It may be urged that the relation of the seer to the objects is natural, and that therefore it becomes impure. Hence to establish its purity the Sruti says:-
Max Müller
18. But when he moves about in sleep (and dream), then these are his worlds. He is, as it were, a great king; he is, as it were, a great Brâhmana; he rises, as it were, and he falls. And as a great king might keep in his own subjects, and move about, according to his pleasure, within his own domain, thus does that person (who is endowed with intelligence) keep in the various senses (prânas) and move about, according to his pleasure, within his own body (while dreaming).
Meaning:- Again when it becomes fast asleep - when it does not know anything - it comes back along the seventy-two thousand nerves called Hita, which extend from the heart to the pericardium (the whole body), and remains in the body. As a baby, or an emperor, or a noble Brahmana lives, having attained the acme of bliss, so does it remain.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Again, when it becomes fast asleep, etc. Even when it dreams, it is nothing but pure. Again when giving up dreams, which are a kind of experience, it becomes fast or perfectly asleep --- attains its natural state of perfect purity (Samprasada; a synonym of profound sleep.), becomes pure as it is by nature, giving up, like water, the impurity due to contact with other things, (then its purity is all the more clearly established). When does it become perfectly asleep? When it does not know anything. Or, does not know anything else relating to sound etc. The last few words have to be understood. The first is the right interpretation, for the purport is that there is no particular consciousness in the state of profound sleep. Thus it has been said that when there is no particular consciousness, it is the state of profound sleep. By what process does this take place? This is being described:- Seventy-two thousand nerves called Hita, which are the metabolic effects of the food and drink in the body, extend from the heart, that lotus-shaped lump of flesh, to the pericardium, which here means the body; that is, they branch off, covering the whole body like the veins of an Asvattha leaf. The heart is the seat of the intellect, the internal organ, and the other or external organs are subject to that intellect abiding in the heart. Therefore in accordance with the individual's past actions the intellect in the waking state extends, along those nerves interwoven like a fish-net, the functions of the organs such as the ear to their seats, the outer ear etc., and then directs them. The individual self pervades the intellect with a reflection of its own manifested consciousness. And when the intellect contracts, it too contracts. That is the sleep of this individual self. And when it perceives the expansion of the intellect, it is waking experience. It follows the nature of its limiting adjunct, the intellect, just as a reflection of the moon etc. follows the nature of water and so forth. Therefore whenn the intellect that has the waking experience comes back along those nerves, the individual self too comes back and remains in the body, uniformity pervading it, as fire does a heated lump of iron. Although it remains unchanged in its own natural self, it is here spoken of as remaining in the body, because it follows the activities of the intellect, which again is dependent on one's past actions. For the self has no contact with the body in profound sleep. It will be said later on, 'He is then beyond all woes of the heart' (IV. iii. 22). That this state is free from all miseries pertaining to relative existence is thus illustrated:- As a baby or an emperor whose subjects are entirely obedient, and who can do whatever he says, or a noble Brahmana who is exceedingly mature in erudition and modesty, lives, having attained the acme of bliss, literally, a degree of it that entirely blots out misery. It is a well known fact that these, the baby and the rest, while they remain in their normal state, are exceedingly happy. It is only when they depart from it that they feel miserable, not naturally. Therefore their normal etate is cited as an illustration, because it is well known. The reference is not to their sleep, for sleep is the thing to be illustrated here. Besides there is no difference between their sleep and anybody else's. If there were any difference, the one might serve as an illustration of the other. Therefore their sleep is not the illustration. So, like this example, does it, the individual self, remain. 'Etat' is an adverb here. So does it remain in its own natural self beyond all relative attributes during profound sleep. The question, 'Where was it then?' (II. i. 16) has been answered. And by this answer the natural purity and transcendence of the individual self has been mentioned. Now the answer to the question, 'Whence did it comes?' (Ibid.) is being taken up.
Objection:- If a man living at a particular village or town wants to go somewhere else, he starts from that very place, and from nowhere else. Such being the case, the question should only be, 'Where was it then?' We very well know that a man comes from where he was, and from nowhere else. So the question, 'Whence did it come?' is simply redundant. Reply:- Do you mean to flout the Vedas? Objection:- No, I only wish to hear some other meaning to the second question; so I raise the objection of redundancy. Reply:- Well then, we do not take the word 'whence' in the sense of an ablative, since in that case the question would be a repetition, but not if we take it in a difference sense. Objection:- Then let us take the question as an inquiry about the cause. 'Whence did it come?' means, 'What caused it to come here?' Reply:- It cannot be an inquiry about the cause either, for we have a different kind of answer. For instance the answer sets forth the origin of the whole universe from the Self, like sparks from fire, and so on. In the emanation of sparks the fire is not the efficient cause, but that from which they separte. Similarly in the sentence, 'From this Self,' etc. (this text), the Supreme Self is spoken of as that source from which the individual self emanates. Therefore the answer being different, you cannot take the word 'whence' as an inquiry about the cause.
Objection:- Even if it were used in an ablative sense, the objection of redundancy would remain just the same. Reply:- Not so. The two questions are meant to convey that the self is not connected with action, its factors and its results. In the preceding chapter the subject-matter of knowledge and ignorance has been introduced. 'The Self alone is to be meditated upon' (I. iv. 7), 'It knew only Itself' (I. iv. 10) 'One should meditate only upon the world of the Self' (I. iv. 15) --- these represent the subject-matter of knowledge. And that of ignorance includes rites with five factors and its three results, the three kinds of food, consisting of name, form and action. Of these, all that had to be said about the subject-matter of ignorance has been said. But the Self devoid of attributes that is the subject-matter of knowledge has only been introduced, but not conclusively dealt with. To do this the present chapter has opened with, 'I will tell you about Brahman' (If. i. 1), and also 'will instruct you' (II. i. 15). Therefore that Brahman which is the subject-matter of knowledge, has to be explained in Its true nature. And Its true nature is devoid of differences relating to action, its factors and its results, exceedingly pure and one --- this is the intended meaning. Therefore the Sruti raises two questions that are appropriate to it, viz 'Where was it then, and whence did it come?' (II. i. 16).
Now that in which a thing exists is its container, and what is there is the contents, and the container and content are observed to be different. Similarly that from which a thing comes is its starting place, and that which comes is the agent, which is observed to be different from the other. Therefore one would be apt to think, in accordance with convention, that the self was somewhere, being different from that place, and came from somewhere, being different from it, and the means by which it came is also different from it. That idea has to be removed by the answer. (So it is stated that) this self was not in any place different from itself, nor did it come from any place different from itself, nor is there in the self any means different from itself. What then is the import? That the self was in its own Self. This is borne out by the Sruti passages, 'It merges in its own Self' (Ch. VI. viii. 1), 'With Existence, my dear, it is then united' (Ibid.), 'Fully embraced by the Supreme Self' (IV. iii. 21), 'Rests on the Supreme Self,' etc. (Pr. IV. 7). For the same reason it does not come from any place different from itself. This is shown by the text itself, 'From this Self,' etc. For there is no other entity besides the Self.
Objection:- There are other entities besides the Self, such as the organs. Reply:- No, because the organs etc. spring from the Self alone. How this takes place is described as follows:-
Max Müller
19. Next, when he is in profound sleep, and knows nothing, there are the seventy-two thousand arteries called Hita, which from the heart spread through the body [1]. Through them he moves forth and rests in the surrounding body. And as a young man, or a great king, or a great Brâhmana, having reached the summit of happiness, might rest, so does he then rest.
tasyopaniṣatsatyasya satyamiti prāṇā vai satyaṃ teṣāmeṣa satyam .. 20..
iti prathamaṃ brāhmaṇam ..
atha dvitīyaṃ brāhmaṇam .
Meaning:- As a spider moves along the thread (it produces), and as from a fire tiny sparks fly in all directions, so from this Self emanate all organs, all worlds, all gods and all beings. Its secret name (Upanishad) is 'the Truth of Truth'. The vital force is truth, and It is the Truth of that.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- This is illustrated thus:- As in the world a spider, which is well known to be one entity, moves along the thread which is not different from itself --- and there is no other auxiliary to its movement but itself --- and as from one homogeneous fire tiny sparks, little specks of fire, fly in different ways, or in numbers; as these two illustrations show activity even in the absence of any difference regarding auxiliaries, as also natural unity before the activity starts, just so from this Self, i.e. from the real nature of the individual self before it wakes up, emanate all organs such as that of speech, all worlds such as the earth, which are the results of one's past actions, all gods such as fire, who preside over the organs and the worlds, and all living beings, from Hiranyagarbha down to a clump of grass. If the reading is, 'All these souls (As the Madhyandina recension has it.),' then the meaning will be, 'Souls with particular characteristics manifested owing to connection with limiting adjuncts.' It is the Self from which this moving and unmoving world continually proceeds like sparks of fire, in which it is merged like a bubble of water, and with which it remains filled during existence. The secret name (Upanisad) of this Self or Brahman, etc. 'Upanisad' means 'that which brings (one) near' (Brahman), that is, a word denoting It (a name). That this capacity to 'bring near' is a speciality of this particular name is known on the authority of the scriptures alone. What is this secret name? The Truth of truth. Since this secret name always has a transcendental import, it is difficult to understand. Therefore the Sruti gives its meaning:- The vital force is truth, and It is the Truth of that. The next two sections will be devoted to explaining this sentence.
Question:- Granted that the next two sections will be devoted to explaining the secret name. The text says, 'Its secret name.' But we do not know whether it is the secret name of the individual self, which is the subject under discussion, which awoke through pushing, is subject to transmigration, and perceives sound etc., or whether it refers to some transcendent principle. Reply:- What difference does it make? Question:- Just this:- If it refers to the relative (transmigrating) self, then that is to be known, and by knowing it (identity with) all will be attained; further it alone will be denoted by the word 'Brahman,' and the knowledge of it will be the knowledge of Brahman. But if the transcendent Self is meant, then the knowledge of It will be the knowledge of Brahman, and from that identity with all will be attained. That all this will happen we know on the authority of the scriptures. But according to this view (if the individual self and Brahman are different) the Vedic texts that teach their identity, such as, 'The Self alone is to be meditated upon' (I. iv. 7) and 'It knew only Itself as, 'I am Brahman' ' (I. iv. 10), will be contradicted. And (if they are identical) there being no relative self different from the Supreme Self, spiritual instruction will be useless, Since this (unity of the self) is a question that has not been answered and is a source of confusion even to scholars, therefore in order to facilitate the understanding of passages that deal with the knowledge of Brahman for those who seek It, we shall discuss the point as best as we can. Prima facie view:- The transcendent Supreme Self is not meant, for the text states the origin of the universe from a self which awoke on being pushed with the hand, which perceives sound etc., and which is possessed of a distinct state (profound sleep). To be explicit:- There is no Supreme Self devoid of the desire for food etc., which is the ruler of the universe. Why? Because the Sruti, after introducing the topic, 'I will tell you about Brahman' (II. i. 15), then mentioning the rousing of the sleeping man by pushing with the hand --- thereby showing him to be the perceiver of sound etc. --- and describing his transition through the dream state to that of profound sleep, shows the origin of the universe from that very self possessed of the state of profound sleep, by the two illustrations of sparks of fire and the spider, in the passage, 'So from this Self,' etc. And no other cause of the origin of the universe is mentioned in between, for this section deals exclusively with the individual self. Another Sruti, the Kausitaki Upanisad, which deals with the same topic, after introducing the beings who are in the sun etc., says 'He said:- He, O Balaki, who is the matter of these beings, and whose handiwork this universe is, is indeed to be known' (IV. 19). This shows that the individual self roused from sleep, and none other, is to be known. Similarly by saying, 'But it is for one's own sake that all is loved' (II. iv. 5; IV. v. 6), the Sruti shows that that self which is familiar to us as being dear is alone to be realised through hearing, reflection and meditation. So also the statements made while introducing the topic of knowledge, such as , 'The Self alone is to be meditated upon' (I. iv. 7), 'This (Self) is dearer than a son, dearer than wealth,' etc. (I. iv. , 'It knew only itself as, 'I am Brahman,' ' etc. (I. iv. 10), would be consistent if there were no Supreme Self. It will also be said further on, If a man knows himself to be the Self' (IV. iv. 12). Moreover, in all Vedanta it is the inner self which is put forward as the entity to be known, as 'I (am Brahman),' and never any external object like sound etc., saying, 'That is Brahman.' Similarly in the Kausitaki Upanisad, in the passage, 'Do not seek to know about speech, know the speaker,' etc. (III. 8 etc.), it is the agent (the individual self) using speech etc. as instruments, which is put forward as the entity to be known.
Objection:- Suppose we say that the individual self in a different state is the Supreme Self? It may be like this:- The same individual self which perceives sound etc. in the waking state is changed into the transcendent Supreme Self, the ruler of the universe, on getting into the state of profound sleep. Tentative answer:- No, this is contrary to experience. We never find anything having this characteristic outside of Buddhist philosophy. It never happens in life that a cow standing or going is a cow, but that on lying down she becomes a horse or any other species. It is contrary to logic also. A thing that is known through some means of knowledge to have a certain characteristic, retains that characteristic even in a different place, time or condition. If it ceases to have that characteristic all application of the means of knowledge would stop. Similarly the Samkhyas, Mimamsakas and others who are skilled in logic adduce hundreds of reasons to prove the absence of a transcendent self.
Objection:- Your view is wrong, for the relative self too lacks the knowledge of how to effect the origin, continuity and dissolution of the universe. To be explicit:- The position you have advocated so elaborately, viz that the same relative self which perceives sound etc. becomes the ruler of the universe when it attains a different condition, is untenable. For everybody knows that the relative self lacks the knowledge, power and means to effect the origin, continuity and dissolution of the universe. How can a relative self like us construct this universe in which the earth etc. are located, and which it is impossible even to think of with the mind? Tentative answer:- Not so, for the scriptures are in our favour. They show the origin etc. of the universe from the relative self, for example, 'So from this Self,' etc. (this text). Therefore our view is all right.
Objection (By the believers in Isvara only as the efficient, not material cause of the universe.):- There is a transcendent Supreme Self, and It is the cause of the universe, for such is the verdict of the Sruti, Smrti and reason. Witness hundreds of Sruti passages such as, 'That which knows things in a general and particular way' (Mu. I. i. 9 and II. ii. 7), 'That which transcends hunger and thirst' (III. v. 1), 'Unattached, It is not attached to anything' (III. ix. 26), 'Under the mighty rule of this Immutable,' etc. (III. viii. 9), 'That which living in all beings ' is the internal ruler and immortal' (III. vii. 15), '(That Being) who definitely projects those beings ' and is at the same time transcendent' (III. ix. 26), 'That great, birthless Self' (IV. iv. 22 etc.), 'It is the bank that serves as the boundary to keep the different worlds apart' (Ibid.), 'The controller of all, the lord of all' (Ibid.), 'The Self that is sinless, undecaying, immortal' (Ch. VIII. vii. 1, 3), 'It projected fire' (Ch. VI. ii. 3), 'In the beginning this universe was only the Self' (Ai. I. 1), 'It is not affected by human misery, being beyond it' (Ka. V. 11.) Also the Smrti passage, 'I am the origin of all, and from Me everything springs' (G. X. . Tentative answer:- Have we not said that the text, 'So from this Self,' shows the origin of the universe from the relative self?
Objection:- Not so, for since in the passage, 'The Akasa that is in the heart' (II. i. 17), the Supreme Self has been introduced, the text, 'So from this Self,' should refer to the Supreme Self. In reply to the question, 'Where was it then?' (II. i. 16), the Supreme Self, denoted by the word 'Akasa,' has been mentioned in the text, 'It lies in the Akasa that is in the heart.' That the word 'Akasa' refers to the Supreme Self is clear from texts such as:- 'With Existence my dear, it is then united' (Ch. VI. viii. 1), 'Every day they attain this world that is Brahman, but they do not realise this' (Ch. VIII. iii. 2), 'Fully embraced by the Supreme Self' (IV. iii. 21), and 'Rests on the Supreme Self' (Pr. IV. 76). That the Supreme Self is the topic further appears from the use of the word 'Self' with reference to the Supreme Self, which has been introduced in the passage, 'In it there is a little space' (Ch. VIII. i. 1). Therefore the passage, 'So from this Self,' should indicate that the universe springs from the Supreme Self alone. And we have already said that the relative self has not the power and knowledge to project, maintain and dissolve the universe. In the passages, The Self alone is to be meditated upon' (I. iv. 7), and 'It knew only Itself as, 'I am Brahman' ' (I. iv. 10), the topic of the knowledge of Brahman was introduced, and this deals with Brahman as its subject. This section too opens with sentences such as, 'I will tell you about Brahman' (II. i. 1), and 'I will teach you about Brahman' (II. i. 15). Now the transcendent Brahman, which is beyond hunger etc. and is eternal, pure, enlightened and free by nature, is the cause of the universe, while the relative self is the opposite of that; therefore it would not (in its present state) perceive itself to be identical with Brahman. On the other hand, would not the inferior relative self be open to censure it if identified the Supreme Self, the self- effulgent ruler of the universe, with itself? Therefore it is unreasonable to say, 'I am Brahman.' Hence one should wish to worship Brahman with flowers, water, folding of the palms, praises, prostration, sacrifices, presents, repetition of Its name, meditation, Yoga, etc. Knowing It through worship one becomes Brahman, the ruler of all. But one should not think of the transcendent Brahman as the relative self; it would be like thinking of fire as cold, and the sky as possessed of form. The scriptural passages too that teach the identity of the self with Brahman should be taken as merely eulogistic. This interpretation will also harmonise with all logic and common sense.
Advaitin's reply:- That cannot be, for from Mantra and Brahmana texts we know that the Supreme Self alone entered. Beginning with, 'He made bodies,' etc. (II. v. 18), the text says, 'The Supreme Being entered the bodies' (Ibid.), 'He transformed Himself in accordance with each form; that form of His was for the sake of making Him known' (II. v. 19; R. VI. x1vii. 18); 'The Wise One, who after projecting all forms, names them, and goes on uttering those names' (Tai. A. III. xii. 7) --- thus thousands of Mantras in all recensions show that it is the transcendent Isvara who entered the body. Similarly Brahmana texts such as, 'After projecting it, the Self entered into it' (Tai. II. vi. 1), 'Piercing this dividing line (of the head) It entered through that gate' (Ai. III. 12), 'That deity (Existence), penetrating these three gods (fire, water and earth) as this individual self,' etc. (Ch. VI. iii. 3, 4), 'This Self, being hidden in all beings, is not manifest,' etc. (K. III. 12). Since the word 'Self'has beenn used in all scriptures to denote Brahman, and since it refers to the inner Self, and fruthr the Sruti passage, 'He is the inner Self of all beings' (Mu. II. i. 4), shows the absence of a relative self other than the Supreme Self, as also the Sruti texts, 'One only without a second' (Ch. VI. ii. 1), 'This universe is but Brahman' (Mu. II. ii. 11), 'All this is but the Self' (Ch. VIII. xxv. 2), it is but proper to conclude the identity of the individual self with Brahman.
Objection:- If such is the import of the scriptures, then the Supreme Self becomes relative, and it it is so, the scriptures (teaching Its transcendence) become useless; whiel if It is (identical with the individual self and yet) transcendent, then there is this obvious objection that spiritual instruction becomes redundant. To be explicit:- If the Supreme Self, which is the inmost Self of all beings, feels the miseries arising from contact with all bodies, It obviously becomes relative. In that case those Sruti and Smrti texts that establish the transcendence of the Supreme Self, as also all reason would be set at naught. If, on the other hand, it can somehow be maintained that It is not connected with the miseries arising from contact with the bodies of different beings, it is impossible to refute the charge of the futility of all spiritual instruction, for there is nothing for the Supreme Self either to achieve or to avoid. To this dilemma some suggest the following solution:- The Supreme Self did not penetrate the bodies directly in Its own form, but It became the individual self after undergoing a modification. And that individual self is both different from and identical with the Supreme Self. In so far as it is different, it is affected by relativity, and in so far as it is identical, it is capable of being ascertained as, 'I am Brahman.' Thus there will be no contradiction anywhere. Now, if the individual self be a modification of Supreme Self, there may be the following alternatives:- The Supreme Self may be an aggreage of many things and consist of parts, like the substance earth, and the individual self may be the modification of some portion of It, like a jar etc. Or the Supreme Self may retain Its form, and a portion of It be modified, like hair or a barren tract, for instance. Or the entire Supreme Self may be modified, like milk etc. Now in the first view, according to which a particular thing out of an aggregate of a great many things of the same category becomes the individual self, since this particular thing is only of the same category, the identity is but figurative, not real. In that case it would be a contradiction of the verdict of the Sruti. It, however, (as in the second view) the Supreme Self is a whole eternally consisting of parts inseparably connected together, and, while It remains unchanged in form, a portion of it becomes the relative individual self, then, since the whole inheres in all the parts, it is affected by the merit or defect of each part; hence the Supreme Self will be subject to the evil of transmigration attaching to the individual self. Therefore this view also is inadmissible; while the view that holds that the whole of the Supreme Self is transformed disregards all the Srutis and Smrtis and is therefore unacceptable. All these views contradict reason as well as Sruti and Smrti texts such as, '(Brahman is) without parts, devodi of activity and serene' (Sv. VI. 19), 'The Supreme Being is resplendent, formless, including both within and without, and birthless' (Mu. II. i. 2), 'All-pervading like the sky and eternal,' 'That great, birthless Self is undecaying, immortal, undying' (IV. iv. 25), 'It is never born nor dies' (Ka. II. 18; G. II. 20), 'It is undifferentiated,' etc. (G. II. 25). If the individual self be a portion of the immutable Supreme Self, then it will find it impossible to go (after death) to places in accordance with its past work, or else the Supreme Self will, as already said, be subject to transmigration.
Objection:- Suppose we say that the individual self is a portion of the Supreme Self detached from It like a spark of fire, and that transmigrates. Reply:- Yet the Supreme Self will get a wound by this breaking off of Its part, and as that part trasmigrates, it will make a hole in the assemblage of parts another portion of the Supreme Self --- which will contradict the scriptural statements about Its being without any wound. If the individual self, which is a part of the Supreme Self, transmigrates, then, since there is no space without It, some other parts of It being pushed and displaced, the Supreme Self will feel pains as if It has colic in the heart.
Objection:- There is nothing wrong in it, for there are Sruti texts giving illustrations of sparks of fire etc. Reply:- Not so, for the Sruti is merely informative. The scriptures seek not to alter things but to supply information about things unknown, as they are. Objection:- What difference does it make? Reply:- Listen. Things in the world are known to possess certain fixed characteristics such as grossness or fineness. By citing them as examples the scriptures seek to tell us about some other thing which does not contradict them. They would not cite an example from life if they wanted to convey an idea of something contradictory to it. Even if they did, it would be to no purpose, for the example would be different from the thing to be explained. You cannot prove that fire is cold, or that the sun does not give heat, even by citing a hundred examples, for the facts would already be known to be otherwise through another means of knowledge. And one means of knowledge does not contradict another, for it only tells about those things that cannot be known by any other means. Nor can the scriptures speak about an unknown thing without having recourse to conventional words and their meanings. Therefore one who follows convention can never prove that the Supreme Self really has parts or stands to other things in the relation of whole to part.
Objection:- But do not the Sruti and Smrti say, 'Tiny sparks' (this text), and 'A part of Myself' (G. XV. 7)? Reply:- Not so, for the passages are meant to convey the idea of oneness. We notice in life that sparks of fire may be considered identical with fire. Similarly a part may be considered identical with the whole. Such being the case, words signifying a modification or part of the Supreme Self, as applied to the individual self, are meant to convey its identity with It. That this is so appears also from the introduction and conclusion. In all the Upanisads first identity is broached, then by means of illustrations and reasons the universe is shown to be a modification or part or the like of the Supreme Self, and the conclusion again brings out the identity. Here, for instance, the text begins with, 'This all is the Self' (II. iv. 6), then through arguments and examples about the origin, continuity and dissolution of the universe, it adduces reasons for considering its identity with Brahman, such as the relation of cause and effect, and it will conclude with, 'Without interior or exterior. This self is Brahman' (II. v. 19). Therefore from that introduction and conclusion it is clear that the passages setting forth the origin, continuity and dissolution of the universe are for strengthening the idea of the identity of the individual self with the Supreme Self. Otherwise there would be a break in the topic. All believers in the Upanisads are unanimous on the point that all of these enjoin on us to think of the identity of the individual self with the Supreme Self. If it is possible to construe the passages setting forth the origin etc. of the universe so as to keep up the continuity of that injunction, to interpret them so as to introduce a new topic would be unwarrantable. A different result too would have to be provied for. Therefore we conclude that the Sruti passages setting forth the origin etc. of the universe must be for establishing the identity of the individual self and Supreme Self.
Regarding this teachers of Vedanta (The reference is to Dravidacarya.), narrate the following parable:- A certain prince was discarded by his parents as soon as he was born, and brought up in a fowler's home. Not knowing his princely descent, he thought himself to be a fowler and pursued the fowler's duties, not those of a king, as he would if he knew himself to be such. When, however, a very compassionate man, who knew the prince's fitness for attaining a kingdom, told him who he was --- that he was not a fowler, but the son of such and such a king, and had by some chance come to live in a folwer's home --- he, thus informed, gave up the notion and the duties of a fowler and, knowing that he was a king, took to the ways of his ancestors. Similarly this individual self, which is of the same category as the Supreme Self, being separated from It like a spark of fire and so on, has penetrated this wilderness of the body, organs, etc., and, although really transcendent, takes on the attributes of the latter, which are relative, and thinks that it is this aggregate of the body and organs, that it is lean or stout, happy or miserable --- for it does not know that it is the Supreme Self. But when the teacher enlightens it that it is not the body etc., but the transcendent Supreme Brahman, then it gives up the pursuit of the three kinds of desire (Those for a son, for wealth and for heaven. See IV. iv. 22.) and is convicned that it is Brahman. When it is told that it has been separated from the Supreme Brahman like a spark, it if firmly convinced that it is Brahman, as the prince was of his royal birth. We know that a spark is one with fire before it is separated. Therefore the examples of gold, iron and sparks of fire are only meant to strengthen one's idea of the oneness of the individual self and Brahman, and not to establish the multiplicity caused by the origin etc. of the universe. For the Self has been ascertained to be homogeneous and unbroken consciousness, like a lump of salt, and there is the statement, 'It should be realised in one form only' (IV. iv. 20). If the Sruti wanted to teach that Brahman has diverse attributes such as the origin of the universe, like a painted canvas, a tree, or an ocean, for instance, it would not conclude with statements, describing It to be homogenerous like a lump of salt, without interior or exterior, nor would it say, 'It should be realised in one form only.' There is also the censure, 'He (goes from death to death) who sees difference, as it were, in It,' etc. (IV. iv. 19; Ka. IV. 10). Therefore the mention in all Vedanta texts of the origin, continuity and dissolution of the universe is only to strengthen our idea of Brahman being a homogeneous unity, and not to make us believe in the origin etc. as an actualiy.
Nor is it reasonable to suppose tha a part of the indivisible, transcendent, Supreme Self becomes the relative, individual self, for the Supreme Self is intrinsically without parts. If a part of the indivisible Supreme Self is supposed to be the relative, individual self, it is tantamount to taking the former to be the latter. If, on the other hand, the individual self be a part of the Supreme Self owing to some adventitious limiting adjunct of It, like the ether enclosed in a jar, a bowl, etc., then thinking people would not consider that it is really a part of the Supreme Self, deserving to be treated as something distinct.
Objection:- We sometimes see that thinking as well as ignorant people entertain fanciful notions about things. Reply:- Not so, for ignorant people have false notions, whereas thinking people have notions that relate only to an apparent basis for conventional intercourse. For instance, even thinking people sometimes say that the sky is dark of red, where the darkness or redness of the sky has just the above apparent reality. But because of that the sky can never actually become dark or red. Therefore in ascertaining the true nature of Brahman, men of wisdom should not think of It in terms of whole and part --- unit and fraction --- or cause and effect. For the essential meaning of all the Upanisads is to remove all finite conceptions about Brahman. Therefore we must give up all such conceptions and know Brahman to be undifferentiated like the sky. This is borne out by hundreds of Sruti texts such as, 'All-pervading like the sky and eternal,' and 'It is not affected by human misery, being beyond it' (Ka. V. 11). We must not imagine the self to be different from Brahman, like a portion of fire, which is ever hot, being cold, or like a portion of the effulgent sun being dark, for as already said, the essential meaning of all the Upanisads is to remove all finite conceptions about Brahman. Therefore all relative conditions in the transcendent Self are only possible through the limiting adjuncts of name and form. Compare the Sruti Mantras, 'He transformed Himself in accordance with each form' (II. v. 19), and 'The Wise One, who after projecting all forms names them, and goes on uttering those names,' etc. (Tai. A. III. xii. 7). The relative conditions of the self is not inherent in it. It is not true, but erroneous, like the notion that a crystal is red or of any other colour owing to its association with limiting adjuncts such as a red cotton pad. Sruti and Smrti texts such as, 'It thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were' (IV. iii. 7), 'It neither increases nor decreases through work' (IV. iv. 23), 'It is not affected by evil work' (Ibid.), 'Living the same in all beings' (G. XIII. 27), '(Wise men are even-minded) to a dog as well as a Candala, etc.' (G. V. 18), as also reasoning establish only the transcendence of the Supreme Self. Hence, if we admit It to be indivisible, it will be particularly impossible for us to maintain that the individual self is either a part, a modification, or inherent power of the Supreme Self, or something different from It. And we have already saiid that the Sruti and Smrti passages referring to the relation of whole and part etc. are for the purpose of establishing their oneness, not difference, for only thus will there be continuity as regards the import of those passages. If all the Upanisads teach that there is only the Supreme Self, why, it may be asked, is something contradictory to it, viz the individual self, put forward? Some say that it is for removing the objections against the authority of the ritualistic portion of the Vedas:- For the passages dealing with rites depend on a multiplicity of actions, their factors and their results, including the sacrificers, who enjoy those results, and the priests, who officiate in them. Now, if there were no separate individual self, the transcendent Supreme Self would be one. How under such circumstances would those passages indue people to do actions producing good results, or dissuade them from those that have bad results? Who again would be the bound soul for whose liberation the Upanisads would be taken up? Further, according to the view which holds that there is only the Supreme Self, how can instruction about It be imparted? And how can that instruction bear fruit? For instruction is given in order to remove the bondage of a bound soul; hence in the absence of the latter the Upanisads will have nobody to address themselves to. Such being the case, the same objections and replies that apply to the advocates of the ritualistic portion of the Vedas, apply also to the advocates of the Upanisads. For, as owing to the absence of difference the ritualistic portion, being without support, falls through as an authority, so do the Upanisads. Then why not accept the authority of only the ritualistic portion, which can be interpreted literally? But the Upanisads may be rejected, since in accepting them as authority one has to alter their obvious import (Since many passages clearly have a dualistic import.). The ritualistic portion, having an authority once, cannot again cease to be that. It cannot be that a lamp will sometimes reveal objects and sometimes not. There is also contradiction with other means of knowledge, such as perception. The Upanisads that establish the existence of Brahman alone not only contradict their obvious import and the authority of the ritualistic portion of the Vedas, but they also run counter to such means of knowledge as perception, which definitely establish differences in the world. Therefore the Upanisads cannot be taken as authority. Or they must have some other meaning. But they can never mean that only Brahman exists. Advaitin's reply:- That cannot be, for we have already answered those points. A means of knowledge is or is not such according as it leads or does not lead to valid knowledge. Otherwise even a post, for instance, would be considered a means of knowledge in perceiving sound etc.
Objection:- What follows from this? Reply:- If the Upanisads lead to a valid knowledge of the unity of Brahman, how can they cease to be a means of knowledge? Objection:- Of course they do not lead to valid knowledge, as when somebody says that fire is cold. Reply:- Well then, we ask you, do not your words refuting the authority of the Upanisads accomplish their object, like fire revealing things, or do they not? If you say they do, then your words of refutation are a means of valid knowledge, and fire does reveal things. If your words of refutation are valid, then the Upanisads too are valid. So please tell us what the way out is.
Objection:- That my words mean the refutation of the authority of the Upanisads, and that fire reveals things are palpable facts, and hence constitute valid knowledge. Reply:- What, then, is your grudge against the Upanisads, which are seen directly to convey a valid knowledge of the unity of Brahman, inasmuch as the refutation is illogical? And we have already said that a palpable result, viz cessation of grief and delusion, is indirectly brought about by the knowledge of this unity. Therefore, the objections having been answered, there is no doubt of the Upanisads being authority. You have said that the Upanisads are no authority, since they contradict their obvious import. This is wrong, because there is no such contradiction in their meaning. In the first place, the Upanisads never give us the idea that Brahman both is and is not one only without a second, as from the sentence that fire is both hot and cold we get two contradictory meanings. We have said this taking it for granted that a passage can have different meanings. But it is not an accepted canon of the system that tests passages (Mimamsa) that the same passage may have different meanings. If it has, one will be the proper meaning, and the other will be contradictory to it. But it is not an accepted rule with those who test passages that the same passage may have different meanings --- one appropriate, and the other contradictory to it. For passages have unity only when they have the same meaning. In the second place, there are no passages in the Upanisads that contradict the unity of Brahman. As to the conventional (Having relation to human experience, as opposed to Vedic.) expressions, 'Fire is cold as well as hot,' it is not a unitary passage, because part of it merely relates what is known through another means of knowledge (perception). The portion, 'Fire is cold,' is one sentence, but the clause, 'Fire is hot,' merely reminds us of what is known through another means of knowledge; it does not give us that meaning at first hand. Therefore it is not to be combined with the clause, 'Fire is cold,' because its function is exhausted by merely reminding us of what is experienced through another source of knowledge. As to the presumption that this sentence conveys contradictory meanings, it is but an error due to the words 'hot' and 'cold' being used as co-ordinate with the word 'fire.' But neither in Vedic nor in conventional usage does the same passage have more than one meaning. You have said that passages of the Upanisads clash with the authority of the ritualistic portion of the Vedas. This is not correct, because they have a different meaning. The Upanisads also establish the unity of Brahman; they do not negate instructions regarding the means of attaining some desired object, or prevant persons from undertaking it, for, as already said, a passage cannot have more than one meaning. Nor do ritualistic passages fail to produce valid knowledge regarding their own meaning. If a passage produces valid knowledge regarding its own exlusive object, how can it clash with other passages?
Objection:- If Brahman be the only reality, ritualistic passages are left without any object to apply to, and hence they cannot certainly produce valid knowledge. Reply:- Not so, for that valid knowledge is palpable. We see it arising out of sentences such as, 'One who desires heaven must perform the new-and full-moon sacrifices,' and 'One must not kill a Brahmana.' The assumption that this cannot take place if the Upanisads teach the unity of Brahman, is only an inference. And an inference cannot stand against perception. Therefore your statement that valid knowledge itself cannot arise, is absolutely wrong. Moreover, actions, their factors and their results are things we naturally believe in:- they are the creation of ignorance. When, through their help, a man who desires to gain something good or to avoid something evil, proceeds to adopt a means of which he has only a vague, not definite idea, the Sruti simply tells him about that; it says nothing either for or against the truth of the diversity of actions, their factors and their results --- which people have already taken for granted. For the Sruti only prescribes means for the attainment of desired ends and the avoidance of untoward results. To be explicit:- As the Sruti that deals with rites having material ends takes the desires as they are --- although they are the result of erroneous notions --- and prescribes means for attaining them, and it does not cease to do this on the ground that desires are an evil, being the result of erroneous notions, similarly the Sruti dealing with the regular rites, such as the Agnihotra, takes the diversity of actions and their factors as they are --- although they proceed from error --- and enjoins rites like the Agnihotra, seeing some utility in them, whether it be the attainment of some particular desired end or the avoidance of some particular untoward result. It does not refrain from enjoining them simply because the utility relates to something that is unreal, being within the domain of ignorance, as is the case with rites having material ends. Nor would ignorant people cease to engage themselves in those rites, for we see them doing it, as in the case of people who are swayed by desires.
Objection:- But it is only those that have knowledge who are competent to perform rites. Reply:- No, for we have already said that the knowledge of the unity of Brahman militates against one's competency of perform rites. This should also be taken as an answer to the charge than if Brahman be the only reality, there would be no scope left for instruction, and hence it can neither be received nor produce any result. The diversity of people's desires, attachments and so forth is another reason. People have innumerable desires and various defects, such as attachment. Therefore they are lured by the attachment etc. to external objects, and the scriptures are powerless to hold them back; nor can they persuade those who are naturally averse to external objects to go after them.
But the scriptures do this much that they point out what leads to good and what to evil, thereby indicating the particular relations that subsist between ends and means; just as a lamp, for instance, helps to reveal forms in the dark. But the scriptures neither hinder nor direct a person by force, as if he were a slave. We see how people disobey even the scriptures because of an excess of attachment etc. Therefore, according to the varying tendencies of people, the scriptures variously teach the particular relations that subsist between ends and means. In this matter people themselves adopt particular means according to their tastes, and the scriptures simply remain netural, like the sun, for instance, or a lamp. Similarly somebody may think the highest goal to be not worth striving after. One chooses one's goal according to one's knowledge, and wants to adopt corresponding means. This is also borne out by the eulogistic passages of the Sruti, such as, 'Three classes of Prajapati's sons lived a life of continence with their father, 'Prajapati,' etc. (V. ii. 1). Therefore the Vedanta texts that teach the unity of Brahman are not antagonistic to the ritualistic scriptures. Nor are the latter thereby deprived of their scope. Neither do the ritualistic scriptures, which uphold differences such as the factors of an action, take away the authority of the Upanisads as regards the unity of Brahman. For the means of knowledge are powerful in their respective spheres, like the ear etc.
Nevertheless, certain self-styled wise men (the logicians), following their own whims, think that the different means of knowledge are mutually contradictory, and also level against us the objection that if Brahman be the only reality, such Upanisadic texts contradict perception. For instance, objects like sound, which are perceived by the ear and so forth, are observed to be different from one another. So those who hold that Brahman is the only reality contradict perception. Similarly the relative selves that perceive sound etc. through the ear and so forth, and acquire merit or demerit through their work, are inferred to be different in differend bodies. So those who hold that Brahman is the only reality also contradict inference. They also cite contradiction with the Sruti. For instance, in passages such as, 'One who desires villages must sacrifice' (Ta. XVII. x. 4), 'One who desires animals must sacrifice' (Ibid. XVI. xii. and 'One who desires heaven must sacrifice' (Ibid. XVI. iii. 3), the objects desired such as villages, animals and heaven, are known to be different from the men who apply the means of obtaining them.
Our reply is that they are the scum of the Brahmana and other castes, who, with their minds poisoned by vicious reasoning, hold views about the meaning of the Vedas that are divorced from tradition, and are therefore to be pitied. How? To those who say that sound etc., perceived through the ear and so forth, contradict the unity of Brahman, we put this question:- Does the variety of sound and the rest contradict the oneness of the ether? If it does not, then there is no contradiction in our position with regard to perception. They said:- The selves that perceive sound etc. through the ear and so forth, and acquire merit or demerit through their work, are inferred to be different in different bodies; so the unity of Brahman also contradicts inference. But we ask them, 'By whom are they so inferred?' It they say, 'By us all who are experts in inference,' we would ask them, 'But who really are you that call yourselves so?' What would be their reply then? Perhaps they would say, 'When dexterity in inference has been severally denied of the body, the organs, the mind and the self, we experts in inference should be the self joined to its accessories, the body, organs and mind, for actions depend on many factors.' Our reply is:- 'If such be your dexterous inference, then you become multiple. For you yourselves have admitted that actions depend on many factors. Now inference also is an action, which, as you have also admitted, is done by the self joined to its accessories, the body, organs and mind. Thus, while saying that you are experts in inference, you virtually admit that each of you is multiple --- the self joined to the accessories, the body, organs and mind.' Oh! the dexterity in inference shown by the these bulls of logicians who lack only a tail and horns! How can a fool who does not know his own self know its unity or difference? What will he infer about it? And on what grounds? For the self has no characteristic that might be used to infer natural differences between one self and another. Those characteristics having name and form which the opponents will put forward to infer differences in the self belong only to name and form, and are but limiting adjuncts of the self, just as a jar, a bowl, an airhole, or the pores in earth are of the ether. When the logician finds distinguishing characteristics in the ether, then only will he find such characteristics in the self. For not even hundreds of logicians, who admit differences in the self owing to limiting adjuncts, can show any characteristic of it that would lead one to infer differences between one self and another. And as for natural differences, they are out of the question, for the self is not an object of inference. Because whatever the opponent regards as an attribute of the self is admitted as consisting of name and form, and the self is admitted to be different from these. Witness the Sruti passage, 'Akasa (the self-effulgent One) is verily the cause of name and form. That within which they are is Brahman' (Ch. VIII. xiv. 1), and also 'Let me manifest name and form' (Ch. VI. iii. 2). Name and form have origin and dissolution but Brahman is different from them.
Therefore how can the unity of Brahman contradict inference, of which It is never an object? This also refutes the charge that it contradicts the Sruti. It has been objected that if Brahman be the only reality, there would be nobody to receive instruction and profit by it; so instruction about unity would be useless. This is wrong. For (if you contend on the ground that) actions are the result of many factors, (we have already refuted this point, hence) at whom is the objection levelled? (Surely not at us. If, however, your ground is that) when the transcendent Brahman is realised as the only existence, there is neither instruction nor the instructor nor the result of receiving the instruction, and therefore the Upanisads are useless --- it is a position we readily admit. But if you urge that (even before Brahman is realised) instruction is useless, since it depends on many factors, we reply, no, for it will contradict the assumption (That instruction is necessary before realisation.) of all believers in the self (including yourself). Therefore this unity of Brahman is a secure fortress impregnable to logicians, those first-rate heretics and liars, and inaccessible to persons of shallow understanding, and to those who are devoid of the grace of the scriptures and the teacher. This is known from such Sruti and Smrti texts as the following, 'Who but me can know that Deity who has both joy and the absence of it?' (Ka. II. 21), 'Even the gods in ancient times were puzzled over this' (Ka. I. 21), and 'This understanding is not to be attained through agrument' (Ka. II. 9), as also from those that describe the truth as attainable through special favour and grace, and also from the Mantras that depict Brahman as possessed of contradictory attributes, such as, 'It moves, and does not move, It is far, and near,' etc. (Is. 5). The Gita too says, 'All beings are in Me,' etc. (IX. 4). Therefore there is no other entity called the relative self but the Supreme Brahman. Hence it is well said in hundreds of Sruti passages. 'This was indeed Brahman in the beginning. It knew only Itself as, 'I am Brahman,' ' (I. iv. 10), 'There is no other witness but This, no other hearer but This,' etc. (III. viii. 11). Therefore the highest secret name of 'the Truth of truth' belongs only to the Supreme Brahman.
Max Müller
20. As the spider comes out with its thread, or as small sparks come forth from fire, thus do all senses, all worlds, all Devas, all beings come forth from that Self The Upanishad (the true name and doctrine) of that Self is 'the True of the True.' Verily the senses are the true, and he is the true of the true.
Meaning:- He who knows the calf with its abode, its special resort, its post and its tether kills his seven envions kinsmen:- the vital force in the body is indeed the calf; this body is its abode, the head its special resort, strength its post, and food its tether.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- He who knows the calf with its abode, its special resort, its post and its tether gets this result. What is that? He kills his seven envious kinsmen. Kinsmen are of two kinds, those who envy and those who do not; here the former are meant. The seven organs (The eyes, ears, nostrils and mouth.) --- instruments for perceving objects --- that are in the head, that is to say, the attachment to sense-objects which they cause, are called kinsmen, since they are born with a person. Because they turn his vision from the Self to the sense-objects, therefore they are envious kinsmen --- since they thus hinder him from perceving the inner Self. It is also said in the Katha Upanisad, 'The self-born Lord injured the organs by making them outgoing in their tendencies. Therefore they perceive only external things, but not the inner Self,' etc. (Ka. IV. 1). He who knows the calf and the rest --- understands their real nature --- removes from view, or kills, these envious kinsmen. When the aspirant, hearing of this result, is inclinded to know more about them, the Sruti says:- This is indeed the calf. Which? This vital force that is in the body as the subtle body, which in its fivefold form abodes pervades the body, and was addressed as 'Great, White-robed, Radiant, Soma' (II. i. 15), and on which the organs, such as that of speech and the mind, rest, as we know from the illustration of the post to which the horse's legs are tethered (VI. i. 13). It is like a young calf, not being in direct touch with the sense-objects like the other organs. Mention has been made of 'the calf with its abode.' Now what is the abode of that calf, that instrument of the self, the vital force, which is here likened to a calf? This body, which is an effect, is its abode. An abode is that in which something is put. This body is the abode of that calf, the vital force, because it is by staying in the body that the organs come to function as channels of perception, not while they rest on the vital force. This has been demonstrated by Ajatasatru as follows:- When the organs are withdrawn, the individual self is not noticed; it is only when they occupy their respective seats in the body that the individual self is noticed as perceving things. This was proved by the (sleeping) man's being roused by pushing with the hand. The head is its special resort. It is so called because the vital force is connected with particular parts of it. Strength, the power that comes out of food and drink, is its post. 'Prana' and 'Bala' (strength) are synonyms, for the vital force abides in the body, being supported by strength. This is borne out by the Sruti text, 'When this self becomes weak and senseless, as it were' (IV. iv. 1). Just as a calf is supported by a post (To resist a pull as when somebody is tugging it.), so is the vital force by strength. Some (The reference is to Bhartrprapanca.) understand that the respiratory force that works in the body is the post. And food is its tether. The food we eat is changed into three forms. That which is the grossest is excreted from the body and is absorbed into the earth. The intermediate form a chyle, passing through the stages of blood etc., nourishes its effect, the gross body, which is composed of seven ingredients (Skin, blood, flesh, fat, marrow, bone and seed.). The body is nourished by the accession of its cause, viz food, because it is the product of food; and when this is reversed, it decays and falls. The finest form, called 'nectar' and 'highly powerful,' goes past the navel to the heart, and penetrating the seventy-two thousand nerves that radiate from there, generates strength, here designated as 'post,' and thereby helps the subtle body, which is the aggregate of the inner organs and is here called the calf, to stay in the gross body. Therefore food is the connecting link between the vital force and the body, like a calf's tether with a loop at each end. Now certain secret names with reference to the eye regarding the calf living in its special resort are being mentioned:-
Max Müller
1. Verily he who knows the babe [1] with his place [2], his chamber [3], his post [4], and his rope [5], he keeps off the seven relatives [6] who hate him. Verily by the young is meant the inner life, by his place this (body) [7], by his chamber this (head), by his post the vital breath, by his rope the food.
Meaning:- These seven gods that prevent decay worship it:- Through these pink lines in the eye Rudra attends on it; through the water that is in the eye, Parjanya; through the pupil, the sun; through the dark portion, fire; through the white portion, Indra; through the lower eye-lid the earth attends on it; and through the upper eye-lid, heaven. He who knows it as such never has any decrease of food.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- These seven gods that prevent decay (lit. undecaying), to be presently named, worship it, this vital force, the instrument, which is tied to the body by food, and resides in the eye. The root 'stha' with the prefix 'upa' becomes Atmanepadin when it signifies praying with Mantras. Here too the seven names of the gods stand for Mantras instrument to prayer; so the use of the Atmanepada with 'stha' is not out of place. Now the gods that prevent decay are being enumerated. Through these familiar pink lines in the eye as aids, Rudra attends on it, the vital force that is in the body. Through the aid of the water that is in the eye, which comes out when there is contact with smoke etc., the god Parjanya attends on, i.e. prays to the vital force; and he is the food of the vital force and the cause of its permanence. We have it in another Sruti, 'When Parjanya causes rain, the vital force is glad.' Through the pupil, which has the power of sight, the sun prays to the vital force. Through the dark portion of the eye fire prays to it. Through the white portion of the eye Indra prays. Through the lower eye-lid the earth attends on it, because both occupy a lower position. And through the upper eye-lid, heaven, because both occupy an upper position. He who knows it as such, knows that these seven gods that are the food of the vital force constantly pray to it, gets this as a result --- he never has any decrease of food.
Max Müller
2. Then the seven imperishable ones [1] approach him. There are the red lines in the eye, and by them Rudra clings to him. There is the water in the eye, and by it Parganya clings to him. There is the pupil, and by it Âditya (sun) clings to him, There is the dark iris, and by it Agni clings to him. There is the white eye-ball, and by it Indra, clings to him. With the lower eye-lash the earth, with the upper eye-lash the heaven clings to him. He who knows this, his food does never perish.
Meaning:- Regarding this there is the following pithy verse:- 'there is a bowl that has its opening below and bulges at the top; various kinds of knowledge have been put in it; seven sages sit by its side, and the organ of speech, which has communication with the Vedas, is the eighth'. The 'bowl that has its opening below and bulges at the top' is the head of ours, for it is the bowl that has its opening below and bulges at the top. 'various kinds of knowledge have been put in it', refers to the organs; these indeed represent various kinds of knowledge. 'Seven sages sit by its side', refers to the organs; they indeed are the sages. 'The organ of speech, which has communication with the Vedas, is the eighth', because the organ of speech is the eighth and communicates with the Vedas.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Regarding this subject there is the following pithy verse or Mantra:- 'There is a bowl that has its opening below,' etc. Now the Sruti explains the Mantra. What is that bowl? This head of ours, for it is shaped like a bowl. How? For it has its opening below, the mouth standing for this opening, and bulges at the top, the head, because of its round shape, answering to the description. 'Various kinds of knowledge have been put in it':- Just as the Soma juice is put in the bowl, so have various kinds of knowledge been put in the head. The organs, such as the ear, and the vital force, which is distributed among them in seven forms, represent various kinds of knowledge, because they are the cause of the perception of sound etc. This is what the Mantra says. 'Seven sages sit by its side':- This portion of the Mantra refers to the organs, which are of a vibratory nature. They alone are the sages. 'The organ of speech, which has communication with the Vedas, is the eighth (The tongue counts as two:- as the organ of taste it will be enumerated in the next paragraph as the seventh sage; as the organ of speech it is here spoken of as the eighth.). The reason for this is given:- Because the organ of speech is the eighth and communicates with (or utters) the Vedas.
Max Müller
3. On this there is this Sloka:- 'There [1] is a cup having its mouth below and its bottom above. Manifold glory has been placed into it. On its lip sit the seven Rishis, the tongue as the eighth communicates with Brahman.' What is called the cup having its mouth below and its bottom above is this head, for its mouth (the mouth) is below, its bottom (the skull) is above. When it is said that manifold glory has been placed into it, the senses verily are manifold glory, and he therefore means the senses. When he says that the seven Rishis sit on its lip, the Rishis are verily the (active) senses, and he means the senses. And when he says that the tongue as the eighth communicates with Brahman, it is because the tongue, as the eighth, does communicate with Brahman.
hyannamadyate'ttirha vai nāmaitadyadatririti . sarvasyāttā bhavati
sarvamasyānnaṃ bhavati ya evaṃ veda .. 4..
iti dvitīyaṃ brāhmaṇam ..
atha tṛtīyaṃ brāhmaṇam .
Meaning:- These two (ears) are Gotama and Bharadvaja:- this one is Gotama, and this one is Bharadvaja:- These two (eyes) are Visvamitra and Jamadagni:- this one is Visvamitra, and this one Jamadagni. These two (nostrils) are Vasistha, and Kashyapa:- this one is Vasistha, and this one Kashyapa:- the tongue is Atri, for through the tongue food is eaten. 'Atri' is but this name 'Atti'. He who knows it as such becomes the eater of all, and everything becomes his food.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Now who are the sages that sit by the side of that bowl? These two ears are Gotama and Bharadvaja:- this one is Gotama, and this one Bharadvaja, meaning the right and the left ear respectively, or inversely. Similarly, to instruct about the eyes the Sruti says, These two are Visvamitra and Jamadagni:- this one, the right, is Visvamitra, and this one, the left, Jamadagni, or inversely. To instruct about the nostrils the Sruti says, These two are Vasistha and Kasyapa:- this one, the right nostril, is Vasistha, and this one, the left, Kasyapa, or inversely, as before. The tongue is Atri, because of its association with eating; this is the seventh sage. For through the tongue food is eaten. Therefore that which is indirectly called 'Atri' is but this familiar name 'Atti' (eats) --- on accont of being the eater. Through meditation on the derivation of the word 'Atri,' he becomes the eater of all kinds of food belonging to the vital force. In the next world he becomes only the eater, and is never treatd as food. This is expressed by the words, 'And everything becomes his food.' He who knows it, the true nature of the vital force, as such, as described above, becomes the vital force in this body, and is only the eater associated with the abode and the special resort, and not food. That is to say, he is entirely removed from the category of food.
Max Müller
4. These two (the two ears) are the Rishis Gautama and Bharadvâga; the right Gautama, the left Bharadvâga. These two (the eyes) are the Rishis Visvâmitra and Gamadagni; the right Visvâmitra, the left Gamadagni. These two (the nostrils) are the Rishis Vasishtha and Kasyapa; the right Vasishtha, the left Kasyapa. The tongue is Atri, for with the tongue food is eaten, and Atri is meant for Atti, eating. He who knows this, becomes an eater of everything, and everything becomes his food.
द्वे वाव ब्रह्मणो रूपे मूर्तं चैवामूर्तं च मर्त्यं चामृतं च
स्थितं च यच्च सच्च त्यच्च ॥ १॥
mantra 1[II.iii.1]
dve vāva brahmaṇo rūpe mūrtaṃ caivāmūrtaṃ ca martyaṃ cāmṛtaṃ ca
sthitaṃ ca yacca sacca tyacca .. 1..
Meaning:- Brahman has but two forms - gross and subtle, mortal and immortal, limited and unlimited, defined and undefined.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Brahman or the Supreme Self has but two forms, through the superimposition of which by ignorance the formless Supreme Brahman is defined or made conceivable. The word 'Vava' (indeed) is emphatic. Which are those two forms? The gross and subtle. The other phases of the gross and subtle are included in them; so they are counted as two only. What are those phases of the gross and subtle? These are being mentioned:- Mortal, subject to destruction, and immortal, its opposite. Limited, which goes a little distance and stops, and unlimited, which goes on, is pervasive, the opposite of 'limited'. Defined, having particular characteristics that distinguish it from others, and undefined, the opposite of that, which can only be distantly referred to, as something we know not what.
Max Müller
1. There are two forms of Brahman, the material and the immaterial, the mortal and the immortal, the solid and the fluid, sat (being) and tya (that), (i.e. sat-tya, true) [1].
sata eṣa raso ya eṣa tapati sato hyeṣa rasaḥ .. 2..
Meaning:- The gross (form) is that which is other than air and the ether. It is mortal, it is limited, and it is defined. The essence of that which is gross, mortal, limited and defined is the sun that shines, for it is the essence of the defined.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- The gross and the subtle have each four phases. Now what are the phases of the gross, and what are those of the subtle? This is being separately shown. The gross (form) is:- 'Gross' means having well-defined parts, with parts interpenetrating one another, i.e. compact or solid. What is it? That which is other --- than what? --- than the two elements, air and the ether; hence it refers to the three remaining elements, viz earth etc. It, this triad of elements called gross, is also mortal, or perishable. Why? Because it is limited; it is only a limited thing that, when joined to some other thing, is checked by it, as a jar by a post or wall, for instance. Similarly the gross form is limited, being related to some other object, and mortal, because of its clash with the latter. And it is defined, having noticeable peculiarities of its own; and for that very reason it is limited, and being limited it is mortal, and hence it is also gross. Or because it is gross it is mortal, and being mortal it is limited, and being limited it is defined. Since these four features do not contradict one another, any one of them may stand to the others in the relation of substantive and attribute, or of cause and effect. In any case, the three elements, each possessed of the four features, constitute the gross from of Brahman. Any one of these four epithets being taken, the others are automatically taken. This is stated as follows:- The essence of that which is gross, mortal, limited and defined, i.e. of the three elements each having the four attributes, is the sun that shines, for the sun is the quintessence of the three elements. It is the perfection of them, because through it they get their features of varying colours. The shining solar orb is the representation of the cosmic body, for it is the essence of the defined, i.e. of the three elements; hence that is meant. Because the shining sun has a gross form and is the best product of the elements. About the cosmic organ within the solar orb, we shall now speak.
Max Müller
2. Everything except air and sky is material, is mortal, is solid, is definite. The essence of that which is material, which is mortal, which is solid, which is definite is the sun that shines, for he is the essence of sat (the definite).
ya eṣa etasminmaṇḍale puruṣastasya hyeṣa rasa . ityadhidaivatam .. 3..
Meaning:- Now the subtle - it is air and the ether. It is immortal, it is unlimited, and it is undefined. The essence of that which is subtle, immortal, unlimited and undefined is the being that is in the sun, for that is the essence of the undefined. This is with reference to the gods.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Now the subtle form is being described. It is air and the ether, the two remaining elements. Being subtle it is immortal, and unlimited, hence not clashing with anything, and therefore immortal, not subject to destruction. It is unlimited, the opposite of limited, i.e. pervasive. Because it cannot be distinguished from others, therefore it is undefined. The word 'Tyat' indicates something that can be only indirectly described. The relation among the four epithets is as before. The essence of that which is subtle, immortal, unlimited and undefined, i.e. of the two subtle elements each having the four attributes, is the being that is in the sun, Hiranyagarbha as the cosmic organ (Corresponding to the organs in the body. The subtle body of Hiranyagarbha is meant, and not his conscious self, as will presently be seen.), which is called the vital force. That is the quintessence of the two subtle elements, as in the previous instance (th solar orb was of the gross elements). This 'being' is the perfection of the two subtle elements, because these (Air and the ether are the principal, not the only ingredients of the cosmic subtle body. The other three elements also are there, but they play a subordinate part.) emanate from the Undifferentiated in order to form the subtle body of Hiranyagarbha. And because they seek to produce this, therefore this is the best product of them. For that is the essence of the undefined, because the 'being' that is in the sun is not perceived like the solar orb, and is the essence of the two elements. Hence there is a similarity between the being who is in the sun and the two elements. Therefore the reason furnished in the clause, 'For that is the essence of the undefined,' as if it were a familiar experience, is quite in order.
Some (The reference is to Bhartrprapanca.) say that the word 'essence' means cause, referring to the self of Hiranyagarbha, which is a conscious entity. The past actions of Hiranyagarbha direct air and the ether, and with these as their support (That is taking their form.) they direct the other elements. Therefore, being the director, through its own actions, of air and the ether, it is called their essence, or cause. This view is wrong, because it makes the essence of the subtle form dissimilar to that of the gross form. To be explicit:- The essence of the three gross elements is, as we have seen, the solar orb, which is gross and of the same class as the three elements; it is not a conscious entity. Therefore it stands to reason that the essence of the two subtle elements also should be of the same class as they. For the trend of both passages is the same. For instance, the gross and subtle forms have been distinguished as having four attributes each; so it is but proper that the essences of the gross and subtle forms, like these forms themselves of which they are the essences, should also be distinguished on the same principle (That is, there must be a common feature between them, to maintain the parallelism. Since one is insentient, the other must be so too. Otherwise there will be absurdity.). One cannot cook one half of a hen and keep the other half for laying eggs.
Objection:- Suppose we say that the essence of the gross form too refers to the conscious self that identifies itself with the solar orb (The cause and effect being one.). Reply:- You say too little. The Srutis everywhere teach that all gross and subtle forms are Brahman. Objection:- Is not the word 'being,' as applied to unconscious things, inappropriate? Reply:- No. We find the word 'being' applied in the Srutis to the subtle body having wings, tail, etc. In the following passage, 'We can neve beget progeny (initiate activity) so long as we are thus divided. Let us make these seven beings (The five sense-organs, the organ of speech, and mind.) into one (the subtle body).' They made these seven beings into one,' etc. (S. VI. I. i. 3), we find the use of the word 'being,' as also in another Sruti (Tai. II. i.) referring to the gross body, which is the product of the food we eat, and other finer bodies. The words, This is with reference to the gods, close the topic so as to introduce the next topic, which is relating to the body.
Max Müller
3. But air and sky are immaterial, are immortal, are fluid, are indefinite. The essence of that which is immaterial, which is immortal, which is fluid, which is indefinite is the person in the disk of the sun, for he is the essence of tyad (the indefinite). So far with regard to the Devas.
martyasyaitasya sthitasyaitasya sata eṣa raso yaccakṣuḥ sato hyeṣa
rasaḥ .. 4..
Meaning:- Now with reference to the body:- the gross form is but this - what is other than (the corporeal) air and the ether that is in the body. It is mortal, it is limited and it is defined. The essence of that which is gross, mortal, limited and defined is the eye, for it is the essence of the defined.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Now the division of the gross and subtle with reference to the body is being set forth. What is that gross form? It is but this. What is it? What is other than (the corporeal) air and the ether that is in the body, i.e. the three constituent elements of the body other than these two. It is mortal, etc. --- to be explained as in the preceding paragraphs. The essence of that which is defined is the eye. The eye is the essence of the (three gross) materials that build up the body, for it is that which lends importance to the (three gross elements in the whole) body, just as the solar orb does with reference to the gods. Also because of their priority in point of view. (We have it in the Brahman) that in the embryo it is the eyes that are first formed (S. IV. II. i. 28). The Sruti too hints as this:- 'His essence or lustre came forth. This was Fire (Since 'essence' is here used synonymously with 'lustre.')' (I. ii. 2) And the eyes possess lustre. The three elements in the body have the eyes as their essence. For it is the essence of the defined:- The meaning of the reason is that the eye is gross and is also the essence (of the three gross elements in the body).
Max Müller
4. Now with regard to the body. Everything except the breath and the ether within the body is material, is mortal, is solid, is definite. The essence of that which is material, which is mortal, which is solid, which is definite is the Eye, for it is the essence of sat (the definite).
Meaning:- Now the subtle - it is (the corporeal) air and the ether that is in the body. It is immortal, it is unlimited, and it is undefined. The essence of that which is subtle, immortal, unlimited and undefined is this being that is in the right eye, for this is the essence of the undefined.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Now the subtle form is being described. The two remaining elements, (the corporeal) air and the ether that is in the body --- are the subtle form. The rest is to be explained as before. The essence of that which is undefined is this being that is in the right eye (i.e. the subtle body). The specification about the right eye is based on the evidence of the scriptures. For they declare that the subtle body is specially manifest in the right eye; we see it mentioned in all the Srutis. For this is the essence of the undefined:- as before the meaning of the reason is that the subtle body is fine, because it cannot be definitely perceived, and is also the essence (of the two subtle elements in the body).
Max Müller
5. But breath and the ether within the body are immaterial, are immortal, are fluid, are indefinite. The essence of that which is immaterial, which is immortal, which is fluid, which is indefinite is the person in the right eye, for he is the essence of tyad (the indefinite).
sakṛdvidyutteva ha vā asya śrīrbhavati ya evaṃ vedā thāta ādeśo
neti neti na hyetasmāditi netyanyat paramastyatha nāmadheyagͫ satyasya
satyamiti prāṇā vai satyaṃ teṣāmeṣa satyam .. 6..
iti tṛtīyaṃ brāhmaṇam ..
atha caturthaṃ brāhmaṇam .
Meaning:- The form of that 'being' is as follows:- like a cloth dyed with turmeric, or like grey sheep's wool, or like the (scarlet) insect called Indragopa, or like a tongue of fire, or like a white lotus, or like a flash of lightning. He who knows it as such attains splendour like a flash of lightning. Now therefore the description (of Brahman):- 'Not this, not this'. Because there is no other and more appropriate description than this 'Not this'. Now Its name:- 'The Truth of truth'. The vital force is truth, and It is the Truth of that.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- The division of the gross and subtle, called truth, which are the limiting adjuncts of Brahman, into what relates to the gods and what relates to the body, in their twofold division of the body and organs, has been explained. Now we (the scriptues) shall describe the form of that 'being' identified with the organs, ie. the subtle body. It consists of impressions, and is produced by the impressions of gross and subtle objects and the union of the individual self; it is variegated (All this indicates that it is the mind that is being described, and not the self, which is homogeneous.) like pictures on a canvas or wall, is comparable to an illusion, or magic, or a mirage, and is puzzling to all. For instance, the Buddhistic Idealists (Yogacaras) are mistaken into thinking that the self is this much only. The Naiyayikas and Vaisesikas, on the other hand, maintain that like the colour of a cloth, these impressions are the attributes of the self, which is a substance. While the Samkhyas hold that the mind, which is dependant on the Prakrti (The primordial material out of which the universe has been formed.) and is possessed of three tendencies, is a separate entity, subserves the purpose of the self, and operates for its highest good (liberation through experience).
Some self-styled followers (A hit at Bhartrprapanca.) of the Upanisads too spin out the following theory:- The gross and subtle elements make one (the lowest) entity, the Supreme Self is the highest entity, and different from and intermediate between these two is the third entity, which is the sum total of one's meditations, actions and pervious experience, together with the individual self that is the agent and experiencer, the one that Ajatasatru awoke. The actions etc. are the cause, and the gross and subtle elements mentioned above as also the body and organs, which are the means of meditations and actions, are the effect. They also establish a connection with the logicians by stating that the actions etc. abide in the subtle body. Then they are frightened lest this should smack of Samkhya, and conform also to the Vaisesika view by saying that just as the odour that abides in flowers can be conserved in oil by boiling even when the flowers are gone, so even when the subtle body is gone, all actions etc. are conserved in a portion of the Supreme Self. That portin, though transcendent, becomes conditioned through attributes --- the actions etc. --- coming from elsewhere (The elements forming the body and organs.). This individual self then becomes the agent and experiencer, and is subject to bondage and liberation. Those actions etc. are but adventitious things, coming from the elements; the individual self, being a portion of the Supreme Self, is in itself transcendent. Ignorance, which springs from the Self, although natural to It, is not an attribute of the Self, just as a desert does not affect the whole earth. Through this statement they conform also to the Samkhya view.
They look upon all this as excellent because of its harmonising with the logicians' view, but they do not see that it contradicts the verdict of the Upanisads as well as all reasoning. How? For instance, we have already said that if the Supreme Self be composed of parts (and the individual self be identical with It), that view would be open to various objections, such as the chance of the Supreme Self being subject to transmigration and having wounds, besides the impossibility of Its going after death to places in accordance with Its past work. While if the individual self be eternally different from the Supreme Self, it can never be identical with It. If it be urged that the subtle body itself is figuratively referred to as part of the Supreme Self, like the ether enclosed in a jar, a bowl, the pores of the earth, etc., then it would be impossible to maintain that even when the subtle body (Which is the repository of impressions.) has ceased to be (as in the state of profound sleep), impressions persist in a part of the Supreme Self, or that ignorance springs from It as a desert does from the earth, and so on. Nor can we even mentally imagine that impressions move form one thing to another without the help of some object in which they can inhere. Nor would such Sruti texts as, 'Desire, resolution, doubt (etc. are but the mind)' (I. v. 3), 'It is on the heart (mind) that colours rest' (III. ix. 20). 'It thinks, as it were, and shakes as it were' (IV. iii. 7), 'All desires that are in his heart' (IV. iv. 7; Ka. VI. 14), and 'He is then beyond all the woes of his heart' (IV. iii. 22), fit in with such a view. And it is not proper to explain these texts otherwise than literally, for they are meant to show that the individual self is no other than the Supreme Brahman. And all the Upanisada end by giving out this sole meaning. Therefore persons skilled only in fancifully interpreting the Srutis all distort their meaning. Yet, if those interpretations are in consonance with the teaching of the Vedas, they are welcome; we have no grudge against them. Moreoever, the expression, 'Brahman has but two forms,' does not agree with the view that posits three entities. If, however, the gross and subtle forms together with the impressions springing respectively from them constitute two forms, gross and subtle, while Brahman is a third entity possessed of those two forms, and there is no fourth entity in between, then only is the assertion, 'Brahman has but two forms,' congruous. Otherwise we have to imagine that the individual self is a part of Brahman, and has the two forms; or that the Supreme Self, through the medium of the individual self, has them. In that case the use of the dual number, indicating only 'two forms,' would be inconsistent. The plural, denoting 'many forms,' including the impressions, would be more appropriate --- the gross and subtle forms being two, and the impressions being a third entity. If it be maintained that the gross and subtle forms alone are the forms of the Supreme Self, but the impressions belong to the individual self, then the form of expression used, viz that 'the Supreme Self, which undergoes modification through the medium of the individual self, (has the forms),' would be meaningless, since impressions too would equally affect the Supreme Self through the medium of the individual self. But we cannot at all imagine, except in a figurative sense, that a thing undergoes modification through the medium of something else. Nor is the individual self something different from the Supreme Self. To admit this is to contradict one's own premiss. Therefore this sort of interpretation has its origin only in the imagination of those who are ignorant of the meaning of the Vedas, and is unwarranted by the working of the text. Ann unwarranted interpretation of the Vedas cannot be regarded either as a true interpretation or as helping towards it, for the Vedas do not derive their authority from any other source. Therefore the view that three entities are in question is untenable.
The subtle body has been introduced in connection with matters relating to the body in the clause, 'The being that is in the right eye' (II. iii. 5), and in connection with those relating to the gods in the clause, 'The being that is in the sun' (II. iii. 3). The word 'that' (in the expression, 'The form of that being') refers to something that is being discussed, in other words, that which is the essence of the subtle, undefined, but not the individual self.
Objection:- Why should not these forms belong to the individual self, since it too has a place in the discussion, and the word 'that' refers to something that is under discussion? Reply:- No, for the Sruti wants to teach the transcendent nature of the individual self. If the forms, 'Like a cloth dyed with turmeric,' etc. (II. iii. 6), really belong to the individual self, then it would not be described as indefinable in the terms, 'Not this, not this.' Objection:- Suppose we say this is a description of something else, and not of the individual self. Reply:- Not so, for at the end of the fourth chapter (IV. v. 15), referring to the individual self (In its unconditioned aspect as the Witness.) in the words, 'Through what, O Maitreyi, should one know the Knower?' (IV. v. 15), it is concluded:- 'This self is That which has been described as 'Not this, not this.' ' Besides, thus only can the statement, 'I will instruct you (about Brahman),' be relevant. That is to say, if the Sruti wants to teach the transcendent nature of the individual self --- which is free from all differentiations of limiting adjuncts, then only can this assertion be fulfilled. Because, instructed in this way, the student knows himself to be Brahman, thoroughly understands the import of the scriptues, and is afraid of nothing. If, on the other hand, the individual self be one, and what is described as 'Not this, not this' be something else, then the student would understand just the reverse of truth , viz that Brahman is something, and that he is something else. He would not 'know only himself as, 'I am Brahman' ' (I. iv. 10). Therefore the forms given in the passage, 'Now the form of that being,' etc. are only those of the subtle body.
Besides, in order to describe the nature of the Supreme Self, which is the Truth of truth, the latter must be described in its entirely. And impressions being the particular forms of that truth, these forms of the impression are being mentioned. These are the forms of this being, i.e. of the subtle body that is being discussed. What are they? As in life we have a cloth dyed with turmeric, so in the presence of objects of enjoyment the mind gets a similar colouring of impressions, whence a man under such circumstances is said to be attached, as a cloth, for instance, is dyed. Also as sheep's wool is grey, so are some other forms of impressions. Again, as in the world the insect called Indragopa is deep red, so also are some impressions of the mind. The colouring varies sometimes according to the tendencies of the mind itself. As, again, a tongue of fire is bright, so are some people's impressions at times. Like a white lotus too are the impressions of some. As in nature a single flash of lightning illumines everything, so, according to the intensity of the manifestation of knowledge, do the impressions of some people. It is impossible to ascertain the beginning, middle or end, or number, place, time and circumstances of these impressions, for they are innumerable, and infinite are their causes. So it will be said in the fourth chapter, '(This self is) identified with this (what is perceived) and with that (what is inferred),' etc. (IV. iv. 5). Therefore the examples given in the passage, 'Like a cloth dyed with turmeric,' etc. are not meant to indicate the exact number of the varieties of impressions, but merely to suggest their types, meaning that impressions are like these. The form of impression that has been cited at the end, viz 'Like a flash of lightning,' refers to the sudden manifestation of everytthing like lightning, as Hiranyagarbha emanates from the Undifferentiated (The principle representing the unmanifested state of the universe.). He who knows that particular form of impression relating to Hiranyagarbha, attains splendour like a flash of lightning. The particles 'ha' and 'vai' are for emphasis. Just like this, i.e. like that of Hiranyagarbha, becomes the splendour or fame of one who knows it, the form of impression last mentioned, as such, as described above.
Having thus completely described the nature of 'truth', the Sruti, in order to ascertain the nature of what has been called 'the Truth of truth,' viz Brahman, introduces this text:- Now therefore --- since after ascertaining the nature of 'truth,' what remains is the Truth of truth, therefore the nature of that will be next ascertained. Description is a specific statement --- about Brahman. What is this statement? Not this, not this. How through these two terms 'Not this, not this' is it sought to describe the Truth of truth? By the elimination of all differences due to limiting adjuncts, the words refer to something that has no distinguishing mark such as name, or form, or action, or heterogeneity, or species, or qualities. Words denote things through one or other of these. But Brahman has none of these distinguishing marks. Hence It cannot be described as, 'It is such and such,' as we can describe a cow by saying, 'There moves a white cow with horns.' Brahman is described by means of name, form and action superimposed on It, in such terms as, 'Knowledge, Bliss, Brahman' (III. ix. 28), and 'Pure, Intelligence' (II. iv. 12), 'Brahman,' and 'Atman.' When, however, we wish to describe Its true nature, free from all differences due to limiting adjuncts, then it is an utter impossibility. Then there is only one way left, viz to describe It as 'Not this, not this,' by eliminating all possible specifications of It that have been known.
These two negative particles are for conveying all-inclusiveness through repetition so as to eliminate every specification whatsoever that may occur to us. Such being the case, the doubt that Brahman has not been described is removed. If, on the other hand, the two negative particles merely eliminated just the two aspects of Brahman that are being discussed (viz the gross and subtle), then other aspects of It than these two would not be described, and there would still be a doubt as to what exactly Brahman is like. So that description of Brahman would be useless, for it would not satisfy one's desire to know It. And the purpose of the sentence, 'I will instruct you (about Brahman)' (II. i. 15), would remain unfulfilled. But when through the elimination of limiting adjuncts the desire to know about space, time and everything else (that is not Brahman) is removed, one realises one's identity with Brahman, the Truth of truth, which is homogeneous like a lump of salt, and which is Pure Intelligence without interior or exterior; his desire to know is completely satisfied, and his intellect is centred in the Self alone. Therefore the two negative particles in 'Not this, not this' are used in an all-inclusive sense.
Objection:- Well, after buckling with such ado is it fair to described Brahman thus? Reply:- Yes. Why? Because there is not other and more appropriate description (of Brahman) than this 'Not this, not this', therefore this is the only description of Brahman. The particle 'iti,' repeated twice, covers all possible predications that are to be eliminated by the two negative particles, as when we say, 'Every village is beautiful.' It was said, 'Its secret name is:- The Truth of truth' (II. i. 20); it is thus that the Supreme Brahman is the Truth of truth. Therefore the name of Brahman that has been mentioned is appropriate. What is it? The Truth of truth. The vital force is truth, and It is the Truth of that.
Max Müller
6. And what is the appearance of that person? Like a saffron-coloured raiment, like white wool, like cochineal, like the flame of fire, like the white lotus, like sudden lightning. He who knows this, his glory is like unto sudden lightning. Next follows the teaching (of Brahman) by No, no [1]! for there is nothing else higher than this (if one says):- 'It is not so.' Then comes the name 'the True of the True,' the senses being the True, and he (the Brahman) the True of them.
Meaning:- 'Maitreyi, my dear', said Yajnavalkya, 'I am going to renounce this life. Allow me to finish between you and Katyayani'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- The sage Yajnavalkya, addressing his wife, Maitreyi, said, 'Maitreyi, I am going to renounce this householder's life --- I intend to take up the life of renunciation, which is the next higher life. Hence I ask your permission. --- The particle 'are' is a vocative. --- Further I wish to finish between you and my second wife, Katyayani, i.e. put an end to the relationship that existed between you through me, your common husband; by dividing my property between you, I will separate you through wealth and go.'
Max Müller
1. Now when Yâgñavalkya was going to enter upon another state, he said:- 'Maitreyî [1], verily I am going away from this my house (into the forest [2]). Forsooth, let me make a settlement between thee and that Kâtyâyanî (my other wife).'
yathaivopakaraṇavatāṃ jīvitaṃ tathaiva te jīvitagͫ syādamṛtatvasya
tu nā''śā'sti vitteneti .. 2..
Meaning:- Thereupon Maitreyi said, 'Sir, if indeed this whole earth full of wealth be mine, shall I be immortal through that?' 'No', replied Yajnavalkya, 'your life will be just like that of people who have plenty of things, but there is no hope of immortality through wealth.'
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Thus addressed, Maitreyi said, 'Sir, if indeed this whole earth girdled by the ocean and full of wealth be mine, shall I be immortal through that, i.e. through rites such as the Agnihotra, which can be performed with the entire wealth of the earth? The particle 'nu' indicates deliberation. The word 'Katham' (how) indicates disbelief, meaning 'never'; or it may have an interrogative force, in which case it should be construed with the slightly remote words, 'Shall I be immortal (The second meaning has been adapted in the translation.)?' 'No' replied Yajnavalkya. If the word 'how' indicates disbelief, Yajnavalkya's word 'No' is an approval. It it has an interrogative force, his reply means, 'You can never be immortal; as is the life of people of means filled with materials of enjoyment, so will your life be; but there is no hope, even in thought, of immortality through wealth, i.e. rites performed with wealth.'
Max Müller
2. Maitreyî said:- 'My Lord, if this whole earth, full of wealth, belonged to me, tell me, should I be immortal by it [1]?' 'No,' replied Yâgñavalkya; 'like the life of rich people will be thy life. But there is no hope of immortality by wealth.'
Meaning:- Then Maitreyi said, 'What shall I do with that which will not make me immortal? Tell me, sir, of that alone which you know (to be the only means of immortality).'
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Thus addressed, Maitreyi said in reply, 'If this is so, what shall I do with that wealth which will not make me immortal? Tell me, sir, of that alone which you know to be the only means of immortality.'
Max Müller
3. And Maitreyî said:- 'What should I do with that by which I do not become immortal? What my Lord knoweth (of immortality), tell that to me [1].'
स होवाच याज्ञवल्क्यः प्रिया बतारे नः सती प्रियं भाषस एह्यास्स्व
व्याख्यास्यामि ते । व्याचक्षाणस्य तु मे निदिध्यासस्वेति ॥ ४॥
mantra 4[II.iv.4]
sa hovāca yājñavalkyaḥ priyā batāre naḥ satī priyaṃ bhāṣasa ehyāssva
vyākhyāsyāmi te . vyācakṣāṇasya tu me nididhyāsasveti .. 4..
Meaning:- Yajnavalkya said, 'My dear, you have been my beloved (even before), and you say what is after my heart. Come, take your seat, I will explain it to you. As I explain it, meditate (on its meaning).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- When rites performed with wealth were rejected as a means to immortality, Yajnavalkya, seeing that Maitreyi concurred with his views, was pleased and said, 'O Maitreyi, you have been my beloved even before, and now you say what is just after my heart. Therefore come and take your seat, I will explain to you what you desire --- that knowledge of the Self which confers immortality. But as I explain it, meditate, or will to reflect steadfastly,on the meaning of my words.' The particle 'bata' is suggestive of tenderness.
Max Müller
4. Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'Thou who art truly dear to me, thou speakest dear words [1]. Come, sit down, I will explain it to thee, and mark well what I say.'
Meaning:- He said:- 'It is not for the sake of the husband, my dear, that he is loved, but for one's own sake that he is loved. It is not for the sake of the wife, my dear, that she is loved, but for one's own sake that she is loved. It is not for the sake of the sons, my dear, that they are loved, but for one's own sake that they are loved. It is not for the sake of wealth, my dear, that it is loved, but for one's own sake that it is loved. It is not for the sake of the Brahmana, my dear, that he is loved, but for one's own sake that he is loved. It is not for the sake of the Kshatriya, my dear, that he is loved, but for one's own sake that he is loved. It is not for the sake of worlds, my dear, that they are loved, but for one's own sake that they are loved. It is not for the sake of the gods, my dear, that they are loved, but for one's own sake that they are loved. It is not for the sake of beings, my dear, that they are loved, but for one's own sake that they are loved. It is not for the sake of all, my dear, that all is loved, but for one's own sake that it is loved. The Self, my dear Maitreyi, should be realised - should be heard of, reflected on and meditated upon. By the realisation of the Self, my dear, through hearing, reflection and meditation, all this is known.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- With a view to teaching renunciation as a means to immortality, Yajnavalkya creates a distaste for the wife, husband, sons, etc., so that they may be given up. He said, 'It is not for the sake or necessity of the husband that he is loved by the wife, but it is for one's own sake that he is loved by her.' The particle 'vai' (indeed) (Omitted in the translation. So also elsewhere.) recalls something that is well-known, signifying that this is a matter of common knowledge. Similarly, it is not for the sake of the wife, etc. The rest is to be explained as before. Likewise it is not for the sake of the sons, wealth, the Brahmana, the Ksatriya, worlds, the gods, beings, and all. The priority of enumeration is in the order of their closeness to us as sources of joy; for it is all the more desirable to create a distaste for them. The use of the word 'all' is for including everything that has and has not been mentioned. Hence it is a well-known fact that the Self alone is dear, and nothing else. (I. iv. . The present text serves as a detailed commentary on that. Therefore our love for other objects is secondary, since they contribute to the pleasure of the self; and our love for the self alone is primary. Therefore 'the Self, my dear Maitreyi, should be realised, is worthy of realisation, or should be made the object of realisation. It should first be heard of from a teacher and from the scriptures, then reflected on through reasoning, and then steadfastly meditated upon.' Thus only is It realised --- when these means, viz hearing, reflection and meditation, have been gone through. When these three are combined, then only true realisation of the union of Brahman is accomplished, not otherwise --- by hearing alone. The different castes such as the Brahmana or the Ksatriya, the various orders of life, and so on, upon which rites depend, and which consist of actions, and their factos and results, are objects of notions superimposed on the Self by ignorance --- i.e. based on false notions like that of a snake in a rope. In order to destroy these he says, 'By the realisation of the Self, my dear, through hearing, reflection and meditation, all this is known'.
Max Müller
5. And he said:- 'Verily, a husband is not dear, that you may love the husband; but that you may love the Self, therefore a husband is dear. 'Verily, a wife is not dear, that you may love the wife; but that you may love the Self, therefore a wife is dear. 'Verily, sons are not dear, that you may love the sons; but that you may love the Self, therefore sons are dear. 'Verily, wealth is not dear, that you may love wealth; but that you may love the Self, therefore wealth is dear [1]. 'Verily, the Brahman-class is not dear, that you may love the Brahman-class; but that you may love the Self, therefore the Brahman-class is dear. 'Verily, the Kshatra-class is not dear, that you may love the Kshatra-class; but that you may love the Self, therefore the Kshatra-class is dear. 'Verily, the worlds are not dear, that you may love the worlds; but that you may love the Self, therefore the worlds are dear. 'Verily, the Devas are not dear, that you may love the Devas; but that you may love the Self, therefore the Devas are dear [2]. 'Verily, creatures are not dear, that you may love the creatures; but that you may love the Self, therefore are creatures dear. 'Verily, everything is not dear that you may love everything; but that you may love the Self, therefore everything is dear. 'Verily, the Self is to be seen, to be heard, to be perceived, to be marked, O Maitreyî! When we see, hear, perceive, and know the Self [3], then all this is known.
parāduryo'nyatrātmano bhūtāni veda sarvaṃ taṃ parādād yo'nyatrātmanaḥ
sarvaṃ vededaṃ brahmedaṃ kṣatramime lokā ime devā imāni bhūtānīdagͫ
sarvaṃ yadayamātmā .. 6..
Meaning:- The Brahmana ousts (slights) one who knows him as different from the Self. The Kshatriya ousts one who knows him as different from the Self. Worlds oust one who knows them as different from the Self. The gods oust one who knows them as different from the Self. Beings oust one who knows them as different from the Self. All ousts one who knows it as different from the Self. This Brahmana, this Kshatriya, these worlds, these gods, these beings, and this all are this Self.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Objection:- How can the knowledge of one thing lead to that of another? Reply:- The objection is not valid, for there is nothing besides the Self. If there were, it would not be known, but there is no such thing; the Self is everything. Therefore It being known, everything would be known. How is it that the Self is everything? The Sruti answers it:- The Brahmana ousts or rejects the man who knows him to be different from the Self, i.e. who knows that the Brahmana is not the Self. The Brahmana does so out of a feeling that this man considers him to be different from the Self. For the Supreme Self is the self of all. Similarly the Ksatriya, worlds, the gods, beings, and all oust him. This Brahmana and all the rest that have been enumerated are this Self that has been introduced as the object to be realised through hearing etc. Because everything springs from the Self, is dissolved in It, and remains imbued with It during continuance, for it cannot be perceived apart from the Self. Therefore everything is the Self.
Max Müller
6. 'Whosoever looks for the Brahman-class elsewhere than in the Self, was [1] abandoned by the Brahman-class. Whosoever looks for the Kshatra-class elsewhere than in the Self, was abandoned by the Kshatra-class. Whosoever looks for the worlds elsewhere than in the Self, was abandoned by the worlds. Whosoever looks for the Devas elsewhere than in the Self, was abandoned by the Devas [2]. Whosoever looks for creatures elsewhere than in the Self, was abandoned by the creatures. Whosoever looks for anything elsewhere than in the Self, was abandoned by everything. This Brahman-class, this Kshatra-class, these worlds, these Devas [3], these [4] creatures, this everything, all is that Self.
Meaning:- As, when a drum is beaten, one cannot distinguish its various particular notes, but they are included in the general note of the drum or in the general sound produced by different kinds of strokes.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- But how can we know that all this but the Self now? Because of the inherence of Pure Intelligence in everything we conclude that everything is That. An illustration is being given:- We see in life that if a thing cannot be perceived apart from something else, the latter is the essence of that things. As, for instance, when a drum or the like is beaten with a stick etc., one cannot distinguish its various particular notes from the general note of the drum, but they are included in, taken as modifications of, the general note:- We say these are all notes of the drum, having no existence apart from the general note of the drum. Or the particular notes produced by different kinds of strokes are included in the general sound produced by those strokes:- They cannot be perceived as distinct notes, on account of having nor separate existence. Similarly nothing particular is perceived in the waking and dream states apart from Pure Intelligence. Therefore those things should be considered non-existent apart from Pure Intelligence.
Max Müller
7. 'Now as [1] the sounds of a drum, when beaten, cannot be seized externally (by themselves), but the sound is seized, when the drum is seized or the beater of the drum;
स यथा शङ्खस्य ध्मायमानस्य न बाह्याञ्छब्दाञ्छक्नुयाद् ग्रहणाय
शङ्खस्य तु ग्रहणेन शङ्खध्मस्य वा शब्दो गृहीतः ॥ ८॥
mantra 8[II.iv.8]
sa yathā śaṅkhasya dhmāyamānasya na bāhyāñchabdāñchaknuyād grahaṇāya
śaṅkhasya tu grahaṇena śaṅkhadhmasya vā śabdo gṛhītaḥ .. 8..
Meaning:- As, when a conch is blown, one cannot distinguish its various particular notes, but they are included in the general note of the conch or in the general sound produced by different kinds of playing.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Similarly, as, when a conch is blown, connected or filled with sound, one cannot distinguish its various particular notes, etc. --- to be explained as before.
Max Müller
8., And as the sounds of a conch-shell, when blown, cannot be seized externally (by themselves), but the sound is seized, when the shell is seized or the blower of the shell;
स यथा वीणायै वाद्यमानायै न बाह्याञ्छब्दाञ्छक्नुयाद् ग्रहणाय
वीणायै तु ग्रहणेन वीणावादस्य वा शब्दो गृहीतः ॥ ९॥
mantra 9[II.iv.9]
sa yathā vīṇāyai vādyamānāyai na bāhyāñchabdāñchaknuyād grahaṇāya
vīṇāyai tu grahaṇena vīṇāvādasya vā śabdo gṛhītaḥ .. 9..
Meaning:- As, when a Vina is played, one cannot distinguish its various particular notes, but they are included in the general note of the Vina or in the general sound produced by different kinds of playing.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Similarly, as when a Vina is played, etc. The dative case in 'Vinayai' stands for the genitive. The citation of many examples here is for indicating varieties of genus; for there are many distinct kinds of genus, sentient and insentient. It is to show how through a series of intermediate steps they are included in a supreme genus, Pure Intelligence, that so many examples are given. Just as a drum, a conch and a Vina have distinct general and particular notes of their own, which are included in sound in general, so during the continuance of the universe we may know all things to be unified in Brahman, because the varieties of genus and particulars are not different from It.
Max Müller
9. 'And as the sounds of a lute, when played, cannot be seized externally (by themselves), but the sound is seized, when the lute is seized or the player of the lute;
Meaning:- As from a fire kindled with wet faggot diverse kinds of smoke issue, even so, my dear, the Rig-Veda, Yajur-Veda, Sama-Veda, Atharvangirasa, history, mythology, arts, Upanishads, pithy verses, aphorisms, elucidations and explanations are (like) the breath of this infinite Reality. They are like the breath of this (Supreme Self).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Likewise it may be understood that the universe, at the time of its origin as also prior to it, is nothing but Brahman. As before the separation of the sparks, smoke, embers and flames, all these are nothing but fire, and therefore there is but one substance, fire, so it is reasonable to suppose that this universe differentiated into names anf forms is, before its origin, nothing but Pure Intelligence. This is expressed as follows:- As from a fire kindled with wet faggot diverse kinds of smoke issue. The word 'smoke' is suggestive of sparks etc. as well --- meaning smoke, sparks, etc., issue. Like this example, O Maitreyi, all this is like the breath of this infinite Reality, the Supreme Self that is being discussed. 'Breath' here means, like the breath. As a man breathes without the slightest effort, so do all these come out of That. What are those things that are spoken of as issuing from That as Its breath? The Rg-Veda, Yajur-Veda, Sama-Veda, Atharvangirasa, i.e. the four kinds of Mantras. History, such as the dialogue between Urvasi and Pururavas --- 'The nymph Urvasi,' and so on (S. XI. iv. iv. 1); it is this Brahmana that is meant. Mythology, such as, 'This universe was in the beginning unmanifest,' etc. (Tai. II. 7). Arts, which treat of music, dancing, etc. --- 'This is also Veda,' etc. (S. XIII. iv. iii. 10 ' 14). Upanisads, such as, 'It should be meditated upon as dear,' etc. (IV. 1. 3). Pithy verses, the Mantras occurring in the Brahmanas, such as, 'Regarding this there are the following pithy verses' (IV. iii. 11; IV. iv. . Aphorisms, those passages of the Vedas that present the truth in a nutshell, for example, 'The Self alone is to be meditated upon' (I. iv. 7). Elucidations --- of the Mantras. Explanations, eulogistic passages. Or 'elucidations' may be of the 'aphorisms' above. As the passage, 'The Self alone is to be meditated upon,' or the passage, 'He (who worships another god thinking), 'He is one, and I am another,' does not know. He is like an animal (to the gods)' (I. iv. 10), has this concluding portion of the present chapter as its elucidation. And 'explanations' may be of the Mantras. Thus these are the eight divisions of the Brahmanas. So only the Mantras and Brahmanas are meant (And not the popular meanings of those eight terms.). It is the eternally composed and already existent Vedas that are manifested like a man's breath --- without any thought or effort on his part. Hence they are authority as regards their meaning, independently of any other means of knowledge. Therefore those who aspire after well-being must accept the verdict of the Vedas on knowledge or on rites, as it is. The differentiation of forms invariably depends on the manifestation of their names (The one implies the other.). Name and form are the limiting adjuncts of the Supreme Self, or which, they are differentiated, it is impossible to tell whether they are identical with or different from It, as is the case with the foam of water. It is name and form in all their stages (Varying degress of grossness or subtleness.) that constitute relative existence. Hence name has been compared to breatth. By this statement it is implied that form too is like breath. By this statement it is implied that form too is like breath. Or we may explain it differently:- In the passage, 'The Brahman ousts one ' all this is the Slef' (II. iv. 6; IV. v. 7), the entire world of duality has been spoken of as the domain of ignorance. This may lead to a doubt about the authority of the Vedas. In order to remove this doubt it is said that since the Vedas issue without any effort like a man's breath, they are an authority; they are not like other books.
Max Müller
10. 'As clouds of smoke proceed by themselves out of a lighted fire kindled with damp fuel, thus, verily, O Maitreyî, has been breathed forth from this great Being what we have as Rig-veda, Yagur-veda, Sama-veda, Atharvâṅgirasas, Itihâsa (legends), Purâna (cosmogonies), Vidyâ (knowledge), the Upanishads, Slokas (verses), Sûtras (prose rules), Anuvyâkhyânas (glosses), Vyâkhyânas (commentaries) [1]. From him alone all these were breathed forth.
Meaning:- As the ocean is the one goal of all sorts of water, as the skin is the one goal of all kinds of touch, as the nostrils are the one goal of all odours, as the tongue is the one goal of all savours, as the eye is the one goal of all colours , as the ear is the one goal of all sounds, as the Manas is the one goal of all deliberations, as the intellect is the one goal of all kinds of knowledge, as the hands are the one goal of all sort of work, as the organ of generation is the one goal of all kinds of enjoyment, as the anus is the one goal of all excretions, as the feet are the one goal of all kinds of walking, as the organ of speech is the one goal of all Vedas.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Moreover, it is not only at the time of its origin and continuance that the universe, on account of its non-existence apart from Pure Intelligence, is Brahman, but it is so at the time of dissolution also. Just as bubbles, foam, etc. are non-existent apart from water, so name, form and action, which are the effects of Pure Intelligence and dissolve in It are non-existent apart from It. Therefore Brahman is to be known as Pure Intelligence, one and homogeneous. So the text runs as follows --- the examples are illustrative of dissolution --- As the ocean is the one goal, meeting place, the place of dissolution or unification, of all sorts of water such as that or rivers, tanks and lakes. Likewise as the skin is the one goal of all kinds of touch such as soft or hard, rough or smooth, which are identical in nature with air (As representing the vital force.). By the word 'skin,' touch in general that is perceived by the skin, is meant; in it different kinds of touch are merged, like different kinds of water in the ocean, and become nonentities without it, for they were merely its modifications. Similarly, that touch in general, denoted by the word 'skin,' is merged in the deliberation of the Manas, that is to say, in a general consideration by it, just as different kinds of touch are included in touch in general perceived by the skin; without this consideration by the Manas it becomes a nenentity. The consideration by the Manas also is merged in a general cognition by the intellect, and becomes non-existent without it. Becoming mere consciousness, it is merged in Pure Intelligence, the Supreme Brahman, like different kinds of water in the ocean. When, through these successive steps, sound and the rest, together with their receiving organs, are merged in Pure Intelligence, there are no more limiting adjunts, and only Brahman, which is Pure Intelligence, comparable to a lump of salt, homogeneous, infinite, boundless and without a break, remains. Therefore the Self alone must be regarded as one without a second.
Similarly, the nostrils, i.e. odour in general, (are the one goal) of all odours, which are modes of earth. Likewise, the tongue, or taste in general perceived by the tongue, of all savours, which are modes of water. So also the eye, or colour in general perceived by the eye, of all colours, which are modes of light. So also (the ear, or) sound in general perceived by the ear, of all sounds, as before. Similarly, the generalities of sound and the rest are merged in deliberation, i.e. a general consideration of them by the Manas. This consideration by the Manas again is merged in mere consciousness, i.e. a general cognition by the intellect. Becoming mere consciousness, it is merged in the Supreme Brahman, which is Pure Intelligence. Similarly, the objects of the motor organs such as different kinds of speaking, taking, walking, excretion and enjoyment, are merged in their general functions, like different kinds of water in the ocean, and can no more be distinguished. These general functions are again nothing but the vital force, which is identical with intelligence. The Kausitaki Upanisad reads, 'That which is the vital force is intelligence, and that which is intelligence is the vital force' (III. 3).
Objection:- In everyone of those instances the mergence of the objects only has been spoken of, but not that of the organs. What is the motive for this? Reply:- True, but the Sruti considers the organ to be of the same category as the objects, not of a different category. The organs are but modes of the objects in order to perceive them, as a lamp, which is but a mode of colour, is an instrument for revealing all colours. Similarly, the organs are but modes of all particular objects in order to perceive them, as is the case with a lamp. Hence no special care is to be taken to indicate the dissolution of the organs; for these being the same as objects in general, their dissolution is implied by that of the objects. It has been stated as a proposition that 'This all are this Self (II. iv. 6). The reason given for this is that the universe is of the same nature as the Self, springs from the Self, and is merged in It. Since there is nothing but Intelligence at the time of the origin, continuance and dissolution of the universe, therefore what has been stated as, 'Intelligence is Brahman' (Ai. V. 3) and 'All this is but the Self' (Ch. VII. Xxv. 2), is established through reasoning. The Pauranikas hold that this dissolution is natural (The effects dissolving into their causes.). While that which is consciously effected by the knowers of Brahman through their knowledge of It is called extreme dissolution, which happens through the cessation of ignorance. What follows deals specially with that.
Max Müller
11. 'As all waters find their centre in the sea, all touches in the skin, all tastes in the tongue, all smells in the nose, all colours in the eye, all sounds in the ear, all percepts in the mind, all knowledge in the heart, all actions in the hands, all movements in the feet, and all the Vedas in speech,--
tānyevānuvinaśyati na pretya sañjñā'stītyare bravīmīti hovāca
yājñavalkyaḥ .. 12..
Meaning:- As a lump of salt dropped into water dissolves with (its component) water, and no one is able to pick it up, but from wheresoever one takes it, it tastes salt, even so, my dear, this great, endless, infinite Reality is but Pure Intelligence. (The Self) comes out (as a separate entity) from these elements, and (this separateness) is destroyed with them. After attaining (this oneness) it has no more consciousness. This is what I say, my dear. So said Yajnavalkya.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- An illustration on the point is being given:- As a lump of salt, etc. The derivative meaning of the word 'Sindhu' is water, because it 'flows.' That which is a modification or product of water is 'Saindhava,' or salt. 'Khilya' is the same as 'Khila' (a lump). A lump of salt dropped into water, its cause, dissolves with the dissolution of (its component) water. The solidification of a lump through its connection with particles of earth and heat goes when the lump comes in contact with water, its cause. This is the dissolution of (the component) water, and along with it the lump of salt is said to be dissolved. No one, not even an expert is able to pick it up as before. The particle 'iva' is expletive; the meaning is, none can at all pick it up. Why? From wheresoever, from whichsoever part, one takes the water and tastes it, it is salt. But there is no longer any lump.
Like this illustration, O Maitreyi, is this great Reality called the Supreme Self, from which you have been cut off by ignorance as a separte entity, through your connection with the limiting adjuncts of the body and organs, and have become mortal, subject to birth and death, hunger and thirst, and other such relative attributes, and identified with name, form and action, and think you are born of such and such a family. That separate existence of yours, which has sprung from the delusion engendered by contact with the limiting adjuncts of the body and organs, enters its cause, the great Reality, the Supreme Self, which stands for the ocean, which is undecaying, immortal, beyond fear, pure and homogeneous like a lump of salt, and which Pure Intelligence, infinite, boundless, without a break and devoid of differences caused by the delusion brought on by ignorance. When that separate existence has entered and been merged in its cause, in other words, when the differences created by ignorance are gone, the universe becomes one without a second, 'the great Reality.' Great, because It is greater than everything else and is the cause of the ether etc.; Reality (Bhuta) --- always a fact, for It never deviates from Its nature. The verbal suffix 'kta' here denotes past, present and future. Or the word 'Bhuta' may denote truth. The expression then would mean:- It is great and true. There may be things in the relative world as big as the Himalayas, for instance, created by a dream or illusion, but they are not true; hence the text adds the qualifying word 'true.' It is endless. Sometimes this may be in a relative sense; hence the text qualifies it by the term infinite. Pure Intelligence:- Lit. a solid mass of intelligence. The word 'Ghana' (a solid mass) excludes everything belonging to a different species, as 'a solid mass of gold or iron.' The particle 'eva' (only) is intensive. The idea is that there is no foreign element in It.
Question:- If It is one without a second, really pure and untouched by the miseries of the relative world, whence is this separate existence of the individual self, in which it is born and dies, is happy or miserable, possessed of the ideas of 'I and mine,' and so on, and which is troubled by many arelative attribute? Reply:- I will explain it. There are the elements transformed into the body, organs and sense-objects, consisting of name and form. They are like the foam and bubbles on the limpid water of the Supreme Self. The mergence of these elements down to sense-objects in Brahman, which is Pure Intelligence, through a discriminating knowledge of the Truth has been spoken of --- like the emptying of rivers into the ocean. From these elements called 'truth,' i.e. with their aid, and the self comes out like a lump of salt. As from water reflections of the sun, moon, etc. arise, or from the proximity of such limiting adjuncts as a red cotton-pad a transparent crystal turns red and so forth, so from the limiting adjuncts of the elements, transformed into the body and organs, the self comes out clearly as an individualised entity. These elements, transformed into the body, organs and sense-objects, form which the self comes out as an individual, and which are the cause of its individualisation, are merged, like rivers in the ocean, by the realisation of Brahman through the instruction of the scriptures and the teacher, and are destroyed. And when they are destroyed like the foam and bubbles of water, this individualised existence too is destroyed with them. As the reflections of the sun, moon, etc. and the colour of the crystal vanish when their causes, the water, the red cotton-pad, and so on, are removed, and only the (sun), moon etc., remain as they are, so the endless, infinite and limpid Pure Intelligence alone remains. After attaining (this oneness) the self, freed from the body and organs, has no more particular consciousness. This is what I say, my dear Maitreyi. No more is there such particular consciousness as, 'I so and so am the son of so and so; this is my land and wealth; I am happy or miserable.' For it is due to ignorance, and since ignorance is absolutely destroyed by the realisation of Brahman, how can the knower of Brahman, who is established in his nature as Pure Intelligence, possibly have any such particular consciousness? Eve when a man is in the body (For instance, in the state of deep sleep.), particular consciousness is (sometimes) impossible; so how can it ever exist in a man who has been absolutely freed from the body and organs? So said Yajnavalkya --- propounded this philosophy of the highest truth to his wife, Maitreyi.
Max Müller
12. 'As a lump of salt [1], when thrown into water, becomes dissolved into water, and could not be taken out again, but wherever we taste (the water) it is salt,--thus verily, O Maitreyî, does this great Being, endless, unlimited, consisting of nothing but knowledge [2], rise from out these elements, and vanish again in them. When he has departed, there is no more knowledge (name), I say, O Maitreyî.' Thus spoke Yâgñavalkya.
सा होवाच मैत्रेय्यत्रैव मा भगवानमूमुहद् न प्रेत्य सञ्ज्ञाऽस्तीति ।
स होवाच न वा अरेऽहं मोहं ब्रवीम्यलं वा अर इदं विज्ञानाय ॥ १३॥
mantra 13[II.iv.13]
sā hovāca maitreyyatraiva mā bhagavānamūmuhad na pretya sañjñā'stīti .
sa hovāca na vā are'haṃ mohaṃ bravīmyalaṃ vā ara idaṃ vijñānāya .. 13..
Meaning:- Maitreyi said, 'Just here you have thrown me into confusion, sir - by saying that after attaining (oneness) the self has no more consciousness'. Yajnavalkya said, 'Certainly, I am not saying anything confusing, my dear; this is quite sufficient for knowledge, O Maitreyi'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Thus enlightened, Maitreyi said, 'By attributing contradictory qualities just here, to this identical entity, Brahman, you have thrown me into confusion, revered sir.' So she says, 'Just here,' etc. How he attributed contradictory qualities is being explained:- 'Having first stated that the self is but Pure Intelligence, you now say that after attaining (oneness) it has no more consciousness. How can it be only Pure Intelligence, and yet after attaining oneness have no more consciousness? The same fire cannot both be hot and cold. So I am confused on this point.' Yajnavalkya said, 'O Maitreyi, certainly I am not saying anything confusing, i.e. not using confusing language.' Maitreyi:- Why did not mention contradictory qualities --- Pure Intelligence and, again, absence of consciousness? Yajnavalkya:- I did not attribute them to the same entity. It is you who through mistake have taken one and the same entity to be possessed of contradictory attributes. I did not say this. What I said was this:- When that individual existence of the self which is superimposed by ignorance and is connected with the body and organ is destroyed by knowledge, the particular consciousness connected with the body etc., consistinng of a false notion, is destroyed on the destruction of the limiting adjuncts, the body and organs, for they are deprived of their cause, just as the reflections of the moon etc., and their effects, the light and so forth, vanish when the water and the like, which form their support, are gone. But just as the sun, moon, etc., which are the realities behind the reflections, remain as they are, so that Pure Intelligence which is the transcendent Brahman remains unchanged. So It has been referred to as 'Pure Intelligence.' It is the Self of the whole universe, and does not really pass out with the destruction of the elements. But the individual existence, which is due to ignorance, is destroyed. 'Modifications are but names, a mere effort of speech,' says another Sruti (Ch. VI. i. 4 ' 6 and iv. 1 ' 4). But this real. 'This self, my dear, is indestructible' (IV. v. 14). Therefore this 'great, endless, infinite Reality' ---- already explained (par. 12) --- is quite sufficient for knowledge, O Maitreyi. Later it will be said, 'For the knower's function of knowing can never be lost; because it is immortal' (IV. iii. 30).
Max Müller
13. Then Maitreyî said:- 'Here thou hast bewildered me, Sir, when thou sayest that having departed, there is no more knowledge [1].' But Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'O Maitreyî, I say nothing that is bewildering. This is enough, O beloved, for wisdom [2].
Meaning:- Because when there is duality, as it were, then one smells something, one sees something, one hears something, one speaks something, one thinks something, one knows something. (But) when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the self, then what should one smell and through what, what should one see and through what, what should one hear and through what, what should one speak and through what, what should one think and through what, what should one know and through what? Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known - through what, O Maitreyi, should one know the Knower?
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Why then is it said that after attaining oneness the self has no more consciousness? Listen. Because when, i.e. in the presence of the particular or individual aspect of the Self due to the limiting adjuncts, the body and organs conjured up by ignorance, there is duality, as it were, in Brahman, which really is one without a second, i.e. there appears to be something different from the Self.
Objection:- Since duality is put forward as an object for comparison, is it not taken to be real? Reply:- No, for another Sruti says, 'Modifications are but names, a mere effort of speech' (Ch. VI. i. 4 ' 6 and iv. 1 ' 4), also 'One only without a second' (Ch. VI. ii. 1), and 'All this is but the Self' (Ch. VII. xxv. 2). Then, just because there is duality as it were, therefore, one, he who smells, viz the unreal individual aspect of the Supreme Self, comparable to the reflection of the moon etc. in water, smells something that can be smell, through something else, viz the nose. 'One' and 'something' refer to two typical factors of an action, the agent and object, and 'smells' signifies the action and its result. As, for instance, in the word 'cuts.' This one word signifies the repeated strokes dealt and the separation of the object cut into two; for an action ends in a result, and the result cannot be perceived apart from the action. Similarly he who smells a thing that can be smelt does it through the nose. The rest is to be explained as above. One knows something. This is the state of ignorance. But when ignorance has been destroyed by the knowledge of Brahman, there is nothing but the Self. When to the knower of Brahman everything, such as name and form, has been merged in the Self and has thus become the Self, then what object to be smelt should one smell, who should smell, and through what instrument? Similarly what should one see and hear? Everywhere an action depends on certain factors; hence when these are absent, the action cannot take place; and in the absence of an action there can be no result. Therefore so long as there is ignorance, the operation of actions and their factors and results can take place, but not in the case of a knower of Brahman. For to him everything is the Self, and there are no factors or results of actions apart from That. Nor can the universe, being an unreality, be the Self of anybody. Therefore it is ignorance that conjures up the idea of the non-Self; strictly speaking, there is nothing but the Self. Therefore when one truly realises the unity of the Self, there cannot be any consciousness of actions and their factors and results. Hence, because of contradiction, there is an utter absence of actions and their means for the knower of Brahman. The worlds 'what' and 'through what' are meant as a fling, and suggest the sheer impossibility of the other factors of an action also; for there cannot possibly be any such factors as the instrument. The idea is that no one by any means can smell anything in any manner. Even in the state of ignorance, when one sees something, through what instrument should one know That owing to which all this is known? For that instrument of knowledge itself falls under the category of objects. The knower may desire to know, not about itself, but about objects. As fire does not burn itself, so the self does not know itself, and the knower can have no knowledge of a thing that is not its object. Therefore through what instrument should one know the knower owing to which this universe is known, and who else should know it? And when to the knower of Brahman who has discriminated the Real from the unreal there remains only the subject, absolute and one without a second, through what instrument, O Maitreyi, should one know that Knower?
Max Müller
14. 'For when there is as it were duality, then one sees the other, one smells the other, one hears the other [1], one salutes the other [2], one perceives the other [3], one knows the other; but when the Self only is all this, how should he smell another [4], how should he see [5] another [6], how should he hear [7] another, how should he salute [8] another, how should he perceive another [9], how should he know another? How should he know Him by whom he knows all this? How, O beloved, should he know (himself), the Knower [10]?'
amṛtamayaspuruṣasayameva sa yo'yamātmedamamṛtamidaṃ brahmedagͫ
sarvam .. 1..
Meaning:- This earth is (like) honey to all beings, and all beings are (like) honey to this earth. (The same with) the shining immortal being who is in this earth, and the shining, immortal, corporeal being in the body. (These four) are but this Self. This (Self-knowledge) is (the means of) immortality; this (underlying unity) is Brahman; this (knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of becoming) all.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- This well-known earth is the honey or effect --- being like honey --- of all beings from Hiranyagarbha down to a clump of grass. Just as a beehive is made by a great many bees, so is this earth made by all beings. Likewise, all beings are the honey or effect of this earth. Also, the shining, i.e. possessed of the light of intelligence, and immortal being who is in this earth, and the shining, immortal --- as above --- corporeal being in the body, i.e. the self as identified with the subtle body; are like honey --- being helpful --- to all beings, and all beings are like honey to them. This we gather from the particle 'ca' (and) in the text. Thus these four are the composite effect of all beings, and all beings are the effect of these four. Hence the universe has originated from the same cause. That one cause from which it has sprung is alone real --- it is Brahman; everything else is an effect, a modification, a mere name, an effort of speech merely. This is the gist of this whole section dealing with the series of things mutually helpful. (The above fourfold division) is but this Self that has been premised in the passage, 'This all is the Self' (II. iv. 6). This Self-knowledge is the means of immortality that has been explained to Maitreyi. This (underlying unity) is the Brahman which has been introduced at the beginning of this chapter in the passages, 'I will speak to you about Brahman' (II. i. 1) and 'I will teach you (about Brahman)' (II. i. 15), and the knowledge of which is called the knowledge of Brahman. This knowledge of Brahman is that by means of which one becomes all (the universe).
Max Müller
1. This earth is the honey [1] (madhu, the effect) of all beings, and all beings are the honey (madhu, the effect) of this earth. Likewise this bright, immortal person in this earth, and that bright immortal person incorporated in the body (both are madhu). He indeed is the same as that Self, that Immortal, that Brahman, that All.
raitasastejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣo'yameva sa yo'yamātmedamamṛtaṃ
idaṃ brahmedagͫ sarvam .. 2..
Meaning:- This water is (like) honey to all beings, and all beings are (like) honey to this water. (The same with) the shining immortal being who is in this water, and the shining, immortal being identified with the seed in the body. (These four) are but this Self. This (Self-knowledge) is (the means of) immortality; this (underlying unity) is Brahman; this (knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of becoming) all.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Likewise water. In the body it exists specially in the seed.
Max Müller
2. This water is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this water. Likewise this bright, immortal person in this water, and that bright, immortal person, existing as seed in the body (both are madhu). He indeed is the same as that Self, that Immortal, that Brahman, that All.
vāṅmayastejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣo'yameva sa yo'yamātmedamamṛtaṃ
idaṃ brahmedagͫ sarvam .. 3..
Meaning:- This fire is (like) honey to all beings, and all beings are (like) honey to this fire. (The same with) the shining immortal being who is in this fire, and the shining, immortal being identified with the organ of speech in the body. (These four) are but this Self. This (Self-knowledge) is (the means of) immortality; this (underlying unity) is Brahman; this (knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of becoming) all.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Similarly fire. It exists specially in the organ of speech (Cf. 'Fire entered the mouth as the organ of speech' (Ai. I. ii. 4).
Max Müller
3. This fire is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this fire. Likewise this bright, immortal person in this fire, and that bright, immortal person, existing as speech in the body (both are madhu). He indeed is the same as that Self, that Immortal, that Brahman, that All.
prāṇastejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣo'yameva sa yo'yamātmedamamṛtam.
idaṃ brahmedagͫ sarvam .. 4..
Meaning:- This air is (like) honey to all beings, and all beings are (like) honey to this air. (The same with) the shining immortal being who is in this air, and the shining, immortal being who is the vital force in the body. (These four) are but this Self. This (Self-knowledge) is (the means of) immortality; this (underlying unity) is Brahman; this (knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of becoming) all.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Likewise air. It is the vital force in the body. The elements are called honey, because they help by furnishing materials for the body. While the beings, shining and so forth, residing in them are called honey, because they help by serving as the organs. As has been said, 'The earth is the body of that organ of speech, and this fire is its luminous organ' (I. v. 11).
Max Müller
4. This air is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this air. Likewise this bright, immortal person in this air, and that bright, immortal person existing as breath in the body (both are madhu). He indeed is the same as that Self, that Immortal, that Brahman, that All.
sa yo'yamātmedamamṛtamidaṃ brahmedagͫ sarvam .. 5..
Meaning:- This sun is (like) honey to all beings, and all beings are (like) honey to this sun. (The same with) the shining immortal being who is in this sun, and the shining, immortal being identified with the eye in the body. (These four) are but this Self. This (Self-knowledge) is (the means of) immortality; this (underlying unity) is Brahman; this (knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of becoming) all.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- So also the sun is like honey. In the body, the being identified with the eye.
Max Müller
5. This sun is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this sun. Likewise this bright, immortal person in this sun, and that bright, immortal person existing as the eye in the body (both are madhu). He indeed is the same as that Self, that Immortal, that Brahman, that All.
śrautraḥ prātiśrutkastejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣo'yameva sa
yo'yamātmedamamṛtamidaṃ brahmedagͫ sarvam .. 6..
Meaning:- These quarters is (like) honey to all beings, and all beings are (like) honey to these quarters. (The same with) the shining immortal being who is these quarters, and the shining, immortal being identified with the ear and with the time of hearing in the body. (These four) are but this Self. This (Self-knowledge) is (the means of) immortality; this (underlying unity) is Brahman; this (knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of becoming) all.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Likewise, the quarters are like honey. Although the ear is the counterpart of the quarters in the body, yet the being identified with the time of hearing is mentioned, because he is specially manifest at the time of hearing sounds.
Max Müller
6. This space (disah, the quarters) is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this space. Likewise this bright, immortal person in this space, and that bright, immortal person existing as the ear in the body (both are madhu). He indeed is the same as that Self, that Immortal, that Brahman, that All.
yaścāyamadhyātmaṃ mānasastejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣo'yameva sa
yo'yamātmedamamṛtamidaṃ brahmedagͫ sarvam .. 7..
Meaning:- This moon is (like) honey to all beings, and all beings are (like) honey to this moon. (The same with) the shining immortal being who is in this moon, and the shining, immortal being identified with the mind in the body. (These four) are but this Self. This (Self-knowledge) is (the means of) immortality; this (underlying unity) is Brahman; this (knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of becoming) all.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Similarly the moon. In the body, the being identified with the mind.
Max Müller
7. This moon is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this moon. Likewise this bright, immortal person in this moon, and that bright, immortal person existing as mind in the body (both are madhu). He indeed is the same as that Self, that Immortal, that Brahman, that All.
taijasastejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣo'yameva sa yo'yamātmedamamṛtaṃ
idaṃ brahmedagͫ sarvam .. 8..
Meaning:- This lightning is (like) honey to all beings, and all beings are (like) honey to this lightning. (The same with) the shining immortal being who is in this lightning, and the shining, immortal being identified with light in the body. (These four) are but this Self. This (Self-knowledge) is (the means of) immortality; this (underlying unity) is Brahman; this (knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of becoming) all.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- So it is with lightning. In the body, the being identified with the light that is in the organ of touch.
Max Müller
8. This lightning is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this lightning. Likewise this bright, immortal person in this lightning, and that bright, immortal person existing as light in the body (both are madhu). He indeed is the same as that Self, that Immortal, that Brahman, that All.
'yameva sa yo'yamātmedamamṛtamidaṃ brahmedagͫ sarvam .. 9..
Meaning:- This cloud is (like) honey to all beings, and all beings are (like) honey to this cloud. (The same with) the shining immortal being who is in this cloud, and the shining, immortal being identified with sound and voice in the body. (These four) are but this Self. This (Self-knowledge) is (the means of) immortality; this (underlying unity) is Brahman; this (knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of becoming) all.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Likewise the cloud. Although the being identified with sound is the one represented in the body, yet as he is specially manifest in voice, he is here mentioned as such.
Max Müller
9. This thunder [1] is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this thunder. Likewise this bright, immortal person in this thunder, and that bright, immortal person existing as sound and voice in the body (both are madhu). He indeed is the same as that Self, that Immortal, that Brahman, that All.
'yameva sa yo'yamātmedamamṛtamidaṃ brahmedagͫ sarvam .. 10..
Meaning:- This ether is (like) honey to all beings, and all beings are (like) honey to this ether. (The same with) the shining immortal being who is in this ether, and the shining, immortal being identified with the ether in the heart, in the body. (These four) are but this Self. This (Self-knowledge) is (the means of) immortality; this (underlying unity) is Brahman; this (knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of becoming) all.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Similarly the ether. In the body, the ether in the heart. It has been stated that the elements beginning with earth and ending with the ether as also the gods, identified respectively with the body and the organs, are like honey to each individual because of their helpfulness. What connects them with these individuals so that they are helpful like honey, is now being described:-
Max Müller
10. This ether is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this ether. Likewise this bright, immortal person in this ether, and that bright, immortal person existing as heart-ether in the body (both are madhu). He indeed is the same as that Self, that Immortal, that Brahman, that All.
dhārmastejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣo'yameva sa yo'yamātmedamamṛtaṃ
idaṃ brahmedagͫ sarvam .. 11..
Meaning:- This righteousness (Dharma) is (like) honey to all beings, and all beings are (like) honey to this righteousness. (The same with) the shining immortal being who is in this righteousness, and the shining, immortal being identified with righteousness in the body. (These four) are but this Self. This (Self-knowledge) is (the means of) immortality; this (underlying unity) is Brahman; this (knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of becoming) all.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- This righteousness, etc. Although righteousness is not directly perceived, it is here described by the word 'this' as though it were, because the effects initiated by it (earth etc.) are directly perceived. Righteousness has been explained (I. iv. 14) as consisting of the Srutis and Smrtis, as the power which controls even the Ksatriyas etc., which causes the variety of the universe through the transformation of the elements, and which is practised by people. This last is another reason why it has been mentioned here as something directly perceived --- as 'this righteousness.' There truth and righteousness, being respectively conformity with the scriptures and approved conduct, have been spoken of as one. Here, however, in spite of their identity they are mentioned as separte, because they produce their effects in two distinct forms --- visible and invisible. Righteousness that is invisibile, called Apurva (Lit. new, According to the Mimamsakas every action, after it is over, remains in a subtle form, which has the peculair, indestructible power of materialising at a subsequent period as the tangible result of that action.), produces its effects invisibly in a general and a particular form. In its general form it directs the elements such as earth, and in its particular form it directs the aggregate of body and organs in matters relating to the body. Of these, the shining being who is in this righteousness that directs the elements such as earth, and, in the body, (the being identified with righteousness) that fashions the aggregate of body and organs (are also like honey to all beings and vice versa).
Max Müller
11. This law (dharmah) is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this law. Likewise this bright, immortal person in this law, and that bright, immortal person existing as law in the body (both are madhu). He indeed is the same as that Self, that Immortal, that Brahman, that All.
yaścāyamadhyātmagͫ sātyastejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣo'yameva sa
yo'yamātmedamamṛtamidaṃ brahmedagͫ sarvam .. 12..
Meaning:- This truth is (like) honey to all beings, and all beings are (like) honey to this truth. (The same with) the shining immortal being who is in this truth, and the shining, immortal being identified with truth in the body. (These four) are but this Self. This (Self-knowledge) is (the means of) immortality; this (underlying unity) is Brahman; this (knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of becoming) all.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Likewise that righteousness, in its visible form as good conduct that is practised, comes to be known as truth. It also is twofold --- general and particular. The general form is inherent in the elements, and the particular form in the body and organs. Of these, (the being who is) in this truth that is inherent in the elements and consists of present action, and, in the body, (the being identified with the truth) that is inherent in the body and organs (are like honey to all beings and vice versa). 'The wind blows through truth,' says another Sruti (Mn. XXII. 1).
Max Müller
12. This true [1] (satyam) is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this true. Likewise this bright, immortal person in what is true, and that bright, immortal person existing as the true in the body (both are madhu). He indeed is the same as that Self, that Immortal, that Brahman, that All.
yaścāyamadhyātmaṃ mānuṣastejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣo'yameva sa
yo'yamātmedamamṛtamidaṃ brahmedagͫ sarvam .. 13..
Meaning:- This human species is (like) honey to all beings, and all beings are (like) honey to this human species. (The same with) the shining immortal being who is in this human species, and the shining, immortal being identified with the human species in the body. (These four) are but this Self. This (Self-knowledge) is (the means of) immortality; this (underlying unity) is Brahman; this (knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of becoming) all.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- This particular aggregate of body and organs is directed by righteousness and truth. The human and other species are the particular types to which it belongs. We observe in life that all beings are helpful to one another only by belonging to the human or other species. Therefore these species, human and the rest, are like honey to all beings. These too may be indicated in two ways --- externally as well as internally (From the standpoint of the person describing them.).
Max Müller
13. This mankind is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this mankind. Likewise this bright, immortal person in mankind, and that bright, immortal person existing as man in the body (both are madhu). He indeed is the same as that Self, that Immortal, that Brahman, that All.
tejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣo'yameva sa yo'yamātmedamamṛtamidaṃ
brahmedagͫ sarvam .. 14..
Meaning:- This (cosmic) body is (like) honey to all beings, and all beings are (like) honey to this (cosmic) body. (The same with) the shining immortal being who is in this (cosmic) body, and the shining, immortal being who is this (individual) self. (These four) are but this Self. This (Self-knowledge) is (the means of) immortality; this (underlying unity) is Brahman; this (knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of becoming) all.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- The aggregate of bodies and organs which is connected with the human and other species, designated here as this body (i.e. the cosmic body), is like honey to all beings.
Objection:- Has this not been indicated by the term 'corporeal being' in the passage dealing with earth (II. v. 1)? Reply:- No, for there only a part, viz that which is a modification of earth, was meant. But here the cosmic body, the aggregate of bodies and organs devoid of all distinctions such as those pertaining to the body and the elements, and consisting of all the elements and gods, is meant by the expression 'this body.' The shining, immortal being who is in this (cosmic) body refers to the cosmic mind which is the essence of the subtle (II. iii. 3). Only a part of it was mentioned as being associated with earth etc. But no manifestation with reference to the body is mentioned here, because the cosmic mind has no such limitation. The term this self refers to the only remaining entity, the individual self, whose purpose this aggregate of gross and subtle bodies subserves.
Max Müller
14. This Self is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this Self Likewise this bright, immortal person in this Self, and that bright, immortal person, the Self (both are madhu). He indeed is the same as that Self, that Immortal, that Brahman, that All.
Meaning:- This Self, already mentioned, is the ruler of all beings, and the king of all beings. Just as all the spokes are fixed in the nave and the felloe of a chariot-wheel, so are all beings, all gods, all worlds, all organs and all these (individual) selves fixed in this Self.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- This Self, already mentioned, refers to the Self (That is, the individual self as merged in the Supreme Self.) in which the remaining individual self of the last paragraph was stated to be merged (II. iv. 12). When the latter, which is possessed of the limiting adjunct of the body and organs created by ignorance, has been merged through the knowledge of Brahman in the true Self (or Brahman), it --- such a self --- becomes devoid of interior or exterior, entire, Pure Intelligence, the Self of all beings, and an object of universal homage --- the absolute ruler of all beings, not like a prince or a minister, but the king of all beings. The expression 'ruler of all' qualifies the idea of kingship. One may be a king by just living like a king, but he may not be the ruler of all. Hence the text adds the qualifying epithet 'ruler of all.' Thus the sage, the knower of Brahman, who is the Self of all beings, becomes free. The question, 'Men think, 'Through the knowledge of Brahman we shall become all.' Well, what did that Brahman know by which It became all?' (I. iv. 9) --- is thus answered. That is, by hearing of one's own self as the Self of all from the teacher and the Srutis, by reflecting on It through reasoning, and by realising It at first hand, as explained in this and the previous section (one becomes all). Even before realisation one has always been Brahman, but through ignorance one considered oneslef different from It; one has always been all, but through ignorance one considered oneself otherwise. Therefore, banishing this ignorance through the knowledge of Brahman, the knower of Brahman, having all the while been Brahman, became Brahman, and having throughout been all, became all. The import of the scripture that was briefly indicated (In. I. iv. 10 and II. i. 1.) has been completely dealt with. Now illustrations are being given to show that in this knower of Brahman who is the self of all and has realised himself as such, the whole universe is fixed:- Just as all the spokes are fixed in the nave and the felloe of a chariot-wheel, so are all beings from Hiranyagarbha down to a clump of grass, all gods, such as Fire, all worlds, such as this earth, all organs, such as that of speech, and all these selves, which penetrate every body like a reflection of the moon in water and are conjured up by ignorance --- in short, the whole universe, fixed in this Self, i.e. in the knower of Brahman who has realised his identity with the Supreme Self. It has been stated (I. iv. 10) that Vamadeva, who was a knower of Brahman, realised that he had been Manu and the sun; this identification with all is thus explained:- This man of realisation, this knower of Brahman, identifies himself with all as his limiting adjunct, is the self of all, and becomes all. Again he is without any limiting adjuncts, without name, devoid of interior or exterior, entire, Pure Intelligence, birthless, undecaying, immortal, fearless, immovable, to be described as 'Not this, not this,' neither gross nor subtle, and so on. The logicians and certain self-styled scholars versed in the Srutis (Mimamsakas), not knowing this import of them, think that they are contradictory, and fall into an abyss of confusion by attempting fanciful interpretations. This import of which we speak is borne out by the following Mantras of the scriptures:- 'One and unmoved, but swifter than the mind' (Is. 4), and 'It moves, and does not move' (Is. 5). Similarly in the Taittiriya Aranyaka, 'Than which there is nothing higher or lower' (Sv. III. 9; Mn. X. 4) and 'He goes on singing this hymn:- I am the food, I am the food, I am the food,' etc. (Tai. III. x. 5). So in the Chandogya Upanisad, 'Laughing (or eating), playing and enjoying' (VIII. xii. 3), 'If he desires to attain the world of the manes, (by his mere wish they appear)' (Ch. VIII. ii. 1), 'Possessed of all odours and all tastes' (Ch. III. xiv. 2), and so on. In the Mundaka Upanisad too, '(That which) knows things in a general and a particular way' (I. i. 9 and II. ii. 7), and 'It is farther than the farthest, and again It is here, right near' (Mu. III. i. 7). In the Katha Upanisad too, 'Minuter than an atom and bigger than the biggest' (II. 20), and 'Who (but me can know) that Deity who has both joy and the absence of it?' (Ka. II. 21). Also 'Staying, It surpasses those that run' (Is. 4). Similarly in the Gita:- 'I am the Vedic sacrifice and that enjoined in the Smrtis' (IX. 16), 'I am the father of this universe' (IX. 17), '(The self) does not take on anybody's demerits' (V. 15), '(Living) the same in all beings' (XIII. 27), 'Undivided among divided (things)' (XVIII. 20), and 'The devourer as well as producer' (XIII. 16). Considering these and similarl scriptural texts as apparently contradictory in their import, they, with a view to arriving at their true meaning on the strength of their own intellect, put forward fanciful interpretations, as, for instance, that the self exists or does not exist, that it is or is not the agent, is free or bound, momentary, mere consciousness, or nothing --- and never go beyond the domain of ignorance, because everywhere they see only contradictions. Therefore those alone who tread the path shown by the Srutis and spiritual teachers, transcend ignorance. They alone will succeed in crossing this unfathomable ocean of delusion, and not those others who follow the lead of their own clever intellect.
The knowledge of Brahman leading to immortality has been completely dealt with. It was this that Maitreyi asked of her husband in the words, 'Tell me, sir, only of that which you know to be leading to immortality' (II. iv. 3; IV. v. 4). In order to extol this knowledge of Brahman the following story is introduced. The two Mantras are meant to give the purport of the story in brief. Since both Mantra and Brahmana extol it, the capacity of the knowledge of Brahman to confer immortality and the attainment of identity with all becomes obvious as if it were set up on the highway. As the rising sun dispels the gloom of night, so (does the knowledge of Brahman remove ignorance). The knowledge of Brahman is also eulogiesd in this way, that being in the custody of King Indra it is difficult of attainment even by the gods, since this knowledge carefully preserved by Indra was attained after great pains even by the Asvins, who are doctors to the gods. They had to behead the teaching Brahmana and fix a horse's head on him. When this was severed by Indra, they restored the Brahmana's head to it place, and heard the entire knowledge of Brahman from his own lips. Therefore there neither has been nor will be --- and of course there is not --- any better means of realising our life's ends than this. So this is the highest tribute that can be paid to it.
The knowledge of Brahman is further extolled thus:- It is well known in the world that rites are the means to attain all our life's ends; and their performance depends on wealth, which cannot possibly confer immortality. This can be attained only through Self-knowledge independently of rites. Through it could easily be treated of in the ritualistic portion, under the Pravargya rites, yet because of its contradiction to rites, this Self-knowledge, coupled only with renunciation of the world, is discussed as the means of immortality, after that portion is passed. This shows that there is no better means of attaining our life's ends than this. In another way also is the knowledge of Brahman eulogies. Everybody delights in company. The Sruti says, 'He (Viraj) was not happy (alone). Therefore people (to this day) do not like to be alone' (I. iv. 3). Yajnavalkya, though just like any other man, gave up, through his Self-knowledge, his attachment to worldly objects, such as the wife, children and wealth, became satisfied with knowledge, and took delight only in the Self. The knowledge of Brahman is further eulogised thus:- Since Yajnavalkya, on the eve of his departure from the worldly life, instructed his beloved wife about it just to please her. We infer this from the following, 'You say what is after my heart. Come, take your seat,' etc. (II. iv. 4).
Max Müller
15. And verily this Self is the lord of all beings, the king of all beings. And as all spokes are contained in the axle and in the felly of a wheel, all beings, and all those selfs (of the earth, water, &c.) are contained in that Self.
āviṣkṛṇomi tanyaturna vṛṣṭim . dadhyaṅ ha yanmadhvātharvaṇo vāṃ
aśvasya śīrṣṇā pra yadīmuvāceti .. 16..
Meaning:- This is that meditation on things mutually helpful which Dadhyac, versed in the Atharva-Veda, taught the Asvins. Perceiving this the Rishi (Mantra) said, 'O Asvins in human form, that terrible deed called Damsa which you committed out of greed, I will disclose as a cloud does rain - (how you learnt) the meditation on things mutually helpful that Dadhyac, versed in the Atharva-Veda, taught you through a horse's head.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- We have said that the story given here is for the sake of eulogy. What is that story? It is as follows:- This refers to what has just been dealt, for it is present to the mind. The particle 'vai' is a reminder. It reminds us of the story narrated elsewhere (S. XIV. I. i., iv.) in a different context, which is suggested by the word that. That meditation on things mutually helpful which was only hinted at, but not clearly expressed, in the section dealing with the rite called, Pravargya, is described in this section in the words, 'This earth,' etc. (II. v. 1). How was it hinted at there? --- 'Dadhyac, versed in the Atharva-Veda, taught these Asvins the section dealing with the meditaion on things mutually helpful. It was a favourite subject with them. Therefore he came to them (wishing to teach them) thus' (S. XIV. I. iv. 13):- 'He said, 'Indra has told me that he will behead me the moment I teach it to anybody; therefore I am afraid of him. It he does not behead me, then I will accept you as my disciples.' They said, 'We will protect you from him.' 'How will you protect me?' 'When you will accept us as your disciples, we shall cut off your head, remove it elsewhere and preserve it. Then bringing a horse's head, we shall fix it on you; you will teach us through that. As you do so, Indra will cut off that head of yours. Then we shall bring your own head and replace it on you.' 'All right,' said the Brahmana, and accepted the Asvins as his disciples. When he did so, they cut off his head and kept it by elsewhere; then bringing a horse's head they fixed it on him; through that he taught them. As he was teachign them, Indra cut it on him' (S. XIV. I. i. 22 ' 24). On that occasion, however, only that portion of the meditation on things mutually helpful was taught which forms part of the rite called Pravargya, but not the secret portion known as Self-knowledge. The story that was recited there is mentioned here for the sake of eulogy. This is that meditation on things mutually helpful which Dadhyac; versed in the Atharva-Veda taught the Asvins through this device. Perceving this deed, the Rsi or Mantra said:- O Asvins in human form, that terrible deed, etc. 'That' qualifies the remove Damsa, which is the name of the deed. What kind of deed was it? 'Terrible.' Why was it committed?' Out of greed. People commit terrible deeds in the world tempted by greed; these Asvins too apear to have done exactly like that. What you have done in secret, I will disclose. Like what? As a cloud does rain. In the Vedas the particle 'na' used after a word denotes comparison, not negation, as in the expression, 'Asvam na,' (like a horse). 'I will disclose your terrible deed as a cloud indicates rain through rumbling noise etc.' --- this is the construction.
Objection:- How can these two Mantras be in praise of the Asvins? They rather condemn them. Reply:- There is nothing wrong in it; they are eulogistic, not condemnatory. Because in spite of doing such a despicable deed, they passed off absolutely scatheless; nor did they suffer anything in the unseen realm. Therefore these two Mantras are eulogistic. People sometimes rightly construe blame as praise, and likewise it is common knowledge that praise may be blame in disguise. The secret meditation on things mutually helpful, known as Self-knowledge, that Dadhyac, versed in the Atharva-Veda, taught you through a horse's head. 'Ha' and 'im' are expletives.
Max Müller
16. Verily Dadhyak Âtharvana proclaimed this honey (the madhu-vidyâ) to the two Asvins, and a Rishi, seeing this, said (Rv. I, 116, 12):- 'O ye two heroes (Asvins), I make manifest that fearful deed of yours (which you performed) for the sake of gain [1], like as thunder [2] makes manifest the rain. The honey (madhu-vidyâ) which Dadhyak Âtharvana proclaimed to you through the head of a horse,' . . .
pratyairayatam . sa vāṃ madhu pravocadṛtāyan tvāṣṭraṃ yad dasrāvapi
kakṣyaṃ vāmiti .. 17..
Meaning:- This is that meditation on things mutually helpful which Dadhyac, versed in the Atharva-Veda, taught the Asvins. Perceiving this the Rishi said, 'O Asvins, you set a horse's head on (the shoulders of) Dadhyac, versed in the Atharva-Veda. O terrible ones, to keep his word, he taught you the (ritualistic) meditation on things mutually helpful connected with the sun, as also the secret (spiritual) meditation on them.'
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- This is that meditation, etc. --- is to be explained as in the preceding paragraph; it refers to the other Mantra that relates the same story. Dadhyac, versed in the Atharva-Veda, etc. There may be others versed in the Atharva-Veda; so the term is qualified by mention of the name, Dadhyac. 'O Asvins,' etc. --- this is spoken by the Rsi (Here Sankara explains the word is its literal and more plausible meaning In paragraph 16 it was explained as the Mantra itself. The name of the sage is Kaksivat. For the verses given in paragraphs 16, 17 and 19 see R. --- I. cxvi. 12, I. cxvii. 22 and VI, x1vii. 18 respectively.) who visualised the Mantra. 'When the Brahmana's head was severed, you cut off a horse's head --- O the cruetly of it! --- and set it on the Brahmana's shoulders. And he taught you the meditation on things mutually helpful that he had promised to teach you.' Why did he run the risk of his life to do this? To keep his word --- desiring to fulfil his promise. This is a hint that keeping one's solemn promise is more important than even life. What was the meditation on things mutually helpful that he taught? That which was connected with the sun:- The head of Yajna (Lit. sacrifice. Here it means Visnu, who is identified with it. For the story, how Visnu, proud of his well-earned pre-eminence over the other gods, stood resting his chin on the extremity of a bow, and how the others out of jealousy got some white-ants to gnaw off the bow-string, which resulted in the severing of Visnu's head, see S. XIV. 1. i. 6 ' 10. Compare also Tai. A. V. i. 3 ' 6.), being severed, became the sun. To restore the head the rite called Pravargya was started. The meditation concerning the severing of the head of Yajna, its restoration, and so on, which forms a part of the rite, is the meditation on things mutually helpful connected with the sun. Terrible ones --- who destroy their rival forces, or kill their enemies. 'He taught you not only the ritualistic meditation on things mutually helpful connected with the the sun, but also the secret meditation on them relating to the Supreme Self' that is dealt with in the present section, in fact, throughout this and the preceding chapter. The verb 'taught' is to be repeated here from above.
Max Müller
17. Verily Dadhyak Âtharvana [1] proclaimed this honey to the two Asvins, and a Rishi, seeing this, said (Rv. I, 117, 22):- 'O Asvins, you fixed a horse's head on Âtharvana Dadhyak, and he, wishing to be true (to his promise), proclaimed to you the honey, both that of Tvashtri[2] and that which is to be your secret, O ye strong ones.
Meaning:- This is that meditation on things mutually helpful which Dadhyac, versed in the Atharva-Veda, taught the Asvins. Perceiving this the Rishi said, 'He made bodies with two feet and bodies with four feet. That supreme Being first entered the bodies as a bird (the subtle body).' On account of his dwelling in all bodies, He is called the Purusha. There is nothing that is not covered by Him, nothing that is not pervaded by Him.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- This is that meditation, etc. --- is to be explained as before. The two foregoing Mantras sum up the story that is connected with the rite called Pravargya. They express in the form of a story the purport of the two chapters that have a bearing on that rite. Now the text proceeds to describe through the two following Mantras the purport of the two chapters that deal with the meditation on Brahman. It has been said that the Brahmana versed in the Atharva-Veda also taught the Asvins a secret meditation on things mutually helpful. What that meditation was, is now being explained. He made bodies, etc. --- the Supreme Lord who made this universe come out of the unmanifested state, in the course of His manifesting the undifferentiated name and form, after first projecting worlds, such as this earth, made bodies with two feet, viz human and bird bodies, and bodies with four feet, viz animal bodies. That Supreme Being, the Lord, first entered the bodies as a bird, i.e. as the subtle Body. The text itself explains it:- On account of His dwelling in all bodies He is called the Purusa. There is nothing that is not covered by Him; likewise, there is nothing that is not pervaded by Him. That is, everything is enveloped by Him as its inside and outside. Thus it is He who as name and form --- as the body and organs --- is inside and outside everything. In other words, the Mantra, 'He made bodies,' etc. briefly enunciates the unity of the Self.
Max Müller
18. Verily Dadhyak Âtharvana proclaimed this honey to the two Asvins, and a Rishi, seeing this, said:- 'He (the Lord) made bodies with two feet, he made bodies with four feet. Having first become a bird, he entered the bodies as purusha (as the person).' This very purusha is in all bodies the purisaya, i.e. he who lies in the body (and is therefore called purusha). There is nothing that is not covered by him, nothing that is not filled by him.
śatā daśetiyayaṃ vai harayo'yaṃ vai daśa ca sahasraṇi bahūni
cānantāni ca . tadetadbrahmāpūrvamanaparamanantaramabāhyamayamātmā
brahma sarvānubhūrityanuśāsanam .. 19..
iti pañcamaṃ brāhmaṇam ..
atha ṣaṣṭhaṃ brāhmaṇam .
Meaning:- This is that meditation on things mutually helpful which Dadhyac, versed in the Atharva-Veda, taught the Asvins. Perceiving this the Rishi said, '(He) transformed Himself in accordance with each form; that form of His was for the sake of making Him known. The Lord on account of Maya (notions superimposed by ignorance) is perceived as manifold, for to Him are yoked ten organs, nay, hundreds of them. He is the organs; He is ten and thousands - many and infinite. That Brahman is without prior or posterior, without interior or exterior. This self, the perceiver of everything, is Brahman. This is the teaching.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- This is that meditation, etc. --- is to be explained as before. (He) transformed Himself in accordance with each form, or (to put it differently) assumed the likeness of each form. A son has the same form as, or resembles, his parents. A quadruped is not born of bipeds, nor vice versa. The same Lord, in the process of manifesting name and form, 'transformed Himself in accordance with each form.' Why did He come in so many forms?' That form of His was for the sake of making Him known. Were name and form not manifested, the transcendent nature of this Self as Pure Intelligence would not be known. When, however, name and form are manifested as the body and organs, it is possible to know Its nature. The Lord on account of Maya or diverse knowledge, or (to give an alternative meaning) the false identification created by name, form and the elements, not in truth, is perceived as manifold, because of these notions superimposed by ignorance, although He is ever the same Pure Intelligence. Why? For to Him are yoked, like horses to a chariot, ten organs --- called 'Hari' because they draw ---- nay, hundreds of them, for the pupose of revealing their objects; 'hundreds,' because there are a great many beings. Since there are a large number of sense-objects (the Supreme Self appears as manifold). It is to reveal them, and not the Self, that the organs are yoked. As the Katha Upanisad says, 'The self-born Lord injured the organs by making them outgoing in their tendencies' (IV. 1). Therefore the Self is known not in Its true nature as homogeneous Pure Intelligence, but merely as the sense-objects.
Question:- Then this Lord is one entity, and the organs another? Reply:- No; He is the organs; He is ten and thousands --- many and infinite --- because there are an infinite number of beings. In short, that Brahman which is the self is without prior, i.e. cause, or posterior, i.e. effect, without interior or exterior, i.e. having no other species within It or without It. What is this homogeneous Brahman? This self. What is that? The inner Self that sees, hears, thinks, understands, knows; the perceiver of everything, because as the self of all it perceives everything. This is the teaching of all Vedanta texts --- the gist of them. It leads to immortality and fearlessness. The import of the scriptures has been fully dealt with.
Max Müller
19. Verily Dadhyak Âtharvana proclaimed this honey to the two Asvins, and a Rishi, seeing this, said (Rv. VI, 47, 18):- 'He (the Lord) became like unto every form [1], and this is meant to reveal the (true) form of him (the Âtman). Indra (the Lord) appears multiform through the Mâyâs (appearances), for his horses (senses) are yoked, hundreds and ten.' This (Âtman) is the horses, this (Âtman) is the ten, and the thousands, many and endless. This is the Brahman, without cause and without effect, without anything inside or outside; this Self is Brahman, omnipresent and omniscient. This is the teaching (of the Upanishads).
Meaning:- Now the line of teachers:- Pautimasya (received it) from Gaupavana. Gaupavana from another Pautimasya. This Pautimasya from another Gaupavana. This Gaupavana from Kausika. Kausika from Kaundinya. Kaundinya from Sandilya. Sandilya from Kausika and Gautama. Gautama -
Max Müller
1. Now follows the stem [1]:- 1) Pautimâshya from Gaupavana, 2) Gaupavana from Pautimâshya, 3) Pautimâshya from Gaupavana, 4) Gaupavana from Kausika, 5) Kausika from Kaundinya, 6) Kaundinya from Sândilya, 7) Sândilya from Kausika and Gautama, 8) Gautama
Meaning:- From Agnivesya. Agnivesya from Sandilya and Anabhimlata. Anabhimlata from another of that name. He from a third Anabhimlata. This Anabhimlata from Gautama. Gautama from Saitava and Pracinayogya. They from Parasarya. Parasarya from Bharadvaja. He from Bharadvaja and Gautama. Gautama from another Bharadvaja. He from another Parasarya. Parasarya from Baijavapayana. He from Kausikayani. Kausikayani -
Max Müller
2. from Âgnivesya, 9) Âgnivesya from Sândilya and Ânabhimlâta, 10) Sândilya and Ânabhimlâta from Ânabhimlâta, 11) Ânabhimlâta from Ânabhimlâta, 12) Ânabhimlâta from Gautama, 13) Gautama from Saitava and Prâkînayogya, 14) Saitava and Prâkînayogya from Pârasarya, 15) Pârasarya from Bhâradvâga, 16) Bhâradvâga from Bhâradvâga and Gautama, 17) Gautama from Bharadvâga, 18) Bharadvâga from Pârâsarya, 19) Pârâsarya from Vaigavâpâyana, 20) Vaigavâpâyana from Kausikâyani, 21 [1]) Kausikâyani
Meaning:- From Ghrtakausika. Ghrtakausika from Parasaryayana. He from Parasarya. Parasarya from Jatukarnya. Jatukarnya from Asurayana and Yaska. Asurayana from Traivani. Traivani from Aupajandhani. He from Asuri. Asuri from Bharadvaja. Bharadvaja from Atreya. Atreya from Manti. Manti from Gautama. Gautama from another Gautama. He from Vatsya. Vatsya from Sandilya. Sandilya from Kaisorya Kapya. He from Kumaraharita. Kumaraharita from Galava. Galava from Vidarbhi-kaundinya. He from Vatsanapat Babhrava. He from Pathin Saubhara. He from Ayasya Angirasa. He from Abhuti Tvastra. He from Visvarupa Tvastra. He from the Asvins. They from Dadhyac Atharvana. He from Atharvan Daiva. He from Mrtyu Pradhvamsana. He from Pradhvamsana. Pradhvamsana from Ekarsi. Ekarsi from Viprachitti. Viprachitti from Vyasri. Vyasti from Sanaru. Sanaru from Sanatana. Sanatana from Sanaga. Sanaga from Paramesthin (Viraj). He from Brahman (Hiranyabarbha). Brahman is self born. Salutation to Brahman.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Now the line of teachers for the first two chapters called Madhukanda, which aim at expounding the knowledge of Brahman, is being given as a eulogy on the latter. This is also a Mantra to be expounded and regularly repeated. The word 'Vamsa' (line of teachers) is so called because of its resemblance to a bamboo. Just as a bamboo is divided into sections, so is this line of teachers divided into sections beginning from the top down to the root. The order of succession of teachers of the first four chapters (of the last book (Of which the opening chapter of this work forms the third chapter (Kanva recension.) of the Satapatha Brahmana) is here spoken of as 'Vamsa'. In this list the names in the nominative case stand for the disciples, and those in the ablative case stand for the teachers. Paramesthin is Viraj. From Brahman or Hiranyagarbha (In whose mind the Vedas were revealed through the grace of the Lord, the 'Brahman' next mentioned.); beyond him the line of teachers does not extend. As for Brahman (The Supreme Brahman, of which the Vedas are but another form; hence there can be no question of their originating from some other source.), It is selfborn, eternal. Salutation to that eternal Brahman.
Max Müller
3. from Ghritakausika, 22) Ghritakausika from Pârâsaryâyana, 23) Pârâsaryâyana from Pârâsarya, 24) Pârâsarya from Gâtûkarnya [1], 25) Gâtûkarnya from Âsurâyana and Yâska [2], 26) Âsurâyana and Yâska from Traivani, 27) Traivani from Aupagandhani, 28) Aupagandhani from Âsuri, 29) Âsuri from Bhâradvâga, 30) Bhâradvâga from Âtreya, 31) Âtreya from Mânti, 32) Mânti from Gautama, 33, Gautama from Gautama, 34) Gautama from Vâtsya, 35) Vâtsya from Sândilya, 36) Sândilya from Kaisorya Kâpya, 37) Kaisorya Kâpya from Kumârahârita, 38) Kumârahârita from Gâlava, 39) Gâlava from Vidarbhî-kaundinya, 40) Vidarbhî-kaundinya from Vatsanapât Bâbhrava, 41) Vatsanapât Bâbhrava from Pathi Saubhara, 42) Pathi Saubhara from Ayâsya Âṅgirasa, 43) Ayâsya Âṅgirasa from Âbhûti Tvâshtra, 44) Âbhûti Tvâshtra from Visvarûpa Tvâshtra, 45) Visvarûpa Tvâshtra from Asvinau, 46) Asvinau from Dadhyak Âtharvana, 47) Dadhyak Âtharvana from Atharvan Daiva, 48) Atharvan Daiva from Mrityu Prâdhvamsana, 49) Mrityu Prâdhvamsana from Prâdhvamsana, 50) Prâdhvamsana from Ekarshi, 51) Ekarshi from Viprakitti [3], 52) Viprakitti from Vyashti, 53) Vyashti from Sanâru, 54) Sanâru from Sanâtana, 55) Sanâtana from Sanaga, 56) Sanaga from Parameshthin, 57) Parameshthin from Brahman, 58) Brahman is Svayambhu, self-existent) Adoration to Brahman [4])
Meaning:- Om. Janaka, Emperor of Videha, performed a sacrifice in which gifts were freely distributed. Vedic scholars from Kuru and Panchala were assembled there. Emperor Janaka of Videha had a desire to know, 'Which is the most erudite of these Vedic scholars?' He had a thousand cows confined in a pen, and on the horns of each cow were fixed ten Padas (of gold).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- There was a ruler of Videha named Janaka, who was an Emperor. He performed a sacrifice in which gifts were freely distributed. Or the sacrifice itself may have had that name (Bahu-daksina), referred to elsewhere in the Vedas. Or the horse sacrifice may here be so called because of the abundance of gifts in it. Vedic scholars from Kuru and Pancala --- which are famous for their large number of scholars --- were assembled in that sacrifice, either on invitation or as spectators. Seeing that large assembly of scholars, Emperor Janaka of Videha, the sacrificer, had a desire to know which was the greatest Vedic scholar among them. He thought like this:- 'Which is the most erudite of these Vedic scholars? They are all versed in the Vedas, but which is the greatest of them?' Being desirous of knowing this, he, as a means to finding it out, had a thousand young cows confined in a pen. The cows are being described. On the horns of each cow were fixed ten padas --- a Pada being a quarter of a Pala --- of gold, five on each horn.
Max Müller
1. Ganaka Vaideha (the king of the Videhas) sacrificed with a sacrifice at which many presents were offered to the priests of (the Asvamedha). Brâhmanas of the Kurus and the Pâñkâlas had come thither, and Ganaka Vaideha wished to know, which of those Brâhmanas was the best read. So he enclosed a thousand cows, and ten pâdas (of gold) [1] were fastened to each pair of horns.
tānhovāca brāhmaṇā bhagavanto yo vo brahmiṣṭhaḥ sa etā gā
udajatāmiti . te ha brāhmaṇā na dadhṛṣuratha ha yājñavalkyaḥ svameva
brahmacāriṇamuvācaitāḥ saumyodaja sāmaśravā3 iti . tā hodācakāra .
te ha brāhmaṇāścukrudhuḥ kathaṃ nu no brahmiṣṭho bruvītetyatha ha
janakasya vaidehasya hotā'śvalo babhūva . sa hainaṃ papraccha tvaṃ
nu khalu no yājñavalkya brahmiṣṭho'sī3 iti . sa hovāca namo vayaṃ
brahmiṣṭhāya kurmo gokāmā eva vayagͫ sma iti . tagͫ ha tata eva
praṣṭuṃ dadhre hotā'śvalaḥ .. 2..
Meaning:- He said to them, 'Revered Brahmanas, let him who is the best Vedic scholar among you drive these cows (home).' None of the Brahmanas dared. Then Yajnavalkya said to a pupil of his, 'Dear Samasravas, please drive these cows (home).' He drove them. The Brahmanas were enraged. 'How does he dare to call himself the best Vedic scholar among us?' there was a Hotr of Emperor Janaka of Videha named Asvala. He now asked Yajnavalkya, 'Yajnavalkya, are you indeed the best Vedic scholar among us?' Yajnavalkya replied, 'I bow to the best Vedic scholar, I just want the cows'. Thereupon the Hotr Asvala determined to interrogate him.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Having the cows thus confined, he said addressing those Brahmanas, 'Revered Brahmanas, you are all Vedic scholars; let him who is specially so among you drive these cows home.' None of the Brahmanas thus addressed dared to announce his surpassing Vedic scholarship. When they were thus silenced, Yajnavalkya said to a pupil of his, 'Dear Samasravas, please drive these cows home.' 'Samasravas' means one who learns how to chant the Saman. Hence by implication Yajnavalkya is made out to be versed in all the four Vedas (The ground are as follows:- He is principally a teacher of the Yajur-Veda; the pupil in question learns from him how to chant the Saman, which is the Rc set to music; so he must also know these two Vedas; and the Atharva-Veda is subsidiary to the other three.). He drove the cows towards his teacher's home. Yajnavalkya, by accepting the prize meant for the best Vedic scholar, indirectly declared himself as such; so the Brahmanas were enraged. The reason for their anger is being stated:- How does he dare to call himself the best Vedic scholar among us who are each a great scholar? Among the Brahmanas thus enraged, there was a Hotr of Janaka, the sacrificer, named Asvala. He prided himself upon being the greatest Vedic scholar, and was insolent owing to royal patronage. So he challenged Yajnavalkya as follows:- 'Yajnavalkya, are you indeed the best Vedic scholar among us?' The prolonged accent (in the verb) signifies censure. Yajnavalkya replied:- 'I bow to the best Vedic scholar, now I just want the cows.' Thereupon, i.e. when he accepted the prize meant for the best Vedic scholar and thereby declared himself to be one, the Hotr Asvala determined to interrogate him.
Max Müller
2. And Ganaka spoke to them:- 'Ye venerable Brâhmanas, he who among you is the wisest, let him drive away these cows.' Then those Brâhmanas durst not, but Yâgñavalkya said to his pupil:- 'Drive them away, my dear.' He replied:- 'O glory of the Sâman [1]' and drove them away. The Brâhmanas became angry and said:- 'How could he call himself the wisest among us?' Now there was Asvala, the Hotri priest of Ganaka Vaideha. He asked him:- 'Are you indeed the wisest among us, O Yâgñavalkya?' He replied:- 'I bow before the wisest (the best knower of Brahman), but I wish indeed to have these cows.' Then Asvala, the Hotri priest, undertook to question him.
Meaning:- 'Yajnavalkya', said he, 'since all this is overtaken by death, and swayed by it, by what means does the sacrificer go beyond the clutches of death?' 'Through the organ of speech - through fire, which is the (real) priest called Hotr. The sacrificer's organ of speech is the Hotr. This organ of speech is fire; this fire is the Hotr; this (fire) is liberation; this (liberation) is emancipation'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- 'Yajnavalkya,' said he. In the section on the Udgitha (I. iii.) comprised in the Madhukanda it has briefly been explained how a sacrificer can escape death through the rite with five factors coupled with the meditation about it. The present section being an examination of that, a rather detailed treatment is being given here in order to introduce some particulars about that meditation. 'Since all this, the accessories of this rite, such as the priests and the fire, is overtaken by death, i.e. by ritualistic work attended with our natural attachment --- not only overtaken, but also swayed by death, by what means, or meditation, does the sacrificer go beyond the clutches of death, become independent of it?'
Objection:- Has it not already been said in the section on the Udgitha that he transcends death by identifying himself with the vital force in the mouth? Reply:- Yes, but the particulars that have been omitted there will be given here. So there is nothing wrong in it. Yajnavalkya said, 'Through the organ of speech --- through fire, which is the (real) priest called Hotr.' The explanation follows. Who is that Hotr through whom the sacrificer transcends death? 'The sacrificer's organ of speech is the Hotr.' 'Sacrifice' here means the sacrificer. Witness the Sruti, 'The sacrifice is the sacrificer' (S. XIV. II. ii. 24). The sacrificer's organ of speech is the Hotr with reference to sacrifices. How? This organ of speech of the sacrificer is the well-known fire, with reference to the gods. This has already been explained under the topic of the three kinds of food (I. v. 11). And that fire is the Hotr, for the Sruti says, 'Fire is the Hotr' (S. VI. iv. ii. 6). These two auxiliaries of a sacrifice, viz the priest called Hotr with reference to sacrifices, and the organ of speech with reference to the body, being limited, are 'overtaken by the death,' i.e. are continually changed by ritualistic work directed by our natural attachment due to ignorance, and are therefore 'swayed by death.' If the sacrificer looks upon them as fire, their divine form, it conduces to his (As also the Hotr's.) liberation from death. So the text says:- This is liberation, i.e. the Hotr who is fire is liberation. In other words, looking upon the Hotr as fire is that. As soon as the sacrificer looks upon the two accessories as fire, he is freed from death consisting in his limited natural attachment relating to the body and the elements. Therefore that Hotr, when looked upon as fire, is 'liberation,' i.e. the means of liberation, for the sacrificer. This is emancipation:- That which is liberation is emancipation, i.e. a means to it. To look upon those who limited accessories as fire, which is their unlimited divine form, is liberation. This liberation that consists in looking upon (the Hotr and the organ of speech) in their divine aspect is also spoken of as the resulting emancipation --- becoming one with fire, their divine form --- which takes one beyond the death that consists in attachment to limitations relating to the body and the elements. It is called emancipation, because that liberation itself is a means to it. It has already been explained in the section on the Udgitha that the identification of the organ of speech etc. with fire and so on is itself the emancipation of the sacrificer. There it has been said in a general way that identity with the vital force in the mouth is the means of liberation, but the particulars have not been given. Here some details, viz the viewing of the organ of speech etc. as fire and so on, are given. The emancipation from death here dealt with is the same as that which has been described as a result in the section on the Udgitha in the words, '(That fire) having transcended death, shines,' etc. (I. iii. 12).
Max Müller
3. 'Yâgñavalkya, he said, 'everything here (connected with the sacrifice) is reached by death, everything is overcome by death. By what means then is the sacrificer freed beyond the reach of death?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'By the Hotri priest, who is Agni (fire), who is speech. For speech is the Hotri of the sacrifice (or the sacrificer), and speech is Agni, and he is the Hotri. This constitutes freedom, and perfect freedom (from death).'
Meaning:- 'Yajnavalkya', said he, 'since all this is overtaken by day and night, and swayed by them, by what means does the sacrificer go beyond the clutches of day and night?' 'Through the eye - through the sun, which is the (real) priest called Adhvaryu. The eye of the sacrificer is the Adhvaryu. This eye is the sun; this sun is the Adhvaryu; this (sun) is liberation; this (liberation) is emancipation'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- 'Yajnavalkya,' said he. The emancipation from death, which is another name for ritualistic work directed by our natural attachment due to ignorance, has been explained. Time is the cause of changes in the accessories of rites, such as the new-and full-moon sacrifices, on which death, that is to say, ritualistic work with attachment, rests. This paragraph is introduced, since emancipation from that time should be separately indicated; because even without the performance of rites, we notice before and after it, the action of time as the cause of these changes in the acceessories of the rites. So the text goes on:- Since all this is overtaken by day and night. That time has two forms:- one consisting of day, night, etc., and the other consisting of lunar days etc.The emancipation from the former type of time is being first indicated, since everything is born, grows and dies because of the day and night; so also with the accessories of a sacrifice. The eye of the sacrificer is the Adhvaryu; here too 'sacrifice' means the sacrificer. The rest of the paragraph is to be explained as before. When the two accessories viz the sacrificer's eye and the Adhvaryu, are stripped of their limitations relating to the body and the elements, and are looked upon in their divine aspect, this is liberation. In other words, the viewing of the Adhvaryu as the sun is liberation. This liberation is emancipation, as in the preceding paragraph; because there can be no day and night for one who has identified himself with the sun.
Max Müller
4. 'Yâgñavalkya,' he said, 'everything here is reached by day and night, everything is overcome by day and night. By what means then is the sacrificer freed beyond the reach of day and night?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'By the Adhvaryu priest, who is the eye, who is Âditya (the sun) [1]. For the eye is the Adhvaryu of the sacrifice, and the eye is the sun, and he is the Adhvaryu. This constitutes freedom, and perfect freedom.'
prāṇo vai yajñasyodgātā . tadyo'yaṃ prāṇaḥ sa vāyuḥ sa udgātā sā muktiḥ
sā'timuktiḥ .. 5..
Meaning:- 'Yajnavalkya', said he, 'since all this is overtaken by the bright and dark fortnights, and swayed by them, by what means does the sacrificer go beyond the bright and dark fortnights /' 'Through the vital force - through air, which is the (real) priest called Udgatir. The vital force of the sacrificer is the Udgatir. This vital force is air, and it is the Udgatir; this (air) is liberation; this (liberation) is emancipation.'
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Now the emancipation from time represented by lunar days etc. is being indicated:- Since all this, etc. The sun is the cause of the days and nights, which (taken together) are alike, but not of the lunar days from the first to the fifteenth; these are subject to increase and decrease, and are caused by the moon. Therefore through identification with the moon one goes beyond the bright and dark fortnights, just as through identification with the sun one goes beyond day and night. Now the vital force of the sacrificer is air. It again is the Udgatr, as we know from the section on the Udgitha, where it has been settled:- 'Indeed he chanted through speech and the vital force' (I. iii. 24). Also, 'Water is the body of this vital force, and that moon is its luminous organ' (I. v. 13). Since the vital force, air and moon are one, the Sruti considers that there is no difference between summing up with the moon (As the Madhyandina recension does.) and with air, and mentions air as the divine form. Moreover, the changes of the moon are due to air (Really, the cosmic vital force (Sutratman), of which air is the conventional symbol.). Therefore air is the cause even of that (moon) which makes the division of time into lunar days etc. Hence it is all the more reasonable that one who has identified oneself with air goes beyond time as divided into lunar days etc. So another Sruti (the Madhyandina recension) states that the viewing (of the accessories of a sacrifice) as the moon is liberation and emancipation; while here, in the Kanva recension, the viewing of the two accessories as their cause, viz air, is called liberation and emancipation. Thus there is no contradiction between the two texts.
Max Müller
5. 'Yâgñavalkya,' he said, 'everything here is reached by the waxing and waning of the moon, everything is overcome by the waxing and waning of the moon. By what means then is the sacrificer freed beyond the reach of the waxing and waning of the moon?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'By the Udgâtri priest, who is Vâyu (the wind), who is the breath. For the breath is the Udgâtri of the sacrifice, and the breath is the wind, and he is the Udgâtri. This constitutes freedom, and perfect freedom.'
Meaning:- 'Yajnavalkya', said he, 'since the sky is, as it were, without a support, through what support does the sacrificer go to heaven?' 'Through the mind - through the moon, which is the (real) priest called Brahman. The mind of the sacrificer is the Brahman. This mind is the moon; the moon is the Brahman; this (moon) is liberation; this (liberation) is emancipation'. So far about the ways of emancipation; now about the meditations based on resemblance.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- The way the sacrificer transcends the form of death known as time has been explained. Now what is that support by means of which he attains a result transcending death, which is a limitation --- in other words, is emancipated? This paragraph answers the point:- Since the sky, so familiar to us, is, as it were, without a support, etc. The words 'as it were' indicate that there is a support to it, but it is not known. An inquiry into this unknown support is being made by the use of the pronominal adjective 'Kena' (through what); otherwise the attainment of result would be impossible. What is that support by means of which the sacrificer attains the result of his rites and is released? --- is the question. Through what support does the sacrificer go to heaven as the result (of his rites) --- in other words, is released? Through the mind --- through the moon, which is the (real) priest called Brahman; this is to be explained as before. Now what is familiar to us as the mind of the sacrificer with reference to the body is the moon with reference to the gods; for it is a well-known fact that the mind in the body is the same as the moon among the gods. The moon again is the priest called Brahman. Hence the sacrificer beholds the limited form of the Brahman among the elements, and that of his own mind in the body, as the unlimited moon. That is to say, through the support of the mind viewed as the moon he attains heaven as the result of his rites --- in other words, is released. The word 'iti' indicates the conclusion of the topic; that is, such are the various ways of emancipation from death. The topic is concluded, because all kinds of meditation regarding the accessories of a sacrifice have been dealt with in this connection. So far about the ways of emancipation, i.e. such are the various ways of emancipation.
Now the meditations based on resemblance are being spoken of. By this is meant a meditation, by virtue of some point of resemblance, on rites with inferior results like the Agnihotra, as rites with superior results, in order to obtain these results; or it is a meditation on some part of the lesser rite as those very results. Even when people try with all their ardour to undertake measures for bringing about certain ends, they may fail of their object through some defect. So a man who regularly tends the sacrificial fire takes up any rite, such as the Agnihotra, that suits him, and if he happens to know the results of particular rites, achieves the results he seeks through meditation. Otherwise it would be impossible for people of even the upper three castes, who are qualified for them, to perform the Rajasuya (A sacrifice usually performed by emperors. The other three are sacrifices in which a horse, some substitute for a man, and animals in general are respectively sacrificed. All the four are elaborate and expensive undertaking beyond the means of most people.), Asvamedha, Naramedha and Sarvamedha sacrifices. Their reciting of scriptures relating to those would merely be devotional study, unless there be some means of attaining the results of those rites. Those people can attain these results simply by means of the meditation based on resemblance; hence such meditations are fruitful, and are therefore being described.
Max Müller
6. 'Yâgñavalkya,' he said, 'this sky is, as it were, without an ascent (staircase.) By what approach does the sacrificer approach the Svarga world?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'By the Brahman priest, who is the mind (manas), who is the moon. For the mind is the Brahman of the sacrifice, and the mind is the moon, and he is the Brahman. This constitutes freedom, and perfect freedom. These are the complete deliverances (from death).' Next follow the achievements.
Meaning:- 'Yajnavalkya', said he, 'with how many kinds of Rik will the Hotr do his part in this sacrifice to-day?' 'With three kinds'. 'Which are those three?' 'The preliminary, the sacrificial, and the eulogistic hymns as the third'. 'What does he win through them?' 'All this that is living'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- 'Yajnavalkya,' said he, to draw his attention, 'with how many kinds of Rc will the Hotr do his part --- recite hymns --- in this sacrifice to-day?' The other said, 'With three kinds of Rc.' When he said this, Asvala asked him again, 'Which are those three?' The first question was about the number, the second about the Rces themselves. The preliminary, that class of hymns which are used before a sacrifice; the sacrificial, those hymns that are used in performing sacrifice; and the eulogistic hymns, that class of hymns which are used in praise (to the deities). Every kind of Rc, whether used in praise or otherwise, is included in these three classes. 'What does he win through them?' 'All this that is living.' From the parity of number he wins through this whatever is living (in the three worlds). That is, on account of the similarity in number etc. he gets all this result through meditation.
Max Müller
7. 'Yâgñavalkya,' he said, 'how many Rik verses will the Hotri priest employ to-day at this sacrifice?' 'Three,' replied Yâgñavalkya. 'And what are these three?' 'Those which are called Puronuvâkyâ, Yâgyâ, and, thirdly, Sasyâ [1].' 'What does he gain by them?' 'All whatsoever has breath.'
tābhirjayati dīpyata iva hi devaloko . yā hutā atinedante pitṛlokameva
tābhirjayatyatīva hi pitṛloko . yā hutā adhiśerate manuṣyalokameva
tābhirjayatyadha iva hi manuṣyalokaḥ .. 8..
Meaning:- 'Yajnavalkya', said he, 'how many kinds of oblations will the Adhvaryu offer in this sacrifice to-day?' 'Three'. 'Which are those three?' 'Those that blaze up on being offered, those that make a great noise, when offered, and those that sink on being offered'. 'What does he win through them?' 'Through those that blaze up on being offered he wins the world of the gods, for this world shines, as it were. Through those that make a great noise, when offered, he wins the world of the manes, for this world is full of uproar. And through those that sink on being offered, he wins the human world, for this world is lower.'
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- 'Yajnavalkya,' said he, etc. This has already been explained. 'How many kinds of oblations will the Adhvaryu offer in this sacrifice to-day?' 'Three.' 'Which are those three?' etc. --- already explained. Yajnavalkya replied:- Those that blaze up on being offered, such as oblations of wood and clarified butter. Those that make a great noise, when offered, such as flesh. And those that sink, penetrate the earth, on being offered, e.g. milk and Soma juice. 'What does he win through them,' through the oblations thus offered? Through those that blaze up on being offered, etc. --- The offerings made are bright, and the result, the world of the gods, is also bright. On account of this similarity he meditates that the bright offerings he is making are the very form of the result he seeks through his rite, viz the world of the gods --- that he is achieving that very result, the world of the gods. Through those oblations that make a great noise when offered, he wins the world of the manes, because of the similarity in producing horrible noises. For, attached to the world of the manes is the city of Yama, where people subjected to tortures by him cry, 'Alas, we are undone, release us, oh, release us!' So also do the offerings of meat etc. make a noise. On account of this similarity with the world of the manes he meditates that he is actually attaining that world. Through those offerings that sink on being offered, he wins the human world, because both are equally related to the surface of the earth. For this world is lower than the higher worlds, which are to be attained; or 'lower' because of the similarity in going down (Too often men having evil tendencies degenerate.). Therefore, while offering oblations of milk or Soma, he meditates that he is actually attaining the human world.
Max Müller
8. 'Yâgñavalkya,' he said, 'how many oblations (âhuti) will the Adhvaryu priest employ to-day at this sacrifice?' 'Three,' replied Yâgñavalkya. 'And what are these three?' 'Those which, when offered, flame up; those which, when offered, make an excessive noise; and those which, when offered, sink down [1].' 'What does he gain by them?' 'By those which, when offered, flame up, he gains the Deva (god) world, for the Deva world flames up, as it were. By those which, when offered, make an excessive noise, he gains the Pitri (father) world, for the Pitri world is excessively (noisy) [2]. By those which, when offered, sink down, he gains the Manushya (man) world, for the Manushya world is, as it were, down below.'
devatābhirgopāyatītyekayeti . katamā saiketi . mana evetyanantaṃ vai
mano ṃantā viśve devā anantameva sa tena lokaṃ jayati .. 9..
Meaning:- 'Yajnavalkya', said he, 'through how many gods does this Brahman from the right protect the sacrifice to-day?' 'Through one'. 'Which is that one?' 'The mind. The mind is indeed infinite, and infinite are the Visvadevas. Through this meditation he wins an infinite world'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- 'Yajnavalkya,' said he, etc. --- is to be explained as before. Through how many gods does this priest called Brahman from the right, sitting in his particular seat, protect the sacrifice? The plural number in 'gods' is merely for the sake of conformity. To explain:- The priest protects the sacrifice through one god only; so one who knows this should not put a question using the plural number. But because that was used in the questions and answers in the two preceding paragraphs --- 'Through how many?' 'Through three.' 'How many?' 'Three' --- here too the plural is used in the question; or the plural form is used in order to puzzle the opponent. 'Through one,' replied Yajnavalkya; the god through whom the Brahman protects the sacrifice from his seat on the right is one. 'Which is that one?' The mind is that god; it is through the mind, through meditation, that the Brahman does his function. 'The mind and speech are the two ways of a sacrifice; the Brahman rectifies one of them (speech) through the mind (or silence),' so says another Sruti (Ch. IV. xvi. 1 ' 2). Therefore the mind is that god, and through it the Brahman protects the sacrifice. And that mind is indeed infinite, because of its modifications. The word 'indeed' signifies that it is a well-known fact. Everybody knows that the mind is infinite. The gods identify themselves with its infinity:- And infinite are the Visvadevas; for another Sruti says, 'In which (mind) all the gods become one,' etc. Through this meditation he wins an infinite world, because of the similarity as regards infinitude.
Max Müller
9. 'Yâgñavalkya,' he said, 'with how many deities does the Brahman priest on the right protect to-day this sacrifice?' 'By one,' replied Yâgñavalkya. 'And which is it?' 'The mind alone; for the mind is endless, and the Visvedevas are endless, and he thereby gains the endless world.'
jayatyantarikṣalokaṃ yājyayā dyulokagͫ śasyayā tato ha hotā'śvala
upararāma .. 10..
iti prathamaṃ brāhmaṇam ..
atha dvitīyaṃ brāhmaṇam .
Meaning:- 'Yajnavalkya', said he, 'how many classes of hymns the Udgatir chant in this sacrifice to-day?' 'Three classes'. 'Which are those three?' 'The preliminary, the sacrificial, and the eulogistic hymns as the third'. 'Which are those that have reference to the body?' 'The Prana is the preliminary hymn, the Apana is the sacrificial hymn, and the Vyana is the eulogistic hymn'. 'What does he win through them?' 'Through the preliminary hymns he wins the earth, through the sacrificial hymns he wins the sky, and through the eulogistic hymns he wins heaven'. Thereupon the Hotr Asvala kept silent.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- 'Yajnavalkya,' said he, etc. --- is to be explained as before. 'How many classes of hymns will the Udgatr chant?' By the word 'hymns' is meant a collection of Rces that can be chanted. All Rces whatsoever, whether capable of being chanted or not, are comprised in just three classes, says Yajnavalkya; and they are explained as the preliminary, the sacrificial and the eulogistic hymns as the third. It has already been said that the aspirant wins 'all this that is living.' One may ask, 'Through what similarity?' The answer is being given:- 'Which are those three Rces that have reference to the body?' 'The Prana is the preliminary hymn,' because both begin with the letter p. 'The Apana is the sacrificial hymn,' because it comes next in order. Also, the gods eat the oblations offered with the help of Apana (Which has its seat between the heart and the navel and carries things down.), and a sacrifice is also an offering. 'The Vyana is the eulogistic hymn,' for another Sruti says, 'He utters the Rc without the help of the Prana or the Apana (That is, through the Vyana.)' (Ch. I. iii. 4). 'What does he win through them?' --- already explained. The similarity with regard to particular relations that was not mentioned before is being given here; the rest has already been explained. Because of the similarity (Both come in first.) of relation to a particular world (viz the earth), through the preliminary hymns he wins the earth; through the sacrificial hymns he wins the sky, because both occupy an intermediate position; through the eulogistic hymns he wins heaven, because both occupy the highest position. Thereupon, i.e. when his questions had been aswered, the Hotr Asvala kept silent, realising that his opponent was too deep for him.
Max Müller
10. 'Yâgñavalkya,' he said, 'how many Stotriyâ hymns will the Udgâtri priest employ to-day at this sacrifice?' 'Three,' replied Yâgñavalkya. 'And what are these three?' 'Those which are called Puronuvâkyâ, Yâgyâ, and, thirdly, Sasyâ.' 'And what are these with regard to the body (adhyâtmam)?' 'The Puronuvâkyâ is Prâna (up-breathing), the Yâgyâ the Apâna (down-breathing), the Sasyâ the Vyâna (back-breathing).' 'What does he gain by them?' 'He gains the earth by the Puronuvâkyâ, the sky by the Yâgyâ, heaven by the Sasyâ.' After that Asvala held his peace.
kati grahāḥ katyatigrahā ityaṣṭau grahā aṣṭāvatigrahā iti ye te'ṣṭau
grahā aṣṭāvatigrahāḥ katame ta iti .. 1..
Meaning:- Then Artabhaga, of the line of Jaratkaru, asked him. 'Yajnavalkya', said he, 'how many are the Grahas, and how many are the Atigrahas?' 'There are eight Grahas and eight Atigrahas'. 'Which are those eight Grahas and eight Atigrahas?'
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Then, i.e. when Asvala had stopped, Artabhaga, the son of Rtabhaga of the line of Jaratkaru, asked Yajnavalkya, already introduced. 'Yajnavalkya, said he --- this is to draw his attention. The particle 'ha' suggests the narration of a past incident. As before, comes the question, 'How many are the Grahas, and how many are the Atigrahas?' The particle 'iti' marks the close of the speech.
Objection:- The subject-matter of the question, viz the Grahas and Atigrahas, may be either known or not known. If they are known, then their number, which is an attribute, is also known. In that case, the question regarding it, 'How many are the Grahas, and how many are the Atigrahas?' is out of place. If, on the other hand, the Grahas and Atigrahas are not known, then the question should be regarding their nature:- 'What are the Grahas, and what are the Atigrahas?' and not, 'How many are the Grahas, and how many are the Atigrahas?' Again, questions may be asked regarding the particulars of things about which we have a general knowledge, as, for instance, 'Which of these belong to the Katha recension and which to the Kalapa?' But no such things as Grahas and Atigrahas are known in life. If they were, the question might be regarding their particulars. Reply:- It has been asked (III. i. 3) how the sacrificer 'goes beyond' death. It is only one who is controlled by a Graha (that which seizes) that can be liberated. It has been mentioned twice --- 'This is liberation; this is emancipation' (Ibid). Therefore the Grahas and Atigrahas are known things.
Objection:- Even in that case (only) four Grahas and Atigrahas have been mentioned (In III. i. 3 ' 6.), viz the vocal organ, the eye, the vital force and the mind. So the question 'how many' is not to the point, for the number is already known. Reply:- Not so, because there the number was indefinite. The passage in question did not seek to fix it at four. Here, however, in the meditation on the Grahas and Atigrahas, the attribute of number is sought to be fixed at eight; so the question is quite in order. Therefore liberation and emancipation have been mentioned twice in the passage, 'This is liberation; this is emancipation.' The Grahas and Atigrahas too are settled facts. Hence Artabhaga asked, 'How many are the Grahas, and how many are the Atigrahas?' 'How many are the Grahas, and how many are the Atigrahas?' Yajnavalkya replied, 'There are eight Grahas and eight Atigrahas.' 'Which, in particular, are those eight Grahas and eight Atigrahas that you have spoken of?'
Max Müller
1. Then Gâratkârava Ârtabhâga [1] asked. 'Yâgñavalkya,' he said, 'how many Grahas are there, and how many Atigrahas [2]?' 'Eight Grahas,' he replied,' and eight Atigrahas.' 'And what are these eight Grahas and eight Atigrahas?'
प्राणो वै ग्रहः । सोऽपानेनातिग्राहेण गृहीतोऽपानेन हि
गन्धाञ्जिघ्रति ॥ २॥
mantra 2[III.ii.2]
prāṇo vai grahaḥ . so'pānenātigrāheṇa gṛhīto'pānena hi
gandhāñjighrati .. 2..
Meaning:- The Prana (nose) indeed is the Graha; it is controlled by the Atigraha, the Apana (odour), for one smells odours through the Apana (the air breathed in).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Yajnavalkya replied:- The Prana indeed is the Graha. 'Prana' here means the nose, from the context. It, the nose, is connected with air. 'Apana' here means odour; it is so called because it always accompanies odour, for everybody smells with the nose odours presented by the air that is breathed in (Apana). This is expressed by the sentence:- For one smells odours throguh the Apana.
Max Müller
2. 'Prâna (breath) is one Graha, and that is seized by Apâna (down-breathing) as the Atigrâha [1], for one smells with the Apâna.'
वाग्वै ग्रहः । स नाम्नातिग्राहेण गृहीतो वाचा हि नामान्यभिवदति ॥ ३॥
mantra 3[III.ii.3]
vāgvai grahaḥ . sa nāmnātigrāheṇa gṛhīto vācā hi nāmānyabhivadati .. 3..
Meaning:- The organ of speech indeed is the graha; it is controlled by the Atigraha, name, for one utters names through the organ of speech.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- The organ of speech indeed is the Graha. The organ of speech, as confined to one particular body, deals with things to which people are attached, and makes utterances that are untrue, pernicious, rude, offensive, and so on. It thus controls or captures people; hence it is a Graha. It, this Graha called the organ of speech, is controlled by the Atigraha, name, that is, by whatever is uttered. The long vowel in 'Atigraha' is a Vedic licence. For the organ of speech is meant to express something; it is used by that for just that purpose; hence it is controlled by that, and there is no deliverance for it until it has done this function. Therefore the organ of speech is said to be controlled by the Atigraha, name, for it is a fact that people, impelled by their attachment to something to be expressed, get into all sorts of troubles.
Max Müller
3. 'Speech (vâk) is one Graha, and that is seized by name (nâman) as the Atigrâha, for with speech one pronounces names.
त्वग्वै ग्रहः । स स्पर्शेनातिग्राहेण गृहीतस्त्वचा हि स्पर्शान्वेदयत ।
इत्येतेऽष्टौ ग्रहा अष्टावतिग्रहाः ॥ ९॥
mantra 9[II.ii.9]
tvagvai grahaḥ . sa sparśenātigrāheṇa gṛhītastvacā hi sparśānvedayata .
ityete'ṣṭau grahā aṣṭāvatigrahāḥ .. 9..
Meaning:-
Max Müller
9. 'The skin is one Graha, and that is seized by touch as the Atigrâha, for with the skin one perceives touch. These are the eight Grahas and the eight Atigrahas.'
Meaning:- 'Yajnavalkya', said he, 'since all this is the food of death, who is that god whose food is death?' 'Fire is death; it is the food of water. (One who knows thus) conquers further death'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- When the topic of the Grahas and Atigrahas (organs and objects) was concluded, Artabhaga, spoke again. 'Yajnavalkya,' said he, 'since all this manifested universe is the food of death --- everything is born and imperilled, being swallowd by death in the form of the Grahas and Atigrahas --- who is that god whose food is death even?' --- for another Sruti says, 'Whose sauce is death'(Ka. II. 25). The intention of the questioner is this:- If Yajnavalkya mentions the death of death, it will lead to an infinite regress. If, on the other hand, he does not mention it, liberation from this death in the form of the Grahas and Atigrahas will be impossible. For liberation can take place only when this form of death is destroyed, and this would be possible if there be the death of death even. Hence, considering the question unanswerable, he asks, 'Who is that god?' (Yajnavalkya said):- There is the death of death.
Objection:- This will lead to an infinite regress, since that death too may have its death. Reply:- No, because you cannot conceive another destroyer for that which is the death of all. Objection:- How do you know that there is the death of death? Reply:- We see it. Fire, for instancce, is the death of all, being a destroyer. But it is swallowed by water; hence it is the food of water. So believe that there is the death of death, and it swallows all the Grahas and Atigrahas. When these fetters are destroyed --- swallowed by that death --- liberation from relative existence becomes possible, for it has already been said that the Grahas and Atigrahas are the fetters. So it is clear that we can get rid of these; hence our efferts to get rid of bondgae are fruitful. Therefore (one who knows thus) conquers further death.
Max Müller
10. 'Yâgñavalkya,' he said, 'everything is the food of death. What then is the deity to whom death is food?' 'Fire (agni) is death, and that is the food of water. Death is conquered again.'
krāmantyaho3 neti neti hovāca yājñavalkyo'traiva samavanīyante sa
ucchvayatyādhmāyati ādhmāto mṛtaḥ śete .. 11..
Meaning:- 'Yajnavalkya', said he, 'when the (liberated) man dies, do his organs go up from him, or do they not?' 'No', replied Yajnavalkya, '(They) merge in him only. The body swells, is inflated, and in that state lies dead.'
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- 'When, after death (That is, the organs and objects.) has been swallowed by another death, viz the realisation of the Supreme Self, this liberated man of realisation dies, do his organs, such as those of speech, called the Grahas, and the Atigrahas, such as name, which in the form of impressions are in him and impel him to action, go up from him, the dying knower of Brahman, or do they not?' 'No,' replied Yajnavalkya, 'they do not. The organs and objects, becoming one with the Supreme Self, attain identity with, or merge in him only, their cause, the man of realisation, who is the Reality of the Supreme Brahman --- like waves in the ocean.' The following passage from another Sruti shows the dissolution of the organs, designated by the word 'digit,' in the Supreme Self, 'So do these sixteen digists of the seer, which have the Self as their merging place, dissolve on reaching It' (Pr. VI. 5). Here their identification with the Supreme Self is shown. Does not the man dies then? 'No, it is the body that dies, for it swells, is inflated by the external air like a pair of bellows, and in that state lies dead, motionless.' The gist of the passage is that the liberated man, after his bondage has been destroyed, does not go anywhere.
Max Müller
11. 'Yâgñavalkya,' he said, 'when such a person (a sage) dies, do the vital breaths (prânas) move out of him or no?' 'No,' replied Yâgñavalkya; 'they are gathered up in him, he swells, he is inflated, and thus inflated the dead lies at rest.'
yājñavalkyeti hovāca yatrāyaṃ puruṣo mriyate kimenaṃ na jahātīti .
nāmetyanantaṃ vai nāmānantā viśve devā anantameva sa tena lokaṃ jayati .. 12..
Meaning:- 'Yajnavalkya', said he, 'when this man dies, what is it that does not leave him?' 'Name. The name indeed is infinite, and infinite are the Visvadevas. He (who knows thus) wins thereby a really infinite world'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Is it only the organs of a liberated man that are merged, or is it also all (That is, the objects.) that moves them to action? If it is only the former, but not the latter, then with the presence of these stimulating causes the organs would again be likely to function. If, on the other hand, everything, such as desire and action, is merged, then only liberation is possible. It is to bring this out that the next question is put:- 'Yajnavalkya,' said he, 'when this man dies, what is it that does not leave him?' The other said:- Name. That is, everything is merged; only the name (That he is a liberated man. This too as others see it.) is left because of its relation to the type, for the name is eternal. The name indeed is infinite --- the infinity of the name is its eternity --- and infinite are the Visvadevas, because they possess the infinity of the name. He (who knows thus) wins thereby a really infinite world. Having identified himself with the Visvadevas who possess the infinity of the name, he wins through this realisation nothing less than an infinite world.
Max Müller
12. 'Yâgñavalkya,' he said, 'when such a man dies, what does not leave him?' 'The name,' he replied; 'for the name is endless, the Visvedevas are endless, and by it he gains the endless world.'
ārtabhāgeti hovā''cāvāmevaitasya vediṣyāvo na nāvetatsajana iti . tau
hotkramya mantrayāṃ cakrāte tau ha yadūcatuḥ karma haiva tadūcaturatha
ha yatpraśagͫsatuḥ karma haiva tat praśagͫsatuḥ puṇyo vai puṇyena
karmaṇā bhavati pāpaḥ pāpeneti . tato ha jāratkārava ārtabhāga upararāma .. 13..
iti dvitīyaṃ brāhmaṇam ..
atha tṛtīyaṃ brāhmaṇam .
Meaning:- 'Yajnavalkya', said he, 'when the vocal organ of a man who dies is merged in fire, the nose in air, the eye in the sun, the mind in the moon, the ear in the quarters, the body in the earth, the ether of the heart in the external ether, the hair on the body in herbs, that on the head in trees, and the blood and the seed are deposited in water, where is then the man?' 'Give me your hand, dear Artabhaga, we will decide this between ourselves, we cannot do it in a crowded place.' They went out and talked it over. What they mentioned there was only work, and what they praised there was also work alone. (Therefore) one indeed becomes good through good work and evil through evil work. Thereupon Artabhaga, of the line of Jaratkaru, kept silent.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- The death that consists in bondage in the form of the Grahas and Atigrahas (organs and objects) has beenn described, and because that death has its death, liberation is possible. This liberation is the dissolution, here itself, of the Grahas and Atigrahas, like the extinction of a light. It is to ascertain the nature of the stimulating cause of that death which consists in the bondage called the Grahas and Atigrahas that this paragraph is introduced. 'Yajnavalkya,' said he.
Here some (The reference is to Bhatrprapanca.) say:- Even though the Grahas and Atrigrahas together with their stimulating cause are rooted out, a man is not liberated. Separated from the Supreme Self by ignoracne, which springs from himself and is comparable to a desert (on earth), and at the same time turning away from the world of enjoyment, he, with his name only left and his desires and past work rooted out, remains in an intermediate stage. His perception of duality should be removed by the realisation of the unity of the Supreme Self. So now meditation on the Supreme Self has to be introduced. Thus this school conceives an intermediate stage called Apavarga or release, and establishes a link with the next section.
Now we ask these people how it is that the disembodied man, after his organs have been destroyed, attains the realisation of the Supreme Self through hearing, reflection and meditation. They themselves maintain that a man whose organs have been dissolved has only his name left, the Sruti too says, '(The body) lies dead' (III. ii. 11). So they cannot even in imagination establish their position. If, on the other hand, they think that a man, during his very lifetime, has only ignorance left in him and turns away from the world of enjoyment, they should explain what this is due to. If they would attribute it to his identification with the whole universe, individual and collective, it has already been refuted. (Only two courses are open:-) Either the sage, endowed with meditation on his identity with the universe, individual and collective, combined with rites, may, after death, with his organs dissolved, attain identity with the universe or with Hiranyagarbha. Or in his ver lifetime he may, with his organs intact, turn away --- become averse --- from the world of enjoyment and be inclined towards the realisation of the Supreme Self. But both cannot be attained through means requiring one and the same effort:- If the effort be the means of attaining the state of Hiranyagarbha, it cannot be the means of turning away from the world of enjoyment; and if it be the means of turning away from the world of enjoyment, and inclining towards the Supreme Self, it cannot be the means of attaining the state of Hiranyagarbha, for what helps to cause motion cannot at the same time help to stop it. If, on the other hand, he attains after death the state of Hiranyagarbha, and then, with his organs dissolved and only the name left, is qualified (as Hiranyagarbha) for the knowledge of the Supreme Self, then instruction about the knowledge of the Supreme Self for us ordinary people would be meaningless; whereas such Sruti texts as, 'Whoever among the gods knew It (also became That),' etc. (I. iv. 10), teach that the knowledge of Brahman is for bringing the highest end of life within the reach of all. Therefore the above conceit is very poor and altogether contrary to the teachings of the scriptues. Now let us return to our subject.
In order to ascertain what starts the bondage known as the Grahas and Atigrahas (organs and objects) the text says:- When the vocal organ of a man who dies without attaining the highest knowledge, and remaining possessed of the idea that he has a head, hands, etc., is merged in fire, the nose is merged in air, the eye in the sun --- the verb 'is merged' is understood in each case --- the mind in the moon, the ear in the quarters, the body in the earth. The word 'Atman' here means the ether of the heart, which is the seat of the self:- it is merged in the external ether. The hair on the body is merged in herbs, that on the head is merged in trees, and the blood and the seed are deposited in water:- The word 'deposited' indicates that they are to be withdrawn (When a new body is taken.). In every case the words 'vocal organ' etc. refer to their presiding deities; the organs themselves do not depart before liberation. When the presiding deities cease to work, the organs become like tools, such as a bill-hook, laid down; and the agent, man, being disembodied, is helpless. So the question is being asked regarding his support, 'Where is then the man?' --- i.e. on what does he then rest? The question is:- 'What is that support resting on which he again takes the body and organs, and which starts the bondage known as the Grahas and Atigrahas?' The answer is being given:- 'Exponents of different schools have put forward different things, viz nature (These are respectively advocated by the Mimamsakas, materialists, astrologers, Vaidikas, believers in the gods, idealists, and nihilists --- the last two being Buddhist schools.), chance, time, work, destiny, mere consciousness, and void, as the support in question. Therefore, being open to various disputes, the truth cannot be ascertained by the usual method of defeating the opponent. If you want to know the truth in this matter, give me your hand, dear Artabhaga, we will decide this question that you have asked between ourselves. Why? Because we cannot decide it in a crowded place, and we must retire to a solitary place to discuss it.' They went out, etc. is the narration of the Sruti. What Yajnavalkya and Artabhaga did after retiring to the solitary place is being stated:- They went out of the crowded place and talked it over. First they took up one after another the different conventional views on the subject and discussed them. Listen what they mentioned at the end of the discussion, after refuting all the tentative views. There they mentioned only work as the support which caused the repeated taking up of the body and organs. Not only this:- having accepted time, work, destiny and God as causes, what they praised there was work alone. Since it is decided that the repeated taking up of the body and organs, known also as the Grahas and Atigrahas, is due to work, therefore one indeed becomes good through good work enjoined by the scriptures, and becomes its opposite, evil, through the opposite or evil work. When Yajnavalkya had thus answered his questions, Artabhaga, of the line of Jaratkaru, thereupon, finding it impossible to dislodge him, kept silent.
Max Müller
13. 'Yâgñavalkya,' he said,' when the speech of this dead person enters into the fire [1], breath into the air, the eye into the sun, the mind into the moon, the hearing into space, into the earth the body, into the ether the self, into the shrubs the hairs of the body, into the trees the hairs of the head, when the blood and the seed are deposited in the water, where is then that person?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Take my hand, my friend. We two alone shall know of this; let this question of ours not be (discussed) in public.' Then these two went out and argued, and what they said was karman (work), what they praised was karman [2], viz. that a man becomes good by good work, and bad by bad work. After that Gâratkârava Ârtabhâga held his peace.
lokānāmantānapṛcchāmāthaitadathainamabrūma kva pārikṣitā abhavanniti
kva pārikṣitā abhavan sa tvā pṛcchāmi yājñavalkya kva pārikṣitā
abhavanniti .. 1..
Meaning:- Then Bhujyu, the grandson of Lahya, asked him. 'Yajnavalkya', said he, 'we travelled in Madra as students, and we came to the house of Patanchala of the line of Kapi. His daughter was possessed by a Gandharva. We asked him, "Who are you?" He said, "I am Sudhanvan, of the line of Angiras". When we asked him about the limits of the world, we said to him, "Where were the descendants of Pariksit?" And I ask you, Yajnavalkya, where were the descendants of Pariksit? (Tell me) where were the descendants of Pariksit?'
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Then, when the descendant of Jaratkaru had stopped, the grandson of Lahya named Bhujyu asked him. 'Yajnavalkya,' said he. The meditation on the horse sacrifice has been spoken of at the beginning of the book, and this sacrifice produces both collective and individual results. Whether combined with meditation, or performed exclusively through it, it is the highest of all rites. The Smrti says, 'There is nothing more heinous than killing a noble Brahmana nor anything more meritorious than the horse sacrifice,' for through it one attains both collective and individual results. Of these, whatever (The reference is to the gods such as fire, sun and air.) is within the universe has been shown to be the individual results of the horse sacrifice. While it has been said, 'Death (This is the collective result.) becomes his self, and he becomes one with these deities' (I. ii. 7). This Death is Hunger, and is variously called Cosmic Intelligence, the Aggregate, the First-born, Air, Cosmic Energy, Satya and Hiranyagarbha. That which is the essence of the whole universe, individual and collective, which is the inner self or subtle body of all beings, the essence of the subtle, in which the actions of all beings inhere, and which is the highet result of rites as also of the meditations connected with them --- has the manifested universe for its field. How far its range is --- what is its extent, spreading all round like a globe, has to be stated. If this is done, the entire world of bondage will have been described. In order to show the extraordinary character of the meditation on identity with that universe, collective and individual, Bhujyu mentions an incident of his own life. He thinks of confusing his opponent by this means. 'We travelled in the territory called Madra as students, observing the appropriate vow for study, or as priests called Adhvaryus, and we came to the house of Patancala, of the line of Kapi. His daughter was possessed by a Gandharva,' some being other than human; or the word may mean the fire that is worshipped in the house --- the deity who is a priest (to the gods). We conclude thus from his special knowledge, for an ordinary being cannot possibly have such knowledge. 'We all sat round him and asked him, 'Who are you? --- What is your name, and what kind of being are you?' He, the Gandharva, said, 'I am named Sudhanvan, of the line of Angiras.' When we asked him about the limits of the world, we, among that group desirous of knowing the extent of the cosmic orb, priding ourselves upon our good fortune, said to him --- what? --- 'Where were the descendants of Pariksit (Their names are given in S. XIII. v. iv. 1 ' 3.)?' And the Gandharva told us all about it. So I have been instructed by a celestial being, and you do not have that knowledge; hence you are defeated.' This is his idea. 'Being possessed of this revealed knowledge from The Gandharva, I ask you, Yajnavalkya, where were the descendants of Pariksit? Do you know this, Yajnavalkya? Tell me, I ask you, where were the descendants of Pariksit?'
Max Müller
1. Then Bhugyu Lâhyâyani asked. 'Yâgñavalkya,' he said, 'we wandered about as students [1], and came to the house of Patañkala Kâpya. He had a daughter who was possessed by a Gandharva. We asked him, 'Who art thou?' and he (the Gandharva) replied:- 'I am Sudhanvan, the Âṅgirasa.' And when we asked him about the ends of the world, we said to him, 'Where were the Pârikshitas [2]? Where then were the Pârikshitas, I ask thee, Yâgñavalkya, where were the Pârikshitas?'
aśvamedhayājino'bhavannityevamiva vai sa vāyumeva praśaśagͫsa
tasmādvāyureva vyaṣṭirvāyuḥ samaṣṭirapa punarmṛtyuṃ jayati ya evaṃ
veda . tato ha bhujyurlāhyāyanirupararāma .. 2..
iti tṛtīyaṃ brāhmaṇam ..
atha caturthaṃ brahmaṇam .
Meaning:- Yajnavalkya said, 'The Gandharva evidently told you that they went where the performers of the horse sacrifice go'. 'And where do the performers of the horse sacrifice go?' 'Thirty-two times the space covered by the sun's chariot in a day makes this world; around it, covering twice the area, is the earth; around the earth, covering twice the area, is the ocean. Now, as is the edge of a razor, or the wing of a fly, so is there just that much opening at the junction (of the two halves of the cosmic shell). (Through that they go out.) Fire, in the form of a falcon, delivered them to the air; the air, putting them in itself, took them where the (previous) performers of the horse sacrifice were'. Thus did the Gandharva praise the air. Therefore the air is the diversity of individuals, and the air is the aggregate. He who knows it as such conquers further death. Thereupon Bhujyu, the grandson of Lahya, kept silent.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Yajnavalkya said, 'The Gandharva evidently told you that they, the descendants of Pariksit, went where the performers of the horse sacrifice go.' The particle 'vai' recalls a past incident. When his question was answered, Bhujyu asked, 'And where do the performers of the horse sacrifice go?' With a view to telling where they go, Yajnavalkya described the dimensions of the cosmic orb:- Thirty-two times the space covered by the sun's chariot in a day makes this world, surrounded by the mountain Lokaloka. This is the world which constitutes the body of Viraj, and in which people reap the fruits of their past actions.
This much is the Loka; beyond this is the Aloka. Around it, covering twice the area of this world is the earth. Similarly around the earth, covering twice the area, is the ocean, which the writers of the Puranas name after rain-water. Now the size of the opening at the junction of the two halves of the cosmic shell is being given. Through this opening as an exit the performers of the horse sacrifice go out and spread. Now, as is the edge of a razor, or the wing of a fly possessed of fineness, so is there just that much opening at the junction (of the two halves of the cosmic shell). The word 'Indra' is a synonym of God; here it refers to the fire that is kindled in the horse sacrifice, and the meditation on which has been described in the words, 'His head is the east,' etc. (I. ii. 3). Fire, in the form of a falcon, with wings, tails, etc., delivered them, the descendants of Parksit, who had performed the horse sacrifice and had attained fire to the air, because, being gross, it itself had no access there. The air, putting them in itself, making them a part of itself, took them where the previous performers of the horse sacrifice were. Thus did the Gandharva praise the air, which was the goal (Being the cosmic vital force.) of the performers of the horse sacrifice. The story is finished:- but the Sruti gives us the gist of it directly, stepping out of the garb of the story. Because the air (vital force) is the inner self of all beings, moving and stationary, and is also outside them, therefore the air is the diversity of individuals, in forms relating to the body, the elements and the gods; similarly the air is the aggregate, as the one cosmic vital force. He who knows it as such attains identity with the air in its individual and collective form.
What he gains by this is being stated:- He conquers further death, i.e. after dying once, he dies no more. Thereupon, when his question had been answered, Bhujyu, the grandson of Lahya, kept silent.
Max Müller
2. Yâgñavalkya said:- 'He said to thee, I suppose, that they went where those go who have performed a horse-sacrifice.' He said:- 'And where do they go who have performed a horse-sacrifice?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'Thirty-two journeys of the car of the sun is this world. The earth surrounds it on every side, twice as large, and the ocean surrounds this earth on every side, twice as large. Now there is between [1] them a space as large as the edge of a razor or the wing of a mosquito. Indra, having become a bird, handed them (through the space) to Vâyu (the air), and Vâyu (the air), holding them within himself, conveyed them to where they dwell who have performed a horse-sacrifice. Somewhat in this way did he praise Vâyu indeed. Therefore Vâyu (air) is everything by itself, and Vâyu is all things together. He who knows this, conquers death.' After that Bhugyu Lâhyâyani held his peace.
sa ta ātmā sarvāntaro yo'pānenāpāniti sa ta ātmā sarvāntaro yo vyānena
vyāniti sa ta ātmā sarvāntaro ya udānenodāniti sa ta ātmā sarvāntara
eṣa ta ātmā sarvāntaraḥ .. 1..
Meaning:- Then Usata, the son of Chakra, asked him. 'Yajnavalkya', said he, 'explain to me the Brahman that is immediate and direct - the self that is within all.' 'This is your self that is within all'. 'Which is within all, Yajnavalkya?' 'That which breathes through the Prana is your self that is within all. That which moves downwards through the Apana is your self that is within all. That which pervades through the Vyana is your self that is within all. That which goes out through the Udana is your self that is within all. This is your self that is within all.'
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Then Usata, the son of Cakra, asked him, Yajnavalkya, who has already been introduced. The Brahman that is immediate, not obstructed from the seer or subject by anything, and direct, not used in a figurative sense, like the ear and so forth, which are considered to be Brahman. What is that? The self that is within all. The word 'self' refers to the inner (individual) self, that being the accepted meaning of the term. The words 'Yat' and 'Yah' (Neuter and masculine forms of the Sanskrti word meaning 'that'.) indicate that the self familiar to all is identical with Brahman. Explain that self to me, speak about it clearly, as one shows a cow by taking hold of its horns, as much as to say, 'This is it.'
Thus addressed, Yajnavalkya replied, 'This is your self that is within all.' The qualification 'that is within all' is suggestive of all qualifications whatsoever. That which is 'immediate' or unobstructed, and 'direct' or used in its primary sense, and which is 'Brahman' or the vastest, the self of all and within all --- all these specifications refer to the self. 'What is that?', 'This self of yours? --- that by which your body and organs are ensouled is your self, i.e. the self of the body and organs.' 'There is first the body; within it is the subtle body consisting of the organs; and the third is that whose existence is being doubted. Which of these do you mean as my self that is within all?' Thus spoken to, Yajnavalkya said, 'That which breathes (lit. does the function of the Prana) through the Prana, which operates in the mouth and nose, in other words, 'which makes the Prana breathe' (Ke. I. 9), is your self. i.e. the individual self of the body and organs.' The rest is similar in meaning. That which moves downwards through the Apana, which pervades through the Vyana --- the long i in the two verbs in this clause is a Vedic licence --- by which the body and organs are made to breathe and do other functions, like a wooden puppet. Unless they are operated by an intelligent principle, they cannot do any such function such as breathing, as is the case with the wooden puppet. Therefore it is on account of being operated by the individual self, which is distinct from them, that they breathe and do other functions, as does the puppet. Hence that principle distinct from the body and organs exists which makes them function.
Max Müller
1. Then Ushasta Kâkrâyana asked. 'Yâgñavalkya,' he said, 'tell me the Brahman which is visible, not invisible [1], the Self (âtman), who is within all.' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'This, thy Self, who is within all.' 'Which Self, O Yâgñavalkya, is within all?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'He who breathes in the up-breathing, he is thy Self, and within all. He who breathes in the down-breathing, he is thy Self, and within all. He who breathes in the on-breathing, he is thy Self, and within all. He who breathes in the out-breathing, he is thy Self, and within all. This is thy Self, who is within all.'
ya ātmā sarvāntaraḥ taṃ me vyācakṣveti . eṣa ta ātmā sarvāntaraḥ .
katamo yājñavalkya sarvāntaro . na dṛṣṭerdraṣṭāraṃ paśyerna śruteḥ
śrotāragͫ śṛṇuyā na matermantāraṃ manvīthā na vijñātervijñātāraṃ
vijānīyā eṣa ta ātmā sarvāntaro'to'nyadārtaṃ tato hoṣastascākrāyaṇa
upararāma .. 2..
iti caturthaṃ brāhmaṇam ..
atha pañcamaṃ brāhmaṇam .
Meaning:- Usata, the son of Chakra, said, 'You have indicated it as one may say that a cow is such and such, or a horse is such and such. Explain to me the Brahman that is immediate and direct - the self that is within all'. 'This is your self that is within all'. 'Which is within all, Yajnavalkya?' 'You cannot see that which is the witness of vision; you cannot hear that which is the hearer of hearing; you cannot think that which is the thinker of thought; you cannot know that which is the knower of knowledge. This is your self that is within all; everything else but this is perishable.' Thereupon Usata, the son of Chakra, kept silent.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Usasta, the son of Cakra, said:- As somebody first proposes one thing and then, being in doubt, may say something else --- for instance, having proposed to point out a cow or a horse, he merely describes them through certain characteristics of theirs, such as walking, and says, 'A cow is that which walks,' or 'A horse is that which runs' --- so you too have indicated Brahman through certain characteristics, such as breathing. To be brief, give up your trick prompted by your hankering after the cows, and explain to me the Brahman that is immediate and direct --- the self that is within all. Yajnavalkya replied:- I stick to the proposition that I first made, that your self is such and such; it is exactly as I have described it. You asked me to present the self as one would a jar etc. I do not do so, because it is impossible. Why is it impossible? Owing to the very nature of the thing. What is that? Its being the witness of vision etc., for the self is the witness of vision. Vision is of two kinds, ordinary and real. Ordinary vision is a function of the mind as connected with the eye; it is an act, and as such it has a beginning and an end. But the vision that belongs to the self is like the heat and light of fire; being the very essence of the witness, it has neither beginning nor end. Because it appears to be connected with the ordinary vision, which is produced and is but a limiting adjunct of it, it is spoken of as the witness, and also as differentiated into witness and vision. The ordinary vision, however, is coloured by the objects seen through the eye, and of course has a beginning; it appears to be connected with the ternal vision of the self, and is but its reflection; it originates and ends, pervaded by the other. It is therefore that the eternal vision of the self is metaphorically spoken of as the witness, and although eternal seeing, is spoken of as sometimes seeing and sometimes not seeing. But as a matter of fact the vision of the seer never changes. So it will be said in the fourth chapter, 'It thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were' (IV. iii. 7), and 'The vision of the witness can never be lost' (IV. iii. 23).
This is the meaning of the following passage:- You cannot see that which is the witness of vision, i.e. which pervades by its eternal vision the act of our ordinary vision. This latter, which is an act, is affected by the objects seen, and reveals only colour (form), but not the inner self that pervades it. Therefore you cannot see that inner self which is the witness of vision. Similarly you cannot hear that which is the hearer of hearing; you cannot think that which pervades thought, the mere function of the mind; you cannot know that which pervades knowledge, the mere function of the intellect. This is the very nature of the thing; therefore it cannot be shown like a cow etc. Some (Bhartrprapanca is meant.) explainn the passage, 'You cannot see the witness of vision,' etc. differently. According to them, 'the witness of vision' means 'that which sees,' the agent or cause of vision in general, without any distinction of kind. In other words, they regard the genitive case in the term 'of vision' as having accusative force. That vision is caused and is an effect, like a jar. The suffix in the word 'Drastr' (witness) indicates agency. Therefore, these commentators opine, the expression 'the witness of vision' means 'the agent of vision'. But they fail to see that the term 'of vision' then becomes redundant; or even if they see it, they take it as a repetition, or as a faulty reading not worth anything, and pay no attention to it. How are the words redundant? They are redundant, because the word 'Drastr' itself would be enough to indicate the agency of vision; then one should only say, 'You cannot see the witness.' For the text uses the suffix 'trc' with the verb, and in grammar this always indicates agency of the act denoted by the verb. We only say, 'One is conducting the traveller or the cutter'; we should not, in the absence of any special meaning, say, 'the traveller of travelling, or 'the cutter of cutting.'Nor should the extra words be dismissed as a mere elucidation, if there is any alternative explanation; and it is not a faulty reading, since all (Students of both Kanva and Madhyandina recensions.) unanimously accept it. Therefore it is a defect of the commentators' understanding, and not a mistake on the part of the students. But the way we have explained it, viz that the self endowed with eternal vision, as opposed to the ordinary vision, should be pointed out, accounts for the two words 'witness' and 'vision' (in the expression 'the witness of vision') as describing the subject and the object, with a view to defining the nature of the self. It will also agree with the passage, 'The vision of the witness (can never be lost)' etc. (IV. iii. 23), occurring elsewhere, as also with the clauses, '(Through which) the eyes see' (Ke. I. 7), '(By which) this ear is heard' (Ke. I. , occurring in another text. It is also consonant with reason. In other words, the self can be eternal if only it is immutable; it is a conntradiction in terms to say that a thing is changeful and yet eternal. Moreover, the Sruti texts, 'It thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were' (IV. iii. 22), 'The vision of the witness can never be lost,' and 'This is the eternal glory of a knower of Brahman' (IV. iv. 23), would otherwise be inconsistent.
Objection:- But such terms as 'witness,' 'hearer,' 'thinker' and 'knower' would also be inconsistent if the self is immutable. Reply:- Not so, for they only repeat conventional expressions as people think them. They do not seek to define the truth of the self. Since the expressions 'the witness of vision' etc. cannot otherwise be explained, we conclude that they mean what we have indicated. Therefore the opponents' rejection of the qualifying term 'of vision' is only due to ignorance. This is your self specified by all those above-mentioned epithets. Everything else but this self, whether it is the gross body or the subtle body consisting of the organs, is perishable. This only is imperishable, changeless. Thereupon Usasta, the son of Cakra, kept silent.
Max Müller
2. Ushasta Kâkrâyana said:- 'As one might say, this is a cow, this is a horse, thus has this been explained by thee. Tell me the Brahman which is visible, not invisible, the Self, who is within all.' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'This, thy Self, who is within all.' 'Which Self, O Yâgñavalkya, is within all?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'Thou couldst not see the (true) seer of sight, thou couldst not hear the (true) hearer of hearing, nor perceive the perceiver of perception, nor know the knower of knowledge. This is thy Self, who is within all. Everything also is of evil.' After that Ushasta Kâkrâyana held his peace.
yā vittaiṣaṇā sā lokaiṣaṇobhe hyete eṣaṇe eva bhavatastasmādbrāhmaṇaḥ
pāṇḍityaṃ nirvidya bālyena tiṣṭhāset . bālyaṃ ca pāṇḍityaṃ ca
nirvidyātha muniramaunaṃ ca maunaṃ ca nirvidyātha brāhmaṇaḥ . sa
brāhmaṇaḥ kena syād yena syāt tenedṛśa evāto'nyadārtam . ya evaṃ
veda evāto'nyadārtam . tato ha kaholaḥ kauṣītakeya upararāma .. 1..
iti pañcamaṃ brāhmaṇam ..
atha ṣaṣṭhaṃ brāhmaṇam .
Meaning:- Then Kahola, the son of Kusitaka, asked him, 'Yajnavalkya', said he, 'explain to me the Brahman that is immediate and direct - the self that is within all'. 'This is your self that is within all'. 'Which is within all, Yajnavalkya?' 'That which transcends hunger and thirst, grief, delusion, decay and death. Knowing this very Self the Brahmanas renounce the desire for sons, for wealth and for the worlds, and lead a mendicant's life. That which is the desire for sons is the desire for wealth, and that which is the desire for wealth is the desire for worlds, for both these are but desires. Therefore the knower of Brahman, having known all about scholarship, should try to live upon that strength which comes of knowledge; having known all about this strength and scholarship, he becomes meditative; having known all about both meditativeness and its opposite, he becomes a knower of Brahman. How does that knower of b behave? Howsoever he may behave, he is just such. Except this, everything is perishable.' Thereupon Kahola, the son of Kusitaka, kept silent.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Then Kahola, the son of Kusitaka, asked him, 'Yajnavalkya,' said he --- to be explained as before --- 'explain to me the Brahman that is immediate and direct --- the self that is within all,' knowing which one is freed from bondage. Yajnavalkya said, 'This is your self.
Question:- Do Usasta and Kahola ask about one and the same self, or do they ask of different selves having similar characteristics? Some (Bhartrprapanca is meant.) say:- It ought to be different selves,, for then only can the two questions be other than a repetition. Had Usasta and Kahola asked about the same self, then one question having dealt with that, the second would have been redundant; and the passage in question is not a mere elucidation. Therefore the two selves must be different, viz the individual self and the Supreme Self. Reply:- No, because of the use of the word 'your.' It has been said in the reply, 'This is your self' (III. iv. 1 ' 2; this text), and the same aggregate of body and organs cannot have two selves, for each aggregate possesses a single self. Nor can Usasta and Kahola mean selves essentially different from each other, since both cannot be primary and self and within all. If one of the two be Brahman in a primary sense, the other must be secondary; similarly with selfhood and being within all, for these terms are contradictory. If one of the two Brahmans be the self, primary and within all, then the other must be non-self, secondary and not within all. Therefore one and the same self has been mentioned twice with a view to telling something special about it. That part only of the second question which is common to the first is a repetition of the latter, and the second question is introduced in order to furnish some detail not mentioned before.
Objection:- What is this detail? Reply:- It is this. In the first question it has been stated that there is a self distinct from the body, whose bondage together with its stimulating causes has been spoken of:- but in the second something more is added, viz that this self is beyond such relative attributes as hunger --- a detail, by knowing which, together with renunciation, one is freed from the bondage above spoken of. Therefore we conclude that in both cases the question and answer, ending with the words, 'This is your self that is within all,' have an identical meaning.
Objection:- How can the same self possess contradictory attributes, such as being beyond hunger etc. and having them? Reply:- The objection is not valid, having already been refuted. We have repeatedly said that the relative existence of the self is but a delusion caused by its association with limiting adjuncts, such as the body and organs, which are but the modifications of name and form. We have also made this clear while explaining the apparently contradictory passages of the Srutis. For instance, a rope, a mother-of-pearl, or the sky, becomes a snake, silver, or blue respectively, owing to attributes imputed by people, but in themselves they are just a rope, a mother-of-pearl, or the sky. Thus there is no contradiction if things possess contradictory attributes.
Objection:- Will not such Upanisadic texts as, 'One only without a second' (Ch. VI. ii. 1), and 'There is no difference whatsoever in It' (IV. iv. 19; Ka. IV. 11), be contradicted if you admit the existence of the limiting adjuncts, name and form? Reply:- No; this has already been refuted by the illustrations of the foam of water and (the modifications of) clay etc. But when name and form are tested from the standpoint of the highest truth in the light of the above Sruti texts, as to whether they are different from the Supreme Self or not, they cease to be separate entities, like the foam of water, or like the modifications (of clay), such as a jar. It is then that such passages as, 'One only without a second,' and 'There is no difference whatsoever in It,' have scope from the standpoint of the Supreme Self as referring to the highest realisation. But when, on account of our primordial ignorance, the reality of Brahman, although remaining as it is, naturally untouched by anything --- like the reality of the rope, the mother-of-pearl and the sky --- is not discriminated from such limiting adjuncts as the body and organs, which are created by name and form, and our natural vision of those adjuncts remains, then this phenomenal existence consisting of things different from Brahman has fully play. This unreal, phenomenal existence created by differentiation is indeed a fact for those who do not believe in things as different from Brahman as well as for those who do believe. But the believers of the highest truth, while discussing in accordance with the Srutis, the actual existence or non-existence of things apart from Brahman, conclude that Brahman alone is the one without a second, beyond all finite relations. So there is no contradiction between the two views. We do not maintain the existence of things different from Brahman in the state when the highest truth has been definitely known, as the Srutis say, 'One only without a second,' and 'Without interior or exterior' (II. v. 19; III. viii. . Nor do we deny the validity, for the ignorant, of actions with their factors and results while the relative world of name and form exists. Therefore scriptural or conventional outlook depends entirely on knowledge or ignorance. Hence there is no apprehension of a contradiction between them. In fact, all schools must admit the existence or non-existence of the phenomenal world according as it is viewed from the relative or the absolute standpoint.
Regarding the nature of the self as it is in reality, once more the question is asked:- 'Which is within all, Yajnavalkya?' The other replied, 'That which transcends hunger and thirst.' --- The word 'which' in the text should be construed with 'transcends' coming shortly after. --- As the sky, fancied by the ignorant as being concave and blue, is really without these qualities, being naturally untouched by them, similalry Brahman, although fancied as being subject to hunger, thirst, etc., by the ignorant, who think that they are hungry or thirsty, really transcends these qualities, being naturally untouched by them, for the Sruti says, 'It is not affected by human misery, being beyond it' (Ka. V. 11) --- i.e. by misery attributed by ignorant people. Hunger and thirst have been compounded in the text, as both are vital functions.
Grief is desrie. The discomfort that one feels as one reflects on some covetable thing is the seed of desire for one afflicted with a hankering, because it kindles desire; while delusion is a mistake, a confusion, arising from a false notion; it is ignorance, the fruitful source of all troubles. The two words are not compounded, as grief and delusion produce different results. They have their seat in the mind. (The self also transcends) decay and death, which centre in the body. 'Decay' is that modification of the body and organs which is marked by wrinkles, grey hair, etc. 'Death' is the fall of the body, the last modification to overtake it. These, hunger and the rest, which centre in the vital force, mind and body; and which are present in beings in an unbroken succession like days and nights, etc., and like the waves of an ocean, are called the relative or transmigratory existence with regard to them. But that which is described as the witness of vision and so forth, which is immediate or unobstructed and direct or used in a primary sense, which is within all, and is the self of all beings from Hiranyagarbha down to a clump of grass, is ever untouched by such relative attributes as hunger and thirst, as the sky is untouched by impurities like the clouds etc.
Knowing this very Self, their own reality, as 'I am this, the Supreme Brahman, eternally devoid of relative attributes, and ever satisfied,' the Brahmanas --- they are mentioned because they alone are qualified for renunciation --- renounce, lit. rise up in an opposite direction to --- what? --- the desire for sons, as means to winning this world, thinking, 'We will win this world through sons' --- in other words, marriage; hence the meaning is, they do not marry. (The desire) for wealth:- procuring cattle etc., which are the means of rites, in order that one may perform rites through them and win the world of the manes, or that one may win the world of the gods either by combining rites with meditation, which is divine wealth, or solely through meditation on Hiranyagarbha. Some say that one cannot renounce divine wealth, since it is through this that renunciation is possible. But this view is wrong, for divine wealth also falls within the category of desires, as we know from the Sruti passage, 'This much indeed is desire' (I. iv. 17). It is meditation on the gods such as Hiranyagarbha that is spoken of as wealth, because it leads to the world of the gods. The Knowledge of Brahman, which concerns the unconditioned Pure Intelligence, cannot certainly be the means of attaining the world of the gods. Witness the Sruti texts, 'Therefore It became all' (I. iv. 10), and 'For he becomes their self' (Ibid.). It is through the knowledge of Brahman that renunciation takes places, for there is the specific statement, 'Knowing this very Self.' Therefore they renounce all these three objects of desire which lead to worlds that are not the Self. --- 'Esana' means desire, for the Sruti says, 'This much indeed is desire.' --- That is to say, they cease to hanker after all this threefold means of attaining worlds that are not the Self.
Every desire for means is a desire for results; therefore the text says that desire is one. How? That which is the desire for sons is the desire for wealth, for both are equally means to tangible results. And that which is the desire for wealth is the desire for worlds, for it is directed towards the results. People adopt different means, actuated by the desire for results. Hence desire is one, because the desire for worlds cannot be attained without the requisite means; for both these are but desires, one being but a means to the other. Therefore the knower of Brahman has nothing to do with rites or their accessories. --- 'Brahmanas' in the text means those of past times. --- The rites and their accessories here spoken of refer to the holy thread etc., which are means to the performance of rites pertaining to the gods, the manes and man, for through them these rites are performed. Compare the Sruti, 'The holy thread that hangs straight down from the neck is for rites pertaining to men' (Tai. S. II. v. ii. 1). Therefore the ancient Brahmanas --- knowers of Brahman --- renouncing rites and their accessories, such as the holy thread, embrace the life of a monk (of the highest class) known as the Paramahamsa, and lead a mendicant's life, live upon begging --- giving up the insignia of a monk's life prescribed by the Smrtis, which are the means of livelihood for those who have merely had recourse to that life. Witness the Smrtis:- 'The knower of Brahman wears no signs,' 'Therefore the knower of religion, who wears no signs, (should practise its principles)' (cf. Mbh. XIV. x1vi. 51), and 'His signs are not manifest, nor his behaviour' (cf. Va. X.). And the Sruti:- 'Then he becomes a monk, wears the ochre robe, shaves his head, and does not accept (superfluous) gifts,' etc. (Ja. 5); also, 'Having cut off his hair together with the tuft and giving up the holy thread,' etc. (Ks. I., II. 3).
Objection:- Because of the use of the present tences in it, the passage, 'The Brahmanas renounce ' and live a mendicant life,' should be taken as a merge eulogy; it has none of the three suffixes denoting an injunction. Therefore, on the strength of a mere eulogy the abandonment of the holy thread and other such accessories of rites prescribed by the Srutis and Smrtis cannot be urged. 'He only who wears the holy thread may study the Vedas, officiate in sacrifices, or perform them' (Tai. A. II. i. 1). In the first place, the study of the Vedas is enjoined in the mendicant life:- 'By giving up the study of the Vedas one becomes a Sudra; therefore one must not do not' (Quoted in Va. X). Also Apastamba:- 'Uttering speech only when studying the Vedas' (Ap. II. xxi. 10, 21). The scriptures condemn giving up the study of the Vedas in the verse, 'Quitting the study of the Vedas, condemning the Vedas, deceitful evidence, murder of a friend and eating forbidden or uneatable food --- these six acts are equivalent to drinking' (M. XI. 56). Secondly, the passage, 'One should wear the holy thread while serving the preceptors, old people and guests, while performing sacrifices, repeating sacred formulae, eating, rinsing one's mouth and studying the Vedas' (Ap. I. xv. 1), enjoins the holy thread as an accessory of those acts, and the Srutis and Smrtis prescribe such acts as the attending on the preceptors, study of the Vedas, eating and rinsing one's mouth among the duties of a monk; therefore we cannot understand the passage in question as advocating the giving up of the holy thread. Though the renunciation of desires is enjoined, yet it means the renunciation of only the three desires, viz those concerning sons and so forth, and not of all rites and their means. If all rites are abandoned, it will be doing something not enjoined by the Srutis, and discarding the holy thread etc., actually enjoined by them. This omission of acts enjoined and commitment of those forbidden would be a grave offence. Therefore the assumption that such insignia as the holy thread should be abandoned, is merely an instance of the blind following the blind (thoughtless procedure). Reply:- No, for the Sruti says, 'The monk should give up the holy thread, the study of the Vedas, and all such things' (Ks. 4; Kr. 2). Moreover, the ultimate aim of the Upanisads is to teach Self-knowledge. It has already been stated, 'The Self is to be realised --- to be heard of, reflected on,' etc. (II. iv. 5); and it is common knowledge that that very Self is to be known as immediate and direct, as being within all, and devoid of the relative attributes of hunger etc. Since this entire Upanisad sets itself to bringing this out, the passage in question cannot form a part of some other (ritualistic) injunction, and is therefore not a eulogy. For Self-knowledge is to be attained, and the Self, being devoid of the attributes of hunger etc., is to be known as different from the means and results of an action. To know the Self as identified with these is ignorance. Witness of the Srutis:- 'He (who worships another god thinking), 'He is one, and I am another,' does not know' (I. iv. 10), 'He goes from death to death who sees difference, as it were, in It' (IV. iv. 19; Ka. IV. 10), 'It should be realised in one form only' (IV. iv. 20), 'One only without a second' (Ch. VI. ii. 1), 'Thou art That' (Ch. VI. viii. 7), etc. The means and results of an action are different from the Self that is beyond such relative attributes as hunger, and fall within the category of ignorance, as is proved by hundreds of texts like the following:- 'When there is duality, as it were' (II. iv. 14; IV. v. 15), 'He who worships another god thinking, 'He is one, and I am another,' does not know,' 'While those who know It as otherwise (become dependent and attain perishable worlds),' etc. (Ch. VII. xxv. 2).
Knowledge and ignorance cannot co-exist in the same individual, for they are contradictory like light and darkness. Therefore the knower of the Self must not be supposed to have relations with the sphere of ignorance consisting of actions, their factors and their results, for it has been deprecated in such passages as, 'He goes from death to death,' etc. (IV. iv. 19). All actions with their factors and results, which fall within the category of ignorance, are meant to be shunned through the help of knowledge, the opposite of ignorance; and such auxiliaries as the holy thread fall within the same category. Therefore desire is different from and associated with things other than the Self, which by Its nature is neither the means nor the result of an action. They, the means and the resultt of an action, are both desires, and the holy thread etc. and the ceremonies to be performed through them are classed under means. This has been clenched by a reason in the clause, 'For both these are but desires' (this text). Since such means as the holy thread and the ceremonies to be performed through them are within the range of ignorance, are forms of desires, and are things to be shunned, the renunciation of them is undoubtedly enjoined.
Objection:- Since this Upanisad seeks to inculcate Self-knowledge, the passage relating to the renunciation of desires is just a eulogy on that, and not an injunction. Reply:- No, for it is to be performed by the same individual on whom Self-knowledge is enjoined. The Vedas can never connect with the same individual something that is enjoined and something that is not enjoined. Just as the Srutis cannot pressing, pouring, and drinking (of the Soma juice) with the same individual --- that he should press the juice out, pour it into the fire, and drink what is left --- because all the three are obligatory, similarly Self-knowledge, renunciation of desires and begging would be connected with the same individual if only these were obligatory.
Objection:- Suppose we say that being under the category of ignorance and being (auxiliaries of) desires, the abandonment of the holy thread etc. is a mere corollary to the injunction on Self-knowledge, and not a separate injunction. Reply:- No. Since it is connected with the same individual along with the injunction of Self-knowledge, the obligatory nature of this renunciation as also the begging is all the more clearly established; and the objection that it is a mere eulogy because of the use of the present tense does not hold, since it is analogous to such injunctions as that the sacrificial post is (Here 'is' means 'must be.') made of fig-wood.
Objection:- We admit that the passage, '(The Brahmanas) renounce desires ' and lead a mendicant life,' enjoins monasticism. In this life, however, such means as the holy thread and certain insignia are enjoined by the Srutis and Smrtis. Therefore the passage in question means that accessories other than these, although the latter are (auxiliaries of) desires, should be renounced. Reply:- Not so, for we know that there is another kind of monasticism different from this one. The latter is connected with the same individual as Self-knowledge, and is characterised by the renunciation of desires. This monasticism is a part of Self-knowledge because it is the renunciation of desires, which contradict Self-knowledge, and which are within the province of ignorance. Besides this there is another kind of monasticism, which is an order of life and leads to the attainment of the world of Hiranyagarbha and so on; it is about this that means like the holy thread and particular insignia are enjoined. When there is this other kind of monasticism in which the adoption of means like the (auxiliaries of) desires is just a duty peculiar to that life, it is wrong to contradict Self-knowledge that is enjoined by all the Upanisads. If one seeks to adopt means like the holy thread, which are within the province of ignorance and are (auxiliaries of) desires, it would certainly be contradicting the knowledge of one's self --- which is neither the means nor the result of an action, and is devoid of such relative attributes as hunger --- as being identical with Brahman. And it is wrong to contradict this knowledge, for all the Upanisads aim at this.
Objection:- Does not the Sruti itself contradict this by teaching the adoption of desires in the words, '(The Brahmanas) lead a mendicant life'? That is to say, after enjoining the renunciation of desires it teaches in the same breath the adoption of a part of them, viz begging. Does this not imply the adoption of other connected things as well? Reply:- No, the begging does not imply other things as well, just as the drinking of the remnant (of Soma juice) after the oblation has been offered does not include any additional things; since it relates only to the disposal (Pratipatti-karma is the disposal of the accessories of a rite after they have served their purpose, to prevent their interfering with other work.) of what is left, it implies nothing else. Moreover, the begging has no purifying effect; the drinking of the juice might purify a person, but not the begging. Though there may be some merit in obseving the rules regarding it, yet its application to the knower of Brahman is inadmissible.
Objection:- If this is so, why should there be mention of his begging his food? Reply:- It is quite in order, because the passage thereby enjoins the rejection of other means of subsistence.
Objection:- Still what is the necessity of that? Reply:- None, if his realisation has reached that point of inaction; we accept that view. As to the texts regarding monasticism, such as, 'He only who wears the holy thread may study (the Vedas),' etc. (Tai A. II. i. 1), we have already answered your objection by saying that they concern only the monasticism of those who have not known Brahman:- we have pointed out that Self-knowledge would otherwise be contradicted. That the knower of Brahman has no work ('Work' in this connection means ritualistic work.) to do is shown by the following Smrti passage, 'The gods consider him a knower of Brahman who has no desires, who undertakes no work, who does not salute or praise anybody, and whose work has been exhausted, but who himself is unchanged' (Mbh. XII. cc1xix. 34). Also, 'The knower of Brahman wears no signs,' etc. (cf. Mbh. XIV. x1vi. 51). Therefore the knower of the Self should embrace that vow of the highest order of monks which is characterised by the renunciation of desires and the abandonment of all work together with its means. Since the ancient Brahmanas, knowing this Self as naturally different from the means and result of an action, renounced all desires, which are such means and results, and lead a mendicant life, giving up work producing visible and invisible results, together with its means, therefore to this day the knower of Brahman, having known all about scholarship or this knowledge of the Self from the teacher and the Srutis --- having fully mastered it --- should renounce desires. This is the culmination of that scholarship, for it comes with the elimination of desires, and is contradictory to them. Since scholarship regarding the Self cannot come without the automatically enjoined by the knowledge of the Self. This is emphasised by the use of the suffix 'ktvac' in the passage in question, as referring to the same individual who has the knowledge of the Self. Therefore the knower of Brahman, after renouncing desires, should try to live upon that strength which comes of knowledge.
Those others who are ignorant of the Self derive their strength from the means and results of actions. The knower of Brahman avoids that and resorts simply to the strength which comes of the knowledge of the Self, which is naturally different from the means and results of an action. When he does this, his organs have no more power to drag him down to the objects of desire. It is only the fool without the strength of knowledge who is attracted by his organs to desires concerning objects, visible or invisible. Strength is the total elimination of the vision of objects by Self-knowledge; hence the knower of Brahman should try to live upon that strength. As another Sruti puts it, 'Through the Self one attains strength' (Ke. II. 4); also, 'This Self is unattainable by the weak' (Mu. III. ii. 4). Having known all about this strength and scholarship, he becomes meditative, in other words, a Yogin. What a knower of Brahman should do is to eliminate all ideas of the non-Self; doing this, he accomplishes his task and becomes a Yogin. After having known all about scholarship and strength, which respectively mean Self-knowledge and the elimination of ideas of the non-Self, he knows all about meditativeness too --- which is the culminating result of the latter --- and its opposite, and becomes a knower of Brahman, or accomplishes his task; he attains the conviction that all is Brahman. Because he has reached the goal, therefore he is a Brahmana, a knower of Brahman; for then his status as a knower of Brahman is literally true. Therefore the text says:- How does that knower of Brahman behave? Howsoever he may behave, he is just such --- a knower of Brahman as described above.
The expression, 'Howsoever he may behave,' is intended for a tribute to this state of a knower of Brahman, and does not mean reckless behaviour. Except this state of realisation of Brahman, which is the true state of one's self that is beyond hunger etc. and is eternally satisfied, everything, i.e. desires, which are within the category of ignorance, is perishable lit. beset with troubles --- unsubstantial like a dream, an illusion, or a mirage; the Self alone is detached and eternally free. Thereupon Kahola, the son of Kusitaka, kept silent.
Max Müller
1. Then Kahola Kaushîtakeya asked. 'Yâgñavalkya, 'he said, 'tell me the Brahman which is visible, not invisible, the Self (Âtman), who is within all.' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'This, thy Self, who is within all.' 'Which Self, O Yâgñavalkya, is within all?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'He who overcomes hunger and thirst, sorrow, passion, old age, and death. When Brâhmanas know that Self, and have risen above the desire for sons [1], wealth, and (new) worlds [2], they wander about as mendicants. For a desire for sons is desire for wealth, a desire for wealth is desire for worlds. Both these are indeed desires. Therefore let a Brâhmana, after he has done with learning, wish to stand by real strength [3]; after he has done with that strength and learning, he becomes a Muni (a Yogin); and after he has done with what is not the knowledge of a Muni, and with what is the knowledge of a Muni, he is a Brâhmana. By whatever means he has become a Brâhmana, he is such indeed [4]. Everything else is of evil.' After that Kahola Kaushîtakeya held his peace.
sa hovāca gārgi mātiprākṣīrmā te mūrdhā vyapaptadanatipraśnyāṃ
vai devatāmatipṛcchasi . gārgi mā'tiprākṣīriti . tato ha gārgī
vācaknavyupararāma .. 1..
iti ṣaṣṭhaṃ brāhmaṇam ..
atha saptamaṃ brāhmaṇam .
Meaning:- Then Gargi, the daughter of Vacaknu, asked him, 'Yajnavalkya', she said, 'if all this is pervaded by water, by what is water pervaded?' 'By air, O Gargi'. 'By what is air pervaded?' 'By the sky, O Gargi'. 'By what is the sky pervaded?' 'By the world of the Gandharvas, O Gargi'. 'By what is the world of the Gandharvas pervaded?' 'By the sun, O Gargi.' 'By what is the sun pervaded?' 'By the moon, O Gargi.' 'By what is the moon pervaded?' 'By the stars, O Gargi'. 'By what are the stars pervaded?' 'By the world of the gods, O Gargi'. 'By what is the world of the gods pervaded?' 'By the world of Indra, O Gargi'. By what is the world of Indra pervaded?' 'By the world of Viraj, O Gargi'. 'By what is the world of Viraj pervaded?' ' By the world of Hiranyagarbha, O Gargi'. 'By what is the world of Hiranyagarbha pervaded?' He said, 'Do not, O Gargi, push your inquiry too far, lest your head should fall off. You are questioning about a deity that should not be reasoned about. Do not, O Gargi, push your inquiry too far.' Thereupon Gargi, the daughter of Vacaknu, kept silent.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- To describe the nature of that which has been stated to be the immediate and direct Brahman --- the self that is within all, the three sections up to that dealing with the story of Sakalya are being introduced. The elements from earth up to the ether are arranged one within the other. The idea is to show how an aspirant --- the subject or seer --- can realise his own self, which is immediate and direct, which is within all and beyond all relative attributes, by taking up each relatively external element and eliminating it. Then Gargi, the daughter of Vacaknu, asked him. 'Yajnavalkya,' she said, 'if all this, all that is composed of earth, is pervaded within and without (lit. placed like the warp and woof --- or woof and warp --- in a cloth) by water.' Otherwise it would be scattered like a handful of fried barley flour. The following inference is suggested:- We observe that whatever is an effect, limited and gross is respectively pervaded by that which is an effect, limited and gross is respectively pervaded by that which is the cause, unlimited and subtle, as earth is pervaded by water. Similarly (in the series from earth to the ether) each preceding element must be pervaded by the succeeding one, till we come to the self that is within all. This is the import of the question.
Now these five elements are so arranged that each preceding one is held together by the succeeding element, which is its cause and is more subtle and pervasive. And there is nothing below the Supreme Self which is different from the elements (So the different worlds enumerated in this paragraph are included in them.), for the Sruti says, 'The Truth of truth' (II. i. 20; II. iii. 6). The truth is the five elements, and the Truth of truth is the Supreme Self. 'By what is water pervaded?' Since it too is an effect, gross and limited, it must be pervaded by something; and what is that? All the subsequent questions are to be construed in this way. 'By air, O Gargi.' One may object that the answer should be fire; to which we reply that the answer is all right.
Fire cannot independently manifest itself like the other elements! it must take the help of particles of earth or water; hence it is not mentioned as pervading water. 'By what is air pervaded?' 'By the sky, O Gargi.' The same elements combining with one another form the sky; this is pervaded by the world of the Gandharvas, this again by the sun, the sun by the moon, the moon by the stars, the stars by the world of the gods, this by the world of Indra, this again by the world of Viraj, i.e. by the elements composing the body of Viraj; the world of Viraj is pervaded by the world of Hiranyagarbha, i.e. by the elements composing the universe. The plural is used in the text ('worlds' instead of 'world') because these worlds, arranged in an ascending order of subtely, are each composed of the same five elements transformed so as to become fit abodes for the enjoyment of beings. 'By what is the world of Hiranyagarbha pervaded?' Yajnavalkya said, 'Do not, O Gargi, push your inquiry too far --- disregarding the proper method of inquiry into the nature of the deity (The Sutra, which is described in the next section.); that is, do not try to know through inference about a deity that must be approached only through personal instruction (Agama), lest by so doing your head should fall off.' The nature of the deity is to be known from the scriptues alone, and Gargi's question, being inferential, disregarded this particular means of approach. 'You are questioning about a deity that should not be reasoned about, but known only through its special means of approach, the scriptures. Therefore do not, O Gargi, push your inquiry too far, unless you wish to die.' Thereupon Gargi, the daughter of Vacaknu, kept silent.
Max Müller
1. Then Gârgî Vâkaknavî asked. 'Yâgñavalkya,' she said, 'everything here is woven, like warp and woof, in water. What then is that in which water is woven, like warp and woof?' 'In air, O Gârgî,' he replied. 'In what then is air woven, like warp and woof?' 'In the worlds of the sky, O Gârgî, 'he replied. 'In what then are the worlds of the sky woven, like warp and woof?' 'In the worlds of the Gandharvas, O Gârgî,' he replied. 'In what then are the worlds of the Gandharvas woven, like warp and woof?' 'In the worlds of Âditya (sun), O Gârgî,' he replied. 'In what then are the worlds of Âditya (sun) woven, like warp and woof?' 'In the worlds of Kandra (moon), O Gârgî,' he replied. 'In what then are the worlds of Kandra (moon) woven, like warp and woof?' , In the worlds of the Nakshatras (stars), O Gârgî,' he replied. 'In what then are the worlds of the Nakshatras (stars) woven, like warp and woof?' 'In the worlds of the Devas (gods), O Gârgî,' he replied. 'In what then are the worlds of the Devas (gods) woven, like warp and woof?' 'In the worlds of Indra, O Gârgî,' he replied. 'In what then are the worlds of Indra woven, like warp and woof?' 'In the worlds of Pragâpati, O Gârgî,' he replied. 'In what then are the worlds of Pragâpati woven, like warp and woof?' 'In the worlds of Brahman, O Gârgî,' he replied. 'In what then are the worlds of Brahman woven, like warp and woof?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'O Gârgî, Do not ask too much, lest thy head should fall off. Thou askest too much about a deity about which we are not to ask too much [1]. Do not ask too much, O Gârgî.' After that Gargî Vâkaknavî held her peace.
vedeti . so'bravīt patañcalaṃ kāpyaṃ yājñikāgͫśca yo vai tat
kāpya sūtraṃ vidyāttaṃ cāntaryāmiṇamiti sa brahmavit sa lokavit sa
devavit sa vedavit sa bhūtavit sa ātmavit sa sarvaviditi tebhyo'bravīt
tadahaṃ veda . taccettvaṃ yājñavalkya sūtramavidvāgͫstaṃ
cāntaryāmiṇaṃ brahmagavīrudajase mūrdhā te vipatiṣyatīti . veda vā ahaṃ
gautama tatsūtraṃ taṃ cāntaryāmiṇamiti . yo vā idaṃ kaścidbrūyāt veda
vedeti . yathā vettha tathā brūhīti .. 1..
Meaning:- Then Uddalaka, the son of Aruna, asked him. 'Yajnavalkya', said, 'in Madra we lived in the house of Patanchala Kapya (descendant of Kapi), studying the scriptures on sacrifices. His wife was possessed by a Gandharva. We asked him who he was. He said, "Kabandha, the son of Atharvan". He said to Patanchala Kapya and those who studied the scriptures on sacrifices, "Hapya, do you know that Sutra by which this life, the next life and all beings are held together?" Patanchala Kapya said, "I do not know it, sir". The Gandharva said to him and the students, "Kapya, do you know that Internal Ruler who controls this and the next life and all beings from within?" Patanchala Kapya said, "I do not know Him, sir". The Gandharva said to him and the students, "He who knows that Sutra and that Internal Ruler as above indeed knows Brahman, knows the worlds, knows the gods, knows the Vedas, knows beings, knows the self, and knows everything". He explained it all to them. I know it. If you, Yajnavalkya, do not know that Sutra and that Internal Ruler, and still take away the cows that belong only to the knowers of Brahman, your head shall fall off'. 'I know, O Gautama, that Sutra and that Internal Ruler'. 'Any one can say, "I know, I know". Tell us what you know.'
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Now the Sutra, the innermost entity of the world of Hiranyagarbha, has to be described; hence this section. This Sutra should be approached through personal instruction, which is therefore being introduced through an anecdote:- Then Uddalaka, the son of Aruna, asked him. 'Yajnavalkya,' he said, 'in the territory called Madra we lived in the house of Patancala Kapya --- of the line of Kapi --- studying the scriptures on sacrifices. His wife was possessed by a Gandharva. We asked him who he was. He said, 'Kabandha, the son of Athravan.' He, the Gandharva, said to Patancala Kapya and his pupils who studied the scriptues on sacrifices, 'Kapya, do you know that Sutra by which this life, the next life and all beings, from Hiranyagarbha down to a clump of grass, are held together, strung like a garland with a thread?' Thus addressed, Kapya reverentially said, 'I do not know it, the Sutra, sir.' The Gandharva again said to the teacher and us:- Kapya, do you know that Internal Ruler --- this is being specified --- who controls this and the next life and all beings from within, causes them to move like wooden puppets, i.e. makes them perform their respective functions? Thus addressed, Patancala Kapya reverentially said, 'I do not know Him, sir.' The Gandharva again said --- this is in praise of the meditation on the Sutra and the Internal Ruler within it --- 'Kapya, he who knows that Sutra and that Internal Ruler who is within the Sutra and governs it, as described above, indeed knows Brahman or the Supreme Self, knows worlds, such as the earth, controlled by the Internal Ruler, knows the gods, such as Fire, presiding over those worlds, knows the Vedas, which are the authority for all, knows beings, Viraj (The word used is 'Brahman,' which in such contexts generally means Hiranyagarbha. Here, however, It is to be taken in the sense of Viraj, for Hiranyagarbha, being the same as the Sutra, cannot be held together by it.) and the rest, who are held together by the Sutra and controlled by the Internal Ruler who is within it, knows the self, which is the agent and experiencer and is controlled by the same Internal Ruler, and knows everything --- the whole world also similarly controlled.' This praise of the meditation on the Sutra and the Internal Ruler tempted Kapya and us to hear of it; and the Gandharva explained both to them and us. I know this meditation on the Sutra and the Internal Ruler, having been instructed by the Gandharva. If you, Yajnavalkya, do not know that Sutra and that Internal Ruler, i.e. do not know Brahman, and still wrongly take away the cows that belong only to the knowers of Brahman, I will burn you with my curse, and your head shall fall off.' Thus addressed Yajnavalkya said, 'I know, O Gautama (descendant of Gotama), that Sutra about which the Gandharva told you, and that Internal Ruler about whom you have known from him.' At this Gautama retorted:- 'Any one, any fool, can say what you have said --- what? --- 'I know, I know,' lauding himself. What is the good of that bluster? Show it in action; tell us what you know about them.'
Max Müller
1. Then Uddâlaka Âruni [1] asked. 'Yâgñavalkya,' he said, 'we dwelt among the Madras in the houses of Patañkala Kâpya, studying the sacrifice. His wife was possessed of a Gandharva, and we asked him:- "Who art thou?" He answered:- "I am Kabandha Âtharvana." And he said to Patañkala Kâpya and to (us) students:- "Dost thou know, Kâpya, that thread by which this world and the other world, and all beings are strung together?" And Patañkala Kâpya replied:- "I do not know it, Sir." He said again to Patañkala Kâpya and to (us) students:- "Dost thou know, Kâpya, that puller (ruler) within (antaryâmin), who within pulls (rules) this world and the other world and all beings?" And Patañkala Kâpya replied:- "I do not know it, Sir." He said again to Patañkala Kâpya and to (us) students:- "He, O Kâpya, who knows that thread and him who pulls (it) within, he knows Brahman, he knows the worlds, he knows the Devas, he knows the Vedas, he knows the Bhûtas (creatures), he knows the Self, he knows everything." Thus did he (the Gandharva) say to them, and I know it. If thou, O Yâgñavalkya, without knowing that string and the puller within, drivest away those Brahma-cows (the cows offered as a prize to him who best knows Brahman), thy head will fall off.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'O Gautama, I believe I know that thread and the puller within.' The other said:- 'Anybody may say, I know, I know. Tell what thou knowest.'
vāyunā hi gautama sūtreṇa saṃdṛbdhāni bhavantītyevamevaitad
yājñavalkyāntaryāmiṇaṃ brūhīti .. 2..
Meaning:- He said, 'Vayu, O Gautama, is that Sutra. Through this Sutra or Vayu this and the next life and all beings are held together. Therefore, O Gautama, when a man dies, they say that his limbs have been loosened, for they are held together, O Gautama, by the Sutra or Vayu.' 'Quite so, Yajnavalkya. Now describe the Internal Ruler.'
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- He, Yajnavalkya, said, etc. The Sutra, by which the world of Hiranyagarbha is at the present moment pervaded, as earth by water, and which can be known only through personal instruction, has to be described. It is for this that Uddalaka's question in the preceding paragraph has been introduced. So Yajnavalkya answers it by saying, 'Vayu, O Gautama, is that Sutra, and nothing else.' 'Vayu' is that subtle entity which like the ether supports earth etc., which is the material of the subtle body --- with its seventeen constitutents (The five elements, the ten organs, the vital force (with its fivefold function) and mind (in its fourfold aspect). Or, the ten organs, the five vital force, Manas and Intellect.) --- in which the past actions and impressions of beings inhere, which is collective as well as individual, and whose external forms, like the waves of an ocean, are the forty-nine Maruts. That principle of Vayu is called the Sutra. 'Through this Sutra or Vayu this and the next life and all beings are held or strung together. This is well known (to those who know the Sutra); it is also common knowledge. How? Becaue Vayu is the Sutra and supports everything, therefore, O Gautama, when a man dies, they say that his limbs have been loosened.' When the thread (Sutra) is gone, gems etc. that are strung on it are scattered; similarly Vayu is the Sutra. It the limbs of a man are strung on it, like gems on a thread, it is but natural that they will be loosened when Vayu is gone. Hence it is concluded:- 'For they are held together, O Gautama, by the Sutra or Vayu.' 'Quite so, Yajnavalkya, you have rightly described the Sutra. Now describe the Internal Ruler, who is within and controls it.' Thus addressed, Yajnavalkya said:-
Max Müller
2. Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Vâyu (air) is that thread, O Gautama. By air, as by a thread, O Gautama, this world and the other world, and all creatures are strung together. Therefore, O Gautama, people say of a dead person that his limbs have become unstrung; for by air, as by a thread, O Gautama, they were strung together.' The other said:- 'So it is, O Yâgñavalkya. Tell now (who is) the puller within.'
यः पृथिव्यां तिष्ठन्पृथिव्या अन्तरो यं पृथिवी न वेद
यस्य पृथिवी शरीरं यः पृथिवीमन्तरो यमयत्येष त
आत्माऽन्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ ३॥
mantra 3[III.vii.3]
yaḥ pṛthivyāṃ tiṣṭhanpṛthivyā antaro yaṃ pṛthivī na veda
yasya pṛthivī śarīraṃ yaḥ pṛthivīmantaro yamayatyeṣa ta
ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛtaḥ .. 3..
Meaning:- He who inhabits the earth, but is within it, whom the earth does not know, whose body is the earth, and who controls the earth from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- He who inhabits the earth ' is the Internal Ruler. Now all people inhabit the earth; so there may be a presumption that the reference is to anyone of them. To preclude this, the text specifies Him by saying, 'Who is within the earth.' One may think that the deity identified with the earth is the Internal Ruler; hence the text says, 'Whom even the deity identified with the earth does not know as a distinct entity dwelling within her.' Whose body is the earth itself and none other --- whose body is the same as that of the deity of the earth. The 'body' implies other things as well; i.e. the organs of this deity are also those of the Internal Ruler. The body and organs of the deity of the earth are the result of her own past actions; they are the body and organs of the Internal Ruler as well, for He has no past actions, being ever free. Since He is by nature given to doing things for others, the body and organs of the latter serve as His; He has no body and organs of His own. This is expressed as follows:- 'Whose body is the earth.' The body and the organs of the deity of the earth are regularly made to work or stop work by the mere presence of the Lord as witness. Such an Isvara, called Narayana, who controls the deity of the earth, i.e. directs her to her particular work, from within, is the Internal Ruler about whom you have asked, your own immortal self, as also mine and that of all beings. 'Your' implies 'others' as well. 'Immortal,' that is to say, devoid of all relative attributes.
Max Müller
3. Yâgñavalkya said:- 'He who dwells in the earth, and within the earth [1], whom the earth does not know, whose body the earth is, and who pulls (rules) the earth within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'
योऽप्सु तिष्ठन्नद्भ्योऽन्तरो यमापो न विदुः यस्यापः शरीरं
योऽपोऽन्तरो यमयत्येष त आत्माऽन्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ ४॥
mantra 4[III.vii.4]
yo'psu tiṣṭhannadbhyo'ntaro yamāpo na viduḥ yasyāpaḥ śarīraṃ
yo'po'ntaro yamayatyeṣa ta ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛtaḥ .. 4..
Meaning:- He who inhabits water, but is within it, whom water does not know, whose body is water, and who controls water from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
Max Müller
4. 'He who dwells in the water, and within the water, whom the water does not know, whose body the water is, and who pulls (rules) the water within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'
yo'gnau tiṣṭhannagnerantaro yamagnirna veda yasyāgniḥ śarīraṃ
yo'gnimantaro yamayati eṣa ta ātmāntaryāmyamṛtaḥ .. 5..
Meaning:- He who inhabits fire, but is within it, whom fire does not know, whose body is fire, and who controls fire from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
Max Müller
5. 'He who dwells in the fire, and within the fire, whom the fire does not know, whose body the fire is, and who pulls (rules) the fire within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'
योऽन्तरिक्षे तिष्ठन्नन्तरिक्षादन्तरो यमन्तरिक्षं न वेद
यस्यान्तरिक्षꣳ शरीरं योऽन्तरिक्षमन्तरो यमयत्येष त
आत्माऽन्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ ६॥
mantra 6[III.vii.6]
yo'ntarikṣe tiṣṭhannantarikṣādantaro yamantarikṣaṃ na veda
yasyāntarikṣagͫ śarīraṃ yo'ntarikṣamantaro yamayatyeṣa ta
ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛtaḥ .. 6..
Meaning:- He who inhabits the sky, but is within it, whom the sky does not know, whose body is the sky, and who controls the sky from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
Max Müller
6. 'He who dwells in the sky, and within the sky, whom the sky does not know, whose body the sky is, and who pulls (rules) the sky within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'
यो वायौ तिष्ठन्वायोरन्तरो यं वायुर्न वेद यस्य वायुः शरीरं यो
वायुमन्तरो यमयत्येष त आत्माऽन्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ ७॥
mantra 7[III.vii.7]
yo vāyau tiṣṭhanvāyorantaro yaṃ vāyurna veda yasya vāyuḥ śarīraṃ yo
vāyumantaro yamayatyeṣa ta ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛtaḥ .. 7..
Meaning:- He who inhabits air, but is within it, whom air does not know, whose body is air, and who controls air from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
Max Müller
7. 'He who dwells in the air (vâyu), and within the air, whom the air does not know, whose body the air is, and who pulls (rules) the air within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'
यो दिवि तिष्ठन्दिवोऽन्तरो यं द्यौर्न वेद यस्य द्यौः शरीरं यो
दिवमन्तरो यमयत्येष त आत्माऽन्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ ८॥
mantra 8[III.vii.8]
yo divi tiṣṭhandivo'ntaro yaṃ dyaurna veda yasya dyauḥ śarīraṃ yo
divamantaro yamayatyeṣa ta ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛtaḥ .. 8..
Meaning:- He who inhabits heaven, but is within it, whom heaven does not know, whose body is heaven, and who controls heaven from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
Max Müller
8. 'He who dwells in the heaven (dyu), and within the heaven, whom the heaven does not know, whose body the heaven is, and who pulls (rules) the heaven within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'
य आदित्ये तिष्ठन्नादित्यादन्तरो यमादित्यो न वेद यस्याऽऽदित्यः
शरीरं य आदित्यमन्तरो यमयत्येष त आत्माऽन्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ ९॥
mantra 9[III.vii.9]
ya āditye tiṣṭhannādityādantaro yamādityo na veda yasyā''dityaḥ
śarīraṃ ya ādityamantaro yamayatyeṣa ta ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛtaḥ .. 9..
Meaning:- He who inhabits the sun, but is within it, whom the sun does not know, whose body is the sun, and who controls the sun from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
Max Müller
9. 'He who dwells in the sun (Âditya), and within the sun, whom the sun does not know, whose body the sun is, and who pulls (rules) the sun within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'
यो दिक्षु तिष्ठन्दिग्भ्योऽन्तरो यं दिशो न विदुर्यस्य दिशः शरीरं
यो दिशोऽन्तरो यमयत्येष त आत्माऽन्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ १०॥
mantra 10[III.vii.10]
yo dikṣu tiṣṭhandigbhyo'ntaro yaṃ diśo na viduryasya diśaḥ śarīraṃ
yo diśo'ntaro yamayatyeṣa ta ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛtaḥ .. 10..
Meaning:- He who inhabits the quarters, but is within it, whom the quarters does not know, whose body is the quarters, and who controls the quarters from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
Max Müller
10. 'He who dwells in the space (disah), and within the space, whom the space does not know, whose body the space is, and who pulls (rules) the space within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'
na veda yasya candratārakagͫ śarīraṃ yaścandratārakamantaro
yamayatyeṣa ta ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛtaḥ .. 11..
Meaning:- He who inhabits the moon and stars, but is within it, whom the moon and stars does not know, whose body is the moon and stars, and who controls the moon and stars from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
Max Müller
11. 'He who dwells in the moon and stars (kandra-târakam), and within the moon and stars, whom the moon and stars do not know, whose body the moon and stars are, and who pulls (rules) the moon and stars within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'
य आकाशे तिष्ठन्नाकाशादन्तरो यमाकाशो न वेद यस्याऽऽकाशः
शरीरं य आकाशमन्तरो यमयत्येष त आत्माऽन्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ १२॥
mantra 12[III.vii.12]
ya ākāśe tiṣṭhannākāśādantaro yamākāśo na veda yasyā''kāśaḥ
śarīraṃ ya ākāśamantaro yamayatyeṣa ta ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛtaḥ .. 12..
Meaning:- He who inhabits the ether, but is within it, whom the ether does not know, whose body is the ether, and who controls the ether from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
Max Müller
12. 'He who dwells in the ether (âkâsa), and within the ether, whom the ether does not know, whose body the ether is, and who pulls (rules) the ether within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'
शरीरं यस्तमोऽन्तरो यमयत्येष त आत्मान्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ १३॥
mantra 13[III.vii.13]
yastamasi tiṣṭhagͫstamaso'ntaro yaṃ tamo na veda yasya tamaḥ
śarīraṃ yastamo'ntaro yamayatyeṣa ta ātmāntaryāmyamṛtaḥ .. 13..
Meaning:- He who inhabits darkness, but is within it, whom darkness does not know, whose body is darkness, and who controls darkness from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
Max Müller
13. 'He who dwells in the darkness (tamas), and within the darkness, whom the darkness does not know, whose body the darkness is, and who pulls (rules) the darkness within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'
यस्तेजसि तिष्ठꣳस्तेजसोऽन्तरो यं तेजो न वेद यस्य तेजः शरीरं
यस्तेजोऽन्तरो यमयत्य्स एष त आत्माऽन्तर्याम्यमृत इत्यधिदैवतं
अथाधिभूतम् ॥ १४॥
mantra 14[III.vii.14]
yastejasi tiṣṭhagͫstejaso'ntaro yaṃ tejo na veda yasya tejaḥ śarīraṃ
yastejo'ntaro yamayatysa eṣa ta ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛta ityadhidaivataṃ
athādhibhūtam .. 14..
Meaning:- He who inhabits light, but is within it, whom light does not know, whose body is light, and who controls light from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. This much with reference to the gods. Now with reference to the beings.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- The rest is to be similarly explained. He who inhabits water, fire, the sky, air, heaven, the sun, the quarters, the moon and stars, the ether, darkness --- the external darkness that obstructs vision, and light, light in general, which is the opposite of darkness. This much with reference to the gods, i.e. the meditation on the Internal Ruler as pertaining to the gods. Now with reference to the beings. i.e. the meditation on the Internal Ruler as pertaining to the different grades of beings from Hiranyagarbha down to a clump of grass.
Max Müller
14. 'He who dwells in the light (tegas), and within the light, whom the light does not know, whose body the light is, and who pulls (rules) the light within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.' So far with respect to the gods (adhidaivatam); now with respect to beings (adhibhûtam).
bhūtāni na viduryasya sarvāṇi bhutāni śarīraṃ yaḥ sarvāṇi bhūtānyantaro
yamayatyeṣa ta ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛta ityadhibhūtamathādhyātmam .. 15..
Meaning:- He who inhabits all beings, but is within it, whom no being knows, whose body is all beings, and who controls all beings from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. This much with reference to the beings. Now with reference to the body.
Max Müller
15. Yâgñavalkya said:- 'He who dwells in all beings, and within all beings, whom all beings do not know, whose body all beings are, and who pulls (rules) all beings within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'
यः प्राणे तिष्ठन्प्राणादन्तरो यं प्राणो न वेद यस्य प्राणः शरीरं
यः प्राणमन्तरो यमयत्येष त आत्माऽन्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ १६॥
mantra 16[III.vii.16]
yaḥ prāṇe tiṣṭhanprāṇādantaro yaṃ prāṇo na veda yasya prāṇaḥ śarīraṃ
yaḥ prāṇamantaro yamayatyeṣa ta ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛtaḥ .. 16..
Meaning:- He who inhabits the nose, but is within it, whom the nose does not know, whose body is the nose, and who controls the nose from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
Max Müller
16. 'He who dwells in the breath (prâna), and within the breath, whom the breath does not know, whose body the breath is, and who pulls (rules) the breath within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'
यो वाचि तिष्ठन्वाचोऽन्तरो यं वाङ्न वेद यस्य वाक् शरीरं यो
वाचमन्तरो यमयत्येष त आत्माऽन्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ १७॥
mantra 17[III.vii.17]
yo vāci tiṣṭhanvāco'ntaro yaṃ vāṅna veda yasya vāk śarīraṃ yo
vācamantaro yamayatyeṣa ta ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛtaḥ .. 17..
Meaning:- He who inhabits the organ of speech, but is within it, whom the organ of speech does not know, whose body is the organ of speech, and who controls the organ of speech from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
Max Müller
17. 'He who dwells in the tongue (vâk), and within the tongue, whom the tongue does not know, whose body the tongue is, and who pulls (rules) the tongue within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'
veda yasya cakṣuḥ śarīraṃ yaścakṣurantaro yamayatyeṣa ta
ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛtaḥ .. 18..
Meaning:- He who inhabits the eye, but is within it, whom the eye does not know, whose body is the eye, and who controls the eye from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
Max Müller
18. 'He who dwells in the eye, and within the eye, whom the eye does not know, whose body the eye is, and who pulls (rules) the eye within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'
यः श्रोत्रे तिष्ठञ्छ्रोत्रादन्तरो यꣳ श्रोत्रं न वेद
यस्य श्रोत्रꣳ शरीरं यः श्रोत्रमन्तरो यमयत्य्स एष त
आत्माऽन्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ १९॥
mantra 19[III.vii.19]
yaḥ śrotre tiṣṭhañchrotrādantaro yagͫ śrotraṃ na veda
yasya śrotragͫ śarīraṃ yaḥ śrotramantaro yamayatysa eṣa ta
ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛtaḥ .. 19..
Meaning:- He who inhabits the ear, but is within it, whom the ear does not know, whose body is the ear, and who controls the ear from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
Max Müller
19. 'He who dwells in the ear, and within the ear, whom the ear does not know, whose body the ear is, and who pulls (rules) the ear within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'
यो मनसि तिष्ठन्मनसोऽन्तरो यं मनो न वेद यस्य मनः शरीरं
यो मनोऽन्तरो यमयत्येष त आत्माऽन्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ २०॥
mantra 20[III.vii.20]
yo manasi tiṣṭhanmanaso'ntaro yaṃ mano na veda yasya manaḥ śarīraṃ
yo mano'ntaro yamayatyeṣa ta ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛtaḥ .. 20..
Meaning:- He who inhabits the mind (Manas), but is within it, whom the mind does not know, whose body is the mind, and who controls the mind from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
Max Müller
20. 'He who dwells in the mind, and within the mind, whom the mind does not know, whose body the mind is, and who pulls (rules) the mind within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'
यस्त्वचमन्तरो यमयत्येष त आत्माऽन्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ २१॥
mantra 21[III.vii.21]
yastvaci tiṣṭhagͫstvaco'ntaro yaṃ tvaṅna veda yasya tvak śarīraṃ
yastvacamantaro yamayatyeṣa ta ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛtaḥ .. 21..
Meaning:- He who inhabits the skin, but is within it, whom the skin does not know, whose body is the skin, and who controls the skin from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
Max Müller
21. 'He who dwells in the skin, and within the skin, whom the skin does not know, whose body the skin is, and who pulls (rules) the skin within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'
यो विज्ञाने तिष्ठन्विज्ञानादन्तरो यꣳ विज्ञानं न वेद
यस्य विज्ञानꣳ शरीरं यो विज्ञानमन्तरो यमयत्येष त
आत्माऽन्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ २२॥
mantra 22[III.vii.22]
yo vijñāne tiṣṭhanvijñānādantaro yagͫ vijñānaṃ na veda
yasya vijñānagͫ śarīraṃ yo vijñānamantaro yamayatyeṣa ta
ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛtaḥ .. 22..
Meaning:- He who inhabits the intellect, but is within it, whom the intellect does not know, whose body is the intellect, and who controls the intellect from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
Max Müller
22. 'He who dwells in knowledge [1], and within knowledge, whom knowledge does not know, whose body knowledge is, and who pulls (rules) knowledge within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'
vijñātaiṣa ta ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛto'to'nyadārtaṃ tato hoddālaka
āruṇirupararāma .. 23..
iti saptamaṃ brāhmaṇam ..
atha aṣṭamaṃ brāhmaṇam .
Meaning:- He who inhabits the organ of generation, but is within it, whom the organ of generation does not know, whose body is the organ of generation, and who controls the organ of generation from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. He is never seen, but is the Witness; He is never heard, but is the Hearer; He is never thought, but is the Thinker; He is never known, but is the Knower. There is no other witness but Him, no other hearer but Him, no other thinker but Him, no other knower but Him. He is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. Everything else but Him is mortal.' Thereupon Uddalaka, the son of Aruna, kept silent.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Now with reference to the body. He who inhabits the nose together with the vital force, the organ of speech, the eye, the ear, the mind (Manas), the skin, the intellect and the organ of generation (lit. the seed). Why is it that the deities of the earth and so on, in spite of their exceptional powers, fail to see, like men etc., the Internal Ruler who lives in them and controls them? This is being answered:- He is never seen, never the object of anybody's ocular perception, but being close to the eye as Pure Intelligence, He Himself is the Witness.
Similarly He is never heard, or perceived by anybody through the ear, but He Himself, with His never-failing power of hearing, is the Hearer, being close to all ears. Likewise He is never thought, never becomes the object of deliberation by the mind, for people think of those things that they have seen or heard, and the Internal Ruler, never being seen or heard, is never thought; but He is the Thinker, for His thinking power never wanes, and He is close to all minds. Similarly, He is never known or definitely grasped like colour etc., or like pleasure and so forth; but He Himself is the Knower, for His intelligence never fails, and He is close to the intellect. Now the statements, 'Whom the earth does not know,' and 'Whom no being knows,' may mean that the individual selves (the deities of the earth etc.) that are controlled are different from the Internal Ruler who controls. To remove this presumption of difference, the text goes on to say:- There is no other witness but Him, this Internal Ruler; similarly, no other hearer but Him, no other thinker but Him, and no other knower but Him. He, except whom there is no other witness, hearer, thinker and knower, who is never seen but is the Witness, who is never heard but is the Hearer, who is never thought but is the Thinker, who is never known but is the Knower, who is immortal, devod of all relative attributes, and is the distributor of the fruits of everybody's actions --- is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. Everything else but Him, this Isvara or Atman, is mortal. Thereupon Uddalaka, the son of Aruna, kept silent.
Max Müller
23. 'He who dwells in the seed, and within the seed, whom the seed does not know, whose body the seed is, and who pulls (rules) the seed within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal; unseen, but seeing; unheard, but hearing; unperceived, but perceiving; unknown, but knowing. There is no other seer but he, there is no other hearer but he, there is no other perceiver but he, there is no other knower but he. This is thy Self, the ruler within, the immortal. Everything else is of evil.' After that Uddâlaka Âruni held his peace.
प्रश्नौ प्रक्ष्यामि तौ चेन्मे वक्ष्यति न वै जातु युष्माकमिमं
कश्चिद्ब्रह्मोद्यं जेतेति । पृच्छ गार्गीति ॥ १॥
mantra 1[III.viii.1]
atha ha vācaknavyuvāca brāhmaṇā bhagavanto hantāhamimaṃ dvau
praśnau prakṣyāmi tau cenme vakṣyati na vai jātu yuṣmākamimaṃ
kaścidbrahmodyaṃ jeteti . pṛccha gārgīti .. 1..
Meaning:- Then the daughter of Vachaknu said, 'Revered Brahmans, I shall him two questions, Should he answer me those, none of you can ever beat him in describing Brahman.' 'Ask, O Gargi'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Then the daughter of Vacaknu said. Having previously been warned by Yajnavalkya, she had desisted lest her head should fall off. Now she asks the permission of the Brahmanas to interrogate him once more. 'Revered Brahmanas, please listen to what I say. I shall ask him, Yajnavalkya, two more questions, if you will permit it. Should he answer me those, none of you can ever possibly beat him in describing Brahman.' Thus addressed, the Brahmanas gave her the permission. 'Ask, O Gargi.'
Max Müller
1. Then Vâkaknavî [1] said:- 'Venerable Brâhmanas, I shall ask him two questions. If he will answer them, none of you, I think, will defeat him in any argument concerning Brahman.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Ask, O Gârgî.'
Meaning:- She said, 'I (shall ask) you (two questions). As a man of Banaras or the King of Videha, scion of a warlike dynasty, might string his unstrung bow and appear close by, carrying in his hand two bamboo-tipped arrows highly painful to the enemy, even so, O Yajnavalkya, do I confront you with two questions. Answer me those'. 'Ask, O Gargi'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Having received the permission, she said to Yajnavalkya, 'I shall ask you two questions.' The extra words are to be supplied from the preceding paragraph. Yajnavalkya was curious to know what they were. So, in order to indicate that the questions were hard to answer, she said through an illustration:- As a man of Banaras --- the inhabitants of which are famous for their valour --- or the King of Videha, scion of a warlike dynasty, might string his unstrung bow and appear close by, carrying in his hand two bamboo-tipped arrows --- an arrow might be without this bamboo-tip; hence the specification --- highly painful to the enemy, even so, O Yajnavalkya, do I confront you with two questions, comparable to arrows. Answer me those, if you are a knower of Brahman. The other said, 'Ask, O Gargi.'
Max Müller
2. She said:- 'O Yâgñavalkya, as the son of a warrior from the Kâsîs or Videhas might string his loosened bow, take two pointed foe-piercing arrows in his hand and rise to do battle, I have risen to fight thee with two questions. Answer me these questions.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Ask, O Gârgî.'
dyāvāpṛthivī ime yadbhūtaṃ ca bhavacca bhaviṣyaccetyācakṣate
kasmigͫstadotaṃ ca protaṃ ceti .. 3..
Meaning:- She said, 'By what, O Yajnavalkya, is that pervaded which is above heaven and below the earth, which is this heaven and earth as well as between them, and which they say was, is and will be?'
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- She said:- By what, O Yajnavalkya, is that Sutra, already referred to, pervaded as the element earth is by water, which is above heaven, or the upper half of the cosmic shell, and below the earth, or the lower half of the cosmic shell, which is this heaven and earth as well as between them, between the two halves of the cosmic shell, and which they say, on the authority of the scriptures, was in the past, is doing its function at the present moment, and will be continuing in future, as is inferable from indications --- which (Sutra) is described as all this, in which, in other words, the whole dualistic universe is unified?
Max Müller
3. She said:- 'O Yâgñavalkya, that of which they say that it is above the heavens, beneath the earth, embracing heaven and earth [1], past, present, and future, tell me in what is it woven, like warp and woof?'
स होवाच यदूर्ध्वं गार्गि दिवो यदवाक्पृथिव्या यदन्तरा
द्यावापृथिवी इमे यद्भूतं च भवच्च भविष्यच्चेत्याचक्षत
आकाशे तदोतं च प्रोतं चेति ॥ ४॥
mantra 4[III.viii.4]
sa hovāca yadūrdhvaṃ gārgi divo yadavākpṛthivyā yadantarā
dyāvāpṛthivī ime yadbhūtaṃ ca bhavacca bhaviṣyaccetyācakṣata
ākāśe tadotaṃ ca protaṃ ceti .. 4..
Meaning:- He said, 'That, O Gargi, which is above heaven and below the earth, which is this heaven and earth as well as between them, and which they say was, is and will be, is pervaded by the Unmanifested ether.'
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Yajnavalkya said, 'That, O Gargi, which you have referred to as being above heaven, etc. --- all that which is called the Sutra --- is pervaded by the unmanifested ether:- This manifested universe consisting of the Sutra exists in the unmanifested ether, like earth in water, in the past, present and future, in its origin, continuance and dissolution.'
Max Müller
4. Yâgñavalkya said:- 'That of which they say that it is above the heavens, beneath the earth, embracing heaven and earth, past, present, and future, that is woven, like warp and woof, in the ether (âkâsa).'
सा होवाच नमस्तेऽस्तु याज्ञवल्क्य यो म एतं व्यवोचोऽपरस्मै
धारयस्वेति । पृच्छ गार्गीति ॥ ५॥
mantra 5[III.viii.5]
sā hovāca namaste'stu yājñavalkya yo ma etaṃ vyavoco'parasmai
dhārayasveti . pṛccha gārgīti .. 5..
Meaning:- She said, 'I bow to you, Yajnavalkya, who have fully answered this question of mine. Now be ready for the other question.' 'Ask, O Gargi".
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- She again said, 'I bow to you --- these and the following words indicate the difficult nature of the question --- who have fully answered this question of mine. The reason why it is difficult to answer is that the Sutra itself is inscrutable to ordinary people and difficult to explain; how much more so, then, is that which pervades it! Therefore I bow to you. Now be ready, hold yourself steady, for the other question. Yajnavalkya said, 'Ask, O Gargi.'
Max Müller
5. She said:- 'I bow to thee, O Yâgñavalkya, who hast solved me that question. Get thee ready for the second.' Yâgñavalkya said [1]:- 'Ask, O Gârgî.'
dyāvāpṛthivī ime yadbhūtaṃ ca bhavacca bhaviṣyaccetyācakṣate
ācakṣate kasmigͫstadotaṃ ca protaṃ ceti .. 6..
Meaning:- She said, 'By what, O Yajnavalkya, is that pervaded which is above heaven and below the earth, which is this heaven and earth as well as between them, and which they say was, is and will be?'
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- All this has been explained. The question and the answer are repeated in this and the next paragraph in order to emphasise the truth already stated by Yajnavalkya. Nothing new is introduced.
Max Müller
6. She said:- 'O Yâgñavalkya, that of which they say that it is above the heavens, beneath the earth, embracing heaven and earth, past, present, and future, tell me in what is it woven, like warp and woof?'
स होवाच यदूर्ध्वं गार्गि दिवो यदवाक्पृथिव्या यदन्तरा
द्यावापृथिवी इमे यद्भूतं च भवच्च भविष्यच्चेत्याचक्षत
आकाश एव तदोतं च प्रोतं चेति । कस्मिन्नु खल्वाकाश ओतश्च
प्रोतश्चेति ॥ ७॥
mantra 7[III.viii.7]
sa hovāca yadūrdhvaṃ gārgi divo yadavākpṛthivyā yadantarā
dyāvāpṛthivī ime yadbhūtaṃ ca bhavacca bhaviṣyaccetyācakṣata
ākāśa eva tadotaṃ ca protaṃ ceti . kasminnu khalvākāśa otaśca
protaśceti .. 7..
Meaning:- He said, 'That, O Gargi, which is above heaven and below the earth, which is this heaven and earth as well as between them, and which they say was, is and will be, is pervaded by the Unmanifested ether alone.' 'By what is the Unmanifested ether pervaded?'
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Yajnavalkya repeated Gargi's question as it was, and emphasised what he had already stated by saying, 'By the unmanifested ether alone.' Gargi said, 'By what is the unmanifested ether pervaded?' She considered the question unanswerable, for the unmanifested ether itself, being beyond time past, present and future, was difficult to explain:- much more so was the Immutable (Brahman) by which the unmanifested ether was pervaded; hence It could not be explained. Now, if Yajnavalkya did not explain It for this reason, he would lay himself open to the charge of what is called in the system of logic 'non-comprehension', if, on the other hand, he tried to explain It, not withstanding the fact that It was a thing that could not be explained, he would be guilty of what is called 'a contradiction'; for the attempt to explain what cannot be explained is such a contradiction.
Max Müller
7. Yâgñavalkya said:- 'That of which they say that it is above the heavens, beneath the earth, embracing heaven and earth, past, present, and future, that is woven, like warp and woof, in the ether.' Gârgî said:- 'In what then is the ether woven, like warp and woof?'
amano'tejaskamaprāṇamamukhamamātraṃ anantaramabāhyaṃ na tadaśnāti
kiṃ cana na tadaśnāti kaścana .. 8..
Meaning:- He said:- O Gargi, the knowers of Brahman say, this Immutable (Brahman) is that. It is neither gross nor minute, neither short nor long, neither red colour nor oiliness, neither shadow nor darkness, neither air nor ether, unattached, neither savour nor odour, without eyes or ears, without the vocal organ or mind, non-luminous, without the vital force or mouth, not a measure, and without interior or exterior. It does not eat anything, nor is It eaten by anybody.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- With a view to evading both the charges, he, Yajnavalkya said:- O Gargi, the knowers of Brahman say, this is that about which you have asked, 'By what is the unmanifested ether pervaded?' What is it? The Immutable, i.e. which does not decay or change. By referring to the opinion of the knowers of Brahman, he evades both the charges by suggesting that he will say nothing objectionable, nor that he has filled to comprehend the question. When he thus answered her question, Gargi must have rejoined, 'Tell me, what is that Immutable which the knowers of Brahman speak of?' Thus addressed, Yajnavalkya said:- It is not gross, i.e. is other gross. Then It must be minute? No, nor minute. Then is It short? Neither short. Then It must be long? No, nor long. By this fourfold negation of size all the characteristics of a substance are denied of It; in other words, this Immutable is not a substance. Is It then red colour, which is a quality? No, It is different from that too --- neither red colour; red colour is a quality of fire. Is It then the oiliness of water (It is an assumption of the Vaisesika philosophy that oiliness is the quality of water.)? No, nor oiliness. Is It then a shadow, being altogether indescribable? No, It is different from that too --- neither shadow. Is It then darkness? No, nor darkness. Let It then be air. No, neither air. May It then be the ether? No, nor ether. Is It then sticky like lac? No, It is unattahced. Is It then savour? Neither savour. Let It then be odour. No, nor adour. Has It then eyes? No, It is without eyes, for It has not instrument of vision; as the Mantra says, 'He sees without eyes' (Sv. III. 19). Similarly It is without ears, as the Sruti puts it:- 'He hears without ears' (Ibid). Let It then have the vocal organ. No, It is without the vocal organ. Similarly It is without the mind. Likewise It is non-luminous, for It has no lustre like that of fire etc. It is without the vital force; the vital force in the body is denied of It. Has It then a mouth or opening? No, It is without a mouth. Not a measure:- It does not measure anything. Is It then porous? No, It is without interior. Then may be It has an exterior? No. It has no exterior. Is It then an eater? No, It does not eat anything. Then is It anybody's food? No, nor is It eaten by anybody. In other words, It is devoid of all attributes, for It is one only without a second; so what is there that can be specified, and through what?
Max Müller
8. He said:- 'O Gârgî, the Brâhmanas call this the Akshara (the imperishable). It is neither coarse nor fine, neither short nor long, neither red (like fire) nor fluid (like water); it is without shadow, without darkness, without air, without ether, without attachment [1], without taste, without smell, without eyes, without ears, without speech, without mind, without light (vigour), without breath, without a mouth (or door), without measure, having no within and no without, it devours nothing, and no one devours it.'
Meaning:- Under the mighty rule of this Immutable, O Gargi, the sun and moon are held in their positions; under the mighty rule of this Immutable, O Gargi, heaven and earth maintain their positions; under the mighty rule of this Immutable, O Gargi, moments, Muhurtas, days and nights, fortnights, months, seasons and years are held in their respective places; under the mighty rule of this Immutable, O Gargi, some rivers flow eastward from the White Mountains, others flowing westward continue in that direction, and still others keep to their respective courses; under the mighty rule of this Immutable, O Gargi, men praise those that give, the gods depend on the sacrificer, and the manes on independent offerings (Darvihoma).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- The Sruti, by attempting to negate various attributes of the Immutable, has indicated Its existence. Yet, anticipating the popular misconception about It, is adduces an inferential evidence in favour of Its existence:- Under the mighty rule of this Immutable, the Brahman that has been known to be within all, immediate and direct --- the self that is devoid of all attributes such as hunger, O Gargi, the sun and moon, which are like two lamps giving light to all beings by day and night respectively, are held in their positions, as a kingdom remains unbroken and orderly under the mighty rule of a king. They must have been created for the purpose of giving light by a Universal Ruler who knows of what use they will be to all, for they serve the common good of all beings by giving light, as we see in the case of an ordinary lamp (As from a lamp we infer the existence of its maker, so from the sun and moon we infer the existence of an omniscient God, 'the Immutable.'). Therefore That exists which has made the sun and moon and compels them, though they are powerful and independent, to rise and set, increase and decrease, according to fixed placce, time and causes (A drsta or the resultant of the past work of beings.). Thus there exists their mighty Ruler, the Immutable, as the lamp has its maker and regulator. Under the mighty rule of this Immutable, O Gargi, heaven and earth maintain their positions, although they are by nature subject to disruption because of having parts, inclined to fall owing to their weight, liable to separate, being a compound, and are independent, each being presided over by a conscious deity identifying itself with it. It is this Immutable which is like a boundary wall that preserves the distinctions among things --- keeps all things within their limits; hence the sun and moon do not transgress the mighty rule of this Immutable. Therefore Its existence is proved. The unfailing sign of this is the fact that heaven and earth obey a fixed order; this would be impossible were there not a conscious, transcendent Ruler. Witness the Mantra, 'Who has made heaven powerful and the earth firm' (R. X. cxxi. 5).
Under the mighty rule of this Immutable, O Gargi, moments, Muhurtas, etc. --- all these divisions of time, which count all things past, present and future that are subject to birth --- are held in their respective places. As in life an accountant appointed by his master carefully calculates all items of incomes and expenditure, so are these divisions of time controlled by their master, the Immutable. Similarly some rivers, such as the Ganga, flow eastward from the White Mountains, the Himalayas, for instance, and they, notwithstanding their power to do otherwise (Since the deities identifying themselves with these are sentient beings.), keep to their original courses; this too indicates a Ruler. Others flowing westward, such as the Indus, continue in that direction, and still others keep to their respective courses, do not deviate from the courses they have taken; this is another indication. Moreover, even learned men praise those that give gold etc., even at a personal sacrifice. Now the conjunction and disjunction of gifts, their donors and their recipients are seen to take place before our eyes in this very life. But the subsequent recombination (of the donor and the fruit of his gift) is a matter we do not directly see. Still people praise the charitable, for they observe on other evidence that those that give are rewarded. This would be impossible were there no Ruler who, knowing the various results of actions, brought about this union of the giver and the reward, for the act of giving obviously perishes then and there. Therefore there must be someone who connects the givers with the results of their charity.
Objection:- Cannot the extraordinary result of an action (Apurva) serve this purpose? Reply:- No, for there is nothing to prove its existence. Objection:- Does not the same objection apply to the Ruler too? Reply:- No, for it is an established fact that the Srutis seek to posit His existence. We have already said that the Srutis aim at delineating the Reality. Besides, the implication on which the theory of the extraordinary result depends is out of place, for the fruition can be otherwise accounted for. We observe that the reward of service is obtained from the person served; and as service is an act, and sacrifices, gifts, offering oblations in the fire, etc., are just as much acts, it is fitting that the reward for their performance should come from those in whose honour they are performed, viz God and so forth. Since we can explain the obtaining of rewards without sacrificing the directly observed inherent power of acts, it is improper to sacrifice that power. Moreover, it involves a superfluity of assumptions. We must assume either God or the extraordinary result. Now we observe that it is the very nature of an act of sevice that it is rewarded by the person served, not by the extraordinary result; and no one has ever actually experienced this result. So (in your view) we have to assume that the extraordinary result, which nobody has ever observed, exists; that it has the power to confer rewards; and that having this power, it does in addition confer them. On our side, however, we have to assume only the existence of the person served, viz God, but neither His power to confer rewards nor His exercise of it, for we actually observe that the person served rewards the service. The grounds for inferring His existence have already been shown in the text:- 'Heaven and earth maintain their positions,' etc. (this text). Likewise the gods, although they are so powerful, depend on the sacrificer for their livelihood --- for such means of subsistence as the porridge and cakes. That in spite of their ability to live otherwise they have taken to this humiliating course of life, is possible only because of the mighty rule of the Lord. Similarly the manes depend for their subsistence on independent offerings. The rest is to be explained as before.
Max Müller
9. 'By the command of that Akshara (the imperishable), O Gârgî, sun and moon stand apart [1]. By the command of that Akshara, O Gârgî, heaven and earth stand apart. By the command of that Akshara, O Gârgî, what are called moments (nimesha), hours (muhûrta), days and nights, half-months, months, seasons, years, all stand apart. By the command of that Akshara, O Gârgî, some rivers flow to the East from the white mountains, others to the West, or to any other quarter. By the command of that Akshara, O Gârgî, men praise those who give, the gods follow the sacrificer, the fathers the Darvî-offering.'
यो वा एतदक्षरं गार्ग्यविदित्वाऽस्माल्लोकात्प्रैति स कृपणोऽथ य
एतदक्षरं गार्गि विदित्वाऽस्माल्लोकात्प्रैति स ब्राह्मणः ॥ १०॥
mantra 10[III.viii.10]
yo vā etadakṣaraṃ gārgyaviditvā'smigͫlloke juhoti yajate
tapastapyate bahūni varṣasahasrāṇyantavadevāsya tadbhavati loko bhavati
yo vā etadakṣaraṃ gārgyaviditvā'smāllokātpraiti sa kṛpaṇo'tha ya
etadakṣaraṃ gārgi viditvā'smāllokātpraiti sa brāhmaṇaḥ .. 10..
Meaning:- He, O Gargi, who in this world, without knowing this Immutable, offers oblations in the fire, performs sacrifices and undergoes austerities even for many thousand years, finds all such acts but perishable; he, O Gargi, who departs from this world without knowing this Immutable, is miserable. But he, O Gargi, who departs from this world after knowing this Immutable, is a knower of Brahman.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Here is another reason for the existence of the Immutable, because until one knows It, one is bound to suffer transmigration; and That must exist the knowledge of which puts a stop to it, for this is but logical. Objection:- May not rites alone do this? Reply:- No, he, O Gargi, who in this world, without knowing this Immutable offers oblations in the fire, performs sacrifices and undergoes austerities even for many thousand years, finds all such acts but perishable. After he has enjoyed their fruits, those rites are inevitably exhausted. Besides, that mighty Ruler, the Immutable, exists by knowing which misery is at an end --- transmigration is stopped, and not knowing which the ritualists is miserable --- enjoys only the results of his rites and moves in an endless series of births and deaths. So the text says:- He, O Gargi, who departs from this world without knowing this Immutable, is miserable, like a slave etc. bought for a price. But he, O Gargi, who departs from this world after knowing this Immutable, is a knower of Brahman. It may be contended that like the heat and light of fire, the rulership of the Immutable is natural to the insentient Pradhana (of the Samkhyas, and not to Brahman). The reply is being given:-
Max Müller
10. 'Whosoever, O Gârgî, without knowing that Akshara (the imperishable), offers oblations in this world, sacrifices, and performs penance for a thousand years, his work will have an end. Whosoever, O Gargî, without knowing this Akshara, departs this world, he is miserable (like a slave) [1]. But he, O Gârgî, who departs this world, knowing this Akshara, he is a Brâhmana.'
Meaning:- This Immutable, O Gargi, is never seen but is the Witness; It is never heard, but is the Hearer; It is never thought, but is the Thinker; It is never known, but is the Knower. There is no other witness but This, no other hearer but This, no other thinker but This, no other knower but This. By this Immutable, O Gargi, is the (Unmanifested) ether pervaded.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- This Immutable, O Gargi, is never seen by anybody, not being a sense-object, but is Itself the Witness, being vision itself. Likewise It is never heard, not being an object of hearing, but is Itself the Hearer, being hearing itself. So also It is never thought, not being an object of the mind, but is Itself the Thinker, being thought itself. Similarly It is never known, not being an object of the intellect, but is Itself the Knower, being intelligence itself. Further, there is no other witness but This, the Immutable; this Immutable Itself is everywhere the Witness, the subject of vision. Similarly there is no other hearer but This; this Immutable Itself is everywhere the Hearer. There is no other thinker but This; this Immutable Itself is everywhere the Thinker, thinking through all minds. There is no other knower but This; this Immutable Itself --- neither the insentient Pradhana nor anything else --- is the Knower, knowing through all intellects. By this Immutable, O Gargi, is the (unmanifested) ether pervaded. The Brahman which is immediate and direct, which is the self within all and is beyond the relative attributes of hunger etc., and by which the (unmanifested) ether is pervaded, is the extreme limit, the ultimate goal, the Supreme Brahman, the Truth of truth (the elements) beginning with earth and ending with the ether.
Max Müller
11. 'That Brahman,' O Gârgî, 'is unseen, but seeing; unheard, but hearing; unperceived, but perceiving; unknown, but knowing. There is nothing that sees but it, nothing that hears but it, nothing that perceives but it, nothing that knows but it. In that Akshara then, O Gârgî, the ether is woven, like warp and woof.'
mucyedhvaṃ na vai jātu yuṣmākamimaṃ kaścidbrahmodyaṃ jeteti tato ha
vācaknavyupararāma .. 12..
ityaṣṭamaṃ brāhmaṇam ..
atha navamaṃ brāhmaṇam .
Meaning:- She said, 'Revered Brahmans, you should consider yourselves fortunate if you can get off from him through salutations. Never shall any of you beat him in describing Brahman'. Then the daughter of Vachaknu kept silent.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- She said:- 'Revered Brahmanas, listen to my words. You should consider yourselves fortunate if you can get off from him, Yajnavalkya, through salutations, by saluting him. You must never even hope to defeat him, much less do it. Why? Because never shall any of you beat him, Yajnavalkya, in describing Brahman. I already said that if he answered my two question, none could beat him. I still have the conviction that in describing Brahman he has no match.' Then the daughter of Vacaknu kept silent.
In the section dealing with the Internal Ruler it has been said, 'Whom the earth does not know,' and 'Whom no being knows.' Now what is the similarity as well as difference among the Internal Ruler whom they do not know, those who do not know Him, and the conscious Principle which, being the subject of the activities of vision etc. of all things, is spoken of as the Immutable?
Regarding this (Some sectional views within the Vedantic school itself are being presented.) some say:- The Internal Ruler is the slightly agitated state of the ocean of Supreme Brahman, the Immutable, which never changes its nature. The individual self, which does not know that Internal Ruler, is the extremely agitated state of that ocean. They also imagine five (Viz the individual, species, Viraj, Sutra and destiny.) other states of Brahman; again they maintain that Brahman has eight (Viz the above five together with the Undifferentiated, the Witness and the individual self.) states. Others say that these are but the powers of the Immutable, which according to them, has unlimited powers. Still others maintain that these are modiciations of the Immutable. Now the states and powers are inadmissible, for the Srutis declare the Immutable to be beyond the relative attributes of hunger etc. Certainly one and the same thing cannot simultaneously be both beyond hunger etc. and subject to those conditions. The same argument applies to the Immutable having powers, while the flaws in attributing modifications and parts to the Immutable have already been pointed out in the second chapter. Hence all these views are wrong. What then is the difference among them? It is all due to the limiting adjuncts, we reply:- instrinsically there is neither difference nor identity among them, for they are by nature Pure Intelligence, homogeneous like a lump of salt. Witness the Sruti too:- 'Without prior or posterior, without interioror exterior.' 'This self is Brahman' (II. v. 19); also in the Mundaka Upanisad:- 'It includes the interior and exterior, and is unborn' (II. i. 2).
Therefore the unconditioned Self, being beyond speech and mind, undifferentiated and one, is designated as 'Not this, not this'; when It has the limiting adjuncts of the body and organs, which are characterised by ignorance, desire and work, It is called the transmigrating individual self; and when the Self has the limiting adjunct of the power of eternal and unlimited knowledge (i.e. Maya), It is called the Internal Ruler and Isvara. The same Self, as by nature transcendent, absolute and pure, is called the Immutable and Supreme Self. Similarly, having the limiting adjuncts of the bodies and organs of Hiranyagarbha, the Undifferentiated, the gods, the species, the individual, men, animals, spirits, etc., the Self assumes those particular names and forms. Thus have we explained this through the Sruti passage:- 'It moves, and does not move' (Is. 5). In this light alone such texts as, 'This is your self (that is within all)' (III. iv. 1 ' 2; III. v. 1), 'He is the inner Self of all beings' (Mu. II. i. 4), 'This (self) being hidden in all beings,' etc. (Ka. III. 12), 'Thou art That' (Ch. VI. viii. 7), 'I Myself am all this' (Ch. VII. xxv. 1), 'All this is but the Self' (Ibid. 2), and 'There is no other witness but Him' (III. vii. 23), do not prove contadictory; but in any view they cannot be harmonised. Therefore the above entities differ only because of their limiting adjuncts, but not otherwise, for all the Upanisads conclude:- 'One only without a second' (Ch. VI. ii. 1).
Max Müller
12. Then said Gargî:- 'Venerable Brâhmans, you may consider it a great thing, if you get off by bowing before him. No one, I believe, will defeat him in any argument concerning Brahman.' After that Vâkaknavî held her peace.
yājñavalkyetyeka ityomiti hovāca . katame te trayaśca trī ca śatā
trayaśca trī ca sahasreti .. 1 ..
Meaning:- Then Vidagdha, the son of Sakala, asked him. 'How many gods are there, Yajnavalkya?' Yajnavalkya decided it through this (group of Mantras known as) Nivid (saying), 'As many as are indicated in the Nivid of the Visvadevas - three hundred and three, and three thousand and three'. 'Very well', said Sakalya, 'how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?' 'Thirty-three'. 'Very well', said the other, 'how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?' 'six'. 'Very well', said Sakalya, 'how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?' 'Three'. 'Very well', said the other, 'how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?' 'Two'. 'Very well', said Sakalya, 'how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?' 'One and a half'. 'Very well', said Sakalya, 'how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?' 'One'. 'Very well', said Sakalya, 'which are those three hundred and three and three thousand and three?'
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Then Vidagdha, the son of Sakala, asked him, 'How many gods are there, Yajnavalkya?' Yajnavalkya decided the number asked for by Sakalya through this Nivid that is just going to be mentioned. 'As many gods as are indicated in the Nivid of the eulogistic hymn on the Visvadevas.' The Nivid is a group of verses giving the number of the gods, which are recited in the eulogistic hymn on the Visvadevas. 'There are as many gods as are mentioned in that Nivid.' Which is that Nivid? The words of that Nivid are quoted:- 'Three hundred and three gods, and again three thousand and three gods. So many gods are there.' 'Very well,' said Sakalya, 'you know their intermediate number correctly.' He next asks the smaller number of these very gods, 'How many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?' (Yajnavalkya answers one by one:-) Thirty three, six, three, two, one and a half, and one. After asking the larger and the smaller number of the gods, he now asks about their identity,' Which are those three hundred and three, and three thousand and three?'
Max Müller
1. Then Vidagdha Sâkalya asked him [1]:- 'How many gods are there, O Yâgñavalkya?' He replied with this very Nivid [2]:- 'As many as are mentioned in the Nivid of the hymn of praise addressed to the Visvedevas, viz. three and three hundred, three and three thousand [3].' 'Yes,' he said, and asked again:- 'How many gods are there really, O Yâgñavalkya?' 'Thirty-three,' he said. 'Yes,' he said, and asked again:- 'How many gods are there really, O Yâgñavalkya?' 'Six,' he said. 'Yes,' he said, and asked again:- 'How many gods are there really, O Yâgñavalkya?' 'Three,' he said. 'Yes,' he said, and asked again:- 'How many gods are there really, O Yâgñavalkya?' 'Two,' he said. 'Yes,' he said, and asked again:- 'How many gods are there really, O Yâgñavalkya?' 'One and a half (adhyardha),' he said. 'Yes,' he said, and asked again:- 'How many gods are there really, O Yâgñavalkya?' 'One,' he said. 'Yes,' he said, and asked:- 'Who are these three and three hundred, three and three thousand?'
Meaning:- Yajnavalkya said, 'these are but the manifestation of them, but there are only thirty-three gods.' 'Which are those thirty-three?' 'The eight Vasus, the eleven Rudras and the twelve Adityas - these are thirty-one and Indra and Prajapati make up the thirty-three'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Yajnavalkya said, 'These, the three hundred and three etc., are but the manifestations of them, the thirty-three gods. But really there are only thirtythree gods.' 'Which are those thirty-three?' The reply is being given:- 'The eight Vasus, the eleven Rudras and the twelve Adityas --- these are thirty-one, and Indra and Prajapati make up the thirty-three.'
Max Müller
2. Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'They are only the various powers of them, in reality there are only thirty-three gods [1].' He asked:- 'Who are those thirty-three?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'The eight Vasus, the eleven Rudras, the twelve Âdityas. They make thirty-one, and Indra and Pragâpati make the thirty-three [2].'
Meaning:- 'Which are the Vasus /' 'Fire, the earth, air, the sky, the sun, heaven, the moon and the stars - these are the Vasus, for in these all this is placed; therefore they are called Vasus.'
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- 'Which are the Vasus?' The identity of each group of the gods is being asked. 'Fire, the earth,' etc. --- from fire up to the stars are the Vasus. Transforming themselves into the bodies and organs of all beings, which serve as the support for their work and its fruition, as also into their dwelling-places, these gods help every being to live, and they themselves live too. Because they help others to live (Vas), therefore they are called Vasus.
Max Müller
3. He asked:- 'Who are the Vasus.' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'Agni (fire), Prithivî (earth), Vâyu (air), Antariksha (sky), Âditya (sun), Dyu (heaven), Kandramas (moon), the Nakshatras (stars), these are the Vasus, for in them all that dwells (this world) [1] rests; and therefore they are called Vasus.'
Meaning:- 'Which are the Rudras?' 'The ten organs in the human body, with the mind as the eleventh. When they depart from this mortal body, they make (one's relatives) weep. Because they then make them weep, therefore they are called Rudras.'
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- 'Which are the Rudras?' 'The ten sensory and motor organs in the human body, with the mind as the eleventh. When they, these organs, depart from this mortal body, after a person has completely experienced the results of his past work, they make his relatives weep. Because they then make them weep (Rud), therefore they are called Rudras.'
Max Müller
4. He asked:- 'Who are the Rudras?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'These ten vital breaths (prânas, the senses, i.e. the five gñânendriyas, and the five karmendriyas), and Âtman [1], as the eleventh. When they depart from this mortal body, they make us cry (rodayanti), and because they make us cry, they are called Rudras.'
katama ādityā iti . dvādaśa vai māsāḥ saṃvatsarasyaita ādityā ete
hīdagͫ sarvamādadānā yanti te yadidagͫ sarvamādadānā yanti
tasmādādityā iti .. 5..
Meaning:- 'Which are the Adityas?' 'The twelve months (are parts) of a year; these are the Adityas, for they go taking all this with them. Because they go taking all this with them, therefore they are called Adityas.'
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- 'Which are the Adityas?' 'It is well known that the twelve months are parts of a year; these are the Adityas. How? For, as they rotate, they go taking a person's longevity and the results of his work with them. Because they go taking (Ada) all this with them, therefore they are called Adityas.'
Max Müller
5. He asked:- 'Who are the Âdityas?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'The twelve months of the year, and they are Âdityas, because they move along (yanti), taking up everything [1] (âdadânâh). Because they move along, taking up everything, therefore they are called Âdityas.'
Meaning:- 'Which is Indra, and which is Prajapati?' 'The cloud itself is Indra, and the sacrifice is Prajapati'. 'Which is the cloud?' 'Thunder (strength).' 'Which is the sacrifice?' 'Animals'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- 'Which is Indra, and which is Prajapati?' 'The cloud itself is Indra, and the sacrifice is Prajapati.' 'Which is the cloud?' 'Thunder,' i.e. vigour or strength, which kills others; that is Indra, for it is his function. 'Which is the sacrifice?' 'Animals,' for they are the means of a sacrifice. Because a sacrifice has no form of its own and depends on its means, the animals, therefore they are called sacrifice.
Max Müller
6. He asked:- 'And who is Indra, and who is Pragâpati?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'Indra is thunder, Pragâpati is the sacrifice.' He asked:- 'And what is the thunder?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'The thunderbolt.' He asked:- 'And what is the sacrifice?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'The (sacrificial) animals.'
Meaning:- 'Which are the six (gods)?' 'Fire, the earth, air, the sky, the sun, and heaven - these are the six. Because all those (gods) are (comprised in) these six.'
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- 'Which are the six (gods)?' The same gods, fire and the rest, that are classed as Vasus, leaving out the moon and the stars, become six in number. 'Because all those (thirty-three and other gods) that have been spoken of are just these six.' In other words, the (previous) elaborations consisting of the Vasus and others are all included in these six.
Max Müller
7. He asked:- 'Who are the six?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'Agni (fire), Prithivî (earth), Vâyu (air), Antariksha (sky), Âditya (sun), Dyu (heaven), they are the six, for they are all [1] this, the six.'
katame te trayo devā iti ima eva trayo lokā eṣu hīme sarve devā iti .
katamau tau dvau devāvityannaṃ caiva prāṇaśceti . katamo'dhyardha
iti . yo'yaṃ pavata iti .. 8..
Meaning:- 'Which are the three gods?' 'These three worlds alone, because in these all those gods are comprised.' 'Which are the two gods?' 'Matter and the vital force.' 'Which are the one and a half?' 'This (air) that blows.'
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- 'Which are the three gods?' 'These three worlds alone.' The earth and the fire taken together make one god, the sky and air make another, and heaven and the sun make a third:- these are the three gods. Because in these three gods all the gods are comprised, therefore these are the three gods:- this is the view of a certain section of philologists. 'Which are the two gods?' 'Matter and the vital force' --- these are the two gods; that is to say, these include all the gods that have been enumerated. 'Which are the one and a half?' 'This air that blows.'
Max Müller
8. He asked:- 'Who are the three gods?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'These three worlds, for in them all these gods exist.' He asked:- 'Who are the two gods?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'Food and breath.' He asked:- 'Who is the one god and a half?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'He that blows.'
यदस्मिन्निदꣳ सर्वमध्यार्ध्नोत् तेनाध्यर्ध इति । कतम एको देव
इति । प्राण इति स ब्रह्म त्यदित्याचक्षते ॥ ९॥
mantra 9[III.ix.9]
tadāhuryadayameka eva eka ivaiva pavate .ātha kathamadhyardha iti .
yadasminnidagͫ sarvamadhyārdhnot tenādhyardha iti . katama eko deva
iti . prāṇa iti sa brahma tyadityācakṣate .. 9..
Meaning:- 'Regarding this some say, 'Since the air blows as one substance, how can it be one and a half?' ' It is one and a half because through its presence all this attains surpassing glory'. 'Which is the one god?' 'The vital force (Hiranyagarbha); it is Brahman, which is called Tyat (that).'
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- 'Regarding this some say in objection, 'Since the air blows as one substance, how can it be one and a half?' It is one and a half because through its presence all this attains surpassing glory.' 'Which is the one god?' 'The vital force; it, the vital force, is Brahman, for it is vast, being the sun total of all the gods. And this Brahman is called Tyat (that),' which is a word denoting remotenss. Thus the gods are one and many. The infinite number of gods are included in the limited number mentioned in the Nivid; these again are included in the succeesive (smaller) numbers, thirty-three and so on, up to the one vital force. It is this one vital force that expands into all those numbers up to the infinite. Thus the vital force alone is one and infinite as also possessed of the intermediate numbers. That this one god, the vital force, has different names, forms, activities, attributes and powers is due to individual differences of qualification (People perform different kinds of meditation and rites, and acquire different grades of mental culture, thereby attaining identity with fire etc. which are all parts of the cosmic vital force. Hence the above differences.).
Now eight other forms of that same vital force which is a form of Brahman are being set forth:-
Max Müller
9. Here they say:- 'How is it that he who blows like one only, should be called one and a half (adhyardha)?' And the answer is:- 'Because, when the wind was blowing, everything grew (adhyardhnot).' He asked:- 'Who is the one god?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'Breath (prâna), and he is Brahman (the Sûtrâtman), and they call him That (tyad).'
विद्यात्सर्वस्याऽऽत्मनः परायणꣳ, परायणं स वै वेदिता स्याद्
याज्ञवल्क्य । वेद वा अहं तं पुरुषꣳ सर्वस्याऽऽत्मनः परायणं
यमात्थ य एवायꣳ शारीरः पुरुषः स एष । वदैव शाकल्य
तस्य का देवतेत्यमृतमिति होवाच ॥ १०॥
mantra 10[III.ix.10]
pṛthivyeva yasyā''yatanamagnirloko mano jyotiryo vai taṃ puruṣaṃ
vidyātsarvasyā''tmanaḥ parāyaṇagͫ, parāyaṇaṃ sa vai veditā syād
yājñavalkya . veda vā ahaṃ taṃ puruṣagͫ sarvasyā''tmanaḥ parāyaṇaṃ
yamāttha ya evāyagͫ śārīraḥ puruṣaḥ sa eṣa . vadaiva śākalya
tasya kā devatetyamṛtamiti hovāca .. 10..
Meaning:- 'He who knows that being whose abode is the earth, whose instrument of vision is fire, whose light is the Manas, and who is the ultimate resort of the entire body and organs, knows truly, O Yajnavalkya'. 'I do know that being of whom you speak - who is the ultimate resort of the entire body and organs. It is the very being who is identified with the body. Go on, Sakalya.' 'Who is his deity (cause)?' 'Nectar (chyle)', said he.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- He who knows that being or god whose abode is the earth, whose instrument of vision is fire:- 'Loka' here means that through which one sees; that is to say, who sees through fire. Whose light is the Manas, who considers the pros and cons of a thing through the Manas. In other words, this god has the earth for his body and fire for his eye, weights things through the mind, identifies himself with the earth, and is possessed of a body and organs. And who is the ultimate resort of the entire body and organs. That is to say, as the skin, flesh and blood derived from the mother, which stand for the field, he is the ultimate resort of the bone, marrow and sperm derived from the father, which stand for the seed, as well as of the organs. He who knows it as such knows truly, is a scholar. You do not know him, Yajnavalkya, but still pose as a scholar. This is his idea.
'If knowing him confers scholarship, I do know that being of whom you speak --- who is the ultimate resort of the entire body and organs.' Then Sakalya must have said, 'If you know that being, tell me what his description is.' 'Listen what is it,' says the other, 'it is the being who is identified with the body, which preponderates in earthy elements, i.e. who is represented by the three constituents of the body, or sheaths, as they are called, derived from the mother --- that is the god about whom you have asked, Sakalya. But there is something more to be said about him by way of description; go on, Sakalya, i.e. ask about it.' Thus challenged, he was furious like a goaded elephant and said, 'Who is his deity, the deity of that god identified with the body? That from which something emanates has been spoken of in this section as the deity of that thing. 'Nectar,' said he. 'Nectar' here means chyle, or the watery essence of the food that is eaten, which produces the blood derived from the mother; for it generates the blood stored in a woman, and this blood produces the skin, flesh and blood of the foetus, which are the support of its bone, marrow, etc. The common portions of the next seven paragraphs need no explanation.
Max Müller
10. Sâkalya said [1]:- 'Whosoever knows that person (or god) whose dwelling (body) is the earth, whose sight (world) is fire [2], whose mind is light,--the principle of every (living) self, he indeed is a teacher, O Yâgñavalkya.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'I know that person, the principle of every self, of whom thou speakest. This corporeal (material, earthy) person, "he is he." But tell me [3], Sâkalya, who is his devatâ [4] (deity)?' Sâkalya replied:- 'The Immortal [5].'
काम एव यस्याऽऽयतनꣳ हृदयं लोको मनो ज्योतिर्यो वै तं
पुरुषं विद्यात्सर्वस्याऽऽत्मनः परायणꣳ, स वै वेदिता स्याद्
याज्ञवल्क्य । वेद वा अहं तं पुरुषꣳ सर्वस्याऽऽत्मनः परायणं
यमात्थ य एवायं काममयः पुरुषः स एष वदैव शाकल्य तस्य का
देवतेति । स्त्रिय इति होवाच ॥ ११॥
mantra 11[III.ix.11]
kāma eva yasyā''yatanagͫ hṛdayaṃ loko mano jyotiryo vai taṃ
puruṣaṃ vidyātsarvasyā''tmanaḥ parāyaṇagͫ, sa vai veditā syād
yājñavalkya . veda vā ahaṃ taṃ puruṣagͫ sarvasyā''tmanaḥ parāyaṇaṃ
yamāttha ya evāyaṃ kāmamayaḥ puruṣaḥ sa eṣa vadaiva śākalya tasya kā
devateti . striya iti hovāca .. 11..
Meaning:- 'He who knows that being whose abode is lust, whose instrument of vision is the intellect, whose light is the Manas, and who is the ultimate resort of the entire body and organs, knows truly, O Yajnavalkya'. 'I do know that being of whom you speak - who is the ultimate resort of the entire body and organs. It is the very being who is identified with lust. Go on, Sakalya'. 'Who is his deity?' 'Women', said he.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- 'Whose abode is lust,' or the desire for sex-pleasures; that is, who has lust as his body. 'Whose instrument of vision is the intellect,' i.e. who sees through the intellect. 'It is the very being identified with lust,' and the same in the body as well. 'Who is his deity?' 'Women,' said he, for men's desire is inflamed through them.
Max Müller
11. Sâkalya said:- 'Whosoever knows that person whose dwelling is love (a body capable of sensual love), whose sight is the heart, whose mind is light.--the principle of every self, he indeed is a teacher, O Yâgñavalkya.' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'I know that person, the principle of every self, of whom thou speakest. This love-made (loving) person, he is he." But tell me, Sâkalya, who is his devatâ?' Sâkalya replied:- 'The women [1].'
विद्यात्सर्वस्याऽऽत्मनः परायणꣳ, स वै वेदिता स्याद् याज्ञवल्क्य ।
वेद वा अहं तं पुरुषꣳ सर्वस्याऽऽत्मनः परायणं यमात्थ
य एवासावादित्ये पुरुषः स एष वदैव शाकल्य तस्य का देवतेति ।
सत्यमिति होवाच ॥ १२॥
mantra 12[III.ix.12]
rūpāṇyeva yasyā''yatanaṃ cakṣurloko mano jyotiryo vai taṃ puruṣaṃ
vidyātsarvasyā''tmanaḥ parāyaṇagͫ, sa vai veditā syād yājñavalkya .
veda vā ahaṃ taṃ puruṣagͫ sarvasyā''tmanaḥ parāyaṇaṃ yamāttha
ya evāsāvāditye puruṣaḥ sa eṣa vadaiva śākalya tasya kā devateti .
satyamiti hovāca .. 12..
Meaning:- 'He who knows that being whose abode is colours, whose instrument of vision is the eye, whose light is the Manas, and who is the ultimate resort of the entire body and organs, knows truly, O Yajnavalkya'. 'I do know that being of whom you speak - who is the ultimate resort of the entire body and organs. It is the very being who is in the sun. Go on Sakalya'. 'Who is his deity?' 'Truth (the eye),' said he.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- 'Whose abode is colours, 'white, black, etc. 'It is the being who is in the sun,' for he is the particular effect of all colurs (Being produced by them for their own manifestation.).' 'Who is his deity?' 'Truth,' said he. 'Truth' here means the eye, for the sun among the gods is the product (So says the Sruti (e.g. R. X. xc. 13.) of the eye in one's body.
Max Müller
12. Sâkalya said:- 'Whosoever knows that person whose dwelling are the colours, whose sight is the eye, whose mind is light,--the principle of every self, he indeed is a teacher, O Yâgñavalkya.' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'I know that person, the principle of every self, of whom thou speakest. That person in the sun, "he is he." But tell me, Sâkalya, who is his devatâ?' Sâkalya replied:- 'The True [1].'
पुरुषं विद्यात्सर्वस्याऽऽत्मनः परायणꣳ, स वै वेदिता स्याद्
याज्ञवल्क्य । वेद वा अहं तं पुरुषꣳ सर्वस्याऽऽत्मनः परायणं
यमात्थ य एवायꣳ श्रौत्रः प्रातिश्रुत्कः पुरुषः स एष वदैव
शाकल्य तस्य का देवतेति । दिश इति होवाच ॥ १३॥
mantra 13[III.ix.13]
ākāśa eva yasyā''yatanagͫ śrotraṃ loko mano jyotiryo vai taṃ
puruṣaṃ vidyātsarvasyā''tmanaḥ parāyaṇagͫ, sa vai veditā syād
yājñavalkya . veda vā ahaṃ taṃ puruṣagͫ sarvasyā''tmanaḥ parāyaṇaṃ
yamāttha ya evāyagͫ śrautraḥ prātiśrutkaḥ puruṣaḥ sa eṣa vadaiva
śākalya tasya kā devateti . diśa iti hovāca .. 13..
Meaning:- 'He who knows that being whose abode is the ether, whose instrument of vision is the ear, whose light is the Manas, and who is the ultimate resort of the entire body and organs, knows truly, O Yajnavalkya'. 'I do know that being of whom you speak - who is the ultimate resort of the entire body and organs. It is the very being who is identified with the ear and with the time of hearing. Go on, Sakalya'. 'Who is his deity?' 'The quarters', said he.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- 'Whose abode is the ether,' etc. 'It is the being who is identified with the ear and particularly with the time of hearing.' 'Who is his deity?' 'The quarters,' said he, for (the Srutis say) it is from the quarters that this particular being within the body is produced.
Max Müller
13. Sâkalya said:- 'Whosoever knows that person whose dwelling is ether, whose sight is the ear, whose mind is light,--the principle of every self, he indeed is a teacher, O Yâgñavalkya.' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'I know that person, the principle of every self, of whom thou speakest. The person who hears [1] and answers, "he is he." But tell me, Sâkalya, who is his devatâ?' Sâkalya replied:- 'Space.'
पुरुषं विद्यात्सर्वस्याऽऽत्मनः परायणꣳ, स वै वेदिता स्याद्
याज्ञवल्क्य । वेद वा अहं तं पुरुषꣳ सर्वस्याऽऽत्मनः परायणं
यमात्थ य एवायं छायामयः पुरुषः स एष वदैव शाकल्य तस्य
का देवतेति । मृत्युरिति होवाच ॥ १४॥
mantra 14[III.ix.14]
tama eva yasyā''yatanagͫ hṛdayaṃ loko mano jyotiryo vai taṃ
puruṣaṃ vidyātsarvasyā''tmanaḥ parāyaṇagͫ, sa vai veditā syād
yājñavalkya . veda vā ahaṃ taṃ puruṣagͫ sarvasyā''tmanaḥ parāyaṇaṃ
yamāttha ya evāyaṃ chāyāmayaḥ puruṣaḥ sa eṣa vadaiva śākalya tasya
kā devateti . mṛtyuriti hovāca .. 14..
Meaning:- 'He who knows that being whose abode is darkness, whose instrument of vision is the intellect, whose light is the Manas, and who is the ultimate resort of the entire body and organs, knows truly, O Yajnavalkya'. 'I do know that being of whom you speak - who is the ultimate resort of the entire body and organs. It is the very being who is identified with shadow (ignorance). Go on, Sakalya'. 'Who is his deity?' 'Death', said he.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- 'Whose abode is darkness,' such as that of the night. In the body 'it is the very being identified with shadow, or ignorance.' 'Who is his deity?' 'Death,' said he. Among the gods this is his cause (according to the Srutis).
Max Müller
14. Sâkalya said:- 'Whosoever knows that person whose dwelling is darkness, whose sight is the heart, whose mind is light,--the principle of every self, he indeed is a teacher, O Yâgñavalkya.' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'I know that person, the principle of every self, of whom thou speakest. The shadowy [1] person, "he is he." But tell me, Sâkalya, who is his devatâ?' Sâkalya replied:- 'Death.'
विद्यात्सर्वस्याऽऽत्मनः परायणꣳ, परायणं स वै वेदिता स्याद्
याज्ञवल्क्य । वेद वा अहं तं पुरुषꣳ सर्वस्याऽऽत्मनः परायणं
यमात्थ य एवायमादर्शे पुरुषः स एष वदैव शाकल्य तस्य का
देवतेत्यसुरिति होवाच ॥ १५॥
mantra 15[III.ix.15]
rūpāṇyeva yasyā''yatanaṃ cakṣurloko mano jyotiryo vai taṃ puruṣaṃ
vidyātsarvasyā''tmanaḥ parāyaṇagͫ, parāyaṇaṃ sa vai veditā syād
yājñavalkya . veda vā ahaṃ taṃ puruṣagͫ sarvasyā''tmanaḥ parāyaṇaṃ
yamāttha ya evāyamādarśe puruṣaḥ sa eṣa vadaiva śākalya tasya kā
devatetyasuriti hovāca .. 15..
Meaning:- 'He who knows that being whose abode is (particular) colours, whose instrument of vision is the eye, whose light is the Manas, and who is the ultimate resort of the entire body and organs, knows truly, O Yajnavalkya'. 'I do know that being of whom you speak - who is the ultimate resort of the entire body and organs. It is the very being who is in a looking-glass. Go on, Sakalya'. 'Who is his deity?' 'The vital force', said he.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- 'Whose abode is colours.' In paragraph 12 colours in general were referred to; but here particular colours, those that reflect, are meant. The particular abode of the god who dwells in these colours is reflecting objects, such as a looking-glass. 'Who is his deity?' 'The vital force,' said he. That being called reflection emanates from the vital force (Being dependent on friction etc., which requires strength.).
Max Müller
15. Sâkalya said:- 'Whosoever knows that person whose dwelling are (bright) colours, whose sight is the eye, whose mind is light,--the principle of every self, he indeed is a teacher, O Yâgñavalkya.' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'I know that person, the principle of every self, of whom thou speakest. The person in the looking-glass, "he is he." But tell me, Sâkalya, who is his devatâ?' Sâkalya replied:- 'Vital breath' (asu).
आप एव यस्याऽऽयतनꣳ हृदयं लोको मनो ज्योतिर्यो वै तं पुरुषं
विद्यात्सर्वस्याऽऽत्मनः परायणꣳ, परायणं स वै वेदिता स्याद्
याज्ञवल्क्य । वेद वा अहं तं पुरुषꣳ सर्वस्याऽऽत्मनः परायणं
यमात्थ य एवायमप्सु पुरुषः स एष वदैव शाकल्य तस्य का देवतेति ।
वरुण इति होवाच ॥ १६॥
mantra 16[III.ix.16]
āpa eva yasyā''yatanagͫ hṛdayaṃ loko mano jyotiryo vai taṃ puruṣaṃ
vidyātsarvasyā''tmanaḥ parāyaṇagͫ, parāyaṇaṃ sa vai veditā syād
yājñavalkya . veda vā ahaṃ taṃ puruṣagͫ sarvasyā''tmanaḥ parāyaṇaṃ
yamāttha ya evāyamapsu puruṣaḥ sa eṣa vadaiva śākalya tasya kā devateti .
varuṇa iti hovāca .. 16..
Meaning:- 'He who knows that being whose abode is water, whose instrument of vision is the intellect, whose light is the Manas, and who is the ultimate resort of the entire body and organs, knows truly, O Yajnavalkya'. 'I do know that being of whom you speak - who is the ultimate resort of the entire body and organs. It is the very being who is in water. Go on, Sakalya'. 'Who is his deity?' 'Varuna (rain)', said he.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- 'Whose abode is water' in general. He specially lives in the water of resorvoirs, wells, tanks, etc. 'Who is his deity?' 'Varuna (rain).' Because the water that is (drunk and) forms the body comes from rain; it is again the cause of the water of reservoirs etc (Through the person who digs them.).
Max Müller
16. Sâkalya said:- 'Whosoever knows that person whose dwelling is water, whose sight is the heart, whose mind is light,--the principle of every self, he indeed is a teacher, O Yâgñavalkya.' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'I know that person, the principle of every self, of whom thou speakest. The person in the water, "he is he." But tell me, Sâkalya, who is his devatâ?' Sâkalya replied:- 'Varuna.'
पुरुषं विद्यात्सर्वस्याऽऽत्मनः परायणꣳ, स वै वेदिता स्याद्
याज्ञवल्क्य । वेद वा अहं तं पुरुषꣳ सर्वस्याऽऽत्मनः परायणं
यमात्थ य एवायं पुत्रमयः पुरुषः स एष वदैव शाकल्य तस्य
का देवतेति । प्रजापतिरिति होवाच ॥ १७॥
mantra 17[III.ix.17]
reta eva yasyā''yatanagͫ hṛdayaṃ loko mano jyotiryo vai taṃ
puruṣaṃ vidyātsarvasyā''tmanaḥ parāyaṇagͫ, sa vai veditā syād
yājñavalkya . veda vā ahaṃ taṃ puruṣagͫ sarvasyā''tmanaḥ parāyaṇaṃ
yamāttha ya evāyaṃ putramayaḥ puruṣaḥ sa eṣa vadaiva śākalya tasya
kā devateti . prajāpatiriti hovāca .. 17..
Meaning:- 'He who knows that being whose abode is the seed, whose instrument of vision is the intellect, whose light is the Manas, and who is the ultimate resort of the entire body and organs, knows truly, O Yajnavalkya'. 'I do know that being of whom you speak - who is the ultimate resort of the entire body and organs. It is the very being who is identified with the son. Go on, Sakalya'. 'Who is his deity?' 'Prajapati (the father)', said he.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- 'Whose abode is the seed.' 'It is the very being identified with the son,' who is the particular abode of the being who inhabits the seed. 'The very being identified with the son' here means the bones, marrow and seed derived from the father. 'Who is his deity?' 'Prajapati,' said he. 'Prajapati' here means the father, for from him the son is born.
Max Müller
17. Sâkalya said:- 'Whosoever knows that person whose dwelling is seed, whose sight is the heart, whose mind is light,--the principle of every self, he indeed is a teacher, O Yâgñavalkya.' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'I know that person, the principle of every self, of whom thou speakest. The filial person, "he is he." But tell me, Sâkalya, who is his devatâ?' Sâkalya replied:- 'Pragâpati.'
Meaning:- 'Sakalya', said Yajnavalkya, 'have these Vedic scholars made you their instrument for burning charcoals?'
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- For the sake of meditation one and the same vital force has been inculcated in eight different forms; each god having three divisions, viz abode (general form), being (special manifestation) and diety (cause), is but a form of the vital force. The text now goes on to show how the same vital force, divided into five forms according to the different quarters, is unified in the mind. When Sakalya kept silent, Yajnavalkya addressed him, subjecting him to the spell of an evil spirit, as it were. 'Sakalya,' said he, 'have these Vedic scholars made you their instrument for burning charcoals such as fire-tongs?' The particle 'svid' denotes deliberation. He means, 'They must have done so, but you do not perceive that you are being consumed by me.'
Max Müller
18. Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Sâkalya, did those Brâhmanas (who themselves shrank from the contest) make thee the victim [1]?' Sâkalya said:- 'Yâgñavalkya, because thou hast decried the Brâhmanas of the Kuru-Pañkâlas, what [2] Brahman dost thou know?'
brāhmaṇānatyavādīḥ kiṃ brahma vidvāniti . diśo veda sadevāḥ sapratiṣṭhā
iti . yaddiśo vettha sadevāḥ sapratiṣṭhāḥ .. 19..
Meaning:- 'Yajnavalkya', said Sakalya, 'is it because you know Brahman that you have thus flouted these Vedic scholars of Kuru and Panchala?' 'I know the quarters with their deities and supports'. 'If you know the quarters with their deities and supports --
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- 'Yajnavalkya,' said Sakalya, 'is it because you know Brahman that you have thus flouted these Vedic scholars of Kuru and Pancala by suggesting that they themselves were afraid and made me their fire-tongs?' Yajnavalkya said, 'This is my knowledge of Brahman --- what is it? --- that I know the quarters, i.e. the meditation concerning them; not the quarters alone, but with their presiding deities and supports as well.' The other said, 'If you know the quarters with their deities and supports, i.e. if you say you know the meditation with its results ---
Max Müller
19. Yâgñavalkya said:- 'I know the quarters with their deities and their abodes.' Sâkalya said:- 'If thou knowest the quarters with their deities and their abodes,
Meaning:- 'What deity are you identified with in the east?' 'With the deity, sun'. 'On what does the sun rest?' 'On the eye'. 'On what does the eye rest?' 'On colours, for one sees colours with the eye'. 'On what do colours rest?' 'On the heart (mind)', said Yajnavalkya, 'for one knows colours through the heart; it is on the heart that colours rest'. 'It is just so, Yajnavalkya'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- 'What deity are you identified with in the east? --- what deity have you who are identified with the quarters?' Yajnavalkya, realising his own heart or mind --- divided in five forms according to the quarters and identified with the quarters --- and through it the whole universe, as his own self, stood facing the east, with the conviction that he was the quarters. We gather this from his clain that he knew the quarters with their supports. Sakalya according to Yajnavalkya's statement asks, 'What deity are you identified with in this quarter?' Everywhere in the Vedas it is stated that in this very life one becomes identified with and attains the god one meditates upon. It will be stated further on, 'Being a god, he attains the gods' (IV. i. 2). The idea is this:- You are identified with the quarters; who is your presiding deity in the east? --- as the east, which deity are you united with? Yajnavalkya said:- 'With the deity, sun --- the sun is my deity in the east.' This is in substantiation of his claim that he knew the quarters with their deities; the other part, that relating to their supports, remains to be dealt with; so the text goes on:- 'On what does the sun rest?' 'On the eye,' for the Vedic Mantras and Brahmanas --- for instance, 'From the eye the sun was produced' (R.X. xc. 13, etc.) and 'From the eye came the sun' (Ai. I. 4) --- say that the sun is produced from the eye that is in the body; and an effect rests on its cause. 'On what does the eye rest?' 'On colours.' The eye, itself a modification of colours, is directed by them so as to perceive them; it is produced by those very colours that direct it to perceive them. Therefore the eye, together with the sun, and the east, and all that lie in the east, rests on colours; the entire east, together with the eye, is but colours. 'On what do these colours rest?' 'On the heart,' said Yajnavalkya. Colours are made by the heart; it is the heart that is transformed into them, 'for everybody knows colours through the heart.' 'Heart' here refers to the intellect and Manas taken together (i.e. mind). Therefore 'it is on the heart that colours rest.' The idea is that since one remembers colours, lying as impressions, through the heart, therefore colours rest on the heart. 'It is just so, Yajnavalkya.'
Max Müller
20. 'Which is thy deity in the Eastern quarter?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Âditya (the sun).' Sâkalya said:- 'In what does that Âditya abide?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In the eye.' Sâkalya said:- 'In what does the eye abide?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In the colours, for with the eye he sees the colours.' Sâkalya said:- 'And in what then do the colours abide?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In the heart [1], for we know colours by the heart, for colours abide in the heart [2].' Sâkalya said:- 'So it is indeed, O Yâgñavalkya.'
hṛdayena hi śraddhāṃ jānāti hṛdaye hyeva śraddhā pratiṣṭhitā
bhavatītyevamevaitad yājñavalkya .. 21..
Meaning:- 'What deity are you identified with in the south?' 'With the deity, Yama (the god of justice)'. On what does Yama rest?' 'On the sacrifice'. 'On what does the sacrifice rest?' 'On the remuneration (of the priests).' 'On what does the remuneration rest?' 'On faith, because whenever a man has faith, he gives remuneration to the priests; therefore it is on faith that the remuneration rests'. 'On what does faith rest?' 'On the heart', said Yajnavalkya, 'for one knows faith through the heart; therefore it is on the heart that faith rests'. 'It is just so, Yajnavalkya'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- 'What deity are you identified with in the south?' etc. --- should be explained as before:- Who is your deity in the south? 'With the deity, Yama --- I am the south, and Yama is my deity.' 'On what does Yama rest?' 'On the sacrifice.' Yama together with the south rests on the sacrifice, his cause. How can Yama be the effect of a sacrifice? This is being answered:- The priests officiate in the sacrifice, and the sacrificer redeems it from them by means of the remuneration, and wins the south together with Yama through that sacrifice. Hence Yama, being its effect, rests on the sacrifice, together with the south. 'On what does the sacrifice rest?' 'On the remuneration (of the priests).' The sacrifice is redeemed through the remuneration; therefore it is the effect of the remuneration. 'On what does the remenuration rest?' 'On faith.' 'Faith' means liberality --- faith in the Vedas coupled with devotion. How does the remuneration rest on faith?' 'Because whenever a man has faith, he gives remuneration to the priests; if he has no faith, he does not give it. Therefore it is on faith tha the remuneration rests.' 'On what does faith rest?' 'On the heart,' said Yajnavalkya, 'faith is a modification of the heart, for one knows faith through the heart, and a modification rests on that which has it; therefore it is on the heart that faith rests.' 'It is just so, Yajnavalkya.'
Max Müller
21. Sâkalya said:- 'Which is thy deity in the Southern quarter?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Yama.' Sâkalya said:- 'In what does that Yama abide?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In the sacrifice.' Sâkalya said:- 'In what does the sacrifice abide?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In the Dakshinâ (the gifts to be given to the priests).' Sâkalya said:- 'In what does the Dakshinâ abide?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In Sraddhâ (faith), for if a man believes, then he gives Dakshinâ, and Dakshinâ truly abides in faith.' Sâkalya said:- 'And in what then does faith abide?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In the heart, for by the heart faith knows, and therefore faith abides in the heart.' Sâkalya said:- 'So it is indeed, O Yâgñavalkya.'
Meaning:- 'What deity are you identified with in the west?' 'With the deity, Varuna (the god of rain)'. 'On what does Varuna rest?' 'On water'. 'On what does water rest?' 'On the seed'. 'On what does the seed rest?' 'On the heart. Therefore do they say of a new-born child closely resembles (his father), that he has sprung from (his father's) heart, as it were - that he has been made out of (his father's) heart, as it were. Therefore it is on the heart that the seed rests'. 'It is just so, Yajnavalkya'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- 'What deity are you identified with in the west?' 'With the deity, Varuna --- Varuna is my presidinng deity in that direction.' 'On what does Varuna rest?' 'On water,' for Varuna is the effect of water. Witness the Srutis, 'Faith is water' (Tia. S. I. vi. 8. 1), and 'From faith he created Varuna.' 'On what does water rest?' 'On the seed,' for the Sruti says, 'From the seed was water created' (cf. Ai. I. i. 4). 'On what does the seed rest?'
'On the heart,' because the seed is the effect of the heart. Lust is a modification of the heart, for the seed issues from the heart of a man under its influence. 'Therefore do they say of a new-born child, who closely resembles (his father), that he has sprung from his father's heart, as it were, that he has been made out of (his father's) heart, as it were, as an ear-ring is made out of gold. Therefore, it is on the heart that the seed rests.' 'It is just so, Yajnavalkya.'
Max Müller
22. Sâkalya said:- 'Which is thy deity in the Western quarter?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Varuna.' Sâkalya said:- 'In what does that Varuna abide?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In the water.' Sâkalya said:- 'In what does the water abide?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In the seed.' Sâkalya said:- 'And in what does the seed abide?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In the heart. And therefore also they say of a son who is like his father, that he seems as if slipt from his heart, or made from his heart; for the seed abides in the heart.' Sâkalya said:- 'So it is indeed, O Yâgñavalkya.'
hṛdayena hi satyaṃ jānāti hṛdaye hyeva satyaṃ pratiṣṭhitaṃ
bhavatītyevamevaitad yājñavalkya .. 23..
Meaning:- 'What deity are you identified with in the north?' 'With the deity, Soma (the moon and the creeper)' 'On what does Soma rest?' 'On initiation'. 'On what does initiation rest?' 'On truth. Therefore do they say to one initiated, "Speak the truth"; for it is on truth that initiation rests'. 'On what does truth rest?' 'On the heart', said Yajnavalkya, 'for one knows truth through the heart; therefore it is on the heart that truth rests'. 'It is just so, Yajnavalkya'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- 'What deity are you identified with in the north?' 'With the deity, Soma.' 'Soma' here means both the moon and creeper. 'On what does Soma rest?' 'On initiation,' for the initiated sacrificer purchases the Soma creeper, and sacrificing with that creeper along with meditation, attains (his identity with) the north, presided over by the moon and named after her. 'On what does initiation rest?' 'On truth.' How? Because initiation rests on truth, 'therefore do they say to one initiated:- Speak the truth,' lest the cause being spoilt, the effect also be spoilt. Therefore 'it is on truth that initiation rests.' 'On what does truth rest?' 'On the heart,' said Yajnavalkya, 'for one knows truth through the heart; therefore it is on the heart that truth rests.' 'It is just so, Yajnavalkya.'
Max Müller
23. Sâkalya said:- 'Which is thy deity in the Northern quarter?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Soma.' Sâkalya said:- 'In what does that Soma abide?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In the Dîkshâ [1].' Sâkalya said:- 'In what does the Dîkshâ abide?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In the True; and therefore they say to one who has performed the Dîkshâ, Speak what is true, for in the True indeed the Dîkshâ abides.' Sâkalya said:- 'And in what does the True abide?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In the heart, for with the heart do we know what is true, and in the heart indeed the True abides.' Sâkalya said:- 'So it is indeed, O Yâgñavalkya.'
Meaning:- 'What deity are you identified with in the fixed direction (above)?' 'With the deity, fire'. 'On what does fire rest?' 'On speech'. 'On what does speech rest?' 'On the heart'. 'On what does the heart rest?'
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- 'What deity are you identified with in the fixed direction?' Being the same to all who dwell round Mount Meru (The directions east, west, etc., vary according to the relative position of the dwellers this mountain, the east being that in which they see the sun rise. But the direction overhead is obviously constant to all of them.), the direction overhead is called the fixed directin. 'With the deity, fire,' for overhead there is more light, and fire is luminous. 'On what does fire rest?' 'On speech.' 'On what does speech rest?' 'On the heart.' Now Yajnavalkya, through his heart extending in all directions, has realised all the quarters as his own self; the quarters, with their deities and supports, are a part and parcel of him, and he is identified with name, colour (form) and action. Of these, colour together with the east is one with his heart. Mechancial rites, the act of procreation and rites combined with meditation, representing the south, west and north respectively, together with their results and presiding deities, are likewise unified in his heart. And all names together with the overhead direction also reach his heart through speech. The whole universe is comprised in these; colour (form), action and name; and all these are but (modifications of) the heart. Therefore Sakalya asks about the heart, which is the embodiment of everything:- 'On what does the heart rest?'
Max Müller
24. Sâkalya said:- 'Which is thy deity in the zenith?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Agni.' Sâkalya said:- 'In what does that Agni abide.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In speech.' Sâkalya said:- 'And in what does speech abide Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In the heart.' Sâkalya said:- 'And in what does the heart abide?'
Meaning:- 'You ghost', said Yajnavalkya, 'when you think the heart is elsewhere than in us, (then the body is dead). Should it be elsewhere than in us, dogs would eat this body, or birds tear it to pieces'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- 'You ghost,' said Yajnavalkya, addressing him by a different name, 'when you think the heart, or the mind, which is the self (In a figurative sense.) of the body, is elsewhere than in us, (then the body is dead). Should it be elsewhere than in us, dogs would then eat this body, or birds tear it to pieces. Therefore the heart rests on me, i.e. the body' --- this is the idea. The body also, as consisting of name, colour (form) and action, rests on the heart.
Max Müller
25. Yâgñavalkya said:- 'O Ahallika [1], when you think the heart could be anywhere else away from us, if it were away from us, the dogs might eat it, or the birds tear it.'
pratiṣṭhita iti . samāna iti . sa eṣa neti netyātmā'gṛhyo na
hi gṛhyate'śīryo na hi śīryate'saṅgo na hi sajyate'sito
na vyathate na riṣyatyetānyaṣṭāvāyatanānyaṣṭau lokā aṣṭau devā
aṣṭau puruṣāḥ . sa yastānpuruṣānniruhya pratyuhyātyakrāmat taṃ
tvaupaniṣadaṃ puruṣaṃ pṛcchāmi . taṃ cenme na vivakṣyasi mūrdhā
te vipatiṣyatīti . tagͫ ha na mene śākalyastasya ha mūrdhā vipapāta
api hāsya parimoṣiṇo'sthīnyapajahruranyanmanyamānāḥ .. 26..
Meaning:- On what do the body and the heart rest?' 'On the Prana'. 'On what does the Prana rest?' 'On the Apana.' 'On what does the Apana rest?' 'On the Vyana.' 'On what does the Vyana rest?' 'On the Udana'. 'On what does the Udana rest?' 'On the Samana'. This self is That which has been described as 'Not this, not this'. It is imperceptible, for it is never perceived; undecaying, for It never decays; unattached, for It is never attached; unfettered - It never feels pain, and never suffers injury. 'These are the eight abodes, the eight instruments of vision, the eight deities and the eight beings. I ask you of that Being who is to be known only from the Upanishads, who definitely projects those beings and withdraws them into Himself, and who is at the same time transcendent. If you cannot clearly tell me of Him, your head shall fall off'. Sakalya did not know Him; his head fell off; and robbers snatched away his bones, mistaking them for something else.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- 'You have stated that the body and the heart --- the effect and the instrument --- rest on each other. I therefore ask you:- On what do the body and the heart rest?' 'On the Prana':- The body and the mind rest on the force called Prana (For the functions of these see commentary on I. v. 3.). 'On what does the Prana rest?' 'On the Apana':- That force called Prana would go out (through the mouth and nostrils), were it not held back by the force called Apana. 'On what does the Apana rest?' 'On the Vyana':- That force called Apana would also depart (through the lower orifice) as the Prana would (through the mouth and nostrils), were they not both held back by the force called Vyana, which occupies an intermediate position. 'On what does the Vyana rest?' 'On the Udana':- All the three forces would go out in all directions, were they not fixed, as to a post, to the Udana. 'On what does the Udana rest?' 'On the Samana,' for all these forces rest on the Samana. The idea is this:- The body, mind and the vital forces are interdependent and work together as an orderly aggregate, dominated by the purpose of the individual self. Now that transcendent Brahman, which is immediate and direct, by which all these up to the ether are regulated, on which they rest, and by which they are pervaded, has to be described. Hence the text goes on:-
This self is That which has been described in the Madhukanda (Consisting of chapters I and II.) as 'Not this, not this' (II. iii. 6). It is imperceptible, not perceivable. How? Because It is beyond the characteristics of effects, therefore It is imperceptible. Why? For It is never perceived. Only a differentiated object, which is within the range of the organs, can be perceived:- but the Self is the opposite of that. Similarly undecaying. What is gross and made up of parts decays, as, for instance, the body; but the Self is the opposite of that; hence It never decays. Likewise unattached. A gross object, being related to another gross object, is attached to it; but the Self is the opposite of that:- hence It is never attached. Similarly unfettered, or free. Whatever is gross becomes bound; but It, being the opposite of that, is free, and for that reason never feels pain. Hence also It never suffers injury. Being beyond such characteristics of effects as perception, decay, attachment and bondage, It never suffers injury, in other words, is never destroyed.
The Sruti, out of eagerness, has set aside the order (Of the dialogue. Now it is Yajnavalkya who is asking.), stepped out of the story and described in its own form the Being who is to be known only from the Upanisads. Then it resumes the garb of the story and says (through Yajnavalkya):- These are the eight abodes, described above (in pars. 10 ' 17) in the words, 'Whose abode is the earth,' etc.; the eight instruments of vision, fire etc.; the eight deities, referred to in, ' 'Nectar (chyle),' said he,' etc. (par. 10); the eight beings, mentioned in, 'The very being who is identified with the body' (Ibid.), etc. I ask you, who are proud of your learning, of that Being devoid of hunger etc. who is to be known only from the Upanisads, and through no other means of knowledge, who definitely projects those beings, those identified with the body etc., divided into eight groups of four items (viz abode, instrument of vision, light and deity.) each, so as to constitute the universe as it is, and withdraws them through the east etc. into Himself, i.e. into the heart (mind), and who is at the same time transcendent, beyond the attributes of such limiting adjuncts as identification with the heart. If you cannot clearly tell me of Him, your head shall fall off, said Yajnavalkya. Sakalya did not know that Being who is to be known only from the Upanisads; his head fell off. The story is ended. 'Sakalya did not know Him,' etc., is the narration of the Sruti. Further, robbers snatched away even his bones as they were being carried to his home by his disciples for the funeral rites --- why? --- mistaking them for something else, viz treasure in it. A previous anecdote is here referred to. In the Astadhyayi (S. XI). It consists of eight chapters and treats of rituals.) there occurs a dialogue between Yajnavalkya and Sakalya with a similar ending. There Yajnavalkya gave a curse:- ' 'You shall die in an unholy place at an inauspicious moment, and even your bones shall not reach home.' He died exactly like that; and robbers seized his bones too, mistaking them for something else' (S. XI. vi. iii. 11). The moral of the story is that one should not be disrespectful, but rather submissive to a true knower of Brahman. That story is here referred to in order to teach conduct and also to extol the knowledge of Brahman.
How can that Brahman which has been indicated as 'Not this, not this' by the elimination of everything else, be positively indicated? In order to answer this, as also to state the cause of the universe, the Sruti again resorts to the story. The point of the story is that one may take away cattle by defeating Vedic scholars who do not truly know Brahman. In view of the customary procedure (That things belonging to Brahmanas must not be taken without their consent.) Yajnavalkya said:-
Max Müller
26. Sâkalya said:- 'And in what dost thou (thy body) and the Self (thy heart) abide?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In the Prâna (breath).' Sâkalya said:- 'In what does the Prâna abide?' Yâgñavalkya said:- In the Apâna (down-breathing) [1].' Sâkalya said:- 'In what does the Apâna abide?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In the Vyâna (back-breathing ) [2].' Sâkalya said:- 'In what does the Vyâna-abide?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In the Udâna (the out-breathing) [3].' Sâkalya said:- 'In what does the Udâna abide?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In the Samâna [4]. That Self (âtman) is to be described by No, no [5]! He is incomprehensible, for he cannot be (is not) comprehended; he is imperishable, for he cannot perish; he is unattached, for he does not attach himself; unfettered, he does not suffer, he does not fail.' 'These are the eight abodes (the earth, &c.), the eight worlds (fire, &c.), the eight gods (the immortal food, &c.), the eight persons (the corporeal, &c.) He who after dividing and uniting these persons [6], went beyond (the Samâna), that person, taught in the Upanishads, I now ask thee (to teach me). If thou shalt not explain him to me, thy head will fall.' Sâkalya did not know him, and his head fell, nay, thieves took away his bones, mistaking them for something else.
vaḥ pṛcchāmīti . te ha brāhmaṇā na dadhṛṣuḥ .. 27..
Meaning:- Then he said, 'Revered Brahmanas, whichsoever amongst you wishes may interrogate me or all of you may. Or I shall question whichsoever amongst you wishes, or all of you'. The Brahmanas did not dare.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Then, after the Brahmanas were silent, he said, addressing them, 'Revered Brahmanas, whichsoever amongst you wishes, 'I shall question Yajnavalkya', may come forward and do so, or all of you may. Or I question whichsoever amongst you wishes, 'Let Yajnavalkya question me', or question all of you.' The Brahmanas, even though thus addressed, did not dare to give any reply whatsoever.
Max Müller
27. Then Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Reverend Brâhmanas, whosoever among you desires to do so, may now question me. Or question me, all of you. Or whosoever among you desires it, I shall question him, or I shall question all of you. But those Brâhmanas durst not (say anything).
vocata jīvatastatprajāyate dhānāruha iva vai vṛkṣo'ñjasā pretya
sambhavaḥ .. 5.. yatsamūlamāvṛheyurvṛkṣaṃ na punarābhavet . martyaḥ
svinmṛtyunā vṛkṇaḥ kasmānmūlātprarohati .. 6.. jāta eva na jāyate
ko nvenaṃ janayetpunaḥ vijñānamānandaṃ brahma rātirdātuḥ parāyaṇaṃ
tiṣṭhamānasya tadvida iti .. 7.. .. 28 ..
iti navamaṃ brāhmaṇam ..
.. iti bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadi tṛtīyo'dhyāyaḥ ..
atha caturto'dhyāyaḥ .
atha prathamaṃ brāhmaṇam .
Meaning:- He asked them through these verses:- (1) As a large tree, so indeed is a man. (This is) true. His hair is its leaves, his skin its outer bark. (2) It is from his skin that blood flows, and from the bark sap. Therefore when a man is wounded, blood flows, as sap from a tree that is injured. (3) His flesh is its inner bark, and his sinews its innermost layer of bark; it is tough. His bones lie under, as does its wood; his marrow is comparable to its pith. (4) If a tree, after it is felled, springs again from its root in a newer form, from what root does man spring forth after he is cut off by death? (5) Do not say, ‘From the seed,’ (for) it is produced in a living man. A tree springs also from the seed; after it is dead it certainly springs again (from the seed as well). (6) If a tree is pulled out with its root, it no more sprouts, From what root does a mortal spring forth after he is cut off by death? (7) If you think he is ever born, I say, no, he is again born. Now who should again bring him forth?—Knowledge, Bliss, Brahman, the supreme goal of the distributor of wealth as well as of him who has realised Brahman and lives in It.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- When the Brahmanas were silent, he asked them through the following verses:- As in the world is a large tree --- the word 'Vanaspati' qualifies the word 'tree' --- so indeed is a man. This is true. His hair is its leaves:- A man's hair corresponds to the leaves of a tree. His skin is its outer bark. It is from a man’s skin that blood flows, and it is from the bark of a large tree that sap exudes. Since a man and a large tree thus resemble each other in all respects, therefore when a man is wounded, blood flows, as sap from a tree that is injured or cut. Similarly a man’s flesh is the inner bark of a large tree. A man’s sinews are the innermost layer of bark in a tree, that layer which is under the inner bark and attached to the wood; it is tough, or strong, like the sinews. A man’s bones lie under the sinews; similarly under the innermost bark is the wood. A man’s marrow is comparable to the pith of a large tree. There is no difference between the two; they resemble each other. If a tree, after it is felled, springs again from its root in a newer form, etc. We have seen that previous to this feature there was complete similarity between a tree and a man. We notice, however, this peculiarity in a tree that it springs again after it is felled, while we do not see that a man cut off by death springs forth again. But there must be a renascence from some source. Therefore I ask you, from what root does man spring forth after he is cut off by death? In other words, whence is a dead man reborn? If you say that he springs from the seed, do not say (ṣo), you should not say so. Why? Because the seed is produced in a living man, not in a dead man. A tree springs also from the seed, not from the trunk only.—The particle ‘iva’ is expletive.—A large tree, after it is dead, certainly sprīngs again from the seed as well. If a tree is pulled out with its root or its seed, it no more sprouts. Therefore I ask you about the root of the whole universe:- From what root does a mortal spring forth after he is cut off by death? If you think he is ever born. and there is nothing more to ask about him—a question about birth is possible only of one who is yet to be born, andyhot of one who is already born; but a man is ever born, so no question about his birth is admissible —I say, no. What happens then? After death he is again born of a certainty, for otherwise you would be assuming that a man reaps the fruits of actions that he has never done, and fails to obtain those of actions he has actually done. So I ask you, who should again bring him, the dead man, forth? The Brāhmaṇas did not know that:- that root of the universe out of which the dead man is again born was unknown to them. Hence, being the best of the knowers of Brahman, Yājñavalkya defeated the Brāh-manas and took away the cows. The story is finished. The Śruti in its own form now tells us of the root of the universe, about which Yājñavalkya asked the Brāhmaṇas, and gives the words that directly describe Brahman:- Knowledge, or Pure Intelligence, which is also Bliss, not smitten with pain like sense-perception, but serene, beneficent, matchless, spontaneous, ever content and homogeneous. What is that? Brahman, which has both the characteristics (Knowledge and Bliss). The supreme goal, or the bestower of the fruits ot actions, of the distributor of wealth. i.e. of the sacrificer who engages in rites—the word ‘Rāti’ (wealth) has a possessive force— as well as the supreme goal of him who has realised Brahman and lives in It, having renounced all desires and doing no (ritualistic) work. Here is something to discuss. The word ‘bliss’ is generally known to denote pleasure; and here we find the word ‘bliss’ used as an epithet of Brahman in the expression 'Bliss, Brahman.’ Elsewhere in the Śrutis too we have:- ‘He knew bliss to be Brahman’ (Tai. III. 6), ‘Knowing the bliss of Brahman’ (Tai. II. 7), 'If this Supreme Self were not bliss' (Tai. II. 7), ‘That which is infinite is bliss’ (Ch. VII. xxiii. 1), 'This is its supreme bliss,’ etc. (IV. iii. 32). The word ‘bliss’ is also commonly known to refer to pleasure that is cognised. The use of the word ‘bliss’ in the above quotations would be justified if the bliss of Brahman be an object of cognition. It may be urged:- On the authority of the Śrutis, Brahman is bliss that is cognised; so what is there to discuss? The reply is:- Not so, for we notice Śruti texts that are contradictory. It is true that in the Śrutis the word ‘bliss’ refers to Brahman; but there is also the negation of knowledge when there is oneness. For example:- ‘But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should one see and through what,.. what should one know and through what?' (II. vi. 14; IV. v. 15), ‘Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, knows nothing else, that is the infinite’ (Ch. VII. xxiv. 1), ‘Being fully embraced by the Supreme Self, he knows neither anything outside of himself,’ etc. (IV. iii. 21). Therefore on account of the contradictory Śruti texts a discussion is necessary. Hence we should discuss in order to ascertain the true meaning of the Vedic passages. Moreover, there is a divergence of opinion among the advocates of liberation. The Sāṃkhya and Vaiáeṣika schools, for instance, while believing in liberation, hold that there is no joy to be cognised in it, thus differing from others, who maintain that there is surpassing joy in it, known only to the person concerned. Now what is the correct position? Prima facie view:- There is joy to be cognised in liberation, for the Śrutis mention bliss etc. with regard to it, as in the following passages:- ‘Laughing (or eating), playing and enjoying’ (Ch. VIII. xii. 3), ‘If he desires to attain the world of the Manes, (by his mere wish they appear)’ (Ch. VIII. ii. 1), ‘That which knows things in a general and particular way’ (Mu. I. i. 9 and XI. ii. 7), ‘Enjoys all desires,’ etc. (Tai. II. v. i). Objection:- But is not knowledge impossible when there is oneness, since the different factors of an action are then absent? Every action depends on a number of factors, and cognition too is an action. Tentative answer:- The objection does not hold. On the authority of the Śrutis we must admit that there is knowledge of the bliss of Brahman. We have already said that such Śruti texts as, ‘Knowledge, Bliss,' etc., would be meaningless if the bliss itself were incapable of being cognised. Objection:- But even a scriptural text cannot make fire cold or water hot, for these texts are merely informative. They cannot tell us that in some other country fire is cold, or that in some inaccessible country water is hot. Tentative answer:- Not so, for we observe bliss and knowledge in the individual self. Texts such as, ‘Knowledge, Bliss,’ etc., do not convey a meaning that clashes with perception and other means of knowledge, as for instance the sentence, ‘Fire is cold,’ does. On the contrary, we feel their agreement with them. One directly knows the self to be blissful, as when one feels, ‘I am happy.’ So the agreement in question with perception etc. is quite clear. Therefore Brahman, which is bliss, being knowledge as well, knows Itself. Thus would the śruti texts cited above, viz. ‘Laughing (or eating), playing, enjoying,’ etc., which prove the existence of bliss in the Self, be found to be consistent. Advaitin's reply:- You are wrong, for there can be no knowledge in the absence of the body and organs. Absolute separation from the body is liberation, and when there is no body there can be no organs, for they will havç no support. Hence too there will be na knowledge, there being no body and organs. If knowledge cduld arise even in the absence of the body and organs, there would be no necessity for any one to possess them. Moreover (if Brahman as Knowledge Absolute cognises the bliss in liberation), it will contradict the oneness of Brahman. Objection:- Suppose we say that the Supreme Brahman, being eternal Knowledge, ever knows Itself as Bliss Absolute? Reply:- No, (this has just been answered). Even the man under bondage, when freed from relative existence, would regain his real nature (Brahman). (So the same argument would apply to him also.) Like a quantity of water thrown into a tank, he does, not retain a separate existence so as to know the blissful Brahman. Hence, to say that the liberated man knows the blissful Self is meaningless. If, on the other hand, the liberated man, being different from Brahman, knows the bliss of Brahman and the individual self as, ‘I am the Bliss Absolute,’ then the oneness of Brahman is contradicted, which would be against all Śrutis; and there is no third alternative. Moreover, if Brahman ever knows Its own bliss, it is superfluous to distinguish between awareness and unawareness. If It is constantly aware of this bliss, then that is Its nature; hence there is no sense in maintaining that It cognises Its own bliss. Such a view would be tenable if ever there was the possibility of Its not knowing that bliss, as for instance a man knows himself and another (by an act of will). There is certainly no sense in distinguishing between a state of awareness and one of unawareness in the case of a man whose mind is uninterruptedly absorbed in an arrow, for instance. If, on the other hand, Brahman or the Self is supposed to be knowing Its bliss interruptedly, then in the intervals when It does not cognise Itself, It must know something else[18]; and the Self would become changeful, which would make It non-permanent. Hence the text, ‘Knowledge, Bliss,’ etc., must be interpreted as setting forth the nature of Brahman, and not signifying that the bliss of the Self is cognised. Objection If this bliss is not cognised, such Śruti texts as ‘Laughing (or eating), playing/ etc., will be contradicted. Reply:- No, for such texts only describe actions happening normally, because of the identity of the liberated man with all (infinite existence). That is to say, since the liberated man is identified with all, therefore wherever we observe the laughing etc.—in the Yogins or in the gods—the Śrutis merely describe them as they are with regard to the liberated man, simply on account of his identity with all. It is but a eulogy on liberation, which is synonymous with such identity. Objection:- If those passages merely describe what happens normally, then there is the chance of the liberated man’s being affected by misery also. If, in other words, he partakes of the laughing etc., happening normally to the Yogins and others, he may also suffer the misery that (plants and other) stationary existences experience. Reply:- No, all these objections have already (p. 306) been refuted on the ground that the distinctions of happiness, misery, etc., are but superimposed by the delusion created by contact with the limiting adjuncts, the body and organs, which are the products of name and form. We have also stated the respective spheres. of the apparently contradictory Śruti texts (p. 393). Hence all passages containing the word ‘bliss’ should be interpreted like the sentence, ‘This is its supreme bliss’ (IV. iii. 32).
Max Müller
28. Then Yâgñavalkya questioned them with these Slokas:- 1) 'As a mighty tree in the forest, so in truth is man, his hairs are the leaves, his outer skin is the bark. 2) 'From his skin flows forth blood, sap from the skin (of the tree); and thus from the wounded man [1] comes forth blood, as from a tree that is struck. 3) 'The lumps of his flesh are (in the tree) the layers of wood, the fibre is strong like the tendons [2] . The bones are the (hard) wood within, the marrow is made like the marrow of the tree. 4) 'But, while the tree, when felled, grows up again more young from the root, from what root, tell me, does a mortal grow up, after he has been felled by death? 5) 'Do not say, "from seed," for seed is produced from the living [3]; but a tree, springing from a grain, clearly [4] rises again after death [5]. 6) 'If a tree is pulled up with the root, it will not grow again; from what root then, tell me, does a mortal grow up, after he has been felled by death? 7) 'Once born, he is not born (again); for who should create him again [6]?' 'Brahman, who is knowledge and bliss, he is the principle, both to him who gives gifts [7], and also to him who stands firm, and knows.'
Meaning:- Om. Janaka, Emperor of Videha, took his seat, when there came Yajnavalkya. Janaka said to him, 'Yajnavalkya, what has brought you here? To have some animals, or to hear some subtle questions asked?' 'Both, O Emperor', said Yajnavalkya.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Janaka, Emperor of Videha, took his seat, i.e. gave audience to those who wanted to see him, when there came Yajnavalkya, either to have or maintain something of his own or, in view of the Emperor's desire for knowledge, to do him a favour. Offering his guest adequate worship, Janaka said to him, 'Yajnavalkya, what has brought you here? Is it to have some more animals, or to hear some subtle questions asked --- to hear from me questions on subtle subjects till decisions are arrived at?' 'Both animals and questions, O Emperor.' The word 'Emperor' indicates that Janaka must have performed the Vajapeya sacrifice. 'Emperor' also means one who rules over territories through his vassals who obey his commands; or the word may mean, 'Ruler of all India.'
Max Müller
1. When Ganaka Vaideha was sitting (to give audience), Yâgñavalkya approached, and Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'Yâgñavalkya, for what object did you come, wishing for cattle, or for subtle questions [1]?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'For both, Your Majesty;
janako vaidehaḥ . sa hovāca yājñavalkyaḥ pitā me'manyata nānanuśiṣya
hareteti .. 2..
Meaning:- 'Let me hear what any one of your teachers may have told you'. 'Jitvan, the son of Silina, has told me that the organ of speech (fire) is Brahman'. 'As one who has a mother, a father and a teacher should say, so has the son of Silina said this - that the organ of speech is Brahman, for what can a person have who cannot speak? But did he tell you about its abode (body) and support?' 'No, he did not'. 'This Brahman is only one-footed, O Emperor'. 'Then you tell us, Yajnavalkya'. 'The organ of speech is its abode, and the ether (the Undifferentiated) its support. It should be meditated upon as intelligence'. 'What is intelligence, Yajnavalkya?' 'The organ of speech itself, O Emperor', said Yajnavalkya, 'through the organ of speech, O Emperor, friend is known; The Rig-Veda, Yajur-Veda, Sama-Veda, Atharvangirasa, (Vedic) history, mythology, arts, Upanishads, verses, aphorisms, elucidations and explanations, (the effects of) sacrifices, (of) offering oblations in the fire and (of) giving food and drink, this world and the next, and all beings are known through the organ of speech alone, O Emperor. The organ of speech, O Emperor, is the supreme Brahman. The organ of speech never leaves him who, knowing thus, meditates upon it, all beings eagerly come to him, and being a god, he attains the gods.' 'I give you a thousand cows with a bull like an elephant', said Emperor Janaka. Yajnavalkya replied, 'My father was of opinion that one should not accept (wealth) from a disciple without fully instructing him'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- 'But let me hear what any one of your teachers --- for you serve several of them --- may have told you.' The other said, 'My teacher Jitvan, the son of Silina, has told me that the organ of speech, i.e. its presiding deity (fire), is Brahman.' Yajnavalkya said, 'As one who has a mother adequately to instruct him in his childhood, a father to instruct him after that, and a teacher to instruct him from his initiation with the holdy thread up to the completion of his studies, should say to his disciple, so has Jitvan, the son of Silina, said this --- that the organ of speech is Brahman. One who has had the advantage of these three sources of purification is a teacher in the primary sense of the word, and never fails to be an authority himself. For what can a person have who cannot speak? --- he achieves nothing either in this life or in the next. 'But did he tell you about the abode and support of that Brahman?' 'Abode' means the body; 'support' is permanent resort. Janaka said, 'No, he did not.' Yajnavalkya said, 'If so this Brahman is only one-footed, and lacking the remaining three feet, it will not produce any effect, even though meditated upon.' 'Then you tell us, Yajnavalkya, for you know (about them)'. Yajnavalkya said, 'The organ of speech is its abode, or the body of the deity of the organ of speech (fire), which is a form of Brahman, and the ether known as the Undifferentiated is its support as its origin, during its continuance and at its dissolution. It should be meditated upon as intelligence. The secret name of intelligence is the fourth chapter of Brahman; one should meditate upon this Brahman as intelligence.'
'What is intelligence, Yajnavalkya? Is intelligence itself meant, or its effect (speech)? It is different from the organ of speech, like the body and support?' 'No.' 'What is it then?' 'The organ of speech itself, O Emperor,' said Yajnavalkya, 'is intelligence:- Intelligence is not different from the organ of speech.' How is it? The reply is being given:- Through the organ of speech, O Emperor, a friend is known, when somebody says, 'He is our friend.' Likewise the Rg-Veda etc. Sacrifices mean the spiritual effects produced by them; the same with offering oblations, as well as giving food and drink. This world, the present life, the next world, the life to come, and all beings are known through the organ of speech alone, O Emperor. Therefore the organ of speech, O Emperor, is the Supreme Brahman. The organ of speech never leaves him, the knower of the Brahman described above, who knowing thus meditates upon it, all beings eagerly come to him with offerings etc., and being a god in this very life, he attains the gods, is merged in them after death. 'I give you a thosand cows with a bull like an elephant,' said Emperor Janaka, as a return for the instruction received. Yajnavalkya replied, 'My father was of opinion that one should not accept wealth from a disciple without fully instructing or satisfying him. I too hold that view.'
Max Müller
2. 'Let us hear what anybody may have told you.' Ganaka Vaideha replied:- 'Gitvan Sailini told me that speech (vâk) is Brahman.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'As one who had (the benefit of a good) father, mother, and teacher might tell, so did Sailini [1] tell you, that speech is Brahman; for what is the use of a dumb person? But did he tell you the body (âyatana) and the resting-place (pratishthâ) of that Brahman?' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'He did not tell me.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Your Majesty, this (Brahman) stands on one leg only [2].' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'Then tell me, Yâgñavalkya.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'The tongue is its body, ether its place, and one should worship it as knowledge.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'What is the nature of that knowledge?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'Your Majesty, speech itself (is knowledge). For through speech, Your Majesty, a friend is known (to be a friend), and likewise the Rig-Veda, Yagur-veda, Sâma-veda, the Atharvâṅgirasas, the Itihâsa (tradition), Purâna-vidyâ (knowledge of the past), the Upanishads, Slokas (verses), Sûtras (rules), Anuvyâkhyânas and Vyâkhyânas (commentaries [3], &c.); what is sacrificed, what is poured out, what is (to be) eaten and drunk, this world and the other world, and all creatures. By speech alone, Your Majesty, Brahman is known, speech indeed, O King, is the Highest Brahman. Speech does not desert him who worships that (Brahman) with such knowledge, all creatures approach him, and having become a god, he goes to the gods.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'I shall give you (for this) a thousand cows with a bull as big as an elephant.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'My father was of opinion that one should not accept a reward without having fully instructed a pupil.'
Meaning:- 'Let me hear whatever any one may have told you'. 'Udanka, the son of Sulba, has told me that the vital force (Vayu) is Brahman'. 'As one who has a mother, a father and a teacher should say, so has the son of Sulba said this - that the vital force is Brahman, for what can a person have who does not live? But did he tell you about its abode (body) and support?' 'No, he did not'. 'This Brahman is only one-footed, O Emperor'. 'Then you tell us, Yajnavalkya'. 'The vital force is its abode, and the ether (the Undifferentiated) its support. It should be meditated upon as dear'. 'What is dearness, Yajnavalkya?' The vital force itself, O Emperor', said Yajnavalkya; 'for the sake of the vital force, O Emperor, a man performs sacrifices for one for whom they should not be performed, and accepts gifts one from whom they should not be accepted, and it is for the sake of the vital force, O Emperor, that one runs the risk of one's life in any quarter one may go to. The vital force, O Emperor, is the Supreme Brahman. The vital force never leaves him who, knowing thus, meditates upon it, all beings eagerly come to him, and being a god, he attains the gods'. 'I give you a thousand cows with a bull like an elephant', said Emperor Janaka. Yajnavalkya replied, 'My father was of opinion that one should not accept (wealth) from a disciple without fully instructing him'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- 'Let me hear whatever,' etc. 'Udanka, the son of Sulba, has told me that the vital force is Brahman.' 'The vital force' means the deity Vayu, as 'the organ of speech' in the preceding paragraph meant the deity fire. 'The vital force is its abode, and the ether (the Undifferentiated) its support.' Its secret name:- 'It should be meditated upon as dear.' 'For the sake of the vital force, O Emperor, a man performs sacrifices for one for whom they should not be performed, such as even an outcast, and even accepts gifts from one from whom they should not be accepted, for instance, an Ugra (One born of a Ksatriya father and a Sudra mother, and supposed to be generally characterised by cruelty.); and one runs the risk of one's life in any quarter infested by robbers etc. that one may go to. All this is possible because the vital force is dear:- It is for the sake of the vital force, O Emperor. Therefore the vital force, O Emperor, is the Supreme Brahman. The vital force never leaves him,' etc. The rest has been explained.
Max Müller
3. Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Let us hear what anybody may have told you.' Ganaka Vaideha replied:- 'Udaṅka Saulbâyana told me that life (prâna) [1] is Brahman.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'As one who had (the benefit of a good) father, mother, and teacher might tell, so did Udaṅka Saulbâyana tell you that life is Brahman; for what is the use of a person without life? But did he tell you the body and the resting-place of that Brahman?' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'He did not tell me.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Your Majesty, this (Brahman) stands on one leg only.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'Then tell me, Yâgñavalkya.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Breath is its body, ether its place, and one should worship it as what is dear.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'What is the nature of that which is dear?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'Your Majesty, life itself (is that which is dear);' because for the sake of life, Your Majesty, a man sacrifices even for him who is unworthy of sacrifice, he accepts presents from him who is not worthy to bestow presents, nay, he goes to a country, even when there is fear of being hurt [2], for the sake of life. Life, O King, is the Highest Brahman. Life does not desert him who worships that (Brahman) with such knowledge, all creatures approach him, and having become a god, he goes to the gods.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'I shall give you (for this) a thousand cows with a bull as big as an elephant.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'My father was of opinion that one should not accept a reward without having fully instructed a pupil.'
Meaning:- 'Let me hear whatever any one may have told you'. 'Barku, the son of Vrsna, has told me that the eye (sun) is Brahman'. 'As one who has a mother, a father and a teacher should say, so has the son of Vrsna said this - that the eye is Brahman. For what can a person have who cannot see? But did he tell you about its abode (body) and support?' 'No, he did not'. 'This Brahman is only one-footed, O Emperor'. 'Then you tell us, Yajnavalkya'. 'The eye is its abode, and the ether (the Undifferentiated) its support. It should be meditated upon as truth'. 'What is truth, Yajnavalkya?' ''The eye itself, O Emperor', said Yajnavalkya; if a person, O Emperor, says to one who has seen with his eyes, "Have you seen?" and the latter answers, "Yes, I have", then it is true. The eye, O Emperor, is the Supreme Brahman. The eye never leaves him who, knowing thus, meditates upon it; all beings eagerly come to him; and being a god, he attains the gods'. 'I give you a thousand cows with a bull like an elephant', said Emperor Janaka. Yajnavalkya replied, 'My father was of opinion that one should not accept (wealth) from a disciple without fully instructing him'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- 'Let me hear,' etc. Barku, the son of Vrsna, etc. The eye is Brahman:- The sun is the presiding deity of the eye. The secret name is truth. 'Because what one hears with the ears may be false, but not what one sees with the eyes, therefore if a person, O Emperor, says to one who has seen with the eyes, 'Have you seen the elephant?' and he answers, 'Yes, I have,' then it is considered true; while if another says, 'I have heard of it,' it may not correspond with fact. But what is seen with the eyes is always true, as it corresponds with fact.'
Max Müller
4. Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Let us hear what anybody may have told you.' Ganaka Vaideha replied:- 'Barku Vârshna told me that sight (kakshus) is Brahman.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'As one who had (the benefit of a good) father, mother, and teacher might tell, so did Barku Vârshna tell you that sight is Brahman; for what is the use of a person who cannot see? But did he tell you the body and the resting-place of that Brahman?' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'He did not tell me.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Your Majesty, this (Brahman) stands on one leg only.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'Then tell me, Yâgñavalkya.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'The eye is its body, ether its place, and one should worship it as what is true.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'What is the nature of that which is true?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'Your Majesty, sight itself (is that which is true); for if they say to a man who sees with his eye, "Didst thou see?" and he says, "I saw," then it is true. Sight, O King, is the Highest Brahman. Sight does not desert him who worships that (Brahman) with such knowledge, all creatures approach him, and having become a god, he goes to the gods.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'I shall give you (for this) a thousand cows with a bull as big as an elephant.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'My father was of opinion that one should not accept a reward without having fully instructed a pupil.'
devo bhūtvā devānapyeti ya evaṃ vidvānetadupāste . hastyṛṣabhagͫ
sahasraṃ dadāmīti hovāca janako vaidehaḥ . sa hovāca yājñavalkyaḥ
pitā me'manyata nānanuśiṣya hareteti .. 5..
Meaning:- 'Let me hear whatever any one may have told you'. 'Gardabhivipita, of the line of Bharadvaja, has told me that the ear (the quarters) is Brahman'. 'As one who has a mother, a father and a teacher should say, so has the descendant of Bharadvaja said this - that the ear is Brahman. For what can a person have who cannot hear? But did he tell you about its abode (body) and support?' 'No, he did not'. 'This Brahman is only one-footed, O Emperor'. 'Then you tell us, Yajnavalkya'. 'The ear is its abode, and the ether (the Undifferentiated) its support. It should be meditated upon as infinite'. 'What is infinity, Yajnavalkya?' 'The quarters themselves, O Emperor', said Yajnavalkya; 'therefore, O Emperor, to whatever direction one may go, one never reaches its end. (Hence) the quarters are infinite. The quarters, O Emperor, are the ear, and the ear, O Emperor, is the Supreme Brahman. The ear never leaves him who, knowing thus, meditates upon it; all beings eagerly come to him; and being a god, he attains the gods'. 'I give you a thousand cows with a bull like an elephant', said Emperor Janaka. Yajnavalkya replied, 'My father was of opinion that one should not accept (wealth) from a disciple without fully instructing him'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- 'Let me hear,' etc. Gardabhivipita, of the line of Bharadvaja, etc. The ear is Brahman:- The quarters are the presiding deities of the ear. 'It should be meditated upon as infinite.' 'What is the infinity of the ear?' 'Because the quarters themselves are the infinity, therefore, O Emperor, to whatever direction, east or north, one may go, one never reaches its end. Hence the quarters are infinite. The quarters, O Emperor, are the ear. Therefore the infinity of the quarters is also that of the ear.'
Max Müller
5. Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Let us hear what anybody may have told you.' Ganaka Vaideha replied:- 'Gardabhîvibhîta Bhâradvâga told me that hearing (sruta) is Brahman.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'As one who had (the benefit of a good) father, mother, and teacher might tell, so did Gardabhîvibhîta Bhâradvâga tell you that hearing is Brahman; for what is the use of a person who cannot hear? But did he tell you the body and the resting-place of that Brahman?' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'He did not tell me.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Your Majesty, this (Brahman) stands on one leg only.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'Then tell me, Yâgñavalkya.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'The ear is its body, ether its place, and we should worship it as what is endless.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'What is the nature of that which is endless?' Yâgñavalkya, replied:- 'Your Majesty, space (disah) itself (is that which is endless), and therefore to whatever space (quarter) he goes, he never comes to the end of it. For space is endless. Space indeed, O King, is hearing [1], and hearing indeed, O King, is the Highest Brahman. Hearing does not desert him who worships that (Brahman) with such knowledge, all creatures approach him, and having become a god, he goes to the gods.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'I shall give you (for this) a thousand cows with a bull as big as an elephant.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'My father was of opinion that one should not accept a reward without having fully instructed a pupil.'
mana eva samrāḍ iti hovāca manasā vai samrāṭ striyamabhihāryate tasyāṃ
pratirūpaḥ putro jāyate sa ānando . mano vai samrāṭ paramaṃ brahma nainaṃ
mano jahāti sarvāṇyenaṃ bhūtānyabhikṣaranti . devo bhūtvā devānapyeti
ya evaṃ vidvānetadupāste . hastyṛṣabhagͫ sahasraṃ dadāmīti hovāca
janako vaidehaḥ . sa hovāca yājñavalkyaḥ pitā me'manyata nānanuśiṣya
hareteti .. 6..
Meaning:- 'Let me hear whatever any one may have told you'. 'Satyakama, the son of Jabala, has told me that the Manas (here, the moon) is Brahman'. 'As one who has a mother, a father and a teacher should say, so has the son of Jabala said this - that the Manas is Brahman. For what can a person have without the Manas? But did he tell you about its abode (body) and support?' 'No, he did not'. 'This Brahman is only one-footed, O Emperor'. 'Then you tell us, Yajnavalkya'. 'The Manas is its abode, and the ether (the Undifferentiated) its support. It should be meditated upon as bliss'. 'What is bliss, Yajnavalkya?' 'The manas itself, O Emperor', said Yajnavalkya; 'with the Manas, O Emperor, a man (fancies and) woos a woman. A son resembling him is born of her, and he is the cause of bliss. The Manas, O Emperor, is the Supreme Brahman. The Manas never leaves him who, knowing thus, meditates upon it; all beings eagerly come to him; and being a god, he attains the gods'. 'I give you a thousand cows with a bull like an elephant', said Emperor Janaka. Yajnavalkya replied, 'My father was of opinion that one should not accept (wealth) from a disciple without fully instructing him'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- 'Satyakama, the son of Jabala,' etc. The moon is the presiding deity of the Manas. The secret name is bliss. 'Because the Manas itself is bliss, therefore with the Manas a man fancies and woos a woman. From that a son resembling him is born of that woman, and that son is the cause of bliss; therefore the Manas, which brings this son into being, is bliss.'
Max Müller
6. Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Let us hear what anybody may have told you.' Ganaka Vaideha replied:- 'Satyakâma Gâbâla told me that mind [1] (manas) is Brahman.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'As one who had (the benefit of a good) father, mother, and teacher might tell, so did Satyakâma Gâbâla tell you that mind is Brahman; for what is the use of a person without mind? But did he tell you the body and the resting-place of that Brahman?' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'He did not tell me.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Your Majesty, this (Brahman) stands on one leg only.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'Then tell me, Yâgñavalkya.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Mind itself is its body, ether its place, and we should worship it as bliss.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'What is the nature of bliss?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'Your Majesty, mind itself; for with the mind does a man desire a woman, and a like son is born of her, and he is bliss. Mind indeed, O King, is the Highest Brahman. Mind does not desert him who worships that (Brahman) with such knowledge, all creatures approach him, and having become a god, he goes to the gods.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'I shall give you (for this) a thousand cows with a bull as big as an elephant.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'My father was of opinion that one should not accept a reward without having fully instructed a pupil.'
janako vaidehaḥ . sa hovāca yājñavalkyaḥ pitā me'manyata nānanuśiṣya
hareteti .. 7..
iti prathamaṃ brāhmaṇam ..
atha dvitīyaṃ brāhmaṇam .
Meaning:- 'Let me hear whatever any one may have told you'. 'Vidagdha, the son of Sakala, has told me that the heart (mind, here, Prajapati ) is Brahman'. 'As one who has a mother, a father and a teacher should say, so has the son of Sakala said this - that the heart is Brahman. For what can a person have without the heart? But did he tell you about its abode (body) and support?' 'No, he did not'. 'This Brahman is only one-footed, O Emperor'. 'Then you tell us, Yajnavalkya'. 'The heart is its abode, and the ether (the Undifferentiated) its support. It should be meditated upon as stability'. 'What is stability, Yajnavalkya?' 'The heart itself, O Emperor', said Yajnavalkya; 'the heart, O Emperor, is the abode of all beings, and the heart, O Emperor, is the support of all beings; on the heart, O Emperor, all beings rest; the heart, O Emperor, is the Supreme Brahman. The heart never leaves him who, knowing thus, meditates upon it; all beings eagerly come to him; and being a god, he attains the gods'. 'I give you a thousand cows with a bull like an elephant', said Emperor Janaka. Yajnavalkya replied, 'My father was of opinion that one should not accept (wealth) from a disciple without fully instructing him'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Vidagdha, the son of Sakala, etc. The heart is Brahman. The heart, O Emperor, is the abode of all beings. We have already said in the section relating to Sakalya that all beings consisting of name, form and action depend on the heart (mind) and rest on it (See commentary on III. ix. 24.). 'Therefore on the heart, O Emperor, all beings rest. Hence it should be meditated upon as stability.' Prajapati (Hiranyagarbha) is the presiding deity of the heart.
Max Müller
7. Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Let us hear what anybody may have told you.' Ganaka Vaideha replied:- 'Vidagdha Sâkalya told me that the heart (hridaya) is Brahman.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'As one who had (the benefit of a good) father, mother, and teacher might tell, so did Vidagdha Sâkalya tell you that the heart is Brahman; for what is the use of a person without a heart? But did he tell you the body and the resting-place of that Brahman?' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'He did not tell me.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Your Majesty, this (Brahman) stands on one leg only.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'Then tell me, Yâgñavalkya.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'The heart itself is its body, ether its place, and we should worship it as certainty (sthiti).' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'What is the nature of certainty?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'Your Majesty, the heart itself; for the heart indeed, O King, is the body of all things, the heart is the resting-place of all things, for in the heart, O King, all things rest. The heart indeed, O King, is the Highest Brahman. The heart does not desert him who worships that (Brahman) with such knowledge, all creatures approach him, and having become a god, he goes to the gods.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'I shall give you (for this) a thousand cows with a bull as big as an elephant.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'My father was of opinion that one should not accept a reward without having fully instructed a pupil.'
Meaning:- Janaka, Emperor of Videha, rose from his lounge and approaching Yajnavalkya said, 'Salutations to you, Yajnavalkya, please instruct me'. Yajnavalkya replied, 'As one wishing to go a long distance, O Emperor, should secure a chariot or a boat, so have you fully equipped your mind with so many secret names (of Brahman). You are likewise respected and wealthy, and you have studied the Vedas and heard the Upanishads; (but) where will you go when you are separated from this body?' 'I do not know, sir, where I shall go'. 'Then I will tell you where you will go'. 'Tell me, sir'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Janaka, Emperor of Videha, etc. As Yajnavalkya knew all aspects of Brahman with their attributes, Janaka gave up his pride of teachership, rose from his lounge, a particular kind of seat, and approaching Yajnavalkya, i.e. prostrating himself at his feet, said, 'Salutations to you, Yajnavalkya, please instruct me.' The word 'iti' marks the close of his speech. Yajnavalkya replied, 'As in the world one wishing to go a long distance should secure a chariot, if he wants to go by land, or a boat, if he wants to go by water, so have you fully equipped your mind with so many secret names (of Brahman) --- by meditating upon Brahman in so many aspects bearing those names. Not only that, you are likewise respected and wealthy, not poor, and you have studied the Vedas and heard the Upanisads from teachers. Though you are thus endowed with all glories, you are but in the midst of fear owing to the absence of Self-knowledge, i.e. you are far from achieving the object of your life, till you realise the Supreme Brahman. With all this outfit serving as a boat or a chariot, where will you go when you are separated from this body? What will you attain?' 'I do not know, sir, where I shall go.' 'If thus you do not know where you will go to achieve the object of your life, then I will tell you where you will go.' 'Tell me, sir, if you are gracious to me.' 'Listen.'
Max Müller
1. Ganaka Vaideha, descending from his throne, said:- 'I bow to you, O Yâgñavalkya, teach me.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Your Majesty, as a man who wishes to make a long journey, would furnish himself with a chariot or a ship, thus is your mind well furnished by these Upanishads [1]. You are honourable, and wealthy, you have learnt the Vedas and been told the Upanishads. Whither then will you go when departing hence?' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'Sir, I do not know whither I shall go.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Then I shall tell you this, whither you will go.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'Tell it, Sir.'
इन्धो ह वै नामैष योऽयं दक्षिणेऽक्षन्पुरुषस्तं वा एतमिन्धꣳ
सन्तमिन्द्र इत्याचक्षते परोक्षेणैव परोक्षप्रिया इव हि देवाः
प्रत्यक्षद्विषः ॥ २॥
mantra 2[IV.ii.2]
indho ha vai nāmaiṣa yo'yaṃ dakṣiṇe'kṣanpuruṣastaṃ vā etamindhagͫ
santamindra ityācakṣate parokṣeṇaiva parokṣapriyā iva hi devāḥ
pratyakṣadviṣaḥ .. 2..
Meaning:- This being who is in the right eye is named Indha. Though he is Indha, he is indirectly called Indra, for the gods have a fondness, as it were, for indirect names, and hate to be called directly.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- This being who is specially located in the right eye --- the being in the sun who has been described before in the dictum, 'The eye is Brahman' (IV. i. 4), and is called Satya --- is named Indha. This being, on account of his resplendence, has an obvious name, Indha. Though he is Indha, he is indirectly called Indra, for the gods have a fondness, as it were, for indirect names, and hate to be called directly. Thus you have attained the self called Vaisvanara.
Max Müller
2. Yâgñavalkya said:- 'That person who is in the right eye [1], he is called Indha, and him who is Indha they call indeed [2] Indra mysteriously, for the gods love what is mysterious, and dislike what is evident.
Meaning:- The human form that is in the left eye is his wife, Viraj (matter). The space that is within the heart is their place of union. Their food is the lump of blood (the finest essence of what we eat) in the heart. Their wrap is the net-like structure in the heart. Their road for moving is the nerve that goes upward from the heart; it is like a hair split into a thousand parts. In this body there are nerves called Hita, which are placed in the heart. Through these the essence of our food passes as it moves on. Therefore the subtle body has finer food than the gross body.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- The human form that is in the left eye is his wife, Viraj. Of Indra or the self called Vaisvanara whom you have attained, Viraj, or matter, is the wife, both being objects of enjoyment. This couple, matter and its enjoyer, is united in dreams (Visva (or Vaisvanara), Taijasa and Prajna are the names of the self as identified with the gross, the subtle and the causal body, respectively, in the states of wakefulness, dream and dreamless sleep. Hence the Vaisvanara itself is now being described as the Taijasa for the purpose of meditation.). How? The space that is within the lump of flesh called the heart is their place of union, the place where Indra and his wife enjoy each other's company. Their food, or means of sustenance, is the following. What is it? The lump of blood --- (lit.) blood in the form of a lump --- in the heart. The food we eat takes two forms; the gross part goes down (and is excreted), and the rest is metabolised in two ways under the action of the internal heat. That part of the chyle which is of medium fineness passes through the successive stages of blood etc., and nourishes the gross body made up of the five elements. The finest part of the chyle is 'the lump of blood,' which. penetrating our fine nerves, causes Indra --- identified with the subtle body and called Taijasa --- who is united with his wife in the heart, to stay in the body. This is what is expressed by the passage, 'Their food,' etc. There are other things also. Their wrap is, etc. People who sleep after their meals use wraps; the Sruti is fancying that similarity here. What is the wrap of this couple? The net-like structure in the heart. 'Net-like,' because of the numerous openings of the nerves. Their road for moving, or coming from the dream to the waking state, is the nerve that goes upward from the heart. Its size is being given:- As in the world a hair split into a thousand parts is extremely fine, so is it. In this body there are nerves called Hita, which are placed in that lump of flesh, the heart. From it they branch off everywhere like the filaments of a Kadamba flower. Through these extremely fine nerves the food passes as it moves on. The body of Indra (the subtle body) is nourished by this food and held fast as by a cord. Because the gross body is nourished by gross food, but this subtle body, the body of Indra, is sustained by fine food. The food that nourishes the gross body is also fine, in comparison with the gross substances in the body that are eliminated; but the food that sustains the subtle body is finer than that. Hence the gross body has fine food, but the subtle body has finer food than the gross body. 'Sarira' in the text is the same as 'Sarira' (body). The idea is that the Taijasa is nourished by finer food than the Vaisvanara.
Max Müller
3. 'Now that which in the shape of a person is in the right eye, is his wife, Virâg[1]. Their meeting-place [2] is the ether within the heart, and their food the red lump within the heart. Again, their covering [3] is that which is like net-work within the heart, and the road on which they move (from sleep to waking) is the artery that rises upwards from the heart. Like a hair divided into a thousand parts, so are the veins of it, which are called Hita [4], placed firmly within the heart. Through these indeed that (food) flows on flowing, and he (the Taigasa) receives as it were purer food [5] than the corporeal Self (the Vaisvânara).
neti netyā'tmāgṛhyo na hi gṛhyate'śīryo na hi śīryate'saṅgo
na hi sajyate'sito na vyathate na riṣyatyvyathate asaṅgasna hi
sajyate asitasna vyathate na riṣyati abhayaṃ vai janaka prāpto'sīti
hovāca yājñavalkyaḥ . sa hovāca janako vaideho'bhayaṃ tvā gacchatād
yājñavalkya yo no bhagavann abhayaṃ vedayase namaste'stvime videhā
ayamahamasmi .. 4..
iti dvitīyaṃ brāhmaṇam ..
atha tṛtīyaṃ brāhmaṇam .
Meaning:- Of the sage (who is identified with the vital force), the east is the eastern vital force, the south the southern vital force, the west the western vital force, the north the northern vital force, the direction above the upper vital force, the direction below the nether vital force, and all the quarters the different vital forces. This self is That which has been described as 'Not this, Not this', 'It is imperceptible, for It is never perceived; undecaying, for It never decays; unattached, for It is never attached; unfettered - It never feels pain, and never suffers injury. You have attained That which is free from fear, O Janaka', said Yajnavalkya. 'Revered Yajnavalkya', said Emperor Janaka, 'may That which is free from fear be yours, for you have made That which is free from fear known to us. Salutations to you! Here is this (empire of) Videha, as well as myself at your service!'
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- This Taijasa which is identified with the heart (mind) is supported by the subtle vital force, and becomes the vital force, (here, the Prajna). Of the sage who has first attained the Vaisvanara, then the Taijasa, or the self identified with the mind, and after that the self identified with the vital force (Prajna), the east is the eastern vital force; similarly the south the southern vital force, likewise the west the western vital force, the north the northern vital force, the direction above the upper vital force, the direction below the nether vital force, and all the quarters the different vital forces. Thus the sage identifies himself, by stages, with the vital force that comprises everything. Then withdrawing this all-comprising vital force into the inner self, he next attains the natural state of the Witness, the transcendent Self that is described as 'Not this, not this.' This self which the sage thus attains is That which has been described as 'Not this, not this.' This passage, up to 'never suffers injury, 'has already been explained (III. ix. 26). 'You have attained That which is free from fear due to birth, death, etc., O Janaka,' said Yajnavalkya. This is in fulfilment of the statement, 'Then I will tell you where you will go.' 'Revered Yajnavalkya,' said Emperor Janaka, 'may That which is free from fear be yours, too, for you have made that which is free from fear, the Brahman, known or accessible to us, by the removal of the veil of ignorance created by the limiting adjuncts. What else can I give you in return for this knowledge, for you have presented the Atman Itself? Hence salutations to you! This (empire of) Videha is yours --- enjoy it as you will:- I myself too am at your service. Please use me as well as the empire just as you like.'
Max Müller
4. 'His (the Taigasa's) Eastern quarter are the prânas (breath) which go to the East; 'His Southern quarter are the prânas which go to the South; 'His Western quarter are the prânas which go to the West; 'His Northern quarter are the prânas which go to the North; 'His Upper (Zenith) quarter are the prânas which go upward; 'His Lower (Nadir) quarter are the prânas which go downward; 'All the quarters are all the prânas. And he (the Âtman in that state) can only be described by No [1], no! He is incomprehensible, for he cannot be comprehended; he is undecaying, for he cannot decay; he is not attached, for he does not attach himself; he is unbound, he does not suffer, he does not perish. O Ganaka, you have indeed reached fearlessness,'--thus said Yâgñavalkya. Then Ganaka said:- 'May that fearlessness come to you also who teachest us fearlessness. I bow to you. Here are the Videhas, and here am I (thy slave).'
janakagͫ ha vaidehaṃ yājñavalkyo jagāma sa mene na vadiṣya
iti sa mene na vadiṣya ityatha ha yajjanakaśca vaideho
yājñavalkyaścāgnihotre samūdāte tasmai ha yājñavalkyo varaṃ dadau .
sa ha kāmapraśnameva vavre . tagͫ hāsmai dadau . tagͫ ha samrāḍeva
pūrvaṃ papraccha .. 1..
Meaning:- Yajnavalkya went to Janaka, Emperor of Videha. He thought he would not say anything. Now Janaka and Yajnavalkya had once talked on the Agnihotra, and Yajnavalkya had offered him a boon. He had begged the liberty of asking any questions he liked; and Yajnavalkya had granted him the boon. So it was the e who first asked him.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Yajnavalkya went to Janaka, Emperor of Videha. While going, he thought he would not say anything to the Emperor. The object of the visit was to get more wealth and maintain that already possessed. Yajnavalkya, although he had resolved not to say anything, explained whatever Janaka asked. Why did he act contrary to his intentions? The answer to this is given by the story here related. Sometime in the past there had been a talk between Janaka and Yajnavalkya on the subject of the Agnihotra (Daily offering of oblations in the sacred fire.). On that occasion Yajnavalkya, pleased with Janaka's knowledge on the subject, had offered him a boon. Janaka thereupon had begged the liberty of asking any questions he liked; and Yajnavalkya had granted him the boon. On the strength of that boon it was the Emperor Janaka who first asked him, though Yajnavalkya was in no mood to explain and was silent. That Janaka had not put his question on the previous occasion was due to the fact that the knowledge of Brahman is contradictory to rituals (hence the topic would be out of place) and is independent:- It is not the effect of anything, and serves the highest end of man independently of any auxiliary factors.
Max Müller
1. Yâgñavalkya came to Ganaka Vaideha, and he did not mean to speak with him [1]. But when formerly Ganaka Vaideha and Yâgñavalkya had a disputation on the Agnihotra, Yâgñavalkya had granted him a boon, and he chose (for a boon) that he might be free to ask him any question he liked. Yâgñavalkya granted it, and thus the King was the first to ask him a question.
Meaning:- 'Yajnavalkya, what serves as the light for a man?' 'The light of the sun, O Emperor', said Yajnavalkya; 'it is through the light of the sun that he sits, goes out, works and returns'. 'It is just so, Yajnavalkya'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Yajnavalkya --- Janaka addresses him by name to draw his attention --- what serves as the light for a man, which he uses in his everyday life? The question is about the ordinary man, with head, hands, etc., identifying himself with the body and organs. Does he use a light extraneous to his body, which is made up of parts, or does some light included in this aggregate of parts serve the purpose of a light for him? This is the question.
Question:- What difference does it make if he uses a light extraneous to his body or one forming a part of it? Reply:- Listen, It if is decided that he by his very nature has to use a light extraneous to his body, then with regard to the effects of a light that is invisible we shall infer that they are also due to an extraneous light. If, on the other hand, he acts through a light not extraneous to the body, but part and parcel, of himself, then, where the effects of a light are visible, though the light itself is invisible, we can infer that the light in question must be an inner one. If, however, there is no restriction as to whether the light that a person uses is within or without himself, then there is no decision on the matter of the light. Thinking thus, Janaka asks Yajnavalkya, 'What is the light for a man?'
Objection:- Well, if Janaka is so clever at reasoning, what is the use of his asking questions? Why does he not decide it for himself? Reply:- True, but here the thing to be inferred, the grounds of inference, and their various relations are so subtle that they are considered a puzzle even for a number of scholars, not to speak of one. It is for this reason that in deciding subtle religious matters deliberation by a conference is sought. A good deal also depends upon individual qualifications. A conference may accordingly consist of ten persons, or three, or one. Therefore, though the Emperor is skilled in reasoning, yet, it is quite proper for him to ask Yajnavalkya, because people may have varying capacities for understanding. Or it may be that the Sruti itself teaches us through the garb of a story, by setting forth a mode of reasoning in conformity with our ways of thinking. Yajnavalkya, too, knowing Janaka's intention, desired to teach him about the light of the self that is other than the body, and took up a ground of inference that would establish this extra-corporeal light. For instance he said, 'The light of the well-known sun, O Emperor.' How? 'It is through the light of the sun, which is outside his body and helps the function of the eyes, that the ordinary man sits, goes out to the field or forest, and going there works and returns the way he went.' The use of many specifications is to indicate that the light (Which remains the same under all these varying circumstances.) is well known to be essentially different from the body; and the citing of many external lights is to show that the ground of inference is unfailing. 'It is just so, Yajnavalkya.'
Max Müller
2. 'Yâgñavalkya,' he said, 'what is the light of man [1]?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'The sun, O King; for, having the sun alone for his light, man sits, moves about, does his work, and returns.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'So indeed it is, O Yâgñavalkya.'
Meaning:- 'When the sun has set, Yajnavalkya, what exactly serves as the light for a man?' 'The moon serves as his light. It is through the light of the moon that he sits, goes out, works and returns'. 'It is just so, Yajnavalkya'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Likewise, 'When the sun has set, Yajnavalkya, what exactly serves as the light for a man?' 'The moon serves as his light.'
Max Müller
3. Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'When the sun has set, O Yâgñavalkya, what is then the light of man?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'The moon indeed is his light; for, having the moon alone for his light, man sits, moves about, does his work, and returns.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'So indeed it is, O Yâgñavalkya.'
Meaning:- 'When the sun and the moon have set, Yajnavalkya, what exactly serves as the light for a man?' 'The fire serves as his light. It is through the fire that he sits, goes out, works and returns'. 'It is just so, Yajnavalkya'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- When the sun and the moon have both set, the fire serves as the light.
Max Müller
4. Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'When the sun has set, O Yâgñavalkya, and the moon has set, what is the light of man?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'Fire indeed is his light; for, having fire alone for his light, man sits, moves about, does his work, and returns.'
jyotiṣāste palyayate karma kurute vipalyetīti . tasmādvai samrāḍ api
yatra svaḥ pāṇirna vinirjñāyate'tha yatra vāguccaratyupaiva tatra
nyetītyevamevaitad yājñavalkya .. 5..
Meaning:- When the sun and the moon have both set, and the fire has gone out, Yajnavalkya, what exactly serves as the light for a man?' 'Speech (sound) serves as his light. It is through the light of speech that he sits, goes out, works and returns. Therefore, O Emperor, even when one's own hand is not clearly visible, if a sound is uttered, one manages to go there.'. 'It is just so, Yajnavalkya'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- When the fire has gone out, speech serves as the light. 'Speech' here means sound. Sound, which is the object of hearing, stimulates the ear, its organ; this gives rise to discrimination in the mind; through that mind a man engages in an outward action. Elsewhere it has been said, 'It is through the mind that one sees and hears' (I. v. 3). How can speech be called a light, for it is not known to be such? The answer is being given:- 'Therefore, O Emperor,' etc. Because a man lives and moves in the world helped by the light of speech, therefore it is a well-known fact that speech serves a light. How? 'Even when, as in the rainy season, owing to the darkness created by clouds generally blotting out all light, one's own hand is not clearly visible --- though every activity is then stopped owing to the want of external light --- if a sound is uttered, for instance, a dog barks or an ass brays, one manages to go there. That sound acts as a light and connects the ear with the mind; thus speech (sound) does the function of a light there. With the help of that sound serving as a light, the man actually goes there, works at that place and returns.' The mention of the light of speech includes odour etc. For when odour and the rest also help the nose and other organs, a man is induced to act or dissuaded from it, and so on. So they too help the body and organs. 'It is just so, Yajnavalkya.'
Max Müller
5. Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'When the sun has set, O Yâgñavalkya, and the moon has set, and the fire is gone out, what is then the light of man?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'Sound indeed is his light; for, having sound alone for his light, man sits, moves about, does his work, and returns. Therefore, O King, when one cannot see even one's own hand, yet when a sound is raised, one goes towards it.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'So indeed it is, O Yâgñavalkya.'
Meaning:- When the sun and the moon have both set, the fire has gone out, and speech has stopped, Yajnavalkya, what exactly serves as the light for a man?' 'The self serves as his light. It is through the light of the self that he sits, goes out, works and returns.' 'It is just so, Yajnavalkya'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- When speech also has stopped and other external aids too, such as odour, all the activities of the man would stop. The idea is this:- When the eyes and other organs, which are outgoing in their tendencies, are helped in the waking state by such lights as the sun, then a man vividly lives and moves in the world. So we see that in the waking state a light extraneous to his body, which is an aggregate of parts, serves as the light for him. From this we conclude that when all external light is blotted out in the states of dream and profound sleep, as well as in similar circumstances of the waking state, a light extraneous to his body serves the purpose of a light for him. We see also that the purpose of a light is served in dreams, as, for instance, meeting and parting from friends, and going to other places, etc.; and we awake from deep sleep with the remembrance (Which shows that the light in question was there.) that we slept happily and knew nothing. Therefore there exists some extraneous light. What is that light which acts when speech has stopped? The reply is being given:- 'The self serves as his light.' By the word 'self' is meant that light which is different from one's body and organs, and illumines them like such external lights as the sun, but is itself not illumined by anything else. And on the principle of the residuum it is inside the body; for it has already been proved that it is different from the body and organs, and we have seen that a light which is different from the body and organs and helps their work is perceived by such organs as the eye; but the light that we are discussing (the self) is not perceived by the eye etc. when such lights as the sun have ceased to work. Since, however, we see that the usual effects of a light are there, we conclude that 'it is through the light of the self that he sits, goes out, works and returns.' Therefore we understand that this light must be inside the body. But it is different from such lights as the sun and immaterial. That is why, unlike the sun etc., it is not perceived by the eye and so forth.
Objection (by the materialist):- No, for we see that only things of the same class help each other. You are wrong to state as a proved fact that there is an inner light different from the sun etc. Why? Because we observe that the body and organs, which are material, are helped by such lights as the sun, which also are material and of the same class as the things helped. Here too we must infer in accordance with observed facts. Supposing that the light that helps the work of the body and organs is different from them like the sun etc., still it must be inferred as being of the same class as these, for the very reason that it helps them, as is the case with such lights as the sun. Your statement that because it is internal and is not perceived, it is different (from such lights as the sun), is falsified in the case of the eye etc.; for lights such as the eye are not perceived and are internal, but they are material just the same. Therefore it is only your imagination that you have proved the light of the self to be essentially different from the body etc. Moreover, as the existence of the light in question depends on that of the body and organs, it is presumed to possess the characteristics of the latter. Your inference (For example, whatever reveals another thing is different from it.) being of the kind that is not based on a causal relation, it is fallacious, because it is contradicted (For instance, the eye, which (according to the materialists) reveals the body, is not different from it.); and it is by means of such an inference that you establish the light in question (the self) to be different from the body and organs, like the sun and so forth (being different from the objects they reveal). Besides, perception cannot be nullified by inference; and we see that this aggregate of body and organs sees, hears, thinks and knows. If that other lights helps this aggregate like the sun etc., it cannot be the self, any more than the sun and the rest are. Rather it is the aggregate of body and organs, which directly does the functions of seeing etc., that is the self, and none else, for inference is invalid when it contradicts perception. Reply:- If this aggregate be the self that does the functions of seeing etc., how is it that, remaining as it is, it sometimes performs those functions and sometimes does not?
Objection:- There is nothing wrong on it, because it is an observed fact. You cannot challenge facts on the ground of improbability. When you actually observe a fire-fly to be both luminous and non-luminous, you do not have to infer some other cause for it. If, however, you do infer it from some common feature, you may as well infer anything about everything, and nobody (including yourself) wants that. Nor must one deny the natural property of objects, for the natural heat of fire or the cold of water is not due to any other cause. Reply:- Suppose we say it all depends on the merits or demerits of people.
Objection:- Then those merits or demerits themselves might habitually depend on some other cause. Reply:- What if they do? Objection:- It would lead to an infinite regress, which is not desirable. Reply:- Not so, for in dreams and remembrance we notice only things seen before. What the advocate of the nature theory has said about the functions of sight etc. belonging to the body, and not to the self, which is different from it, is wrong, for if these functions really belonged to the body, one would not see in a dream only things already seen. A blind man dreaming sees only things that he has already seen, and not unfamiliar forms, which one would find in Sakadvipa (One of the mythical divisions of the earth situated round Mt. Meru.), for instance. This proves that he alone who sees in dream only familiar things also saw things before, while the eyes were there --- and not the body. If the body were the seer, it would not see in dream only familiar sights when the eyes, the instruments of its vision, are taken out. And we know that even blind men, who have had their eyes taken out, say, 'To-day I saw in a dream the Himalayan peak that I had seen before.' Therefore it is clear that it is not the body, but he who dreams, that also saw things when the eyes were intact.
Similarly, in the case of remembrance, he who remembers being also the one who say, the two are identical. Thus only can a person, after shutting his eyes, remember the forms he has seen before, just as he saw them. Therefore that which is shut is not the seer; but that which, when the eyes are shut, sees forms in remembrance, must have been the seer when the eyes were open. This is further proved by the fact that when the body is dead, no vision takes place, although the body is intact. If the body itself were the seer, even a dead body would continue to see and do similar functions. Therefore it is clear that the real agent of seeing etc. is not the body, but that whose absence deprives the body of the power of vision, and whose presence gives it that power.
Objection:- Suppose the eyes and other organs themselves were the agents of vision and so forth. Reply:- No:- the remembrance that one is touching the very thing that one has seen, would be impossible if there were different agents for these two acts.
Objection:- Then let us say, it is the mind. Reply:- No; the mind also, being an object like colour etc., cannot be the agent of vision and so forth. Therefore we conclude that the light in question is inside the body, and yet different from it like the sun etc. You said, 'Some light which is of the same class as the body and organs must be inferred, since the sun and the like are of the same class as the things they help.' This is wrong, for there is no hard and fast rule about this help. To explain:- We see that fire is kindled with the help of straw, grass and other fuel, which are all modifications of earth. But from this we must not conclude that everywhere it is the modifications of earth that help to light a fire, for we notice that water, which belongs to a different class, helps to kindle the fire of lightning and the fire in the stomach. Therefore, when something is helped by another, there is no restriction about their being of the same class or of different classes. Sometimes men are helped by men, their own species, and sometimes by animals, plants, etc., which are of different species. Therefore the reason you added for your contention, that the body and organs are helped by lights that are of the same class as they, like the sun etc., falls to the ground. Further you said that the argument put forward by us (Viz that the light we are speaking of must be within the body and yet different from it, for unlike the sun etc., it is invisible.) does not prove the light in question to be either internal or different from the bdy and organs, because the reason stated is falsified in the case of the eye etc. This is wrong; all we have to do is to add to it the qualifying phrase 'except the eyes and other organs.' Your statement that the light in question must be a characteristic of the body is also incorrect, for it involves a contradiction with inference. The inference was that the light must be something other than the body and organs, like the sun etc.; and this premise of yours contradicts that. That the existence of the light depends on that of the body has been disproved by the fact that the light is absent in a dead body. If you challenge the validity of an inference of the kind not based on a causal relation, all our activities, including eating and drinking, would be impossible, which you certainly do not desire. We see in life that people who have experienced that hunger and thirst, for instance, are appeased by eating and drinking, proceed to adopt these means, expecting similar results; all this would be impossible. As a matter of fact, however, people who have the experience of eating and drinking infer, on the ground of similarity, that their hunger and thirst would be appeased if they ate and drank again, and proceed to act accordingly.
Your statement that this very body performs the functions of seeing etc., has already been refuted on the ground that in dreams and remembrance the seer is other than the body. This also refutes the view that the light in question is something other than the self. Your reference to the fire-fly etc. being sometimes luminous and sometimes not, is not in point, for the appearance or disappearance of the glow is due to the contraction or expansion of its wings or other parts of its body. You said that we must admit merit and demerit to have the nature of inevitably producing results. If you admit this, it will go against your own assumption (That there is no extra-corporeal self acquiring in every birth merit and demerit which determine its future.). By this the objection of an infinite regress is also refuted. Therefore we conclude that there is a light which is other than the body and within it, and it is the self.
Max Müller
6. Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'When the sun has set, O Yâgñavalkya, and the moon has set, and the fire is gone out, and the sound hushed, what is then the light of man?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'The Self indeed is his light; for, having the Self alone as his light, man sits, moves about, does his work, and returns.'
sannubhau lokāvanusañcarati . dhyāyatīva lelāyatīva sa hi svapno
bhūtvemaṃ lokamatikrāmati mṛtyo rūpāṇi .. 7..
Meaning:- 'Which is the self?' 'This infinite entity (Purusha) that is identified with the intellect and is in the midst of the organs, the (self-effulgent) light within the heart (intellect). Assuming the likeness (of the intellect), it moves between the two worlds; it thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were. Being identified with dream, it transcends this world - the forms of death (ignorance etc.).'
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Though the self has been proved to be other than the body and organs, yet, owing to a misconception caused by the observation that things which help others are of the same class as they, Janaka cannot decide whether the self is just one of the organs or something different, and therefore asks:- Which is the self? The misconception is quite natural, for the logic involved is too subtle to grasp easily. Or, though the self has been proved to be other than the body, yet all the organs appear to be intelligent, since the self is not perceived as distinct from them; so I ask you:- Which is the self? Among the body, organs, vital force and mind, which is the self you have spoken of --- through which light, you said, a man sits and does other kinds of work? Or, which of these organs is 'this self identified with the intellect' that you have meant, for all the organs appear to be intelligent? As, when a number of Brahmanas are assembled, one may ask, 'They are all highly qualified, but which of these is versed in all the six branches (Phonetics, ritual, grammar, philogy, prosody and astronomy.) of the Vedas?' In the first explanation, 'Which is the self?' --- is the question, and 'This infinite entity that is identified with the intellect,' etc. --- is the answer; in the second, 'Which of the organs is the self that is identified with the intellect?' --- is the question. Or the whole sentence, 'Which is this self that is identified with the intellect and is in the midst of the organs, the light within the heart?' --- is the question. The words, 'That is identified with the intellect,' etc. give a precise description of the self that has been known only in a general way. But the word 'iti' in, 'Which is the self,' ought to mark the end of the question, without its being connected with a remote word. Hence we conclude that the expression, 'Which is the self' --- is really the question, and all the rest of the sentence, beginning with, 'This infinite entity that is identified with the intellect,' etc., is the answer.
The word 'this' has been used with reference to the self, since it is directly known to us. 'Vijnanamaya' means identified with the intellect; the self is so called because of our failure to discriminate its association with its limiting adjunct, the intellect, for it is perceived as associated with the intellect, as the planet Rahu (The ascending node of the moon.) is with the sun and the moon. The intellect is the instrument that helps us in everything, like a lamp set in front amidst darkness. It has been said, 'It is through the mind that one sees and hears' (I. v. 3). Every object is perceived only as associated with the light of the intellect, as objects in the dark are lighted up by a lamp placed in front; the other organs are but the channels for the intellect. Therefore the self is described in terms of that, as 'identified with the intellect.' Those (The reference is to Bhartrprapanca.) who explain the word 'Vijnanamaya' as a modification of the consciousness that is the Supreme Self, evidently go against the import of the Srutis, since in the words 'Vijnanamaya,' 'Manomaya,' etc., the suffix 'mayat' denotes something else than modification; and where the meaning of a word is doubtful, it can be ascertained by a reference to a definite use of the word elsewhere, or from a supplementary statement; or else on the strength of irrefutable logic (If the self be a modification of the intellect, liberation would be impossible.). From the use of the expression, 'Through its association with the intellect (Sankara here takes the Madhyandina reading 'Sadhih' instead of 'Sa hi,' as in the text he follows.),' a little further on, and from the words 'within the heart (intellect),' the word 'Vijnanamaya' ought to mean 'identificated with the intellect.'
The locative case in the term 'in the midst of the organs' indicates that the self is different from the organs, as 'a rock in the midst of the trees' indicates only nearness; for there is a doubt about the identity or difference of the self from the organs. 'In the midst of the organs' means 'different from the organs,' for that which is in the midst of certain other things is of course different from them, as 'a tree in the midst of the rocks.' Within the heart:- One may think that the intellect, which is of the same class as the organs, is meant, as being in the midst of the organs. This is refuted by the phrase 'within the heart.' 'Heart' is primarily the lotus-shaped lump of flesh; here it means the intellect, which has its seat in the heart. The expression therefore means 'within the intellect.' The word 'within' indicates that the self is different from the modifications of the intellect. The self is called light, because it is self-effulgent, for through this light, the self-effugent Atman, this aggregate of body and organs sits, goes out and works, as if it were sentient, as a jar placed in the sun (shines). Or as an emerald or any other gem, dropped for testing into milk etc., imparts its lustre to them, so does this luminous self, being finer than even the heart or intellect, unify and impart its lustre to the body and organs, including the intellect etc., although it is within the intellect; for these have varying degrees of fineness or grossness in a certain order (From the objects to the self we have an ascending order of fineness, and from the self to the objects an ascending order of grossness.), and the self is the innermost of them all.
The intellect, being transparent and next to the self, easily catches the reflection of the intelligence of the self. Therefore even wise men happen to identify themselves with it first; next comes the Manas, which catches the reflection of the self through the intellect:- then the organs, through contact with the Manas; and lastly the body, through the organs. Thus the self successively illumines with its own intelligence the entire aggregate of body and organs. It is therefore that all people identify themselves with the body and organs and their modifications indefinitely according to their discrimination. The Lord also has said in the Gita, 'As the one sun, O Arjuna, illumines the whole world, so the self, the owner of the field of the body, illumines the whole body' (G. XIII. 33); also, '(Know) the light of the sun (which illumines the entire world, to be Mine),' etc. (G. XV. 12). The Katha Upanisad also has it, 'Eternal in the midst of transitory things, the intelligent One among all intelligent beings' (Ka. V. 13); also, 'It shining, everything else shines; this universe shines through Its light' (Ka. V. 15). The Mantra also says, 'Kindled by which light, the sun shines' (Tai. B. III. xii. 9. 7). Therefore the self is the 'light within the intellect,' 'Purusa,' i.e. infinity entity, being all-pervading like the ether. Its self-effulgent is infinite, because it is the illuminer of everything, but is itself not illumined by anything else. This infinite entity of which you ask, 'Which is the self?' is self-effulgent.
It has been said that when the external lights that help the different organs have ceased to work, the self, the infinite entity that is the light within the intellect, helps the organs through the mind. Even when the external aids of the organs, viz the sun and other lights, exist, since these latter (being compounds) subserve the purpose of some other agency, and the body and organs, being insentient, cannot exist for themselves, this aggregate of body and organs cannot function without the help of the self, the light that lives for itself. It is always through the help of the light of the self that all our activities take place. 'This intellect and Manas are consciousness ' (all these are but names of Intelligence or the Atman)' (Ai. V. 2), says another Sruti, for every act of people is attended with the ego, and the reason for this ego (The reflection of the individual self in the intellect constitutes this ego.) we have already stated through the illustration of the emerald. Though it is so, yet during the waking state that light called the self, being beyond the organs and being particularly mixed up in the diversity of functions of the body and the organs, internal and external, such as the intellect, cannot be shown extricated from them, like a stalk of grass from its sheath; hence, in order to show it in the dream state, Yajnavalkya begins:- Assuming the likeness ' it moves between the two worlds. The infinite entity that is the self-effulgent Atman, assuming the likeness --- of what? --- of the intellect, which is the topic, and is also contiguous. In the phrase, 'within the hear' there occurs the word 'heart,' meaning the intellect, and it is quite close; therefore that is meant. And what is meant by 'likeness'? The failure to distinguish (between the intellect and the self) as between a horse and a buffalo. The intellect is that which is illumined, and the light of the self is that which illumines, like light; and it is well known that we cannot distinguish the two. It is because light is pure that it assumes the likeness of that which it illumines. When it illumines something coloured, it assumes the likeness of that colour. When, for instance, it illumines something green, blue or red, it is coloured like them. Similarly the self, illumining the intellect, illumines through it the entire body and organs, as we have already stated through the illustration of the emerald. Therefore through the similarity of the intellect, the self assumes the likeness of everything. Hence it will be described later on as 'Identified with everything' (IV. iv. 5). Therefore it cannot be taken apart from anything else, like a stalk of grass from its sheath, and shown in its self-effulgent form. It is for this reason that the whole world, to its utter delusion, superimposes all activities peculiar to name and form on the self, and all attributes of this self-effulgent light on name and form, and also superimposes name and form on the light of the self, and thinks, 'This is or is not the self; it has or has not such and such attributes; it is or is not the agent; it is pure or impure; it is bound or free; it is fixed or gone or come; it exists or does not exist,' and so on. Therefore 'assuming the likeness (of the intellect) it moves' alternately 'between the two worlds' --- this one and the next, the one that has been attained and the one that is to be attained --- by successively discarding the body and organs already possessed, and taking new ones, hundreds of them, in an unbroken series. This movement between the two worlds is merely due to its resembling the intellect, nor natural to it. That it is attributable to its resembling the limiting adjuncts of name and form created by a confusion, and is not natural to it, is being stated:- Because, assuming the likeness (of the intellect), it moves alternately between the two worlds. The text goes on to show that this is a fact of experience. It thinks, as it were:- By illumining the intellect, which does the thinking, through its own self-effulgent light that pervades the intellect, the self assumes the likeness of the latter and seems to think, just as light (looks coloured). Hence people mistake that the self thinks; but really it does not. Likewise it shakes, as it were:- When the intellect and other organs as also the Pranas move, the self, which illumines them, becomes like them, and therefore seems to move rapidly; but really the light of the self has no motion. How are we to know that it is owing to the delusive likeness of the intellect that the self moves between the two worlds and does other activities, and not by itself? This is being answered by a statement of the reason:- Being identified with dreams, etc. The self seems to become whatever the intellect which it resembles becomes. Therefore when the intellect turns into dream, i.e. takes on the modification called dream, the self also assumes that form; when the intellect wants to wake up, it too does that. Hence the text says:- Being identified with dream, revealing the modification known as dream assumed by the intellect, and thereby resembling it, it transcends this world, i.e. the body and organs, functioning in the waking state, round which our secular and scriptural activities are centred. Because the self stands revealing by its own distinct light the modification known as dream assumed by the intellect, therefore it must really by self-effulgent, pure and devoid of agent and action with its factors and results. It is only the likeness of the intellect that gives rise to the delusion that the self moves between the two worlds and has other such activities. The forms of death, i.e. work, ignorance, etc. Death has no other forms of its own; the body and organs are its forms. Hence the self transcends those forms of death, on which actions and their results depend.
Buddhist (There are four schools of Buddhism, viz the Vaibhasika, Sautrantika, Yogacara and Madhyamika, all maintaining that the universe consists only of ideas and is momentary --- every idea lasting only for a moment and being immediately replaced by another exactly like it. The first two schools both believe in an objective world, of course ideal; but whereas the first holds that that world is cognisable through perception, the second maintains that it can only be inferred. The third school, also called Vijnanavadin, believes that there is no external world, and that the subjective world alone is real. The last school, called also Sunyavadin (nihilist), denies both the worlds.) objection:- We say there is no such thing as the light of the self similar to the intellect and revealing it, for we expeirence nothing but the intellect either through perception or through inference, just as we do not experience a second intellect at the same time. You say that since the light that reveals and the jar, for instance, that is revealed are not distinguishable in spite of their difference, they resemble each other. We reply that in that particular case, the light being perceived as different from the jar, there may well be similarity between them, because they are merely joined together, remaining all the while different. But in this case we do not similarly experience either through percpetion or through inference any other light revealing the intellect, just as the light reveals the jar. It is the intellect which, as the consciousness that reveals, assumes its own form as well as those of the objects. Therefore neither through perception nor through inference is it possible to establish a separate light which reveals the intellect. What has been said above by way of example, viz that there may be similarity between the light that reveals and the jar, for instance, that is revealed, because they are merely joined together, remaining all the while different, has been said only tentatively (This is the view of the Yogacara school as opposed to that of the first two.); it is not that the jar that is revealed is different from the light that reveals it. In reality it is the self-luminous jar that reveals itself; for (each moment) a new jar is produced, and it is consiousness that takes the form of the self-luminous jar or any other object. Such being the case, there is no instance of an external object, for everything is mere consciousness. Thus the Buddhists, after conceiving the intellect as tainted by assuming a double form, the revealer and the revealed (subject and object), desire to purify it. Some of them (The Yogacaras.) for instance, maintain that consciousness is untrammelled by the dualism of subject and object, is pure and momentary; others want to deny that even. For instance, the Madhyamikas hold that consciousness is free from the dual aspect of subject and object, hidden and simply void, like the external objects such as a jar.
All these assumptions are contradictory to this Vedic path of well-being that we are discussing, since they deny the light of the self as distinct from the body and illumining the consciousness of the intellect. Now to those who believe in an objective world we reply:- Objects such as a jar are not self-luminous:- a jar in darkness never reveals itself, but is noticed as being regularly revealed by coming in contact with the light of a lamp etc. Then we say that the jar is in contact with light. Even though the jar and the light are in contact, they are distinct from each other, for we see their difference, as between a rope and a jar, when they repeatedly come in contact and are disjoined. This distinction means that the jar is revealed by something else; it certainly does not reveal itself.
Objection:- But do we not see that a lamp reveals itself? People do not use another light to see a lamp, as they do in the case of a jar etc. Therefore a lamp reveals itself. Reply:- No, for there is no difference as regards its being revealed by something else (the self). Although a lamp, being luminous, reveals other things, yet it is, just like a jar etc., invariably revealed by an intelligence other than itself. Since this is so, the lamp cannot but be revealed by something other than itself. Objection:- But there is a difference. A jar, even though revealed by an intelligence, requires a light different from itself (to manifest it), while the lamp does not require another lamp. Therefore the lamp, though revealed by something else, reveals itself as well as the jar. Reply:- Not so, for there is no difference, directly or indirectly (between a jar and a lamp). As the jar is revealed by an intelligence, so is equally the lamp. Your statement that the lamp reveals both itself and the jar is wrong. Why? Because what can its condition be when it does not reveal itself? As a matter of fact, we notice no difference in it, either directly or indirectly. A thing is said to be revealed only when we notice some difference in it through the presence or absence of the revealing agent. But there can be no question of a lamp being present before or absent from itself; and when no difference is caused by the presence or absence, it is idle to say that the lamp reveals itself.
But as regards being revealed by an intelligence, the lamp is on a par with the jar etc. Therefore the lamp is not an illustration in point to show that consciousness (of the intellect) reveals itself; it is revealed by an intelligence just as much as the external objects are. Now, if consciousness is revealed by an intelligence, which consciousness is it? --- the one that is revealed (the consciousness of the intellect), or the one that is reveals (i.e. the consciousness of the self)? Since there is a doubt on the point, we should infer on the analogy of observed facts, not contrary to them. Such being the case, just as we see that such external objects as a lamp are revealed by something different from them (the self), so also should consciousness --- through it reveals other things like a lamp --- be inferred, on the ground of its being revealed by an intelligence, to br revealed, not be itself, but by an intelligence different from it. And that other entity which reveals consciousness is the self --- the intelligence that is different from that consciousness.
Objection:- But that would lead to an infinite regress. Reply:- No; it has only been stated on logical grounds that because consciousness is an object revealed by something, the latter must be distinct from that consciousness. Obviously there cannot be any infallible ground for inferring that the self literally reveals the consciousness in question, or that, as the witness, it requires another agency to reveal it. Therefore there is no question of an infinite regress.
Objection:- If consciousness is revealed by something else, some means of revelation is required, and this would again lead to an infinite regress. Reply:- No, for there is no such restriction; it is not a universal rule. We cannot lay down an absolute condition that whenever something is revealed by another, there must be some means of revelation besides the two --- that which reveals and that which is revealed, for we observe diversity of conditions. For instance, a jar is perceived by something different from itself, viz the self; here light like that of a lamp, which is other than the perceiving subject and the perceived object, is a means. The light of the lamp etc. is neither a part of the jar nor of the eye. But though the lamp, like the jar, is perceived by the eye, the latter does not require any external means corresponding to the light, over and above the lamp (which is the object). Hence we can never lay down the rule that wherever a thing is perceived by something else, there must be some means besides the two. Therefore, if consciousness is admitted to be revealed by a subject different from it, the charge of an infinite regress, either through the means or through the perceiving subject (the self), is altogether untenable. Hence it is proved that there is another light, viz the light of the self, which is different from consciousness.
Objection (by the idealist):- We say there is no external object like the jar etc. or the lamp apart from consciousness; and it is commonly observed that a thing which is not perceived apart from something else is nothing but the latter; as, for instance, things like the jar and cloth seen in dream consciousness. Because we do not perceive the jar, lamp and so forth seen in a dream apart from the dream consciousness, we take it for granted that they are nothing but the latter. Similarly in the waking state, the jar, lamp and so forth, not being perceived apart from the consciousness and nothing more. Therefore there is no external object, such as the jar or lamp, and everything is but consciousness. Hence your statement that since consciousness is revealed, like the jar etc. by something else, there is another light besides consciousness, is groundless:- for everything being but consciousness, there is no illustration to support you. Reply:- No, for you admit the existence of the external world to a certain extent. You do not altogether deny it.
Objection:- We deny it absolutely. Reply:- No. Since the words 'consciousness,' 'jar' and 'lamp' are different and have different meanings, you cannot help admitting to a certain extent the existence of external objects. If you do not admit the existence of objects different from consciousness, such words as 'consciousness,' 'jar' and 'cloth,' having the same meaning, would be synonymous. Similarly, the means being identical with the result, your scriptures inculcating a difference between them would be useless, and their author (Buddha) would be charged with ignorance.
Moreover, you yourself admit that a debate between rivals as well as its defects are different from consciousness. You certainly do not consider the debate and its defects to be identical with one's consciousness, for the opponent, for instance, has to be refuted. Nobody admits that is is either his own consciousness or his own self that is meant to be refuted; were it so, all human activiteis would stop. Nor do you assume that the opponent perceives himself; rather you take it for granted that he is perceived by others. Therefore we conclude that the whole objective world is perceived by something other than itself, because it is an object of our perception in the waking state, just like other objects perceived in that state, such as the opponent --- which is an easy enough illustration:- or as one series (The series called Hari, for instance, is perceived by the series called Rama.) of (momentary) consciousnesses, or any single one (Buddha's knowledge, for instance, perceives that of any ordinary mortal.) of them, is perceived by another of the same kind. Therefore not even the idealist can deny the existence of another light different from consciousness.
Objection:- You are wrong to say that there is an external world, since in dream we perceive nothing but consciousness. Reply:- No, for even from this absence of external objects we can demonstrate their difference from consciousness. You yourself have admitted that in dream the consciousness of a jar or the like is real; but in the same breath you say that there is no jar apart from that consciousness! The point is, whether the jar which forms the object of that consciousness is unreal or real, in either case you have admitted that the consciousness of the jar is real (The reality of the consciousness presupposes the existence of external objects, which alone determine the form of that consciousness.), and it cannot be denied, for there is no reason to support the denial. By this (The impossibility of doing away with the distinction between knowledge and the object known.) the theory of the voidness of everything is also refuted; as also the Mimamsaka view that the Self is perceived by the individual self as the 'I' (For the same thing cannot be both subject and object.). Mimamsaka view that the Self is perceived by the individual self as the 'I' (For the same thing cannot be both subject and object.). Your statement that every moment a different jar in contact with light is produced is wrong, for even at a subsequent moment we recognise it to be the same jar.
Objection:- The recognition may be due to similarity, as in the case of hair, nails, etc. that have been cut and have grown anew. Reply:- No, for even in that case the momentariness is disproved. Besides, the recognition is due merely to an identity of species. When the heair, nails, etc. have been cut and have grown again, there being an identity of species as hair, nails, etc., their recognition as such due to that identity is unquestionable. But when we see the hair, nails, etc. that have grown again after being cut, we never have the idea that they are, individually, those identical hairs or nails. When after a great lapse of time we see on a person hair, nails, etc. of the same size as before, we perceive that the hair, nails, etc. we see at that particular moment are like those seen on the previous occasion, but never that they are the same ones. But in the case of a jar etc. we perceive that they are identical. Therefore the two cases are not parallel. When a thing is directly recognised as identical, it is improper to infer that is is something else, for when an inference contradicts perception, the ground of such inference becomes fallacious. Moreover, the perception of similarity is impossible because of the momentariness of knowledge (held by you). The perception of similarity takes place when one and the same person sees two things at different times. But according to you the person who sees a thing does not exist till the next moment to see another thing, for consciousness, being momentary, ceases to be as soon as it has seen some one thing. To explain:- The perception of similarity takes the form of 'This is like that.'
'That' refers to the remembrance of something seen; 'this' to the perception of something present. If, after remembering the past experience denoted by 'that,' consciousness should linger till the present moment referred to by 'this,' then the doctrine of momentariness would be gone. If, however, the remembrance ends with the notion of 'that,' and a different perception relating to the present (arises and) dies with the notion of 'this,' then no perception of similarity expressed by, 'This is like that,' will result, since there will be no single consciousness perceiving more than one thing (so as to draw the comparison). Further, it will be impossible to describe our experiences. Since consciousness ceases to exist just after seeing what was to be seen, we cannot use such expressions as, 'I see this,' or 'I saw that,' for the person who has seen them will not exist till the moment of making these utterances. Or, if he does, the doctrine of momentariness will be contradicted. If, on the other hand, the preson who makes these utterances and perceives the similarity is other than the one who saw those things, then, like the remarks of a man born blind about particular colours and his perception of their similarity, the writing of scriptural books by the omniscient Buddha and other such things will all become an instance of the blind following the blind. But this is contrary to your views. Moreover, the charges of obtaining results of actions not done and not obtaining those of actions already done, are quite patent in the doctrine of momentariness.
Objection:- It is possible to describe a past experience by means of a single chain-like perception that takes place so as to include both the preceding and the succeeding perceptions, and this also accounts for the comparison, 'This is like that.' Reply:- Not so, for the past and the present perceptions belong to different times. The present perception is one link of the chain and the past perception another, and these two perceptions belong to different times. If the chain-like perception touches the objects of both these perceptions, then the same consciousness extending over two moments, the doctrine of momentariness again falls to the ground. And such distinctions as 'mine' and 'yours' being impossible (Since there is only one consciousness, and that also momentary.), all our dealings in the world will come to naught. Moreover, since you hold everything to be but consciousness perceptible only to itself, and at the same time say that consciousness is by nature but the reflection of pellucid knowledge, and since there is no other witness to it, it is impossible to regard it as various, such as transitory, painful, void and unreal. Nor can consciousness be treated as having many contradictory parts, like a pomegranate etc., for according to you it is of the nature of pellucid knowledge. Besides, if the transitoriness, painfulness, etc. are parts of consciousness, the very fact that they are perceived will throw them into the category of objects, different from the subject. If, on the other hand, consciousness is essentially transitory, painful and so on, then it is impossible to conceive that it will become pure by getting rid of those characteristics, for a thing becomes pure by getting rid of the impurities that are connected with it, as in the case of a mirror etc., but it can never divest itself of its natural property. Fire, for instance, is never seen to part with its natural light or heat. Though the redness and other qualities of a flower are seen to be removed by the addition of other substances, yet even there we infer that those features were the result of pervious combinations, for we observe that by subjecting the seeds to a particular process, a different quality is imparted to flowers, fruits etc. Hence consciousness cannot be conceived to be purified. Besides you conceive consciousness to be impure when it appears in the dual character of subject and object. That too is impossible, since it does not come in contact with anything else. A thing cannot surely come in contact with something that does not exist; and when there is no contact with anything else, the properties that are observed in a thing belong naturally to it, and cannot be separated from it, as the heat of fire, or the light of the sun. Therefore we conclude that your assumption that consciousness becomes impure by coming temporarily in contact with something else, and is again free from this impurity, is merely an instance of the blind following the blind, and is unsupported by any evidence. Lastly, the Buddhistic assumption that the extinction of that consciousness is the highest end of human life, is untenable, for there is no recipient of results. For a person who has got a thorn stuck into him, the relief of the pain caused by it is the result (he seeks); but if he dies, we do not find any recipient of the resulting cessation of pain. Similarly, if consciousness is altogether extinct and there is nobody to reap that benefit, to talk of it as the highest end of human life is meaningless. If that very entity or self, designated by the word 'person' --- consciousness, according to you --- whose well-being is meant, is extinct, for whose sake will the highest end be? But those who (with us) believe in a self different from consciousness and witnessing many objects, will find it easy to explain all phenomena, such as the remembrance of things previously seen and the contact and cessation of pain --- the impurity, for instance, being ascribed to contact with extraneous things, and the purification to dissociation from them. As for the view of the nihilist, since it is contradicted by all the evidences of knowledge, no attempt is being made to refute it.
Max Müller
7. Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'Who is that Self?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'He who is within the heart, surrounded by the Prânas [1] (senses), the person of light, consisting of knowledge. He, remaining the same, wanders along the two worlds [2], as if [3] thinking, as if moving. During sleep (in dream) he transcends this world and all the forms of death (all that falls under the sway of death, all that is perishable).
स वा अयं पुरुषो जायमानः शरीरमभिसम्पद्यमानः पाप्मभिः
सꣳसृज्यते । स उत्क्रामन्म्रियमाणः पाप्मनो विजहाति ॥ ८॥
mantra 8[IV.iii.8]
sa vā ayaṃ puruṣo jāyamānaḥ śarīramabhisampadyamānaḥ pāpmabhiḥ
sagͫsṛjyate . sa utkrāmanmriyamāṇaḥ pāpmano vijahāti .. 8..
Meaning:- That man, when he is born, or attains a body, is connected with evils (the body and organs); and when he dies, or leaves the body, he discards those evils.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Just as in this word a man, in the same body, is identified with dream and in that state lives in the light that is his own self, transcending the body and organs, so is that man who is being discussed, when he is born, connected with evils, i.e. with their inseparable concomitants or effects, the body and organs, which are the support of merit and demerit. How is he born? When he attains a body, with the organs and all, i.e. identifies himself with it. When that very person dies, or leaves the body, to take another body in turn, he discards those evils, i.e. the body and organs, which are but forms of evil and have fastened themselves on him. The phrase 'leaves the body' is an explanation of 'dies.' Just as in his present body he, resembling the intellect, continuously moves between the waking and dream states by alternately taking and giving up the body and organs, by way of birth and death, until he attains liberation. Therefore it is proved from this conjunction and disjunction that the light of the self about which we have been talking is distinct from these evils, the body and organs. It may be contended that there are not those two worlds between which the man can move alternately through birth and death as between the waking and dream states. The latter of course are matters of experience, but the two worlds are not known through any means of knowledge. Therefore these waking and dream states themselves must be the two worlds in question. This is being answered by the following text:-
Max Müller
8. 'On being born that person, assuming his body, becomes united with all evils; when he departs and dies, he leaves all evils behind.
Meaning:- That man only two abodes, this and the next world. The dream state, which is the third, is at the junction (of the two). Staying at that junction, he surveys the two abodes, this and the next world. Whatever outfit he may have for the next world, providing himself with that he sees both evils (sufferings) and joys. When he dreams, he takes away a little of (the impressions of) this all-embracing world (the waking state), himself puts the body aside and himself creates (a dream body in its place), revealing his own lustre by his own light - and dreams. In this state the man himself becomes the light.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- That man has only two abodes, no third or fourth. Which are they? This and the next world. The present life, consisting of the body, organs, objects and their impressions, which we now perceive, and the future life, to be experienced after we have given up the body and the rest.
Objection:- Is not the dream state also the next world? In that case the assertion about 'only two abodes' is wrong. Reply:- No, the dream state, which is the third, is at the junction of this and the next world:- hence the definite pronouncement about two abodes. The junction of two villages does not certainly count as a third village. How do we know about the existence of the next world, in relation to which the dream state may be at the junction? Because staying at that junction he surveys the two abodes. Which are the two? This and the next world. Therefore, over and above the waking and dream states, there are the two worlds between which the man (the individual self), resembling the intellect, moves, in an unbroken series of births and deaths. How does he, staying in the dream state, survey the two worlds, what help does he take, and what process does he follow? This is being answered:- Listen how he surveys them. Whatever outfit --- 'Akrama' is that by means of which one proceeds, i.e. support or outfit --- the man may have for the attainment of the next world, i.e. whatever knowledge, work and previous experience he may have for this end, providing himself with that --- just ready to take him to the next world, like a seed about to sprout --- he sees both evils and joys. The plural is due to the varied results of virtue and vice, meaning both kinds. 'Evils' refer to their results, or sufferings, for they themselves cannot be directly experienced; the joys are the results of virtue. He feels both sufferings and joys consisting of the impressions of experiences in previous lives; while those glimpses of the results of merits and demerits that are to come in his future life, he experiences through the urge of those merits and demerits, or through the grace of the gods. How are we to know that in dream one experiences the sufferings and joys that are to come in the next life? The answer is:- Because one dreams may things that are never to be experienced in this life. Moreover, a dream is not an entirely new experience, for most often it is the memory of past experiences. Hence we conclude that the two worlds exist apart from the waking and dream states.
An objection is raised:- It has been said that in the absence of such external lights as the sun, the man identified with the body and organs lives and moves in the world with the help of the light of the self, which is different from the body and organs. But we say that there is never an absence of such lights as the sun to make it possible for one to perceive this self-effulgent light as isolated from the body and organs, because we perceive these as always in contact with those external lights. Therefore the self as an absolute, isolated light is almost or wholly a nonentity. If, however, it be ever perceived as an absolute, isolated light free from the contact of the elements and their derivatives, external and internal, then all your statements would be correct. This is being answered as follows:- When he, the self that is being discussed, dreams freely, what is his outfit then, and in what way does he dream, or attain the junction between this world and the next? The answer is being given:- He takes away a little of this all-embracing world, or the world we experience in the waking state. 'All-embracing' (Sarvavat (Two derivations are given. In the first, 'Sarva' (all) is joined to the verb 'Ava,' to protect; in the second, it takes the suffix 'vat,' denoting possession.):- Lit, protecting or taking care of everything; it refers to the body and organs in contact with sense-objects and their reactions. Their all-embracing character has been explained in the section dealing with the three kinds of food in the passage beginning with, 'Now this self,' etc. (I. iv. 16). Or the word may mean:- possessing all the elements and their derivatives, which (In their threefold division pertaining to the body, the gods, etc.) serve to attach him to the world:- in other words, the waking state. 'Sarvavat' is the same as 'Sarvavat.' He detaches a portion of these, i.e. is tinged by the impressions of the present life. Himself puts the body aside, lit. kills it, i.e. makes it inert or unconscious. In the waking state, the sun and other deities help the eyes etc. so that the body may function, and the body functions because the self experiences the results of its merits and demerits. The cessation of the experience of those results in this body is due to the exhuastion of the work done by the self:- hence the self is described as killing the body. And himself creates a dream body composed of past impressions, like one created by magic. This creation too is the consequence of his past work; hence it is spoken of as being created by him. Revealing his own lustre, consisting in the perception of sense-objects, the mind itself being modified in the form of diverse impressions of the latter. It is these modifications that then take the place of objects, and are spoken of as being themselves of the nature of lustre in that state. With this his own lustre as object, and revealing it (the mass of impressions of sense-objects) by his own light, i.e. as the detached subject or witness possessing constant vision, he dreams. Being in this state is called dreaming. In this state, at this time, the man, or self, himself becomes the detached light, free from the contact of the elements and their derivatives, external and internal.
Objection:- It is stated that the self then has glimpses of the impressions of the waking state. If so, how can it be said that 'in that state the man himself becomes the light'? Reply:- There is nothing wrong in it, because the glimpses are but objects (not the subject). In that way alone can the man be shown to be himself the light then, and not otherwise, when there is no object to be revealed as in profound sleep. When, however, that lustre consisting of the impressions of the waking state is perceived as an object, then, like a sword drawn from its sheath, the light of the self, the eternal witness, unrelated to anything and distinct from the body and such organs as the ey, is realised as it is, revealing everything. Hence it is proved that 'in that state the man himself becomes the light.'
Objection:- How can the man himself be the light in dream, when we come across at that time all the phenomena of the waking state dependent on the relation between the subject and object, and such lights as the sun are seen to help the eye and other organs just the same as in the waking state? In the face of these, how can the assertion be made that 'in that state the man himself becomes the light'? Reply:- Because the phenomena of dreams are different. In the waking state, the light of the self is mixed up with the functions of the organs, intellect, Manas, (external) lights, etc. But in dream, since the organs do not function, and since such lights as the sun that help them are absent, the self becomes distinct and isolated. Hence the dream state is different. Objection:- The sense-objects are perceived in dreams just the same as in the waking state. How then do you adduce their difference on the ground that the organs do not then function? Reply:- Listen
Max Müller
9. 'And there are two states for that person, the one here in this world, the other in the other world, and as a third [1] an intermediate state, the state of sleep. When in that intermediate state, he sees both those states together, the one here in this world, and the other in the other world. Now whatever his admission to the other world may be, having gained that admission, he sees both the evils and the blessings [2]. 'And when he falls asleep, then after having taken away with him the material from the whole world, destroying [3] and building it up again, he sleeps (dreams) by his own light. In that state the person is self-illuminated.
Meaning:- There are no chariots, nor animals to be yoked to them, nor roads there, but he creates the chariots, the animals and the roads. There are no pleasures, joys, or delights there, but he creates the pleasures, joys and delights. There are no pools, tanks, or rivers there, but he creates the pools, tanks and rivers. For he is the agent.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- There are no such objects as chariots there, in dream. Nor are there animals to be yoked to them, such as horses; nor roads for the chariots. But he himself creates the chariots, the animals and the roads. But how does he create them, since there are no trees etc. that are the necessaries of the chariots and so forth? The reply is being given:- It has been said. 'He takes away a little of this all-embracing world, himself puts the body aside, and himself creates.' The modifications of the mind are a little of this world, i.e. are its impressions; the former, detaching the latter --- in other words, being transformed into the impressions of chariots etc. --- and being stimulated by the person's past work, which is the cause of their perception, appear as the sense-objects; this is expressed by the words 'and himself creates,' and also by the clause, 'He creates the chariots,' etc. Really there are neither activities of the organs nor such lights as the sun that help them, nor such objects as the chariots to be illumined by them, but only their impressions are visible, having no existence apart from the palpable modification of the mind that are stir lated by the person's previous work, which is the cause of the perception of those impressions. The light with constant visions that witnesses them, the light of the self, is perfectly isolated in this state, like a sword separated from its sheath.
Similarly, there are no pleasures, kinds of happiness, joys such as those caused by the birth of a son etc., or delights, which are those very joys heightened, but he creates the pleasures, etc. Likewise, there are no pools, tanks, or rivers there, but he creates the pools etc. in the form of impressions only. For he is the agent. We have already said that his agency consists in merely being the cause of the work that generates the modifications of the mind representing those impressions. Direct activity is then out of the question, for there are no menas. Activity is impossible without its factors. In dream there cannot be any such factors of an action as hands and feet. But in the waking state, when they are present, the body and organs, illumined by the light of the self, perform work that (later on) produce the modifications of the mind representing the impressions of the chariot etc. Hence it is said, 'For he is the agent.' This has been stated in the passage,' It is through the light of the self that he sits, goes out, works and returns' (IV. iii. 6). There too, strictly speaking, the light of the self has no direct agency, except that it is the illuminer of everything. The light of the self, which is Pure Intelligence, illumines the body and organs through the mind, and they perform their functions being illumined by it; hence in the passage quoted the agency of the self is merely figurative. What has been stated in the passage, 'It thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were' (IV. iii. 7), is here repeated in the clause, 'For he is the agent,' in order to furnish a reason (For the creation of chariots etc. in drawn.).
Max Müller
10. 'There are no (real) chariots in that state, no horses, no roads, but he himself sends forth (creates) chariots, horses, and roads. There are no blessings there, no happiness, no joys, but he himself sends forth (creates) blessings, happiness, and joys. There are no tanks there, no lakes, no rivers, but he himself sends forth (creates) tanks, lakes, and rivers. He indeed is the maker.
Meaning:- Regarding this there are the following pithy verses:- 'The radiant infinite being (Purusha) who moves alone, puts the body aside in the dream state, and remaining awake himself and taking the shining functions of the organs with him, watches those that are asleep. Again he comes to the waking state.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Regarding this subject that has just been treated of, there are the following pithy verses or Mantras:- The radiant --- lit. golden; the light that is Pure Intelligence --- infinite being who moves alone through the waking and dream states, this world and the next, and so on, puts the body aside, makes it inert, in the dream state, and remaining awake himself, being possessed of the constant power of vision etc., and taking the shining --- lit. pure --- functions of the organs with him, watches those that are asleep, all external and internal things that are centred in the modifications of the mind and appear as impressions --- things that have ceased to be in their own forms. In other words, he reveals them through his own constant vision. Again he comes to the waking state, in order to work.
Max Müller
11. 'On this there are these verses:- 'After having subdued by sleep all that belongs to the body, he, not asleep himself, looks down upon the sleeping (senses). Having assumed light, he goes again to his place, the golden person [1], the lonely bird. (1)
Meaning:- 'The radiant infinite being who is immortal and moves alone, preserves the unclean nest (the body) with the help of the vital force, and roams out of the nest. Himself immortal, he goes wherever he likes.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Likewise he preserves the unclean --- lit. worthless --- nest, the body, extremely loathsome as consisting of many filthy things, with the help of the vital force that has a fivefold function --- otherwise it would be taken for dead --- but he himself roams out of that nest. Though he dreams staying in the body, yet, having no connection with it, like the ether in the body, he is said to be roaming out. Himself immortal, he goes wherever he likes:- For whatever objects his desire is roused, he attains them in the form of impressions.
Max Müller
12. 'Guarding with the breath (prâna, life) the lower nest, the immortal moves away from the nest; that immortal one goes wherever he likes, the golden person, the lonely bird. (2)
saha modamāno jakṣadutevāpi bhayāni paśyan .. 13..
Meaning:- 'In the dream world, the shining one, attaining higher and lower states, puts forth innumerable forms. He seems to be enjoying himself in the company of women, or laughing, or even seeing frightful things.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Further, in the dream world, the shining one, attaining higher and lower states, as gods and animals, for instance, puts forth innumerable forms, as impressions. He seems to be enjoying himself in the company of women, or laughing with friends, or even seeing frightful things, such as lions and tigers.
Max Müller
13. 'Going up and down in his dream, the god makes manifold shapes for himself, either rejoicing together with women, or laughing (with his friends), or seeing terrible sights. (3)
Meaning:- 'All see his sport, but none sees him'. They say, 'Do not wake him up suddenly'. If he does not find the right organ, the body becomes difficult to doctor. Others, however, say that the dream state of a man is nothing but the waking state, because he sees in dream only those things that he sees in the waking state. (This is wrong) In the dream state the man himself becomes the light. 'I give you a thousand (cows), sir. Please instruct me further about liberation'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- All see his sport, consisting of the impressions of villages, cities, women, eatables, etc. conjured up by the self, but none sees him. What a pity that although the self is totally distinct from the body and organs and is present before their very eyes, people are yet unfortunate enough not to see it, notwithstanding its capacity of being seen! This is how the Sruti is commiserating with mankind. The idea is that in dream the self becomes altogether distinct and is itself the light.
They say, 'Do not wake him up suddenly.' There is also a popular belief that proves the self to be distinct from the body and organs in dreams. What is that? Physicians and others say, 'Do not wake up a sleeping man suddenly or violently.' They say so only because they see that (in dream) the self goes out of the body of the waking state through the gates of the organs and remains isolated outside. They also see the possibility of harm in this, viz that if the self is violently roused, it may not find those gates of the organs. This is expressed as follows:- If he does not find the right organ, the body becomes difficult to doctor. The self may not get back to those gates of the organs through which it went out, taking the shining functions of the latter, or it may misplace these functions. In that case defects such as blindness and deafness may result, and it is difficult for the body to be treated. Therefore from the above popular notion also we can understand the self-luminosity of the Atman in dream.
Being identified with dream, the self transcends the forms of death; therefore in dream it is itself the light. Others, however, say that the dream state of a man is nothing but the waking state --- that the dream state, which is the junction between this world and the next, is not a state distinct from either of them, but identical with this world, i.e. the waking state. Supposing this is so, what follows from this? Listen. If the dream state is nothing but the waking state, the self is not dissociated from the body and organs, but rather mixed up with them; hence the self is not itself the light. So in order to refute the self-luminosity of the Atman, these people say that the dream state is identical with the waking state. And they state their reason for taking it as the waking state:- Because a man sees in dreams only those things , elephants etc., that he sees in the waking state. All this is wrong, because then the organs are at rest. One dreams only when the organs have ceased to function. Therefore no other light (than the self) can exist in that state. This has been expressed by the words, 'There are no chariots, nor animals,' etc. (IV. iii. 10). Therefore in the dream state the man himself undoubtedly becomes the light. By the illustration of dream it has been proved that there is the self-luminous Atman, and that it transcends the forms of death. Since it alternately moves between this world and the next, and so on, it is distinct from them. Likewise it is distinct from the nests of the waking and dream states. And Yajnavalkya has proved that since it moves alternately from one to the other, it is eternal. Hence, to requite the knowledge received, Janaka offers a thousand cows. 'Because you have thus instructed me, I give you a thousand cows, sir. You have permitted me to ask any question I like, and I want to ask about liberation. What you have told me about the self is helpful for that; as subserving that end, however, it is only a part of what I want. Hence I request you to instruct me further about liberation, so that I may hear the decision about the whole of my desired question, and through your grace be altogether free from this relative existence.' The git of a thousand cows is for the solution of a part of the meaning of the term 'liberation.' What was stated at the beginning of this section, viz 'It is through the light of the self that he sits,' etc. (IV. iii. 6), has been proved in the dream state by a reference to the experiences of that state in the passage, 'In this state the man (self) himself becomes the light' (IV. iii. 9). But regarding the statement, 'Being identified with dream, it transcends this world --- the forms of death (ignorance etc.)' (IV. iii. 7), it is contended that the self transcends merely the forms of death, not death itself. We see it plainly in dreams that though the self is separated from the body and organs, it experiences joy, fear, etc.; therefore it certainly does not transcend death, for we see the effects of death (i.e. work), such as joy and fear, at the time. If it is naturally handicapped by death, then it cannot attain liberation, for nobody can part with his nature. If, however, death is not the nature of the self, then liberation from it will be possible. In order to show that death is not the natural characteristic of the self, Yajnavalkya, already prompted by Janaka with the words, 'Please instruct me further about liberation' (IV. iii. 14), sets himself to this task:-
Max Müller
14. 'People may see his playground [1] but himself no one ever sees. Therefore they say, Let no one wake a man suddenly, for it is not easy to remedy, if he does not get back (rightly to his body)." 'Here some people (object and) say:- "No, this (sleep) is the same as the place of waking, for what he sees while awake, that only he sees when asleep [2]." No, here (in sleep) the person is self-illuminated (as we explained before).' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'I give you, Sir, a thousand. Speak on for the sake of (my) emancipation.'
Meaning:- After enjoying himself and roaming, and merely seeing (the result of) good and evil (in dream), he (stays) in a state of profound sleep, and comes back in the inverse order to his former condition, the dream state. He is untouched by whatever he sees in that state, for this infinite being is unattached. 'It is just so, Yajnavalkya. I give you a thousand (cows), sir. Please instruct me further about liberation itself.'
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- He, the self-luminous being who is under consideration and who has been pointed out in the dream state, (stays) in a state of profound sleep, 'Samprasada' --- the state of highest serenity. In the waking state a man gets impurities due to the commingling of innumerable activities of the body and organs; he gets a little joy by discarding them in dreams; but in profound sleep he gets the highest serenity; hence this state is called 'Samprasada.' The self in a state of profound sleep will be later on described as, 'For he is then beyond all the woes of his heart' (IV. iii. 22), and 'Pure like water, one, and the witness' (IV. iii. 32). He stays in a state of profound sleep, having gradually attained the highest serenity. How does he attain it? After enjoying himself --- just before passing into the state of profound sleep --- in the dream state itself, by having a sight etc. of his friends and relatives, and roaming, sporting in various ways, i.e. experiencing the fatigue due to it, and merely seeing, not doing, good and evil, i.e. their results (pleasure and pain). We have already said that good and evil cannot be directly visualised. Hence he is not fettered by them. Only one who does good and evil is so fettered; one certainly cannot come under their binding influence by merely seeing them. Therefore, being identified with dream, the self transcends death also, not merely its forms. Hence death cannot be urged to be its nature. Were it so, the self would be doing things in dream; but it does not. If activity be the nature of the self, it will never attain liberation; but it is not, for it is absent in dream. Hence the self can get rid of death in the form of good and evil.
Objection:- But is not activity its nature in the waking state? Reply:- No, that is due to its limiting adjuncts, the intellect etc. This has been proved on the ground of apparent activity from the text, 'It thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were' (IV. iii. 7). Therefore, since the self wholly transcends the forms of death in dream, death can never be urged to be natural to it, nor is liberation an impossibility. 'Roaming' in that state, i.e. experiencing the resulting fatigue, and afterwards experiencing the state of profound sleep, he comes back in the inverse order of that by which he went, i.e. retracing his steps, to his former condition, viz the dream state. It was out of this that he passed into the state of profound sleep, and now he returns to it. It may be asked, how is one to know that a man does not do good and evil in dream, but merely sees their results? Rather the presumtion is that as he does good and evil in the waking state, so he does them in the dream state also, for the experience is the same in both cases. This is being answered:- He, the self, is untouched by whatever results of good and evil he sees in that dream state. If he actually did anything in dream, he would be bound by it; and it would pursue him even after he woke up. But it is not known in everyday life that he is pursued by deeds done in dreams. Nobody considers himself a sinner on account of sins committed in dream; nor do people who have heard of them condemn or shun him. Therefore he is certainly untouched by them. Hence he only appears to be doing things in dream, but actually there is no activity. The pithy verse has already been quoted:- 'He seems to be enjoying himself in the company of women' (IV. iii. 13). And those who describe their dream experiences use the words 'as if' in this connection, as, for instance, 'I saw to-day as if a herd of elephants was running.' Therefore the self has no activity (in dream).
How is it that it has no activity? (This is being explained:-) We see that an action is caused by the body and organs, which have form, with something else that has form. We never see a formless thing being active; and the self is formless, hence it is unattached. And because this self is unattached, it is untouched by what is sees in dream. Therefore we cannot by any means attribute activity to it, since activity proceeds from the contact of the body and organs, and that contact is non-existent for the self, for this infinite being (self) is unattached. Therefore it is immortal. 'It is just so, Yajnavalkya. I give you a thousand (cows), sir, for you have fully shown that the self is free from action --- which is a part of the meaning of the term 'liberation.' Please instruct me further about liberation itself.'
Max Müller
15. Yâgñavalkya said:- 'That (person) having enjoyed himself in that state of bliss (samprasâda, deep sleep), having moved about and seen both good and evil, hastens back again as he came, to the place from which he started (the place of sleep), to dream [1]. And whatever he may have seen there, he is not followed (affected) by it, for that person is not attached to anything.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'So it is indeed, Yâgñavalkya. I give you, Sir, a thousand. Speak on for the sake of emancipation.'
Meaning:- After enjoying himself and roaming in the dream state, and merely seeing (the results of) good and evil, he comes back in the inverse order to his former condition, the waking state. He is untouched by whatever he sees in that state, for this infinite being is unattached. 'It is just so, Yajnavalkya. I give you a thousand (cows), sir. Please instruct me further about liberation itself.'
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Objection:- In the preceding paragraph the non-attachment of the self has been stated as the cause of its inactivity in the passage, 'For this infinite being is unattached.' It has also been stated before that under the sway of past work 'he goes wherever he likes' (IV. iii. 12). Now desire is an attachment; hence the reason adduced --- 'For this infinite being is unattached' --- is fallacious. Reply:- It is not. How? This is how the self is unattached:- On his return from the state of profound sleep, after enjoying himself and roaming in the dream state, and merely seeing (the results of) good and evil, he comes back in the inverse order to his former condition --- all this is to be explained as before --- the waking state; therefore this infinite being (self) is unattached. If he were attached, or smitten by desire, in the dream state, he would, on his return to the waking state, be affected by the evils due to that attachment. Just as, being unattached in the dream state, he is not affected, on his return to the waking state, by the evils due to attachment in the dream state, so he is not affected by them in the waking state either. This is expressed by the following text:-
Max Müller
16. Yâgñavalkya said:- 'That (person) having enjoyed himself in that sleep (dream), having moved about and seen both good and evil, hastens back again as he came, to the place from which he started, to be awake. And whatever he may have seen there, he is not followed (affected) by it, for that person is not attached to anything.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'So it is indeed, Yâgñavalkya. I give you, Sir, a thousand. Speak on for the sake of emancipation.'
स वा एष एतस्मिन्बुद्धान्ते रत्वा चरित्वा दृष्ट्वैव पुण्यं च पापं
च पुनः प्रतिन्यायं प्रतियोन्याद्रवति स्वप्नान्तायैव ॥ १७॥ आद्रवति
स्वप्नान्ताय एव
mantra 17[IV.iii.17]
sa vā eṣa etasminbuddhānte ratvā caritvā dṛṣṭvaiva puṇyaṃ ca pāpaṃ
ca punaḥ pratinyāyaṃ pratiyonyādravati svapnāntāyaiva .. 17.. ādravati
svapnāntāya eva
Meaning:- After enjoying himself and roaming in the waking state, and merely seeing (the result of) good and evil, he comes back in the inverse order to his former condition, the dream state (or that of profound sleep).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- After enjoying himself and roaming in the waking state, etc. --- to be explained as before. 'He is untouched by whatever he sees in that --- waking --- state, for this infinite being is unattached (Sankara supplies this from the preceding paragraphs.).'
Objection:- How is the assertion made about his 'merely' seeing'? As a matter of fact, he does good and evil in the waking state, and sees their results too. Reply:- Not so, for his agency is attributable to his merely revealing the different factors of an action. Such texts as, 'It is through the light of the self that he sits,' etc. (IV. iii. 6), show that the body and organs work, being revealed by the light of the self. For this reason agency is figuratively attributed to the self, which naturally has none. So it has been said, 'It thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were' (IV. iii. 7). The agency is simply due to its limiting adjuncts, the intellect etc., and is not natural to it. Here, however, the self is described from the standpoint of reality independently of the limiting adjuncts:- 'Merely seeing (the results of) good and evil,' not actually doing them. Hence there is no fear of contradiction between this and the previous text, because the self, freed from its limiting adjuncts, really neither does anything nor is affected by the results of any action. As the Lord has said, 'The immutable Supreme Self, O Arjuna, being without beginning and without attributes, neither does anything nor is affected by its results although It is in the body' (G. XIII. 31). And the gift of a thousand cows is made because Yajnavalkya has shown the self to be free from desire. Similarly this and the preceding paragraph prove the non-attachment of the self. Because, passing into the dream state and that of profound sleep, it is not affected by what it did in the waking state --- for we do not then find actions such as theft --- therefore in all the three states the self is naturally unattached. Hence it is immortal, or distinct from the attributes of the three states. He comes back to his former condition, the state of profound sleep (Svapnanta). Since the dream state, with its function of seeing visions, has already been mentioned by the word 'Svapna,' the addition of the word 'Anta' (end) will be appropriate if we take the word 'Svapnanta' in the sense of dreamless sleep, which state will also be referred to in the passage, 'He runs for this state' (IV. iii. 19). If, however, it is argued by a reference to the following passages (Where the word 'Anta' occurs thrice, meaning not end, but state.), 'After enjoying himself and roaming in the dream state' (IV. iii. 34), and 'Moves to both these states, the dream and waking states' (IV. iii. 18), that here also the word 'Svapnanta' means the dream state, with its function of seeing visions, there is nothing wrong in that interpretation too, for non-attachment of the self, which is sought to be established, is certainly established thereby. Therefore, on returning to the dream state after enjoying himself and roaming in the waking state, and merely seeing (the results of) good and evil,' he is not pursued by the evils of the waking state.
Thus the idea that has been established by the last three paragraphs is that this self is itself the light and distinct from the body and organs and their stimulating causes, desire and work, on account of its non-attachment --- 'For this infinite being is unattached.' How do we know that the self is unattached? Because it moves by turn from the waking of the dream state, from this to the state of profound sleep, from that again to the dream state, then to the waking state, from that again to the dream state, and so on, which proves that it is distinct from the three states. This idea has also been previously introduced in the passage, 'Being identified with dream, it transcends this world --- the forms of death' (IV. iii. 7). Having treated this at length, the Sruti now proceeds to give an illustration, which is the only thing that remains.
Max Müller
17. Yâgñavalkya said:- 'That (person) having enjoyed himself in that state of waking, having moved about and seen both good and evil, hastens back again as he came, to the place from which he started, to the state of sleeping (dream).
puruṣa etāvubhāvantāvanusañcarati svapnāntaṃ ca buddhāntaṃ ca ..
18.. antau anusañcarati svapnāntam ca buddhāntam ca
Meaning:- As a great fish swims alternately to both the banks (of a river), eastern and western, so does this infinite being move to both these states, the dream and waking states.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- In support of the idea set forth above, the following illustration is being given:- As in the world a great fish that moves freely, never being swayed by the river-currents, but rather stemming them, swims alternately to both the banks of a river, eastern and western, and while swimming between them, is not overpowered by the intervening current of water, so does this infinite being move to both these states --- which are they? --- the dream and waking states. The point of the illustration is that the body and organs, which are forms of death, together with their stimulating causes, desire and work, are the attributes of the non-self, and that the self is distinct from them. All this has already been exhaustively explained.
In the preceding paragraphs the self-luminous Atman, which is different from the body and organs, has been stated to be distinct from desire and work, for it moves alternately to the three states. These relative attributes do not belong to it per se:- its relative existence is only due to its limiting adjuncts, and is superimposed by ignorance; this has been stated to be the gist of the whole passage. There, however, the three states of waking, dream and profound sleep have been described separately --- not shown together as a group. For instance, it has been shown that in the waking state the self appears through ignorance as connected with attachment, death (work), and the body and organs; in the dream state it is perceived as connected with desire, but free from the forms of death; and in the state of profound sleep it is perfectly serene and unattached, this non-attachment being the additional feature. If we consider all these passages together, the resulting sense is that the self is by nature eternal, free, enlightened and pure. This comprehensive view has not yet been shown; hence the next paragraph. It will be stated later on that the self becomes such only in the state of profound sleep:- 'That is his form --- beyond desires, free from evils, and fearless' (IV. iii. 21). As it is such, i.e. unique, the self desires to enter this state. How is that? The next paragraph will explain it. As the meaning becomes clear through an illustration, one is being put forward.
Max Müller
18. 'In fact, as a large fish moves along the two banks of a river, the right and the left, so does that person move along these two states, the state of sleeping and the state of waking.
etasmā antāya dhāvati yatra supto na kaṃ cana kāmaṃ kāmayate na kaṃ
cana svapnaṃ paśyati .. 19.. svapnam paśyati
Meaning:- As a hawk or a falcon flying in the sky becomes tired, and stretching its wings, is bound for its nest, so does this infinite being run for this state, where, falling asleep, he craves no desire and sees no dream.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- As a hawk or a falcon (Suparna), a swifter kind of hawk, flying or roaming in the external sky becomes tired, exhausted with undertaking different flights, and stretching its wings, is bound for, directs itself towards, its nest --- lit. where it has a perfect rest --- so does this infinite being run for this state, where, falling asleep, he craves no desire and sees no dream. This last clause describes what is denoted by the word 'state.' The words 'craves no desire' shut out all desires of the dream and waking states without reservation, the negative particle having that all-inclusive force. Similarly with 'and sees no dream.' The experience of the waking state also is considered by the Sruti to be but dream; hence it says, 'And sees no dream.' Another Sruti passage bears this out:- 'He has three abodes, three dream states' (Ai. III. 12). As the bird in the illustration goes to its nest to remove the fatigue due to flight, so the Jiva (self), connected with the results of action done by the contact of the body and organs in the waking and dream states, is fatigued, as the bird with its flight, and in order to remove that fatigue enters his own nest or abode, i.e. his own self, distinct from all relative attributes and devoid of all exertion caused by action with its factors and results. It may be questioned:- If this freedom from all relative attributes be the nature of the Jiva, and his relative existence be due to other things, viz the limiting adjuncts, and if it be ignorance that causes this relative existence through those extraneous limiting adjuncts, is that ignorance natural to him, or is it adventitious, like desire, work, etc? If it be the latter, then liberation is possible. But what are the proofs of its being adventitious, and why should ignorance not be the natural characteristic of the self? Hence, in order to determine the nature of ignorance, which is the root of all evil, the next paragraph is introduced.
Max Müller
19. 'And as a falcon, or any other (swift) bird, after he has roamed about here in the air, becomes tired, and folding his wings is carried to his nest, so does that person hasten to that state where, when asleep, he desires no more desires, and dreams no more dreams.
paśyati tadatrāvidyayā manyate'tha yatra deva iva rājevāhamevedagͫ
sarvo'smīti manyate so'sya paramo lokāḥ .. 20..
Meaning:- In him are those nerves called Hita, which are as fine as a hair split into a thousand parts, and filled with white, blue, brown, green and red (serums). (They are the seat of the subtle body, in which impressions are stored). Now when (he feels) as if he were being killed or overpowered, or being pursued by an elephant, or falling into a pit, (in short) conjures up at the time through ignorance whatever terrible things he has experienced in the waking state, (that is the dream state). And when (he becomes) a god, as it were, or a king, as it were, thinks, 'This (universe) is myself, who am all', that is his highest state.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- In him, in this man with a head, hands, etc., are those nerves called Hita (Referred to in II. i. 19. and IV. ii. 3.), which are as fine as a hair split into a thousand parts, and they are filled with white, blue, brown, green and red serums. Many and various are the colours of the serums, owing to the intermixture, in various proportions, of nerve matter, bile and phlegm. The subtle body with its seventeen constituents has its seat in these nerves, which have the fineness of the thousandth part of the tip of a hair, are filled with serums, white and so on, and spread all over the body. All impressions due to the experience of high and low attributes of the relative universe are centred in this. This subtle body, in which the impressions are stored, is transparent like a crystal because of its fineness; but owing to its contact with foreign matter, viz the serums in the nerves, it undergoes modifications under the influence of past merit and demerit, and manifests itself as impressions in the form of women, chariots, elephants, etc. Now, such beings the case, when a man has the false notion called ignorance based on past impressions, that some people --- enemies or robbers --- have come and are going to kill him. This is being described by the text:- As if he, the dreamer, were being killed or overpowered. Nobody is killing or overpowering him; it is simply his mistake due to te past impressions created by ignorance. Or being pursued or chased by an elephant, or falling into a pit, a dilapidated well, for instance. He fancies himself in his position. Such are the false impressions that arise in him --- extremely low ones, resting on the modifications of the mind brought about by his past iniquity, as is evidenced by their painful nature. In short, he conjures up at the time, i.e. in dream, when there is no elephant or the like, through the impressions created by ignorance, which have falsely manifested themselves, whatever terrible things, such as an elephant, he has experienced in the waking state.
Then when ignorance decreases and knowledge increases, (the result is as follows). The text describes the content and nature of the knowledge:- And when he himself becomes a god, as it were. When, in the waking state, meditation regarding the gods prevails, he considers himself a god, as it were, on account of the impressions generated by it. The same thing is being said of the dream state too:- He becomes 'a god, as it were.' Or a king, as it were:- Having been installed as the ruler of a state (in the waking state), he thinks in his dreams also that he is a king, for he is imbued with the impressions of his kingly state. Similarly, when (in the waking state) his ignorance is extremely attenuated, and the knowledge that he comprises all arises, he thinks under the influence of these impressions in the dream state also, 'This (universe) is myself, who am all.' That, this identity with all (the universe), is his highest state, the Atman's own natural, supreme state. When, prior to this realisation of identity with all, he views the latter as other than himself even by a hair's breadth, thinking, 'This is not myself,' that is the state of ignorance. The states divorced from the self that are brought on by ignorance, down to stationary existence, are all inferior states. Compared with these --- states with which the Jiva (individual self) has relative dealings --- the above state of identity with all, infinite and without interior or exterior, is his supreme state. Therefore, when ignorance is eliminated and knowledge reaches its perfection, the state of identity with all, which is another name for liberation, is attained. That is to say, just as the self-effulgence of the Atman is directly perceived in the dream state, so is this result of knowledge.
Similarly, when ignorance increases and knowledge vanishes, the results of ignorance are also directly perceived in dream:- 'Now when (he feels) as if he were being killed or overpowered,' etc. Thus the results of knowledge and ignorance are identity with all and identity with finite things, respectively. Through pure knowledge a man is identified with all, and through ignorance he is identified with finite things, or separated from something else. He is in conflict with that from which he is separated, and because of this conflict he is killed, overpowered or pursued. All this takes place because the results of ignorance, being finite things, are separated from him. But if he is all, what is there from which he may be separated, so as to be in conflict; and in the absence of conflict, by whom would he be killed, overpowered or pursued? Hence the nature of ignorance proves to be this, that it represents that which is infinite as finite, presents things other than the self that are non-existent, and makes the self appear as limited. Thence arises the desire for that from which he is separated; desire prompts him to action, which produces results. This is the gist of the whole passage. It will also be stated later on, 'When there is duality, as it were, then one sees something,' etc. (II. iv. 14; IV. v. 15). Thus the nature of ignorance with its effects has been set forth; and as opposed to these, the effect of knowledge also, viz the attainment of identity with all, has been shown. That ignorance is not the natural characteristic of the self, since it automatically decreases as knowledge increases, and when the latter is at its highest, with the result that the self realises its identity with all, ignorance vanishes altogether, like the notion of a snake in a rope when the truth about it is known. This has been stated in the passage, 'But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the self, then what should one see and through what?' etc. (Ibid.). Therefore ignorance is not a natural characteristic of the self, for that which is natural to a thing can never be eliminated, as the heat and light of the sun. Therefore liberation from ignorance is possible.
Max Müller
20. 'There are in his body the veins called Hitâ, which are as small as a hair divided a thousandfold, full of white, blue, yellow, green, and red [1]. Now when, as it were, they kill him, when, as it were they overcome him, when, as it were, an elephant chases him, when, as it were, he falls into a well, he fancies, through ignorance, that danger which he (commonly) sees in waking. But when he fancies that he is, as it were, a god, or that he is, as it were, a king [2], or "I am this altogether," that is his highest world [3].
Meaning:- That is his form - beyond desires, free from evils and fearless. As a man, fully embraced by his beloved wife, does not know anything at all, either external or internal, so does this infinite being (self), fully embraced by the Supreme Self, not know anything at all, either external or internal. That is his form - in which all objects of desire have been attained and are but the self, and which is free from desire and devoid of grief.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Now liberation in the form of identity with all, which is the result, devoid of action with its factors and results, of knowledge, and in which there is no ignorance, desire, or work, is being directly pointed out. This has already been introduced in the passage, 'Where falling asleep, it craves no desire and sees no dream' (par. 19). That, this identity with all which has been spoken of as 'his highest state,' is his form --- beyond desire (Aticchanda). This word is to be turned into neuter, since it qualifies the word 'Rupa' (form). 'Chanda' means desire; hence 'Aticchanda' means transcending desire. There is another word 'Chandas' ending is s, which means a metre, such as the Gayatri. But here the word means desire; hence it must end in a vowel. Nevertheless, the reading 'Aticchanda' should be taken as the usual Vedic licence. In common parlance too the word 'Chanda' is used in the sense of desire, as in 'Svacchanda' (free), 'Paracchanda' (dependent on others' will), etc. Hence the word must be turned into 'Aticchandam' (neuter) to mean that this form of the self is free from desire. Likewise, free from evils. 'Evils' mean both merits and demerits, for it has elsewhere (par. been said, 'Is connected with evils,' and 'Discards those evils.' 'Free from evils' means 'devoid of merits and demerits.' Also, fearless. Fear is an effect of ignorance, for it has already been said that through ignorance he conjures up terrible things (par. 20). Hence the word must be construed as denying the cause through the effect. 'Fearless form' means one that is bereft of ignorance. This identity with all which is the result of knowledge is this form --- beyond desire, free from evils and fearless. It is fearless because it is devoid of all relative attributes. This has already been introduced at the conclusion of the preceding section, by the competent personal statement, 'You have attained That which is free from fear, O Janaka' (IV. ii. 4). But here it is elaborated by argument to impress the meaning conveyed by the competent personal statement in question.
This Atman is itself the light that is Pure Intelligence, and reveals everything by its own intelligence. It has been said (pars. 15 and 16) that (he is untouched by) the roaming or by whatever he sees, or enjoys, or knows in that (dream) state. And it is also proved by reasoning that the eternal nature of the self is that it is the light of Pure Intelligence. (Now an objection is being raised:-) If the self remains intact in its own form in the state of profound sleep, why does it not know itself as 'I am this,' or know all those things that are outside, as it does in the waking and dream states? The answer is being given:- Listen why it does not know. Unity is the reason. How is that? This is explained by the text. As the intended meaning is vividly realised through an illustration, it goes on to say:- As in the world, a man fully embraced by his beloved wife, both desiring each other's company, does not know anything at all, either external to himself, as, 'This is something other than myself,' or internal, as 'I am this, or I am happy or miserable' --- but he knows everything outside and inside when he is not embraced by her and is separated, and fails to know only during the embrace owing to the attainment of unity --- so, like the example cited, does this infinite being, the individual self, who is separated (from the Supreme Self), like a lump of salt, through contact with a little of the elements (the body and organs) and enters this body and organs, like the reflection of the moon etc. in water and so forth, being fully embraced by, or unified with, the Supreme Self, his own real, natural, supremely effulgent Self, and being identified with all, without the least break, not know anything at all, either external, something outside, or internal, within himself, such as, 'I am this, or I am happy or miserable.'
You asked me why, in spite of its being the light that is Pure Inelligence, the self fails to know in the state of profound sleep. I have told you the reason --- it is unitty, as of a couple fully embracing each other. Incidentally it is implied that variety is the cause of particular consciousness; and the cause of that variety is, as we have said, ignorance, which brings forward something other than the self. Such being the case, when the Jiva is freed from ignorance, he attains but unity with all. Therefore, there being no such division among the factors of an action as knowledge and known, whence should particular consciousness arise, or desire manifest itself, in the natural, immutable light of the self? Because this identity with all is his form, therefore that is his form, the form of this self-effulgent Atman, in which all objects of desire have been attained, because it comprises all. That from which objects of desire are different has hankering after them, as the form called Devadatta, for instance, in the waking state. But this other form is not so divided from anything; hence in it all objects of desire have been attained. It may be asked, can that form not be divided from other things that exist, or is the self the only entity that exists? The answer is, there is nothing else but the self. How? Because all objects of desire are but the self in this form. In states other than that of profound sleep, i.e. in the waking and dream states, things are separated, as it were, from the self and are desired as such. But to one who is fast alseep, they becomes the self, since there is no ignorance to project the idea of difference. Hence also is this from free from desire, because there is nothing to be desired, and devoid of grief (Sokantara). 'Antara' means a break or gap; or it may mean the inside or core (Hence grief cannot hurt it, for it is its very self.). In either case, the meaning is that this form of the self is free from grief.
Max Müller
21. 'This indeed is his (true) form, free from desires, free from evil, free from fear [1]. Now as a man, when embraced by a beloved wife, knows nothing that is without, nothing that is within, thus this person, when embraced by the intelligent (prâgña) Self, knows nothing that is without, nothing that is within. This indeed is his (true) form, in which his wishes are fulfilled, in which the Self (only) is his wish, in which no wish is left,--free from any sorrow [2].
ananvāgataspāpena tīrṇo hi tadā sarvāñchokānhṛdayasya bhavati .. 22..
Meaning:- In this state a father is no father, a mother no mother, worlds no worlds, the gods no gods, the Vedas no Vedas. In this state a thief is no thief, the killer of a noble Brahmana no killer, a Chandala no Chandala, a Pulkasa no Pulkasa, a monk no monk, a hermit no hermit. (This form of his) is untouched by good work and untouched by evil work, for he is then beyond all the woes of his heart (intellect).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- It has been said that the self-effulgent Atman that is being described is free from ignorance, desire and work, for it is unattached, while they are adventitious. Here an objection is raised:- The Sruti has said that though the self is Pure Intelligence, it does not know anything (in the state of profound sleep) on account of its attaining unity, as in the case of a couple in each other's embrace. The Sruti has thereby practically said that like desire, work, etc., the self-effulgence of the Atman is not its nature, since it is not perceived in the state of profound sleep. This objection is refuted by a reference to the illustration of the couple in each other's embrace, and it is asserted that the self-effulgence is certainly present in profound sleep, but that it is not perceived on account of unity; it is not adventitious like desire, work, etc. Having incidentally mentioned this, the text takes up the topic under discussion, viz that the form of the self that is directly perceived in the state of profound sleep is free from ignorance, desire and work. Hence it is a statement of fact to describe this form as beyond all relations. Because in the state of profound sleep the self has a form that is 'beyond desire, free from evils and fearless,' therefore in this state a father is no father. His fatherhood towards the son, as being the begetter, is on account of action, from which he is dissociated in this state. Therefore the father, notwithstanding the fact of his being such, is no father, because he is entirely free from the action that relates him to the son. Similarly we understand by implication that the son also ceases to be a son to his father, for the relation of both is produced by action, and he is then beyond it, since it has been said, 'Free from evils' (IV. iii. 21).
Likewise a mother is no mother, worlds, which are either won or to be won through rites, are no worlds, owing to his dissociation from those rites. Similarly the gods, who are a part of the rites, are no gods, because he transcends his relation to those rites. The Vedas too, consisting of the Brahmanas, which describe the means, the goal and their relation, as well as the Mantras, and forming part of the rites, since they deal with them, whether already read or yet to be read, are connected with a man through those rites. Since he transcends those rites, the Vedas too are then no Vedas. Not only is the man beyond his relation to his good actions, but he is also untouched by his terribly evil actions. So the text says:- In this state a thief, one who has stolen a Brahmana's gold --- we know this from his mention along with one who has killed a noble Brahmana --- is free from that dire action for which he is called a thief, a despicable sinner. Similarly the killer of a noble Brahmana is no killer. Likewise a Candala, etc. Not only is a man free from the actions done by him in his present life, but he is also free from those dire actions of his past life that degrade him to an exceedingly low birth. A Candala is one born of a Surda father and a Brahmana mother. --- 'Candala' is but a variant of the same word. --- Not being connected with the work that caused his low birth, he is no Candala. A Pulkasa is one born of a Sudra father and a Ksatriya mother. --- 'Paulkasa' is a variant of the same word. --- He too is no Pulkasa. Similarly a man is dissociated from the duties of his particular order of life. For instance, a monk is no monk, being free from the duties that make him one. Likewise a hermit or recluse is no hermit. The two orders mentioned are suggestive of all the castes, orders, and so on. In short, (this form of his) is untouched by good work, rites enjoined by the scriptures, as well as by evil work, the omission to perform such rites, and the committing of forbidden acts. The word 'untouched' is in the neuter gender inasmuch as it qualifies 'form,' the 'fearless form' of the preceding paragraph. What is the reason of its being untouched by them? The reason is being stated:- For he, the self of a nature described above, is then beyond all the woes, or desires. It is these desires for coveted things that in their absence are converted into woes. A man who has either failed to attain those things or lost them keeps ruminating on their good qualities and is afflicted. Hence woe, attachment and desire are synonyms. (The clause therefore means:-) Because in the state of profound sleep he transcends all desires; for it has been said, 'He craves no desires' (IV. iii. 19), and 'Beyond desires' (IV. iii. 21). Coming in the wake of those terms, the word 'woe' ought to mean desires. Desires again are the root of action; it will be stated later on, 'What it desires, it resolves; and what it resolves, it works out' (IV. iv. 5). Therefore, since he transcends all desires, it has been well said, 'It is untouched by good work,' etc.
Of his heart:- The heart is the lotus-shaped lump of flesh, but being the seat of the internal organ, intellect, it refers to that by a metonymy, as when we speak of cries from the chairs (meaning persons occupying them). The woes of his heart, or intellect --- for they abide there, since it has been said, 'Desire, resolve, (etc. are but the mind)' (I. v. 3). It will also be said later on, 'The desires that dwell in his heart' (IV. iv. 7). This and the other statement about 'the woes of his heart' repudiate the error that they dwell in the self, for it has been said that being no more related to the heart in the state of profound sleep, the self transcends the forms of death. Therefore it is quite appropriate to say that being no more related to the heart, it transcends the relation to desires abiding in the heart. Those (The reference is to Bhartrprapanca.) who maintain that the desires and impressions dwelling in the heart go farther and affect the self, which is related to it, and even when it is dissociated from the self, they dwell in the latter, like the scent of flowers etc. in the oil in which they have been boiled, can find no meaning whatsoever for such scriptural statements, as, 'Desrie, resolve,' 'It is on the heart (mind) that colours rest' (III. ix. 20), 'The woes of his heart,' etc.
Objection:- They are referred to the intellect merely because they are produced through this organ. Reply:- No, for they are specified in the words, '(That) dwell in (his) heart.' This and the other statement, 'It is on the heart that colours rest,' would hardly be consistent if the intellect were merely the instrument of their production. Since the purity of the self is the meaning intended to be conveyed, the statement that desires abide in the intellect is truly appropriate. It admits of no other interpretation, for the Sruti says, 'It thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were' (IV. iii. 7). Objection:- The specification about 'desires that dwell in his heart' implies that there are others that dwell in the self too. Reply:- No, for it demarcates these desires from those that are not then in the heart. In other words, the epithet 'that dwell in his heart' does not contrast this particular seat of desires with some other seats, but contrasts these desires with those that are not in the heart at the time. For instance, those that have not yet sprung up --- the future ones --- or those that are past, having been checked by contrary ideas, are surely not in the intellect; and yet they may crop up in future. Hence the specification in contradistinction to them is quite in order, meaning those desires regarding some object that have sprung up and are present in the intelligent. Objection:- Still the specification would be redundant. Reply:- No, because more attention should be paid to them as objects to be shunned. Otherwise, by ascribing the desires to the self, you would be holding a view that is contrary to the wording of the Sruti and is undesirable (As standing in the way of liberation.). Objection:- But does not the negation of a fact of normal experience in the passage, 'He craves no desires' (IV. iii. 19), mean that the Sruti mentions the desires as being in the self? Reply:- No, for the experience in question about the self being the seat of desires is due to an extraneous agency (the intellect), as is evidenced by the Sruti passage, 'Being identified with dream through its association with the intellect' (IV. iii. 7). Besides there is the statement about the self being unattached, which would be incongruous if the self were the seat of desires; we have already said that attachment is desire. Objection:- May we not say from the Sruti text, 'To whom all objects of desire are but the Self' (IV. iv. 6), that the self has desires regarding itself? Reply:- No, that passage only means the absence of any other object of desire than the self. Objection:- Does not the reasoning of the Vaisesika and other systems support the view that the self is the seat of desires etc.? Reply:- No; the arguments of the Vaisesika and other systems are to be disregarded, since they contradict such specific statements of the Srutis as, '(That) dwell in (his) heart' (IV. iv. 7). Any reasoning that contradicts the Srutis is a fallacy. Moreover, the self-effulgence of the Atman is contradicted. That is to say, since in the dream state desires etc. are witnessed by Pure Intelligence only, the views in question would contradict the self-effulgence of the Atman, which is stated as a fact by the Srutis and is also borne out by reason; for if the desires etc. inhere in the self (As qualities do in a substance.), they cannot again be its objects, just as the eye cannot see its own particulars. The self-effulgence of the witness, the self, has been proved on the ground that objects are different entities from the subject. This would be contradicted if the self were supposed to be the seat of desires etc. Besides it contradicts the teachings of all scriptures. If the individual self be conceived as a part of the Supreme Self and as possessing desires etc., the meaning of all the scriptures would be set at naught. We have explained this at length in the second chapter. In order to establish the meaning of the scriptures that the individual self is identical with the Supreme Self, the idea that it is the seat of desires etc. must be refuted with the greatest care. If, however, that view be put forward, the very meaning of the scriptures would be contradicted. Just as the Vaisesikas and Naiyayikas, holding that desire and so forth are attributes of the self, are in disharmony with the meaning of the Upanisads, so also is this view not to be entertained, because it contradicts the meaning of the Upanisads. It has been said that the self does not see (in the state of profound sleep) on account of unity, as in the case of the couple, and that it is self-effulgent. Self-effulgent means being Pure Intelligence by nature. Now the question is, if this intelliegence is the very nature of the self, like the heat etc. of fire, how should it, in spite of the unity, give up its nature, and fail to know? And if it does not give up its nature, how is it that it does not see in the state of profound sleep? It is self-contradictory to say that intelligence is the nature of the self and, again, that it does not know. The answer is, it is not self-contradictory; both these are possible. How?
Max Müller
22. 'Then a father is not a father, a mother not a mother, the worlds not worlds, the gods not gods, the Vedas not Vedas. Then a thief is not a thief, a murderer not a murderer [1], a Kândâla [2] not a Kândâla, a Paulkasa [3] not a Paulkasa, a Sramana [4] not a Sramana, a Tâpasa [5] not a Tâpasa. He is not followed by good, not followed by evil, for he has then overcome all the sorrows of the heart [6].
द्रष्टुर्दृष्टेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यतेऽविनाशित्वान् न तु तद्द्वितीयमस्ति
ततोऽन्यद्विभक्तं यत्पश्येत् ॥ २३॥
mantra 23[IV.iii.23]
yadvai tanna paśyati paśyanvai tanna paśyati na hi
draṣṭurdṛṣṭerviparilopo vidyate'vināśitvān na tu taddvitīyamasti
tato'nyadvibhaktaṃ yatpaśyet .. 23..
Meaning:- That it does not see in that state is because, though seeing then, it does not see; for the vision of the witness can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can see.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- That it does not see in that state of profound sleep is because, thought seeing then, it does not see. You think that it does not see in the state of profound sleep; but do not think so. Why? Because it is seeing then.
Objection:- But we know that in the state of profound sleep it does not see, because then neither the eye nor the mind, which are the instruments of vision, is working. It is only when the eye, ear, etc. are at work that we say one is seeing or hearing. But we do not find the organs working. Therefore we conclude that it must surely not be seeing. Reply:- Certainly not; it is seeing; for the vision of the witness can never be lost. As the heat of fire lasts as long as the fire, so is the witness, the self, immortal, and because of this its vision too is imperishable; it lasts as long as the witness. Objection:- Do you not contradict yourself by saying in the same breath that it is a vision of the witness, and that it is never lost? Vision is an act of the witness; one is called a witness just because one sees. Hence it is impossible to say that vision, which depends on an act of the witness, is never lost. Reply:- It must be undying, because the Sruti says it is never lost. Objection:- No, a Sruti text merely informs (it cannot alter a fact). The destruction of something that is artificially made is a logical necessity, and cannot be prevented even by a hundred texts, because a text only informs about a thing just as it is. Reply:- The objection does not hold. The vision of the witness is possible, like the sun etc. revealing things. Just as the sun and the like are naturally ever-luminous and reveal things through their natural, constant light, and when we speak of them as revealing things, we do not mean that they are naturally non-luminous and only reveal things by a fresh act each time, but that they do not so through their natural, constant light, so is the self called witness on account of its imperishable, eternal vision. Objection:- Then its function as a witness is secondary. Reply:- No. Thus only can it be shown to be a witness in the primary sense of the word, because if the self were observed to exercise the function of seeing in any other way, then the former way might be secondary. But the self has no other method of seeing. Therefore thus only can we understand its being a witness in the primary sense, not otherwise. Just as the sun and other luminaries reveal things through their constant, natural light, and not through one produced for the time being, (so is the self a witness through its eternal, natural intelligence), and that is its function as a witness in the primary sense, for there cannot be any other witness besides it. Therefore there is not the least trace of self-contradiction in the statement that the vision of the witness is never lost.
Objection:- We observe that words having the suffix 'trc' are used only to denote an agent of temporary acts, such as 'Chettr' (cutter), 'Bhettr' (breaker or piercer) and 'Gantr' (traveller). So why not the word 'Drastr' (seer or witness) also in that sense? Reply:- No, for we see it otherwise in the word 'Prakasayitr' (revealer). Objection:- We admit this in the case of luminous agencies, for there it can have no other sense, but not in the case of the self. Reply:- Not so, for the Sruti says its vision is never lost. Objection:- This is contradicted by our experience that we sometimes see and sometimes do not see. Reply:- No, for this is simply due to particular activities of our organs. We observe also that those who have had their eyes removed keep the vision that belongs to the self intact in dream. Therefore the vision of the self is imperishable, and through that imperishable, self-luminous vision the Atman continues to see in the state of profound sleep.
How is it, then, that it does not see? This is being answered:- But there is not that second thing, the object, separate from it which it can see, or perceive. Those things that caused the particular visions (of the waking and dream states), viz the mind (with the self behind it), the eyes, and forms, were all presented by ignorance as something different from the self. They are now unified in the state of profound sleep, as the individual self has been embraced by the Supreme Self. Only when the self is under limitations, do the organs stand as something different to help it to particular experiences. But it is now embraced by its own Supreme Self, which is Pure Intelligence and the Self of all, as a man is by his beloved wife. Hence the organs and objects do not stand as different entities; and since they are absent, there is no particular experience, for this is the product of the organs etc., not of the self, and only appears as the product of the self. Therefore it is an erroneous notion produced by this (absence of particular experience) that the vision of the self is lost.
Max Müller
23. 'And when (it is said that) there (in the Sushupti) he does not see, yet he is seeing, though he does not see [1]. For sight is inseparable from the seer, because it cannot perish. But there is then no second, nothing else different from him that he could see.
घ्रातुर्घ्रातेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यतेऽविनाशित्वान् न तु तद्द्वितीयमस्ति
ततोऽन्यद्विभक्तं यज्जिघ्रेत् ॥ २४॥
mantra 24[IV.iii.24]
yadvai tanna jighrati jighranvai tanna jighrati na hi
ghrāturghrāterviparilopo vidyate'vināśitvān na tu taddvitīyamasti
tato'nyadvibhaktaṃ yajjighret .. 24..
Meaning:- That it does not smell in that state is because, though smelling then, it does not smell; for the smeller's function of smelling can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can smell.
Max Müller
24. 'And when (it is said that) there (in the Sushupti) he does not smell, yet he is smelling, though he does not smell. For smelling is inseparable from the smeller, because it cannot perish. But there is then no second, nothing else different from him that he could smell.
रसयितेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यतेऽविनाशित्वान् न तु तद्द्वितीयमस्ति
ततोऽन्यद्विभक्तं यद्रसयेत् ॥ २५॥
mantra 25[IV.iii.25]
yadvai tanna rasayate rasayanvai tanna rasayate na hi rasayitū
rasayiterviparilopo vidyate'vināśitvān na tu taddvitīyamasti
tato'nyadvibhaktaṃ yadrasayet .. 25..
Meaning:- That it does not taste in that state is because, though tasting then, it does not taste; for the taster's function of tasting can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can taste.
Max Müller
25. 'And when (it is said that) there (in the Sushupti) he does not taste, yet he is tasting, though he does not taste. For tasting is inseparable from the taster, because it cannot perish. But there is then no second, nothing else different from him that he could taste.
यद्वै तन्न वदति वदन्वै तन्न वदति न हि वक्तुर्वक्तेर्विपरिलोपो
विद्यतेऽविनाशित्वान् न तु तद्द्वितीयमस्ति ततोऽन्यद्विभक्तं यद्वदेत् ॥ २६॥
mantra 26[IV.iii.26]
yadvai tanna vadati vadanvai tanna vadati na hi vakturvakterviparilopo
vidyate'vināśitvān na tu taddvitīyamasti tato'nyadvibhaktaṃ yadvadet .. 26..
Meaning:- That it does not speak in that state is because, though speaking then, it does not speak; for the speaker's function of speaking can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can speak.
Max Müller
26. 'And when (it is said that) there (in the Sushupti) he does not speak, yet he is speaking, though he does not speak. For speaking is inseparable from the speaker, because it cannot perish. But there is then no second, nothing else different from him that he could speak.
यद्वै तन्न शृणोति शृण्वन्वै तन्न शृणोति न हि श्रोतुः
श्रुतेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यतेऽविनाशित्वान् न तु तद्द्वितीयमस्ति
ततोऽन्यद्विभक्तं यच्छृणुयात् ॥ २७॥
mantra 27[IV.iii.27]
yadvai tanna śṛṇoti śṛṇvanvai tanna śṛṇoti na hi śrotuḥ
śruterviparilopo vidyate'vināśitvān na tu taddvitīyamasti
tato'nyadvibhaktaṃ yacchṛṇuyāt .. 27..
Meaning:- That it does not hear in that state is because, though hearing then, it does not hear; for the listener's function of hearing can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can hear.
Max Müller
27. 'And when (it is said that) there (in the Sushupti) he does not hear, yet he is hearing, though he does not hear. For hearing is inseparable from the hearer, because it cannot perish. But. there is then no second, nothing else different from him that he could hear.
यद्वै तन्न मनुते मन्वानो वै तन्न मनुते न हि मन्तुर्मतेर्विपरिलोपो
विद्यतेऽविनाशित्वान् न तु तद्द्वितीयमस्ति ततोऽन्यद्विभक्तं
यन्मन्वीत ॥ २८॥
mantra 28[IV.iii.28]
yadvai tanna manute manvāno vai tanna manute na hi manturmaterviparilopo
vidyate'vināśitvān na tu taddvitīyamasti tato'nyadvibhaktaṃ
yanmanvīta .. 28..
Meaning:- That it does not think in that state is because, though thinking then, it does not think; for the thinker's function of thinking can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can think.
Max Müller
28. 'And when (it is said that) there (in the Sushupti) he does not think, yet he is thinking, though he does not think. For thinking is inseparable from the thinker, because it cannot perish. But there is then no second, nothing else different from him that he could think.
यद्वै तन्न स्पृशति स्पृशन्वै तन्न स्पृशति न हि स्प्रष्टुः
स्पृष्टेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यतेऽविनाशित्वान् न तु तद्द्वितीयमस्ति
ततोऽन्यद्विभक्तं यत्स्पृशेत् ॥ २९॥
mantra 29[IV.iii.29]
yadvai tanna spṛśati spṛśanvai tanna spṛśati na hi spraṣṭuḥ
spṛṣṭerviparilopo vidyate'vināśitvān na tu taddvitīyamasti
tato'nyadvibhaktaṃ yatspṛśet .. 29..
Meaning:- That it does not touch in that state is because, though touching then, it does not touch; for the toucher's function of touching can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can touch.
Max Müller
29. 'And when (it is said that) there (in the Sushupti) he does not touch, yet he is touching, though he does not touch. For touching is inseparable from the toucher, because it cannot perish. But there is then no second, nothing else different from him that he could think.
विज्ञातुर्विज्ञातेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यतेऽविनाशित्वान् न तु तद्द्वितीयमस्ति
ततोऽन्यद्विभक्तं यद्विजानीयात् ॥ ३०॥
mantra 30[IV.iii.30]
yadvai tanna vijānāti vijānanvai tanna vijānāti na hi
vijñāturvijñāterviparilopo vidyate'vināśitvān na tu taddvitīyamasti
tato'nyadvibhaktaṃ yadvijānīyāt .. 30..
Meaning:- That it does not know in that state is because, though knowing then, it does not know; for the knower's function of knowing can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can know.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- The rest is to be similarly explained:- That it does not smell, That it does not taste, That is does not speak, That it does not hear, That it does not think, That it does not touch, That it does not know. Though thinking and knowing are aided by vision etc., yet they have activities concerning objects past, present and future that do not depend on the eyes and other organs. Hence they are separately mentioned. Now the question is, are the vision and so forth attributes different from the self and from one another, like the heat, light, combustion, etc. of fire, or are they different phases of an attribute identical with the self, the difference being caused only by extraneous limiting adjuncts? On this some (Bhartrprapanca is meant.) say:- The self is an entity that by itself has both unity and difference, just as a cow is one as a substance, but its features, the dewlap etc., are different from one another. As gross substances have both unity and difference, so we can infer that formless substances without parts also have both unity and difference. Since this is observed to be the universal rule, the vision and so forth belonging to the self are different from one another, but as the self they are one. To this we reply:- No, for the passage in question has a different meaning. The passage, 'That it does not see in that state,' etc. does not mean to show that the vision and so forth are attributes different from the self, but it is introduced in order to answer the following objection:- If the Atman be self-luminous intelligence, how is it that it does not know in the state of profound sleep? Surely then it must be otherwise. This is how it is being answered:- Its natural self-luminous intelligence manifests itself in the waking and dream states through many such limiting adjuncts as the eyes, and comes to be designated as vision etc. But in the state of profound sleep, owing to the cessation of activities of the different limiting adjuncts, viz the mind and organs, these latter do not appear, and therefore the nature of the self cannot be perceived as differentiated by them. Nevertheless, it is spoken of as being present in a way that is a mere recapitulation of normal experience. Hence the view that the passage in question presents the attributes, such as vision, as different from the self, is based on an ignorance of its true meaning. Moreover, it would be in conflict with the Sruti text that speaks of the self as homogeneous Pure Intelligence, like a lump of salt, and also with texts like the following:- 'Knowledge, Bliss' (III. ix. 28), 'Truth, Knowledge' (Tai. II. i. 1), and 'Intelligence is Brahman' (Ai. V. 3). From the common use of words also we know this. We often use such expressions as, 'One knows colour through the eyes,' 'One knows sound through the ears,' 'One knows the taste of food through the tongue,' etc., which show that the objects denoted by the words 'vision' etc. can be designated as knowledge alone. And the use of words is a means of knowledge.
Examples also corroborate this view. Just as in the world as crystal is naturally transparent, and for that very reason it assumes different colours through juxtapostion with different limiting adjuncts, such as green, blue, or red colour, yet no one can imagine that crystal has any other attribute but its natural transparency, such as green, blue, or red colour, similarly the different powers of vision etc. are observed in the light called the self, which is naturally Pure Intelligence, simply owing to its juxtaposition with such limiting adjuncts as the eyes, because Pure Intelligence, like the crystal, is naturally transparent. The self-luminosity of the Atman is another reason. Just as the light of the sun, coming in contact with things to be illumined, appears as green, blue, yellow, red, and so on, though in reality, it cannot be so divided, so does the light called the self; revealing the whole universe as also the eyes etc., assume their likeness. This has been stated in the passage, 'It is through the light of the self that he sits,' etc. (IV. iii. 6). Besides, substances that have no parts cannot be conceived as multiple, for there is no such example. Though the ether is conceived as possessing diverse attributes such as all-pervasiveness, and atoms as possessing various qualities, such as odour and savour, yet, when discrimintated, these prove to be due only to extraneous limiting adjuncts. The ether, for instance, has no attribute of its own called all-pervasiveness; it is through its association with the universe as a limiting adjunct that it is designated as all-pervading; but as a matter of fact it is present everywhere in its natural form. The question of going or coming does not arise with regard to the ether in itself, for going is an action that connects something existing at a particular place with some other place, and this action is impossible in a thing that admits of no differentiation. Similarly, different attributes can never be in the ether. The same is also true of atoms etc. An atom, say of earth, which consists only of odour, is the minutest particle of it, and is itself odour; one cannot conceive that it again has a property called odour. It may be urged that an atom can have savour etc. But that is due to its contact with water and so on. Therefore there is no example to prove that a substance which has no parts can possess many attributes. This also refutes the view that the powers of vision and so forth of the Supreme Self can have different modifications such as the eye and colours.
Max Müller
30. 'And when (it is said that) there (in the Sushupti) he does not know, yet he is knowing, though he does not know. For knowing is inseparable from the knower, because it cannot perish. But there is then no second, nothing else different from him that he could know.
Meaning:- When there is something else, as it were, then one can see something, one can smell something, one can taste something, one can speak something, one can hear something, one can think something, one can touch something, or one can know something.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- It has been said that in the state of profound sleep there is not, as in the waking and dream states, that second thing differentiated from the self which it can know; hence it knows no particulars in profound sleep. Here it is objected:- If this is its nature, why does it give up that nature and have particular knowledge? If, on the other hand, it is its nature to have this kind of knowledge, why does it not know particulars in the state of profound sleep? The answer is this:- When, in the waking or dream state, there is something else besides the self, as it were, presented by ignorance, then one, thinking of oneself as different from that something --- though there is nothing different from the self, nor is there any self different from it --- can see something. This has been shown by a reference to one's experience in the dream state in the passage, 'As if he were being killed, or overpowered' (IV. iii. 20). Similarly one can smell, taste, speak, hear, think, touch and know something.
Max Müller
31. 'When (in waking and dreaming) there is, as it were, another, then can one see the other, then can one smell the other, then can one speak to the other, then can one hear the other, then can one think the other, then can one touch the other, then can one know the other.
eṣo'sya paramo loka eṣo'sya parama ānanda etasyaivā''nandasyānyāni
bhūtāni mātrāmupajīvanti .. 32..
Meaning:- It becomes (transparent) like water, one, the witness, and without a second. This is the sphere )(state) of Brahman, O Emperor. Thus did Yajnavalkya instruct Janaka:- This is its supreme attainment, this is its supreme glory, this is its highest world, this is its supreme bliss. On a particle of this very bliss other beings live.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- When, however, that ignorance which presents things other than the self is at rest, in that state of deep sleep, there being nothing separated from the self by ignorance, what should one see, smell, or know, and through what? Therefore, being fully embraced by his own self-luminous Supreme Self, the Jiva (individual self) becomes infinite, perfectly serene, with all his desires, attained, and the Self the only object of his desires, transparent like water, one, because there is no second:- It is ignorance that separates a second entity, and that is at rest in the state of profound sleep; hence 'one'. The witness, because the vision that is identical with the light of the self is never lost. And without a second, for there, is no second entity different from the self to be seen. This is immortal and fearless. This is the sphere of Brahman, the world that is Brahman:- In profound sleep the self, bereft of its limiting adjuncts, the body and organs, remains in its own supreme light of the Atman, free from all relations, O Emperor. Thus did Yajnavalkya instruct Janaka. This is spoken by the Sruti.
How did he instruct him? This is its supreme attainment, the attainment of the individual self. The other attainments, characterised by the taking of a body, from the state of Hiranyagarbha down to that of a clump of grass, are created by ignorance and therefore inferior to this, being within the sphere of ignorance. But this identification with all, in which one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, knows nothing else, is the highest of all attainments, such as identity with the gods, that are achieved through meditation and rites. This too is its supreme glory; the highest of all its splendours, being natural to it; other glories are artificial. Likewise this is its highest world; the other worlds, which are the result of its past work, are inferior to it; this, however, is not attainable by any action, being natural; hence 'this is its highest world.' Similarly this is its supreme bliss, in comparison with the other joys that are produced by the contact of the organs with their objects, since it is eternal; for another Sruti says, 'That which is infinite is bliss' (Ch. VII. xxiii. 1). 'That in which one sees something ' knows something, is puny,' mortal, secondary joy. But this is the opposite of that; hence 'this is its supreme bliss.' On a particle of this very bliss, projected by ignorance, and perceived only during the contact of the organs with their objects, other beings live. Who are they? Those that have been separated from that bliss by ignorance, and are considered different from Brahman. Being thus different, they subsist on a fraction of that bliss which is perceived through the contact of the organs with their objects.
Max Müller
32. 'An ocean [1] is that one seer, without any duality; this is the Brahma-world [2], O King.' Thus did Yâgñavalkya teach him. This is his highest goal, this is his highest Success, this is his highest world, this is his highest bliss. All other creatures live on a small portion of that bliss.
Meaning:- He who is perfect of physique and prosperous among men, the ruler of others, and most lavishly supplied with all human enjoyments, represents greatest joy among men. This human joy multiplied a hundred times makes one unit of joy for the manes who have won that world of theirs. The joy of these manes who have won that world multiplied a hundred times makes one unit joy in the world of the celestial minstrels. This joy in the world of the celestial minstrels multiplied a hundred times makes one unit of joy for the gods by action - those who have attained their godhead by their actions. This joy of the gods by action multiplied a hundred times makes one unit of joy for the gods by birth, as also of one who is versed in the Vedas, sinless and free from desire. This joy of the gods by birth multiplied a hundred times makes one unit of joy in the world of Prajapati (Viraj), as well as one who is versed in the Vedas, sinless and free from desire. This joy in the world of Prajapati multiplied a hundred times makes one unit of joy in the world of Brahman (Hiranyagarbha), as well as of one who is versed in the Vedas, sinless and free from desire. This indeed is the supreme bliss. This is the state of Brahman, O Emperor, said Yajnavalkya. 'I give you a thousand (cows), sir. Please instruct me further about liberation itself'. At this Yajnavalkya was afraid that the intelligent Emperor was constraining him to finish with all his conclusions.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- (It has been said that) all beings from Hiranyagarbha down to men live on particles or fractions of the supreme bliss. In order to convey an idea of this bliss as a whole through its parts, as of a rock of salt through its grains, the present paragraph is introduced. He who is perfect of physique, having no physical defects, and prosperous, provided with luxuries, among men; also the ruler of others, the independent lord of people of the same class, not a mere provincial ruler; and most lavishly supplied with all human enjoyments --- the adjective 'human' excludes the materials of heavenly enjoyment; he is the foremost among those who possess all these human luxuries --- represents (lit. is) the greatest joy among men. The identity of joy and its possessor in this sentence ('joy' meaning 'enjoyer') indicates that this joy is not different from the self. For it has been said in the passage, 'When there is something else, as it were,' etc. (IV. iii. 21), that the lower degrees of bliss have only emanated from the supreme bliss in the dual form of subject and object; hence it is but proper to bring out this identity in the phrase 'greatest joy'. Kings like Yudhisthira are examples in point. The Sruti teaches us about this supreme bliss, in which differences cease, by making a start with human joy, which we all know, and multiplying it a hundred times in successive steps. Now, where this joy increasing a hundred times at each step reaches its limit, and where mathematical differences cease, there being nothing else but the self to be see, hear or think, that is the supreme bliss, and in order to describe this the text proceeds:- This human joy multiplied a hundred times makes one unit of joy for the manes. They are qualified by the clause 'who have won that world of theirs,' i.e. who have pleased the manes by the performance of obsequial rites etc., and have won their way to their world. Their measure of joy is the human joy multiplied a hundred times. That again multiplied a hundred times makes one unit of joy in the world of the celestial minstrels. That again multiplied a hundred times makes one unit of joy for the gods of action --- those who have attained their godhead by their actions, such as the Agjnihotra enjoined by the Srutis. Similarly one unit of joy for the gods by birth, those who are gods from their very birth, as well as of one who is versed in the Vedas, sinless, i.e. doing what is prescribed by the scriptures, and free from desire for all objects below the level of the gods by birth. That his joy equals theirs is gathered from the word 'ca' (and) in the text. That multiplied a hundred times makes one unit of joy in the world of Prajapati, i.e. in the body of Viraj, as well as of one who is versed in the Vedas, sinless and free from desire --- this has already been explained --- and who meditates on him. That multiplied a hundred times makes one unit of joy in the world of Brahman, i.e. in the body of Hiranyagarbha, as well as of one who, etc. --- already explained. After this mathematical calculations cease. This has been called the supreme bliss, of which the joys in the world of Hiranyagarbha etc. are but particles, like drops of an ocean.
That in which the other joys, increasing step by step in multiples of hundred, merge, and which is experienced by one versed in the Vedas, is indeed the supreme bliss called Samprasada (that experienced in profound sleep); for in it one sees nothing else, hears nothing else (and so on). Hence it is infinite, and for that reason immortal; the other joys are the opposite of that. The Vedic erudition and sinlessness (mentioned above) are common to the other joys too. It is the difference made by the absence of desire that leads to the increase of joy a hundred times. Here it is suggested by implication that Vedic erudition, sinlessness and the absence of desire are the means of attaining the particular types of joy; as such rites as the Agnihotra are means to the attainment of godhead by the gods. Of these, the two factors, Vedic erudition and sinlessness, are common to the lower planes too; hence they are not regarded as means to the attainment of the succeeding kinds of joy. For this the absence of desire is understood to be the means, since it admits of degrees of renunciation. This supreme bliss is known to be the experience of the Vedic scholar who is free from desire. Vedavyasa also says, 'The sense-pleasures of this world and the great joys of heaven are not worth one-sixteenth part of the bliss that comes of the cessation of desire' (Mbh. XII. c1xxiii. 47). This is the state of Brahman, O Emperor, said Yajnavalkya. For this instruction I give you a thousand cows, sir. Please instruct me further about liberation itself --- this has been explained. At this last request Yajnavalkya was afraid --- the Sruti tells us the reason of his fear:- he was afraid, not for his lack of ability to teach or for ignorance, but --- that the intelligent Emperor was constraining him to finish with all his conclusions. 'Whatever questions of his regarding liberation I answer, the Emperor, being intelligent, takes all to be but a part of the questions that he is at liberty to ask me, and every time puts me new questions to answer. On the plea of asking his wished-for questions covered by the boon, he wants to possess all my knowledge' --- this was the cause of Yajnavalkya's fear.
Max Müller
33. 'If a man is healthy, wealthy, and lord of others, surrounded by all human enjoyments, that is the highest blessing of men. Now a hundred of these human blessings make one blessing of the fathers who have conquered the world (of the fathers). A hundred blessings of the fathers who have conquered this world make one blessing in the Gandharva world. A hundred blessings in the Gandharva world make one blessing of the Devas by merit (work, sacrifice), who obtain their godhead by merit. A hundred blessings of the Devas by merit make one blessing of the Devas by birth, also (of) a Srotriya [1] who is without sin, and not overcome by desire. A hundred blessings of the Devas by birth make one blessing in the world of Pragâpati, also (of) a Srotriya who is without sin, and not overcome. by desire. A hundred blessings in the world of Pragâpati make one blessing in the world of Brahman, also (of) a Srotriya who is without sin, and not overcome by desire. And this is the highest blessing [2]. 'This is the Brahma-world, O king,' thus spake Yâgñavalkya. Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'I give you, Sir, a thousand. Speak on for the sake of (my) emancipation.' Then Yâgñavalkya was afraid lest the King, having become full of understanding, should drive him from all his positions [3].
स वा एष एतस्मिन्स्वप्नान्ते रत्वा चरित्वा दृष्ट्वैव पुण्यं च पापं
च पुनः प्रतिन्यायं प्रतियोन्याद्रवति बुद्धान्तायैव ॥ ३४॥
mantra 34[IV.iii.34]
sa vā eṣa etasminsvapnānte ratvā caritvā dṛṣṭvaiva puṇyaṃ ca pāpaṃ
ca punaḥ pratinyāyaṃ pratiyonyādravati buddhāntāyaiva .. 34..
Meaning:- After enjoying himself and roaming in the dream state, and merely seeing the effects of merits and demerits, he comes back, in the inverse order, to his former condition, the waking state.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- It has been shown (par. 9) that the individual self becomes itself the light in dream. Further on it has also been shown, by a reference to its moving between the dream and waking states, that it is different from the body and organs, and by the illustration of the great fish, that it is free from desire and work on account of its non-attachment. Again the effects of ignorance in the dream state have been shown in the passage, 'As if he were being killed,' etc. By implication the nature of ignorance too has been ascertained as the superimpostion of attributes other than the true ones, and as not being a natural attribute of the self. Similarly the effects of knowledge too have been shown in the dream state, by a reference to one's experience, as identity with all, in the passage, 'When he thinks, 'This (universe) is myself, who am all,' that is his highest state' (IV. iii. 20). It has also been stated that identity with all, which is its nature --- its transcendent form, in which it is free from all such relative attributes as ignorance, desire and work --- is directly experienced in the state of profound sleep. The Atman is self-luminous and is the supreme bliss; this is the subject-matter of knowledge; this is the perfectly serene state, and the culmination of happiness --- all this has been explained by the foregoing passages. And they are illustrations of liberation and bondage, which are the effects of knowledge and ignorance respectively. These two have been indicated with their causes and effects. But Janaka, mistaking that all that has merely been an illustration, thinks that liberation and bondage, which are the themes they seek to illustrate, are yet to be explained together with their causes by Yajnavalkya, as coming under his wished-for questions covered by the boon. Hence his fresh request:- 'Please instruct me further about liberation itself.' Now it has been said that the same self-luminous Atman moves unattached like a great fish between the dream and waking states. As it moves like the great fish between these two states, alternately relinquishing and taking up the body and organs, which are the forms of death, so at the time of death and birth it is alternately disconnected from and connected with those very forms of death. Its journey, referred to in the passage, 'It moves between the two worlds,' was barely indicated as the theme that was illustrated by its moving between the dream and waking states. That journey with its causes has to be described at length; hence the rest of this section. In a preceding paragraph (par. 17) the self has been spoken of as going from the waking to the dream state, and thence to the state of profound sleep, which is the illustration for liberation. The present paragraph is related to that, since it seeks to show how, coming down from that state, it goes through the relative activities of the waking state. The Jiva, passing from the waking to the dream state, and thence to the state of profund sleep, stays there for a while; then he comes slightly down, and after enjoying himself and roaming in the dream state, etc. --- all this has been explained --- he comes back to the waking state.
Max Müller
34. And Yâgñavalkya said:- 'That (person), having enjoyed himself in that state of sleeping (dream), having moved about and seen both good and bad, hastens back again as he came, to the place from which he started, to the state of waking [1].
Meaning:- Just as a cart, heavily loaded, goes on rumbling, so does the self that is in the body, being presided over by the Supreme Self, go making noises, when breathing becomes difficult.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- From here onwards transmigration of the self is being described. To show that as the self came from the dream to the waking state, so it will pass from this body to the next, an example is being given:- Just as in life a cart, fully or heavily loaded with utensils and other such household effects as a mortar and pestle, a winnowing-fan and cooking vessels, as also eatables, goes on rumbling under the load, driven by the carter, so does the self that is in the body, i.e. the self that has the subtle body as its limiting adjunct, which moves between this and the next world, as between the waking and dream states, through birth and death, consisting respectively in the association with and dissolution from the body and organs, called evils, and the departure of which is immediately followed by that of the vital force etc., being presided over, or revelaed, by the self-luminous Supreme Self, go making noises. As has been said, 'It is through the light of the self that he sits, goes out,' etc. (IV. iii. 6).
It should be noted here that when the subtle body, which has the vital force as its chief constituent, and which is revealed by the self-luminous Atman, goes, the self, of which it is the limiting adjunct also seems to go. As another Sruti says, 'On whose (departure must I depart)?' (Pr. VI. 3), and 'It thinks, as it were' (IV. iii. 7). Hence the text says, 'Presided over by the Supreme Self.' Otherwise how can the self, being unified with the Supreme Self, go making noises like a cart? Therefore (the meaning is that) the self, with the subtle body as its limiting adjunct, goes making noises (the death rattle), afflicted by the feeling of pain as the vital parts are slashed. When does that happen? When breathing becomes difficult --- when the man is gasping for breath. The word 'etat' is an adverb (meaning 'thus'). Although this is an occurrence that is commonly observed, the Sruti repeats it only to stimulate a spirit of renunciation in us. So miserable is this relative existence! Since at the time of death the vital parts are slashed, causing loss of memory and putting a man in a helpless state of mind on account of the pangs felt, so that he cannot adopt the requisite means for his well-being, therefore, before that crisis comes, he must be alert in practising the means conducive to that end. This is what the Sruti says out of compassion.
Max Müller
35. 'Now as a heavy-laden carriage moves along groaning, thus does this corporeal Self, mounted by the intelligent Self, move along groaning, when a man is thus going to expire [1].
Meaning:- When this (body) becomes thin - is emaciated through old age or disease - then, as a mango, or a fig, or a fruit of the Peepul tree is detached from its stalk, so does this infinite being, completely detaching himself from the parts of the body, again go, in the same way that he came, to particular bodies, for the unfoldment of his vital force.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- When, and owing to what, does that difficulty of breath take place? How does it take place, and what for? The answers to these questions are being given:- When this human body that is a product of ignorance, with a head, hands, etc., becomes thin. Why? Through old age, being naturally worn out like a fruit ripened by time, or disease, literally, that which causes affliction, hence, fever etc. Afflicted with disease, the body, owing to impaired digestion, cannot digest the food that is eaten, and not being nourished by its essence, gets thin. This is what is meant by the expression 'or through disease.' When the body is extremely emaciated by fever and other causes, dyspnoea sets in, and at this stage the man goes making noises like the overloaded cart. Whosoever has a body must be overtaken by old age, suffer from disease etc., and have leanness; these are inevitable evils. The fact is mentioned to generate a spirit of renunciation in us.
How he leaves the body when he goes making noises is being described through an illustration. Then, as a mango, or a fig, or a fruit of the peepul tree, etc. The citing of many and dissimilar examples is for the purpose of stating that death may come from any cause, since the causes of death are indefinite and innumerable. This too is for stimulating renunciation:- Since he is subject to death from so many causes, he is always in the jaws of death. Is detached from its stalk (Bandhana):- The word 'Bandhana' may mean the sap that binds it to the stalk, or it may mean the stalk to which it is attached. As the fruit is detached from the sap or the stalk by the wind and many other causes, so does this infinite being, the self that is identified with the subtle body, i.e. has this as its limiting adjunct, completely detaching himself from the parts of the body, such as the eye --- not preserving the body through the vital force, as he does when he goes into the state of profound sleep, but withdrawing the organs together with the vital force --- again go, etc. The word 'again' suggests that he has before this also gone many a time from one body to another, as he moves frequently between the dream and waking states. In the same way that he came to his present body, to particular bodies, according to his past work, knowledge, and so forth. What for? For the unfoldment of his vital force:- Though literally it would mean 'for the vital force,' yet, since he goes along with it, the epithet would be meaningless. He goes from one body to another only for the unfoldment of the vital force. It is by this means, and not by the mere existence of the vital force, that he fulfils his object, viz. the enjoyment of the results of his work. Therefore in order that the vital force may be auxiliary to that, the specification 'for the unfoldment of his vital force' is appropriate. Now it may be objected:- When the Jiva goes leaving this body, he has no power to take up another, for he is disscoiated from his body and organs. Nor are there others who, like servants, would wait for him with another body made ready, as a king's retinue waits for him with a house kept ready. How under the circumstances can he take up another body? The answer is:- He has adopted the whole universe as his means to the realisation of the results of his work; and he is going from one body to another to fulfill this object. Therefore the whole universe, impelled by his work, waits for him with the requisite means for the realisation of the results of his work made ready. Witness the Sruti:- 'A man is born into the body that has been made for him' (S. VI. II. ii. 27). It is analogous to the case of a man about to return from the dream to the waking state. The process is being explained by a familiar illustration:-
Max Müller
36. 'And when (the body) grows weak through old age, or becomes weak through illness, at that time that person, after separating himself from his members, as an Amra (mango), or Udumbara (fig), or Pippala-fruit is separated from the stalk, hastens back again as be came, to the place from which he started, to (new) life.
Meaning:- Just as when a king is coming, the Ugras set against particular offences, the Sutas and the leaders of the village wait for him with varieties of food and drink and mansions ready, saying, 'Here he comes, here he comes', so for the person who knows about the results of his work, all the elements wait saying, 'Here comes Brahman, here he comes'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Just as when a king, duly installed on the throne, is coming to some place within his kingdom, the Ugras, a particular caste, or so called from their fierce deeds, set against particular offences, appointed to punish thieves etc., the Sutas, a hybrid caste, and the leaders of the village, anticipating the king's visit, wait for him with varieties of food, such as those that are chewed or otherwise eaten, and drink, such as wine, and mansions, such as palaces, ready, saying, 'Here he comes, here he comes,' so for the person who knows about the results of his work, i.e. the transmigrating self --- for the results of one's work are the topic under consideration, and they are referred to by the word 'evam' (thus) --- all the elements that make up his body, together with the presiding deities, Indra and the rest, who help the organs to function, wait with the means of enjoying the fruits of his work made ready --- being impelled by his work, saying, 'Here comes Brahman,' our enjoyer and master, 'here he comes'.
Max Müller
37. 'And as policemen, magistrates, equerries, and governors wait for a king who is coming back, with food and drink, saying, "He comes back, he approaches," thus do all the elements wait on him who knows this, saying, "That Brahman comes, that Brahman approaches."
Meaning:- Just as when the king wishes to depart, the Ugras set against particular offences, the Sutas and the leaders of the village approach him, so do all the organs approach the departing man at the time of death, when breathing becomes difficult.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Who accompany him as he thus wishes to go? And do those who accompany him go prompted by an act of his, or do they go of their own accord in conformity with his past work, together with the elements that make up his new body, called the next world? Regarding this an illustration is being given:- Just as when the king wishes to depart, the Ugras set against particular offences, the Sutas and the leaders of the village approach him in a body, unbidden by the king, and simply knowing that he wishes to go, so do all the organs approach the departing man, the experiencer of the fruits of his work, at the time of death, when breathing becomes difficult. This last clause has been explained (While commenting on par. 35 above.).
Max Müller
38. 'And as policemen, magistrates, equerries, and governors gather round a king who is departing, thus do all the senses (prânas) gather round the Self at the time of death, when a man is thus going to expire.'
Meaning:- When this self becomes weak and senseless, as it were, the organs come to it. Completely withdrawing these particles of light, it comes to the heart. When the presiding deity of the eye turns back from all sides, the man fails to notice colour.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- When this self, which is under consideration, becomes weak. Really it is the body that becomes weak, but its weakness is figuratively spoken of as that of the self; for being formless, it can never by itself become weak. Similarly it becomes senseless, as it were, i.e. fails to discriminate. It cannot by itself be senseless or otherwise, for it is the eternal self-luminous Intelligence; hence the expression 'as it were.' The state of helplessness noticeable at the time of death, which is caused by the withdrawal of the orgas, is attributed by ordinary people to the self. So they say, 'Oh, he has become senseless!'
Or the expression 'as it were' should be connected with both the adjectives, meaning 'becomes weak, as it were, and senseless, as it were,' for both states are alike due to extraneous limiting adjuncts, and both the verbs agree with the same subject. At this time the organs, such as that of speech, come to it, the self. Then this self that is in the body is detached from the parts of the body. How does this detachment take place, and how do the organs come to the self? This is being answered:- Completely withdrawing these particles of light, i.e. the organs, such as the eye, so called because they reveal colour etc. The adverb 'completely' shows the distinction of this state from dream, in which they are just drawn in, not absolutely, as in this case, as is known from such passages as, 'The organ of speech is absorbed, the eye is absorbed' (II. i. 17), 'He takes away a little of this all-embracing world (the waking state)' (IV. iii. 9), and 'Taking the shining functions of the organs with him,' etc. (IV. iii. 11). It comes to the heart, i.e. the ether in the lotus of the heart; in other words, its intelligence is manifested in the heart; (The withdrawal in question is attributed to the self) simply because the activities of the intellect and so forth are at rest.
The Atman by itself cannot move or undergo such changes as the stopping of activities, for it has been said, 'It thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were' (IV. iii. 7). It is through its limiting adjuncts, such as the intellect, that all changes are attributed to the self. When does it withdraw the particles of light? This is being answered:- The presiding deity of the eye --- lit. the being associated with the eye --- who is a part of the sun, being directed by the experiencer's past work, goes on helping the functions of the eye as long as he lives, but he ceases to help the eye and is merged in his own self, the sun, when the man is about to die. This has been stated in the passage, 'When the vocal organ of the dead man has been merged in fire, the vital force in Vayu, the eye in the sun,' etc. (III. ii. 13). They will again occupy (their respective places) when the man takes another body. This (double phenomenon) takes place when a man is fast asleep, and when he wakes up. This is expressed by the text:- When the presiding deity of the eye turns back from all sides, the dying man fails to notice colour. At this time the self completely withdraws the particles of light, the eye and other organs, as in the dream state.
Max Müller
1. Yâgñavalkya continued:- 'Now when that Self, having sunk into weakness [1], sinks, as it were, into unconsciousness, then gather those senses (prânas) around him, and he, taking with him those elements of light, descends into the heart When that person in the eye [2] turns away, then he ceases to know any forms.
Meaning:- (The eye) becomes united (with the subtle body); then people say, 'He does not see'. (The nose) becomes united; then they say, 'He does not smell'. (The tongue) becomes united; then they say, 'He does not taste'. (The vocal Organ) becomes united; then they say, 'He does not speak'. (The ear) becomes united; then they say, 'He does not hear'. (The Manas) becomes united; then they say, 'He does not think'. (The skin) becomes united; then they say, 'He does not touch'. (The intellect) becomes united; then they say, 'He does not know'. The top of the heart brightens. Through that brightened top the self departs, either through the eye, or through the head, or through any other part of the body. When it departs, the vital force follows; when the vital force departs, all the organs follow. Then the self has particular consciousness, and goes to the body which is related to that consciousness. It is followed by knowledge, work and past experience.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Every organ becomes united with the subtle body of the dying man; then people at his side say of him, 'He does not see.' Similarly, when on the withdrawal of its presiding deity the nose becomes united with the subtle body, they say, 'He does not smell.' The rest is to be similarly explained. The moon or Varuna is the deity of the tongue; when he stops functioning, they say, 'He does not taste.' Similarly they say that he does not speak, hear, think, touch, know. This means that at that time the presiding deities cease to work, and the organs are united in the heart (That is, the subtle body with its seat in the heart.). What takes place in the body after the organs have been united in the heart is now being stated:- The top of the heart mentioned above, i.e. of the orifice of the heart --- its 'top' here means the nerve-end, which is the exit for the self --- brightens, as in the dream state, its own lustre due to the drawing in of the organs being revealed by its own light as the Atman (IV. iii. 9.). Through that top brightened by the light of the Atmna, the individual self, with the subtle body as its limiting adjunct, departs. As the Prasna Upanisad puts it:- 'On whose departure must I depart, and on whose stay, must I stay? --- He projected the vital force' (VI. 3). In the subtle body the self-effulgent intelligence of the Atman is always particularly manifest. It is because of this limiting adjunct that the self comes under relative existence involving all such changes as birth and death, going and coming. The twelve organs, including the intellect, consist of it; it is the Sutra (III. vii. 2.), the life, and the inmost self of the movable and immovable universe. As the self departs with the help of the light at the top of the heart, by which way does it leave the body? Through the eye, it if has a store of work or relative knowledge that would take it to the sun, or through the head, if they are such as would entitle it to go to the world of Hiranyagarbha, or through any other part of the body, according to its past work and knowledge. When it, the individual self, departs for the next world, i.e. when it has the intention to go there, the vital force follows, like the Prime Minister of a king; and when the vital force departs, all the organs, such as that of speech, follow. This simply denotes conformity to their respective leaders, not that the vital force and the organs go one after the other, as it happens in a party (The particle 'anu' (after), here means 'according to.' Really they all go together.). Then the self has particular consciousness, as in dream, in consequence of its past work, not independently. It if had this consciousness independently, everybody would achieve the end of his life; but it never has that. Hence Vyasa says, '(A man attains whatever he thinks of at the moment of death) if he has always been imbued with that idea' (G. VIII. 6). As a matter of fact, everybody has at that moment a consciousness which consists of impressions in the form of particular modifications of his mind (regarding the next life) that are induced by his past work. And goes to the body which is related to that consciousness, i.e. is revealed by that particular consciousness. Therefore, in order to have freedom of action at the time of death, those aspirants after the future life who have faith should be alert in the practice of the system of Yoga and right knowledge, and in the acquistion of particular merit (by doing good deeds). All the sacred books also carefully seek to dissuade men from doing evil; for nothing can be done at the dying moment, since there is no independence then for the man, who is carried away by his past work. It has been said, 'One indeed becomes good through good work and evil through evil work' (III. ii. 13). The aim of the Upanisads in all the recensions is to prescribe remedies for this evil. There is no other way to eradicate this evil completely except by following the course laid down by them. Therefore all should try to practise the remedies prescribed by the Upanisads; this is the gist of the whole passage. It has been stated that the departing self, loaded with materials, goes making noises like a cart. Now, as it starts for the next world, what is its food on the way or for consumption on reaching that world, corresponding to the carter's load, and what are the materials for building its new body and organs? The answer is being given:- It, this self journeying to the next world, is followed by knowledge of all sorts, that which is enjoined or forbidden as well as that (Regarding common or trivial things; similarly with work.) which is neither enjoined nor forbidden; also work, enjoined or forbidden, and neither enjoined nor forbidden, and past experience, i.e. the impressions of experiences regarding the results of past actions. These impressions take part in initiating fresh actions as also in bringing past actions to fruition; hence they too accompany. Without these impressions no action can be done, nor any results of past actions be achieved, for the organs are not skilful in unpractised work. But when the organs are prompted to work by the impressions of past experience, they can easily attain skill even without practice in this life. It is frequently observed that some are clever in certain kinds of work, such as painting, from their very birth, even without practice in this life, while others are unskilful even in some very easy tasks. Similarly, in the enjoyment of sense-objects also, some are observed to be naturally skilful or dull. All this is due to the revival or non-revival of past experience. Therefore without past experience we cannot understand how anybody can proceed to do any work or to enjoy the results of past work. Hence these three --- knowledge, work and past experience --- are the food on the way to the next world, corresponding to the load of the carter. Since these three are the means of attaining another body and enjoying (the results of one's past work), therefore one should cultivate only the good forms of them, so that one may have a desirable body and desirable enjoyments. This is the purport of the whole passage.
Now the question is, when the self loaded with knowledge etc., is about to go to another body, does it leave the old body and go to another, like a bird going to another tree? Or is it carried by another body serving as a vehicle to the place where, according to its past work, it is to be born? Or does it stay here, while its organs become all-pervading and function as such? Or is it that so long as it remains in the body, its organs are contracted to the limits of that, but when it dies they become all-pervading --- like the light of a lamp when the (enclosing) jar is broken --- and contract again when a new body is made (Of the different views given above, the first three are those of the Jains, the Devatavadins (the upholders of the theory of angel-guides), and the Samkhya and allied schools respectively, while the fourth represents the Vedantic view.)? Or, as in the Vaisesika system, does only the mind go to the place where the new body is to be made? Or is there any other theory in the sytem of Vedanta? This is beign answered:- We know from the Sruti text, 'These are all equal, and all infinite' (I. v. 13), that the organs are all-comprising (In their form relating to the gods.). Another reason for this is their resting on the vital force, which is all-comprising. Their limitation with reference to the body and the elements (as colour etc.) is due to the work, knowledge and past impressions of men. Therefore, though the organs are naturally all-pervading and infinite, since the new body is made in accordance with the preson's work, knowledge and past impressions, the functions of the organs also contract or expand accordingly. As it has been said, 'Equal to a white ant, equal to a mosquito, equal to an elephant, equal to these three worlds, equal to this universe' (I. iii. 22). It is also supported by the following:- 'He who meditates upon these as infinite', etc. (I.v. 13), and '(One becomes) exactly as one meditates upon Him,' etc. (S. X. v. ii. 20). Therefore the impressions called past experience, under the control of the person's knowledge and work, stretch out, like a leech, from the body, retaining their seat in the heart, as in the dream state, and build another body in accordance with his past work; they leave their seat, the old body, when a new body is made. An illustration on this point is being given:-
Max Müller
2. '"He has become one," they say, "he does not see [1]." "He has become one," they say, "he does not smell." "He has become one," they say, "he does not taste." "He has become one," they say, "he does not speak." "He has become one," they say, "he does not hear." "He has become one," they say, "he does not think." "He has become one," they say, "he does not touch." "He has become one," they say, "he does not know." The point of his heart [2] becomes lighted up, and by that light the Self departs, either through the eye [3], or through the skull [4], or through other places of the body. And when he thus departs, life (the chief prâna) departs after him, and when life thus departs, all the other vital spirits (prânas) depart after it. He is conscious, and being conscious he follows [5] and departs. 'Then both his knowledge and his work take hold of him, and his acquaintance with former things [6].'
Meaning:- Just as a leech supported on a straw goes to the end of it, takes hold of another support and contracts itself, so does the self throw this body aside - make it senseless - take hold of another support, and contract itself.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Regarding this passing on to another body the following is an illustration:- Just as a leech supported on a straw goes to the end of it, takes hold of another straw as support and contracts itself, i.e. one part of its body, to where the other part is, so does the self, the transmigrating self that is being discussed, throw this body, the one already taken, aside, as it does when entering the dream state --- make it senseless by withdrawing itself from it --- take hold of another support or body, as the leech does another straw, by stretching out its impressions, and contract itself, i.e. identify itself, at the place where the new body is being formed, with that new body, movable or immovable --- as in dream the self creates a new body and dwells, as it were, in that dream body. There the organs, under the sway of the person's past work, are combined so as to manifest their functions; an external body, like one made of straw and clay, is also formed. When the organs have been arranged, the presiding deities, fire and the rest come to the body to help the organ of speech and so forth. This is the process of the formation of a new body. Now, in this formation of a new body does the self again and again crush the materials that are always there ready at hand and with them make a new body, or does it collect new materials every time? This is being answered through an illustration.
Max Müller
3. 'And as a caterpillar, after having reached the end of a blade of grass, and after having made another approach (to another blade) [1], draws itself together towards it, thus does this Self, after having thrown off this body [2] and dispelled all ignorance, and after making another approach (to another body), draw himself together towards it.
Meaning:- Just as a goldsmith takes apart a little quantity of gold and fashions another - a newer and better - form, so does the self throw this body away, or make it senseless, and make another - a newer and better - form suited to the manes or the celestial minstrels, or the gods, or Viraj, or Hiranyagarbha, or other beings.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Just as a goldsmith take apart a little quantity of gold and fashions another --- a newer and better --- form than the previous model, so does the self --- these and the following words have been explained --- again and again crush the five elements beginning with earth and ending with the ether that are always ready at hand, which have been described in the second chapter in the passage, 'Brahman has but two forms' (II. iii. 1), and stand for the gold --- and make another --- a newer and better --- form, or body, suited to the manes, i.e. fit for enjoyments in the world of the manes, or the celestial minstrels, i.e. fit for for their enjoyments, or the gods, or Viraj, or Hiranyagarbha, or other beings, according to its past work and knowledge. All those things which are the limiting adjuncts of the self and are styled its bonds, and connected with which it is considered identified with them, are here gathered together and pointed out in a group:-
Max Müller
4. And as a goldsmith, taking a piece of gold, turns it into another, newer and more beautiful shape, so does this Self, after having thrown off this body and dispelled all ignorance, make unto himself another, newer and more beautiful shape, whether it be like the Fathers, or like the Gandharvas, or like the Devas, or like Pragâpati, or like Brahman, or like other beings.
Meaning:- That self is indeed Brahman, as also identified with the intellect, the Manas and the vital force, with the eyes and ears, with earth, water, air and the ether, with fire, and what is other than fire, with desire and the absence of desire, with anger and the absence of anger, with righteousness and unrighteousness, with everything --identified, in fact, with this (what is perceived) and with that (what is inferred). As it does and acts, so it becomes; by doing good it becomes good, and by doing evil it becomes evil - it becomes virtuous through good acts and vicious through evil acts. Others, however, say, 'The self is identified with desire alone. What it desires, it resolves; what it resolves, it works out; and what it works out, it attains.'
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- That self which thus transmigrates is indeed Brahman, the Supreme Self that is beyond hunger etc., as also identified with the intellect (Vijnanamaya), being noticed through it; for it has been said, 'Which is the self? This infinite entity (Purusa) that is identified with the intellect and is in the midst of the organs,' etc. (IV. iii. 7). The self is called Vijnanamaya, resembling the intellect, because it is conceived as possessing the attributes of the intellect, as in the passage, 'It thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were' (Ibid.). Likewise identified with the Manas, because of its proximity to that. Also identified with the vital force that has the fivefold function; for which reason the individual self is observed as moving, as it were. Similarly identified with the eyes, when it sees forms. Likewise identified with the ears, when it hears sounds. Thus, as each particular organ functions, the self becomes identified with that.
Similarly, being identified with the eyes and other organs through the intellect and vital force, the self becomes identified with such elements as earth. When a body preponderating in elements of earth has to be made, it becomes identified with earth. Similarly, when creating a watery body in the world of Varuna and so forth, it becomes identified with water. Likewise, when an aerial body has to be made, it becomes identified with air. Similarly, when making an ethereal body, it is identified with air. Similarly, when making an ethereal body, it is identified with the ether. Thus when it makes bodies for the gods, which preponderate in elements of fire, it becomes identified with fire. As opposed to these, the bodies of animals, of denizens of hell, of ghosts, and so forth, are composed of materials other than fire; with regard to them the text says, identified with what is other than fire. Similarly, being identified with the body and organs, the self, on seeing something to be attained, forms the false notion that it has got this one, and has to get that one and, setting its heart on that, becomes identified with desire. When, on seeing evil in that thing, its longing for it ceases, and the mind becomes serene, pure and calm, then it becomes identified with the absence of desire. Likewise, when that desire is somehow frustrated, it takes the form of anger, and the self becomes identified with anger. When that anger is appeased by some means, and the mind becomes serene and peaceful, it is called the absence of anger; the self becomes identified with that. Thus the self, becoming identified with desire and anger as also with the absence of them, becomes identified with righteousness and unrighteousness, for without desire, anger, etc. the tendency to righteousness and so forth cannot arise. Witness the Smrti:- 'Whatever action a man does, is the outcome of desire' (M. II. 4).
Being identified with righteousness and unrighteousness it becomes identified with everything. Everything is the effect of righteousness and unrighteousness:- whatever is differentiated is the result of these two. The self, on attaining it, becomes identified with that. In shor, identified, in fact, with this, i.e. with objects that are perceived, and therefore with that. 'That' refers to imperceptible objects that are indicated only by their perceptible effects. The mind has an infinite number of thoughts, which cannot be definitely specified; they are known at particular moments through their effects, which lead us to infer this or that particular thought is in one's mind. Through that perceptible effect --- which marks the identification of the self with 'this' or the perceptible --- its remote or internal activity is indicated; and it is therefore designated as identified at present with 'that' or the imperceptible. To put it briefly, as it habitually does and acts, so it becomes. 'Doing' refers to prescribed conduct as indicated, for instance, by injunctions and prohibitions, while 'action' is not so prescribed; this is the distinction between them. By doing good it becomes good:- This amplifies the idea of 'As it does,' and by doing evil it becomes evil, amplifies the idea of 'As it acts.'
The use of a suffix denoting habit (in four words of the text) may lead to a notion that the identification with good and evil actions consists in intense association with them, not in merely doing them. To remove this it is said, it becomes virtuous through good acts and vicious through evil acts. The identification comes of merely doing good and evils acts, and does not require habitual performance. The latter only intensifies the identification; this is the difference. The long and short of it is, that doing good and bad deeds under the impulse of desire, anger, etc., is the cause of the Atman's identification with everything, its undergoing transmigration and passing from one body to another; for, impelled by this, the self takes one body after another. Therefore good and bad deeds are the cause of its transmigratory existence. Scriptural injunctions and prohibitions are directed to this. Herein lies the utility of the scriptures. Others, other authorities on bondage and liberation, however, say:- It is true that good and bad deeds prompted by desire etc. are the cause of a man's taking a body; still it is under the influence of desire that he accumulates these deeds. When desire is gone, work, though present, does not lead to the accumulation of merit or demerit. Even if he goes on doing good and bad deeds, these, bereft of the desire, produce no results; therefore desire is the root of transmigratory existence. As the Mundaka Upanisad says, 'He who longs for objects of desire, making much of them, is born along with those desires in places where he will realise them' (III. ii. 2). Therefore the self is identified with desire alone. Its identification with other things, though it may be present, does not produce any results; hence the text emphatically says, 'Identified with desire alone.' Being identified with desire, what it desires, it resolves. That desire manifests itself as a slight longing for a particular object, and, if unchecked, takes a more definite shape and becomes resolve. Resolve is determination, which is followed by action. What it resolves as a result of the desire, it works out by doing the kind of work that is calculated to procure the objects resolved upon. And what it works out, it attains, i.e. its results. Therefore desire is the only cause of its identification with everything as also of undergoing transmigration.
Max Müller
5. 'That Self is indeed Brahman, consisting of knowledge, mind, life, sight, hearing, earth, water, wind, ether, light and no light, desire and no desire, anger and no anger, right or wrong, and all things. Now as a man is like this or like that [1], according as he acts and according as he behaves, so will he be:--a man of good acts will become good, a man of bad acts, bad. He becomes pure by pure deeds, bad by bad deeds. 'And here they say that a person consists of desires. And as is his desire, so is his will; and as is his will, so is his deed; and whatever deed he does, that he will reap.
tasmāllokātpunaraityasmai lokāya karmaṇ iti nu kāmayamāno'thākāmayamāno
yo'kāmo niṣkāma bhavati āptakāma ātmakāmo na tasya prāṇā utkrāmanti
brahmaiva sanbrahmāpyeti .. 6..
Meaning:- Regarding this there is the following pithy verse:- 'Being attached he, together with the work, attains that result to which his subtle body or mind is attached. Exhausting the results of whatever work he did in this life, he returns from that world to this for (fresh) work'. Thus does the man who desires (transmigrate). But the man who does not desire (never transmigrates). Of him who is without desires, who is free from desires, the objects of whose desire have been attained, and to whom all objects of desire are but the Self - the organs do not depart. Being but Brahman, he is merged in Brahman.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Regarding this subject there is also the following pithy verse:- Being attached, i.e. with his desire for it roused, he, the man who transmigrates, together with the work that he did with attachment to its result, attains that result to which his subtle body or mind is firmly attached, i.e. for which it yearns, since he did the work out of a desire for that. --- The mind is called the subtle body, Linga, because it is the principal part of the latter; or the word' Linga' may mean a sign, that which indicates the self. --- Therefore, only on account of this attachment of his mind, he attains the result through that action. This proves that desire is the root of transmigratory existence. Hence a knower of Brahman who has rooted out his desires may work, but it will produce no (baneful) results; for the Sruti says, 'For one who has completely attained the objects of his desire and realised the Self, all desires dissolve in this very life' (Mu. III. ii. 2).
Further, exhausting the results of work --- what kind of work? whatever work he did in this life, by experiencing them, he returns from that world to this for work, since work holds the foremost place in this world. Hence the text says, 'For work,' i.e. to work again. After working again, he on account of his attachment to results, again goes to the next world, and so on. Thus does the man who desires transmigrate. Since it is this man of desire who transmigrates thus, therefore the man who does not desire, does not transmigrate anywhere.
It has been said that only the man who is attached to results transmigrates. Since one who has no desires cannot perform (ritualistic) work, the man who does not desire necessarily attains liberation. How does a man cease to desire? He who is without desires is the man who does not diesre. How is this absence of desire attained? This is being explained:- Who is free from desires, i.e. whom desires have left. How do they leave? The objects of whose desire have been attained. How are they attained? Because he is one to whom all objects of desire are but the Self --- who has only the Self, and nothing else separate from It that can be desired; to whom the Self alone exists --- the Pure Intelligence without interior or exterior, entire and homogeneous; and neither above nor below nor in the middle is there anything else but the Self to be desired. What should a person desire who has realised:- When everything has become the Self to one, what should one see, hear, think or know, and through what? For a thing that is known as other than oneself may becomes an object of desire. But such a thing does not exist for the knower of Brahman, the objects of whose desire have all been attained. He to whom all objects of desire, being but the Self, are already attained, is alone free from desires, is without desires, and does not desire any more; hence he attains liberation. For he to whom everything is the Self, has nothing else to desire. It is contradictory to say that he has something other than the Self to desire, and again, that to him everything is the Self. Since a man who has realised his identity with all has nothing to desire, he cannot perform rites.
Those who hold that even a knower of Brahman must perform rites in order to avoid evil (Produced by the non-performance of the regular rites.), cannot say that to him everything is the Self, for they regard the evil that they wish him to avoid as different from the Self. Whereas we call him a knower of Brahman who constantly knows the Self that is beyond hunger etc. and untouched by evil; he constantly sees the Self that is beyond hunger and so forth. Work can never touch him who does not see anything other than the Self to be avoided or received. But one who is not a knower of Brahman must perfrom rites to avoid evil. Hence there is no contradiction. Therefore, having no desires, the person who does not desire is no more born; he attains only liberation. Since the man who does not desire has no work and therefore has no cause to go to the next world, his organs, such as that of speech, do not depart or go up from the body. That man of realisation who has attained all the objects of his desires, since they are but the Self to him, has become Brahman in this very life, for as an illustration of the Infinite Brahman the following form was pointed out:- 'That is his form --- in which the objects of desire have been attained and are but the Self, and which is free from desires' (IV. iii. 21). Now that of which the above is an illustration is being concluded in the words, 'But the man who does not desire,' etc. How does such a man attain liberation? This is being stated:- He who sees the Self, as in the state of profound sleep, as undifferentiated, one without a second, and as the constant light of Pure Intelligence only this disinterested man has no work and consequently no cause for transmigration; therefore his organs, such as that of speech, do not depart. Rather, this man of realisation is Brahman in this very life, though he seems to have a body. Being but Brahman, he is merged in Brahman. Because he has no desires that cause the limitation of non-Brahmanhood, therefore 'being but Brahman he is merged in Brahman' in this very life, not after the body falls. A man of realisation, after his death, has no change of condition --- something different from what he was in life, but he is only not connected with another body. This is what is meant by his becoming 'merged in Brahman'; for it liberation was a change of condition, it would contradict the unity of the Self that all the Upanisads seek to teach. And liberation would be the effect of work, not of knowledge --- which nobody would desire. Further, it would become transitory, for nothing that has been produced by an action is seen to be eternal, but liberation is admitted to be eternal, as the Mantra says, 'This is the eternal glory (of a knower of Brahman),' etc. (IV. iv. 23).
Moreover, nothing but the inherent nature of a thing can be regarded as eternal. If liberation is the nature of the self, like the heat of fire, it cannot be said to be a consequence of human activity. The heat or light of fire is surely not a consequence of the activity of fire; it is a contradiction in terms to say that they are, and yet that they are the natural properties of fire. If it be urged that they are an outcome of the activity of combustion, the answer is, no because they depend on manifestion by the removal of obstructions to one's perception. That fire is manifested through its qualities of heat and light by the process of combustion etc., is due, not to the fire itself, but to the fact that those qualities, not being connected with anybody's vision, were hidden, and are manifested when the obstructions to vision are removed by the process of combustion. This leads to the error that the qualities of heat and light are produced by the combustion. If heat and light are not admitted as the natural properties of fire, well then, we shall cite as examples whatever be its natural properties. Nobody can say that things have no natural properties at all. Nor can liberation be a mere negative something --- the cessation of bondage, like the breakikng of fetters, for the Supreme Self is supposed to be the only entity that exists. As the Sruti says, 'One only without a second' (Ch. VI. ii. 1). And there is no other entity that is bound, whose freedom from bonage, as from fetters, would be liberation, for we have spoken at length of the absence of any other entity but the Supreme Self. Therefore, as we have also said, the cessation of ignorance (Which is the cause of the idea of bondage.) alone is commonly called liberation, like the disappearance of the snake, for instance, from the rope when the erroneous notion about its existence has been dispelled.
Those who hold that in liberation a new (That is, different from those arising from sense-contact.) knowledge and bliss are manifested, should explain what they mean by manifestation. If it means ordinary perception or the cognition of objects, they should state whether the knowledge or bliss that is manifested is existent or non-existent. If it is existent, it is the very self of that liberated man to whom it is manifested; hence, there being possibly no bar to the perception, it will always be manifest, and for this reason it is meaningless to specify its being manifest to the liberated man. If, however, it is manifest only at certain times (That is, in the state of relative existence, being frequently obstructed by iniquity etc.), then because of the obstacles to its perception, it is different from the self, and therefore there arises the question of its manifestation through some other means; hence there will be the necessity of these means also (Which will make liberation akin to relative existence.). But if the knowledge and bliss in question have the same support as the perception, then, there being no possibility of obstacles, they will either by always manifest or always hidden; there is no warrant for conceiving an intermediate stage between the two. Now attributes that have the same support, and are part and parcel of the same substance, cannot have the relation of subject and object to one another. Besides, the entity that is subject to transmigration before the manifestation of knowledge and bliss, and liberated after it, must be different from the Supreme Self, the eternally manifest Knowledge Absolute, for the two are totally different from each other, like heat and cold; and if differences are admitted in the Supreme Self, the Vedic position will be abandoned.
Objection:- If liberation makes no difference from the present state, it is unreasonable to make a particular effort for it, and the scriptures too becomes uselss. Reply:- No, for both are necessary to remove the delusion created by ignorance. Really there is no such distinction as liberation and bondage in the self, for it is eternally the same; but the ignorance regarding it is removed by the knowledge arising from the teachings of the scriptures, and prior to the receiving of these teachings, the effort to attain liberation is perfectly reasonable. Objection:- There will be some difference in the self that is under ignorance, due to the cessation or continuance of that ignorance. Reply:- No; we have already said that it is admitted to be the creation of ignorance, like a rope, a desert, a mother-of-pearl and the sky, appearing as a snake, water, silver, and blue respectively. Objection:- But there will be some difference in the self due to its being or not being the cause of ignorance, as in the case of man affected with the eye-disease called Timira (Which causes distorted vision.) or free from it. Reply:- No, for the Sruti denies that the Atman by itself is the cause of ignorance, as in the passage, 'It thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were' (IV. iii. 7); and the error we call ignorance is due to a combination of diverse activities. Another reason is that ignorance is an object witnessed by the self (Therefore it cannot be an integral part of the subject.). He who visualises the error of ignorance as something distinct from his own self, like a jar etc., is not himself under that error.
Objection:- Surely he is under that error, for one feels that one sometimes has the notion, 'I do not know, I am confused.' Reply:- No, for that too is distinctly perceived. He who distinctly perceives a thing cannot surely be said to be mistaken about it; it is self-contradictory to say that he perceives it distinctly, and at the same time, that he is mistaken about it. You say that a person feels, 'I do not know, I am confused'; thereby you admit that he visualises his ignorance and confusion, in other words, that these become the objects of his experience. So how can the ignorance and confusion, which are objects, be at the same time a description of the subject, the perceiver? If, on the other hand, they are a description of the subject, how can they be objects and be perceived by the subject? An object is perceived by an act of the subject. The object is one thing, and the subject another; it cannot be perceived by itself. Tell me how under such circumstances the ignorance and confusion can be a description of the subject. Moreover, a person who sees ignorance as something distinct --- perceives it as an object of his own cognition --- does not regard it as an attribute of the perceiver, as is the case with thinness, colour, and so forth in the body. (Similarly the effects of ignorance also are not attributes of the self).
Objection:- But everybody perceives pleasure, pain, desire, effort, etc. (as belonging to himself). Reply:- Even then the man who perceives them is admittedly different from them. Objection:- Well, we have referred to the person who says, 'I do not know what you say, I am confused.' What do you say to that? Reply:-Let him regard himself as ignorant and confused; we, however, accept one who sees like this as knowing and possessed of a clear perception. For instance, Vyasa has said that the owner of the field (the self) reveals the entire field (body and mind), including desire (An adaptation of Gita XIII. 33.). And there are hundreds of texts like the following:- '(He sees truly who) sees the Supreme Lord living the same in all beings --- the immortal Principle in the midst of things perishable' (G. XIII. 27). Therefore the Atman by itself has no difference due to bondage or liberation, knowledge or ignorance, for it is admitted to be always the same and homogeneous by nature. Those, however, who, considering the reality of the self to be different, reduce the scriptures dealing with bondage and liberation to mere plausible statements, would dare to find the footprints of birds in the sky, to pull the sky with their clenched hands, or to cover it as with a skin. But we can do no such thing. We hold that it is the definite conclusion of all the Upanisads that we are nothing but the Atman, the Brahman that is always the same, homogeneous, one without a second, unchanging, birthless, undecaying, immortal, deathless and free from fear. Therefore the statement, 'He is merged in Brahman' (this text), is but a figurative one, meaning the cessation, as a result of knowledge, of the continuous chain of bodies for one who has held an opposite view. Transmigration, which was the thing that was sought to be explained by the example of going into the waking and dream states, has been described; so also its causes --- knowledge, work and past experience. Those limiting adjuncts, the elements comprising the body and organs, surrounded by which the self experiences the transmigratory existence, have also been mentioned. After stating, as a prima facie view, that their immediate causes are good and bad deeds, the cause has finally been decided to be desire. Having described bondage and its cause by showing that the decision of the Brahmana on this point agrees with that of the Mantra, the Sruti has concluded the topic with the words, 'Thus does the man who desires (transmigrate)' (IV. iv. 6). Then beginning with, 'But the man who does not desire (never transmigrates)' (Ibid.), liberation consisting in the identity with all, which is the thing that was sought to be explained by the example of the state of profound sleep, has been described. And the cause of liberation has been stated to be the attainment of all objects of desire through their becoming the Self. But since this state is unattainable without Self-knowledge, the cause of liberation has by implication been stated to be the knowledge of Brahman. Therefore, though desire has been said to be the root of bondage, it is ignorance that, being the opposite of what leads to liberation (knowledge), has virtually been stated to be the cause of bondage. Here also liberation and its means have been dealt with by the Brahmana. To strengthen that, a Mantra, called Sloka, is being quoted:-
Max Müller
6. 'And here there is this verse:- "To whatever object a man's own mind is attached, to that he goes strenuously together with his deed; and having obtained the end (the last results) of whatever deed he does here on earth, he returns again from that world (which is the temporary reward of his deed) to this world of action." 'So much for the man who desires. But as to the man who does not desire, who, not desiring, freed from desires, is satisfied in his desires, or desires the Self only, his vital spirits do not depart elsewhere,--being Brahman, he goes to Brahman.
Meaning:- Regarding this there is this pithy verse:- 'When all the desires that dwell in his heart (mind) are gone, then he, having been mortal, becomes immortal, and attains Brahman in this very body'. Just as the lifeless Slough of a snake is cast off and lies in the ant-hill, so does this body lie. Then the self becomes disembodied and immortal, (becomes) the Prana (Supreme Self), Brahman, the Light. 'I give you a thousand (cows), sir', said Janaka, Emperor of Videha.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Regarding this very theme there is this pithy verse or Mantra:- When all the desires, forms of yearning, of the knower of Brahman all the objects of whose desire are the Self, are gone, are destroyed together with their root. That dwell in his heart, those well-known desires concerning this and the next life, viz the desire for children, wealth and worlds, that abide in the intellect (mind) of the ordinary man. Then he, having been mortal, becomes immortal, being divested of desires together with their root. It is practically implied that desires concerning things other than the Self fall under the category of ignorance, and are but forms of death. Therefore, on the cessation of death, the man of realisation becomes immortal. And attains Brahman, the identity with Brahman, i.e. liberation, living in this very body. Hence liberation does not require such things as going to some other place. Therefore the organs of a man of realisation do not depart; they are merged in their cause, the self, just where they are. As has been said (III. ii. 12), only their names remain.
But how is it that when the organs have been merged, and the body also has dissolved in its cause, the liberated sage lives in the body identified with all, but does not revert to his former embodied existence, which is subject to transmigration? The answer is being given:- Here is an illustration in point. Just as in the world the lifeless slough of a snake is cast off by it as no more being a part of itself, and lies in the ant-hill, or any other nest of a snake, so does this body, discarded as non-self by the liberated man, who corresponds to the snake, lie like dead. Then the other, the liberated man identified with all --- who corresponds to the snake --- though he resides just there like the snake, becomes disembodied, and is no more connected with the body. Because formerly he was embodied and mortal on account of his identification with the body under the influence of his desires and past work; since that has gone, he is now disembodied, and therefore immortal. Prana means that which lives. It will be said in a succeeding verse, 'The Vital Force of the vital force' (IV. iv. 18):- and another Sruti says, 'The mind (individual self), my dear, is tethered to the Prana (Supreme Self)' (Ch. VI. viii. 2). From the context and the sentence also it is clear that the word 'Prana' here means the Supreme Self. Brahman, the same as the Supreme Self. What is that? The Light of Pure Intelligence, the light of the Atman, illumined by which the universe gets its eye of knowledge, and beaming with intelligence, remains unshaken in its path.
That wished-for question for the purpose of liberation, about which Yajnavalkya had given Janaka a boon, has been elaborately answered by the Sruti taking the form of the story of Janaka and Yajnavalkya. It deals with bondage and liberation together with their causes, by means of themes and illustrations. The way of deliverance from relative existence has been told to all. Now the Sruti itself states that Janaka said such and such to compensate for the instructions he had received. What was it? 'Thus delivered, I give you a thousand cows, sir, as a requital for the instructions received,' said Janaka, Emperor of Videha. Now, since the meaning of liberation has been ascertained, why does he not offer himself as well as the empire of Videha, but merely give a thousand cows, as when only a part of liberation was explained? What is the idea behind it? Here some say, Janaka, who takes delight in the knowledge of the Self, wants to hear again through Mantras what he has already heard (Through the Brahmana.); hence he does not offer everything. He thinks he will do it at the end, after he has heard what he wants to from Yajnavalkya. He is afraid lest, in case he offers everything now, the sage should think that he does not want to hear any more, and withhold the Mantras. So he gives a thousand cows to intimate his desire to hear more. All this is wrong, for the Sruti, being trustworthy authority, can never have recourse to a subterfuge like a man. Besides there is something more to be explained; though liberation, which is attainable through Self-knowledge, has been explained, a part of the latter, viz the relinquishment of desires that is called renunciation, is yet to be described. Therefore the view that the Emperor merely wishes to hear the Mantras is not sound. A resort to repetition can be made only when there is no other way out, and should be avoided when there is an alternative; and we have already said that renunciation is not a mere eulogy on Self-knowledge. It may be urged that in that case the Emperor should say, '(Please instruct me) further about liberation itself.' To this we reply:- The objection does not hold. The Emperor thinks that renunciation is not a direct incentive to liberation like Self-knowledge; hence, according to this view, it can go in like Pratipattikarma. For the Smrti says, 'One should give up the body through renunciation.' Even if renunciation were a means to liberation, it would not necessitate the request. '(Please instruct me) further about liberation itself,' because renunciation merely serves to mature Self-knowledge, which is the means of liberation.
Max Müller
7. 'On this there is this verse:- "When all desires which once entered his heart are undone, then does the mortal become immortal, then he obtains Brahman. 'And as the slough of a snake lies on an ant-hill, dead and cast away, thus lies this body; but that disembodied immortal spirit (prâna, life) is Brahman only, is only light.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'Sir, I give you a thousand.'
spṛṣṭo'nuvitto mayaiva . tena dhīrā apiyanti brahmavidaḥ svargaṃ
lokamita ūrdhvaṃ vimuktāḥ .. 8..
Meaning:- Regarding this there are the following pithy verses:- the subtle, extensive, ancient way has touched (been reached by) me. (Nay) I have realised it myself. Through that sages - the knowers of Brahman - (also) go to the heavenly sphere (liberation) after the fall of this body, being freed (even while living).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Regarding this subject, that liberation is attained by the knower of Brahman all the objects of whose desire are the Self --- a subject that has been dealt with by both Mantra and Brahmana in the preceding portion --- there are the following pithy verses showing the details:- The subtle, being difficult to comprehend; extensive, or on account of another reading, 'Vitara,' effectively leading to liberation; ancient primeval, being revealed by the eternal Srutis, not modern like the misleading paths emanating from the intellect of the logicians; way the path of knowledge that conduces to liberation; has touched me, i.e. has been reached by me. That which is attained by somebody is connected with him as if it touched him; hence the path of liberation consisting in the knowledge of Brahman, having been attained by me, is said to have touched me. I have not merely attained it but have realised it myself. Realisation (Anuvedana) is that attainment which, as knowledge ripens, culminates in the ultimate results, as eating culminates in satisfaction. In the previous clause only a contact with knowledge is meant. This is the difference.
Objection:- Is this seer of the Mantras the only person who has achieved the result of the knowledge of Brahman, and has none else done it, so that he asserts, 'I have realised it myself'? Reply:- There is nothing wrong in it. It is a eulogy on the knowledge of Brahman, inasmuch as its results is unique --- it is subjective. Such indeed is Self-knowledge:- it gives one the conviction that one is completely blessed, and it requires no other witness than the testimony of one's own experience; so what can be better than this? Thus it is a glorification of the knowledge of Brahman; not that no other knower of Brahman attains that result. For the Sruti says, 'Whoever among the gods (knew It also became That)' (I. iv. 10), which shows that the knowledge of Brahman is accessible to all. This is conveyed by the text:- Through that path of the knowledge of Brahman sages, men of illumination, i.e. other knowers of Brahman also, go to the heavenly sphere, or liberation, which is the result of the knowledge of Brahman --- 'Heavenly sphere' generally means heaven, the abode of the gods, but here from the context it means liberation --- after the fall of this body, being freed even while living.
Max Müller
8. [1]. 'On this there are these verses:- 'The small, old path stretching far away [2] has been found by me. On it sages who know Brahman move on to the Svarga-loka (heaven), and thence higher on, as entirely free [3].
Meaning:- Some speak of it as white, others as blue, grey, green, or red. This path is realised by a Brahmana (knower of Brahman). Any other knower of Brahman who has done good deeds and is identified with the Supreme Light, (also) treads this path.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Seekers after liberation are at variance regarding this path leading to liberation. How? Some aspirants speak of it as white, pure or limpid, others as blue, others as grey, green, or red, according to their experience. In reality, however, they are the nerves Susumna and so forth, filled with phlegm and other liquids, for they have already been mentioned in the words, '(Filled) with white, blue, grey,' etc. (IV. iii. 20). Or they consider the sun to be this path of liberation, because of the reference in another Sruti, 'He is white, he is blue,' etc. (Ch. VIII. vi. 1). Besides, the path of realisation cannot have any colour, white or any other. In either case these white and other colours refer to some other path than that of the knowledge of Brahman, which is the one under consideration.
It may be urged that the word 'white' refers to the pure monistic path. To this we reply:- Not so, for it is enumerated along with the words 'blue,' 'yellow,' (This word does not occur in the above text.) etc., denoting colour. The white and other paths that the Yogins designate as the paths of liberation, are not really such, for they fall within the range of relative existence. They merely lead to the world of Hiranyagarbha and so on, for relate to the exit through particular parts of the body:- 'Through the eye, or through the head, or through any other part of the body' (IV. iv. 2). Therefore the path of liberation is the absorption of the body and such organs as the eye in this very life, like the going out of a lamp --- when transmigration is impossible owing to the exhaustion of all desires through their attainment by the transformation of all objects of desire as the Self. This path of knowledge is realised by a Brahmana who has given up all his desires, and become one with the Supreme Self. Any other knower of Brahman also treads this path of the knowledge of Brahman. What kind of knower of Brahman? Who first of all has done good deeds and then given up the desire for children etc., and is identified with the Supreme Light --- by connecting himself with the Light of the Supreme Self, is metamorphosed into that, i.e. has become the Atman in this very life. Such a knower of Brahman treads this path. One who combines good work with knowledge is not meant here, for we have said that these are contradictory. The Smrti too says, 'Salutation to that Embodiment of Liberation whom serene monks, fearless about rebirth, attain after the cessation of the effects of their good and bad deeds' (Mbh. XII. x1vi. 56). There is also the exhortation to relinquish merit and demerit:- 'Give up doing good and evil' (Mbh. XII. cccxxxvii. 40). And there are the following Smrti passages:- 'The gods consider him a knower of Brahman who has no desires, who undertakes no work, who does not salute or praise anybody, and whose work has been exhausted, but who himself is unchanged' (Mbh. XII. cc1xix. 34), 'For a knower of Brahman there is no wealth comparable to unity, sameness, truthfulness, virtue, steadfastness, non-injury, candour, and withdrawal from all activities' (Mbh. XII. c1xxiv. 37). Here also the Sruti, a little further on, after giving the reason why work will be unnecessary, in the passage, 'This is the eternal glory of a knower of Brahman:- it neither increases nor decreases through work' (IV. iv. 23), will advise the giving up of all activities in the words, 'Therefore he who knows it as such becomes self-controlled, calm,' etc. (Ibid.). Therefore the clause, 'Who has done good deeds,' should be explained as we have done. Or the sentence may mean:- The knower of Brahman who treads this path is a doer of good deeds and a Yogin who has controlled his senses (Through meditation on the Dahara (the ether in the heart) etc., and attained extraordinary powers. This is Anandagiri's explanation of the word 'Taijasa.' 'Tejas' according to him means the organs.). Thus it is a eulogy on the knowledge of Brahman. A doer of good and a Yogin of this type are considered highly fortunate people in the world. Hence these two epithests serve to glorify the knower of Brahman (By describing him as being of equal status to the other two.).
Max Müller
9. 'On that path they say that there is white, or blue, or yellow, or green, or red [1]; that path was found by Brahman, and on it goes whoever knows Brahman, and who has done good, and obtained splendour.
andhaṃ tamaḥ praviśanti ye'vidyāmupāsate . tato bhūya iva te tamo ya
u vidyāyāgͫ ratāḥ .. 10..
Meaning:- Into blinding darkness (ignorance) enter those who worship ignorance (rites). Into greater darkness, as it were, than that enter those who are devoted to knowledge (the ceremonial portion of the Vedas).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Into blinding darkness, i.e. darkness that obstructs one's vision, or ignorance that leads to transmigration, enter those who worship, i.e. follow ignorance, the opposite of knowledge, i.e. work consisting of ends and means, in other words, those who practise rites. Into greater darkness, as it were, than even that enter those who are devoted, or attached, to knowledge, that portion of the Vedas which deals with things that are the outcome of ignorance, i.e. the ritualistic portion, in other words, those who disregard the teachings of the Upanisads, saying that that portion alone which deals with the injunctions and prohibitions is the Vedas, and there is none other.
Max Müller
10. 'All who worship what is not knowledge (avidyâ) enter into blind darkness:- those who delight in knowledge, enter, as it were, into greater darkness [1].
Meaning:- Miserable are those worlds enveloped by (that) blinding darkness (ignorance). To them, after death, go those people who are ignorant and unwise.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- What is the harm if they enter into the darkness that obstructs one's vision? This is being answered:- Miserable are those worlds enveloped by that blinding darkness which obstructs one's vision; that is, they are the province of that darkness of ignorance. To them, after death, go --- who? --- those people who are ignorant. The word 'people' means common folk, or those subject to repeated births. Will only ignorance in general take one there? No, they must be unwise (Abudh) too. The word is formed from the root 'budh', meaning, to know, by the addition of the suffix 'kvip'; that is, devoid of the knowledge of the Self.
Max Müller
11. 'There are [1] indeed those unblessed worlds, covered with blind darkness. Men who are ignorant and not enlightened go after death to those worlds.
Meaning:- If a man knows the Self as 'I am this', then desiring what and for whose sake will he suffer in the wake of the body?
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- If a man, one in a thousand, knows the Self, which is his own as well as the Supreme Self, which knows the desires of all beings, which is in the heart (intellect), and is beyond the attributes of hunger etc. The word 'if' shows the rarity of Self-knowledge. Knows how? As 'I am this' Supreme Self, the witness of the perception of all beings, which has been described as 'Not this, not this,' and so on, than which there is no other seer, hearer, thinker and knower, which is always the same and is in all beings, and which is by nature eternal, pure, enlightened and free; desiring what other thing, of the nature of a result, distinct from his own Self, and for whose sake, for the need of what other person distinct from himself:- Because he as the Self has nothing to wish for, and there is none other than himself for whose sake he may wish it, he being the self of all, therefore desiring what and for whose sake will he suffer in the wake of the body --- deviate from his nature, or become miserable, following the misery created by his limiting adjunct, the body, i.e. imbibe the afflictions of the body? For this is possible for the man who does not see the Self and consequently desires things other than It. He struggles desiring something for himself, something else for his son, a third thing for his wife, and so on, goes the round of births and deaths, and is diseased when his body is diseased. But all this is impossible for the man who sees everything as the Self. This is what the Sruti says.
Max Müller
12. 'If a man understands the Self, saying, "I am He," what could he wish or desire that he should pine after the body [1].
यस्यानुवित्तः प्रतिबुद्ध आत्माऽस्मिन्सन्देह्ये गहने प्रविष्टः । स
विश्वकृत् स हि सर्वस्य कर्ता तस्य लोकः स उ लोक एव ॥ १३॥
mantra 13[IV.iv.13]
yasyānuvittaḥ pratibuddha ātmā'sminsandehye gahane praviṣṭaḥ . sa
viśvakṛt sa hi sarvasya kartā tasya lokaḥ sa u loka eva .. 13..
Meaning:- He who has realised and intimately known the Self that has entered this perilous and inaccessible place (the body), is the maker of the universe, for he is the maker of all, (all is) his Self, and he again is indeed the Self (of all).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Further, he, the knower of Brahman, who has realised and intimately known the Self --- how? known himself as the innermost Self, as 'I am the Supreme Brahman,' the Self that has entered this place (the body) which is perilous, beset with numerous dangers, and inaccessible with hundreds and thousands or obstacles to enlightenment through discrimination --- this knower of Brahman who has realisd this Self through intuition is the maker of the universe. How? Is it only in name? This is being answered:- No, not merely in name, for he is the maker of all:- He is not such under the influence of any extraneous agency. What then? All is his Self. Is the Self something different from him? The answer is:- He again is indeed the Self (Loka). The word 'Loka' here means the Self. That is to say, all is his Self, and he is the Self of all. This innermost Self which has entered this body, beset with dangers and inaccessible, and which the knower of Brahman realises through intuition, is not the individual self, but the Supreme Self, because It is the maker of the universe, the Self of all, and all is Its Self. One should meditate upon one's identity with the Supreme Self, the one only without a second:- This is the substance of the verse.
Max Müller
13. 'Whoever has found and understood the Self that has entered into this patched-together hiding-place [1], he indeed is the creator, for he is the maker of everything, his is the world, and he is the world itself [2].
Meaning:- Being in this very body we have somehow known that (Brahman). If not, (I should have been) ignorant, (and) great destruction (would have taken place). Those who know It become immortal, while others attain misery alone.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Further, being in this very body, so full of dangers, i.e. being under the spell of the long sleep of ignorance, we have somehow known that Brahman which is under consideration as our own self; oh, blessed are we --- this is the idea. If we had not known that Brahman which we have known, I should have been ignorant (Avedi). 'Vedi' is one who has knowledge; hence 'Avedi' means ignorant. The shortening of the last vowel does not affect the meaning. What harm would there have been had I been ignorant? Great, of infinite magnitude; destruction, consisting in births, deaths, etc., would have taken place. Oh, blessed are we that we have been saved from this great destruction by knowing Brahman, the one without a second; this is the idea. As we have escaped this great destruction by knowing Brahman, so those who know It become immortal, while those others, people other than the knowers of Brahman, who do not thus know Brahman, attain misery alone, consisting in births, deaths, etc. That is to say, the ignorant never escape from them, for they regard misery itself (the body) as the Self.
Max Müller
14. 'While we are here, we may know this; if not, I am ignorant [1], and there is great destruction. Those who know it, become immortal, but others suffer pain indeed.
यदैतमनुपश्यत्यात्मानं देवमञ्जसा । ईशानं भूतभव्यस्य न ततो
विजुगुप्सते ॥ १५॥
mantra 15[IV.iv.15]
yadaitamanupaśyatyātmānaṃ devamañjasā . īśānaṃ bhūtabhavyasya na tato
vijugupsate .. 15..
Meaning:- When a man after (receiving instructions from a teacher) directly realises this effulgent Self, the Lord of all that has been and will be, he no longer wishes to hide himself from it.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- But when a man, somehow meeting a highly merciful teacher and receiving his grace, afterwards directly realises this effulgent (Deva) Self, or, the Self that bestows on all the respective results of their deeds, the Lord of all that has been and will be, i.e. of the past, present and future, he no longer wishes particularly to hide himself from It, this Lord. Everyone who sees diversity wishes to hide himself from God. But this man sees unity, hence he is not afraid of anything. Therefore he does not want to hide himself any more. Or the meaning may be:- When he directly realises the effulgent Lord as identical with his own self, he no longer blames anybody, for he sees all as his self, and for that reason whom should he blame?
Max Müller
15. 'If a man clearly beholds this Self as God, and as the lord of all that is and will be, then he is no more afraid.
Meaning:- Below which the year with its days rotates, upon that immortal Light of all lights the gods meditate as longevity.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Also, below which Lord, i.e. in a different category from it, the year, representing time which limits everything that is born, with its own parts, the days and nights, rotates, occupies a lower position without being able to limit It --- upon that immortal Light of all lights, which is the revealer of even such luminaries as the sun, the gods meditate as longevity. Things other than that perish, but not this Light, for it is the longevity of all. Because the gods meditate upon this Light through its attribute of longevity, therefore they are long-lived. Hence one who desires a long life should meditate upon Brahman throguh Its attribute of longevity.
Max Müller
16. 'He behind whom the year revolves with the days, him the gods worship as the light of lights, as immortal time.
Meaning:- That in which the five groups of five and the (subtle) ether are placed, that very Atman I regard as the immortal Brahman. Knowing (Brahman) I am immortal.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Moreover, that Brahman in which the five groups of five, the celestial minstrels etc., who are five in number, viz the celestial minstrels, the manes, the gods, the Asuras and the Raksasas --- or the four castes with the Nisadas as the fifth --- and the ether called the Undifferentiated, which pervades the Sutra, are placed --- it has been said, 'By this Immutable, O Gargi, is the (unmanifested) ether pervaded' (III. viii. 11) --- that very Atman I regard as the immortal Brahman. I do not consider the Self as different from that. What then is it? Knowing Brahman, I am immortal. I was mortal only through ignorance. Since that is gone, I, the knowing one, am indeed immortal.
Max Müller
17. 'He in whom the five beings [1] and the ether rest, him alone I believe to be the Self,--I who know, believe him to be Brahman; I who am immortal, believe him to be immortal.
ye mano viduḥ . te nicikyurbrahma purāṇamagryam .. 18..
Meaning:- Those who have known the Vital Force of the vital force, the Eye of the eye, the Ear of the ear, and the Mind of the mind, have realised the ancient, primordial Brahman.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Further, it is by being revealed by the light of the Atman that is Pure Intelligence, its own Self, that the vital force functions; therefore It is the Vital Force of the vital force. Those who have known the Vital Force of the vital force, as also the Eye of the eye, the Ear of the ear:- The eye and the other organs receive their powers of vision and so forth only by being inspired by the energy of Brahman; by themselves, divested of the light of the Atman that is Pure Intelligence, they are like wood or clods of earth; and the Mind of the mind --- in other words, those who have known the Self not as a sense-object, but as the innermost self whose existence is inferred from the functions of the eye etc., have realised, known with certainty, the ancient or eternal, and primordial Brahman; for the Mundaka Upanisad says, 'That which the knowers of the Self realise' (II. ii. 19).
Max Müller
18. 'They who know the life of life, the eye of the eye, the ear of the ear, the mind of the mind, they have comprehended the ancient, primeval Brahman [1].
मनसैवानुद्रष्टव्यं नेह नानाऽस्ति किं चन । मृत्योः स
मृत्युमाप्नोति य इह नानेव पश्यति ॥ १९॥
mantra 19[IV.iv.19]
manasaivānudraṣṭavyaṃ neha nānā'sti kiṃ cana . mṛtyoḥ sa
mṛtyumāpnoti ya iha nāneva paśyati .. 19..
Meaning:- Through the mind alone (It) is to be realised. There is no difference whatsoever in It. He goes from death to death, who sees difference, as it were, in It.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- The means of the realisation of that Brahman is being described. Through the mind alone, purified by the knowledge of the supreme Truth, and in accordance with the instructions of the teacher, (It) is to be realised. There is no difference whatsoever in It, Brahman, the object of the realisation. Though there is no difference, one superimposes it through ignorance. He goes from death to death. Who? Who sees difference, as it were, in It. That is to say, really there is no duality apart from the superimposition of ignorance.
Max Müller
19. 'By the mind alone it is to be perceived [1], there is in it no diversity. He who perceives therein any diversity, goes from death to death.
एकधैवानुद्रष्टव्यमेतदप्रमयं ध्रुवम् । विरजः पर आकाशादज
आत्मा महान्ध्रुवः ॥ २०॥
mantra 20[IV.iv.20]
ekadhaivānudraṣṭavyametadapramayaṃ dhruvam . virajaḥ para ākāśādaja
ātmā mahāndhruvaḥ .. 20..
Meaning:- It should be realised in one form only, (for) It is unknowable and eternal. The Self is taintless, beyond the (subtle) ether, birthless, infinite and constant.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Because It is such, therefore It should be realised in one form only, viz as homogeneous Pure Intelligence, without any break in it, like the ether; for It, this Brahman, is unknowable, owing to the unity of everything (in Brahman). One is known by another; but It is one, hence unknowable. Eternal, unchangeable, or immovable. It may be objected:- Surely this is contradictory --- to say that It is unknowable, and also that It is known:- 'It is known' means that It is cognised by the means of knowledge, and 'unknowable' is the denial of that. To this we reply:- It is all right, for only this much is denied that It, like other things, is known by any other means than scriptural evidence. Other things are cognised by the ordinary means independent of scriptural evidence; but the truth of the Self cannot thus be known by any other means of knowledge but that. The scriptures too describe It merely by the negation of the activites of the subject, the evidences of knowledge, and so on, in such terms as these:- When everything is the Self, what should one see, ' know, and through what? (An adaptation of II. iv. 14 and IV. v. 15.) --- and not by resorting to the usual function of a sentence in which something is described by means of names. Therefore even in the scriptures the Self is not presented like heaven or Mount Meru, for instance, for it is the very Self of those that present it. A presentation by someone has for its object something to be presented, and this is possible only when there is difference.
The knowledge of Brahman too means only the cessation of the identification with extraneous things (such as the body). The relation of identity with It has not to be directly established, for it is already there. Everybody always has that identity with It, but it appears to be related to something else. Therefore the scriptures do not enjoin that identity with Brahman should be established, but that the false identification with things other than That should stop. When the identification with other things is gone, that identity with one's own Self which is natural, becomes isolated; this is expressed by the statement that the Self is known. In Itself It is unknowable --- not comprehended through any means. Hence both statements are consistent. The Self is taintless, i.e. free from the impurities of good and evil, beyond the ether, subtler, or more pervasive, than even the unmanifested ether, birthless --- the negation of birt implies that of the five succeeding changes (According to Yaska a thing comes into being, exists, grows, begins to decline, decays and dies.) of condition also, for these originate from birth ---- infinite, vaster than anything else, and constant, indestructible.
Max Müller
20. 'This eternal being that can never be proved, is to be perceived in one way only; it is spotless, beyond the ether, the unborn Self, great and eternal.
नानुध्यायाद्बहूञ्छब्दान् वाचो विग्लापनꣳ हि तदिति ॥ २१॥
mantra 21[IV.iv.21]
tameva dhīro vijñāya prajñāṃ kurvīta brāhmaṇaḥ .
nānudhyāyādbahūñchabdān vāco viglāpanagͫ hi taditi .. 21..
Meaning:- The intelligent aspirant after Brahman, knowing about this alone, should attain intuitive knowledge. (He) should not think of too many words, for it is particularly fatiguing to the organ of speech.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- The intelligent aspirant after Brahman, knowing about this kind of Self alone, from the instructions of a teacher and from the scriptures, should attain intuitive knowledge of what has been taught by the teacher and the scriptures, so as to put an end to all questioning --- i.e. practise the means of this knowledge, viz renunciation, calmness, self-control, withdrawal of the senses, fortitude and concentration. (He) should not think of too many words. This restriction on too many words implies that a few words dealing exclusively with the unity of the Self are permissible. The Mundaka Upanisad has it:- 'Meditate upon the Self with the help of the syllable Om' (II. ii. 6), and 'Give up all other speech' (II. ii. 5). For it, this thinking of too many words, is particularly fatiguing to the organ of speech.
Max Müller
21. 'Let a wise Brâhmana, after he has discovered him, practise wisdom [1]. Let him not seek after many words, for that is mere weariness of the tongue.
eṣaṇe eva bhavataḥ . sa eṣa neti netyātmā'gṛhyo na hi gṛhyate
'śīryo na hi śīryate'saṅgo na hi sajyate'sito na vyathate
na riṣyatyetamu haivaite na tarata ityataḥ pāpamakaravamityataḥ
kalyāṇamakaravamityubhe u haivaiṣa ete tarati nainaṃ kṛtākṛte
tapataḥ .. 22..
Meaning:- That great, birthless Self which is identified with the intellect and is in the midst of the organs, lies in the ether that is within the heart. It is the controller of all, the lord of all, the ruler of all. It does not grow better through good work nor worse through bad work. It is the lord of all, It is the ruler of all beings, It is the protector of all beings. It is the bank that serves as the boundary to keep the different worlds apart. The Brahmanas seek to know It through the study of the Vedas, sacrifices, charity, and austerity consisting in a dispassionate enjoyment of sense-objects. Knowing It alone, one becomes a sage. Desiring this world (the Self) alone, monks renounce their homes. This is (the reason for it); The ancient sages, it is said, did not desire children (thinking), 'What shall we achieve through children, we who have attained this Self, this world (result).' They, it is said, renounced their desire for sons, for wealth and for the worlds, and lived a mendicant's life. That which is the desire for sons is the desire for wealth, and that which is the desire for wealth is the desire for worlds, for both these are but desires. This self is That which has been described as 'Not this, Not this'. It is imperceptible, for It is never perceived; undecaying, for It never decays; unattached, for It is never attached; unfettered - It never feels pain, and never suffers injury. (it is but proper) that the sage is never overtaken by these two thoughts, 'I did an evil act for this', 'I did a good act for this'. He conquers both of them. Things done or not done do not trouble him.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Bondage and liberation together with their causes have been described by the preceding portion consisting of the Mantras and Brahmana. The nature of liberation has again been elaborately set forth by the quotation of pithy verses. Now it has to be shown how the whole of the Vedas is applicable to this subject of the Self; hence the present paragraph is introduced. By recapitulating the topic of Self-knowledge with its results in the way it has been dealt with in this chapter, it is sought to show that the entire Vedas, except the portion treating of ceremonies having material ends, are applicable to this. Hence the words, 'That great,' etc., recapitulating what has been stated. That refers to something already mentioned. What is it? It is pointed out by the words, 'Which is identified with intellect,' etc., which are intended to preclude any reference to the Self just mentioned (verse 20). Which one is meant then? The answer is:- Which is identified with the intellect and is in the midst of the organs. The passage is quoted for settling the doubt, for at the beginning of Janaka's questions it has been stated, 'Which is the self? --- This (infinite entity) that is identified with the intellect and is in the midst of the organs,' etc. (IV. iii. 7). The idea is this:- By the demonstration of desire, work and ignorance as attributes of the non-Self, the self-effulgent Atman that has been set forth in the passage in question is here freed from them and transformed into the Supreme Self, and it is emphatically stated, 'It is the Supreme Self, and nothing else'; it is directly spoken of as the great, birthless Self. The words, 'Which is identified with the intellect and is in the midst of the organs,' have been already explained and have the same meaning here. Lies in the ether that is within the lotus of the heart, the ether (Akasa) that is the seat of the intellect. The Atman lives in that ether containing the intellect. Or the meaning may be that the individual self in the state of profound sleep dwells in that unconditioned Supreme Self, called Akasa, which is its very nature. This has been explained in the second chapter by way of answer to the question, 'Where was it then?' (II. i. 16). It is (From here up to 'worlds apart', the results accruing to one who realises one's identity with Brahman are being described.) the contoller of all, Hiranyagarbha, Indra, and the rest, for all live under It. As has been said, 'Under the mighty rule of this Immutable (O Gargi),' etc. (III. viii. 9). Not only the controller, but the lord of all, Hiranyagarbha, Indra and others. Lordship may sometimes be due to birth, like that of a prince over his servants, though they are stronger than he. To obviate this the text says, the ruler of all, the supreme protector, i.e. independent, not swayed by ministers and other servants like a prince. The three attributes of control etc. are interdependent. Because the Self is the ruler of all, therefore It is the lord of all, for it is well known that one who protects another as the highest authority, wields lordship over him; and because It is the lord of all, therefore It is the controller of all. Further, It, the infinite entity identified with the intellect, the light within the heart (intellect), being one with the Supreme Self, does not grow better, or improve from the previous state by the accession of some attributes, through good work enjoined by the scriptures, nor worse, i.e. does not fall from its previous state, through bad work forbidden by the scriptures. Moreover, everyone doing these functiions of presiding, protection, etc. is attended with merit and demerit consequent on bestowing favours and inflicting pains on others; why is the Self alone absolved from them? The answer is:- Because 'It is the lord of all,' and accustomed to rule over work also, therefore It is not connected with work. Further 'It is the ruler of all beings,' from Hiranyagarbha down to a clump of grass. The word 'ruler' has already been explained. It is the protector of all those beings. It is the bank --- what kind of bank? --- that serves as the boundary among the divisions of caste and order of life. This is expressed by the words 'to keep the different worlds,' beginning with the earth and ending with the world of Hiranyagarbha, apart, distinct from one another. If the Lord did not divide them like a bank, their limits would be obliterated. Therefore, in order to keep the worlds apart, the Lord, from whom the self-effulgent Atman is not different, acts as the embankment.
One who knows it thus becomes 'the contoller of all,' and so on --- this sets forth the results of the knowledge of Brahman. The whole of the ceremonial portion of the Vedas, except that dealing with rites having material ends, is applicable as a means to this knowledge of Brahman as delineated, with the results described above, in the present chapter beginning with, 'What serves as the light for a man?' (IV. iii. 2 ' 6). How this can be done is being explained:- The Brahmanas --- the word 'Brahmana' implies the Ksatriyas and Vaisyas as well, for all the three castes are equally entitled to the study of the Vedas --- seek to know It, this infinite entity as described above, that can be known only from the Upanisads, through the study of the Vedas consisting of the Mantras and Brahmanas --- by daily reading them. Or the passage may mean, 'They seek to know It through the Mantras and Brahmanas relating to the ceremonial portion' How do they seek to know It? 'Through sacrifices,' etc.
Some, (The reference is to Bhartrprapanca.) however, explain the passage as follows:- 'They seek to know that which is revealed by the Mantras and Brahmanas.' According to them the word 'Vedanuvacana' would mean only the Aranyaka, (Which include among others the Upanisads.) since the ceremonial portion does not speak of the Supreme Self; for the Sruti distinctly says, 'That Being who is to be known only from the Upanisads' (III. ix. 26). Besides, the word 'Vedanuvacana,' making no specification, refers to the whole of the Vedas; and it is not proper to exclude one portion of them. Objection:- Your interpretation is also one-sided, since it excludes the Upanisads. Reply:- No, the objection does not apply to our first explanation, in which there is no contradiction. When the word 'Vedanuvacana' means daily reading the Upanisads too are of course included; hence no part of the meaning of the word is abandoned. Besides it is used along with the words 'sacrifices,' etc. It is to introduce sacrifices and other rites that the word 'Vedanuvacana' has been used. Therefore we understand that it means the rites, because the daily reading of the Vedas is also a rite. Objection:- But how can they seek to know the Self through such rites as the daily reading of the Vedas, for they do not reveal the Self as the Upanisads do? Reply:- The objection does not hold, for the rites are a means to purification. It is only when the rites have purified them, that people, with their minds clean, can easily know the Self that is revealed by the Upanisads. As the Mundaka Upanisad says, 'But his mind being purified, he sees through meditation that Self which has no parts' (III.i. . The Smrti also says, 'A man attains knowledge only when his evil work has been destroyed,' etc. (Mbh. XII. ccii. 9). Objection:- How do you know that the regular rites are for purification? Reply:- From such Sruti texts as the following:- 'He indeed sacrifices to the Self who knows, 'This particular part of my body is being purified by this (rite), and that particular part of my body is being improved by that (rite)',' etc. (S. XI. II. vi. 13). All the Smrtis too speak of rites as being purificatory, as, for instance, the passage, 'The forty-eight acts of purification,' etc. (cf. Gau. VIII. 22). The Gita also says, 'Sacrifices, charity and austerity are purifying to the intellect aspirant' (XVIII. 5), and 'All these knowers of sacrifices have their sins destroyed by the sacrifices' (IV. 30). Through sacrifices, viz those performed with things and those consisting of knowledge, both of which conduce to purity; and one who, being purified has a clean mind, will spontaneously attain knowledge. Hence it is said, 'They seek to know through sacrifices.' Charity, for this too destroys one's sins and increases one's merits. And austerity. The word meaning without distinction all forms of austerity including (even extreme forms like) the Krcchra and Candrayana, it is qualified by the phrase:- consisting in a dispassionate enjoyment of sense-objects. This absence of unrestrained enjoyment is the real meaning of the word 'Anasaka,' not starvation, which will only lead to death, but not to Self-knowledge. The words 'study of the Vedas,' 'sacrifices,' 'charity' and 'austerity,' refer to all regual rites without exception. Thus the entire body of regular rites --- not those that have material ends --- serves as a means to liberation through the attainment of Self-knowledge. Hence we see that the section of the Vedas dealing with knowledge has the same import as that dealing with rites. Similarly, knowing It alone, the Self as described in the preceding portion, in the above-mentioned way, one becomes a sage, a man of reflection, i.e. a Yogin. Knowing It alone, and none other, one becomes a sage. It may be urged that one can become a sage by knowing other things also; so how is it asserted, 'It alone'? To which we reply:- True, one can become a sage by knowing other things too, but not exclusively a sage; he may also become a ritualist. But knowing this Being that is to be known only from the Upanisads, one becomes a sage alone, and not a ritualist. Therefore it is to indicate his unique feature of becoming a sage that the text asserts, 'It alone.' Since action is impossible when the Self is known, as is indicated in the words, 'What should one see and through what?' --- only reflection can then take place. Further, desiring, or seeking, this world alone, their own Self, monks renounce their homes, lit. depart effectively, i.e. relinquish all rites. Because of the assertion, 'Desiring this world alone,' we understand that those who seek the three external worlds (The earth, the world of the manes and heaven.) are not entitled to the monastic life, for a resident of the region of Banaras who wishes to reach Hardwar (Which lies at the north.) does not travel eastward. Therefore, for those who desire the three external worlds, sons, rites and meditation on the conditioned Brahman are the means, since the Sruti says, 'This world of men is to be won through the son alone, and by no other rite,' etc. (I. v. 16). Hence those who want them should not reject such means as the son and embrace the monastic life, for it is not a means to them. Therefore the assertion, 'Desiring this world alone monks renounce their homes,' is quite in order. The attainment of the world of the Self is but living in one's own Self after the cessation of ignorance. Therefore, should a person desire that world of the Self, for him the chief and direct means of that would be the withdrawal from all activities, just as the son and the like are the means of the three external worlds; for acts that would lead to the birth of a son, for instance, are not means to the attainment of the Self. And we have already mentioned the contradiction involved in them on the ground of impossibility. Therefore, desiring to attain the world of the Self, they do renounce their homes, that is to say, must abstain from all rites. Just as for a man seeking the three external worlds, a son and so forth, are enjoined as the requisite means, so for one who has known about Brahman and desires to realised the world of the Self, the monastic life consisting in the cessation of all desires is undoubtedly enjoined.
Why do those seekers after the world of the Self particularly renounce their homes? The text gives the reason in the form of a laudatory passage. This is the reason for that monastic life:- The ancient sages, ancient knowers of the Self, it is said, did not desire children, as also rites and the meditation on the conditioned Brahman. --- The word 'children' suggests all these three means to the three external worlds. --- In other words, they did not strive for sons etc. as means to those three worlds. It may be objected that they must practise the meditation on the conditioned Brahman, since they could renounce desires on the strength of that alone. The answer is:- No, because it is excluded. To be explicit:- In the passages, 'The Brahmana ousts one who knows him as different from the Self' (II. iv. 6; IV. v. 7), and 'All ousts one,' etc. (Ibid.), even the meditation on the conditioned Brahman is excluded, for this Brahman too is included in the word 'all'. Also, 'Where one sees nothing else,' etc. (Ch. VII. xxiv. 1). Also because it has been forbidden to see in Brahman differences about prior or posterior, and interior or exterior, in the passage, 'Without prior or posterior, without interior or exterior' (II. v. 19). And 'Then what should one see ' know, and through what?' (II. iv. 14; IV. v. 15). Therefore there is no other reason for the renunciation of desires except the realisation of the Self. What was their intention? They thought:- 'What object or result shall we achieve through the instrumentality of children, for they are definitely known to be the means of attaining an external world, and that world does not exist apart from our own Self, since everything is our own Self, and we are the Self of everything; and just because It is our Self, It cannot be produced, attained, modified or improved by any means. Acts that purify the performer of sacrifices to the Self merely concern his identification with the body and organs, for the Sruti speaks of the relation as between the whole and part, etc., regarding them, 'This particular part of my body is being purified by this (rite),' etc. (S. XI. II. vi. 13). One who sees the Self as Pure Intelligence, homogeneous and without a break cannot meditate upon purification or improvement based on a relation as between the whole and part. Therefore we shall achieve nothing through means such as children. It is only the ignorant man who has to attain results through them. Because a man who sees water in a mirage proceeds to drink from it, another who sees no water there, but a desert, cannot certainly be so inclined. Similarly, we who see the Truth, the world of the Self, cannot run after things to be achieved through children etc. --- things that are like a mirage and so forth, and are the objects of the defective vision of ignorant people.' This was their idea. This is expressed as follows:- We beholders of the Truth who have attained this Self that is free from hunger etc. and is not to be modified by good or bad deeds, this world, this desired result. There are no means to be desired for realising this Self that is free from all such relative attributes as ends and means. It is only with regard to a thing which is attainable that means are looked for. If a search were made for means to secure something that is unattainable, it would be like swimming on land under the impression that it is water, or like looking for the footprints of birds in the sky. Therefore the knowers of Brahman, after realising this Self, should only renounce their homes, and not engage in rites; because the ancient knowers of Brahman, knowing this, did not want children. What they did after condemning this dealing with the world of ends and means as being the concern of the ignorant, is being described:- They, it is said, renounced their desire for sons, for wealth and for worlds, and lived a mendicant's life, etc. All this has been explained (III. v. 1). Therefore, desiring the world of the Self monks renounce their homes, i.e. should renounce. Thus it is an injunction, and harmonises with the eulogy (that follows). The sentence, which is provided with a eulogy (immediately after), cannot itself have the force of glorifying the world of the Self, for the verb 'renounce' has for its eulogy the succeeding passage. 'This is (the reason),' etc. If the previous sentence were a eulogy, it would not require another eulogy; but the verb 'renounce' (as interpreted above) does require the eulogy, 'This is (the reason),' etc.
Because ancient sages, desisting from rites directed towards obtaining children etc., did renounce their homes, therefore people of to-day also renounce them, i.e. should renounce them. If we thus construe the passage, the verb 'renounce' cannot have the force of glorifying the world of the Self. We have explained (In III. v. 1.) this on the ground that the verb is connected by the Sruti with the same subject as that of 'knowing.' Moreover, the verb 'renounce' is here used along with 'the study of the Vedas,' etc. As the study of the Vedas and other such acts, which have been enjoined as means to the realisation of the Self, are to be taken literally, and not as eulogies, so also the renunciation of home, which has been mentioned along with them as a means to the attainment of the world of the Self, cannot be a eulogy. Besides, a distinction in the results has been made by the Sruti. The words, 'Knowing (The renunciation in question follows this indirect knowledge so as to mature it into actual realisation.) It --- this world of the Self --- alone' (this text), divide the Self as a result distinct from the other results, the external worlds, as a similar division has been made in the passage, 'This world is to be won through the son alone, and by no other rite; the world of the manes through rites' (I. vi. 16, adapted). Nor is the verb 'renounce' eulogistic of the world of the Self, as if this were something already known. Besides, like a principal sacrifice, it itself requires a eulogy. Further, were it a eulogy it would occur in the text once (As a matter of fact, there are several verbs in the passage that repeat the idea.). Therefore it is purely a mistake to consider it as a tribute to the world of the Self.
Nor can renunciation as an act to be performed be regarded as a eulogy. If, in spite of its being such an act, it is considerd to be a eulogy, then rites such as the new- and full-moon sacrifices, which are to be performed, would also become eulogies. Nor is renunciation clearly known to have been enjoined elsewhere outside the present topic, in which case it might be construed here as being eulogistic. If, however, renunciation is supposed to be enjoined anywhere, it should primarily be here; it is not possible anywhere else. If, again, renunciation is conceded to be enjoined on those who are not qualified for any rite, in that case acts such as the climbing of trees may also be considered as equally appropriate injunctions, for both are alike unknown as obligatory under the circumstances. Therefore there is not the least chance of the passage in question being a eulogy.
It may be asked:- If this world of the Self alone is desired, why do they not undertake work as a means to its attainment? What is the good of renunciation? The answer is:- Because this world of the Self has no connection with work. That Self, desiring which they should renounce their homes, is not connected, either as a means or as an end, with any of the four kinds of work, viz those that are produced, etc. Therefore this self is That which has been described as 'Not this, not this'; It is imperceptible, for it is never perceived, etc. --- this is the description of the Self. Because it has been established by scriptural evidence as well as reasoning, specially in this dialogue between Janaka and Yajnavalkya, that the Self as described above is not connected with work and its results and means, is different from all relative attributes, beyond hunger etc., devoid of grossness and so on, birthless, undecaying, immortal, undying, beyond fear, by nature homogeneous Intelligence like a lump of salt, self-effulgent, one only without a second, without prior or posterior, and without interior or exterior --- therefore, after this Self is known as one's own Self, work can no more be done. Hence the Self is undifferentiated. One who has eyes does not surely fall into a well or on thorns while going along the way. Besides, the entire results of work are included in those of knowledge. And no wise man takes pains for a thing that can be had without any effort. 'If one gets honey near at hand, why go to a mountain for it? If the desired object is already attained, what sensible man would strive for it?' The Gita too says, 'All work, O Arjuna, together with its factors is finished with the attainment of knowledge' (IV. 33). Here (In IV. iii. 32.) also it has been stated that all other beings live on particles of this very Supreme Bliss that is accessible to the knower of Brahman. Hence the latter cannot undertake work. Because this sage, desisting from all desires, after realising the Atman that has been described as 'Not this, not this' as his own Self, lives identified with That, therefore it is but proper --- these words are to be supplied to complete the sentence --- that he who has this knowledge and is identified with that Self is never overtaken by these two thoughts that are just going to be mentioned. Which are they? The following ones:- 'I did an evil act for this reason, for example, the maintenance of the body. Oh, my action was wretched. This sinful act will take me to hell.' This repentance that comes to one who has done something wrong, does not overtake this sage who has become identified with the Self, described as 'Not this, not this.' Similarly 'I did a good act, such as the performance of a sacrifice or charity, for this reason, owing to the desire for results. So I shall enjoy the happiness that comes of it in another body.' This joy also does not overtake him. He, this knower of Brahman, conquers both of them, both these actions, good and bad. Thus for a monk who has known Brahman, both kinds of action, whether done in the past or in the present life, are destroyed, and no new ones are undertaken. Also, things done, such as the regular rites, or those very things not done --- the omission of them --- do not trouble him. It is the man who is ignorant of the Self that is troubled by actions done, for having to receive their results, and by those not done, by being visited with their adverse consequences. But this knower of Brahman burns all work to ashes with the fire of Self-knowledge. As the Smrti says, 'Just as a blazing fire (burns) the fuel (to ashes),' etc. (G. IV. 37). As to those actions that caused the present body, they are worked out through actual experience. Hence the knower of Brahman has no connection with work.
Max Müller
22. 'And he is that great unborn Self, who consists of knowledge, is surrounded by the Prânas, the ether within the heart [1]. In it there reposes the ruler of all, the lord of all, the king of all. He does not become greater by good works, nor smaller by evil works. He is the lord of all, the king of all things, the protector of all things. He is a bank [2] and a boundary, so that these worlds may not be confounded. Brâhmanas seek to know him by the study of the Veda, by sacrifice, by gifts, by penance, by fasting, and he who knows him, becomes a Muni. Wishing for that world (for Brahman) only, mendicants leave their homes. 'Knowing this, the people of old did not wish for offspring. What shall we do with offspring, they said, we who have this Self and this world (of Brahman) [3]? And they, having risen above the desire for sons, wealth, and new worlds, wander about as mendicants. For desire for sons is desire for wealth, and desire for wealth is desire for worlds. Both these are indeed desires only. He, the Self, is to be described by No, no [4]! He is incomprehensible, for he cannot be comprehended; he is imperishable, for he cannot perish; he is unattached, for he does not attach himself; unfettered, he does not suffer, he does not fail. Him (who knows), these two do not overcome, whether he says that for some reason he has done evil, or for some reason he has done good--he overcomes both, and neither what he has done, nor what he has omitted to do, burns (affects) him.
hovāca yājñavalkyaḥ . so'haṃ bhagavate videhāndadāmi mām cāpi saha
dāsyāyeti .. 23..
Meaning:- This has been expressed by the following hymn:- This is the eternal glory of a knower of Brahman:- it neither increases nor decreases through work. (Therefore) one should know the nature of that alone. Knowing it one is not touched by evil action. Therefore he who knows it as such becomes self-controlled, calm, withdrawn into himself, enduring and concentrated, and sees the self in his own self (body); he sees all as the Self. Evil does not overtake him, but he transcends all evil. Evil does not trouble him, (but) he consumes all evil. He becomes sinless, taintless, free from doubts, and a Brahmana (knower of Brahman). This is the world of Brahman, O Emperor, and you have attained it - said Yajnavalkya. 'I give you sir, the empire of Videha, and myself too with it, to wait upon you'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- This, what has been stated by the Brahmana, has been expressed by the following hymn:- This, what is described as 'Not this, not this,' etc., is the eternal glory of a knower of Brahman who has given up all desires. Other glories are due to work; hence they are not permanent; but this glory is distinct from them --- it is eternal, for it is natural. How is it eternal? The reason is being given:- It neither increases nor decreases through work --- it does not undergo the change called growth through good work done, nor does it undergo the change called decay through evil work. Since all changes are due to growth or decay, they are all negated by these two epithets. So this glory, being changeless, is eternal. Therefore one should know the nature of that glory alone. The word 'Pada' literally means that which is attained or known; hence it means only the nature of this glory; one should know that. What would come of knowing it? The answer is being given:- Knowing it, this glory, one is not touched by evil action, comprising both good and evil, for, to a knower of Brahman both are evil.
Since this glory of the knower of Brahman is thus unconnected with work, and is described as 'Not this, not this,' therefore he who knows it as such becomes self-controlled, desisting from the activities of the external organs; also calm, averse to the desires of the internal organ or mind; withdrawn into himself, free from all desires, or a monk; enduring, indifferent to the pairs of opposites (pleasure and pain, etc.); concentrated, attaining one-pointedness through dissociation from the movements of the organs and mind. This has been stated before in the words, 'Having known all about the strength that comes of knowledge, as well as scholarship,' etc. (III. v. 1). And sees the Self, the inner Intelligence, in his own self, the body and organs. Does he see only the Self limited to the body? No, he sees all as the Self, he sees that there is nothing different even by a hair's breadth from the self. By reason of his reflection he becomes a sage, giving up the three states of waking, dream and profound sleep. Evil, comprising merit and demerit, does not overtake him, the knower of Brahman who has this sort of realisation, but he, this knower of Brahman, transcends all evil, by realising it as his Self. Evil, consisting in what has been done or not done, does not trouble him, by producing the desired result or generating sin, but he, this knower of Brahman, consumes all evil, burns it to ashes with the fire of the realisation of the Self of all. He, who knows It as such, becomes sinless, devoid of merit and demerit, taintless, free from desires, free from doubts, and a Brahmana (knower of Brahman), with the firm conviction that he is the Self of all, the Supreme Brahman.
Such a man becomes in this state a Brahmana (lit. a knower of Brahman) in the primary sense of the word. Before living in this state of identity with Brahman, his Brahmanahood was but figurative. This identity with the Self of all is the world of Brahman, the world that is Brahman, in a real, not figurative, sense, O Emperor, and you have attained it, this world, of Brahman, which is fearless, and is described as 'Not this, not this' --- said Yajnavalkya. Janaka, thus identified with Brahman --- helped on to this state by Yajnavalkya --- replied, 'Since you have helped me to attain the state of Brahman, I give you, sir, the empire of Videha, the whole of my dominion, and myself too with it, i.e. Videha, to wait upon you as a servant.' The conjunction 'and' shows that the word 'myself' is connected with the verb 'give'. The topic of the knowledge of Brahman is finished, together with its offshoots and procedure as also renunciation. The highest end of man is also completely dealt with. This much is to be attained by a man, this is the culmination, this is the supreme goal, this is the highest good. Attaining this, one achieves all that has to be achieved and becomes a knower of Brahman. This is the teaching of the entire Vedas.
Max Müller
23. 'This has been told by a verse (Rik):- "This eternal greatness of the Brâhmana does not grow larger by work, nor does it grow smaller. Let man try to find (know) its trace, for having found (known) it, he is not sullied by any evil deed." 'He therefore that knows it, after having become quiet, subdued, satisfied, patient, and collected [1], sees self in Self, sees all as Self. Evil does not overcome him, he overcomes all evil. Evil does not burn him, he burns all evil. Free from evil, free from spots, free from doubt, he becomes a (true) Brâhmana; this is the Brahma-world, O King,'--thus spoke Yâgñavalkya. Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'Sir, I give you the Videhas, and also myself, to be together your slaves.'
स वा एष महानज आत्माऽन्नादो वसुदानो विन्दते वसु य एवं वेद ॥ २४॥
mantra 24[IV.iv.24]
sa vā eṣa mahānaja ātmā'nnādo vasudāno vindate vasu ya evaṃ veda .. 24..
Meaning:- That great, birthless Self is the eater of food and the giver of wealth (the fruits of one's work). He who knows It as such receives wealth (those fruits).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- That great, birthless Self which has been expounded in the story of Janaka and Yajnavalkya, is the eater of all food, by living in all beings, and the giver of wealth, i.e. the fruits of the actions of all, in other words, he connects all beings with the results of their respective actions. He who knows It, this birthless Self that is the eater of food and the giver of 'wealth', as such, as described above, i.e. as endowed with these two attributes, eats food, as the Self of all beings, and receives wealth, the entire fruits of everybody's actions, being their very Self. Or the meaning may be, the Self is to be meditated upon as endowed with these attributes even by a man who wants visible results. By that meditation he becomes the eater of food and the receiver of wealth; that is to say, he is thereby connected with visible results --- with the power to eat (plenty of) food and with cows, horses, etc.
Max Müller
24. This [1] indeed is the great, the unborn Self, the strong [2], the giver of wealth. He who knows this obtains wealth.
स वा एष महानज आत्माऽजरोऽमरोऽमृतोऽभयो ब्रह्माभयं वै
ब्रह्माभयꣳ हि वै ब्रह्म भवति य एवं वेद ॥ २५॥
इति चतुर्थं ब्राह्मणम् ।
अथ पञ्चमं ब्राह्मणम् ।
mantra 25[IV.iv.25]
sa vā eṣa mahānaja ātmā'jaro'maro'mṛto'bhayo brahmābhayaṃ vai
brahmābhayagͫ hi vai brahma bhavati ya evaṃ veda .. 25..
iti caturthaṃ brāhmaṇam .
atha pañcamaṃ brāhmaṇam .
Meaning:- That great, birthless Self is undecaying, immortal, undying, fearless and Brahman (infinite). Brahman is indeed fearless. He who knows It as such certainly becomes the fearless Brahman.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Now the import of the whole Upanisad is being summed up in this paragraph, as much as to say that this is the substance of the entire Upanisad. That great, birthless Self is undecaying, i.e. It does not wear off; immortal, because It is undecaying. That which is born and decays also dies; but because It is indestructible on account of Its being birthless and undecaying, therefore It is undying. That is to say, since It is free from the three changes of condition --- birth and so on, It is also free from the other three changes of condition and their effects --- desire, work, delusion, etc., which are but forms of death. Hence also It is fearless:- Since It is possessed of the preceding attributes, It is devoid of fear. Besides, fear is an effect of ignorance; by the negation of that effect as well as of the six changes of condition, it is understood that ignorance too is negated. What is the fearless Self that is possessed of the above-mentioned attributes? Brahman, i.e. vast, or infinite, Brahman is indeed fearless:- It is a well-known fact. Therefore it is but proper to say that the Self endowed with the above attributes is Brahman.
He who knows It, the Self described above, as such, as the fearless Brahman, certainly becomes the fearless Brahman. This is the purport of the whole Upanisad put in a nutshell. It is to bring home this purport that the ideas of projection, maintenance, dissolution, etc., as well as those of action and its factors and results were superimposed on the Self. Again, by their negation --- by the elimination of the superimposed attributes through a process of 'Not this, not this' --- the truth has been known. Just as, in order to explain the nature of numbers from one up to a hundred thousand billions, a man superimposes them on certain lines (digits), calling one of them one, another ten, another hundred, yet another thousand, and so on, (According to their place.) and in so doing he only expounds the nature of numbers but he never says that the numbers are the lines; or just as in order to teach the alphabet, he has resource to a combination of leaf (Serving for paper.), ink, lines, etc., and through them explains the nature of the letters, but he never says that the letters are the leaf, ink, lines, etc., similarly in this exposition the one entity, Brahman, has been inculcated through various means, such as the projection (of the universe). Again, to eliminate the differences created by those hypothetical means, the truth has been summed up as 'Not this, not this,' In the end, that knowledge, further clarified so as to be undifferentiated, together with its result, has been concluded in this paragraph.
Max Müller
25. This great, unborn Self, undecaying, undying, immortal, fearless, is indeed Brahman. Fearless is Brahman, and he who knows this becomes verily the fearless Brahman.
Meaning:- Now Yajnavalkya had two wives, Maitreyi and Katyayani. Of these Maitreyi used to discuss Brahman, (while) Katyayani had then only an essentially feminine outlook. One day Yajnavalkya, with a view to embracing life -
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- The word 'now' (Atha) indicates sequence after the furnishing of reasons, for the preceding portion predominates in reasons. Then in this section relating to Maitreyi, which consists mainly of scriptural statements, the theme put forward in the preceding portion is concluded. The particle 'ha' (meaning, it is said) refers to a past incident. The sage Yajnavalkya, it is said, had two wives:- one was named Maitreyi, and the other, Katyayani. Of these two wives, Maitreyi used to discuss Brahman, (while) Katyayani had then only an essentially feminine outlook, minding hosehold needs. One day Yajnavalkya, with a view to embracing another life from the householder's life that he was then living, i.e. the monastic life (The sentence is carried over to the next paragraph)
Max Müller
1. Yâgñavalkya had two wives, Maitreyî and Kâtyâyanî. Of these Maitreyî was conversant with Brahman, but Kâtyâyanî possessed such knowledge only as women possess. And Yâgñavalkya, when he wished to get ready for another state of life (when he wished to give up the state of a householder, and retire into the forest),
Meaning:- 'O Maitreyi, my dear', said Yajnavalkya, 'I am going to renounce this life for monasticism. Allow me to finish between you and Katyayani'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- He addressed his older wife by name and said, 'I am going to renounce this householder's life for monasticism, O Maitreyi. Please permit me. Allow me, if you wish, to finish between you and Katyayani.' All this has been explained.
Max Müller
2. Said, 'Maitreyî, verily I am going away from this my house (into the forest). Forsooth, let me make a settlement between thee and that Kâtyâyanî.'
yathaivopakaraṇavatāṃ jīvitaṃ tathaiva te jīvitagͫ syādamṛtatvasya
tu nā''śā'sti vitteneti .. 3..
Meaning:- Thereupon Maitreyi said, 'Sir, if indeed this whole earth full of wealth be mine, shall I be immortal through that, or not?' 'No', replied Yajnavalkya, 'your life will be just like that of people who possess plenty of things, but there is no hope of immortality through wealth.'
Max Müller
3. Maitreyî said:- 'My Lord, if this whole earth, full of wealth, belonged to me, tell me, should I be immortal by it, or no?' 'No,' replied Yâgñavalkya, 'like the life of rich people will be thy life. But there is no hope of immortality by wealth.'
Meaning:- Then Maitreyi said, 'What shall I do with that which will not make me immortal? Tell me, sir, of that alone which you know (to be the only means of immortality).'
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Being thus addressed, Maitreyi said, 'If indeed this whole earth full of wealth be mine, shall I be immortal through that, i.e. rites to be performed through wealth, or not?' 'No,' replied Yajnavalkya, etc. --- already explained.
Max Müller
4. And Maitreyî said:- 'What should I do with that by which I do not become immortal? What my Lord knoweth [1] (of immortality), tell that clearly to me.'
स होवाच याज्ञवल्क्यः प्रिया वै खलु नो भवती सती प्रियमवृधद्
धन्त तर्हि भवत्येतद् व्याख्यास्यामि ते व्याचक्षाणस्य तु मे
निदिध्यासस्वेति ॥ ५॥
mantra 5[IV.v.5]
sa hovāca yājñavalkyaḥ priyā vai khalu no bhavatī satī priyamavṛdhad
dhanta tarhi bhavatyetad vyākhyāsyāmi te vyācakṣāṇasya tu me
nididhyāsasveti .. 5..
Meaning:- Yajnavalkya said, 'My dear, you have been my beloved (even before), and you have magnified what is after my heart. If you wish, my dear, I will explain it to you. As I explain it, meditate (upon its meaning).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- He said, 'You have been my beloved even before, and you have magnified, determined, what is after my heart. Hence I am pleased with you. If you wish to know the means of immortality, my dear, I will explain it to you.'
Max Müller
5. Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'Thou who art truly dear to me, thou hast increased what is dear (to me in thee) [1]. Therefore, if you like, Lady, I will explain it to thee, and mark well what I say.'
Meaning:- He said:- 'It is not for the sake of the husband, my dear, that he is loved, but for one's own sake that he is loved. It is not for the sake of the wife, my dear, that she is loved, but for one's own sake that she is loved. It is not for the sake of the sons, my dear, that they are loved, but for one's own sake that they are loved. It is not for the sake of wealth, my dear, that it is loved, but for one's own sake that it is loved. It is not for the sake of the Brahmana, my dear, that he is loved, but for one's own sake that he is loved. It is not for the sake of the Kshatriya, my dear, that he is loved, but for one's own sake that he is loved. It is not for the sake of worlds, my dear, that they are loved, but for one's own sake that they are loved. It is not for the sake of the gods, my dear, that they are loved, but for one's own sake that they are loved. It is not for the sake of beings, my dear, that they are loved, but for one's own sake that they are loved. It is not for the sake of all, my dear, that all is loved, but for one's own sake that it is loved. The Self, my dear Maitreyi, should be realised - should be heard of, reflected on and meditated upon. When the Self, my dear, is realised by being heard of, reflected on and meditated upon, all this is known.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- When the Self, my dear Maitreyi, is realised. How? By being first head of from the teacher and the scriptures, then reflected on, discussed through argument or reasoning --- the hearing is from the scriptures (and the teacher) alone, the reflection through reasoning --- and lastly meditated upon (lit. known), ascertained to be such and such and not otherwise. What happens then? All this that is other than Self is known, for there is nothing else but the Self.
Max Müller
6. And he said:- 'Verily, a husband is not dear, that you may love the husband; but that you may love the Self, therefore a husband is dear. 'Verily, a wife is not dear, that you may love the wife; but that you may love the Self, therefore a wife is dear. 'Verily, sons are not dear, that you may love the sons; but that you may love the Self, therefore sons are dear. 'Verily, wealth is not dear, that you may love wealth; but that you may love the Self, therefore wealth is dear. 'Verily, cattle [1] are not dear, that you may love cattle; but that you may love the Self, therefore cattle are dear. 'Verily, the Brahman-class is not dear, that you may love the Brahman-class; but that you may love the Self, therefore the Brahman-class is dear. 'Verily, the Kshatra-class is not dear, that you may love the Kshatra-class; but that you may love the Self, therefore the Kshatra-class is dear. 'Verily, the worlds are not dear, that you may love the worlds; but that you may love the Self, therefore the worlds are dear. 'Verily, the Devas are not dear, that you may love the Devas; but that you may love the Self, therefore the Devas are dear. 'Verily, the Vedas are not dear, that you may love the Vedas; but that you may love the Self, therefore the Vedas are dear. 'Verily, creatures are not dear, that you may love the creatures; but that you may love the Self, therefore are creatures dear. 'Verily, everything is not dear, that you may love everything; but that you may love the Self, therefore everything is dear. 'Verily, the Self is to be seen, to be heard, to be perceived, to be marked, O Maitreyî! When the Self has been seen, heard, perceived, and known, then all this is known!
bhūtāni veda sarvaṃ taṃ parādād yo'nyatrā''tmanaḥ sarvaṃ vededaṃ
brahmedaṃ kṣatramime lokā ime devā ime vedā imāni bhūtānīdagͫ sarvaṃ
yadayamātmā .. 7..
Meaning:- The Brahmana ousts (slights) one who knows him as different from the Self. The Kshatriya ousts one who knows him as different from the Self. Worlds oust one who knows them as different from the Self. The gods oust one who knows them as different from the Self. The Vedas oust one who knows them as different from the Self. Beings oust one who knows them as different from the Self. All ousts one who knows it as different from the Self. This Brahmana, this Kshatriya, these worlds, these gods, these Vedas, these beings and these all -- are this Self.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- They oust this person who does not see rightly --- bar him from the absolute aloofness of the Self --- for his offence of looking on them as different from the Self. This is the idea.
Max Müller
7. 'Whosoever looks for the Brahman-class elsewhere than in the Self, was abandoned by the Brahman-class. Whosoever looks for the Kshatra-class elsewhere than in the Self, was abandoned by the Kshatra-class. Whosoever looks for the worlds elsewhere than in the Self, was abandoned by the worlds. Whosoever looks for the Devas elsewhere than in the Self, was abandoned by the Devas. Whosoever looks for the Vedas elsewhere than in the Self, was abandoned by the Vedas. Whosoever looks for the creatures elsewhere than in the Self, was abandoned by the creatures. Whosoever looks for anything elsewhere than in the Self, was abandoned by anything. 'This Brahman-class, this Kshatra-class, these worlds, these Devas, these Vedas, all these beings, this everything, all is that Self.
Meaning:- As, when a drum is beaten, one cannot distinguish its various particular notes, but they are included in the general note of the drum or in the general sound produced by different kinds of strokes.
Max Müller
8. 'Now as the sounds of a drum, when beaten, cannot be seized externally (by themselves), but the sound is seized, when the drum is seized, or the beater of the drum;
स यथा शङ्खस्य ध्मायमानस्य न बाह्याञ्छब्दाञ्छक्नुयाद् ग्रहणाय
शङ्खस्य तु ग्रहणेन शङ्खध्मस्य वा शब्दो गृहीतः ॥ ९॥
mantra 9[IV.v.9]
sa yathā śaṅkhasya dhmāyamānasya na bāhyāñchabdāñchaknuyād grahaṇāya
śaṅkhasya tu grahaṇena śaṅkhadhmasya vā śabdo gṛhītaḥ .. 9..
Meaning:- As, when a conch is blown, one cannot distinguish its various particular notes, but they are included in the general note of the conch or in the general sound produced by different kinds of playing.
Max Müller
9. 'And as the sounds of a conch-shell, when blown, cannot be seized externally (by themselves), but the sound is seized, when the shell is seized, or the blower of the shell;
स यथा वीणायै वाद्यमानायै न बाह्याञ्छब्दाञ्छक्नुयाद्ग्रहणाय
वीणायै तु ग्रहणेन वीणावादस्य वा शब्दो गृहीतः ॥ १०॥
mantra 10[IV.v.10]
sa yathā vīṇāyai vādyamānāyai na bāhyāñchabdāñchaknuyādgrahaṇāya
vīṇāyai tu grahaṇena vīṇāvādasya vā śabdo gṛhītaḥ .. 10..
Meaning:- As, when a Vina is played, one cannot distinguish its various particular notes, but they are included in the general note of the Vina or in the general sound produced by different kinds of playing.
Max Müller
10. 'And as the sounds of a lute, when played, cannot be seized externally (by themselves), but the sound is seized, when the lute is seized, or the player of the lute;
Meaning:- As from a fire kindled with wet faggot diverse kinds of smoke issue, even so, my dear, the Rig-Veda, Yajur-Veda, Sama-Veda, Atharvangirasa, history, mythology, arts, Upanishads, pithy verses, aphorisms, elucidations, explanations, sacrifices, oblations in the fire, food, drink, this world, the next world and all beings are (like) the breath of this infinite Reality. They are like the breath of this (Supreme Self).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- In the second chapter, by a description of words as the breath of the Supreme Self it has virtually been stated through implication that objects (denoted by words) such as the worlds are also Its breath. Hence they have not been separately mentioned. But since the import of the entire scriptures is being summarised here, it is necessary to make the implied meaning explicit. Hence the worlds and the rest are separately mentioned.
Max Müller
11. 'As clouds of smoke proceed by themselves out of lighted fire kindled with damp fuel, thus verily, O Maitreyî, has been breathed forth from this great Being what we have as Rig-veda, Yagur-veda, Sâma-veda, Atharvâṅgirasas, Itihâsa, Purâna, Vidyâ, the Upanishads, Slokas, Sûtras, Anuvyâkhyânas, Vyâkhyânas, what is sacrificed, what is poured out, food, drink [1], this world and the other world, and all creatures. From him alone all these were breathed forth.
Meaning:- As the ocean is the one goal of all sorts of water, as the skin is the one goal of all kinds of touch, as the nostrils are the one goal of all odours, as the tongue is the one goal of all savours, as the eye is the one goal of all colours , as the ear is the one goal of all sounds, as the Manas is the one goal of all deliberations, as the intellect is the one goal of all kinds of knowledge, as the hands are the one goal of all sort of work, as the organ of generation is the one goal of all kinds of enjoyment, as the anus is the one goal of all excretions, as the feet are the one goal of all kinds of walking, as the organ of speech is the one goal of all Vedas.
Max Müller
12. 'As all waters find their centre in the sea, all touches in the skin, all tastes in the tongue, all smells in the nose, all colours in the eye, all sounds in the ear, all percepts in the mind, all- knowledge in the heart, all actions in the hands, all movements in the feet, and all the Vedas in speech,--
Meaning:- As a lump of salt is without interior or exterior, entire, and purely saline in taste, even so is the Self without interior or exterior, entire, and Pure Intelligence alone. (The Self) comes out (as a separate entity) from these elements, and (this separateness) is destroyed with them. After attaining (this oneness) it has no more consciousness. This is what I say, my dear. So said Yajnavalkya.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- When through knowledge all the effects have been merged, the one Self remains like a lump of salt, without interior or exterior, entire, and Pure Intelligence. Formerly it possessed particular consciousness owing to the particular combinations with the elements. When that particular consciousness and its cause, the combination with the elements, have been dissolved through the knowledge --- after attaining (this oneness) it has no more (particular) consciousness --- this is what Yajnavalkya says.
Max Müller
13. 'As a mass of salt has neither inside nor outside, but is altogether a mass of taste, thus indeed has that Self neither inside nor outside, but is altogether a mass of knowledge; and having risen from out these elements, vanishes again in them. When he has departed, there is no more knowledge (name), I say, O Maitreyî,'--thus spoke Yâgñavalkya.
सा होवाच मैत्रेय्यत्रैव मा भगवान्मोहान्तमापीपिपन् न वा अहमिमं
विजानामीति स होवाच न वा अरेऽहं मोहं ब्रवीम्यविनाशी वा
अरेऽयमात्माऽनुच्छित्तिधर्मा ॥ १४॥
mantra 14[IV.v.14]
sā hovāca maitreyyatraiva mā bhagavānmohāntamāpīpipan na vā ahamimaṃ
vijānāmīti sa hovāca na vā are'haṃ mohaṃ bravīmyavināśī vā
are'yamātmā'nucchittidharmā .. 14..
Meaning:- Maitreyi said, 'Just here you have led me into the midst of confusion, sir, I do not at all comprehend this'. He said, 'Certainly, I am not saying anything confusing. This self is indeed immutable and indestructible, my dear'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- She said, 'Just here, in this very thing, i.e. Pure Intelligence, you have led me into the midst of confusion, i.e. confounded me, by saying, 'After attaining (oneness) it has nor more consciousness.' Hence I do not at all comprehend --- clearly understand --- this Self that you have described.' He said, 'Certainly I am not saying anything confusing; for this self that is under consideration is indeed immutable (lit. undying) and indestructible, my dear Maiteryi.' That is to say, it is not subject to destruction either in the form of change or of extinction.
Max Müller
14. Then Maitreyî said:- 'Here, Sir, thou hast landed me in utter bewilderment. Indeed, I do not understand him.' But he replied:- 'O Maitreyî, I say nothing that is bewildering. Verily, beloved, that Self is imperishable, and of an indestructible nature.
Meaning:- Because when there is duality, as it were, then one sees something, one smells something, one tastes something, one speaks something, one hears something, one thinks something, one touches something, one knows something. (But) when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should one see and through what, what should one smell and through what, what should one taste and through what, what should one speak and through what, what should one hear and through what, what should one think and through what, what should one touch and through what, what should one know and through what? Through what should one know that owing to which all this is known? This self is That which has been described as 'Not this, Not this'. It is imperceptible, for It is never perceived; undecaying, for It never decays; unattached, for It is never attached; unfettered - it never feels pain, and never suffers injury. Through what, O Maitreyi, should one know the Knower? So you have got the instruction, Maitreyi. This much indeed is (the means of) immortality, my dear. Saying this Yajnavalkya left.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- In all the four chapters one and the same self has been ascertained to be the Supreme Brahman. But the means to Its attainment are various. The goal of all of them, however, is that Self which has been pointed out in the second chapter in the words, 'Now therefore the description:- Not this, not this' (II. iii. 6). The same has also ben ascertained in the third chapter, in the dialogue between Sakalya and Yajnavalkya, where death (the falling off of the head) was mentioned as the wager; then at the end of the third chapter, next in the dialogue between Janaka and Yajnavalkya, and again here at the conclusion of the Upanisad. In order to show that all the four chapters are exclusively devoted to this Self, and that no other meaning is intended in between, the conclusion has been made with the words, 'This self is That which has been described as 'Not this. not this,' ' etc.
Since, in spite of the truth being presented in a hundred ways, the Self is the last word of it all, arrived at by the process of 'Not this, not this,' and nothing else is perceived either through reasoning or through scriptural statement, therefore the knowledge of this Self by the process of 'Not this, not this' and the renunciation of everything are the only means of attaining immortality. To bring out this conclusion the text says:- This much indeed --- this realisation of the Self, the one without a second, by the eliminating process of 'Not this, not this,' is (the means of) immortality, my dear Maitreyi, and this is independent of any auxiliary means. That of which you asked me saying, 'Tell me, sir, of that alone which you know (to be the only means of immortality),' is just this much. So you have known it. Saying this, describing this Self-knowledge, the means of immortality, to his beloved wife Maitreyi, Yajnavalkaya --- what did he do? --- did what he had first proposed saying, I am going to renounce this life' --- left, i.e. became a monk. The discussion of the knowledge of Brahman, culminating in renunciation, is finished. This much is the instruction, this is the teaching of the Vedas, this is the ultimate goal, this is the end of what a man should do to achieve his highest good.
Now we are going to have a discussion in order to get a clear conception of the meaning of the scriptues, for we see various conflicting statements in them. For instance, the following texts indicate that there is only one order of life (the householder's):- 'One should perform the Agnihotra for life' (Ba.), 'One should perform the new- and full-moon sacrifices for life' (Ibid.), 'One should wish to live a hundred years on earth only performing rites' (Is. 2), 'This Agnihotra is a sacrifice that must be continued till decay and death come' (S. XII. iv. ii. 1), and so on. There are also statements establishing another order of life (monasticism):- 'Knowing (the Self) ' they give up desires ' and renounce their homes (Adapted from III. v. 1 and IV. iv. 22.),' 'After finishing the student life he should be a householder, from that he should pass on to the life of a hermit in the forest, and then become a monk. Or he may do otherwise --- he should renounce the world from the student life itslef , or from the householder's life, or from the hermit life' (Np. 77; Ja. 4, adapted), 'There are but two outstanding paths --- first, the path of rites, and next, monasticism; of these, the latter excels' (cf. Tai. A. X. 1xii. 12), and 'Neither through rites nor through progeny nor through wealth, but through renunciation some attained immortaility' (Mn. X. 5; Kai. 2). Similarly the Smrtis:- 'One who leads the student life renounces' (Ap. II. xxi. 8, 19), 'One who leads a perfectly celibate life may enter into any order of life' (Va. VIII. 2), 'Some say he has an option of choosing his order of life' (Gau. III. 1); also, 'After studying the Vedas as a student, he should seek to have sons and grandsons to purify his ancestors. Lighting the sacred fires and making sacrifices according to the injunctions, he should retire into the forest and then seek to become a monk' (Mbh. XII. c1xxiv. 6), 'The Brahmana, after performing the sacrifice to Prajapati and giving all his wealth to the priests as remuneration, should place the fires within himself and renounce his home' (M. VI. 38), and so on.
Thus hundreds of contradictory passages from the Srutis and Smrtis are found, inculcating an option with regard to renunciation, or a succession among the orders of life, or the adoption of any one of them at will. The conduct of those who are versed in these scriptures has also been mutually conflicting. And there is disagreement even among great scholars who understand the meaning of the scriptures. Hence it is impossible for persons of shallow understanding clearly to grasp the meaning of the scriptures. It is only those who have a firm hold on the scriptures and logic, that can distinguish the particular meaning of any of those passages from that of the others. Therefore, in order to indicate their exact meaning, we shall discuss them according to our understanding. Prima facie view:- The Vedas inculcate only rites, for such Sruti passages as, '(One should perform the Agnihotra) for life' (Ba.), admit of no other meaning. The Sruti speaks of the last rite of a man in these terms, 'They burn him with the sacrificial vessels.' There is also the statement about the rites being continued till decay and death come. Besides there is this hint, '(This) body, reduced to ashes,' etc. (V. xv. 1; Is. 17). If he were a monk, his body should not be reduced to ashes. The Smrti also says, 'He alone should be considered entitled to the study of these scriptures, whose rites from conception to the study of these scriptures, whose rites from conception to the funeral ground are performed with the utterance of sacred formulas, and no one else' (M. II. 16). The rites that are enjoined by the Vedas to be performed in this life with the utterance of sacred formulas, are shown by the Smrti to terminate only on the funeral ground. And because a man who does not perform those rites is not entitled (to the study of the Smrtis), he is absolutely debarred from having any right to the study of the Vedas. Besides, it is forbidden to extinguish the sacred fire, as in the passage, 'He who extinguishes the sacred fire destroys the power of the gods' (Tai. S. I. v. ii. 1).
Question:- Since renunciation etc. are also enjoined, is not the import of the Vedas as inculcating rites only optional? The opponent's answer:- No, for the Sruti texts inculcating renunciation etc. have a different meaning. To be explicit:- Because such Sruti texts as, 'One should perform the Agnihotra for life' (Ba.), and 'One should perform the new-and full-moon sacrifices for life' (Ibid.), make such rites dependent on (i.e. co-extensive with) life itself, and for that reason cannot be interpreted differently, while the passages inculcating renunciation etc. are applicable to those who are unfit for rites, therefore there is no option (with regard to the meaning of the Vedas as inculcating rites). Besides, since the Sruti says, 'One should wish to live a hundred years on earth only performing rites' (Is. 2), and the passage, 'One is absolved (from rites) either by extreme old age or by death' (S. XII. iv. i. 1), leaves no room for the ritualist to quit the rites except in the event of extreme old age or death, the injunction regarding their being continued in these cases up to the funeral ground, is not optional. Moreover, the blind, the hump-backed, and so forth, who are unfit for rites, surely deserve the compassion of the Sruti; hence the injunction about other orders of life such as monasticism are not out of place (as being applicable to them).
Question:- But there will be no room for the injunction regarding the sequence of monasticism. The opponent's answer:- Not so, for the Visvajit and Sarvamedha sacrifices will be an exception (Because one has to part with all one's wealth in them. Hence any more performance of sacrifices would be impossible for want of wealth. These persons alone are then entitled to monasticism etc.) to the rule about the lifelong performance of sacrifices. In other words, these two sacrifices are the only exceptions to the injunction about the lifelong performance of sacrifices, and the succession referred to in the passage, 'After finishing the student life he should be a householder, from that he should pass on to the life of a hermit in the forest, and then becomes a monk' (Np. 77; Ja. 4, adapted), is applicable to these cases. There will thus be no contradiction. That is to say, if the injunction relating to the sequence of monasticism applies to such cases, then there is no contradiction, for the sequence holds good. But if it is regarded as applicable to other cases, the injunction about the lifelong performance of sacrifices is restricted in its scope. Whereas, if the sequence is applicable to the Visvajit and Sarvamedha sacrifices, there is no such contradiction. The Advaitin's reply:- Your view is wrong, for you have admitted Self-knowledge to be the means of immortality. To be explicit:- You have admitted the Self-knowledge that has been introduced with the words, 'The Self alone is to be meditated upon' (I. iv. 7), and concluded with, 'This self is That which has been described as 'Not this, not this,' ' (III. ix. 26). So you are only reluctant to admit that this much alone is the means of immortality, independently of anything else. Now I ask you why you are intolerant of Self-knowledge.
Objection:- Here is my reason. As, to a person who wants heaven, but does not know the means of its attainment, the Vedas inculcate such means as the Agnihotra, so here also, to one who wants to attain immortality, but does not know the means of it, they inculcate the instruction desired --- 'Tell me, sir, of that alone which you know (to be the only means of immortality)' (II. iv. 3; IV. v. 4) --- in the words, 'This much ' my dear' (IV. v. 15). Reply:- In that case, just as you admit the Agnihotra etc., inculcated by the Vedas, to be the means of attaining heaven, so also you should do with Self-knowledge. You should admit it to be the means of immortality exactly as it is inculcated, for in either case the authority is the same.
Objection:- What would happen it if is admitted? Reply:- Since Self-knowledge destroys the cause of all actions, the awakening of knowledge would terminate them. Now rites such as the Agnihotra, which are connected with the wife and fire, can be performed only if there are agencies for whom they are meant, and this entails an idea of difference. In other words, they cannot be performed unless there are the gods --- Fire etc. --- for whose sake they are undertaken, and this last depends on the sacrificer's regarding the gods as different from himself. That notion of difference regarding the deities to be honoured, in view of which such deities are recommended by the Vedas as means to sacrifices, is destroyed in the state of enlightenment by knowledge, as we know from such Sruti passages as, 'He (who worships another god thinking), 'He is one, and I another,' does not know' (I. iv. 10), 'The gods oust one who knows them as different from the Self' (II. iv. 6; IV. v. 7), 'He goes from death to death who sees difference, as it were, in It' (IV. iv. 19; Ka. IV. 10), 'It should be realised in one form only' (IV. iv. 20), and 'He sees all as the Self' (IV. iv. 23). Nor is Self-knowledge dependent on place, time, circumstances, etc., for its relates to the Self, which is an eternal verity. It is rites which, being bound up with persons (i.e. subjective), may depend on place, time, circumstances, etc.; but knowledge, being bound up with reality (i.e. objective), never depends on them. As fire is hot, and as the ether is formless (independently of place, time, etc.), so also is Self-knowledge.
Objection:- It this is so, the Vedic injunctions about rites, which are an unquestionable authority, are nullified, and of two things possessing equal authority, one should not nullify the other. Reply:- Not so, for Self-knowledge only destroys one's natural idea of difference. It does not nullify other injunctions; it only stops the idea of difference ingrained in us. Objection:- Still, when the cause of rites is removed, they are impossible, and it virtually means that the injunctions regarding them are gone. Reply:- No, it is not open to the charge, for it is analogous to the cessation of our tendency to perform rites having material ends, when desire itself has been removed. Just as a man, induced to perform a sacrifice leading to heaven by the injunction, 'One who desires heaven must perform sacrifices' (Ta. XVI. iii. 3), gives up his inclination to perform this kind of sacrificce with a material end when his desire has been removed by the injunctions forbidding desires. His action does not nullify the injunctions regarding rites with material ends. Objection:- The injunction forbidding desires leads to an impression about the uselessness of them, and consequently the injunctions advocating rites with material ends cannot operate. So these injunctions are virtually nullified. Reply:- If Self-knowledge nullifes the injunctions about rites in the same way, we admit this. Objection:- But this would take away the authority of the injunctions about rites, just as the injunctions about rites with material ends are null and void when desire is forbidden. In other words, if rites are not to be undertaken, with the result that there is no one to perform them, then the injunctions about their performance become useless, and consequently the whole section of the Vedas dealing with such injunctions necessarily loses its authority. Reply:- No, it will be operative prior to the awakening of Self-knowledge. Our natural consciousness of difference regarding action, its factors and its results, will, previous to the awakening of Self-knowledge, certainly continue to be an incentive to the performance of rites, just as, before the idea about the harmful nature of desires arises, our natural craving for heaven etc. will certainly induce us to engage in rites having material ends.
Objection:- In that case the Vedas are a source of evil. Reply:- No, good and evil depend on one's intentions, for except liberation alone everything else comes within the province of ignorance. Good and evil are matters of personal whims, for we find that sacrifices are performed with death as their objective (The Mahabharata tells of King Yudhisthira's performing a sacrifice in advance concerning 'the great exit.') Therefore the injunctions about rites are operative only until one is confronted with those about Self-knowledge. Hence rites do not go hand in hand with Self-knowledge, which proves that this alone is the means of immortality, as set forth in the words, 'This much indeed is (the means of) immortality, my dear' (IV. v. 15), for knowledge is independent of rites. Hence, even without any explicit injunction to that effect, the enlightened sage can, for reasons already stated (In IV. iv. 23.), embrace the monastic life simply through his strong conviction about the identity of the individual self with Brahman that is devoid of the factors of an action such as the deity of whom it is performed as well as caste etc., and is immutable. Since the ancient sages, not caring for children, renounced their homes on the ground stated in the clause, 'We who have attained this Self, this world' (IV. iv. 22), therefore, as it has been explained, this renunciation of their homes by the sages can take place simply by their knowing (That is, indirectly, from the teacher and the scriptures; direct realisation is not meant.) the word of the Self. Similarly it is proved that the man who seeks illumination can also renounce the world, for there is the statement, 'Desiring this world alone monks renounce their homes' (Ibid.). And we have have said that rites are for the unenlightened. That is to say, because so long as ignorance persists there is scope for rites intended to produce, attain, modify, or purify, therefore rites, as we have stated, are also the means of Self-knowledge through the purification of the mind, as the Sruti says that the Brahmanas seek to know It through sacrifices etc. Under the circumstances, if we examine the comparative efficacy, for bringing forth Self-knowledge, of the duties pertaining to the different orders of life, which concern only the unenlightened, we find that virtues such as the absence of pride, which are mainly intended for the control of the senses, and meditation, discrimination, non-attachment, etc., which deal with the mind, are the direct aids. The others, owing to the predominance of injury, attachment, aversion, etc. in them, are mixed up with a good deal of evil work. Hence the monastic life is recommended for seekers after liberation, as in the following passages, 'The giving up of all duties that have been described (as belonging to particular orders of life) is (best). Renunciation, again, is the culmination of this giving up of the duties,' 'O Brahmana, what will you do with wealth, or friends, or a wife, for you shall have to die? Seek the Self that has entered the cave of your intellect. Where are your grandfather and other ancestors gone, as well as your father?' (Mbh. XII. c1xxiv. 38). In the Samkhya and Yoga systems also renunciation is spoken of as a direct means of knowledge. The absence of the impulsion of desire is another reason (why the seeker after liberation renounces the world). For all the scriptues tell us that the impulsion of desire is antagonistic to knowledge. Therefore, for a seeker after liberation who is disgusted with the world, the statement, 'He should renounce the world from the student life itself,' (Np. 77), is quite reasonable, even if he without knowledge.
Objection:- But we have said that renunciation is for the man who is unfit for rites, for there alone is the scope for them; otherwise the dictum of the Sruti about the lifelong performances of rites would be contradicted. Reply:- The objection does not hold, for there is enough scope for those statements of the Sruti. We have already said that all rites are for the unenlightened man with desire. It is not absolutely that rites are enjoined for life. For men are generally full of desires, which concerns various objects and require the help of many rites and their means. The Vedic rites are the means of various results and are to be performed by a man related to a wife and the fire; they produce many results, being performed again and again, like agriculture etc., and take a hundred years to finish, either in the householder's life or in the forest life. Hence in view of them the Sruti texts enjoin lifelong rites. The Mantra also says, 'One should wish to live a hundred years on earth only perfoming rites' (Is. 2). The giving up of rites after the Visvajit and Sarvamedha sacrifices refers to such a man; while in the case of those on whom lifelong rites are enjoined, these should be continued right up to the funeral ground, and the body consumed in fire. Or it may be that the injunctions of the Sruti about the lifelong performance of rites concern the other two castes except the Brahmana, for the Ksatriya and the Vaisya are not entitled to the monastic life. In that case, texts such as, 'Whose rites ' are performed with the utterance of sacred formulas' (M. II. 16), and 'The teachers speak of only one order of life,' etc. (Gau. III. 36; Bau. II. vi. 29), would refer to the Ksatriyas and Vaisyas. Therefore in accordance with a person's capacity, knowledge, non-attachment, desire, etc., the various methods of an option with regard to renunciation, or a succession among the orders of life, or the embracing of the monastic life are not contradictory. And since monasticism has been separately enjoined on those who are unfit for rites, in the passage, 'Whether he has completed his course of study or not, whether he has discarded (Wilfully, even when his wife is living.) the fire or been released (By the scriptures, on the death of his wife.) from it,' etc. (Ja. 4), (the above injunctions about monasticism refer to normal people qualified for rites). Therefore it is proved that the other three orders of life (besides the householder's life) are surely meant for those who are qualified for rites.
Max Müller
15. 'For when there is as it were duality, then one sees the other, one smells the other, one tastes the other, one salutes the other, one hears the other, one perceives the other, one touches the other, one knows the other; but when the Self only is all this, how should he see another, how should he smell another, how should he taste another, how should he salute another, how should he hear another, how should he touch another, how should he know another? How should he know Him by whom he knows all this? That Self is to be described by No, no [1]! He is incomprehensible, for he cannot be comprehended; he is imperishable, for he cannot perish; he is unattached, for he does not attach himself; unfettered, he does not suffer, he does not fail. How, O beloved, should he know the Knower? Thus, O Maitreyî, thou hast been instructed. Thus far goes immortality.' Having said so, Yâgñavalkya went away (into the forest).
Meaning:- Now the line of teachers:- Pautimasya (received it) from Gaupavana. Gaupavana from another Pautimasya. This Pautimasya from another Gaupavana. This Gaupavana from Kausika. Kausika from Kaundinya. Kaundinya from Sandilya. Sandilya from Kausika and Gautama. Gautama -
Max Müller
1. Now follows the stem [1]:- 1) (We) from Pautimâshya, 2) Pautimâshya, from Gaupavana, 3) Gaupavana from Pautimâshya, 4) Pautimâshya from Gaupavana, 5) Gaupavana from Kausika, 6) Kausika from Kaundinya, 7) Kaundinya from Sândilya, 8) Sândilya from Kausika and Gautama, 9) Gautama
Meaning:- From Agnivesya. Agnivesya from Sandilya and Anabhimlata. Anabhinlata from another of that name. He from a third Anabhimlata. This Anabhimlata from Gautama. Gautama from Saitava and Pracinayogya. They from Parasarya. Parasarya from Bharadvaja. He from Bharadvaja and Gautama. Gautama from another Bharatvaja. He from another Parasarya. Parasarya from Baijavapayana. He from Kausikayani. Kausikayani -
Max Müller
2. from Âgnivesya, 10) Âgnivesya from Gârgya, 11) Gârgya from Gârgya, 12) Gârgya from Gautama, 13) Gautama from Saitava, 14) Saitava from Pârâsaryâyana, 15) Pârâsaryâyana from Gârgyâyana, 16) Gârgyâyana from Uddâlakâyana, 17) Uddâlakâyana from Gâbâlâyana, 18) Gâbâlâyana from Mâdhyandânayana, 19) Mâdhyandânayana from Saukarâyana, 20) Saukarâyana from Kâshâyana, 21) Kâshâyana from Sâyakâyana, 22) Sâyakâyana from Kausikâyani [1], 23) Kausikâyani
Meaning:- From Ghrtakausika. Ghrtakausika from Parasaryayana. He from Parasarya. Parasarya from Jatukarnya. Jatukarnya from Asurayana and Yaska. Asurayana from Traivani. Traivani from Aupajandhani. He from Asuri. Asuri from Bharadvaja. Bharadvaja from Atreya. Atreya from Manti. Manti from Gautama. Gautama from another Gautama. He from Vatsya. Vatsya from Sandilya. Sandilya from Kaisorya Kapya. He from Kumaraharita. Kumaraharita from Galava. Galava from Vidarbhi-kaundinya. He from Vatsanapat Babhrava. He from Pathin Saubhara. He from Ayasya Angirasa. He from Abhuti Tvastra. He from Visvarupa Tvastra. He from the Asvins. They from Dadhyac Atharvana. He from Atharvan Daiva. He from Mrtyu Pradhvamsana. He from Pradhvamsana. Pradhvamsana from Ekarsi. Ekarsi from Viprachitti. Viprachitti from Vyasri. Vyasti from Sanaru. Sanaru from Sanatana. Sanatana from Sanaga. Sanaga from Paramesthin (Viraj). He from Brahman (Hiranyabarbha). Brahman is self born. Salutation to Brahman.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Now the line of teachers for the two chapters relating to Yajnavalkya is being enumerated, like that of the Madhukanda. The explanation is the same as before. Brahman is self-born. Salutation to Brahman! Om.
Max Müller
3. from Ghritakausika, 24) Ghritakausika from Pârâsaryâyana, 25) Pârâsaryâyana from Pârâsarya, 26) Pârâsarya from Gâtukarnya, 27) Gâtukarnya from Âsurâyana and Yâska [1], 28) Âsurâyana from Travani, 29) Travani from Aupagandhani, 30) Aupagandhani from Âsuri, 31) Âsuri from Bhâradvâga, 32) Bhâradvâga from Âtreya, 33) Âtreya from Mânti, 34) Mânti from Gautama, 35) Gautama from Gautama, 36) Gautama from Vâtsya, 37) Vâtsya from Sândilya, 38) Sândilya from Kaisorya Kâpya, 39) Kaisorya Kâpya from Kumârahârita, 40) Kumârahârita from Gâlava, 41) Gâlava from Vidarbhî-kaundinya, 42) Vidarbhî-kaundinya from Vatsanapât Bâbhrava, 43) Vatsanapât Bâbhrava from Pathi Saubhara, 44) Pathi Saubhara from Ayâsya Âṅgirasa, 45) Ayâsya Âṅgirasa from Âbhûti Tvâshtra, 46) Âbhûti Tvâshtra from Visvarûpa Tvâshtra, 47) Visvarûpa Tvâshtra from Asvinau, 48) Asvinau from Dadhyak Âtharvana, 49) Dadhyak Âtharvana from Atharvan Daiva, 50) Atharvan Daiva from Mrityu Prâdhvamsana, 51) Mrityu Prâdhvamsana from Prâdhvamsana, 52) Prâdhvamsana from Ekarshi, 53) Ekarshi from Viprakitti [2], 54) Viprakitti from Vyashti, 55) Vyashti from Sanâru, 56) Sanâru from Sanâtana, 57) Sanâtana from Sanaga, 58) Sanaga from Parameshthin, 59) Parameshthin from Brahman, 60) Brahman is Svayambhu, self-existent) Adoration to Brahman)
ha smā''ha kauravyāyaṇīputro . vedo'yamṃ brāhmaṇā vidurvedainena
yadveditavyam .. 1..
iti prathamaṃ brāhmaṇam ..
atha dvitīyaṃ brāhmaṇam .
Meaning:- Om. That (Brahman) is infinite, and this (universe) is infinite. The infinite proceeds from the infinite. (Then) taking the infinitude of the infinite (universe), it remains as the infinite (Brahman) alone. Om is the ether-Brahman - the eternal ether. 'The ether containing air,' says the son of Kauravyayani. It is the Veda, (so) the Brahmans (knowers of Brahman) know; (for) through it one knows what is to be known.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Om. That (Brahman) is infinite, and this (universe) is infinite. The infinite proceeds from the infinite. (Then) taking the infinitude of the infinite (universe), it remains as the infinite (Brahman) alone.
Commentary:-
Max Müller
1. That (the invisible Brahman) is full, this (the visible Brahman) is full} [1]. This full (visible Brahman) proceeds from that full (invisible Brahman). On grasping the fulness of this full (visible Brahman) there is left that full (invisible Brahman) [2]. Om (is) ether, (is) Brahman [3]. 'There is the old ether (the invisible), and the (visible) ether of the atmosphere,' thus said Kauravyâyanîputra. This (the Om) is the Veda (the means of knowledge), thus the Brâhmanas know. One knows through it all that has to be known.
asurā uṣitvā brahmacaryaṃ devā ūcurbravītu no bhavāniti . tebhyo
haitadakṣaramuvāca da iti vyajñāsiṣṭā3 iti . vyajñāsiṣmeti
hocurdāmyateti na ātthetyomiti hovāca vyajñāsiṣṭeti .. 1..
Meaning:- Three classes of Prajapati's sons lived a life of continence with their father, Prajapati (Viraj) - the gods, men and Asuras. The gods, on the completion of their term, said, 'Please instruct us'. He told them the syllable 'Da' (and asked), 'have you understood?' (They) said, 'We have. You tell us:- Control yourselves'. (He) said, 'Yes, you have understood'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- The present section is introduced to prescribe the three disciplines of self-control etc. Three classes of Prajapati's sons lived a life of continence, i.e. lived as students, since continence is the most important part of a student's life, with their father, Prajapati. Who were they? The gods, men and Asuras, in particular. Of them, the gods, on the completion of their term --- what did they do? --- said to their father, Prajapati, 'Please instruct us.' When they thus sought his instruction, he told them only the syllable 'Da'; and saying it the father asked them, 'Have you understood the meaning of the syllable I told you by way of instruction, or not?' The gods said, 'We have.' 'If so, tell me what I said.' The gods said, 'You tell us:- Control yourselves, for you are naturally unruly.' The other said, 'Yes, you have understood rightly.'
Max Müller
1. The threefold descendants of Pragâpati, gods, men, and Asuras (evil spirits), dwelt as; Brahmakârins (students) with their father Pragâpati. Having finished their studentship the gods said:- 'Tell us (something), Sir.' He told them the syllable Da. Then he said:- 'Did you understand?' They said:- 'We did understand. You told us "Dâmyata," Be subdued.' 'Yes,' he said, 'you have understood.'
हैतदेवाक्षरमुवाच द इति व्यज्ञासिष्टा३ इति । व्यज्ञासिष्मेति
होचुर्दत्तेति न आत्थेत्योमिति होवाच व्यज्ञासिष्टेति ॥ २॥
mantra 2[V.ii.2]
atha hainaṃ manuṣyā ūcurbravītu no bhavāniti . tebhyo
haitadevākṣaramuvāca da iti vyajñāsiṣṭā3 iti . vyajñāsiṣmeti
hocurdatteti na ātthetyomiti hovāca vyajñāsiṣṭeti .. 2..
Meaning:- Then the men said to him, 'Please instruct us'. He told them the same syllable 'Da' (and asked), 'Have you understood?' (They) said, 'We have. You tell us:- Give'. (He) said, 'Yes, you have understood'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- The common portions are to be explained as before. 'You tell us:- Give --- distribute your wealth to the best of your might, for you are naturally avaricious. What else would you say for our benefit?' --- so said the men.
Max Müller
2. Then the men said to him:- 'Tell us something, Sir.' He told them the same syllable Da. Then he said:- 'Did you understand?' They said:- 'We did understand. You told us, "Datta," Give.' 'Yes,' he said, 'you have understood.'
stanayitnurda da da iti dāmyata datta dayadhvamiti . tadetattrayagͫ
śikṣed damaṃ dānaṃ dayāmiti .. 3..
iti dvitīyaṃ brāhmaṇam ..
atha tṛtīyaṃ brāhmaṇam .
Meaning:- Then the Asuras said to him, 'Please instruct us'. He told them the same syllable 'Da' (and asked), 'Have you understood?' (They) said, 'We have. You tell us:- Have compassion'. (He) said, 'Yes, you have understood'. That very thing is repeated by the heavenly voice, the cloud, as 'Da', 'Da', 'Da':- 'Control yourselves', 'Give', and 'have compassion'. Therefore one should learn these three - self-control, charity and compassion.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Similarly the Asuras took it as, 'Have compassion, be kind to all for you are cruel, given to injuring others, and so on.' That very instruction of Prajapati continues to this day. Prajapati, who formerly taught the gods and others, teaches us even today through the heavenly voice of the cloud. How? Here is the heavenly voice heard. Which is it? The cloud. As 'Da,' 'Da,' 'Da':- 'Control yourselves,' 'Give,' and 'Have compassion.' The syllable 'Da' is repeated thrice to represent in imitation the above three terms, not that a cloud produces three notes only, for we know of no such limitation as to number. Because to this day Prajapati gives the same instructions, 'Control yourselves,' 'Give' and 'Have Compassion,' therefore one should learn these three of Prajapati. What are they? Self-control, charity and compassion. Men should think, 'We must carry out the instructions of Prajapati.' The Smrti too says, 'Lust, anger and greed --- these are the three gateways to hell, destructive to the self; therefore one should renounce these three' (G. XVI. 21). The preceding portion is but a part of this injunction, 'One should learn,' etc. Still those who can guess the motives of others hold different views on why Prajapati spoke the same syllable 'Da' thrice to the gods etc., who wanted separate instructions, and how they too discriminatingly understood his intention from the same syllable 'Da'.
Regarding this some say:- The gods, men and Asuras, considering themselves guilty of a lack of self-control, charitableness and compassion respectively, lived as students with Prajapati, apprehensive of what he might say to them; and as soon as they heard the syllable 'Da', their own fears led them to understand its meaning. It is a well-known principle in life that sons and pupils are to be dissuaded from evil through instruction. Hence Prajapati was right in uttering just the syllable 'Da', and so too were the gods etc. in understanding it differently according to their respective defects, for the syllable 'Da' occurs in all the three worlds denoting 'self-control' etc. From this it is clear that when one is conscious of one's faults, one can be weaned from them through the briefest advice, as the gods etc. were through the mere syllable 'Da.'
Objection:- Well, this instruction was for the three classes, the gods and the rest, and even they were to adopt only one instruction apiece. It is not that even today men should learn all the three. Reply:- In ancient times these three were practised by the gods etc. --- distinguished people. So men indeed should practice all of them. Objection:- But should not compassion be excluded from the list, because it was pracitsed by the Asuras --- very undesirable people? Reply:- No, for all the three are equally good instructions. Hence there is some other meaning to it. All the three classes, the gods and the rest, were Prajapati's sons, and a father would teach his sons only what is good for them; so Prajapati, who knew what was good for them, would not teach them otherwise. Therefore this instruction of his to his sons is exceedingly beneficent. Hence men indeed should learn all the three.
Or, there are no gods or Asuras other than men. Those among men who are wanting in self-control, but are otherwise endowed with many good qualities, are the gods; those who are particularly greedy are men; while those who are cruel and given to injuring others are the Asuras. So the same species, men, according to their lack of self-control and the other two defects, as well as to their tendencies of balance, activity and inertia, are given the titles of gods etc. Hence it is men who should learn all the three instructions, for Prajapati meant his advice for them alone; because men are observed to be wild, greedy and cruel. The Smrti too says, 'Lust, anger and greed (are the three gateways to hell); ' therefore one should renounce them' (G. XVI. 21).
Max Müller
3. Then the Asuras said to him:- 'Tell us something, Sir.' He told them the same syllable Da. Then he said:- 'Did you understand?' They said:- 'We did understand. You told us, "Dayadham," Be merciful.' 'Yes,' he said, 'you have understood.' The divine voice of thunder repeats the same, Da Da Da, that is, Be subdued, Give, Be merciful. Therefore let that triad be taught, Subduing, Giving, and Mercy.
hṛdayamiti . hṛ ityekamakṣaramabhiharantyasmai svāścānye ca ya
evaṃ veda . da ityekamakṣaraṃ dadatyasmai svāścānye ca ya evaṃ veda .
yamityekamakṣarameti svargaṃ lokaṃ ya evaṃ veda .. 1..
iti tṛtīyaṃ brāhmaṇam ..
atha caturthaṃ brāhmaṇam .
Meaning:- This is Prajapati - this heart (intellect). It is Brahman, it is everything. 'Hridaya' (heart) has three syllables. 'Hr' is one syllable. To him who knows as above, his own people and others bring (presents). 'Da' is another syllable. To him who knows as above, his own people and others give (their powers). 'Ya' is another syllable. He who knows as above goes to heaven.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- It has just been said that Prajapati instructs. Now who is this instructor, Prajapati? This is being answered:- This is Prajapati. Who? This heart, i.e. the intellect, which has its seat in the heart. That heart in which, at the end of the section relating to Sakalya (III. ix.), name, form and work have been stated to merge by way of the divisions of the quarters, which resides in all beings and is identified with them all, is Prajapati, the projector of all beings. It is Brahman, being vast and identified with all. It is everything. It has been stated in the third chapter that the intellect is everything. Since it is everything, the intellect that is Brahman should be meditated upon.
Now, first of all, meditation on the syllables of the name 'Hrdaya' is being described. The name 'Hrdaya' has three syllables. Which are they --- 'Hr' is one syllable. To him, this sage, who knows as above, knows that 'Hr' is the same as the root 'Hr' meaning 'to bring', his own people, relatives, and others not related to him bring presents. This last word must be supplied to complete the sentence. Because the organs, which are a part of the intellect (its 'own'), and the objects, sound etc., which are not so related to it ('others'), bring their respective functions as offerings to the intellect that is Brahman, which in its turn passes them on to the Self, therefore he who knows that 'Hr' is a syllable of the name 'Hrdaya' also receives presents. This result is in accordance with the meditation. Similarly 'Da' too is another syllable. This too is a form of the root 'Da,' meaning 'to give,' inserted in the name 'Hrdaya' as one of its syllables. Here also, to him who knows as above, knows that because the organs, which are a part of the intellect, and the objects, which are not so related to it, give their respective powers to the intellect that is Brahman, which too gives its own power to the Self, therefore the syllable is called 'Da', his own people and others give their powers. Similarly 'Ya' too is another syllable. He who knows as above, that the form 'Ya,' derived from the root 'In,' meaning, to go, has been inserted in this name, goes to heaven. Thus one gets such conspicuous results from the meditation even on the syllables of its name; what should one say of the meditation on the reality of the heart itself? Thus the introduction of the syllables of its names is for the purpose of eulogising the heart (intellect).
Max Müller
1. Pragâpati is the heart, is this Brahman, is all this. The heart, hridaya, consists of three syllables. One syllable is hri, and to him who knows this, his own people and others bring offerings [1]. One syllable is da, and to him who knows this, his own people and others bring gifts. One syllable is yam, and he who knows this, goes to heaven (svarga) as his world.
tadvai tadetadeva tadāsa satyameva . sa yo haitaṃ mahadyakṣaṃ
prathamajaṃ veda satyaṃ brahmeti jayatīmāgͫllokāñ jita innvasāvasad
ya evametanmahadyakṣaṃ prathamajaṃ veda satyaṃ brahmeti satyagͫ
hyeva brahma .. 1..
iti caturthaṃ brāhmaṇam ..
atha pañcamaṃ brāhmaṇam .
Meaning:- That (intellect-Brahman) was but this - Satya (gross and subtle) alone. He who knows this great, adorable, first-born (being) as the Satya-Brahman, conquers these worlds, and his (enemy) is thus conquered and becomes non-existent - he who knows this great, adorable, first-born (being) thus, as the Satya-Brahman, for Satya is indeed Brahman.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- In order to enjoin a meditation on that Brahman called Hrdaya (intellect) as Satya, the present section is being introduced. That refers to the intellect-Brahman. The particle 'vai' is a reminder. That intellect-Brahman who may be recalled --- is the meaning of the first 'Tat' (that). He is being described in another way --- is the meaning of the second 'Tat.' What is that way? He was but this. With this last word the third 'Tat' is connnected. 'This' refers to something in the mind that will presently be stated. Who 'was but this'? He who has been described as the intellect-Brahman here the third 'Tat' comes in. What is he? This is being specified as Satya alone --- the Satya-Brahman, or Brahman that is 'Sat' and 'Tyat', the gross and subtle elements, in other words, consisting of the five elements. He, any one, who knows this being identified with Satya --- great, because of his vastness, adorable, first-born, since this Brahman was born before all other relative beings --- as the Satya-Brahman, gets the following result:- As the Satya Brahman has made all these worlds a part of himself, or conquered them, so he who knows the great, adorable, first-born Brahman identified with Satya, conquers these worlds. Also his enemy --- this world is understood --- is thus conquered, as the worlds are by Brahman, and becomes non-existent, i.e. is conquered. Who gets this result? To answer this the text concludes:- He who knows this great, adorable, first-born (being) thus as the Satya Brahman. Hence the result is aptly in accordance with the meditation, for Satya is indeed Brahman.
Max Müller
1. This (heart) indeed is even that, it was indeed the true [1] (Brahman). And whosoever knows this great glorious first-born as the true Brahman, he conquers these worlds, and conquered likewise may that (enemy) be [2]! yes, whosoever knows this great glorious first-born as the true Brahman; for Brahman is the true.
Meaning:- This (universe) was but water (liquid oblations connected with sacrifices) in the beginning. That water produced Satya. Satya is Brahman. Brahman (produced) Prajapati, and Prajapati the gods. Those gods meditate upon Satya alone. This (name) 'Satya' consists of three syllables:- 'Sacrifice' is one syllable, 'Ti' is another syllable, and "Ya' is the third syllable. The first and last syllables are truth. In the middle is untruth. This untruth is enclosed on either side by truth. (Hence) there is a preponderance of truth. One who knows as above is never hurt by untruth.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- This section is in praise of the Satya-Brahman. He has been called great, adorable and first-born (V. iv. 1). How is he the first-born? This is being explained:- This was but water in the beginning. 'Water' here means the oblations that are connected with rites such as the Agnihotra. They are called water because they are liquid. This 'water,' after the rites are finished, maintains its connection with them in some invisible, subtle form, and is not alone, but united with the other elements; but it is given prominence on account of its connection with the rites. All the elements, which before their manifestation remain in an undifferentiated state, are together with the agent designated as water. That water, which is the seed of the universe, remains in its undifferentiated form. This entire universe, differentiated into name and form, was just this water in the beginning, and there was no other manifested object. Then that water produced Satya; therefore the Satya-Brahman is the first-born. The manifestation of the undifferentiated universe is what is spoken of here as the birth of Hiraynagarbha or Sutratman. Satya is Brahman. Why? Because of his greatness.
How is he great? This is being explained:- Because he is the projector of everything. How? The Satya-Brahman (produced) Prajapati, the lord of all beings, Viraj, of which the sun etc. are the organs. The verb 'produced' is understood. Prajapati, Viraj, produced the gods. Since everything was produced in this order from the Satya-Brahman, therefore he is great. But how is he adorable? This is being explained:- Those gods who were thus produced meditate upon that Satya-Brahman, even superseding their father Viraj. Hence this first-born great one is adorable. Therefore he should be meditated upon with one's whole heart. The name of the Satya-Brahman also is Satya. This consists of three syllables. What are they? 'Sa' is one syllable, 'Ti' is another syllable. The i has been added to t for facility of indication. 'Ya' is the third syllable. Of these, the first and last syllables, 'Sa' and 'Ya,' are truth, being free from the form of death. In the middle is untruth. Untruth is death, for the words 'Mrtyu' (death) and 'Anrta' (untruth) have both a t in them. This untruth, the later t, which is a form of death, is enclosed or encompassed on either side by truth, by the two syllables 'Sa' and 'Ya', which are forms of truth. Hence it is negligible, and there is a preponderance of truth. One who knows as above, knows the preponderance of truth and the insignificance of all death or untruth, is never hurt by untruth that he may have uttered unawares.
Max Müller
1. In the beginning this (world) was water. Water produced the true [1], and the true is 'Brahman. Brahman produced Pragâpati [2], Pragâpati the Devas (gods). The Devas adore the true (satyam) alone. This satyam consists of three syllables. One syllable is sa, another t(i), the third [3] yam. The first and last syllables are true, in the middle there is the untrue [4]. This untrue is on both sides enclosed by the true, and thus the true preponderates. The untrue does not hurt him who knows this.
Meaning:- That which is Satya is that sun - the being who is in that orb and the being who is in the right eye. These two rest on each other. The former rests on the latter through the rays, and the latter rests on the former through the function of the eyes. When a man is about to leave the body, he sees the solar orb as clear. The rays no more come to him.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Now a meditation on different parts of the body of the Satya-Brahman is being described:- That which is Satya, the first-born Satya-Brahman, is that sun. Who is he? The being who is in that orb, who thinks he is the sun, and the being who is in the right eye. They are both Satya-Brahman; the word 'and' shows this connection. Because these two, the beings in the sun and the eye, are but different forms of the Satya-Brahman, therefore they rest on each other, the solar being rests on the ocular being and vice versa, for there is a relation of mutual helpfulness between the self as identified with different parts of the body and the presiding deities. How they rest on each other is being explained:- The former, the solar being, rests on the latter, the being (individual self) who is identified in this body with the eye, through the rays, helping the other with his light. And the latter, the being who is in the eye, rests on the former, the being who is identified among the gods with the sun, through the function of the eyes, helping that deity (by revealing him). When a man, the individual self or the experiencer inhabiting this body, is about to leave the body, the solar being, who is the presiding deity of the eye, withdraws his rays and maintains a blank, indifferent pose. Then he, the individual self, sees the solar orb as clear, shorn of its beams, like the moon. This portent of death is incidentally mentioned, so that a man may be careful and take necessary steps. The rays no more come to him:- In the discharge of their master's duties, they used to do so before with regard to the being who is identified with the eye, in order to help him; but considering those duties finished, as it were, they no more come to him. Hence this mutual helpfulness between them shows that both are parts of the same Satya-Brahman.
Max Müller
2. Now what is the true, that is the Âditya (the sun), the person that dwells in yonder orb, and the person in the right eye. These two rest on each other, the former resting with his rays in the latter, the latter with his prânas (senses) in the former. When the latter is on the point of departing this life, he sees that orb as white only, and those rays (of the sun) do not return to him.
ya eṣa etasminmaṇḍale puruṣastasya bhūriti śira ekagͫ śira
ekametadakṣaraṃ bhuva iti bāhū dvau bāhū dve ete akṣare svariti
pratiṣṭhā dve pratiṣṭhe dve ete akṣare . tasyopaniṣadahariti .
hanti pāpmānaṃ jahāti ca ya evaṃ veda .. 3..
Meaning:- Of this being who is in the solar orb, the syllable 'Bhur' is the head, for there is one head, and there is this one syllable; the word 'Bhuvar' is the arms, for there are two arms, and there are these two syllables; the word 'Svar' is the feet, for there are two feet, and there are these two syllables. His secret name is 'Ahar'. He who knows as above destroys and shuns evil.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Now, of this being who is in the solar orb, called Satya, the Vyahrtis (Bhur, Bhuvar and Svar) are the limbs. How? The Vyahrti called 'Bhur' is his head, because it comes first. The Sruti itself points out the similarity between them:- There is one head, and there is this one syllable, Bhur. Each is one in number. The word 'Bhuvar' is the arms, because both are two in number. There are two arms, and there are these two syllables. Similarly the word 'Svar' is the feet, for there are two feet, and there are these two syllables. The word 'Pratistha' means the feet, for they help one to stand. The secret name of this Satya-Brahman who has the Vyahrtis as his limbs --- that name, called by which that Brahman turns to us, as it happens with us --- is 'Ahar.' He who knows as above, that 'Ahar' is derived from the root 'Han' or 'Ha,' meaning, 'to kill or to shun,' destroys and shuns evil.
Max Müller
3. Now of the person in that (solar) orb Bhûh is the head, for the head is one, and that syllable is one; Bhuvah the two arms, for the arms are two, and these syllables are two; Svar the foot, for the feet are two, and these syllables are two [1]. Its secret name is Ahar (day), and he who knows this destroys (hanti) evil and leaves (gahâti) it.
ekametadakṣaraṃ bhuva iti bāhū dvau bāhū dve ete akṣare svariti
pratiṣṭhā dve pratiṣṭhe dve ete akṣare . tasyopaniṣadahamiti .
hanti pāpmānaṃ jahāti ca ya evaṃ veda .. 4..
iti pajñcamaṃ brāhmaṇam ..
atha ṣaṣṭhaṃ brāhmaṇam .
Meaning:- Of this being who is in the right eye, the syllable 'Bhur' is the head, for there is one head, and there is this one syllable; the word 'Bhuvar' is the arms, for there are two arms, and there are these two syllables; the word 'Svar' is the feet, for there are two feet, and there are these two syllables. His secret name is 'Aham'. He who knows as above destroys and shuns evil.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Similarly of this being who is in the right eye, the syllable 'Bhur' is the head, etc. to be explained as before. His secret name is 'Aham' (I), because he is the inner self. He who knows, etc. already explained.
Max Müller
4. Of the person in the right eye Bhûh is the head, for the head is one, and that syllable is one; Bhuvah the two arms, for the arms are two, and these syllables are two; Svar the foot, for the feet are two, and these syllables are two. Its secret name is Aham (ego), and he who knows this, destroys (hanti) evil and leaves (gahâti) it.
vā sa eṣa sarvasya sarvasyeśānaḥ sarvasyādhipatiḥ sarvamidaṃ praśāsti
yadidaṃ kiñca .. 1..
iti ṣaṣṭhaṃ brāhmaṇam ..
atha saptamaṃ brāhmaṇam .
Meaning:- This being identified with the mind and resplendent (is realised by the Yogins) within the heart like a grain of rice or barley. He is the lord of all, the ruler of all, and governs whatever there is.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- This being identified with the mind, because he is perceivd there; also he perceives through the mind; and resplendent, lit. having lustre as his real state or nature. Since the mind reveals everything, and he is identified with the mind, therefore he is resplendent, i.e. is realised by the Yogins --- we must supply these words --- within the heart like a grain of rice or barley in size. He is the lord of all things, which are but variations of him. Even with lordship, one may be under the sway of ministers etc., but he is not like that. What then is he? He is the ruler, independent protector, and governs whatever there is --- the whole universe. The result of this meditation on Brahman identified with the mind is the attainment of identity with him as such, for the Brahman says, 'One becomes exactly as one meditates upon Him' (S. X. v. ii. 20).
Max Müller
1. That person, under the form of mind (manas), being light indeed [1], is within the heart, small like a grain of rice or barley. He is the ruler of all, the lord of all--he rules all this, whatsoever exists.
विद्युद् ब्रह्मेत्याहुर्विदानाद्विद्युद् विद्यत्येनं पाप्मनो य एवं वेद
विद्युद्ब्रह्मेति । विद्युद्ध्येव ब्रह्म ॥ १॥
इति सप्तमं ब्राह्मणम् ॥
अथ अथाष्टमं ब्राह्मणम् ।
mantra 1[V.vii.1]
vidyud brahmetyāhurvidānādvidyud vidyatyenaṃ pāpmano ya evaṃ veda
vidyudbrahmeti . vidyuddhyeva brahma .. 1..
iti saptamaṃ brāhmaṇam ..
atha athāṣṭamaṃ brāhmaṇam .
Meaning:- They say lightning is Brahman. It is called lightning (Vidyut) because it scatters (darkness). He who knows it as such - that lightning is Brahman - scatters evils (that are ranged against) him, for lightning is indeed Brahman.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Another meditation on the same Satya-Brahman, with particular result, is being introduced. They say lightning is Brahman. The derivation of lightning as Brahman is being given:- It is called lightning (Vidyut) because it scatters darkness. Really lightning flashes cleaving the darkness due to clouds. He who knows it as such, knows that lightning is Brahman as possessed of the above attributes, scatters or dispels all the evils that are ranged against him. It is a fitting result for one who knows, it as such --- that lightning is Brahman, for lightning is indeed Brahman.
Max Müller
1. They say that lightning is Brahman, because lightning (vidyut) is called so from cutting off (vidânât) [1]. Whosoever knows this, that lightning is Brahman, him (that Brahman) cuts off from evil, for lightning indeed is Brahman.
hantakāraḥ svadhākārastasyai dvau stanau devā upajīvanti svāhākāraṃ ca
vaṣaṭkāraṃ ca hantakāraṃ manuṣyāḥ svadhākāraṃ pitaraḥ . tasyāḥ prāṇa
ṛṣabho mano vatsaḥ .. 1..
ityaṣṭamaṃ brāhmaṇam ..
atha navamaṃ brāhmaṇam .
Meaning:- One should meditate upon speech (the Vedas) as a cow (as it were). She has four teats - the sounds "Svaha', 'Vasat', 'Hanta' and 'Svadha'. The gods live on two of her teats - the sounds 'Svaha' and 'Vasat', men on the sound 'Hanta', and the manes on the sound 'Svadha'. Her bull is the vital force, and her calf the mind.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Still another meditation on the same Brahman is being mentioned that speech is Brahman. 'Speech' here means the Vedas. One should meditate upon that speech (the Vedas) as, i.e. as if she was, a cow. Just as a cow secretes milk through her four teats for her calf to suck, so does this cow, speech, secrete through her four teats, to be presently mentioned, food for the goods etc. that is comparable to milk. Now what are those teats, and who are those for whom she secretes the food? The gods, corresponding to a calf, live on two of the teats of this cow, speech. Which are they? The sounds 'Svaha' and 'Vasat,' for through them oblations are offered to the gods. Men on the sound 'Hanta':- Food is given to men with the use of the word 'Hanta' (if you want). The manes on the sound 'Svadha,' for food is offered to the manes to the utterance of this word. Her bull, the bull for that cow, speech, is the vital force, for the Vedas are rendered fruitful by the vital force, and her calf the mind, for she is stimulated to secretion by the mind; because the Vedas are applied to a subject that has been thought over by the mind, therefore the mind stands for the calf. He who meditates upon this cow, speech, as such, attains identity with her.
Max Müller
1. Let him meditate on speech as a cow. Her four udders are the words Svâhâ, Vashat, Hanta, and Svadhâ [1]. The gods live on two of her udders, the Svâhâ and the Vashat, men on the Hanta, the fathers on the Svadhâ. The bull of that cow is breath (prâna), the calf the mind.
sa yadotkramiṣyanbhavati nainaṃ ghoṣagͫ śṛṇoti .. 1..
iti navamaṃ brāhmaṇam ..
atha daśamaṃ brāhmaṇam .
Meaning:- This fire that is within a man and digests the food that is eaten, is Vaisvanara. It emits this sound that one hears by stopping the ears thus. When a man is about to leave the body, he no more hears this sound.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Here is another meditation like the preceding ones. This fire is Vaisvanara. Which fire? This that is within a man. Is it the element fire that is one of the components of the body? No, it is the one called Vaisvanara, which digests the food. Which food? The food that is eaten by men. That is to say, the heat in the stomach. For direct sign of it the text says:- As that fire digests the food, it emits this sound. What is it? That one hears by stopping the ears thus, with one's fingers. The word 'Etat' is an adverb (meaning 'thus'). One should meditate upon that fire as Vaisvanara, or Viraj. Here too the result is identification with it. Incidentally a death omen is being described:- When a man, the experiencer in this body is about to leave the body, he no more hears this sound.
Max Müller
1. Agni Vaisvânara, is the fire within man by which the food that is eaten is cooked, i.e. digested. Its noise is that which one hears, if one covers one's ears. When he is on the point of departing this life, he does not hear that noise.
यदा वै पुरुषोऽस्माल्लोकात्प्रैति स वायुमागच्छति तस्मै स तत्र
विजिहीते यथा रथचक्रस्य खं तेन स ऊर्ध्व आक्रमते । स
आदित्यमागच्छति तस्मै स तत्र विजिहीते यथालम्बरस्य खं तेन स
ऊर्ध्व आक्रमते । स चन्द्रमसमागच्छति तस्मै स तत्र विजिहीते यथा
दुन्दुभेः खं तेन स ऊर्ध्व आक्रमते । स लोकमागच्छत्यशोकमहिमं
तस्मिन्वसति शाश्वतीः समाः ॥ १॥
इति दशमं ब्राह्मणम् ॥
एकादशं ब्राह्मणम् ।
mantra 1[V.x.1]
yadā vai puruṣo'smāllokātpraiti sa vāyumāgacchati tasmai sa tatra
vijihīte yathā rathacakrasya khaṃ tena sa ūrdhva ākramate . sa
ādityamāgacchati tasmai sa tatra vijihīte yathālambarasya khaṃ tena sa
ūrdhva ākramate . sa candramasamāgacchati tasmai sa tatra vijihīte yathā
dundubheḥ khaṃ tena sa ūrdhva ākramate . sa lokamāgacchatyaśokamahimaṃ
tasminvasati śāśvatīḥ samāḥ .. 1..
iti daśamaṃ brāhmaṇam ..
ekādaśaṃ brāhmaṇam .
Meaning:- When a man departs from this world, he reaches the air, which makes an opening there for him like the hole of a chariot-wheel. He goes upwards through that and reaches the sun, who makes an opening there for him like the hole of a tabor. He goes upwards through that and reaches the moon, who makes an opening there for him like the hole of a drum. He goes upwards through that and reaches a world free from grief and from cold. He lives there for eternal years.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- This Section describes the goal and the result of all meditations. When a man who knows those meditations departs from this world, gives up the body, he reaches the air, which remains crosswise in the sky, motionless and impenetrable. The air makes an opening there, in its own body separates the parts of its own body, i.e. makes a holy in it for him, as he comes. What is the size of that hole? Like the hole of a chariot-wheel, which is of a well-known size. He, the sages, goes upwards (lit. upward-bound) through that and reaches the sun. The sun stands blocking the way for the prospective traveller to the world of Brahman; he too lets a sage with this kind of meditation pass. He makes an opening there for him like the hole of a tabor (Lambara), a kind of musical instrument. He goes upwards through that and reaches the moon. She too makes an opening there for him like the hole of a drum, the size of which is well known. He goes upwards through that and reaches a world, that of Hiranyagarbha. What kind of world? Free from grief, i.e. mental troubles, and from cold, i.e. physical sufferings. Reaching it, he lives there for eternal years, i.e. for many cycles of ours, which constitute the lifetime of Hiranyagarbha.
Max Müller
1. When the person goes away from this world, he comes to the wind. Then the wind makes room for him, like the hole of a carriage wheel, and through it he mounts higher. He comes to the sun. Then the sun makes room for him, like the hole of a Lambara [1], and through it he mounts higher. He comes to the moon. Then the moon makes room for him, like the hole of a drum, and through it he mounts higher, and arrives at the world where there is no sorrow, no snow [2]. There he dwells eternal years.
Meaning:- This indeed is excellent austerity that a man suffers when he is ill. He who knows as above wins an excellent world. This indeed is excellent austerity that a man after death is carried to the forest. He who knows as above wins an excellent world. This indeed is excellent austerity that a man after death is placed in the fire. He who knows as above wins an excellent world.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- This indeed is excellent austerity. What is it? That a man suffers when he is ill, attacked with fever etc. One should think that this is excellent austerity, for both entail suffering. For a sage who thinks like that, without either condemning the disease or being dejected over it, that austerity itself serves to wipe out his evils. He who knows as above has his evils burnt by this austerity in the form of meditation, and wins an excellent world. Similarly a dying man thinks from the very beginning --- what? --- this indeed is excellent austerity that after death he is carried to the forest by the priests for the funeral ceremony. He thinks that it will be excellent austerity for him, because in both there is this journey from the village to the forest; for it is well known that retirement from the village to the forest is excellent austerity. He who knows as above wins an excellent world. Similarly this indeed is excellent austerity that a man after death is placed in the fire, because in both there is this entering into the fire. He who knows as above wins an excellent world.
Max Müller
1. This is indeed the highest penance, if a man, laid up with sickness, suffers pain [1]. He who knows this, conquers the highest world. This is indeed the highest penance, if they carry a dead person into the forest [2]. He who knows this, conquers the highest world. This is indeed the highest penance, if they place a dead person on the fire [3]. He who knows this, conquers the highest world.
dhasmādukthavidvīrastiṣṭhatyukthasya sāyujyagͫ salokatāṃ jayati ya
evaṃ veda .. 1..
Meaning:- (One should meditate upon the vital force as) the Uktha (a hymn of praise). The vital force is the Uktha, for it raises this universe. From him who knows as above rises a son who is a knower of the vital force, and he achieves union with and abode in the same world as the Uktha.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- The Uktha --- is another meditation. The Uktha is a hymn of praise. It is the principal feature of the Mahavrata sacrifice (Somayaga). What is that Uktha? The vital force is the Uktha. The vital force is chief among the organs, as the Uktha is among hymns of praise. Hence one should meditate upon the vital force as the Uktha. How is the vital force the Uktha? This is being explained:- For it raises this universe; because of this raising it is called the Uktha. No lifeless man ever rises. The result of the meditation on it is being stated:- From him who knows as above rises a son who is a knower of the vital force --- this is the visible result; and he achieves union with and abode in the same world as the Uktha --- this is the invisible result.
Max Müller
1. Next follows the Uktha [1]. Verily, breath (prâna) is Uktha, for breath raises up (utthâpayati) all this. From him who knows this, there is raised a wise son, knowing the Uktha; he obtains union and oneness with the Uktha.
Meaning:- (One should meditate upon the vital force as) the Yajus. The vital force is the Yajus, for all these beings are joined with one another if there is the vital force. All beings are joined for the eminence of him who knows as above, and he achieves union with and abode in the same world as the Yajus (vital force).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- One should meditate upon the vital force as the Yajus too. The vital force is the Yajus (The name of one of the Vedas; but here it is given a figurative meaning. The same with 'Saman' in the next paragraph.). How is the vital force the Yajus? For all (these) beings are joined with one another if there is the vital force. None has the strength to unite with another unless he has life; hence the vital force is called he Yajus --- because it joins. The result that accrues to one who knows as above is being stated:- All beings are joined for the eminence of him who knows as above --- they try to make him their chief. And he achieves union with and abode in the same world as the Yajus or the vital force. These words have already been explained.
Max Müller
2. Next follows the Yagus. Verily, breath is Yagus, for all these beings are joined in breath [1]. For him who knows this, all beings are joined to procure his excellence; he obtains union and oneness with the Yagus.
Meaning:- (One should meditate upon the vital force as) the Saman. The vital force is the Saman, for all these beings are united if there is the vital force. For him who knows as above all beings are united, and they succeed in bringing about his eminence, and he achieves union with abode in the same world as the Saman.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- One should also meditate upon the vital force as the Saman. The vital force is the Saman. How is the vital force the Saman? For all beings are united if there is the vital force. The vital force is called Saman because of this union --- causing them to unite. For him who knows as above all beings are united, and not only that, they succeed in bringing about his eminence. The rest is to be explained as before.
Max Müller
3. Next follows the Sâman. Verily, breath is the Sâman, for all these beings meet in breath. For him who knows this, all beings meet to procure his excellence; he obtains union and oneness with the Sâman.
kṣatraṃ prāṇo vai kṣatraṃ prāṇo hi vai kṣatraṃ trāyate hainaṃ prāṇaḥ
kṣaṇitoḥ . pra kṣatramatramapnoti kṣatrasya sāyujyagͫ salokatāṃ
jayati ya evaṃ veda .. 4..
iti trayodaśaṃ brāhmaṇam ..
atha caturdaśaṃ brāhmaṇam .
Meaning:- (One should meditate upon the vital force as) the Ksatra. The vital force is the Ksatra, for it is indeed the Ksatra. The vital force protects the body from wounds. He who knows as above attains this Ksatra (vital force) that has no other protector, and achieves union with and abode in the same world as the Ksatra.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- One should meditate upon the vital force as the Ksatra. The vital force is the Ksatra, for it is indeed the Ksatra, as is well known. How? This is being explained:- Because the vital force protects the body from wounds, injuries inflicted with weapons etc., by filling them up with new flesh, therefore it is well known as the Ksatra, on account of this healing of the wounds. The result that accrues to one who knows this is being stated:- He who knows as above attains this Ksatra, or the vital force, that has no other protector, is not protected by anything else (Atra). Or the word may be 'Ksatra-matra,' as another (the Madhyandina) recension has it; in which case the meaning will be, 'Attains identity with the Ksatra, or becomes the vital force.' And achieves union with and abode in the same world as the Ksatra.
Max Müller
4. Next follows the Kshatra. Verily, breath is the Kshatra, for breath is Kshatra, i.e. breath protects (trâyate) him from being hurt (kshanitoh). He who knows this, obtains Kshatra (power), which requires no protection; he obtains union and oneness with Kshatra [1].
भूमिरन्तरिक्षं द्यौरित्यष्टावक्षराण्यष्टाक्षरꣳ ह वा एकं
गायत्र्यै पदमेतदु हैवास्या एतत् स यावदेषु त्रिषु लोकेषु तावद्ध
जयति योऽस्या एतदेवं पदं वेद ॥ १॥
mantra 1[V.xiv.1]
bhūmirantarikṣaṃ dyaurityaṣṭāvakṣarāṇyaṣṭākṣaragͫ ha vā ekaṃ
gāyatryai padametadu haivāsyā etat sa yāvadeṣu triṣu lokeṣu tāvaddha
jayati yo'syā etadevaṃ padaṃ veda .. 1..
Meaning:- 'Bhumi' (the earth), 'Antariksa' (sky) and 'Dyaus' (heaven) make eight syllables, and the first foot of the Gayatri has eight syllables. So the above three worlds constitute the first foot of the Gayatri. He who knows the first foot of the Gayatri to be such wins as much as there is in those three worlds.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- The meditation on Brahman as possessed of different limiting adjuncts such as the heart has been stated. Now the meditation on it as possessing the limiting adjunct of the Gayatri has to be stated; hence the present section. Gayatri is the chief of the metres. It is called Gayatri because, as will be said later on, it protects the organs of those who recite it. Other metres have not this power. The verse Gayatri is identical with the vital force, and the latter is the soul (Because it helps their utterance.) of all metres. The vital force, as has been said, is called the Ksatra on account of its protecting the body by healing its wounds; (and Gayatri saves the organs of its reciters. So) Gayatri is identical with the vital force. Hence the meditation on Gayatri is being particularly enjoined. There is another reason. It is the cause of the birth of the Brahmanas, the noblest among the twice-born. From the passage, 'He created the Brahmana through Gayatri, the Ksatriya through Tristubh, and the Vaisya through Jagati' (Va. IV. 3, adapted), we know that the second birth (At the time of his initiation into the student life with the holy thread etc.) of the Brahmana is due to Gayatri. Therefore it is chief among the metres. The passages, 'The Brahmanas, renouncing their desires,' ettc. (III. v. 1), 'The Brahmanas speak of (that Immutable),' etc. (III. viii. , 'He is a Brahmana' (III. viii. 10), 'He becomes sinless, taintless, free from doubts, and a knower of Brahman' (IV. iv. 23), show that a Brahmana attains the highest end of his life; and that Brahmanahood is due to his second birth through Gayatri. Hence the nature of Gayatri should be described. Since the best among the twice-born (the Brahmana) who is created by Gayatri is entitled to the achievement of his life's ends without any obstruction, therefore this achievement is due to Gayatri. Hence with a view to enjoining a meditation on it the text says:- 'Bhumi', 'Antariksa' and 'Dyaus' make eight syllables, and the first foot of the Gayatri has eight syllables. The syllable 'Ya' (in the word 'Varenya') should be separated to supply the eighth syllable. The particles 'ha' and 'vai' indicate some well-known fact. So the above three worlds, the earth etc., constitute the first foot of the Gayatri, because both have eight syllables. The result accruing to one who knows the first foot ot the Gayatri consisting of the three worlds is as follows:- He who knows the first foot of the Gayatri to be such wins as much as there is to be won in those three worlds.
Max Müller
1. The words Bhûmi (earth), Antariksha (sky), and Dyu [1] (heaven) form eight syllables. One foot of the Gâyatrî consists of eight syllables. This (one foot) of it is that (i. e. the three worlds). And he who thus knows that foot of it, conquers as far as the three worlds extend.
Meaning:- 'Reah', 'Yajumsi' and 'Samani' make eight syllables, and the second foot of the Gayatri has eight syllables. So the above three Vedas constitute the second foot of the Gayatri. He who knows the second foot of the Gayatri to be such wins as much as that treasury of knowledge, the three Vedas, has to confer.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Similarly 'Rcah,' 'Yajumsi,' and 'Samani,' the syllables of the names of that treasury of knowledge, the three Vedas, are also eight in number, and the second foot of the Gayatri has likewise eight syllables. So the above three Vedas, Rc, Yajus and Saman, constitute the second foot of the Gayatri, just because both have eight syllables. He who knows the second foot of the Gayatri to be such, consisting of the three Vedas, wins as much as that treasury of knowledge, the three Vedas, has to confer as result.
Max Müller
2. The Rikas, the Yagûmshi, and the Sâmâni form eight syllables. One foot (the second) of the Gâyatrî consists of eight syllables. This (one foot) of it is that (i.e. the three Vedas, the Rig-veda, Yagur-veda, and Sama-veda). And he who thus knows that foot of it, conquers as far as that threefold knowledge extends.
iva hyeṣa parorajā iti sarvamu hyevaiṣa raja uparyupari tapatyevagͫ
haiva śriyā yaśasā tapati yo'syā etadevaṃ padaṃ veda .. 3..
Meaning:- 'Prana', 'Apana' and 'Vyana' make eight syllables, and the third foot of the Gayatri has eight syllables. So the above three forms of vital force constitute the third foot of the Gayatri. He who knows the third foot of the Gayatri to be such wins all the living beings that are in the universe. Now its Turiya, apparently visible, supramundane foot is indeed this - the sun that shines. 'Turiya' means the fourth. 'Apparently visible foot', because he is seen, as it were. 'Supramundane', because he shines on the whole universe as its overlord. He who knows the fourth foot of the Gayatri to be such shines in the same way with splendour and fame.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Similarly 'Prana,' 'Apana' and 'Vyana,' these names of the vital force etc., have also eight syllables, and they constitute the third foot of the Gayatri. He who knows the third foot of the Gayatri to be such wins all the living beings that are in the universe. The Gayatri, as consisting of words, has only three feet. Now its fourth foot, which is the import of the verse, is being described:- Now the Turiya apparently visible, supramundane foot of that Gayatri is indeed this, viz. the sun that shines. The Sruti itself explains the meaning of the words in the above passage. The word 'Turiya' means what is generally known as the fourth. What is the meaning of the words 'apparently visible foot'? This is being answered:- Because he, the being who is in the solar orb, is seen, as it were; hence he is so described. What is the meaning of the word 'supramundane'? This is being explained:- Because he, this being in the solar orb, shines on the whole universe as its overlord. The word 'Rajas' means the universe produced out of Rajsa, or activity. The word 'upari' (lit. above) has been repeated twice to indicate his suzerainty over the whole universe. It may be urged that since the word 'whole' serves that purpose, it is useless to repeat the word 'upari'. The answer to this is that it is all right, because the word 'whole' may be taken to refer only to those worlds above which the sun is observed to shine, and the repetition of the word 'upari' removes this possibility. As another Sruti says, 'He rules the worlds that are beyond the sun and commands the enjoyments of the gods as well' (Ch. I. vi. . Therefore the repetition serves tto include all. As the sun shines with splendour, in the form of suzerainty and fame, so he who knows the fourth, apparently visible foot of the Gayatri to be such shines with splendour and fame.
Max Müller
3. The Prâna (the up-breathing), the Apâna (the down-breathing), and the Vyâna (the back-breathing) form eight syllables. One foot (the third) of the Gâyatrî consists of eight syllables. This (one foot) of it is that (i. e. the three vital breaths). And he who thus knows that foot of it, conquers as far as there is anything that breathes. And of that (Gâyatrî, or speech) this indeed is the fourth (turîya), the bright (darsata) foot, shining high above the skies [1]. What is here called turîya (the fourth) is meant for katurtha (the fourth); what is called darsatam padam (the bright foot) is meant for him who is as it were seen (the person in the sun); and what is called paroragas (he who shines high above the skies) is meant for him who shines higher and higher above every sky. And he who thus knows that foot of the Gâyatrî, shines thus himself also with happiness and glory.
sa yāmevāmūgͫ sāvitrīmanvāhaiṣaiva sā . sa yasmā anvāha tasya
prāṇāgͫstrāyate .. 4..
Meaning:- That Gayatri rests on this fourth, apparently visible, supramundane foot. That again rests on truth. The eye is truth, for the eye is indeed truth. Therefore if even today two persons come disputing, one saying, 'I saw it', and another, 'I heard of it', we believe him only who says, 'I saw it'. That truth rests on strength. The vital force is strength. (Hence) truth rests on the vital force. Therefore they say strength is more powerful than truth. Thus the Gayatri rests on the vital force within the body. That Gayatri saved the Gayas. The organs are the Gayas; so it saved the organs. Now, because it saved the organs, therefore it is called the Gayatri. The Savitri that the teacher communicates to the pupil is no other than this. It saves the organs of him to whom it is communicated.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- That Gayatri with three feet which has been described, which comprises the three worlds, the three Vedas and the vital force, rests on this fourth, apparently visible, supramundane foot, because the sun is the essence of the gross and subtle universe. Things deprived of their essence becomes lifeless and unstable, as wood and so forth are when their pith is burnt. So the three-footed Gayatri, consisting of the gross and subtle universe, rests with its three feet on the sun. That fourth foot (the sun) again rests on truth. What is that truth? The eye is truth. How? For the eye is indeed truth --- it is a well-known fact. How? Therefore if even today two persons come disputing, giving contradictory accounts, one saying, 'I saw it,' and another, 'I heard of it --- the thing is not as you saw it,' of the two we believe him only who says, 'I saw it,' and not him who says, 'I heard of it.' What a man hears of may sometimes be false, but not what he sees with his own eyes. So we do not believe the man who says, 'I heard of it.' Therefore the eye, being the means of the demonstration of truth, is truth. That is to say, the fourth foot of the Gayatri with the other three feet rests on the eye. It has also been stated:- 'On what does that sun rest? --- On the eye' (III. ix. 20). That truth which is the support of the fourth foot of the Gayatri rests on strength. What is that strength? The vital force is strength. Truth rests on that strength or the vital force. So it has been stated that everything is pervaded by the Sutra (III. vii. 2). Since truth rests on strength, therefore they say strength is more powerful than truth. It is also a well-known fact that a thing which supports another is more powerful than the latter. We never see anything weak being the support of a stronger thing. Thus, in the above-mentioned way, the Gayatri rests on the vital force within the body. That Gayatri is the vital force; hence the universe rests on the Gayatri. The Gayatri is that vital force in which all the gods, all the Vedas, and rites together with their results are unified. So, as the vital force, it is the self, as it were, of the universe. That Gayatri saved the Gayas. What are they? The organs, such as that of speech, are the Gayas, for they produce sound (This is primarily true of the vocal organ, but the whole group is named after it.). So it saved the organs. Because it saved the organs (of the priests using them), therefore it is called the Gayatri; owing to this saving of the organs it came to be known as the Gayatri. The Savitri or hymn to the sun that the teacher communicates --- first a quarter of it, then half, and finally the whole --- to the pupil, after investing him with the holy thread at the age of eight, is no other than this Gayatri, which is identical with the vital force, and is the self, as it were, of the universe. What the child receives from him is now explained here. It saves the organs of him, the child, to whom it is communicated, from falling into hell and other dire fates.
Max Müller
4. That Gâyatrî (as described before with its three feet) rests on that fourth foot, the bright one, high above the sky. And that again rests on the True (satyam), and the True is the eye, for the eye is (known to be) true. And therefore even now, if two persons come disputing, the one saying, I saw, the other, I heard, then we should trust the one who says, I saw. And the True again rests on force (balam), and force is life (prâna), and that (the True) rests on life [1]. Therefore they say, force is stronger than the True. Thus does that Gâyatrî rest with respect to the self (as life). That Gâyatrî protects (tatre) the vital breaths (gayas); the gayas are the prânas (vital breaths), and it protects them. And because it protects (tatre) the vital breaths (gayas), therefore it is called Gâyatrî. And that Savitri verse which the teacher teaches [2], that is it (the life, the prâna, and indirectly the Gâyatrî); and whomsoever he teaches, he protects his vital breaths.
iti . na tathā kuryād gāyatrīmevānubrūyād . yadi ha vā apyevaṃvidbahviva
pratigṛhṇāti na haiva tadgāyatryā ekaṃ cana padaṃ prati .. 5..
Meaning:- Some communicate (to the pupil) the Savitri that is Anustubh (saying), 'speech is Anustubh; we shall impart that to him'. One should not do like that. One should communicate that Savitri which is the Gayatri. Even if a man who knows as above accepts too much as gift, as it were, it is not (enough) for even one foot of the Gayatri.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Some, the followers of certain recensions of the Vedas, communicate to the initiated pupil the Savitri that is produced from, or composed in, the metre called Anustubh. Their intention is being stated:- They say, 'Speech is Anustubh, and it is also Sarasvati in the body. We shall impart that speech Sarasvati --- to the boy.' One should not do, or know, like that. What they say is totally wrong. What then should one do? One should communicate that Savitri which is the Gayatri. Why? Because it has already been said that the Gayatri is the vital force. If the child is taught about the vital force, he will be automatically taught about speech, and Sarasvati, and the other organs as well. Having stated this incidentally, the text goes on to praise the knower of the Gayatri:- Even if a man who knows as above accepts too much as gift, as it were really there is no such things as too much for him, for he is identified with the universe --- it, the whole amount of gift received, is not enough for even one foot of the Gayatri.
Max Müller
5. Some teach that Sâvitrî as an Anushtubh [1] verse, saying that speech is Anushtubh, and that we teach that speech. Let no one do this, but let him teach the Gâyatrî as Sâvitrî [2]. And even if one who knows this receives what seems to be much as his reward (as a teacher), yet this is not equal to one foot of the Gâyatrî.
etadeva turīyaṃ darśataṃ padaṃ parorajā ya eṣa tapati naiva kena
canāpyaṃ kuta u etāvatpratigṛhṇīyāt .. 6..
Meaning:- He who accepts these three worlds replete (with wealth), will be receiving (the results of knowing) only the first foot of the Gayatri. He who accepts as much as this treasury of knowledge, the Vedas (has to confer), will receive (the results of knowing) only its second foot. And he who accepts as much as (is covered by) all living beings, will receive (the results of knowing) only its third foot. With its fourth, apparently visible, supramundane foot - the sun that shines - is not to be counter balanced by any gift received. Indeed how could any one accept so much as gift?
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- He, that knower of the Gayatri, who accepts these three worlds, the earth etc., replete with wealth such as cattle and horses, will be receiving only the first foot of the Gayatri, which has been explained. That acceptance will counterbalance the results of knowing only its first foot, but will not produce any additional sin. He who accepts as much as this treasury of knowledge, the Vedas, (has to confer), will receive only its second foot. It will set off the results of knowing only its second foot. Similarly he who accepts as much as (is covered by) all living beings, will receive only its third foot. It will match the results of knowing only its third foot. All this is said merely as a supposition. Should any one accepts gifts equivalent even to all the three feet, it will wipe out the results of knowing only those three feet, but cannot lead to a new fault. Of course there is no such donor or recipient; it is imagined only to extol the knowledge of the Gayatri. Supposing such a donor and recipient were available, this accpetance of gifts would not be considered a fault. Why? Because there would still be left the knowledge of the fourth foot of the Gayatri, which is among the highest achievements of a man. This is pointed out by the text:- While its fourth, apparently visible, supramundane foot the sun that shines is not to be counterbalanced by any gift received, as the other feet mentioned above are. Even these three are not to be thus counterbalanced. All this has been said as a mere hypothetical proposition. Indeed how could any one accept so much as gift --- equivalent to the three worlds, and so on? Hence the Gayatri should be meditated upon in this (entire) form.
Max Müller
6. If a man (a teacher) were to receive as his fee these three worlds full of all things, he would obtain that first foot of the Gâyatrî. And if a man were to receive as his fee everything as far as this threefold knowledge extends, he would obtain that second foot of the Gâyatrî. And if a man were to receive as his fee everything whatsoever breathes, he would obtain that third foot of the Gâyatrî. But 'that fourth bright foot, shining high above the skies [1]' cannot be obtained by anybody--whence then could one receive such a fee?
Meaning:- Its salutation:- 'O Gayatri, thou art one-footed, two-footed, there-footed and four-footed, and thou art without any feet, for thou art unattainable. Salutation to thee, the fourth, apparently visible, supramundane foot! May the enemy never attain his object!' (Should the knower of the Gayatri) bear hatred towards anybody, (he should) either (use this Mantra):- 'Such and such - way his desired object never flourish!' - in which case that object of the person against whom he thus salutes the Gayatri, never flourishes - or (he may say), 'May I attain that (cherished object) of his!'
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Its salutation, the salutation of the Gayatri --- literally, the word 'Upasthana' means going near and staying, or 'saluting --- with the following sacred formula:- 'O Gayatri, thou art one-footed, with the three worlds as thy first foot, two-footed, with the three Vedas as thy second foot, three-footed, with the three forms of the vital force as thy third foot, and four-footed, with the sun as thy fourth foot. Thus thou art attained or known by the meditating aspirants. Beyond that thou art without any feet, in thy own supreme, unconditioned form. Thou has no foot (Pada), that is, means of attainment, for thou art unatttainable, being the Self described as 'Not this, not this.' Hence salutation to thee, the fourth, apparently visible, supramundane foot --- in thy relative aspect! May the enemy, the evil that stands in the way of my realisation of thee, never attain his object, of obstructing this realisation! The word 'iti' marks the close of the sacred formula. Should the knower of the Gayatri himself bear hatred towards anybody, he should either use the following sacred formula against him in his salutation to the Gayatri:- 'Such and such --- naming him --- may his, Devadatta's desired object never flourish! -- in which case that object of the person, Devadatta, against whom he thus salutes the Gayatri, never flourishes. Or he may salute the Gayatri saying, 'May I attain that cherished object of Devadatta.' Of the three Mantras given above --- 'May the enemy never attain,' etc. --- anyone may be used at option according to the intention of the aspirant.
Max Müller
7. The adoration [1] of that (Gâyatrî):- 'O Gâyatrî, thou hast one foot, two feet, three feet, four feet [2]. Thou art footless, for thou art not known. Worship to thy fourth bright foot above the skies.' If [3] one (who knows this) hates some one and says, 'May he not obtain this,' or 'May this wish not be accomplished to him,' then that wish is not accomplished to him against whom he thus prays, or if he says, 'May I obtain this.'
Meaning:- On this Janaka, Emperor of Videha, is said to have told Budila, the son of Asvatarasva, 'Well, you gave yourself out as a knower of the Gayatri; then why, alas, are you carrying (me) as an elephant?' He replied, 'Because I did not know its mouth, O Emperor'. 'Fire is its mouth. Even if they put a large quantity of fuel into the fire, it is all burnt up. Similarly, even if one who knows as above commits a great many sins, he consumes them all and becomes pure, cleansed, undecaying and immortal'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- In order to enjoin the mouth of the Gayatri a eulogistic story is being narrated in this paragraph. --- The particles 'ha' and 'vai' refer to a past incident. --- On this subject of the knowledge of the Gayatri, Janaka, Emperor of Videha, is said to have told Budila, the son of Asvatarasva, 'Well, you gave yourself out as a knower of the Gayatri --- said you were one --- then why are you acting contrary to that satement? If you really were a knower of Gayatri, then why, alas, as a result of your sin in accepting gifts, are you carrying (me) as an elephant?' The adverb 'nu' indicates deliberation. Thus reminded by the Emperor, he replied, 'Because I did not know its mouth, O Emperor. My knowledge of the Gayatri, being deficient in one part, has been fruitless.' (The Emperor said), 'Listen then, fire is its into the fire, it, that fuel, is all burnt up. Similarly, even if one who knows as above, that fire is the mouth of the Gayatri who himself is identified with the Gayatri and has fire as his mouth --- commits a great many sins such as those due to the acceptance of gifts etc., he consumes all those sins and becomes pure like the fire, cleansed of those sins due to the acceptance of gifts etc., undecaying and immortal,' because he is identified with the Gayatri.
Max Müller
8. And thus Ganaka Vaideha spoke on this point to Budila Âsvatarâsvi [1]:- 'How is it that thou who spokest thus as knowing the Gâyatrî, hast become an elephant and carriest me?' He answered:- 'Your Majesty, I did not know its mouth. Agni, fire, is indeed its mouth; and if people pile even what seems much (wood) on the fire, it consumes it all. And thus a man who knows this, even if he commits what seems much evil, consumes it all and becomes pure, clean, and free from decay and death.'
kṛtagͫ smara . agne naya supathā rāye'smān viśvāni deva vayunāni
vidvān . yuyodhyasmajjuhurāṇameno bhūyiṣṭhāṃ te nama uktiṃ vidhema .. 1..
iti pañcadaśaṃ brāhmaṇam ..
.. iti bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadi pañcamo'dhyāyaḥ ..
atha ṣaṣṭho'dhyāyaḥ .
atha prathamaṃ brāhmaṇam ..
Meaning:- The face (nature) of Satya (Brahman) is hidden (as it were) with a golden vessel. O Pusan (nourisher of the world - the sun), remove it, so that I, whose reality is Satya, may see (the face). O Pusan, O solitary Rishi (seer or traveller), O Yama (controller), O Surya (sun), O son of Prajapati (God or Hiranyagarbha), take away thy rays, curb thy brightness. I wish to behold that most benignant form of thine. I myself am that person; and I am immortal. (When my body falls) may my vital force return to the air (cosmic force), and this body too, reduced to ashes, (go to the earth)! O fire, who art the syllable 'Om', O Deity of deliberations, recollect, recollect all that I have done, O Deity of deliberations, recollect, recollect all that I have done. O Fire, lead us along the good way towards our riches (deserts). O Lord, thou knowest everybody's mental states; remove the wily evil from us. We utter repeated salutations to thee.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- The man who has combined meditation with rites is praying to the sun in his dying moments. This is topical too, for the sun is the fourth foot of the Gayatri, and the salutation to him is under consideration; hence he is being prayed to. The face, or real nature, of Satya, or the Satya-Brahman, is hidden, as it were, with a golden or shining vessel, the solar orb, as something held dear is kept hidden with a vessel. 'Hidden,' because no one whose mind is not concentrated can see it. O Pusan --- the sun is so called because he nourishes the world remove it, that vessel serving as a cover, as it were, because of its obstructing vision, i.e. remove the cause of obstruction to the vision, so that I, whose reality is Satya (Satya-Brahman), in other words, who am identical with thee, may see (the face). The names Pusan etc. are for addressing the sun. O solitary Rsi or seer, because of his vision, for he is the soul of the universe and as the eye sees everything. Or the word may mean 'O solitary traveller,' for the Sruti says, 'The sun roams alone' (Tai. S. VII. iv. xviii. 1).
O Yama (controller), for the control of the whole world is due to thee. O Surya, literally, one who efficiently directs the liquids, or his rays, or the vital force or intellect of all beings. O son of Prajapati or God, who is the Lord of all beings, or of Hiranyagarbha. Take away thy rays, curb thy brightness, so that I may see thee; for I cannot see thee as thou art, being blinded by thy dazzling light, as one cannot see things when it lightens. Hence withdraw thy radiance. I wish to behold that most benignant form of thine. 'I wish' should be changed into 'we wish.' I myself am that person whose limbs are the syllables of the Vyahrtis, 'Bhur' (earth), 'Bhuvar' (sky) and 'Svar' (heaven), called 'person' (Purusa) because of his having the form of a man. 'Ahar' (day) and 'Aham' (I) have been mentioned (V. v. 3, 4) as the secret names of the being in the sun and the being in the eye respectively (who are identical). That is referred to here. And I am immortal. The word 'immortal' should be thus construed. When my body falls --- while I am immortal and identified with the Satya-Brahman --- may my vital force in the body return to the external air (cosmic force). Similarly, may the other deities return to their respective sources. And this body too, being reduced to ashes, go to the earth!
Now he is praying to the deity, Fire, who is identified with his deliberations and presides over the mind:- O Fire, who art the syllable 'Om' --- the words 'Om' and 'Krato' are both used here as vocatives --- or 'Om' is his symbol. O Deity of deliberations, being identified with the mind, recollect what is to be recollected, for a desirable goal is attained through thy recollection at the time of death; hence I pray to thee:- Recollect all that I have done. The repetition is expressive of earnestness. Also, O Fire, lead us along the good way towards our riches, i.e. for receiving the fruits of our work; not along the southern, dark way that leads to return, but along the good, bright way. O Lord, thou knowest everybody's mental states. Remove all the wily evil from us. Freed from it through thy grace, we shall go along the northern way. But we are unable to serve thee; we only utter repeated salutations to thee. That is to say, we shall serve thee through the utterance of salutations, for we are too weak to do anything else.
Max Müller
1. [1]The face of the True (the Brahman) is covered with a golden disk [2]. Open that, O Pûshan [3], that we may see the nature of the True [4].
ज्येष्ठश्च श्रेष्ठश्च स्वानां भवत्यपि च येषां बुभूषति य
एवं वेद ॥ १॥
mantra 1[VI.i.1]
oṃ yo ha vai jyeṣṭhaṃ ca śreṣṭhaṃ ca veda jyeṣṭhaśca
śreṣṭhaśca svānāṃ bhavati . prāṇo vai jyeṣṭhaśca śreṣṭhaśca .
jyeṣṭhaśca śreṣṭhaśca svānāṃ bhavatyapi ca yeṣāṃ bubhūṣati ya
evaṃ veda .. 1..
Meaning:- Om. He who knows that which is the oldest and greatest, becomes the oldest and greatest among his relatives. The vital force is indeed the oldest and greatest. He who knows it to be such becomes the oldest and greatest among his relatives as well as among those of whom he wants to be such.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- It has been stated that Gayatri is the vital force. But why is Gayatri the vital force, and not the organs such as that of speech? Because the vital force is the oldest and greatest, which the organs are not. How is it the oldest and greatest? The present section is introduced to settle this point. Or, meditation on the vital force alone as the 'Uktha,' 'Yajus,' 'Saman,' 'Ksatra,' etc. has been described, although there are other things such as the eye. The present section gives only the reason, which is its connection with the preceding chapter, on account of its immediate sequence. But this section is not a part of that chapter. These two chapters being of the nature of a supplement, such meditations on the vital force, with specific results of their own, as have not been mentioned before, have to be described; this is what the Sruti intends to do.
He who knows that which is the oldest and greatest, i.e. has the attributes of priority in age and greatness --- what is is will be presently mentioned --- surely becomes the oldest and greatest among his relatives. The particles 'ha' and 'vai' are emphatic. The pupil, tempted by this mention of the result, is eager to put his question, when the teacher says to him:- The vital force is indeed the oldest and The vital force is indeed the oldest and greatest. But how is one to know that it is such, since at conception all the organs (of the embryo) are equally connected with the formative elements contributed by the parents? The answer is that nevertheless the seed, if lifeless, will not develop; which means that the vital force begins to function earlier than the eye and other organs; hence it is the oldest in age. Besides, the vital force goes on fostering the embryo from the moment of conception, and it is only after it (the vital force) has begun to function that the eye and other organs begin their work. Hence the vital force is legitimately the oldest of the organs. But one may be the olest member in a family without being the greatest, because of his lack of good qualities; and the second, or the youngest member may be the greatest by reason of his superior qualities, but not the oldest. Not so, however, with the vital force. It is indeed the oldest and greatest. How is it known to be the greatest? It will be shown through the ensuing conversation. In any case, he who knows, or meditates upon the vital force as the oldest and greatest, becomes the oldest and greatest among his relatives, by virtue of meditation on a thing that is oldest and greatest, as well as among those other than his relatives, of whom he wants to be the oldest and greatest. The man who meditates upon the vital force as the oldest and greatest attains this result. It may be questioned how a person can be oldest as will, since it depends on age. But the answer is that there is nothing wrong in it, since 'being the oldest' here means functioning (before the rest) as the vital force does.
Max Müller
1. Harih, Om. He who knows the first and the best, becomes himself the first and the best among his people. Breath is indeed the first and the best. He who knows this, becomes the first and the best among his people, and among whomsoever he wishes to be so.
वसिष्ठः स्वानां भवत्यपि च येषां बुभूषति , य एवं वेद ॥ २॥
mantra 2[VI.i.2]
yo ha vai vasiṣṭhāṃ veda vasiṣṭhaḥ svānāṃ bhavati . vāgvai vasiṣṭhā .
vasiṣṭhaḥ svānāṃ bhavatyapi ca yeṣāṃ bubhūṣati , ya evaṃ veda .. 2..
Meaning:- He who knows the Vasistha (that which best helps to dwell or cover) becomes the Vasistha among his relatives. The organ of speech is indeed the Vasistha. He who knows it as such becomes the Vasistha among his relatives as well as among those of whom he wants to be such.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- He who knows the Vasistha becomes the Vasistha among his relatives. The result is according to the meditation. He also becomes the Vasistha among those other than his relatives, of whom he wants to be the Vasistha. 'Then please tell me what this Vasistha is.' The organ of speech is indeed the Vasistha. The derivative meaning of the word is 'that which helps one to dwell, or covers one splendidly.' For people who have the gift of speech become rich and live in splendour; or the word may be derived from the root 'Vas,' meaning 'to cover,' for speaks overcome others through their eloquence. Hence by realising the organ of speech as the Vasistha one becomes such. The result is in accordance with the realisation.
Max Müller
2. He who knows the richest [1], becomes himself the richest among his people. Speech is the richest. He who knows this, becomes the richest among his people, and among whomsoever he wishes to be so.
यो ह वै प्रतिष्ठां वेद प्रतितिष्ठति समे प्रतितिष्ठति दुर्गे ।
चक्षुर्वै प्रतिष्ठा चक्षुषा हि समे च दुर्गे च प्रतितिष्ठति ।
प्रतितिष्ठति समे प्रतितिष्ठति दुर्गे य एवं वेद ॥ ३॥
mantra 3[VI.i.3]
yo ha vai pratiṣṭhāṃ veda pratitiṣṭhati same pratitiṣṭhati durge .
cakṣurvai pratiṣṭhā cakṣuṣā hi same ca durge ca pratitiṣṭhati .
pratitiṣṭhati same pratitiṣṭhati durge ya evaṃ veda .. 3..
Meaning:- He who knows Pratistha (that which has steadiness) lives steadily in difficult as well as smooth places and times. The eye indeed is Pratistha, for through the eye one lives steadily in difficult as well as smooth places and times. He who knows it as such lives steadily in difficult as well as smooth places and times.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- He who knows Pratistha, that which has the attribute of steadiness --- lit. that by means of which one lives steadily --- has this result:- He lives steadily in smooth places and times, as also in difficult or inaccessible places and difficult times such as those of famine. 'If it is so, please tell me what that Pratistha is.' The eye indeed is Pratistha. How? For by seeing them through the eye one lives steadily in difficult as well as smooth places and times. Hence the results are quite appropriate; He who knows it as such lives steadily in difficult as well as smooth places and times.
Max Müller
3. He who knows the firm rest, becomes himself firm on even and uneven ground. The eye indeed is the firm rest, for by means of the eye a man stands firm on even and uneven ground. He who knows this, stands firm on even and uneven ground.
yo ha vai sampadaṃ veda sagͫ hāsmai padyate yaṃ kāmaṃ kāmayate .
śrotraṃ vai sampacchrotre hīme sarve vedā abhisampannāḥ . sagͫ
hāsmai padyate yaṃ kāmaṃ kāmayate ya evaṃ veda .. 4..
Meaning:- He who knows Sampad (prosperity) attains whatever object he desires. The ear indeed is Sampad, for all these Vedas are acquired when one has the ear (intact). He who knows it to be such attains whatever object he desires.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- He who knows Sampad, that which has the attribute of prosperity, gets this result:- He attains whatever object he desires. But what is it that has got this attribute? The ear indeed is Sampad. How is the ear endowed with this attribute? For all Vedas are acquired when one has the ear, because only one who has the organ of hearing can study them, and objects of desire depend on the performance of rites that are enjoined by the Vedas. Therefore the ear is possessed of prosperity. Hence the result is in accordance with the meditation:- He who knows it to be such attains whatever object he desires.
Max Müller
4. He who knows success, whatever desire he desires, it succeeds to him. The ear indeed is success. For in the ear are all these Vedas successful. He who knows this, whatever desire he desires, it succeeds to him.
यो ह वा आयतनं वेदाऽऽयतनꣳ स्वानां भवति आयतनं जनानाम् ।
मनो वा आयतनमायतनꣳ स्वानां भवत्यायतनं जनानां य एवं
वेद ॥ ५॥
mantra 5[VI.i.5]
yo ha vā āyatanaṃ vedā''yatanagͫ svānāṃ bhavati āyatanaṃ janānām .
mano vā āyatanamāyatanagͫ svānāṃ bhavatyāyatanaṃ janānāṃ ya evaṃ
veda .. 5..
Meaning:- He who knows the abode becomes the abode of his relatives as well as of (other) people. The Manas indeed is the abode. He who knows it to be such becomes the abode of his relatives as well as of (other) people.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- He who knows the abode becomes the abode of his relatives as well as of other people. What is that abode? The Manas indeed is the abode of the organs and objects. The latter become objects of enjoyment for the self only when they get an abode in the Manas; and the organs start and stop their work in accordance with the deliberations of the Manas. Hence it is the abode of the organs. Therefore the results are according to the meditation:- He who knows it to be such becomes the abode of his relatives as well as of (other) people.
Max Müller
5. He who knows the home, becomes a home of his own people, a home of all men. The mind indeed is the home. He who knows this, becomes a home of his own people and a home of all men.
yo ha vai prajātiṃ veda prajāyate ha prajayā paśubhī reto vai prajātiḥ .
prajāyate ha prajayā paśubhirya evaṃ veda .. 6..
Meaning:- He who knows Prajati (that which has the attribute of generation) is enriched with children and animals. The seed (organ) has this attribute. He who knows it to be such is enriched with children and animals.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- He who knows Prajati is enriched with children and animals. The seed has this attribute; the word 'seed' refers to the organ of generation. The result is in keeping with the meditation:- He who knows it to be such is enriched with children and animals.
Max Müller
6. He who knows generation [1], becomes rich in offspring and cattle. Seed indeed is generation. He who knows this, becomes rich in offspring and cattle.
Meaning:- These organs, disputing over their respective greatness, went to Brahman and said to him, 'Which of us is the Vasistha?' He said, 'That one of you will be the Vasistha, who departing from among yourselves, people consider this body far more wretched'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- These organs, that of speech and the rest, disputing over --- lit. giving contradictory accounts of ---- their respective greatness, each claiming that it was the greatest, went to Brahman, or Prajapati denoted by the word 'Brahman,' and said to him,' 'Which of us is the Vasistha --- (best) lives and overcomes others?' He, Brahman, being asked by them, said, 'That one of you will be the Vasistha, who departing from the body from among yourselves, people consider this body far more wretched than before' --- for the body, being an aggregate of many impure things, is wretched even while a person is alive; it will be more so then. This is said for creating a feeling of disgust in us. Prajapati, although he knew it, did not say, 'This is the Vasistha,' to avoid offending the rest.
Max Müller
7. These Prânas (senses), when quarrelling together as to who was the best, went to Brahman [1] and said:- 'Who is the richest of us?' He replied:- 'He by whose departure this body seems worst, he is the richest.'
prajāyamānā retasaivamajīviṣmeti . praviveśa ha vāk .. 8..
Meaning:- The organ of speech went out. After staying a whole year out it came back and said, 'How did you manage to live without me?' They said, 'We lived just as dumb people do, without speaking through the organ of speech, but living through the vital force, seeing through the eye, hearing through the ear, knowing through the mind and having children through the organ of generation.' So the organ of speech entered.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Being thus addressed by Brahman, the organs went out one by one to try their power. Of them the organ of speech went out of the body first. Then after staying a whole year out it came back and said, 'How did you manage to live without me?' Thus addressed, they said, 'We lived just as in the world dumb people do, without speaking through the organ of speech, but living, doing the vital function, through the vital force, seeing, doing the function of vision, through the eye, similarly, hearing through the ear, knowing, considering what should or should not be done, and so on, through the mind and having children through the organ of generation.' Being thus answered by the organs, the organ of speech, realising that it was not the Vasistha in the body, entered.
Max Müller
8. The tongue (speech) departed, and having been absent for a year, it came back and said:- 'How have you been able to live without me?' They replied:- 'Like unto people, not speaking with the tongue, but breathing with breath, seeing with the eye, hearing with the ear, knowing with the mind, generating with seed. Thus we have lived.' Then speech entered in.
manasā prajāyamānā retasaivamajīviṣmeti . praviveśa ha cakṣuḥ .. 9..
Meaning:- The eye went out. After staying a whole year out it came back and said, 'How did you manage to live without me?' They said, 'We lived just as blind people do, without seeing through the eye, but living through the vital force, speaking through the organ of speech, hearing through the ear, knowing through the mind and having children through the organ of generation.' So the eye entered.
Max Müller
9. The eye (sight) departed, and having been absent for a year, it came back and said:- 'How have you been able to live without me?' They replied:- 'Like blind people, not seeing with the eye, but breathing with the breath, speaking with the tongue, hearing with the ear, knowing with the mind, generating with seed. Thus we have lived.' Then the eye entered in.
vidvāgͫso manasā prajāyamānā retasaivamajīviṣmeti . praviveśa ha
śrotram .. 10..
Meaning:- The ear went out. After staying a whole year out it came back and said, 'How did you manage to live without me?' They said, 'We lived just as deaf people do, without hearing through the ear, but living through the vital force, speaking through the organ of speech, seeing through the eye, knowing through the mind and having children through the organ of generation.' So the ear entered.
Max Müller
10. The ear (hearing) departed, and having been absent for a year, it came back and said:- 'How have you been able to live without me?' They replied:- 'Like deaf people, not hearing with the ear, but breathing with the breath, speaking with the tongue, seeing with the eye, knowing with the mind, generating with seed. Thus we have lived.' Then the ear entered in.
śrotreṇa prajāyamānā retasaivamajīviṣmeti . praviveśa ha manaḥ .. 11..
Meaning:- The mind went out. After staying a whole year out it came back and said, 'How did you manage to live without me?' They said, 'We lived just as idiots do, without knowing through the mind, but living through the vital force, speaking through the organ of speech, seeing through the eye, hearing through the ear and having children through the organ of generation.' So the mind entered.
Max Müller
11. The mind departed, and having been absent for a year, it came back and said:- 'How have you been able to live without me?' They replied:- 'Like fools, not knowing with their mind, but breathing with the breath, seeing with the eye, hearing with the ear, generating with seed. Thus we have lived.' Then the mind entered in.
vidvāgͫso manasaivamajīviṣmeti . praviveśa ha retaḥ .. 12..
Meaning:- The organ of generation went out. After staying a whole year out it came back and said, 'How did you manage to live without me?' They said, 'We lived just as eunuchs do, without having children through the organ of generation, but living through the vital force, speaking through the organ of speech, seeing through the eye, hearing through the ear and knowing through the mind.' So the organ of generation entered.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Likewise the eye went out, etc. All this is to be explained as before. The ear, the mind, the organ of generation.
Max Müller
12. The seed departed, and having been absent for a year, it came back and said:- 'How have you been able to live without me?' They replied:- 'Like impotent people, not generating with seed, but breathing with the breath, seeing with the eye, hearing with the ear, knowing with the mind. Thus we have lived.' Then the seed entered in.
पड्वीशशङ्कून्संवृहेदेवꣳ हैवेमान्प्राणान्संववर्ह । ते होचुर्मा
भगव उत्क्रमीर्न वै शक्ष्यामस्त्वदृते जीवितुमिति । तस्यो मे बलिं
कुरुतेति तथेति ॥ १३॥
mantra 13[VI.i.13]
atha ha prāṇa utkramiṣyan yathā mahāsuhayaḥ saindhavaḥ
paḍvīśaśaṅkūnsaṃvṛhedevagͫ haivemānprāṇānsaṃvavarha . te hocurmā
bhagava utkramīrna vai śakṣyāmastvadṛte jīvitumiti . tasyo me baliṃ
kuruteti tatheti .. 13..
Meaning:- Then as the vital force was about to go out, it uprooted those organs just as a great, fine horse from Sind pulls out the pegs to which his feet are tied. They said, 'Please do not go out, sir, we cannot live without you'. 'Then give me tribute.' 'All right'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Then as the vital force was about to go out, the vocal and other organs were immediately dislodged from their places. This is being illustrated by an example:- It uprooted those organs from their places, just as in life a great, large-sized fine, noble-featured, horse from Sind, the place of his origin, simultaneously pulls out the pegs to which his feet are tied, when the rider mounts on him to test him. They, the organ of speech etc., said, 'Please do not go out, sir, for we cannot live without you.' (The vital force said:-) 'If you have thus understood my eminence, then, as I am the chief here, give me tribute.' This conversation among the organs is an imaginary one devised to teach how a wise man should test the greatness of his peers. It is thus that a wise man finds out who is the greatest among them. That mode of testing is presented in the form of a conversation; for otherwise it is absurd to think that each one of the organs, which work together, can actually go out by turns for the space of a year, and so on. Therefore, only the wise man who wants to know, for purposes of meditation, which is the greatest of the organs, reasons in this way. The organs, when demanded tribute, agreed saying, 'All right.'
Max Müller
13. The (vital) breath, when on the point of departing, tore up these senses, as a great, excellent horse of the Sindhu country might tare up the pegs to which he is tethered. They said to him:- 'Sir, do not depart. We shall not be able to live without thee.' He said:- 'Then make me an offering.' They said:- 'Let it be so.'
Meaning:- The organ of speech said, 'That attribute of the Vasistha which I have is yours'. The eye:- 'That attribute of steadiness which I have is yours'. The ear:- 'That attribute of prosperity which I have is yours'. The mind:- 'That attribute of abode which I have is yours'. The organ of generation:- 'That attribute of generation which I have is yours'. (The vital force said:) 'Then what will be my food and my dress?' (The organs said:) 'Whatever is (known as) food, including dogs, worms, insects and moths, is your food, and water your dress'. He who knows the food of the vital force to be such, never happens to eat anything that is not food, or to accept anything that is not food. Therefore wise men who are versed in the Vedas sip a little water just before and after eating. They regard it as removing the nakedness of the vital force.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- The organ of speech came forward first to offer the tribute and said, 'That attribute of the Vasistha which I have is yours. With that you are the Vasistha.' The eye:- 'That attribute of steadiness which I have is yours. You are that steadiness.' The rest is similar. The other organs gave one by one their attributes of prosperity, abode and generation. (The vital force said:-) 'If it is so, you have handsomely paid me tribute. Now tell me, endowed with such attributes that I am, what will be my food and my dress?' The others said, 'Whatever is known in the world as food, including dogs, worms, insects and mouths whatever is food for dogs etc., and with that every food that is eaten by other creatures --- is all your food.' We are here enjoined to look upon everything as the food of the vital force.
Some say that he who knows the food of the vital force can eat anything with impunity. This is wrong, for it has been forbidden by other scriptures. Objection:- May this not be an alternative to them (Meaning that ordinary people must abide by that restriction, but he who knows the food of the vital force may eat anything.)? Reply:- No, for this is not an injunction in favour of promiscuous eating. The passage, 'He never happens to eat anything that is not food,' is merely a eulogy on the meditation enjoined about regarding everything as the food of the vital force, for it should be treated as a part of that injunction. It has no power to contradict what has been enjoined by other scriptures, for it has quite a different meaning (viz to extol the above meditation). What is sought to be enjoined here is the idea that everything is the food of the vital force, not that one should eat everything. Your assumption that the eating of everything is allowable is totally false, for there is no authority to support it.
Objection:- The man who knows about the food of the vital force is identified with the latter, and as such everything can be regarded as his food; hence the eating of everything is surely allowable in his case. Reply:- No, for anything and everything cannot be one's food. It is true that this sage is identified with the vital force, but he possesses a body through which he has attained his knowledge, and the eating of every kind of food such as those of worms, insects and gods is incongruous with it (Nobody can possibly want to eat anything and everything.). Hence it is meaningless to declare in that connection that the eating of all sorts of food is free from blame, for the blame in question would never arise.
Objection:- But as identified with the vital force, he does eat the food of even worms, insects, etc. Reply:- True, but there is no scriptural prohibition regarding it. So it would be quite in order, like the Palasa flower (Butea Frondosa), which is naturally red. Hence it would be meaningless to say that he is allowed to eat everything as the vital force, for the eating of everything would not in that case amount to a blame. But the prohibition is with regard to the sage in relation to a particular body, and no exception has been made in his favour. Therefore he will certainly incur blame if he transgresses that prohibition, for the passage, 'He never happens to eat anything that is not food,' has a different meaning. Moreover, the meditation on everything as the food of the vital force is being enjoined here not for the vital force as associated with the body of a Brahmana etc., but for the vital force in general. Just as, although everything may be food for the vital force in a general way, some kind of food helps to sustain the life of certain creatures, as poison does for the worm born in it, but it would do palpable harm in the form of death etc. to others in spite of its being the food of the vital force, similarly, although everything is food for the vital force, yet, if it eats forbidden food while associated with the body of a Brahmana etc., it will certainly incur blame. Therefore it is entirely misleading to think that the eating of forbidden food is harmless. 'And water that is drunk will stand for your dress.' Here too we are enjoined to look upon water as the dress of the vital force. It cannot of course be used as dress. Therefore the natural act of drinking water should be meditated upon as dressing the vital force. He who knows the food of the vital force to be such --- that everything is its food --- never happens to eat anything that is not food. Even if he eats something that should not be eaten, that too becomes regular food, and he is not touched by the blame due to it. It is a eulogy on this meditation, as we have said. Similarly he never happens to accept anything that is not food. Even if he accepts something that is forbidden, an elephant, for example, that too becomes the kind of food that it is allowable to accept. There too he is not touched by the blame of accepting something that is unacceptable --- which is also said by way of eulogy. The result of the meditation, however, is identification with the vital force, for what has just been stated is not meant to be a result of the meditation, but simply a eulogy on it.
Objection:- Why should not this itself be the result? Reply:- It cannot, for he who sees the vital force as his own self attains identity with it as its result. And since he is identified with the vital force, and has thus becomes the self of all, even a forbidden food becomes allowable food; similarly even unacceptable gifts becomes acceptable. This is a eulogy (As a matter of fact, such acts are just as much forbidden for this sage as for any other person.) on the meditation, taking the acts just as they occur in life. Hence that passage has not the force of an injunction directed to a definite result. Since water is the dress of the vital force, therefore wise men, Brahmanas, who are versed in the Vedas sip a little water just before and after eating. What do they mean by it? This is being stated:- They regard it as removing the nakedness of the vital force. It is a fact that a person giving a dress to another thinks that he is removing tha nakedness of the latter; and it has already been said that water is the dress of the vital force. The passage means that while drinking water one should think that one is giving a dress to the vital force.
Objection:- But a person sips water just before and after meals with the objects of purification. If that also means removing the nakedness of the vital force, the act of sipping would have a double effect. But one and the same act of sipping should not have a double effect. It it is for purification, it is not for dressing the vital force, and vice verse. Under the circumstances there should be another sipping of water to dress the vital force. Reply:- No, for it can be explained by the twofoldness of the action. These are two separate actions. The sipping of water by one before and after eating enjoined by the Smrti is for the sake of purification, and is simply an act; there the purification does not require any meditation etc. Here we are enjoined to look upon the water that forms part of the act of sipping as dress for the vital force. But if that is done, it will not contradict the purpose of purification attaching to the act of sipping, for it will be a different act (from meditation). Therefore in the act of sipping water before and after eating, we are simply enjoined to meditate upon the water as being the dress of the vital force. It is an injunction, since it is not known from any other source.
Max Müller
14. Then the tongue said:- 'If I am the richest, then thou art the richest by it.' The eye said:- 'If I am the firm rest, then thou art possessed of firm rest by it.' The ear said:- 'If I am success, then thou art possessed of success by it.' The mind said:- 'If I am the home, thou art the home by it.' The seed said:- 'If I am generation, thou art possessed of generation by it.' He said:- 'What shall be food, what shall be dress for me?' They replied:- 'Whatever there is, even unto dogs, worms, insects, and birds [1], that is thy food, and water thy dress. He who thus knows the food of Ana (the breath) [2], by him nothing is eaten that is not (proper) food, nothing is received that is not (proper) food. Srotriyas (Vedic theologians) who know this, rinse the mouth with water when they are going to eat, and rinse the mouth with water after they have eaten, thinking that thereby they make the breath dressed (with water).'
sa bhoḥ 3 iti pratiśuśrāva anuśiṣṭo'nvasi pitretyomiti hovāca .. 1..
Meaning:- Svetaketu, the grandson of Aruna, came to the assembly of the Panchalas. He approached Pravahana, the son of Jivala, who was being waited on (by his servants). Seeing him the King addressed him, 'Boy!' He replied, 'Yes, sir'. 'Have you been taught by your father?' He said, 'Yes'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Svetaketu, the grandson of Aruna, after being taught by his father, came to the assembly of the Pancalas to display his learning. The Pancalas were famous (for their learning). With the proud idea of conquering first their assembly, and then the royal court, he approached Pravahana, the son of Jivala, and the King of Pancala, who was being waited on by his servants. The particle 'ha' refers to a past incident, and 'vai' indicates certainty. The King had already heard of his pride of learning, and wished to teach him a lesson. Seeing him, he addressed him as soon as he arrived, 'Boy!' The prolongation of the accent in the address is expressive of censure. Thus addressed, he replied, 'Yes, sir (The word 'Bhoh' (sir) is used in addressing a Brahmana teacher.).' Though a Ksatriya is not entitled to this form of address, he used it in anger. The King said, 'Have you been taught by your father?' The other said, 'Yes I have. If you are in doubt, you can question me.'
Max Müller
1. Svetaketu Âruneya went to the settlement of the Pañkâlas. He came near to Pravâhana Gaivali [1], who was walking about (surrounded by his men). As soon as he (the king) saw him, he said:- 'My boy!' Svetaketu replied:- 'Sir!' Then the king said:- 'Have you been taught by your father!' 'Yes,' he replied.
Meaning:- 'Do you know how these people diverge after death?' 'No', said he. 'Do you know how they return to this world?' 'No', said he. 'Do you know how the other world is never filled by so many people dying thus again and again?' 'No', said he. 'Do you know after how many oblations are offered water (the liquid offerings) rises up possessed of a human voice (or under the name of man) and speaks?' 'No', said he. 'Do you know the means of access to the way of the gods, or that to the way of the manes - doing which people attain either the way of the gods or the way of the manes? We have heard the words of the Mantra:- 'I have heard of two routes for men, leading to the manes and the gods. Going along them all this is united. They lie between the father and the mother (earth and heaven)."' He said, 'I know not one of them'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- 'Well then, do you know, how these familiar people diverge after death? The prolongation of the final accent in the verb suggests deliberation. 'While going along the same route they come to a point where the roads split; some take the one, and some the other; this is the divergence. Do you know how these people are divided?' --- this is the idea. 'No,' said the other. 'Then do you know how they return to this world?' 'No,' said Svetaketu. 'Do you know how the other world is never filled by so many people dying thus, in the familiar way, again and again?' 'No,' said he. 'Do you know after how many oblations are offered water rises up, appears perfectly, possessed of a human voice (or under the name of man) and speaks?' This happens when it takes a human form. 'No,' said he. 'Very well. But do you know the means of access to the way of the gods, or that to the way of the manes --- in other words, the kind of (ritualistic) work doing which people attain either the way of the gods or the way of the manes?' The latter part of the sentence explains the word 'Pratipad' (means of access). That is to say, do you know the means of attaining the two worlds? 'We have heard the words of the Mantra that express this sense.' That is, there is a Mantra too expressing this idea. What is that Mantra? It is this:- I have heard of two routes. One of them leads to the manes, is connected with the world of the manes; that is, one attains the world of the manes through that way. --- The word 'Aham' (I) agress with the verb 'Asrnavam' (have heard), which is separated by the word 'Pitrnam.' --- And another is related to the gods; it leads to the gods. Who go by those two routes to the manes and the gods? This is being answered:- For, or relating to, men. That is, men only go by those routes. Going along those two routes all this (The universe as means and end. The routes connect this world with the next world, and departed spirits travel along them to their destination.) is united; and those two routes lie between the father and the mother. Who are they? The two halves of the shell of the universe consisting of heaven and earth. The Brahmana gives the following explanation of the words:- 'This (earth) is the mother, and that (heaven) is the father' (S. XIII. ii. ix. 7; Tai. B. III. viii. ix. 1). These two routes are within the two halves of the universe and hence belong to the relative world. They cannot lead to absolute immortality. Svetaketu said, 'I know not one of this set of questions.'
Max Müller
2. The king said:- 'Do you know how men, when they depart from here, separate from each other?' 'No,' he replied. 'Do you know how they come back to this world?' 'No,' he replied [1]. 'Do you know how that world does never become full with the many who again and again depart thither?' 'No,' he replied. 'Do you know at the offering of which libation the waters become endowed with a human voice and rise and speak?' 'No,' he replied. 'Do you know the access to the path leading to the Devas and to the path leading to the Fathers, i.e. by what deeds men gain access to the path leading to the Devas or to that leading to the Fathers? For we have heard even the saying of a Rishi:- "I heard of two paths for men, one leading to the Fathers, the other leading to the Devas. On those paths all that lives moves on, whatever there is between father (sky) and mother (earth)."' Svetaketu said:- 'I do not know even one of all these questions.'
mā praśnānrājanyabandhuraprākṣīt tato naikañcana vedeti . katame ta
iti ima iti ha pratīkānyudājahāra .. 3..
Meaning:- Then the King invited him to stay. The boy, disregarding the invitation to stay, hurried away. He came to his father and said to him, 'Well, did you not tell me before that you had (fully) instructed me?' 'How (did you get hurt), my sagacious child?' 'That wretch of a Kshatriya asked me five questions, and I knew not one of them.' 'Which are they?' 'These', and he quoted their first words.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Then, after he had removed his pride of learning, the King invited him, Svetaketu, who is being discussed, to stay, saying, 'Please stay here. Let water be brought for washing your feet, and the customary offering to respected guests be made.' The boy, Svetaketu, disregarding the inivitation to stay, hurried away to his father. He came to his father and said to him, 'Well, did you not tell me before, at the time of my finishing the study, that you had instructied me in every branch of learning?' Hearing the reproachful words of his son, the father said, 'How did you get hurt, i.e. come by your grief, my sagacious child?' He said, 'Listen what happened to me. That wretch of a Ksatriya --- lit. an associate of the Ksatriyas; a term of reproach --- asked me five questions, and I knew not one of them.' 'Which are they --- those questions asked by the King?' inquired the father. To which the son replied, 'These,' and he quoted the first words of those questions.
Max Müller
3. Then the king invited him to stay and accept his hospitality. But the boy, not caring for hospitality, ran away, went back to his father, and said:- 'Thus then you called me formerly well-instructed!' The father said:- 'What then, you sage?' The son replied:- 'That fellow of a Râganya asked me five questions, and I did not know one of them.' 'What were they?' said the father. 'These were they,' the son replied, mentioning the different heads.
Meaning:- The father said, 'My child, believe me, whatever I knew I told you every bit of it. But come, let us go there and live as students'. 'You go alone, please'. At this Gautama came to where King Pravahana, the son of Jivala, was giving audience. The King gave him a seat, had water brought for him, and made him the reverential offering. Then he said, 'We will give revered Gautama, a boon'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- The father, to soothe his angry child, said, 'My child, believe me, whatever of meditations I knew, I told you every bit of it. Who is dearer to me than you, for whom I would withhold anything? I too do not know what the King asked about. Therefore come, let us go there and live as students with the King, to learn it.' The boy said, 'You go alone, please, I do not care to see his face.' At this Gautama, i.e. Aruni, who was descended from the line of Gotama, came to where King Pravahana, the son of Jivala, was holding a sitting, or giving audience. Or the genitive case in the two words in the text (denoting the King's name) should be changed into the nominative. The King gave him a respectable seat, had water brought for him, his guest Gautama, through servants, and made him the reverential offering (Arghya) through his priest, as also the Madhuparka (An offering consisting of honey, curds, etc.) with sacred texts uttered. Having thus worshipped him, he said to him, 'We will give to revered Gautama a boon,' consisting of cows, horses, etc.
Max Müller
4. The father said:- 'You know me, child, that whatever I know, I told you. But come, we shall go thither, and dwell there as students.' 'You may go, Sir,' the son replied. Then Gautama went where (the place of) Pravâhana Gaivali was, and the king offered him a seat, ordered water for him, and gave him the proper offerings. Then he said to him:- 'Sir, we offer a boon to Gautama.'
sa hovāca pratijñāto ma eṣa varo yāṃ tu kumārasyānte
vācamabhāṣathāstāṃ me brūhīti .. 5..
Meaning:- Aruni said, 'You have promised me this boon. Please tell me what you spoke to my boy about'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Gautama said, 'You have promised me this boon. Make yourself firm in this promise. Please tell me what you spoke to my boy, or son, about --- those questions. This is my boon.'
Max Müller
5. Gautama said:- 'That boon is promised to me; tell me the same speech which you made in the presence of my boy.'
स होवाच विज्ञायते हास्ति हिरण्यस्यापात्तं गोअश्वानां दासीनां प्रवाराणां
परिधानस्य मा नो भवान्बहोरनन्तस्यापर्यन्तस्याभ्यवदान्यो भूदिति ।
स वै गौतम तीर्थेनेच्छासा इत्युपैम्यहं भवन्तमिति वाचा ह स्मैव
पूर्व उपयन्ति । स होपायनकीर्त्योवास ॥ ७॥
mantra 7[VI.ii.7]
sa hovāca vijñāyate hāsti hiraṇyasyāpāttaṃ goaśvānāṃ dāsīnāṃ pravārāṇāṃ
paridhānasya mā no bhavānbahoranantasyāparyantasyābhyavadānyo bhūditi .
sa vai gautama tīrthenecchāsā ityupaimyahaṃ bhavantamiti vācā ha smaiva
pūrva upayanti . sa hopāyanakīrtyovāsa .. 7..
Meaning:- Aruni said, 'You know that I already have gold, cattle and horses, maid-servants, retinue, and dress. Be not ungenerous towards me alone regarding this plentiful, infinite and inexhaustible (wealth).' 'Then you must seek it according to form, Gautama'. 'I approach you (as a student)'. The ancients used to approach a teacher simply through declaration. Aruni lived as a student by merely announcing that he was at his service.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Gautama said, 'You too know that I have them. So the human boon that you propose to give me will do me no good. Because I too already have plenty of gold, cattle and horses, maid-servants, retinue and dress.' The words 'Apattam asti' (there is attainment) should be connected with all the terms. 'And what I already have, neither I should ask of you, nor you should give me. You have promised me a boon. You alone know what is proper under the circumstances --- that you should keep your promise. I have also another thing on my mind:- Having been generous everywhere, be not ungenerous, stingy, towards me alone regarding this wealth --- plentiful, infinite, i.e. producing such results, and inexhaustible, i.e. reaching down to one's sons and grandsons. You should not deny such wealth to me alone. You will not deny it to anybody eles.' Thus addressed, the King said, 'Then you must seek to have this learning according to form, that prescribed by the scriptures.' At this Gautama said, 'I approach you as a student.' The ancients --- Brahmanas seeking instruction from Ksatriyas or Vaisyas, or Ksatriyas seeking it from Vaisyas, as a matter of necessity --- used to approach a teacher simply through declaration, not by actually approaching his feet or serving him. Hence Gautama lived as a student by merely announcing that he was at his service, without actually approaching the Kings' feet.
Max Müller
7. He said:- 'You know well that I have plenty of gold, plenty of cows, horses, slaves, attendants, and apparel; do not heap on me [1] what I have already in plenty, in abundance, and superabundance.' The king said:- 'Gautama, do you wish (for instruction from me) in the proper way?' Gautama replied:- 'I come to you as a pupil.' In word only have former sages (though Brahmans) come as pupils (to people of lower rank), but Gautama actually dwelt as a pupil (of Pravâhana, who was a Râganya) in order to obtain the fame of having respectfully served his master [2].
स होवाच तथा नस्त्वं गौतम माऽपराधास्तव च पितामहा यथेयं
विद्येतः पूर्वं न कस्मिꣳश्चन ब्राह्मण उवास तां त्वहं तुभ्यं
वक्ष्यामि को हि त्वैवं ब्रुवन्तमर्हति प्रत्याख्यातुमिति ॥ ८॥
mantra 8[VI.ii.8]
sa hovāca tathā nastvaṃ gautama mā'parādhāstava ca pitāmahā yatheyaṃ
vidyetaḥ pūrvaṃ na kasmigͫścana brāhmaṇa uvāsa tāṃ tvahaṃ tubhyaṃ
vakṣyāmi ko hi tvaivaṃ bruvantamarhati pratyākhyātumiti .. 8..
Meaning:- The King said:- Please do not take offence with us, Gautama, as your paternal grandfathers did not (with ours). Before this, this learning never rested with a Brahmana. But I shall teach it to you; for who can refuse you when you speak like this?
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- When Gautama thus declared his preference for this unavoidable humiliation to ignorance, the King, thinking that he was hurt, said begging his pardon:- Please do not take offence with us, Gautama, as your paternal grandfathers did not with ours. That is to say, you should observe that attitude of your grandfathers towards us. Know that before this transmission to you, this learning that you have asked for never rested with a Brahmana. It has all along come down through a line of Ksatriya teachers. I too should, if possible, maintain that tradition. Hence I said, 'This comes under heavenly boons, Gautama. Please ask some human boon' (VI. ii. 6). But it cannot be maintained any more, for your boon cannot be withheld. I shall teach even this learning to you; for who else even can refuse you when you speak like this? Then why should I not teach it to you?
Max Müller
8. The king said:- 'Do not be offended with us, neither you nor your forefathers, because this knowledge has before now never dwelt with any Brâhmana [1]. But I shall tell it to you, for who could refuse you when you speak thus?
Meaning:- That word (heaven), O Gautama, is fire, the sun is its fuel, the rays its smoke, the day its flame, the four quarters its cinder, and the intermediate quarters its sparks. In this fire the gods offer faith (liquid oblations in subtle form). Out of that offering King Moon is born (a body is made in the moon for the sacrificer).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- 'That world, O Gautama, is fire,' etc. The fourth question is being answered first. The order of the questions is broken, because on the solution of this question depends that of the others. That world, heaven, O Gautama, is fire. We are enjoined to look upon heaven, which is not fire, as fire, as in the case of man and woman later on. Of that fire, heaven, the sun is the fuel, because of the kindling, for heaven is illumined by the sun. The rays its smoke, because of the similarity of rising from the fuel, for the rays emanate from the sun, and smoke, as we know, comes out of the fuel. The day its flame, because both are bright. The four quarters its cinder, because both present a pacified state (Space, like cinder, has no heat or lustre.). The intermediate quarters its sparks, because they are scattered like sparks. In this fire of heaven, possessed of such attributes, the gods, Indra-etc., offer faith as an oblation. Out of that offering King Moon, King of the manes and Brahmanas, is born. Now who are the gods, how do they offer oblations, and what is this oblation called faith? We have just touched on this point elsewhere in our introductory remarks on this section. In order to ascertain the six things referred to by the words, 'But certainly you do not know the departure of these two oblations,' etc., certain things have been stated in the portion dealing with the Agnihotra. These are some of the statements:- 'These two oblations of the Agnihotra, after being offered, depart. They enter the sky, of which they make an Ahavaniya fire (The chief of the three Vedic sacrificial fires which the upper three castes are regularly required to tend. The oblations to the gods are offered in it.), with air as its fuel, and the sun's rays its white oblation. They offer libations to the sky and depart from there. They enter heaven, of which they make an Ahavaniya fire, with the sun as its fuel,' and so on (S. XI. vi. ii. 6 ' 7). Of course, these oblations of the Agnihotra depart together with their accessories. Whatever accessories they are known to possess here, such as the Ahavaniya fire, fuel, smoke, cinder, sparks and the articles of oblation, they take along with them as they leave this world for heaven. There, although everything is in an undifferentiated state during the dissolution of the world, those ingredients retain their separate existence in an extremely subtle form --- the fire remaining as fire, the fuel as fuel, the smoke as smoke, the cinder as cinder, the sparks as sparks and the articles of oblations as articles of oblation such as milk. That ceremony of the Agnihotra with its accessories, which never ceases to exist, but remains in a subtle form known as the Apurva, reappears in its old form at the time of manifestation, by making use of the sky etc. as the Ahavaniya fire and so on as before. The ceremony of the Agnihotra is like that even today.
Thus the nature of those six things beginning with the departure of the oblations and ending with the departure of the sacrificer for the next world, has been ascertained earlier in the Satapatha Brahmana, in the portion dealing with rites, and it has been stated that it is with a view to eulogising those two oblations of the Agnihotra that the whole universe has been described as being the development of the Apurva of those oblations. But here the object is to describe the results of the sacrificer's rites and to enjoin meditation on the five fires beginning with the fire of heaven, as a means to attaining the northern way, in order that he may enjoy the results of specific rites; hence the meditation on heaven as fire etc. is introduced. It should be noted that those forms of the vital force in the body that serve as priests in the Agnihotra here, become Indra etc. on attaining their form relating to the gods, and they serve as priests there, offering oblations in the fire of heaven. They (as a part of the sacrificer) performed the Agnihotra here with a view to attaining its results, and it is they who, at the time of reaping the results, also become priests in different places in the next world, assuming suitable forms, and being called by the name of gods. The liquid substances too, which, forming a part of the Agnihotra ceremony, are here poured into the Ahavaniya fire and are devoured by it, assume an invisible, subtle form and accompany the agent, the sacrificer, to the other world, going through smoke etc. first to the sky and thence to heaven. When those subtle liquid substances --- which are the effects of the act of offering, form a part of the Agnihotra, and are known as 'faith' --- enter heaven with the agent, to construct a new body for him in the lunar sphere, they are said to be offered as oblations. Entering heaven, they produce a body for the agent in the lunar sphere. This is referred to in the passage:- The gods offer faith. Out of that offering King Moon is born; for the Sruti says, 'Faith is water' (Tai. S. I. vi. viii.1).
The question was, 'Do you know after how many oblations are offered water rises up possessed of a human voice and speaks?' In order to answer it, the statemennt has been made:- 'That world is fire.' Therefore, it is clear that the liquid substances which form a part of the sacrifice and produce the body of the agent are designated as 'faith.' 'Water' only is mentioned as rising up possessed of a human voice, on account of the preponderance of liquid elements in the body, not that the truth four elements are absent in it. The formation of the body is due to the performance of the Agnihotra, and liquid substances are a part of it. Hence water (as typifying liquids) is the most important factor in the formation of the body. This is another reason why it is spoken of as 'rising up possessed of a human voice,' for everywhere it is the sacrificer who has a rebirth. So, although in the portion dealing with the Agnihotra the six things such as the departure of the two oblations have been mentioned so as to glorify the oblations of the Agnihotra alone, yet all Vedic rites such as the Agnihotra are meant; for after introducing rites with five factors, which are connected with the wife and fire, it has been said, 'The world of the manes (is to be won) through rites' (I. v. 16). It will also be stated later on, 'While those who conquer the worlds through sacrifices, charity and austerity,' etc.
Max Müller
9. 'The altar (fire), O Gautama, is that world (heaven) [1]; the fuel is the sun itself, the smoke his rays, the light the day, the coals the quarters, the sparks the intermediate quarters. On that altar the Devas offer the sraddhâ libation (consisting of water [2]). From that oblation rises Soma, the king (the moon).
Meaning:- Parjanya (the god of the rain), O Gautama, is fire, the year is its fuel, the clouds its smoke, lightning its flame, thunder its cinder, and the rumblings its sparks. In this fire the gods offer King Moon. Out of that offering rain is produced.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Parjanya, O Gautama, is fire, the second receptalce of the two oblations in the order of their return. Parjanya is a god identifying himself with the materials of rain. The year is its fuel, for this fire of Parjanya is kindled by that as it revolves with its parts commening with autumn and ending with summer. The clouds its smoke, being produced from smoke, or because of its cloudy appearance. Lightning its flame, since both are luminous. Thunder its cinder, because both represent a pacified state and are hard. The rumblings of the clouds its sparks, because both scatter and are numerous. In this receptacle of the two oblations the gods, those very priests mentioned above, offer King Moon, who was produced out of the offering of 'faith' in the fire of heaven; he is offered in the second fire, that of Parjanya, and out of that offering of the moon rain is produced.
Max Müller
10. 'The altar, O Gautama, is Parganya (the god of rain); the fuel is the year itself, the smoke the clouds, the light the lightning, the coals the thunderbolt, the sparks the thunderings. On that altar the Devas offer Soma, the king (the moon). From that oblation rises rain.
Meaning:- This world, O Gautama, is fire, the earth is its fuel, fire its smoke, the night its flame, the moon its cinder, and stars its sparks. In this fire the gods offer rain. Out of that offering food is produced.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- This world, O Gautama, is fire. 'This world' means the abode where all creatures are born and experience the results of their past work, and which consists of action, its factors and its results; it is the third fire. The earth is the fuel of that fire, for this world ('This world' and 'the earth' stand to each other in relation of a person and his body.) is kindled by the earth, which is provided with numerous materials for the enjoyment of living beings. Fire its smoke, for both rise from their abode, earth; because fire is produced out of the fuel, which preponderates in earth, and smoke too arises from the same source. The night its flame, because both originate from the contact of fuel. As a flame is produced by the conctact of fuel with fire, so is the night by the contact of the fuel of the earth, for the earth's shadow is called the darkness of night (Which is caused by a part of the earth obstructing the sun's rays.). The moon its cinder, both being produced from flames; for cinder is produced from flames, and so is the moon in the night; or because both represent a pacified state. The stars its sparks, because both scatter. In this, etc. --- to be explained as before --- (the gods) offer rain. Out of that offering food is produced, for it is a well-known fact that food, such as rice and barley, is produced from rain.
Max Müller
11. 'The altar, O Gautama, is this world [1]; the fuel is the earth itself, the smoke the fire, the light the night, the coals the moon, the sparks the stars. On that altar the Devas offer rain. From that oblation rises food.
Meaning:- Man, O Gautama, is fire, the open mouth is its fuel, the vital force its smoke, speech its flame, the eye its cinder, and the ear its sparks. In this fire the gods offer food. Out of that offering the seed is produced.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Man, O Gautama, is fire. The familiar human being with a head, hands, etc., is the fourth fire. The open mouth is its fuel, for through it a man is kindled (shines) in speech, study of the Vedas, etc., as fire is with fuel. The vital force its smoke, both rising from the same source, for the vital force rises from smoke, both rising from the same source, for the vital force rises from the mouth. Speech or the word its flame, for both reveal. A flame reveals things, and speech or the word signifies its object. The eye its cinder, because both represent a pacified state, or are the sources of light. The ear its sparks, owing to the similarity of scattering. In this fire (the gods) offer food. One may say, we do not see any gods here offering food. The answer is, that is no objection, for the forms of the vital force can be taken as gods. With reference to the deities, Indra and others are the gods; in the body the same are the forms of the vital force and they put food into a man. Out of that offering the seed is produced, for it is the outcome of food.
Max Müller
12. 'The altar, O Gautama, is man; the fuel the opened mouth, the smoke the breath, the light the tongue, the coals the eye, the sparks the ear. On that altar the Devas offer food. From that oblation rises seed.
sambhavati . sa jīvati yāvajjīvatyatha yadā mriyate . 13..
Meaning:- Woman, O Gautama, is fire. In this fire the gods offer the seed. Out of that offering a man is born. He lives as long as he is destined to live. Then, when he dies --
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Woman, O Gautama, is fire, the fifth one to serve as the receptacle of the sacrifice. In that fire the gods offer the seed. Out of that offering a man is born. Thus water (liquids), designated as 'faith,' being successively offered in the fires of heaven, rain-god, this world, man and woman, in the increasingly grosser forms of faith, moon, rain, food and seed respectively, produce what we call man. The fourth question, 'Do you know after how many oblations are offered water rises up possessed of a human voice and speaks?' (par.2), has been thus answered, viz that when the fifth oblation is offered in the fire of woman, water, transformed into the seed, becomes possessed of a human voice. He, that man, born in this order, lives. How long? As long as he is destined to live, i.e. as long as the resultant of his past work, which makes him stay in his body lasts. Then, on the exhaustion of that, when he dies.
Max Müller
13. 'The altar, O Gautama, is woman [1]. On that altar the Devas offer seed. From that oblation rises man. He lives so long as he lives, and then when he dies,
Meaning:- They carry him to be offered in the fire. The fire becomes his fire, the fuel his fuel, the smoke his smoke, the flame his flame, the cinder his cinder, and the sparks his sparks. In this fire the gods offer the man. Out of that offering the man emerges radiant.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Then the priests carry him, the dead man, to be offered in the fire. The well-known fire becomes his fire, the receptacle for the sacrifice in which he himself is to be oblation; no new fire if to be imagined. The familiar fuel his fuel, the smoke his smoke, the flame his flame, the cinder his cinder, and the sparks his sparks. All these familiar objects are meant. In this fire the gods offer the man as the last oblation. Out of that offering the man emerges radiant, exceedingly bright, having been purified by all the riites performed from conception to the funeral ceremony.
Max Müller
14. 'They take him to the fire (the funeral pile), and then the altar-fire is indeed fire, the fuel fuel, the smoke smoke, the light light, the coals coals, the sparks sparks. In that very altar-fire the Devas offer man, and from that oblation man rises, brilliant in colour.
brahmalokān gamayati te teṣu brahmalokeṣu parāḥ parāvato vasanti .
teṣāṃ na punarāvṛttiḥ .
Meaning:- Those who know this as such, and those others who meditate with faith upon the Satya-Brahman in the forest, reach the deity identified with the flame, from him the deity of the day, from him the deity of the fortnight in which the moon waxes, from him the deities of the six months in which the sun travels northward, from them the deity identified with the world of the gods, from him the sun, and from the sun the deity of lightning. (Then) a being created from the mind (of Hiranyagarbha) comes and conducts them to the worlds of Hiranyagarbha. They attain perfection and live in those worlds of Hiranyagarbha for a great many superfine years. They no more return to this world.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Now in order to answer the first question it is being stated:- Those who know this meditation on the five fires as such, as described above --- the word 'such' refers to the five fires described in terms of fire, fuel, smoke, flame, cinder, sparks, faith (liquid offerings), etc., so the meaning is --- those who know these five fires as above.
Objection:- Is not this meditation the same as that on the two oblations of the Agnihotra? For there, in the course of the discussion on the six things such as the departure of the two oblations, it has been stated, 'They make heaven itself the Ahavaniya fire,' etc. Here too there are many points of similarity, as for example the other world is fire, the sun is the fuel, and so on. Therefore this meditation is just a part of that. Reply:- No, because this is an answer to the question, 'After how many oblations are offered,' etc. So the word 'such' must refer to that much only which is covered by the answer to this question. Otherwise the question would be useless. Now, since the number of the fires is already known (In the portion dealing with the Agnihotra.), the fires themselves are to be described here.
Objection:- Suppose we say that the fires and so forth are known, but are merely repeated here. Reply:- In that case, they must be repeated as they occur there, not in such terms as, 'That word is fire (There are discrepancies. The sky, for instance, is omitted, and so on.).'
Objection:- The mention of heaven etc. is suggestive of the remaining items. Reply:- Even then the first and last items should be quoted to suggest the rest. Another Sruti bears out our contention. In a section of the Chandogya Upanisad treating of the same subject there are the words, 'Those who know the five fires,' (V. x. 10), which shows that the number of the fires is fiexd as five. Therefore this meditation on the five fires cannot be a part of the Agnihotra (Because in that case the fire in which the first offerings are made would begin the series, thus making the number six.). The similarity as regards the fire, fuel, etc., to which you referred is, as we have said, only for the sake of extolling the Agnihotra. Therefore a mere knowledge of the six things such as the departure of the oblations will not lead to the attainment of the deities of the flame etc., for this has been enjoined through a knowledge of the five fires that are being discussed, as is evident from the use of the word 'such' in the text. But who are 'those who know this as such'? The householers (Representing the second of the four orders of life. The other three orders are represented by students (who come firsts, hermits and monks.), of course. One may object:- Is it not the purpose of the Sruti to enjoin that they by means of sacrifices etc. are to attain the southern way characterised by the deity of smoke and so on? The answer is:- Not so; for there may be householders not knowing the five fires for whom sacrifices etc. are enjoined as means. Besides, the hermit and the monk have been indirectly mentioned, for they are connected with rites that only a householder can perform. Hence students also are meant by the words, 'Who know this as such.' They enter the northern way, as we know on the authority of the Smrti, 'Eighty-eight thousand sages who led a celibate life attained (relative) immortality through the northern route of the sun' (cf. Vis. II. viii. 92, 94). Therefore those householders who know as above, that they are born of fire, are childern of fire --- who know that they have been born out of a number of fires in this order, and are but another form of fire, and those others who meditate with --- not upon --- faith upon the Satya-Brahman (See V. iv. 1 and V. v. 1 ' 2.), or Hiranyagarbha, in the forest, in other words, the hermits and monks who constantly live in the forest all reach the deity identified with the flame. As long as the householders do not know either the meditation on the five fires or the Satya-Brahman, they are born from the fire of woman when the fifth oblation beginning with that of faith (the liquids) has been offered in order, and agin perform rites like the Agnihotra, with a view to attaining the other world. Through those rites they again go to the world of the manes, passing in order the deity of smoke etc., and again return, passing in order the rain-god and so forth. Then they are again born of the fire of woman, again perform rites, and so on, thus rotating constantly like a Persian wheel (Ghatiyantra, a contrivance for drawing water from a well, in which a series of bowls are fixed to an endless chain which, when pulled, makes each bowl come up filled with water and get emptied at the top.) by their comings and goings between this world and the next. But when they know the meditation on the five fires, they are freed from this rotations and reach the flame. The 'flame' here does not mean a tongue of fire, but the deity identified with the flame and called by that name, who is stationed in the northern route. They reach him, for monks have no direct relation to the flame. Hence the word means the deity of that name. From him the deity of the day. Since there can be no restriction with regard to the time of death, the word 'day' also means the deity of the day. Death occurs as soon as the term of live is over:- one cannot make the rule that a knower of this meditation must die at daytime; so the day cannot be fixed as such time. Nor do those who dies at night wait for the day, for another Sruti says, 'He reaches the sun as quickly as the glance of the mind' (Ch. VIII. vi. 5).
From him the fortnight in which the moon waxes:- That is, being conducted by the deity of the day, they reach the deity of the bright fortnight. From him, being conducted by the deity of the bright fornight, they reach the six months in which the sun travels northward. The plural in the word 'months' indicates that a group of six deities identified with the northward journey of the sun is meant. From them the world of the gods:- Being conducted by this group of deities, they reach the deity identified with the world of the gods. From him they reach the sun, and from the sun the deity of, or identified with, lightning. As they reach the deity of lightning, a being created from the mind of Hiranyagarbha, a denizen of his world, comes and conducts them to the worlds of Hiranyagarbha. The plural in the word 'worlds' indicates that there are higher and lower planes in that world, which is possible, as there may be differences of grade in meditations. Being conducted there by that being, they attain perfection and live in those worlds of Hiranyagarbha for a great many superfine years, i.e. many human cycles, which constitute the lifetime of Hiranyagarbha (A human cycle or Kalpa consists of 432 million years and constuites a day of Hiranyagarbha. He lives a hundred years according to this scale.). They, after reaching the world of Hiranyagarbha, no more return to this world, for the word 'here' occurs in the Madhyandina recension.
Objection:- The word 'here' just indicates upon a type, meaning this and similar worlds, as in the passage, 'The full-moon sacrifice should be performed on the next day.' Reply:- No, for then the qualifying word 'here' would be redundant. That is to say, if they did not return at all, the use of the word 'here' would be meaningless. In the passage cited, the fact that the sacrifice has to be performed on the next day would not be known, were it not mentioned; so the specification is all right. The term 'next day' has not been used there superfluously, on the ground (adduced by you) that it represents a type (Meaning, any day. The question is, the Caturmasya sacrifice being performed on the full-moon day, when is the full-moon sacrifice to be performed? The Sruti decides it by saying that it should be performed on the next day. This applies to all cases. Hence the term 'next day', assuming that it represents a type, demarcates that particular day from all other days, and is therefore not superfluous. Similarly, the word 'here' is significant, meaning that they return in another cycle.). Only where the relevancy of a qualifying word is not to be found after investigation, is it proper to discard it as redundant; but not where the significance of the word is patent. Therefore we understand that they return after the lapse of the present cycle.
Max Müller
15. 'Those who thus know this (even Grihasthas), and those who in the forest worship faith and the True [1] (Brahman Hiranyagarbha), go to light (arkis), from light to day, from day to the increasing half, from the increasing half to the six months when the sun goes to the north, from those six months to the world of the Devas (Devaloka), from the world of the Devas to the sun, from the sun to the place of lightning. When they have thus reached the place of lightning a spirit [2] comes near them, and leads them to the worlds of the (conditioned) Brahman. In these worlds of Brahman they dwell exalted for ages. There is no returning for them.
vāyorvṛṣṭiṃ vṛṣṭeḥ pṛthivīṃ te pṛthivīṃ prāpyānnaṃ bhavanti te
punaḥ puruṣāgnau hūyante tato yoṣāgnau jāyante te lokānpratyuthāyinasta
evamevānuparivartante'tha ya etau panthānau na viduste kīṭāḥ pataṅgā
yadidaṃ dandaśūkam .. 16..
iti dvitīyaṃ brāhmaṇam ..
atha tṛtīyaṃ brāhmaṇam .
Meaning:- While those who conquer the worlds through sacrifices, charity and austerity, reach the deity of smoke, from him the deity of the night, from him the deity of the fortnight in which the moon wanes, from him the deities of the six months in which the sun travels southward, from them the deity of the world of the manes, and from him the moon. Reaching the moon they become food. There the gods enjoy them as the priests drink the shining Soma juice (gradually, saying, as it were), 'Flourish, dwindle'. And when their past work is exhausted, they reach (become like) this ether, from the ether air, from air rain, and from rain the earth. Reaching the earth they become food. Then they are again offered in the fire of man, thence in the fire of woman, whence they are born (and perform rites) with a view to going to other worlds. Thus do they rotate. While those others who do not know these two ways become insects and moths, and these frequently biting things (gnats and mosquitoes).
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- While those who do not know as above, who, knowing only the six things such as the departure of the two oblations connected with the Agnihotra, are mere ritualists, who conquer the worlds the plural in 'worlds' suggests here also varieties of results through sacrifices such as the Agnihotra, charity, the distribution of gifts among beggars outside the altar, and austerity such as Krcchra and Candrayana (Both these are penances consisting in fasting according to certain rules.) without initiation etc. also outside the altar reach smoke. Here too, as in the northern route, the words 'smoke' etc. refer to deities. That is, they reach the deity of smoke. Here also the deities are conductors, as before. From him the deity of the night, from him the deity of the fortnight in which the moon wanes, from him the deities of the six months in which the sun travels southward, from them the deity of the world of the manes, and from him the moon. Reaching the moon they become food. There the gods enjoy them, these ritualists who reaching the moon have become food, as masters do their servants as the priests here drink in sacrifices the shining Soma juice (saying, as it were), 'Flourish, dwindle'. The words 'flourish, dwindle' are not a sacred formula, but simply mean that priests frequently cheer up the Soma juice that is in the bowl and gradually finish it by drinking in other words, they drink it at intervals (not all at once). Similarly the gods too enjoy the ritualists who have got new bodies in the moon and have become the materials of their luxury, giving them frequent intervals of rest by rewarding them according to their past work. That is cheering them like cheering the Soma juice. And when their past work sacrifices, charity, etc., that led them to the moon --- is exhausted, they reach this well-known ether. The liquids called faith which were offered in the fire of heaven and took the form of the moon --- with which a new watery bood was built for the ritualists, in the moon, for their enjoyment melt on the expiry of the momentum of their past work, like a lump of ice in contact with sunshine. In that state they become fine and look like the ether. This is expressed by the words, 'They reach this ether.' Then those ritualists, living with that kind of body in the sky, are blown hither and thither by the east-wind etc. This is what is meant by the words, 'From the ether air.' From air they reach rain. This has been stated in the passage, 'They offer King Moon in the fire of the rain-god' (par. 10, adapted). Then they drop on the earth as rain. Reaching the earth they become food such as rice and barley. This has been expressed in the passage, 'In the fire of this world they offer rain. Out of that food is produced' (par. 11, adapted). Then they as food are again offered in the fire of man, an adult. Thence as the seed they are offered in the fire of woman, whence they are born, and perform rites such as the Agnihotra, with a view to going to other worlds. Then they move repeatedly between the moon and this world, passing in order the deity of smoke etc. Thus do they, these ritualists, continuously rotate in a circle like the Persian wheel, until they know Brahman, so as to attain the northern way (Which leads to gradual liberation, depending on continued spiritual practice of the aspirants.), or immediate liberation. As it has been said, 'Thus does the man who desires (transmigrate)' (IV. iv. 6).
While those others who do not know these two ways, the northern and southern, i.e. do not practise either meditation or rites to attain the northern or the southern way what do they become? become insects and moths, and these frequently biting things, i.e. gnats and mosquitoes. Thus this last transmigratory existence is very painful, and it is extremely difficult for one who has fallen into it to get out of it again. So another Sruti says, 'They become these tiny creatures that come and go repeatedly, of which it has been said, 'as it were:- Be born and die' (Ch. V. x. . The purport of the entire passage is that we must therefore try our best to give up our natural pursuit of work and knowledge, and practise those rites or meditations which are enjoined by the scriptures and are the means of attaining the southern or the northern way. So it has been stated in another Sruti, 'The deliverance from this (the state of becoming rice etc.) is indeed much more difficult' (Ch. V. x. 6). 'Therefore one should cultivate a disgust (for return to the world)' (Ibid. , i.e. strive for liberation. It is clear that between these two even, greater care should be taken to secure the means of attaining the northern way, for it has been said, 'Thus do they rotate' (this text). So all the questions have been answered. The fourth question, 'After how many oblations,' etc., has been first answered in the passage beginning with, 'That world' (par. 9), and ending with, 'A man is born' (par. 13). The fifth question, concerning the means of attaining the way of the gods or the way of the manes, has been answered next by a description of the means of attaining the northern and southern ways. This has also answered the first question by saying that starting with fire some reach the deity of the flame, and some the deity of smoke, and here is the divergence. The answer to the second question, concerning the return to this world, has been given by the statement that they return to this world, passing successively through the stages of the ether etc.; and that has also dealt with the third question by stating that the other world is not filled up for that very reason, as also owing to the fact that some becomes insects, moths, etc.
Max Müller
16. 'But they who conquer the worlds (future states) by means of sacrifice, charity, and austerity, go to smoke, from smoke to night, from night to the decreasing half of the moon, from the decreasing half of the moon to the six months when the sun goes to the south, from these months to the world of the fathers, from the world of the fathers to the moon. Having reached the moon, they become food, and then the Devas feed on them there, as sacrificers feed on Soma, as it increases and decreases [1]. But when this (the result of their good works on earth) ceases, they return again to that ether, from ether to the air, from the air to rain, from rain to the earth. And when they have reached the earth, they become food, they are offered again in the altar-fire, which is man (see § 11), and thence are born in the fire of woman. Thus they rise up towards the worlds, and go the same round as before. 'Those, however, who know neither of these two paths, become worms, birds,, and creeping things.'
Meaning:- He who wishes to attain greatness (should perform) on an auspicious day in a fortnight in which the moon waxes, and under a male constellation, during the northward march of the sun, (a sacrifice in the following manner):- He should undertake for twelve days a vow connected with the Upasads (i.e. live on milk), collect in a cup of bowl made of fig wood all herbs and their grains, sweep and plaster (the ground), purify the offerings in the prescribed manner, interpose the Mantha (paste made of those things), and offer oblations with the following Mantras:- 'O Fire, to all those gods under you, who spitefully frustrate men's desires, I offer their share. May they, being satisfied, satisfy me with all objects of desire! Svaha. To that all-procuring deity who turns out spiteful under your protection, thinking she is the support of all, I offer this stream of clarified butter. Svaha'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- The results of meditation and rites have been stated. Of these, meditation is independent, but rites depend on both divine and human wealth. So for the sake of rites wealth must be acquired, and that in a harmless way. Hence for that purpose the ceremony called Mantha (paste) is being inculcated as a means to attaining greatness; for if greatness is attained, wealth follows as a matter of course. So the text says:- He who wishes to attain greatness, i.e. wants to be great. The reference is to one who desires wealth and is qualified for the performance of rites. The time for the ceremony of Mantha which is sought to be enjoined, is being stated:- During the northward march of the sun. This covers a large extent of time, so it is being restricted to a fortnight in which the moon waxes, i.e. the bright fortnight. That too is a long period; hence, on an auspicious or favourable day, i.e. on calculated to bring success to one's undertaking. He should undertake for twelve days, counting back from the auspicious day on which he intends to perform the rites and including it, a vow connected with the Upasads. These are well-known rites in connection with the Jyotistoma sacrifice, in which the sacrificer has to drink cow's milk according to the yield of an increasing and decreasing number of teats of the animals. But since those rites are not to be combined here, only the drinking of milk, without any restriction as to details, is meant.
Objection:- If the compound in 'Upasad-vrata' is expounded so as to mean 'the vow that consists of the Upasada,' then all the details of procedure have to be observed. So why not observe them? Reply:- Because it is a ceremony according to the Smrti. This ceremony of Mantha is enjoined by the Smrti (and not the Sruti). Objection:- How can a ceremony that is enjoined by the Sruti be one in accordance with the Smrti? Reply:- The Sruti here is merely repeating the Smrti. Were it a Vedic ceremony, it would be related to the Jyotistoma sacrifice as a part is to a whole, and as such, must conform to all the characteristics of the main sacrifice. But it is not a Vedic ceremony. For this reason it is also to be performed in the Avasthya (household) fire (Which is not lighted or maintained according to Vedic rites.); and the entire procedure is to be in accordance with the Smrti. So the vow in question is that of living on milk.
Collect in a cup or bowl made of fig wood, in a vessel of this wood, whether shaped like a cup or a bowl the option being with regard to the shape, and not the material, which must be fig wood all herbs that are available and within one's means:- The ten cultivated species such as rice and barley, to be enumerated later on, must be included; ther is no harm in having more. And their grains, as far as available and within ones' means. The word 'iti' is suggestive of the collection of all the materials, that is to say, including all other things that are to be collected. The order of procedure should be understood to be in accordance with the Grhya (Not Srauta Sutras.) Sutras. Sweep and plaster:- These are cleaning the ground. Bring in the fire:- It is implied that the sacrifice is to be performed in the Avasathya fire, for the word is in the singular, and there is mention of the fire being brought in, which is only possible of a fire that already exists (The three fires, Garhapatya, Ahavaniya and Daksina, connected with Vedic sacrifices, have to be lighted each time.). Spread the Kusa grass. Purify the offerings in the prescribed manner:- Since the ceremony is in accordance with the Smrti, the manner referred to is that of the 'Sthalipaka' (A religious ceremony observed by householders. The word literally means 'cooking in a pot.'). Under a male constellation, one having a masculine name, associated with the auspicious day. Interpose the Mantha:- Having crushed all those herbs and grains, soaked them in curd, honey and clarified butter in that fig bowl, and rubbed them up with a rod, place the paste between himself and the fire. And offer oblations, with a fig ladle, in a part of the fire prescribed for this purpose, with the following Mantras, beginning with, 'O Fire, to all those gods.' etc.
Max Müller
1. If a man wishes to reach greatness (wealth for performing sacrifices), he performs the upasad rule during twelve days [1] (i. e. he lives on small quantities of milk), beginning on an auspicious day of the light half of the moon during the northern progress of the sun, collecting at the same time in a cup or a dish made of Udumbara wood all sorts of herbs, including fruits. He sweeps the floor (near the house-altar, âvasathya), sprinkles it, lays the fire, spreads grass round it according to rule [2], prepares the clarified butter (âgya), and on a day, presided over by a male star (nakshatra), after having properly mixed the Mantha [3] (the herbs, fruits, milk, honey, &c.), he sacrifices (he pours âgya into the fire), saying [4]:- 'O Gâtavedas, whatever adverse gods there are in thee, who defeat the desires of men, to them I offer this portion; may they, being pleased, please me with all desires.' Svâhâ! 'That cross deity who lies down [5], thinking that all things are kept asunder by her, I worship thee as propitious with this stream of ghee.' Svâhâ!
Meaning:- Offering oblations in the fire saying, 'Svaha to the oldest, Svaha to the greatest', he dips the remnant adhering to the ladle into the paste. Offering oblations in the fire saying, 'Svaha to the vital force, Svaha to the Vasistha', he drips the remnant, etc. Offering oblations saying, 'Svaha to the organ of speech, Svaha to that which has steadiness', he drips, etc. Offering oblations saying, Svaha to the eye, Svaha to prosperity', he drips etc. Offering oblations saying, 'Svaha to the ear, Svaha to the abode', he drips, etc. Offering oblations saying, 'Svaha to the Manas, Svaha to Prajati', he drips, etc. Offering oblations saying, 'Svaha to the organ of generation', he drips, etc.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Offering two oblations each time beginning with, 'Svaha to the oldest, Svaha to the greatest,' he drips the remnant adhering to the ladle into the paste. The words 'oldest,' 'greatest,' etc., which are characteristics of the vital force, indicate that only the knower of the vital force is entitled to this ceremony.
Max Müller
2. He then says, Svâhâ to the First, Svâhâ to the Best, pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar). He then says, Svâhâ to Breath, Svâhâ to her who is the richest, pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar). He then says, Svâhâ to Speech, Svâhâ to the Support, pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar). He then says, Svâhâ to the Eye, Svâhâ to Success, pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar). He then says, Svâhâ to the Ear, Svâhâ to the Home, pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar). He then says, Svâhâ to the Mind, Svâhâ to Offspring, pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar). He then says, Svâhâ to Seed, pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar).
Meaning:- Offering an oblation in the fire saying, 'Svaha to fire', he drips the remnant adhering to the ladle into the paste. Offering and oblation saying, 'Svaha to the moon,' he drips, etc. Offering an oblation saying, 'Svaha to the earth', he drips, etc. Offering an oblation saying, 'Svaha to the sky', he drips, etc. Offering an oblation saying, 'Svaha to heaven', he drips, etc. Offering an oblation saying, 'Svaha to the earth, sky and heaven', he drips, etc. Offering an oblation saying, 'Svaha to the Brahmana', he drips, etc. Offering an oblation saying, 'Svaha to the Kshatriya', he drips, etc. Offering an oblation saying, 'Svaha to the past', he drips, etc. Offering an oblation saying, 'Svaha to the future', he drips, etc. Offering an oblation saying, 'Svaha to the whole', he drips, etc. Offering an oblation saying, 'Svaha to all', he drips, etc. Offering an oblation saying, 'Svaha to Prajapati', he drips, etc.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Beginning with, 'Svaha to the organ of generation,' he offers one oblation each time, and drips the remnant adhering to the ladle into the paste. Then he stirs the paste again with another rod.
Max Müller
3. He then says, Svâhâ to Agni (fire), pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar). He then says, Svâhâ to Soma, pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar). He then says, Bhûh (earth), Svâhâ, pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar). He then says, Bhuvah (sky), Svâhâ, pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar). He then says, Svah (heaven), Svâhâ, pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar). He then says, Bhûr, Bhuvah, Svah, Svâhâ, pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar). He then says, Svâhâ to Brahman (the priesthood), pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar). He then says, Svâhâ to Kshatra (the knighthood), pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar). He then says, Svâhâ to the Past, pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar). He then says, Svâhâ to the Future, pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar). He then says, Svâhâ to the Universe, pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar). He then says, Svâhâ to all things, pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar). He then says, Svâhâ to Pragâpati, pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar).
Meaning:- Then he touches the paste saying, 'You move (as the vital force), you burn (as fire), you are infinite (as Brahman), you are still (as the sky). You combine everything in yourself. You are the sound 'Him', and are uttered as 'Him' (in the sacrifice by the Prastotr). You are the Udgitha and are chanted (by the Udgatr). You are recited (by the Adhvaryu) and recited back (by the Agnidhra). You are fully ablaze in a humid (cloud). You are omnipresent, and master. You are food (as the moon), and light (as fire). You are death, and you are that in which all things merge'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Then he touches the paste uttering the Mantra, 'You move,' etc.
Max Müller
4. Then he touches it (the Mantha, which is dedicated to Prâna, breath), saying:- 'Thou art fleet (as breath). Thou art burning (as fire). Thou art full (as Brahman). Thou art firm (as the sky). Thou art the abode of all (as the earth). Thou hast been saluted with Hiṅ (at the beginning of the sacrifice by the prastotri). Thou art saluted with Hiṅ (in the middle of the sacrifice by the prastotri). Thou hast been sung (by the udgâtri at the beginning of the sacrifice). Thou art sung (by the udgâtri in the middle of the sacrifice). Thou hast been celebrated (by the adhvaryu at the beginning of the sacrifice). Thou art celebrated again (by the âgnîdhra in the middle of the sacrifice). Thou art bright in the wet (cloud). Thou art great. Thou art powerful. Thou art food (as Soma). Thou art light (as Agni, fire, the eater). Thou art the end. Thou art the absorption (of all things).'
राजेशानोऽधिपतिः स माꣳ राजेशनोऽधिपतिं करोत्विति ॥ ५॥
mantra 5[VI.iii.5]
athainamudyacchatyamagͫsyāmagͫ hi te mahi . sa hi
rājeśāno'dhipatiḥ sa māgͫ rājeśano'dhipatiṃ karotviti .. 5..
Meaning:- Then he takes it up saying, 'You know all (as the vital force); we too are aware of your greatness. The vital force is the king, the lord, the ruler. May it make me king, lord and ruler!'
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Then he takes it up with the vessel, in his hand, saying, 'You know all,' etc.
Max Müller
5. Then he holds it (the Mantha) forth, saying 'Thou [1] knowest all, we know thy greatness. He is indeed a king, a ruler, the highest lord. May that king, that ruler make me the highest lord.'
Meaning:- Then he drinks it saying, 'The radiant sun is adorable --; The winds are blowing sweetly, the rivers are shedding honey, may the herbs be sweet unto us! Svaha to the earth. Glory we meditate upon; May the nights and days be charming, and the dust of the earth be sweet, may heaven, our father, be gracious! Svaha to the sky. May he direct our intellect; May the Soma creeper be sweet unto us, may the sun be kind, may the quarters be helpful to us! Svaha to heaven'. Then he repeats the whole Gayatri and the whole Madhumati, and says at the end, 'May I be all this! Svaha to the earth, sky and heaven.' Then he drinks the whole remnant, washes his hands, and lies behind the fire with his head to the east. In the morning he salutes the sun saying, 'Thou art the one lotus of the quarters; may I be the one lotus of men!' Then he returns the way he went, sits behind the fire, and repeats the line of teachers.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Then he drinks it. He drinks the first draught, uttering the first foot of the Gayatri, one portion of the Madhumati and the first Vyahrti (The Vyahrtis are the three syllables 'Bhur,' 'Bhuvar' and 'Svar,' meaning respectively the earth, sky and heaven.). Similarly he drinks the second draught, uttering the second foot of the Gayatri, the second portion of the Madhumati and the second Vyahrti. Likewise the drinks the third draught, uttering the third foot of the Gayatri, the third portion of the Madhumati and the third Vyahrti. Then he repeats the whole Gayatri and the whole Madhumati, and says at the end, 'May I be all this! Svaha to the earth, sky and heaven.' Then he drinks the whole remnant. He should arrange beforehand so that the whole quantity of paste may be finished in four draughts. What adhers to the vessel, he should scrape and drink quietly. He washes his hands, and lies behind the fire with his head to the east. After saying his morning prayers, he salutes the sun with the Mantra:- 'Thou art the one lotus of the quarters,' etc. Then he returns the way he went, sits behind the fire, and repeats the line of teachers.
Max Müller
6. Then he eats it, saying:- 'Tat savitur varenyam [1] (We meditate on that adorable light)--The winds drop honey for the righteous, the rivers drop honey, may our plants be sweet as honey! Bhûh (earth) Svâhâ! 'Bhargo devasya dhîmahi (of the divine Savitri)--May the night be honey in the morning, may the air above the earth, may heaven, our father, be honey! Bhuvah (sky) Svâhâ!' 'Dhiyo yo nah prokodayât (who should rouse our thoughts)--May the tree be full of honey, may the sun be full of honey, may our cows be sweet like honey! Svah (heaven) Svâhâ!' He repeats the whole Sâvitrî verse, and all the verses about the honey, thinking, May I be all this! Bhûr, Bhuvah, Svah, Svâhâ! Having thus swallowed all, he washes his hands, and sits down behind the altar, turning his head to the East. In the morning he worships Âditya (the sun), with the hymn, 'Thou art the best lotus of the four quarters, may I become the best lotus among men.' Then returning as he came, he sits down behind the altar and recites the genealogical list [2].
Meaning:- Uddalaka, the son of Aruni, taught this to his pupil Yajnavalkya, the Vajasaneya, and said, 'Should one sprinkle it even on a dry stump, branches would grow and leaves sprout'.
Max Müller
7. Uddâlaka Âruni told this (Mantha-doctrine) to his pupil Vâgasaneya Yâgñavalkya, and said:- 'If a man were to pour it on a dry stick, branches would grow, and leaves spring forth.'
uktvovācāpi ya enagͫ śuṣke sthāṇau niṣiñcej sthāṇau niṣiñcet
jāyerañchākhāḥ praroheyuḥ palāśānīti .. 8..
Meaning:- The Yajnavalkya, the Vajasaneya, taught this to his pupil Madhuka, the son of Paingi and said, 'Should one sprinkle it even on a dry stump, branches would grow and leaves sprout'.
Max Müller
8. Vâgasaneya Yâgñavalkya told the same to his pupil Madhuka Paiṅgya, and said:- 'If a man were to pour it on a dry stick, branches would grow, and leaves spring forth.'
uktvovācāpi ya enagͫ śuṣke sthāṇau niṣiñcej jāyerañchākhāḥ
praroheyuḥ palāśānīti .. 9..
Meaning:- Madhuka, the son of Paingi, again taught this to his pupil Cula, the son of Bhagavitta, and said, 'Should one sprinkle it even on a dry stump, branches would grow and leaves sprout'.
Max Müller
9. Madhuka Paiṅgya told the same to his pupil Kûla Bhâgavitti, and said:- 'If a man were to pour it on a dry stick, branches would grow, and leaves spring forth.'
Meaning:- Then Cula, the son of Bhagavitta, taught this to his pupil Janaki, the son of Ayasthuna, and said, 'Should one sprinkle it even on a dry stump, branches would grow and leaves sprout'.
Max Müller
10. Kûla Bhâgavitti told the same to his pupil Gânaki Âyasthûna, and said:- 'If a man were to pour it on a dry stick, branches would grow, and leaves spring forth.'
ya enagͫ śuṣke sthāṇau niṣiñcej jāyerañchākhāḥ praroheyuḥ
palāśānīti .. 11..
Meaning:- Janaki, the son of Ayasthuna, again taught this to Satyakama, the son of Jabala, and said, 'Should one sprinkle it even on a dry stump, branches would grow and leaves sprout'.
Max Müller
11. Gânaki Âyasthûna told the same to his pupil Satyakâma Gâbâla, and said:- 'If a man were to pour it on a dry stick, branches would grow, and leaves spring forth.'
Meaning:- And Satyakama, the son of Jabala, in his turn, taught this to his pupils and said, 'Should one sprinkle it even on a dry stump, branches would grow and leaves sprout'. One must not teach this to anyone but a son or a pupil.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- (He repeats the line of teachers) beginning with, Uddalaka, the son of Aruna, taught this, and ending with, Satyakama, the son of Jabala, taught this to his pupils and said, 'Should one sprinkle it even on a dry stump, branches would surely grow and leaves sprout.' The teacher Satyakama taught this doctrine of the Mantha, handed down by a single line of teachers beginning with Uddalaka, to a large number of pupils and said. What did he say? Should one sprinkle it, this paste, purified for the purpose of drinking, even on a dry or dead stump, branches would surely grow on that tree, and leaves sprout, as on a living stump. So it goes without saying that this ceremony will fulfil one's desires. It is a eulogy on this ceremony, meaning that it is infallible in its results. There are six (A pupil, a knower of the Vedas, an intelligent person, one who pays, a dear son, and one who exchanges another branch of learning.) qualified recipients of learning. Of them only two, viz the son of pupil, are being declared as eligible for this doctrine of the Mantha together with the meditation on the vital force.
Max Müller
12. Satyakâma Gâbâla told the same to his pupils, and said:- 'If a man were to pour it on a dry stick, branches would grow, and leaves spring forth.' Let no one tell this [1] to any one, except to a son or to a pupil [2].
Meaning:- Four things are made of fig wood:- the ladle, the bowl, the fuel and the two mixing rods. The cultivated grains are ten in number:- Rice, barley, sesame, beans, Anu, Priyangu, wheat, lentils, pulse and vetches. They should be crushed and soaked in curds, honey and clarified butter, and offered as an oblation.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Four things are made of fig wood. This has been explained. The cultivated grains are ten in number. We have already said that the ten species of cultivated grains must be included. They are being enumerated:- rice, barley, sesamum, beans, Anu, called by that name, Priyangu, called in some parts 'Kangu,' pulse (Khalva), or Nispava, popularly called 'Valla,' and vetches (Khalakula), or Kulattha. In addition to these all other herbs and grains should be procured as far as possible, as we have said, barring only those that are unfit for sacrificial purposes.
Max Müller
13. Four things are made of the wood of the Udumbara tree, the sacrificial ladle (sruva), the cup (kamasa), the fuel, and the two churning sticks. There are ten kinds of village (cultivated) seeds, viz. rice and barley (brîhiyavâs), sesamum and kidney-beans (tilamâshâs), millet and panic seed (anupriyaṅgavas), wheat (godhûmâs), lentils (masûrâs), pulse (khalvâs), and vetches (khalakulâs [1]) . After having ground these he sprinkles them with curds (dadhi), honey, and ghee, and then offers (the proper portions) of clarified butter [2] (âgya).
Meaning:- The earth is the essence of all these beings, water the essence of the earth, herbs of water, flowers of herbs, fruits of flowers, man of fruits, and the seed of man.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- The present section is introduced to lay down the method by which to obtain the kind of son who, by the manner of his birth and conception and by his good qualities, will help to achieve the worlds both for himself and for his father. Only a person who knows the meditation on the vital force and has performed the ceremony of the Mantha leading to prosperity, is entitled to this ceremony of the Mantha leading to the birth of a son. When a man wants to perform this ceremony, he should, after performing the former ceremony, wait for the right time of his wife. This we understand from the mention of the seed being the quintessence of the herbs etc. The earth is the essence of all these beings, moving and stationary, for it has been stated that it 'is like honey to all beings' (II. v. 1, adapted). Water is the essence of the earth, for it is pervaded by water. Herbs are the essence of water, for the herbs etc. are the effects of water. Flowers of herbs, fruits of flowers, man of fruits, and the seed of man, for another Sruti says, 'It is the essence emanating from all parts of the body' (Ai. IV. 1).
Max Müller
1. The earth is the essence of all these things, water is the essence of the earth, plants of water, flowers of plants, fruits of flowers, man of fruits, seed of man.
upāsīta sa etaṃ prāñcaṃ grāvāṇamātmana eva samudapārayat
tenaināmabhyasṛjat .. 2..
Meaning:- Prajapati thought, 'Well, let me make an abode for it', and he created woman.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Prajapati, the Creator, thought, 'Since the seed is thus the quintessence of all beings, what can be a fit abode for it?' Thinking thus he created woman.
Max Müller
2. And Pragâpati thought, let me make an abode for him, and he created a woman (Satarûpâ). Tâm[1] srishtvâdha upâsta, tasmât striyam adha upâsîta. Sa etam prâñkam grâvânam âtmana eva samudapârayat, tenainâm abhyasrigat.
muṣkau . sa yāvānha vai vājapeyena yajamānasya loko bhavati tāvānasya
loko bhavati ya evaṃ vidvānadhopahāsaṃ caratyāsāgͫ strīṇāgͫ
sukṛtaṃ vṛṅkte'tha ya idamavidvānadhopahāsaṃ caratyā'sya striyaḥ
sukṛtaṃ vṛñjate .. 3..
Meaning:- ............
Max Müller
3. Tasyâ vedir upastho, lomâni barhis, karmâdhishavane, samiddho [1] madhyatas, tau mushkau. Sa yâvân ha vai vâgapeyena yagamânasya loko bhavati tâvân asya loko bhavati ya evam vidvân adhopahâsamkaraty a sa [2] strînam sukritam vriṅkte 'tha ya idam avidvân adhopahâsamkaraty âsya striyah sukritam vriñgate.
Meaning:- Knowing verily this, Uddalaka, the son of Aruna, Naka, the son of Mudgala, and Kumaraharita said, 'Many men -Brahmanas only in name - who have union without knowing as above, depart from this world impotent and bereft of merits'.
Max Müller
4. Etad dha sma vai tadvidvân Uddâlaka Ârunir âhaitad dha sma vai tadvidvân Nâko Maudgalya âhaitad dha sma vai tadvidvân Kumârahârita âha, bahavo maryâ brâhmanâyanâ [1] nirindriyâ visukrito'smâl lokât prayanti [2] ya idam avidvâmso 'dhopahâsamkarantîti. Bahu vâ [3] idam suptasya va gâgrato vâ retah skandati,
Meaning:- If man sees his reflection in water, he should recite the following Mantra:- '(May the gods grant) me lustre, manhood, reputation, wealth and merits'. She (his wife) is indeed the goddess of beauty among women. Therefore he should approach this handsome woman and speak to her.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- If perchance he sees his reflection in water, he should recite the following Mantra:- '(May the gods grant) me lustre', etc. She is indeed the goddess of beauty among women. Therefore he should approach this handsome woman and speak to her, when she has taken a bath after three nights.
Max Müller
6. If a man see himself in the water [1], he should recite the following verse:- 'May there be in me splendour, strength, glory, wealth, virtue.' She is the best of women whose garments are pure [2]. Therefore let him approach a woman whose garments are pure, and whose fame is pure, and address her.
सा चेदस्मै न दद्यात् काममेनामवक्रिणीयात् सा चेदस्मै नैव दद्यात्
काममेनां यष्ट्या वा पाणिना वोपहत्यातिक्रामेदिन्द्रियेण ते यशसा यश
आदद इत्ययशा एव भवति ॥ ७॥
mantra 7[VI.iv.7]
sā cedasmai na dadyāt kāmamenāmavakriṇīyāt sā cedasmai naiva dadyāt
kāmamenāṃ yaṣṭyā vā pāṇinā vopahatyātikrāmedindriyeṇa te yaśasā yaśa
ādada ityayaśā eva bhavati .. 7..
Meaning:- If she is not willing, he should buy her over; and if she is still unyielding, he should strike her with a stick or with the hand and proceed, uttering the following Mantra, 'I take away your reputation', etc. She is then actually discarded.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- If she is not willing, he should buy her over, press his wishes through ornaments etc.; and if she is still unyielding, he should strike her with a stick or with the hand, and announcing that he was going to curse her and make her unforunate, he should proceed, uttering the following Mantra:- 'I take away your reputation,' etc. As a result of that curse, she comes to be known as barren and unfortunate, and is then actually discredited.
Max Müller
7. If she do not give in [1], let him, as he likes, bribe her (with presents). And if she then do not give in, let him, as he likes, beat her with a stick or with his hand, and overcome her [2], saying:- 'With manly strength and glory I take away thy glory,'--and thus she becomes unglorious [3].
सा चेदस्मै दद्यादिन्द्रियेण ते यशसा यश आदधामीति यशस्विनावेव
भवतः ॥ ८॥
mantra 8[VI.iv.8]
sā cedasmai dadyādindriyeṇa te yaśasā yaśa ādadhāmīti yaśasvināveva
bhavataḥ .. 8..
Meaning:- If she is willing, he should proceed, uttering the following Mantra:- 'I transmit reputation into you', and they both become reputed.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- If she is willing, or agreeable to her husband, then he should proceed, uttering the following Mantra:- 'I transmit reputation into you.' Then they both become reputed.
Max Müller
8. If she give in, he says:- 'With manly strength and glory I give thee glory,'--and thus they both become glorious.
Meaning:- If a man's wife has a lover whom he wishes to injure, he should put the fire in an unbaked earthen vessel, spread stalks of reed and Kusa grass in an inverse way, and offer the reed tips, soaked in clarified butter, in the fire in an inverse way, saying, 'Thou hast sacrificed in my kindled fire, I take away thy Prana and Apana - such and such. Thou hast sacrificed in my kindled fire, I take away thy sons and animals - such and such. Thou hast sacrificed in my kindled fire, I take away thy Vedic rites and those done according to the Smriti - such and such. Thou hast sacrificed in my kindled fire, I take away thy hopes and expectations - such and such'. The man whom a Brahmana with knowledge of this ceremony curses, departs from this world emasculated and shorn of his merits. Therefore one should not wish even to cut jokes with the wife of a Vedic scholar who knows this ceremony, for he who has such knowledge becomes an enemy.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- If a man's wife has a lover whom he wishes to injure, i.e. to cast an evil spell on him, he should perform the following rite:- He should put the fire in an unbaked earthen vessel --- everything to be done in an inverse way --- and offer the reed tips, soaked in clarified butter, in the fire in an inverse way, accompanied by the following Mantras, 'Thou hast sacrificed,' etc., and at the end of each mention his name, 'such and such.' The man whom a Brahmana with knowledge of this ceremony curses, departs shorn of his merits. Therefore one should not wish even to cut jokes with the wife of a Vedic scholar who knows this ceremony, much less give any more serious offence, for even he who has such knowledge becomes an enemy.
Max Müller
12. Now again, if a man's wife has a lover and the husband hates him, let him (according to rule) [1] place fire by an unbaked jar, spread a layer of arrows in inverse order [2], anoint these three arrow-heads [3] with butter in inverse order, and sacrifice, saying:- 'Thou hast sacrificed in my fire, I take away thy up and down breathing, I here [4].' 'Thou hast sacrificed in my fire, I take away thy sons and cattle, I here.' 'Thou hast sacrificed in my fire, I take away thy sacred and thy good works, I here.' 'Thou hast sacrificed in my fire, I take away thy hope and expectation, I here.' He whom a Brâhmana who knows this curses, departs from this world without strength and without good works. Therefore let no one wish even for sport with the wife of a Srotriya [5] who knows this, for he who knows this, is a dangerous enemy.
अथ यस्य जायामार्तवं विन्देत् त्र्यहं कꣳसे न पिबेदहतवासा
नैनां वृषलो न वृषल्युपहन्यात् अपहन्यात् त्रिरात्रान्त आप्लुत्य
व्रीहीनवघातयेत् ॥ १३॥
mantra 13[VI.iv.13]
atha yasya jāyāmārtavaṃ vindet tryahaṃ kagͫse na pibedahatavāsā
naināṃ vṛṣalo na vṛṣalyupahanyāt apahanyāt trirātrānta āplutya
vrīhīnavaghātayet .. 13..
Meaning:- If anybody's wife has the monthly sickness, she should drink of three days out of a cup (Kamsa). No Sudra man or woman should touch her. After three nights she should bathe, put on a new cloth, and be put to thresh rice.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- If anybody's wife has, etc. This paragraph should precede the passage beginning with 'She is indeed the goddess of beauty among women' (par. 6), for the sake of consistency. She should drink for three days out of a cup (Kamsa). No Sudra man or woman should touch her. After three nights, when she has finished the three nights' vow, she should bathe, put on a new cloth --- these words, though at some distance, should be connected here and be put to thresh rice.
Max Müller
13. When the monthly illness seizes his wife, she should for three days not drink from a metal vessel, and wear a fresh dress. Let no Vrishala or Vrishalî (a Sûdra man or woman) touch her. At the end of the three days, when she has bathed, the husband should make her pound rice [1].
Meaning:- He who wishes that his son should be born fair, study one Veda and attain a full term of life, should have rice cooked in milk, and he and his wife should eat it with clarified butter. Then they would be able to produce such a son.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- He who wishes that his son should be born fair in complexion, study one Veda and attain a full term of life, i.e. a hundred years, should have, etc.
Max Müller
14. And if a man wishes that a white son should be born to him, and that he should know one Veda, and live to his full age, then, after having prepared boiled rice with milk and butter, they should both eat, being fit to have offspring.
Meaning:- He who wishes that his son should be born tawny or brown, study two Vedas and attain a full term of life, should have rice cooked in curd, and he and his wife should eat it with clarified butter. Then they would be able to produce such a son.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Have rice cooked in curd. If he wishes his son to be versed in two Vedas, he should follow this rule about eating.
Max Müller
15. And if a man wishes that a reddish [1] son with tawny eyes should be born to him, and that he should know two Vedas, and live to his full age, then, after having prepared boiled rice with coagulated milk and butter, they should both eat, being fit to have offspring.
Meaning:- He who wishes that his son should be born dark with red eyes, study three Vedas and attain a full term of life, should have rice cooked in water and he and his wife should eat with clarified butter. Then they would be able to produce such a son.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Simple, natural rice is meant. The mention of water is for precluding other ingredients.
Max Müller
16. And if a man wishes that a dark son should be born to him with red eyes, and that he should know three Vedas, and live to his full age, then, after having prepared boiled rice with water and butter, they should both eat, being fit to have offspring.
Meaning:- He who wishes that a daughter should be born to him who would be a scholar and attain a full term of life, should have rice cooked with sesame, and he and his wife should eat it with clarified butter. Then they would be able to produce such a daughter.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- The scholarship of the daughter is regarding domestic affairs only, for she is not entitled to read the Vedas. Rice and sesamum should be boiled together.
Max Müller
17. And if a man wishes that a learned daughter should be born to him, and that she should live to her full age, then, after having prepared boiled rice with sesamum and butter, they should both eat, being fit to have offspring.
Commentary:- 'Vigita (reputed) literally means 'variously praised.' Frequenting the assemblies, i.e. eloquent, for scholarship has been separately mentioned. Delightful, lit. pleasant to hear, i.e. words that are chaste and pregnant with meaning. Rice cooked together with meat. The meat is restricted to that of a vigorous bull, able to breed, or one more advanced in years.
Max Müller
18. And if a man wishes that a learned son should be born to him, famous, a public man, a popular speaker, that he should know all the Vedas, and that he should live to his full age, then, after having prepared boiled rice with meat and butter, they should both eat, being fit to have offspring. The meat should be of a young or of an old bull.
Meaning:- In the very morning he purifies the clarified butter according to the mode of Sthalipaka, and offers Sthalipaka oblations again and again, saying, 'Svaha to fire, Svaha to Anumati, Svaha to the radiant sun who produces infallible results'. After offering, he takes up (the remnant of the cooked food), eats part of it and gives the rest to his wife. Then he washes his hands, fills the water-vessel and sprinkles her thrice with that water, saying. 'Get up from here, Visvavasu, and find out another young woman (who is) with her husband.'
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- In the very morning he takes the rice, produced by the threshing, purifies the clarified butter according to the mode of Sthalipaka, boils the rice and offers Sthalipaka oblations again and again, saying, 'Svaha to fire,' etc. Here all the details must be understood as being in accordance with the Grhya Sutras. After offering, he takes up the remnant of the cooked food, eats part of it and gives the rest to his wife. Then he washes his hands, sips a little water, fills the water-vessel and sprinkles his wife thrice with that water, saying the following Mantra:- 'Get up from here,' etc. The Mantra is to be uttered once.
Max Müller
19. And then toward morning, after having, according to the rule of the Sthâlîpâka (pot-boiling), performed the preparation of the Âgya (clarified butter [1]), he sacrifices from the Sthâlîpâka bit by bit, saying:- 'This is for Agni, Svâhâ! This is for Anumati, Svâhâ! This is for the divine Savitri, the true creator, Svâhâ!' Having sacrificed, he takes out the rest of the rice and eats it, and after having eaten, he gives it to his wife. Then he washes his hands, fills a water-jar, and sprinkles her thrice with it, saying:- 'Rise hence, O Visvâvasu [2], seek another blooming girl, a wife with her husband.'
saha reto dadhāvahai pugͫse putrāya vittaya iti .. 20..
Meaning:- He embraces her saying, 'I am the vital force, and you are speech; you are speech, and I am the vital force; I am Saman, and you are Rik; I am heaven, and you are the earth; come, let us strive together so that we may have a male child.'
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Then he purifies her with Mantras, and both eat the rice cooked in milk or other things according to the kind of child desired. This is the order to be followed. While retiring, he embraces her, saying the following Mantra:- 'I am the vital force,' etc.
Max Müller
20. Then he embraces her, and says:- 'I am Ama (breath), thou art Sâ (speech) [1]. Thou art Sâ (speech), I am Ama (breath). I am the Sâman, thou art the Rik[2]. I am the sky, thou art the earth. Come, let us strive together, that a male child may be begotten [3].'
Meaning:- When (the son) is born, he should bring in the fire, take him in his lap, put a mixture of curd and clarified butter in a cup, and offer oblations again and again with that, saying, 'Growing in this home of mine (as the son), may I maintain a thousand people! May (the goddess of fortune) never depart with children and animals from his line! Svaha. The vital force that is in me, I mentally transfer to you. Svaha. If I have done anything too much or to little in this ceremony, may the all-knowing beneficent fire make it just right for me - neither too much nor too little! Svaha.'
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Now the post-natal ceremony is being described. When the son is born, he should bring in the fire, take the son in his lap, put a mixture of curd and clarified butter in a cup, and offer oblations again and again (in little quantities) with that in the prescribed part of the fire, uttering the following Mantra:- 'Growing in this,' etc.
Max Müller
24. [1]. When the child is born, he prepares the fire, places the child on his lap, and having poured prishadâgya, i.e. dadhi (thick milk) mixed with ghrita (clarified butter) into a metal jug, he sacrifices bit by bit of that prishadâgya, saying:- 'May I, as I increase in this my house, nourish a thousand! May fortune never fail in his race, with offspring and cattle, Svâhâ!' 'I offer to thee. in my mind the vital breaths which are in me, Svâhâ!' 'Whatever [2] in my work I have done too much, or whatever I have here done too little, may the wise Agni Svishtakrit make this right and proper for us, Svâhâ!'
Meaning:- Then putting (his mouth) to the child's right ear, he should thrice repeat, 'Speech, speech'. Next mixing curd, honey and clarified butter, he feeds him with (a strip of) gold not obstructed (by anything), saying, 'I put the earth into you, I put the sky into you, I put heaven into you, I put the whole of the earth, sky and heaven into you'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Then putting his own mouth to the child's right ear he should thrice repeat, 'Speech, speech (Wishing that the Vedas may enter him.).' Next, mixing curd, honey and clarified butter, he feels him with (a strip of) gold not obstructed (by anything), uttering the following Mantras, one at a time:- 'I put,' etc.
Max Müller
25. Then putting his mouth near the child's right ear, he says thrice, Speech, speech [1]! After that he pours together thick milk, honey, and clarified butter, and feeds the child with (a ladle of) pure gold [2], saying:- 'I give thee Bhûh, I give thee Bhuvah, I give thee Svah[3]. Bhûr, Bhuvah, Svah, I give thee all [4].'
Meaning:- Then he hands him to his mother to be suckled, saying, 'Offering Sarasvati, that breast of thine which is stored with results, is the sustainer of all, full of milk, the obtainer of wealth (one's deserts) and generous, and through which thou nourishest all who are worthy of it (the gods etc.) - transfer that here (to my wife, for my babe) to suck'.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Then he hands him, the child who is in his lap, to his mother to be suckled with the following Mantra:- 'O Sarasvati, that breast,' etc.
Max Müller
27. Then he hands the boy to his mother and gives him her breast, saying:- 'O Sarasvatî, that breast of thine which is inexhaustible, delightful, abundant, wealthy, generous, by which thou cherishest all blessings, make that to flow here [1].'
batābhūratipitāmaho batābhūḥ . paramāṃ bata kāṣṭhāṃ prāpayacchriyā
yaśasā brahmavarcasena ya evaṃvido brāhmaṇasya putro jāyata iti .. 28..
iti caturthaṃ brāhmaṇam ..
atha pañcamaṃ brāhmaṇam .
Meaning:- Then he addressed the mother:- 'You are the adorable Arundhati, the wife of Vasistha; you have brought forth a male child with the help of me, who am a man. Be the mother of many sons, for you have given us a son'. Of him who is born as the child of a Brahmana with this particular knowledge, they say, 'You have exceeded your father, and you have exceeded your grandfather. You have reached the extreme limit of attainment through your splendour, fame and Brahmanical power.'
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Then he addresses the mother as follows:- 'You are the adorable,' etc. Of him who is born, etc. --- A son born in this way becomes the object of praise in such terms as the following:- That he surpasses his father and grandfather, and that he has reached the highest degree of attainment through his splendour, fame and Brahmanical power. The Brahmana who possesses such knowledge and gets a son, also deserves similar tribute. This is understood.
Max Müller
28. [1]. Then he addresses the mother of the boy:- 'Thou art Ilâ Maitrâvarunî:- thou strong woman hast born a strong boy. Be thou blessed with strong children thou who hast blessed me with a strong child.' And they say of such a boy:- 'Ah, thou art better than thy father; ah, thou art better than thy grandfather. Truly he has reached the highest point in happiness, praise, and Vedic glory who is born as the son of a Brâhmana that knows this.'
Meaning:- Now the line of teachers:- The son of Pautimsa (received it) from the son of Katyayani. He from the son of gautami. The son of Gautami from the son of Bharadvaji. He from the son of Parasari. The son of Parasari from the son of Aupasvasti. He from the son of another Parasari. He from the son of Katyayani. The son of katyayani from the son of Kausiki. The son of Kausiki from the son of Alambi and the son of Vaiyaghrapadi. The son of Vaiyaghrapadi from the son of Kanvi and the son of Kapi. The son of Kapi -
Max Müller
1. Now follows the stem [1]:- 1) Pautimâshîputra from Kâtyâyanîputra, 2) Kâtyâyanîputra from Gotamîputra, 3) Gotamîputra from Bhâradvâgîputra, 4) Bhâradvâgîputra from Pârâsarîputra, 5) Pârâsarîputra from Aupasvatîputra, 6) Aupasvatîputra from Pârâsarîputra, 7) Pârâsarîputra from Kâtyâyanîputra, 8) Kâtyâyanîputra from Kausikîputra, 9) Kausikîputra from Âlambîputra and Vaiyâghrapadîputra, 10) Âlambîputra and Vaiyâghrapadîputra from Kânvîputra, 11) Kânvîputra from Kâpîputra, 12) Kâpîputra
Meaning:- From the son of Atreyi. The son of Atreyi from the son of gautami. The son of Gautami from the son of Bharadvaji. He from the son of parasari. The son of Parasari from the son of Vatsi. The son of Vatsi from the son of another Parasari. The son of Parasari from the son of Varkaruni. He from the son of another Varkaruni. This one from the son of Artabhagi. He from the son of Saungi. The son of Saungi from the son of Samkrti. He from the son of Alambayani. He again from the son of Alambi. The son of Alambi from the son of jayanti. He from the son of Mandukayani. He in his turn from the son of Manduki. The son of manduki from the son of Sandili. The son of Sandili from the son of Rathitari. He from the son of Bhaluki. The son of Bhaluki from the two sons of Kraunciki. They from the son of Vaidabhrti. He from the son of Karsakeyi. He again from the son of Pracinayogi. He from the son of Samjivi. The son of Samjivi from Asurivasin, the son of Prasni. The son of Prasni from Asurayana. He from Asuri. Asuri -
Max Müller
2. from Âtreyîputra, 13) Âtreyîputra from Gautamîputra, 14) Gautamîputra from Bhâradvâgîputra, 15) Bhâradvâgîputra from Pârasarîputra, 16) Pârasarîputra from Vâtsîputra, 17) Vâtsîputra from Pârasarîputra, 18 [1]) Pârasarîputra from Vârkârunîputra, 19) Vârkârunîputra from Vârkârunîputra, 20) Vârkârunîputra from Ârtabhagîputra, 21) Ârtabhagîputra from Sauṅgîputra, 22) Sauṅgîputra from Sâṅkritîputra, 23 [2]) Sâṅkritîputra from Âlambâyanîputra, 24) Âlambâyanîputra from Âlambîputra, 25) Âlambîputra from Gayantîputra, 26) Gayantîputra from Mândûkâyanîputra, 27) Mândûkâyanîputra from Mândûkîputra, 28) Mândûkîputra from Sândilîputra, 29) Sândilîputra from Râthîtarîputra, 30 [3]) Râthîtarîputra from Bhâlukîputra, 31) Bhâlukîputra from Krauñkikîputrau, 32) Krauñkikîputrau from Vaittabhatîputra [4], 33) Vaittabhatîputra from Kârsakeyîputra [5], 34) Kârsakeyîputra from Prâkînayogîputra, 35) Prâkînayogîputra from Sâñgîvîputra [6], 36) Sâñgîvîputra from Prâsñîputra Âsurivâsin, 37) Prâsñîputra Âsurivâsin from Âsurâyana, 38) Âsurâyana from Âsuri, 39) Âsuri
Meaning:- From Yajnavalkya. Yajnavalkya from Uddalaka. Uddalaka from Aruna. Aruna from Upavesi. Upavesi from Kusri. Kusri from Vajasravas. He from Jihvavat, the son of Badhyoga. He from Asita, the son of Varsagana. He from Harita Kasyapa. He from Silpa Kasyapa. This one from Kasyana, the son of Nidhruva. He from Vac. She from Ambhini. She from the sun. These white Yajuses received from the sun are explained by Yajnavalkya Vajasaneya.
Max Müller
3. from Yâgñavalkya, 40) Yâgñavalkya from Uddâlaka, 41) Uddâlaka from Aruna, 42) Aruna from Upavesi, 43) Upavesi from Kusri, 44) Kusri from Vâgasravas, 45) Vâgasravas from Gihvâvat Vâdhyoga, 46) Gihvâvat Vâdhyoga from Asita Vârshagana, 47) Asita Vârshagana from Harita Kasyapa, 48) Harita Kasyapa from Silpa Kasyapa, 49) Silpa Kasyapa from Kasyapa Naidhruvi, 50) Kasyapa Naidhruvi from Vâk, 51) Vâk from Ambhinî, 52) Ambhinî from Âditya, the Sun) As coming from Âditya, the Sun, these pure [1] Yagus verses have been proclaimed by Yâgñavalkya Vâgasaneya)
Meaning:- The same up to the son of Samjivi. The son of Samjivi from Mandukayani. Mandukayani from mandavya. Mandavya from Kautsa. Kautsa from Mahitthi. He from Vamakaksayana. He from Sandilya. Sandilya from Vatsya. Vatsya from Kusri. Kusri from Yajnavacas, the son of rajastamba. He from Tura, the son of Kavasi. He from Prajapati (Hiranyagarbha). Prajapati through his relation to Brahman (the Vedas). Brahman is self-born. Salutation to Brahman.
Shankaracharya
Commentary
Commentary:- Now the line of teachers of the whole Upanisad is being given. (They are here named after their mothers) because the wife holds the most important place (in this ceremony) (Because it is she who, being purified through sprinkling etc., produces a worthy son.). It has been mentioned that a gifted son is born. Hence the Upanisad is narrating the line of teachers by describing the son through the name of the mother. These white Yajuses, etc. 'White' because they are not mixed up (with human faults), or these Yajuses are pure or fresh. From Prajapati down to the son of Pautimasi is a descending order (if we read it inversely), with the teacher always mentioned first. (The line is) the same up to the son of Samjivi (Above him it bifurcates, to merge again at the top, the sun being identical with Prajapati or Hiranyagarbha.). Prajapati through his relation to Brahman or the Vedas. That Brahman (the Vedas) has come down the line from Prajapati and variously branched off among us. It is without beginning and end --- self-born, or eternal. Salutation to that Brahman (the Vedas). And salutation to the teachers who have followed it.
Max Müller
4. [1]) The same as far as Sâñgîvîputra (No) 36), then 36) Sâñgîvîputra from Mândûkâyani, 37) Mândûkâyani from Mândavya, 38) Mândavya from Kautsa, 39) Kautsa from Mâhitthi, 40) Mâhitthi from Vâmakakshâyana, 41) Vâmakakshâyana from Sândilya, 42) Sândilya from Vâtsya, 43) Vâtsya from Kusri, 44) Kusri from Yagñavakas Râgastambâyana, 45) Yagñavakas Râgastambâyana from Tura Kâvasheya, 46) Tura Kâvasheya from Pragâpati, 47) Pragâpati from Brahman, 48) Brahman is Svayambhu, self-existent) Adoration to Brahman!
ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ।
oṃ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ .
11 - Shvetashvatara Upanishad
The Shvetashvatara Upanishad presents a synthesis of philosophical inquiry and devotional insight, exploring the nature of Brahman, Atman, and the role of a personal God (Ishvara). It explains the origin of the universe, the relationship between the individual and the universal, and the path to realization through knowledge, meditation, and devotion.
Editorial Note:
The Shvetashvatara Upanishad stands out among the Upanishads for combining
deep philosophical inquiry with a more personal and devotional approach.
It begins with fundamental questions about existence:
What is the cause of the universe?
What is Brahman?
Where do we come from and where do we go?
What is the purpose of life?
These questions guide the entire text.
Central Teaching
The Upanishad concludes that:
There is one universal reality present in all beings
Everything in the universe is a manifestation of this reality
There is a fundamental unity of all existence
It also introduces the idea of Ishvara (personal God) as a meaningful path
to realize the ultimate truth.
Structure of the Text
The Upanishad consists of six chapters, written in poetic form:
Chapter 1 - 16 verses Inquiry into the cause of existence and nature of reality
Chapter 2 - 17 verses Discussion on meditation and discipline
Chapter 3 - 21 verses Description of the Supreme as both immanent and transcendent
Chapter 4 - 22 verses Exploration of the unity behind diversity
Chapter 5 - 14 verses Nature of the Self and the path to realization
Chapter 6 - 23 verses (including epilogue) Final teachings and summary of realization
Out of the total 113 verses, the last 3 verses are considered an
epilogue.
Flow of Ideas
The Upanishad develops its teaching in a clear progression:
Questioning Reality - Inquiry into the origin of existence
Understanding Nature - Role of Prakriti (nature) and Brahman
Introducing Ishvara - Personal God as a guide
Meditation and Discipline - Practical approach to realization
Unity of Existence - One reality in all beings
Final Realization - Liberation through knowledge and devotion
Core Philosophical Teachings
Unity of Atman and Brahman The same reality exists in every individual.
Concept of Ishvara A personal form of the divine helps in spiritual practice.
Role of Prakriti Nature as the field in which reality manifests.
Path of Meditation Inner discipline is essential for realization.
Integration of Knowledge and Devotion Both are valid and complementary paths.
Simple Summary (For Easy Understanding)
The Shvetashvatara Upanishad starts by asking simple but deep questions about
life and the universe.
It explains that everything comes from one ultimate reality, and that reality
exists within all of us.
Unlike some other Upanishads, it also talks about a personal God (Ishvara),
making the teachings easier to relate to.
It shows that by combining knowledge, meditation, and devotion, a person can
understand the truth of life.
The main message is clear: There is one reality behind everything, and
realizing this brings freedom and peace.
This edition presents the original Sanskrit text with IAST transliteration,
along with translation and commentary based on the Advaita Vedanta tradition of
Shankaracharya, translated by Swami Nikhilananda.
Rishis, discoursing on Brahman, ask:- Is Brahman the cause? Whence are we born? By what do we live? Where do we dwell at the end? Please tell us, O ye who know Brahman, under whose guidance we abide, whether in pleasure or in pain.
Max Müller
1. The Brahma-students say:- Is Brahman the cause [1]? Whence are we born? Whereby do we live, and whither do we go? O ye who know Brahman, (tell us) at whose command we abide, whether in pain or in pleasure?
Should time, or nature, or necessity, or chance, or the elements be regarded as the cause? Or he who is called the purusha, the living self?
Max Müller
2. Should time, or nature [1], or necessity, or chance, or the elements be considered as the cause, or he who is called the person (purusha, vigñânâtmâ)? It cannot be their union either, because that is not self-dependent [2], and the self also is powerless, because there is (independent of him) a cause of good and evil [3].
The sages, absorbed in meditation through one-pointedness of mind, discovered the creative power, belonging to the Lord Himself and hidden in its own gunas. That non-dual Lord rules over all those causes-time, the self and the rest.
Max Müller
3. The sages, devoted to meditation and concentration, have seen the power belonging to God himself [1], hidden in its own qualities (guna). He, being one, superintends all those causes, time, self, and the rest [2].
The sages saw the wheel of Brahman, which has one felly, a triple tire, sixteen end-parts, fifty spokes with twenty counter-spokes and six sets of eight; whose one rope is manifold; which moves on three different roads; and whose illusion arises from two causes.
Max Müller
4. [1]. We meditate on him who (like a wheel) has one felly with three tires, sixteen ends, fifty spokes, with twenty counter-spokes, and six sets of eight; whose one rope is manifold, who proceeds on three different roads, and whose illusion arises from two causes.
We meditate on the River whose five currents are the five organs of perception, which is made impetuous and winding by the five elements, whose waves are the five organs of actions and whose fountain-head is the mind, the source of the five forms of perception. This River has five whirlpools and its rapids are the fivefold misery; and lastly, it has fifty branches and five pain-bearing obstructions.
Max Müller
5. [1]. We meditate on the river whose water consists of the five streams, which is wild and winding with its five springs, whose waves are the five vital breaths, whose fountain head is the mind, the course of the five kinds of perceptions. It has five whirlpools, its rapids are the five pains; it has fifty kinds of suffering, and five branches.
In this great Brahma-Wheel, in which all things abide and finally rest, the swan wanders about so long as it thinks the self is different from the Controller. When blessed by Him the self attains Immortality.
Max Müller
6. In that vast Brahma-wheel, in which all things live and rest, the bird flutters about, so long as he thinks that the self (in him) is different from the mover (the god, the lord). When he has been blessed by him, then he gains immortality [1].
It is the Supreme Brahman alone untouched by phenomena that is proclaimed in the Upanishads. In It is established the triad of the enjoyer, the object and the Lord who is the Controller. This Brahman is the immutable foundation; It is imperishable. The sages, having realized Brahman to be the essence of phenomena, become devoted to Him. Completely merged in Brahman, they attain freedom from rebirth.
Max Müller
7. But what is praised (in the Upanishads) is the Highest Brahman, and in it there is the triad [1]. The Highest Brahman is the safe support, it is imperishable. The Brahma-students [2], when they have known what is within this (world), are devoted and merged in the Brahman, free from birth [3].
The Lord, Isa, supports all this which has been joined together-the perishable and the imperishable, the manifest, the effect and the unmanifest, the cause. The same Lord, the Supreme Self, devoid of Lordship, becomes bound because of assuming the attitude of the enjoyer. The jiva again realizes the Supreme Self and is freed from all fetters.
Max Müller
8. The Lord (îsa) supports all this together, the perishable and the imperishable, the developed and the undeveloped. The (living) self, not being a lord, is bound [1], because he has to enjoy (the fruits of works); but when he has known the god (deva), he is freed from all fetters.
The Supreme Lord appears as Isvara, omniscient and omnipotent and as the jiva, of limited knowledge and power, both unborn. But this does not deny the phenomenal universe; for there exists further the unborn prakriti, which creates the ideas of the enjoyer, enjoyment and the object. Atman is infinite and all-pervading and therefore devoid of agency. When the seeker knows all these three to be Brahman, he is freed from his fetters.
Max Müller
9. There are two, one knowing (îsvara), the other not-knowing (gîva), both unborn, one strong, the other weak [1]; there is she, the unborn, through whom each man receives the recompense of his works [2]; and there is the infinite Self (appearing) under all forms, but himself inactive. When a man finds out these three, that is Brahma [3].
Prakriti is perishable. Hara, the Lord, is immortal and imperishable. The non-dual Supreme Self rules both prakriti and the individual soul. Through constant meditation on Him, by union with Him, by the knowledge of identity with Him, one attains, in the end, cessation of the illusion of phenomena.
Max Müller
10. That which is perishable [1] is the Pradhâna [2] (the first), the immortal and imperishable is Hara [3]. The one god rules the perishable (the pradhâna) and the (living) self [4]. From meditating on him, from joining him, from becoming one with him there is further cessation of all illusion in the end.
When the Lord is known all fetters fall off; with the cessation of miseries, birth and death come to an end. From meditation on Him there arises, after the dissolution of the body, the third state, that of universal lordship. And lastly, the aspirant, transcending that state also, abides in the complete Bliss of Brahman.
Max Müller
11. When that god is known, all fetters fall off, sufferings are destroyed, and birth and death cease. From meditating on him there arises, on the dissolution of the body, the third state, that of universal lordship [1]; but he only who is alone, is satisfied [2].
The enjoyer (jiva), the objects of enjoyment and the Ruler (Isvara)-the triad described by the knowers of Brahman-all this is nothing but Brahman. This Brahman alone, which abides eternally within the self, should be known. Beyond It, truly, there is nothing else to be known.
Max Müller
12. This, which rests eternally within the self, should be known; and beyond this not anything has to be known. By knowing the enjoyer [1], the enjoyed, and the ruler, everything has been declared to be threefold, and this is Brahman.
The visible form of fire, while it lies latent in its source, the fire-wood, is not perceived; yet there is no destruction of its subtle form. That very fire can be brought out again by means of persistent rubbing of the wood, its source. In like manner, Atman, which exists in two states, like fire, can be grasped in this very body by means of Om.
Max Müller
13. As the form of fire, while it exists in the under-wood [1], is not seen, nor is its seed destroyed, but it has to be seized again and again by means of the stick and the under-wood, so it is in both cases, and the Self has to be seized in the body by means of the pranava (the syllable Om).
By making the body the lower piece of wood and Om the upper piece and through the practice of the friction of meditation, one perceives the luminous Self, hidden like the fire in the wood.
Max Müller
14. By making his body the under-wood, and the syllable Om the upper-wood, man, after repeating the drill of meditation, will perceive the bright god, like the spark hidden in the wood [1].
As oil exists in sesame seeds, butter in milk, water in river- beds and fire in wood, so the Self is realized as existing within the self, when a man looks for It by means of truthfulness and austerity-when he looks for the Self, which pervades all things as butter pervades milk and whose roots are Self- Knowledge and austerity. That is the Brahman taught by the Upanishad; yea, that is the Brahman taught by the Upanishads.
Max Müller
15. As oil in seeds, as butter in cream, as water in (dry) river-beds [1], as fire in wood, so is the Self seized within the self, if man looks for him by truthfulness and penance [2]; 16. (If he looks) for the Self that pervades everything, as butter is contained in milk, and the roots whereof are self-knowledge and penance. That is the Brahman taught by the Upanishad.
May the sun, at the commencement of yoga, join our minds and other organs to the Supreme Self so that we may attain the Knowledge of Reality. May He, also, support the body, the highest material entity, through the powers of the deities who control the senses.
Max Müller
1. [1]. Savitri (the sun), having first collected his mind and expanded his thoughts, brought Agni (fire), when he had discovered his light, above the earth.
Having received the blessings of the divine Sun and with minds joined to the Supreme Self, we exert ourselves, to the best of our power, toward meditation, by which we shall attain Heaven (Brahman).
Max Müller
2. [1]. With collected minds we are at the command of the divine Savitri, that we may obtain blessedness.
May the Sun bestow favour upon the senses and the mind by joining them with the Self, so that the senses may be directed toward the Blissful Brahman and may reveal, by means of Knowledge, the mighty and radiant Brahman.
Max Müller
3. [1]. May Savitri, after he has reached with his mind the gods as they rise up to the sky, and with his thoughts (has reached) heaven, grant these gods to make a great light to shine.
It is the duty of those brahmins who fix their minds and senses on the Supreme Self to utter such lofty invocations to the divine Sun, omnipresent, mighty and omniscient. For He, all- witnessing and non-dual, is the dispenser of sacrifices.
Max Müller
4. [1]. The wise sages of the great sage collect their mind and collect their thoughts. He who alone knows the law (Savitri) has ordered the invocations; great is the praise of the divine Savitri.
O senses and O deities who favour them! Through salutations I unite myself with the eternal Brahman, who is your source. Let this prayer sung by me, who follow the right path of the Sun, go forth in all directions. May the sons of the Immortal, who occupy celestial positions, hear it!
Max Müller
5. [1]. Your old prayer has to be joined [2] with praises. Let my song go forth like the path of the sun! May all the sons of the Immortal listen, they who have reached their heavenly homes.
If sacrifices are performed without first propitiating the Sun, then the mind becomes attached to sacrifices in which fire is kindled by the rubbing of the pieces of fire-wood, the oblations are offered to the deity Vayu and the soma juice is drunk excessively.
Max Müller
6. Where the fire is rubbed [1], where the wind is checked, where the Soma flows over, there the mind is born.
yatra yoniṃ kṛṇavase na hi te pūrtamakṣipat .. 7..
Serve the eternal Brahman with the blessings of the Sun, the cause of the universe. Be absorbed, through samadhi, in the eternal Brahman. Thus your work will not bind you.
Max Müller
7. Let us love the old Brahman by the grace of Savitri; if thou make thy dwelling there, the path will not hurt thee [1].
The wise man should hold his body steady, with the three upper parts erect, turn his senses, with the help of the mind, toward the heart and by means of the raft of Brahman cross the fearful torrents of the world.
Max Müller
8. If a wise man hold his body with its three erect parts (chest, neck, and head) even [1], and turn his senses with the mind towards the heart, he will then in the boat of Brahman [2] cross all the torrents which cause fear.
The yogi of well regulated endeavours should control the pranas; when they are quieted he should breathe out through the nostrils. Then let him undistractedly restrain his mind, as a charioteer restrains his vicious horses.
Max Müller
9. Compressing his breathings let him, who has subdued all motions, breathe forth through the nose with gentle breath [1]. Let the wise man without fail restrain his mind, that chariot yoked with vicious horses [2].
Let yoga be practised within a cave protected from the high wind, or in a place which is level, pure and free from pebbles, gravel and fire, undisturbed by the noise of water or of market-booths and which is delightful to the mind and not offensive to the eye.
Max Müller
10. Let him perform his exercises in a place [1] level, pure, free from pebbles, fire, and dust, delightful by its sounds, its water, and bowers, not painful to the eye, and full of shelters and caves.
When yoga is practised, the forms which appear first and which gradually manifest Brahman are those or snow-flakes, smoke, sun, wind, fire, fire-flies, lightning, crystal and the moon.
Max Müller
11. When Yoga is being performed, the forms which come first, producing apparitions in Brahman, are those of misty smoke, sun, fire, wind, fire-flies, lightnings, and a crystal moon [1].
When earth, water fire, air and akasa arise, that is to say, when the five attributes of the elements, mentioned in the books on yoga, become manifest then the yogi's body becomes purified by the fire of yoga and he is free from illness, old age and death.
Max Müller
12. When, as earth, water, light, heat, and ether arise, the fivefold quality of Yoga takes place [1], then there is no longer illness, old age, or pain [2] for him who has obtained a body, produced by the fire of Yoga.
The precursors of perfection in yoga, they say, are lightness and healthiness of the body, absence of desire, clear complexion, pleasantness of voice, sweet odour and slight excretions.
Max Müller
13. The first results of Yoga they call lightness, healthiness, steadiness, a good complexion, an easy pronunciation, a sweet odour, and slight excretions.
As gold covered by earth shines bright after it has been purified, so also the yogi, realising the truth of Atman, becomes one with the non-dual Atman, attains the goal and is free from grief
Max Müller
14. As a metal disk (mirror), tarnished by dust, shines bright again after it has been cleaned, so is the one incarnate person satisfied and free from grief, after he has seen the real nature of the Self [1].
And when the yogi beholds the real nature of Brahman, through the Knowledge of the Self, radiant as a lamp, then, having known the unborn and immutable Lord, who is untouched by ignorance and its effects, he is freed from all fetters.
Max Müller
15. And when by means of the real nature of his self he sees, as by a lamp, the real nature of Brahman, then having known the unborn, eternal god, who is beyond all natures [1], he is freed from all fetters.
He indeed, the Lord, who pervades all regions, was the first to be born and it is He who dwells in the womb of the universe. It is He, again, who is born as a child and He will be born in the future, He stands behind all persons and His face is everywhere.
Max Müller
16. He indeed is the god who pervades all regions:- he is the first-born (as Hiranyagarbha), and he is in the womb. He has been born, and he will be born [1]. He stands behind all persons, looking everywhere.
The Self-luminous Lord, who is fire, who is in water, who has entered into the whole world, who is in plants, who is in trees- to that Lord let there be adoration! Yea, let there be adoration!
Max Müller
17. The god [1] who is in the fire, the god who is in the water, the god who has entered into the whole world, the god who is in plants, the god who is in trees, adoration be to that god, adoration!
The non-dual Ensnarer rules by His powers. Remaining one and the same, He rules by His powers all the worlds during their manifestation and continued existence. They who know this become immortal.
Max Müller
1. The snarer [1] who rules alone by his powers, who rules all the worlds by his powers, who is one and the same, while things arise and exist [2],--they who know this are immortal.
The Self, smaller than the small, greater than the great, is hidden in the hearts of creatures. The wise, by the grace of the Creator, behold the Lord, majestic and desireless and become free from grief.
Max Müller
20. [1]. The Self, smaller than small, greater than great, is hidden in the heart of the creature. A man who has left all grief behind, sees the majesty, the Lord, the passionless, by the grace of the creator (the Lord).
His eyes are everywhere, His faces everywhere, His arms everywhere, everywhere His feet. He it is who endows men with arms, birds with feet and wings and men likewise with feet. Having produced heaven and earth, He remains as their non-dual manifester.
Max Müller
3. [1]. That one god, having his eyes, his face, his arms, and his feet in every place, when producing heaven and earth, forges them together with his arms and his wings [2].
He, the omniscient Rudra, the creator of the gods and the bestower of their powers, the support of the universe, He who, in the beginning, gave birth to Hiranyagarbha-may He endow us with clear intellect!
Max Müller
4. He [1], the creator and supporter of the gods, Rudra, the great seer, the lord of all, he who formerly gave birth to Hiranyagarbha, may he endow us with good thoughts.
O Rudra, Thou who dwellest in the body and bestowest happiness! Look upon us with that most blessed form of Thine, which is auspicious, unterrifying and all good.
Max Müller
5. [1]. O Rudra, thou dweller in the mountains, look upon us with that most blessed form of thine which is auspicious, not terrible, and reveals no evil!
śivāṃ giritra tāṃ kuru mā hiṃsīḥ puruṣaṃ jagat .. 6..
O Dweller in the body and Bestower of happiness, make benign that arrow which Thou holdest in Thy hand ready to shoot, O Protector of the body! Do not injure man or the world!
Max Müller
6. [1]. O lord of the mountains, make lucky that arrow which thou, a dweller in the mountains, holdest in thy hand to shoot. Do not hurt man or beast!
The Supreme Lord is higher than Virat, beyond Hiranyagarbha. He is vast and is hidden in the bodies of all living beings. By knowing Him who alone pervades the universe, men become immortal.
Max Müller
7. Those who know beyond this the High Brahman, the vast, hidden in the bodies of all creatures, and alone enveloping everything, as the Lord, they become immortal [1].
I know the great Purusha, who is luminous, like the sun and beyond darkness. Only by knowing Him does one pass over death; there is no other way to the Supreme Goal.
Max Müller
8. [1]. I know that great person (purusha) of sunlike lustre beyond the darkness [2]. A man who knows him truly, passes over death; there is no other path to go [3].
The whole universe is filled by the Purusha, to whom there is nothing superior, from whom there is nothing different, than whom there is nothing either smaller or greater; who stands alone, motionless as a tree, established in His own glory.
Max Müller
9. This whole universe is filled by this person (purusha), to whom there is nothing superior, from whom there is nothing different, than whom there is nothing smaller or larger, who stands alone, fixed like a tree in the sky [1].
sarvavyāpī sa bhagavāṃstasmāt sarvagataḥ śivaḥ .. 11..
All faces are His faces; all heads, His heads; all necks, His necks. He dwells in the hearts of all beings. He is the all- pervading Bhagavan. Therefore He is the omnipresent and benign Lord.
Max Müller
11. That Bhagavat [1] exists in the faces, the heads, the necks of all, he dwells in the cave (of the heart) of all beings, he is all-pervading, therefore he is the omnipresent Siva.
He, indeed, is the great Purusha, the Lord of creation, preservation and destruction, who inspires the mind to attain the state of stainlessness. He is the Ruler and the Light that is imperishable.
Max Müller
12. That person (purusha) is the great lord; he is the mover of existence [1], he possesses that purest power of reaching everything [2], he is light, he is undecaying.
The Purusha, no bigger than a thumb, is the inner Self, ever seated in the heart of man. He is known by the mind, which controls knowledge and is perceived in the heart. They who know Him become immortal.
Max Müller
13. [1]. The person (purusha), not larger than a thumb, dwelling within, always dwelling in the heart of man, is perceived by the heart, the thought [2], the mind; they who know it become immortal.
स भूमिं विश्वतो वृत्वा अत्यतिष्ठद्दशाङ्गुलम् ॥ १४॥
sahasraśīrṣā puruṣaḥ sahasrākṣaḥ sahasrapāt .
sa bhūmiṃ viśvato vṛtvā atyatiṣṭhaddaśāṅgulam .. 14..
The Purusha with a thousand heads, a thousand eyes, a thousand feet, compasses the earth on all sides and extends beyond it by ten fingers' breadth.
Max Müller
14. [1]. The person (purusha) with a thousand heads. a thousand eyes, a thousand feet, having compassed the earth on every side, extends beyond it by ten fingers' breadth.
vaśī sarvasya lokasya sthāvarasya carasya ca .. 18..
The Swan, the ruler of the whole world, of all that is moving and all that is motionless, becomes the embodied self and dwelling in the city of nine gates, flies outward.
Max Müller
18. The embodied spirit within the town with nine gates [1], the bird, flutters outwards, the ruler of the whole world, of all that rests and of all that moves.
Grasping without hands, hasting without feet, It sees without eyes, It hears without ears. It knows what is to be known, but no one knows It. They call It the First, the Great, the Full.
Max Müller
19. Grasping without hands, hasting without feet, he sees without eyes, he hears without ears. He knows what can be known, but no one knows him; they call him the first, the great person (purusha).
The Self, smaller than the small, greater than the great, is hidden in the hearts of creatures. The wise, by the grace of the Creator, behold the Lord, majestic and desireless and become free from grief.
Max Müller
20. [1]. The Self, smaller than small, greater than great, is hidden in the heart of the creature. A man who has left all grief behind, sees the majesty, the Lord, the passionless, by the grace of the creator (the Lord).
I know this undecaying, primeval One, the Self of all things, which exists everywhere, being all-pervading and which the wise declare to be free from birth. The teachers of Brahman, indeed, speak of It as eternal.
Max Müller
21. [1]. I know [2] this undecaying, ancient one, the self of all things, being infinite and omnipresent. They declare that in him all birth is stopped, for the Brahma-students proclaim him to be eternal [3].
He, the One and Undifferentiated, who by the manifold application of His powers produces, in the beginning, different objects for a hidden purpose and, in the end, withdraws the universe into Himself, is indeed the self-luminous-May He endow us with clear intellect!
Max Müller
1. He, the sun, without any colour, who with set purpose [1] by means of his power (sakti) produces endless colours [2], in whom all this comes together in the beginning, and comes asunder in the end--may he, the god, endow us with good thoughts [3].
That Supreme Self is Agni (Fire); It is Aditya (Sun); It is Vayu (Wind); It is Chandrama (Moon). That Self is the luminous stars; It is Hiranyagarbha; It is water; It is Virat.
Max Müller
2. That (Self) indeed is Agni (fire), it is Âditya (sun), it is Vâyu (wind), it is Kandramas (moon); the same also is the starry firmament [1], it is Brahman (Hiranyagarbha), it is water, it is Pragâpati (Virâg).
Thou art woman, Thou art man; Thou art youth and maiden too. Thou as an old man totterest along on a staff; it is Thou alone who, when born, assumest diverse forms.
Max Müller
3. Thou art woman, thou art man; thou art youth, thou art maiden; thou, as an old man, totterest [1] along on thy staff; thou art born with thy face turned everywhere.
Thou art the dark-blue bee; Thou art the green parrot with red eyes; Thou art the thunder-cloud, the seasons and the seas. Thou art beginningless and all-pervading. From Thee all the worlds are born.
Max Müller
4. Thou art the dark-blue bee, thou art the green parrot with red eyes, thou art the thunder-cloud, the seasons, the seas. Thou art without beginning [1], because thou art infinite, thou from whom all worlds are born.
There is one unborn prakriti-red, white and black-which gives birth to many creatures like itself. An unborn individual soul becomes attached to it and enjoys it, while another unborn individual soul leaves it after his enjoyment is completed.
Max Müller
5. [1]. There is one unborn being (female), red, white, and black, uniform, but producing manifold offspring. There is one unborn being (male) who loves her and lies by her; there is another who leaves her, while she is eating what has to be eaten.
Two birds, united always and known by the same name, closely cling to the same tree. One of them eats the sweet fruit; the other looks on without eating.
Max Müller
6. [1]. Two birds, inseparable friends, cling to the same tree. One of them eats the sweet fruit, the other looks on without eating.
Seated on the same tree, the jiva moans, bewildered by its impotence. But when it beholds the other, the Lord worshipped by all and His glory, it becomes free from grief.
Max Müller
7. On the same tree man sits grieving, immersed, bewildered, by his own impotence (an-îsâ). But when he sees the other lord (îsa) contented, and knows his glory, then his grief passes away.
Of what use are the Vedas to him who does not know that indestructible Substance, that akasa-like Brahman, which is greater than the unmanifest and wherein the Vedas and all the gods are sheltered? Only those who know It attain bliss.
Max Müller
8. [1]. He who does not know that indestructible being of the Rig-Veda, that highest ether-like (Self) wherein all the gods reside, of what use is the Rig-Veda to him? Those only who know it, rest contented.
The sacred verses, the offerings (yajna), the sacrifices (kratu), the penances (vrata), the past, the future and all that the Vedas declare, have been produced from the imperishable Brahman. Brahman projects the universe through the power of Its maya. Again, in that universe Brahman as the jiva is entangled through maya.
Max Müller
9. That from which the maker (mâyin [1]) sends forth all this--the sacred verses, the offerings, the sacrifices, the panaceas, the past, the future, and all that the Vedas declare--in that the other is bound up through that mâyâ.
By truly realising Him who, though non-dual, dwells in prakriti, both in its primary and in its secondary aspect and in Whom this whole world comes together and dissolves-by truly realising Him Who is the Lord, the bestower of blessings, the Adorable God, one attains the supreme peace.
Max Müller
11. If a man has discerned him, who being one only, rules over every germ (cause), in whom all this comes together and comes asunder again, who is the lord, the bestower of blessing, the adorable god, then he passes for ever into that peace.
He, the creator of the gods and the bestower of their powers, the Support of the universe, Rudra the omniscient, who at the beginning gave birth to Hiranyagarbha-may He endow us with clear intellect!
Max Müller
12. [1]. He, the creator and supporter of the gods, Rudra, the great seer, the lord of all, who saw [2], Hiranyagarbha being born, may he endow us with good thoughts.
He who is the sovereign of the gods, in whom the worlds find their support, who rules over all two-footed and four-footed beings-let us serve that God, radiant and blissful, with an oblation.
Max Müller
13. He who is the sovereign of the gods, he in whom all the worlds [1] rest, he who rules over all two-footed and four-footed beings, to that god [2] let us sacrifice an oblation.
By realising Him who is subtler than the subtlest who dwells in the midst of the chaos, who is the Creator of all things and is endowed with many forms, who is the non-dual Pervader of the universe and all good-by realising Him one attains the supreme peace.
Max Müller
14. He who has known him who is more subtile than subtile, in the midst of chaos, creating all things, having many forms, alone enveloping everything [1], the happy one (Siva), passes into peace for ever.
It is He who, in proper time, becomes the custodian of the universe and the sovereign of all; who conceals Himself in all beings as their inner Witness; and in whom the sages and the deities are united. Verily, by knowing Him one cuts asunder the fetters of death.
Max Müller
15. He also was in time [1] the guardian of this world, the lord of all, hidden in all beings. In him the Brahmarshis and the deities are united [2], and he who knows him cuts the fetters of death asunder.
He who knows Brahman, who is all Bliss, extremely subtle, like the film that rises to the surface of clarified butter and is hidden in all beings-he who knows the radiant Deity, the sole Pervader of the universe, is released from all his fetters.
Max Müller
16. He who knows Siva (the blessed) hidden in all beings, like the subtile film that rises from out the clarified butter [1], alone enveloping everything,--he who knows the god, is freed from all fetters.
The Maker of all things, self-luminous and all-pervading, He dwells always in the hearts of men. He is revealed by the negative teachings of the Vedanta, discriminative wisdom and the Knowledge of Unity based upon reflection. They who know Him become immortal.
Max Müller
17. That god, the maker of all things, the great Self [1], always dwelling in the heart of man, is perceived by the heart, the soul, the mind [2];--they who know it become immortal.
When there is no darkness of ignorance, there is no day or night, neither being nor non-being; the pure Brahman alone exists. That immutable Reality is the meaning of "That"; It is adored by the Sun. From It has proceeded the ancient wisdom.
Max Müller
18. When the light has risen [1], there is no day, no night, neither existence nor non-existence [2]; Siva (the blessed) alone is there. That is the eternal, the adorable light of Savitri[3],--and the ancient wisdom proceeded thence.
His form is not an object of vision; no one beholds Him with the eyes. They who, through pure intellect and the Knowledge of Unity based upon reflection, realise Him as abiding in the heart become immortal.
Max Müller
20. His form cannot be seen, no one perceives him with the eye. Those [1] who through heart and mind know him thus abiding in the heart, become immortal.
rudra yatte dakṣiṇaṃ mukhaṃ tena māṃ pāhi nityam .. 21..
It is because Thou, O Lord, art birthless, that some rare souls, frightened by birth and death, take refuge in Thee. O Rudra, may Thy benign face protect me for ever!
Max Müller
21. 'Thou art unborn,' with these words some one comes near to thee, trembling. O Rudra, let thy gracious [1] face protect me for ever!
O Rudra, do not, in Thy wrath, destroy our children and grand-children. Do not destroy our lives; do not destroy our cows or horses; do not destroy our strong servants. For we invoke Thee always, with oblations, for our protection.
Max Müller
22. [1]. O Rudra! hurt us not in our offspring and descendants, hurt us not in our own lives, nor in our cows, nor in our horses! Do not slay our men in thy wrath, for, holding oblations, we call on thee always.
In the Immutable, infinite Supreme Brahman remain hidden the two:-- knowledge and ignorance. Ignorance leads to worldliness and knowledge, to Immortality. Brahman, who controls both knowledge and ignorance, is different from both.
Max Müller
1. In the imperishable and infinite Highest Brahman [1], wherein the two, knowledge and ignorance, are hidden [2], the one, ignorance, perishes [3], the other, knowledge, is immortal; but he who controls both, knowledge and ignorance, is another [4].
He, the non-dual Brahman, who rules over every position; who controls all forms and all sources; who, in the beginning, filled with knowledge the omniscient Hiranyagarbha, His own creation, whom He beheld when He (Hiranyagarbha) was produced-He is other than both knowledge and ignorance.
Max Müller
2. It is he who, being one only, rules over every germ (cause), over all forms, and over all germs; it is he who, in the beginning, bears [1] in his thoughts the wise son, the fiery, whom he wishes to look on [2] while he is born [3].
At the time of the creation the Lord spreads out individual nets in various ways and then at the time of the cosmic dissolution withdraws them into the great prakriti. Again the all- pervading Deity creates the aggregates of body and senses, both individual and collective and their controllers also and thus exercises His overlordship.
Max Müller
3. [1]. In that field [2] in which the god, after spreading out one net after another [3] in various ways, draws it together again, the Lord, the great Self [4], having further created the lords [5], thus carries on his lordship over all.
As the sun shines, illumining all the quarters-above, below and across-so also God, self-resplendent, adorable and non-dual, controls all objects, which themselves possess the nature of a cause.
Max Müller
4. As the car (of the sun) shines, lighting up all quarters, above, below, and across, thus does that god, the holy, the adorable, being one, rule over all that has the nature of a germ [1].
He who is the cause of all and who enables all things to function according to their nature; who brings to maturity all that can be ripened; who, being non-dual, rules over the whole universe and engages the gunas in their respective functions-He is concealed in the Upanishads, the secret part of the Vedas. Brahma knew Him who can be known only from the evidence of the Vedas. The gods and seers of olden times who knew Him became Brahman and attained Immortality.
Max Müller
5. He, being one, rules over all and everything, so that the universal germ ripens its nature, diversifies all natures that can be ripened [1], and determines all qualities [2]. 6. [1]. Brahma (Hiranyagarbha) knows this, which is hidden in the Upanishads, which are hidden in the Vedas, as the Brahma-germ. The ancient gods and poets who knew it, they became it and were immortal.
Endowed with gunas, the jiva performs action, seeking its fruit; and again, it reaps the fruit of what it has done. Assuming all forms and led by the three gunas, the jiva, ruler of the pranas, roams about following the three paths, according to its deeds.
Max Müller
7. [1]. But he who is endowed with qualities, and performs works that are to bear fruit, and enjoys the reward of whatever he has done, migrates through his own works, the lord of life, assuming all forms, led by the three Gunas, and following the three paths [2].
Of the size of a thumb, but brilliant, like the sun, the jiva possesses both volition and egoism. It is endowed with the qualities of both buddhi and Atman. Therefore it is seen as another entity, inferior and small as the point of a goad.
Max Müller
8. [1]. That lower one also, not larger than a thumb, but brilliant like the sun, who is endowed with personality and thoughts, with the quality of mind and the quality of body, is seen small even like the point of a goad.
By means of desires, contact, attachment and delusion, the embodied soul assumes, successively, diverse forms in various places, according to its deeds, just as the body grows when food and drink are poured into it.
Max Müller
11. [1]. By means of thoughts, touching, seeing, and passions the incarnate Self assumes successively in various places various forms [2], in accordance with his deeds, just as the body grows when food and drink are poured into it.
The embodied soul, by means of good and evil deeds committed by itself, assumes many forms, coarse and fine. By virtue of its actions and also of such characteristics of the mind as knowledge and desire, it assumes another body for the enjoyment of suitable objects.
Max Müller
12. That incarnate Self, according to his own qualities, chooses (assumes) many shapes, coarse or subtile, and having himself caused his union with them, he is seen as another and another [1], through the qualities of his acts, and through the qualities of his body.
He who knows the Lord, who is without beginning or end, who stands in the midst of the chaos of the world, who is the Creator of all things and is endowed with many forms-he who knows the radiant Deity, the sole Pervader of the universe, is released from all his fetters.
Max Müller
13. [1]. He who knows him who has no beginning and no end, in the midst of chaos, creating all things, having many forms, alone enveloping everything, is freed from all fetters.
kalāsargakaraṃ devaṃ ye viduste jahustanum .. 14..
Those who know Him who can be realised by the pure heart, who is called incorporeal, who is the cause of creation and destruction, who is all good and the creator of the sixteen parts-those who know the luminous Lord are freed from embodiment.
Max Müller
14. Those who know him who is to be grasped by the mind, who is not to be called the nest (the body [1]), who makes existence and non-existence, the happy one (Siva), who also creates the elements [2], they have left the body.
Some learned men speak of the inherent nature of things and some speak of time, as the cause of the universe. They all, indeed, are deluded. It is the greatness of the self-luminous Lord that causes the Wheel of Brahman to revolve.
Max Müller
1. [1]. Some wise men, deluded, speak of Nature, and others of Time (as the cause of everything [2]); but it is the greatness of God by which this Brahma-wheel is made to turn.
He by whom the whole universe is constantly pervaded is the Knower, the Author of time. He is sinless and omniscient, It is at His command that the work which is called earth, water, fire, air and akasa appears as the universe. All this should be reflected upon by the wise.
Max Müller
2. It is at the command of him who always covers this world, the knower, the time of time [1], who assumes qualities and all knowledge [2], it is at his command that this work (creation) unfolds itself, which is called earth, water, fire, air, and ether;
The yogi who first performs actions and then turns away from them and who practises one, two, three, or eight disciplines, unites one principle with another principle and with the help of virtues cultivated by the self and of subtle tendencies attains Liberation in course of time.
Max Müller
3. [1]. He who, after he has done that work and rested again, and after he has brought together one essence (the self) with the other (matter), with one, two, three, or eight, with time also and with the subtile qualities of the mind,
He who attains purity of heart by performing actions as an offering to the Lord and merges prakriti and all its effects in Brahman, realises his true Self and thereby transcends phenomena. In the absence of maya, both collective and individual, all his past actions are destroyed. After the destruction of the prarabdha karma he attains final Liberation.
Max Müller
4. Who, after starting [1] the works endowed with (the three) qualities, can order all things, yet when, in the absence of all these, he has caused the destruction of the work, goes on, being in truth [2] different (from all he has produced);
The Great Lord is the beginning, the cause which unites the soul with the body; He is above the three kinds of time and is seen to be without parts. After having worshipped that adorable God dwelling in the heart, who is of many forms and is the true source of all things, man attains final Liberation.
Max Müller
5. He is the beginning, producing the causes which unite (the soul with the body), and, being above the three kinds of time (past, present, future), he is seen as without parts [1], after we have first worshipped that adorable god, who has many forms, and who is the true source (of all things), as dwelling in our own mind.
He from whom this universe proceeds is higher and other than all forms of the Tree of the World and of time. When one knows Him who is the indweller, the bringer of good, the destroyer of evil, the Lord of powers, the immortal support of all, one attains final Liberation.
Max Müller
6. He is beyond all the forms of the tree [1] (of the world) and of time, he is the other, from whom this world moves round, when [2] one has known him who brings good and removes evil, the lord of bliss, as dwelling within the self, the immortal, the support of all.
We know Him who is the Supreme Lord of lords, the Supreme Deity of deities, the Ruler of rulers; who is higher than the imperishable prakriti and is the self-luminous, adorable Lord of the world.
Max Müller
7. Let us know that highest great lord of lords [1], the highest deity of deities, the master of masters, the highest above, as god, the lord of the world, the adorable.
He is without a body or organs; none like unto Him is seen, or better than He. The Vedas speak of His exalted power, which is innate and capable of producing diverse effects and also of His omniscience and might.
Max Müller
8. There is no effect and no cause known of him, no one is seen like unto him or better; his high power is revealed as manifold, as inherent, acting as force and knowledge.
He has no master in the world, no ruler, nor is there even a sign of Him by which He can be inferred. He is the cause, the Lord of the lord of the organs; and He is without progenitor or controller.
Max Müller
9. There is no master of his in the world, no ruler of his, not even a sign of him [1]. He is the cause, the lord of the lords of the organs [2], and there is of him neither parent nor lord.
deva ekaḥ svamāvṛṇoti sa no dadhātu brahmāpyayam .. 10..
May the non-dual Lord, who, by the power of His maya, covered Himself, like a spider, with threads drawn from primal matter, merge us in Brahman!
Max Müller
10. That only god who spontaneously covered himself, like a spider, with threads drawn from the first cause (pradhâna), grant us entrance into Brahman [1].
The non-dual and resplendent Lord is hidden in all beings. All-pervading, the inmost Self of all creatures, the impeller to actions, abiding in all things, He is the Witness, the Animator and the Absolute, free from gunas.
Max Müller
11. He is the one God, hidden in all beings, all-pervading, the self within all beings, watching over all works, dwelling in all beings, the witness, the perceiver [1], the only one, free from qualities.
There is a non-dual Ruler of the actionless many; He makes the one seed manifold. Eternal happiness belongs to the wise, who perceive Him within themselves-and not to others.
Max Müller
12. [1]. He is the one ruler of many who (seem to act, but really do) not act [2]; he makes the one seed manifold. The wise who perceive him within their self, to them belongs eternal happiness, not to others.
He is the Eternal among the eternal, the Conscious among the conscious and though non-dual, fulfils the desires of many. He who has known Him, the luminous Lord, the Great Cause, to be realised by Knowledge (Samkhya) and yoga, is freed from all fetters.
Max Müller
13. [1]. He is the eternal among eternals, the thinker among thinkers, who, though one, fulfils the desires of many. He who has known that cause which is to be apprehended by Sâṅkhya (philosophy) and Yoga (religious discipline), he is freed from all fetters.
The sun does not shine there, nor the moon and the stars, nor these lightnings-much less this fire. He shining, everything shines after Him. By his light all this is lighted.
Max Müller
14. The [1] sun does not shine there, nor the moon and the stars, nor these lightnings, and much less this fire. When he shines, everything shines after him; by his light all this is lightened.
In this universe the Swan, the Supreme Self alone exists. It is He who, as fire, abides in the water. Only by knowing Him does one pass over death, There is no other way to reach the Supreme Goal.
Max Müller
15. He is the one bird [1] in the midst of the world; he is also (like) the fire (of the sun) that has set in the ocean. A man who knows him truly, passes over death [2]; there is no other path to go.
He who is the support of both the unmanifested prakriti and the jiva, who is the Lord of the three gunas and who is the cause of bondage, existence and Liberation from samsara, is verily the Creator of the universe, the Knower, the inmost Self of all things and their Source-the omniscient Lord, the Author of time, the Possessor of virtues, the Knower of everything.
Max Müller
16. He makes all, he knows all, the self-caused, the knower [1], the time of time (destroyer of time), who assumes qualities and knows everything, the master of nature and of man [2], the lord of the three qualities (guna), the cause of the bondage, the existence, and the liberation of the world [3].
He who constantly rules the world is verily the cause of bondage and Liberation. Established in His own glory, He is the Immortal, the Embodiment of Consciousness, the omnipresent Protector of the universe. There is no one else able to rule it.
Max Müller
17. He who has become that [1], he is the immortal, remaining the lord, the knower, the ever-present guardian of this world, who rules this world for ever, for no one else is able to rule it.
Seeking Liberation, I take refuge in the Lord, the revealer of Self-Knowledge, who in the beginning created Brahma and delivered the Vedas to Him.
Max Müller
18. Seeking for freedom I go for refuge to that God who is the light of his own thoughts [1], he who first creates Brahman (m.) [2] and delivers the Vedas to him;
When men shall roll up space as if it were a piece of hide, then there will be an end of misery without one's cultivating the Knowledge of the Lord, who is without parts, without actions, tranquil, blameless, unattached, the supreme bridge to Immortality, an like a fire that has consumed all its fuel.
Max Müller
19. Who is without parts, without actions, tranquil, without fault, without taint [1], the highest bridge to immortality--like a fire that has consumed its fuel. 20. Only when men shall roll up the sky like a hide, will there be an end of misery, unless God has first been known [1].
Through the power of austerity and through the grace of the Lord, the sage Svetasvatara realised Brahman and proclaimed the highly sacred Knowledge, supremely cherished by the company of seers, to sannyasins of the most advanced stage.
Max Müller
21. Through the power of his penance and through the grace of God [1] has the wise Svetâsvatara truly [2] proclaimed Brahman, the highest and holiest, to the best of ascetics [3], as approved by the company of Rishis.
The profound mystery in the Vedanta was taught in the previous cycle. It should not be given to one whose passions have not been subdued, nor to one who is not a son or a disciple.
Max Müller
22. This highest mystery in the Vedânta, delivered in a former age, should not be given to one whose passions have not been subdued, nor to one who is not a son, or who is not a pupil [1].
If these truths have been told to a high-minded person who feels the highest devotion for God and for his guru as for God, then they will surely shine forth as inner experiences-then, indeed, they will shine forth.
Max Müller
23. If these truths have been told to a high-minded man, who feels the highest devotion for God, and for his Guru as for God, then they will shine forth,--then they will shine forth indeed.
प्रकाशन्ते महात्मन इति ।
ॐ सह नाववतु । सह नौ भुनक्तु । सह वीर्यं करवावहै ।
तेजस्वि नावधीतमस्तु । मा विद्विषावहै ॥
ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥
prakāśante mahātmana iti .
oṃ saha nāvavatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha vīryaṃ karavāvahai .
tejasvi nāvadhītamastu . mā vidviṣāvahai ..
oṃ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ ..
12 - Kaushitaki Upanishad
The Kaushitaki Upanishad presents a philosophical dialogue exploring the nature of the Self (Atman), the role of karma, and the path to liberation. It emphasizes the unity of Atman and Brahman and teaches that true freedom comes through knowledge combined with right action.
Editorial Note:
The Kaushitaki Upanishad, also known as the Kaushitaki Brahmana
Upanishad, is part of the Kaushitaki Aranyaka of the Rig Veda.
It presents its teachings mainly through dialogues, involving figures such
as King Chitra Gargyayani, Rishi Kaushitaki, and Svetaketu.
The text focuses on understanding life, death, karma, and the ultimate
reality.
Structure of the Text
The Upanishad is divided into four chapters, written in prose:
Chapter 1 - 7 verses Discussion on life after death and the journey of the soul
Chapter 2 - 15 verses Nature of the Self and its relation to the universe
Chapter 3 - 9 verses Role of consciousness and deeper understanding of Atman
Chapter 4 - 20 verses Final teaching on unity of Self and Brahman
The Kaushitaki Aranyaka itself has 15 chapters, out of which these four
form the Upanishad.
Flow of Ideas
The teaching develops step by step:
Life and Afterlife - What happens after death
Role of Karma - How actions influence existence
Nature of the Self - Understanding Atman
Final Unity - Realizing identity with Brahman
Core Philosophical Teachings
Existence of Atman The Self is real and continues beyond physical life.
Karma and Its Effects Actions shape one’s journey and experience.
Knowledge and Action Together Liberation comes through both understanding and right living.
Unity of Atman and Brahman The individual Self is not separate from the universal reality.
Beyond Rituals True realization removes the need for external dependence.
Key Insight
The Upanishad emphasizes that once a person truly understands their own nature,
they realize that:
They are not separate from the universe
The same reality exists in all beings
External practices become secondary to inner knowledge
Simple Summary (For Easy Understanding)
The Kaushitaki Upanishad explains life in a very practical way.
It teaches that our actions (karma) affect our life and what happens after
death.
It also explains that we have a deeper identity called the Self (Atman),
which is not limited to the body.
The Upanishad says that real freedom comes when we understand this Self and live
with that understanding.
It also shows that knowledge alone is not enough - we must also act correctly.
In the end, it teaches that the Self and the ultimate reality (Brahman) are
one and the same.
This edition presents the original Sanskrit text with IAST transliteration,
along with translation based on the work of Jayaram V.
Reading Mode - Change for details
कौषीतकिब्राह्मणोपनिषत्
श्रीमत्कौषीतकीविद्यावेद्यप्रज्ञापराक्षरम् ।
प्रतियोगिविनिर्मुक्तब्रह्ममात्रं विचिन्तये ॥
ॐ वाङ्मे मनसि प्रतिष्ठिता । मनो मे वाचि प्रतिष्ठितम् ।
आविरावीर्म एधि । वेदस्य मा आणीस्थः । श्रुतं मे मा प्रहासीः ।
अनेनाधीतेनाहोरात्रान्सन्दधामि । ऋतं वदिष्यामि ।
सत्यं वदिष्यामि । तन्मामवतु । तद्वक्तारमवतु ।
अवतु मामवतु वक्तारम् ॥
kauṣītakibrāhmaṇopaniṣat
śrīmatkauṣītakīvidyāvedyaprajñāparākṣaram .
pratiyogivinirmuktabrahmamātraṃ vicintaye ..
oṃ vāṅme manasi pratiṣṭhitā . mano me vāci pratiṣṭhitam .
Citra Gargyayani, verily, possessed of a desire to perform a sacrifice, chose (Uddalaka) Aruni. But he sent (instead) his son Svetaketu saying, "You perform the sacrifice." When he arrived, he asked, "O son of Gautama, is there a hidden place in the world where you can place me, or is there another way and will you place me in that world to which it leads?" He said, "I do not know. I will go and ask my teacher." He approached his father and said, "He asked me thus, how may I answer it?" He said, " I do not know it. Only after practicing the self-study of the Vedas at his residence (under his guidance), we should (perform sacrifices and) accept (fee) from others. Come, together we will both go there." Then, with fuel in his hands, he approached Citra Gangyayani, saying , "May I approach you." He said to him, "You are qualified to know Brahman, O Gautama, because you are not swayed by pride. Come I will help you to know it by heart. "
Jayaram V
Commentary
Citra Ganyayani (translated in some versions as Gargyayani) was well versed in the Vedas. Since he was a Kshatriya and as per the prescribed duties, he was not allowed to perform sacrifices on his own, he sought the help of Uddalaka Aruni. Uddalaka Aruni, instead, sent his son Svetaketu. It may be recalled that both these seers figure prominently in the Chandogya Upanishad also. While Uddalaka Aruni was well versed in the knowledge of Brahman, Svetaketu was not. When he went to the house of Citra Gangyayani, the latter asked him a question about the merits accruing out of the sacrifice. He wanted to know whether by virtue of the sacrifice, Svetaketu would be able to help him gain an entry into the world of ancestors by the path of ancestors or by the other path to the world of immortals. Svetaketu had no idea and even his father was not aware of the two paths, which we have discussed in the other Upanishads. A priest was required to know the results of a sacrifice. Hence, he told his son honestly that since they both lacked that knowledge, they would not perform sacrifices or accept fee from others until they knew the answer correctly. Hence, they both went to Citra Gangyayani, wishing to know from him. By saying, "May I approach," as per tradition, Aruni, a Brahmana, indicated his willingness to learn the secret knowledge from Gangyayani, who was a Kshatriya, and the latter readily accepted to teach them both.
Max Müller
1. KITRA Gâṅgyâyani [1], forsooth, wishing to perform a sacrifice, chose Âruni (Uddâlaka [2], to be his chief priest). But Âruni sent his son, Svetaketu, and said:- 'Perform the sacrifice for him.' When Svetaketu [3] had arrived, Kitra asked him:- 'Son of Gautama [4], is there a hidden place in the world where you are able to place me, or is it the other way, and are you going to place me in the world to which it (that other way) leads [5]?' He answered and said:- 'I do not know this. But, let me ask the master.' Having approached his father, he asked:- 'Thus has Kitra asked me; how shall I answer?' Âruni said:- 'I also do not know this. Only after having learnt the proper portion of the Veda in Kitra's own dwelling, shall we obtain what others give us (knowledge). Come, we will both go.' Having said this he took fuel in his hand (like a pupil), and approached Kitra Gâṅgyâyani, saying:- 'May I come near to you?' He replied:- 'You are worthy of Brahman [6], O Gautama, because you were not led away by pride. Come hither, I shall make you know clearly.'
tena satyena tapasarturasmyārtavo'smi ko'si tvamasmīti
tamatisṛjate .. 2..
He said, "Those who depart from this world, they all do verily go to the moon. In the first (bright) half, it (the moon) deals with them with affection. In the second (dark) half, it sends them back to be born (again). The moon, verily, is the door to the heaven. Whoever responds to it rightly (with correct answer), it sets him free (to reach the immortal world). But for him who does not respond to it rightly, becoming rain it rains him down. He is born again as worm, or as an insect, or as a fish, or as a bird, or as a lion, or as a boar, or as a snake, or as a tiger, or as a person or as someone else in different, different places, according to his deeds, and according to his knowledge. When he arrives (he), asks him, "Who are you?" He should answer, "From the yonder shining (moon), who ordains the seasons. The semen, that is me, is gathered from the moon, the home of our ancestors, during the course of the fifteen days (of the dark half). They sent me here and put me in a man as an agent to be placed in a mother with the man as the active agent. Then, growing up (in the womb) I would be born in the twelfth or thirteenth month so that I may reach the father of twelve or thirteen parts. That (father) I may know or may not know. Therefore, O Father of Seasons, help me to attain immortality. By this truth, by this austerity, I am like a season. I am of the season. "Who are you?," (he asks). "I am you," he replies. Then he sets him free.
Jayaram V
Commentary
Some of the wording in this verse is cryptic and it has been interpreted differently by different commentators in the past. I did took some liberties with the translation to make the symbolism obvious, and I believe it may be the true meaning. The seasons are recurring phenomena. The mortal life, like the seasons, also happens recurrently. The verse refers to the return journey of a soul that has fallen from the moon to the earth through the rain. It is about to become part of a man's semen and enter into the womb of a woman, when he is being tested by Brahma, the creator or the father of the seasons, who is also extolled in many verses as the year itself. The year consisting of 12 or 13 months is a symbol of immortality embodied by Brahma. Therefore, most likely it is Brahma who stops the souls and asks them this question. He asks the liberated soul also a similar question, which is mentioned in a subsequent verse (6). The immortal souls who travel by the path of gods reach the full year (immortality) after crossing the first six months during which the sun travels northwards, where as those who are on their way to the world of ancestors remain stuck in the six months and never reach the full year.
Max Müller
2. And Kitra said:- All who depart from this world (or this body) go to the moon [1]. In the former, (the bright) half, the moon delights in their spirits; in the other, (the dark) half, the moon sends them on to be born again [2]. Verily, the moon is the door of the Svarga world (the heavenly world). Now, if a man objects to the moon (if one is not satisfied with life there) the moon sets him free [3]. But if a man does not object, then the moon sends him down as rain upon this earth. And according to his deeds and according to his knowledge he is born again here as a worm, or as an insect, or as a fish, or as a bird, or as a lion, or as a boar, or as a serpent [4], or as a tiger, or as a man, or as something else in different places [5]. When he has thus returned to the earth, some one (a sage) asks:- 'Who art thou?' And he should answer:- 'From the wise moon, who orders the seasons [6], when it is born consisting of fifteen parts, from the moon who is the home of our ancestors, the seed was brought. This seed, even me, they (the gods mentioned in the Pañkâgnividyâ [7]) gathered up in an active man, and through an active man they brought me to a mother. Then I, growing up to be born, a being living by months, whether twelve or thirteen, was together with my father, who also lived by (years of) twelve or thirteen months, that I might either know it (the true Brahman) or not know it. Therefore, O ye seasons [8], grant that I may attain immortality (knowledge of Brahman). By this my true saying, by this my toil (beginning with the dwelling in the moon and ending with my birth on earth) I am (like) a season, and the child of the seasons.' 'Who art thou?' the sage asks again. 'I am thou,' he replies. Then he sets him free [9] (to proceed onward).
a gacchati taṃ brahmāhābhidhāvata mama yaśasā virajāṃ
vāyaṃ nadīṃ prāpannavānayaṃ jigīṣyatīti .. 3..
He going by the path by which the immortal gods travel reaches the world of Agni (fire), then to the world of Vayu (air), then to the world of Varuna, then to the world of Aditya (sun), then to the world of Indra, then to the world of Prajapati, then to the world of Brahma. In this world of Brahma, verily, is the lake Ara, points of time called Yestiha, the river Viraja, the tree Ilya, the city Salajya, the court of Aparajita, the door keepers Indra and Prajapati, the hall Vibhu, the throne Vicaksana, the couch Amitaujas, the beloved Manasi and her twin Caksusi weaving the worlds with flowers, Ambas (mothers), Ambavayis (nurses), Apsaras (celestial beauties), and the rivers called Ambayas. To this world comes the knower of this. To him Brahma says, "Welcome, you have my glory and you have reached the ageless river Viraja and you will never age."
Jayaram V
Commentary
This verse contains many names that require explanation. Lake Ara is described as an obstacle river containing enemies such as fear, anger etc. Yesitha means the time spent in subduing desires. Viraja means ageless. Ilya may be another name for Asvattha tree. Salajya is a city that abounds in water with bowstrings on its banks as large as the Sal trees. It has many rivers, lakes, wells, water tanks and warriors. Aparajita means unconquerable, Vibhu means mighty or powerful. Vicaksana means discernment or common sense. Amitaujah means limitless splendor.
Max Müller
3. He (at the time of death), having reached the path of the gods, comes to the world of Agni (fire), to the world of Vâyu (air), to the world of Varuna, to the world of Indra, to the world of Pragâpati (Virâg), to the world of Brahman (Hiranyagarbha). In that world there is the lake Âra [1], the moments called Yeshtiha [2], the river Vigarâ (age-less), the tree Ilya [3], the city Sâlagya, the palace Aparâgita (unconquerable), the door-keepers Indra and Pragâpati, the hall of Brahman, called Vibhu [4] (built by vibhu, egoism), the throne Vikakshanâ (buddhi, perception), the couch Amitaugas (endless splendour), and the beloved Mânasî (mind) and her image Kâkshushî (eye), who, as if taking flowers, are weaving the worlds, and the Apsaras, the Ambâs (sruti, sacred scriptures), and Ambâyavîs (buddhi, understanding), and the rivers Ambayâs (leading to the knowledge of Brahman). To this world he who knows this (who knows the Paryaṅka-vidyâ) approaches. Brahman says to him:- 'Run towards him (servants) with such worship as is due to myself. He has reached the river Vigarâ (age-less), he will never age.
sukṛtaduṣkṛte sarvāṇi ca dvandvāni sa eṣa visukṛto
viduṣkṛto brahma vidvānbrahmaivābhipraiti ..4..
Five hundred Apsaras (heavenly beauties) come to him from the other side, one hundred holding fruits in their hands, a hundred with ointments in their hands, a hundred bearing perfumes in their hands, one hundred with garments in their hands, and one hundred with powder in their hands. Then they adorn him just like the way Brahma is adorned. Then, with the adornments of Brahma, goes the knower of Brahma into (the world of ) Brahma. He comes to the lake Ara and crosses it with his mind, coming to which others who know only the present (world) sink. He reaches the points of time called Yestiha and they flee from him. He comes to the lake Viraja and crosses it with his mind. There he washes away his both good and evil deeds. Of those deeds, his beloved ones receive the results of good deeds and his and his unpleasant relations receive the results of bad deeds. Thus just as a man in a chariot looks at the two wheels so does he look at the day and night, at good deeds and bad deeds and all dualities. thus leaving behind both good deeds and bad deeds, the knower of Brahman goes towards Brahman.
Max Müller
4. Then five hundred Apsaras go towards him, one hundred with garlands in their hands, one hundred with ointments in their hands, one hundred with perfumes in their hands, one hundred with garments in their hands, one hundred with fruit [1] in their hands. They adorn him with an adornment worthy of Brahman, and when thus adorned with the adornment of Brahman, the knower of Brahman moves towards Brahman (neut.) [2] He comes to the lake Âra, and he crosses it by the mind, while those who come to it without knowing the truth [3], are drowned. He comes to the moments called Yeshtiha, they flee from him. He comes to the river Vigarâ, and crosses it by the mind alone, and there shakes off his good and evil deeds. His beloved relatives obtain the good, his unbeloved relatives the evil he has done. And as a man, driving in a chariot, might look at the two wheels (without being touched by them), thus he will look at day and night, thus at good and evil deeds, and at all pairs (at all correlative things, such as light and darkness, heat and cold, &c.) Being freed from good and freed from evil he, the knower of Brahman (neut.), moves towards Brahman.
He reaches the tree Ilya, and the fragrance of Brahma enters into him. He comes to the city Salajya, and the essence of Brahma enters into him. He reaches the palace Aparajita, and the radiance of Brahma enters into him. He comes to the two door-keepers, Indra and Prajapati, and they flee from him. He comes to the hall Vibhu, and the greatness of Brahman enters into him (he thinks, I am Brahman). He comes to the throne Vikaksana. The Brihad and Rathantara Samans are its two front feet towards the east. The Syaita and Naudhasa Samans are its two hind feet towards the west. The Vairupa and Vairaja Samans are its lengthwise sides (to the south and north). The Sakvara and Raivata Samans are its crosswise sides (to the east and west). It is intelligence for one sees by intelligence only. He reaches the couch Amitaujas. That is breath. The past and future are its two fore feet. Wealth and the earth are its hind feet. Bhadra and Yajnayajniya are its head piece and the other (the base). Brihad and Rathantara Samans are its lengthwise covers (south and north). The Riks and Samans are its lengthwise covers (north and south). The Yajus the crosswise covers (east and west). The moon beams are the cushions. The High Chant (Udgita) is the coverlet. Wealth is the pillow. On this couch sits Brahma. He who knows this climbs into it with one feet only. Him Brahma asks, "Who are you?" and he should answer.
Max Müller
5. He approaches the tree Ilya, and the odour of Brahman reaches him. He approaches the city Sâlagya, and the flavour of Brahman reaches him. He approaches the palace Aparâgita, and the splendour of Brahman reaches him. He approaches the door-keepers Indra and Pragâpati, and they run away from him. He approaches the hall Vibhu, and the glory of Brahman reaches him (he thinks, I am Brahman). He approaches the throne Vikakshanâ. The Sâman verses, Brihad and Rathantara, are the eastern feet of that throne [1]; the Sâman verses, Syaita and Naudhasa, its western feet; the Sâman verses, Vairûpa and Vairâga, its sides lengthways (south and north); the Sâman verses, Sâkvara and Raivata, its sides crossways (east and west). That throne is Pragñâ, knowledge, for by knowledge (self-knowledge) he sees clearly. He approaches the couch Amitaugas. That is Prâna (speech). The past and the future are its eastern feet; prosperity and earth its western feet; the Sâman verses, Brihad and Rathantara, are the two sides lengthways of the couch (south and north); the Sâman verses, Bhadra and Yagñâyagñîya, are its cross-sides at the head and feet (east and west); the Rik and Sâman are the long sheets [2] (east and west); the Yagus the cross-sheets (south and north); the moon-beam the cushion; the Udgîtha the (white) coverlet; prosperity the pillow [3]. On this couch sits Brahman, and he who knows this (who knows himself one with Brahman sitting on the couch) mounts it first with one foot only. Then Brahman says to him:- 'Who art thou?' and he shall answer:-
6. "I am the season. I am of the season. I am born in the space of the womb of a wife through the seed, as the light of the year, and as the embodied self of all beings. You are the self of the beings. That which you are, I am also that." He says, "Who am I?" He should say, "The True." "What is that called the True?" "What is other than the gods and the senses, that is Sat (the true). Now, what is the gods and the breaths, that is Tyam. Therefore, that is spoken as SATYAM, all this here, whatever is there. All this is you are." This is also stated in a hymn of the Rigveda.
Max Müller
6. 'I am (like) a season, and the child of the seasons, sprung from the womb of endless space, from the light (from the luminous Brahman). The light, the origin of the year, which is the past, which is the present, which is all living things, and all elements, is the Self [1]. Thou art the Self. What thou art, that am U Brahman says to him:- 'Who am I?' He shall answer:- 'That which is, the true' (Sat-tyam). Brahman asks:- 'What is the true?' He says to him:- 'What is different from the gods and from the senses (prâna) that is Sat, but the gods and the senses are Tyam. Therefore by that name Sattya (true) is called all this whatever there is. All this thou art.'
vijñātavyaṃ kāmāniti prajñayeti prabrūyāttamahāpo vai khalu
me hyasāvayaṃ te loka iti sā yā brahmaṇi citiryā vyaṣṭistāṃ
citiṃ jayati tāṃ vyaṣṭiṃ vyaśnute ya evaṃ veda ya evaṃ veda
.. 7.. prathamo'dhyāyaḥ .. 1..
The seer, whose belly is Yaju, head is Saman, and form is Rik, he is to be known as the imperishable great Brahma. He says to him, "By what means did you obtain my masculine names?" He should say to him, "By breath." "By what (did you obtain ) my neutral names?' "By mind" " By what, my feminine names" "By speech." "By what, the smells?" " By breath." "By what, the forms?" "By the eye." "By what, the sounds?" "By the ear." "By what, the taste in the foods?" "By the tongue." "By what, the actions?" "By the two hands." "By what, pleasure and pain?" "By the body." "By what, the sounds?" "By the ear." "By what, happiness, sexual intercourse and procreation?" " By the female sex organ." "By what, the movement?" "By the two feet." "By what, thinking, knowing and desires?" "By intelligence," he should say. To him, he says, "Water, indeed, is my world. It is (now) yours." Whatever victory is of Brahma, whatever belongs to Brahma, that victory he wins and that belonging becomes his, he who knows this, yes, he who knows this.
Max Müller
7. This is also declared by a verse:- 'This great Rishi, whose belly is the Yagus, the head the Sâman, the form the Rik, is to be known as being imperishable, as being Brahman.' Brahman says to him:- 'How dost thou obtain my male names?' He should answer:- 'By breath (prânah).' Brahman asks:- 'How my female names?' He should answer:- 'By speech (vâk).' Brahman asks:- 'How my neuter names?' He should answer:- 'By mind (manas).' 'How smells?' 'By the nose.' 'How forms?' 'By the eye.' 'How sounds?' 'By the ear.' 'How flavours of food?' 'By the tongue.' 'How actions?' 'By the hands.' 'How pleasures and pain?' 'By the body.' 'How joy, delight, and offspring?' 'By the organ.' 'How journeyings?' 'By the feet.' 'How thoughts, and what is to be known and desired?' 'By knowledge (pragñâ) alone.' Brahman says to him:- 'Water indeed is this my world [1], the whole Brahman world, and it is thine.' Whatever victory, whatever might belongs to Brahman, that victory and that might he obtains who knows this, yea, who knows this [2].
1. "Breath is Brahma," thus, indeed, said Kausitaki. Of this breath, which is verily Brahma, the mind is the messenger, the eye is the protector (or the concealer), the ear the announcer, and speech the housekeeper. He who, indeed, knows the mind as the messenger of this breath which is Brahma, becomes endowed with the messenger. He who knows the eye as the protector, becomes endowed with the protector. He who knows the ear as the announcer, becomes endowed with the announcer. He who knows the speech as the housekeeper becomes endowed with the housekeeper. Now, to that breath, which is verily Brahma, all these deities (organs in the body) bring offerings, unasked; and to the same breath, even all beings bring offerings, unasked. For he who knows this, this is the secret teaching, "Do not ask for charity." Just as person who goes through a village begging for alms and receives nothing sits down and says to himself, "I shall never accept any alms given here," and upon saying that those who formerly refused to give him feel obliged to invite him (with offerings), so is the case with him who does not beg. To him, those who make offerings of food, offer an invitation and say, "Here, we give you."
Jayaram V
Commentary
Parimara (pari+mara) means going around death, or avoiding death by going around it. When you are going somewhere and you know that there is a certain danger along the path, you travel by an alternate route to avoid it. The deities in the body, who are situated in the organs, do the same thing. They are immortals. But being part of the body, they cannot avoid the mortality of the body. When the body dies and is consigned to flames, what do they do? That process it explained here. They quietly escape into air, which is the absorber, and from there after sometime, they find another abode. The body remains alive as long as there is light in it. When the light is gone, it is time for the deities to escape.
Max Müller
1. Prâna (breath) [1] is Brahman, thus says Kaushîtaki. Of this prâna, which is Brahman, the mind (manas) is the messenger, speech the housekeeper, the eye the guard, the ear the informant. He who knows mind as the messenger of prâna, which is Brahman, becomes possessed of the messenger. He who knows speech as the housekeeper, becomes possessed of the housekeeper. He who knows the eye as the guard, becomes possessed of the guard. He who knows the ear as the informant, becomes possessed of the informant. Now to that prâna, which is Brahman, all these deities (mind, speech, eye, ear) bring an offering, though he asks not for it, and thus to him who knows this all creatures bring an offering, though he asks not for it. For him who knows this, there is this Upanishad (secret vow), 'Beg not!' As a man who has begged through a village and got nothing sits down and says, 'I shall never eat anything given by those people,' and as then those who formerly refused him press him (to accept their alms), thus is the rule for him who begs not, but the charitable will press him and say, 'Let us give to thee.'
mano nāma devatāvarodhinī sā me'muṣmādidamavarunddhāṃ
tasyai svāhaityatha dhūmagandhaṃ
prajighāyājyalepenāṅgānyanuvimṛjya
vācaṃyamo'bhipravṛjyārthaṃ bravīta dūtaṃ vā
prahiṇuyāllabhate haiva .. 3..
Now, as to the attainment of the highest treasure. If a man covets this, which is the one treasure, on the night of a full moon day or a new moon day or in the bright half of the moon and under an auspicious star, during any of these times, he should build a fire, after sweeping the ground, spreading the sacred grass and sprinkling water. Bending his right knee, with a ladle or a cup he should pour into the fire the offerings of clarified butter, (saying these words):- "The deity named speech is the obtainer of boons, may he obtain this for me from him. Svaha." "The deity named breath is the obtainer of boons, may he obtain this for me from him. Svaha." "The deity named eye is the obtainer of boons, may he obtain this for me from him. Svaha." "The deity named ear is the obtainer of boons, may he obtain this for me from him. Svaha." "The deity named mind is the obtainer of boons, may he obtain this for me from him. Svaha." "The deity named intelligence is the obtainer of boons, may he obtain this for me from him. Svaha." Then, after inhaling the smell of the smoke, and smearing his limbs with a layer of clarified butter, in silence, he should declare his wish, or send a messenger, and slowly walk away. He will truly obtain his wish.
Max Müller
3. Now follows the attainment of the highest treasure (scil. prâna, spirit [1]). If a man meditates on that highest treasure, let him on a full moon or a new moon, or in the bright fortnight, under an auspicious Nakshatra, at one of these proper times, bending his right knee, offer oblations of ghee with a ladle (sruva), after having placed the fire, swept the ground [2], strewn the sacred grass, and sprinkled water. Let him say:- 'The deity called Speech is the attainer, may it attain this for me from him (who possesses and can bestow what I wish for). Svâhâ to it!' 'The deity called prâna (breath) is the attainer, may it attain this for me from him. Svâhâ to it!' 'The deity called the eye is the attainer, may it attain this for me from him. Svâhâ to it!' 'The deity called the car is the attainer, may it attain this for me from him. Svâhâ to it!' 'The deity called mind (manas) is the attainer of it, may it attain this for me from him. Svâhâ to it.' 'The deity called pragñâ (knowledge) is the attainer of it, may it attain this for me from him. Svâhâ to it!' Then having inhaled the smell of the smoke, and having rubbed his limbs with the ointment of ghee, walking on in silence, let him declare his wish, or let him send a messenger. He will surely obtain his wish.
Now, as to securing love with divine help. If one wants to become the beloved of any man or woman or of any men or women then during any of those period mentioned before (in the previous verse), he should pour in a similar manner oblations of clarified butter into fire, saying:- "Your speech, I pour into myself as an offering. Svaha." "Your breath, I pour into myself as an offering. Svaha." "Your eye, I pour into myself as an offering. Svaha." "Your ear, I pour into myself as an offering. Svaha." "Your mind, I pour into myself as an offering. Svaha." "Your intelligence, I pour into myself as an offering. Svaha." Then after inhaling the smell of the smoke, and smearing his limbs with a layer of clarified butter, in silence. he should slowly walk away and try to come into contact with the wind or stand in the direction of it (so that wind will carry his intention to the person/s he desires). Surely he becomes their beloved, and they do think of him.
Max Müller
4. Now follows the Daiva Smara, the desire to be accomplished by the gods. If a man desires to become dear [1] to any man or woman, or to any men or women, then at one of the (fore-mentioned) proper times he offers, in exactly the same manner (as before), oblations of ghee, saying:- 'I offer thy speech in myself, I (this one here [2]), Svâhâ.' 'I offer thy ear in myself, I (this one here), Svâhâ.' 'I offer thy mind in myself, I (this one here), Svâhâ.' 'I offer thy pragñâ (knowledge) in myself, I (this one here), Svâhâ.' Then having inhaled the smell of the smoke, and having rubbed his limbs with the ointment of. ghee, walking on in silence, let him try to come in contact or let him stand speaking in the wind, (so that the wind may carry his words to the person by whom he desires to be loved). Surely he becomes dear, and they think of him.
karmamayyobhavantyetaddha vai pūrve vidvāṃso'gnihotraṃ
juhavāṃcakruḥ.. 5..
Now, as to the restraint taught by Pratardana or the internal fire sacrifice, as it is called. As long as a person speaks, for that duration he is unable to breath. Thereby, he pours breath as an offering into his speech. As long as a person breaths, for that duration he cannot speak. Thereby, he pours speech as an offering into his breath. These two unending, immortal oblations he pours always as an offering, whether he is awake or asleep. Now, whatever those other offerings there are, they have an ending for they are desire-ridden actions (karma). Knowing this, verily, the ancient did not pour oblations into the fire sacrifice (out of desires).
Jayaram V
Commentary
In the previous verse, the worshippers were told how to realize their desires pouring oblations into fire. Here, lest they would misuse such sacrifices, they are advised to practice restraint (samyama), with the declaration that any sacrifice performed with selfish and base desires would lead to karmic consequences and knowing it ancient people avoided performing fire sacrifices out of desires.
Max Müller
5. Now follows the restraint (samyamana) instituted by Pratardana (the son of Divodâsa):- they call it the inner Agni-hotra. So long as a man speaks, he cannot breathe, he offers all the while his prâna (breath) in his speech. And so long as a man breathes, he cannot speak, he offers all the while his speech in his breath. These two endless and immortal oblations he offers always, whether waking or sleeping. Whatever other oblations there are (those, e. g. of the ordinary Agnihotra, consisting of milk and other things), they have an end, for they consist of works (which, like all works, have an end). The ancients, knowing this (the best Agnihotra), did not offer the (ordinary) Agnihotra.
sāmamayamudgātā sa eṣa sarvasyai trayīvidyāyā ātmaiṣa uta
evāsyātyaitadātmā bhavati evaṃ veda .. 6..
Uktha is Brahman, thus said Suskabhringara. Let him meditate upon it as Rik. To him all beings offer praise as the best. Let him meditate upon it as Yajus and all beings become united by his greatness. Let him meditate upon it as Saman. Before him, indeed, all beings bow down as the best. Let him meditate upon it as the most powerful, let him meditate upon it as the famous, let him meditate upon it as the radiance. Just as this (ukta) is the powerful, famous and radiant in all the scriptures, so does he who knows this become the most powerful, famous and radiant among all beings. Thus, the Adharvayu priest prepares this self (as the altar) which is meant for performing sacrifices and made up of actions. In that he weaves what is made up of Yajus. In what is made up of Yajus, the Hotri weaves what is made up of Riks. In what is made up of Riks, the Udagatri weaves what is made up of Samans. This (self, which is meant for sacrifices and made up of karmas) is the Self of triple knowledge. He who knows thus becomes the self of Indra.
Jayaram V
Commentary
Aistikam means what is meant for or related to sacrificial ceremonies. The body is meant for sacrifices means it may be used as offering or it may be used to perform sacrifices. It is made up of works means it is shaped largely by the past karmas. This is the self of triple knowledge, means this body meant for sacrifices and used to perform sacrifices is created by the knowledge contained in the triple Vedas, which are basically our source for performing sacrificial actions.
Max Müller
6. Uktha [1] is Brahman, thus said Sushkabhriṅgâra. Let him meditate on it (the uktha) as the same with the Rik, and all beings will praise him as the best. Let him meditate on it as the same with the Yagus, and all beings will join before him as the best. Let him meditate on it as the same with the Sâman, and all beings will bow before him as the best [2]. Let him meditate on it as the same with might, let him meditate on it as the same with glory, let him meditate on it as the same with splendour. For as the bow is among weapons the mightiest, the most glorious, the most splendid, thus is he who knows this among all beings the mightiest, the most glorious, the most splendid. The Adhvaryu conceives the fire of the altar, which is used for the sacrifice, to be himself. In it he (the Adhvaryu) weaves the Yagus portion of the sacrifice. And in the Yagus portion the Hotri weaves the Rik portion of the sacrifice. And in the Rik portion the Udgâtri weaves the Sâman portion of the sacrifice. He (the Adhvaryu or prâna) is the self of the threefold knowledge; he indeed is the self of it (of prâna). He who knows this is the self of it (becomes prâna [3]).
Now as to the three-fold meditation of the all-conquering meditation of the Kausitaki. The all conquering Kausitaki worshipped the sun while rising, wearing the sacred thread, having brought the water in a vessel and sprinkled the water thrice from the vessel, saying, "You are the deliverer. Deliver me from my sins." In the same manner, he (worshipped) the midday sun, saying, "You are the highest deliverer. Deliver me from my sins." In the same manner, he worshipped the setting sun, saying, "You are the complete deliverer. Deliver me from my sins." Thus, whatever sin he committed during the day and night, from that he got full deliverance. In the same manner, he who knows this, and worships the sun in a similar manner, whatever sin he commits during day and night, from that he becomes delivered fully.
Max Müller
7. Next follow the three kinds of meditation of the all-conquering (sarvagit) Kaushîtaki. The all-conquering Kaushîtaki adores the sun when rising, having put on the sacrificial cord [1], having brought water, and having thrice sprinkled the water-cup, saying:- 'Thou art the deliverer, deliver me from sin.' In the same manner he adores the sun when in the zenith, saying:- 'Thou art the highest deliverer, deliver me highly from sin.' In the same manner he adores the sun when setting, saying:- 'Thou art the full deliverer, deliver me fully from sin.' Thus he fully removes whatever sin he committed by day and by night. And in the same manner he who knows this, likewise adores the sun, and fully removes whatever sin he committed by day and by night.
Now, month after month, when the new moon day comes around, one should worship the moon in the same manner as it appears in the west, or he should throw two blades of grass towards the moon, saying," That subtle heart of mine which rests in the moon in the heaven, I consider myself the knower of that. May I never weep for the misfortune of losing my sons." Verily, his sons will not diebefore him. This is in case of a man to whom a son is already born. Now, regarding the one to whom a son is not yet born, (he should say), "Increase. May the vigor come to you. May milk and food gather in you. That ray which the Adityas gladden (may that rest in you)." Having uttered these three Riks, he should say, "'Do not increase by our breath, by our offspring, by our cattle. He who hates us and whom we hate, increase by his breath, by his offspring, by his cattle. Then I turn myself with the turn of Indra. I return the turn of Aditya." Saying these words, he raises his right arm and drops it again.
Jayaram V
Commentary
The three riks are addressed to the moon. A prayer is made to the moon (symbolized as the wife) asking him to increase (in size and vigor) day by day with the pregnancy, gathering milk and food from the sacrifices and enjoying the rays of the sun. The third Rik is a prayer asking for the rays of Aditya to rest in the moon. The sun is compared to the husband. Hence, his rays will gladden the moon, the wife. It may be noted that there is an implied symbolism in this verse, with the moon representing the wife and the sun the husband. This is suggested in the very beginning of the verse by stating that the heart of the sacrificer (husband) rests in the moon (the wife). The same is implied in the three riks, which are meant to invigorate the moon (or the wife) so that she may deliver a child. The last prayer is to ensure that the moon does not increase in size consuming the breath (life), the children and the cattle of the sacrificer but those of his enemies. The moon is known to consume the bodies of the souls that go there. Hence the suggestion.
Max Müller
8. Then (secondly) let him worship every month (in the year) at the time of the new moon, the moon as it is seen in the west in the same manner (as before described with regard to the sun), or let him send forth his speech toward the moon with two green blades of grass, saying:- 'O thou who art mistress of immortal joy, through that gentle heart of mine which abides in the moon, may I never weep for misfortune concerning my children.' The children of him (who thus adores the moon) do not indeed die before him. Thus it is with a man to whom a son is already born. Now for one to whom no son is born as yet. He mutters the three Rik verses. 'Increase, O Soma! may vigour come to thee' (Rv. I, 91, 16; IX, 31, 4). 'May milk, may food go to thee' (Rv. I, 91, 18); 'That ray which the Âdityas gladden.' Having muttered these three Rik verses, he says:- 'Do not increase by our breath (prâna), by our offspring, by our cattle; he who hates us and whom we hate, increase by his breath, by his offspring, by his cattle. Thus I turn the turn of the god, I return the turn of Âditya [1].' After these words, having raised the right arm (toward Soma), he lets it go again [2].
Then, on the night of full moon, one should worship the moon when it appears in the east in the same manner saying, "You are Soma, the King, the discerning, the five mouthed, and the lord of the beings. The Brahmanas are your one mouth. With that mouth you eat the Kshatriyas. With that mouth, make me an eater of food. The kings are your one mouth. With that mouth you eat the people. With that mouth, make me an eater of food. The hawk is your one mouth. With that mouth, you eat the birds. With that mouth, make me an eater of food. Fire is your one mouth. With that mouth, you eat this world. With that mouth, make me an eater of food. You have a fifth mouth. With that mouth you eat all beings. With that mouth, make me an eater of food. Do not decrease us in respect of our lifespan, progeny and cattle. He who hates us and whom we hate, decrease him in respect of his lifespan, his progeny and his cattle. Thus I turn myself with the turn of the god. I return the turn of Aditya." Saying these words, he raises his right arm and drops it again.
Max Müller
9. Then (thirdly) let him worship on the day of the full moon the moon as it is seen in the east in the same manner, saying:- 'Thou art Soma, the king, the wise, the five-mouthed, the lord of creatures. The Brâhmana is one of thy mouths; with that mouth thou eatest the kings (Kshatriyas); make me an eater of food by that mouth! The king is one of thy mouths; with that mouth thou eatest the people (Vaisyas); make me an eater of food by that mouth! The hawk is one of thy mouths; with that mouth thou eatest the birds; make me an eater of food by that mouth! Fire is one of thy mouths; with that mouth thou eatest this world; make me an eater of food by that mouth! In thee there is the fifth mouth; with that mouth thou eatest all beings; make me an eater of food by that mouth! Do not decrease by our life, by our offspring, by our cattle; he who hates us and whom we hate, decrease by his life, by his offspring, by his cattle. Thus I turn the turn of the god, I return the turn of Âditya.' After these words, having raised the right arm, he lets it go again.
māhaṃ pautramaghaṃ rudamiti na hāsmatpūrvāḥ prajāḥ praiti ..
10..
Now, when they are together, he should stoke her heart, saying, "O, well behaved one, who has attained immortal joy by that which has been placed in your heart by Prajapati, may you never fall into sorrow for your children." Then, her children would not die before her."
Max Müller
10. Next (having addressed these prayers to Soma) when being with his wife, let him stroke her heart, saying:- 'O fair one, who hast obtained immortal joy by that which has entered thy heart through Pragâpati, mayest thou never fall into sorrow about thy children [1].' Her children then do not die before her.
Now if a man has been away and returns home, he should smell his son's head, saying, "You are born from me, limb by limb; you are born from the heart; you, my son, are myself only. May you live for a hundred autumns." He gives him his name, saying, "May you become like a rock; may you become like an axe; may you be desired everywhere like gold. My son, you are the light itself. May you live for a hundred years. He calls him by his name. Then he embraces him, saying," Just as Prajapati embraces his progeny for their welfare, so do I embrace you (whose name is...)." Then he recites in his right ear, "Give Him, O swift Maghavan," and in his left ear, "O Indra, bestow upon him the most excellent wealth. Do not cut off (our family tree). Do not inflict suffering. Let him live for a span of hundred autumns. I smell your head, O son, with your name" Three times he should make a lowing sound over his head, saying, "I make a lowing sound over you like the cows."
Max Müller
11. Next, if a man has been absent and returns home, let him smell (kiss) his son's head, saying:- 'Thou springest from every limb, thou art born from the heart, thou, my son, art my self indeed, live thou a hundred harvests.' He gives him his name, saying:- 'Be thou a stone, be thou an axe, be thou solid [1] gold; thou, my son, art light indeed, live thou a hundred harvests.' He pronounces his name. Then he embraces him, saying:- 'As Pragâpati (the lord of creatures) embraced his creatures for their welfare, thus I embrace thee,' (pronouncing his name.) Then he mutters into his right ear, saying:- 'O thou, quick Maghavan, give to him' (Rv. III, 36, 10 [2]). 'O Indra, bestow the best wishes' (Rv. II, 21, 6), thus he whispers into his left ear. Let him then thrice smell (kiss) his head, saying:- 'Do not cut off (the line of our race), do not suffer. Live a hundred harvests of life; I kiss thy head, O son, with thy name.' He then thrice makes a lowing sound over his head, saying:- 'I low over thee with the lowing sound of cows.'
sarvā devatā vāyumeva praviśya vāyau sṛptā na mūrcchante
tasmādeva
punarudīrata ityadhidaivatamathādhyātmam .. 12..
Now follows Daivah Parimara, the going around death by the gods. This Brahman glows indeed when the fire burns and then this one dies when it does not burn. Of that, to the sun alone goes its light, to the air its breath. This Brahman glows when the sun is seen and then, when (the sun) not seen, it dies. Of that, to the moon alone goes its light, to the air its breath. This Brahman glows when the moon is seen and then, when not seen, it dies. Of that, to the lightning alone goes its light, to the air its breath. This Brahman glows when the lightning is seen and then, when not seen, it dies. Of that, to the to the air alone goes its light, to the air its breath. Indeed, all these deities enter into air only, and although dead, they do not perish. Thereafter, they do rise again. This is with regard to the deities (in the body). Now, with reference to the self (body).
Max Müller
12. Next follows the Daiva Parimara [1], the dying around of the gods (the absorption of the two classes of gods, mentioned before, into prâna or Brahman). This Brahman shines forth indeed when the fire burns, and it dies when it burns not. Its splendour goes to the sun alone, the life (prâna, the moving principle) to the air. This Brahman shines forth indeed when the sun is seen, and it dies when it is not seen. Its splendour goes to the moon alone, the life (prâna) to the air. This Brahman shines forth indeed when the moon is seen, and it dies when it is not seen. Its splendour goes to the lightning alone, its life (prâna) to the air. This Brahman shines forth indeed when the lightning flashes, and it dies when it flashes not. Its splendour goes to the air, and the life (prâna) to the air. Thus all these deities (i. e. fire, sun, moon, lightning), having entered the air, though dead, do not vanish; and out of the very air they rise again. So much with reference to the deities (mythological). Now then with reference to the body (physiological).
na haivainaṃ stṛṇvīyātāmatha ya enaṃ dviṣanti yāṃśca
svayaṃ
dveṣṭi ta evaṃ sarve parito mriyante .. 13..
This Brahman glows indeed when one speaks with speech and then it dies when one does not speak. Of that, to the eye alone goes its light, to the breath its breath. This Brahman glows indeed when one sees with the eye and then it dies when one does not see. Of that, to the ear alone goes its light, to the breath its breath. This Brahman glows indeed when one hears with the ear and then it dies when one does not hear. Of that, to the mind alone goes its light, to the breath its breath. This Brahman glows indeed when one thinks with the mind and then it dies when one does not think. Of that, to the breath alone goes its light, to the breath its breath. Indeed, all these deities enter into breath only, and although dead, they do not perish. Thereafter, they do rise again. If two mountain from the north and south try to roll together and crush him who knows this, they would not be able to crush. But those who hate him, or whom he hates, they all die around him.
Jayaram V
Commentary
Breath is absorber in the body, just as the air is outside. All things merge into breath. The body dies, but the deities in the organs of the body (tattvas), they are immortal and do not die. Upon leaving one body, they move on to another to continue their enjoyment and nourishment.
Max Müller
13. This Brahman shines forth indeed when one speaks with speech, and it dies when one does not speak. His splendour goes to the eye alone, the life (prâna) to breath (prâna). This Brahman shines forth indeed when one sees with the eye, and it dies when one does not see. Its splendour goes to the ear alone, the life (prâna) to breath (prâna). This Brahman shines forth indeed when one hears with the ear, and it dies when one does not hear. Its splendour goes to the mind alone, the life (prâna) to breath (prâna). This Brahman shines forth indeed when one thinks with the mind, and it dies when one does not think. Its splendour goes to the breath (prâna) alone, and the life (prâna) to breath (prâna). Thus all these deities (the senses, &c.), having entered breath or life (prâna) alone, though dead, do not vanish; and out of very breath (prâna) they rise again. And if two mountains, the southern and northern, were to move forward trying to crush him who knows this, they would not crush him. But those who hate him and those whom he hates, they die around him.
sarvairasmāccharīrādutkrāmati sa vāyupratiṣṭhākāśātmā
na svareti tadbhavati yatraitaddevāstatprāpya tadamṛto bhavati
yadamṛtā devāḥ .. 14..
Now, as to the attainment of the highest good. All the deities, disputing among themselves, saying, "I am the best," rose up from the body. Then the body lay, without life, withered like a log. Then the speech entered it. Speaking with the speech, it still lay lifeless. Then the eye entered it. Speaking with the speech, and seeing with eye, it still lay lifeless. Then the ear entered it. Speaking with the speech, seeing with the eye and hearing with the ear, it still lay lifeless. Then the mind entered it. Speaking with the speech, seeing with the eye, hearing with the ear and thinking with the mind, it still lay lifeless. Then breath entered it and they, indeed, all arose at once. All the deities, having realized the highest good accruing from the breath, and having understood that breath alone is responsible for the intelligence in the body, went out of the body, all at once. They entered into the air and being subtle in nature like the space, entered the heaven. In the same manner, he who knows this, having realized the highest good of breath, having understood that breath is responsible for the intelligence of the body, when he departs from the body with all these together, he enters into the air and, being subtle in nature like the space, enters into the heaven. He goes to where the gods are. Having reached that, he who thus knows, becomes immortal with that (knowledge) by which gods became immortal.
Jayaram V
Commentary
The breath and the organs belong to the body, not to the Self. Hence pranam eva prajnanam atma only can mean that breath alone is the consciousness (or intelligence) in the body. It is true because without breath the body becomes lifeless, devoid of intelligence and consciousness. I have also taken some liberties in translating the last few lines of this verse to convey the correct meaning with regard to the fate of the person who knows the supremacy of breath in the body.
Max Müller
14. Next follows the Nihsreyasâdâna [1] (the accepting of the pre-eminence of prâna (breath or life) by the other gods). The deities (speech, eye, ear, mind), contending with each for who was the best, went out of this body, and the body lay without breathing, withered, like a log of wood. Then speech went into it, but speaking by speech, it lay still. Then the eye went into it, but speaking by speech, and seeing by the eye, it lay still. Then the ear went into it, but speaking by speech, seeing by the eye, hearing by the car, it lay still. Then mind went into it, but speaking by speech, seeing by the eye, hearing by the ear, thinking by the mind, it lay still. Then breath (prâna, life) went into it, and thence it rose at once. All these deities, having recognised the pre-eminence in prâna, and having comprehended prâna alone as the conscious self (pragñâtman) [2], went out of this body with all these (five different kinds of prâna), and resting in the air (knowing that prâna had entered the air), and merged in the ether (âkâsa), they went to heaven. And in the same manner he who knows this, having recognised the pre-eminence in prâna, and having comprehended prâna alone as the conscious self (pragñâtman), goes out of this body with all these (does no longer believe in this body), and resting in the air, and merged in the ether, he goes to heaven, he goes to where those gods (speech, &c.) are. And having reached this he, who knows this, becomes immortal with that immortality which those gods enjoy.
Now, as to the father's gifting to the son, as they call it. The father, when he is about to depart from this world, calls his son. Having strewn the house with fresh grass, having kindled the fire, having arranged a pot of water with a jug (full of rice), wearing fresh clothes, the father remains lying. He put himself above his son who has arrived and touches his organs with his own organs. Or he may perform the tradition of gifting while he sits before him (if he is in a position to sit). Now, he does the gifting thus:- The father, "I have hereby placed in you my speech." The son, "I have hereby taken into me your speech." The father, "I have hereby placed in you my breath." The son, "I have hereby taken into me your breath." The father, "I have hereby placed in you my eye." The son, "I have hereby taken into me your eye." The father, "I have hereby placed in you my ear." The son, "I have hereby taken into me your ear." The father, "I have hereby placed in you my taste for food." The son, "I have hereby taken into me your taste for food." The father, "I have hereby placed in you my duties." The son, "I have hereby taken into me your duties." The father, "I have hereby placed in you my joys and sorrows." The son, "I have hereby taken into me your joys and sorrow." The father, "I have hereby placed in you my pleasure, sexual enjoyment and procreation." The son, "I have hereby taken into me your pleasure, sexual enjoyment and procreation." The father, "I have hereby placed in you my walking." The son, "I have hereby taken into me your walking." The father, "I have hereby placed in you my mind." The son, "I have hereby taken into me your mind." The father, "I have hereby placed in you my intelligence." The son, "I have hereby taken into me your intelligence." If the father is very ill and unable to speak, he may say summarily, "I have hereby placed in you my breaths." And the son should say, "I have taken into me your breaths." Then walking around his father, with his right side towards him, he turns to the east and walks away. His father calls after him, "May my fame, the luster of my face, and my name and honor may always stay with you." Then the other should look back over his left shoulder, and covering his face with his hand or with the hem of his garment, should say, "May you attain the heavenly world and fulfill all your desires." If the father recovers, he should live under the authority of his son, or wander about like a mendicant. But if he departs, then he should be sacrificed in the final sacrifice, as the final sacrifice ought to be performed, yes, as the final sacrifice ought to be performed.
Jayaram V
Commentary
The father to son transmission ritual is based on the Vedic belief that a father lives through his son and a son indeed is another birth of the father. In this manner a father transfers all his energies, talents, skills, knowledge, vigor and power to his son. The ceremony also ensures that the son, who has been given the privilege to succeed his father, becomes the head of the household and carries forward the duties and obligations of his father and those of his family until he himself transfers them to his son. The last few lines of this verse are translated differently by different scholars. I have translated it based upon the meaning samapa, which means a sacrifice. In Hindu tradition, funeral is also a sacrifice, the last sacrifice (antyeshti) in which the body is offered as a sacrifice into fire. It has to be done strictly according to the established practice for the soul to find its way to the next world. That is what I believe is implied here and I have therefore translated it accordingly.
Max Müller
15. Next follows the father's tradition to the son, and thus they explain it [1]. The father, when going to depart, calls his son, after having strewn the house with fresh grass, and having laid the sacrificial fire, and having placed near it a pot of water with a jug (full of rice), himself covered with a new cloth, and dressed in white. He places himself above his son, touching his organs with his own organs, or he may deliver the tradition to him while he sits before him. Then he delivers it to him. The father says:- 'Let me place my speech in thee.' The son says:- 'I take thy speech in me.' The father says:- 'Let me place my scent (prâna) in thee.' The son says:- 'I take thy scent in me.' The father says:- 'Let me place my eye in thee.' The son says:- 'I take thy eye in me.' The father says:- 'Let me place my ear in thee.' The son says:- 'I take thy ear in me.' The father says:- 'Let me place my tastes of food in thee.' The son says:- 'I take thy tastes of food in me.' The father says:- 'Let me place my actions in thee! The son says:- 'I take thy actions in me.' The father says:- 'Let me place my pleasure and pain in thee.' The son says:- 'I take thy pleasure and pain in me.' The father says:- 'Let me place happiness, joy, and offspring in thee.' The son says:- 'I take thy happiness, joy, and offspring in me.' The father says:- 'Let me place my walking in thee.' The son says:- 'I take thy walking in me [2].' The father says:- 'Let me place my mind in thee.' The son says:- 'I take thy mind in me.' The father says:- 'Let me place my knowledge (pragñâ) in thee.' The son says:- 'I take thy knowledge in me.' But if the father is very ill, he may say shortly:- 'Let me place my spirits (prânas) in thee,' and the son:- 'I take thy spirits in me.' Then the son walks round his father keeping his right side towards him, and goes away. The father calls after him:- 'May fame, glory of countenance, and honour always follow thee.' Then the other looks back over his left shoulder, covering himself with his hand or the hem of his garment, saying:- 'Obtain the heavenly worlds (svarga) and all desires.' If the father recovers, let him be under the authority of his son, or let him wander about (as an ascetic). But if he departs, then let them despatch him, as he ought to be despatched, yea, as he ought to be despatched [3].
sandhā atikramya divi prahlādīnatṛṇamahamantarikṣe
paulomānpṛthivyāṃ kālakāśyāṃstasya me tatra na loma ca
nāmīyate
sa yo māṃ vijānīyānnāsya kena ca karmaṇā loko mīyate na
mātṛvadhena
na pitṛvadhena na steyena na bhrūṇahatyayā nāsya pāpaṃ ca na
cakṛṣo mukhānnīlaṃ vettīti .. 1..
It is said that Prataradana son of Divodasa, verily arrived at the be-loved abode of Indra by waging wars and by his valor. To him Indra said, "Pratardana, ask me for any boon." Pratardana said, "You choose me a boon yourself. which you consider is in the best interests of a hu-man being." Indra said, ""No one who chooses actually chooses for another. Choose yourself." Pratardana said, "Then that boon I have to choose would be no boon for me." Now, Indra did not want to swerve from truth, for Indra is truth himself. Indra said to him, "Know me. That alone, I consider is the most beneficial for a human being, which is in knowing me." I slew the three headed son of Tvastri. I delivered the Arunmukhas, and the ascetics (yatis) to the wolves. I broke many agreements and slew the people of Prahlada in the heaven, the people of Paulomas in the mid-region, and the Kalakanjas on earth. Not even a single hair on my body of mine was harmed then. Therefore, he who knows me thus, his world is harmed by no deed of his, not by stealing, not by the destruction of a fetus in the womb, not by the killing of his mother, not by the killing of his father. If he commits a sin, blue color does not depart from his face.
Jayaram V
Commentary
Pratardana reached the heaven by dying in the battlefield. He died a warrior's death. Hence, he reached heaven. Upon being asked to seek a boon, he did not ask for it because, proud as he was, he thought any boon he might ask would not be good enough for him. Indra told him that he should try to know him, so that he would become liberated. In this verse, Indra is depicted not as the lord of heaven only, but as Brahman Himself. A liberated person is no more tainted by his actions, even if they are mortal sins. Indra meant it when he said that he who knew him would not suffer from the sins of his actions. He also said that the blue or dark color would not go away from his face if he committed a sin. What it means is that since a knower of Indra is forever free from sin, his face would not turn pale with fear or guilt of committing a sin.
Max Müller
1. Pratardana, forsooth, the son of Divodâsa (king of Kâsî), came by means of fighting and strength to the beloved abode of Indra. Indra said to him 'Pratardana, let me give you a boon to choose.' And Pratardana answered:- 'Do you yourself choose that boon for me which you deem most beneficial for a man.' Indra said to him:- 'No one who chooses, chooses for another; choose thyself,' Then Pratardana replied:- 'Then that boon to choose is no boon for me.' Then, however, Indra did not swerve from the truth, for Indra is truth. Indra said to him:- 'Know me only; that is what I deem most beneficial for man, that he should know me. I slew the three-headed son of Tvashtri; I delivered the Arunmukhas, the devotees, to the wolves (sâlâvrika); breaking many treaties, I killed the people of Prahlâda in heaven, the people of Puloma in the sky, the people of Kâlakañga on earth [1]. And not one hair of me was harmed there. And he who knows me thus, by no deed of his is his life harmed, not by the murder of his mother, not by the murder of his father, not by theft, not by the killing of a Brahman. If he is going to commit a sin, the bloom [2] does not depart from his face.'
He said, "I am breath (prana). Meditate upon me as the intelligent self, as lifespan, as immortality itself. Lifespan is breath, breath is lifespan. As long as breath dwells in the body, so long is the span of life. By breath only does one obtains immortality in the other world, and by intelligence truth and will. He who worships me as lifespan and immortality, reaches his full span of life in this world and obtains in the heavenly world (svarga) immortality and imperishability. Now, in this regard some say that the breaths (sense organs) become one, (because otherwise) no one would be able to discern instantly name, form sound and thought by speech, by the eye, by the ear and by the mind. These breaths, by becoming one only, enable us to discern all this one by one. When speech speaks, all the breaths speak after it. When the eye sees, all the breaths see after it. When the ear hears, all the breaths hear after it. When the mind thinks, all the breaths think after it. When the breath breathes, all the breaths breathe after it. Thus it is so, indeed," said Indra. "There is however a greater good among the breaths."
Jayaram V
Commentary
Ayuh means the lifespan. A person's lifespan is very much dependent upon the breath in the body. A person lives as long as he breathes. That is the purport of Indra's teaching. A person has consciousness or awareness (prajna) as long as he is alive and breathing. And when he has intelligence, only then he can discern truth and exercise his will. Thus these four, breath, intelligence, truth and will are interconnected. Therefore, breath is very much central to our existence. Breath is used in this verse with two different meanings. The first one refers to prana or the life breath that we inhale and exhale. We have seen elsewhere that this prana is of five kinds, such as prana, apana, vyana etc. We have also seen before that this breath is superior to the rest of the deities present in the body because without it none of the organs will function. Now, Prana in plural means the organs in the body, such as the eye, the ear, the nose etc. They are also called breaths because at the time of death, the deities hidden in the organs resort to the departing breath and return to their abode. The latter part of the verse suggests that these breaths or sense organs act in unison, as if they are one. Because of it, we are able to process all the sensations, such as hearing, seeing, listening simultaneously and perceives names and forms instantly.
Max Müller
2. Indra said:- 'I am prâna, meditate on me as the conscious self (pragñâtman), as life, as immortality. Life is prâna, prâna is life. Immortality is prâna, prâna is immortality. As long as prâna dwells in this body, so long surely there is life. By prâna he obtains immortality in the other world, by knowledge true conception. He who meditates on me as life and immortality, gains his full life in this world, and obtains in the Svarga world immortality and indestructibility.' (Pratardana said):- 'Some maintain here, that the prânas become one, for (otherwise) no one could at the same time make known a name by speech, see a form with the eye, hear a sound with the car, think a thought with the mind. After having become one, the prânas perceive all these together, one by one. While speech speaks, all prânas speak after it. While the eye sees, all prânas see after it. While the car hears, all prânas hear after it. While the mind thinks, all prânas think after it. While the prâna breathes, all prânas breathe after it.' 'Thus it is indeed,' said Indra, 'but nevertheless there is a pre-eminence among the prânas [1].
One lives even without speech. We see the dumb. One lives without sight. We see the blind. One lives without hearing. We see the deaf. One lives without the mind. We see the infants. One lives without the arms. One lives without the legs. This indeed we all see. Now, this breath alone is the intelligence Self that takes hold of this body and make it rise up. Therefore, it is said that it should be worshipped as Uktha only. This one is the all pervading. That which is breath that is intelligence; and that which is intelligence that is breath. This is the view and this is the understanding regarding it. when a person is asleep, does not see any dreams, he becomes one with breath alone. Then speech with all the names goes to him, the eye with all the forms goes to him, the ear with all the sounds goes to him, the mind with all the thoughts goes to him. When he wakes up, just as the sparks fly in all directions from a burning fire, thus breaths proceed from that self to their respective abodes, gods from the breaths and worlds from the gods. Now, this breath alone is the intelligence Self that takes hold of this body and make it rise up. Therefore, it is said that it should be worshipped as Uktha only. This one is the all pervading. That which is breath that is intelligence; and that which is intelligence that is breath. This is the proof and this is the understanding regarding it. When a person is sick, about to die, has become weak and fallen unconscious, they speak of him, "His consciousness has departed, he does not hear, does not see, does not speak with the speech, and does not think." He becomes one with the breath only. Then speech with all names goes to him. The eye with all forms goes to him. The ear, with all sounds goes to him. The mind with all the thoughts goes to him. And when he departs from the body, he departs along with all these.
Jayaram V
Commentary
This verse declares that prana is indeed prajna (yo vai pranah sa prajna). From a scientific perspective this may sound odd, because how can the breath be intelligence? Are not they different? Yes, they are in the gross manifestation, but not so in the subtle world. There are two reasons for this correlation. Firstly, so long as there is breath, there is life and intelligence. When a person dies, intelligence also departs. This obviously suggests a hidden connection. Secondly, the same subtle energy that is present in the breath is also present in the intelligence. Hence, you have body awareness, which is an aspect of intelligence only. The difference between the two is the energy present in the breath is generic because breath has to circulate that subtle energy, which some call astral energy, to all parts of the body; whereas the energy present in the intelligence is suffused with knowing (jna). Hence prajna is that breath (prana) in which knowing (jna) is present. Hence prajna is pra(jn)a.
Max Müller
3. Man lives deprived of speech, for we see dumb people. Man lives deprived of sight, for we see blind people. Man lives deprived of hearing, for we see deaf people. Man lives deprived of mind, for we see infants. Man lives deprived of his arms, deprived of his legs, for we see it thus. But prâna alone is the conscious self (pragñâtman), and having laid hold of this body, it makes it rise up. Therefore it is said, Let man worship it alone as uktha [1]. What is prâna, that is pragñâ (self-consciousness); what is pragñâ (self-consciousness), that is prâna, for together they (pragñâ and prâna) live in this body, and together they go out of it. Of that, this is the evidence, this is the understanding. When a man, being thus asleep, sees no dream whatever, he becomes one with that prâna alone [2]. Then speech goes to him (when he is absorbed in prâna) with all names, the eye with all forms, the ear with all sounds, the mind with all thoughts. And when he awakes, then, as from a burning fire sparks proceed in all directions, thus from that self the prânâs (speech, &c.) proceed, each towards its place; from the prânas the gods (Agni, &c.), from the gods the worlds. Of this, this is the proof, this is the understanding. When a man is thus sick, going to die, falling into weakness and faintness, they say:- 'His thought has departed, he hears not, he sees not, he speaks not, he thinks not.' Then he becomes one with that prâna alone. Then speech goes to him (who is absorbed in prâna) with all names, the eye with all forms, the ear with all sounds, the mind with all thoughts. And when he departs from this body, he departs together with all these [3].
To him speech sends forth all names so that by speech he obtains all names. To him breath sends forth all smells so that by breath he obtains all smells. To him the eye sends forth all forms, so that by the eye he obtains all forms. To him the ear sends forth all sounds so that by the ear he obtains all sounds. To him the mind sends forth all thoughts so that by the mind, he obtains all thoughts. Together, indeed, they dwell in the body and together they depart. Now, how in intelligence all the beings become one, that we explain.
Jayaram V
Commentary
The departing soul obtains the knowledge of names, forms etc., from the sense organs so that he can make use of them in the next world even without the senses. This verse does not explicitly state who are the two who dwell in the body together and depart. From the previous verses, we can deduced that they are breath and intelligence. In some versions, we do find a clear reference to intelligence in the verse itself.
Max Müller
4. Speech gives up to him (who is absorbed in prâna) all names, so that by speech he obtains all names. The nose gives up to him all odours, so that by scent he obtains all odours. The eye gives up to him all forms, so that by the eye he obtains all forms. The ear gives up to him all sounds, so that by the ear he obtains all sounds. The mind gives up to him all thoughts, so that by the mind he obtains all thoughts. This is the complete absorption in prâna. And what is prâna is pragñâ (self-consciousness), what is pragñâ (self-consciousness) is prâna. For together do these two live in the body, and together do they depart. Now we shall explain how all things become one in that pragñâ (self-consciousness).
Speech is one part taken out of it. Name is what is expelled from it as its object and placed in the beings. Breath is one part taken out of it. Smell is what is expelled from it as its object and placed in the beings. The eye is one part taken out of it. The form is what is expelled from it as its object and placed in the beings. The ear is one part taken out of it. The sound is what is expelled from it as its object and placed inside the creature. The tongue is one part taken out of it. The taste for food is what is expelled from it as its object and placed inside the beings. The hands are one part take out of it. Duty is what is expelled from it as its object it and placed in the beings. The body is one part taken out of it. The pleasure and pain is what is expelled from it as its object and placed in the beings. The sexual organ is one part taken out of it. Sexual pleasure along with procreation is what is expelled from it as its object and placed in the beings. The two feet are one part taken out of it. Movement is what is expelled from it as its object and placed in the beings. The mind is one part taken out of it. The thoughts and desire is what is expelled from it as its object and placed inside the beings.
Jayaram V
Commentary
The verse explains how sense-objects were separated from senses, which are but aspects of the same intelligence, and placed outside of them. Thus names, forms, sounds, smells, tastes and thoughts were separated and placed outside in the world of beings and objects (bhutamatra)
Max Müller
5. Speech is one portion taken out [1] of pragñâ (self-conscious knowledge), the word is its object, placed outside. The nose is one portion taken out of it, the odour is its object, placed outside. The eye is one portion taken out of it, the form is its object, placed outside. The ear is one portion taken out of it, the sound is its object, placed outside. The tongue is one portion taken out of it, the taste of food is its object, placed outside. The two hands are one portion taken out of it, their action is their object, placed outside. The body is one portion taken out of it, its pleasure and pain are its object, placed outside. The organ is one portion taken out of it, happiness, joy, and offspring are its object, placed outside. The two feet are one portion taken out of it, movements are their object, placed outside. Mind is one portion taken out of it, thoughts and desires are its object, placed outside.
Controlling the speech with intelligence, by speech all names are obtained. Controlling the breath with intelligence, all smells are obtained. Controlling the eye with intelligence, all forms are obtained. Controlling the ear with intelligence, all sounds are obtained. Controlling the tongue with intelligence, all tastes of food are obtained. Controlling the hands with intelligence, all duties are obtained. Controlling the body with intelligence, all pleasures and pains are obtained. Controlling the sexual organ with intelligence, happiness, sexual pleasures and procreation are obtained. Controlling the feet with intelligence, all movements are obtained. Controlling the mind with intelligence, all thoughts are obtained.
Jayaram V
Commentary
Intelligence is the lord of the organs. Intelligence is again breath only. The objects that have been separated from the deities are obtained by them once again under the control of intelligence. In some texts the last line mentions dhih instead of manas.
Max Müller
6. Having by pragñâ (self-conscious knowledge) taken possession of speech, he obtains by speech all words. Having by pragñâ taken possession of the nose, he obtains all odours. Having by pragñâ taken possession of the eye, he obtains all forms. Having by pragñâ taken possession of the ear, he obtains all sounds. Having by pragñâ taken possession of the tongue, he obtains all tastes of food. Having by pragñâ taken possession of the two hands, he obtains all actions. Having by pragñâ taken possession of the body, he obtains pleasure and pain. Having by pragñâ taken possession of the organ, he obtains happiness, joy, and offspring. Having by pragñâ taken possession of the two feet, he obtains all movements. Having by pragñâ taken possession of mind, he obtains all thoughts.
me mano'bhūdityāha nāhametatsukhaduḥkhaṃ prājñāsiṣamiti
nahi prajñāpeta upastha ānandaṃ ratiṃ prajātiṃ kaṃcana
prajñapayedanyatra me mano'bhūdityāha nāhametamānandaṃ ratiṃ
prajātiṃ prājñāsiṣamiti nahi prajñāpetau pādāvityāṃ
kāṃcana prajñapayetāmanyatra me mano'bhūdityāha
nāhametāmityāṃ
prājñasiṣamiti nahi prajñāpetā dhīḥ kācana siddhyenna
prajñātavyaṃ prajñāyet .. 7..
For verily, with the departure of intelligence, speech does not make known any names by other means. "My mind was absent," one says, "I was unable to make sense of that name." For verily, with the departure of intelligence, breath does not make known any smells by other means. "My mind was absent," one says, "I was unable to make sense of that smell." For verily, with the departure of intelligence, the eye does not make known any forms by other means. "My mind was absent," one says, "I was unable to make sense of that form." For verily, with the departure of intelligence, the ear does not make known any sound by other means. "My mind was absent," one says, "I was unable to make sense of that sound." For verily, with the departure of intelligence, the tongue does not make known any taste of food by other means. "My mind was absent," one says, "I was unable to make sense of that taste of food." For verily, with the departure of intelligence, the hands do not make known any actions by other means. "My mind was absent," one says, "I was unable to make sense of that action." For verily, with the departure of intelligence, the body does not make known any pleasure or pain by other means. "My mind was absent," one says, "I was unable to make sense of that pleasure or pain." For verily, with the departure of intelligence, the sexual organ does not make known any happiness, sexual pleasure, and procreation by other means. "My mind was absent," one says, "I was unable to make sense of that happiness, sexual pleasure and procreation." For verily, with the departure of intelligence, the feet do not make known any movements by other means. "My mind was absent," one says, "I was unable to make sense of that movement." With the departure of intellignece no thought whatsoever is obtained. Nothign is understood that can be understood.
Jayaram V
Commentary
Prajna is the intelligence which gives us the ability to know or make sense of the world. The world that we experience is verily a medley of perceptions made possible by intelligence. Without Prajna we are cut off from the world and its objects. Perceptions will not register in our minds and we will not know what is going on. Since our very knowing and understanding depend upon this single most important aspect of our existence, our understanding of the world, people and objects differ from one another, just as we differ in the way we make use of our intelligence and make sense of the world. If breath is vital for our existence, intelligence is vital for our knowledge and understanding.
Max Müller
7. For without pragñâ (self-consciousness) speech does not make known (to the self) any word [1]. 'My mind was absent,' he says, 'I did not perceive that word.' Without pragñâ the nose does not make known any odour. 'My mind was absent,' he says, 'I did not perceive that odour.' Without pragñâ the eye does not make known any form. 'My mind was absent,' he says, 'I did not perceive that form.' Without pragñâ the ear does not make known any sound. 'My mind was absent,' he says, 'I did not perceive that sound.' Without pragñâ the tongue does not make known any taste. 'My mind was absent,' he says, 'I did not perceive that taste.' Without pragñâ the two hands do not make known any act. 'Our mind was absent,' they say, 'we did not perceive any act.' Without pragñâ the body does not make known pleasure or pain. 'My mind was absent,' he says, 'I did not perceive that pleasure or pain.' Without pragñâ the organ does not make known happiness, joy, or offspring. 'My mind was absent,' he says, 'I did not perceive that happiness, joy, or offspring.' Without pragñâ, the two feet do not make known any movement. 'Our mind was absent,' they say, 'we did not perceive that movement.' Without pragñâ no thought succeeds, nothing can be known that is to be known.
syurna prajñāmātrāḥ syuryadvā prajñāmātrā na syurna
bhūtamātrāḥ
syuḥ .. 8..
One should not desire to know the speech, one should know the speaker beyond that speech. One should not desire to know the smell, one should know the grasper of that smell beyond that. One should not desire to know the form, one should know the seer beyond that. One should not desire to know the sound, one should know the grasper of that sound beyond that. One should not desire to know the taste of food, one should know the taster of the food beyond that. One should not desire to know the action, one should know the doer beyond that. One should not desire to know pleasure and pain, one should know the knower of the pleasure and pain beyond that. One should not desire to know happiness, sexual pleasure and procreation, one should know the knower of happiness, sexual pleasure and procreation beyond that. One should not desire to know the movement, one should know the mover beyond that. One should not desire to know the mind, one should know the thinker of the mind beyond that. These are the ten parts of the (objective) material manifestation with regard to (subjective) intelligence and these are the ten parts of the (subjective) manifestation of intelligence with regard to the (objective) material world.
Max Müller
8. Let no man try to find out what speech is, let him know the speaker. Let no man try to find out what odour is, let him know him who smells. Let no man try to find out what form is, let him know the seer. Let no man try to find out what sound is, let him know the hearer. Let no man try to find out the tastes of food, let him know the knower of tastes. Let no man try to find out what action is, let him know the agent. Let no man try to find out what pleasure and pain are, let him know the knower of pleasure and pain. Let no man try to find out what happiness, joy, and offspring are, let him know the knower of happiness, joy, and offspring. Let no man try to find out what movement is, let him know the mover. Let no man try to find out what mind is, let him know the thinker. These ten objects (what is spoken, smelled, seen, &c.) have reference to pragñâ (self-consciousness), the ten subjects (speech, the senses, mind) have reference to objects.
nunutsata eṣa lokapāla eṣa lokādhipatireṣa sarveśvaraḥ sa
ma ātmeti
vidyātsa ma ātmeti vidyāt .. 9.. iti tṛtīyo'dhyāyaḥ ..
Truly, if there are no material manifestations (objects) there will be no manifestations of intelligence (subjects). Similarly, if there are no manifestations of intelligence (subjects), there be no material manifestations (objects). Truly, with one or the other alone no from (or knowing) whatsoever can be experienced and none of this manifold diversity. Just as the rim of a chariot wheel is fixed on the spokes and the spokes on the hub, even so the parts of the material manifestation are fixed on the aspects of intelligence and the aspects of the intelligence are fixed on the breath. This breath, verily, is intelligent self, which is blissful, without aging and immortal. He does not flourish by good actions nor decrease by bad actions. This one, indeed, prompts him to do good actions whom he wants to uplift from this world. This one also, indeed, prompts him to indulge in bad actions whom he want to bring down. He is the protector of the world. He is the ruler of the world. He is the lord of the world. He is, my Self only, thus one should know. He is my Self only, thus one should know.
Jayaram V
Commentary
Notes- "One should not desire to know the speech, one should know the speaker beyond that speech," means one should not focus upon the perceptions or the objects, but upon the seer (self) who experiences them and who is above or beyond (taram) all the senses. By moving in the objective world with the senses, one gets caught in the materiality, whereas by knowing the Self or the seer one becomes liberated. This is the message. There are three aspects to our knowing, namely the knower, which is the subject, the knowing, and the known, which is the object. In a state of duality, there can be no knowing when either of the subject or the object are missing. This is what is meant by the statement that there is no material manifestation (known) without intelligence (knower) and vice versa. The self is not described here as something other than what one is in relation to the empirical world. He is the knower, the experiencer, the perceiver, the seer, or the subjective element in the objective world. He is ageless, but in the body he is subject to the modifications of the mind and body. Upon the death of the body, depending upon his deeds, that is whether he caused the good deeds to happen or the bad deeds, he goes to different worlds.
Max Müller
9. If there were no objects, there would be no subjects; and if there were no subjects, there would be no objects. For on either side alone nothing could be achieved. But that (the self of pragñâ, consciousness, and prâna, life) is not many, (but one.) For as in a car the circumference of a wheel is placed on the spokes, and the spokes on the nave, thus are these objects (circumference) placed on the subjects (spokes), and the subjects on the prâna. And that prâna (breath, the living and breathing power) indeed is the self of pragñâ (the self-conscious self), blessed, imperishable, immortal. He does not increase by a good action, nor decrease by a bad action. For he (the self of prâna and pragñâ) makes him, whom he wishes to lead up from these worlds, do a good deed; and the same makes him, whom he wishes to lead down from these worlds, do a bad deed [1]. And he is the guardian of the world, he is the king of the world, he is the lord of the universe,--and he is my (Indra's) self, thus let it be known, yea, thus let it be known!
Now, Gargya Balaki was renowned as a famous person of great erudtion, for it was said of him that he lived among the people of Usinara, Matsya, Kurupancala and Kasivideha. He once went to Ajatasatru and said, "Let me speak about Brahman to you." Ajatasatru said, "A thousand I give you. For that (gift), people would rush forward saying, "O king, O king."
Jayaram V
Commentary
The same story is also found in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (2.1) with some variations. Although Balaki was an erudite scholar who lived among many people and participated in many discussions, tradition identifies him as proud (drpta) Balaki because of his vanity and limited knowledge of Brahman.
Max Müller
1. There was formerly Gârgya Bâlâki [1], famous as a man of great reading; for it was said of him that he lived among the Usînaras, among the Satvat-Matsyas, the Kuru-Pañkâlas, the Kâsî-Videhas [2]. Having gone to Agâtasatru, (the king) of Kâsî, he said to him:- 'Shall I tell you Brahman?' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'We give a thousand (cows) for that speech (of yours), for verily all people run away, saying, "Ganaka (the king of Mithilâ) is our father (patron)."'
ahametamupāsa iti sa yo haitamevamupāste'tiṣṭhāḥ sarveṣāṃ
bhūtānāṃ mūrdhā bhavati .. 2..
In the sun which is great, in the moon, in food, in lightning, in truth, in the sound of the thunder, in wind, in Indra Vaikuntha, in the space which is full, in the fire which is the vanquisher, in the water, in the light, this is with reference to the deities. Now, regarding the Self, in the reflection of the mirror, in the shadow the second, in the echos of life, in the sounds of death, in the body which is Prajapati, in the right eye which is speech and in the left eye which is truth.
Jayaram V
Commentary
This verse provides a summary of the discussion that is to follow between Balaki and Ajataasatru.
Max Müller
2. [1] BRIHAD-ÂRANYAKA-UPANISHAD.
KAUSHÎTAKI-BRÂHMANA-UPANISHAD.
i. Âditye purushah. atishthâh sarveshâm bhûtânâm mûrdhâ râgâ.
i. Id. brihat pândaravâsâ (<pânduravâsâ>) atishthâh sarveshâm bhûtânâm mûrdhâ.
ii. Kandre purushah. brihat pândaravâsâh somo râgâ. (Nâsyânnam kshîyate, is the reward.)
ii. Kandramasi. somo râgâ, annasyâtmâ. Only annasyâtmâ.
iii. Vidyuti purushah tegasvî.
iii. Id. tegasy âtmâ. satyasyâtmâ. iiib. stanayitnau purushah. sabdasyâtmâ.
iv. Âkâse purushah. pûrnam apravarti.
iv. Id. (5) pûrnam apravarti brahma. apravritti.
v. Vâyau, purushah. indro vaikuntho 'parâgitâ senâ.
v. Id. (4) Id.
vi. Agnau purushah. vishâsahih.
vi. Id. Id.
vii. Apsu purushah. pratirûpah.
vii. Id. nâmnasyâtmâ. tegusa âtmâ.
viii. Âdarse purushah. rokishnuh.
viii. Id. pratirûpah. viiib. pratisrutkâyâm purushah. (9) dvitîyo 'napagah. asuh.
ix. Yantam paskâkkhabdah. asuh.
ix. Yahsabdah purusham anveti. (10) sabde. Id. mrityuh.
Then Balaki said, "That person in the sun, him I worship (as Brahman)." Ajatasatru said, "Please do not make me to debate on him. I meditate upon him who is the great, who wears white garments, the highest and the head of all beings. He who meditates upon him thus, becomes the highest and the head of all beings."
Jayaram V
Commentary
In some texts, the expression "tam evaham upasa" is substituted with "tam evaham upasa brahmopasa" meaning I worship him as Brahman. In the text used here the reference to Brahman is omitted. However the implication is the same.
Max Müller
3. Bâlâki said:- 'The person that is in the sun, on him I meditate (as Brahman).' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'No, no! do not challenge me (to a disputation) on this [1]. I meditate on him who is called great, clad in white raiment [2], the supreme, the head of all beings. Whoso meditates on him thus, becomes supreme, and the head of all beings.'
vā ahametamupāsa iti sa yo haitamevamupāste tejasyātmā bhavati
.. 4..
Then Balaki said, "That person in the moon, him I worship." Ajatasatru said, "Please do not make me to debate on him. I meditate upon him as the King Soma, the self of all food. He who meditates upon him thus, becomes the Self of all food."
Jayaram V
Commentary
In some texts the reference to the moon as Soma raja is not mentioned. However, I decided to keep it since the moon is popularly known in the Vedic tradition as Soma.
Max Müller
4. Bâlâki said:- 'The person that is in the moon, on him I meditate.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'Do not challenge me on this. I meditate on him as Soma, the king, the self, (source) of all food. Whoso meditates on him thus, becomes the self, (source) of all food.'
vā ahametamupāsa iti sa yo haitamevamupāste śabdasyātmā
bhavati .. 5..
Then Balaki said, "That person in the lightning, him I worship." Ajatasatru said, "Please do not make me to debate on him. I meditate upon him as the self of truth. Whoever meditates upon him thus be-comes the Self of truth."
Jayaram V
Commentary
In some texts the lighting is described as the self of light (tejasyatma)
Max Müller
5. Bâlâki said:- 'The person that is in the lightning, on him I meditate.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'Do not challenge me on this. I meditate on him as the self in light. Whoso meditates on him thus, becomes the self in light.'
वा अहमेतमुपास इति स यो हैतमेवमुपास्ते पूर्यते प्रजया
पशुभिर्नो
एव स्वयं नास्य प्रजा पुरा कालात्प्रवर्तते ॥ ६॥
sa hovāca bālākirya evaiṣa ākāśe puruṣastamevāhamupāsa
iti taṃ
hovācājātaśatrurmāmaitasminsamavādayiṣṭhāḥ
pūrṇamapravarti brahmeti
vā ahametamupāsa iti sa yo haitamevamupāste pūryate prajayā
paśubhirno
eva svayaṃ nāsya prajā purā kālātpravartate .. 6..
Then Balaki said, "That person in the thunder, him I worship." Ajatasatru said, "Please do not make me to debate on him. I meditate upon him as the self of the sound. Whoever meditates upon him thus becomes the Self of sound."
Max Müller
6. Bâlâki said:- 'The person that is in the thunder, on him I meditate.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'Do not challenge me on this. I meditate on him as the self of sound [1]. Whoso meditates on him thus, becomes the self of sound.'
Then Balaki said, "That person in the air, him I worship." Ajatasatru said, "Please do not make me to debate on him. I meditate upon him as Indra Vaikuntha, the unvanquished army. Whoever medi-tates upon him thus becomes victorious, invincible and conquerors of his enemies."
Max Müller
7. Bâlâki said:- 'The person that is in the ether, on him I meditate.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'Do not challenge me on this. I meditate on him as the full, quiescent Brahman. Whoso meditates on him thus, is filled with offspring and cattle. Neither he himself nor his offspring dies before the time.'
ahametamupāsa iti sa yo haitamevamupāste viṣāsahirvā eṣa
bhavati .. 8..
Then Balaki said, "That person in the space, him I worship." Ajatasatru said, "Please do not make me to debate on him. I meditate upon him as full, transcendental Brahman. Whoever meditates upon him thus becomes filled with progeny, cattle, fame, the luster of Brah-man and the heavenly world. He lives for the full span of his life."
Jayaram V
Commentary
Apravarti means beyond nature. Hence it is translated here as transcendental. Some translated it as inactive, meaning non-reacting.
Max Müller
8. Bâlâki said:- 'The person that is in the air, on him I meditate.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'Do not challenge me on this. I meditate on him as Indra Vaikuntha, as the unconquerable army. Whoso meditates on him thus, becomes victorious, unconquerable, conquering his enemies.'
ahametamupāsa iti sa yo haitamevamupāste nāmnyasyātmā
bhavatītiadhidaivatamathādhyātmam .. 9..
Then Balaki said, "That person in the fire, him I worship." Ajatasatru said, "Please do not make me to debate on him. I meditate upon him as the all conquering. Whoever meditates upon him thus be-comes the all conquering among others."
Max Müller
9. Bâlâki said:- 'The person that is in the fire, on him I meditate.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'Do not challenge me on this. I meditate on him as powerful. Whoso meditates on him thus, becomes powerful among others [1].'
ahametamupāsa iti sa yo haitamevamupāste pratirūpo haivāsya
prajāyāmājāyate nāpratirūpaḥ .. 10..
Then Balaki said, "That person in the worship, him I worship." Ajatasatru said, "Please do not make me to debate on him. I meditate upon him as the self of light. Whoever meditates upon him thus becomes the self of light." Thus with reference to the deities. Now with reference to the body.
Jayaram V
Commentary
In some texts "tejasatma" is replaced by "namniasyatma" meaning the Self of the name.
Max Müller
10. Bâlâki said:- 'The person that is in the water, on him I meditate.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'Do not challenge me on this. I meditate on him as the self of the name. Whoso meditates on him thus, becomes the self of the name.' So far with regard to deities (mythological); now with regard to the body (physiological).
iti vā ahametamupāsa iti sa yo haitamevamupāste vindate
dvitīyāddvitīyavānbhavati .. 11..
Then Balaki said, "That person in the mirror, him I worship." Ajatasatru said, "Please do not make me to debate on him. I meditate upon him as the reflection. Whoever meditates upon him thus, to him is born a splitting image of him among his offspring, not one who is not his splitting image."
Max Müller
11. Bâlâki said:- 'The person that is in the mirror, on him I meditate.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'Do not challenge me on this. I meditate on him as the likeness. Whoso meditates on him thus, to him a son is born in his family who is his likeness, not one who is not his likeness.'
ahametamupāsa iti sa yo haitamevamupāste no eva svayaṃ nāsya
prajā
purākālātsammohameti .. 12..
Then Balaki said, "That person in the shadow, him I worship." Ajatasatru said, "Please do not make me to debate on him. I meditate upon him as the double. Whoever meditates upon him thus, begets a double and becomes a possessor of his double."
Jayaram V
Commentary
The double may be a son, a loyal disciple or follower, who follows him dutifully like his shadow.
Max Müller
12. Bâlâki said:- 'The person that is in the echo, on him I meditate.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'Do not challenge me on this. I meditate on him as the second, who never goes away. Whoso meditates on him thus, he gets a second from his second (his wife), he becomes doubled [1].
vā ahametamupāsa iti sa yo haitamevamupāste no eva svayaṃ nāsya
prajā
purā kālātpramīyate .. 13..
Then Balaki said, "That person in the echo, him I worship." Ajatasatru said, "Please do not make me to debate on him. I meditate upon him as the life. Whoever meditates upon him thus, does not pass into unconsciousness before his time."
Jayaram V
Commentary
In some texts, it is stated that Ajatasatru worshipped echo as wife who would never leave or fail to respond. And thus who ever worshipped him thus got a second from his second (wife).
Max Müller
13. Bâlâki said:- 'The sound that follows a man, on that I meditate. Agâtasatru said to him:- 'Do not challenge me on this. I meditate on him as life. Whoso meditates on him thus, neither he himself nor his offspring will faint before the time.'
vā ahametamupāsa iti sa yo haitamevamupāste prajāyate prajayā
paśubhiḥ .. 14..
Then Balaki said, "That person in the sound, him I worship." Ajatasatru said, "Please do not make me to debate on him. I meditate upon him as death. Whoever meditates upon him thus, does die before his time."
Max Müller
14. Bâlâki said:- 'The person that is in the shadow, on him I meditate.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'Do not challenge me on this. I meditate on him as death. Whoso meditates on him thus, neither he himself nor his offspring will die before the time.'
vā ahametamupāsa iti sa yo haitamevamupāste sarvaṃ hāsmā idaṃ
śraiṣṭhyāya gamyate .. 15..
Then Balaki said, "That person who when asleep moves about in the dreams, him him I worship." Ajatasatru said, "Please do not make me to debate on him. I meditate upon him as King Yama. Whoever medi-tates upon him thus, all that is here is conquered for his wellbeing."
Max Müller
15. Bâlâki said:- 'The person that is embodied, on him I meditate.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'Do not challenge me on this. I meditate on him as Lord of creatures. Whose, meditates on him thus, is multiplied in offspring and cattle.'
Then Balaki said, "That person in the body, him I worship." Ajatasatru said, "Please do not make me to debate on him. I meditate upon him as Prajapati. Whoever meditates upon him thus, flourishes with offspring, cattle, fame, the luster of Brahman, the heavenly world and reaches the full span of his life."
Max Müller
16. Bâlâki said:- 'The Self which is conscious (prâgña), and by whom he who sleeps here, walks about in sleep, on him I meditate.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'Do not challenge me on this. I meditate on him as Yama the king. Whoso meditates on him thus, everything is subdued for his excellencies.'
Then Balaki said, "That person in the right eye, him I worship." Ajatasatru said, "Please do not make me to debate on him. I meditate upon him as the self of speech, as the self of fire and as the self of light. Whoever meditates upon him thus, becomes the self of all these."
Max Müller
17. Bâlâki said:- 'The person that is in the right eye, on him I meditate.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'Do not challenge me on this. I meditate on him as the self of the name, as the self of fire, as the self of splendour. Whoso meditates on him thus, he becomes the self of these.'
kvaitadabhūtkuta etadāgāditi tadu ha bālākirna vijajñau .. 18..
Then Balaki said, "That person in the left eye, him I worship." Ajatasatru said, "Please do not make me to debate on him. I meditate upon him as the self of truth and as the self of the lightning. Whoever meditates upon him thus, becomes the self of all these."
Max Müller
18. Bâlâki said The person that is in the left eye, on him I meditate.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'Do not challenge me on this. I meditate on him as the self of the true, as the self of lightning, as the self of light. Whoso meditates on him thus, he becomes the self of these.'
Thereafter, Balaki became silent. To him Ajatasatru said, "Balaki, is that all?" "That is all," replied Balaki. To him Ajatasatru said, "Vainly, did you engage me in this discussion, saying, 'Let me tell you about Brahman.' Truly, O Balaki, who is the doer among the persons, whose work all this is, he alone should be known." Thereupon, Balaki ap-proached with fuel in his hand, saying, "I approach you as student." To him Ajatasatru said, "It is against the tradition for a Kshatriya to initi-ate a Brahmana as a student. Come, I will make you know it clearly." Then, holding his hand, he walked him to a person who was sleeping. Then Ajatasatru addressed him saying, "O great white robed one, O King Soma" He remained asleep. Then, he nudged him with a stick and he woke up immediately. Ajatasatru said, "Where was this person when he was asleep, O Balaki? What happened to him? And from where did he return?" Balaki had no answers. Then Ajatasatru said to him, "Where this person was, where it happened and from where he returned, which I asked, that place is the arteries named hita, inside a person, spreading from the heart into the body. As small as a hair di-vided into a thousand fold, they consist of a subtle matter which is white, black, yellow and red. In them one remains while sleeping and sees no dreams whatsoever."
Max Müller
19. After this Bâlâki became silent. Agâtasatru said to him:- 'Thus far only (do you know), O Bâlâki?' 'Thus far only,' replied Bâlâki. Then Agâtasatru said to him:- 'Vainly did you challenge me, saying:- 'Shall I tell you Brahman? O Bâlâki, he who is the maker of those persons (whom you mentioned), he of whom all this is the work, he alone is to be known.' Thereupon Bâlâki came, carrying fuel in his hand, saying:- 'May I come to you as a pupil?' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'I deem it improper that a Kshatriya should initiate a Brâhmana. Come, I shall make you know clearly.' Then taking him by the hand, he went forth. And the two together came to a person who was asleep. And Agâtasatru called him, saying:- 'Thou great one, clad in white raiment, Soma, King [1].' But he remained lying. Then he pushed him with a stick, and he rose at once. Then said Agâtasatru to him:- 'Bâlâki, where did this person here sleep? Where was he? Whence came he thus back?' Bâlâki did not know.
bhūtānāṃ śraiṣṭhyaṃ svārājyamādhipatyaṃ paryeti ya evaṃ
veda ya evaṃ veda .. 20.. iti caturtho'dhyāyaḥ .. ..
Now, in this breath only he becomes one. The speech along with all names goes to it. The eye with all forms goes to it. The ear with all sounds goes to it. The mind with all thoughts goes to it. When he wakes up, just as the sparks from a blazing fire fly in all directions, so do the breaths (organs) rush to their respective positions, from the breaths to the deities and from the deities to their worlds. This breath and so also the intelligent self enter into the body up to the end of the hairs and nails. Just as a barber's knife might be hidden in a case, or as fire in a fire place, so is the self of intelligence spread in the body up to the very end of hairs and nails. All these many organs are located inside the Self only. They depend upon it just as his men depend upon the chief. Just as the chief enjoys the services of his men, or just as they render him service, so does the intelligent self enjoy the services of these organs while they render service to the intelligent self. Truly, so long as Indra did not know the Self (which is intelligence), the demons were able to overwhelm him. When he understood it, he destroyed them and con-quered them. He achieved greatness, sovereignty and lordship among all gods and all beings. He who knows this, also overcomes all evils, and attains eminence, sovereignty and lordship among all beings, he who knows this, yes he who knows this.
Max Müller
20. And Agâtasatru said to him:- 'Where this person here slept, where he was, whence he thus came back, is this:- The arteries of the heart called Hita extend from the heart of the person towards the surrounding body. Small as a hair divided a thousand times, they stand full of a thin fluid of various colours, white, black, yellow, red. In these the person is when sleeping he sees no dream. Then he becomes one with that prâna alone. Then speech goes to him with all names, the eye with all forms, the car with all sounds, the mind with all thoughts. And when he awakes, then, as from a burning fire, sparks proceed in all directions, thus from that self the prânas (speech, &c.) proceed, each towards its place, from the prânas the gods, from the gods the worlds. And as a razor might be fitted in a razor-case, or as fire in the fire-place (the arani on the altar), even thus this conscious self enters the self of the body (considers the body as himself) to the very hairs and nails. And the other selfs (such as speech, &c.) follow that self, as his people follow the master of the house. And as the master feeds with his people, nay, as his people feed on the master, thus does this conscious self feed with the other selfs, as a master with his people, and the other selfs follow him, as his people follow the master. So long as Indra did not understand that self, the Asuras conquered him. When he understood it, he conquered the Asuras and obtained the pre-eminence among all gods, sovereignty, supremacy. And thus also he who knows this obtains pre-eminence among all beings, sovereignty, supremacy,--yea, he who knows this.
ॐ वाङ्मे मनसीति शान्तिः ॥
इति कौषीतकिब्राह्मणोपनिषत्समाप्ता ॥
oṃ vāṅme manasīti śāntiḥ ..
iti kauṣītakibrāhmaṇopaniṣatsamāptā ..
13 - Maitrayaniya Upanishad
The Maitrayaniya Upanishad presents a layered philosophical dialogue on the nature of the Self (Atman), mind, and ultimate reality (Brahman). Through discussions between King Brihadratha and Sage Sakayanya, it explores the path from worldly dissatisfaction to inner realization, emphasizing the immortality and fearlessness of the Self.
Editorial Note:
The Maitrayaniya Upanishad, also known as the Maitri Upanishad, is a
later and more elaborate Upanishadic text that presents its teachings through
dialogues and layered discussions.
Its central idea can be summarized as: “He is the Self, immortal and fearless - this is Brahman.”
Main Dialogue
The Upanishad is built around a dialogue between:
King Brihadratha - who becomes disillusioned with worldly life
Sage Sakayanya - who teaches the knowledge of Brahman
Sakayanya explains the teachings he received from Sage Maitri (Maitreya).
Within this, another embedded dialogue appears:
Between the Valakhilya sages and Prajapati Kratu
This layered structure shows how knowledge is passed down through tradition.
Structure of the Text
The Upanishad is divided into seven chapters (Prapathakas):
Chapter 1 - 4 sections Renunciation and the search for truth
Chapter 2 - 6 sections Nature of the Self and the beginning of teaching
Chapter 3 - 5 sections Analysis of the mind and inner consciousness
Chapter 4 - 6 sections Philosophical discussion including earlier dialogues
Chapter 6 - 38 sections (largest) Detailed teachings on meditation, mind, and realization
Chapter 7 - 11 sections Final teachings and concluding insights
Flow of Ideas
The Upanishad develops its teaching gradually:
Disillusionment - Recognition of limits of worldly life
Inquiry - Seeking deeper truth
Understanding Mind - Role of mind in bondage and liberation
Meditation and Discipline - Practical path
Realization - Understanding the immortal Self
Core Philosophical Teachings
Nature of the Self The Self is:
Immortal
Fearless
Beyond change
Role of Mind Mind can either bind or liberate, depending on its direction.
Importance of Meditation Inner discipline is essential for realization.
Layered Teaching Knowledge is transmitted through dialogue and reflection.
Unity of Atman and Brahman The Self is identical with ultimate reality.
Key Insight
The Upanishad highlights that:
Worldly life alone cannot bring lasting satisfaction
True peace comes from understanding the inner Self
The mind must be trained and directed inward
Simple Summary (For Easy Understanding)
The Maitri Upanishad begins with a king who realizes that worldly life does not
give lasting happiness.
He seeks guidance, and a sage teaches him about the true Self.
The Upanishad explains that our mind plays a big role - it can either keep us
confused or help us understand the truth.
Through discipline and meditation, we can go beyond the mind and discover that
our real nature is fearless, immortal, and peaceful.
The main message is simple: Our true Self is already complete - we just need
to realize it.
This edition presents the original Sanskrit text with IAST transliteration,
along with translation and commentary based on the work of Max Müller
(1879).
1. The laying of the formerly-described sacrificial fires [1] is indeed the sacrifice of Brahman. Therefore let the sacrificer, after he has laid those fires, meditate on the Self. Thus only does the sacrificer become complete and faultless. But who is to be meditated on? He who is called Prâna (breath). Of him there is this story:-
Max Müller
Commentary
1. The performance of all the sacrifices, described in the Maitrâyana-brâhmana, is to lead up in the end to a knowledge of Brahman, by rendering a man fit for receiving the highest knowledge. See Manu VI, 82:- 'All that has been declared (above) depends on meditation; for he who is not proficient in the knowledge of the Self reaps not the full reward of the performance of rites.'
2. A King, named Brihadratha, having established his son in his sovereignty [1], went into the forest, because he considered this body as transient, and had obtained freedom from all desires. Having performed the highest penance, he stands there, with uplifted arms, looking up to the sun. At the end of a thousand (days) [2], the Saint Sâkâyanya [3], who knew the Self, came near [4], burning with splendour, like a fire without smoke. He said to the King:- 'Rise, rise! Choose a boon!' The King, bowing before him, said:- 'O Saint, I know not the Self, thou knowest the essence (of the Self). We have heard so. Teach it us.' Sâkâyanya replied:- 'This was achieved of yore; but what thou askest is difficult to obtain [5]. O Aikshvâka, choose other pleasures.' The King, touching the Saint's feet with his head, recited this Gâthâ:-
Max Müller
Commentary
1. Instead of virâgye, a doubtful word, and occurring nowhere else, m. reads vairâgye. 2. Or years, if we read sahasrasya instead of sahasrâhasya. 3. The descendant of Sâkâyana. Saint is perhaps too strong; it means a holy, venerable man, and is frequently applied to a Buddha. 4. Both M. and m. add muneh before antikam, whereas the commentary has râgñah. 5. Though the commentator must have read etad vrittam purastâd duhsakyam etat prasñam, yet prasñam as a neuter is very strange. M. reads etad vrittam purastât, dussakama prikkha prasñam; m. reads etad vratam purastâd asakyam mâ prikha prasñam aikshvâka, &c. This suggests the reading, etad vrittam purastâd duhsakam mi prikkha prasñam, i.e. this was settled formerly, do not ask a difficult or an impossible question.
3. 'O Saint, What is the use of the enjoyment of pleasures in this offensive, pithless body--a mere mass of bones, skin, sinews, marrow [1], flesh, seed, blood, mucus, tears, phlegm, ordure, water [2], bile, and slime! What is the use of the enjoyment of pleasures in this body which is assailed by lust, hatred, greed, delusion, fear, anguish, jealousy, separation from what is loved, union with what is not loved [3], hunger, thirst, old age, death, illness, grief, and other evils!
Max Müller
Commentary
1. Read maggâ. 2. M. adds vâta before pitta; not m. 3. An expression that often occurs in Buddhist literature. See also Manu VI, 62:- 'On their separation from those whom they love, and their union with those whom they hate; on their strength overpowered by old age, and their bodies racked with disease.'
4. And we see that all this is perishable, as these flies, gnats, and other insects, as herbs and trees [1], growing and decaying. And what of these? There are other great ones, mighty wielders of bows, rulers of empires, Sudyumna, Bhûridyumna, Indradyumna, Kuvalayâsva, Yauvanâsva, Vadhryasva, Asvapati [2], Sasabindu, Hariskandra, Ambarîsha [3], Nahusha, Anânata, Saryâti, Yayâti, Anaranya [4], Ukshasena [5], &c., and kings such as Marutta, Bharata (Daushyanti), and others, who before the eyes of their whole family surrendered the greatest happiness, and passed on from this world to that. And what of these? There are other great ones. We see the destruction [6] of Gandharvas, Asuras [7], Yakshas, Râkshasas, Bhûtas, Ganas, Pisâkas, snakes, and vampires. And what of these? There is the drying up of other great oceans, the falling of mountains, the moving of the pole-star, the cutting of the wind-ropes (that hold the stars), the submergence of the earth, and the departure of the gods (suras) from their place. In such a world as this, what is the use of the enjoyment of pleasures, if he who has fed [8] on them is seen [9] to return (to this world) again and again! Deign therefore to take me out! In this world I am like a frog in a dry well. O Saint, thou art my way, thou art my way.'
Max Müller
Commentary
1. The Sandhi vanaspatayodbhûta for vanaspataya udbhûta is anomalous. M. reads vanaspatayo bhûtapradhvamsinah. 2. M. carries on asvapatisasabinduhariskandrâmbarîsha. 3. After Ambarîsha, M. reads Nabhushânanutusayyâtiyayâtyanaranyâkshasenâdayo. Nahusha (Naghusha?) is the father of Saryâti; Nâbhâga, the father of Ambarîsha. These names are so carelessly written that even the commentator says that the text is either khândasa or prâmâdika. Anânata is a mere conjecture. It occurs as the name of a Rishi in Rig-veda IX, 111. 4. Anaranya, mentioned in the Mahâbhârata, I, 230. 5. M. reads anaranyâkshasena. 6. M. and m. read nirodhanam. 7. M. adds Apsarasas. 8. AL and m. read âsritasya, but the commentator explains asitasya. 9. Here we have the Maitrâyana Sandhi, drisyatâ iti, instead of drisyata iti; see von Schroeder, Maitrâyanî Samhitâ, p. xxviii. M. and m. read drisyata.
1. Then the Saint Sâkâyanya, well pleased, said to the King:- 'Great King Brihadratha, thou banner of the race of Ikshvâku, quickly obtaining a knowledge of Self, thou art happy, and art renowned by the name of Marut, the wind [1]. This indeed is thy Self [2].' 'Which [3], O Saint,' said the King. Then the Saint said to him:-
Max Müller
Commentary
1. Prishadasva in the Veda is another name of the Maruts, the storm gods. Afterwards the king is called Marut, VI, 30. 2. This sentence is called a Sûtra by the commentator to VI, 32. 3. M. reads Kathaya me katamo bhavân iti.
2. 'He [1] who, without stopping the out-breathing [2], proceeds upwards (from the sthûla to the sûkshma sarîra), and who, modified (by impressions), and yet not modified [3], drives away the darkness (of error), he is the Self. Thus said the Saint Maitri [4].' And Sâkâyanya said to the King Brihadratha:- 'He who in perfect rest, rising from this body (both from the sthûla and sûkshma), and reaching the highest light [5], comes forth in his own form, he is the Self [6] (thus said Sâkâyanya); this is the immortal, the fearless, this is Brahman.'
Max Müller
Commentary
1. M. leaves out atha. 2. One might read âvishtambhanena, in the sense of while preventing the departure of the vital breath, as in the Brih. Âr. VI, 3, prânena rakshann avaram kulâyam. 3. M. reads vyathamâno 'vyathamânas. 4. M. leaves out Maitrih-ity evam hyâha. The commentator explains Maitrir by mitrâyâ apatyam rishir maitrir maitreya. In a later passage (II, 3) M. reads Bhagavatâ Maitrena, likewise the Anubhûtiprakâsa. 5. M. adds svayam gyotir upasampadya. 6. M. reads esha for ity esha, which seems better.
3. 'Now then this is the science of Brahman, and the science of all Upanishads, O King, which was told us by the Saint Maitri [1]. I shall tell it to thee:- 'We hear (in the sacred records) that there were once the Vâlakhilyas [2], who had left off all evil, who were vigorous and passionless. They said to the Pragâpati Kratu:- "O Saint, this body is without intelligence, like a cart. To what supernatural being belongs this great power by which such a body has been made intelligent? Or who is the driver? What thou knowest, O Saint, tell us that [3]."' Pragâpati answered and said:-
Max Müller
Commentary
1. M. reads Maitrena vyâkhyâtâ. 2. M. M., Translation of Rig-veda, Preface, p. xxxiv. 3. M. adds:- brûhîti te hokur Bhagavan katham anena vâsyam yat Bhagavan vetsy etad asmâkam brûhîti tân hovâketi.
4. 'He who in the Sruti is called "Standing above," like passionless ascetics [1] amidst the objects of the world, he, indeed, the pure, clean, undeveloped, tranquil, breathless, bodiless [2], endless, imperishable, firm, everlasting, unborn, independent one, stands in his own greatness, and by him has this body been made intelligent, and he is also the driver of it.' They said:- 'O Saint, How has this been made intelligent by such a being as this which has no desires [3], and how is he its driver?' He answered them and said:-
Max Müller
Commentary
1. The commentator allows ûtrdhvaretasasah to be taken as a vocative also. 2. Nirâtmâ is explained by the commentator as thoughtless, without volition, &c. But âtmâ is frequently used for body also, and this seems more appropriate here. M., however, reads anîsâtmâ, and this is the reading explained in the Anubhûtiprakâsa, p. 228, ver. 60. This might mean the Âtman which has not yet assumed the quality of a personal god. See VI, 28; VI, 31. 3. The reading anishthena is explained by the commentator as free from any local habitation or attachment. He also mentions the various readings anishtena, free from wishes, and anishthena, the smallest. M. reads anikkhena, and this seems better than anishtena. The Anubhûtiprakâsa reads likewise anikkhasya.
5. 'That Self which is very small, invisible, incomprehensible, called Purusha, dwells of his own will here in part [1]; just as a man who is fast asleep awakes of his own will [2]. And this part (of the Self) which is entirely intelligent, reflected in man (as the sun in different vessels of water), knowing the body (kshetragña), attested by his conceiving, willing, and believing [3], is Pragâpati (lord of creatures), called Visva. By him, the intelligent, is this body made intelligent, and he is the driver thereof.' They said to him:- 'O Saint [4], if this has been made intelligent by such a being as this, which has no desires, and if he is the driver thereof, how was it?' He answered them and said:-
Max Müller
Commentary
1. I read buddhipûrvam, and again with M. suptasyeva buddhipûrvam. I also read amsena without iti, as in M. The simile seems to be that a man, if he likes, can wake himself at any time of night, and this 'if he likes' is expressed by buddhipûrvam. See Anubhûtiprakâsa, vv. 67, 68. 2. M. reads vibodhayati, atha. 3. See Maitr. Up. V, 2; Cowell's Translation, pp. 246, 256; Vedântaparibhâshâ, ed. A. Venis, in the Pandit, IV, p. 100. 4. M. adds:- bhagavann îdrisasya katham amsena vartanam iti tân hovâka.
6. 'In the beginning Pragâpati (the lord of creatures) stood alone. He had no happiness, when alone. Meditating [1] on himself, he created many creatures. He looked on them and saw they were, like a stone, without understanding, and standing like a lifeless post. He had no happiness. He thought, I shall enter [2] within, that they may awake. Making himself like air (vâyu) [3] he entered within. Being one, he could not do it. Then dividing himself fivefold, he is called Prâna, Apâna, Samâna, Udâna, Vyâna. Now that [4] air which rises upwards, is Prâna. That which moves downwards, is Apâna. That by which these two are supposed to be held, is Vyâna. That [5] which carries the grosser material of food to the Apâna, and brings the subtler material to each limb, has the name Samâna. [After these (Prâna, Apâna, Samâna) comes the work of the Vyâna, and between them (the Prâna, Apâna, and Samâna on one side and the Vyâna on the other) comes the rising of the Udâna.] That which brings up or carries down [6] what has been drunk and eaten, is the Udâna [7]. Now the Upâmsu-vessel (or prâna) depends on the Antaryâma-vessel (apâna) and the Antaryâma-vessel (apâna) on the Upâmsu-vessel [8] (prâna), and between these two the self-resplendent (Self) produced heat [9]. This heat is the purusha (person), and this purusha is Agni Vaisvânara. And thus it is said elsewhere [10]:- "Agni Vaisvânara is the fire within man by which the food that is eaten is cooked, i.e. digested. Its noise is that which one hears, if one covers one's ears. When a man is on the point of departing this life, he does not hear that noise." Now he [11], having divided himself fivefold, is hidden in a secret place (buddhi), assuming the nature of mind, having the prânas as his body, resplendent, having true concepts, and free like ether [12]. Feeling even thus that he has not attained his object, he thinks from within the interior of the heart [13], "Let me enjoy objects." Therefore, having first broken open these five apertures (of the senses), he enjoys the objects by means of the five reins. This means that these perceptive organs (ear, skin, eye, tongue, nose) are his reins; the active organs (tongue (for speaking), hands, feet, anus, generative organ) his horses; the body his chariot, the mind the charioteer, the whip being the temperament. Driven by that whip, this body goes round like the wheel driven by the potter. This body is made intelligent, and he is the driver thereof. This [14] is indeed the Self, who seeming to be filled with desires, and seeming to be overcome [15] by bright or dark fruits of action, wanders about in every body (himself remaining free). Because he is not manifest, because he is infinitely small, because he is invisible, because he cannot be grasped, because he is attached to nothing, therefore he, seeming to be changing, an agent in that which is not (prakriti), is in reality not an agent and unchanging. He is pure, firm, stable, undefiled [16], unmoved, free from desire, remaining a spectator, resting in himself Having concealed himself in the cloak of the three qualities he appears as the enjoyer of rita, as the enjoyer of rita (of his good works).'
Max Müller
Commentary
1. AT. reads abhidhyâyan. 2. It is better to read with M. visânîti. 3. M. vâyum iva. 4. M. Atha yo 'yam. 5. M. reads:- yo 'yam sthavishtham annam dhâtum annasyâpâne sthâpayaty anishthamkâṅge 'ṅge samnayati esha vâva sa samâno 'tha yo 'yam. Leaving, out annam, this seems the right reading. The whole sentence from uttaram to udânasya is left out in M. 6. M. nigirati kaisho vâva sa udâno 'tha yenaitâs sirâ anuvyâptâ esha vâva sa vyânah. 7. The views of these five kinds of wind differ considerably. Here the commentator explains that the prâna and apâna, the up-breathing and down-breathing, keep the bodily warmth alive, as bellows keep up a fire. The food cooked in it is distributed by the Samâna, so that the coarse material becomes ordure, the middle flesh, the subtle material mind (manas). The udâna brings up phlegm, &c., while the Vyâna gives strength to the whole body. 8. Two sacrificial vessels (graha) placed on either side of the stone on which the Soma is squeezed, and here compared to the Prâna and Apâna, between which the Self (kaitanyâtmâ) assumes heat. 9. M. reads tayor antarâle kaushnyam prâsuvat. 10. See Brihadâranyaka Up. V, 9; Khând. Up. III, 13, 8. 11. The Vaisvânara or purusha, according to the commentator, but originally the Pragâpati, who had made himself like air, and divided himself into five vital airs. 12. Thus the âtmâ, with his own qualities and those which he assumes, becomes a living being. 13. M. reads esho 'sya hridantare tishthann. 14. M. reads:- Sa vâ esha âtmeti hosann iva sitâsitaih. This seems better than usanti kavayah, which hardly construes. 15. M. reads abhibhûyamânay iva, which again is better than anabhibhûta iva, for he seems to be overcome, but is not, just as he seems to be an agent, but is not. See also III, 1. 16. M. has alepo.
1. The Vâlakhilyas said to Pragâpati Kratu:- 'O Saint, if thou thus showest the greatness of that Self, then who is that other different one, also called Self [1], who really overcome by bright and dark fruits of action, enters on a good or bad birth? Downward or upward is his course [2], and overcome by the pairs (distinction between hot and cold, pleasure and pain, &c.) he roams about [3].'
Max Müller
Commentary
1. The pure Self, called âtmâ, brahma, kinmâtram, pragñânaghanam, &c., after entering what he had himself created, and no longer distinguishing himself from the created things (bhûta), is called Bhûtâtmâ. 2. M. reads here and afterwards avâkam ûrdhvam vâ gatidvandvaih. 3. M. adds at the end, paribhramatîti katama esha iti, tân hovâketi, and leaves it out at the end of § 2.
2. Pragâpati Kratu replied:- 'There is indeed that other [1] different one, called the elemental Self (Bhûtâtmâ), who, overcome by bright and dark fruits of action, enters on a good or bad birth:- downward or upward is his course, and overcome by the pairs he roams about. And this is his explanation:- The five Tanmâtrâs [2] (sound, touch, form, taste, smell) are called Bhûta; also the five Mahâbhûtas (gross elements) are called Bhûta. Then the aggregate [3] of all these is called sarîra, body [4]. And lastly he of whom it was said that he dwelt in the body [5], he is called Bhûtâtmâ, the elemental Self. Thus his immortal Self [6] is like a drop of water on a lotus leaf [7], and he himself is overcome by the qualities of nature. Then [8], because he is thus overcome, he becomes bewildered, and because he is bewildered, he saw not the creator, the holy Lord, abiding within himself. Carried along by the waves of the qualities [9], darkened in his imaginations, unstable, fickle, crippled, full of desires, vacillating, he enters into belief, believing "I am he," "this is mine [10];" he binds his Self by his Self, as a bird with a net, and overcome afterwards by the fruits of what he has done, he enters on a good and bad birth; downward or upward is his course, and overcome by the pairs he roams about.' They asked:- 'Which is it?' And he answered them:-
Max Müller
Commentary
1. M. here reads avara. 2. M. reads tanmâtrâni. 3. M. reads teshâm samudayas takkharîram. 4. The commentator distinguishes between liṅga-sarîra, consisting of prânas, indriyas, the antahkarana, and the sûkshmabhûtas; and the sthûla-sarîra, consisting of the five Mahâbhûtas. 5. M. reads sarîram ity uktam. 6. M. reads athâsti tasyâh bindur iva. 7. It sticks to it, yet it can easily run off again. 8. M. reads Ato, and the commentator explains atho by atah kâranât, adding sandhihkhândasah. 9. See VI, 30. 10. M. reads aham so mamedam.
3. 'This also has elsewhere been said:- He who acts, is the elemental Self; he who causes to act by means of the organs [1], is the inner man (antahpurusha). Now as even a ball of iron, pervaded (overcome) by fire, and hammered by smiths, becomes manifold (assumes different forms, such as crooked, round, large, small [2]), thus the elemental Self, pervaded (overcome) by the inner man, and hammered by the qualities, becomes manifold [3]. And the four tribes (mammals, birds, &c.), the fourteen worlds (Bhûr, &c.), with all the number of beings, multiplied eighty-four times [4], all this appears as manifoldness. And those multiplied things are impelled by man (purusha) as the wheel by the potter [5]. And as when the ball of iron is hammered, the fire is not overcome, so the (inner) man is not overcome, but the elemental Self is overcome, because it has united itself (with the elements).
Max Müller
Commentary
1. M. antahkaranaih. 2. See commentary, p. 48, l. 7. 3. AI. reads upety atha trigunamkaturgâlam. 4. M. reads katurasîtilakshayoniparinatam. See also Anubhûtiprakâsa, ver. 118. 5. Mrityava seems an impossible word, though the commentator twice explains it as kulâla, potter. M. reads kakrineti, which seems preferable. Weber conjectures mritpaka.
4. And it has been said elsewhere [1]:- This body produced from marriage, and endowed with growth [2] in darkness, came forth by the urinary passage, was built up with bones, bedaubed with flesh, thatched with skin, filled with ordure, urine, bile, slime, marrow, fat, oil [3], and many impurities besides, like a treasury full of treasures [4].
Max Müller
Commentary
1. Part of this passage has been before the mind of the author of the Mânava-dharmasâstra, when writing, VI, 76, 77:- asthisthûnam snâyuyutam mâmsasonitalepanam, karmâvanaddham durgandhi pûrnam mûtrapurîshayoh, garâsokasamâvishtam rogâyatanam âturam ragasvalam anityamka bhâtâvâsam imam tyaget. The same verses occur in the Mahâbhârata XII, 12463-4, only with tyaga at the end, instead of tyaget. The rendering of asthibhiskitam by asthisthûnam shows that kita was understood to mean piled or built up, i.e. supported by bones. 2. Instead of samvriddhyupetam M. reads samviddhyapetam. 3. M. adds snâyu after vasâ, and instead of âmayaih reads malaih. This reading, malaih, would seem preferable, though Manu's rogâyatanam might be quoted in support of âmayaih. The exact meaning of vasâ is given in the Âryavidyâsudhâkara, p. 82, l. 9. 4. Therefore should wise people not identify their true Self with the body. M. reads vasuneti.
5. And it has been said elsewhere:- Bewilderment, fear, grief, sleep, sloth, carelessness, decay, sorrow, hunger, thirst, niggardliness, wrath, infidelity, ignorance, envy, cruelty [1], folly, shamelessness, meanness [2], pride, changeability [3], these are the results of the quality of darkness (tamah) [4]. Inward thirst, fondness, passion, covetousness, unkindness, love, hatred, deceit [5], jealousy, vain restlessness, fickleness [6], unstableness, emulation, greed, patronising of friends, family pride, aversion to disagreeable objects, devotion to agreeable objects, whispering [7], prodigality, these are the results of the quality of passion (ragas). By these he is filled, by these he is overcome, and therefore this elemental Self assumes manifold forms, yes, manifold forms.'
Max Müller
Commentary
1. M. reads vaikârunyam. 2. Instead of nirâkritityam M. reads nikritatvam, which is decidedly preferable. We may take it to mean either meanness, as opposed to uddhatatvam, overbearing, or knavery, the usual meaning of nikriti. 3. M. reads asatvam, possibly for asattvam. 4. M. reads tâmasânvitaih, and afterwards râgasânvitaih; also trishnâ instead of antastrishnâ.
1. The Vâlakhilyas, whose passions were subdued, approached him full of amazement and said:- 'O Saint, we bow before thee; teach thou, for thou art the way, and there is no other for us. What process is there for the elemental Self, by which, after leaving this (identity with the elemental body), he obtains union [1] with the (true) Self?' Pragâpati Kratu said to them:-
Max Müller
Commentary
1. Instead of the irregular sâyogyam, M. always reads sâyugyam.
2. 'It has been said elsewhere:- Like the waves in large rivers, that which has been done before, cannot be turned back, and, like the tide of the sea, the approach of death is hard to stem. Bound [1] by the fetters of the fruits of good and evil, like a cripple; without freedom, like a man in prison; beset by many fears, like one standing before Yama (the judge of the dead); intoxicated by the wine of illusion, like one intoxicated by wine; rushing about, like one possessed by an evil spirit; bitten by the world, like one bitten by a great serpent; darkened by passion, like the night; illusory, like magic; false, like a dream; pithless, like the inside of the Kadalî; changing its dress in a moment, like an actor [2]; fair in appearance, like a painted wall, thus they call him; and therefore it is said:- Sound [3], touch, and other things are like nothings; if the elemental Self is attached to them, it will not remember the Highest Place [4].
Max Müller
Commentary
1. It is not quite clear what is the subject to which all these adjectives refer. M. reads baddho for baddham, but afterwards agrees with the text as published by Cowell. 2. M. reads natavat. 3. M. reads ye 'rthâ anarthâ iva te sthitâh, esham. 4. M. reads na smaret paramam padam.
3. This is indeed the remedy for the elemental Self:- Acquirement of the knowledge of the Veda, performance of one's own duty, therefore conformity on the part of each man to the order to which he happens to belong. This [1] is indeed the rule for one's own duty, other performances are like the mere branches of a stem [2]. Through it one obtains the Highest above, otherwise one falls downward [3]. Thus is one's own duty declared, which is to be found in the Vedas. No one belongs truly to an order (âsrama) who transgresses his own law [4]. And if people say, that a man does not belong to any of the orders, and that he is an ascetic [5], this is wrong, though, on the other hand, no one who is not an ascetic brings his sacrificial works to perfection or obtains knowledge of the Highest Self [6]. For thus it is said:- By ascetic penance goodness is obtained, from goodness understanding is reached, from understanding the Self is obtained, and he who has obtained that, does not return [7].
Max Müller
Commentary
1. M. reads svadharma eva sarvam dhatte, stambhasâkhevetarâni. 2. The commentator considers the other sacrificial performances as hurtful, and to be avoided. 3. M. reads anyathâdhah pataty, esha. 4. The rules of the order to which he belongs. 5. A Tapasvin is free from the restrictions of the preceding âsramas, but he must have obeyed them first, before he can become a real Tapasvin. 6. M. reads âsrameshv evâvasthitas tapasvî kety ukyata ity, etad apy uktam, &c. This would mean, 'For it is said that he only who has dwelt in the âsramas is also called a Tapasvin, a real ascetic; and this also has been said, that no one obtains self-knowledge except an ascetic.' This is not impossible, but the commentator follows the text as printed by Cowell. AI. reads âtmagñânenâdhigamah, karmasuddhi. 7. M. reads manasâ prâpyate tv âtmâ hy âtmâptyâ na nivartata iti.
4. "Brahman is," thus said one who knew the science of Brahman; and this penance is the door to Brahman, thus said one who by penance had cast off all sin. The syllable Om is the manifest greatness of Brahman, thus said one who well grounded (in Brahman) always meditates on it. Therefore by knowledge, by penance, and by meditation is Brahman gained. Thus one goes beyond [1] Brahman (Hiranyagarbha), and to a divinity higher than the gods; nay, he who knows this, and worships Brahman by these three (by knowledge, penance, and meditation), obtains bliss imperishable, infinite, and unchangeable. Then freed from those things (the senses of the body, &c.) by which he was filled and overcome, a mere charioteer [2], he obtains union with the Self.'
Max Müller
Commentary
1. M. reads pura eta, which may be right. 2. Rathitah is a very strange word, but, like everything else, it is explained by the commentator, viz. as ratham prâpito rathitvamka prâpita iti yâvat. Nevertheless the reading of M. seems to me preferable, viz. atha yaih paripûrno 'bhibhûto 'yam tathaitaiska, taih sarvair vimukta svâtmany eva sâyugyam upaiti. I should prefer vimuktas tv âtmany eva, and translate, 'But then, freed from all those things by which he was filled and likewise was overcome by them, he obtains union with the Self.'
5. The Vâlakhilyas said:- 'O Saint, thou art the teacher, thou art the teacher [1]. What thou hast said, has been properly laid up in our mind. Now answer us a further question:- Agni, Vâyu, Âditya, Time (kâla) which is Breath (prâna [2]), Food (anna), Brahmâ [3], Rudra, Vishnu, thus do some meditate on one, some on another. Say which of these is the best for us.' He said to them:-
Max Müller
Commentary
1. M. reads the second time abhivâdy asmîti, which is no improvement. It might have been ativâdyasîti. 2. M. reads Yamah prâno. 3. This is, of course, the personal Brahmâ of the Hindu triad. To distinguish this personal Brahmâ from the impersonal, I sometimes give his name in the nom. masc., Brahmâ, and not the grammatical base, Brahman.
6. 'These are but the chief manifestations of the highest, the immortal, the incorporeal Brahman. He who is devoted to one, rejoices here in his world (presence), thus he said. Brahman indeed is all this, and a man may meditate on, worship, or discard also those which [1] are its chief manifestations. With these (deities) he proceeds to higher and higher worlds, and when all things perish, he becomes one with the Purusha, yes, with the Purusha.'
Max Müller
Commentary
1. M. reads yâ vâ asyâ. The commentator explains yâ vâsyâh by vâsayogyâh; or yâ vâ yâh by kâskit, admitting a Vedic irregularity which is not quite clear.
1. Next follows Kutsâyana's hymn of praise:- 'Thou art Brahmâ, and thou art Vishnu, thou art Rudra, thou Pragâpati [1], thou art Agni, Varuna, Vâyu, thou art Indra, thou the Moon. Thou art Anna [2] (the food or the eater), thou art Yama, thou art the Earth, thou art All, thou art the Imperishable. In thee all things exist in many forms, whether for their natural or for their own (higher) ends. Lord of the Universe, glory to thee! Thou art the Self of All, thou art the maker of All, the enjoyer of All; thou art all life, and the lord of all pleasure and joy [3]. Glory to thee, the tranquil, the deeply hidden, the incomprehensible, the immeasurable, without beginning and without end.'
__________________
Max Müller
Commentary
1. The commentator explains Brahmâ by Hiranyagarbha and Pragâpati by Virâg. 2. M. reads tvam Manus, tvam Yamaska tvam, prithivî tvam athâkyutah, which is so clearly the right reading that it is difficult to understand how the mistakes arose which are presupposed by the commentary. See Taitt. Up. II, 2. 3. M. reads visvakrîdâratih prabhuh, which seems better.
2. 'In the beginning [1] darkness (tamas) alone was this. It was in the Highest, and, moved by the Highest, it becomes uneven. Thus it becomes obscurity (ragas) [2]. Then this obscurity, being moved, becomes uneven. Thus it becomes goodness (sattva). Then this goodness, being moved, the essence flowed forth [3]. This is that part (or state of Self) which is entirely intelligent, reflected in man (as the sun is in different vessels of water) knowing the body (kshetragña), attested by his conceiving, willing, and believing, it is Pragâpati, called Visva. His manifestations have been declared before [4]. Now that part of him which belongs to darkness, that, O students [5], is he who is called Rudra. That part of him which belongs to obscurity, that, O students, is he who is called Brahmâ. That part of him which belongs to goodness, that, O students, is he who is called Vishnu. He being one, becomes three, becomes eight [6], becomes eleven [7], becomes twelve, becomes infinite. Because [8] he thus came to be, he is the Being (neut.), he moves about, having entered all beings, he has become the Lord of all beings. He is the Self within and without, yes, within and without.'
Max Müller
Commentary
1. M. reads tamo vâ idam ekam âsta tat paro syât tat pareneritam. It may have been tat pare 'sthât. 2. M. reads etad vai ragaso rûpam, which is better, or, at least, more in accordance with what follows. 3. M. reads sattvam everitarasas sam prâsrivat. 4. A reference to Maitr. Up. II, 5, would have saved the commentator much trouble. M. has a better text. It leaves out visveti or visvâkhyas after pragâpati, which may be wrong, but then goes on:- tasya proktâ agryâs tanavo brahmâ rudro vishnur iti. In enumerating the three agryâs tanavah, however, M. is less consistent, for it begins with ragas or Brahmâ, then goes on to tamas or Rudra, and ends with sattva or Vishnu. The Anubhûtiprakâsa, verse 142, has the right succession. 5. This vocative, brahmakârino, is always left out in M. 6. The five prânas, the sun, moon, and asterisms. 7. The eleven organs of sense and action, which, by dividing manas and buddhi, become twelve. 8. M. reads aparimitadhâ kodbhûtatvâd bhûteshu karati pravishtah sarvabhûtânâm.
1. He (the Self) bears the Self in two ways [1], as he who is Prâna (breath), and as he who is Âditya (the sun). Therefore there are two paths for him [2], within and without, and they both turn back in a day and night. The Sun is the outer Self, the inner Self is Breath. Hence the motion of the inner Self is inferred from the motion of the outer Self [3] For thus it is said:- 'He who knows, and has thrown off all evil, the overseer of the senses [4], the pure-minded, firmly grounded (in the Self) and looking away (from all earthly objects), he is the same.' Likewise the motion of the outer Self is inferred from the motion of the inner Self. For thus it is said:- 'He who within the sun is the golden person, who looks upon this earth from his golden place, he is the same who, after entering the inner lotus of the heart [5], devours food (perceives sensuous objects, &c.)'
Max Müller
Commentary
1. M. reads dvitîyâ for dvidhâ. 2. M. reads dvau vâ etâv asya pañkadhâ nâmântar bahiskâhorâtre tau vyâvartete. 3. While the sun goes round Meru in a day and a night, the breath performs 21,000 breathings, or, more exactly, 21,600. M. reads bahirâtmagatyâ. 4. M. reads adhyaksha, not akshâdhyaksha. 5. M. reads sa esho 'ntah pushkare hritpushkare vâsrito.
2. And he who having entered the inner lotus of the heart, devours food, the same, having gone te, the sky as the fire of the sun, called Time, and being invisible, devours all beings as his food. What is that lotus and of what is it made? (the Vâlakhilyas ask [1].) That lotus is the same as the ether; the four quarters, and the four intermediate points are its leaves [2]. These two, Breath and the Sun, move on near to each other (in the heart and in the ether). Let him worship these two, with the syllable Om, with the Vyâhriti words (bhûh, bhuvah, svar), and with the Sâvitrî hymn.
Max Müller
Commentary
1. The commentator ascribes the dialogue still to the Vâlakhilyas and Pragâpati Kratu. 2. M. reads dalasamsthâ âsur vâgnih parata etaih prânâdityâv etâ.
3. There are two forms of Brahman [1], the material (effect) and the immaterial (cause). The material is false, the immaterial is true. That which is true is Brahman, that which is Brahman is light, and that which is light is the Sun [2]. And this Sun became the Self of that Om. He divided himself threefold, for Om consists of three letters, a + u + m. Through them all this [3] is contained in him as warp and woof. For thus it is said:- 'Meditate on that Sun as Om, join your Self (the breath) with the (Self of the) Sun.'
Max Müller
Commentary
1. See Brih. Up. II, 3, 1. 2. Professor Cowell, after giving the various readings of his MSS., says, 'the true reading would seem to be yat satyam tad brahma, yad brahma taggyotir, yad gyotis sa âdityah.' This is exactly the reading of my own MS. 3. M. reads kaivâsminn ity evam hyâha.
4. And thus it has been said elsewhere:- The Udgîtha (of the Sâma-veda) is the Pranava [1] (of the Rig-veda), and the Pranava is the Udgîtha, and thus the Sun is Udgîtha, and he is Pranava or Om. For thus it is said [2]:- 'The Udgîtha, called Pranava, the leader (in the performance of sacrifices), the bright [3], the sleepless, free from old age and death, three-footed [4], consisting of three letters (a + u + m), and likewise to be known as fivefold (five prânas) placed in the cave.' And it is also said:- 'The three-footed Brahman has its root upward [5], the branches are ether, wind, fire, water, earth, &c. This one Asvattha [6] by name, the world, is Brahman, and of it that is the light which is called the Sun, and it is also the light of that syllable Om. Therefore let him for ever worship that (breath and sun, as manifestations of Brahman) with the syllable Om.' He alone enlightens us. For thus it is said:- 'This alone is the pure syllable, this alone is the highest syllable; he who knows that syllable only, whatever he desires, is his [7].'
Max Müller
Commentary
1. The mystic syllable Om. 2. See Khândogyopanishad I, 5; Maitr. Up. VI, 25. 3. M. reads nâmarûpam. 4. The three feet of the prâna are waking, slumber, and deep sleep; the three feet of the sun, the three worlds, bhûh, bhuvah, svar, as in VII, 11. See also Khând. Up. III, 12. 5. Cf. Kath. Up. VI, 1. 6. Asvattha, lit. fig-tree, then frequently used metaphorically as a name of the world. Here explained as, it will not stand till to-morrow.' 7. Kath. Up. II, 16.
5. And thus it has been said elsewhere:- This Om [1] is the sound-endowed body of him (Prânâdityâtman). This is his gender-endowed body, viz. feminine, masculine, neuter. This is his light-endowed body, viz. Agni, Vâyu, Âditya. This is his lord-endowed body, viz. Brahmâ, Rudra, Vishnu. This is his mouth-endowed body, viz. Gârhapatya, Dakshinâgni, Âhavanîya [2]. This is his knowledge-endowed body, viz. Rik, Yagus, Sâman. This is his world-endowed body, viz. Bhûh, Bhuvah, Svar. This is his time-endowed body, viz. Past, Present, Future. This is his heat-endowed body, viz. Breath, Fire, Sun. This is his growth-endowed body, viz. Food, Water, Moon. This is his thought-endowed body, viz. intellect, mind, personality. This is his breath-endowed body, viz. Prâna, Apâna, Vyâna. Therefore by the aforesaid syllable Om are all these here enumerated bodies praised and identified (with the Prânâdityâtman). For thus it is said [3]:- 'O Satyakâma, the syllable Om is the high and the low Brahman.'
Max Müller
Commentary
1. M. reads tanûr yom iti. 2. The fires on the three altars. 3. Prasña Up. V, 2.
6. This [1] (world) was unuttered [2]. Then forsooth Pragâpati, having brooded, uttered it in the words Bhûh, Bhuvah, Svar. This is the grossest body of that Pragâpati, consisting of the three worlds [3]. Of that body Svar is the head, Bhuvah the navel, Bhûh the feet, the sun the eye. For in the eye is fixed man's great measure, because with the eye he makes all measurements. The eye is truth (satyam), for the person (purusha) dwelling in the eye proceeds to all things (knows all objects with certainty). Therefore let a man worship with the Vyâhritis, Bhûh, Bhuvah, Svar, for thus Pragâpati, the Self of All, is worshipped as the (sun, the) Eye of All [4]. For thus it is said:- 'This (the sun) is Pragâpati's all-supporting body, for in it this all [5] is hid (by the light of the sun); and in this all it (the light) is hid. Therefore this is worshipped [6].'
Max Müller
Commentary
1. M. reads atha vyâttam. 2. So far the pranava or Om has been explained; now follows the explanation of the Vyâhritis; cf. VI, 2. Vyâhriti is derived from vyâhar, and means an utterance. 3. Cf. VI, 5. 4. M. reads visvataskakshur. 5. Pragâpati, according to the commentator, is identified with Satya, the true, because sat means the three worlds, and these (bhûh, bhuvah, svar) are said to be his body. Hence probably the insertion of Satyam before Pragâpati at the beginning of the paragraph. Then he argues, as the eye has been called satya, and as the eye is Âditya, therefore Pragâpati also, being Satya, is Âditya, the sun. And again, if the sun is worshipped (by the vyâhritis) then, like the sun, the eye of all, Pragâpati also, the self of all, is worshipped. 6. Eshopasîta is impossible. We must either read, with the commentator, etam upâsîta, or with M. eshopasiteti.
7. (The Sâvitrî begins [1]:-) Tat Savitur varenyam, i.e. 'this of Savitri, to be chosen.' Here the Âditya (sun) is Savitri, and the same is to be chosen by the love(r) of Self, thus say the Brahma-teachers. (Then follows the next foot in the Savitri):- Bhargo devasya dhîmahi, i.e. 'the splendour of the god we meditate on.' Here the god is Savitri, and therefore he who is called his splendour, him I meditate on, thus say the Brahma-teachers. (Then follows the last foot):- Dhiyo yo nah prakodayât, i.e. 'who should stir up our thoughts.' Here the dhiyah are thoughts, and he should stir these up for us, thus say the Brahma-teachers. (He now explains the word bhargas). Now he who is called bhargas is he who is placed in yonder Âditya (sun), or he who is the pupil in the eye [2]. And he is so called, because his going (gati) is by rays (bhâbhih); or because he parches (bhargayati) and makes the world to shrivel up. Rudra is called Bhargas, thus say the Brahma-teachers. Or bha means that he lights up these worlds; ra, that he delights these beings, ga that these creatures go to him and come from him; therefore being a bha-ra-ga, he is called Bhargas. Sûrya [3] (sun) is so called, because Soma is continually squeezed out (su). Savitri (sun) is so called, because he brings forth (su). Âditya (sun) is so called, because he takes up (âdâ, scil. vapour, or the life of man). Pâvana [4] is so called, because he purifies (pu). Apas, water, is so called, because it nourishes (pyâ). And it is said:- 'Surely the Self (absorbed in Prâna, breath), which is called Immortal [5], is the thinker, the perceiver, the goer, the evacuator [6], the delighter, the doer, the speaker, the taster, the smeller, the seer, the hearer, and he touches. He is Vibhu (the pervader), who has entered into the body.' And it is said:- 'When the knowledge is twofold (subjective and objective), then he hears, sees, smells, tastes, and touches (something), for it is the Self that knows everything.' But when the knowledge is not twofold (subjective only), without effect, cause, and action [7], without a name, without a comparison, without a predicate [8]--what is that? It cannot be told [9].
Max Müller
Commentary
1. He now proceeds to explain the worship of the Sâvitrî verse, which had been mentioned in VI, 2, after the Om and the Vyâhritis, as the third mode of worshipping Prâna (breath) and Âditya (sun), these being two correlative embodiments of the Self. The Sâvitrî is found in Rig-veda III, 6 2, 10, but it is here explained in a purely philosophical sense. See also Brih. Up. VI, 3, 6. 2. M. reads târake 'kshni. 3. Sûrya is considered as the daily performer of the Prâtahsavana, &c., the sacrifice at which Soma is squeezed out as an offering. 4. M. reads pavamânât pavamânah. 5. M. reads amritâkhyasketâkhyasketâ. 6. M. reads gantâ srishtâ. 7. M. reads kâryakăranakarmavinirmuktam. 8. Nirupâkhyam, rightly translated by Cowell by 'without a predicate,' and rendered by the commentator by apramaya, i.e. not to be measured, not to be classed, i.e. without a predicate. 9. I have translated this in accordance with a well-known passage, quoted by the commentator from the Brihadâranyaka, rather than in accordance with his own interpretation.
8. And the same Self is also called Isâna (lord), Sambhu, Bhava, Rudra (tâmasa); Pragâpati (lord of creatures), Visvasrig (creator of all), Hiranyagarbha, Satyam (truth), Prâna, (breath), Hamsa (râgasa); Sâstri (ruler), Vishnu, Nârâyana (sâttvika); Arka, Savitri, Dhâtri (supporter), Vidhâtri[1] (creator), Samrâg (king), Indra, Indu (moon). He is also he who warms, the Sun, hidden by the thousand-eyed golden egg, as one fire by another. He is to be thought after, he is to be sought after. Having said farewell to all living beings, having gone to the forest, and having renounced all sensuous objects, let man perceive the Self [2] from his own body. '(See him) [3] who assumes all forms, the golden, who knows all things, who ascends highest, alone in his splendour, and warms us; the thousand-rayed, who abides in a hundred places, the spirit of all creatures, the Sun, rises [4].'
Max Müller
Commentary
1. M. leaves out vidhâtâ. 2. Instead of the peculiar Maitrâyani reading, svâñsârîrâd, AI. reads svâskharîrâd. 3. The oneness of the Sun and the Breath is proclaimed in the following verse of the Prasña Upanishad I, 8. 4. Here ends the M. manuscript, with the following title:- iti srîyagussâkhâyâm Maitrâyanîyabrâhmanopanishadi shashthah prapâthakah. Samâptâ.
9. Therefore he who by knowing this has become the Self of both Breath and Sun, meditates (while meditating on them) on his Self, sacrifices (while sacrificing to them) to his Self-this meditation, the mind thus absorbed in these acts, is praised by the wise. Then let him purify the contamination of the mind by the verse Ukkhishtopahatam, &c. [1]:- 'Be it food left, or food defiled by left food, be it food given by a sinner, food coming from a dead person, or from one impure from childbirth, may the purifying power of Vasu, may Agni, and the rays of Savitri, purify it, and all my sin [2].' First (before eating) he surrounds (the offered food) with water (in rincing his mouth [3]) . Then saying, Svâhâ to Prâna, Svâhâ to Apâna, Svâhâ to Vyâna, Svâhâ to Samâna, Svâhâ to Udâna, he offers (the food) with five invocations (in the fire of the mouth). What is over, he eats in silence, and then he surrounds (the food) once more afterwards with water (rincing the mouth after his meal). Having washed let him, after sacrificing to himself, meditate on his Self with these two verses, Prâno 'gnih and Visvo 'si, viz. 'May the Highest Self as breath, as fire (digestive heat), as consisting of the five vital airs, having entered (the body), himself satisfied, satisfy all, he who protects all.' 'Thou art Visva (all), thou art Vaisvânara (fire), all that is born is upheld by thee; may all offerings enter into thee; creatures live where thou grantest immortality to all.' He who eats according to this rule, does not in turn become food for others.
Max Müller
Commentary
1. In the following paragraphs the taking of food is represented as a sacrifice offered by the Self to the Self (âtmayaganarûpam bhoganam, p. 106, l. 13). 2. Several words have been inserted in this verse, spoiling the metre. 3. See Khând. Up. V, 2.
10. There is something else to be known. There is a further modification of this Self-sacrifice (the eating), namely, the food and the eater thereof. This is the explanation. The thinking Purusha (person), when he abides within the Pradhâna (nature), is the feeder who feeds on the food supplied by Prakriti (nature). The elemental Self [1] is truly his food, his maker being Pradhâna (nature [2]). Therefore what is composed of the three qualities (gunas) is the food, but the person within is the feeder. And for this the evidence is supplied by the senses. For animals spring from seed, and as the seed is the food, therefore it is clear that what is food is Pradhâna (the seed or cause of everything). Therefore, as has been said, the Purusha (person) is the eater, Prakriti, the food; and abiding within it he feeds. All that begins with the Mahat [3] (power of intellect) and ends with the Viseshas (elements [4]), being developed from the distinction of nature with its three qualities, is the sign (that there must be a Purusha, an intelligent subject). And in this manner the way with its fourteen steps has been explained [5]. (This is comprehended in the following verse):- 'This world is indeed the food, called pleasure, pain, and error (the result of the three qualities); there is no laying hold of the taste of the seed (cause), so long as there is no development (in the shape of effect).' And in its three stages also it has the character of food, as childhood, youth, and old age; for, because these are developed, therefore there is in them the character of food [6]. And in the following manner does the perception of Pradhâna (nature) take place, after it has become manifest:---Intellect and the rest, such as determination, conception, consciousness, are for the tasting (of the effects of Pradhâna). Then there are the five (perceptive organs) intended for the (five) objects of senses, for to taste them. And thus are all acts of the five active organs, and the acts of the five Prânas or vital airs (for the tasting of their corresponding objects). Thus what is manifest (of nature) is food, and what is not manifest is food. The enjoyer of it is without qualities, but because he has the quality of being an enjoyer, it follows that he possesses intelligence. As Agni (fire) is the food-eater among the gods, and Soma the food, so he who knows this eats food by Agni (is not defiled by food, as little as Agni, the sacrificial fire). This elemental Self, called Soma (food), is also called Agni, as having undeveloped nature for its mouth (as enjoying through nature, and being independent of it), because it is said, 'The Purusha (person) enjoys nature with its three qualities, by the mouth of undeveloped nature.' He who knows this, is an ascetic, a yogin, he is a performer of the Self-sacrifice (see before). And he who does not touch the objects of the senses when they intrude on him, as no one would touch women intruding into an empty house, he is an ascetic, a yogin, a performer of the Self-sacrifice.
Max Müller
Commentary
1. See before, III, 3. 2. This is very doubtful, in fact, unintelligible. The commentator says, asya bhûtâtmanah kartâ pradhânah pûrvoktah, so 'pi bhogya ity arthah. 3. Technical terms, afterwards adopted by the Sâṅkhya philosophers. 4. Professor Cowell observes that the term visesha, as here applied to the five gross elements, occurs in the Sâṅkhya-kârika, ver. 38. 5. Five receptive, five active organs, and four kinds of consciousness. 6. Its very development proves it to be food. Cowell.
11. This is the highest form of Self, viz. food, for this Prâna (this body) subsists on food. If it eats not, it cannot perceive, hear, touch, see, smell, taste, and it loses the vital airs [1]. For thus it is said:- 'If it eats, then in full possession of the vital airs, it can perceive, hear, touch, speak, taste, smell, see.' And thus it is said:- 'From food are born all creatures that live on earth; afterwards they live on food, and in the end (when they die) they return to it [2].'
12. And thus it is said elsewhere:- Surely all these creatures run about day and night, wishing to catch food. The sun takes food with his rays, and by it he shines. These vital airs digest, when sprinkled with food. Fire flares up by food, and by Brahmâ (Pragâpati), desirous of food, has all this been made. Therefore let a man worship food as his Self. For thus it is said:- 'From food creatures are born, by food they grow when born; because it is eaten and because it cats creatures, therefore it is called food (annam).'
13. And thus it is said elsewhere:- This food is the body of the blessed Vishnu, called Visvabhrit (all-sustaining). Breath is the essence of food, mind of breath, knowledge of mind, joy of knowledge. He who knows this is possessed of food, breath, mind, knowledge, and joy. Whatever creatures here on earth eat food, abiding in them he, who knows this, eats food. Food has been called undecaying, food has been called worshipful; food is the breath of animals, food is the oldest, food has been called the physician.
14. And thus it has been said elsewhere:- Food is the cause of all this, time of food, and the sun is the cause of time [1]. The (visible) form of time is the year, consisting of twelve months, made up of Nimeshas (twinklings) and other measures. Of the year one half (when the sun moves northward) belongs to Agni, the other to Varuna (when the sun moves southward). That which belongs to Agni begins with the asterism of Maghâ, and ends with half of the asterism of Sravishthâ, the sun stepping down northward. That which belongs to Soma (instead of Varuna) begins with the asterism (of Asleshâ), sacred to the Serpents, and ends with half of the asterism of Sravishthâ, the sun stepping up southward. And then there (are the months) one by one, belonging to the year, each consisting of nine-fourths of asterisms (two asterisms and a quarter being the twelfth part of the passage of the sun through the twenty-seven Nakshatras), each determined by the sun moving together with the asterisms. Because time is imperceptible by sense, therefore this (the progress of the sun, &c.) is its evidence, and by it alone is time proved to exist. Without proof there is no apprehension of what is to be proved; but even what is to be proved can become proof, for the sake of making itself known, if the parts (the twinklings, &c.) can be distinguished from the whole (time [2]). For thus it is said:- 'As many portions of time as there are, through them the sun proceeds:- he who worships time as Brahman, from him time moves away very far.' And thus it is said:- 'From time all beings flow, from time they grow; in time they obtain rest; time is visible (sun) and invisible (moments).'
Max Müller
Commentary
1. As food depends on time, therefore time is praised, which again depends on the sun, which is a form of the Self. 2. Thus, the commentator says, the existence of the lamp can be proved by the light of the lamp, as the existence of time is proved by what we see, the rising of the sun. All this is very obscure.
15. There are two forms of Brahman, time and non-time. That which was before the (existence of the) sun is non-time and has no parts. That which had its beginning from the sun is time and has parts. Of that which has parts, the year is the form, and from the year are born all creatures; when produced by the year they grow, and go again to rest in the year. Therefore the year is Pragâpati, is time, is food, is the nest of Brahman, is Self. Thus it is said:- 'Time ripens and dissolves all beings in the great Self, but he who knows into what time itself is dissolved, he is the knower of the Veda.'
16. This manifest time is the great ocean of creatures. He who is called Savitri (the sun, as begetter) dwells in it, from whence the moon, stars, planets, the year, and the rest are begotten. From them again comes all this, and thus, whatever of good or evil is seen in this world, comes from them. Therefore Brahman is the Self of the sun, and a man should worship the sun under the name of time. Some say the sun is Brahman, and thus it is said:- 'The sacrificer, the deity that enjoys the sacrifice, the oblation, the hymn, the sacrifice, Vishnu, Pragâpati, all this is the Lord, the witness, that shines in yonder orb.'
17. In the beginning Brahman was all this [1]. He was one, and infinite; infinite in the East, infinite in the South, infinite in the West, infinite in the North, above and below and everywhere infinite. East and the other regions do not exist for him, nor across, nor below, nor above. The Highest Self is not to be fixed, he is unlimited, unborn, not to be reasoned about, not to be conceived. He is like the ether (everywhere), and at the destruction of the universe, he alone is awake. Thus from that ether he wakes all this world, which consists of thought only, and by him alone is all this meditated on, and in him it is dissolved. His is that luminous form which shines in the sun, and the manifold light in the smokeless fire, and the heat which in the stomach digests the food. Thus it is said:- 'He who is in the fire, and he who is in the heart, and he who is in the sun, they are one and the same.' He who knows this becomes one with the one.
Max Müller
Commentary
1. Brahman used as neuter, but immediately followed by eko 'nantah, &c.
18. This is the rule for achieving it (viz. concentration of the mind on the object of meditation):- restraint of the breath, restraint of the senses, meditation, fixed attention, investigation, absorption, these are called the sixfold Yoga [1]. When beholding by this Yoga, he beholds the gold-coloured maker, the lord, the person, Brahman, the cause, then the sage, leaving behind good and evil, makes everything (breath, organs of sense, body, &c.) to be one in the Highest Indestructible (in the pratyagâtman or Brahman). And thus it is said:- 'As birds and deer do not approach a burning mountain, so sins never approach those who know Brahman.'
Max Müller
Commentary
1. After having explained the form of what is to be meditated on and the mode of meditation, the Upanishad now teaches the Yoga which serves to keep our thoughts in subjection, and to fix our thoughts on the object of meditation. See Yoga-Sûtras II, 29.
19. And thus it is said elsewhere:- When he who knows has, while he is still Prâna (breath), restrained his mind, and placed all objects of the senses far away from himself, then let him remain without any conceptions. And because the living person, called Prâna (breath), has been produced here on earth from that which is not Prâna (the thinking Self), therefore let this Prâna merge the Prâna (himself) in what is called the fourth [1]. And thus it is said:- 'What is without thought, though placed in the centre of thought, what cannot be thought, the hidden, the highest--let a man merge his thought there:- then will this living being (liṅga) be without attachment [2].'
Max Müller
Commentary
1. The fourth stage is meant for the thinking Self, the earlier stages being waking, slumbering, and sleep. 2. Professor Cowell offers two renderings of this difficult passage:- 'This which is called prâna, i.e. the individual soul as characterised by the subtil body, will thus no longer appear in its separate individuality from the absence of any conscious subject; or, this subtil body bearing the name of intellect will thus become void of all objects.'
20. And thus it has been said elsewhere:- There is the superior fixed attention (dhâranâ) for him, viz. if he presses the tip of the tongue down the palate and restrains voice, mind, and breath, he sees Brahman by discrimination (tarka). And when, after the cessation of mind [1], he sees his own Self, smaller than small, and shining, as the Highest Self [2], then having seen his Self as the Self, he becomes Self-less, and because he is Self-less, he is without limit, without cause, absorbed in thought. This is the highest mystery, viz. final liberation. And thus it is said:- 'Through the serenity of the thought he kills all actions, good or bad; his Self serene, abiding in the Self, obtains imperishable bliss.'
Max Müller
Commentary
1. The commentator remarks that this process is called Lambikâyoga, and the state produced by it Unmanî or Unmanîbhâva; see amanîbhâva, in VI, 34, ver. 7. 2. I should have preferred to translate âtmânam âtmanâ pasyati by 'he sees his Self by his Self,' but the commentator takes a slightly different view, and says itthambhâve tritîyâ; paramâtmarûpena pasyati. 3. Cf. Katha Up. V I, 16 Prasña Up. III, 6 (p. 277). 4. If we read samyogya we must follow the commentator in translating by 'uniting the senses with the prâna and the manas.' 5. Let the Self perceive the Self.
21. And thus it has been said elsewhere:- The artery, called Sushumnâ, going upwards (from the heart to the Brahmarandhra), serving as the passage of the Prâna, is divided within the palate. Through that artery, when it has been joined by the breath (held in subjection), by the sacred syllable Om, and by the mind (absorbed in the contemplation of Brahman), let him proceed upwards [3], and after turning the tip of the tongue to the palate, without [4] using any of the organs of sense, let greatness perceive greatness [5]. From thence he goes to selflessness, and through selflessness he ceases to be an enjoyer of pleasure and pain, he obtains aloneness (kevalatva, final deliverance). And thus it is said:- 'Having successively fixed the breath, after it had been restrained, in the palate, thence having crossed the limit (the life), let him join himself afterwards to the limitless (Brahman) in the crown of the head.'
22. And thus it has been said elsewhere:- Two Brahmans have to be meditated on, the word and the non-word. By the word alone is the non-word revealed. Now there is the word Om. Moving upward by it (where all words and all what is meant by them ceases), he arrives at absorption in the non-word (Brahman). This is the way, this is the immortal, this is union, and this is bliss. And as the spider, moving upward by the thread, gains free space, thus also he who meditates, moving upward by the syllable Om, gains independence. Other teachers of the word (as Brahman) think otherwise. They listen to the sound of the ether within the heart while they stop the ears with the thumbs. They compare it to seven noises, like rivers, like a bell, like a brazen vessel, like the wheels of a carriage, like the croaking of frogs, like rain, and as if a man speaks in a cavern. Having passed beyond this variously apprehended sound, and having settled in the supreme, soundless (non-word), unmanifested Brahman, they become undistinguished and undistinguishable, as various flavours of the flowers are lost in the taste of honey. And thus it is said:- 'Two Brahmans are to be known, the word-Brahman and the highest Brahman; he who is perfect in the word-Brahman attains the highest Brahman [1].'
Max Müller
Commentary
1. Cf. Mahâbhârata XII, 8540; Sarvadarsana-saṅgraha, p. 147; Cowell's Translation, p. 271.
23. And thus it has been said elsewhere:- The syllable Om is what is called the word. And its end is the silent, the soundless, fearless, sorrowless, joyful, satisfied, firm, unwavering, immortal, immovable, certain (Brahman), called Vishnu. Let him worship these two, that he may obtain what is higher than everything (final deliverance). For thus it is said:- 'He who is the high and the highest god [1], by name Om-kâra, he is soundless and free from all distinctions:- therefore let a man dwell on him in the crown of his head.'
Max Müller
Commentary
1. The commentator takes devâ as devah, though the accent is against it; see Schroeder, Über die Maitrâyanî Samhitâ, p. 9, l. 11.
24. And thus it has been said elsewhere:- The body is the bow, the syllable Om is the arrow, its point is the mind. Having cut through the darkness, which consists of ignorance [1], it approaches that which is not covered by darkness [2]. Then having cut through that which was covered (the personal soul), he saw Brahman, flashing like a wheel on fire, bright like the sun, vigorous, beyond all darkness, that which shines forth in yonder sun, in the moon, in the fire, in the lightning [3]. And having seen him, he obtains immortality. And thus it has been said:- 'Meditation is directed to the highest Being (Brahman) within, and (before) to the objects (body, Om, mind); thence the indistinct understanding becomes distinct. And when the works of the mind are dissolved, then that bliss which requires no other witness, that is Brahman (Âtman), the immortal, the brilliant, that is the way, that is the (true) world.'
Max Müller
Commentary
1. Should it not be, 'darkness is the mark?' 2. Atamâvishta, explained as an irregular compound, atama-âvishtam, tama-âvesanarahitam. 3. Cf. Bhagavadgîtâ XV, 12.
25. And thus it has been said elsewhere:- He who has his senses hidden as in sleep, and who, while in the cavern of his senses (his body), but no longer ruled by them, sees, as in a dream, with the purest intellect, Him who is called Pranava (Om), the leader [1], the bright, the sleepless, free from old age, from death, and sorrow, he is himself also called Pranava, and becomes a leader, bright, sleepless, free from old age, from death, and sorrow. And thus it is said:- 'Because in this manner he joins the Prâna (breath), the Om, and this Universe in its manifold forms, or because they join themselves (to him), therefore this (process of meditation) is called Yoga (joining). The oneness of breath, mind, and senses, and then the surrendering of all conceptions, that is called Yoga.'
26. And thus it has also been said elsewhere:- As a sportsman, after drawing out the denizens of the waters with a net, offers them (as a sacrifice) in the fire of his stomach, thus are these Prânas (vital airs), after they have been drawn out with the syllable Om, offered in the faultless fire (Brahman) [1]. Hence he is like a heated vessel (full of clarified butter); for as the clarified butter in the heated vessel lights up, when touched with grass and sticks, thus does this being which is called Not-breath (Âtman) light up, when touched by the Prânas (the vital airs) [2]. And that which flares up, that is the manifest form of Brahman, that is the highest place of Vishnu [3], that is the essence of Rudra. And this, dividing his Self in endless ways, fills all these worlds. And thus it is said:- 'As the sparks from the fire, and as the rays from the sun, thus do his Prânas and the rest in proper order again and again proceed from him here on earth [4].'
Max Müller
Commentary
1. Cf. Svetâsvatara-upanishad III, 10. 2. As the fire which exists invisibly in a heated vessel becomes visible when the heated vessel is touched with sticks dipped in butter, thus the Âtman in the body appears only when the Prânas are diffused in it. Or, as the clarified butter, heated together with the vessel, lights up grass that comes in contact with it, so does this Âtman (called Not-breath), by heating its two bodies which are pervaded by the reflections of the thinker, light up everything brought in contact with it, viz. the world. 3. See Katha Up. III, 9. 4. See VI, 31; Brih. Up. II, 1, 10.
27. And thus it has also been said elsewhere:- This is the heat of the highest, the immortal, the incorporeal Brahman, viz. the warmth of the body. And this body is the clarified butter (poured on it, by which the heat of Brahman, otherwise invisible, is lighted up). Then, being manifest, it is placed in the ether (of the heart). Then by concentration they thus remove that ether which is within the heart, so that its light appears, as it were [1]. Therefore the worshipper becomes identified with that light without much delay. As a ball of iron, if placed in the earth, becomes earth without much delay, and as, when it has once become a clod of earth, fire and smiths have nothing more to do with that ball of iron, thus does thought (without delay) disappear, together with its support [2]. And thus it is said:- 'The shrine which consists of the ether in the heart, the blissful, the highest retreat, that is our own, that is our goal, and that is the heat and brightness of the fire and the sun.'
Max Müller
Commentary
1. The light was always there, but it seems then only to appear. 2. The commentator explains this differently. He says that the similes are intended to show how, as soon as the impediment is removed, the worshipper obtains his true form, i.e. becomes Brahman. Afterwards he explains kittam, thought, by the individual thinker, and declares that he vanishes together with the thought, which forms the âsraya, the place, or the upâdhi, the outward form. Or again, he says that the kitta, the mind, vanishes with its outward sign, viz. the thoughts and imaginations.
28. And thus it has been said elsewhere:- After having left behind the body, the organs of sense, and the objects of sense (as no longer belonging to us), and having seized the bow whose stick is fortitude and whose string is asceticism, having struck down also with the arrow, which consists in freedom from egotism, the first guardian of the door of Brahman (for if man looks at the world egotistically, then, taking the diadem of passion, the earrings of greed and envy, and the staff of sloth, sleep, and sin, and having seized the bow whose string is anger, and whose stick is lust, he destroys with the arrow which consists of wishes, all beings)--having therefore killed that guardian, he crosses by means of the boat Om to the other side of the ether within the heart, and when the ether becomes revealed (as Brahman), he enters slowly, as a miner seeking minerals in a mine, into the Hall of Brahman. After that let him, by means of the doctrine of his teacher, break through the shrine of Brahman, which consists of the four nets (of food, breath, mind, knowledge, till he reaches the last shrine, that of blessedness and identity with Brahman). Thenceforth pure, clean, undeveloped, tranquil, breathless, bodiless, endless, imperishable, firm, everlasting, unborn and independent, he stands on his own greatness [1], and having seen (the Self), standing in his own greatness, he looks on the wheel of the world as one (who has alighted from a chariot) looks on its revolving wheel. And thus it is said:- 'If a man practises Yoga for six months and is thoroughly free (from the outer world), then the perfect Yoga (union), which is endless, high, and hidden, is accomplished. But if a man, though well enlightened (by instruction), is still pierced by (the gunas of) passion and darkness, and attached to his children, wife, and house, then perfect Yoga is never accomplished [2].'
Max Müller
Commentary
1. See Maitr. Up. II, 4; VI, 31. 2. This would seem to have been the end of the dialogue between Pragâpati and the Vâlakhilyas, which, as related by Sâkâyanya to King Brihadratha, began in II, 3. See, however, VII, 8.
29. After he had thus spoken (to Brihadratha), Sâkâyanya, absorbed in thought, bowed before him, and said:- 'O King, by means of this Brahma-knowledge have the sons of Pragâpati (the Vâlakhilyas) gone to the road of Brahman. Through the practice of Yoga a man obtains contentment, power to endure good and evil, and tranquillity. Let no man preach this most secret doctrine to any one who is not his son or his pupil [1], and who is not of a serene mind. To him alone who is devoted to his teacher only, and endowed with all necessary qualities, may he communicate it [2].
Max Müller
Commentary
1. Svet. Up. VI, 22 (p. 267); Brih. Up. VI. 3, 12. 2. Here may have been the end of a chapter, but the story of Sâkâyanya and Brihadratha is continued to VI, 30.
30. Om! Having settled down in a pure place let him, being pure himself, and firm in goodness, study the truth, speak the truth, think the truth, and offer sacrifice to the truth [1]. Henceforth he has become another; by obtaining the reward of Brahman his fetters are cut asunder, he knows no hope, no fear from others as little as from himself, he knows no desires; and having attained imperishable, infinite happiness, he stands blessed in the true Brahman, who longs for a true man [2]. Freedom from desires is, as it were, the highest prize to be taken from the best treasure (Brahman). For a man full of all desires, being possessed of will, imagination, and belief, is a slave; but he who is the opposite, is free. Here some say, it is the Guna [3] (i. e. the so-called Mahat, the principle of intellect which, according to the Sâṅkhyas, is the result of the Gunas or qualities), which, through the differences of nature (acquired in the former states of existence), goes into bondage to the will, and that deliverance takes place (for the Guna) when the fault of the will has been removed. (But this is not our view), because (call it guna, intellect, buddhi, manas, mind, ahaṅkâra, egotism, it is not the mind that acts, but) he sees by the mind (as his instrument), he hears by the mind; and all that we call desire, imagination, doubt, belief, unbelief, certainty, uncertainty, shame, thought, fear, all that is but mind (manas). Carried along by the waves of the qualities, darkened in his imaginations, unstable, fickle, crippled, full of desires, vacillating, he enters into belief, believing I am he, this is mine, and he binds his Self by his Self, as a bird with a net [4]. Therefore a man, being possessed of will, imagination, and belief, is a slave, but he who is the opposite is free. For this reason let a man stand free from will, imagination, and belief--this is the sign of liberty, this is the path that leads to Brahman, this is the opening of the door, and through it he will go to the other shore of darkness. All desires are there fulfilled. And for this they quote a verse:- " When the five instruments of knowledge stand still together with the mind, and when the intellect does not move, that is called the highest state [5]."' Having thus said, Sâkâyanya became absorbed in thought. Then Marut (i.e. the King Brihadratha) [6], having bowed before him and duly worshipped him, went full of contentment to the Northern Path [7], for there is no way thither by any side-road. This is the path to Brahman. Having burst open the solar door, he rose on high and went away. And here they quote:- 'There are endless rays (arteries) for the Self who, like a lamp, dwells in the heart:- white and black, brown and blue, tawny and reddish [8]. One of them (the Sushumnâ) leads upwards, piercing the solar orb:- by it, having stepped beyond the world of Brahman, they go to the highest path. The other hundred rays [9] rise upwards also, and on them the worshipper reaches the mansions belonging to the different bodies of gods. But the manifest rays of dim colour which lead downwards, by them a man travels on and on helplessly, to enjoy the fruits of his actions here.' Therefore it is said that the holy Âditya (sun) is the cause of new births (to those who do not worship him), of heaven (to those who worship him as a god), of liberty (to those who worship him as Brahman) [10].
Max Müller
Commentary
1. The truth or the true are explained by, (1) the book which teaches the Highest Self; (2) by Brahman, who is to be spoken about; (3) by Brahman, who is to be meditated on; (4) by Brahman, who is to be worshipped in thought. 2. I have translated this according to the commentary, but I should prefer to read satyâbhilâshini. 3. The passages within brackets had to be added from the commentary in order to make the text intelligible, at least according to Râmatîrtha's views. 4. See III, 2. 5. See the same verse in Katha Up. VI, 10. 6. See before, II, 1. 7. See Prasña Up. I, 10,' But those who have sought the Self by penance, abstinence, faith, and knowledge, gain by the Northern Path Âditya, the sun.' 8. See Khând. Up. VIII, 6. 9. A similar verse, but with characteristic variations, occurs in the Khând. Up. VIII, 6, 6, and in the Katha Up. VI, 16. 10. Here ends the story of Sâkâyanya, which began I, 2, and was carried on through chap. VI, though that chapter and the seventh are called Khilas, or supplements, and though the MS. M. also ends, as we saw, with the eighth paragraph of the sixth chapter.
31. Some one asks:- 'Of what nature are those organs of sense that go forth (towards their objects)? Who sends them out here, or who holds them back?' Another answers:- 'Their nature is the Self; the Self sends them out, or holds them back; also the Apsaras (enticing objects of sense), and the solar rays (and other deities presiding over the senses).' Now the Self devours the objects by the five rays (the organs of sense); then who is the Self? He who has been defined by the terms pure, clean, undeveloped, tranquil [1], &c., who is to be apprehended independently by his own peculiar signs. That sign of him who has no signs, is like what the pervading heat is of fire, the purest taste of water; thus say some [2]. It is speech, hearing, sight, mind, breath; thus say others [3]. It is intellect, retention, remembering, knowledge; thus say others [4]. Now all these are signs of the Self in the same sense in which here on earth shoots are the signs of seed, or smoke, light, and sparks of fire. And for this they quote [5]:- 'As the sparks from the fire, and as the rays from the sun, thus do his Prânas and the rest in proper order again and again proceed from him here on earth.'
Max Müller
Commentary
1. See before, II, 4; VI, 13 2. See Svet. Up. VI, 13. 3. See Ken. Up. 2. 4. See Ait. Up. III, 2. Here we find dhriti (holding), smriti (remembering), pragñânam (knowledge), but not buddhi. Pragñânam seems the right reading, and is supported by M. 5. See before, VI, 26.
32. From this very Self, abiding within his Self, come forth all Prânas (speech, &c.), all worlds, all Vedas, all gods, and all beings; its Upanishad (revelation) [1] is that it is 'the true of the true.' Now as from a fire of green wood, when kindled, clouds of smoke come forth by themselves (though belonging to the fire), thus from that great Being has been breathed forth all this which is the Rig-veda, the Yagur-veda, the Sama-veda, the Atharvâṅgirasas (Atharva-veda), the Itihâsa (legendary stories), the Purâna (accounts of the creation, &c.), Vidyâ (ceremonial doctrines), the Upanishads, the Slokas (verses interspersed in the Upanishads, &c.), the Sûtras (compendious statements), the Anuvyâkhyânas (explanatory notes), the Vyâkhyânas (elucidations) [2]--all these things are his.
Max Müller
Commentary
1. Revelation is here the rendering of Upanishad, upanigamayitritvât sâkshâdrahasyam, and the true (sattya) is explained first by the five elements, and then by that which is their real essence. 2. See Khând. Up. VI, 1. The explanations given of these literary titles are on the whole the same as those we had before in similar passages. What is peculiar to Râmatîrtha is that he explains Upanishad by such passages as we had just now, viz. its Upanishad is that it is the true of the true. The Slokas are, explained as verses like those in VI, 19, akittamkittamadhyastham. The Sûtras are explained as comprehensive sentences, such as II, 2, ayam vâva khalv âtmâ te. Anuvyâkhyânas are taken as explanations following on the Sûtra in II, 2, beginning with atha ya eshokkhvâsâvishtambhanena. The Vyâkhyânas are taken as fuller statements of the meaning contained in the Sûtra, such as the dialogue between the Vâlakhilyas and Kratu.
33. This fire (the Gârhapatya-fire) with five bricks is the year. And its five bricks are spring, summer, rainy season, autumn, winter; and by them the fire has a head, two sides, a centre, and a tail. This earth (the Gârhapatya-fire) here is the first sacrificial pile for Pragâpati, who knows the Purusha (the Virâg). It presented the sacrificer to Vâyu, (the wind) by lifting him with the hands to the sky. That Vâyu is Prâna (Hiranyagarbha). Prâna is Agni (the Dakshinâgni-fire), and its bricks are the five vital breaths, Prâna, Vyâna, Apâna, Samâna, Udâna; and by them the fire has a head, two sides, a centre, and a tail. This sky (the Dakshinâgni-fire) here is the second sacrificial pile for Pragâpati, who knows the Purusha. It presented the sacrificer to Indra, by lifting him with the hands to heaven. That Indra is Âditya, the sun. That (Indra) is the Agni (the Âhavanîya-fire), and its bricks are the Rik, the Yagush, the Sâman, the Atharvâṅgirasas, the Itihâsa, and the Purâna; and by them the fire has a head, two sides, a tail, and a centre. This heaven (Âhavanîya-fire) is the third sacrificial pile for Pragâpati, who knows the Purusha. With the hands it makes a present of the sacrificer to the Knower of the Self (Pragâpati); then the Knower of the Self, lifting him up, presented him to Brahman. In him he becomes full of happiness and joy.
34. The earth is the Gârhapatya-fire, the sky the Dakshina-fire, the heaven the Âhavanîya-fire; and therefore they are also the Pavamâna (pure), the Pâvaka (purifying), and the Suki (bright) [1]. By this (by the three deities, Pavamâna, Pâvaka, and Suki) the sacrifice (of the three fires, the Gârhapatya, Dakshina, and Âhavanîya) is manifested. And because the digestive fire also is a compound of the Pavamâna, Pâvaka, and Suki, therefore that fire is to receive oblations, is to be laid with bricks, is to be praised, and to be meditated on. The sacrificer, when he has seized the oblation, wishes [2] to perform his meditation of the deity:- 'The gold-coloured bird abides in the heart, and in the sun--a diver bird, a swan, strong in splendour; him we worship in the fire.' Having recited the verse, he discovers its meaning, viz. the adorable splendour of Savitri (sun) is to be meditated on by him who, abiding within his mind, meditates thereon. Here he attains the place of rest for the mind, he holds it within his own Self. On this there are the following verses:- (1) As a fire without fuel becomes quiet in its place [3], thus do the thoughts, when all activity ceases, become quiet [4] in their place. (2) Even in a mind which loves the truth [5] and has gone to rest in itself there arise, when it is deluded by the objects of sense, wrongs resulting from former acts [6]. (3) For thoughts alone cause the round of births [7]; let a man strive to purify his thoughts. What a man thinks, that he is:- this is the old secret [8]. (4) By the serenity of his thoughts a man blots out all actions, whether good or bad. Dwelling within his Self with serene thoughts, he obtains imperishable happiness. (5) If the thoughts of a man were so fixed on Brahman as they are on the things of this world, who would not then be freed from bondage? (6) The mind, it is said, is of two kinds, pure or impure; impure from the contact with lust, pure when free from lust [9]. (7) When a man, having freed his mind from sloth, distraction, and vacillation, becomes as it were delivered from his mind [10], that is the highest point. (8) The mind must be restrained in the heart till it comes to an end;--that is knowledge, that is liberty:- all the rest are extensions of the ties [11] (which bind us to this life). (9) That happiness which belongs to a mind which by deep meditation has been washed [12] clean from all impurity and has entered within the Self, cannot be described here by words; it can be felt by the inward power only [13]. (10) Water in water, fire in fire, ether in ether, no one can distinguish them; likewise a man whose mind has entered (till it cannot be distinguished from the Self), attains liberty. (11) Mind alone is the cause of bondage and liberty for men; if attached to the world, it becomes bound; if free from the world, that is liberty [14]. Therefore those who do not offer the Agnihotra (as described above), who do not lay the fires (with the bricks, as described above), who are ignorant (of the mind being the cause of the round of births), who do not meditate (on the Self in the solar orb) are debarred from remembering the ethereal place of Brahman. Therefore that fire is to receive oblations, is to be laid with bricks, is to be praised, to be meditated on.
Max Müller
Commentary
1. Epithets of Agni, the sacrificial-fire, pavamâna applying to the Gârhapatya-fire, pâvaka to the Dakshina-fire, and suki to the Âhavanîya-fire. The construction of the sentence, however, is imperfect. 2. This means, he ought to perform it. 3. Dies in the fireplace. 4. M. reads upasâmyati twice. 5. M. reads satyakâminah. 6. The commentator inserts a negative. 7. M. reads samsârah. 8. This is very like the teaching of the Dhammapada, I, 1. 9. Cf. Ind. Stud. II, 60. Brahmavindu Up. v. 1, where we read kâmasaṅkalpam, as in MS. M. 10. See note to VI, 20. 11. M. reads mokshaska and seshâs tu. The commentator says that this line is easy, but it is so by no means. Professor Cowell translates granthavistarâh by book-prolixity, but this sounds very strange in an Upanishad. I am not satisfied with my own translation, but it may stand till a better one is found. M. reads grindhavistarâh. The granthis are mentioned in Khând. Up. VII, 26; Kath. Up. VI, 15. 12. M. reads nirdhûta. 13. M. reads karaneti. 14. M. reads vishayâsaktam muktyai. 15. Next follow invocations to be addressed to the deities. 16. The verse occurs in a more original form in Tal. Up. 15. 17. The commentator adds iti after aham. 18. Khând. Up. I, 6, 6; Svet. Up. V, 10. 19. 'The eight feet are explained as the eight regions, or âroga and the rest. The swan is the sun. The three threads are the three Vedas; see Kûl. Up. I, 1; Ind. Stud. IX, 11--ashtapâdamsukir hamsam trisûtram manim avyayam, dvivartamânam taigasaiddham sarvah pasyan na pasyati. Here the eight feet are explained as the five elements, manas, buddhi, and ahaṅkâra. 20. Savit for savitri. 21. Vlîyante for vilîyante.
35.[15] Adoration to Agni, the dweller on earth, who remembers his world. Grant that world to this thy worshipper! Adoration to Vâyu, the dweller in the sky, who remembers his world. Grant that world to this thy worshipper! Adoration to Âditya, the dweller in heaven, who remembers his world. Grant that world to this thy worshipper! Adoration to Brahman, who dwells everywhere, who remembers all. Grant all to this thy worshipper! The mouth of the true (Brahman) is covered with a golden lid; open that, O Pûshan (sun), that we may go to the true one, who pervades all (Vishnu) [16]. He who is the person in the sun, I am he [17]. And what is meant by the true one is the essence of the sun, that which is bright, personal, sexless [18]; a portion (only) of the light which pervades the ether; which is, as it were, in the midst of the sun, and in the eye, and in the fire. That is Brahman, that is immortal, that is splendour. That is the true one, a portion (only) of the light which pervades the ether, which is in the midst of the sun, the immortal, of which Soma (the moon) and the vital breaths also are offshoots:- that is Brahman, that is immortal, that is splendour. That is the true one, a portion (only) of the light which pervades the ether, which in the midst of the sun shines as Yagus, viz. as Om, as water, light, essence, immortal, Brahman, Bhûh, Bhuvah, Svar, Om. 'The eight-footed [19], the bright, the swan, bound with three threads, the infinitely small, the imperishable, blind for good and evil, kindled with light--he who sees him, sees everything.' A portion (only) of the light which pervades the ether, are the two rays rising in the midst of the sun. That is the knower [20] (the Sun), the true one. That is the Yagus, that is the heat, that is Agni (fire), that is Vâyu (wind), that is breath, that is water, that is the moon, that is bright, that is immortal, that is the place of Brahman, that is the ocean of light. In that ocean the sacrificers are dissolved [21] like salt, and that is oneness with Brahman, for all desires are there fulfilled. And here they quote:- 'Like a lamp, moved by a gentle wind, he who dwells within the gods shines forth. He who knows this, he is the knower, he knows the difference (between the high and the highest Brahman); having obtained unity, he becomes identified with it. They who rise up in endless number, like spray drops (from the sea), like lightnings from the light within the clouds in the highest heaven, they, when they have entered into the light of glory (Brahman), appear like so many flame-crests in the track of fire.'
36. There are two manifestations of the Brahma-light:- one is tranquil, the other lively. Of that which is tranquil, the ether is the support; of that which is lively, food. Therefore (to the former) sacrifice must be offered on the house-altar with hymns, herbs, ghee, meat, cakes, sthâlîpâka, and other things; to the latter, with meat and drinks (belonging to the great sacrifices) thrown into the mouth, for the mouth is the Âhavanîya-fire; and this is done to increase our bodily vigour, to gain the world of purity, and for the sake of immortality. And here they quote:- 'Let him who longs for heaven, offer an Agnihotra. By an Agnishtoma he wins the kingdom of Yama; by Uktha, the kingdom of Soma; by a Shodasin-sacrifice, the kingdom of Sûrya; by an Atirâtra-sacrifice, the kingdom of Indra; by the sacrifices beginning with the twelve-night sacrifice and ending with the thousand years' sacrifice, the world of Pragâpati. As a lamp burns so long as the vessel that holds the wick is filled with oil, these two, the Self and the bright Sun, remain so long as the egg (of the world) and he who dwells within it hold together.'
37. Therefore let a man perform all these ceremonies with the syllable Om (at the beginning). Its splendour is endless, and it is declared to be threefold, in the fire (of the altar), in the sun (the deity), in the breath (the sacrificer). Now this is the channel to increase the food, which makes what is offered in the fire ascend to the sun. The sap which flows from thence, rains down as with the sound of a hymn. 'By it there are vital breaths, from them there is offspring. And here they quote:- 'The offering which is offered in the fire, goes to the sun; the sun rains it down by his rays; thus food comes, and from food the birth of living beings [1].' And thus he said:- 'The oblation which is properly thrown on the fire, goes toward the sun; from the sun comes rain, from rain food, from food living beings'.'
38. He who offers the Agnihotra breaks through the net of desire. Then, cutting through bewilderment, never approving of anger, meditating on one desire (that of liberty), he breaks through the shrine of Brahman with its four nets, and proceeds thence to the ether. For having there broken through the (four) spheres of the Sun, the Moon, the Fire, and Goodness, he then, being purified himself, beholds dwelling in goodness, immovable, immortal, indestructible, firm, bearing the name of Vishnu, the highest abode, endowed with love of truth and omniscience, the self-dependent Intelligence (Brahman), standing in its own greatness. And here they quote:- 'In the midst of the sun stands the moon, in the midst of the moon the fire, in the midst of fire goodness, in the midst of goodness the Eternal.' Having meditated on him who has the breadth of a thumb within the span (of the heart) in the body, who is smaller than small, he obtains the nature of the Highest; there all desires are fulfilled. And on this they quote:- 'Having the breadth of a thumb within the span (of the heart) in the body, like the flame of a lamp, burning twofold or threefold, that glorified Brahman, the great God, has entered into all the worlds. Om! Adoration to Brahman! Adoration!'
1. Agni, the Gâyatra (metre), the Trivrit (hymn), the Rathantara (song), the spring, the upward breath (prâna), the Nakshatras, the Vasus (deities)--these rise in the East; they warm, they rain, they praise [1] (the sun), they enter again into him (the sun), they look out from him (the sun). He (the sun) is inconceivable, without form, deep, covered, blameless, solid, unfathomable, without qualities, pure, brilliant, enjoying the play of the three qualities, awful, not caused, a master-magician [2], the omniscient, the mighty, immeasurable, without beginning or end, blissful, unborn, wise, indescribable, the creator of all things, the self of all things, the enjoyer of all things, the ruler of all things, the centre of the centre of all things.
Max Müller
Commentary
1. Other MSS. read sruvanti, which seems better. 2. See VII, 11, abhidhyâtur vistritir iva.
2. Indra, the Trishtubh (metre), the Pañkadasa (hymn), the Brihat (song), the summer, the through-going breath (Vyâna), Soma, the Rudras--these rise in the South; they warm, they rain, they praise, they enter again into him, they look out from him. He (the sun) is without end or beginning, unmeasured, unlimited, not to be moved by another, self-dependent, without sign, without form, of endless power, the creator, the maker of light.
3. The Maruts, the Gagatî (metre), the Saptadasa (hymn), the Vairupa (song), the rainy season, the downward breath (apâna), Sukra, the Âdityas--these rise in the West; they warm, they rain, they praise, they enter again into him, they look out from him. That is the tranquil, the soundless, fearless, sorrowless, joyful, satisfied, firm, immovable, immortal, eternal, true, the highest abode, bearing the name of Vishnu.
4. The Visve Devas, the Anushtubh (metre), the Ekavimsa (hymn), the Vairâga (song), the autumn, the equal breath (samâna), Varuna, the Sâdhyas--these rise in the North; they warm, they rain, they praise, they enter again into him, they look out from him. He is pure within, purifying, undeveloped, tranquil, breathless, selfless, endless.
5. Mitrâ-Varunau, the Paṅkti (metre), the Trinavatrayastrimsa (hymns), the Sâkvara-raivata (songs), the snowy and dewy seasons, the out-going breath (udâna), the Aṅgiras, the Moon--these rise above; they warm, they rain, they praise, they enter again into him, they look out from him--who is called Pranava (Om), the leader, consisting of light, without sleep, old age, death, and sorrow.
6. Sani (Saturn), Rahu and Ketu (the ascending and descending nodes), the serpents, Rakshas, Yakshas, men, birds, sarabhas, elephants, &c.--these rise below; they warm, they rain, they praise, they enter again into him, they look out from him--he who is wise, who keeps things in their right place, the centre of all, the imperishable, the pure, the purifier, the bright, the patient, the tranquil.
7. And he is indeed the Self, smaller (than small) within the heart, kindled like fire, endowed with all forms. Of him is all this food, within him all creatures are woven. That Self is free from sin [1], free from old age, from death and grief, from hunger and thirst, imagining nothing but what it ought to imagine, and desiring nothing but what it ought to desire. He is the highest lord, he is the supreme master of all beings, the guardian of all beings, a boundary keeping all things apart in their right places [2]. He the Self, the lord, is indeed Sambhu, Bhava, Rudra, Pragâpati, the creator of all, Hiranyagarbha, the true, breath, the swan, the ruler, the eternal, Vishnu, Nârâyana. And he who abides in the fire, and he who abides in the heart, and he who abides in the sun, they are one and the same. To thee who art this, endowed with all forms, settled in the true ether, be adoration!
Max Müller
Commentary
1. See Khând. Up. VIII, 7, 1. 2. See Khând. Up. VIII, 4, 1, where we find setur vidhritir eshâm lokânâm.
8. Now follow the impediments in the way of knowledge, O King [1]! This is indeed the origin of the net of bewilderment, that one who is worthy of heaven lives with those who are not worthy of heaven. That is it. Though they have been told that there is a grove before them, they cling to a small shrub. And others also who are always merry, always abroad, always begging, always making a living by handiwork; and others who are begging in towns, performing sacrifices for those who are not allowed to offer sacrifices, who make themselves the pupils of Sûdras, and Sûdras who know the sacred books; and others who are malignant, who use bad language, dancers, prize-fighters, travelling mendicants, actors, those who have been degraded in the king's service; and others who for money pretend that they can lay (the evil influences) of Yakshas, Râkshasas, ghosts, goblins, devils, serpents, imps, &c.; and others who falsely wear red dresses [2], earrings, and skulls; and others who wish to entice by the jugglery of false arguments, mere comparisons and paralogisms, the believers in the Veda--with all these he should not live together. They are clearly thieves, and unworthy of heaven. And thus it is said:- 'The world unsettled by the paralogisms of the denial of Self, by false comparisons and arguments, does not know what is the difference between Veda and philosophy [3].'
Max Müller
Commentary
1. This king is not meant for Brihadratha. 2. This refers to people who claim the privileges and licence of Sannyâsins without having passed through the discipline of the preceding âsramas, As this was one of the chief complaints made against the followers of Sâkyamuni, it might refer to Buddhists, but it ought to be borne in mind that there were Buddhists before Buddha. 3. If we translate thus, the use of vidyâ for vrithâ vidyâ is unusual; if we follow the commentary, we should have to translate, he does not know the Veda and the other knowledge.
9. Brihaspati, having become Sukra, brought forth that false knowledge for the safety of Indra and for the destruction of the Asuras. By it they show that good is evil, and that evil is good. They say that we ought to ponder on the (new) law, which upsets the Veda and the other sacred books [1]. Therefore let no one ponder on that false knowledge:- it is wrong, it is, as it were, barren. Its reward lasts only as long as the pleasure lasts, as with one who has fallen from his caste. Let that false science not be attempted, for thus it is said:- (i) Widely opposed and divergent are these two, the one known as false knowledge, the other as knowledge. I (Yama) believe Nakiketas to be possessed by a desire of knowledge; even many pleasures do not move thee [2]. (2) He who knows at the same time both the imperfect (sacrifice, &c.) and the perfect knowledge (of the Self), he crosses death by means of the imperfect, and obtains immortality by means of the perfect knowledge [3]. (3) Those who are wrapped up [4] in the midst of imperfect knowledge, fancying themselves alone wise and learned, they wander about floundering and deceived, like the blind led by the blind [5].
Max Müller
Commentary
1. All this may refer to Buddhists, but not by necessity, for there were heretics, such as Brihaspati, long before Sâkyamuni. 2. See Kath. Up. II, 4. 3. See Vâg. Up. 11. 4. Veshtyamânâh, instead of vartamânâh. 5. See Kath. Up. II, 5.
10. The gods and the demons, wishing to know the Self, went into the presence of Brahman (their father, Pragâpati) [1]. Having bowed before him, they said:- 'O blessed one, we wish to know the Self, do thou tell us.' Then, after having pondered a long while, he thought, these demons are not yet self-subdued [2]; therefore a very different Self was told to them (from what was told to the gods). On that Self these deluded demons take their stand, clinging to it, destroying the true means of salvation (the Veda), preaching untruth. What is untrue they see as true, as in jugglery. Therefore, what is taught in the Vedas, that is true. What is said in the Vedas, on that the wise keep their stand. Therefore let a Brâhman not read what is not of the Veda, or this will be the result.
Max Müller
Commentary
1. Cf. Khând. Up. VIII, 8. 2. I prefer ayatâtmânah, though it is the easier (sugama) reading, as compared with anyatâtmânah, those who seek for the Self elsewhere, namely, in the body. It seems to me to refer to those who, without having subdued the passions of their body, wish to obtain the knowledge of the Highest Self. Possibly, however, the author may have intended a climax from anyatâtmânah to anyatamam.
11. This is indeed the nature of it (the Veda), the supreme light of the ether which is within the heart. This is taught as threefold, in the fire, in the sun, in the breath. This is indeed the nature of it, the syllable Om, of the ether which is within the heart. By it (by the Om) that (light) starts, rises, breathes forth, becomes for ever the means of the worship and knowledge of Brahman. That (light, in the shape of Om), when there is breathing, takes the place of the internal heat, free from all brightness [1]. This is like the action of smoke; for when there is a breath of air, the smoke, first rising to the sky in one column, follows afterwards every bough, envelopes it and takes its shape [2]. It is like throwing salt (into water), like heating ghee [3]. The Veda comes and goes like the dissolving view of a master-magician [4]. And here they quote:- 'Why then is it called "like lightning?" Because as soon as it comes forth (as Om) it lights up the whole body. Therefore let a man worship that boundless light by the syllable Om.' (1) The man in the eye who abides in the right eye, he is Indra, and his wife abides in the left eye [5]. (2) The union of these two takes place in the cavity within the heart, and the ball of blood which is there, that is indeed the vigour and life of these two. (3) There is a channel going from the heart so far, and fixed in that eye; that is the artery for both of them, being one, divided into two. (4) The mind excites the fire of the body, that fire stirs the breath, and the breath, moving in the chest, produces the low sound. (5) Brought forth by the touch of the fire, as with a churning-stick, it is at first a minim, from the minim it becomes in the throat a double minim; on the tip of the tongue know that it is a treble minim, and, when uttered, they call it the alphabet (στοιχεῖα) [6]. (6) He who sees this, does not see death, nor disease, nor misery, for seeing he sees all (objectively, not as affecting him subjectively); he becomes all everywhere (he becomes Brahman). (7) There is the person in the eye, there is he who walks as in sleep, he who is sound asleep, and he who is above the sleeper:- these are the four conditions (of the Self), and the fourth is greater than all [7]. (8) Brahman with one foot moves in the three, and Brahman with three feet is in the last. It is that both the true (in the fourth condition) and the untrue (in the three conditions) may have their desert, that the Great Self (seems to) become two, yes, that he (seems to) become two [8].
Max Müller
Commentary
1. This seems to be the meaning adopted by the commentator; but may it not be, sending forth brightness? 2. The simile is not very clear. The light of Brahman is below the sphere of fire in the body. That sphere of fire becoming heated, the light of Brahman becomes manifest. When the fire has been fanned by the wind of sonant breath, then the light of Brahman, embodying itself in the wind and the fire, manifests itself first in the mere sound of Om, but afterwards, checked by throat, palate, &c., it assumes the form of articulate letters, and ends by becoming the Veda in its many branches. 3. As these are outwardly changed, without losing their nature, thus the light of Brahman, though assuming the different forms of the Veda, remains itself. 4. See before, VII, 1. 5. See Brih. Up. IV, 2, 2, 3, where Indra is explained as Indha. 6. A comparison of this verse with Khând. Up. VII, 26, shows the great freedom with which the wording of these ancient verses was treated. Instead of--
Na pasyan mrityum pasyati na rogam nota duhkhatâm, Sarvam hi pasyan pasyati sarvam âpnoti sarvasah,
the Khândogya Up. reads:-
Na pasyo mrityum pasyati na rogam nota duhkhatâm, Sarvam ha pasyah pasyati sarvam âpnoti sarvasah.
7. The conditions here described are sometimes called the Visva (Vaisvânara), Taigasa, Prâgña, and Turîya. In the first state the Self is awake, and enjoys the world; in the second he sees everything as in a dream; in the third the two former states cease, and he is absorbed in sleep; in the fourth he becomes again the pure Self. In the first state the Self has the disguise of a coarse material body; in the second of a subtle material body; in the third its disguise is potential only; in the fourth it has no disguise, either potential or realised. 8. 'By reason of the experience of the false and the true, the great Soul appears possessed of duality.' Cowell.