Shanti Mantra

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

saṃdadhāmyṛtaṃ vadiṣyāmi satyaṃ vadiṣyāmi || tanmāmavatu

tadvaktāramavatvavatu māmavatu vaktāramavatu vaktāram ||

|| oṃ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ||

Sloka : 1.1.1

॥ अथ ऐतरेयोपनिषदि प्रथमाध्याये प्रथमः खण्डः ॥

ॐ आत्मा वा इदमेक एवाग्र आसीन्नान्यत्किंचन मिषत् । स ईक्षत

लोकान्नु सृजा इति ॥ १॥

|| atha aitareyopaniṣadi prathamādhyāye prathamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ ||

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."

Commentary: Sloka-1.1.1-C1

Other Translations: Sloka-1.1.1-C1

Sloka : 1.1.2

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.

Commentary: Sloka-1.1.2-C1

Other Translations: Sloka-1.1.2-C1

Sloka : 1.1.3

स ईक्षतेमे नु लोका लोकपालान्नु सृजा इति ॥ सोऽद्भ्य एव पुरुषं

समुद्धृत्यामूर्छयत् ॥ ३॥

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.

Commentary: Sloka-1.1.3-C1

Other Translations: Sloka-1.1.3-C1

Sloka : 1.1.4

तमभ्यतपत्तस्याभितप्तस्य मुखं निरभिद्यत यथाऽण्डं

मुखाद्वाग्वाचोऽग्निर्नासिके निरभिद्येतं नासिकाभ्यां प्राणः ॥

प्राणाद्वायुरक्षिणी निरभिद्येतमक्षीभ्यां चक्षुश्चक्षुष

आदित्यः कर्णौ निरभिद्येतां कर्णाभ्यां श्रोत्रं

श्रोत्रद्दिशस्त्वङ्निरभिद्यत त्वचो लोमानि लोमभ्य ओषधिवनस्पतयो

हृदयं निरभिद्यत हृदयान्मनो मनसश्चन्द्रमा नाभिर्निरभिद्यत

नाभ्या अपानोऽपानान्मृत्युः

शिश्नं निरभिद्यत शिश्नाद्रेतो रेतस आपः ॥ ४॥

॥ इत्यैतरेयोपनिषदि प्रथमाध्याये प्रथमः खण्डः ॥

tamabhyatapattasyābhitaptasya mukhaṃ nirabhidyata yathā'ṇḍaṃ

mukhādvāgvāco'gnirnāsike nirabhidyetaṃ nāsikābhyāṃ prāṇaḥ ||

prāṇādvāyurakṣiṇī nirabhidyetamakṣībhyāṃ cakṣuścakṣuṣa

ādityaḥ karṇau nirabhidyetāṃ karṇābhyāṃ śrotraṃ

śrotraddiśastvaṅnirabhidyata tvaco lomāni lomabhya oṣadhivanaspatayo

hṛdayaṃ nirabhidyata hṛdayānmano manasaścandramā nābhirnirabhidyata

nābhyā apāno'pānānmṛtyuḥ

śiśnaṃ nirabhidyata śiśnādreto retasa āpaḥ || 4||

|| ityaitareyopaniṣadi prathamādhyāye prathamaḥ khaṇḍaḥ ||

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.

Commentary: Sloka-1.1.4-C1

Other Translations: Sloka-1.1.4-C1

Sloka : 1.2.1

॥ अथ ऐतरेयोपनिषदि प्रथमाध्याये द्वितीयः खण्डः ॥

ता एता देवताः सृष्टा अस्मिन्महत्यर्णवे प्रापतन्

। तमशनापिपासाभ्यामन्ववार्जत् । ता

एनमब्रुवन्नायतनं नः प्रजानीहि यस्मिन्प्रतिष्ठिता अन्नमदामेति ॥ १॥

|| atha aitareyopaniṣadi prathamādhyāye dvitīyaḥ khaṇḍaḥ ||

tā etā devatāḥ sṛṣṭā asminmahatyarṇave prāpatan

. tamaśanāpipāsābhyāmanvavārjat . tā

enamabruvannāyatanaṃ naḥ prajānīhi yasminpratiṣṭhitā annamadāmeti || 1||

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."

Commentary: Sloka-1.2.1-C1

Other Translations: Sloka-1.2.1-C1

Sloka : 1.2.2

ताभ्यो गामानयत्ता अब्रुवन्न वै नोऽयमलमिति ।

ताभ्योऽश्वमानयत्ता अब्रुवन्न वै नोऽयमलमिति ॥ २॥

tābhyo gāmānayattā abruvanna vai no'yamalamiti .

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."

Commentary: Sloka-1.2.2-C1

Other Translations: Sloka-1.2.2-C1

Sloka : 1.2.3

ताभ्यः पुरुषमानयत्ता अब्रुवन् सुकृतं बतेति पुरुषो वाव सुकृतम् ।

ता अब्रवीद्यथायतनं प्रविशतेति ॥ ३॥

tābhyaḥ puruṣamānayattā abruvan sukṛtaṃ bateti puruṣo vāva sukṛtam .

tā abravīdyathāyatanaṃ praviśateti || 3||

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".

Commentary: Sloka-1.2.3-C1

Other Translations: Sloka-1.2.3-C1

Sloka : 1.2.4

अग्निर्वाग्भूत्वा मुखं प्राविशद्वायुः प्राणो भूत्वा नासिके

प्राविशदादित्यश्चक्षुर्भूत्वाऽक्षिणी प्राविशाद्दिशः

श्रोत्रं भूत्वा कर्णौ प्राविशन्नोषधिवनस्पतयो लोमानि भूत्वा

त्वचंप्राविशंश्चन्द्रमा मनो भूत्वा हृदयं प्राविशन्मृत्युरपानो

भूत्वा नाभिं प्राविशदापो रेतो भूत्वा शिश्नं प्राविशन् ॥ ४॥

agnirvāgbhūtvā mukhaṃ prāviśadvāyuḥ prāṇo bhūtvā nāsike

prāviśadādityaścakṣurbhūtvā'kṣiṇī prāviśāddiśaḥ

śrotraṃ bhūtvā karṇau prāviśannoṣadhivanaspatayo lomāni bhūtvā

tvacaṃprāviśaṃścandramā mano bhūtvā hṛdayaṃ prāviśanmṛtyurapāno

bhūtvā nābhiṃ prāviśadāpo reto bhūtvā śiśnaṃ prāviśan || 4||

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).

Commentary: Sloka-1.2.4-C1

Other Translations: Sloka-1.2.4-C1

Sloka : 1.2.5

तमशनायापिपासे अब्रूतामावाभ्यामभिप्रजानीहीति ते अब्रवीदेतास्वेव

वां देवतास्वाभजाम्येतासु भागिन्न्यौ करोमीति । तस्माद्यस्यै कस्यै

च देवतायै हविर्गृह्यते भागिन्यावेवास्यामशनायापिपासे

भवतः ॥ ५॥

॥ इत्यैतरेयोपनिषदि प्रथमाध्याये द्वितीयः खण्डः ॥

tamaśanāyāpipāse abrūtāmāvābhyāmabhiprajānīhīti te abravīdetāsveva

vāṃ devatāsvābhajāmyetāsu bhāginnyau karomīti . tasmādyasyai kasyai

ca devatāyai havirgṛhyate bhāginyāvevāsyāmaśanāyāpipāse

bhavataḥ || 5||

|| ityaitareyopaniṣadi prathamādhyāye dvitīyaḥ khaṇḍaḥ ||

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.

Commentary: Sloka-1.2.5-C1

Other Translations: Sloka-1.2.5-C1

Sloka : 1.3.1

॥ अथ ऐतरेयोपनिषदि प्रथमाध्याये तृतीयः खण्डः ॥

स ईक्षतेमे नु लोकाश्च लोकपालाश्चान्नमेभ्यः सृजा इति ॥ १॥

|| atha aitareyopaniṣadi prathamādhyāye tṛtīyaḥ khaṇḍaḥ ||

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.

Commentary: Sloka-1.3.1-C1

Other Translations: Sloka-1.3.1-C1

Sloka : 1.3.2

सोऽपोऽभ्यतपत्ताभ्योऽभितप्ताभ्यो मूर्तिरजायत ।

या वै सा मूर्तिरजायतान्नं वै तत् ॥ २॥

so'po'bhyatapattābhyo'bhitaptābhyo mūrtirajāyata .

yā vai sā mūrtirajāyatānnaṃ vai tat || 2||

He deliberated with regard to the water. From the water, thus brooded over, evolved a form. The form that emerged was verily food.

Commentary: Sloka-1.3.2-C1

Other Translations: Sloka-1.3.2-C1

Sloka : 1.3.3

तदेनत्सृष्टं पराङ्त्यजिघांसत्तद्वाचाऽजिघृक्षत्

तन्नाशक्नोद्वाचा ग्रहीतुम् ।

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.

Commentary: Sloka-1.3.3-C1

Other Translations: Sloka-1.3.3-C1

Sloka : 1.3.4

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.

Other Translations: Sloka-1.3.4-C1

Sloka : 1.3.5

तच्चक्षुषाऽजिघृक्षत् तन्नाशक्नोच्चक्षुषा ग्रहीतु/न् स

यद्धैनच्चक्षुषाऽग्रहैष्यद्दृष्ट्वा हैवानमत्रप्स्यत् ॥ ५॥

taccakṣuṣā'jighṛkṣat tannāśaknoccakṣuṣā grahītu/n sa

yaddhainaccakṣuṣā'grahaiṣyaddṛṣṭvā haivānamatrapsyat || 5||

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.

Other Translations: Sloka-1.3.5-C1

Sloka : 1.3.6

तच्छ्रोत्रेणाजिघृक्षत् तन्नाशक्नोच्छ्रोत्रेण ग्रहीतुं स

यद्धैनच्छ्रोतेणाग्रहैष्यच्छ्रुत्वा हैवान्नमत्रप्स्यत् ॥ ६॥

tacchrotreṇājighṛkṣat tannāśaknocchrotreṇa grahītuṃ sa

yaddhainacchroteṇāgrahaiṣyacchrutvā haivānnamatrapsyat || 6||

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.

Other Translations: Sloka-1.3.6-C1

Sloka : 1.3.7

तत्त्वचाऽजिघृक्षत् तन्नाशक्नोत्त्वचा ग्रहीतुं स

यद्धैनत्त्वचाऽग्रहैष्यत् स्पृष्ट्वा हैवान्नमत्रप्स्यत् ॥ ७॥

tattvacā'jighṛkṣat tannāśaknottvacā grahītuṃ sa

yaddhainattvacā'grahaiṣyat spṛṣṭvā haivānnamatrapsyat || 7||

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.

Other Translations: Sloka-1.3.7-C1

Sloka : 1.3.8

तन्मनसाऽजिघृक्षत् तन्नाशक्नोन्मनसा ग्रहीतुं स

यद्धैनन्मनसाऽग्रहैष्यद्ध्यात्वा हैवान्नमत्रप्स्यत् ॥ ८॥

tanmanasā'jighṛkṣat tannāśaknonmanasā grahītuṃ sa

yaddhainanmanasā'grahaiṣyaddhyātvā haivānnamatrapsyat || 8||

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.

Other Translations: Sloka-1.3.8-C1

Sloka : 1.3.9

तच्छिश्नेनाजिघृक्षत् तन्नाशक्नोच्छिश्नेन ग्रहीतुं स

यद्धैनच्छिश्नेनाग्रहैष्यद्वित्सृज्य हैवानमत्रप्स्यत् ॥ ९॥

tacchiśnenājighṛkṣat tannāśaknocchiśnena grahītuṃ sa

yaddhainacchiśnenāgrahaiṣyadvitsṛjya haivānamatrapsyat || 9||

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.

Other Translations: Sloka-1.3.9-C1

Sloka : 1.3.10

तदपानेनाजिघृक्षत् तदावयत् सैषोऽन्नस्य ग्रहो

यद्वायुरनायुर्वा एष यद्वायुः ॥ १०॥

tadapānenājighṛkṣat tadāvayat saiṣo'nnasya graho

yadvāyuranāyurvā eṣa yadvāyuḥ || 10||

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).

Commentary: Sloka-1.3.10-C1

Other Translations: Sloka-1.3.10-C1

Sloka : 1.3.11

स ईक्षत कथं न्विदं मदृते स्यादिति स ईक्षत कतरेण प्रपद्या इति ।

स ईक्षत यदि वाचाऽभिव्याहृतं यदि प्राणेनाभिप्राणितं यदि

चक्षुषा दृष्टं यदि श्रोत्रेण श्रुतं

यदि त्वचा स्पृष्टं यदि मनसा ध्यातं यद्यपानेनाभ्यपानितं

यदि शिश्नेन विसृष्टमथ कोऽहमिति ॥ ११॥

sa īkṣata kathaṃ nvidaṃ madṛte syāditi sa īkṣata katareṇa prapadyā iti .

sa īkṣata yadi vācā'bhivyāhṛtaṃ yadi prāṇenābhiprāṇitaṃ yadi

cakṣuṣā dṛṣṭaṃ yadi śrotreṇa śrutaṃ

yadi tvacā spṛṣṭaṃ yadi manasā dhyātaṃ yadyapānenābhyapānitaṃ

yadi śiśnena visṛṣṭamatha ko'hamiti || 11||

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?"

Commentary: Sloka-1.3.11-C1

Other Translations: Sloka-1.3.11-C1

Sloka : 1.3.12

स एतमेव सीमानं विदर्यैतया द्वारा प्रापद्यत । सैषा विदृतिर्नाम

द्वास्तदेतन्नाऽन्दनम् ।

तस्य त्रय आवसथास्त्रयः स्वप्ना अयमावसथोऽयमावसथोऽयमावसथ

इति ॥ १२॥

sa etameva sīmānaṃ vidaryaitayā dvārā prāpadyata . saiṣā vidṛtirnāma

dvāstadetannā'ndanam .

tasya traya āvasathāstrayaḥ svapnā ayamāvasatho'yamāvasatho'yamāvasatha

iti || 12||

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.

Commentary: Sloka-1.3.12-C1

Other Translations: Sloka-1.3.12-C1

Sloka : 1.3.13

स जातो भूतान्यभिव्यैख्यत् किमिहान्यं वावदिषदिति ।स एतमेव

पुरुषं ब्रह्म ततममपश्यत् । इदमदर्शनमिती ३ ॥ १३॥

sa jāto bhūtānyabhivyaikhyat kimihānyaṃ vāvadiṣaditi .sa etameva

puruṣaṃ brahma tatamamapaśyat . idamadarśanamitī 3 || 13||

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".

Commentary: Sloka-1.3.13-C1

Other Translations: Sloka-1.3.13-C1

Sloka : 1.3.14

तस्मादिदन्द्रो नामेदन्द्रो ह वै नाम । तमिदन्द्रं सन्तमिंद्र

इत्याचक्षते परोक्षेण ।

परोक्षप्रिया इव हि देवाः परोक्षप्रिया इव हि देवाः ॥ १४॥

॥ इत्यैतरेयोपनिषदि प्रथमाध्याये तृतीयः खण्डः ॥

tasmādidandro nāmedandro ha vai nāma . tamidandraṃ santamiṃdra

ityācakṣate parokṣeṇa .

parokṣapriyā iva hi devāḥ parokṣapriyā iva hi devāḥ || 14||

|| ityaitareyopaniṣadi prathamādhyāye tṛtīyaḥ khaṇḍaḥ ||

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.

Commentary: Sloka-1.3.14-C1

Other Translations: Sloka-1.3.14-C1

Sloka : 2.1.1

॥ अथ ऐतरोपनिषदि द्वितीयोध्यायः ॥

ॐ पुरुषे ह वा अयमादितो गर्भो भवति यदेतद्रेतः

।तदेतत्सर्वेभ्योऽङ्गेभ्यस्तेजः संभूतमात्मन्येवऽऽत्मानं बिभर्ति

तद्यदा स्त्रियां सिञ्चत्यथैनज्जनयति तदस्य प्रथमं जन्म ॥ १॥

|| atha aitaropaniṣadi dvitīyodhyāyaḥ ||

oṃ puruṣe ha vā ayamādito garbho bhavati yadetadretaḥ

.tadetatsarvebhyo'ṅgebhyastejaḥ saṃbhūtamātmanyeva''tmānaṃ bibharti

tadyadā striyāṃ siñcatyathainajjanayati tadasya prathamaṃ janma || 1||

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.

Commentary: Sloka-2.1.1-C1

Other Translations: Sloka-2.1.1-C1

Sloka : 2.1.2

तत्स्त्रिया आत्मभूयं गच्छति यथा स्वमङ्गं तथा । तस्मादेनां न हिनस्ति ।

साऽस्यैतमात्मानमत्र गतं भावयति ॥ २॥

tatstriyā ātmabhūyaṃ gacchati yathā svamaṅgaṃ tathā . tasmādenāṃ na hinasti .

sā'syaitamātmānamatra gataṃ bhāvayati || 2||

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).

Commentary: Sloka-2.1.2-C1

Other Translations: Sloka-2.1.2-C1

Sloka : 2.1.3

सा भावयित्री भावयितव्या भवति । तं स्त्री गर्भ बिभर्ति । सोऽग्र

एव कुमारं जन्मनोऽग्रेऽधिभावयति ।

स यत्कुमारं जन्मनोऽग्रेऽधिभावयत्यात्मानमेव तद्भावयत्येषं

लोकानां सन्तत्या ।

एवं सन्तता हीमे लोकास्तदस्य द्वितीयं जन्म ॥ ३॥

sā bhāvayitrī bhāvayitavyā bhavati . taṃ strī garbha bibharti . so'gra

eva kumāraṃ janmano'gre'dhibhāvayati .

sa yatkumāraṃ janmano'gre'dhibhāvayatyātmānameva tadbhāvayatyeṣaṃ

lokānāṃ santatyā .

evaṃ santatā hīme lokāstadasya dvitīyaṃ janma || 3||

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.

Commentary: Sloka-2.1.3-C1

Other Translations: Sloka-2.1.3-C1

Sloka : 2.1.4

सोऽस्यायमात्मा पुण्येभ्यः कर्मभ्यः प्रतिधीयते । अथास्यायामितर आत्मा

कृतकृत्यो वयोगतः प्रैति ।

स इतः प्रयन्नेव पुनर्जायते तदस्य तृतीयं जन्म ॥ ४॥

so'syāyamātmā puṇyebhyaḥ karmabhyaḥ pratidhīyate . athāsyāyāmitara ātmā

kṛtakṛtyo vayogataḥ praiti .

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.

Commentary: Sloka-2.1.4-C1

Other Translations: Sloka-2.1.4-C1

Sloka : 2.1.5

तदुक्तमृषिणा गर्भे नु सन्नन्वेषामवेदमहं देवानां जनिमानि

विश्वा शतं मा पुर आयसीररक्षन्नधः श्येनो जवसा निरदीयमिति

। गर्भ एवैतच्छयानो वामदेव एवमुवाच ॥ ५॥

taduktamṛṣiṇā garbhe nu sannanveṣāmavedamahaṃ devānāṃ janimāni

viśvā śataṃ mā pura āyasīrarakṣannadhaḥ śyeno javasā niradīyamiti

. garbha evaitacchayāno vāmadeva evamuvāca || 5||

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.

Commentary: Sloka-2.1.5-C1

Other Translations: Sloka-2.1.5-C1

Sloka : 2.1.6

स एवं विद्वानस्माच्छरीरभेदादूर्ध्व उत्क्रम्यामुष्मिन् स्वर्गे लोके

सर्वान् कामानाप्त्वाऽमृतः समभवत् समभवत् ॥ ६॥

॥ इत्यैतरोपनिषदि द्वितीयोध्यायः ॥

sa evaṃ vidvānasmāccharīrabhedādūrdhva utkramyāmuṣmin svarge loke

sarvān kāmānāptvā'mṛtaḥ samabhavat samabhavat || 6||

|| ityaitaropaniṣadi dvitīyodhyāyaḥ ||

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.

Commentary: Sloka-2.1.6-C1

Other Translations: Sloka-2.1.6-C1

Sloka : 3.1.1

॥ अथ ऐतरोपनिषदि तृतीयोध्यायः ॥

ॐ कोऽयमात्मेति वयमुपास्महे कतरः स आत्मा । येन वा पश्यति येन

वा श‍ृणोति येन वा गंधानाजिघ्रति येन वा वाचं व्याकरोति येन

वा स्वादु चास्वादु च विजानाति ॥ १॥

|| atha aitaropaniṣadi tṛtīyodhyāyaḥ ||

oṃ ko'yamātmeti vayamupāsmahe kataraḥ sa ātmā . yena vā paśyati yena

vā śṛṇoti yena vā gaṃdhānājighrati yena vā vācaṃ vyākaroti yena

vā svādu cāsvādu ca vijānāti || 1||

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?

Commentary: Sloka-3.1.1-C1

Other Translations: Sloka-3.1.1-C1

Sloka : 3.1.2

यदेतद्धृदयं मनश्चैतत् । संज्ञानमाज्ञानं विज्ञानं

प्रज्ञानं मेधा

दृष्टिर्धृतिमतिर्मनीषा जूतिः स्मृतिः संकल्पः क्रतुरसुः कामो

वश इति ।

सर्वाण्येवैतानि प्रज्ञानस्य नामधेयानि भवंति ॥ २॥

yadetaddhṛdayaṃ manaścaitat . saṃjñānamājñānaṃ vijñānaṃ

prajñānaṃ medhā

dṛṣṭirdhṛtimatirmanīṣā jūtiḥ smṛtiḥ saṃkalpaḥ kraturasuḥ kāmo

vaśa iti .

sarvāṇyevaitāni prajñānasya nāmadheyāni bhavaṃti || 2||

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.

Commentary: Sloka-3.1.2-C1

Other Translations: Sloka-3.1.2-C1

Sloka : 3.1.3

एष ब्रह्मैष इन्द्र एष प्रजापतिरेते सर्वे देवा इमानि च

पञ्चमहाभूतानि पृथिवी वायुराकाश आपो

ज्योतींषीत्येतानीमानि च क्षुद्रमिश्राणीव ।

बीजानीतराणि चेतराणि चाण्डजानि च जारुजानि च स्वेदजानि चोद्भिज्जानि

चाश्वा गावः पुरुषा हस्तिनो यत्किञ्चेदं प्राणि जङ्गमं च पतत्रि

च यच्च स्थावरं सर्वं तत्प्रज्ञानेत्रं प्रज्ञाने प्रतिष्ठितं

प्रज्ञानेत्रो लोकः प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्ठा प्रज्ञानं ब्रह्म ॥ ३॥

eṣa brahmaiṣa indra eṣa prajāpatirete sarve devā imāni ca

pañcamahābhūtāni pṛthivī vāyurākāśa āpo

jyotīṃṣītyetānīmāni ca kṣudramiśrāṇīva .

bījānītarāṇi cetarāṇi cāṇḍajāni ca jārujāni ca svedajāni codbhijjāni

cāśvā gāvaḥ puruṣā hastino yatkiñcedaṃ prāṇi jaṅgamaṃ ca patatri

ca yacca sthāvaraṃ sarvaṃ tatprajñānetraṃ prajñāne pratiṣṭhitaṃ

prajñānetro lokaḥ prajñā pratiṣṭhā prajñānaṃ brahma || 3||

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.

Commentary: Sloka-3.1.3-C1

Other Translations: Sloka-3.1.3-C1

Sloka : 3.1.4

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.

Commentary: Sloka-3.1.4-C1

Other Translations: Sloka-3.1.4-C1

Shanti Mantra (END)

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

saṃdadhāmyṛtaṃ vadiṣyāmi satyaṃ vadiṣyāmi tanmāmavatu

tadvaktāramavatvavatu māmavatu vaktāramavatu vaktāram ||

|| oṃ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ||

Summary

The Aitareya Upanishad (Sanskrit: ऐतरेय उपनिषद् IAST Aitareyopaniṣad) is a Mukhya Upanishad, associated with the Rigveda. It comprises the fourth, fifth and sixth chapters of the second book of Aitareya Aranyaka.

Atman existed alone prior to the creation

In the first chapter of the Aitareya Upanishad, Atman is asserted to have existed alone prior to the creation of the universe. It is this Atman, the Soul or the Inner Self, that is then portrayed as the creator of everything from itself and nothing, through heat. The text states that the Atman created the universe in stages. First came four entities: space, maram (earth, stars), maricih (light-atom) and apas (ur-water, cosmic fluid). After these came into existence, came the cosmic self and eight psyches and principles (speech, in-breathing, sight, hearing, skin/hair, mind, out-breathing, reproductivity). Atman then created eight guardians corresponding to these psyches and principles. Then came the connective principles of hunger and thirst, where everything became interdependent on everything else through the principle of apana (digestion). Thereafter came man, who could not exist without a sense of Self and Soul (Atman). But this sense then began cogitating on itself, saying that “I am more than my sensory organs, I am more than my mind, I am more than my reproductive ability”.

Atman is born thrice

In the second chapter, Aitareya Upanishad asserts that the Atman in any man is born thrice: first, when a child is born (procreation); second, when the child has been cared for and loved to Selfhood where the child equals the parent; third, when the parent dies and the Atman transmigrates. The overall idea of chapter 2 of Aitareya Upanishad is that it is procreation and nurturing of children that makes a man immortal, and the theory of rebirth, which are the means by which Atman sustainably persists in this universe.

Nature of Atman

Aitareya Upanishad, like other Upanishads of Hinduism, asserts the existence of Consciousness as Atman, the Self or Brahman. It contains one of the most famous expressions of the Vedanta, “Prajnanam Brahma” (Knowledge is Brahman/god/divine/holy), which is one of the Mahāvākyas.

Introduction by Shankaracharya

Earlier than this [The Aitareya Upanishad forms the 4th, 5th and 6th chapters of the second Aranyaka of Aitareya Brahmana. The Upanishad is concerned only with knowledge of the Self, whereas the earlier portions deal with Karma, associated with meditation.] was finished Karma [Rites, duties, etc.] along with the knowledge of (i.e. meditation on) the inferior Brahman (i.e. Hiranyagarbha).

This highest result that is such and achievable through Karma, associated with meditation, was concluded with the meditation on Uktha [Uktha is Prana (lit. Vital Force, i.e. Hiranyagarbha — cosmic power of knowledge and action); and meditation on it consists in thinking, “I am that Uktha or Prana.” Such deep concentration ensures identity with Prana.]. It was said, “This Brahman that is Truth is called Prana; this is only Deity” (Kau. II. 2; Mai. VII. 7)” “All the gods are but manifestations of this Prana”; “Attaining identity wit (the Deity, Brahma, Immortality, that is) this Prana, one becomes united with the gods.” Some people believe that the highest human goal consists in this merger in the Deity, that this is emancipation, that this is attainable by the means of a combination of meditation and Karma as described, and that there is nothing higher than this.

With a view to refuting them and enjoining the knowledge of the absolute Self, the subsequent text says, “ In the beginning this was but the absolute Self alone”, etc. (I.i.1).

Objection: How is it, again, known that the subsequent text is meant for enjoining the knowledge of the absolute Self, unconnected with Karma? Answer: Since no other meaning can be deduced. Moreover, through such texts as “He subjected Him [Virat, who is the gross manifestation of Hiranyagarbha.] to hunger and thirst” (I. ii. 1) etc., it will be shown that the gods such as Fire, mentioned earlier, are included in the phenomenal world because of the defects of their hunger etc. All that is subject to hunger etc. is surely within the phenomenal world, whereas the supreme Brahman is mentioned in the Vedas as transcendental to hunger and the rest.

Objection: Even if it be thus conceded that the knowledge of the absolute Self is the means for emancipation, it does not follow that a non-performer of Karma alone is qualified for this, since no such specification is heard of, there being no mention in this Upanishad of any non-performer of Karma (i.e. a sannyasi) belonging to a distinct order. Again, the knowledge of the Self is begun only after introducing the rite called Brhati-sahasra. Therefore it is the performer of karma who is in fact entitled to this. Nor is the knowledge of the Self incompatible with karma, for the summing up (here) at the end conforms to what went earlier. Just as it was stated by the (earlier) brahmana (portion) that the Purusa [The conscious, all-pervasive Reality that dwells everywhere.] associated with karma and identified with the Sun, is the self of all beings, mobile and immobile, [First His identity with the Sun is shown in, “He indeed illumines this world — the One that shines as the Being (in the Sun)”, and then He is shown as all-pervading in, “Therefore they known Him as a hundredrayed — on One that is that very Purusa”, and, “It is the vital force indeed that becomes all these” (Ch. V.i.15; VII. xv.4).] and as it was confirmed by the mantra (portion) in such texts as, “The Sun is the Self (of the universe, moving and motionless)” (R. I. cxv. 1), similarly (here), too, the start will be made with “ This one is (the inferior) Brahman; this is Indra” (III. i. 3), and the conclusion will be, “All the creatures that there are, which move or do not move, are impelled by Consciousness” (III. i. 3). Similarly, too, in the Upanishad of the samhita (portion) the Self will be spoken of as associated with karma, in the text, “ The followers of the Rg-Veda deliberate on this very Entity in the hymn called Brhati-sahasra”, etc. (Ai. A. III. ii. 3. 12), and the conclusion will be with, “They speak of it alone as the Self in all beings,” etc. Similarly, too, the identity of the One that is referred to in, “That which the bodiless conscious Self,” is spoken of in, “One should know That as identical with Him that is in the sun”. Here, again, commencing with, “Which is It that we worship as this Self ?” (III. i. 1), the identity with Consciousness Itself will be shown in “Consciousness is Brahman” (III. i. 3). Therefore the knowledge of the Self is not disconnected with karma.

Counter-objection: (On that supposition) the present text becomes useless because of tautology. How? The Self having been ascertained by the brahmana (portion) in, “O Rsi, I am indeed Prana”, and by the mantra (portion) in, “ The Sun is the Self” (R. I. cxv. 1), it is useless and tautological to ascertain It over again by the brahmana (i.e. the Upanishad portion) by raising the question, “Which is It that we worship as this Self ?” (III. i. 1) and then answering that “all this is but the Self”, and so on.

Opponent: Not so, for no fault of tautology is involved, inasmuch as this is meant to determine some special qualities of that very Self. How? Of that very Self, as connected with Karma, it is sought to determine some special attributes such as (the power of) creation, protection, and dissolution of the world, or to present. It as an object of meditatioin in Its unconditioned state. To explanin the second alternative: From the fact that meditation on the Self (as such) was not enjoined in the context of karma, it might be inferred that the Self, which is (found) associated with karma, is not to be meditated upon apart from karma; therefore the purport of the (following) text, beginning with “Atma” etc., is that the unconditioned Self, too, is to be meditated on. Or since the Self is to be worshipped ( both as different and non-different (from oneself), the same Self that is subject to the idea of difference in a context of karma is again to be meditated on as non-different outside (that) karma. Thus there is no tautology. Moreover, according to the adherents of the Vajasaneya Section (of the Yajur-Veda) there are the statements, “He who knows these two, Vidya (knowledge) and avidya (rites etc.), together, attains immortality through vidya by crossing over death through avidya” (Is. 11) and “By doing karma indeed should one wish to live here for a hundred years” (Is. 1). Not that mortals can have more than a hundred years as the fullest span of life, so as to able to meditate on the Self after renouncing karma (after a hundred years). And it has been shown in the Aitareya Aranyaka, “The span of a man”s life comprises as many thousands of days.” [The Aranyaka first points out that the sastra (hymn) called Brhatisahasra has got 36,000 letters in it, and then states that a man”s life consists of as many days, that is, 100 years.] Now, the hundred years of life are packed with karma; and the mantra, “By doing karma indeed…” has just been quoted. Similar are the texts, “One should perform the Agnihotra sacrifices as long as one lives”, “One should perform the Darsa and Purnamasa (new moon and full moon) sacrifices as long as one lives,” and others, as well as, “Him they burn along with the sacrificial vessels.” Besides, there is the Vedic text speaking of the three debts. [“The Brahmana, from his birth, is under three debts” (Tai. S. VI. iii. 10) — to the gods, manes, and sages.] As for the scriptural text dealing with monasticism etc., to wit, “Knowing this very Self the Brahmanas renounce… and lead a mendicant life” (Br. III. v. 1, IV. iv. 22), it is eulogistic, meant to praise the knowledge of the Self. Or it is meant for the disqualified ones (e.g. the blind, the lame, and others [ Who cannot undertake Vedic rites.]).

Vedantin: Not so, for when the supreme knowledge is achieved, there can be no idea of results, and so no action is possible. As for the statements that “the knowledge of the Self comes to the man engaged in karma”, that “it is associated with karma,” and so on, they are wrong. Action is inconceivable is one who has the knowledge of Brahman as his Self, comprised in the realization, “I am the supreme Brahman in which all desires are fulfilled and which is above all the worldly shortcomings,” and who has no idea of results because he feels no need for anything to be got for himself from actions done or to be done (by him).

Objection: Though he may not perceive any benefit therefrom, he still acts because of the (scriptural) injunction. Answer: No, for he has realized the Self that is beyond the range of injunctions. It is seen in the world that one comes within the scope of injunction so long as one feels the need for acquiring some desirable thing or avoiding some undesirable thing for himself and seeks for a means thereof; but not is so the one who is of a contrary disposition and has realized the identity of the Self with Brahman that cannot be subjected to any injunction. If a man who has realized the identity of the Self and Brahman has still to bow down to injunctions, even though he is beyond all mandates, then there will remain none who is outside the pale of scriptural direction; and so all actions will become fit to be undertaken by all and sundry at all times. But that is undesirable. Nor can he be directed by anybody, for even the scriptures emanate from him. Not that anyone can himself be impelled by any sentence issuing out of his own wisdom. Nor is a well-informed master commanded by an ignorant servant. The Vedas, being eternal, are independent, and hence have the mandatory power over all. Answer: No, for the defect (of such an argument) has been already pointed out. Even on this assumption, the defect of every duty becoming fit to be indiscriminately undertaken at all times by all and sundry persists unavoidably.

Objection: That, too, is enjoined by the scriptures. (To explain:) As performance of duties is prescribed by scriptures, so is the knowledge of the Self prescribed for that man of karma by the scriptures themselves. Answer: No, for it is impossible that the scriptures should be prescribing contradictory things. Just as heat and cold cannot both be averred of fire, so it is not possible to instruct, for the same person, association with as well as dissociation from present and future actions. Nor are the desires to attain the delectable and avoid the detestable for oneself creations of the scriptures, for all beings are seen to have them. Had these two been the products of the scriptures, they would not have been found in the cowherds and others, who are ignorant of scriptures. The scriptures have to instruct about those things only that are not selfevident. That being so, if the scriptures have produced the knowledge of the Self, opposed to (ideas of) duties that have been accomplished or are yet to be accomplished, how can they again produce the sense of duty that runs counter to it, like coldness in fire or darkness in the sun?

Objection: The scriptures certainly do not generate such a knowledge. Answer: No, since the conclusion is made thus: “One should know thus: “” He is my Self”” (Kau. III. 9), “Consciousness is Brahman” (III. i. 3). And sentences such as, “It knew only Itself (as ““I am Brahman”; therefore It became all)” (Br. I. iv. 10), “Thou art That” (Ch. VI. viiixvi), bear on the same idea. And since the knowledge of the identity of the Self and Brahman, once it has emerged, is never sublated, its origination cannot be denied or pronounced erroneous.

Objection: With regard to renunciation, too, there is an equal absence of need, in accordance with the Smrti, “(He has no object in this world to gain by doing action), nor by non-performance” (G. III. 18). Those who say that after realizing Brahman one must resort to renunciation are equally open to the same charge of “absence of need.” Answer: No, since renunciation consists in mere cessation from activity. The feeling of want follows from ignorance and is not inherent in any object, for this fact (of feeling of want towards an object) is in evidence in all beings [Even in people who are ignorant of the nature of things. This is according to the reading, “taddarsanat”. Andanda Giri prefers “taddarsanat — is not in evidence”. If the feeling inhered in the object, all should have felt it similarly and for ever. The reaction being different, the feeling is subjective.]. Moreover, it is noticed that one acts through speech, mind, and body when one is impelled by thirst for desired results; and by the text beginning with, “He desired, “” Let me have a wife”” (Br. I. iv. 17), and by the text, “Both these are but desires (for ends and means)” (Br. III. v. 1, IV. iv. 22), of the Vajasaneya Brahmana, it has been emphatically asserted that sons, wealth, etc., that constitute the fivefold karma [The metre called Pankti has five letters in each foot; and in sacrifices the five factors — wife, son, divine wealth (meditation), human wealth, and rites — get conjoined. Hence sacrifices are pankta, constituted by five factors.] are comprised within desire. Since the activities of speech, mind, and body with regard to the (fivefold) Vedic rituals, arising from such defects as ignorance, desire, etc., cannot belong to a man of realization because of his freedom from the defects like ignorance etc., his renunciation consists in the mere absence of activity; and it is not a positive something to be accomplished like sacrifice etc. And that being a natural accomplishment of a man of illumination, no need is to be sought for it. No such question can be raised as to the need because of which a person, who was (once) enveloped in darkness, does not fall into a pit, swamp, or brambles after the dawn of light.

Objection: Then it comes to this that renunciation follows as a matter of course and is not fit to be enjoined. Therefore, if the supreme knowledge of Brahman dawns in domestic life, the inactive [One who does not engage anymore in scriptural rituals etc.] man may continue in that state, and there need be no moving away from it. Answer: No, since domestic life is induced by desire, for it has been clearly declared, “This much indeed is desire” [The first part of the sentence is: “He desired, “” Let me have a wife, so that I may be born (as a child). And let me have wealth, so that I may perform rites.””] (Br. I. iv. 17), “Both these [Hankering for ends and means.] are indeed desires” (Br. III. v. 1, IV. iv. 22). Renunciation is defined as the mere absence of well-established relationship with sons etc. arising from desire, and not as the mere moving away from that domestic life. And so the inactive man of realization cannot continue in the domestic life itself.[ He cannot consider himself a householder, nor can he deliberately put on the householder”s garb or accept the latter”s duties.] Hereby it is established that for an illumined soul there can be no acceptance of such duties as the service of the Guru, or (practice of) austerities.

Against this argument, some householders, shy of begging alms and afraid of ridicule, advance the following rejoinder, thereby making a show of their intellectual acumen: Inasmuch as a mendicant, desirous merely of maintaining his body, is seen to subject himself to regulations about begging, there can be continuance in the domestic life even for that householder who has become freed from both kinds of desires with regard to ends and means, but who has to depend on mere food and raiment for the maintenance of the body. Answer: Not so, for this has already been refuted by saying that the constant habit of resorting to any particular house of one”s own is prompted by desire. When there is no clinging to any particular house of one”s own, there is follows begging alone, as a matter of course, in the case of one who has no special inclination for turning to his own and who seeks for food and raiment under the mere impulsion of maintaining the body.

Objection: Just as (for a sannyasi) there are regulations with regard to engagement in begging for the sake of maintaining the body, as also with regard to personal cleanliness etc., so in the case of the householder, who has become illumined and free from desire, there may be regular engagement in obligatory duties — for the sake of avoiding evil — in pursuance of the injunction implied in the Vedic text enjoining karma for the whole life. Answer: This has already been refuted by pointing out that the illumined soul is outside the range of injunction; besides, he cannot be impelled.

Objection: The injunction about obligatory duties contained in, “One should perform the Agnihotra sacrifice for life,” becomes meaningless thereby. Answer: No, because it retains its meaningfulness with regard to the ignorant man. As for the regulation about the activities of the mendicant engaged in the mere support of the body, that regulation does not generate any action. Just as no fresh motive is in evidence in the matter of quenching thirst (pari passu) for a man engaged in sipping water from the palm of the hand as a ceremonial act, similarly (in the matter of rules for begging) no other impulse is in evidence (apart from assuaging hunger) [Following the injunction about sipping, a man sips water and the thirst is assuaged pari passu; but the latter fact is not the motive for the sipping. Similarly, a man engages naturally in begging food for life, and consequent on that there occur some rules; but these rules cannot lead to a supposition of some fresh motive for the begging.] It cannot be argued on similar grounds that in the case of Agnihotra, too, the activities are derived naturally and are regulated accordingly [ For theses activities are not spontaneous, but follow from a desire for heaven etc.].

Objection: Restriction of even spontaneous activity is uncalled for when it serves no purpose. Answer: No, since that restriction follows naturally out of past tendencies, and an overriding of them involves great effort [Life can be maintained by begging for alms, whether according to rules or not. But before the rise of knowledge, the mendicant had followed good rules as a spiritual discipline, and the habit persists even after illumination. The path of least resistance lies in following the habit and not in counteracting it.]. From the fact that a fresh injunction of renunciation, despite its emergence as a matter of course (in the case of a man of illumination), is met with, [In Br. III. v. I. etc. — “Knowing this very self, the Brahmanas renounce … and lead a mendicant life.”] it becomes evident that it is obligatory for the man of illumination. And monasticism is obligatory even for the unillumined soul that hankers after emancipation. With regard to this matter the sentence, “Therefore he who knows thus becomes self-controlled, calm,” etc. (Br. IV. iv. 23) can be cited as authoritative. Besides, such means for the realization of the Self as physical and mental control etc., are incompatible with other stages of life. And it is known from the Svetasvatara Upanishad, “To those (monks) who are above the (four) stages of life he spoke well of that supremely holy Reality that is sought after by seers of Truth” (VI. 21). And in the Kaivalya Upanishad (2) there occurs this text, “Some attained immortality not by karma, not by progeny, not by wealth, but by renunciation.” [The idea is that the few who ever realized, did so through renunciation.] And the Smrti says, “After attaining knowledge, one should have recourse to inactivity”, and “He should continue in that order of life (sannyasa) which is conducive to the attainment of Brahman.” Moreover, the practice of such disciplines as for enlightenment, continence, in their fullness is possible only for those who are above the four stages of life, whereas it is impossible in domestic life. Not that an incomplete means can fulfil any objective (e.g. the realization of the Self). As for the kind of realization to which the karmas pertaining to the householder”s life can lead, their highest result has been summed up as merger in the Deity (Hiranyagarbha), and that is within the worldly state itself. If the knowledge of the Self were possible for people engrossed only in karma, the conclusion there would not have been made with a result, (viz merger in the Deity), which is within the worldly state.

Objection: That is only the product of some subsidiary factor (associated with the higher knowledge [E.g. the knowledge of Fire and other deities associated with the realization of the Self.]). Answer: No, for the knowledge of the Self relates to the Reality which is the Self, and which is entirely opposed to it (viz the subsidiary). The means to the attainment of immortality is the knowledge of the Self which is the supreme Reality beyond all names, forms, and actions. If that knowledge remains associated with some secondary result (within the world), it cannot pertain to the Reality that is the Self from which are ruled out all distinctions. And that is undesirable, for in the text of the Vajasaneya Brahmana, beginning with “Where everything becomes his Self” (Br. II. iv. 14), all empirical dealings, involving actions, auxiliaries, and fruits have been denied for the illumined soul; and by saying, “Where there is an appearance of duality” (Br. IV. iv. 14), the worldly state comprised of actions, auxiliaries, and fruits has been shown in the case of the unillumined soul who is the opposite of the former. Similarly, here, too, the text thinks, “I shall speak of that absolute knowledge of the all-pervasive Reality that leads to immortality after I have dealt with the fruit that consists in the identity with the Deity, exists within the worldly state, and is constituted by things subject to hunger etc.” For the unenlightened man, again, and not the enlightened one, do the three debts act as impediments in the way to his attaining the worlds of men, manes, and gods, as it is established by the Vedic text, “That world of men is to be conquered through the son alone” etc. [… the world of manes through rites; and the world of the gods through meditation.”] (Br. I. v. 16), which determines the means for the attainment of the three worlds. And for the man of illumination craving for the world of the Self, the absence of impediment from debts is (Br. IV. iv. 22). So also there are the texts of the Kausitaki branch. “So the ancient seers, the Kavaseyas, who had realized It said, (““Why should we study the Vedas?”)” (Kau. II. 5) and “The ancient illumined souls who knew It, did not perform the Agnihotra sacrifice”.

Objection: For the unillumined soul, then, there can be no monasticism before he clears the (three) debts. Answer: Not so, because one does not become indebted before entering the householder”s life. If one can become indebted irrespective of his obligation thereto, then all may as well become so, which (conclusion) will lead to undesirable consequences. In accordance with the text, “ From the domestic life he should resort to that of the forest-dweller (recluse), and then embrace monasticism; alternatively, one may embrace monasticism from the stage of the celibate, or the householder, or the recluse” (Ja. 4), even for one who has embraced the householder”s life, monasticism is desirable as a disciplinary means for the realization of the Self. The Vedic texts speaking of performance of rites throughout life find their scope among the unenlightened souls who do not long for freedom. In (some recensions of) the Chandogya, too, it is found that for some people it is enjoined that the Agnihotra sacrifice can be given up after performing it for twelve nights. As for the view that monasticism is meant for those who are disqualified (from performing karma), it is unsound, since with regard to them (the monks) an independent injunction occurs in, “He whose fire has been extinguished or who has not lighted it up (shall renounce the day he becomes desireless)” (Np. III. 77). Moreover, it as a well-known fact that all the Smrtis, in a general way, enjoin option with regard to, as well as adoption (in succession) of, all the stages of life. As for the argument, “Inasmuch as renunciation ensues spontaneously in the case of the illumined soul, it is beyond the purview of the scriptures, and therefore it makes little difference as to whether he continues in domestic life or repairs to the forest”, it is unsound, for absolute renunciation being a spontaneous result, there can be no continuance in any other order. We pointed out that involvement in any other stage of life is a result of the action of desire, and that renunciation consists merely in the absence of this. As for unchecked behaviour in the case of the illumined soul, it is entirely out of place, it being found among the extremely ignorant. Moreover, seeing that even scriptural duties are known to be inapplicable in the case of the knower of the Self, they being too burdensome, can he have unrestrained behaviour that arises from extreme non-discrimination? Not that a thing perceived under lunacy or through eyes affected by the Timira disease, continues to be exactly so when the disease is cured, that vision being contingent on lunacy or Timira.

According, it is proved that for the knower of the Self there can be neither wantonness nor engagement in any other duty apart from renunciation. As for the text, “He who knows these two, vidya and avidya, together” (Is. 11), it does not convey the idea that ignorance, too, persists along with enlightenment for the man of knowledge. What is the meaning then? It is meant to imply that they cannot cohere in the same person at the same time, as for instance the ideas of silver and nacre cannot cohere in a person with regard to the same mother of pearl. For it is said in the Katha Upanishad, “That which is known as vidya (knowledge) and that which is known as avidya (rites, duties, etc.) are widely contradictory, and they follow divergent courses” (I. ii. 4). Hence there is no possibility of the continuance of ignorance when knowledge dawns.

From such Vedic texts as “Crave to know Brahman through concentration” (Tai. III. ii.), it follows that concentration etc. that are conducive to the rise of knowledge, as well as activities like service of the teacher, are called avidya (nescience), since they are the products of nescience. Producing vidya (knowledge) through them, one transcends death that is the same as desire. Then the passionless man renounces all desires and achieves immortality through the knowledge of Brahman. In order to reveal this idea the (Isa) Upanishad says, “Crossing over death through avidya, one attains immortality through vidya” (11). As for the view that the entire span of a man”s life is packed with karma according to the text, “By doing karma indeed should one wish to live here for a hundred years” (Is. 2), that has been dismissed as relating to the ignorant, for otherwise it would be untenable. And the argument was advanced that what follows (in the present Upanisad) is in line with what preceded it, and therefore the knowledge of the Self is not opposed to karma. This view was disposed of by relating the two standpoints to the conditioned and the unconditioned Self, and this will be shown by us in the succeeding explanation. Therefore the following text is commenced in order to reveal the knowledge of the oneness of the Self and the absolute, actionless Brahman.

CHAPTER 2 - Introduction

The purport of this Fourth [Fourth, counting from the First Part of the Aranyaka in which this Upanishad is included] (i.e. the First) Part (just finished) is this: The Reality that is the creator, preserver, and destroyer of the universe, and is transcendental, omniscient, omnipotent, and all-knowing, created in due order this entire universe beginning with space, without the help of any substance other than Himself. Then He Himself entered into all the bodies possessed of vital force etc. for the sake of realizing His own Self. And having entered there, He realized directly His own Self in Its reality, as “I am this Brahman”. Therefore He is the only one Self in all the bodies, and there is none besides. And so everybody else, too, should realize thus: “He is my Self”, Kau. III. i.8, “I am Brahman” (Br. I. iv 10 [In the Commentary the two texts seem to have become combined]). Moreover, it has been said here, “In the beginning this was but the absolute Self alone” (I. i. 1), and “Brahman, the most pervasive” (I. iii. 13), and so also in other Upanisads.

Objection: For the One that is all-pervasive and that is the Self of all, there is not so much as the point of a hair unoccupied. Therefore how could He enter by splitting the end like an ant entering into a hole ? Answer: This is but an insignificant question to be posed when there are so many others that can be asked here. That without organs He thinks; without the help of anything He created this universe; gathering up (a lump of) the human size from water, He gave it shape; from His brooding parted the mouth etc., from which emerged Fire etc., the presiding deities of the organs; the deities became associated with hunger and thirst; they prayed for abodes; cows etc. were shown to them; they entered into their respective abodes; the created food ran away; there was an attempt at taking it up with the organ of speech etc. — all these are on a par with the (problem of) splitting the end and entering.

Objection: Then, let all of this, without exception, be incoherent. Answer: No, there is no fault, since all this is but eulogistic [Arthavada: meant for emphasizing something other than the idea conveyed literally], the only things sought to be taught here being the realization of the Self. Or a more reasonable explanation is that the Deity, who is omniscient and omnipotent and is a greater conjurer, created all this like a magician; but the parable etc. are elaborated for the sake of easy instruction and comprehension just as it is done in ordinary life. For the mere acquaintance with anecdotes regarding creation etc. leads to no useful result, whereas it is well known in all the Upanisads that from the knowledge of the unity of the Self as Its real nature follows immortality as a result; and the same fact is in evidence in the Smrtis like the Gita in such sentences as “(He sees, who sees) the Lord Supreme, existing equally in all beings, (deathless in the dying)” (XIII. 27).

Objection: There are three souls: One is well known in the world and in all the scriptures as the transmigrating soul that enjoys and acts. The second soul is the omniscient God, the creator of the universe, the intelligent one. And He is inferable from the logical ground shown in the scriptures, viz the creation of bodies and worlds having many localities that are suitable for the enjoyment of the fruits of actions of innumerable beings, just as an architect etc. possessed of the requisite skill and knowledge can be inferred from the fact of the construction of a town, a palace, etc. The third is the all-pervading Consciousness (Purusa) presented by the Upanisads alone and well-known from such texts as: “From where speech turns back” (Tai. II. iv. 1), “Not this, not this” (Br. III. ix. 26). Thus there are these three selves distinct from one another. That being so, how can it be known that the Self is one without a second and transcendental ? Vedantin: As to that, how is the individual soul even known?

Opponent: Is he not known as the hearer, thinker, seer, teacher, maker of (inarticulate) sounds, perceiver, and knower ? Vedantin: Is it not contradictory to say of him, who is known through the act of hearing etc., that “He thinks without being though of, he knows without being known” (Br. III. viii. 11, Ke. I. i. 6), and that “You cannot think of that which is the thinker of thought; you cannot know that which is the knower of knowledge” (Br. III. iv. 2) etc.?

Opponent: True, it will involve a contradiction if the individual soul is known directly like happiness etc. But as a fact, direct perception is denied by, “You cannot think of that which is the thinker of thought”, etc. But he is known through such inferential grounds as hearing etc. Hence how can there be a contradiction? Vedantin: How is he known even through such grounds of inference as hearing etc. ? For when the Self is engaged in hearing an audible sound, it cannot have the actions of thinking and knowing with regard to Itself or anything else, since it is engrossed only in the act of hearing. So also with regard to other acts like thinking. And the acts of hearing etc. pertain to their own objects only (and not to their subjects); not that the act of thinking by the thinker can occur with regard to anything outside the thinkable [The Self is not a thinkable object].

Opponent: Is not the mind able to think of everything? Vedantin: Truly this is so; still no thinkable can by thought of without the thinker [Mind being only an instrument for the Self, an agent has to be posited to make the act of thinking possible].

Opponent: Granted this is so, what follows ? Answer: This will be the accruing result here. He who is the thinker of all will simply be the thinker, and he will not be an object of thought. And there is not a second thinker who can think of that thinker. Should he be thinkable by the Self, then there will be the contingency (of the existence) of two Selves — the one being the Self by which the (thinking) Self is thought of and the other Self which is thought of. Or, the same Self will be split into two halves, like a bamboo, to become the thinker and the thinkable. But it is illogcial either way. This is analogous to the case of two lamps which, because of their similarity, cannot be (mutually) the illuminator and the illumined. Besides, the thinker, while engaged in thinking of the thinkable object, has no time left out from the process of thinking during which to think of himself [The mind engages not in the Self but in things external to it]. Even on the supposition that the thinker thinks of the Self through the grounds of inference, there will spring up two Selves — the one that is inferred through logical grounds, and the other that infers. Or the same Self will be split up. And so there will be the defect already mentioned.

Objection: If the Self be not known either through perception or inference, why is it said, “One should realize thus: ““He is my Self”” (Kau. III. 9)? Or why is the Self called the hearer, the thinker, etc. ? Answer: Is it not a fact that the Self is possessed of such qualities as the capacity of hearing [The Self is the eternal hearer, seer, etc.], and is it not well known (in the Upanisads) that It is free from such qualities as the capacity of hearing ? What inconsistency do you find here?

Opponent: Though it may not strike you as incongruous, to me it so. Vedantin: How?

Opponent: When the Self is a hearer, It is not a thinker; and when It is a thinker, It is not a hearer. That being so, It becomes a hearer and a thinker from one point of view, while from another It is neither a hearer nor a thinker. So with regard to other situations. That being so, how can you avoid the feeling of an irreconcilability in the face of the doubt that crops up as to whether the Self is possessed of the capacity to hear etc., or possessed of the opposite quality of not being able to hear etc. ? At the time when Devadatta moves, he is not stationary, but he is moving to be sure; and when he is motionless, he is not moving, but staying on. During such a period he can be either moving or staying as an only exclusive continuously. The same is the case here. Similar (also) is the view, in this matter, of the followers of Kanada and others, according to whom the Self is called a hearer, a thinker, and so on because of Its being occasionally possessed of hearing etc. For they say that knowledge is a product of contact (between the mind and the senses), and that this contact is not simultaneous. And (as a proof) they adduce such illustrations as: “My mind was occupied with some other object, so I did not see this”. And (they argue that) it is proper to accept the nonsimultaneity of knowledge as a logical ground for inferring the existence of mind [If the mind did not exist, then all the senses, when simultaneously in contact with their objects, would perceive all the objects. But this is not a fact. So the Vaisesikas believe in an atomic mind that gets connected with the senses in succession]. Let this be so. What do you lose if it be so? Vedantin: Let it be so if it be logical and if it pleases you. But it cannot be the meaning of the Upanisads.

Opponent: Is it not implied by the Upanisads that the Self is the hearer, thinker, etc. ? Vedantin: No, since there is the statement that It is not the hearer, thinker, etc. [Seems to be a reference to Br. IV. iv. 2.].

Opponent: Was not that position denied by you by saying that It is occasionally so ? Vedantin: No, for by me the Self is accepted as the eternal hearer etc., according to the Vedic text, “For the listener”s function of hearing can never be lost” etc. (Br. IV. iii. 27).

Objection: If on that view hearing etc. are admitted as eternal, there will be the simultaneous origin of (all kinds of) knowledge, which will contradict experience. Besides, this will lead to the assumption of absence of ignorance in the Self. And that is unacceptable. Answer: Neither of the defects arises, since according to the Upanisads, the Self can become the hearer etc. through Its (inherent) power of hearing etc.[ By virtue of Its being the witness of all mental changes involved in the acts of hearing etc.] (Br. III. iv. 2). The seeing etc., by the impermanent and gross eyes etc. that are subject to conjunction and disjunction (with their objects), are impermanent indeed, just as the burning of fire is, because of its being produced from contact with hay etc. Not that the eternal and formless Self, which is free from the attributes of conjunction and disjunction, can have transitory qualities like seeing etc. that are caused by contact. In support of this is the Vedic text: “The vision of the witness can never be lost” etc. (Br. IV. iii. 23). From this it follows that there are two kinds of vision — the transitory vision of the eye and the eternal vision of the Self. Similarly, there are two kinds of hearing — the transitory hearing of the ear and the eternal hearing of that which by nature is the Self. So also are there two kinds of thinking and two sorts of knowing — the external and the internal. For an this view alone, and only in the way it has been shown, does the Vedic text “The seer of seeing and the hearer of hearing” (Br. III. iv. 2) become justifiable. It is a matter of experience, too, that the vision of the eye is non-eternal, inasmuch as it is lost or regained in accordance as the disease called Timira sets in or is cured. Similar is the case with hearing and thinking. And the eternality of the vision etc. of the Self is well known in the world, for a man whose eyes have been plucked out says, “My brother has been seen by me in dream today.” Similarly, a man who is known to be deaf may say, “A mantra has been heard by me today in dream”, etc. Should the eternal vision of the Self be produced merely through the contact of the eye, it should be destroyed on the destruction of the latter; and then a man whose eyes are plucked out should not perceive blue, yellow, etc. in dream. Moreover, such Vedic texts as, “The vision of the witness can never be lost” etc. (Br. IV. iii. 23), would be illogical; and the same will be the fate of such Vedic texts as, “That is the eye in a man through which one sees in a dream.” The logical position is this: The eternal vision of the Self witnesses the ephemeral external vision; but since the external vision has such changing attributes as growth, decay, etc., the vision of the Self that witnesses it appears accordingly and seems to be ephemeral owing to the error of men. The case is similar to that of the vision fixed on a whirling firebrand or such other things, where the vision seems to be revolving (as the latter does). And in confirmation of this is the Vedic text, “It thinks as it were, and shakes as it were” (Br. IV. iii. 7). Hence the vision of the Self being eternal, it can have neither simultaneity, nor the opposite to it. But, for the ordinary people — owing to their preoccupation with the external limiting adjunct of ephemeral vision — and for the logicians, owing to their remaining outside scriptural tradition, it is quite possible to have the erroneous idea that the vision of the Self is impermanent.

The imagination of difference among God, the individual soul, and the supreme Self can also be traced to this very error; and equally erroneous it is to fancy such ideas as “it is”, “it is not”, with regard to the eternal and unconditioned vision of that Entity in which all the variations of speech and mind (i.e. name and form) get unified. He who entertains (with regard to that Reality beyond all speech and mind) any desire of fancying that It exists or does not exist; that It is one or is many; that It has attributes or has not; that It knows or does not; that It is active or is not; that It is fruitful or is fruitless; that It has a seed or is seedless; that It is happiness or is misery; that It is inside or is outside; that It is void or not; or that “It is different (from me)”, or that “I am different (from It)” — (that man) may as well wish to roll up the sky like leather, to ascend there with his feet like ascending up a staircase, or to trace the footprints of the fish and birds in water and sky; for the Upanisadic texts declare: “Not this, not this” (Br. III. ix. 26), “From which words turn back” (Tai. II. iv. 1), and so on, And there is the mantra text, “Who indeed knows ?” etc. (R. I. xxx. 6).

Objection: How then does he get the realization, “He is my Self” ? Tell me, how can I realize Him as, “He is my Self”. Answer: Apropos of this, they relate a story: An idiotic person who committed some guilt was told, “Fie on you! You are no man!” Because of his stupidity he approached somebody to get the conviction that he was a man and told him, “Tell me who I am.” The latter understood his silliness and said, “I shall make you understand by degrees.” And then after proving that he was not a motionless thing, and so on, he (the teacher) concluded with, “You are none other than a man.” That dullard then told him, “You who started to enlighten me have become silent. Why do you not instruct me ? That sentence of yours is just like this. How can he, who does not understand himself to be a man when told, “You are none other that a man”, understand himself to be a man even when told, “You are a man” ? Therefore the process to be followed in enlightening about the Self is as it is set forth in the scriptures and nothing else; for hay etc. that can be consumed by fire are not burnt by anything else. It is because of this that the scripture, which started to impart knowledge about the nature of the Self, stopped after declaring, “Not this, not this” (Br. III. ix. 26), just as it was done in the story after negating all that was other than man. And similar are the texts, “Without interior or exterior”, Br. II. v. 19, III. viii. 8, “This Self, the perceiver of everything, is Brahman. This is the teaching” (Br. II. v. 19), “Thou art That” (Ch. VI. viii-xvi), “But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, what should one see and through what ?” (Br. II. iv. 14, IV. v. 15); and there are still others. As long as one does not realize thus this Self that has been described, so long does not accept as one”s Self the external limiting adjunct [The mind whose vision is identical with itself and is external to the Self.] which is in the form of ephemeral vision; and considering through ignorance the attributes of the limiting adjuncts as one”s own, one transmigrates under the influence of ignorance, desire, and action, by rotating again and again through the regions of the gods, animals, and men, that range from Brahma to a clump of grass. While transmigrating thus, one rejects the body assumed earlier, and giving it up, accepts another. In the course of showing what states one experiences as one continues thus without a break in the current of birth and death, as though in a river, the Upanisad says with a view to generating detachment.

CHAPTER 3 Introduction

There are Brahmanas of modern times who crave for emancipation, hanker after the knowledge of Brahman, and realize that the achievement of identity with the Self of all follows from the disciplines for the knowledge of Brahman, as revealed by the Vedas through the succession of teachers like Vamadeva and very well known in the councils of the knowers of Brahman. (These Brahmanas) becoming desirous of desisting from the impermanent world of ends and means, inclusive of being born as limited souls, ask one another, thus, while engaged in deliberation: `kah ayam atma, which is this Self ?’ How do they ask?

Want to Know More?

If you have queries, please call us to know more.

Call Now