Commentary of Shankaracharya

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.

Translation By 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.

Footnote:

1. This Brâhmana is found in the Mâdhyandina text of the Satapatha, ed. Weber, X, 6, 4. Its object is there explained by the commentary to be the meditative worship of Virâg, as represented metaphorically in the members of the horse. Sâyana dispenses with its explanation, because, as part of the Brihadâranyaka-upanishad, according to the Kânva-sâkhâ, it had been enlarged on by the Vârttikakâra and explained. 2. Agni or fire, as pervading everything, as universally present in nature. 3. Pâgasya is doubtful. The commentator suggests pâd-asya, the place of the feet, i.e. the hoof The Greek Pēgasos, or ἵπποι πηλοί, throws no light on the word. The meaning of hoof would hardly be appropriate here, and I prefer chest on account of uras in I, 2, 3. Deussen (Vedânta, p. 8) translates, die Erde seiner Füsse Schemel; but we want some part of the horse. 4. Guda, being in the plural, is explained by nâdî, channel, and sirâh; for we ought to read sirâ or hirâgrahane for sirâ, p. 22, l. 16. 5. Klomânah is explained as a plurale tantum (nityam bahuvakanam ekasmin), and being described as a lump below the heart, on the opposite side of the liver, it is supposed to be the lungs. 6. 'When it yawns.' Ânandagiri. 7. Voice is sometimes used as a personified power of thunder and other aerial sounds, and this is identified with the voice of the horse.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

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).

Translation By 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.

Footnote:

1. Two vessels, to hold the sacrificial libations, are placed at the Asvamedha before and behind the horse, the former made of gold, the latter made of silver. They are called Mahiman in the technical language of the ceremonial. The place in which these vessels are set, is called their yoni. Cf. Vâgas. Samhitâ XXIII, 2.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

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.

Translation By 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.

Footnote:

1. We ought to read arkasyârkatvam, as in Poley's edition, or ark-kasyârkkatvam, to make the etymology still clearer. The commentator takes arka in the sense of fire, more especially the sacrificial fire employed at the Horse-sacrifice. It may be so, but the more natural interpretation seems to me to take arka here as water, from which indirectly fire is produced. From water springs the earth; on that earth he (Mrityu or Pragâpati) rested, and from him, while resting there, fire (Virâg) was produced. That fire assumed three forms, fire, sun, and air, and in that threefold form it is called prâna, spirit.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

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).

Translation By 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.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

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.).

Translation By 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.

Footnote:

1. As Agni, Vâyu, and Âditya. 2. Here Agni (Virâg) is taken as representing the fire of the altar at the Horse-sacrifice, which is called Arka. The object of the whole Brâhmana was to show the origin and true character of that fire (arka).

Commentary of Shankaracharya

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.

Translation By 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].

Footnote:

1. He is the same as what was before called mrityu, death, who, after becoming self-conscious, produced water, earth, fire, &c. He now wishes for a second body, which is the year, or the annual sacrifice, the year being dependent on the sun (Âditya). 2. The commentator understands the father, instead of Speech, the mother. 3. The interjectional theory.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

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.

Translation By 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].

Footnote:

1. All these are merely fanciful etymologies of asvamedha and arka.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

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.

Translation By 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.

Footnote:

1. Or glory (senses) and power. Comm.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

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.

Translation By 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.

Footnote:

1. He considered himself as the horse. Roer.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

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.

Translation By 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.'

Footnote:

1. The Devas and Asuras are explained by the commentator as the senses, inclining either to sacred or to worldly objects, to good or evil. 2. According to the commentator, the Devas were the less numerous and less strong, the Asuras the more numerous and more powerful.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

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.

Translation By 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.

Translation By 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.

Translation By 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.

Translation By 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.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

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.

Translation By 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.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

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.

Translation By 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.

Footnote:

1. This is the chief or vital breath, sometimes called mukhya.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

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.

Translation By 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.

Footnote:

1. Asakta from sañg, to embrace; cf. Rig-veda I, 33, 3. Here it corresponds to the German anhänglich. 2. See Deussen, Vedanta, p. 359.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

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:-

Translation By Max Müller

9. That deity was called Dûr, because Death was far (dûran) from it. From him who knows this, Death is far off.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

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.

Translation By 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.

Footnote:

1. To distant people.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

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.

Translation By Max Müller

11. That deity, after having taken away the evil of those deities, viz. death, carried them beyond death.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

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.

Translation By 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.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Similarly the nose became air. It, having transcended death, blows beond its reach. The rest has been explained.

Translation By 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.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Likewise the eye became the sun. He shines.

Translation By 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.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Similarly the ear became the quarters. The quarters remain, divided into the east and so forth.

Translation By 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.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

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).

Translation By 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.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

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.

Translation By 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.

Footnote:

1. This is done by the last nine Pavamânas, while the first three were used for obtaining the reward common to all the prânas.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

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:-

Translation By 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.

Footnote:

1. Here annâda is well explained by anâmayâvin, and vyâdhirahita, free from sickness, strong. 2. Read pratipratih; see Poley, and Weber, p. 1180.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

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.

Translation By 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.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

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.

Translation By Max Müller

20. He (breath) is also Brihaspati, for speech is Brihatî (Rig-veda), and he is her lord; therefore he is Brihaspati.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

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.

Translation By 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.

Footnote:

1. Cf. Khând. Up. V, 2, 6.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

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.

Translation By 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.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

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.

Translation By 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.

Footnote:

1. Not used here in the sense of song or hymn, but as an act of worship connected with the Sâman. Comm.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

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.

Translation By 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.'

Commentary of Shankaracharya

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.

Translation By 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.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

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.

Translation By 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.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

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.

Translation By 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].

Footnote:

1. The ascension is a ceremony by which the performer reaches the gods, or becomes a god. It consists in the recitation of three Yagus, and is here enjoined to take place when the Prastotri priest begins to sing his hymn. 2. See Deussen, Vedânta, p. 86.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

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.'

Translation By 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].

Footnote:

1. He knows that he is the Prâna, which Prâna is the Sâman. That Prâna cannot be defeated by the Asuras, i.e. by the senses which are addicted to evil; it is pure, and the five senses finding refuge in him, recover there their original nature, fire, &c. The Prâna is the Self of all things, also of speech (Rig-yaguh-sâmodgîtha), and of the Sâman that has to be sung and well sung. The Prâna pervades all creatures, and he who identifies himself with that Prâna, obtains the rewards mentioned in the Brâhmana. Comm. 2. In connection with lokagit, lokyatâ is here explained, and may probably have been intended, as worthiness to be admitted to the highest world. Originally lokyatâ and alokyatâ meant right and wrong. See also I, 5, 17.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

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:-

Translation By 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.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

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.

Translation By 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.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

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.

Translation By 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.

Footnote:

1. The Comm. explains svah by âtmanah, of himself. But see Boehtlingk, Sanskrit Chrestomathie, p. 357. 2. Roer translates:- 'Therefore was this only one half of himself, as a split pea is of a whole.' Brigala is a half of anything. Muir (Orig. Sansk. Texts, vol. i, p. 25) translates:- 'Yâgñavalkya has said that this one's self is like the half of a split pea.' I have translated the sentence according to Professor Boehtlingk's conjecture (Chrestomathie, 2nd ed. p. 357), though the singular after the dual (svah) is irregular.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

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.

Translation By 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.

Footnote:

1. The reading avir itaro, i.e. itarâ u, is not found in the Kânva text. See Boehtlingk, Chrestomathie, p. 357.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

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.

Translation By 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.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

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.

Translation By 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.

Footnote:

1. He blew with the mouth while he rubbed with the hands. 2. Or, when he created the best gods. 3. As man and sacrificer. Comm.

Commentary of Shankaracharya

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 lib