Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is considered as the fourteen Kanda of the Shatapatha Brahmana, which is itself a part of the Shukla Yajur Veda. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is a treatise on Ātman (Soul, Self), includes passages on metaphysics, ethics and a yearning for knowledge that influenced various Indian religions, ancient and medieval scholars, and attracted secondary works such as those by Adi Shankara and Madhvacharya. Here (1.3.28) we find the famous verse asato ma sad gamaya, tamaso ma jyotir gamaya, mrityor ma amritam gamaya, "from what is temporary lead me to what is eternal, from the darkness lead me to the light, from death lead me to eternal life." This quote constitutes the refrain (adhyaroha) of the stutis called Pavamana. At verse 1.4.10 we find the famous maha vakya considered the essence of the Yajur Veda:- aham brahmasmi, "I am Brahman". It begins with the explanation of the meaning of the Vedic sacrifice, and states that Vac (the creative word, the Logos) is the origin of the universe. Then it explains Dharma (the ethical law), the four varnas (social categories) and the nature of prana (life energy). The second adhyaya continues by speaking of the nature of Brahman and Atman, the third speaks of the process of death and the destination of the living being after death, and the nature of Antaryami (the Supreme Soul in every being's heart). We also find the description of the three states of awareness, and the explanation of reincarnation and the symbolism of Gayatri mantra. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad has six adhyayas (chapters) in total. There are two major recensions for the text - the Madhyandina and the Kanva recensions. It includes three sections:- Madhu kānda (the 4th and 5th chapter of the fourteenth kānda of Satapatha Brahmana), Muni kānda (or Yajnavalkya Kanda, the 6th and 7th chapter of 14th kānda of Satapatha Brahmana) and Khila kānda (the 8th and 9th chapter of the fourteenth kānda of Satapatha Brahmana). The first and second chapters of the Upanishad's Madhu kānda consists of 6 brahmanas each, with varying number of hymns per brahmana. The first chapter of the Upanishad's Yajnavalkya kānda consists of 9 brahmanams, while the second has 6 brahmanas. The Khila kānda of the Upanishad has 15 brahmanas in its first chapter, and 5 brahmanas in the second chapter. This edition uses the Upanishad and the Commentary of Shankaracharya translated by Swami Madhavananda [Brihadaranyaka Upanishad - Shankara Bhashya(1950)].

Learn more »

If you are new to Hindu Philosophy, then you should read the classification of Sacred Texts of Hinduism FIRST! Read HERE!

Shanti Mantra

ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदं पूर्णात्पूर्णमदुच्यते ।

पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ॥

ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥

oṃ pūrṇamadaḥ pūrṇamidaṃ pūrṇātpūrṇamaducyate .

pūrṇasya pūrṇamādāya pūrṇamevāvaśiṣyate ..

oṃ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ ..


Sloka : 0.0.0

बृहदारण्यकोपनिषत्

काण्व पाठः ।

A मधु काण्ड[उपदेश काण्ड]

अध्याय I ब्राह्मण i-vi मन्त्राः ८० 1-...

अध्याय II ब्राह्मण i-vi मन्त्राः ६६ 1-...

B मुनि [yAj~navalkya] काण्ड [उपपत्ति काण्ड]

अध्याय III ब्राह्मण i-ix मन्त्राः ९२ 1-...

अध्याय IV ब्राह्मण i-vi मन्त्राः ९२ 1-...

C खिल काण्ड[उपासना काण्ड]

अध्याय V ब्राह्मण i-xv मन्त्राः ३३ 1-...

अध्याय VI ब्राह्मण i-v मन्त्राः ७५ 1-...

अथ प्रथमोऽध्यायः ।

अथ प्रथमं ब्राह्मणम् ।

bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣat

kāṇva pāṭhaḥ .

A madhu kāṇḍa[upadeśa kāṇḍa]

adhyāya I brāhmaṇa i-vi mantrāḥ 80 1-...

adhyāya II brāhmaṇa i-vi mantrāḥ 66 1-...

B muni [yAj~navalkya] kāṇḍa [upapatti kāṇḍa]

adhyāya III brāhmaṇa i-ix mantrāḥ 92 1-...

adhyāya IV brāhmaṇa i-vi mantrāḥ 92 1-...

C khila kāṇḍa[upāsanā kāṇḍa]

adhyāya V brāhmaṇa i-xv mantrāḥ 33 1-...

adhyāya VI brāhmaṇa i-v mantrāḥ 75 1-...

atha prathamo'dhyāyaḥ .

atha prathamaṃ brāhmaṇam .




Sloka : 1.1.1

मन्त्र १ [I.i.1]

उषा वा अश्वस्य मेध्यस्य शिरः । सूर्यश्चक्षुर्वातः प्राणो

व्यात्तमग्निर्वैश्वानरः संवत्सर आत्माऽश्वस्य मेध्यस्य । द्यौः

पृष्ठमन्तरिक्षमुदरं पृथिवी पाजस्यं दिशः पार्श्वे

अवान्तरदिशः पर्शव ऋतवोऽङ्गानि मासाश्चार्धमासाश्च

पर्वाण्यहोरात्राणि प्रतिष्ठा नक्षत्राण्यस्थीनि नभो

माꣳसान्यूवध्यꣳ सिकताः सिन्धवो गुदा यकृच्च क्लोमानश्च

पर्वता ओषधयश्च वनस्पतयश्च लोमान्युद्यन्पूर्वार्धो

निम्लोचञ्जघनार्धो यद्विजृम्भते तद्विद्योतते यद्विधूनुते

तत्स्तनयति यन्मेहति तद्वर्षति वागेवास्य वाक् ॥ १॥

mantra 1 [I.i.1]

uṣā vā aśvasya medhyasya śiraḥ . sūryaścakṣurvātaḥ prāṇo

vyāttamagnirvaiśvānaraḥ saṃvatsara ātmā'śvasya medhyasya . dyauḥ

pṛṣṭhamantarikṣamudaraṃ pṛthivī pājasyaṃ diśaḥ pārśve

avāntaradiśaḥ parśava ṛtavo'ṅgāni māsāścārdhamāsāśca

parvāṇyahorātrāṇi pratiṣṭhā nakṣatrāṇyasthīni nabho

māgͫsānyūvadhyagͫ sikatāḥ sindhavo gudā yakṛcca klomānaśca

parvatā oṣadhayaśca vanaspatayaśca lomānyudyanpūrvārdho

nimlocañjaghanārdho yadvijṛmbhate tadvidyotate yadvidhūnute

tatstanayati yanmehati tadvarṣati vāgevāsya vāk .. 1..



Meaning:- Om. The head of the sacrificial horse is the dawn, its eye the sun, its vital force the air, its open mouth the fire called Vaisvanara, and the body of the sacrificial horse is the year. Its back is heaven, its belly the sky, its hoof the earth, its sides the four quarters, its ribs the intermediate quarters, its members the seasons, its joints the months and fortnights, its feet the days and nights, its bones the stars and its flesh the clouds. Its half-digested food is the sand, its blood-vessels the rivers, its liver and spleen the mountains, its hairs the herbs and trees. Its forepart is the ascending sun, its hind part the descending sun, its yawning is lightning, its shaking the body is thundering, its making water is raining, and its neighing is voice.





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.


Sloka : 1.1.2

मन्त्र २ [I.i.2]

अहर्वा अश्वं पुरस्तान्महिमाऽन्वजायत तस्य पूर्वे समुद्रे योनी

रात्रिरेनं पश्चान्महिमाऽन्वजायत तस्यापरे समुद्रे योनिरेतौ वा अश्वं

महिमानावभितः सम्बभूवतुर्हयो भूत्वा देवानवहद् वाजी गन्धर्वान्

अर्वाऽसुरान् अश्वो मनुष्यान् समुद्र एवास्य बन्धुः समुद्रो योनिः ॥ २॥

इति प्रथमं ब्राहमणम् ॥

अथ द्वितीयं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 2 [I.i.2]

aharvā aśvaṃ purastānmahimā'nvajāyata tasya pūrve samudre yonī

rātrirenaṃ paścānmahimā'nvajāyata tasyāpare samudre yoniretau vā aśvaṃ

mahimānāvabhitaḥ sambabhūvaturhayo bhūtvā devānavahad vājī gandharvān

arvā'surān aśvo manuṣyān samudra evāsya bandhuḥ samudro yoniḥ .. 2..

iti prathamaṃ brāhamaṇam ..

atha dvitīyaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- The (gold) vessel called Mahiman in front of the horse, which appeared about it (i.e. pointing it out), is the day. Its source is the eastern sea. The (silver) vessel Mahiman behind the horse, which appeared about it, is the night. Its source is the western sea. These two vessels called Mahiman appeared on either side of the horse. As a Haya it carried the gods, as a Vajin the celestial minstrels, as an Arvan the Asuras, and as an Asva men. The Supreme Self is its stable and the Supreme Self (or the sea) its source.





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.


Sloka : 1.2.1

मन्त्र १ [I.ii.1]

नैवेह किंचनाग्र आसीन् मृत्युनैवेदमावृतमासीदशनाययाऽशनाया

हि मृत्युस्तन्मनोऽकुरुताऽऽत्मन्वी स्यामिति । सोऽर्चन्नचरत्

तस्यार्चत आपोऽजायन्तार्चते वै मे कमभूदिति । तदेवार्क्यस्यार्कत्वम् ।

कꣳ ह वा अस्मै भवति य एवमेतदर्कस्यार्कत्वं वेद ॥ १॥

mantra 1 [I.ii.1]

naiveha kiṃcanāgra āsīn mṛtyunaivedamāvṛtamāsīdaśanāyayā'śanāyā

hi mṛtyustanmano'kurutā''tmanvī syāmiti . so'rcannacarat

tasyārcata āpo'jāyantārcate vai me kamabhūditi . tadevārkyasyārkatvam .

kagͫ ha vā asmai bhavati ya evametadarkasyārkatvaṃ veda .. 1..



Meaning:- There was nothing whatsoever here in the beginning. It was covered only by Death (Hiranyagarbha), or Hunger, for hunger is death. He created the mind, thinking, 'Let me have a mind'. He moved about worshipping (himself). As he was worshipping, water was produced. (Since he thought), 'As I was worshipping, water sprang up', therefore Arka (fire) is so called. Water (or happiness) surely comes to one who knows how Arka (fire) came to have this name of Arka.





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.


Sloka : 1.2.2

मन्त्र २[I.ii.2]

आपो वा अर्क तद्यदपाꣳ शर आसीत् तत्समहन्यत । सा पृथिव्यभवत्

तस्यामश्राम्यत् तस्य श्रान्तस्य तप्तस्य तेजो रसो निरवर्तताग्निः ॥ २॥

mantra 2[I.ii.2]

āpo vā arka tadyadapāgͫ śara āsīt tatsamahanyata . sā pṛthivyabhavat

tasyāmaśrāmyat tasya śrāntasya taptasya tejo raso niravartatāgniḥ .. 2..



Meaning:- Water is Arka. What was there (like) forth on the water was solidified and became this earth. When that was produced, he was tired. While he was (thus) tired and distressed, his essence, or lustre, came forth. This was Fire.





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.


Sloka : 1.2.3

मन्त्र ३ [I.ii.3]

स त्रेधाऽऽत्मानं व्यकुरुताऽऽदित्यं तृतीयं वायुं तृतीयꣳ ।

स एष प्राणस्त्रेधा विहितस्तस्य प्राची दिक्षिरोऽसौ चासौ चेर्माव

अथास्य प्रतीची दिक्पुच्छमसौ चासौ च सक्थ्यौ दक्षिणा चोदीची

च पार्श्वे द्यौः पृष्ठमन्तरिक्षमुदरमियमुरः स एषोऽप्सु

प्रतिष्ठितो यत्र क्व चैति तदेव प्रतितिष्ठत्येवं विद्वान् ॥ ३॥

mantra 3 [I.ii.3]

sa tredhā''tmānaṃ vyakurutā''dityaṃ tṛtīyaṃ vāyuṃ tṛtīyagͫ .

sa eṣa prāṇastredhā vihitastasya prācī dikṣiro'sau cāsau cermāva

athāsya pratīcī dikpucchamasau cāsau ca sakthyau dakṣiṇā codīcī

ca pārśve dyauḥ pṛṣṭhamantarikṣamudaramiyamuraḥ sa eṣo'psu

pratiṣṭhito yatra kva caiti tadeva pratitiṣṭhatyevaṃ vidvān .. 3..



Meaning:- He (Viraj) differentiated himself in three ways, making the sun the third form, and air the third form. So, this Prana (Viraj) is divided in three ways. His head is the east, and his arms that (north-east) and that (south-east). And his hind part is the west, his hip-bones that (north-west) and that (south-west), his sides the south and north, his back heaven, his belly the sky, and his breast this earth. He rests on water. He who knows (it) thus gets a resting place wherever he goes.





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).


Sloka : 1.2.4

मन्त्र ४[I.ii.4]

सोऽकामयत द्वितीयो म आत्मा जायेतेति । स मनसा वाचं

मिथुनꣳ समभवदशनाया मृत्युस्तद्यद्रेत आसीत् स

संवत्सरोऽभवन् न ह पुरा ततः संवत्सर आस । तमेतावन्तं

कालमबिभर्यावान्संवत्सरस्तमेतावतः कालस्य परस्तादसृजत ।

तं जातमभिव्याददात् स भाणकरोत् सैव वागभवत् ॥ ४॥

mantra 4[I.ii.4]

so'kāmayata dvitīyo ma ātmā jāyeteti . sa manasā vācaṃ

mithunagͫ samabhavadaśanāyā mṛtyustadyadreta āsīt sa

saṃvatsaro'bhavan na ha purā tataḥ saṃvatsara āsa . tametāvantaṃ

kālamabibharyāvānsaṃvatsarastametāvataḥ kālasya parastādasṛjata .

taṃ jātamabhivyādadāt sa bhāṇakarot saiva vāgabhavat .. 4..



Meaning:- He desired, 'Let me have a second form (body).' He, Death or Hunger, brought about the union of speech (the Vedas) with the mind. What was the seed there became the Year (Viraj). Before him there had been no year. He (Death) reared him for as long as a year, and after this period projected him. When he was born, (Death) opened his mouth (to swallow him). He (the babe) cried 'Bhan!' That became speech.





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.


Sloka : 1.2.5

मन्त्र ५[I.ii.5]

स ऐक्षत यदि वा इममभिमꣳस्ये कनीयोऽन्नं करिष्य इति ।

स तया वाचा तेनाऽऽत्मनेदꣳ सर्वमसृजत यदिदं

किञ्चर्चो यजूꣳषि सामानि छन्दाꣳसि यज्ञान् प्रजाः

पशून् स यद्यदेवासृजत तत्तदत्तुमध्रियत । सर्वं वा अत्तीति

तददितेरदितित्वꣳ । सर्वस्यैतस्यात्ता भवति सर्वमस्यान्नं भवति

य एवमेतददितेरदितित्वं वेद ॥ ५॥

mantra 5[I.ii.5]

sa aikṣata yadi vā imamabhimagͫsye kanīyo'nnaṃ kariṣya iti .

sa tayā vācā tenā''tmanedagͫ sarvamasṛjata yadidaṃ

kiñcarco yajūgͫṣi sāmāni chandāgͫsi yajñān prajāḥ

paśūn sa yadyadevāsṛjata tattadattumadhriyata . sarvaṃ vā attīti

tadaditeradititvagͫ . sarvasyaitasyāttā bhavati sarvamasyānnaṃ bhavati

ya evametadaditeradititvaṃ veda .. 5..



Meaning:- He thought, 'If I kill him, I shall be making very little food.' Through that speech and the mind he projected all this, whatever there is - the Vedas Rig, Yajus and Saman, the metres, the sacrifices, men and animals. Whatever he projected, he resolved to eat. Because he eats everything, therefore Aditi (Death) is so called. He who knows how Aditi came to have this name of Aditi, becomes the eater of all this, and everything becomes his food.





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.


Sloka : 1.2.6

मन्त्र ६[I.ii.6]

सोऽकामयत भूयसा यज्ञेन भूयो यजेयेति । सोऽश्राम्यत् स

तपोऽतप्यत । तस्य श्रान्तस्य तप्तस्य यशो वीर्यमुदक्रामत् प्राणा

वै यशो वीर्यम् । तत् प्राणेषूत्क्रान्तेषु शरीरꣳ श्वयितुमध्रियत

तस्य शरीर एव मन आसीत् ॥ ६॥

mantra 6[I.ii.6]

so'kāmayata bhūyasā yajñena bhūyo yajeyeti . so'śrāmyat sa

tapo'tapyata . tasya śrāntasya taptasya yaśo vīryamudakrāmat prāṇā

vai yaśo vīryam . tat prāṇeṣūtkrānteṣu śarīragͫ śvayitumadhriyata

tasya śarīra eva mana āsīt .. 6..



Meaning:- He desired, 'Let me sacrifice again with the great sacrifice'. He was tired, and he was distressed. While he was (thus) tired and distressed, his reputation and strength departed. The organs are reputation and strength. When the organs departed, the body began to swell, (but) his mind was set on the body.





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.


Sloka : 1.2.7

मन्त्र ७[I.ii.7]

सोऽकामयत मेध्यं म इदꣳ स्यादात्मन्व्यनेन स्यामिति । ततोऽश्वः

समभवद् यदश्वत् तन्मेध्यमभूदिति । तदेवाश्वमेधस्याश्वमेधत्वं

एष ह वा अश्वमेधं वेद य एनमेवं वेद । तमनवरुध्यैवामन्यत ।

तꣳ संवत्सरस्य परस्तादात्मन आलभत । पशून्देवताभ्यः

प्रत्यौहत् तस्मात्सर्वदेवत्यं प्रोक्षितं प्राजापत्यमालभन्त एष ह वा

अश्वमेधो य एष तपति तस्य संवत्सर आत्माऽयमग्निरर्कस्तस्येमे लोका

आत्मानस्तावेतावर्काश्वमेधौ । सो पुनरेकैव देवता भवति मृत्युरेवाप

पुनर्मृत्युं जयति नैनं मृत्युराप्नोति मृत्युरस्याऽऽत्मा

भवत्येतासां देवतानामेको भवति ॥ ७॥

इति द्वितीयं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ तृतीयं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 7[I.ii.7]

so'kāmayata medhyaṃ ma idagͫ syādātmanvyanena syāmiti . tato'śvaḥ

samabhavad yadaśvat tanmedhyamabhūditi . tadevāśvamedhasyāśvamedhatvaṃ

eṣa ha vā aśvamedhaṃ veda ya enamevaṃ veda . tamanavarudhyaivāmanyata .

tagͫ saṃvatsarasya parastādātmana ālabhata . paśūndevatābhyaḥ

pratyauhat tasmātsarvadevatyaṃ prokṣitaṃ prājāpatyamālabhanta eṣa ha vā

aśvamedho ya eṣa tapati tasya saṃvatsara ātmā'yamagnirarkastasyeme lokā

ātmānastāvetāvarkāśvamedhau . so punarekaiva devatā bhavati mṛtyurevāpa

punarmṛtyuṃ jayati nainaṃ mṛtyurāpnoti mṛtyurasyā''tmā

bhavatyetāsāṃ devatānāmeko bhavati .. 7..

iti dvitīyaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha tṛtīyaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- He desired, 'Let this body of mine be fit for a sacrifice, and let me be embodied through this', (and entered it). Because the body swelled (Asvat), therefore it came to be called Asva (horse). And because it became fit for a sacrifice, therefore the horse sacrifice came to be known as Asvamedha. He who knows it thus indeed knows the horse sacrifice. (Imagining himself as the horse and) letting it remain free, he reflected (on it). After a year he sacrificed it to himself, and dispatched the (other) animals to the gods. Therefore (priests to this day) sacrifice to Prajapati the sanctified (horse) that is dedicated to all the gods. He who shines yonder is the horse sacrifice; his body is the year. This fire is Arka; its limbs are these worlds. So these two (fire and the sun) are Arka and the horse sacrifice. These two again become the same god, Death. He (who knows thus) conquers further death, death cannot overtake him, it becomes his self, and he becomes one with these deities.





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.


Sloka : 1.3.1

मन्त्र १ [I.iii.1]

द्वया ह प्राजापत्या देवाश्चासुराश्च । ततः कानीयसा एव देवा ज्यायसा

असुरास्त एषु लोकेष्वस्पर्धन्त । ते ह देवा ऊचुर्हन्तासुरान्यज्ञ

उद्गीथेनात्ययामेति ॥ १॥

mantra 1 [I.iii.1]

dvayā ha prājāpatyā devāścāsurāśca . tataḥ kānīyasā eva devā jyāyasā

asurāsta eṣu lokeṣvaspardhanta . te ha devā ūcurhantāsurānyajña

udgīthenātyayāmeti .. 1..



Meaning:- There were two classes of Prajapati's sons, the gods and the Asuras. Naturally, the gods were fewer, and the Asuras more in number. They vied with each other for (the mastery of these worlds. The gods said, 'Now let us surpass the Asuras in (this) sacrifice through the Udgitha'.





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.


Sloka : 1.3.2

मन्त्र २[I.iii.2]

ते ह वाचमूचुस्त्वं न उद्गायेति । तथेति । तेभ्यो वागुदगायद् यो वाचि

भोगस्तं देवेभ्य आगायद् यत्कल्याणं वदति तदात्मने । ते विदुरनेन

वै न उद्गात्राऽत्येष्यन्तीति । तमभिद्रुत्य पाप्मनाऽविध्यन् स यः स

पाप्मा यदेवेदमप्रतिरूपं वदति स एव स पाप्मा ॥ २॥

mantra 2[I.iii.2]

te ha vācamūcustvaṃ na udgāyeti . tatheti . tebhyo vāgudagāyad yo vāci

bhogastaṃ devebhya āgāyad yatkalyāṇaṃ vadati tadātmane . te viduranena

vai na udgātrā'tyeṣyantīti . tamabhidrutya pāpmanā'vidhyan sa yaḥ sa

pāpmā yadevedamapratirūpaṃ vadati sa eva sa pāpmā .. 2..



Meaning:- They said to the organ of speech, 'Chant (the Udgitha) for us'. 'All right', said the organ of speech and chanted for them. The common good that comes of the organ of speech, it secured for the gods by chanting, while the fine speaking it utilised for itself. The Asuras knew that through this chanter the gods would surpass them. They charged it and struck it with evil. That evil is what we come across when one speaks improper things.





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.


Sloka : 1.3.3

मन्त्र ३[I.iii.3]

अथ ह प्राणमूचुस्त्वं न उद्गायेति । तथेति । तेभ्यः प्राण उदगायद्

यः प्राणे भोगस्तं देवेभ्य आगायद् यत्कल्याणं जिघ्रति तदात्मने ।

ते विदुरनेन वै न उद्गात्राऽत्येष्यन्तीति । तमभिद्रुत्य

पाप्मनाऽविध्यन् स यः स पाप्मा यदेवेदमप्रतिरूपं जिघ्रति स एव

स पाप्मा ॥ ३॥

mantra 3[I.iii.3]

atha ha prāṇamūcustvaṃ na udgāyeti . tatheti . tebhyaḥ prāṇa udagāyad

yaḥ prāṇe bhogastaṃ devebhya āgāyad yatkalyāṇaṃ jighrati tadātmane .

te viduranena vai na udgātrā'tyeṣyantīti . tamabhidrutya

pāpmanā'vidhyan sa yaḥ sa pāpmā yadevedamapratirūpaṃ jighrati sa eva

sa pāpmā .. 3..



Meaning:- Then they said to the nose 'Chant (the Udgitha) for us'. 'All right', said the nose and chanted for them. The common good that comes of the nose, it secured for the gods by chanting, while the fine smelling it utilised for itself. The Asuras knew that through this chanter the gods would surpass them. They charged it and struck it with evil. That evil is what we come across when one smells improper things.

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.


Sloka : 1.3.4

मन्त्र ४[I.iii.4]

अथ ह चक्षुरूचुस्त्वं न उद्गायेति । तथेति । तेभ्यश्चक्षुरुदगायद्

यश्चक्षुषि भोगस्तं देवेभ्य आगायद् यत्कल्याणं पश्यति

तदात्मने । ते विदुरनेन वै न उद्गात्राऽत्येष्यन्तीति । तमभिद्रुत्य

पाप्मनाऽविध्यन् स यः स पाप्मा यदेवेदमप्रतिरूपं पश्यति स एव

स पाप्मा ॥ ४॥

mantra 4[I.iii.4]

atha ha cakṣurūcustvaṃ na udgāyeti . tatheti . tebhyaścakṣurudagāyad

yaścakṣuṣi bhogastaṃ devebhya āgāyad yatkalyāṇaṃ paśyati

tadātmane . te viduranena vai na udgātrā'tyeṣyantīti . tamabhidrutya

pāpmanā'vidhyan sa yaḥ sa pāpmā yadevedamapratirūpaṃ paśyati sa eva

sa pāpmā .. 4..



Meaning:- Then they said to the eye 'Chant (the Udgitha) for us'. 'All right', said the eye and chanted for them. The common good that comes of the eye, it secured for the gods by chanting, while the fine seeing it utilised for itself. The Asuras knew that through this chanter the gods would surpass them. They charged it and struck it with evil. That evil is what we come across when one sees improper things.

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.


Sloka : 1.3.5

मन्त्र ५[I.iii.5]

अथ ह श्रोत्रमूचुस्त्वं न उद्गायेति । तथेति । तेभ्यः श्रोत्रमुदगायद्

यः श्रोत्रे भोगस्तं देवेभ्य आगायद् यत्कल्याणꣳ श‍ृणोति

तदात्मने । ते विदुरनेन वै न उद्गात्राऽत्येष्यन्तीति । तमभिद्रुत्य

पाप्मनाऽविध्यन् स यः स पाप्मा यदेवेदमप्रतिरूपꣳ श‍ृणोति स

एव स पाप्मा ॥ ५॥

mantra 5[I.iii.5]

atha ha śrotramūcustvaṃ na udgāyeti . tatheti . tebhyaḥ śrotramudagāyad

yaḥ śrotre bhogastaṃ devebhya āgāyad yatkalyāṇagͫ śṛṇoti

tadātmane . te viduranena vai na udgātrā'tyeṣyantīti . tamabhidrutya

pāpmanā'vidhyan sa yaḥ sa pāpmā yadevedamapratirūpagͫ śṛṇoti sa

eva sa pāpmā .. 5..



Meaning:- Then they said to the ear 'Chant (the Udgitha) for us'. 'All right', said the ear and chanted for them. The common good that comes of the ear, it secured for the gods by chanting, while the fine hearing it utilised for itself. The Asuras knew that through this chanter the gods would surpass them. They charged it and struck it with evil. That evil is what we come across when one hears improper things.

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.


Sloka : 1.3.6

मन्त्र ६[I.iii.6]

अथ ह मन ऊचुस्त्वं न उद्गायेति । तथेति । तेभ्यो मन उदगायद्

यो मनसि भोगस्तं देवेभ्य आगायद् यत्कल्याणꣳ सङ्कल्पयति

तदात्मने । ते विदुरनेन वै न उद्गात्राऽत्येष्यन्तीति । तमभिद्रुत्य

पाप्मनाऽविध्यन् स यः स पाप्मा यदेवेदमप्रतिरूपꣳ सङ्कल्पयति स

एव स पाप्मैवमु खल्वेता देवताः पाप्मभिरुपासृजन् पाप्मभिसुपासृजन्

एवमेनाः पाप्मनाऽविध्यन् ॥ ६॥

mantra 6[I.iii.6]

atha ha mana ūcustvaṃ na udgāyeti . tatheti . tebhyo mana udagāyad

yo manasi bhogastaṃ devebhya āgāyad yatkalyāṇagͫ saṅkalpayati

tadātmane . te viduranena vai na udgātrā'tyeṣyantīti . tamabhidrutya

pāpmanā'vidhyan sa yaḥ sa pāpmā yadevedamapratirūpagͫ saṅkalpayati sa

eva sa pāpmaivamu khalvetā devatāḥ pāpmabhirupāsṛjan pāpmabhisupāsṛjan

evamenāḥ pāpmanā'vidhyan .. 6..



Meaning:- Then they said to the mind 'Chant (the Udgitha) for us'. 'All right', said the mind and chanted for them. The common good that comes of the mind, it secured for the gods by chanting, while the fine thinking it utilised for itself. The Asuras knew that through this chanter the gods would surpass them. They charged it and struck it with evil. That evil is what we come across when one thinks improper things. Likewise they also touched these (other) deities with evil - struck them with evil.





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.


Sloka : 1.3.7

मन्त्र ७[I.iii.7]

अथ हेममासन्यं प्राणमूचुस्त्वं न उद्गायेति । तथेति । तेभ्य एष

प्राण उदगायत् ते विदुरनेन वै न उद्गात्राऽत्येष्यन्तीति । तमभिद्रुत्य

पाप्मनाविध्यन् । स यथाश्मानमृत्वा लोष्टो विध्वꣳसेतैवꣳ

हैव विध्वꣳसमाना विष्वञ्चो विनेशुस्ततो देवा अभवन् पराऽसुराः ।

भवत्यात्मना पराऽस्य द्विषन्भ्रातृव्यो भवति य एवं वेद ॥ ७॥

mantra 7[I.iii.7]

atha hemamāsanyaṃ prāṇamūcustvaṃ na udgāyeti . tatheti . tebhya eṣa

prāṇa udagāyat te viduranena vai na udgātrā'tyeṣyantīti . tamabhidrutya

pāpmanāvidhyan . sa yathāśmānamṛtvā loṣṭo vidhvagͫsetaivagͫ

haiva vidhvagͫsamānā viṣvañco vineśustato devā abhavan parā'surāḥ .

bhavatyātmanā parā'sya dviṣanbhrātṛvyo bhavati ya evaṃ veda .. 7..



Meaning:- Then they said to this vital force in the mouth, 'Chant (the Udgitha) for us'. 'All right', said the vital force and chanted for them. The Asuras knew that through this chanter the gods would surpass them. They charged it and wanted to strike it with evil. But as a clod of earth, striking against a rock, is shattered, so were they shattered, flung in all directions, and perished. Therefore the gods became (fire etc.), and the Asuras were crushed. He who knows thus becomes his true self, and his envious kinsman is crushed.





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.


Sloka : 1.3.8

मन्त्र ८[I.iii.8]

ते होचुः क्व नु सोऽभूद् यो न इत्थमसक्तेत्ययमास्येऽन्तरिति सोऽयास्य

आङ्गिरसोऽङ्गानाꣳ हि रसः ॥ ८॥

mantra 8[I.iii.8]

te hocuḥ kva nu so'bhūd yo na itthamasaktetyayamāsye'ntariti so'yāsya

āṅgiraso'ṅgānāgͫ hi rasaḥ .. 8..



Meaning:- They said, 'Where was he who has thus restored us (to our divinity)?' (and discovered):- 'Here he is within the mouth'. The vital force is called Ayasya Angirasa, for it is the essence of the members (of the body).





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.


Sloka : 1.3.9

मन्त्र ९[I.iii.9]

सा वा एषा देवता दूर्नाम दूरꣳ ह्यस्या मृत्युर्दूरꣳ ह वा

अस्मान्मृत्युर्भवति य एवं वेद ॥ ९॥

mantra 9[I.iii.9]

sā vā eṣā devatā dūrnāma dūragͫ hyasyā mṛtyurdūragͫ ha vā

asmānmṛtyurbhavati ya evaṃ veda .. 9..



Meaning:- This deity is called Dur, because death is far from it. Death is far from one who knows thus.





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.


Sloka : 1.3.10

मन्त्र १०[I.iii.10]

सा वा एषा देवतैतासां देवतानां पाप्मानं मृत्युमपहत्य यत्राऽऽसां

दिशामन्तस्तद्गमयां चकार तदासां पाप्मनो विन्यदधात् तस्मान्न

जनमियान् नान्तमियान् नेत्पाप्मानं मृत्युमन्ववायानीति ॥ १०॥

mantra 10[I.iii.10]

sā vā eṣā devataitāsāṃ devatānāṃ pāpmānaṃ mṛtyumapahatya yatrā''sāṃ

diśāmantastadgamayāṃ cakāra tadāsāṃ pāpmano vinyadadhāt tasmānna

janamiyān nāntamiyān netpāpmānaṃ mṛtyumanvavāyānīti .. 10..



Meaning:- This deity took away death, the evil of these gods, and carried it to where these quarters end. There it left their evils. Therefore one should not approach a person (of that region), nor go to that region beyond the border, lest one imbibe that evil, death.





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.


Sloka : 1.3.11

मन्त्र ११[I.iii.11]

सा वा एषा देवतैतासां देवतानां पाप्मानं मृत्युमपहत्याथैना

मृत्युमत्यवहत् ॥ ११॥

mantra 11[I.iii.11]

sā vā eṣā devataitāsāṃ devatānāṃ pāpmānaṃ mṛtyumapahatyāthainā

mṛtyumatyavahat .. 11..



Meaning:- This deity after taking away death, the evil of these gods, next carried them beyond death.





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.


Sloka : 1.3.12

मन्त्र १२[I.iii.12]

स वै वाचमेव प्रथमामत्यवहत् सा यदा मृत्युमत्यमुच्यत

सोऽग्निरभवत् सोऽयमग्निः परेण मृत्युमतिक्रान्तो दीप्यते ॥ १२॥

mantra 12[I.iii.12]

sa vai vācameva prathamāmatyavahat sā yadā mṛtyumatyamucyata

so'gnirabhavat so'yamagniḥ pareṇa mṛtyumatikrānto dīpyate .. 12..



Meaning:- It carried the organ of speech, the foremost one, first. When the organ of speech got rid of death, it became fire. That fire, having transcended death, shines beyond its reach.





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.


Sloka : 1.3.13

मन्त्र १३[I.iii.13]

अथ प्राणमत्यवहत् स यदा मृत्युमत्यमुच्यत स वायुरभवत् सोऽयं

वायुः परेण मृत्युमतिक्रान्तः पवते ॥ १३॥

mantra 13[I.iii.13]

atha prāṇamatyavahat sa yadā mṛtyumatyamucyata sa vāyurabhavat so'yaṃ

vāyuḥ pareṇa mṛtyumatikrāntaḥ pavate .. 13..



Meaning:- Then it carried the nose. When it got rid of death, it became air. That air, having transcended death, blows beyond its reach.





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.


Sloka : 1.3.14

मन्त्र १४[I.iii.14]

अथ चक्षुरत्यवहत् तद्यदा मृत्युमत्यमुच्यत स आदित्योऽभवत्

सोऽसावादित्यः परेण मृत्युमतिक्रान्तस्तपति ॥ १४॥

mantra 14[I.iii.14]

atha cakṣuratyavahat tadyadā mṛtyumatyamucyata sa ādityo'bhavat

so'sāvādityaḥ pareṇa mṛtyumatikrāntastapati .. 14..



Meaning:- Then it carried the eye. When the eye got rid of death, it became sun. That sun, having transcended death, shines beyond its reach.





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.


Sloka : 1.3.15

मन्त्र १५[I.iii.15]

अथ श्रोत्रमत्यवहत् तद्यदा मृत्युमत्यमुच्यत ता

दिशोऽभवꣳस्ता इमा दिशः परेण मृत्युमतिक्रान्ताः ॥ १५॥

mantra 15[I.iii.15]

atha śrotramatyavahat tadyadā mṛtyumatyamucyata tā

diśo'bhavagͫstā imā diśaḥ pareṇa mṛtyumatikrāntāḥ .. 15..



Meaning:- Then it carried the ear When the ear got rid of death, it became the quarters. Those quarters, having transcended death, remain beyond its reach.





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.


Sloka : 1.3.16

मन्त्र १६[I.iii.16]

अथ मनोऽत्यवहत् तद्यदा मृत्युमत्यमुच्यत स चन्द्रमा अभवत्

सोऽसौ चन्द्रः परेण मृत्युमतिक्रान्तो भात्येवꣳ ह वा एनमेषा

देवता मृत्युमतिवहति य एवं वेद ॥ १६॥

mantra 16[I.iii.16]

atha mano'tyavahat tadyadā mṛtyumatyamucyata sa candramā abhavat

so'sau candraḥ pareṇa mṛtyumatikrānto bhātyevagͫ ha vā enameṣā

devatā mṛtyumativahati ya evaṃ veda .. 16..



Meaning:- Then it carried the mind. When the mind got rid of death, it became the moon. That moon, having transcended death, shines beyond its reach. So does this deity carry one who knows thus beyond death.





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.


Sloka : 1.3.17

मन्त्र १७[I.iii.17]

अथाऽऽत्मनेऽन्नाद्यमागायद् यद्धि किञ्चान्नमद्यतेऽनेनैव तदद्यत

इह प्रतितिष्ठति ॥ १७॥

mantra 17[I.iii.17]

athā''tmane'nnādyamāgāyad yaddhi kiñcānnamadyate'nenaiva tadadyata

iha pratitiṣṭhati .. 17..



Meaning:- Next it secured eatable food for itself by chanting, for whatever food is eaten, is eaten by the vital force alone, and it rests on that.





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.


Sloka : 1.3.18

मन्त्र १८[I.iii.18]

ते देवा अब्रुवन्न् एतावद्वा इदꣳ सर्वं यदन्नं तदात्मन

आगासीरनु नोऽस्मिन्नन्न आभजस्वेति । ते वै माऽभिसंविशतेति ।

तथेति । तꣳ समन्तं परिण्यविशन्त । तस्माद्यदनेनान्नमत्ति

तेनैतास्तृप्यन्त्येवꣳ ह वा एनꣳ स्वा अभिसंविशन्ति भर्ता

स्वानाꣳ श्रेष्ठः पुर एता भवत्यन्नादोऽधिपतिर्य एवं वेद ।

य उ हैवंविदꣳ स्वेषु प्रतिप्रतिर्बुभूषति न हैवालं भार्येभ्यो

भवत्यथ य एवैतमनुभवति यो वैतमनु भार्यान् बुभूर्षति स

हैवालं भार्येभ्यो भवति ॥ १८॥

mantra 18[I.iii.18]

te devā abruvann etāvadvā idagͫ sarvaṃ yadannaṃ tadātmana

āgāsīranu no'sminnanna ābhajasveti . te vai mā'bhisaṃviśateti .

tatheti . tagͫ samantaṃ pariṇyaviśanta . tasmādyadanenānnamatti

tenaitāstṛpyantyevagͫ ha vā enagͫ svā abhisaṃviśanti bhartā

svānāgͫ śreṣṭhaḥ pura etā bhavatyannādo'dhipatirya evaṃ veda .

ya u haivaṃvidagͫ sveṣu pratipratirbubhūṣati na haivālaṃ bhāryebhyo

bhavatyatha ya evaitamanubhavati yo vaitamanu bhāryān bubhūrṣati sa

haivālaṃ bhāryebhyo bhavati .. 18..



Meaning:- The gods said, 'Whatever food there is, is just this much, and you have secured it for yourself by chanting. Now let us have a share in this food.' 'Then sit around facing me', (said the vital force). 'All right', (said the gods and) sat down around it. Hence whatever food one eats through the vital force satisfies these. So do his relatives sit around facing him who knows thus, and he becomes their support, the greatest among them and their leader, a good eater of food and the ruler of them. That one among his relatives who desires to rival a man of such knowledge is powerless to support his dependants. But one who follows him, or desires to maintain one's dependants being under him, is alone capable of supporting them.





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.


Sloka : 1.3.19

मन्त्र १९[I.iii.19]

सोऽयास्य आङ्गिरसोऽङ्गानाꣳ हि रसः । प्राणो वा अङ्गानाꣳ रसः ।

प्राणो हि वा अङ्गानाꣳ रसस्तस्माद्यस्मात्कस्माच्चाङ्गात्प्राण उत्क्रामति

तदेव तच्छुष्यत्येष हि वा अङ्गानाꣳ रसः ॥ १९॥

mantra 19[I.iii.19]

so'yāsya āṅgiraso'ṅgānāgͫ hi rasaḥ . prāṇo vā aṅgānāgͫ rasaḥ .

prāṇo hi vā aṅgānāgͫ rasastasmādyasmātkasmāccāṅgātprāṇa utkrāmati

tadeva tacchuṣyatyeṣa hi vā aṅgānāgͫ rasaḥ .. 19..



Meaning:- It is called Ayasya Angirasa, for it is the essence of the members (of the body). The vital force is indeed the essence of the members. Of course it is their essence. (For instance), from whichever member the vital force departs, right there it withers. Therefore this is of course the essence of the members.





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.


Sloka : 1.3.20

मन्त्र २०[I.iii.20]

एष उ एव बृहस्पतिर्वाग्वै बृहती तस्या एष पतिस्तस्मादु

बृहस्पतिः ॥ २०॥

mantra 20[I.iii.20]

eṣa u eva bṛhaspatirvāgvai bṛhatī tasyā eṣa patistasmādu

bṛhaspatiḥ .. 20..



Meaning:- This alone is also Brihaspati (lord of the Rik). Speech is indeed Brihati (Rik) and this is its lord. Therefore this is also Brihaspati.





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.


Sloka : 1.3.21

मन्त्र २१[I.iii.21]

एष उ एव ब्रह्मणस्पतिर्वाग्वै ब्रह्म तस्या एष पतिस्तस्मादु

ब्रह्मणस्पतिः ॥ २१॥

mantra 21[I.iii.21]

eṣa u eva brahmaṇaspatirvāgvai brahma tasyā eṣa patistasmādu

brahmaṇaspatiḥ .. 21..



Meaning:- This alone is also Brahmanaspati (lord of the Yajus). Speech is indeed Brahman (yajus), and this is its lord. Therefore this is also Brahmanaspati.





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.


Sloka : 1.3.22

मन्त्र २२[I.iii.22]

एष उ एव साम वाग्वै सामैष सा चामश्चेति तत्साम्नः सामत्वम् ।

यद्वेव समः प्लुषिणा समो मशकेन समो नागेन सम एभिस्त्रिभिर्लोकैः

समोऽनेन सर्वेण तस्माद्वेव सामाश्नुते साम्नः सायुज्यꣳ सलोकतां

य एवमेतत्साम वेद ॥ २२॥

mantra 22[I.iii.22]

eṣa u eva sāma vāgvai sāmaiṣa sā cāmaśceti tatsāmnaḥ sāmatvam .

yadveva samaḥ pluṣiṇā samo maśakena samo nāgena sama ebhistribhirlokaiḥ

samo'nena sarveṇa tasmādveva sāmāśnute sāmnaḥ sāyujyagͫ salokatāṃ

ya evametatsāma veda .. 22..



Meaning:- This alone is also Saman. Speech is indeed Sa, and this is Ama. Because it is Sa (speech) and Ama (vital force), therefore Saman is so called. Or because it is equal to a white ant, equal to a mosquito, equal to an elephant, equal to these three worlds, equal to this universe, therefore this is also Saman. He who knows this saman (vital force) to be such attains union with it, or lives in the same world as it.





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.


Sloka : 1.3.23

मन्त्र २३[I.iii.23]

एष उ वा उद्गीथः । प्राणो वा उत् प्राणेन हीदꣳ सर्वमुत्तब्धम् ।

वागेव गीथोच्च गीथा चेति स उद्गीथः ॥ २३॥

mantra 23[I.iii.23]

eṣa u vā udgīthaḥ . prāṇo vā ut prāṇena hīdagͫ sarvamuttabdham .

vāgeva gīthocca gīthā ceti sa udgīthaḥ .. 23..



Meaning:- This indeed is also Udgitha. The vital force is indeed Ut, for all this is held aloft by the vital force, and speech alone is Githa. This is Udgitha, because it is Ut and Githa.





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.


Sloka : 1.3.24

मन्त्र २४[I.iii.24]

तद्धापि ब्रह्मदत्तश्चैकितानेयो राजानं भक्षयन्नुवाचायं त्यस्य

राजा मूर्धानं विपातयताद् यदितोऽयास्य आङ्गिरसोऽन्येनोदगायदिति ।

वाचा च ह्येव स प्राणेन चोदगायदिति ॥ २४॥

mantra 24[I.iii.24]

taddhāpi brahmadattaścaikitāneyo rājānaṃ bhakṣayannuvācāyaṃ tyasya

rājā mūrdhānaṃ vipātayatād yadito'yāsya āṅgiraso'nyenodagāyaditi .

vācā ca hyeva sa prāṇena codagāyaditi .. 24..



Meaning:- Regarding this (there is) also (a story):- Brahmadatta, the great-grandson of Cikitana, while drinking Soma, said, 'Let this Soma strike off my head if I say that Ayasya Angirasa chanted the Udgitha through any other than this (vital force and speech).' Indeed he chanted through speech and the vital force.





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.'


Sloka : 1.3.25

मन्त्र २५[I.iii.25]

तस्य हैतस्य साम्नो यः स्वं वेद भवति हास्य स्वम् । तस्य वै स्वर

एव स्वम् । तस्मादार्त्विज्यं करिष्यन्वाचि स्वरमिच्छेत तया वाचा

स्वरसम्पन्नयाऽऽर्त्विज्यं कुर्यात् तस्माद्यज्ञे स्वरवन्तं दिदृक्षन्त

एवाथो यस्य स्वं भवति । भवति हास्य स्वं य एवमेतत्साम्नः स्वं

वेद ॥ २५॥

mantra 25[I.iii.25]

tasya haitasya sāmno yaḥ svaṃ veda bhavati hāsya svam . tasya vai svara

eva svam . tasmādārtvijyaṃ kariṣyanvāci svaramiccheta tayā vācā

svarasampannayā''rtvijyaṃ kuryāt tasmādyajñe svaravantaṃ didṛkṣanta

evātho yasya svaṃ bhavati . bhavati hāsya svaṃ ya evametatsāmnaḥ svaṃ

veda .. 25..



Meaning:- He who knows the wealth of this Saman (vital force) attains wealth. Tone is indeed its wealth. Therefore one who is going to officiate as a priest should desire to have a rich tone in his voice, and he should do his priestly duties through that voice with a fine tone. Therefore in a sacrifice people long to see a priest with a good voice, like one who has wealth. He who knows the wealth of saman to be such attains wealth.





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.


Sloka : 1.3.26

मन्त्र २६[I.iii.26]

तस्य हैतस्य साम्नो यः सुवर्णं वेद भवति हास्य सुवर्णम् । तस्य वै

स्वर एव सुवर्णम् । भवति हास्य सुवर्णं य एवमेतत्साम्नः सुवर्णं

वेद ॥ २६॥

mantra 26[I.iii.26]

tasya haitasya sāmno yaḥ suvarṇaṃ veda bhavati hāsya suvarṇam . tasya vai

svara eva suvarṇam . bhavati hāsya suvarṇaṃ ya evametatsāmnaḥ suvarṇaṃ

veda .. 26..



Meaning:- He who knows the gold of this Saman (vital force) obtains gold. Tone is indeed its gold. He who knows the gold of Saman to be such obtains gold.





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.


Sloka : 1.3.27

मन्त्र २७[I.iii.27]

तस्य हैतस्य साम्नो यः प्रतिष्ठां वेद प्रति ह तिष्ठति । तस्य

वै वागेव प्रतिष्ठा वाचि हि खल्वेष एतत्प्राणः प्रतिष्ठितो गीयते

ऽन्न इत्यु हैक आहुः ॥ २७॥

mantra 27[I.iii.27]

tasya haitasya sāmno yaḥ pratiṣṭhāṃ veda prati ha tiṣṭhati . tasya

vai vāgeva pratiṣṭhā vāci hi khalveṣa etatprāṇaḥ pratiṣṭhito gīyate

'nna ityu haika āhuḥ .. 27..



Meaning:- He who knows the support of this Saman (vital force) gets a resting place. Speech (certain parts of the body) is indeed its support. For resting on speech is the vital force thus chanted. Some say, resting on food (body).





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.


Sloka : 1.3.28

मन्त्र २८[I.iii.28]

अथातः पवमानानामेवाभ्यारोहः । स वै खलु प्रस्तोता साम

प्रस्तौति । स यत्र प्रस्तुयात् तदेतानि जपेदसतो मा सद् गमय

तमसो मा ज्योतिर्गमय मृत्योर्माऽमृतं गमयेति । स यदाहासतो मा

सद्गमयेति मृत्युर्वा असत् सदमृतं मृत्योर्माऽमृतं गमयामृतं

मा कुर्वित्येवैतदाह । तमसो मा ज्योतिर्गमयेति मृत्युर्वै तमो

ज्योतिरमृतं मृत्योर्मामृतं गमयामृतं मा कुर्वित्येवैतदाह ।

मृत्योर्मामृतं गमयेति नात्र तिरोहितमिवास्त्यथ यानीतराणि

स्तोत्राणि तेष्वात्मनेऽन्नाद्यमागायेत् तस्मादु तेषु वरं वृणीत यं

कामं कामयेत तꣳ । स एष एवंविदुद्गाताऽऽत्मने वा यजमानाय वा

यं कामं कामयते तमागायति । तद्धैतल्लोकजिदेव न हैवालोक्यताया

आशास्ति य एवमेतत्साम वेद ॥ २८॥

इति तृतीयं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ चतुर्थं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 28[I.iii.28]

athātaḥ pavamānānāmevābhyārohaḥ . sa vai khalu prastotā sāma

prastauti . sa yatra prastuyāt tadetāni japedasato mā sad gamaya

tamaso mā jyotirgamaya mṛtyormā'mṛtaṃ gamayeti . sa yadāhāsato mā

sadgamayeti mṛtyurvā asat sadamṛtaṃ mṛtyormā'mṛtaṃ gamayāmṛtaṃ

mā kurvityevaitadāha . tamaso mā jyotirgamayeti mṛtyurvai tamo

jyotiramṛtaṃ mṛtyormāmṛtaṃ gamayāmṛtaṃ mā kurvityevaitadāha .

mṛtyormāmṛtaṃ gamayeti nātra tirohitamivāstyatha yānītarāṇi

stotrāṇi teṣvātmane'nnādyamāgāyet tasmādu teṣu varaṃ vṛṇīta yaṃ

kāmaṃ kāmayeta tagͫ . sa eṣa evaṃvidudgātā''tmane vā yajamānāya vā

yaṃ kāmaṃ kāmayate tamāgāyati . taddhaitallokajideva na haivālokyatāyā

āśāsti ya evametatsāma veda .. 28..

iti tṛtīyaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha caturthaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- Now therefore the edifying repetition (Adhyaroha) only of the hymns called Pavamanas. The priest called Prastotir indeed recites the Saman. While he recites it, these Mantras are to be repeated:- From evil lead me to good. From darkness lead me to light. From death lead me to immortality. When the Mantra says, 'From evil lead me to good', 'evil' means death, and 'good' immortality; so it says, 'From death lead me to immortality, i.e. make me immortal'. When it says, 'From darkness lead me to light', 'darkness' means death, and 'light', immortality; so it says, 'From death lead me to immortality, or make me immortal'. In the dictum, 'From death lead me to immortality', the meaning does not seem to be hidden. Then through the remaining hymns (the chanter) should secure eatable food for himself by chanting. Therefore, while they are being chanted, the sacrificer should ask for a boon - anything that he desires. Whatever objects this chanter possessed of such knowledge desires, either for himself or for the sacrificer, he secures them by chanting. This (meditation) certainly wins the world (Hiranyagarbha). He who knows the Saman (vital force) as such has not to pray lest he be unfit for this world.





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.


Sloka : 1.4.1

मन्त्र १ [I.iv.1]

आत्मैवेदमग्र आसीत्पुरुषविधः । सोऽनुवीक्ष्य नान्यदात्मनोऽपश्यत्

सोऽहमस्मीत्यग्रे व्याहरत् ततोऽहन्नामाभवत् । तस्मादप्येतर्ह्यामन्त्रितो

ऽहमयमित्येवाग्र उक्त्वाऽथान्यन्नाम प्रब्रूते यदस्य भवति । स

यत्पूर्वोऽस्मात्सर्वस्मात्सर्वान्पाप्मन औषत् तस्मात्पुरुषः । ओषति ह

वै स तं योऽस्मात्पूर्वो बुभूषति य एवं वेद ॥ १॥

mantra 1 [I.iv.1]

ātmaivedamagra āsītpuruṣavidhaḥ . so'nuvīkṣya nānyadātmano'paśyat

so'hamasmītyagre vyāharat tato'hannāmābhavat . tasmādapyetarhyāmantrito

'hamayamityevāgra uktvā'thānyannāma prabrūte yadasya bhavati . sa

yatpūrvo'smātsarvasmātsarvānpāpmana auṣat tasmātpuruṣaḥ . oṣati ha

vai sa taṃ yo'smātpūrvo bubhūṣati ya evaṃ veda .. 1..



Meaning:- In the beginning, this (universe) was but the self (Viraj) of a human form. He reflected and found nothing else but himself. He first uttered, ''am he''. Therefore he was called Aham (I). Hence, to this day, when a person is addressed, he first says, 'It is I,' and then says the other name that he may have. Because he was first and before this whole (band of aspirants) burnt all evils, therefore he is called Purusha. He who knows thus indeed burns one who wants to be (Viraj) before him.





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.


Sloka : 1.4.2

मन्त्र २[I.iv.2]

सोऽबिभेत् तस्मादेकाकी बिभेति । स हायमीक्षां चक्रे यन्मदन्यन्नास्ति

कस्मान्नु बिभेमीति । तत एवास्य भयं वीयाय । कस्माद्ध्यभेष्यत्

द्वितीयाद्वै भयं भवति ॥ २॥

mantra 2[I.iv.2]

so'bibhet tasmādekākī bibheti . sa hāyamīkṣāṃ cakre yanmadanyannāsti

kasmānnu bibhemīti . tata evāsya bhayaṃ vīyāya . kasmāddhyabheṣyat

dvitīyādvai bhayaṃ bhavati .. 2..



Meaning:- He was afraid. Therefore people (still) are afraid to be alone. He thought, 'If there is nothing else but me, what am I afraid of?' From that alone his fear was gone, for what was there to fear? It is from a second entity that fear comes.





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.


Sloka : 1.4.3

मन्त्र ३[I.iv.3]

स वै नैव रेमे तस्मादेकाकी न रमते । स द्वितीयमैच्छत्

स हैतावानास यथा स्त्रीपुमाꣳसौ सम्परिष्वक्तौ ।

स इममेवाऽऽत्मानं द्वेधाऽपातयत् । ततः पतिश्च पत्नी

चाभवताम् । तस्मादिदमर्धबृगलमिव स्व इति ह स्माऽऽह

याज्ञवल्क्यस्तस्मादयमाकाशः स्त्रिया पूर्यत एव । ताꣳ समभवत्

ततो मनुष्या अजायन्त ॥ ३॥

mantra 3[I.iv.3]

sa vai naiva reme tasmādekākī na ramate . sa dvitīyamaicchat

sa haitāvānāsa yathā strīpumāgͫsau sampariṣvaktau .

sa imamevā''tmānaṃ dvedhā'pātayat . tataḥ patiśca patnī

cābhavatām . tasmādidamardhabṛgalamiva sva iti ha smā''ha

yājñavalkyastasmādayamākāśaḥ striyā pūryata eva . tāgͫ samabhavat

tato manuṣyā ajāyanta .. 3..



Meaning:- He was not at all happy. Therefore people (still) are not happy when alone. He desired a mate. He became as big as man and wife embracing each other. He parted this very body into two. From that came husband and wife. Therefore, said Yajnavalkya, this (body) is one-half of oneself, like one of the two halves of a split pea. Therefore this space is indeed filled by the wife. He was united with her. From that men were born.





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.


Sloka : 1.4.4

मन्त्र ४[I.iv.4]

सो हेयमीक्षां चक्रे कथं नु माऽऽत्मन एव जनयित्वा

सम्भवति । हन्त तिरोऽसानीति । सा गौरभवद् ऋषभ

इतरस्ताꣳ समेवाभवत् ततो गावोऽजायन्त । वडवेतराऽभवद्

अश्ववृष इतरो गर्दभीतरा गर्दभ इतरस्ताꣳ समेवाभवत्

तत एकशफमजायत अजेतराऽभवद् वस्त इतरोऽविरितरा मेष

इतरस्ताꣳ समेवाभवत् ततोऽजावयोऽजायन्तैवमेव यदिदं किञ्च

मिथुनमा पिपीलिकाभ्यस्तत्सर्वमसृजत ॥ ४॥

mantra 4[I.iv.4]

so heyamīkṣāṃ cakre kathaṃ nu mā''tmana eva janayitvā

sambhavati . hanta tiro'sānīti . sā gaurabhavad ṛṣabha

itarastāgͫ samevābhavat tato gāvo'jāyanta . vaḍavetarā'bhavad

aśvavṛṣa itaro gardabhītarā gardabha itarastāgͫ samevābhavat

tata ekaśaphamajāyata ajetarā'bhavad vasta itaro'viritarā meṣa

itarastāgͫ samevābhavat tato'jāvayo'jāyantaivameva yadidaṃ kiñca

mithunamā pipīlikābhyastatsarvamasṛjata .. 4..



Meaning:- She thought, 'How can he be united with me after producing me from himself? Well let me hide myself'. She became a cow, the other became a bull and was united with her; from that cows were born. The one became a mare, the other a stallion; the one became a she-ass, the other became a he-ass and was united with her; from that one hoofed animals were born. The one became a she-goat, the other a he-goat; the one became a ewe, the other became a ram and was united with her; from that goats and sheep were born. Thus did he project every thing that exists in pairs, down to the ants.





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.


Sloka : 1.4.5

मन्त्र ५[I.iv.5]

सोऽवेदहं वाव सृष्टिरस्म्यहꣳ हीदꣳ सर्वमसृक्षीति ।

ततः सृष्टिरभवत् सृष्ट्याꣳ हास्यैतस्यां भवति य एवं वेद ॥ ५॥

mantra 5[I.iv.5]

so'vedahaṃ vāva sṛṣṭirasmyahagͫ hīdagͫ sarvamasṛkṣīti .

tataḥ sṛṣṭirabhavat sṛṣṭyāgͫ hāsyaitasyāṃ bhavati ya evaṃ veda .. 5..



Meaning:- He knew, 'I indeed am the creation, for I projected all this'. Therefore he was called Creation. He who knows this as such becomes (a creator) in this creation of Viraj.





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.


Sloka : 1.4.6

मन्त्र ६[I.iv.6]

अथेत्यभ्यमन्थत् स मुखाच्च योनेर्हस्ताभ्यां

चाग्निमसृजत । तस्मादेतदुभयमलोमकमन्तरतोऽलोमका

हि योनिरन्तरतस्तद्यदिदमाहुरमुं यजामुं यजेत्येकैकं

देवमेतस्यैव सा विसृष्टिरेष उ ह्येव सर्वे देवा अथ

यत्किञ्चेदमार्द्रं तद्रेतसोऽसृजत तदु सोमः । एतावद्वा

इदꣳ सर्वमन्नं चैवान्नादश्च सोम एवान्नमग्निरन्नादः ।

सैषा ब्रह्मणोऽतिसृष्टिर्यच्छ्रेयसो देवानसृजताथ यन्मर्त्यः

सन्नमृतानसृजत तस्मादतिसृष्टिरतिसृष्ट्याꣳ हास्यैतस्यां

भवति य एवं वेद ॥ ६॥

mantra 6[I.iv.6]

athetyabhyamanthat sa mukhācca yonerhastābhyāṃ

cāgnimasṛjata . tasmādetadubhayamalomakamantarato'lomakā

hi yonirantaratastadyadidamāhuramuṃ yajāmuṃ yajetyekaikaṃ

devametasyaiva sā visṛṣṭireṣa u hyeva sarve devā atha

yatkiñcedamārdraṃ tadretaso'sṛjata tadu somaḥ . etāvadvā

idagͫ sarvamannaṃ caivānnādaśca soma evānnamagnirannādaḥ .

saiṣā brahmaṇo'tisṛṣṭiryacchreyaso devānasṛjatātha yanmartyaḥ

sannamṛtānasṛjata tasmādatisṛṣṭiratisṛṣṭyāgͫ hāsyaitasyāṃ

bhavati ya evaṃ veda .. 6..



Meaning:- Then he rubbed back and forth thus, and produced fire from its source, the mouth and the hands. Therefore both these are without hair at the inside. When they talk of particular gods, saying, 'Sacrifice to him', 'sacrifice to the other one', (they are wrong, since) these are all his projection, for he is all the gods. Now all this that is liquid, he produced from the seed. That is Soma. This universe is indeed this much - food and the eater of food. Soma is food, and fire the eater of food. This is super-creation of Viraj that he projected the gods, who are even superior to him. Because he, although mortal himself, projected the immortals, therefore this is a super-creation. He who knows this as such becomes (a creator) in this super-creation of Viraj.





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.


Sloka : 1.4.7

मन्त्र ७[I.iv.7]

तद्धेदं तर्ह्यव्याकृतमासीत् तन्नामरूपाभ्यामेव व्याक्रियतासौ

नामाऽयमिदꣳरूप इति । तदिदमप्येतर्हि नामरूपाभ्यामेव

व्याक्रियतेऽसौ नामायमिदꣳरूप इति । स एष इह प्रविष्ट आ

नखाग्रेभ्यो यथा क्षुरः क्षुरधानेऽवहितः स्याद् विश्वम्भरो वा

विश्वम्भरकुलाये तं न पश्यन्त्यकृत्स्नो हि सः प्राणन्नेव प्राणो

नाम भवति वदन्वाक् पश्यंश्चक्षुः श‍ृण्वञ्ह्रोत्रं मन्वानो

मनस्तान्यस्यैतानि कर्मनामान्येव । स योऽत एकैकमुपास्ते न स

वेदाकृत्स्नो ह्येषोऽत एकैकेन भवत्यात्मेत्येवोपासीतात्र ह्येते

सर्व एकं भवन्ति । तदेतत्पदनीयमस्य सर्वस्य यदयमात्माऽनेन

ह्येतत्सर्वं वेद । यथा ह वै पदेनानुविन्देदेवं कीर्तिꣳ श्लोकं

विन्दते य एवं वेद ॥ ७॥

mantra 7[I.iv.7]

taddhedaṃ tarhyavyākṛtamāsīt tannāmarūpābhyāmeva vyākriyatāsau

nāmā'yamidagͫrūpa iti . tadidamapyetarhi nāmarūpābhyāmeva

vyākriyate'sau nāmāyamidagͫrūpa iti . sa eṣa iha praviṣṭa ā

nakhāgrebhyo yathā kṣuraḥ kṣuradhāne'vahitaḥ syād viśvambharo vā

viśvambharakulāye taṃ na paśyantyakṛtsno hi saḥ prāṇanneva prāṇo

nāma bhavati vadanvāk paśyaṃścakṣuḥ śṛṇvañhrotraṃ manvāno

manastānyasyaitāni karmanāmānyeva . sa yo'ta ekaikamupāste na sa

vedākṛtsno hyeṣo'ta ekaikena bhavatyātmetyevopāsītātra hyete

sarva ekaṃ bhavanti . tadetatpadanīyamasya sarvasya yadayamātmā'nena

hyetatsarvaṃ veda . yathā ha vai padenānuvindedevaṃ kīrtigͫ ślokaṃ

vindate ya evaṃ veda .. 7..



Meaning:- This (universe) was then undifferentiated. It differentiated only into name and form - it was called such and such, and was of such and such form. So to this day it is differentiated only into name and form - it is called such and such, and is of such and such form. This Self has entered into these bodies up to the tip of the nails - as a razor may be put in its case, or as fire, which sustains the world, may be in its source. People do not see It, for (viewed in Its aspects) It is incomplete. When It does the function of living. It is called the vital force; when It speaks, the organ of speech; when It sees, the eye; when It hears, the ear; and when It thinks, the mind. These are merely Its names according to functions. He who meditates upon each of this totality of aspects does not know, for It is incomplete, (being divided) from this totality by possessing a single characteristic. The Self alone is to be meditated upon, for all these are unified in It. Of all these, this Self should be realised, for one knows all these through It, just as one may get (an animal) through its foot-prints. He who knows It as such obtains fame and association (with his relatives).





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 liberation or the cessation of ignorance.

Others say that meditation generates a new special kind of consciousness regarding the Self, through which the latter is known, and which alone removes ignorance, and not the knowledge due to the Vedic dicta about the Self. And in support of this view they cite such texts as the following:- '(The aspirant after Brahman) knowing about this alone, should attain intuitive knowledge' (IV. iv. 21), '(The Self) is to be realised --- to be heard of, reflected on and meditated upon' (II. iv. 5; IV. v. 6), 'That is to be sought, and That one should desire to realise' (Ch. VIII. vii. 1, 3).
Both views are wrong, for there is no reference to anything else in the passage in question. To be explicit:- The sentence, 'The Self alone is to be meditated upon,' is not an original injunction. Why? Because except the knowledge that arises from the dictum setting forth the nature of the Self and refuting the non-Self, there is nothing to be done, either mentally or outwardly. An injunction is appropriate only where, over and above the knowledge that arises immediately from hearing a sentence of the nature of an injunction, an activity on the part of a man is easily understood, as in sentences like, 'One who desires heaven must perform the new and full moon sacrifices.' The knowledge arising from a sentence enjoining these sacrifices is certainly not the performance of them. This depends on considerations such as whether a person is entitled to perform them. But apart from the knowledge arising from such passages delineating the Self as 'Not this, not this,' there is no scope for human activity as in the case of the new and full moon sacrifices etc., because that knowledge puts a stop to all activity. For a neutral knowledge cannot initiate any activity, since such passages as, 'One only without a second,' and 'Thou art That' (Ch. VI. vii. 7), merely remove the consciousness of any other entity but the Self or Brahman. And when this is gone, no activity is possible, for they are contradictory to each other.

Objection:- The mere knowledge arising from those passages does not suffice to remove the consciousness of entities other than the Self or Brahman.
Reply:- Not so, for such passages as, 'Thou art That,' 'Not this, not this,' 'All this is but the Self' (Ch. VII. xxv. 2), 'One only without a second,' 'This universe is but Brahman and immortal' (Mu. II. ii. 11), 'There is no other witness but This' (III. viii. 11), and 'Know that alone to be Brahman' (Ke. I. 5 ' 9), describe the Reality alone.
Objection:- Do they not supply the object for the injunction about realising the Self.
Reply:- No, for we have already answered that point by saying that there is no reference to anything else in those passages. That is to say, since sentences such as, 'Thou art That,' which only delineate the nature of the Self, immediately lead to Its realisation, there is no further action to be done with regard to the injunction about that realisation.
Objection:- A man does not proceed to know the Self immediately on hearing a statement of the nature of the Self, unless there is an injunction to that effect.
Reply:- Not so, for the knowledge of the Self is already attained by hearing the dictum about it. So what is the good of doing It over again?
Objection:- He may not even proceed to hear about the Self. (So an injunction is necessary).
Reply:- Not so, for it would lead to a regressus in infinitum. In other words, just as without an injunction he does not proceed to hear the meaning of a passage about the Self, similarly he would not, in the absence of another injunction, proceed to hear the meaning of a passage enjoining this; so another injunction is necessary. Similarly with that injunction too. Hence there would be a regressus in infinitum.
Objection:- Is not the train of remembrance of the knowledge of the Self generated by the passage relating to It something different from the knowledge itself arising from the hearing of It (and hence that is to be prescribed)?
Reply:- No, for the remembrance of the Self comes automatically. That is to say, as soon as the knowledge of the Self arises in consequence of hearing a dictum delineating It, it necessarily destroys the false notion about It. It could not arise otherwise. And when this false notion about the Self is gone, memories due to that, which are natural to man and concern the multitude of things other than the Self, cannot last. Moreover, everything else is then known to be an evil. In other words, when the Self is known, things other than It are realised as evils, being full of defects such as transitoriness, painfulness and impurity, while the Self is contrary to them. Therefore the memories of notions about the non-Self die out when the Self is known. As the only alernative left, the train of remembrance of the knowledge that the Self is one, which comes automatically,
is not to be prescribed. Besides, the memory of the Self removes the painful defects such as grief, delusion, fear and effort, for these defects spring from the opposite kind of knowledge. Compare the Sruti texts, 'Then what delusion can there be?' (Is. 7), 'Knowing (the bliss of Brahman) he is not afraid of anything' (Tai. II. 9), 'You have attained That which is free from fear, O Janaka' (IV. ii. 4), 'The knot of the heart is broken' (Mu.II. ii. , and so on.

Objection:- Well then, the control of the mind may be something different. In other words, since the control of mental states is something different from the knowledge of the Self arising from the Vedic texts, and since we know this has been prescribed for practice in another system (Yoga), let this be enjoined.
Reply:- No, for it is not known as a means of liberation. In the Upanisads nothing is spoken of as a means to the attainment of the highest end of man except the knowledge of the identity of the self and Brahman. Witness hundreds of Sruti texts like the following:- 'It knews only Itself ' Therefore It became all' (I. iv. 10), 'The knower of Brahman attains the highest' (Tai. II. i. 1), 'He who knows that Supreme Brahman becomes Brahman' (Mu. III. ii. 9), 'He only knows who has got a teacher. It takes him only so long (as he does not give up the body)' (Ch. VI. xiv. 2), 'He who knows it as such indeed becomes the fearless Brahman' (IV. iv. 25; Nr. Ut. VIII). Besides there is no other means for the control of mental states except the knowledge of the Self and the train of remembrance about it. We have said this as a tentative admission; really we know of no other means of liberation except the knowledge of Brahman.
Moreover, there being no curiosity to know, no effort is necessary. To be explicit:- You said, in the effort in connection with injunction such as, 'One should sacrifice,' there is the curiosity to know what the sacrifice is about, what its means are, and how it is to be performed, and it is satisfied by the mention of the goal, the means and the method of the sacrifices; similarly here too, in the injunction about the knowledge of the Self, those things are necessary. But you are wrong, for all curiosity is ended as soon as one knows the meaning of such texts as, 'One only without a second,' 'Thou art That,' 'Not this, not this,' 'Without enterior or exterior' (II. v. 19; III. viii. , and 'This self is Brahman' (II. v. 19; Ma. 2). And a man does not proceed to know the meaning of those passages, prompted by an injunction. We have already said that if another injunction is needed for this, it would lead to a regressus in infintum. Nor is an injunction noticed in such sentences as 'Brahman is one only without a second,' for they finish by simply stating the nature of the Self.

Objection:- Do they not lose their authority (as Vedas) by being mere statements of the nature of a thing? In other words, just as passages like, 'He (the deity Fire) cried. That is why he was called Rudra' (Tai. S. I. v. 1. 1), being a mere narration of an event (And not an injunction, which is the sole test of authority for the Vedas according to the Mimamsakas.), have no authority, so also the passages delineating the Self have more.
Reply:- Not so, for there is a difference (between the two sets of passages). The test of the authority or otherwise of a passage is not whether it states a fact or an action, but its capacity to generate certain and fruitful knowledge. A passage that has this is authoritative, and one that lacks it, is not. But we want to ask you:- Is or is not certain and fruitful knowledge generated by passages setting forth the nature of the Self, and if so, how can they lose their authority? Do you not see the result of knowledge in the removal of the evils which are the root of transmigartion, such as ignorance, grief, delusion and fear? Or do you not hear those hundreds of Upanisadic texts such as, 'Then what delusion and what grief can there be for one who sees unity?' (Is. 7), 'I am but a knower of (Vedic) Mantras, not of the Self, so I am tormented with grief, and you, sir, must take me beyond the reach of it' (Ch. VII. i. 3). Do passages like, 'He cried,' lead to this kind of certain and fruitful knowledge? If they do not, they may well be without authority. But how can the fact of their having no authority take away the authority of passages leading to certain and fruitful knowledge? And if these are without authority, what trust one can repose in passages dealing with the new and full moon sacrifices, for instance?

Objection:- These have authority because they generate knowledge leading to action on the part of a man. But passages inculcating the knowledge of the Self do not do that.
Reply:- True, but it is nothing against them, for there is reason enough for their authority. And that reason is what we have already stated, and none other. It is not a reason to disprove the authority of passages inculcating the Self that they generate knowledge which has the effect of destroying the seeds of all activity, rather it is their ornament. You said sentences like, '(The aspirant after Brahman) knowing about this alone should attain intuitive knowledge,' convey the necessity of meditation in addition to knowing the meaning of the Vedic dicta. It is true, but they do not constitute an original injunction. Since meditation on the Self is already known as a possible alternative, they can only be restrictive.

Objection:- How is that meditation already known as a possible alternative, since, as you said, on the principle of the residuum the train of remembrance of the knowledge of the Self is an inevitable fact?
Reply:- It is true, but nevertheless, since the resultant of past actions that led to the formation of the present body must produce definite results, speech, mind and the body are bound to work even after the highest realisation, for actions that have begun to bear fruit are stronger than knowledge; as for instance an arrow that has been let fly continues its course for some time. Hence the operation of knowledge, being weaker than they, (is liable to be interrupted by them and) becomes only a possible alternative. Therefore there is need to regulate the train of remembrance of the knowledge of the Self by having recourse to means such as renunciation and dispassion; but it is not something that is to be originally enjoined, being, as we said, already known as a possible alternative. Hence we conclude that passages such as, '(The aspirant after Brahman) knowing about this alone, should attain intuitive knowledge,'
are only meant to lay down the rule that the train of remembrance --- already known (as a possible alternative) --- of the knowledge of the Self must be kept up, for they can have no other import.

Objection:-This should be a meditation on the non-Self, for the particle 'iti' (as) has been used. In passages such as, 'It should be meditated upon as dear' (IV. i. 3), the meaning is not that features such as dearness are to be meditated upon, but that the vital force etc. possessing these features should be meditated upon. Similarly here also, from the use of the particle 'iti' along with the word 'Self' it is understood that something other than the Self (i.e. the Undifferentiated) but having the features of the Self is to be meditated upon. Another reason in support of this view is the difference of the passage in question from another where the Self is presented as the object of meditation. For instance, it will be stated later on, 'One should meditate only upon the world of the Self' (I. iv. 15). In that passage the Self alone is meant to be the object of meditation, for there is the accusative inflextion in the word 'Self.' Here, however, there is no accusative inflexion, but the particle 'iti' is used along with the word 'Self.' Hence it is understood that the Self is not the object of meditation here, but something else having the features of the Self.
Reply:- No, for at the end of this very passage (this text) the Self alone, we find, is presented as the object of meditation, 'Of all these, this Self alone should be realised,' (and elsewhere), 'This Self which is innermost' (I. iv. , and 'It knew only Itslef' (I. iv. 10).

Objection:- The Self is not the object of meditation, for the vision of that which entered is negated. In other words, the Sruti precludes the vision of that very Self whose entrance (into the universe) was described, for the words, 'People do not see It' (this text), refer to the Self which is under consideration. Hence the Self is certainly not to be meditated upon.
Reply:- Not so, for this is because of the defect of incompleteness. In other words, the preclusion of the vision is only to indicate the defect of incompleteness in the Self, not to forbid It as an object of meditation, for It is qualified by possessing the functions of living etc. If the Self were not meant to be the object of meditation, the mention of Its incompleteness when endowed with single functions such as living, in the passage, 'For It is incomplete (being divided) from this totality by possessing a single characteristic' (this text), would be meaningless. Hence the conclusion is that Self alone which is not possessed of single features is to be meditated upon, for It is complete. The use of the particle 'iti' along with the word 'Self,' to which you referred, only signifies that the truth of the Self is really beyond the scope of the term and the concept 'Self.' Otherwise the Sruti would only say, 'One should meditate upon the Self.' But this would imply that the term and the conept 'Self' were permissible with regard to the Self. That, however, is repugnant to the Sruti. Witness such passages as 'Not this, not this' (II. iii. 6), 'Through what, O Maitreyi, should one know the Knower?' (II. iv. 14; IV. v. 15), 'It is never known, but is the Knower' (III. viii. 11), and 'Whence speech returns baffled together with the mind' (Tai. II, iv. 1 and ix. 1). As for
the passage, 'One should meditate only upon the world of the Self,' since it is meant to preclude the possibility of meditation on things other than the Self, it does not convey a different meaning from the one we have been discussing.

Objection:- Since they are alike incompletely known, the Self and the non-Self are both to be known. Such being the case, why should care be taken to know the Self alone, as is evident from the passage, 'The Self alone is to be meditated upon,' and not the other?
Reply:- Of all these, this entity called Self, which we are considering alone should be realised, and nothing else. The 'of' has a partitive force, meaning 'among all these.'
Objection:- Is the rest not to be known at all?
Reply:- Not so. Although it is to be known, it does not require a separate knowledge over and above that of the Self. Why? For one knows all these things other than the Self through It, when the Self is known.
Objection:- But we cannot know one thing by knowing another.
Reply:- We shall answer the point while explaining the passage relating to the drum etc. (II. iv. 7).
Objection:- How is the Self the one that should be realised?
Reply:- Just as in the world one may get a missing animal that is wanted back, by searching it through its footprints --- 'foot' here means the ground with the print of hoof-marks left by a cow etc. --- similarly when the Self is attained, everything is automatically attained. This is the idea.
Objection:- The topic was knowledge --- when the Self is known, everything else is known. So why is a different topic, viz attainment, introduced here?
Reply:- Not so, for the Sruti uses the words 'knowledge' and 'attainment' as synonymous. The non-attainment of the Self is but the ignorance of It. Hence the knowledge of the Self is Its attainment. The attainment of the Self cannot be, as in the case of things other than It, the obtaining of something not obtained before, for here there is no difference between the person attaining and the object attained. Where the Self has to attain something other than Itself, the Self is the attainer and the non-Self is the object attained. This, not being already attained, is separated by acts such as producing, and is to be attained by the initiation of a particular action with the help of particular auxiliaries. And that attainment of something new is transitory, being due to desire and action that are themselves the product of a false notion, like the birth of a son etc. in a dream. But this Self is the very opposite of that. By the very fact of Its being the Self, It is not separated by acts such as producing. But although It is always attained, It is separated by ignorance only. Just as when a mother-of-pearl through mistake as a piece of silver, the non-apprehension of the former, although it is being perceived all the while, is merely due to the obstruction of the false impression, and its (subsequent) apprehension is but knowledge, for this is what removes the obstruction of false impression, similarly here also the non-attainment of the Self is merely due to the obstruction of ignorance. Therefore the attainment of It is simply the removal of that obstruction by knowledge; in no other sense it is consistent. Hence we shall explain how for the realisation of the Self every other means but knowledge is useless. Therefore the Sruti, wishing to express the indubitable identity of meaning of knowledge and attainment, says after introducing knowledge, 'May get,' for the root 'vid' also means 'to get.'
Now the result of meditation on the characteristic is being stated:- He who knows It as such, knows how this Self, entering into name and form, became famous through that name and form as the 'Self,' and got the association of the vital force etc., obtains fame and association with his dear ones. Or, he who knows the Self as described above obtains Kirti or the knowledge of unity coveted by seekers of liberation, and Sloka or liberation which results from that knowledge --- gets these primary results of knowledge.

Translation By Max Müller

7. Now all this was then undeveloped. It became developed by form and name, so that one could say, 'He, called so and so, is such a one [1].' Therefore at present also all this is developed by name and form, so that one can say, 'He, called so and so, is such a one.' He (Brahman or the Self) entered thither, to the very tips of the finger-nails, as a razor might be fitted in a razor-case, or as fire in a fire-place [2]. He cannot be seen, for, in part only, when breathing, he is breath by name; when speaking, speech by name; when seeing, eye by name; when hearing, ear by name; when thinking, mind by name. All these are but the names of his acts. And he who worships (regards) him as the one or the other, does not know him, for he is apart from this (when qualified) by the one or the other (predicate). Let men worship him as Self, for in the Self all these are one. This Self is the footstep of everything, for through it one knows everything [3]. And as one can find again by footsteps what was lost, thus he who knows this finds glory and praise.

Footnote:

1. The Comm. takes asau-nâmâ as a compound, instead of idam-nâmâ. I read asau nâma, he is this by name, viz. Devadatta, &c. Dr. Boehtlingk, who in his Chrestomathie (2nd ed. p. 31) had accepted the views of the Commentator, informs me that he has changed his view, and thinks that we should read asaú nâ'ma. 2. Cf. Kaush. Br. Up. VI, 19. 3. As one finds lost cattle again by following their footsteps, thus one finds everything, if one has found out the Self.' Comm.


Sloka : 1.4.8

मन्त्र ८[I.iv.8]

तदेतत्प्रेयः पुत्रात् प्रेयो वित्तात् प्रेयोऽन्यस्मात् सर्वस्मादन्तरतरं

यदयमात्मा । स योऽन्यमात्मनः प्रियं ब्रुवाणं ब्रूयात् प्रियꣳ

रोत्स्यतीतीश्वरो ह तथैव स्यादात्मानमेव प्रियमुपासीत । स य

आत्मानमेव प्रियमुपास्ते न हास्य प्रियं प्रमायुकं भवति ॥ ८॥

mantra 8[I.iv.8]

tadetatpreyaḥ putrāt preyo vittāt preyo'nyasmāt sarvasmādantarataraṃ

yadayamātmā . sa yo'nyamātmanaḥ priyaṃ bruvāṇaṃ brūyāt priyagͫ

rotsyatītīśvaro ha tathaiva syādātmānameva priyamupāsīta . sa ya

ātmānameva priyamupāste na hāsya priyaṃ pramāyukaṃ bhavati .. 8..



Meaning:- This Self is dearer than a son, dearer than wealth, dearer than everything else, and is innermost. Should a person (holding the Self as dear) say to one calling anything else dearer than the Self, '(what you hold) dear will die' - he is certainly competent (to say so) - it will indeed come true. One should meditate upon the Self alone as dear. Of him who meditates upon the Self alone as dear, the dear ones are not mortal.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Here is another reason why the Self should be known to the exclusion of everything else. This Self is dearer than a son:- A son is universally held dear in the world; but the Self is dearer than he, which shows that It is extremely dear. Similarly dearer than wealth such as gold or jewels, and everything else, whatever is admittedly held dear in the world. Why is the Self dearer than those things, and not the organs etc.? This is being explained:- And is innermost. The body and the organs are inner and nearer to oneself than a son or wealth, for instance, which are external things. But this Self is nearer than those even. A thing which is extremely dear deserves to be attained by the utmost effort. So is this Self, which is dearer than everything else held dear in the world. Therefore one should make the utmost effort to attain It, even abandoning that which is imposed as a duty (By the scriptures; e.g. marriage, for the sake of having son.) on one, for the attainment of other dear objects. But one may ask, when both Self and non-self are dear, and the choice of one means the rejection of the other, why should the Self alone be chosen to the exclusion of the other, and not inversely? This is being answered:- Should a person holding the Self as dear say to one calling anything else but the Self, such as a son, dearer than the Self, 'What you hold dear, for instance, the son, will die (lit. will meet with the extinction of life)' --- Why does he say like this? Because he is certainly competent to say so. Hence --- it, what he said, will indeed come true, the dear one will dies, for he speaks the truth. Therefore he is in a position to say like that. Some say that the word 'Isvara' (competent) means 'swift.' It might if it was commonly used in that sense. Therefore, giving up all other dear things, one should meditate upon the Self alone as dear. Of him who meditates upon the Self alone as dear, who knows that the Self alone is dear and nothing else, and thinks of It with the full conviction that the other things commonly held dear are really anything but dear --- of one possessed of this knowledge the dear ones are not mortal. This is a mere restatement of a universal fact (Viz that everybody has dear ones and suffers when they die. Although the knower of Brahman has no such limited vision and therefore does not
suffer on that account, yet he is here described in terms that are merely conventional.), for a knower of the Self has nothing else to call dear or the opposite. Or it may be a eulogy on the choice of the Self as dear (in preference to non-Self); or it may be the declaration of a result for one who is an imperfect knower of the Self, if he meditates upon the Self as dear, for a suffix signifying a habit has been used in the word 'Pramayuka' (mortal) (Since mortal things cannot be immortal, it only means that they attain longer life by virtue of this meditation.).

Translation By Max Müller

8. This, which is nearer to us than anything, this Self, is dearer than a son, dearer than wealth, dearer than all else. And if one were to say to one who declares another than the Self dear, that he will lose what is dear to him, very likely it would be so. Let him worship the Self alone as dear. He who worships the Self alone as dear, the object of his love will never perish [1].

Footnote:

1. On rudh, to lose, see Taitt. Samh. II, 6, 8, 5, pp. 765, 771, as pointed out by Dr. Boehtlingk. On îsvaro (yat) tathaiva syât, see Boehtlingk, s. v.


Sloka : 1.4.9

मन्त्र ९[I.iv.9]

तदाहुर्यद्ब्रह्मविद्यया सर्वं भविष्यन्तो मनुष्या मन्यन्ते किमु

तद्ब्रह्मावेद् यस्मात्तत्सर्वमभवदिति ॥ ९॥

mantra 9[I.iv.9]

tadāhuryadbrahmavidyayā sarvaṃ bhaviṣyanto manuṣyā manyante kimu

tadbrahmāved yasmāttatsarvamabhavaditi .. 9..



Meaning:- They say:- Men think, 'Through the knowledge of Brahman we shall become all'. Well, what did that Brahman know by which It became all?





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- In the words, 'The Self alone is to be meditated upon' (I. iv. 7); the knowledge of Brahman which it is the aim of the whole Upanisad to impart, has been briefly indicated. With a view to explaining this aphorism, the Sruti, in order to state the necessity of this knowledge, makes this introduction:- They say. 'Tat' (that) is preparatory to what is going to be unfolded in the next clause. 'They' refers to those seekers of Brahman who, on getting a teacher who is like a boat on that boundless ocean which has for its water the painful struggle due to rotation in the cycle of birth, decay and death, desire to cross that ocean, and being disgusted with the world of means and ends consisting of righteousness and unrighteousness, their means and their results, long to attain the eternal, supreme good which is entirely, diffrerent from the above. What do they say? This is being stated:- Men think, 'Through the knowledge of Brahman or the Supreme Self we shall become all, excluding nothing.' The use of the word 'men' indicates their special aptitude for this as they are specially qualified for the achievement of prosperity and liberation. This is the idea. As those seekers think with regard to rites that they would bring sure results, similarly they think that the knowledge of Brahman is sure to lead to identity with all, for the Vedas are equally the authority for both. Now this seems to be something inconsistent, hence we ask, what did that Brahman by knowing which men think they will become all, know by which It became all? And the Srutis say that It is all. If It became all without knowing anything, let it be the same with others too, what is the use of the knowledge of Brahman? If, on the other hand, It became all by knowing something, then this identity with all which is the result of the knowledge of Brahman, being the product of knowledge, becomes just like the result of an action, and therefore transitory. There would also be a regressus in infinitum, viz that too had become all by knowing something else, that eariler thing, again, by knowing something else, and so on. We take it for granted than It did not become all without knowing something, for that would be distorting the meaning of the scriptures. But the charge of the result being transitory stands, does it not? --- Nor, none of those charges can be levelled at it, for there is a particular meaning to it.
If indeed that Brahman became all by knowing something, we ask, what was it? To this objection the text gives the following absolutely faultless reply:-

Translation By Max Müller

9. Here they say:- 'If men think that by knowledge of Brahman they will become everything, what then did that Brahman know, from whence all this sprang?'


Sloka : 1.4.10

मन्त्र १०[I.iv.10]

ब्रह्म वा इदमग्र आसीत् तदात्मानमेवावेदहं ब्रह्मास्मीति ।

तस्मात्तत्सर्वमभवत् तद्यो यो देवानां प्रत्यबुध्यत स एव तदभवत्

तथर्षीणां तथा मनुष्याणाम् । तद्धैतत्पश्यन्नृषिर्वामदेवः

प्रतिपेदेऽहं मनुरभवꣳ सूर्यश्चेति । तदिदमप्येतर्हि

य एवं वेदाहं ब्रह्मास्मीति इति स इदꣳ सर्वं भवति तस्य ह

न देवाश्चनाभूत्या ईशत आत्मा ह्येषाꣳ स भवत्यथ योऽन्यां

देवतामुपास्तेऽन्योऽसावन्योऽहमस्मीति न स वेद । यथा पशुरेवꣳ

स देवानाम् । यथा ह वै बहवः पशवो मनुष्यं भुञ्ज्युरेवमेकैकः

पुरुषो देवान्भुनक्त्येकस्मिन्नेव पशावादीयमानेऽप्रियं भवति

किमु बहुषु तस्मादेषां तन्न प्रियं यदेतन्मनुष्या विद्युः ॥ १०॥

मनुष्यास्विद्युर्मन्त्र ११

mantra 10[I.iv.10]

brahma vā idamagra āsīt tadātmānamevāvedahaṃ brahmāsmīti .

tasmāttatsarvamabhavat tadyo yo devānāṃ pratyabudhyata sa eva tadabhavat

tatharṣīṇāṃ tathā manuṣyāṇām . taddhaitatpaśyannṛṣirvāmadevaḥ

pratipede'haṃ manurabhavagͫ sūryaśceti . tadidamapyetarhi

ya evaṃ vedāhaṃ brahmāsmīti iti sa idagͫ sarvaṃ bhavati tasya ha

na devāścanābhūtyā īśata ātmā hyeṣāgͫ sa bhavatyatha yo'nyāṃ

devatāmupāste'nyo'sāvanyo'hamasmīti na sa veda . yathā paśurevagͫ

sa devānām . yathā ha vai bahavaḥ paśavo manuṣyaṃ bhuñjyurevamekaikaḥ

puruṣo devānbhunaktyekasminneva paśāvādīyamāne'priyaṃ bhavati

kimu bahuṣu tasmādeṣāṃ tanna priyaṃ yadetanmanuṣyā vidyuḥ .. 10..

manuṣyāsvidyurmantra 11



Meaning:- This (self) was indeed Brahman in the beginning. It knew only Itself as, 'I am Brahman'. Therefore It became all. And whoever among the gods knew It also became That; and the same with sages and men. The sage Vamadeva, while realising this (self) as That, knew, 'I was Manu, and the sun'. And to this day whoever in like manner knows It as, 'I am Brahman', becomes all this (universe). Even the gods cannot prevail against him, for he becomes their self. While he who worships another god thinking, 'He is one, and I am another', does not know. He is like an animal to the gods. As many animals serve a man, so does each man serve the gods. Even if one animal is taken away, it causes anguish, what should one say of many animals? Therefore it is not liked by them that men should know this.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Prima facie view:- Brahman here must be the conditioned Brahman (The view of an earlier commentator (Vrttikara), for then only can the identity with all be the product of effort. The Supreme Brahman cannot become all as a result of knowledge. But this identity with all is spoken of as a result of knowledge:- 'Therefore It became all.' Hence the Brahman referred to in the passage, 'This was indeed Brahman in the beginning,' must be the conditioned Brahman. Or, since men alone are qualified (for this identification with all), the word 'Brahman' may refer to a future knower of Brahman who will be identified with It. For in the passage, 'Men think ' we shall become all' (I. iv. 9), men have been introduced, and it has already been said that they alone are specially qualified for the practice of the means of prosperity and liberation --- neither the Supreme Brahman nor Hiranyagarbha, the conditioned Brahman. Therefore by the word 'Brahman' is meant a man who through the knowledge of the conditioned Brahman --- identified with the whole universe --- combined with rites, attained identity with the conditioned Brahman (Hiranyagarbha), and turning away from all enjoyments (in that state) and having broken his ties of desire and action by attaining everything, sought unity with the Supreme Brahman through the knowledge of It. It is a common occurrence in the world that words are used having reference to future states, as in the sentence, 'They are cooking rice ('Rice' here means the cooked grains.),' and in the scriptures too, 'The monk (He can be a monk only after the sacrifice.), after performing a sacrifice in which wishing fearlessness to all beings is his fee to the priests,' etc. (Va. X.). Similarly here also Brahman means a man desiring to know Brahman and aspiring identity with It.
This is the view of some (Bhartrprapanca, another commentator.).
Reply:- Not so, for that kind of identity with all would be open to the charge of transitoriness. There is no such thing in the
world that really assumes a different state through some cause and still is eternal. Similarly, if identity with all be due to the knowledge of Brahman, it cannot at the same time by eternal. And if it be transitory, it would be, as we have already said, like the result of an action. But if by identity with all you mean the cessation, through the knowledge of Brahman, of that idea of not being all which is due to ignorance, then it would be futile to understand by the term 'Brahman' a man who will be Brahman. Even before knowing Brahman, everybody, being Brahman, is really always identical with all, but ignorance superimposes on him the idea that he is not Brahman and not all, as a mother-of-pearl is mistaken for silver, or as the sky is imagined to be concave, or blue, or the like. Similarly, if you think that here also the idea of not being Brahman and not being all that has been superimposed on Brahman by ignorance, is removed by the knowledge of Brahman, then, since the Vedas speak the truth, it is proper to say that what was really the Supreme Brahman is referred to in the sentence, 'This was indeed Brahman in the beginning,' for that is the primary meaning of the word 'Brahman.' But one must not think that the word 'Brahman' here means a man who will be Brahman, which would be contrary to the meaning of that term. For it is wrong to give up the plain meaning of a word used in the Sruti and put a new meaning in its place, unless there is a higher purpose behind it.

Objection:- But the fact of not being Brahman and not being all exists apart from the creation of ignorance.
Reply:- No, for then it cannot be removed by the knowledge of Brahman. This knowledge has never been observed either directly to remove some characteristic of a thing or to create one. But everywhere it is seen to remove ignorance. Similarly here also let the idea of not being Brahman and not being all that is due to ignorance, be removed by the knowledge of Brahman, but it can neither create nor put a stop to a real entity. Hence it is entirely futile to give up the plain meaning of a word used in the Sruti and put a new meaning in its place.

Objection:- But is not ignorance out of place in Brahman?
Reply:- Not so, for knowledge regarding Brahman has been enjoined. When there has been no superimposition of silver on a mother-or-pearl, and it is directly visible, no one takes the trouble to say it is a mother-of-pearl, and not silver. Similarly, were there no superimposition of ignorance on Brahman, the knowledge of unity regarding Brahman would not be enjoined in such terms as the following:- All this is Existence, All this is Brahman (Adapted from Ch. VI. ii. 1 and Mu. II. ii. 11 respectively.). 'All this is the Self' (Ch. VII. xxv. 2), and This duality has no existence apart from Brahman (An echo of IV. iv. 19.).

Objection:- We do not say that there is no superimposition on Brahman of attributes not belonging to It, as in the case of a mother-of-pearl, but that Brahman is not the cause of the superimposition of these attributes on Itself, nor the author of ignorance.
Reply:- Let it be so. Brahman is not the author of ignorance nor subject to error. But it is not admitted that there is any other conscious entity but Brahman which is the author of ignorance or subject to error. Witness such Sruti texts as, 'There is no other knower but Him' (III. vii. 23), 'There is no other knower but This' (III. viii. 11), 'Thou art That' (Ch. VI. viii. 7), 'It knew only Itself as, 'I am Brahman' ' (this text), and 'He (who worships another god thinking), 'He is one, and I am another,' does not know' (Ibid.). And the Smrtis:- '(Living) the same in all beings' (G. XIII. 27), 'I am the self, O Arjuna (dwelling in the minds of all beings)' (G. X. 20), and '(Wise men are even-minded) to a dog as well as a Candala' (G. V. 18). And the Vedic Mantras:- 'He who (sees) all beings (in himself)' (Is. 6), and 'When all beings (have become his self)' (Is. 7).

Objection:- In that case scriptural instruction is useless.
Reply:- Quite so, let it be, when the truth has been known.
Objection:- But it is also useless to know the truth.
Reply:- No, for we see it removes ignorance.
Objection:- If there is unity, this removal of ignorance also is impossible.
Reply:- Not so, for it contradicts experience. We actually see that the knowledge of unity alone dispels ignorance. If you deny an observed fact, saying it is impossible, you would be contradicting experience, a thing which nobody will allow. Nor
is there any question of impossibility with regard to an observed fact, because it has actually been observed.
Objection:- But this observation also is impossible.
Reply:- There also the same logic will apply.

Objection:- 'One indeed becomes good through good work' (III. ii. 13), 'It is followed by knowledge, work' (IV. iv. 2), 'The individual self, the Purusa, is a thinker, knower and doer' (Pr. IV. 9) --- from such Sruti and Smrti texts as well as from reason we know that there is a transmigrating self other than and distinct from the Supreme Self. And the latter is known to be distinct from the former from such Sruti texts as the following:- 'This (Self) is That which has been described as 'Not this, not this,' ' (III. iv. 26), 'It transcends hunger etc. (Adapted from III. v. 1.),' 'The Self that is sinless, undecaying, deathless' (Ch. VIII. vii. 13), and 'Under the mighty rule of this Immutable' (III. viii. 9). Again, in the systems of logic (Vaisesika and Nyaya) advocated by Kanada and Gautama, the existence of a God distinct from the transmigrating self is established through argument. That the latter is different from God is clearly seen from its activity due to its desire to get rid of the misery of relative existence. Also from such Sruti and Smrti texts as:- 'It is without speech and without zeal' (Ch. III. xiv. 2), and 'I have no duties, O Arjuna' (G. III. 32). And from the distinct mention of God as the object of search and the individual self as the seeker, in such (Sruti) passages as:- 'That is to be sought, and That one should desire to realise' (Ch. VIII. vii. 1, 3), 'Knowing It one is not touched (by evil action)' (IV. iv. 23), 'The knower of Brahman attains the highest' (Tai. II. i. 1), 'It should be realised in one form only' (IV. iv. 20), 'He, O Gargi, who without knowing this Immutable' (III. viii. 10), 'Knowing It alone, the sage' (IV. iv. 21), and 'The syllable Om is called the bow, the individual self the arrow, and Brahman the target' (Mu. II. ii. 4). Another reason for the difference is the mention of a journey, particular routes and a destination for a seeker of liberation. If there is no difference, who should make the journey and how, and in the absence of this, two particular routes, viz the southern and northern, are meaningless, and the destination as well. But if the individual self is different from the Supreme Self, all this would be consistent. Also they must be different because the scriptures prescribe the two means, viz rites and knowledge. If the individual self is different from Brahman, the teaching of rites and knowledge as means to prosperity and liberation respectively may aptly apply to it, but not to God, for the objects of His desire are eternally attained. Therefore it is proper to understand the word 'Brahmann' in the sense of a man aspiring to be Brahman.
Reply:- No, for then instruction about Brahman would be useless. If a man subject to transmigration and only aspiring to be identified with Brahman became all by knowing himself to be Brahman, although he was not It, then instruction about the Surpeme Brahman is certainly useless, for he attained identity with all as a result of knowing only the transmigrating self, and the knowledge of the Supreme Brahman is never utilised (By scriptural injunctions, making it a subsidiary part of rites.) for attaining human ends.

Objection:- The instruction is only meant for the man subject to transmigration, so that he may practise the meditation based on resemblance (This is a kind of meditation known as 'Sampad', in which an inferior thing is thought of as a superior thing through some common features, often fanciful.) with regard to Brahman as, 'I am Brahman.' For if he does not fully know the nature of Brahman, with what can he identify himself in fancy as, 'I am Brahman'? This meditation based on resemblance is possible only when the characteristics of Brahman are fully known.
Reply:- Not so, for we know that the words 'Brahman' and 'self' are synonymous, being used thousands of times in co-ordination in such texts as the following:- 'This self is Brahman' (II. v. 19; Ma. 2), 'The Brahman that is immediate and direct' (III. iv. 1 ' 2; III. v. 1), 'The Self (that is sinless)' (Ch. VIII. vii. 1, 3), 'It is truth, It is the Self' (Ch. VI. viii. 7 etc.) and 'The knower of Brahman attains the highest' (Tai. II. i. 1), these last introductory words (to Tai. II.) being shortly after followed by the words, 'From this Self,' etc. (Ibid.). The meditation based on resemblance is performed when the two things concerned are different, not when they are identical. And the sentence, 'This all is the Self' (II. iv. 6), shows the unity of the Self under consideration that is to be realised. Therefore the Self cannot be regarded as Brahman through the meditation based on resemblance.
Nor do we see any other necessity for instruction about Brahman, for the Sruti mentions identification with It in the passages, '(He who) knows (that Supreme) Brahman becomes Brahman' (III. ii. 9), 'You have attained That which is free from fear, O Janaka' (IV. ii. 4), and 'He ' becomes the fearless Brahman' (IV. iv. 25). If the meditation based on resemblance were meant, this identity would not take place, for one thing cannot become another.

Objection:- On the strength of scriptural statements, even the meditation based on resemblance may led to identity.
Reply:- No, for this meditation is only an idea. And knowledge, as we have said, only removes the false notion, it does not create anything. Nor can a scriptural statement impart any power to a thing. For it is an accepted principle that the scriptures are only informative, not creative (They only give first-hand information about things unknown. They do not produce anything new.). Besides, in the passage, 'This Self has entered into these bodies,' etc. (I. iv. 7), it is clear that the Supreme Self alone has entered. Therefore the view that the word 'Brahman' means a man who will be Brahman, is not a sound one. Another reason is that it contradicts the intended meaning. The desired import of this whole Upanisad is the knowledge that Brahman is without interior or exterior and homogeneous like a lump of salt, as is known from, the assertion , made at the end of both Madhu and Muni Kandas (Consisting of chapter I --- II and III --- IV respectively.), 'This is the teaching' (II. v. 19), and 'This much indeed is (the means of) immortality, my dear' (IV. v. 15). Similarly, in the Upanisads of all recensions the knowledge of the unity of Brahman (self) is the certain import. If, therefore, the passage in question is interpreted to mean that the transmigrating self, which is different from Brahman, knew itself, the desired meaning of the Upanisads would be contradicted. And in that case the scripture, having its beginning and end not tallying with each other, would be considered inconsistent. Moreover, the name would be out of place. In other words, if in the passage, 'It knew only Itself', the word 'It' is supposed to refer to the transmigrating self, the name given to the knowledge would not be 'the knowledge of Brahman,' for then, 'It knew only Itself,' should mean that the transmigrating self was the entity that was known.

Objection:- Suppose we say that the word 'Self' refers to an entity other than the knower (Which, according to the opponent, is the individual self. Hence the entity known would be Brahman, thus justifying the name of the knowledge.).
Reply:- Not so, for there is the specification, 'I am Brahman.' If the entity known were other than the knower, the specification should be, 'It is Brahman,' or 'That is Brahman,' and not 'I am Brahman.' But since it is, 'I am Brahman,' and there is the assertion, 'It knew only Itself,' we know it for certain that the self is Brahman. And then only the name 'the knowledge of Brahman' would be appropriate, not otherwise. In the other case it would be 'the knowledge of the transmigrating self.' Nor can the same entity really be both Brahman and not Brahman, just as the sun cannot be both bright and dark, for these are contradictory features. And if both were the cause of the name, there should not be the sure appellation 'the knowledge of Brahman.' It should then be 'the knowledge of Brahman and of the transmigrating self.' Nor in proceeding to expound the knowledge of Truth should one present the reality as an absurdity, like a woman, for instance, being one-half old and one-half young. That will only cause doubt in the mind of the listener. Whereas it is sure knowledge that is regarded as leading to liberation, the goal of human life, as is evidenced by the following Sruti and Smrti texts:- 'He who really has (the conviction that he will attain the conditioned Brahman after death) and has no doubt about it (does attain him)' (Ch. III. xiv. 4), and 'The doubting man perishes' (G. IV. 40). Hence one who wishes to do good to others should not use expressions of a doubtful import.

Objection:- To think that Brahman, like us, is a seeker of liberation, is not proper, and that is what we see in the passage, 'It knew only Itself ' Therefore It became all.
Reply:- Not so, for by saying this you will be flouting the scriptures. It is not our idea, but that of the scriptures. Hence your fling hits them. And you who wish to please Brahman should not give up the real meaning of the scriptures by fancying things contrary to it. Nor should you lose your patience over this much only, for all plurality is but imagined in Brahman, as we know from hundreds of texts like the following:- 'It should be realised in one form only' (IV. iv. 20), 'There is no difference whatsoever in Brahman' (IV. iv. 19; Ka. IV. 11), 'When there is duality, as it were' (II. iv. 14; IV. v. 15), and 'One only without a second' (Ch. VI. ii. 1). Since the whole phenomenal world is imagined in Brahman alone and is not real, you say very little when you condemn this particular idea as improper. Therefore the conclusion is that the word 'Brahman' refers to that Brahman which projected the universe and entered into it.
This, the Brahman (self) that is perceived as being in this body, was indeed --- this word is emphatic --- Brahman, and all, in the beginning, even before realisation. But owing to ignorance it superimposes on itself the notion that it is not Brahman, and that it is not all, and consequently thinks, through mistake, that it is an agent, possessed of activity, the experiencer of its fruits, happy or miserable, and transmigrating. But really it is Brahman different from all the foregoing and is all. Being somehow awakened by a merciful teacher who told it that it was not subject to transmigartion, 'It knew only Itself,' its own natural Self, that is, which is free from differentiations superimposed by ignorance. This is the meaning of the particle 'eva' (only).

Objection:-
Tell me, what is that natural Self which Brahman knew?
Reply:- Do you not remember the Self? It has been pointed out as the one that entering into these bodies does the function of the Prana, Apana, Vyana, Udana and Samana (See commentary on I. v. 3.).
Objection:- You are describing It as one would describe a cow or a horse by simply saying, 'It is a cow,' or 'It is a horse.' You do not show the Self directly.
Reply:- Well then, the Self is the seer, hearer, thinker and knower.
Objection:- Here also you do not directly point out the nature of that which does the function of seeing etc. Going is surely not the nature of one who goes, nor cutting that of a cutter.
Reply:- In that case the Self is the seer of sight, the hearer of hearing, the thinker of thought and the knower of knowledge.
Objection:- But what difference does it make in the seer? Whether it be the seer of sight or of a jar, it is but the seer under all circumstances. By saying 'The seer of sight' you are simply stating a difference as regards the object seen. But the seer, whether it be the seer of sight or of a jar, is just the same.
Reply:- No, for there is a difference, and it is this:- If that which is the seer of sight is identical with that sight, it always visualises the latter, and there is never a time when sight is not visualised by the seer. So the vision of the seer must be eternal. It if were transitory, then sight, which is the object visualised, may sometimes not be seen, as a jar, for instance, may not always be perceived by the transitory vision. But the seer of sight never ceases to visualise sight like that.

Objection:- Has the seer then two kinds of vision, one eternal and invisible, and the other transitory and visible?
Reply:- Yes. The transitory vision is familiar to us, for we see some people are blind, and others are not. If the eternal vision
were the only one in existence, all people would be possessed of vision. But the vision of the seer is an eternal one, for the Sruti says, 'The vision of the witness can never be lost' (IV. iii. 23). From inference also we know this. For we find even a blind man has vision consisting of the impressions of a jar etc. in dreams. This shows that the vision of the seer is not lost with the loss of the other kind of vision. Through that unfailing eternal vision, which is identical with It and is called the self-effulgent light, the Self always sees the other, transitory vision in the dream and waking states, as idea and perception respectively, and becomes the seer of sight. Such being the case, the vision itself is Its nature, like the heat of fire, and there is no other conscious (or unconscious) seer over and above the vision, as the Vaisesikas maintain.
It, Brahman, knew only Itself, the eternal vision, devoid of the transitory vision etc. superimposed on It.

Objection:- But knowing the knower is self-contradictory, for the Sruti says, 'One should not try to know the knower of knowledge' (III. iv. 2).
Reply:- No, this sort of knowledge involves no contradiction. The Self is indeed known thus, as 'the seer of sight.' Also it does not depend on any other knowledge. He who knows that the vision of the seer is eternal, does not wish to see It in any other way. This wish to see the seer automatically stops because of its very impossibility, for nobody hankers after a thing that does not exist. And that sight which is itself an object of vision does not dare to visualise the seer, in which case one might wish to do it. Nor does anybody want to see himself. Therefore the sentence, 'It knew only Itself,' only means the cessation of the superimpostion of ignorance, and not the actual cognising of the Self as an object.
How did It know Itself? As 'I am Brahman, the Self that is the seer of sight.' 'Brahman' is That which is immediate and direct, the Self that is within all, beyond hunger and the like, described as 'Not this, not this' neither gross nor subtle, and so on. 'I am, as you (The teacher) said, That and no other, not the transmigrating self.' Therefore, from knowing thus, It, Brahman, became all. Since by the cessation of the superimposed notion of not being Brahman, its effect, the notion of not being all, was also gone, therefore It became all. Hence men are justified in thinking that through the knowledge of Brahman they would become all. The question, 'Well, what did that Brahman know by which It became all?' has been answered:- 'This was indeed Brahman in the beginning. It knew only Itself as, 'I am Brahman.' Therefore It became all.'
And whoever among the gods knew It, the Self, in the manner described above, that awakened self also became That, Brahman. And the same with sages and men. The words 'gods' etc. are used from the conventional point of view, not from that of the vision of Brahman. We have already said that it is Brahman which has entered everywhere, as set forth in the passage, 'That Supreme Being first entered the bodies' (II. v. 18). Hence the words 'gods' etc. are used from the conventional standpoint determined by the limiting adjuncts such as the
body. Really it was Brahman which was in those divine and other bodies even before realisation, being only looked upon as something else. It knew only Itself and thereby became all.
To strengthen the import of the passage that this knowledge of Brahman leads to identity with all, the Sruti quotes some Mantras. How? The sage called Vamadeva, while realising this, his own self, as identical with That, Brahman, knew, from this realisation of Brahman, i.e. in that state of realisation of the identity of the self, and Brahman, visualised these Mantras, 'I was Manu, and the sun,' etc. (R. IV. xxvi. 1). The expression, 'While realising this (self) as That' --- Brahman --- refers to the knowledge of Brahman. And the words, 'I was Manu, and the sun,' refer to its result, identity with all. By the use of the form (The suffix Satr, denoting concurrence.), 'While realising' It he attained this result, viz identity with all, the Sruti shows that liberation is attainable through the aid of the knowledge of Brahman, as in the expression, 'While eating he is getting satisfaction.' Someone may think that the gods, who are great, attained this identity with all through the knowledge of Brahman because of their extraordinary power, but those of this age, particularly men, can never attain it owing to their limited power. In order to remove this notion the text says:- And to this day whoever, curbing his interest in external things, in like manner knows It, the Brahman under consideration which has entered into all beings and is indicated by the functions of seeing etc., i.e. his own Self, as, 'I am Brahman,' which is untouched by the attributes of the phenomenal universe, is without interior or exterior and absolute, by discarding the differences superimposed by the
false notion created by limiting adjuncts, becomes all this, owing to his notion of incompleteness --- the effect of ignorance --- being removed by the knowledge of Brahman. For there is no difference as regards Brahman or the knowledge of It between giants like Vamadeva and the human weaklings of to-day. But, one may suppose, the result of the knowledge of Brahman may be uncertain in the case of the present generation. This is answered as follows:- Even the gods, powerful as they may be, cannot prevail against him, the man who has known Brahman in the manner described above --- have not the capacity to stop his becoming Brahman and all, much less others.

Objection:- Is there any ground for supposing that the gods and others can thwart the attainment of the results of the knowledge of Brahman?
Reply:- Yes, because men are indebted to them. The Sruti text, '(Every Brahmana --- twice-born --- by his very birth is indebted) to the sages in respect of continence, to the gods in respect of sacrifices, and to the Manes in respect of progeny' (Tai S. VI. iii. 10.5), shows that a man by his very birth is under certain obligations. And we know it from the illustration of animals (in this text). There is also the text, 'Now this self (the ignorant man),' etc. (I. iv. 16), describing him as an object of enjoyment for all, which shows that it is reasonable to suppose that the gods, in order to maintain their livelihood, may hinder men, who are dependent, from attaining immortality, as cerditors do with their debtors. The gods also protect their animals like their own bodies, for the Sruti will show that each man being equivalent to many animals, the gods have a great source of livelihood in the rites performed by him. It will presently be stated, 'Therefore it is not liked by them that men should know this' (this text), and 'Just as one wishes safety to one's body, so do all beings wish safety to him who knows it as such' (I. iv. 16). From the mention of dislike and safety we understand that the gods think that when a man attains the knowledge of Brahman, he will cease to be their object of enjoyment and their animal, for his dependence will end. Therefore the gods may very well hinder a prospective knower of Brahman from attaining the results of the knowledge of Brahman, for they are also powerful.

Objection:- In that case the gods may find it like drinking a beverage to obstruct the fruition of results in other spheres too, viz rites. Well, it would shake one's faith in the performance of the means of achieving prosperity and liberation. Similarly God also, being of inscrutable power, can put obstacles, as also time, action, sacred formulas, herbs and austerities, which, as we know from the scriptures as well as experience, can help or hinder the fruition of results. This too would shake one's faith in the performance of scriptural rites.
Reply:- Not so, for all things spring from definite causes, and we also see variety in the universe. Both these will be inconsistent if things happen spontaneously. Since it is the accepted view of the Vedas, Smrtis, reasoning and tradition that happiness, misery, and the like are the outcome of one's past work, the gods, or God, or time by no means upset the results of work, for these depend on requisite factors. Work, good or bad, that
men do cannot come into being without the help of factors such as the gods, time and God, and even if it did, it would not have the power to produce results, for it is the very nature of work to spring from many causes such as the different factors. Therefore the gods, God and others being auxiliaries to work, there is another to shake our faith in the attainment of its results.
Sometimes also (in the matter of thwarting) they have to depend on the past work of men, for its inherent power cannot be checked. And there is no fixity about the relative predominance of past work, time, destiny and the nature of things etc.; it is inscrutable, and hence throws people into confusion. Some, for instance, say that in bringing about results one's past work is the only factor. Others say it is destiny. A third group mentions time. Still others say it is the nature of things etc. While yet another group maintains it is all these things combined. Regarding this the Vedas and Smrtis uphold the primacy of past work, as in the passage, 'One indeed becomes good through good work and evil through evil work' (III. ii. 13), and so on. Although one or other of these at times gains ascendancy in its own sphere over the rest, whose potential superiority lies in abeyance for the time being, yet there is no uncertainty about work producing results, for the importance of work is decided by the scriptures as well as reason (The variety that we see in the world can be explained only as the outcome of men's diverse past work.).
Nor (can the gods check the result of knowledge), for the realisation of Brahman, which is this result, consists in the mere cessation of ignorance. It has been suggested that the gods may thwart the attainment of Brahman, which is the result expected from the knowledge of It; but they do not have that power. Why? Because this result, the attainment of Brahman, immediately follows the knowledge. How? As in the world a form is revealed as soon as the observer's eye is in touch with light, similarly the very moment that one has a knowledge of the Supreme Self, ignorance regarding It must disappear. Hence, the effects of ignorance being impossible in the presence of the knowledge of Brahman, like the effects of darkness in the presence of a lamp, whom should the gods thwart and by what means, for is not the knower of Brahman the self of the gods? This is what the text says:- 'For he, the knower of Brahman, becomes their self, the reality of these gods, the object of their meditation, the Brahman that is to be known from all scriptures, simultaneously with the knowledge of Brahman, since, as we have said, the only obstruction of ignorance vanishes then and there, like a mother-of-pearl mistaken for a piece of silver becoming itself again. Hence the gods cannot possibly try to stand against their own self. They succeed in their effort to put obstacles only in the case of one who seeks a result which is other than the Self and is separated by space, time and causation, but not with regard to this sage, who becomes their self simultaneously with the awakening of knowledge, and is not separated by space, time and causation for there is no room for opposition here.

Objection:- In that case, since there is not a stream of consciousness about knowledge (of Brahman), and since we see that a consciousness of an opposite nature together with its effects persists, let us say that only the last (The one arising at the moment of death.) consciousness of the Self removes ignorance, and not the first one.
Reply:- No, for your ground of inference will be falsified on account of the first. If the first consciousness of the Self does not remove ignorance, neither will the last, for they are alike consciousness of the Self.
Objection:- Well then, let us say, it is not the isolated consciousness that removes ignorance, but that which is continuous.
Reply:- Not so, for there cannot be a continuity, since it would be broken by thoughts of self-preservation etc. So long as these crop up, there cannot be an unbroken stream of consciousness about knowledge, for the two are contradictory.
Objection:- Suppose the latter continues till death to the exclusion of the former.
Reply:- Not so, for the uncertainty about the requisite number of thoughts to make up that stream would be open to the charge of making the meaning of the scriptures indefinite. In other words, there being nothing to determine that so many thoughts would make up a stream that will remove ignorance, it would be impossible to determine the meaning of the scriptures, which is not desirable.

Objection:- The meaning is quite definite, for in so far as it is a stream of consciousness, it will remove ignorance.
Reply:- No, for there is no difference between the first and the last stream of consciousness. There being nothing to determine whether it is the first stream of consciousness about knowledge that removes ignorance, or the last one ending with the moment of death, they too would be open to those two charges already mentioned with regard to the first and last thoughts.

Objection:- Well then, let us say that knowledge does not remove ignorance.
Reply:- Not so, for the Sruti says, 'Therefore It became all,' as also, 'The knot of the heart is broken,' etc. (Mu. II. ii. , 'Then what delusion can there be?' (Is. 7), and so on.
Objection:- These may be mere eulogies.
Reply:- No, for then the Upanisads in all the recensions would be classed as such, for they have just this one aim.
Objection:- Suppose we say that they are but eulogies, for they deal with the self which is already known through perception (As the basis of our ego-consiousness.).
Reply:- No, for we have already refuted that contention (The ego-consciousness deals with the individual self, not the Supreme Self, the Witness.). Also we have said that knowledge produces palpable results, viz the cessation of such evils as ignorance, grief, delusion and fear. Therefore there can be no question about knowledge removing ignorance, whether it be first or last, continuous or non-continuous, for knowledge culminates in producing the cessation of ignorance and other evils. Any consciousness that produces this result, whether first or last, continuous or non-continuous, is knowledge according to us. Hence there is no scope whatsoever for any objection.
You said, the first consciousness does not remove ignorance, because we see that a consciousness of an opposite nature to knowledge together with its effects persists. This is wrong, for the residue of Prarabdha work is the cause of the persistence of the body after knowledge. In other words, that resultant of past work which led to the formation of the present body (Prarabdha), being the outcome of false notions (Notions opposed to reality considering the non-Self to be the Self and vice versa.) and the evils (of attachment etc.), is able to bear fruit only as such, i.e. as coupled with those notions and evils; hence until the body falls, it cannot but produce, as part of one's experience of the results of past work, just so much of false notions and the evils of attachment etc., for the past work that made this body has already begun to bear fruit and must run its course like an arrow that has been shot. Therefore knowledge cannot stop that, for they are not contradictory. What does it do then? It stops the effects of ignorance which are contradictory to it and are about to spring up from (the ignorance lying in) the self, which is the substratum of that knowledge, for they have not yet appeared. But the other is past.
Moreover, false notions do not arise in a man of realisation, for there is then no object for them. Whenever a false notion arises, it does so on account of a certain similarity of something to another, without ascertaining the particular nature of that thing, as when a mother-of-pearl is mistaken for a piece of silver. And this can nor more happen to one who has ascertained the particular nature of that thing, for the source of all false notions (that cursory resemblance) has been destroyed; as they no more appear when a right perception of the mother-of-pearl, for instance, has taken place. Sometimes, however, memories due to the impressions of false notions, antecedent to the dawning of knowledge, simulating those notions, suddenly appear and throw him into the error regarding them as actual false notions; as one who is familiar with the points of the compass sometimes all of a sudden gets confused about them. If even a man of realisation comes to have false notions as before, then faith in realisation itself being shaken, no one would care to understand the meaning of the scriptures, and all evidences of knowledge would cease to be such, for then there would be no distinction between things that are valid evidences and those that are not. This also answers the question why the body does not fall immediately after realisation. The destruction of actions done before, after and at the time of realisation as well as those accumulated in past lives --- actions that have not yet begun to bear fruit --- is proved by the very negation of obstructions to the attainment of results in the present text, as also from such Sruti texts as the following:- 'And his actions are destroyed' (Mu. II. ii. , 'It takes him only so long (as he does not give up his body)' (Ch. VI. xiv. 2), 'All demerits are burnt up' (Ch. V.xxiv. 3), 'Knowing It one is not touched by evil action' (IV. iv. 23), 'He is never overtaken by these two thoughts (of having done good and evil acts)' (IV. iv. 22), 'Actions done or omitted do not trouble him' (Ibid), '(Remorse for doing evil and not doing good) does not trouble him' (Tai. II. ix), and 'He is not afraid of anything' (Ibid.). Also from such Smrti texts as the following:- 'The fire of knowledge reduces all actions to ashes' (G. IV. 37).
The objection that he is tied up by his obligations (to the gods etc.) is not valid, for they concern an ignorant man. It is he who is under those obligations, for he can be presumed to be an agent and so forth. It will be said later on, 'When there is something else, as it were, then one can see something' (IV. iii. 31). These last words show that the acts of seeing etc. together with their results, which are dependent on many factors created by ignorance, are possible only in the state of ignorance, when the Self, the Reality that has no second, appears as something else, like a second moon when one has got the disease of double vision (Timira). But the text, 'Then what should one see and through what?' (II. iv. 14; IV. v. 15) shows that work is impossible in the state of knowledge, when the illusion of manifoldness created by ignorance has been destroyed. Therefore the indebtedness in question belongs only to an ignorant man, for whom it is possible to work, and to none else. We shall show this at length while dealing with passages that are yet to be explained.
As, for instance, here. While he, one is not a knower of Brahman, who worships another god, a god different from himself, approaches him in a subordinate position, offering him praises, salutations, sacrifices, presents, devotion, meditation, etc., thinking, 'He is one, non-self, different from me, and I am another, qualified for rites, and I must serve him like a debtor' --- worships him with such ideas, does not know the truth. He, this ignorant man, has not only the evil of ignorance, but is also like an animal to the gods. As a cow or other animals are utilised through their services such as carrying loads or yielding milk, so is this man of use to every one of the gods and others on account of his many services such as the performance of sacrifices. That is to say, he is therefore engaged to do all kinds of services for them.
The scriptural rites, with or without the accompaniment of meditation, which this ignorant man, for whom the divisions of caste, order of life and so forth exist, and who is bound to those rites, performs, lead to progress beginning with human birth and ending with identity with Hiranyagarbha. While his natural activities, as distinguished from those prescribed by the scriptures, lead to degradation beginning with the human birth itself and ending with identity with stationary objects. That it is so we shall explain in the latter part of this chapter beginning with, 'There are indeed three worlds' (I. V. 16), and continuing right up to the end. While the effect of knowledge (meditation) has been briefly shown to be identity with all.
The whole of this Upanisad is exclusively devoted to showing the distinction between the spheres of knowledge and ignorance. We shall show that this is the import of the whole book.
Since it is so, therefore the gods can thwart as well as help an ignorant man. This is being shown:- As in the word many animals such as cows or horses serve a man, their owner and controller, so deos each ignorant man, equivalent to many animals, serve the gods. This last word is suggestive of the Manes and others as well. He thinks, 'This Indra and the other gods are different from me and are my masters. I shall worship them like a servant through praises, salutations, sacrifices, etc., and shall attain as results prosperity and liberation granted by them. Now, in the world, even if one animal of a man possessing many such is taken away, seized by a tiger, for instance, it causes great anguish. Similarly what is there to wonder at if the gods feel mortified when a man, equivalent to many animals, gets rid of the idea that he is their creature, as when a householder is robbed of many animals? Therefore it is not liked by them, these gods --- what? --- that men should somehow know this truth of the identity of the self and Brahman. So the revered Vyasa writes in the Anugita, 'The world of the gods, O Arjuna, is filled with those who perform rites. And the gods do not like that mortals should surpass them' (Mbh. XIV. xx. 59). Hence as men try to save animals from being seized by tigers etc., so the gods seek to prevent men from attaining the knowledge of Brahman lest they should cease to be their objects of enjoyment. Those, however, whom they wish to set free, they endow with faith and the like; while the opposite class they visit with lack of faith etc. Therefore a seeker of liberation should be devoted to worshipping the gods, have faith and devotion, be obedient (to the gods) and be alert about the attainment of knowledge or about knowledge itself. The mention of the dislike of the gods is an indirect hint at all this.
In the sentence, 'The Self alone is to be meditated upon' (I. iv. 7) the gist (The knowledge of Brahman.) of the scriptures has been put in a nutshell. In order to explain it, its relation (To the resulting identification with the universe, and so on. The relation here is that of means and end.), and utility have also been stated in the eulogistic passage, 'They say:- Men think,' etc., (I. iv. 9). And that ignorance is the cause of one's belonging to the relative plane has been stated in the passage, 'While he who worships another god,' etc. (I. iv. 10). There it has been said that an ignorant man is indebted and dependent like an animal, having to do duties for the gods etc. What is the cause of their having to do those duties? The different castes and order of life. The following paragraphs are introduced in order to explain what these castes are, because of which this dependent man is bound to the rites connected with them, and transmigrates. It is to explain this in detail that the creation of Indra and other gods was not mentioned immediately after that of Fire. This last, however, was described to complete the picture of creation by Viraj. It should be understood that this creation of Indra and other gods also belongs to that, being a part of it. It is being described here only to indicate the reason why the ignorant man alone is qualified for the performance of rites.

Translation By Max Müller

10. Verily in the beginning this was Brahman, that Brahman knew (its) Self only, saying, 'I am Brahman.' From it all this sprang. Thus, whatever Deva was awakened (so as to know Brahman), he indeed became that (Brahman); and the same with Rishis and men. The Rishi Vâmadeva saw and understood it, singing, 'I was Manu (moon), I was the sun.' Therefore now also he who thus knows that he is Brahman, becomes all this, and even the Devas cannot prevent it, for he himself is their Self. Now if a man worships another deity, thinking the deity is one and he another, he does not know. He is like a beast for the Devas. For verily, as many beasts nourish a man, thus does every man nourish the Devas. If only one beast is taken away, it is not pleasant; how much more when many are taken! Therefore it is not pleasant to the Devas that men should know this.


Sloka : 1.4.11

मन्त्र ११[I.iv.11]

ब्रह्म वा इदमग्र आसीदेकमेव । तदेकꣳ सन्न व्यभवत् तच्छ्रेयो

रूपमत्यसृजत क्षत्रं यान्येतानि देवत्रा क्षत्राणीन्द्रो वरुणः सोमो

रुद्रः पर्जन्यो यमो मृत्युरीशान इति । तस्मात्क्षत्रात्परं नास्ति

तस्माद्ब्राह्मणः क्षत्रियमधस्तादुपास्ते राजसूये । क्षत्र एव तद्यशो

दधाति सैषा क्षत्रस्य योनिर्यद्ब्रह्म । तस्माद्यद्यपि राजा परमतां

गच्छति ब्रह्मैवान्तत उपनिश्रयति स्वां योनिम् । य उ एनꣳ हिनस्ति

स्वाꣳ स योनिमृच्छति । स पापीयान्भवति यथा श्रेयाꣳसꣳ

हिꣳसित्वा ॥ ११॥

mantra 11[I.iv.11]

brahma vā idamagra āsīdekameva . tadekagͫ sanna vyabhavat tacchreyo

rūpamatyasṛjata kṣatraṃ yānyetāni devatrā kṣatrāṇīndro varuṇaḥ somo

rudraḥ parjanyo yamo mṛtyurīśāna iti . tasmātkṣatrātparaṃ nāsti

tasmādbrāhmaṇaḥ kṣatriyamadhastādupāste rājasūye . kṣatra eva tadyaśo

dadhāti saiṣā kṣatrasya yoniryadbrahma . tasmādyadyapi rājā paramatāṃ

gacchati brahmaivāntata upaniśrayati svāṃ yonim . ya u enagͫ hinasti

svāgͫ sa yonimṛcchati . sa pāpīyānbhavati yathā śreyāgͫsagͫ

higͫsitvā .. 11..



Meaning:- In the beginning this (the Kshatriya and other castes) was indeed Brahman, one only. Being one, he did not flourish. He specially projected an excellent form, the Kshatriya - those who are Kshatriyas among the gods:- Indra, Varuna, the moon, Rudra, Parjanya, Yama, Death, and Isana. Therefore there is none higher than the Kshatriya. Hence the Brahmana worships the Kshatriya from a lower position in the Rajasuya sacrifice. He imparts that glory to the Kshatriya. The Brahmana is the source of the Kshatriya. Therefore, although the king attains supremacy (in the sacrifice), at the end of it he resorts to the Brahmana, his source. He who slights the Brahmana, strikes at his own source. He becomes more wicked, as one is by slighting one's superior.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- In the beginning this, the Ksatriya and other castes, was indeed Brahman, identical with that Brahman (Viraj) who after manifesting Fire assumed the form of that. He is called Brahman, because he identified himself with the Brahmana caste. One only:- Then there was no differentiation into other castes such as the Ksatriya. Being one, i.e. without any protector etc. such as the Ksatriya, he did not flourish, i.e. could not do his work properly. Hence he, Viraj, thinking, 'I am a Brahmana, and these are my duties,' in order to create duties pertaining to a Brahmana by birth --- to glorify himself as a performer of rites --- specially, pre-eminently, projected an excellent form. What is that? The caste called Ksatriya. This is being pointed out by a reference to its individuals. Those who are well known in the world as Ksatriyas among the gods. The plural is used (in 'Ksatriyas'), as in grammar a word denoting a caste may be optionally in the plural (See Panini I. ii. 58.). Or because there are many individuals in a caste, the difference is figuratively transferred to the group. Who are they? This the text answers by mentioning particularly the anointed ones:- Indra, the King of gods; Varuna, of the aquatic animals; the moon, of the Brahmanas; Rudra, of the beasts; Parjanya, of lightning etc.; Yama, of the Manes; Death, of disease etc.; and Isana, of luminaries. These are some of the Ksatriyas, among the gods. It should be understood that after them the human Ksatriyas, Pururavas and others belonging to the Lunar and Solar dynasties, presided over by the Ksatriya gods, Indra and the rest, were also created. For the creation of the gods is mentioned for this very purpose. Because Viraj created the Ksatriyas with some special eminence attached to them, therefore there is none higher than the Ksatriya, who is the controller of the Brahmana caste even. Hence the Brahmana, although he is the source of him, worships the Ksatriya, who has a higher seat, from a lower position. Where? In the
Rajasuya sacrifice. He imparts that glory or fame which belongs to him, viz the title of Brahman, to the Ksatriya. That is to say, when the king, anointed for the Rajasuya sacrifice, addresses the priest from his chair as 'Brahman,' the latter replies to him, 'You, O King, are Brahman.' This is referred to in the sentence, 'He imparts that glory to the Ksatriya.' The Brahmana, who is the topic under consideration, is indeed the source of the Ksatriya. Therefore, although the king attains supremacy, viz the distinction of being anointed for the Rajasuya sacrifice, at the end of it, when the ceremony is over, he resorts to the Brahmana, his source, i.e. puts the priest forward. But he who, proud of his strength, slights or looks down upon the Brahmana, his own source, strikes at or destroys his own source. He becomes more wicked by doing this The Ksatriya is already wicked on account of his cruelty, and he is more so by hurting his own source, as in life one is more wicked by slighting one's superior.

Translation By Max Müller

11. Verily in the beginning this was Brahman, one only. That being one, was not strong enough. It created still further the most excellent Kshatra (power), viz. those Kshatras (powers) among the Devas,--Indra, Varuna, Soma, Rudra, Parganya, Yama, Mrityu, Îsâna. Therefore there is nothing beyond the Kshatra, and therefore at the Râgasûya sacrifice the Brâhmana sits down below the Kshatriya. He confers that glory on the Kshatra alone. But Brahman is (nevertheless) the birth-place of the Kshatra. Therefore though a king is exalted, he sits down at the end (of the sacrifice) below the Brahman, as his birth-place. He who injures him, injures his own birth-place. He becomes worse, because he has injured one better than himself.


Sloka : 1.4.12

मन्त्र १२[I.iv.12]

स नैव व्यभवत् स विशमसृजत यान्येतानि देवजातानि गणश

आख्यायन्ते वसवो रुद्रा आदित्या विश्वे देवा मरुत इति ॥ १२॥

mantra 12[I.iv.12]

sa naiva vyabhavat sa viśamasṛjata yānyetāni devajātāni gaṇaśa

ākhyāyante vasavo rudrā ādityā viśve devā maruta iti .. 12..



Meaning:- Yet he did not flourish. He projected the Vaisya - those species of gods who are designated in groups:- the Vasus, Rudras, Adityas, Visvadevas and Maruts.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Yet, even after projecting the Ksatriyas, he, Viraj, did not flourish in his work, as before, for want of someone to acquire wealth. He projected the Vaisya, in order to acquire wealth which is the means of performing rites. Who is that Vaisya? Those species of gods who are designated in groups. The Vaisyas abound in groups, for they succeed in acquiring wealth mostly in combination, not singly. --- The suffix in the word 'Jata' does not change the meaning. --- The Vasus, a group of eight:- similarly the eleven Rudras, the twelve Adityas, the thirteen Visvadevas, sons of Visva, or the word may mean 'all the gods,' and the forty-nine Maruts, in seven groups.

Translation By Max Müller

12. He [1] was not strong enough. He created the Vis (people), the classes of Devas which in their different orders are called Vasus, Rudras, Âdityas, Visve Devas, Maruts.

Footnote:

1. Observe the change from tad, it, to sa, he.


Sloka : 1.4.13

मन्त्र १३[I.iv.13]

स नैव व्यभवत् स शौद्रं वर्णमसृजत पूषणमियं वै

पूषेयꣳ हीदꣳ सर्वं पुष्यति यदिदं किञ्च ॥ १३॥

mantra 13[I.iv.13]

sa naiva vyabhavat sa śaudraṃ varṇamasṛjata pūṣaṇamiyaṃ vai

pūṣeyagͫ hīdagͫ sarvaṃ puṣyati yadidaṃ kiñca .. 13..



Meaning:- He did not still flourish. He projected the Sudra caste - Pusan. This (earth) is Pusan. For it nourishes all this that exists.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- For want of a servant he did not still flourish. He projected the Sudra caste. In the word 'Saudra' there is a lengthening of the vowel without any change of meaning. What was this Sudra caste that was projected? Pusan, he who nourishes. Who is this Pusan? He is being particularly pointed out:- This earth is Pusan. The Sruti itself gives the derivation:- For it nourishes all this that exists.

Translation By Max Müller

13. He was not strong enough. He created the Sûdra colour (caste), as Pûshan (as nourisher). This earth verily is Pûshan (the nourisher); for the earth nourishes all this whatsoever.


Sloka : 1.4.14

मन्त्र १४[I.iv.14]

स नैव व्यभवत् तच्छ्रेयो रूपमत्यसृजत धर्मम् ।

तदेतत्क्षत्रस्य क्षत्रं यद्धर्मस्तस्माद्धर्मात् परं नास्त्यथो

अबलीयान् बलीयाꣳसमाशꣳसते धर्मेण यथा राज्ञैवम् । यो वै स

धर्मः सत्यं वै तत् तस्मात्सत्यं वदन्तमाहुर्धर्मं वदतीति धर्मं

वा वदन्तꣳ सत्यं वदतीत्येतद्ध्येवैतदुभयं भवति ॥ १४॥

mantra 14[I.iv.14]

sa naiva vyabhavat tacchreyo rūpamatyasṛjata dharmam .

tadetatkṣatrasya kṣatraṃ yaddharmastasmāddharmāt paraṃ nāstyatho

abalīyān balīyāgͫsamāśagͫsate dharmeṇa yathā rājñaivam . yo vai sa

dharmaḥ satyaṃ vai tat tasmātsatyaṃ vadantamāhurdharmaṃ vadatīti dharmaṃ

vā vadantagͫ satyaṃ vadatītyetaddhyevaitadubhayaṃ bhavati .. 14..



Meaning:- Yet he did not flourish. He specially projected that excellent form, righteousness (Dharma). This righteousness is the controller of the Kshatriya. Therefore there is nothing higher than that. (So) even a weak man hopes (to defeat) a stronger man through righteousness, as (one contending) with the king. That righteousness, as (one contending) with the king. That righteousness is verily truth. Therefore they say about a person speaking of truth, 'He speaks of righteousness', or about a person speaking of righteousness, 'He speaks of truth', for both these are but righteousness.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Yet, even after projecting the four castes, he did not flourish, fearing that the Ksatriya, being fierce, might be unruly. He specially projected that excellent form. What is it? Righteousness. This righteousness, the projected excellent form is the controller of even the Ksatriya, fiercer than that fierce race even. 'Yat' should be changed into 'Yah.' Therefore, since it is the controller of even the Ksatriya, there is nothing higher than that, for it controls all. The text proceeds to explain how it is:- So even a weak man hopes to defeat a stronger man than himself through the strength of righteousness, as in life a householder contending even with the king, who is the most powerful of all. Therefore it goes without saying that righteousness, being stronger than everything else, is the controller of all. That righteousness, which is expressed as conduct, being practised by people, is verily truth. 'Truth' is the fact of being in accordance with the scriptures. The same thing, when it is practised, is called righteousness, and when it is understood to be in accordance with the scriptures, is truth. Since it is so, therefore bystanders knowing the difference between them say about a person speaking of truth, i.e. what is in accordance with the scriptures in dealing with another, 'He speaks of righteousness,' or well-known conventional propriety. Conversely also, about a person speaking of righteousness or conventional conduct, they say, 'He speaks of truth,' or what is in accordance with the scriptures. For both these that have been described, that which is known and that which is practised, are but righteousness. Therefore that righteousness in its double aspect of knowledge and practice controls all, those that know the scriptures as well as those that do not. Therefore it is the 'controller of the Ksatriya.' Hence an ignorant man identified with righteousness, in order to practise its particular forms, identifies himself with one or other of the castes, Brahmana, Ksatriya, Vaisya or Sudra, which is the pre-condition of that practice; and these are naturally the means that quality one for the performance of rites.

Translation By Max Müller

14. He was not strong enough. He created still further the most excellent Law (dharma). Law is the Kshatra (power) of the Kshatra [1], therefore there is nothing higher than the Law. Thenceforth even a weak man rules a stronger with the help of the Law, as with the help of a king. Thus the Law is what is called the true. And if a man declares what is true, they say he declares the Law; and if he declares the Law, they say he declares what is true. Thus both are the same.

Footnote:

1. More powerful than the Kshatra or warrior caste. Comm.


Sloka : 1.4.15

मन्त्र १५[I.iv.15]

तदेतद्ब्रह्म क्षत्रं विट् शूद्रस्तदग्निनैव देवेषु ब्रह्माभवद्

ब्राह्मणो मनुष्येषु क्षत्रियेण क्षत्रियो वैश्येन वैश्यः शूद्रेण

शूद्रस्तस्मादग्नावेव देवेषु लोकमिच्छन्ते ब्राह्मणे मनुष्येष्वेताभ्याꣳ

हि रूपाभ्यां ब्रह्माभवदथ यो ह वा अस्माल्लोकात्स्वं

लोकमदृष्ट्वा प्रैति स एनमविदितो न भुनक्ति यथा वेदो

वाऽननूक्तोऽन्यद्वा कर्माकृतम् । यदि ह वा अप्यनेवंविन्महत्पुण्यं

कर्म करोति तद्धास्यान्ततः क्षीयत एवाऽऽत्मानमेव लोकमुपासीत । स

य आत्मानमेव लोकमुपास्ते न हास्य कर्म क्षीयतेऽस्माद्ध्येवाऽऽत्मनो

यद्यत्कामयते तत्तत्सृजते ॥ १५॥

mantra 15[I.iv.15]

tadetadbrahma kṣatraṃ viṭ śūdrastadagninaiva deveṣu brahmābhavad

brāhmaṇo manuṣyeṣu kṣatriyeṇa kṣatriyo vaiśyena vaiśyaḥ śūdreṇa

śūdrastasmādagnāveva deveṣu lokamicchante brāhmaṇe manuṣyeṣvetābhyāgͫ

hi rūpābhyāṃ brahmābhavadatha yo ha vā asmāllokātsvaṃ

lokamadṛṣṭvā praiti sa enamavidito na bhunakti yathā vedo

vā'nanūkto'nyadvā karmākṛtam . yadi ha vā apyanevaṃvinmahatpuṇyaṃ

karma karoti taddhāsyāntataḥ kṣīyata evā''tmānameva lokamupāsīta . sa

ya ātmānameva lokamupāste na hāsya karma kṣīyate'smāddhyevā''tmano

yadyatkāmayate tattatsṛjate .. 15..



Meaning:- (So) these (four castes were projected) - the Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaisya and Sudra. He became a Brahmana among the gods as Fore, and among men as the Brahmana. (He became) a Kshatriya through the (divine) Kshatriyas, a Vaisya through the (divine) Vaisyas and a Sudra through the (divine) Sudra. Therefore people desire to attain the results of their rites among the gods through fire, and among men as the Brahmana. For Brahman was in these two forms. If, however, anybody departs from this world without realising his own world (the Self), It, being unknown, does not protect him - as the Vedas not studied, or any other work not undertaken (do not). Even if a man who does not know It as such performs a great many meritorious acts in the world, those acts of his are surely exhausted in the end. One should meditate only upon the world of the Self. He who meditates only upon the world called the Self never has his work exhausted. From this very Self he projects whatever he wants.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- (So) these four castes were projected --- the Brahmana, Ksatriya, Vaisya and Sudra. They are repeated here together in order to introduce what follows. He, Brahman, the Projector (Viraj), became a Brahmana among the gods as Fire, and in no other form, and became a Brahmana among men as the Brahmana, directly. In the other castes he appeared in a changed form (That is, having first become Fire and the Brahmana.):- (He became) a Ksatriya through the (divine) Ksatriyas, i.e. being presided over by Indra and other gods; a Vaisya through the (divine) Vaisyas (Presided over by the Vasus etc.) and a Sudra through the (divine) Sudra (Presided over by Pusan.). Because Brahman, the Projector, was changed in the Ksatriya and other castes, and was unchanged in Fire and the Brahmana, therefore people desire to attain the results of their rites among the gods through fire, i.e. by performing rites connected with it. It is for this purpose that Brahman abides in the form of fire, which is the receptacle in which sacrifical rites are performed. Therefore it stands to reason that people wish to attain results by performing those rites in the fire. And among men as the Brahmana:- If they want human results, there is no need for rites depending on fire etc., but simply by being born as a Brahmana they attain their life's ends. And it is only when they desire to attain results that depend on the gods, that they have to resort to rites connected with fire. The Smrti, too, says, 'But a Brahmana may undoubtedly attain perfection through the repetition of sacred formulas (This is suggestive also of the duties belonging to his caste.), whether he does other rites (connected with fire) or not. A Brahmana is one who is friendly to all' (M. II. 87). Also because the monastic life is open to him only. Therefore people seek to attain the results of their rites, so far as they belong to the human plane, by attaining Brahmanahood. For Brahman, the Projector, was directly in these two forms, the Brahmana and fire, that are respectively the agent and the receptacle of the rites.
Some (Bhartrprapanca is meant.) explain the passage differently, saying that people wish to realise the world of the Supreme Self by means of fire and the Brahmana (By offering oblations and presents respectively.). This is wrong, for the division of castes has been introduced in order to defend the undertaking of rites by people who are under ignorance, and a specification also follows. If the word 'world' here refers to the Supreme Self, the specification that follows, viz 'Without realising one's own world (the Self),' would be meaningless. If the world in question that is prayed for as being dependent on
fire, is any other world but the Self, then only the specification by the word 'own' would be consistent with refuting that extraneous world. The world that is the Self is always denoted by the words 'one's own,' while those that are created by ignorancce can never be 'one's own.' That the worlds attained through rites are not 'one's own' is stated by the words, '(Those acts) are surely exhausted.'

One may object:- Brahman projected the four castes for the sake of ritualistic work. And that work, called righteousness, being obligatory on all, controls all and helps them to achieve their life's ends. Therefore, it by that work one attains one's own world called the Supreme Self, although It may be unknown, what is the good of setting It up as the goal? This is being answered:- 'If, however, --- the word 'however' refutes the prima facie view --- anybody, owing to identification with the rites depending on fire, or with the duties belonging to the Brahmana caste, departs or dies from this transmigratory, adventitious and extraneous world consisting of the taking up of a body and caused by ignorance, desire and work, without realising his own world called the Self --- because It is always one's own Self --- as, 'I am Brahman,' It --- although It is his own world, yet --- being unknown, obstructed by ignorance and therefore virtually becoming extraneous to oneself, does not protect him by removing his evils such as grief, delusion and fear --- as the man in the story (the conventional 'self') fails to protect himself for not knowing that he is the missing tenth man. As the Vedas not studied do not protect a man by enlightening him on the rites etc., or any other, secular, work, e.g. agriculture, not undertaken, not manifested in its own form, does not protect anybody by bestowing its results, similarly the Supreme Self, although It is one's own world, on account of not being manifested in Its own form as the eternal Self, does not protect one by destroying one's ignorance etc.

Objection:- What is the good of seeking protection through the realisation of one's own world, the Self? Since the rites are sure to produce results, and there are a great many rites conducive to beneficent results, the protection that they will afford will be everlasting.
Reply:- Not so, for anything made is perishable. This is being stated:- Even if a man, a wonderful genius, who does not know It, his own world, the Self, as such, in the manner described above, continuously performs a great many meritorious acts such as the horse sacrifice, producing only beneficent results, in the world, with the idea that through those alone he will attain eternity, those acts of his, of this ignorant man, being due to desire created by ignorance, are surely exhausted in the end, when he has enjoyed their fruits, like the splendour arising from the fantasy of a dream. They are bound to be perishable, for their causes, ignorance and desire, are unstable. Hence there is no hope whatsoever that the protection afforded by the results of meritorious acts will be eternal. Therefore one should meditate only upon the world of the Self, one's own world. The word 'Self' is here used in an identical sense with the last words, for 'one's own world' is the topic, and here the words 'one's own' are omitted. He who meditates only upon the world of the Self --- what happens to him? --- never has his work exhausted, simply because he has no work. This is a restatement of an eternal fact. That is to say, an ignorant man continously suffers from the misery of transmigration by way of exhaustion of the results of his work. Not so this sage. As Emperor Janaka said, 'If Mithila is ablaze, nothing of mine is burning' (Mbh. XII. c1xxvi. 56).
Some say that the ritualistic work itself of a sage who meditates upon the world of his own Self never decays, because of its combination with meditation. And they interpret the word 'world' as inseparably connected with rites in a double aspect:- One is the manifested world called Hiranyagarbha, which is the repository of ritualistic work, and he who meditates upon this manifested, limited world connected with ritualistic work has his work exhausted, for he identifies himself with the result of limited work. But he who meditates upon that very world connected with work by reducing it to its causal form, the undifferentiated state, does not have his work exhausted, as he identifies himself with the result of unlimited work. This is a nice conceit, but not according to the Sruti, for the words 'one's own world' refer to the Supreme Self which is under consideration. Also, after introducing It in the words 'one's own world' the text again refers to It by dropping the qualifying phrase 'one's own' and using the word 'Self' in the sentence, 'One should meditate only upon the world of the Self.' So there is no scope for conceiving a world connected with ritulistic work. Another reason for this is the qualification further on by words signifying pure knowledge, 'What shall we achieve through children, we who have attained this Self, this world (result)?' (IV. iv. 22). The words 'this Self our world (A paraphrase of a portion of the previous sentence.)' mark It off from the worlds attainable through a son, ritualistic work and lower knowledge (meditation). Also, 'His world is not destroyed by any kind of work' (Kau. III. 1), and 'This is its highest world' (IV. iii. 32). The passage in question ought to have the same import as those just quoted, with the qualifying words. For, here also we find the specification 'one's own world.'

Objection:- You are wrong, for the sage desires objects through this. That is to say, if 'one's own world' is the Supreme Self, then by meditating upon It one will become That. In that case it is not proper to mention results apart from the attainment of the Self, as in the passage, 'From this (very) Self he projects whatever he wants' (this text).
Reply:- Not so, for the passage extols meditation on the world of the Self. The meaning is that the world of the Self alone stands for all that is desirable to him, for he has nothing else but It to ask for, since he has already attained all his objects. Just as another Sruti puts it, 'From the Self is the vital force, from the Self is hope' (Ch. VII. xxvi. 1). Or the passage may indicate that he is identified with all, as before (I. iv. 10). If he becomes one with the Supreme Self, then only it is proper to use the word 'Self' in the phrase 'from this very Self,' meaning, 'from one's own world, the Self,' which is the topic. Otherwise the text would have specified it by saying, 'From the world of work in an undifferentiated state,' to distinguish it from the world of the Supreme Self as well as from work in a manifested state. But since the Supreme Self has already been introduced (as 'one's own world') and been subsequently specified (by the
word 'Self'), you cannot assume an intermediate state not mentioned in the Sruti.
It has been said that an ignorant man identifying himself with his caste, order of life, and so on, and being controlled by righteousness, thinks he has certain duties to the gods and others and is dependent on them like an animal. Now what are those duties that make him so dependent, and who are the gods and others whom he serves through his actions like an animal? To answer this the text deals with both at length:-

Translation By Max Müller

15. There are then this Brahman, Kshatra, Vis, and Sûdra. Among the Devas that Brahman existed as Agni (fire) only, among men as Brâhmana, as Kshatriya through the (divine) Kshatriya, as Vaisya through the (divine) Vaisya, as Sûdra through the (divine) Sûdra. Therefore people wish for their future state among the Devas through Agni (the sacrificial fire) only; and among men through the Brâhmana, for in these two forms did Brahman exist. Now if a man departs this life without having seen his true future life (in the Self), then that Self, not being known, does not receive and bless him, as if the Veda had not been read, or as if a good work had not been done. Nay, even if one who does not know that (Self), should perform here on earth some great holy work, it will Perish for him in the end. Let a man worship the Self only as his true state. If a man worships the Self only as his true state, his work does not Perish, for whatever he desires that he gets from that Self.


Sloka : 1.4.16

मन्त्र १६[I.iv.16]

अथो अयं वा आत्मा सर्वेषां भूतानां लोकः स यज्जुहोति यद्यजते

तेन देवानां लोकोऽथ यदनुब्रूते तेन ऋषीणामथ यत् पितृभ्यो

निपृणाति अथ यत्प्रजामिच्छते तेन पितृणामथ यन्मनुष्यान्वासयते

यदेभ्योऽशनं ददाति तेन मनुष्याणामथ यत्पशुभ्यस्तृणोदकं

विन्दति तेन पशूनां यदस्य गृहेषु श्वापदा वयाꣳस्या पिपीलिकाभ्य

उपजीवन्ति तेन तेषां लोको यथा ह वै स्वाय लोकायारिष्टिमिच्छेद्

एवꣳ हैवंविदे सर्वदा सर्वाणि भूतान्यरिष्टिमिच्छन्ति । तद्वा

एतद्विदितं मीमाꣳसितम् ॥ १६॥

mantra 16[I.iv.16]

atho ayaṃ vā ātmā sarveṣāṃ bhūtānāṃ lokaḥ sa yajjuhoti yadyajate

tena devānāṃ loko'tha yadanubrūte tena ṛṣīṇāmatha yat pitṛbhyo

nipṛṇāti atha yatprajāmicchate tena pitṛṇāmatha yanmanuṣyānvāsayate

yadebhyo'śanaṃ dadāti tena manuṣyāṇāmatha yatpaśubhyastṛṇodakaṃ

vindati tena paśūnāṃ yadasya gṛheṣu śvāpadā vayāgͫsyā pipīlikābhya

upajīvanti tena teṣāṃ loko yathā ha vai svāya lokāyāriṣṭimicched

evagͫ haivaṃvide sarvadā sarvāṇi bhūtānyariṣṭimicchanti . tadvā

etadviditaṃ mīmāgͫsitam .. 16..



Meaning:- Now this self (the ignorant man) is an object of enjoyment to all beings. That he makes oblations in the fire and performs sacrifices is how he becomes such an object to the gods. That he studies the Vedas is how he becomes an object of enjoyment to the Rishis (sages). That he makes offerings to the Manes and desires children is how he becomes such an object to the Manes. That he gives shelter to men as well as food is how he becomes an object of enjoyment to men. That he gives fodder and water to the animals is how he becomes such an object to hem. And that beasts and birds, and even the ants, feed in his home is how he becomes an object of enjoyment to these. Just as one wishes safety to one's body, so do all beings wish safety to him who knows it as such. This indeed has been known, and discussed.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- `Now --- this word is introductory --- this self, the householder qualified for rites, who is the subject under consideration, and who being ignorant identifies himself with this microcosm consisting of the body, organs, and so on, is an object of enjoyment to all beings, from the gods down to the ants, being helpful to them through the performance of the duties of their caste, order of life, etc. Now, through what particular duties do they help each particular class, for which they are called the objects of enjoyment to them, and what are these particular classes? This is being answered:- That he, this householder, makes oblations in the fire and performs sacrifices, etc. The latter is dedicating some of his things to the gods, and the former is finally offering then in the fire. By this twofold imperative duty he is tied to the gods, being dependent on them like animals. Hence he is their object of enjoyment. That he studies the Vedas daily is how he becomes an object of enjoyment to the Rsis. That he makes offerings to the Manes, of cakes, water, etc., and desires children, tries to obtain them --- 'desire' here includes the having of them i.e. raises children, is how he becomes such an object to the Manes. Through this bounden duty he is subservient to the Manes as an object of enjoyment. That he gives shelter to men in his house by giving them a place to sit on, water for washing, and so on, as well as food to these people who stay, or to others who do not stay, but ask for food, is how he becomes an object of enjoyment to men. That he gives fodder and water to the animals is how he becomes such an object to them. And that beasts and birds, and even the ants, feed in his home on the crumbs, the offerings made to them, washings of utensils, etc. is how he becomes an object of enjoyment to these.
Because he helps the gods and others by so many services, therefore just as one wishes safety, non-destruction, continuity of the idea of possession, to one's body, maintains it in all respects by nourishing and protecting it lest one should lose one's hold on it, so do all beings, the gods and the rest described above, wish safety, non-destruction, to him who knows it as such, who thinks that he is an object of enjoyment to all beings, and that he must discharge his obligations like a debtor as above. That is, they protect him in all respects to safeguard their rights on him, as a householder does his animals. It has been said, 'Therefore it is not liked by them,' etc. (I. iv. 10). This, that the above-mentined duties must be discharged like debts, indeed has been known from the section dealing with the five (Viz those meant for the gods, the Rsis, the Manes, men and animals. They have been described in the text.) great sacrifices (S. I. vii. 2. 6), and discussed in the section on the sacrificial offerings (S. I. vii. 2. 1).
If by knowing Brahman he gets rid of that bondage of duty which makes him an animal, as it were, under what compulsion does he take up the bondage of ritualistic work as if he were helpless, and not the pursuit of knowledge which is the means of freedom from that?

Objection:-Has it not been said that the gods guard him?
Reply:- Yes, but they too guard only those who, being qualified for rites, are under their authority. Otherwise this would be attaining the results of actions not done and forfeiting those of actions actually done. But they do not guard any and every man not particularly qualified for rites. Therefore there must be something, goaded by which a man becomes averse to one's own world, the Self, as if he were helpless.
Objection:- Is it not ignorance, for only an ignorant man becomes averse to his own self and engages in activity?
Reply:- That is not the motive power either, for it merely conceals the true nature of a things. But it indirectly becomes the root of initiating action, just as blindness is the cause of one's falling into a pit etc.
Objection:- Well then, say what is the cause of a man's activity.
Reply:- That is being stated here --- it is desire. As the Katha Upanisad (II. 5) says that fools, being under ignorance which is natural to man, are outgoing in their tendencies and pursue objects of desire. And the Smrti also says, 'It is desire, it is anger
(Which is desire thwarted.),' etc. (G. III. 37). And the Manu Samhita (II. 4) also describes all activity as being due to desire. This import is being elaborated here up to the end of the chapter:-

Translation By Max Müller

16. Now verily this Self (of the ignorant man) is the world [1] of all creatures. In so far as man sacrifices and pours out libations, he is the world of the Devas; in so far as he repeats the hymns, &c., he is the world of the Rishis; in so far as he offers cakes to the Fathers and tries to obtain offspring, he is the world of the Fathers; in so far as he gives shelter and food to men, he is the world of men; in so far as he finds fodder and water for the animals, he is the world of the animals; in so far as quadrupeds, birds, and even ants live in his houses, he is their world. And as every one wishes his own world not to be injured, thus all beings wish that he who knows this should not be injured. Verily this is known and has been well reasoned.

Footnote:

1. Is enjoyed by them all. Comm.


Sloka : 1.4.17

मन्त्र १७[I.iv.17]

आत्मैवेदमग्र आसीदेक एव । सोऽकामयत जाया मे स्यादथ प्रजायेयाथ

वित्तं मे स्यात् अथ कर्म कुर्वीयेत्येतावान्वै कामो नेच्छꣳश्चनातो

भूयो विन्देत् तस्मादप्येतर्ह्येकाकी कामयते जाया मे स्यादथ प्रजायेयाथ

वित्तं मे स्यादथ कर्म कुर्वीयेति । स यावदप्येतेषामेकैकं

न प्राप्नोत्यकृत्स्न एव तावन् मन्यते । तस्यो कृत्स्नता । मन

एवास्याऽऽत्मा वाग्जाया प्राणः प्रजा चक्षुर्मानुषं वित्तं चक्षुषा

हि तद्विन्दते श्रोत्रं दैवꣳ श्रोत्रेण हि तच्छृणोत्यात्मैवास्य

कर्माऽऽत्मना हि कर्म करोति । स एष पाङ्क्तो यज्ञः पाङ्क्तः पशुः

पाङ्क्तः पुरुषः पाङ्क्तमिदꣳ सर्वं यदिदं किञ्च । तदिदꣳ

सर्वमाप्नोति य एवं वेद ॥ १७॥

इति चतुर्थं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ पञ्चमं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 17[I.iv.17]

ātmaivedamagra āsīdeka eva . so'kāmayata jāyā me syādatha prajāyeyātha

vittaṃ me syāt atha karma kurvīyetyetāvānvai kāmo necchagͫścanāto

bhūyo vindet tasmādapyetarhyekākī kāmayate jāyā me syādatha prajāyeyātha

vittaṃ me syādatha karma kurvīyeti . sa yāvadapyeteṣāmekaikaṃ

na prāpnotyakṛtsna eva tāvan manyate . tasyo kṛtsnatā . mana

evāsyā''tmā vāgjāyā prāṇaḥ prajā cakṣurmānuṣaṃ vittaṃ cakṣuṣā

hi tadvindate śrotraṃ daivagͫ śrotreṇa hi tacchṛṇotyātmaivāsya

karmā''tmanā hi karma karoti . sa eṣa pāṅkto yajñaḥ pāṅktaḥ paśuḥ

pāṅktaḥ puruṣaḥ pāṅktamidagͫ sarvaṃ yadidaṃ kiñca . tadidagͫ

sarvamāpnoti ya evaṃ veda .. 17..

iti caturthaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha pañcamaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- This (aggregate of desirable objects) was but the self in the beginning - the only entity. He desired, 'Let me have a wife, so that I may be born (as the child). And let me have wealth, so that I may perform rites'. This much indeed is (the range of) desire. Even if one wishes, one cannot get more than this. Therefore to this day a man being single desires, 'Let me have a wife, so that I may be born. And let me have wealth, so that I may perform rites.' Until he obtains each one of these, he considers himself incomplete. His completeness also (comes thus):- The mind is his self, speech his wife, the vital force his child, the eye his human wealth, for he obtains it through the eye, the ear his divine wealth, for he hears of it through the ear, and the body is its (instrument of) rite, for he performs rites through the body. (So) this sacrifice has five factors - the animals have five factors, the men have five factors, and all this that exists has five factors. He who knows it as such attains all this.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- This was but the self in the beginning, before marriage. 'Self' here means a natural, ignorant man of the upper three castes identified with the body and organs (i.e. a student). There was nothing different from that self that could be desired, such as a wife, and the self was the only entity in existence, possessed of ignorance which is the root of the desire for a wife and so forth. Being tinged by the impressions of ignorance that are natural to one and consist in a superimposition on the Self of ideas of action, its factors such as the agent, and its results, he desired. How? Let me, the agent, have a wife who will qualify me for the rites. Without her I am not qualified for them. Hence let me have a wife, to confer on me this right. So that I myself may be born, as the child. And let me have wealth such as cattle, which are the means of performing the rites, so that I may perform rites (The regular and occasional rites.) that will give me prosperity and liberation, in order that I may perform rites that will wipe out my indebtedness and help me to attain the worlds of the gods and others, as well as rites that have material ends, such as those leading to the birth of a son, wealth and heaven. This much indeed, i.e. limited to these things only, is desire. Desirable objects are only these --- the things comprised by the desire for means, viz wife, son, wealth and rites. The three worlds, viz those of men, the Manes and the gods, are but the results of the above. For the desire for means, viz wife, son, wealth and rites, is for securing these. Therefore the desire for the worlds is the same as the previous one. That one and the same desire assumes a twofold aspect according to ends and means. Hence it will be asserted later on, 'For both these are but desires' (III. v. 1; IV. iv. 22).
Since all undertakings are for the sake of results, the desire for the worlds, being implied by the former desire, is taken as mentioned; hence the assertion, 'This much indeed is desire.' When eating has been mentioned, the resulting satisfaction has not to be separately mentioned, for eating is meant for that. These two hankerings after the ends and means are the desire, prompted by which an ignorant man helplessly enmeshes himself like a silkworm, and through absorption in the path of rituals becomes outgoing in his tendencies and does not know his own world, the Self. As the Taittiriya Brahmana says, 'Being infatuated with rites performed with the help of fire, and choked by smoke, they do not know their own world, the Self' (III. x. 11. 1.). One may ask how are desires asserted to be so many, for they are infinite? This is being explained:- Because even if one wishes, one cannot get more than this, which consists of the results and means. There is nothing in life besides these results and means, either visible or invisible, that can be acquired. Desire is concerning things to be acquired, and since these extend no farther than the above, it is but proper to say, 'This much indeed is desire.' The idea is this:- Desire consists of the two hankerings after the ends and means, visible or invisible, which are the special sphere of an ignorant man. Hence the wise man should renounce them.
In ancient times an ignorant man possessed of desire wished like this, and others before him had also done the same. Such is the way of the world. This creation of Viraj has been like this. It has been said that he was afraid on account of his ignorance; then, prompted by desire, he was unhappy in being alone, and to remove that boredom he wished for a wife; and he was united with her, which led to this creation. Because it was like this, therefore to this day, in his creation, a man being single, before marriage, desires, 'Let me have a wife, so that I may be born. And let me have wealth, so that I may perform rites.' This has already been explained. Desiring like this and trying to secure a wife and so forth, until he obtains each one of these, the wife and the rest, he considers himself incomplete. As a corollary to this, we understand that he is complete when he secures all of these things. But when he fails to attain this completeness, the Sruti suggests a method to bring this about:- His completeness, the completeness of this man who considers himself incomplete, is this --- comes about in this way. How? This body with organs etc. is being divided. Since the rest of them follow the mind, it, being their chief, is like the self, hence it is his self. As the head of a family is the self, as it were, of the wife and the rest (Son, human wealth and divine wealth.), for these four follow him, so here also the mind is conceived of as the self of this man for his completeness. Similarly speech is his wife, for speech follows the mind as a wife does her husband. 'Speech' here means words conveying an injunction or prohibition, which the mind receives through the ear, understands and uses. Hence speech is like a wife to the mind. These, speech and mind, standing for wife and husband, produce the vital force for performing rites. Hence the vital force is like a child.
These rites, which represent the activity of the vital force etc., are performed with the help of wealth that is visible to the eye. Hence the eye is human wealth. Wealth is of two kinds, human and other than human; hence the qualifying word 'human' to keep out the other kind. Human wealth such as cattle, which is used in ceremonies, is seen by the eye. Hence the eye stands for it. Because of this relationship with it, the eye is called human wealth. For he obtains it, the human wealth, through the eye, i.e. sees cows etc. What is the other kind of wealth? The ear is divine wealth, for since meditation is concerning the gods, it is called divine wealth, and here the ear corresponds to that. How? For he hears of it, the divine wealth, or meditation, through the ear. Hence meditation being dependent on the ear, the latter is called divine wealth. Now in this matter of resemblances what is the rite that is performed by these beginning with the self and ending with wealth? This is being answered:- The body is his rite. 'Atman' (self) here means the body. How does the body stand for the rite? Because it is the cause of the rite. How? For he performs rites through the body. For the man who considers himself incomplete, completenss can be attained in this way through imagination, just as externally it can be brought about by having a wife and so on. Therefore this sacrifice has five factors, and is accomplished only through meditation even by one who does not perform rites. But how can it be called a sacrifice by being merely conceived as having fire factors? Because the external sacrifice too is performed through animals and men, and both these have five factors, being connected with the five things described above, such as the mind. This is expressed by the text:- The animals such as cows, have five factors, and the men have five factors. Although men also are animals, yet being qualified for rites, they are distinguished from the others, hence they are separately mentioned. In short, all this, the means and the results of rites, that exists has five factors. He who knows it as such, imagines himself to be the sacrifice consisting of five factors, attains all this universe as his own self.

Translation By Max Müller

17. In the beginning this was Self alone, one only. He desired, 'Let there be a wife for me that I may have offspring, and let there be wealth for me that I may offer sacrifices.' Verily this is the whole desire, and, even if wishing for more, he would not find it. Therefore now also a lonely person desires, 'Let there be a wife for me that I may have offspring, and let there be wealth for me that I may offer sacrifices.' And so long as he does not obtain either of these things, he thinks he is incomplete. Now his completeness (is made up as follows):- mind is his self (husband); speech the wife; breath the child; the eye all worldly wealth, for he finds it with the eye; the ear his divine wealth, for he hears it with the ear. The body (âtman) is his work, for with the body he works. This is the fivefold [1] sacrifice, for fivefold is the animal, fivefold man, fivefold all this whatsoever. He who knows this, obtains all this.

Footnote:

1. Fivefold, as consisting of mind, speech, breath, eye, and ear. See Taitt. Up. I, 7, 1.


Sloka : 1.5.1

मन्त्र १[I.v.1]

यत्सप्तान्नानि मेधया तपसाऽऽजनयत्पिता । एकमस्य साधारणं द्वे

देवानभाजयत् ॥ त्रीण्यात्मनेऽकुरुत पशुभ्य एकं प्रायच्छत् ।

तस्मिन्त्सर्वं प्रतिष्ठितं यच्च प्राणिति यच्च न ॥ कस्मात्तानि

न क्षीयन्तेऽद्यमानानि सर्वदा । यो वै तामक्षितिं वेद सोऽन्नमत्ति

प्रतीकेन स देवानपिगच्छति स ऊर्जमुपजीवतीति श्लोकाः ॥ १॥

mantra 1[I.v.1]

yatsaptānnāni medhayā tapasā''janayatpitā . ekamasya sādhāraṇaṃ dve

devānabhājayat .. trīṇyātmane'kuruta paśubhya ekaṃ prāyacchat .

tasmintsarvaṃ pratiṣṭhitaṃ yacca prāṇiti yacca na .. kasmāttāni

na kṣīyante'dyamānāni sarvadā . yo vai tāmakṣitiṃ veda so'nnamatti

pratīkena sa devānapigacchati sa ūrjamupajīvatīti ślokāḥ .. 1..



Meaning:- That the father produced seven kinds of food through meditation and rites (I shall disclose). One is common to all eaters. Two he apportioned to the gods. Three he designed for himself. And one he gave to the animals. On it rests everything - what lives and what does not. Why are they not exhausted, although they are always being eaten? He who knows this cause of their permanence eats food with Pratika (pre-eminence). He attains (identity with) the gods and lives on nectar. These are the verses.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Ignorance has been discussed. It has been said in that connection that an ignorant man worships another god, thinking he is different from himself, and that prompted by desire, he, identifying himself with a particular caste and order of life and being regulated by a sense of duty, performs rites such as making offerings in the fire, which help the gods and others and make him an object of enjoyment to them. And as all beings by their rites individually projected him as their object of enjoyment, so did he by his performance of rites with five factors, such as making offerings in the fire, project all beings as well as the whole universe as his objects of enjoyment. Thus everyone according to his meditation and rites is both the enjoyer and the object of enjoyment of the whole universe. That is to say, everyone is alternately the cause as well as the effect of everyone else (Not Hiranyagarbha alone, but every being in a particular cycle who performs meditation and rites according to the scriptures, is here spoken of as the father of all in the next cycle.). This we shall describe in the section on knowledge, the meditation on things mutually helpful (II. v), showing, as a step to the realisation of the unity of the self, how everything is the effect of everything else and helpful to it. The universe which the ignorant man in question projected as his object of enjoyment through his meditation and rites with material ends having five factors, such as making offerings in the fire, being divided in its entirely into seven parts as causes and effects, is called the seven kinds of food, being an object of enjoyment. Hence he is the father of these different kinds of food. These are the verses, Mantras describing in brief these varieties of food together with their uses, and are called Slokas for that reason.

Translation By Max Müller

1. 'When the father (of creation) had produced by knowledge and penance (work) the seven kinds of food, one of his (foods) was common to all beings, two he assigned to the Devas, (1) 'Three he made for himself, one he gave to the animals. In it all rests, whatsoever breathes and breathes not. (2) 'Why then do these not perish, though they are always eaten? He who knows this imperishable one, he eats food with his face. (3) 'He goes even to the Devas, he lives on strength.' (4)


Sloka : 1.5.2

मन्त्र २[I.v.2]

यत्सप्तान्नानि मेधया तपसाऽजनयत्पितेति मेधया हि तपसाजनयत्

पितैकमस्य साधारणमितीदमेवास्य तत्साधारणमन्नं यदिदमद्यते ।

स य एतदुपास्ते न स पाप्मनो व्यावर्तते मिश्रꣳ ह्येतत् । द्वे

देवानभाजयदिति हुतं च प्रहुतं च तस्माद् देवेभ्यो जुह्वति च प्र

च जुह्वत्यथो आहुर्दर्शपूर्णमासाविति । तस्मान्नेष्टियाजुकः स्यात् ।

पशुभ्य एकं प्रायच्छदिति तत्पयः । पयो ह्येवाग्रे मनुष्याश्च

पशवश्चोपजीवन्ति । तस्मात् कुमारं जातं घृतं वै वाग्रे

प्रतिलेहयन्ति स्तनं वाऽनुधापयन्त्यथ वत्सं जातमाहुरतृणाद

इति । तस्मिन्सर्वं प्रतिष्ठितं यच्च प्राणिति यच्च नेति पयसि

हीदꣳ सर्वं प्रतिष्ठितं यच्च प्राणिति यच्च न । तद्यदिदमाहुः

संवत्सरं पयसा जुह्वदप पुनर्मृत्युं जयतीति न तथा विद्याद्

यदहरेव जुहोति तदहः पुनर्मृत्युमपजयत्येवं विद्वान् सर्वꣳ

हि देवेभ्योऽन्नाद्यं प्रयच्छति । कस्मात्तानि न क्षीयन्तेऽद्यमानानि

सर्वदेति पुरुषो वा अक्षितिः स हीदमन्नं पुनः पुनर्जनयते ।

यो वै तामक्षितिं वेदेति पुरुषो वा अक्षितिः । स हीदमन्नं धिया

धिया जनयते कर्मभिर्यद्धैतन्न कुर्यात् क्षीयेत ह । सोऽन्नमत्ति

प्रतीकेनेति मुखं प्रतीकं मुखेनेत्येतत् स देवानपिगच्छति स

ऊर्जमुपजीवतीति प्रशꣳसा ॥ २॥

mantra 2[I.v.2]

yatsaptānnāni medhayā tapasā'janayatpiteti medhayā hi tapasājanayat

pitaikamasya sādhāraṇamitīdamevāsya tatsādhāraṇamannaṃ yadidamadyate .

sa ya etadupāste na sa pāpmano vyāvartate miśragͫ hyetat . dve

devānabhājayaditi hutaṃ ca prahutaṃ ca tasmād devebhyo juhvati ca pra

ca juhvatyatho āhurdarśapūrṇamāsāviti . tasmānneṣṭiyājukaḥ syāt .

paśubhya ekaṃ prāyacchaditi tatpayaḥ . payo hyevāgre manuṣyāśca

paśavaścopajīvanti . tasmāt kumāraṃ jātaṃ ghṛtaṃ vai vāgre

pratilehayanti stanaṃ vā'nudhāpayantyatha vatsaṃ jātamāhuratṛṇāda

iti . tasminsarvaṃ pratiṣṭhitaṃ yacca prāṇiti yacca neti payasi

hīdagͫ sarvaṃ pratiṣṭhitaṃ yacca prāṇiti yacca na . tadyadidamāhuḥ

saṃvatsaraṃ payasā juhvadapa punarmṛtyuṃ jayatīti na tathā vidyād

yadahareva juhoti tadahaḥ punarmṛtyumapajayatyevaṃ vidvān sarvagͫ

hi devebhyo'nnādyaṃ prayacchati . kasmāttāni na kṣīyante'dyamānāni

sarvadeti puruṣo vā akṣitiḥ sa hīdamannaṃ punaḥ punarjanayate .

yo vai tāmakṣitiṃ vedeti puruṣo vā akṣitiḥ . sa hīdamannaṃ dhiyā

dhiyā janayate karmabhiryaddhaitanna kuryāt kṣīyeta ha . so'nnamatti

pratīkeneti mukhaṃ pratīkaṃ mukhenetyetat sa devānapigacchati sa

ūrjamupajīvatīti praśagͫsā .. 2..



Meaning:- 'That the father produced seven kinds of food through meditation and rites' means that the father indeed produced them through meditation and rites. 'One is common to all eaters' means, this food that is eaten is the common food of all eaters. He who adores (monopolises) this food is never free from evil, for this is general food. 'Two he apportioned to the gods' means making oblations in the fire, and offering presents otherwise to the gods. Therefore people perform both these. Some, however, say, those two are the new and full moon sacrifices. Therefore one should not be engrossed with sacrifices for material ends. 'One he gave to the animals' - it is milk. For men and animals first live on milk alone. Therefore they first make a new-born babe lick clarified butter or suckle it. And they speak of a new-born calf as not yet eating grass. 'On it rests everything - what lives and what does not' means that on milk indeed rests all this that lives and that does not. It is said that by making offerings of milk in the fire for a year one conquers further death. One should not think like that. He who knows as above conquers further death the very day he makes that offering, for he offers all eatable food to the gods, 'Why are they not exhausted, although they are always being eaten?' - means that the being (eater) is indeed the cause of their permanence, for the produces this food again and again. 'He who knows this cause of their permanence' means that the being (eater) is indeed the cause of their permanence, for he produces this food through his meditation for the time being and rites. If he does not do this, it will be exhausted. 'He eats food with Pratika'; 'Pratika' means pre-eminence; hence the meaning is, pre-eminently. 'He attains the gods and lives on nectar' is a eulogy.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- That the father produced seven kinds of food through meditation and rites:- 'Yat' (that) is an adverb modifying the verb 'produced'. The words 'Medha' and 'Tapas' here mean meditation and rites respectively, for these are the topic, and the ordinary meanings of the words 'Medha' and 'Tapas' (intelligence and austerity) are out of place. For rites with five factors, viz the wife and so forth, were described, and just after that, meditation, referred to by the words, 'He who knows it as such' etc. (I. iv. 17). Therefore the familiar meanings of the two words 'Medha' and 'Tapas' must not be supposed here. Hence the meaning of the sentence is:- 'The seven kinds of food which the father produced through his meditation and rites, I shall disclose.' The last words should be supplied to complete the sentence. In the Vedas the meaning of the Mantras, being hidden, is generally difficult to understand, hence the Brahmana (A portion of the Vedas explaining the Mantras. The Vedas consist of Mantras and Brahmanas.) (this text) proceeds to explain them. Now what is the meaning of 'That the father produced seven kinds of food through meditation and rites'? This is being answered. The text explains the sentence only by the use of the particle 'hi' (indeed) signifying a well-known fact. That is to say, the meaning of this Mantra is well known. The words of the Mantra, 'That the father produced,' being of the form of a restatement, it also refers to something well known. Hence the Brahmana boldly says:- The father indeed produced them throguh meditation and rites.

Objection:- How is this meaning well known?
Reply:- In the first place it is evident that the ignorant man is the father of the means, beginning with the wife and ending with the rites, whereby the worlds are achieved as the result, and it has also been stated in the passage. 'Let me have a wife,' etc. (I. iv. 17). There it has been said that meditation, which is divine wealth, rites and a son are the means whereby the father projects the worlds which are the results. And what will be stated later on (I. v. 16) is also well known. Hence it is right to say, 'The father indeed produced them through meditation and rites.' Moreover, it is well known in life that desire is concerning results. And the wife and so forth have been stated to be objects of desire in the passage, 'This much indeed is desire' (I. iv. 17). There can be no desire in the subject-matter of the knowledge of Brahman (liberation), for it is the oneness of everything. Hence it is implied that one's natural (That is, prompted by desire, which is the product of ignorance.) thoughts and actions, which are not according to the scriptures, of course lead to a projection of the relative universe (not liberation). This is also proved by the fact that the evil results ending in identity with stationary objects, are due to such thoughts and actions. But the text seeks to bring out that relation of end and means among objects which is according to the scriptures (The other kind being left out of account as being palpably injurious.), for it is sought to inculcate an aversion to them with a view to enjoining the knowledge of Brahman. For since this entire gross and subtle universe is impure, transitory, consisting of ends and means, painful and within the category of ignorance, one gets disgusted with it, and for such a one the knowledge of Brahman has to be introduced.
Now the different uses of the varieties of food are being stated:- One is common to all eaters, is the wording of the Mantra. Its explanation is given by the words:- This food is the common food of all eaters. What is it? This that is eaten by all beings daily. The father, after producing the different kinds of food, designed this to be the common food of all eaters. He who adores or is devoted to this common food, which being eaten sustains the life of all living beings --- adoration, as we see in life, means devotion, as when we say:- 'One adores a teacher,' 'One adores a king,' etc.; hence the meaning is:- who is chiefly concerned with enjoying food to prolong his existence, instead of performing rites to store (good) unseen results --- such a man is never free from evil. Compare the Vedic Mantra, '(If an ignorant man) obtains food that is uselss (to the gods, it is veritably his death)' (R. X. cxvii. 6). And the Smrtis, 'One must not cook only for oneself' (Mbh. XII. ccx1ix. 5), 'He who eats without offering to the gods is a thief' (G. III. 12), 'The killer of a noble Brahmana (The commoner meaning of the word 'Bhruna' is a foetus.) wipes (his sin) in the man who eats his food,' and so on (M. VIII. 317). Why is he not free from evil? For this food which is eaten by all beings is general food, the common property of all. And just because it is the food of all, any morsel that is put into the mouth is seen to be painful to others, for everyone eagerly expects that it will be his. Therefore it is impossible even to eat without causing pain to others. The Smrti too says, 'Since the sins of men (abide in food, it is a greater sin not to share it with others).'

Some say that it refers to the food called Vaisvadeva, which is daily offered (in the fire) by householders for the beasts etc.
This is wrong, for this particular food is not observed to be common to all eaters like that which is eaten by all creatures. Nor does the specification, 'This that is eaten' agree with it. Besides, as this food known as Vaisvadeva is included in that eaten by all creatures the latter kind of food, which is also eaten by outcasts, dogs, etc., should be understood, for we see that there is this kind of food over and above that known as Vaisvadeva. With regard to it the specification, 'This that is eaten,' is appropriate. It the words 'common to all eaters' do not mean this food, it will give rise to a suspicion that it was not produced and apportioned by the father. But there is unanimity on the point that all kinds of food were produced and apportioned by him. Besides it is not right that one performing the scriptural rite called Vaisvadeva should not be free from evils. And it has not been forbidden. Nor is it a naturally hateful type of work like fishing, for instance, for decent people practise it, and the Sruti says that sin accrues from its non-performance. But in the other case there is the possibility of sin, for the Vedic Mantra says, 'I eat that person as food who eats food (without givng part of it to others)' (Tai. III. x. 6).
Two he apportioned to the gods, is the wording of the Mantra. Which are the two kinds of food that he produced and apportioned to the gods? Making oblations in the fire, and offering presents otherwise to the gods after finishing the former. Because the father distributed these two kinds of food to the gods, therefore to this day householders, at the proper time perform both these, make oblations in the fire, thinking that they are offering that food to the gods, and after that offer them presents. Some, however, say that the two kinds of food the father gave to the gods are not the above two offerings, but the new and full moon sacrifices. The first view holds that the above two offerings are meant, for the Sruti mentions both (food and offering) as two, and those offerings are very well known. (This is rebutted as follows:-) Although the number is all right with regard to those two offerings, still the fact that the new and full moon sacrifices --- which too are mentioned by the Sruti --- are the food of the gods, is better known, being revealed by the Mantras. Besides, when the choice lies between a principal and a subordinate object (denoted by the same word), the preference goes to the former. Now the new and full moon sacrifices are more important than the above two offerings. Hence it is proper to conclude that they alone are meant by the words, 'Two he apportioned to the gods.' Because these two kinds of food, the new and full moon sacrifices, were set apart by the father for the gods, therefore, to keep them intact for the gods, one should not be engrossed with sacrifices for material ends. The word 'Isti' here means 'Kamyesti,' sacrifices with material ends. This is well known from the Satapatha Brahmana (I. iii. 5. 10). From the use of a suffix denoting habit we understand that one must not be primarily engrossed with the performance of these sacrifices with material ends (So there is no antagonism with such Vedic texts as, 'One who desires heaven must sacrifice' (Ta. XVI. iii. 3).
One he gave to the animals. What is that one food which the father gave to the animals? It is milk. How are we to know that the animals are the owners of it? This is being explained:- For men and animals first live on milk alone. It must be their food, for how else would they systematically live on that first? How do they live on it first? Because men and animals to this day live on that food, just as the father apportioned it in the beginning. Therefore men of the upper three castes make a new-born bable lick clarified butter, in contact with gold, in the post-natal ceremony, or, i.e. afterwards, suckle it. The other castes (who do not have this ceremony) do whichever is practicable. In the case of animals other than men, then only suckle the young one. And they speak of a new-born calf, when somebody asks them how old it is, as not yet eating grass, i.e. very young --- still living on milk. Whether they first take clarified butter in the post-natal and other ceremonies, or whether others drink milk, in either case they drink but milk, for clarified butter, being a modification of milk, is also milk.
Why is the food of animals, which is the seventh in order, explained as the fourth? Because it is a means of rites. Rites such as the Agnihotra are performed with the help of milk. And these rites, which depend on wealth, are the means of the three kinds of food to be presently mentioned, which are the results --- as the two kinds of food, the new and full moon sacrifices mentioned above. Hence, falling under the category of rites, it is explained together with them. Moreover, since both (they and it) are equally means, mere order should give precedence to the natural sequence due to sense. Besides, this way of explaining facilitates understanding. The different kinds of food can thus be easily explained without a break, and their meaning (That four of them are means and three are results.) too will be easily grasped. What is the meaning of, On it rests everything --- what lives and what does not?
That on milk indeed, the food of animals, rests all this, the whole universe in its threefold division according to the body, the elements and the gods --- that lives, the animate kingdom, and that does not live, stationary objects such as hills. The word 'indeed,' signifying something well known, furnishes the explanation. How is the substance called milk the support of everything? Because it is the cause. And it is a cause in that it is an integral part of rites such as the Agnihotra. That the whole universe is the result of the oblations offered in the Agnihotra and other rites, is proved by hundreds of Sruti and Smrti texts. Hence it is quite proper to explain the Mantra by the use of the word 'indeed.'
It is said in some other Brahmanas that by making offerings of milk in the fire for a year one conquers further death. The reference is to the following:- In a year three hundred and sixty oblations are offered (counting morning and evening oblations as one). That accounts for double the number (splitting each into two). The bricks called Yajusmati, used in making the altar for the Agnihotra, being also of that number, the oblations are looked upon as these bricks, and so also are the days of the year. Through this meditation based on resemblance people attain identity with Fire, the Prajapati called the Year. By offering oblations for a year in this way one conqers further death, i.e. is born after death among the gods, no more to die. Thus do the Brahmana texts run. One should not think like that. He who knows as stated above, that everything rests on milk, being the result of the oblations of milk, conquers further death the very day he makes that offering --- he has not to wait for a year, but attains identity with the universe in one day.
This is expressed by the text, 'Conquers further death,' i.e. the sage dying once or getting rid of the body, is identified with the universe, and does not take on another limited body to make further death possible. What is the reason of his conquering further death by attaining identity with the universe? This is being answered:- For he offers all eatable food to all the gods by means of the morning and evening oblations. Therefore it is proper that he, by making himself one with the oblations and attaining identity with all the gods as their food --- being the sum total of them --- does not die any more. This too has been stated in another Brahmana:- 'Brahman, the self-born (a man seeking identity with Hiranyagarbha) performed rites. He reflected, 'Rites do not produce eternal results. Well, let me offer myself in all beings (as in a fire) and all beings in me.' Offering himself in all beings and all beings in himself, he attained the highest place among all beings, independence and absolute rulership' (S. XIII. vii. 1. 1).
Why are they not exhausted although they are always, continuously, being eaten? Since the time when the father producing the seven kinds of food distributed them to different groups of eaters, they have been eating those foods, for they live on them. And they ought to be exhausted, since everything that is made must wear out. But they are not dwindling, for we see the universe remains intact. So there must be a cause for their permanence. Hence the question, 'Why are they not exhausted?' It is answered as follows:- The being is indeed the casue of their permanence. Just as in the beginning the father was the producer of the different kinds of food through his meditation and rites with five factors such as the wife, and their eater too, so those to whom he gave the foods, although they are their eaters, are their fathers as well, for they produce them through their meditation and rites. This is expressed as follows:- The being who eats the food is indeed the cause of their permanence. How? This is being explained:- For he produces this food of seven kinds that is eaten, consisting of the body and organs, actions and results, again and again through his meditation for the time being and rites, i.e. the efforts of his speech, mind and body. It he does not do this, not produce for a moment the seven kinds of food mentioned above through his meditation and rites, it would be exhausted, or finished, being continously eaten. Therefore just as the being is continously eating the foods, he is also creating them according to his meditation and rites. Hence the being is the cause of their permanence by continously creating them. That is to say, for this reason the foods are not exhausted although they are being eaten. Therefore the whole universe consisting of a series of meditations and rites, means and ends, actions and results --- although, being held together by a stream of work and impressions of innumerable beings in combination, it is transient, impure, flimsy, resembling a flowing river or a burning lamp, flimsy like a banana stalk, and comparable to foam, illusion, a mirgae, a dream, and so on --- appears nevertheless to those who have identified themselves with it to be undecaying, eternal and full of substance. Hence for stimulating our renunciation the text says, 'He produces this food through his meditation for the time being and rites. If he does not do this, it will be exhausted,' for from the second chapter the knowledge of Brahman has to be inculcated for those who are disgusted with this universe.
Although three kinds of food are yet to be described, still taking them as already explained along with the previous ones, the result of knowing these as they are, is being summed up:- He who knows this cause of their permanence as described above, means that the being (eater) is indeed the cause of their permanence, for he produces this food through his meditation for the time being and rites. If he does not do this, it will be exhausted. He eats food with Pratika is being explained:- 'Pratika' means pre-eminence; hence the meaning is, pre-eminently. He who knows that the being who is the father of the different kinds of food is the cause of their permanence, pre-eminently eats food and never becomes a subsidiary part of it. Unlike an ignorant man, this sage, being the self of the foods, becomes only their eater, but never a food. He attains the gods, is identified with the gods, and lives on nectar:- This statement is a eulogy; there is no new meaning in it.

Translation By Max Müller

2. When it is said, that 'the father produced by knowledge and penance the seven kinds of food,' it is clear that (it was he who) did so. When it is said, that 'one of his (foods) was common,' then that is that common food of his which is eaten. He who worships (eats) that (common food), is not removed from evil, for verily that food is mixed (property) [1]. When it is said, that 'two he assigned to the Devas,' that is the huta, which is sacrificed in fire, and the prahuta, which is given away at a sacrifice. But they also say, the new-moon and full-moon sacrifices are here intended, and therefore one should not offer them as an ishti or with a wish. When it is said, that 'one he gave to animals,' that is milk. For in the beginning (in their infancy) both men and animals live on milk. And therefore they either make a new-born child lick ghrita (butter), or they make it take the breast. And they call a new-born creature 'atrinâda,' i.e. not eating herbs. When it is said, that 'in it all rests, whatsoever breathes and breathes not,' we see that all this, whatsoever breathes and breathes not, rests and depends on milk. And when it is said (in another Brâhmana), that a man who sacrifices with milk a whole year [2], overcomes death again, let him not think so. No, on the very day on which he sacrifices, on that day he overcomes death again; for he who knows this, offers to the gods the entire food (viz. milk). When it is said, 'Why do these not perish, though they are always eaten,' we answer, Verily, the Person is the imperishable, and he produces that food again and again [3]. When it is said, 'He who knows this imperishable one, I then, verily, the Person is the imperishable one, for he produces this food by repeated thought, and whatever he does not work by his works, that perishes. When it is said, that 'he eats food with his face,' then face means the mouth, he eats it with his mouth. When it is said, that 'he goes even to the Devas, he lives on strength,' that is meant as praise.

Footnote:

1. It belongs to all beings. 2. This would imply 360 sacrificial days, each with two oblations, i.e. 720 oblations. 3. Those who enjoy the food, become themselves creators. Comm.


Sloka : 1.5.3

मन्त्र ३[I.v.3]

त्रीण्यात्मनेऽकुरुतेति मनो वाचं प्राणं तान्यात्मनेऽकुरुतान्यत्रमना

अभूवं नादर्शमन्यत्रमना अभूवं नाश्रौषमिति मनसा ह्येव पश्यति

मनसा श‍ृणोति । कामः सङ्कल्पो विचिकित्सा श्रद्धाऽश्रद्धा

धृतिरधृतिर्ह्रीर्धीर्भीरित्येतत्सर्वं मन एव । तस्मादपि

पृष्ठत उपस्पृष्टो मनसा विजानाति । यः कश्च शब्दो वागेव

सैषा ह्यन्तमायत्तैषा हि न । प्राणोऽपानो व्यान उदानः समानोऽन

इत्येतत्सर्वं प्राण एवैतन्मयो वा अयमात्मा वाङ्मयो मनोमयः प्राणमयः ॥ ३॥

mantra 3[I.v.3]

trīṇyātmane'kuruteti mano vācaṃ prāṇaṃ tānyātmane'kurutānyatramanā

abhūvaṃ nādarśamanyatramanā abhūvaṃ nāśrauṣamiti manasā hyeva paśyati

manasā śṛṇoti . kāmaḥ saṅkalpo vicikitsā śraddhā'śraddhā

dhṛtiradhṛtirhrīrdhīrbhīrityetatsarvaṃ mana eva . tasmādapi

pṛṣṭhata upaspṛṣṭo manasā vijānāti . yaḥ kaśca śabdo vāgeva

saiṣā hyantamāyattaiṣā hi na . prāṇo'pāno vyāna udānaḥ samāno'na

ityetatsarvaṃ prāṇa evaitanmayo vā ayamātmā vāṅmayo manomayaḥ prāṇamayaḥ .. 3..



Meaning:- 'Three he designed for himself' means:- the mind, the organ of speech and the vital force; these he designed for himself. (They say), 'I was absent-minded, I did not see it', 'I was absent-minded, I did not hear it'. It is through the mind that one sees and hears. Desires, resolve, doubt, faith, want of faith, steadiness, unsteadiness, shame, intelligence and fear - all these are but the mind. Even if one is touched from behind, one knows it through the mind; therefore (the mind exists). And any kind of sound is but the organ of speech, for it serves to determine a thing, but it cannot itself be revealed. Prana, Apana, Vyana, Udana, Samana and Ana - all these are but the vital forces. This body is identified with these - with the organ of speech, the mind and the vital force.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- The three kinds of food --- results of rites with five factors --- which have been spoken of, being effectts and extensive in scope, were kept separate from the previous ones. The succeeding portion up to the end of this section is devoted to the explanation of them. What is the meaning of. Three he designed for himself? It means:- The mind, the organ of speech and vital force are the three kinds of food; these the father, after producing them at the beginning of the cycle, designed for himself. Of these, there is a doubt regarding the existence and nature of the mind. Hence the text says:- There is a mind apart from the external organs such as the ear. For it is a well-known fact that even when there is a connection between the external
organ, the object and the self, a man does not perceive that object, which may be just in front, and when asked, 'Have you seen this form?' he says, 'My mind was elsewhere --- I was absent-minded, I did not see it.' Similarly when asked, 'Have you heard what I have said?' he says, 'I was absent-minded, I did not hear it.' Therefore it is understood that that something else, viz the internal organ called mind, which joins itself to the objects of all the organs, exists, in the absence of which the eye and other organs fail to perceive their respective objects such as form and sound, although they have the capacity to do so and in the presence of which they succeed in it. Hence it is through the mind that everybody sees and hears, for vision and the like are impossible when the mind is engaged.
After the existence of the mind has been proved, the text proceeds to described its nature:- Desire, sex-attraction and the like, resolve, deciding about a thing which is before us, that it is white or blue and so on, doubt, notion of uncertainty, faith, belief in the efficacy of rites directed to invisible ends (the hereafter) as well as in the existence of the gods and the like, want of faith, the opposite notion, steadiness, supporting the body etc. when they droop, unsteadiness, the opposite of that, shame, intelligence and fear --- all these, all such, are but the mind. They are forms of the mind or the internal organ. Another reason for the existence of the mind is being stated:- Because even if one is touched by anybody from behind invisibly, one knows it distinctly, that this is a touch of the hand, or that this is a touch of the knee, therefore the internal organ called mind exists. If there is no mind to distinguish them, how can the skin alone do this? That which helps us to distinguish between perceptions is the mind.
The mind then exists, and its nature too has been known. Three kinds of food, which are the results of rites, viz the mind, the organ of speech and the vital force, were sought to be explained here in their divisions according to the body, the elements and the gods. Of these, only the mind, out of the group consisting of the organ of speech, the mind and the vital force as relating to the body, has been explained. Now the organ of speech is to be described. Hence the text says:- And any kind of sound in the world, whether it is of the articulate kind uttered by creatures with the help of the palate etc., or it is of the other kind produced by musical instruments or clouds etc., is but the organ of speech. So the nature of the organ of speech has been stated. Now its function is being described:- For it, the organ of speech, serves to determine or reveal a thing, but it cannot itself be revealed, like things; it only reveals them, for it is self-luminous like a lamp etc. The light of a lamp and so forth is not of course revealed by another light. Similarly the organ of speech only reveals things, but cannot itself be revealed by others (of the same category). Thus the Sruti avoids a regressus in infinitum by saying, 'It cannot itself be revealed.' That is to say, the very function of the organ of speech is to reveal.
Now the vital force is being described:- Prana, the function of which is connected with the heart and is capable of moving to the mouth and nostrils, so called because it moves forward. Apana, which functions below the heart and extends up to the navel; it is called Apana, because it helps excretion. Vyana, that
which regulates the Prana and Apana and is the nexus between them, as also the cause of actions requiring strength. Udana, that which causes nutrition, rising up, and so on; it extends from the sole of the feet to the head and functions upwards. Samana, so called because of assimilating what we eat and drink; it has its seat in the belly and helps the digestion of food. Ana is the generalisation of these particular functions and is concerned with the general activities of the body. Thus all these functions of the Prana and the rest, as described above, are but the vital force (Prana).
The Prana, which means the Ana (general nerve function) in the body with particular functions, has been described. And its activity also has been explained by a reference to its different functions. So the three kinds of food called the mind, the organ of speech and the vital force as relating to the body, have been explained. Identified with these, i.e. their modifications, or composed of the mind, speech and vital force of Hiranyagarbha --- what is it? this body including the organs, the microcosm, called 'self' because it is accepted as their self by ignorant people. That which has been described in a general way as 'identified' with these,' is being elucidated by the specification with the organ of speech, the mind and the vital force.
The manifestations of those foods belonging to Hiranyagarbha as they relate to the elements are being described:-

Translation By Max Müller

3. When it is said, that 'he made three for himself,' that means that he made mind, speech, and breath for himself. As people say, 'My mind was elsewhere, I did not see; my mind was elsewhere, I did not hear,' it is clear that a man sees with his mind and hears with his mind [1]. Desire, representation, doubt, faith, want of faith, memory [2], forgetfulness, shame, reflexion, fear, all this is mind. Therefore even if a man is touched on the back, he knows it through the mind. Whatever sound there is, that is speech. Speech indeed is intended for an end or object, it is nothing by itself. The up-breathing, the down-breathing, the back-breathing, the out-breathing, the on-breathing, all that is breathing is breath (prâna) only. Verily that Self consists of it; that Self consists of speech, mind, and breath.

Footnote:

1. See Deussen, Vedânta, p. 358. 2. Firmness, strength. Comm.


Sloka : 1.5.4

मन्त्र ४[I.v.4]

त्रयो लोका एत एव वागेवायं लोको मनोऽन्तरिक्षलोकः प्राणोऽसौ लोकः ॥ ४॥

mantra 4[I.v.4]

trayo lokā eta eva vāgevāyaṃ loko mano'ntarikṣalokaḥ prāṇo'sau lokaḥ .. 4..



Meaning:- These are the three worlds. The organ of speech is this world (the earth), the mind is the sky, and the vital force is that world (heaven).





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- These, the organ of speech, the mind and the vital force, are the three worlds called the earth, sky and heaven. This is
being specified:- The organ of speech is this world, the mind is the sky, and the vital force is that world.

Translation By Max Müller

4. These are the three worlds:- earth is speech, sky mind, heaven breath.


Sloka : 1.5.5

मन्त्र ५[I.v.5.]

त्रयो वेदा एत एव वागेवर्ग्वेदो मनो यजुर्वेदः प्राणः सामवेदः ॥ ५॥

mantra 5[I.v.5.]

trayo vedā eta eva vāgevargvedo mano yajurvedaḥ prāṇaḥ sāmavedaḥ .. 5..



Meaning:- These are the three Vedas. The organ of speech is the Rig-Veda, the mind is the Yajur-Veda and the vital force the Sama-Veda.

Translation By Max Müller

5. These are the three Vedas:- the Rig-veda is speech, the Yagur-veda mind, the Sâma-veda breath.


Sloka : 1.5.6

मन्त्र ६[I.v.6]

देवाः पितरो मनुष्या एत एव वागेव देवा मनः पितरः प्राणो मनुष्याः ।

mantra 6[I.v.6]

devāḥ pitaro manuṣyā eta eva vāgeva devā manaḥ pitaraḥ prāṇo manuṣyāḥ .



Meaning:- These are the gods, the Manes and men. The organ of speech is the gods, the mind the Manes, and the vital force men.

Translation By Max Müller

6. These are the Devas, Fathers, and men:- the Devas are speech, the Fathers mind, men breath.


Sloka : 1.5.7

मन्त्र ७[I.v.7]

पिता माता प्रजैत एव मन एव पिता वाङ्माता प्राणः प्रजा ॥ ७॥

mantra 7[I.v.7]

pitā mātā prajaita eva mana eva pitā vāṅmātā prāṇaḥ prajā .. 7..



Meaning:- These are the father, mother and child. The mind is the father, the organ of speech the mother, and the vital force the child.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Similarly these are the three Vedas, etc. These sentences are all easy.

Translation By Max Müller

7. These are father, mother, and child:- the father is mind, the mother speech, the child breath.


Sloka : 1.5.8

मन्त्र ८[.I.v.8]

विज्ञातं विजिज्ञास्यमविज्ञातमेत एव यत्किञ्च विज्ञातं

वाचस्तद्रूपं वाग्घि विज्ञाता वागेनं तद्भूत्वाऽवति ॥ ८॥

mantra 8[.I.v.8]

vijñātaṃ vijijñāsyamavijñātameta eva yatkiñca vijñātaṃ

vācastadrūpaṃ vāgghi vijñātā vāgenaṃ tadbhūtvā'vati .. 8..



Meaning:- These are what is known, what it is desirable to know, and what is unknown. Whatever is known is a form of the organ of speech, for it is the knower. The organ of speech protects him (who knows this) by becoming that (which is known).





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- These are what is known, what it is desirable to know, and what is unknown. This is being specified:- Whatever is clearly known is a form of the organ of speech. The Sruti itself gives the reason:- For it is the knower, being self-luminous. How can that be other than a knower which brings to light other objects as well? It will be stated later on, 'Through the organ of speech, O Emperor, a friend is known' (IV. i. 2). He who knows the particulars of the organ of speech gets the following result:- The organ of speech protects him who knows its manifectations as given above, by becoming that which is known. That is, it becomes his food, or object of enjoyment, in that form.

Translation By Max Müller

8. These are what is known, what is to be known, and what is unknown. What is known, has the form of speech, for speech is known. Speech, having become this, protects man [1].

Footnote:

1. 'The food (speech), having become known, can be consumed.' Comm.


Sloka : 1.5.9

मन्त्र ९[I.v.9]

यत्किञ्च विजिज्ञास्यं मनसस्तद्रूपं मनो हि विजिज्ञास्यं मन एनं

तद्भूत्वाऽवति ॥ ९॥

mantra 9[I.v.9]

yatkiñca vijijñāsyaṃ manasastadrūpaṃ mano hi vijijñāsyaṃ mana enaṃ

tadbhūtvā'vati .. 9..



Meaning:- Whatever it is desirable to know is a form of the mind, for the mind is what it is desirable to know. The mind protects him (who knows this) by becoming that (which it is desirable to know).





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Similarly, whatever it is desirable clearly to know is a form of the mind, for the mind, since it takes the form of a doubt (considers the pros and cons of a thing), is what it is desirable to know. As before, he who knows the manifestations of the mind gets the following result:- The mind protects him by becoming that which it is desirable to know, i.e. it becomes his food in that form.

Translation By Max Müller

9. What is to be known, has the form of mind, for mind is what is to be known. Mind, having become this, protects man.


Sloka : 1.5.10

मन्त्र १०[I.v.10]

यत्किञ्चाविज्ञातं प्राणस्य तद्रूपं प्राणो ह्यविज्ञातः प्राण एनं

तद्भूत्वाऽवति ॥ १०॥

mantra 10[I.v.10]

yatkiñcāvijñātaṃ prāṇasya tadrūpaṃ prāṇo hyavijñātaḥ prāṇa enaṃ

tadbhūtvā'vati .. 10..



Meaning:- Whatever is unknown is a form of the vital force, for the vital force is what is unknown. The vital force protects him (who knows this) by becoming that (which is unknown).





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Likewise whatever is completely unknown, and not even suspected, is a form of the vital force, for the vital force is what is unknown, as the Sruti speaks of it as undefined (Ch. II. xxii. 1). Since the organ of speech, the mind and the vital force have been divided into the forms of what is known, what it is desirable to know, and what is unknown (This is a wider classification including all the previous ones mentioned in paragraphs 4 to 7, and involving a cross-division. Nevertheless we are to take them as they are, since the Sruti recommends them for meditation.), the statements, 'These are the three worlds,' and so on, are to be accepted solely on the authority of the Sruti. Since we see these three forms, viz what is known, etc., are applicable to everything, it is from the statement of the Sruti that we are to understand that the meditation is to be confined to the particular objects as indicated. The vital force protects him by becoming that, i.e. becomes his food in the form of what is unknown. We often see that teachers and parents, for instance, help their pupils and (very young) children, barely suspected by or unknown to them. Similarly the mind and vital force can be the food of the sage, barely suspected by and unknown to him (respectively).
The manifestations of the organ of speech, the mind and the vital force relating to the elements have been described. The following (three) paragraphs deal with their manifestations relating to the gods:-

Translation By Max Müller

10. What is unknown, has the form of breath, for breath is unknown. Breath, having become this, protects man [1].

Footnote:

1. This was adhibhautika, with reference to bhûtas, beings. Next follows the adhidaivika, with reference to the devas, gods. Comm.


Sloka : 1.5.11

मन्त्र ११[I.v.11]

तस्यै वाचः पृथिवी शरीरं ज्योती रूपमयमग्निस्तद्यावत्येव वाक्

तावती पृथिवी तावानयमग्निः ॥ ११॥

mantra 11[I.v.11]

tasyai vācaḥ pṛthivī śarīraṃ jyotī rūpamayamagnistadyāvatyeva vāk

tāvatī pṛthivī tāvānayamagniḥ .. 11..



Meaning:- The earth is the body of that organ of speech, and this fire is its luminous organ. And as far as the organ of speech extends, so far extends the earth and so far does this fire.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- The earth is the body, or the external container, of that organ of speech which has been spoken of as the food of Hiranyagarbha, and this terrestrial fire is its luminous organ, the content of the earth. The vocal organ of Hiranyagarbha has two forms:- One is the effect (body), the container and non-luminous:- the other is the instrument (organ), the content and luminous. Both these, the earth and fire, are but the vocal organ of Hiranyagarbha. And as far as the organ of speech in its twofold aspect relating to the body and the elements extends, so far throughout extends the earth, the effect, as its container, and so far does this fire, which is the content and the instrument, pervading the earth in its luminous form. The rest is similar.

Translation By Max Müller

11. Of that speech (which is the food of Pragâpati) earth is the body, light the form, viz. this fire. And so far as speech extends, so far extends the earth, so far extends fire.


Sloka : 1.5.12

मन्त्र १२[I.v.12]

अथैतस्य मनसो द्यौः शरीरं ज्योतीरूपमसावादित्यस्तद्यावदेव

मनस्तावती द्यौस्तावानसावादित्यस्तौ मिथुनꣳ समैतां ततः

प्राणोऽजायत । स इन्द्रः स एषोऽसपत्नो द्वितीयो वै सपत्नो नास्य

सपत्नो भवति य एवं वेद ॥ १२॥

mantra 12[I.v.12]

athaitasya manaso dyauḥ śarīraṃ jyotīrūpamasāvādityastadyāvadeva

manastāvatī dyaustāvānasāvādityastau mithunagͫ samaitāṃ tataḥ

prāṇo'jāyata . sa indraḥ sa eṣo'sapatno dvitīyo vai sapatno nāsya

sapatno bhavati ya evaṃ veda .. 12..



Meaning:- Heaven is the body of this mind, and that sun is its luminous organ. And as far as the mind extends, so far extends heaven, and so far does that sun. The two were united, and from that the vital force emanated. It is the Supreme Lord. It is without a rival. A second being is indeed a rival. He who knows it as such has no rival.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Heaven is the body, the effect, the container, of this mind that has already been spoken of as the food of Hiranyagarbha, and that sun is its luminous organ, the content. And as far as the mind in its aspect relating to the body or the elements, extends, so far extends heaven, which is the container of the mind, the luminous organ, and so far does that sun, which is the luminous organ and the content. The two, fire and the sun, which are the forms of the organ of speech and the mind relating to the gods, the mother and father, were united, between the two halves of the cosmic shell (heaven and earth), the one resolving to do the function of generation belonging to the father, the mind, or the sun, and the other that of manifestation belonging to the mother, the organ of speech, or fire. And from that union the vital force or Vayu (The cosmic aspect of the vital force, symbolised by air.) emanated, to function as vibration. It, that which emanated, is the Supreme Lord, and not only that but it is also without a rival. What is a rival? A second being, appearing as an adversary, is called a rival.Hence the organ of speech and the mind, although they are different entities (from the vital force), never become its rivals, both being subordinate to the vital force (on the cosmic plane) as in the body. Incidentally, the result of meditation on this absence of rivalry is as follows:- He, the sage, who knows it, the vital force, as such, as being without a rival, has no rival.

Translation By Max Müller

12. Next, of this mind heaven is the body, light the form, viz. this sun. And so far as this mind extends, so far extends heaven, so far extends the sun. If they (fire and sun) embrace each other, then wind is born, and that is Indra, and he is without a, rival. Verily a second is a rival, and he who knows this, has no rival.


Sloka : 1.5.13

मन्त्र १३[I.v.13]

अथैतस्य प्राणस्याऽऽपः शरीरं ज्योतीरूपमसौ चन्द्रस्तद्यावानेव

प्राणस्तावत्य आपस्तावानसौ चन्द्रः । त एते सर्व एव समाः

सर्वेऽनन्ताः । स यो हैतानन्तवत उपास्तेऽन्तवन्तꣳ स लोकं

जयत्यथ यो हैताननन्तानुपास्तेऽनन्तꣳ स लोकं जयति ॥ १३॥

mantra 13[I.v.13]

athaitasya prāṇasyā''paḥ śarīraṃ jyotīrūpamasau candrastadyāvāneva

prāṇastāvatya āpastāvānasau candraḥ . ta ete sarva eva samāḥ

sarve'nantāḥ . sa yo haitānantavata upāste'ntavantagͫ sa lokaṃ

jayatyatha yo haitānanantānupāste'nantagͫ sa lokaṃ jayati .. 13..



Meaning:- Water is the body of this vital force, and that moon is its luminous organ. And as far as the vital force extends, so far extends water, and so far does that moon. These are all equal, and all infinite. He who meditates upon these as finite wins a finite world, but he who meditates upon these as infinite wins an infinite world.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Water it the body, the effect, the container of the organs, of this vital force that is the food of Hiranyagarbha, not of the vital force that has just beenn described as the child, and that moon is its luminous organ, as before. And as far as the vital force in its aspects relating to the body etc. extends, so far extends water, and so far does that moon, the content of the water, the organ, which in its aspects relating to the body and the elements pervades the water. So these are the three kinds of food, called the organ of speech, the mind, and the vital force, which were produced by the father through rites with five factors. And the whole universe in its aspects relating to the body and the elements is pervaded by these. There is nothing besides these, either of the nature of an effect or an instrument (body or organ), and Hiranyagarbha is the sum of these. These, the organ of speech, the mind, and the vital force, are all equal in extensity --- pervade whatever concerns the animate world in its aspects relating to the body and the elements, and for this very reason they are infinite, for they last as long as the relative universe. Surely we do not know of any relative universe apart from the bodies and organs. And it has been stated (pars. 11 ' 13) that speech, mind and the vital force consist of the body and organs. He who, whoever, meditates upon these --- which are a part and parcel of Hiranyagarbha --- in their aspect relating to the body or the elements, as finite, wins a finite world --- a result which is commensurate with that meditation. That is, he is born as finite, not as one with these. But he who meditates upon these as infinite, as consisting of the universe, a part and parcel of all beings, and unlimited, wins an infinite world.
It has been said that the father, after producing seven kinds of food through rites with five factors, designed three of them for himself. These, the results of those rites, have been explained. Now how are these the results of those rites? This is being answered:- Because those three kinds of food also, we find, have five factors, for wealth and rites can also be included in them. Of them, the earth and fire, as has been explained, are the mother, heaven and the sun are the father, and the vital force (Vayu), which is between these two, is the child. In order to show how wealth and rites can be included in them the next two paragraphs are being introduced.

Translation By Max Müller

13. Next, of this breath water is the body, light the form, viz. this moon. And so far as this breath extends, so far extends water, so far extends the moon. These are all alike, all endless. And he who worships them as finite, obtains a finite world, but he who worships them as infinite, obtains an infinite world.


Sloka : 1.5.14

मन्त्र १४[I.v.14]

स एष संवत्सरः प्रजापतिः षोडशकलस्तस्य रात्रय एव पञ्चदश

कला ध्रुवैवास्य षोडशी कला । स रात्रिभिरेवाऽऽ च पूर्यते

ऽप च क्षीयते । सोऽमावास्याꣳ रात्रिमेतया षोडश्या कलया

सर्वमिदं प्राणभृदनुप्रविश्य ततः प्रातर्जायते । तस्मादेताꣳ

रात्रिं प्राणभृतः प्राणं न विच्छिन्द्यादपि कृकलासस्यैतस्या एव

देवताया अपचित्यै ॥ १४॥ अपचित्यै

mantra 14[I.v.14]

sa eṣa saṃvatsaraḥ prajāpatiḥ ṣoḍaśakalastasya rātraya eva pañcadaśa

kalā dhruvaivāsya ṣoḍaśī kalā . sa rātribhirevā'' ca pūryate

'pa ca kṣīyate . so'māvāsyāgͫ rātrimetayā ṣoḍaśyā kalayā

sarvamidaṃ prāṇabhṛdanupraviśya tataḥ prātarjāyate . tasmādetāgͫ

rātriṃ prāṇabhṛtaḥ prāṇaṃ na vicchindyādapi kṛkalāsasyaitasyā eva

devatāyā apacityai .. 14.. apacityai



Meaning:- This Prajapati (Hiranyagarbha) has sixteen digits and is represented by the year. The nights (and days) are his fifteen digits, and the constant one is his sixteenth digit. He (as the moon) is filled as well as wasted by the nights (and days). Through this sixteenth digit he permeates all these living beings on the new-moon night and rises the next morning. Therefore on this night one should not take the life of living beings, not even of a chameleon, in adoration of this deity alone.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- This Prajapati, consisting of the three kinds of food, who is under consideration, is being particularly described as the year. He has sixteen digits or members and is represented by the year, consists of the year, or is the Time. The nights and the days, i.e. the lunar days, are the fifteen digits of this Prajapati consisting of time, and the constant one, which is ever the same, is his sixteenth digit. He is filled as well as wasted by the nights, the lunar days, called the digits. In the bright fortnight the Prajapati who is the moon is filled by the lunar days beginning with the first, through the gradual increase of digits, i.e. waxes, till he attains the fullness of his orb on the full-moon night, and is also wasted by them in the dark fortnight through the gradual decrease of digits, till only the constant digit is left on the new-moon night. Through this abiding sixteenth digit called the constant one, he, the Prajapati who is the Time,
permeates all these living beings by means of the water they drink and the herbs they eat --- pervades them in these two forms --- on the new-moon night and, staying there overnight, rises the next morning, joined to the second digit.
Thus that Prajapati consists of five factors:- Heaven and the sun as well as mind are the father; the earth and fire as well as the organ of speech are his wife, the mother; the vital force is their child; the lunar days, or digits, are wealth, for they increase and decrease like it; and the fact that these digits, which are divisions of time, cause changes in the universe is the rite. Thus this Prajapati, as a whole, emerges as the result of rites with five factors, which is quite in accordance with his desire, 'Let me have a wife, so that I may be born. And let me have wealth, so that I may perform rites' (I. iv. 17). It is an accepted principle in life that the effect is commensurate with the cause. Because this moon on this night abides in her constant digit permeating all living beings, therefore on this new-moon night one should not take the life of living beings, not kill them, not even of a chameleon, which is naturally vicious and is killed by people, because the very sight of it is inauspicious. One may ask:- Is not the killing of animals forbidden by the dictum, 'One must not kill any animal except where it is prescribed by the scriptures' (Cf. Ch. VIII. xv. 1)? To this we reply:- Yes, it is; the present text, however, does not make an expcetion to that rule about the killing of animals at other times than the new-moon night, or even of the chameleon, but is only (a special prohibition) in adoration of this deity, the moon.

Translation By Max Müller

14. That Pragâpati is the year, and he consists of sixteen digits. The nights [1] indeed are his fifteen digits, the fixed point [2] his sixteenth digit. He is increased and decreased by the nights. Having on the new-moon night entered with the sixteenth part into everything that has life, he is thence born again in the morning. Therefore let no one cut off the life of any living thing on that night, not even of a lizard, in honour (pûgârtham) of that deity.

Footnote:

1. Meant for nychthemera. 2. When he is just invisible at the new moon.


Sloka : 1.5.15

मन्त्र १५[I.v.15]

यो वै स संवत्सरः प्रजापतिः षोडशकलोऽयमेव स

योऽयमेवंवित्पुरुषस्तस्य वित्तमेव पञ्चदश कला आत्मैवास्य

षोडशी कला । स वित्तेनैवाऽऽ च पूर्यतेऽप च क्षीयते ।

तदेतन्नभ्यं यदयमात्मा प्रधिर्वित्तम् । तस्माद्यद्यपि सर्वज्यानिं

जीयत आत्मना चेज्जीवति प्रधिनाऽगादित्येवाऽऽहुः ॥ १५॥

mantra 15[I.v.15]

yo vai sa saṃvatsaraḥ prajāpatiḥ ṣoḍaśakalo'yameva sa

yo'yamevaṃvitpuruṣastasya vittameva pañcadaśa kalā ātmaivāsya

ṣoḍaśī kalā . sa vittenaivā'' ca pūryate'pa ca kṣīyate .

tadetannabhyaṃ yadayamātmā pradhirvittam . tasmādyadyapi sarvajyāniṃ

jīyata ātmanā cejjīvati pradhinā'gādityevā''huḥ .. 15..



Meaning:- That Prajapati who has sixteen digits and is represented by the year is indeed this man who knows as above. Wealth constitutes his fifteen digits, and the body his sixteenth digit. He is filled as well as wasted by wealth. This body stands for a nave, and wealth is the felloe. Therefore if a man loses everything, but he himself lives, people say that he has only lost his outfit.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- He who has been remotely described as that Prajapati who has sixteen digits and is represented by the year, should not be considered to be altogether remote, because he is directly observed as this one Who is it? This man who knows the Prajapati consisting of the three kinds of food to be identical with himself, as described above. What is the similarity between them? This is being explained:- Wealth such as cattle constitutes the fifteen digits of this man who knows as above, for it increases and decreases and it aids the performance of rites. To contribute to his completeness, the body is the sixteenth digit of this sage, corresponding to the constant digit (of the moon). Like the moon he is filled as well as wasted by wealth. This is a familiar thing in everyday life. This stands for a nave, is fit to be such. What is it? This body. And wealth is the felloe, stands for the external outfit, like the spokes and felloes of wheet. Therefore even if a man loses everything, sufers that affliction, but he himself, corresponding to the nave of a wheel, lives, people say that he has only lost his outfit, been deprived of his outer trappings, like a wheel losing its spokes and felloes. That is to say, if he is alive, he again grows by means of wealth, corresponding to the spokes and felloes.
Thus it has been explained how a man by the performance of rites with five factors combined with meditation, the divine wealth, becomes the Prajapati consisting of the three kinds of food. And it has also been said that wealth such as the wife stands for the outfit. In the previous portion it has only been known in a general way that sons, rites and meditation lead to the attainment of the worlds, but not there is a very definite relation between them and those results. This relation between
the means such as the son and the particular results has to be stated. Hence the following paragraph:-

Translation By Max Müller

15. Now verily that Pragâpati, consisting of sixteen digits, who is the year, is the same as a man who knows this. His wealth constitutes the fifteen digits, his Self the sixteenth digit. He is increased and decreased by that wealth. His Self is the nave, his wealth the felly. Therefore even if he loses everything, if he lives but with his Self, people say, he lost the felly (which can be restored again).


Sloka : 1.5.16

मन्त्र १६[I.v.16]

अथ त्रयो वाव लोकाः मनुष्यलोका पितृलोको देवलोक इति । सोऽयं

मनुष्यलोकः पुत्रेणैव जय्यो नान्येन कर्मणा कर्मणा पितृलोको विद्यया

देवलोको देवलोको वै लोकानाꣳ श्रेष्ठस्तस्माद्विद्यां प्रशꣳसन्ति ॥ १६॥

mantra 16[I.v.16]

atha trayo vāva lokāḥ manuṣyalokā pitṛloko devaloka iti . so'yaṃ

manuṣyalokaḥ putreṇaiva jayyo nānyena karmaṇā karmaṇā pitṛloko vidyayā

devaloko devaloko vai lokānāgͫ śreṣṭhastasmādvidyāṃ praśagͫsanti .. 16..



Meaning:- There are indeed three worlds, the world of men, the world of the Manes and the world of the gods. This world of men is to be won through the son alone, and by no other rite; the world of the Manes through rites; and the world of the gods through meditation. The world of the gods is the best of the worlds. Therefore they praise meditation.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- The word 'Atha' is introductory. There are indeed three worlds attainable by means mentioned in the scriptures, neither more nor less. --- 'Indeed' is intensive. --- Which are they? The world of men, the world of the Manes and the world of the gods. Of these, this world of men is to be won or attained through the son alone as means, and by no other rite, nor meditation. The last two words are understood. How this world is to be won through the son we shall explain later on. The world of the Manes through rites alone such as the Agnihotra, neither through the son nor through meditation. And the world of the gods through meditation, neither through the son nor through rites. The world of the gods is the best of the three worlds. Therefore they praise meditation, as being the means of attaining it.

Translation By Max Müller

16. Next there are verily three worlds, the world of men, the world of the Fathers, the world of the Devas. The world of men can be gained by a son only, not by any other work. By sacrifice the world of the Fathers, by knowledge the world of the Devas is gained. The world of the Devas is the best of worlds, therefore they praise knowledge.


Sloka : 1.5.17

मन्त्र १७[I.v.17]

अथातः सम्प्रत्तिर्यदा प्रैष्यन्मन्यतेऽथ पुत्रमाह त्वं ब्रह्म

त्वं यज्ञस्त्वं लोक इति । स पुत्रः प्रत्याहाहं ब्रह्माहं यज्ञो

ऽहम् लोक इति । यद्वै किञ्चानूक्तं तस्य सर्वस्य ब्रह्मेत्येकता ।

ये वै के च यज्ञास्तेषाꣳ सर्वेषां यज्ञ इत्येकता ।

ये वै केच लोकास्तेषाꣳ सर्वेषां लोक इत्येकतैतावद्वा

इदꣳ सर्वमेतन्मा सर्वꣳ सन्नयमितोऽभुनजदिति ।

तस्मात् पुत्रमनुशिष्टं लोक्यमाहुस्तस्मादेनमनुशासति । स

यदैवंविदस्माल्लोकात्प्रैत्यथैभिरेव प्राणैः सह पुत्रमाविशति ।

स यद्यनेन किञ्चिदक्ष्णयाऽकृतं भवति तस्मादेनꣳ

सर्वस्मात्पुत्रो मुञ्चति । तस्मात् पुत्रो नाम । स पुत्रेणैवास्मिंॅल्लोके

प्रतितिष्ठत्यथैनमेते दैवाः प्राणा अमृता आविशन्ति ॥ १७॥

mantra 17[I.v.17]

athātaḥ samprattiryadā praiṣyanmanyate'tha putramāha tvaṃ brahma

tvaṃ yajñastvaṃ loka iti . sa putraḥ pratyāhāhaṃ brahmāhaṃ yajño

'ham loka iti . yadvai kiñcānūktaṃ tasya sarvasya brahmetyekatā .

ye vai ke ca yajñāsteṣāgͫ sarveṣāṃ yajña ityekatā .

ye vai keca lokāsteṣāgͫ sarveṣāṃ loka ityekataitāvadvā

idagͫ sarvametanmā sarvagͫ sannayamito'bhunajaditi .

tasmāt putramanuśiṣṭaṃ lokyamāhustasmādenamanuśāsati . sa

yadaivaṃvidasmāllokātpraityathaibhireva prāṇaiḥ saha putramāviśati .

sa yadyanena kiñcidakṣṇayā'kṛtaṃ bhavati tasmādenagͫ

sarvasmātputro muñcati . tasmāt putro nāma . sa putreṇaivāsmiṃælloke

pratitiṣṭhatyathainamete daivāḥ prāṇā amṛtā āviśanti .. 17..



Meaning:- Now therefore the entrusting:- When a man thinks he will die, he says to his son, 'You are Brahman, you are the sacrifice, and you are the world'. The son replies, 'I am Brahman, I am the sacrifice, and I am the world.' (The father thinks 'Whatever is studied is all unified in the word "Brahman". Whatever sacrifices there are, are all unified in the word "sacrifice". And whatever worlds there are, are all unified in the world "world". All this (the duties of a householder) is indeed this much. He, being all this, will protect me from (the ties of) this world.' Therefor they speak of an educated son as being conducive to the world. Hence (a father) teaches his son. When a father who knows as above departs from this world, he penetrates his son together with the organ of speech, the mind and the vital force. Should anything be left undone by him through any slip the son exonerates him from all that. Therefore he is called a son. The father lives in this world through the son. Divine and immortal speech, mind and vital force permeate him.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Thus the three means called the son, rite and meditation have been connected with their respective results, the three worlds. A wife, being an aid to the obtaining of a son and the performance of rites, is not a separate means, and has therefore not been separately mentioned. Wealth too, being an aid to the performance of rites, is not a separate means. It is a well-known fact that meditation and rites lead to the winning of the worlds by merely coming into existence. But one does not know how a son, not being of the nature of an activity, can help to win them. This has to be explained. Now therefore follows the entrusting. This is the name of the rite which is going to be described. It is called 'entrusting,' because a father in this manner entrusts his
own duties to his son. When should this be done? This is being stated:- When a man, a father, on account of some omen or otherwise, thinks he will die, he says to his son, calling him, 'You are Brahman, you are the sacrifice, and you are the world.' The son, thus addressed, replies, 'I am Brahman, I am the sacrifice, and I am the world.' Having already been instructed, he knows what to do; so he says these three sentences.
Thinking the meaning of these sentences to be hidden, the Sruti proceeds to explain them. Whatever is studied has been or remains to be studied, is all unified in the word 'Brahman.' That is, let the study of the Vedas which so long was my duty, be henceforth done by you are Brahman. Similarly whatever sacrifices there are, that were to be performed by me, whether I have performed them or not, are all unified in the word 'sacrifice.' That is, let whatever sacrifices I used to perform, be henceforth performed by you, for you are the sacrifice. And whatever worlds there are, that were to be won by me, whether I have won them or not, are all unified in the word 'world.' Henceforth you should win them, for you are the world. From now on I entrust to you the resolve which was mine of dutifully undertaking study, sacrifices and the conquest of the worlds, and I am freed from the resolve concerning these ties of duty. All this the son accepted as it was, having been instructed to that effect.

Guessing this intention of the father, the Sruti says:- All this, the whole duty of a householder, is indeed this much, viz that he must study the Vedas, perform sacrifices and win the worlds. He, being all this, taking all this load of mine off me and
putting it on himself, will protect me from this world. The past tense has been used in the sense of the future, there being no restriction about tense in the Vedas. Because a son who is thus trained will free his father from this world, i.e. from the ties of duty on earth, therefore Brahmanas speak of an educated son as being conducive to the world for his father. Hence a father teaches his son, hoping he will be conducive to his attainment of the world. When a father who knows as above, who has entrusted his resolve about his duties to his son, departs from this world, he penetrates or pervades his son together with the organ of speech, the mind and the vital force, which are under consideration. Owing to the cessation of the cause (false notion etc.) which limited them to the body, the father's organ of speech, mind and vital force pervade everything in their cosmic form as the earth, fire and so on, like the light of a lamp within a jar when the latter is broken. The father too pervades everything along with them, for he is identified with the organ of speech, the mind and the vital force. He thinks, 'I am the infinite organ of speech, mind and vital force, whose manifestations have various aspects such as that relating to the body.' Therefore it has been rightly said, 'He penetrates his son together with the organ of speech, the mind and the vital force,' for he follows these. He becomes the self of all including the son. The idea is this:- A father who has a son instructed in this way remains in this very world as that son; that is, he should not be considered to be dead. Witness another Sruti, 'This other self of his is his substitute for the performance of meritorios rites' (Ai. IV. 4, adapted).
Now the derivation of the word 'Putra' (son) is being given:- Should anything , any duty, be left undone by him, the father, through any slip or slight omission in the middle, the son exonerates him from all that unfulfilled duty of his standing as an obstacle to his attainment of the world, by fulfilling it himself. Therefore, because he saves his father by fulfilling his duties, he is called a son. This is the derivative meaning of the word 'Putra' --- one who 'saves' the father by 'completing' his omissions. The father although dead, is immortal and lives in this world through such a son. Thus he wins this world of men through his son. The world of the Manes and that of the gods are not won in that way, but simply by the fact of existence of meditation and rites. These help to attain the worlds not by undertaking some other activity like the son, but by simply coming into existence. Divine and immortal speech, mind and vital force, those pertaining to Hiranyagarbha, permeate him, this father who has entrusted his duties to his son.

Translation By Max Müller

17. Next follows the handing over. When a man thinks he is going to depart, he says to his son:- 'Thou art Brahman (the Veda, so far as acquired by the father); thou art the sacrifice (so far as performed by the father); thou art the world.' The son answers:- 'I am Brahman, I am the sacrifice, I am the world.' Whatever has been learnt (by the father) that, taken as one, is Brahman. Whatever sacrifices there are, they, taken as one, are the sacrifice. Whatever worlds there are, they, taken as one, are the world. Verily here ends this (what has to be done by a father, viz. study, sacrifice, &c.) 'He (the son), being all this, preserved me from this world [1],' thus he thinks. Therefore they call a son who is instructed (to do all this), a world-son (lokya), and therefore they instruct him. When a father who knows this, departs this world, then he enters into his son together with his own spirits (with speech, mind, and breath). If there is anything done amiss by the father, of all that the son delivers him, and therefore he is called Putra, son [2]. By help of his son the father stands firm in this world [3]. Then these divine immortal spirits (speech, mind, and breath) enter into him.

Footnote:

1. Roer seems to have read samnaya, 'all this multitude.' I read, etan mi sarvam sann ayam ito 'bhunagad iti. 2. The Comm. derives putra from pu (pûr), to fill, and tra (trâ), to deliver, a deliverer who fills the holes left by the father, a stopgap. Others derive it from put, a hell, and tri, to protect; cf. Manu IX, 138. 3. 'The manushya-loka, not the pitri-loka and deva-loka.' Comm.


Sloka : 1.5.18

मन्त्र १८[I.v.18]

पृथिव्यै चैनमग्नेश्च दैवी वागाविशति । सा वै दैवी वाग्यया

यद्यदेव वदति तत्तद्भवति ॥ १८॥

mantra 18[I.v.18]

pṛthivyai cainamagneśca daivī vāgāviśati . sā vai daivī vāgyayā

yadyadeva vadati tattadbhavati .. 18..



Meaning:- The divine organ of speech from the earth and fire permeates him. That is the divine organ of speech through which whatever he says is fulfilled.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- How does this take place? This will be explained in this and the next two paragraphs. The Sruti itself has shown that the son, rites and meditation lead respectively to the world of men, of the Manes and of the gods. Here some prattlers (the Mimamsakas) ignorant of the particular import of the Sruti say that the means such as the son lead to liberation. The Sruti has thus gagged them:- Beginning with the statement that rites with five factors are undertaken with material ends, in the passage, 'Let me have a wife,' etc. (I. iv. 17), it has, among other things, concluded by connecting the son and the rest with their respective results. Therefore it is proved that the Sruti text referring to the (three) debts applies to an ignorant man and
not one who has realised the Supreme Self. It will also be stated later on, 'What shall we achieve through children, we who have attined this Self, this world?' (IV. iv. 22).
Others (Bhartrprapanca is meant.) say that the winning of the worlds of the Manes and the gods means turning away from them. And if one has a son and at the same time performs rites and meditation together, one turns away from these three worlds, and through the knowledge of the Supreme Self attains liberation. Hence, they say, the means such as the son lead indirectly to liberation itself. To silence them also, this portion of the Sruti sets itself to show the results attained by a man who has a son to whom he has entrusted his own duties, who performs rites and who knows the meditation on the three kinds of food as identical with himself. And one cannot say that this very result is liberation, for it is connected with the three kinds of food, and all the foods are the effects of meditationn and rites since the father is stated to produce them again and again, and there is the statement about decay, 'If he does not do this, it would be exhausted' (I. v. 2). Thus only would the mention of the effect and instrument in the words, 'body' and 'luminous organ' (I. v. 11 ' 13), be appropriate. Besides, the topic is concluded by a representation of the foods as consisting of name, form and action:- 'This (universe) indeed consists of three things,' etc. (I. vi. 1). And it cannot be deduced from this one sentence in question (I. v. 16) that these three means being combined lead to liberation in the case of some, and identity with the three kinds of food in the case of others, for the sentence only admits of a single interpretation, viz that means such as the son lead to identity with the three kinds of food.
The divine organ of speech, that which relates to the gods, from the earth and fire permeates him, this man who has entrusted his duties to his son. The divine organ of speech, consisting of the earth and fire, is the material of the vocal organs of all. But (in an ignorant man) it is limited by attachment and other evils pertaining to the body. In the case of the sage, these evils being eliminated, it becomes all-pervading, like water, or like the light of a lamp, when its obstruction has been removed. This is expressed by the text, 'The divine organ of speech from the earth and fire permeates him.' And that is the divine organ of speech, devoid of the evils of falsehood etc. and pure, through which whatever he says about himself or others is fulfilled. That is, his speech becomes infallible and irresistible.

Translation By Max Müller

18. From the earth and from fire, divine speech enters into him. And verily that is divine speech whereby, whatever he says, comes to be.


Sloka : 1.5.19

मन्त्र १९[I.v.19]

दिवश्चैनमादित्याच्च दैवं मन आविशति । तद्वै दैवं मनो

येनाऽऽनन्द्येव भवत्यथो न शोचति ॥ १९॥

mantra 19[I.v.19]

divaścainamādityācca daivaṃ mana āviśati . tadvai daivaṃ mano

yenā''nandyeva bhavatyatho na śocati .. 19..



Meaning:- The divine mind from heaven and the sun permeates him. That is the divine mind through which he only becomes happy and never mourns.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Similarly the divine mind from heaven and the sun permeates him. And that is the divine mind, being naturally pure, through which he only becomes happy and never mourns, not being connected with the causes of grief.

Translation By Max Müller

19. From heaven and the sun, divine mind enters into him. And verily that is divine mind whereby he becomes joyful, and grieves no more.


Sloka : 1.5.20

मन्त्र २०[I.v.20]

अद्भ्यश्चैनं चन्द्रमसश्च दैवः प्राण आविशति । स वै दैवः

प्राणो यः सञ्चरꣳश्चासञ्चरꣳश्च न व्यथतेऽथो

न रिष्यति । स एवंवित्सर्वेषां भूतानामात्मा भवति । यथैषा

देवतैवꣳ स यथैतां देवताꣳ सर्वाणि भूतान्यवन्त्येवꣳ

हैवंविदꣳ सर्वाणि भूतान्यवन्ति । यदु किञ्चेमाः प्रजाः

शोचन्त्यमैवाऽऽसां तद्भवति पुण्यमेवामुं गच्छति न ह वै

देवान्पापं गच्छति ॥ २०॥

mantra 20[I.v.20]

adbhyaścainaṃ candramasaśca daivaḥ prāṇa āviśati . sa vai daivaḥ

prāṇo yaḥ sañcaragͫścāsañcaragͫśca na vyathate'tho

na riṣyati . sa evaṃvitsarveṣāṃ bhūtānāmātmā bhavati . yathaiṣā

devataivagͫ sa yathaitāṃ devatāgͫ sarvāṇi bhūtānyavantyevagͫ

haivaṃvidagͫ sarvāṇi bhūtānyavanti . yadu kiñcemāḥ prajāḥ

śocantyamaivā''sāṃ tadbhavati puṇyamevāmuṃ gacchati na ha vai

devānpāpaṃ gacchati .. 20..



Meaning:- The divine vital force from water and the moon permeates him. That is the divine vital force which, when it moves or does not move, feels no pain nor is injured. He who knows as above becomes the self of all beings. As is this deity (Hiranyagarbha), so is he. As all beings take care of this deity, so do they take care of him. Howsoever these beings may grieve, that grief of theirs is connected with them. But only merit goes to him. No demerit ever goes to the gods.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Likewise the divine vital force from water and the moon permeates him. It is being specified:- That is the divine vital force which, when it moves among the different beings taken individually, or does not move, when they are taken collectively --- or moves in moving animals and does not move in stationary objects --- feels no pain, is not affected by fear that causes sorrow, nor is injured or killed. He who knows the meditation on the three kinds of food as identical with himself, as described above, becomes the self of all beings, becomes their vital force, their mind and their speech, and thus, being
the self of all beings, becomes omniscient and the doer of everything as well. This is the import. As is this deity, Hiranyagarbha, who attained this state first, so is he --- his omniscience or omnipotence is never thwarted. 'He' refers to the sage who is compared with the other. Moreover, as all beings take care of or worship this deity, Hiranyagarbha, through sacrifices etc., so do they take care of him, one who knows as above, constantly offer him worship consisting of sacrifices etc.
Now a doubt arises:- It has been said that he becomes the self of all beings. Hence, being identified with their bodies and organs, he may be affected by their joys and sorrows.
To which the answer is:- Not so, for his understanding is not limited. It is those that identify themselves with limited objects who are seen to be affected by sorrow when, for instance, they are abused by anybody, thinking he has abused them. But this sage who is the self of all has no particular notion of identity with either the object that is abused or the agency that abuses, and cannot therefore be miserable on that account. And there is no ground for sorrow as in the case of that due to someone's death. As when somebody dies, a man feels miserable, thinking that he was his son or brother --- the grief being due to his relationship, and where this cause is absent, one, although witnessing that death, is not afflicted, similarly this divine being, who is not identified with limited things, having nor defects such as the false notions about 'mine' or 'yours,' and so on, which lead to misery, is not affected by it.
This is being expressed:- Howsoever these beings may grieve, that grief of theirs, the pain due to that grief and the like, is connected with them, for it is due to their identification with limited things. But in the case of one who is the self of all, what can be connected, or disconnected, and with what? But only merit, i.e. good results, goes to him, the sage who is enjoining the status of Hiranyagarbha. He has done exceedingly meritorious work; hence only the results of that go to him. No demerit ever goes to the gods, for there is no scope for the results of evil actions among them. That is, misery, which is the result of all evil actions, does not go to them.
Meditation on all three --- the organ of speech, the mind and the vital force --- without any distinction has been described in the passage, 'These are all equal, and all infinite' (I. v. 13). No speciality attaching to any one of these has been mentioned. Should one understand this as it is, or upon examination may some distinction be found in any one of these either for the purpose of a vow or meditation? This is being answered:-

Translation By Max Müller

20. From water and the moon, divine breath (spirit) enters into him. And verily that is divine breath which, whether moving or not moving, does not tire, and therefore does not perish. He who knows this, becomes the Self of all beings. As that deity (Hiranyagarbha) is, so does he become. And as all beings honour that deity (with sacrifice, &c.), so do all beings honour him who knows this. Whatever grief these creatures suffer, that is all one [1] (and therefore disappears). Only what is good approaches him; verily, evil does not approach the Devas.

Footnote:

1. 'Individuals suffer, because one causes grief to another. But in the universal soul, where all individuals are one, their sufferings are neutralised.' Comm.


Sloka : 1.5.21

मन्त्र २१[I.v.21]

अथातो व्रतमीमाꣳसा । प्रजापतिर्ह कर्माणि ससृजे । तानि

सृष्टान्यन्योऽन्येनास्पर्धन्त वदिष्याम्येवाहमिति वाग्दध्रे

द्रक्ष्याम्यहमिति चक्षुः श्रोष्याम्यहमिति श्रोत्रम् । एवमन्यानि

कर्माणि यथाकर्म । तानि मृत्युः श्रमो भूत्वोपयेमे तान्याप्नोत्

तान्याप्त्वा मृत्युरवारुन्ध । तस्माच्छ्राम्यत्येव वाक् श्राम्यति

चक्षुः श्राम्यति श्रोत्रमथेममेव नाऽऽप्नोद् योऽयं

मध्यमः प्राणस्तानि ज्ञातुं दध्रिरेऽयं वै नः श्रेष्ठो

यः सञ्चरꣳश्चासञ्चरꣳश्च न व्यथतेऽथो न

रिष्यति । हन्तास्यैव सर्वे रूपमसामेति । त एतस्यैव सर्वे

रूपमभवꣳस्तस्मादेत एतेनाऽऽख्यायन्ते प्राणा इति । तेन ह वाव

तत्कुलमाचक्षते यस्मिन्कुले भवति य एवं वेद । य उ हैवंविदा

स्पर्धतेऽनुशुष्यत्यनुशुष्य हैवान्ततो म्रियत इत्यध्यात्मम् ॥ २१॥

mantra 21[I.v.21]

athāto vratamīmāgͫsā . prajāpatirha karmāṇi sasṛje . tāni

sṛṣṭānyanyo'nyenāspardhanta vadiṣyāmyevāhamiti vāgdadhre

drakṣyāmyahamiti cakṣuḥ śroṣyāmyahamiti śrotram . evamanyāni

karmāṇi yathākarma . tāni mṛtyuḥ śramo bhūtvopayeme tānyāpnot

tānyāptvā mṛtyuravārundha . tasmācchrāmyatyeva vāk śrāmyati

cakṣuḥ śrāmyati śrotramathemameva nā''pnod yo'yaṃ

madhyamaḥ prāṇastāni jñātuṃ dadhrire'yaṃ vai naḥ śreṣṭho

yaḥ sañcaragͫścāsañcaragͫśca na vyathate'tho na

riṣyati . hantāsyaiva sarve rūpamasāmeti . ta etasyaiva sarve

rūpamabhavagͫstasmādeta etenā''khyāyante prāṇā iti . tena ha vāva

tatkulamācakṣate yasminkule bhavati ya evaṃ veda . ya u haivaṃvidā

spardhate'nuśuṣyatyanuśuṣya haivāntato mriyata ityadhyātmam .. 21..



Meaning:- Now a consideration of the vow:- Prajapati projected the organs. These, on being projected, quarrelled with one another. The organ of speech took a vow, 'I will go on speaking'. The eye:- 'I will see'. The ear:- 'I will hear'. And so did the other organs according to their functions. Death captured them in the form of fatigue - it overtook the, and having overtaken them it controlled them. Therefore the organ of speech invariably gets tired, and so do the eye and the ear. But death did not overtake this vital force in the body. The organs resolved to know it. 'This is the greatest among us that, when it moves or does not move, feels no pain nor is injured. Well, let us all be of its form.' They all assumed its form. Therefore they are called by this name of 'Prana'. That family in which a man is born who knows as above, is indeed named after him. And he who competes with one who knows as above shrivels, and after shrivelling dies at the end. This is with reference to the body.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Now begins a consideration of the vow or act of meditation --- among these organs whose function is to be observed as a vow? Prajapati (Viraj), after projecting the beings, projected the organs such as that of speech, called here 'work,' because they are instruments of work. The particle 'ha' denotes tradition. These, on being projected, quarrelled with one another. How? The organ of speech took a vow, 'I will go on speaking, will never stop doing my function of speaking. If there is anybody who, like me, can keep at his function, let him show his strength.' Similarly the eye:- 'I will see.' The ear:- 'I
will hear.' And so did the other organs according to their respective functions. Death, the destroyer, captured them, the organs, in the form of fatigue. How? It overtook them, appeared among those organs, as they were engaged in their functions, in the form of fatigue, and having overtaken them it, death, controlled them, i.e. stopped them from functioning. Therefore, to this day, the organ of speech, being engaged in its function of speaking, invariably gets tired, ceases to function, being affected by death in the form of fatigue. And so do the eye and the ear. But death in the form of fatigue did not overtake this vital force in the body, which functions in the mouth. Therefore even now it functions tirelessly. The other organs resolved to know it. 'This is the greatest, foremost, among us, because, when it moves or does not move, it feels no pain nor is injured. Well, let us now all be of its form, identify ourselves with the vital force.' Having decided thus, they all assumed its form, realised the vital force as their own self --- observed the function of the vital force as a vow, thinking their own functions as insufficient to ward off death. Because the other organs have the form of the vital force in so far as they are mobile, and have their own form in so far as they perceive objects, therefore they, the organ of speech and the rest, are called by this name of 'Prana.' Nothing can be mobil except the vital force. And we observe that the functions of the organs are always preceded by movement.
That family in which a man is born who knows as above, that all the organs are but the vital force and are named after it, is indeed named after him by people. It is known by the name of the sage, that it is the family of such and such, as 'the line of
Tapati (The daughter of the sun.).' This is the result accruing to one who knows as above, that the organ of speech and the rest are but forms of the vital force and are named afer it. And he who competes as a rival with one who knows as above, with the sage who identifies himself with the vital force, shrivels in this very body, and after shrivelling dies at the end, he does not die suddenly without suffering. This is with reference to the body:- Here is concluded the subject of meditation on the vital force as identical with oneself in so far as it relates to the body. That relating to the gods will be next taken up.

Translation By Max Müller

21. Next follows the consideration of the observances [1] (acts). Pragâpati created the actions (active senses). When they had been created, they strove among themselves. Voice held, I shall speak; the eye held, I shall see; the ear held, I shall hear; and thus the other actions too, each according to its own act. Death, having become weariness, took them and seized them. Having seized them, death held them back (from their work). Therefore speech grows weary, the eye grows weary, the ear grows weary. But death did not seize the central breath. Then the others tried to know him, and said:- 'Verily, he is the best of us, he who, whether moving or not, does not tire and does not perish. Well, let all of us assume his form.' Thereupon they all assumed his form, and therefore they are called after him 'breaths' (spirits). In whatever family there is a man who knows this, they call that family after his name. And he who strives with one who knows this, withers away and finally dies. So far with regard to the body.

Footnote:

1. The upâsana or meditative worship.


Sloka : 1.5.22

मन्त्र २२[I.v.22]

अथाधिदैवतं ज्वलिष्याम्येवाहमित्यग्निर्दध्रे तप्स्याम्यहमित्यादित्यो

भास्याम्यहमिति चन्द्रमा एवमन्या देवता यथादैवतꣳ । स

यथैषां प्राणानां मध्यमः प्राण एवमेतासां देवतानां वायुर्निम्लोचन्ति

ह्यन्या देवता न वायुः । सैषाऽनस्तमिता देवता यद्वायुः ॥ २२॥

mantra 22[I.v.22]

athādhidaivataṃ jvaliṣyāmyevāhamityagnirdadhre tapsyāmyahamityādityo

bhāsyāmyahamiti candramā evamanyā devatā yathādaivatagͫ . sa

yathaiṣāṃ prāṇānāṃ madhyamaḥ prāṇa evametāsāṃ devatānāṃ vāyurnimlocanti

hyanyā devatā na vāyuḥ . saiṣā'nastamitā devatā yadvāyuḥ .. 22..



Meaning:- Now with reference to the gods:- Fire took a vow, 'I will go on burning.' The sun:- 'I will give heat'. The moon:- 'I will shine'. And so did the other gods according to their functions. As is the vital force in the body among these organs, so is Vayu (air) among these gods. Other gods sink, but not air. Air is the deity that never sets.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Now the meditation with reference to the gods is being described. It is being decided which deity is the best for the purpose of observing his functions as a vow. Everything here is as in the preceding paragraph with reference to the body. Fire took a vow, 'I will go on burning.' The sun:- 'I will give heat.' The moon:- 'I will shine.' And so did the other gods according to their functions. As, with reference to the body, is the vital force in the body among these organs, not overtaken by death, nor stopped from functioning --- remaining intact in its vow of functioning as the vital force, so is Vayu (air) among these gods such as fire. Other gods such as fire sink, or set, cease to function, like the organ of speech etc. in the body, but not air, like the vital force in the body. Therefore air is the deity that never sets. Thus it is decided after consideration that the vow of one who identifies oneself with the vital force with reference to the body and with air with reference to the gods, is unbroken.

Translation By Max Müller

22. Now with regard to the deities. Agni (fire) held, I shall burn; Âditya (the sun) held, I shall warm; Kandramas (the moon) held, I shall shine; and thus also the other deities, each according to the deity. And as it was with the central breath among the breaths, so it was with Vâyu, the wind among those deities. The other deities fade, not Vâyu. Vâyu is the deity that never sets.


Sloka : 1.5.23

मन्त्र २३[I.v.23]

अथैष श्लोको भवति यतश्चोदेति सूर्योऽस्तं यत्र च गच्छतीति

प्राणाद्वा एष उदेति प्राणेऽस्तमेति तं देवाश्चक्रिरे धर्मꣳ,

स एवाद्य स उ श्व इति । यद्वा एतेऽमुर्ह्यध्रियन्त तदेवाप्यद्य

कुर्वन्ति । तस्मादेकमेव व्रतं चरेत् प्राण्याच्चैवापान्याच्च नेन्मा

पाप्मा मृत्युराप्नवदिति । यद्यु चरेत् समापिपयिषेत् तेनो एतस्यै

देवतायै सायुज्यꣳ सलोकतां जयति ॥ २३॥

इति पञ्चमं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ षष्ठं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 23[I.v.23]

athaiṣa śloko bhavati yataścodeti sūryo'staṃ yatra ca gacchatīti

prāṇādvā eṣa udeti prāṇe'stameti taṃ devāścakrire dharmagͫ,

sa evādya sa u śva iti . yadvā ete'murhyadhriyanta tadevāpyadya

kurvanti . tasmādekameva vrataṃ caret prāṇyāccaivāpānyācca nenmā

pāpmā mṛtyurāpnavaditi . yadyu caret samāpipayiṣet teno etasyai

devatāyai sāyujyagͫ salokatāṃ jayati .. 23..

iti pañcamaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha ṣaṣṭhaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- Now there is this verse; 'The gods observed the vow of that from which the sun rises and in which he sets. It is (followed) to-day, and it will be (followed) to-morrow.' The sun indeed rises from the vital force and also sets in it. What these (gods) observed then, they observe to this day. Therefore a man should observe a single vow - do the functions of the Prana and Apana (respiration and excretion), lest the evil of death (fatigue) should overtake him. And if he observes it, he should seek to finish it. Through it he attains identity with this deity, or lives in the same world with it.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Now there is this verse or Mantra that brings out this very meaning:- 'The gods, fire and the rest, and the organ of speech etc. (in the body), in ancient times, after consideration observed the vow of that, viz air and the vital force, from which the sun rises --- externally he rises from air, and as the eye in the body, from the vital force --- and in which, air and the vital force, he sets in the evening, and when a man goes to sleep. It is followed by the gods to-day, now, and it will be followed by them to-morrow, in future. The words 'followed by the gods' are understood. Now the Brahmana briefly explains this Mantra:- The sun indeed rises from the vital force and also sets in it. What is the meaning of the words, 'The gods observed the vow of that ' It is (followed) to-day, and it will be (followed) to-morrow?' this is being stated:- What vow these gods, fire and the rest and the organ of speech etc., observed then, i.e. the vow of air and of the vital force, they observe to this day, and will observe unbroken. But the vow of the organ of speech etc. and of fire and the rest is broken, for we see that at the time of setting, and when one falls asleep, they sink in air and the vital force respectively.
Similarly it has been said elsewhere, 'When a man sleeps, his organ of speech is merged in the vital force, and so are the mind, the eye and the air. And when he awakes, these again arise from the vital force. This is with reference to the body. Now with reference to the gods:- When fire goes out, it sets in air. Hence they speak of it as having set. It indeed sets in air. And when the sun sets, he enters air, and so does the moon; the quarters too rest on air. And they again arise from the air' (S. X. iii. 3. 6 ' .
Because this one vow of air and the vital force, consisting of vibration or movement, persists in the gods such as fire and in the organ of speech etc. --- since all the gods follow it alone, therefore a man, another person also, should observe a single vow. What is that? Do the functions of the Prana and Apana. The functions of these two viz respiration and excretion, never stop. Therefore, giving up the functions of all other organs, he should observe this one vow, lest the evil of death in the form of fatigue should overtake him. 'Lest' denotes apprehension. 'If I swerve from this vow, I am sure to be overtaken by death' --- with this dread at heart he should observe the vow of the vital force. This is the idea. And if he observes it, does take up the vow of the vital force, he should seek to finish it. If he desists from this vow, the vital force and the gods would be flouted. Therefore he must finish it. Through it, the observace of this vow of identificaion with the vital force, thinking, 'The vocal and other organs in all beings as well as fire and the other gods are but a part and parcel of me, and I, the vital force, the self, initiate all movement,' he attains identity with this deity, the vital force (Of which Hiranyagarbha is the cosmic aspect.), or lives in the same world with it. This latter result takes place when the meditation is not up to the mark.

Translation By Max Müller

23. And here there is this Sloka:- 'He from whom the sun rises, and into whom it sets' (he verily rises from the breath, and sets in the breath) 'Him the Devas made the law, he only is to-day, and he to-morrow also' (whatever these Devas determined then, that they perform to-day also [1]). Therefore let a man perform one observance only, let him breathe up and let him breathe down, that the evil death may not reach him. And when he performs it, let him try to finish it. Then he obtains through it union and oneness with that deity (with prâna).

Footnote:

1. The prâna-vrata and vâyu-vrata. Comm.


Sloka : 1.6.1

मन्त्र १[I.vi.1]

त्रयं वा इदं नाम रूपं कर्म । तेषां नाम्नां वागित्येतदेषामुक्थमतो

हि सर्वाणि नामान्युत्तिष्ठन्ति । एतदेषाꣳ सामैतद्धि सर्वैर्नामभिः

सममेतदेषां ब्रह्मैतद्धि सर्वाणि नामानि बिभर्ति ॥ १॥

mantra 1[I.vi.1]

trayaṃ vā idaṃ nāma rūpaṃ karma . teṣāṃ nāmnāṃ vāgityetadeṣāmukthamato

hi sarvāṇi nāmānyuttiṣṭhanti . etadeṣāgͫ sāmaitaddhi sarvairnāmabhiḥ

samametadeṣāṃ brahmaitaddhi sarvāṇi nāmāni bibharti .. 1..



Meaning:- This (universe) indeed consists of three things:- name, form and action. Of those names, speech (sound in general) is the Uktha (source), for all names spring from it. It is their Saman (common feature), for it is common to all names. It is their Brahman (self), for it sustains all names.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- The differentiated universe consisting of means and ends, which was introduced as the subject-matter of ignorance, with its results culminating in identification with the vital force, as well as its state prior to manifestation denoted by the word 'undifferentiated,' like a tree and its seed --- all this indeed consists of three things. What are they? Name, form and action, all non-Self, and not the Self that is the Brahman, immediate and direct. Therefore one should turn away from it. This is the impor of this section. One whose mind is not averse to this non-Self, has no inclination to meditate upon the Self, one's own world, as 'I am Brahman,' for the two tendencies --- one going outwards and the other devoting itself to the inner Self --- are contradictory. Compare the following from the Katha Upanisad (I. v. 1):- 'The self-born Lord injured the organs by making them outgoing in their tendencies. Therefore they perceive only external things, but not the inner Self. Once in a while some steady man, desiring immortality, turns his gaze inwards and sees the inner Self.'

How can one establish the fact that this differentiated and undifferentiated universe made up of actions, their factors and their results, consists only of name, form and action, and is not the Self? This is being answered:- Of those names as set forth (in the preceding portion), speech, i.e. sound in general --- for it has been stated, 'And any kind of sound is but the organ of speech' (I. v. 3) --- is the Uktha, the cause or material of these particular names, as the salt rock is of particles of salt. This is expressed by the text:- For all names, the differentiations such as Yajnadatta and Devadatta, spring from it, this generality of names, like particles of salt from the salt rock. And an effect is not separate from its cause. Also particulars are included in the general. How does the relation of general and particulars apply here? It should in general, is their Saman, so called because of sameness, i.e. common feature. For it is common to all names, which are its own particular forms. Another reason is that the particular names, being derived from it, are not different from it. And we see that something which is derived from another is not different from it, as a jar, for instance, is not different from clay. How are particular names derived from speech? This is being explained:- Because it, what is designated by the word 'speech,' is their Brahman, self, for names are derived from speech, since they have no reality apart from sound. This is being demonstrated:- For it, sound in general, sustains or supports all names or particular sounds by giving them reality. Thus on account of their relation as cause and effect, and as general and particulars, and the one giving the other reality, particular names are proved to be just sound. Similarly in the next two paragraphs all this is to be applied as here set forth.

Translation By Max Müller

1. Verily this is a triad, name, form, and work. Of these names, that which is called Speech is the Uktha (hymn, supposed to mean also origin), for from it all names arise. It is their Sâman (song, supposed to mean also sameness), for it is the same as all names. It is their Brahman (prayer, supposed to mean also support), for it supports all names.


Sloka : 1.6.2

मन्त्र २[I.vi.2]

अथ रूपाणां चक्षुरित्येतदेषामुक्थमतो हि सर्वाणि रूपाण्युत्तिष्ठन्ति ।

एतदेषाꣳ सामैतद्धि सर्वै रूपैः समम् । एतदेषां ब्रह्मैतद्धि

सर्वाणि रूपाणि बिभर्ति ॥ २॥

mantra 2[I.vi.2]

atha rūpāṇāṃ cakṣurityetadeṣāmukthamato hi sarvāṇi rūpāṇyuttiṣṭhanti .

etadeṣāgͫ sāmaitaddhi sarvai rūpaiḥ samam . etadeṣāṃ brahmaitaddhi

sarvāṇi rūpāṇi bibharti .. 2..



Meaning:- Now of forms the eye (anything visible) is the Uktha (source), for all forms spring from it. It is their Saman (common feature), for it is common to all forms. It is their Brahman (self), for it sustains all forms.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Now of forms, white, black, etc., the eye, i.e. anything that is perceptible to the eye, form in general, or whatever is visible, which is here denoted by the word 'eye,' (is the Uktha). For all forms spring from it. It is their Saman, for it is common to all forms, It is their Brahman, for it sustains all forms.

Translation By Max Müller

2. Next, of the forms, that which is called Eye is the Uktha (hymn), for from it all forms arise. It is their Sâman (song), for it is the same as all forms. It is their Brahman (prayer), for it supports all forms.


Sloka : 1.6.3

मन्त्र ३[I.vi.3]

अथ कर्मणामात्मेत्येतदेषामुक्थमतो हि सर्वाणि

कर्माण्युत्तिष्ठन्त्येतदेषाꣳ सामैतद्धि सर्वैः कर्मभिः समं

एतदेषां ब्रह्मैतद्धि सर्वाणि कर्माणि बिभर्ति । तदेतत्त्रयꣳ

सदेकमयमात्माऽऽत्मो एकः सन्नेतत्त्रयम् । तदेतदमृतꣳ सत्येन

छन्नम् । प्राणो वा अमृतं नामरूपे सत्यं ताभ्यामयं प्राणश्छन्नः ॥ ३॥

इति षष्ठं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

॥ इति बृहदारण्यकोपनिषदि प्रथमोऽध्यायः ॥

अथ द्वितीयोऽध्यायः ।

अथ प्रथमं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 3[I.vi.3]

atha karmaṇāmātmetyetadeṣāmukthamato hi sarvāṇi

karmāṇyuttiṣṭhantyetadeṣāgͫ sāmaitaddhi sarvaiḥ karmabhiḥ samaṃ

etadeṣāṃ brahmaitaddhi sarvāṇi karmāṇi bibharti . tadetattrayagͫ

sadekamayamātmā''tmo ekaḥ sannetattrayam . tadetadamṛtagͫ satyena

channam . prāṇo vā amṛtaṃ nāmarūpe satyaṃ tābhyāmayaṃ prāṇaśchannaḥ .. 3..

iti ṣaṣṭhaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

.. iti bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadi prathamo'dhyāyaḥ ..

atha dvitīyo'dhyāyaḥ .

atha prathamaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- And of actions the body (activity) is the Uktha (source), for all actions spring from it. It is their Saman (common feature), for it is common to all actions. It is their Brahman (self), for it sustains all actions. These three together are one - this body, and the body, although one, is these three. This immortal entity is covered by truth (the five elements):- The vital force is the immortal entity, and name and form and truth; (so) this vital force is covered by them.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Now all particular actions consisting of thought and perception as well as movement are being summed up in activity in general. How? Of all particular actions the body, i.e. activity in general, is the Uktha. The activity of the body is here called the 'body,' for it has been stated that one works through the body. And all activity is manifested in the body. Hence action or activity in general, having its seat in the body, is designated by the word 'body.' The rest is to be explained as before. These three, viz name, form and action described above, combining together, being the support of one another and the cause of one another's manifestation, and merging in one another, like three sticks supporting one another, are one. In what form are they unified? This is being stated:- This body, this aggregate of body and organs. This has been explained under the three kinds of food, 'This body is identified with these,' etc. (I. v. 3). The whole differentiated and undifferentiated universe is this much --- consists of name, form and action. And the body, although one, viz this aggregate of body and organs, yet existing in different forms in its aspects relating to the body, the elements and the gods, is these three, name, form and action. This immortal entity, presently to be mentioned, is covered by truth. This sentence is being explained:- The vital force, which is of the nature of an organ, which supports the body from within, and is (a limiting adjunct of) the Self, is the immortal entity. And name and form, represented by the body, which is an effect, are truth. (So) this vital force, which is active and supports name and form, is covered or hidden (by them), which are external, made up of the body, subject to origin and destruction, and mortal. Thus the nature of the relative universe, which is the subject-matter of ignorance, has been pointed out. After this the Self, which is the subject-matter of knowledge, has to be studied. Hence the second chapter is being commenced.

Translation By Max Müller

3. Next, of the works, that which is called Body is the Uktha (hymn), for from it all works arise. It is their Sâman (song), for it is the same as all works. It is their Brahman (prayer), for it supports all works. That being a triad is one, viz. this Self; and the Self, being one, is that triad. This is the immortal, covered by the true. Verily breath is the immortal, name and form are the true, and by them the immortal is covered.


Sloka : 2.1.1

मन्त्र १[II.i.1]

ॐ दृप्तबालाकिर्हानूचानो गार्ग्य आस । स होवाचाजातशत्रुं काश्यं

ब्रह्म ते ब्रवाणीति । स होवाचाजातशत्रुः सहस्रमेतस्यां वाचि दद्मो

जनको जनक इति वै जना धावन्तीति ॥ १॥

mantra 1[II.i.1]

oṃ dṛptabālākirhānūcāno gārgya āsa . sa hovācājātaśatruṃ kāśyaṃ

brahma te bravāṇīti . sa hovācājātaśatruḥ sahasrametasyāṃ vāci dadmo

janako janaka iti vai janā dhāvantīti .. 1..



Meaning:- Om. There was a man of the Garga family called Proud Balaki, who was a speaker. He said to Ajatasatru, the king of Benares, 'I will tell you about Brahman'. Ajatasatru said, 'For this proposal I give you a thousand (cows). People indeed rush saying "Janaka, Janaka". (I too have some of his qualities.)'





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- There was at some past date a man holding the prima facie view and knowing only the conditioned Brahman which is the subject-matter of ignorance, of the Garga family, descended from Garga, called Proud Balaki. 'Proud,' because of his very ignorance about the real Brahman. 'Balaki' --- the son of Balaka. The particle 'ha' refers to tradition as set forth in the story. Who was a speaker, one skilled in expounding, eloquent. He said to Ajatasatru, the King of Benares, after approaching him, 'I will tell you about Brahman.' Thus accosted, Ajatasatru said, 'For this proposal that you have made to me I give you a thousand cows.' The idea is, that little statement is the reason for the gift of a thousand cows. Why is the instruction about Brahman itself not made the reason for this gift, instead of the mere proposal about it? Because the Sruti itself sets forth the king's intention. The two sentences, 'Janaka is benevolent,' and 'Janaka loves to hear', have been condensed into the two words 'Janaka, Janaka.' Inded signifies a well-known fact. The King means:- Janaka is benevolent, and he likes to hear about Brahman; so people who want to hear or speak about Brahman or want some present rush to him. Therefore (by your proposal) you have given me too a chance to demonstrate all those qualities.

Translation By Max Müller

1. There [1] was formerly the proud Gârgya Bâlâki [2], a man of great reading. He said to Agâtasatru of Kâsi, 'Shall I tell you Brahman?' Agâtasatru said:- 'We give a thousand (cows) for that speech (of yours), for verily all people run away, saying, Ganaka (the king of Mithilâ) is our father (patron) [3].'

Footnote:

1. Compare with this the fourth Adhyâya of the Kaushîtaki-upanishad, Sacred Books of the East, vol. i, p. 300; Gough, Philosophy of the Upanishads, p. 144. 2. Son of Balâkâ, of the race of the Gârgyas. 3. Ganaka, known as a wise and liberal king. There is a play on his name, which means father, and is understood in the sense of patron, or of teacher of wisdom. The meaning is obscure; and in the Kaush. Up. IV. i, the construction is still more difficult. What is intended seems to be that Agâtasatru is willing to offer any reward to a really wise man, because all the wise men are running after Ganaka and settling at his court.


Sloka : 2.1.2

मन्त्र २[II.i.2]

स होवाच गार्ग्यो य एवासावादित्ये पुरुष एतमेवाहं ब्रह्मोपास इति ।

स होवाचाजातशत्रुर्मा मैतस्मिन्संवदिष्ठा । अतिष्ठाः सर्वेषां

भूतानां मूर्धा राजेति वा अहमेतमुपास इति । स य एतमेवमुपास्ते

ऽतिष्ठाः सर्वेषां भूतानां मूर्धा राजा भवति ॥ २॥

mantra 2[II.i.2]

sa hovāca gārgyo ya evāsāvāditye puruṣa etamevāhaṃ brahmopāsa iti .

sa hovācājātaśatrurmā maitasminsaṃvadiṣṭhā . atiṣṭhāḥ sarveṣāṃ

bhūtānāṃ mūrdhā rājeti vā ahametamupāsa iti . sa ya etamevamupāste

'tiṣṭhāḥ sarveṣāṃ bhūtānāṃ mūrdhā rājā bhavati .. 2..



Meaning:- Gargya said, 'That being who is in the sun, I meditate upon as Brahman'. Ajatasatru said, 'Please don't talk about him. I meditate upon him as all-surpassing, as the head of all beings and as resplendent. He who meditates upon him as such becomes all-surpassing, the head of all beings and resplendent.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- When the King was the eager to listen and turned towards him, Gargya said, 'The being who identifies himself both with the sun and the eye, and who having entered the body through the eye resides in the heart as the ego, the experiencer and agent --- that being I meditate or look upon as Brahman in this aggregate of body and organs. Therefore I ask you to meditate upon that being as Brahman.' Thus addressed, Ajatasatru replied stopping him by a gesture of the hand, 'Please don't talk about him, this Brahman, as something to be known.' The repetition of the negative particle is for stopping further speech. 'When both of us know the same Brahman, you insult me by trying to make me out as ignorant. Hence please don't discuss this Brahman. If you know of any other Brahman, you should tell me of that, and not of what I already known. If, however, you think that I know only Brahman, but not his particular attributes nor the results of meditating upon them, please don't think so, for I know all that you speak of. How? All-surpassing, who exists surpassing all beings; also the head of all beings; and resplendent, being endowed with resplendence. I meditate upon the Brahman with these attributes as the agent and experiencer in this aggregate of body and organs.' And one who meditates upon such conditioned Brahman obtains results accordingly. He who meditates upon him as such becomes all-surpassing, the head of all beings and resplendent, for the results must correspond with the particular attributes meditated upon. As the Sruti says, 'One becomes exactly as one meditates upon Him' (S. X. v. 2. 20).

Translation By Max Müller

2. Gârgya said:- 'The person that is in the sun [1], that I adore as Brahman.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'No, no! Do not speak to me on this. I adore him verily as the supreme, the head of all beings, the king. Whoso adores him thus, becomes Supreme, the head of all beings, a king.'

Footnote:

1. The commentator expatiates on all these answers and brings them more into harmony with Vedanta doctrines. Thus he adds that the person in the sun is at the same time the person in the eye, who is both active and passive in the heart, &c.


Sloka : 2.1.3

मन्त्र ३[II.i.3]

स होवाच गार्ग्यो य एवासौ चन्द्रे पुरुष एतमेवाहं ब्रह्मोपास इति ।

स होवाचाजातशत्रुर्मा मैतस्मिन्संवदिष्ठा । बृहन् पाण्डरवासाः

सोमो राजेति वा अहमेतमुपास इति । स य एतमेवमुपास्तेऽहरहर्ह

सुतः प्रसुतो भवति नास्यान्नं क्षीयते ॥ ३॥

mantra 3[II.i.3]

sa hovāca gārgyo ya evāsau candre puruṣa etamevāhaṃ brahmopāsa iti .

sa hovācājātaśatrurmā maitasminsaṃvadiṣṭhā . bṛhan pāṇḍaravāsāḥ

somo rājeti vā ahametamupāsa iti . sa ya etamevamupāste'haraharha

sutaḥ prasuto bhavati nāsyānnaṃ kṣīyate .. 3..



Meaning:- Gargya said, 'that being who is in the moon, I meditate upon as Brahman'. Ajatasatru said, "Please don't talk about him. I meditate upon him as the great, white-robed, radiant Soma.' He who meditates upon him as such has abundant Soma pressed in his principal and auxiliary sacrifices every day, and his food never gets short.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- When Ajatasatru in the course of the dialogue refuted the presentation of the sun as Brahman, Gargya put forward another viz the presentation of the moon as Brahman. That being who is in the moon and also in the mind as the experiencer and agent --- all this is as in the previous paragraph. His attributes are:- Great in size; white-robed, because the vital force (which identifies itself with the moon) has an aqueous body; and radiant Soma. Considering the moon and the drink-yielding creeper Soma that is pressed in sacrifices to be one, I meditate upon that as Brahman. He who meditates upon Brahman as such, with the above-mentioned attributes, has abundant Soma pressed in his principal sacrifices and all the more in his auxiliary sacrifices every day. That is, he has the means of performing both kinds of sacrifices. And his food never gets short, because he meditates upon Brahman as consisting of food.

Translation By Max Müller

3. Gârgya said:- 'The person that is in the moon (and in the mind), that I adore as Brahman.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'No, no! Do not speak to me on this. I adore him verily as the great, clad in white raiment, as Soma, the king.' Whoso adores him thus, Soma is poured out and poured forth for him day by day, and his food does not fail [1].

Footnote:

1. We miss the annasyâtmâ, the Self of food, mentioned in the Kaush. Up., and evidently referred to in the last sentence of our paragraph. Suta and prasuta, poured out and poured forth, are explained as referring to the principal and the secondary sacrifices.


Sloka : 2.1.4

मन्त्र ४[II.i.4]

स होवाच गार्ग्यो य एवासौ विद्युति पुरुष एतमेवाहं ब्रह्मोपास इति ।

स होवाचाजातशत्रुर्मा मैतस्मिन्संवदिष्ठास्तेजस्वीति वा अहमेतमुपास

इति । स य एतमेवमुपास्ते तेजस्वी ह भवति तेजस्विनी हास्य प्रजा

भवति ॥ ४॥

mantra 4[II.i.4]

sa hovāca gārgyo ya evāsau vidyuti puruṣa etamevāhaṃ brahmopāsa iti .

sa hovācājātaśatrurmā maitasminsaṃvadiṣṭhāstejasvīti vā ahametamupāsa

iti . sa ya etamevamupāste tejasvī ha bhavati tejasvinī hāsya prajā

bhavati .. 4..



Meaning:- Gargya said, 'That being who is in lightning, I meditate upon as Brahman'. Ajatasatru said, "Please don't talk about him. I meditate upon him as powerful'. He who meditates upon him as such becomes powerful, and his progeny too becomes powerful.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Likewise there is one god in lightning, the skin and the heart. Powerful is the attribute. The result of this meditation is that he becomes powerful, and his progeny too becomes powerful. Because lightning may be of diverse forms, the result of the meditation reaches his progeny as well as himself.

Translation By Max Müller

4. Gârgya said:- 'The person that is in the lightning (and in the heart), that I adore as Brahman.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'No, no! Do not speak to me on this. I adore him verily as the luminous.' Whoso adores him thus, becomes luminous, and his offspring becomes luminous.


Sloka : 2.1.5

मन्त्र ५[II.i.5]

स होवाच गार्ग्यो य एवायमाकाशे पुरुष एतमेवाहं ब्रह्मोपास इति ।

स होवाचाजातशत्रुर्मा मैतस्मिन्संवदिष्ठाः । पूर्णमप्रवर्तीति

वा अहमेतमुपास इति । स य एतमेवमुपास्ते पूर्यते प्रजया

पशुभिर्नास्यास्माल्लोकात्प्रजोद्वर्तते ॥ ५॥

mantra 5[II.i.5]

sa hovāca gārgyo ya evāyamākāśe puruṣa etamevāhaṃ brahmopāsa iti .

sa hovācājātaśatrurmā maitasminsaṃvadiṣṭhāḥ . pūrṇamapravartīti

vā ahametamupāsa iti . sa ya etamevamupāste pūryate prajayā

paśubhirnāsyāsmāllokātprajodvartate .. 5..



Meaning:- Gargya said, 'This being who is in the ether, I meditate upon as Brahman'. Ajatasatru said, "Please don't talk about him. I meditate upon him as full and unmoving'. He who meditates upon him as such is filled with progeny and cattle, and his progeny is never extinct from this world.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Likewise there is one god in the ether, in the ether enclosed by the heart and in the heart. Full and unmoving are the two attributes. The result of meditation on Brahman with the attribute of fullness is that he is filled with progeny and cattle, while that of meditation on the attribute of immobility is that his progeny is never extinct from this world --- the continuity of his line.

Translation By Max Müller

5. Gârgya said:- 'The person that is in the ether (and in the ether of the heart), that I adore as Brahman.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'No, no! Do not speak to me on this. I adore him as what is full, and quiescent.' Whoso adores him thus, becomes filled with offspring and cattle, and his offspring does not cease from this world.


Sloka : 2.1.6

मन्त्र ६[II.i.6]

स होवाच गार्ग्यो य एवायं वायौ पुरुष एतमेवाहं ब्रह्मोपास

इति । स होवाचाजातशत्रुर्मा मैतस्मिन्संवदिष्ठा । इन्द्रो

वैकुण्ठोऽपराजिता सेनेति वा अहमेतमुपास इति । स य एतमेवमुपास्ते

जिष्णुर्हापराजिष्णुर्भवत्यन्यतस्त्यजायी ॥ ६॥

mantra 6[II.i.6]

sa hovāca gārgyo ya evāyaṃ vāyau puruṣa etamevāhaṃ brahmopāsa

iti . sa hovācājātaśatrurmā maitasminsaṃvadiṣṭhā . indro

vaikuṇṭho'parājitā seneti vā ahametamupāsa iti . sa ya etamevamupāste

jiṣṇurhāparājiṣṇurbhavatyanyatastyajāyī .. 6..



Meaning:- Gargya said, 'This being who is in air, I meditate upon as Brahman'. Ajatasatru said, "Please don't talk about him. I meditate upon him as the Lord, as irresistible, and as the unvanquished army.' He who meditates upon him as such ever becomes victorious and invincible, and conquers his enemies.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Likewise there is one god in air, the vital force and the heart. The Lord, irresistible and the unvanquished army, one that has never been defeated by enemies, are the attributes. 'Army,' because the Maruts (the air-gods) are known to be a group. And the result of the meditation is that he ever becomes victorious and invincible by enemies, and conquers his enemies.

Translation By Max Müller

6. Gârgya said:- 'The person that is in the wind (and in the breath), that I adore as Brahman.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'No, no! Do not speak to me on this. I adore him as Indra Vaikuntha, as the unconquerable army (of the Maruts).' Whoso adores him thus, becomes victorious, unconquerable, conquering his enemies.


Sloka : 2.1.7

मन्त्र ७[II.i.7]

स होवाच गार्ग्यो य एवायमग्नौ पुरुष एतमेवाहं ब्रह्मोपास इति ।

स होवाचाजातशत्रुर्मा मैतस्मिन्संवदिष्ठा । विषासहिरिति

वा अहमेतमुपास इति । स य एतमेवमुपास्ते विषासहिर्ह भवति

विषासहिर्हास्य प्रजा भवति ॥ ७॥

mantra 7[II.i.7]

sa hovāca gārgyo ya evāyamagnau puruṣa etamevāhaṃ brahmopāsa iti .

sa hovācājātaśatrurmā maitasminsaṃvadiṣṭhā . viṣāsahiriti

vā ahametamupāsa iti . sa ya etamevamupāste viṣāsahirha bhavati

viṣāsahirhāsya prajā bhavati .. 7..



Meaning:- Gargya said, 'This being who is in fire, I meditate upon as Brahman'. Ajatasatru said, "Please don't talk about him. I meditate upon him as forbearing'. He who meditates upon him as such becomes forbearing, and his progeny too becomes forbearing.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- There is one god in fire, speech and the heart. Forbearing, tolerant of others, is the attribute. As fire has many forms, the result includes the progeny, as before.

Translation By Max Müller

7. Gârgya said:- 'The person that is in the fire (and in the heart), that I adore as Brahman.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'No, no! Do not speak to me on this. I adore him as powerful.' Whoso adores him thus, becomes powerful, and his offspring becomes powerful.


Sloka : 2.1.8

मन्त्र ८[II.i.8]

स होवाच गार्ग्यो य एवायमप्सु पुरुष एतमेवाहं ब्रह्मोपास

इति । स होवाचाजातशत्रुर्मा मैतस्मिन्संवदिष्ठाः । प्रतिरूप

इति वा अहमेतमुपास इति । स य एतमेवमुपास्ते प्रतिरूपꣳ

हैवैनमुपगच्छति नाप्रतिरूपमथो प्रतिरूपोऽस्माज्जायते ॥ ८॥

mantra 8[II.i.8]

sa hovāca gārgyo ya evāyamapsu puruṣa etamevāhaṃ brahmopāsa

iti . sa hovācājātaśatrurmā maitasminsaṃvadiṣṭhāḥ . pratirūpa

iti vā ahametamupāsa iti . sa ya etamevamupāste pratirūpagͫ

haivainamupagacchati nāpratirūpamatho pratirūpo'smājjāyate .. 8..



Meaning:- Gargya said, 'This being who is in water, I meditate upon as Brahman'. Ajatasatru said, "Please don't talk about him. I meditate upon him as agreeable'. He who meditates upon him as such has only agreeable things coming to him, and not contrary ones; also from him are born children who are agreeable.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- There is one god in water, the seed and the heart. Agreeable, i.e. not contrary to the Srutis and Smrtis, is his attribute. The result is that only agreeable things, those in accordance with the injunctions of the Srutis and Smrtis, come to him, not adverse ones. Another result is that from him are born children who are such (i.e. obeying the scriptures).

Translation By Max Müller

8. Gârgya said:- 'The person that is in the water (in seed, and in the heart), that I adore as Brahman.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'No, no! Do not speak to me on this. I adore him as likeness.' Whoso adores him thus, to him comes what is likely (or proper), not what is improper; what is born from him, is like unto him [1].

Footnote:

1. Here the Kaush. Up. has the Self of the name, instead of pratirûpa, likeness. The commentator thinks that they both mean the same thing, because a name is the likeness of a thing. Another text of the Kaush. Up. gives here the Self of light. Pratirûpa in the sense of likeness comes in later in the Kaush. Up., § 11.


Sloka : 2.1.9

मन्त्र ९[II.i.9]

स होवाच गार्ग्यो य एवायमादर्शे पुरुष एतमेवाहं ब्रह्मोपास इति ।

स होवाचाजातशत्रुर्मा मैतस्मिन्संवदिष्ठा । रोचिष्णुरिति

वा अहमेतमुपास इति । स य एतमेवमुपास्ते रोचिष्णुर्ह

भवति रोचिष्णुर्हास्य प्रजा भवत्यथो यैः सन्निगच्छति

सर्वाꣳस्तानतिरोचते ॥ ९॥

mantra 9[II.i.9]

sa hovāca gārgyo ya evāyamādarśe puruṣa etamevāhaṃ brahmopāsa iti .

sa hovācājātaśatrurmā maitasminsaṃvadiṣṭhā . rociṣṇuriti

vā ahametamupāsa iti . sa ya etamevamupāste rociṣṇurha

bhavati rociṣṇurhāsya prajā bhavatyatho yaiḥ sannigacchati

sarvāgͫstānatirocate .. 9..



Meaning:- Gargya said, 'This being who is in a looking-glass, I meditate upon as Brahman'. Ajatasatru said, "Please don't talk about him. I meditate upon him as shining'. He who meditates upon him as such becomes shining, and his progeny too becomes shining. He also outshines all those with whom he comes in contact.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- There is one god in a looking-glass and in other reflecting objects such as a sword, and in the intellect, which is pure of material. Shining, naturally bright, is the attribute. The result of the meditation is likewise. The progeny is included in the result, because there are many shining objects.

Translation By Max Müller

9. Gârgya said:- 'The person that is in the mirror, that I adore as Brahman.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'No, no! Do not speak to me on this. I adore him verily as the brilliant.' Whoso adores him thus, he becomes brilliant, his offspring becomes brilliant, and with whomsoever he comes together, he outshines them.


Sloka : 2.1.10

मन्त्र १०[II.i.10]

स होवाच गार्ग्यो य एवायं यन्तं पश्चाछब्दोऽनूदेत्येतमेवाहं

ब्रह्मोपास इति । स होवाचाजातशत्रुर्मा मैतस्मिन्संवदिष्ठा । असुरिति

वा अहमेतमुपास इति । स य एतमेवमुपास्ते सर्वꣳ हैवास्मिꣳल्लोक

आयुरेति नैनं पुरा कालात्प्राणो जहाति ॥ १०॥

mantra 10[II.i.10]

sa hovāca gārgyo ya evāyaṃ yantaṃ paścāchabdo'nūdetyetamevāhaṃ

brahmopāsa iti . sa hovācājātaśatrurmā maitasminsaṃvadiṣṭhā . asuriti

vā ahametamupāsa iti . sa ya etamevamupāste sarvagͫ haivāsmigͫlloka

āyureti nainaṃ purā kālātprāṇo jahāti .. 10..



Meaning:- Gargya said, 'This sound that issues behind a man as he walks, I meditate upon as Brahman'. Ajatasatru said, "Please don't talk about him. I meditate upon him as life'. He who meditates upon him as such attains his full term of life in this world, and life does not depart from him before the completion of that term.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Considering the sound that issues behind a man as he walks and the vital force which is the cause of life in this body to be one, he says, 'This sound,' etc. Life is the attribute. The result of the meditation is that he attains his full term of life in this world, as acquired through his past work, and even though troubled by disease, life does not depart from him before the completion of that term, measured by that past work.

Translation By Max Müller

10. Gârgya said:- 'The sound that follows a man while he moves, that I adore as Brahman.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'No, no! Do not speak to me on this. I adore him verily as life.' Whoso adores him thus, he reaches his full age in this world, breath does not leave him before the time.


Sloka : 2.1.11

मन्त्र ११[II.i.11]

स होवाच गार्ग्यो य एवायं दिक्षु पुरुष एतमेवाहं ब्रह्मोपास इति ।

स होवाचाजातशत्रुर्मा मैतस्मिन्संवदिष्ठा । द्वितीयोऽनपग इति

वा अहमेतमुपास इति । स य एतमेवमुपास्ते द्वितीयवान्ह भवति नास्माद्

गणश्छिद्यते ॥ ११॥

mantra 11[II.i.11]

sa hovāca gārgyo ya evāyaṃ dikṣu puruṣa etamevāhaṃ brahmopāsa iti .

sa hovācājātaśatrurmā maitasminsaṃvadiṣṭhā . dvitīyo'napaga iti

vā ahametamupāsa iti . sa ya etamevamupāste dvitīyavānha bhavati nāsmād

gaṇaśchidyate .. 11..



Meaning:- Gargya said, 'This being who is in the quarters, I meditate upon as Brahman'. Ajatasatru said, "Please don't talk about him. I meditate upon him as second and as non-separating'. He who meditates upon him as such gets companions, and his followers never depart from him.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- There is one god in the quarters, the ears and the heart, viz the Asvins, the twin-gods who are never separated from each other. His attributes are:- being attended with a companion and not being separated from one another, the quarters and the Asvins having these characteristics. And the man who meditates upon this gets that as a result, viz being attended by companions and not being deserted by his followers.

Translation By Max Müller

11. Gârgya said:- 'The person that is in space, that I adore as Brahman.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'No, no! Do not speak to me on this. I adore him verily as the second who never leaves us.' Whoso adores him thus, becomes possessed of a second, his party is not cut off from him,


Sloka : 2.1.12

मन्त्र १२[II.i.12]

स होवाच गार्ग्यो य एवायं छायामयः पुरुष एतमेवाहं ब्रह्मोपास

इति । स होवाचाजातशत्रुर्मा मैतस्मिन्संवदिष्ठा । मृत्युरिति वा

अहमेतमुपास इति । स य एतमेवमुपास्ते सर्वꣳ हैवास्मिꣳल्लोक

आयुरेति नैनं पुरा कालान्मृत्युरागच्छति ॥ १२॥

mantra 12[II.i.12]

sa hovāca gārgyo ya evāyaṃ chāyāmayaḥ puruṣa etamevāhaṃ brahmopāsa

iti . sa hovācājātaśatrurmā maitasminsaṃvadiṣṭhā . mṛtyuriti vā

ahametamupāsa iti . sa ya etamevamupāste sarvagͫ haivāsmigͫlloka

āyureti nainaṃ purā kālānmṛtyurāgacchati .. 12..



Meaning:- Gargya said, 'This being who identifies himself with the shadow, I meditate upon as Brahman'. Ajatasatru said, "Please don't talk about him. I meditate upon him as death'. He who meditates upon him as such attains his full term of life in this world, and death does not overtake him before the completion of that term.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- There is one god in the shadow or external darkness, internally in ignorance, which is a veil, and in the heart. His attribute is death. The result of the meditation is as before, the only difference being that in the absence of premature death he is free from suffering due to disease etc.

Translation By Max Müller

12. Gârgya said:- 'The person that consists of the shadow, that I adore as Brahman.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'No, no! Do not speak to me on this. I adore him verily as death.' Whoso adores him thus, he reaches his whole age in this world, death does not approach him before the time.


Sloka : 2.1.13

मन्त्र १३[II.i.13]

स होवाच गार्ग्यो य एवायमात्मनि पुरुष एतमेवाहं ब्रह्मोपास इति । स

होवाचाजातशत्रुर्मा मैतस्मिन्संवदिष्ठा आत्मन्वीति वा अहमेतमुपास इति ।

स य एतमेवमुपास्त आत्मन्वी ह भवत्यात्मन्विनी हास्य प्रजा भवति ।

स ह तूष्णीमास गार्ग्यः ॥ १३॥

mantra 13[II.i.13]

sa hovāca gārgyo ya evāyamātmani puruṣa etamevāhaṃ brahmopāsa iti . sa

hovācājātaśatrurmā maitasminsaṃvadiṣṭhā ātmanvīti vā ahametamupāsa iti .

sa ya etamevamupāsta ātmanvī ha bhavatyātmanvinī hāsya prajā bhavati .

sa ha tūṣṇīmāsa gārgyaḥ .. 13..



Meaning:- Gargya said, 'This being who is in the self, I meditate upon as Brahman'. Ajatasatru said, "Please don't talk about him. I meditate upon him as self-possessed.' He who meditates upon him as such becomes self-possessed, and his progeny too becomes self-possessed. Gargya remained silent.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- There is one god in the self or Hiranyagarbha, in the intellect and the heart. His attribute is self-possessed. The result of the meditation is that he becomes self-possessed, and his progeny too becomes self-possessed. It should be noted that since the intellet is different according to each individual, the result is extended to the progeny also.
When his conceptions of Brahman were thus rejected one by one owing to the King's having already known them, Gargya, with his knowledge of Brahman exhausted, had nothing more to say in reply and remained silent, with his head bent down.

Translation By Max Müller

13. Gârgya said:- 'The person that is in the body [1], that I adore as Brahman.' Agâtasatru said to him:- 'No, no! Do not speak to me on this. I adore him verily as embodied.' Whoso adores him thus, becomes embodied, and his offspring becomes embodied [2]. Then Gârgya became silent.

Footnote:

1. 'In the Âtman, in Pragâpati, in the Buddhi, and in the heart.' Comm. 2. It is difficult to know what is meant here by âtman and âtmanvin. In the Kaush. Up. Agâtasatru refers to Pragâpati, and the commentator here does the same, adding, however, buddhi and hrid. Gough translates âtmanvin by 'having peace of mind.' Deussen, p. 195, passes it over.


Sloka : 2.1.14

मन्त्र १४[II.i.14]

स होवाचाजातशत्रुरेतावन्नू ३ इत्येतावद्धीति । नैतावता विदितं

भवतीति । स होवाच गार्ग्य उप त्वा यानीति ॥ १४॥

mantra 14[II.i.14]

sa hovācājātaśatruretāvannū 3 ityetāvaddhīti . naitāvatā viditaṃ

bhavatīti . sa hovāca gārgya upa tvā yānīti .. 14..



Meaning:- Ajatasatru said, 'is this all?' 'This is all'. 'By knowing this much one cannot know (Brahman)'. Gargya said, 'I approach you as a student'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Seeing Gargya in that state Ajatasatru said, 'Is this all the knowledge of Brahman that you have? Or is there anything else?' The other said, 'This is all.' Ajatasatru said, 'By knowing this much one cannot claim to know Brahman. Why then did you proudly say you would teach me about Brahman?

Objection:- Does it mean that this much knowledge amounts to nothing?
Reply:- No, for the Sruti describes meditations with particular results. Those passages cannot certainly be construed as mere eulogy. For wherever a meditation has been set forth, we find phrases conveying original injunctions as for instance, 'All-surpassing, (the head) of all beings' (II. i. 2). And corresponding results are everywhere distinctly mentioned. This would be inconsistent were the passages merely eulogistic.

Objection:- Why then was it said, 'By knowing this much one cannot know (Brahman)?'
Reply:- There is nothing wrong in it. It has a relation to the capacity of the aspirant. Gargya, who knew only the conditioned Brahman, proceeded to teach Ajatasatru, who was the listener, about Brahman. Therefore the latter, who knew the unconditioned Brahman, was right in saying to Gargya, 'You do not know the true or unconditioned Brahman that you proceeded to teach me about.' If he wanted to refute Gargya's knowledge of the conditioned Brahman too, he would not say, 'By knowing this much'; he would simply say, 'You know nothing.' Therefore we admit that in the sphere of ignorance there are these phases of Brahman. Another reason for saying, 'By knowing this much one cannot know (Brahman)', is that this knowledge of the conditioned Brahman leads to that of the Supreme Brahman. That these phases of Brahman consist of name, form and action and have to be known in the sphere of ignorance, has been shown in the first chapter. Therefore the statement, 'By knowing this much one cannot know (Brahman),' implies that there is some other phase of Brahman which should be known. Gargya, being versed in the code of conduct, knew that that knowledge must not be imparted to one who was not a regular student. So he himself said, 'I approach you as would any other student approach his teacher.'

Translation By Max Müller

14. Agâtasatru said:- 'Thus far only?' 'Thus far only,' he replied. Agâtasatru said:- 'This does not suffice to know it (the true Brahman).' Gârgya replied:- 'Then let me come to you, as a pupil.'


Sloka : 2.1.15

मन्त्र १५[II.i.15]

स होवाचाजातशत्रुः प्रतिलोमं चैतद्यद्ब्राह्मणः

क्षत्रियमुपेयाद् ब्रह्म मे वक्ष्यतीति । व्येव त्वा

ज्ञपयिष्यामीति । तं पाणावादायोत्तस्थौ । तौ ह पुरुषꣳ

सुप्तमाजग्मतुस्तमेतैर्नामभिरामन्त्रयांचक्रे बृहन्पाण्डरवासः

सोम राजन्निति । स नोत्तस्थौ । तं पाणिनाऽऽपेषं बोधयांचकार ।

स होत्तस्थौ ॥ १५॥

mantra 15[II.i.15]

sa hovācājātaśatruḥ pratilomaṃ caitadyadbrāhmaṇaḥ

kṣatriyamupeyād brahma me vakṣyatīti . vyeva tvā

jñapayiṣyāmīti . taṃ pāṇāvādāyottasthau . tau ha puruṣagͫ

suptamājagmatustametairnāmabhirāmantrayāṃcakre bṛhanpāṇḍaravāsaḥ

soma rājanniti . sa nottasthau . taṃ pāṇinā''peṣaṃ bodhayāṃcakāra .

sa hottasthau .. 15..



Meaning:- Ajatasatru said, 'It is contrary to usage that a Brahmana should approach a Kshatriya thinking, "he will teach me about Brahman". However I will instruct you'. Taking Gargya by the hand he rose. They came to a sleeping man. (Ajatasatru) addressed him by these names, Great, White-robed, radiant, Soma'. The man did not get up. (The King) pushed him with the hand till he awoke. Then he got up.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Ajatasatru said:- It is contrary to usage --- What is so? that a Brahmana, who comes of a superior caste qualified to be a teacher, should approach a Ksatriya, who is by custom not a teacher, in the role of a student, with a view to receiving instruction from him about Brahman. This is forbidden in the scriptures laying down rules of conduct. Therefore remain as a teahcer; I will anyway instruct you about the true Brahman
which should be known, knowin which one can claim to have a knowledge of Brahman.
Seeing Gargya abashed, in order to set him at ease, he took him by the hand and rose. They, Gargya and Ajatasatru, came to a man who was asleep in a certain part of the palace. Coming to him he addressed the sleeping man by these names, 'Great, White-robed, Radiant, Soma.' Even though thus addressed, the sleeping man did not get up. Finding he did not awake, (the King) pushed him again and again with the hand till he awoke. Then he got up. From this it was evident that the being whom Gargya wanted to convey was not Brahman, the agent and experiencer in this body.

Objection:- How do you know that the act of going to the sleeping man, calling him and his not getting up indicate that the Brahman advocated by Gargya is not (the true) Brahman?
Reply:- In the waking state, as the being whom Gargya put forward as Brahman, the agent and experiencer is in touch with the organs, so is the being put forward by Ajatasatru --- who is the master of the other being --- in touch with them, as a king is with his servants. But the grounds of ascertaining the difference between the two beings put forward by Gargya and Ajatasatru, that stand in the relation of servant and master respectively, cannot be discriminated, because they are then mixed up. That is to say, the experiencer is the seer or subject, and not an object, and that which is not the experiencer is an object, and not the subject; but these two, being mixed up in the waking state, cannot be shown separately. Hence their going to a sleeping man.

Objection:- Even in the sleeping man there is nothing to determine that when addressed by special names, only the experiencer will perceive, and not the non-experiencer.
Reply:- Not so, for the characteristics of the being whom Gargya means are well-defined. That vital force which is covered by 'truth' (name and form constituting the gross body), which is the self (the subtle body) and immortal, which does not set when the organs have set (are inactive), whose body is water, which is white-robed, great, on account of being without a rival, and is the radiant Soma consisting of sixteen digits --- that vital force remains just as it is known to be, doing its function, with its (active) nature intact. Nor does Gargya mean that any other agency contrary to the vital force is active at that time. Hence it should know when called by its own names; but it did not. Therefore by the principle of the residuum the Brahman meant by Gargya is proved not to be the experiencer.
If the Brahman meant by Gargya were the experiencer by its very nature, it would perceive objects whenever it came in contact with the. For instance, fire, whose nature it is to burn and illumine, must always burn any combustible it gets, such as straw or tender grass, and also illumine things. If it does not, we cannot assert that fire burns or illumines. Likewise, if the vital force advocated by Gargya were by nature such that it would perceive sound and other objects that came within its range, it would perceive the words 'Great, White-robed,' etc.,
which are appropriate objects for it; just as fire invariably burns and illumines straw, tender grass, etc., that come in contact withit. Therefore, since it did not perceive sound etc. coming within its range, we conclude that it is not by nature an experiencer; for a thing can never change its nature. Therefore it is conclusively proved that the vital force is not the experiencer.

Objection:- May not the non-perception be due to its failure to associate the particular names by which it was addressed with itself? It may be like this:- As when one out of a number of persons sitting together is addressed, he may hear, but may not particularly understand that it is he who is being called, because of his failure to associate his particular name with himself, similarly the vital force does not perceive the words addressed to it, because it fails to understand that the names such as 'Great' are its own and to associate them with itself, and not because it is other than the knower.
Reply:- Not so, for when the vital force is admitted to be a deity, the non-association in question is impossible. In other words, one who admits that the deity identifying himself with the moon etc. is the vital force in the body, and is the experiencer (self), must also admit, for the sake of intercouse with him, that he associates himself with his particular names. Otherwise no intercourse with him will be possible in the acts of invocation etc.

Objection:- The objection is not proper, since according to the view that makes the experiencer (self) other than the vital force,
there is a similar non-perception. In other words, one who posits a different experiencer from the vital force must admit that it too, when called by such names as 'Great,' should hear them, because those names then apply to it. But we never see it do this when called by those names. Therefore the fact that the vital force fails to hear the call is no proof that it is not the experiencer.
Reply:- Not so, for that which possesses something as a part of it cannot identify itself with only that much. According to the view that holds the experiencer to be other than the vital force, the latter is one of its instruments, and it is the possessor of them. It does not identify itself with only the deity of the vital force, as one does not with one's hand. Therefore it is quite reasonable that the experiencer, identifying itself with the whole, does not hear when addressed by the names of the vital force. Not so, however, with the latter when it is addressed by its special names. Besides, the self does not identify itself with just a deity.

Objection:- Such a view is untenable, because we sometimes see that the self does not hear even when called by its own name. For instance, when a man is fast asleep, he does not sometimes hear even when called by his conventional name, say Devadatta. Similarly the vital force, although it is the experiencer, does not hear.
Reply:- Not so, for there is this difference between the self and the vital force that the former sleeps, but the latter does not. When the self is asleep, its organs do not function, being absorbed in the vital force. So it does not hear even when its own name is called. But if the vital force were the experiencer, its organs should never cease to function, nor shold it fail to hear the call, since it is ever awake.

Objection:- It was not proper to call it by its unfamiliar names. There are many familiar names denoting the vital force, such as Prana. Leaving them aside, to call it by unfamiliar names such as 'Great' was not proper, for it is against convention. Therefore we maintain that although it failed to hear, the vital force is the experiencer.
Reply:- No, for the purpose of using those unfamiliar names was to refute the contention that the deity of the moon is the experiencer. To be explicit:- That the vital force which is in this body and ever awake is not the experiencer has already been proved simply by its failure to hear the call. But names denoting the deity of the moon were addressed to it to disprove Gargya's contention that the vital force, which is the same as the deity of the moon, is the experiencer in this body. This purpose could not be served if the vital force were addressed by its popular names. But the refutation of the vital force the contention that any other organ is the experiencer is also refuted, because no organ can function at that time, all being absorbed in the vital force. (And no other deity can be the experiencer,) for there is no such deity.

Objection:- There is, for a number of gods with particular attributes have been mentioned in the portion beginning with 'All-surpassing' and ending with 'Self-possessed.'
Reply:- Not so, for all the Srutis admit them to be unified in the vital force, as in the illustration of the spokes and nave. Moreoever, in the passages, 'Covered by truth' (I. vi. 3), and 'The vital force is the immortal entity' (Ibid.), no other experiencer besides the vital force is admitted (In the position taken by Gargya.). Also, in the passages, 'This indeed is all the gods' (I. iv. 6), and 'Which is that one god? The vital force' (III. ix. 9), all the gods have been shown to be unified in the vital force.
Similarly none of the organs can be put forward as the experiencer; for in that case it would be impossible to connect memory, perception, wish, etc. in the same subject, as in the case of different bodies. What one person has seen another cannot recollect, or perceive, or wish, or recognise. Therefore none of the organs can by any means be the experiencer. Nor can have (momentary) consciousness (Without an abiding substratum:- the view of the Yogacara school of Buddhism.) be such.

Objection:- Why not take the body itself to be the experiencer, why imagine something over and above it?
Reply:- That cannot be, for we notice a difference made by the pushing. If this aggregate of body and organs were the experiencer, then, since this aggregate ever remains the same, pushing or not pushing would not make any difference as regards awaking. If, however, something other than the body were the experiencer, then, since it has different kinds of relation to the body, and may presumably get pleasure, pain or stupor as the varied result of its past actions, according as they were good, indifferent, or bad, there would naturally be a difference in the perception due to pushing or not pushing. But were the body itself the experiencer, there should not be any difference, since differences concerning relation and the result of past actions would be out of place in that case. Nor should there be any difference due to the strength or feebleness of the sound, touch, etc. But there is this difference, since Ajatasatru roused the sleeping man, whom a mere touch could not awaken, by repeatedly pushing him with the hand. Therefore it is proved that that which awoke through pushing --- blazing forth, as it were, flashing, as it were, and come from somewhere, as it were, rendering the body different from what it was, endowing it with consciousness, activity, a different look, etc. --- is an entity other than the body and different from the types of Brahman advocated by Gargya.
Moreover the vital force, being a compound, must be for the benefit of some other entity. We have already said that it, like the post etc. of a house, is the internal supporter of the body and is combined with the body etc. It is also as a felloe is to the spokes. And in it, which is comparable to a nave, everything is fixed. Therefore we understand that like a house etc. it has been compounded for the benefit of some entity categorically different from its parts as also the aggregate. We see that the parts of a house such as posts, walls, straw and wood, as also the house itself, subserve the purpose of a person who sees, hears, thinks and knows them, and whose existence and manifestation are independent of the birth, growth, decay, death, name, form, effect and other attributes of those things. From this we infer that the parts of the vital force etc. as also the aggregates must subserve the purpose of some entity that sees, hears, thinks and knows them, and whose existence and manifestation are independent of the birth, growth, etc. of those things.

Objection:- But since the deity (called the vital force) is conscious, it is equal in status (to the self); so how can it be subordinate (to the other)? That the vital force is conscious has already been admitted when we see it addressed by particular names. And since it is conscious, it cannot subserve the purpose of another, for it is equal in status.
Reply:- Not so, for the instruction that is sought to be conveyed is about the unconditioned, absolute Brahman. That the self identifies itself with action, its factors and its results, is due to the limitations of name and form and is superimposed by ignorance. It is this that causes people to come under relative existence, consisting in their identification with action and the rest. This has to be removed by a knowledge of the real nature of the unconditioned Self. Hence to teach about that this Upanisad (from this chapter) has been begun. For instance, it opens with, 'I will tell you about Brahman' (II. i. 1), and 'By knowing this much one cannot know (Brahman)' (II. i. 14) and concludes with, 'This much inded is (the means of) immortality, my dear' (IV. v. 15). And nothing else is either meant to be taught or expressed in between. Therefore there is no scope for the objection that one cannot be subordinate to the other, being equal in status.
The relation of principal and subordinate is only for the dealings of the differentiated or conditioned Brahman, and not the opposite One; whereas the whole Upanisad seeks to teach about the unconditioned Brahman, for it concludes with, 'This (self) is That, which has been described as 'Not this, not this,' ' etc. (III. ix. 26; IV. ii. 4; IV. iv. 22; IV. v. 15). Therefore it is proved that there is a conscious Brahman other than and different from these types of unconscious Brahman such as sun etc.

Translation By Max Müller

15. Agâtasatru said:- 'Verily, it is unnatural that a Brâhmana should come to a Kshatriya, hoping that he should tell him the Brahman. However, I shall make you know him clearly,' thus saying he took him by the hand and rose. And the two together came to a person who was asleep. He called him by these names, 'Thou, great one, clad in white raiment, Soma, King [1].' He did not rise. Then rubbing him with his hand, he woke him, and he arose.

Footnote:

1. These names are given here as they occur in the Kaushîtaki-upanishad, not as in the Brihadâranyaka-upanishad, where the first name was atishthâh sarveshâm bhûtânâm mûrdhâ râgâ. This throws an important light on the composition of the Upanishads.


Sloka : 2.1.16

मन्त्र १६[II.i.16]

स होवाचाजातशत्रुर्यत्रैष एतत् सुप्तोऽभूद् य एष विज्ञानमयः

पुरुषः क्वैष तदाऽभूत् कुत एतदागादिति । तदु ह न मेने गार्ग्यः ॥ १६॥

mantra 16[II.i.16]

sa hovācājātaśatruryatraiṣa etat supto'bhūd ya eṣa vijñānamayaḥ

puruṣaḥ kvaiṣa tadā'bhūt kuta etadāgāditi . tadu ha na mene gārgyaḥ .. 16..



Meaning:- Ajatasatru said, 'When this being full of consciousness (identified with the mind) was thus asleep, where was it, and whence did it thus come?' Gargya did not know that.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Having thus proved the existence of the self other than the body, Ajatasatru said to Gargya, 'When this being full of consciousness was thus asleep, before being roused by pushing,' etc. 'Consciousness' here means the instrument of knowledge, i.e. the mind, or more specifically, the intellect. What then does the phrase 'full of consciousness' mean? It means:- which is perceived in the intellect, which is perceive through it, and which perceives through it.

Objection:- When the suffix 'mayat' has so many meanings, how do you know that it means 'full of'?
Reply:- Because in such passages as, 'This self is indeed Brahman, as well as identified with the intellect, the Manas' (IV. iv. 5), we see the suffix used in the sense of fullness. Besides, the self is never known to be a modification of the consciousness that is the Supreme Self. Again, in the passage, 'This being full of consciousness,' etc., the self is mentioned as something already familiar. And lastly, the meanings, 'made of' and 'resembling,' are here impossible. Hence on the principle of the residuum the meaning is fullness only. Therefore the phrase means, 'Identified with the mind, which considers the pros and cons of a subject and does other functions.' 'Being (Purusa), because it dwells in the intellect as in a city. The question, 'Where was it then?' is intended to teach the nature of the self. By a reference to the absence of effects before awaking, it is intended to show that the self is of a nature opposed to action, its factors and its results. Before awaking (in profound sleep) it perceives nothing whatsoever like pleasure and so forth, which are the effects of past work. Therefore, not being caused by past work, we understand that that is the very nature of the self. In order to teach that the self was then in its nature, and that only when it deviates from it, it becomes --- contrary to its nature --- subject to transmigration, Ajatasatru asks Gargya, who was abashed, with a view to enlightening him on the point. These two questions, 'Where was it then?' and 'Whence did it thus come?' should have been asked by Gargya. But simply because he does not ask them, Ajatasatru does not remain indifferent. He proceeds to explain them, thinking that Gargya must be instructed, for he himself has promised, 'I will instruct you.' Although thus enlightened, Gargya did not understand where the self was before awaking and whence it came the way it did, either to tell or ask about them. He did not know that.

Translation By Max Müller

16. Agâtasatru said:- 'When this man was thus asleep, where was then the person (purusha), the intelligent? and from whence did he thus come back?' Gârgya did not know this?


Sloka : 2.1.17

मन्त्र १७[II.i.17]

स होवाचाजातशत्रुर्यत्रैष एतत्।सुप्तोऽभूद् य एष विज्ञानमयः

पुरुषस्तदेषां प्राणानां विज्ञानेन विज्ञानमादाय य एषोऽन्तर्हृदय

आकाशस्तस्मिञ्छेते । तानि यदा गृह्णाति अथ हैतत्पुरुषः

स्वपिति नाम । तद्गृहीत एव प्राणो भवति गृहीता वाग् गृहीतं

चक्षुर्गृहीतꣳ श्रोत्रं गृहीतं मनः ॥ १७॥

mantra 17[II.i.17]

sa hovācājātaśatruryatraiṣa etat.supto'bhūd ya eṣa vijñānamayaḥ

puruṣastadeṣāṃ prāṇānāṃ vijñānena vijñānamādāya ya eṣo'ntarhṛdaya

ākāśastasmiñchete . tāni yadā gṛhṇāti atha haitatpuruṣaḥ

svapiti nāma . tadgṛhīta eva prāṇo bhavati gṛhītā vāg gṛhītaṃ

cakṣurgṛhītagͫ śrotraṃ gṛhītaṃ manaḥ .. 17..



Meaning:- Ajatasatru said, 'When this being full of consciousness is thus asleep, it absorbs at the time the functions of the organs through its own consciousness, and lies in the Akasa (Supreme Self) that is in the heart. When this being absorbs them, it is called Svapiti. Then the nose is absorbed, the organ of speech is absorbed, the eye is absorbed, the ear is absorbed, and the mind is absorbed'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Ajatasatru, to convey his intended meaning, said:- I shall answer the question I asked, viz 'When this being full of consciousness was thus asleep, where was it, and whence did it come?' Listen. When this being full of consciousness is thus asleep, it absorbs at the time the functions of the organs, their capacity to perceive their respective objects, through its own consciousness, the particular manifestation in its limiting adjunct, the mind, caused by its material, ignorance, and lies in the Akasa that is in the heart. 'Akasa' here means the Supreme Self, which is identical with its own self. It lies in that Supreme Self, which is its own nature and transcendent; not in the ordinary ether, for there is another Sruti in its support:- 'With Existence, my dear, it is then united' (Ch. VI. viii. 1). The idea is that it gives up its differentiated forms, which are created by its connection with the limiting adjunct, the subtle body, and remains in its undifferntiated, natural, absolute self.

Objection:- How do you know that when it gives up the superintendence over the body and organs, it lives in its own self?
Reply:- Through its name being well known.
Objection:- What is that?
Reply:- When this being absorbs them, the functions of the organs, it is called Svapiti. Then this is its (The word 'Purusa' in the text is explained as standing for the genitive case.) name that becomes widely known. And this name has reference to a certain attribute of its. It is called Svapiti, because it is merged in its own self.

Objection:- True, the fact of this name being well known tells us of the transcendent character of the self, but there are no arguments in favour of it.
Reply:- There are. During sleep the nose (Prana) is absorbed. 'Prana' here means the organ of smell, for the context deals with the organs such as that of speech. It is only when it is connected with these organs that the self is seen to have relative attributes, because of those limiting adjuncts. And these organs are then abosrbed by it. How? The organ of speech is absorbed, the eye is absorbed, the ear is absorbed, and the mind is absorbed. Therefore it is clear that the organs being absorbed, the self rests in its own self, for then it is no more changed into action, its factors and its results.

Translation By Max Müller

17. Agâtasatru said:- 'When this man was thus asleep, then the intelligent person (purusha), having through the intelligence of the senses (prânas) absorbed within himself all intelligence, lies in the ether, which is in the heart [1]. When he takes in these different kinds of intelligence, then it is said that the man sleeps (svapiti) [2]. Then the breath is kept in, speech is kept in, the ear is kept in, the eye is kept in, the mind is kept in.

Footnote:

1. The ether in the heart is meant for the real Self. He has come to himself, to his Self, i.e. to the true Brahman. 2. Svapiti, he sleeps, is explained as sva, his own Self, and apiti for apyeti, he goes towards, so that 'he sleeps' must be interpreted as meaning 'he comes to his Self.' In another passage it is explained by svam apîto bhavati. See Saṅkara's Commentary on the Brih. Âr. Up. vol. i, p. 372.


Sloka : 2.1.18

मन्त्र १८[II.i.18]

स यत्रैतत्स्वप्न्यया चरति ते हास्य लोकास्तदुतेव महाराजो

भवत्युतेव महाब्राह्मण उतेवोच्चावचं निगच्छति । स यथा

महाराजो जानपदान्गृहीत्वा स्वे जनपदे यथाकामं परिवर्तेतैवमेवैष

एतत्प्राणान्गृहीत्वा स्वे शरीरे यथाकामं परिवर्तते ॥ १८॥ गृहीत्वा

स्वे शरीरे यथाकामम् परिवर्तते

mantra 18[II.i.18]

sa yatraitatsvapnyayā carati te hāsya lokāstaduteva mahārājo

bhavatyuteva mahābrāhmaṇa utevoccāvacaṃ nigacchati . sa yathā

mahārājo jānapadāngṛhītvā sve janapade yathākāmaṃ parivartetaivamevaiṣa

etatprāṇāngṛhītvā sve śarīre yathākāmaṃ parivartate .. 18.. gṛhītvā

sve śarīre yathākāmam parivartate



Meaning:- When it thus remains in the dream state, these are its achievements:- It then becomes an emperor, as it were, or a noble Brahmana, as it were, or attains states high or low, as it were. As an emperor, taking his citizens, moves about as he pleases in his own territory, so does it, thus taking the organs, move about as it pleases in its own body.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:-
Objection:- Although it is dissociated from the body and organs in the dream state, which is a kind of experience, we observe it to be possessed of relative attributes:- it is happy, miserable, bereft of friends, as in the waking state, and grieves or is deluded. Therefore it must be possessed of attributes such as grief and delusion, and these as also pleasure, pain, etc. are not superimposed on it by the error brought on by its contact with the body and organs.
Reply:- No, because those experiences are false. When it, the self in question, remains in the dream state, which is a kind of experience, these are its achievements, results of past work. What are they? It then becomes an emperor, as it were. This apparent suzerainty --- not actual suzerainty, as in the waking state --- is its achievement. Likewise a noble Brahmana, as it were. It also attains states high or low, such as that of a god or an animal, as it were. Its suzerainty and other achievements are absolutely false, for there is the clause 'as it were,' and they are contradicted by waking experience. Therefore it is not actually connected with the grief, delusion, etc., caused by the loss of friends and so forth, in dreams.

Objection:- As its achievements of the waking state are not contradicted in that state, so its achievements such as suzerainty, which occur in the dream state, are not contradicted in that state, and are a part of the self, not superimposed by ignorance.
Reply:- By demonstrating that the self is a conscious entity distinct from the vital force etc., have we not indicated that its identification with the body and organs or with godhead in the waking state is superimposed by ignorance and is not real? How then can it start up as an illustration of the dream-world, like a dead man desiring to come back to life?

Objection:- True. Viewing the self, which is other than the body etc., as the body and organs or as a god, is superimposed by ignorance, like seeing a mother-of-pearl as a piece of silver. This is established by the very arguments that prove the existence of the self other than the body etc., but those arguments were not used specifically to prove the unattached nature of the self. Therefore the illustration of viewing the self as the body and organs or as a god in the waking state is again brought forward. Every argument ceases to be a mere repetition if there is some little distinction in it.
Reply:- Not so. The achievements such as suzerainty, which are perceived in a dream, are not a part of the self, for then we see a world which is distinct from it and is but a reflection of the world perceived in the waking state. In reality, an emperor, lying in his bed while his subjects are asleep in different places, sees dreams, with his senses withdrawn, and in that state himself, as in the waking state, to be an emperor, again surrounded by his subjects, taking part in a pageant and having enjoyments, as it were. Except the emperor sleeping in his bed, there is no second one who, surrounded by his subjects, is known to move about among the objects of enjoyment in the day-time --- whom the former would visualise in sleep. Besides, one whose senses are withdrawn can never see objects having colour etc. Nor can there be in that body another like it, and one sees dreams remaining only in the body.

Objection:- But one lying in bed sees oneself moving in the street.
Reply:- One does not see dreams outside. So the text goes on:- As an emperor, taking his citizens, his retinue and others who minister to his comforts moves about as he pleases in his own territory, acquinted through conquest etc., so does it, this individual self, thus taking the organs, withdrawing them from the places they occupy in the waking state --- 'Etat' (this) is here an adverb (meaning thus) ---- move about as it pleases in its own body, not outside. That is, it experiences impressions corresponding to things previously perceived, revived by its desires and the resultant of past actions. Therefore in dreams
worlds that never exist are falsely superimposed as being a part of the self. One must know the worlds experienced in the waking state also to be such. Hence it goes without saying that the self is pure, and is never connected with action, its factors and its results. Since in both waking and dream states we observe that the gross and subtle worlds consisting of action, its factors and its results are but objects for the seer, therefore that seer, the self, is different from its objects, the worlds perceived in those states, and is pure.
Since in a dream, which is a kind of experience, the impressions (of past experiences) are objects, we know that they are not attributes of the self, and that for this reason it is pure. Now in the passage, 'Then it moves about as it pleases,' movement at pleasure has been spoken of. It may be urged that the relation of the seer to the objects is natural, and that therefore it becomes impure. Hence to establish its purity the Sruti says:-

Translation By Max Müller

18. But when he moves about in sleep (and dream), then these are his worlds. He is, as it were, a great king; he is, as it were, a great Brâhmana; he rises, as it were, and he falls. And as a great king might keep in his own subjects, and move about, according to his pleasure, within his own domain, thus does that person (who is endowed with intelligence) keep in the various senses (prânas) and move about, according to his pleasure, within his own body (while dreaming).


Sloka : 2.1.19

मन्त्र १९[II.i.19]

अथ यदा सुषुप्तो भवति यदा न कस्यचन वेद हिता नाम नाड्यो

द्वासप्ततिः सहस्राणि हृदयात्पुरीततमभिप्रतिष्ठन्ते । ताभिः

प्रत्यवसृप्य पुरीतति शेते । स यथा कुमारो वा महाराजो वा

महाब्राह्मणो वाऽतिघ्नीमानन्दस्य गत्वा शयीतैवमेवैष एतच्छेते ॥ १९॥

mantra 19[II.i.19]

atha yadā suṣupto bhavati yadā na kasyacana veda hitā nāma nāḍyo

dvāsaptatiḥ sahasrāṇi hṛdayātpurītatamabhipratiṣṭhante . tābhiḥ

pratyavasṛpya purītati śete . sa yathā kumāro vā mahārājo vā

mahābrāhmaṇo vā'tighnīmānandasya gatvā śayītaivamevaiṣa etacchete .. 19..



Meaning:- Again when it becomes fast asleep - when it does not know anything - it comes back along the seventy-two thousand nerves called Hita, which extend from the heart to the pericardium (the whole body), and remains in the body. As a baby, or an emperor, or a noble Brahmana lives, having attained the acme of bliss, so does it remain.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Again, when it becomes fast asleep, etc. Even when it dreams, it is nothing but pure. Again when giving up dreams, which are a kind of experience, it becomes fast or perfectly asleep --- attains its natural state of perfect purity (Samprasada; a synonym of profound sleep.), becomes pure as it is by nature, giving up, like water, the impurity due to contact with other things, (then its purity is all the more clearly established). When does it become perfectly asleep? When it does not know anything. Or, does not know anything else relating to sound etc. The last few words have to be understood. The first is the right interpretation, for the purport is that there is no particular consciousness in the state of profound sleep.
Thus it has been said that when there is no particular consciousness, it is the state of profound sleep. By what process does this take place? This is being described:- Seventy-two thousand nerves called Hita, which are the metabolic effects of the food and drink in the body, extend from the heart, that lotus-shaped lump of flesh, to the pericardium, which here means the body; that is, they branch off, covering the whole body like the veins of an Asvattha leaf. The heart is the seat of the intellect, the internal organ, and the other or external organs are subject to that intellect abiding in the heart. Therefore in accordance with the individual's past actions the intellect in the waking state extends, along those nerves interwoven like a fish-net, the functions of the organs such as the ear to their seats, the outer ear etc., and then directs them. The individual self pervades the intellect with a reflection of its own manifested consciousness. And when the intellect contracts, it too contracts. That is the sleep of this individual self. And when it perceives the expansion of the intellect, it is waking experience. It follows the nature of its limiting adjunct, the intellect, just as a reflection of the moon etc. follows the nature of water and so forth. Therefore whenn the intellect that has the waking experience comes back along those nerves, the individual self too comes back and remains in the body, uniformity pervading it, as fire does a heated lump of iron. Although it remains unchanged in its own natural self, it is here spoken of as remaining in the body, because it follows the activities of the intellect, which again is dependent on one's past actions. For the self has no contact with the body in profound sleep. It will be said later on, 'He is then beyond all woes of the heart' (IV. iii. 22). That this state is free from all miseries pertaining to relative existence is thus illustrated:- As a baby or an emperor whose subjects are entirely obedient, and who can do whatever he says, or a noble Brahmana who is exceedingly mature in erudition and modesty, lives, having attained the acme of bliss, literally, a degree of it that entirely blots out misery. It is a well known fact that these, the baby and the rest, while they remain in their normal state, are exceedingly happy. It is only when they depart from it that they feel miserable, not naturally. Therefore their normal etate is cited as an illustration, because it is well known. The reference is not to their sleep, for sleep is the thing to be illustrated here. Besides there is no difference between their sleep and anybody else's. If there were any difference, the one might serve as an illustration of the other. Therefore their sleep is not the illustration. So, like this example, does it, the individual self, remain. 'Etat' is an adverb here. So does it remain in its own natural self beyond all relative attributes during profound sleep.
The question, 'Where was it then?' (II. i. 16) has been answered. And by this answer the natural purity and transcendence of the individual self has been mentioned. Now the answer to the question, 'Whence did it comes?' (Ibid.) is being taken up.

Objection:- If a man living at a particular village or town wants to go somewhere else, he starts from that very place, and from nowhere else. Such being the case, the question should only be, 'Where was it then?' We very well know that a man comes
from where he was, and from nowhere else. So the question, 'Whence did it come?' is simply redundant.
Reply:- Do you mean to flout the Vedas?
Objection:- No, I only wish to hear some other meaning to the second question; so I raise the objection of redundancy.
Reply:- Well then, we do not take the word 'whence' in the sense of an ablative, since in that case the question would be a repetition, but not if we take it in a difference sense.
Objection:- Then let us take the question as an inquiry about the cause. 'Whence did it come?' means, 'What caused it to come here?'
Reply:- It cannot be an inquiry about the cause either, for we have a different kind of answer. For instance the answer sets forth the origin of the whole universe from the Self, like sparks from fire, and so on. In the emanation of sparks the fire is not the efficient cause, but that from which they separte. Similarly in the sentence, 'From this Self,' etc. (this text), the Supreme Self is spoken of as that source from which the individual self emanates. Therefore the answer being different, you cannot take the word 'whence' as an inquiry about the cause.

Objection:- Even if it were used in an ablative sense, the objection of redundancy would remain just the same.
Reply:- Not so. The two questions are meant to convey that the self is not connected with action, its factors and its results. In the preceding chapter the subject-matter of knowledge and ignorance has been introduced. 'The Self alone is to be meditated upon' (I. iv. 7), 'It knew only Itself' (I. iv. 10) 'One should meditate only upon the world of the Self' (I. iv. 15) --- these represent the subject-matter of knowledge. And that of ignorance includes rites with five factors and its three results, the three kinds of food, consisting of name, form and action. Of these, all that had to be said about the subject-matter of ignorance has been said. But the Self devoid of attributes that is the subject-matter of knowledge has only been introduced, but not conclusively dealt with. To do this the present chapter has opened with, 'I will tell you about Brahman' (If. i. 1), and also 'will instruct you' (II. i. 15). Therefore that Brahman which is the subject-matter of knowledge, has to be explained in Its true nature. And Its true nature is devoid of differences relating to action, its factors and its results, exceedingly pure and one --- this is the intended meaning. Therefore the Sruti raises two questions that are appropriate to it, viz 'Where was it then, and whence did it come?' (II. i. 16).

Now that in which a thing exists is its container, and what is there is the contents, and the container and content are observed to be different. Similarly that from which a thing comes is its starting place, and that which comes is the agent, which is observed to be different from the other. Therefore one would be apt to think, in accordance with convention, that the self was somewhere, being different from that place, and came from somewhere, being different from it, and the means by which it came is also different from it. That idea has to be removed by the answer. (So it is stated that) this self was not in any place different from itself, nor did it come from any place different from itself, nor is there in the self any means different from itself. What then is the import? That the self was in its own Self. This is borne out by the Sruti passages, 'It merges in its own Self' (Ch. VI. viii. 1), 'With Existence, my dear, it is then united' (Ibid.), 'Fully embraced by the Supreme Self' (IV. iii. 21), 'Rests on the Supreme Self,' etc. (Pr. IV. 7). For the same reason it does not come from any place different from itself. This is shown by the text itself, 'From this Self,' etc. For there is no other entity besides the Self.

Objection:- There are other entities besides the Self, such as the organs.
Reply:- No, because the organs etc. spring from the Self alone. How this takes place is described as follows:-

Translation By Max Müller

19. Next, when he is in profound sleep, and knows nothing, there are the seventy-two thousand arteries called Hita, which from the heart spread through the body [1]. Through them he moves forth and rests in the surrounding body. And as a young man, or a great king, or a great Brâhmana, having reached the summit of happiness, might rest, so does he then rest.

Footnote:

1. 'Not the pericardium only, but the whole body.' Comm.


Sloka : 2.1.20

मन्त्र २०[II.i.20]

स यथोर्णभिस्तन्तुनोच्चरेद् यथाऽग्नेः क्षुद्रा विष्फुलिङ्गा

व्युच्चरन्त्येवमेवास्मादात्मनः सर्वे प्राणाः सर्वे लोकाः सर्वे

देवाः सर्वाणि भूतानि व्युच्चरन्ति । सर्वे ॥। व्युच्चरन्ति

तस्योपनिषत्सत्यस्य सत्यमिति प्राणा वै सत्यं तेषामेष सत्यम् ॥ २०॥

इति प्रथमं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ द्वितीयं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 20[II.i.20]

sa yathorṇabhistantunoccared yathā'gneḥ kṣudrā viṣphuliṅgā

vyuccarantyevamevāsmādātmanaḥ sarve prāṇāḥ sarve lokāḥ sarve

devāḥ sarvāṇi bhūtāni vyuccaranti . sarve ... vyuccaranti

tasyopaniṣatsatyasya satyamiti prāṇā vai satyaṃ teṣāmeṣa satyam .. 20..

iti prathamaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha dvitīyaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- As a spider moves along the thread (it produces), and as from a fire tiny sparks fly in all directions, so from this Self emanate all organs, all worlds, all gods and all beings. Its secret name (Upanishad) is 'the Truth of Truth'. The vital force is truth, and It is the Truth of that.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- This is illustrated thus:- As in the world a spider, which is well known to be one entity, moves along the thread which is not different from itself --- and there is no other auxiliary to its movement but itself --- and as from one homogeneous fire tiny sparks, little specks of fire, fly in different ways, or in numbers; as these two illustrations show activity even in the absence of any difference regarding auxiliaries, as also natural unity before the activity starts, just so from this Self, i.e. from the real nature of the individual self before it wakes up, emanate all organs such as that of speech, all worlds such as the earth, which are the results of one's past actions, all gods such as fire, who preside over the organs and the worlds, and all living beings, from Hiranyagarbha down to a clump of grass. If the reading is, 'All these souls (As the Madhyandina recension has it.),' then the meaning will be, 'Souls with particular characteristics manifested owing to connection with limiting adjuncts.' It is the Self from which this moving and unmoving world continually proceeds like sparks of fire, in which it is merged like a bubble of water, and with which it remains filled during existence. The secret name (Upanisad) of this Self or Brahman, etc. 'Upanisad' means 'that which brings (one) near' (Brahman), that is, a word denoting It (a name). That this capacity to 'bring near' is a speciality of this particular name is known on the authority of the scriptures alone. What is this secret name? The Truth of truth. Since this secret name always has a transcendental import, it is difficult to understand. Therefore the Sruti gives its meaning:- The vital force is truth, and It is the Truth of that. The next two sections will be devoted to explaining this sentence.

Question:- Granted that the next two sections will be devoted to explaining the secret name. The text says, 'Its secret name.' But we do not know whether it is the secret name of the individual self, which is the subject under discussion, which awoke through pushing, is subject to transmigration, and perceives sound etc., or whether it refers to some transcendent principle.
Reply:- What difference does it make?
Question:- Just this:- If it refers to the relative (transmigrating) self, then that is to be known, and by knowing it (identity with)
all will be attained; further it alone will be denoted by the word 'Brahman,' and the knowledge of it will be the knowledge of Brahman. But if the transcendent Self is meant, then the knowledge of It will be the knowledge of Brahman, and from that identity with all will be attained. That all this will happen we know on the authority of the scriptures. But according to this view (if the individual self and Brahman are different) the Vedic texts that teach their identity, such as, 'The Self alone is to be meditated upon' (I. iv. 7) and 'It knew only Itself as, 'I am Brahman' ' (I. iv. 10), will be contradicted. And (if they are identical) there being no relative self different from the Supreme Self, spiritual instruction will be useless, Since this (unity of the self) is a question that has not been answered and is a source of confusion even to scholars, therefore in order to facilitate the understanding of passages that deal with the knowledge of Brahman for those who seek It, we shall discuss the point as best as we can.
Prima facie view:- The transcendent Supreme Self is not meant, for the text states the origin of the universe from a self which awoke on being pushed with the hand, which perceives sound etc., and which is possessed of a distinct state (profound sleep). To be explicit:- There is no Supreme Self devoid of the desire for food etc., which is the ruler of the universe. Why? Because the Sruti, after introducing the topic, 'I will tell you about Brahman' (II. i. 15), then mentioning the rousing of the sleeping man by pushing with the hand --- thereby showing him to be the perceiver of sound etc. --- and describing his transition through the dream state to that of profound sleep, shows the origin of the universe from that very self possessed of the state
of profound sleep, by the two illustrations of sparks of fire and the spider, in the passage, 'So from this Self,' etc. And no other cause of the origin of the universe is mentioned in between, for this section deals exclusively with the individual self. Another Sruti, the Kausitaki Upanisad, which deals with the same topic, after introducing the beings who are in the sun etc., says 'He said:- He, O Balaki, who is the matter of these beings, and whose handiwork this universe is, is indeed to be known' (IV. 19). This shows that the individual self roused from sleep, and none other, is to be known. Similarly by saying, 'But it is for one's own sake that all is loved' (II. iv. 5; IV. v. 6), the Sruti shows that that self which is familiar to us as being dear is alone to be realised through hearing, reflection and meditation. So also the statements made while introducing the topic of knowledge, such as , 'The Self alone is to be meditated upon' (I. iv. 7), 'This (Self) is dearer than a son, dearer than wealth,' etc. (I. iv. , 'It knew only itself as, 'I am Brahman,' ' etc. (I. iv. 10), would be consistent if there were no Supreme Self. It will also be said further on, If a man knows himself to be the Self' (IV. iv. 12). Moreover, in all Vedanta it is the inner self which is put forward as the entity to be known, as 'I (am Brahman),' and never any external object like sound etc., saying, 'That is Brahman.' Similarly in the Kausitaki Upanisad, in the passage, 'Do not seek to know about speech, know the speaker,' etc. (III. 8 etc.), it is the agent (the individual self) using speech etc. as instruments, which is put forward as the entity to be known.

Objection:- Suppose we say that the individual self in a different state is the Supreme Self? It may be like this:- The same individual self which perceives sound etc. in the waking state is changed into the transcendent Supreme Self, the ruler of the universe, on getting into the state of profound sleep.
Tentative answer:- No, this is contrary to experience. We never find anything having this characteristic outside of Buddhist philosophy. It never happens in life that a cow standing or going is a cow, but that on lying down she becomes a horse or any other species. It is contrary to logic also. A thing that is known through some means of knowledge to have a certain characteristic, retains that characteristic even in a different place, time or condition. If it ceases to have that characteristic all application of the means of knowledge would stop. Similarly the Samkhyas, Mimamsakas and others who are skilled in logic adduce hundreds of reasons to prove the absence of a transcendent self.

Objection:- Your view is wrong, for the relative self too lacks the knowledge of how to effect the origin, continuity and dissolution of the universe. To be explicit:- The position you have advocated so elaborately, viz that the same relative self which perceives sound etc. becomes the ruler of the universe when it attains a different condition, is untenable. For everybody knows that the relative self lacks the knowledge, power and means to effect the origin, continuity and dissolution of the universe. How can a relative self like us construct this universe in which the earth etc. are located, and which it is impossible even to think of with the mind?
Tentative answer:- Not so, for the scriptures are in our favour. They show the origin etc. of the universe from the relative self,
for example, 'So from this Self,' etc. (this text). Therefore our view is all right.

Objection (By the believers in Isvara only as the efficient, not material cause of the universe.):- There is a transcendent Supreme Self, and It is the cause of the universe, for such is the verdict of the Sruti, Smrti and reason. Witness hundreds of Sruti passages such as, 'That which knows things in a general and particular way' (Mu. I. i. 9 and II. ii. 7), 'That which transcends hunger and thirst' (III. v. 1), 'Unattached, It is not attached to anything' (III. ix. 26), 'Under the mighty rule of this Immutable,' etc. (III. viii. 9), 'That which living in all beings ' is the internal ruler and immortal' (III. vii. 15), '(That Being) who definitely projects those beings ' and is at the same time transcendent' (III. ix. 26), 'That great, birthless Self' (IV. iv. 22 etc.), 'It is the bank that serves as the boundary to keep the different worlds apart' (Ibid.), 'The controller of all, the lord of all' (Ibid.), 'The Self that is sinless, undecaying, immortal' (Ch. VIII. vii. 1, 3), 'It projected fire' (Ch. VI. ii. 3), 'In the beginning this universe was only the Self' (Ai. I. 1), 'It is not affected by human misery, being beyond it' (Ka. V. 11.) Also the Smrti passage, 'I am the origin of all, and from Me everything springs' (G. X. .
Tentative answer:- Have we not said that the text, 'So from this Self,' shows the origin of the universe from the relative self?

Objection:- Not so, for since in the passage, 'The Akasa that is in the heart' (II. i. 17), the Supreme Self has been introduced, the text, 'So from this Self,' should refer to the Supreme Self.
In reply to the question, 'Where was it then?' (II. i. 16), the Supreme Self, denoted by the word 'Akasa,' has been mentioned in the text, 'It lies in the Akasa that is in the heart.' That the word 'Akasa' refers to the Supreme Self is clear from texts such as:- 'With Existence my dear, it is then united' (Ch. VI. viii. 1), 'Every day they attain this world that is Brahman, but they do not realise this' (Ch. VIII. iii. 2), 'Fully embraced by the Supreme Self' (IV. iii. 21), and 'Rests on the Supreme Self' (Pr. IV. 76). That the Supreme Self is the topic further appears from the use of the word 'Self' with reference to the Supreme Self, which has been introduced in the passage, 'In it there is a little space' (Ch. VIII. i. 1). Therefore the passage, 'So from this Self,' should indicate that the universe springs from the Supreme Self alone. And we have already said that the relative self has not the power and knowledge to project, maintain and dissolve the universe.
In the passages, The Self alone is to be meditated upon' (I. iv. 7), and 'It knew only Itself as, 'I am Brahman' ' (I. iv. 10), the topic of the knowledge of Brahman was introduced, and this deals with Brahman as its subject. This section too opens with sentences such as, 'I will tell you about Brahman' (II. i. 1), and 'I will teach you about Brahman' (II. i. 15). Now the transcendent Brahman, which is beyond hunger etc. and is eternal, pure, enlightened and free by nature, is the cause of the universe, while the relative self is the opposite of that; therefore it would not (in its present state) perceive itself to be identical with Brahman. On the other hand, would not the inferior relative self be open to censure it if identified the Supreme Self, the self-
effulgent ruler of the universe, with itself? Therefore it is unreasonable to say, 'I am Brahman.'
Hence one should wish to worship Brahman with flowers, water, folding of the palms, praises, prostration, sacrifices, presents, repetition of Its name, meditation, Yoga, etc. Knowing It through worship one becomes Brahman, the ruler of all. But one should not think of the transcendent Brahman as the relative self; it would be like thinking of fire as cold, and the sky as possessed of form. The scriptural passages too that teach the identity of the self with Brahman should be taken as merely eulogistic. This interpretation will also harmonise with all logic and common sense.

Advaitin's reply:- That cannot be, for from Mantra and Brahmana texts we know that the Supreme Self alone entered. Beginning with, 'He made bodies,' etc. (II. v. 18), the text says, 'The Supreme Being entered the bodies' (Ibid.), 'He transformed Himself in accordance with each form; that form of His was for the sake of making Him known' (II. v. 19; R. VI. x1vii. 18); 'The Wise One, who after projecting all forms, names them, and goes on uttering those names' (Tai. A. III. xii. 7) --- thus thousands of Mantras in all recensions show that it is the transcendent Isvara who entered the body. Similarly Brahmana texts such as, 'After projecting it, the Self entered into it' (Tai. II. vi. 1), 'Piercing this dividing line (of the head) It entered through that gate' (Ai. III. 12), 'That deity (Existence), penetrating these three gods (fire, water and earth) as this individual self,' etc. (Ch. VI. iii. 3, 4), 'This Self, being hidden in all beings, is not manifest,' etc. (K. III. 12). Since the word 'Self'has beenn used in all scriptures to denote Brahman, and since it refers to the inner Self, and fruthr the Sruti passage, 'He is the inner Self of all beings' (Mu. II. i. 4), shows the absence of a relative self other than the Supreme Self, as also the Sruti texts, 'One only without a second' (Ch. VI. ii. 1), 'This universe is but Brahman' (Mu. II. ii. 11), 'All this is but the Self' (Ch. VIII. xxv. 2), it is but proper to conclude the identity of the individual self with Brahman.

Objection:- If such is the import of the scriptures, then the Supreme Self becomes relative, and it it is so, the scriptures (teaching Its transcendence) become useless; whiel if It is (identical with the individual self and yet) transcendent, then there is this obvious objection that spiritual instruction becomes redundant. To be explicit:- If the Supreme Self, which is the inmost Self of all beings, feels the miseries arising from contact with all bodies, It obviously becomes relative. In that case those Sruti and Smrti texts that establish the transcendence of the Supreme Self, as also all reason would be set at naught. If, on the other hand, it can somehow be maintained that It is not connected with the miseries arising from contact with the bodies of different beings, it is impossible to refute the charge of the futility of all spiritual instruction, for there is nothing for the Supreme Self either to achieve or to avoid.
To this dilemma some suggest the following solution:- The Supreme Self did not penetrate the bodies directly in Its own form, but It became the individual self after undergoing a modification. And that individual self is both different from and identical with the Supreme Self. In so far as it is different, it
is affected by relativity, and in so far as it is identical, it is capable of being ascertained as, 'I am Brahman.' Thus there will be no contradiction anywhere.
Now, if the individual self be a modification of Supreme Self, there may be the following alternatives:- The Supreme Self may be an aggreage of many things and consist of parts, like the substance earth, and the individual self may be the modification of some portion of It, like a jar etc. Or the Supreme Self may retain Its form, and a portion of It be modified, like hair or a barren tract, for instance. Or the entire Supreme Self may be modified, like milk etc. Now in the first view, according to which a particular thing out of an aggregate of a great many things of the same category becomes the individual self, since this particular thing is only of the same category, the identity is but figurative, not real. In that case it would be a contradiction of the verdict of the Sruti. It, however, (as in the second view) the Supreme Self is a whole eternally consisting of parts inseparably connected together, and, while It remains unchanged in form, a portion of it becomes the relative individual self, then, since the whole inheres in all the parts, it is affected by the merit or defect of each part; hence the Supreme Self will be subject to the evil of transmigration attaching to the individual self. Therefore this view also is inadmissible; while the view that holds that the whole of the Supreme Self is transformed disregards all the Srutis and Smrtis and is therefore unacceptable. All these views contradict reason as well as Sruti and Smrti texts such as, '(Brahman is) without parts, devodi of activity and serene' (Sv. VI. 19), 'The Supreme Being is resplendent, formless, including both within and without, and birthless' (Mu. II. i. 2), 'All-pervading like the sky and eternal,' 'That great, birthless Self is undecaying, immortal, undying' (IV. iv. 25), 'It is never born nor dies' (Ka. II. 18; G. II. 20), 'It is undifferentiated,' etc. (G. II. 25). If the individual self be a portion of the immutable Supreme Self, then it will find it impossible to go (after death) to places in accordance with its past work, or else the Supreme Self will, as already said, be subject to transmigration.

Objection:- Suppose we say that the individual self is a portion of the Supreme Self detached from It like a spark of fire, and that transmigrates.
Reply:- Yet the Supreme Self will get a wound by this breaking off of Its part, and as that part trasmigrates, it will make a hole in the assemblage of parts another portion of the Supreme Self --- which will contradict the scriptural statements about Its being without any wound. If the individual self, which is a part of the Supreme Self, transmigrates, then, since there is no space without It, some other parts of It being pushed and displaced, the Supreme Self will feel pains as if It has colic in the heart.

Objection:- There is nothing wrong in it, for there are Sruti texts giving illustrations of sparks of fire etc.
Reply:- Not so, for the Sruti is merely informative. The scriptures seek not to alter things but to supply information about things unknown, as they are.
Objection:- What difference does it make?
Reply:- Listen. Things in the world are known to possess certain fixed characteristics such as grossness or fineness. By citing them as examples the scriptures seek to tell us about some other thing which does not contradict them. They would not cite an example from life if they wanted to convey an idea of something contradictory to it. Even if they did, it would be to no purpose, for the example would be different from the thing to be explained. You cannot prove that fire is cold, or that the sun does not give heat, even by citing a hundred examples, for the facts would already be known to be otherwise through another means of knowledge. And one means of knowledge does not contradict another, for it only tells about those things that cannot be known by any other means. Nor can the scriptures speak about an unknown thing without having recourse to conventional words and their meanings. Therefore one who follows convention can never prove that the Supreme Self really has parts or stands to other things in the relation of whole to part.

Objection:- But do not the Sruti and Smrti say, 'Tiny sparks' (this text), and 'A part of Myself' (G. XV. 7)?
Reply:- Not so, for the passages are meant to convey the idea of oneness. We notice in life that sparks of fire may be considered identical with fire. Similarly a part may be considered identical with the whole. Such being the case, words signifying a modification or part of the Supreme Self, as applied to the individual self, are meant to convey its identity with It. That this is so appears also from the introduction and conclusion. In
all the Upanisads first identity is broached, then by means of illustrations and reasons the universe is shown to be a modification or part or the like of the Supreme Self, and the conclusion again brings out the identity. Here, for instance, the text begins with, 'This all is the Self' (II. iv. 6), then through arguments and examples about the origin, continuity and dissolution of the universe, it adduces reasons for considering its identity with Brahman, such as the relation of cause and effect, and it will conclude with, 'Without interior or exterior. This self is Brahman' (II. v. 19). Therefore from that introduction and conclusion it is clear that the passages setting forth the origin, continuity and dissolution of the universe are for strengthening the idea of the identity of the individual self with the Supreme Self. Otherwise there would be a break in the topic. All believers in the Upanisads are unanimous on the point that all of these enjoin on us to think of the identity of the individual self with the Supreme Self. If it is possible to construe the passages setting forth the origin etc. of the universe so as to keep up the continuity of that injunction, to interpret them so as to introduce a new topic would be unwarrantable. A different result too would have to be provied for. Therefore we conclude that the Sruti passages setting forth the origin etc. of the universe must be for establishing the identity of the individual self and Supreme Self.

Regarding this teachers of Vedanta (The reference is to Dravidacarya.), narrate the following parable:- A certain prince was discarded by his parents as soon as he was born, and brought up in a fowler's home. Not knowing his princely descent, he thought himself to be a fowler and pursued the
fowler's duties, not those of a king, as he would if he knew himself to be such. When, however, a very compassionate man, who knew the prince's fitness for attaining a kingdom, told him who he was --- that he was not a fowler, but the son of such and such a king, and had by some chance come to live in a folwer's home --- he, thus informed, gave up the notion and the duties of a fowler and, knowing that he was a king, took to the ways of his ancestors. Similarly this individual self, which is of the same category as the Supreme Self, being separated from It like a spark of fire and so on, has penetrated this wilderness of the body, organs, etc., and, although really transcendent, takes on the attributes of the latter, which are relative, and thinks that it is this aggregate of the body and organs, that it is lean or stout, happy or miserable --- for it does not know that it is the Supreme Self. But when the teacher enlightens it that it is not the body etc., but the transcendent Supreme Brahman, then it gives up the pursuit of the three kinds of desire (Those for a son, for wealth and for heaven. See IV. iv. 22.) and is convicned that it is Brahman. When it is told that it has been separated from the Supreme Brahman like a spark, it if firmly convinced that it is Brahman, as the prince was of his royal birth.
We know that a spark is one with fire before it is separated. Therefore the examples of gold, iron and sparks of fire are only meant to strengthen one's idea of the oneness of the individual self and Brahman, and not to establish the multiplicity caused by the origin etc. of the universe. For the Self has been ascertained to be homogeneous and unbroken consciousness, like a lump of salt, and there is the statement, 'It should be realised in one form only' (IV. iv. 20). If the Sruti wanted to teach that Brahman has diverse attributes such as the origin of the universe, like a painted canvas, a tree, or an ocean, for instance, it would not conclude with statements, describing It to be homogenerous like a lump of salt, without interior or exterior, nor would it say, 'It should be realised in one form only.' There is also the censure, 'He (goes from death to death) who sees difference, as it were, in It,' etc. (IV. iv. 19; Ka. IV. 10). Therefore the mention in all Vedanta texts of the origin, continuity and dissolution of the universe is only to strengthen our idea of Brahman being a homogeneous unity, and not to make us believe in the origin etc. as an actualiy.

Nor is it reasonable to suppose tha a part of the indivisible, transcendent, Supreme Self becomes the relative, individual self, for the Supreme Self is intrinsically without parts. If a part of the indivisible Supreme Self is supposed to be the relative, individual self, it is tantamount to taking the former to be the latter. If, on the other hand, the individual self be a part of the Supreme Self owing to some adventitious limiting adjunct of It, like the ether enclosed in a jar, a bowl, etc., then thinking people would not consider that it is really a part of the Supreme Self, deserving to be treated as something distinct.

Objection:- We sometimes see that thinking as well as ignorant people entertain fanciful notions about things.
Reply:- Not so, for ignorant people have false notions, whereas thinking people have notions that relate only to an apparent basis for conventional intercourse. For instance, even thinking people sometimes say that the sky is dark of red, where the
darkness or redness of the sky has just the above apparent reality. But because of that the sky can never actually become dark or red. Therefore in ascertaining the true nature of Brahman, men of wisdom should not think of It in terms of whole and part --- unit and fraction --- or cause and effect. For the essential meaning of all the Upanisads is to remove all finite conceptions about Brahman. Therefore we must give up all such conceptions and know Brahman to be undifferentiated like the sky. This is borne out by hundreds of Sruti texts such as, 'All-pervading like the sky and eternal,' and 'It is not affected by human misery, being beyond it' (Ka. V. 11). We must not imagine the self to be different from Brahman, like a portion of fire, which is ever hot, being cold, or like a portion of the effulgent sun being dark, for as already said, the essential meaning of all the Upanisads is to remove all finite conceptions about Brahman. Therefore all relative conditions in the transcendent Self are only possible through the limiting adjuncts of name and form. Compare the Sruti Mantras, 'He transformed Himself in accordance with each form' (II. v. 19), and 'The Wise One, who after projecting all forms names them, and goes on uttering those names,' etc. (Tai. A. III. xii. 7). The relative conditions of the self is not inherent in it. It is not true, but erroneous, like the notion that a crystal is red or of any other colour owing to its association with limiting adjuncts such as a red cotton pad. Sruti and Smrti texts such as, 'It thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were' (IV. iii. 7), 'It neither increases nor decreases through work' (IV. iv. 23), 'It is not affected by evil work' (Ibid.), 'Living the same in all beings' (G. XIII. 27), '(Wise men are even-minded) to a dog as well as a Candala, etc.' (G. V. 18), as also reasoning establish only the transcendence of the Supreme Self. Hence, if we admit It to be indivisible, it will be particularly impossible for us to maintain that the individual self is either a part, a modification, or inherent power of the Supreme Self, or something different from It. And we have already saiid that the Sruti and Smrti passages referring to the relation of whole and part etc. are for the purpose of establishing their oneness, not difference, for only thus will there be continuity as regards the import of those passages.
If all the Upanisads teach that there is only the Supreme Self, why, it may be asked, is something contradictory to it, viz the individual self, put forward? Some say that it is for removing the objections against the authority of the ritualistic portion of the Vedas:- For the passages dealing with rites depend on a multiplicity of actions, their factors and their results, including the sacrificers, who enjoy those results, and the priests, who officiate in them. Now, if there were no separate individual self, the transcendent Supreme Self would be one. How under such circumstances would those passages indue people to do actions producing good results, or dissuade them from those that have bad results? Who again would be the bound soul for whose liberation the Upanisads would be taken up? Further, according to the view which holds that there is only the Supreme Self, how can instruction about It be imparted? And how can that instruction bear fruit? For instruction is given in order to remove the bondage of a bound soul; hence in the absence of the latter the Upanisads will have nobody to address themselves to. Such being the case, the same objections and replies that apply to the advocates of the ritualistic portion of
the Vedas, apply also to the advocates of the Upanisads. For, as owing to the absence of difference the ritualistic portion, being without support, falls through as an authority, so do the Upanisads. Then why not accept the authority of only the ritualistic portion, which can be interpreted literally? But the Upanisads may be rejected, since in accepting them as authority one has to alter their obvious import (Since many passages clearly have a dualistic import.). The ritualistic portion, having an authority once, cannot again cease to be that. It cannot be that a lamp will sometimes reveal objects and sometimes not. There is also contradiction with other means of knowledge, such as perception. The Upanisads that establish the existence of Brahman alone not only contradict their obvious import and the authority of the ritualistic portion of the Vedas, but they also run counter to such means of knowledge as perception, which definitely establish differences in the world. Therefore the Upanisads cannot be taken as authority. Or they must have some other meaning. But they can never mean that only Brahman exists.
Advaitin's reply:- That cannot be, for we have already answered those points. A means of knowledge is or is not such according as it leads or does not lead to valid knowledge. Otherwise even a post, for instance, would be considered a means of knowledge in perceiving sound etc.

Objection:- What follows from this?
Reply:- If the Upanisads lead to a valid knowledge of the unity of Brahman, how can they cease to be a means of knowledge?
Objection:- Of course they do not lead to valid knowledge, as when somebody says that fire is cold.
Reply:- Well then, we ask you, do not your words refuting the authority of the Upanisads accomplish their object, like fire revealing things, or do they not? If you say they do, then your words of refutation are a means of valid knowledge, and fire does reveal things. If your words of refutation are valid, then the Upanisads too are valid. So please tell us what the way out is.

Objection:- That my words mean the refutation of the authority of the Upanisads, and that fire reveals things are palpable facts, and hence constitute valid knowledge.
Reply:- What, then, is your grudge against the Upanisads, which are seen directly to convey a valid knowledge of the unity of Brahman, inasmuch as the refutation is illogical? And we have already said that a palpable result, viz cessation of grief and delusion, is indirectly brought about by the knowledge of this unity. Therefore, the objections having been answered, there is no doubt of the Upanisads being authority.
You have said that the Upanisads are no authority, since they contradict their obvious import. This is wrong, because there is no such contradiction in their meaning. In the first place, the Upanisads never give us the idea that Brahman both is and is not one only without a second, as from the sentence that fire is both hot and cold we get two contradictory meanings. We have said this taking it for granted that a passage can have different meanings. But it is not an accepted canon of the system that tests passages (Mimamsa) that the same passage may have different meanings. If it has, one will be the proper meaning, and the other will be contradictory to it. But it is not an accepted rule with those who test passages that the same passage may have different meanings --- one appropriate, and the other contradictory to it. For passages have unity only when they have the same meaning. In the second place, there are no passages in the Upanisads that contradict the unity of Brahman. As to the conventional (Having relation to human experience, as opposed to Vedic.) expressions, 'Fire is cold as well as hot,' it is not a unitary passage, because part of it merely relates what is known through another means of knowledge (perception). The portion, 'Fire is cold,' is one sentence, but the clause, 'Fire is hot,' merely reminds us of what is known through another means of knowledge; it does not give us that meaning at first hand. Therefore it is not to be combined with the clause, 'Fire is cold,' because its function is exhausted by merely reminding us of what is experienced through another source of knowledge. As to the presumption that this sentence conveys contradictory meanings, it is but an error due to the words 'hot' and 'cold' being used as co-ordinate with the word 'fire.' But neither in Vedic nor in conventional usage does the same passage have more than one meaning.
You have said that passages of the Upanisads clash with the authority of the ritualistic portion of the Vedas. This is not correct, because they have a different meaning. The Upanisads also establish the unity of Brahman; they do not negate
instructions regarding the means of attaining some desired object, or prevant persons from undertaking it, for, as already said, a passage cannot have more than one meaning. Nor do ritualistic passages fail to produce valid knowledge regarding their own meaning. If a passage produces valid knowledge regarding its own exlusive object, how can it clash with other passages?

Objection:- If Brahman be the only reality, ritualistic passages are left without any object to apply to, and hence they cannot certainly produce valid knowledge.
Reply:- Not so, for that valid knowledge is palpable. We see it arising out of sentences such as, 'One who desires heaven must perform the new-and full-moon sacrifices,' and 'One must not kill a Brahmana.' The assumption that this cannot take place if the Upanisads teach the unity of Brahman, is only an inference. And an inference cannot stand against perception. Therefore your statement that valid knowledge itself cannot arise, is absolutely wrong.
Moreover, actions, their factors and their results are things we naturally believe in:- they are the creation of ignorance. When, through their help, a man who desires to gain something good or to avoid something evil, proceeds to adopt a means of which he has only a vague, not definite idea, the Sruti simply tells him about that; it says nothing either for or against the truth of the diversity of actions, their factors and their results --- which people have already taken for granted. For the Sruti only prescribes means for the attainment of desired ends and the avoidance of untoward results. To be explicit:- As the Sruti that deals with rites having material ends takes the desires as they are --- although they are the result of erroneous notions --- and prescribes means for attaining them, and it does not cease to do this on the ground that desires are an evil, being the result of erroneous notions, similarly the Sruti dealing with the regular rites, such as the Agnihotra, takes the diversity of actions and their factors as they are --- although they proceed from error --- and enjoins rites like the Agnihotra, seeing some utility in them, whether it be the attainment of some particular desired end or the avoidance of some particular untoward result. It does not refrain from enjoining them simply because the utility relates to something that is unreal, being within the domain of ignorance, as is the case with rites having material ends. Nor would ignorant people cease to engage themselves in those rites, for we see them doing it, as in the case of people who are swayed by desires.

Objection:- But it is only those that have knowledge who are competent to perform rites.
Reply:- No, for we have already said that the knowledge of the unity of Brahman militates against one's competency of perform rites. This should also be taken as an answer to the charge than if Brahman be the only reality, there would be no scope left for instruction, and hence it can neither be received nor produce any result. The diversity of people's desires, attachments and so forth is another reason. People have innumerable desires and various defects, such as attachment. Therefore they are lured by the attachment etc. to external objects, and the scriptures are powerless to hold them back; nor can they persuade those who are naturally averse to external objects to go after them.

But the scriptures do this much that they point out what leads to good and what to evil, thereby indicating the particular relations that subsist between ends and means; just as a lamp, for instance, helps to reveal forms in the dark. But the scriptures neither hinder nor direct a person by force, as if he were a slave. We see how people disobey even the scriptures because of an excess of attachment etc. Therefore, according to the varying tendencies of people, the scriptures variously teach the particular relations that subsist between ends and means. In this matter people themselves adopt particular means according to their tastes, and the scriptures simply remain netural, like the sun, for instance, or a lamp. Similarly somebody may think the highest goal to be not worth striving after. One chooses one's goal according to one's knowledge, and wants to adopt corresponding means. This is also borne out by the eulogistic passages of the Sruti, such as, 'Three classes of Prajapati's sons lived a life of continence with their father, 'Prajapati,' etc. (V. ii. 1). Therefore the Vedanta texts that teach the unity of Brahman are not antagonistic to the ritualistic scriptures. Nor are the latter thereby deprived of their scope. Neither do the ritualistic scriptures, which uphold differences such as the factors of an action, take away the authority of the Upanisads as regards the unity of Brahman. For the means of knowledge are powerful in their respective spheres, like the ear etc.

Nevertheless, certain self-styled wise men (the logicians), following their own whims, think that the different means of knowledge are mutually contradictory, and also level against us the objection that if Brahman be the only reality, such Upanisadic texts contradict perception. For instance, objects like sound, which are perceived by the ear and so forth, are observed to be different from one another. So those who hold that Brahman is the only reality contradict perception. Similarly the relative selves that perceive sound etc. through the ear and so forth, and acquire merit or demerit through their work, are inferred to be different in differend bodies. So those who hold that Brahman is the only reality also contradict inference. They also cite contradiction with the Sruti. For instance, in passages such as, 'One who desires villages must sacrifice' (Ta. XVII. x. 4), 'One who desires animals must sacrifice' (Ibid. XVI. xii. and 'One who desires heaven must sacrifice' (Ibid. XVI. iii. 3), the objects desired such as villages, animals and heaven, are known to be different from the men who apply the means of obtaining them.

Our reply is that they are the scum of the Brahmana and other castes, who, with their minds poisoned by vicious reasoning, hold views about the meaning of the Vedas that are divorced from tradition, and are therefore to be pitied. How? To those who say that sound etc., perceived through the ear and so forth, contradict the unity of Brahman, we put this question:- Does the variety of sound and the rest contradict the oneness of the ether? If it does not, then there is no contradiction in our position with regard to perception. They said:- The selves that perceive sound etc. through the ear and so forth, and acquire merit or demerit through their work, are inferred to be different in different bodies; so the unity of Brahman also contradicts inference. But we ask them, 'By whom are they so inferred?' It they say, 'By us all who are experts in inference,' we would ask them, 'But who really are you that call yourselves so?' What would be their reply then? Perhaps they would say, 'When dexterity in inference has been severally denied of the body, the organs, the mind and the self, we experts in inference should be the self joined to its accessories, the body, organs and mind, for actions depend on many factors.' Our reply is:- 'If such be your dexterous inference, then you become multiple. For you yourselves have admitted that actions depend on many factors. Now inference also is an action, which, as you have also admitted, is done by the self joined to its accessories, the body, organs and mind. Thus, while saying that you are experts in inference, you virtually admit that each of you is multiple --- the self joined to the accessories, the body, organs and mind.' Oh! the dexterity in inference shown by the these bulls of logicians who lack only a tail and horns! How can a fool who does not know his own self know its unity or difference? What will he infer about it? And on what grounds? For the self has no characteristic that might be used to infer natural differences between one self and another. Those characteristics having name and form which the opponents will put forward to infer differences in the self belong only to name and form, and are but limiting adjuncts of the self, just as a jar, a bowl, an airhole, or the pores in earth are of the ether. When the logician finds distinguishing characteristics in the ether, then only will he find such characteristics in the self. For not even hundreds of logicians, who admit differences in the self owing to limiting adjuncts, can show any characteristic of it that would lead one to infer differences between one self and another. And as for natural differences, they are out of the question, for the self is not an object of inference. Because whatever the opponent regards as an attribute of the self is admitted as consisting of name and form, and the self is admitted to be different from these. Witness the Sruti passage, 'Akasa (the self-effulgent One) is verily the cause of name and form. That within which they are is Brahman' (Ch. VIII. xiv. 1), and also 'Let me manifest name and form' (Ch. VI. iii. 2). Name and form have origin and dissolution but Brahman is different from them.

Therefore how can the unity of Brahman contradict inference, of which It is never an object? This also refutes the charge that it contradicts the Sruti.
It has been objected that if Brahman be the only reality, there would be nobody to receive instruction and profit by it; so instruction about unity would be useless. This is wrong. For (if you contend on the ground that) actions are the result of many factors, (we have already refuted this point, hence) at whom is the objection levelled? (Surely not at us. If, however, your ground is that) when the transcendent Brahman is realised as the only existence, there is neither instruction nor the instructor nor the result of receiving the instruction, and therefore the Upanisads are useless --- it is a position we readily admit. But if you urge that (even before Brahman is realised) instruction is useless, since it depends on many factors, we reply, no, for it will contradict the assumption (That instruction is necessary before realisation.) of all believers in the self (including yourself). Therefore this unity of Brahman is a secure fortress impregnable to logicians, those first-rate heretics and liars, and inaccessible to persons of shallow understanding, and to those who are devoid of the grace of the scriptures and the teacher. This is known from such Sruti and Smrti texts as the following, 'Who but me can know that Deity who has both joy and the absence of it?' (Ka. II. 21), 'Even the gods in ancient times were puzzled over this' (Ka. I. 21), and 'This understanding is not to be attained through agrument' (Ka. II. 9), as also from those that describe the truth as attainable through special favour and grace, and also from the Mantras that depict Brahman as possessed of contradictory attributes, such as, 'It moves, and does not move, It is far, and near,' etc. (Is. 5). The Gita too says, 'All beings are in Me,' etc. (IX. 4). Therefore there is no other entity called the relative self but the Supreme Brahman. Hence it is well said in hundreds of Sruti passages. 'This was indeed Brahman in the beginning. It knew only Itself as, 'I am Brahman,' ' (I. iv. 10), 'There is no other witness but This, no other hearer but This,' etc. (III. viii. 11). Therefore the highest secret name of 'the Truth of truth' belongs only to the Supreme Brahman.

Translation By Max Müller

20. As the spider comes out with its thread, or as small sparks come forth from fire, thus do all senses, all worlds, all Devas, all beings come forth from that Self The Upanishad (the true name and doctrine) of that Self is 'the True of the True.' Verily the senses are the true, and he is the true of the true.


Sloka : 2.2.1

मन्त्र १[II.ii.1]

यो ह वै शिशुꣳ साधानꣳ सप्रत्याधानꣳ सस्थूणꣳ

सदामं वेद सप्त ह द्विषतो भ्रातृव्यानवरुणद्ध्ययं वाव

शिशुर्योऽयं मध्यमः प्राणस्तस्येदमेवाऽऽधानमिदं प्रत्याधानं

प्राणः स्थूणाऽन्नं दाम ॥ १॥

mantra 1[II.ii.1]

yo ha vai śiśugͫ sādhānagͫ sapratyādhānagͫ sasthūṇagͫ

sadāmaṃ veda sapta ha dviṣato bhrātṛvyānavaruṇaddhyayaṃ vāva

śiśuryo'yaṃ madhyamaḥ prāṇastasyedamevā''dhānamidaṃ pratyādhānaṃ

prāṇaḥ sthūṇā'nnaṃ dāma .. 1..



Meaning:- He who knows the calf with its abode, its special resort, its post and its tether kills his seven envions kinsmen:- the vital force in the body is indeed the calf; this body is its abode, the head its special resort, strength its post, and food its tether.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- He who knows the calf with its abode, its special resort, its post and its tether gets this result. What is that? He kills his seven envious kinsmen. Kinsmen are of two kinds, those who envy and those who do not; here the former are meant. The seven organs (The eyes, ears, nostrils and mouth.) --- instruments for perceving objects --- that are in the head, that is to say, the attachment to sense-objects which they cause, are called kinsmen, since they are born with a person. Because they turn his vision from the Self to the sense-objects, therefore they are envious kinsmen --- since they thus hinder him from perceving the inner Self. It is also said in the Katha Upanisad, 'The self-born Lord injured the organs by making them outgoing in their tendencies. Therefore they perceive only external things, but not the inner Self,' etc. (Ka. IV. 1). He who knows the calf and the rest --- understands their real nature --- removes from view, or kills, these envious kinsmen. When the aspirant, hearing of this result, is inclinded to know more about them, the Sruti says:- This is indeed the calf. Which? This vital force that is in the body as the subtle body, which in its fivefold form abodes pervades the body, and was addressed as 'Great, White-robed, Radiant, Soma' (II. i. 15), and on which the organs, such as that of speech and the mind, rest, as we know from the illustration of the post to which the horse's legs are tethered (VI. i. 13). It is like a young calf, not being in direct touch with the sense-objects like the other organs.
Mention has been made of 'the calf with its abode.' Now what is the abode of that calf, that instrument of the self, the vital force, which is here likened to a calf? This body, which is an effect, is its abode. An abode is that in which something is put. This body is the abode of that calf, the vital force, because it is by staying in the body that the organs come to function as channels of perception, not while they rest on the vital force. This has been demonstrated by Ajatasatru as follows:- When the organs are withdrawn, the individual self is not noticed; it is only when they occupy their respective seats in the body that the individual self is noticed as perceving things. This was proved by the (sleeping) man's being roused by pushing with the hand. The head is its special resort. It is so called because the vital force is connected with particular parts of it. Strength, the power that comes out of food and drink, is its post. 'Prana' and 'Bala' (strength) are synonyms, for the vital force abides in the body, being supported by strength. This is borne out by the Sruti text, 'When this self becomes weak and senseless, as it were' (IV. iv. 1). Just as a calf is supported by a post (To resist a pull as when somebody is tugging it.), so is the vital force by strength. Some (The reference is to Bhartrprapanca.) understand that the respiratory force that works in the body is the post. And food is its tether. The food we eat is changed into three forms. That which is the grossest is excreted from the body and is absorbed into the earth. The intermediate form a chyle, passing through the stages of blood etc., nourishes its effect, the gross body, which is composed of seven ingredients (Skin, blood, flesh, fat, marrow, bone and seed.). The body is nourished by the accession of its cause, viz food, because it is the product of food; and when this is reversed, it decays and falls. The finest form, called 'nectar' and 'highly powerful,' goes past the navel to the heart, and penetrating the seventy-two thousand nerves that radiate from there, generates strength, here designated as 'post,' and thereby helps the subtle body, which is the aggregate of the inner organs and is here called the calf, to stay in the gross body. Therefore food is the connecting link between the vital force and the body, like a calf's tether with a loop at each end. Now certain secret names with reference to the eye regarding the calf living in its special resort are being mentioned:-

Translation By Max Müller

1. Verily he who knows the babe [1] with his place [2], his chamber [3], his post [4], and his rope [5], he keeps off the seven relatives [6] who hate him. Verily by the young is meant the inner life, by his place this (body) [7], by his chamber this (head), by his post the vital breath, by his rope the food.

Footnote:

1. The liṅgâtman, or subtle body which has entered this body in five ways. Comm. 2. The body. 3. The head. 4. The vital breath. 5. Food, which binds the subtle to the coarse body. 6. The seven organs of the head through which man perceives and becomes attached to the world. 7. The commentator remarks that while saying this, the body and the head are pointed out by touching them with the hand (pânipeshapratibodhanena).


Sloka : 2.2.2

मन्त्र २[II.ii.2]

तमेताः सप्ताक्षितय उपतिष्ठन्ते तद्या इमा अक्षꣳल्लोहिन्यो

राजयस्ताभिरेनꣳ रुद्रोऽन्वायत्तोऽथ या अक्षन्नापस्ताभिः पर्जन्यो

या कनीनका तयाऽऽदित्यो यत्कृष्णं, तेनाग्निर्यच्छुक्लं तेनेन्द्रो

ऽधरयैनं वर्तन्या पृथिव्यन्वायत्ता द्यौरुत्तरया । नास्यान्नं

क्षीयते य एवं वेद ॥ २॥

mantra 2[II.ii.2]

tametāḥ saptākṣitaya upatiṣṭhante tadyā imā akṣagͫllohinyo

rājayastābhirenagͫ rudro'nvāyatto'tha yā akṣannāpastābhiḥ parjanyo

yā kanīnakā tayā''dityo yatkṛṣṇaṃ, tenāgniryacchuklaṃ tenendro

'dharayainaṃ vartanyā pṛthivyanvāyattā dyauruttarayā . nāsyānnaṃ

kṣīyate ya evaṃ veda .. 2..



Meaning:- These seven gods that prevent decay worship it:- Through these pink lines in the eye Rudra attends on it; through the water that is in the eye, Parjanya; through the pupil, the sun; through the dark portion, fire; through the white portion, Indra; through the lower eye-lid the earth attends on it; and through the upper eye-lid, heaven. He who knows it as such never has any decrease of food.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- These seven gods that prevent decay (lit. undecaying), to be presently named, worship it, this vital force, the instrument, which is tied to the body by food, and resides in the eye. The root 'stha' with the prefix 'upa' becomes Atmanepadin when it signifies praying with Mantras. Here too the seven names of the gods stand for Mantras instrument to prayer; so the use of the Atmanepada with 'stha' is not out of place. Now the gods that prevent decay are being enumerated. Through these familiar pink lines in the eye as aids, Rudra attends on it, the vital force that is in the body. Through the aid of the water that is in the eye, which comes out when there is contact with smoke etc., the god Parjanya attends on, i.e. prays to the vital force; and he is the food of the vital force and the cause of its permanence. We have it in another Sruti, 'When Parjanya causes rain, the vital force is glad.' Through the pupil, which has the power of sight, the sun prays to the vital force. Through the dark portion of the eye fire prays to it. Through the white
portion of the eye Indra prays. Through the lower eye-lid the earth attends on it, because both occupy a lower position. And through the upper eye-lid, heaven, because both occupy an upper position. He who knows it as such, knows that these seven gods that are the food of the vital force constantly pray to it, gets this as a result --- he never has any decrease of food.

Translation By Max Müller

2. Then the seven imperishable ones [1] approach him. There are the red lines in the eye, and by them Rudra clings to him. There is the water in the eye, and by it Parganya clings to him. There is the pupil, and by it Âditya (sun) clings to him, There is the dark iris, and by it Agni clings to him. There is the white eye-ball, and by it Indra, clings to him. With the lower eye-lash the earth, with the upper eye-lash the heaven clings to him. He who knows this, his food does never perish.

Footnote:

1. See before, I, 5, 1, 2. They are called imperishable, because they produce imperishableness by supplying food for the prâna, here called the babe.


Sloka : 2.2.3

मन्त्र ३[II.ii.3]

तदेष श्लोको भवति । अर्वाग्बिलश्चमस ऊर्ध्वबुध्नस्तस्मिन्यशो

निहितं विश्वरूपम् । तस्याऽऽसत ऋषयः सप्त तीरे वागष्टमी

ब्रह्मणा संविदानेति । अर्वाग्बिलश्चमस ऊर्ध्वबुध्न इतीदं तच्छिरः

एष ह्यर्वाग्बिलश्चमस ऊर्ध्वबुध्नः । तस्मिन्यशो निहितं

विश्वरूपमिति प्राणा वै यशो निहितं विश्वरूपं प्राणानेतदाह ।

तस्याऽऽसत ऋषयः सप्त तीर इति प्राणा वा ऋषयः प्राणाणेतदाह ।

वागष्टमी ब्रह्मणा संविदानेति वाग्घ्यष्टमी ब्रह्मणा संवित्ते ॥ ३॥

mantra 3[II.ii.3]

tadeṣa śloko bhavati . arvāgbilaścamasa ūrdhvabudhnastasminyaśo

nihitaṃ viśvarūpam . tasyā''sata ṛṣayaḥ sapta tīre vāgaṣṭamī

brahmaṇā saṃvidāneti . arvāgbilaścamasa ūrdhvabudhna itīdaṃ tacchiraḥ

eṣa hyarvāgbilaścamasa ūrdhvabudhnaḥ . tasminyaśo nihitaṃ

viśvarūpamiti prāṇā vai yaśo nihitaṃ viśvarūpaṃ prāṇānetadāha .

tasyā''sata ṛṣayaḥ sapta tīra iti prāṇā vā ṛṣayaḥ prāṇāṇetadāha .

vāgaṣṭamī brahmaṇā saṃvidāneti vāgghyaṣṭamī brahmaṇā saṃvitte .. 3..



Meaning:- Regarding this there is the following pithy verse:- 'there is a bowl that has its opening below and bulges at the top; various kinds of knowledge have been put in it; seven sages sit by its side, and the organ of speech, which has communication with the Vedas, is the eighth'. The 'bowl that has its opening below and bulges at the top' is the head of ours, for it is the bowl that has its opening below and bulges at the top. 'various kinds of knowledge have been put in it', refers to the organs; these indeed represent various kinds of knowledge. 'Seven sages sit by its side', refers to the organs; they indeed are the sages. 'The organ of speech, which has communication with the Vedas, is the eighth', because the organ of speech is the eighth and communicates with the Vedas.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Regarding this subject there is the following pithy verse or Mantra:- 'There is a bowl that has its opening below,' etc. Now the Sruti explains the Mantra. What is that bowl? This head of ours, for it is shaped like a bowl. How? For it has its opening below, the mouth standing for this opening, and bulges at the top, the head, because of its round shape, answering to the description. 'Various kinds of knowledge have been put in it':- Just as the Soma juice is put in the bowl, so have various kinds of knowledge been put in the head. The organs, such as the ear, and the vital force, which is distributed among them in seven forms, represent various kinds of knowledge, because they are the cause of the perception of sound etc. This is what the Mantra says. 'Seven sages sit by its side':- This portion of the Mantra refers to the organs, which are of a vibratory nature. They alone are the sages. 'The organ of speech, which has communication with the Vedas, is the eighth (The tongue counts as two:- as the organ of taste it will be enumerated in the next paragraph as the seventh sage; as the organ of speech it is here spoken of as the eighth.). The reason for this is given:- Because the organ of speech is the eighth and communicates with (or utters) the Vedas.

Translation By Max Müller

3. On this there is this Sloka:- 'There [1] is a cup having its mouth below and its bottom above. Manifold glory has been placed into it. On its lip sit the seven Rishis, the tongue as the eighth communicates with Brahman.' What is called the cup having its mouth below and its bottom above is this head, for its mouth (the mouth) is below, its bottom (the skull) is above. When it is said that manifold glory has been placed into it, the senses verily are manifold glory, and he therefore means the senses. When he says that the seven Rishis sit on its lip, the Rishis are verily the (active) senses, and he means the senses. And when he says that the tongue as the eighth communicates with Brahman, it is because the tongue, as the eighth, does communicate with Brahman.

Footnote:

1. Cf. Atharva-veda-samh. X, 8, 9.


Sloka : 2.2.4

मन्त्र ४[II.ii.4]

इमावेव गोतमभरद्वाजावयमेव गोतमोऽयं भरद्वाज इमावेव

विश्वामित्रजमदग्नी अयमेव विश्वामित्रोऽयं जमदग्निरिमावेव

वसिष्ठकश्यपावयमेव वसिष्ठोऽयं कश्यपो वागेवात्रिर्वाचा

ह्यन्नमद्यतेऽत्तिर्ह वै नामैतद्यदत्रिरिति । सर्वस्यात्ता भवति

सर्वमस्यान्नं भवति य एवं वेद ॥ ४॥

इति द्वितीयं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ तृतीयं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 4[II.ii.4]

imāveva gotamabharadvājāvayameva gotamo'yaṃ bharadvāja imāveva

viśvāmitrajamadagnī ayameva viśvāmitro'yaṃ jamadagnirimāveva

vasiṣṭhakaśyapāvayameva vasiṣṭho'yaṃ kaśyapo vāgevātrirvācā

hyannamadyate'ttirha vai nāmaitadyadatririti . sarvasyāttā bhavati

sarvamasyānnaṃ bhavati ya evaṃ veda .. 4..

iti dvitīyaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha tṛtīyaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- These two (ears) are Gotama and Bharadvaja:- this one is Gotama, and this one is Bharadvaja:- These two (eyes) are Visvamitra and Jamadagni:- this one is Visvamitra, and this one Jamadagni. These two (nostrils) are Vasistha, and Kashyapa:- this one is Vasistha, and this one Kashyapa:- the tongue is Atri, for through the tongue food is eaten. 'Atri' is but this name 'Atti'. He who knows it as such becomes the eater of all, and everything becomes his food.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Now who are the sages that sit by the side of that bowl? These two ears are Gotama and Bharadvaja:- this one is Gotama, and this one Bharadvaja, meaning the right and the left ear respectively, or inversely. Similarly, to instruct about the eyes the Sruti says, These two are Visvamitra and Jamadagni:- this one, the right, is Visvamitra, and this one, the left, Jamadagni, or inversely. To instruct about the nostrils the Sruti says, These two are Vasistha and Kasyapa:- this one, the right nostril, is Vasistha, and this one, the left, Kasyapa, or inversely, as before. The tongue is Atri, because of its association with eating; this is the seventh sage. For through the tongue food is eaten. Therefore that which is indirectly called 'Atri' is but this familiar name 'Atti' (eats) --- on accont of being the eater. Through meditation on the derivation of the word 'Atri,' he becomes the eater of all kinds of food belonging to the vital force. In the next world he becomes only the eater, and is never treatd as food. This is expressed by the words, 'And everything becomes his food.' He who knows it, the true nature of the vital force, as such, as described above, becomes the vital force in this body, and is only the eater associated with the abode and the special resort, and not food. That is to say, he is entirely removed from the category of food.

Translation By Max Müller

4. These two (the two ears) are the Rishis Gautama and Bharadvâga; the right Gautama, the left Bharadvâga. These two (the eyes) are the Rishis Visvâmitra and Gamadagni; the right Visvâmitra, the left Gamadagni. These two (the nostrils) are the Rishis Vasishtha and Kasyapa; the right Vasishtha, the left Kasyapa. The tongue is Atri, for with the tongue food is eaten, and Atri is meant for Atti, eating. He who knows this, becomes an eater of everything, and everything becomes his food.


Sloka : 2.3.1

मन्त्र १[II.iii.1]

द्वे वाव ब्रह्मणो रूपे मूर्तं चैवामूर्तं च मर्त्यं चामृतं च

स्थितं च यच्च सच्च त्यच्च ॥ १॥

mantra 1[II.iii.1]

dve vāva brahmaṇo rūpe mūrtaṃ caivāmūrtaṃ ca martyaṃ cāmṛtaṃ ca

sthitaṃ ca yacca sacca tyacca .. 1..



Meaning:- Brahman has but two forms - gross and subtle, mortal and immortal, limited and unlimited, defined and undefined.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Brahman or the Supreme Self has but two forms, through the superimposition of which by ignorance the formless Supreme Brahman is defined or made conceivable. The word 'Vava' (indeed) is emphatic. Which are those two forms? The gross and subtle. The other phases of the gross and subtle are included in them; so they are counted as two only. What are those phases of the gross and subtle? These are being mentioned:- Mortal, subject to destruction, and immortal, its opposite. Limited, which goes a little distance and stops, and unlimited, which goes on, is pervasive, the opposite of 'limited'. Defined, having particular characteristics that distinguish it from others, and undefined, the opposite of that, which can only be distantly referred to, as something we know not what.

Translation By Max Müller

1. There are two forms of Brahman, the material and the immaterial, the mortal and the immortal, the solid and the fluid, sat (being) and tya (that), (i.e. sat-tya, true) [1].

Footnote:

1. Sat is explained by definite, tya or tyad by indefinite.


Sloka : 2.3.2

मन्त्र २[II.iii.2]

तदेतन्मूर्तं यदन्यद्वायोश्चान्तरिक्षाच्चैतन्मर्त्यमेतत्स्थितं

एतत्सत् । तस्यैतस्य मूर्तस्यैतस्य मर्त्यस्यैतस्य स्थितस्यैतस्य

सत एष रसो य एष तपति सतो ह्येष रसः ॥ २॥

mantra 2[II.iii.2]

tadetanmūrtaṃ yadanyadvāyoścāntarikṣāccaitanmartyametatsthitaṃ

etatsat . tasyaitasya mūrtasyaitasya martyasyaitasya sthitasyaitasya

sata eṣa raso ya eṣa tapati sato hyeṣa rasaḥ .. 2..



Meaning:- The gross (form) is that which is other than air and the ether. It is mortal, it is limited, and it is defined. The essence of that which is gross, mortal, limited and defined is the sun that shines, for it is the essence of the defined.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- The gross and the subtle have each four phases. Now what are the phases of the gross, and what are those of the subtle?
This is being separately shown. The gross (form) is:- 'Gross' means having well-defined parts, with parts interpenetrating one another, i.e. compact or solid. What is it? That which is other --- than what? --- than the two elements, air and the ether; hence it refers to the three remaining elements, viz earth etc. It, this triad of elements called gross, is also mortal, or perishable. Why? Because it is limited; it is only a limited thing that, when joined to some other thing, is checked by it, as a jar by a post or wall, for instance. Similarly the gross form is limited, being related to some other object, and mortal, because of its clash with the latter. And it is defined, having noticeable peculiarities of its own; and for that very reason it is limited, and being limited it is mortal, and hence it is also gross. Or because it is gross it is mortal, and being mortal it is limited, and being limited it is defined. Since these four features do not contradict one another, any one of them may stand to the others in the relation of substantive and attribute, or of cause and effect. In any case, the three elements, each possessed of the four features, constitute the gross from of Brahman. Any one of these four epithets being taken, the others are automatically taken. This is stated as follows:- The essence of that which is gross, mortal, limited and defined, i.e. of the three elements each having the four attributes, is the sun that shines, for the sun is the quintessence of the three elements. It is the perfection of them, because through it they get their features of varying colours. The shining solar orb is the representation of the cosmic body, for it is the essence of the defined, i.e. of the three elements; hence that is meant. Because the shining sun has a gross form and is the best product of the elements. About the cosmic organ within the solar orb, we shall now speak.

Translation By Max Müller

2. Everything except air and sky is material, is mortal, is solid, is definite. The essence of that which is material, which is mortal, which is solid, which is definite is the sun that shines, for he is the essence of sat (the definite).


Sloka : 2.3.3

मन्त्र ३[II.iii.3]

अथामूर्तं वायुश्चान्तरिक्षं चैतदमृतमेतद्यदेतत्त्यत्

तस्यैतस्यामूर्तस्यै तस्यामृतस्यैतस्य यत एतस्य त्यस्यैष रसो

य एष एतस्मिन्मण्डले पुरुषस्तस्य ह्येष रस । इत्यधिदैवतम् ॥ ३॥

mantra 3[II.iii.3]

athāmūrtaṃ vāyuścāntarikṣaṃ caitadamṛtametadyadetattyat

tasyaitasyāmūrtasyai tasyāmṛtasyaitasya yata etasya tyasyaiṣa raso

ya eṣa etasminmaṇḍale puruṣastasya hyeṣa rasa . ityadhidaivatam .. 3..



Meaning:- Now the subtle - it is air and the ether. It is immortal, it is unlimited, and it is undefined. The essence of that which is subtle, immortal, unlimited and undefined is the being that is in the sun, for that is the essence of the undefined. This is with reference to the gods.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Now the subtle form is being described. It is air and the ether, the two remaining elements. Being subtle it is immortal, and unlimited, hence not clashing with anything, and therefore immortal, not subject to destruction. It is unlimited, the opposite of limited, i.e. pervasive. Because it cannot be distinguished from others, therefore it is undefined. The word 'Tyat' indicates something that can be only indirectly described. The relation among the four epithets is as before. The essence of that which is subtle, immortal, unlimited and undefined, i.e. of the two subtle elements each having the four attributes, is the being that is in the sun, Hiranyagarbha as the cosmic organ (Corresponding to the organs in the body. The subtle body of Hiranyagarbha is meant, and not his conscious self, as will presently be seen.), which is called the vital force. That is the quintessence of the two subtle elements, as in the previous instance (th solar orb was of the gross elements). This 'being' is the perfection of the two subtle elements, because these (Air and the ether are the principal, not the only ingredients of the cosmic subtle body. The other three elements also are there, but they play a subordinate part.) emanate from the Undifferentiated in order to form the subtle body of Hiranyagarbha. And because they seek to produce this, therefore this is the best product of them. For that is the essence of the undefined, because the 'being' that is in the sun is not perceived like the solar orb, and is the essence of the two elements. Hence there is a similarity between the being who is in the sun and the two elements. Therefore the reason furnished in the clause, 'For that is the essence of the undefined,' as if it were a familiar experience, is quite in order.

Some (The reference is to Bhartrprapanca.) say that the word 'essence' means cause, referring to the self of Hiranyagarbha, which is a conscious entity. The past actions of Hiranyagarbha direct air and the ether, and with these as their support (That is taking their form.) they direct the other elements. Therefore, being the director, through its own actions, of air and the ether, it is called their essence, or cause. This view is wrong, because it makes the essence of the subtle form dissimilar to that of the gross form. To be explicit:- The essence of the three gross elements is, as we have seen, the solar orb, which is gross and of the same class as the three elements; it is not a conscious entity. Therefore it stands to reason that the essence of the two subtle elements also should be of the same class as they. For the trend of both passages is the same. For instance, the gross and subtle forms have been distinguished as having four attributes each; so it is but proper that the essences of the gross and subtle forms, like these forms themselves of which they are the essences, should also be distinguished on the same principle (That is, there must be a common feature between them, to maintain the parallelism. Since one is insentient, the other must be so too. Otherwise there will be absurdity.). One cannot cook one half of a hen and keep the other half for laying eggs.

Objection:- Suppose we say that the essence of the gross form too refers to the conscious self that identifies itself with the solar orb (The cause and effect being one.).
Reply:- You say too little. The Srutis everywhere teach that all gross and subtle forms are Brahman.
Objection:- Is not the word 'being,' as applied to unconscious things, inappropriate?
Reply:- No. We find the word 'being' applied in the Srutis to the subtle body having wings, tail, etc. In the following passage, 'We can neve beget progeny (initiate activity) so long as we are thus divided. Let us make these seven beings (The five sense-organs, the organ of speech, and mind.) into one (the subtle body).' They made these seven beings into one,' etc. (S. VI. I. i. 3), we find the use of the word 'being,' as also in another Sruti (Tai. II. i.) referring to the gross body, which is the product of the food we eat, and other finer bodies. The words, This is with reference to the gods, close the topic so as to introduce the next topic, which is relating to the body.

Translation By Max Müller

3. But air and sky are immaterial, are immortal, are fluid, are indefinite. The essence of that which is immaterial, which is immortal, which is fluid, which is indefinite is the person in the disk of the sun, for he is the essence of tyad (the indefinite). So far with regard to the Devas.


Sloka : 2.3.4

मन्त्र ४[II.iii.4]

अथाध्यात्ममिदमेव मूर्तं यदन्यत्प्राणाच्च यश्चायमन्तरात्मन्नाकाश

एतन्मर्त्यमेतत्स्थितमेतत्सत् तस्यैतस्य मूर्तस्यै तस्य

मर्त्यस्यैतस्य स्थितस्यैतस्य सत एष रसो यच्चक्षुः सतो ह्येष

रसः ॥ ४॥

mantra 4[II.iii.4]

athādhyātmamidameva mūrtaṃ yadanyatprāṇācca yaścāyamantarātmannākāśa

etanmartyametatsthitametatsat tasyaitasya mūrtasyai tasya

martyasyaitasya sthitasyaitasya sata eṣa raso yaccakṣuḥ sato hyeṣa

rasaḥ .. 4..



Meaning:- Now with reference to the body:- the gross form is but this - what is other than (the corporeal) air and the ether that is in the body. It is mortal, it is limited and it is defined. The essence of that which is gross, mortal, limited and defined is the eye, for it is the essence of the defined.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Now the division of the gross and subtle with reference to the body is being set forth. What is that gross form? It is but this. What is it? What is other than (the corporeal) air and the ether that is in the body, i.e. the three constituent elements of the body other than these two. It is mortal, etc. --- to be explained as in the preceding paragraphs. The essence of that which is defined is the eye. The eye is the essence of the (three gross) materials that build up the body, for it is that which lends importance to the (three gross elements in the whole) body, just as the solar orb does with reference to the gods. Also because of their priority in point of view. (We have it in the Brahman) that in the embryo it is the eyes that are first formed (S. IV. II. i. 28). The Sruti too hints as this:- 'His essence or lustre came forth. This was Fire (Since 'essence' is here used synonymously with 'lustre.')' (I. ii. 2) And the eyes possess lustre. The three elements in the body have the eyes as their essence. For it is the essence of the defined:- The meaning of the reason is that the eye is gross and is also the essence (of the three gross elements in the body).

Translation By Max Müller

4. Now with regard to the body. Everything except the breath and the ether within the body is material, is mortal, is solid, is definite. The essence of that which is material, which is mortal, which is solid, which is definite is the Eye, for it is the essence of sat (the definite).


Sloka : 2.3.5

मन्त्र ५[II.iii.5]

अथामूर्तं प्राणश्च यश्चायमन्तरात्मन्नाकाश एतदमृतमेतद्यद्

एतत्त्यं तस्यैतस्यामूर्तस्यैतस्यामृतस्यैतस्य यत एतस्य त्यस्यैष

रसो योऽयं दक्षिणेऽक्षन्पुरुषस्त्यस्य ह्येष रसः ॥ ५॥

mantra 5[II.iii.5]

athāmūrtaṃ prāṇaśca yaścāyamantarātmannākāśa etadamṛtametadyad

etattyaṃ tasyaitasyāmūrtasyaitasyāmṛtasyaitasya yata etasya tyasyaiṣa

raso yo'yaṃ dakṣiṇe'kṣanpuruṣastyasya hyeṣa rasaḥ .. 5..



Meaning:- Now the subtle - it is (the corporeal) air and the ether that is in the body. It is immortal, it is unlimited, and it is undefined. The essence of that which is subtle, immortal, unlimited and undefined is this being that is in the right eye, for this is the essence of the undefined.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Now the subtle form is being described. The two remaining elements, (the corporeal) air and the ether that is in the body --- are the subtle form. The rest is to be explained as before. The essence of that which is undefined is this being that is in the right eye (i.e. the subtle body). The specification about the right eye is based on the evidence of the scriptures. For they declare that the subtle body is specially manifest in the right eye; we see it mentioned in all the Srutis. For this is the essence of the undefined:- as before the meaning of the reason is that the subtle body is fine, because it cannot be definitely perceived, and is also the essence (of the two subtle elements in the body).

Translation By Max Müller

5. But breath and the ether within the body are immaterial, are immortal, are fluid, are indefinite. The essence of that which is immaterial, which is immortal, which is fluid, which is indefinite is the person in the right eye, for he is the essence of tyad (the indefinite).


Sloka : 2.3.6

मन्त्र ६[II.iii.6]

तस्य हैतस्य पुरुषस्य रूपम् । यथा माहारजनं वासो यथा पाण्ड्वाविकं

यथेन्द्रगोपो यथाऽग्न्यर्चिर्यथा पुण्डरीकं यथा सकृद्विद्युत्तꣳ ।

सकृद्विद्युत्तेव ह वा अस्य श्रीर्भवति य एवं वेदा थात आदेशो

नेति नेति न ह्येतस्मादिति नेत्यन्यत् परमस्त्यथ नामधेयꣳ सत्यस्य

सत्यमिति प्राणा वै सत्यं तेषामेष सत्यम् ॥ ६॥

इति तृतीयं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ चतुर्थं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 6[II.iii.6]

tasya haitasya puruṣasya rūpam . yathā māhārajanaṃ vāso yathā pāṇḍvāvikaṃ

yathendragopo yathā'gnyarciryathā puṇḍarīkaṃ yathā sakṛdvidyuttagͫ .

sakṛdvidyutteva ha vā asya śrīrbhavati ya evaṃ vedā thāta ādeśo

neti neti na hyetasmāditi netyanyat paramastyatha nāmadheyagͫ satyasya

satyamiti prāṇā vai satyaṃ teṣāmeṣa satyam .. 6..

iti tṛtīyaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha caturthaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- The form of that 'being' is as follows:- like a cloth dyed with turmeric, or like grey sheep's wool, or like the (scarlet) insect called Indragopa, or like a tongue of fire, or like a white lotus, or like a flash of lightning. He who knows it as such attains splendour like a flash of lightning. Now therefore the description (of Brahman):- 'Not this, not this'. Because there is no other and more appropriate description than this 'Not this'. Now Its name:- 'The Truth of truth'. The vital force is truth, and It is the Truth of that.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- The division of the gross and subtle, called truth, which are the limiting adjuncts of Brahman, into what relates to the gods and what relates to the body, in their twofold division of the body and organs, has been explained. Now we (the scriptues) shall describe the form of that 'being' identified with the organs, ie. the subtle body. It consists of impressions, and is produced by the impressions of gross and subtle objects and the union of the individual self; it is variegated (All this indicates that it is the mind that is being described, and not the self, which is homogeneous.) like pictures on a canvas or wall, is comparable to an illusion, or magic, or a mirage, and is puzzling to all. For instance, the Buddhistic Idealists (Yogacaras) are mistaken into thinking that the self is this much only. The Naiyayikas and Vaisesikas, on the other hand, maintain that like the colour of a cloth, these impressions are the attributes of the self, which is a substance. While the Samkhyas hold that the mind, which is dependant on the Prakrti (The primordial material out of which the universe has been formed.) and is possessed of three tendencies, is a separate entity, subserves the purpose of the self, and operates for its highest good (liberation through experience).

Some self-styled followers (A hit at Bhartrprapanca.) of the Upanisads too spin out the following theory:- The gross and subtle elements make one (the lowest) entity, the Supreme Self is the highest entity, and different from and intermediate between these two is the third entity, which is the sum total of one's meditations, actions and pervious experience, together with the individual self that is the agent and experiencer, the one that Ajatasatru awoke. The actions etc. are the cause, and the gross and subtle elements mentioned above as also the body and organs, which are the means of meditations and actions, are the effect. They also establish a connection with the logicians by stating that the actions etc. abide in the subtle body. Then they are frightened lest this should smack of Samkhya, and conform also to the Vaisesika view by saying that just as the odour that abides in flowers can be conserved in oil by boiling even when the flowers are gone, so even when the subtle body is gone, all actions etc. are conserved in a portion of the Supreme Self. That portin, though transcendent, becomes conditioned through attributes --- the actions etc. --- coming from elsewhere (The elements forming the body and organs.). This individual self then becomes the agent and experiencer, and is subject to bondage and liberation. Those actions etc. are but adventitious things, coming from the elements; the individual self, being a portion of the Supreme Self, is in itself transcendent. Ignorance, which springs from the Self, although natural to It, is not an attribute of the Self, just as a desert does not affect the whole earth. Through this statement they conform also to the Samkhya view.

They look upon all this as excellent because of its harmonising with the logicians' view, but they do not see that it contradicts the verdict of the Upanisads as well as all reasoning. How? For instance, we have already said that if the Supreme Self be composed of parts (and the individual self be identical with It), that view would be open to various objections, such as the chance of the Supreme Self being subject to transmigration and having wounds, besides the impossibility of Its going after death to places in accordance with Its past work. While if the individual self be eternally different from the Supreme Self, it can never be identical with It. If it be urged that the subtle body itself is figuratively referred to as part of the Supreme Self, like the ether enclosed in a jar, a bowl, the pores of the earth, etc., then it would be impossible to maintain that even when the subtle body (Which is the repository of impressions.) has ceased to be (as in the state of profound sleep), impressions persist in a part of the Supreme Self, or that ignorance springs from It as a desert does from the earth, and so on. Nor can we even mentally imagine that impressions move form one thing to another without the help of some object in which they can inhere. Nor would such Sruti texts as, 'Desire, resolution, doubt (etc. are but the mind)' (I. v. 3), 'It is on the heart (mind) that colours rest' (III. ix. 20). 'It thinks, as it were, and shakes as it were' (IV. iii. 7), 'All desires that are in his heart' (IV. iv. 7; Ka. VI. 14), and 'He is then beyond all the woes of his heart' (IV. iii. 22), fit in with such a view. And it is not proper to explain these texts otherwise than literally, for they are meant to show that the individual self is no other than the Supreme Brahman. And all the Upanisada end by giving out this sole meaning. Therefore persons skilled only in fancifully interpreting the Srutis all distort their meaning. Yet, if those interpretations are in consonance with the teaching of the Vedas, they are welcome; we have no grudge against them.
Moreoever, the expression, 'Brahman has but two forms,' does not agree with the view that posits three entities. If, however, the gross and subtle forms together with the impressions springing respectively from them constitute two forms, gross and subtle, while Brahman is a third entity possessed of those two forms, and there is no fourth entity in between, then only is the assertion, 'Brahman has but two forms,' congruous. Otherwise we have to imagine that the individual self is a part of Brahman, and has the two forms; or that the Supreme Self, through the medium of the individual self, has them. In that case the use of the dual number, indicating only 'two forms,' would be inconsistent. The plural, denoting 'many forms,' including the impressions, would be more appropriate --- the gross and subtle forms being two, and the impressions being a third entity. If it be maintained that the gross and subtle forms alone are the forms of the Supreme Self, but the impressions belong to the individual self, then the form of expression used, viz that 'the Supreme Self, which undergoes modification through the medium of the individual self, (has the forms),' would be meaningless, since impressions too would equally affect the Supreme Self through the medium of the individual self. But we cannot at all imagine, except in a figurative sense, that a thing undergoes modification through the medium of something else. Nor is the individual self something different from the Supreme Self. To admit this is to contradict one's own premiss. Therefore this sort of interpretation has its origin only in the imagination of those who are ignorant of the meaning of the Vedas, and is unwarranted by the working of the text. Ann unwarranted interpretation of the Vedas cannot be regarded either as a true interpretation or as helping towards it, for the Vedas do not derive their authority from any other source. Therefore the view that three entities are in question is untenable.

The subtle body has been introduced in connection with matters relating to the body in the clause, 'The being that is in the right eye' (II. iii. 5), and in connection with those relating to the gods in the clause, 'The being that is in the sun' (II. iii. 3). The word 'that' (in the expression, 'The form of that being') refers to something that is being discussed, in other words, that which is the essence of the subtle, undefined, but not the individual self.

Objection:- Why should not these forms belong to the individual self, since it too has a place in the discussion, and the word 'that' refers to something that is under discussion?
Reply:- No, for the Sruti wants to teach the transcendent nature of the individual self. If the forms, 'Like a cloth dyed with turmeric,' etc. (II. iii. 6), really belong to the individual self, then it would not be described as indefinable in the terms, 'Not this, not this.'
Objection:- Suppose we say this is a description of something else, and not of the individual self.
Reply:- Not so, for at the end of the fourth chapter (IV. v. 15), referring to the individual self (In its unconditioned aspect as the Witness.) in the words, 'Through what, O Maitreyi, should one know the Knower?' (IV. v. 15), it is concluded:- 'This self is That which has been described as 'Not this, not this.' ' Besides, thus only can the statement, 'I will instruct you (about Brahman),' be relevant. That is to say, if the Sruti wants to teach the transcendent nature of the individual self --- which is free from all differentiations of limiting adjuncts, then only can this assertion be fulfilled. Because, instructed in this way, the student knows himself to be Brahman, thoroughly understands the import of the scriptues, and is afraid of nothing. If, on the other hand, the individual self be one, and what is described as 'Not this, not this' be something else, then the student would understand just the reverse of truth , viz that Brahman is something, and that he is something else. He would not 'know only himself as, 'I am Brahman' ' (I. iv. 10). Therefore the forms given in the passage, 'Now the form of that being,' etc. are only those of the subtle body.

Besides, in order to describe the nature of the Supreme Self, which is the Truth of truth, the latter must be described in its entirely. And impressions being the particular forms of that truth, these forms of the impression are being mentioned. These are the forms of this being, i.e. of the subtle body that is being discussed. What are they? As in life we have a cloth dyed with turmeric, so in the presence of objects of enjoyment the mind gets a similar colouring of impressions, whence a man under such circumstances is said to be attached, as a cloth, for instance, is dyed. Also as sheep's wool is grey, so are some other forms of impressions. Again, as in the world the insect called Indragopa is deep red, so also are some impressions of the mind. The colouring varies sometimes according to the tendencies of the mind itself. As, again, a tongue of fire is bright, so are some people's impressions at times. Like a white lotus too are the impressions of some. As in nature a single flash of lightning illumines everything, so, according to the intensity of the manifestation of knowledge, do the impressions of some people. It is impossible to ascertain the beginning, middle or end, or number, place, time and circumstances of these impressions, for they are innumerable, and infinite are their causes. So it will be said in the fourth chapter, '(This self is) identified with this (what is perceived) and with that (what is inferred),' etc. (IV. iv. 5). Therefore the examples given in the passage, 'Like a cloth dyed with turmeric,' etc. are not meant to indicate the exact number of the varieties of impressions, but merely to suggest their types, meaning that impressions are like these. The form of impression that has been cited at the end, viz 'Like a flash of lightning,' refers to the sudden manifestation of everytthing like lightning, as Hiranyagarbha emanates from the Undifferentiated (The principle representing the unmanifested state of the universe.). He who knows that particular form of impression relating to Hiranyagarbha, attains splendour like a flash of lightning. The particles 'ha' and 'vai' are for emphasis. Just like this, i.e. like that of Hiranyagarbha, becomes the splendour or fame of one who knows it, the form of impression last mentioned, as such, as described above.

Having thus completely described the nature of 'truth', the Sruti, in order to ascertain the nature of what has been called 'the Truth of truth,' viz Brahman, introduces this text:- Now therefore --- since after ascertaining the nature of 'truth,' what remains is the Truth of truth, therefore the nature of that will be next ascertained. Description is a specific statement --- about Brahman. What is this statement? Not this, not this.
How through these two terms 'Not this, not this' is it sought to describe the Truth of truth? By the elimination of all differences due to limiting adjuncts, the words refer to something that has no distinguishing mark such as name, or form, or action, or heterogeneity, or species, or qualities. Words denote things through one or other of these. But Brahman has none of these distinguishing marks. Hence It cannot be described as, 'It is such and such,' as we can describe a cow by saying, 'There moves a white cow with horns.' Brahman is described by means of name, form and action superimposed on
It, in such terms as, 'Knowledge, Bliss, Brahman' (III. ix. 28), and 'Pure, Intelligence' (II. iv. 12), 'Brahman,' and 'Atman.' When, however, we wish to describe Its true nature, free from all differences due to limiting adjuncts, then it is an utter impossibility. Then there is only one way left, viz to describe It as 'Not this, not this,' by eliminating all possible specifications of It that have been known.

These two negative particles are for conveying all-inclusiveness through repetition so as to eliminate every specification whatsoever that may occur to us. Such being the case, the doubt that Brahman has not been described is removed. If, on the other hand, the two negative particles merely eliminated just the two aspects of Brahman that are being discussed (viz the gross and subtle), then other aspects of It than these two would not be described, and there would still be a doubt as to what exactly Brahman is like. So that description of Brahman would be useless, for it would not satisfy one's desire to know It. And the purpose of the sentence, 'I will instruct you (about Brahman)' (II. i. 15), would remain unfulfilled. But when through the elimination of limiting adjuncts the desire to know about space, time and everything else (that is not Brahman) is removed, one realises one's identity with Brahman, the Truth of truth, which is homogeneous like a lump of salt, and which is Pure Intelligence without interior or exterior; his desire to know is completely satisfied, and his intellect is centred in the Self alone. Therefore the two negative particles in 'Not this, not this' are used in an all-inclusive sense.

Objection:- Well, after buckling with such ado is it fair to described Brahman thus?
Reply:- Yes. Why? Because there is not other and more appropriate description (of Brahman) than this 'Not this, not this', therefore this is the only description of Brahman. The particle 'iti,' repeated twice, covers all possible predications that are to be eliminated by the two negative particles, as when we say, 'Every village is beautiful.' It was said, 'Its secret name is:- The Truth of truth' (II. i. 20); it is thus that the Supreme Brahman is the Truth of truth. Therefore the name of Brahman that has been mentioned is appropriate. What is it? The Truth of truth. The vital force is truth, and It is the Truth of that.

Translation By Max Müller

6. And what is the appearance of that person? Like a saffron-coloured raiment, like white wool, like cochineal, like the flame of fire, like the white lotus, like sudden lightning. He who knows this, his glory is like unto sudden lightning. Next follows the teaching (of Brahman) by No, no [1]! for there is nothing else higher than this (if one says):- 'It is not so.' Then comes the name 'the True of the True,' the senses being the True, and he (the Brahman) the True of them.

Footnote:

1. See III, 9, 26; IV, 2,4; IV, 4, 22; IV, 5, I5.


Sloka : 2.4.1

मन्त्र १[II.iv.1]

मैत्रेयीति होवाच याज्ञवल्क्य उद्यास्यन्वा अरेऽहमस्मात्स्थानादस्मि ।

हन्त तेऽनया कात्यायन्याऽन्तं करवाणीति ॥ १॥

mantra 1[II.iv.1]

maitreyīti hovāca yājñavalkya udyāsyanvā are'hamasmātsthānādasmi .

hanta te'nayā kātyāyanyā'ntaṃ karavāṇīti .. 1..



Meaning:- 'Maitreyi, my dear', said Yajnavalkya, 'I am going to renounce this life. Allow me to finish between you and Katyayani'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- The sage Yajnavalkya, addressing his wife, Maitreyi, said, 'Maitreyi, I am going to renounce this householder's life --- I intend to take up the life of renunciation, which is the next higher life. Hence I ask your permission. --- The particle 'are' is a vocative. --- Further I wish to finish between you and my second wife, Katyayani, i.e. put an end to the relationship that existed between you through me, your common husband; by dividing my property between you, I will separate you through wealth and go.'

Translation By Max Müller

1. Now when Yâgñavalkya was going to enter upon another state, he said:- 'Maitreyî [1], verily I am going away from this my house (into the forest [2]). Forsooth, let me make a settlement between thee and that Kâtyâyanî (my other wife).'

Footnote:

1. In Brih. Up. IV, 5, the story begins:- Yâgñavalkya had two wives, Maitreyî and Kâtyâyanî. Of these Maitreyî was conversant with Brahman, but Kâtyâyanî possessed such knowledge only as women possess. 2. Instead of udyâsyan, B. gives pravragishyan, the more technical term.


Sloka : 2.4.2

मन्त्र २[II.iv.2]

सा होवाच मैत्रेयी यन्नु म इयं भगोः सर्वा पृथिवी वित्तेन

पूर्णा स्यात् कथं तेनामृता स्यामिति । नेति होवाच याज्ञवल्क्यो

यथैवोपकरणवतां जीवितं तथैव ते जीवितꣳ स्यादमृतत्वस्य

तु नाऽऽशाऽस्ति वित्तेनेति ॥ २॥

mantra 2[II.iv.2]

sā hovāca maitreyī yannu ma iyaṃ bhagoḥ sarvā pṛthivī vittena

pūrṇā syāt kathaṃ tenāmṛtā syāmiti . neti hovāca yājñavalkyo

yathaivopakaraṇavatāṃ jīvitaṃ tathaiva te jīvitagͫ syādamṛtatvasya

tu nā''śā'sti vitteneti .. 2..



Meaning:- Thereupon Maitreyi said, 'Sir, if indeed this whole earth full of wealth be mine, shall I be immortal through that?' 'No', replied Yajnavalkya, 'your life will be just like that of people who have plenty of things, but there is no hope of immortality through wealth.'





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Thus addressed, Maitreyi said, 'Sir, if indeed this whole earth girdled by the ocean and full of wealth be mine, shall I be immortal through that, i.e. through rites such as the Agnihotra, which can be performed with the entire wealth of the earth?
The particle 'nu' indicates deliberation. The word 'Katham' (how) indicates disbelief, meaning 'never'; or it may have an interrogative force, in which case it should be construed with the slightly remote words, 'Shall I be immortal (The second meaning has been adapted in the translation.)?' 'No' replied Yajnavalkya. If the word 'how' indicates disbelief, Yajnavalkya's word 'No' is an approval. It it has an interrogative force, his reply means, 'You can never be immortal; as is the life of people of means filled with materials of enjoyment, so will your life be; but there is no hope, even in thought, of immortality through wealth, i.e. rites performed with wealth.'

Translation By Max Müller

2. Maitreyî said:- 'My Lord, if this whole earth, full of wealth, belonged to me, tell me, should I be immortal by it [1]?' 'No,' replied Yâgñavalkya; 'like the life of rich people will be thy life. But there is no hope of immortality by wealth.'

Footnote:

1. Should I be immortal by it, or no? B.


Sloka : 2.4.3

मन्त्र ३[II.iv.3]

सा होवाच मैत्रेयी येनाहं नामृता स्यां किमहं तेन कुर्याम् । यदेव

भगवान्वेद तदेव मे ब्रूहीति ॥ ३॥

mantra 3[II.iv.3]

sā hovāca maitreyī yenāhaṃ nāmṛtā syāṃ kimahaṃ tena kuryām . yadeva

bhagavānveda tadeva me brūhīti .. 3..



Meaning:- Then Maitreyi said, 'What shall I do with that which will not make me immortal? Tell me, sir, of that alone which you know (to be the only means of immortality).'





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Thus addressed, Maitreyi said in reply, 'If this is so, what shall I do with that wealth which will not make me immortal? Tell me, sir, of that alone which you know to be the only means of immortality.'

Translation By Max Müller

3. And Maitreyî said:- 'What should I do with that by which I do not become immortal? What my Lord knoweth (of immortality), tell that to me [1].'

Footnote:

1. Tell that clearly to me. B.


Sloka : 2.4.4

मन्त्र ४[II.iv.4]

स होवाच याज्ञवल्क्यः प्रिया बतारे नः सती प्रियं भाषस एह्यास्स्व

व्याख्यास्यामि ते । व्याचक्षाणस्य तु मे निदिध्यासस्वेति ॥ ४॥

mantra 4[II.iv.4]

sa hovāca yājñavalkyaḥ priyā batāre naḥ satī priyaṃ bhāṣasa ehyāssva

vyākhyāsyāmi te . vyācakṣāṇasya tu me nididhyāsasveti .. 4..



Meaning:- Yajnavalkya said, 'My dear, you have been my beloved (even before), and you say what is after my heart. Come, take your seat, I will explain it to you. As I explain it, meditate (on its meaning).





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- When rites performed with wealth were rejected as a means to immortality, Yajnavalkya, seeing that Maitreyi concurred with his views, was pleased and said, 'O Maitreyi, you have been my beloved even before, and now you say what is just after my heart. Therefore come and take your seat, I will explain to you what you desire --- that knowledge of the Self which confers immortality. But as I explain it, meditate, or will to reflect steadfastly,on the meaning of my words.' The particle 'bata' is suggestive of tenderness.

Translation By Max Müller

4. Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'Thou who art truly dear to me, thou speakest dear words [1]. Come, sit down, I will explain it to thee, and mark well what I say.'

Footnote:

1. Thou who art dear to me, thou hast increased what is dear (to me in this). B.


Sloka : 2.4.5

मन्त्र ५[II.iv.5]

स होवाच न वा अरे पत्युः कामाय पतिः प्रियो भवत्यात्मनस्तु कामाय

पतिः प्रियो भवति । न वा अरे जायायै कामाय जाया प्रिया भवत्यात्मनस्तु

कामाय जाया प्रिया भवति । न वा अरे पुत्राणां कामाय पुत्राः प्रिया

भवन्त्यात्मनस्तु कामाय पुत्राः प्रिया भवन्ति । न वा अरे वित्तस्य

कामाय वित्तं प्रियं भवत्यात्मनस्तु कामाय वित्तं प्रियं भवति ।

न वा अरे ब्रह्मणः कामाय ब्रह्म प्रियं भवत्यात्मनस्तु कामाय

ब्रह्म प्रियं भवति । न वा अरे क्षत्रस्य कामाय क्षत्रं प्रियं

भवत्यात्मनस्तु कामाय क्षत्रं प्रियं भवति । न वा अरे लोकानां

कामाय लोकाः प्रिया भवन्त्यात्मनस्तु कामाय लोकाः प्रिया भवन्ति । न

वा अरे देवानां कामाय देवाः प्रिया भवन्त्यात्मनस्तु कामाय देवाः प्रिया

भवन्ति । न वा अरे भूतानां कामाय भूतानि प्रियाणि भवन्त्यात्मनस्तु

कामाय भूतानि प्रियाणि भवन्ति । न वा अरे सर्वस्य कामाय सर्वं प्रियं

भवत्यात्मनस्तु कामाय सर्वं प्रियं भवत्यात्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः

श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यो निदिध्यासितव्यो । मैत्रेय्यात्मनो वा अरे दर्शनेन

श्रवणेन मत्या विज्ञानेनेदꣳ सर्वं विदितम् ॥ ५॥

mantra 5[II.iv.5]

sa hovāca na vā are patyuḥ kāmāya patiḥ priyo bhavatyātmanastu kāmāya

patiḥ priyo bhavati . na vā are jāyāyai kāmāya jāyā priyā bhavatyātmanastu

kāmāya jāyā priyā bhavati . na vā are putrāṇāṃ kāmāya putrāḥ priyā

bhavantyātmanastu kāmāya putrāḥ priyā bhavanti . na vā are vittasya

kāmāya vittaṃ priyaṃ bhavatyātmanastu kāmāya vittaṃ priyaṃ bhavati .

na vā are brahmaṇaḥ kāmāya brahma priyaṃ bhavatyātmanastu kāmāya

brahma priyaṃ bhavati . na vā are kṣatrasya kāmāya kṣatraṃ priyaṃ

bhavatyātmanastu kāmāya kṣatraṃ priyaṃ bhavati . na vā are lokānāṃ

kāmāya lokāḥ priyā bhavantyātmanastu kāmāya lokāḥ priyā bhavanti . na

vā are devānāṃ kāmāya devāḥ priyā bhavantyātmanastu kāmāya devāḥ priyā

bhavanti . na vā are bhūtānāṃ kāmāya bhūtāni priyāṇi bhavantyātmanastu

kāmāya bhūtāni priyāṇi bhavanti . na vā are sarvasya kāmāya sarvaṃ priyaṃ

bhavatyātmanastu kāmāya sarvaṃ priyaṃ bhavatyātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ

śrotavyo mantavyo nididhyāsitavyo . maitreyyātmano vā are darśanena

śravaṇena matyā vijñānenedagͫ sarvaṃ viditam .. 5..



Meaning:- He said:- 'It is not for the sake of the husband, my dear, that he is loved, but for one's own sake that he is loved. It is not for the sake of the wife, my dear, that she is loved, but for one's own sake that she is loved. It is not for the sake of the sons, my dear, that they are loved, but for one's own sake that they are loved. It is not for the sake of wealth, my dear, that it is loved, but for one's own sake that it is loved. It is not for the sake of the Brahmana, my dear, that he is loved, but for one's own sake that he is loved. It is not for the sake of the Kshatriya, my dear, that he is loved, but for one's own sake that he is loved. It is not for the sake of worlds, my dear, that they are loved, but for one's own sake that they are loved. It is not for the sake of the gods, my dear, that they are loved, but for one's own sake that they are loved. It is not for the sake of beings, my dear, that they are loved, but for one's own sake that they are loved. It is not for the sake of all, my dear, that all is loved, but for one's own sake that it is loved. The Self, my dear Maitreyi, should be realised - should be heard of, reflected on and meditated upon. By the realisation of the Self, my dear, through hearing, reflection and meditation, all this is known.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- With a view to teaching renunciation as a means to immortality, Yajnavalkya creates a distaste for the wife, husband, sons, etc., so that they may be given up. He said, 'It is not for the sake or necessity of the husband that he is loved by the wife, but it is for one's own sake that he is loved by her.' The particle 'vai' (indeed) (Omitted in the translation. So also elsewhere.) recalls something that is well-known, signifying that this is a matter of common knowledge. Similarly, it is not for the sake of the wife, etc. The rest is to be explained as before. Likewise it is not for the sake of the sons, wealth, the Brahmana, the Ksatriya, worlds, the gods, beings, and all. The priority of enumeration is in the order of their closeness to us as sources of joy; for it is all the more desirable to create a distaste for them. The use of the word 'all' is for including everything that has and has not been mentioned. Hence it is a well-known fact that the Self alone is dear, and nothing else. (I. iv. . The present text serves as a detailed commentary on that. Therefore our love for other objects is secondary, since they contribute to the pleasure of the self; and our love for the self alone is primary. Therefore 'the Self, my dear Maitreyi, should be realised, is worthy of realisation, or should be made the object of realisation. It should first be heard of from a teacher and from the scriptures, then reflected on through reasoning, and then steadfastly meditated upon.' Thus only is It realised --- when these means, viz hearing, reflection and meditation, have been gone through. When these three are combined, then only true realisation of the union of Brahman is accomplished, not otherwise --- by hearing alone. The different castes such as the Brahmana or the Ksatriya, the various orders of life, and so on, upon which rites depend, and which consist of actions, and their factos and results, are objects of notions superimposed on the Self by ignorance --- i.e. based on false notions like that of a snake in a rope. In order to destroy these he says, 'By the realisation of the Self, my dear, through hearing, reflection and meditation, all this is known'.

Translation By Max Müller

5. And he said:- 'Verily, a husband is not dear, that you may love the husband; but that you may love the Self, therefore a husband is dear. 'Verily, a wife is not dear, that you may love the wife; but that you may love the Self, therefore a wife is dear. 'Verily, sons are not dear, that you may love the sons; but that you may love the Self, therefore sons are dear. 'Verily, wealth is not dear, that you may love wealth; but that you may love the Self, therefore wealth is dear [1]. 'Verily, the Brahman-class is not dear, that you may love the Brahman-class; but that you may love the Self, therefore the Brahman-class is dear. 'Verily, the Kshatra-class is not dear, that you may love the Kshatra-class; but that you may love the Self, therefore the Kshatra-class is dear. 'Verily, the worlds are not dear, that you may love the worlds; but that you may love the Self, therefore the worlds are dear. 'Verily, the Devas are not dear, that you may love the Devas; but that you may love the Self, therefore the Devas are dear [2]. 'Verily, creatures are not dear, that you may love the creatures; but that you may love the Self, therefore are creatures dear. 'Verily, everything is not dear that you may love everything; but that you may love the Self, therefore everything is dear. 'Verily, the Self is to be seen, to be heard, to be perceived, to be marked, O Maitreyî! When we see, hear, perceive, and know the Self [3], then all this is known.

Footnote:

1. B. adds, Verily, cattle are not dear, &c. 2. B. inserts, Verily, the Vedas are not dear, &c. 3. When the Self has been seen, heard, perceived, and known. B.


Sloka : 2.4.6

मन्त्र ६[II.iv.6]

ब्रह्म तं परादाद्योऽन्यत्राऽऽत्मनो ब्रह्म वेद क्षत्रं तं

परादाद्योऽन्यत्राऽऽत्मनः क्षत्रं वेद लोकास्तं परादुर्योऽन्यत्रात्मनो

लोकान्वेद देवास्तं परादुर्योऽन्यत्रात्मनो देवान्वेद भूतानि तं

परादुर्योऽन्यत्रात्मनो भूतानि वेद सर्वं तं परादाद् योऽन्यत्रात्मनः

सर्वं वेदेदं ब्रह्मेदं क्षत्रमिमे लोका इमे देवा इमानि भूतानीदꣳ

सर्वं यदयमात्मा ॥ ६॥

mantra 6[II.iv.6]

brahma taṃ parādādyo'nyatrā''tmano brahma veda kṣatraṃ taṃ

parādādyo'nyatrā''tmanaḥ kṣatraṃ veda lokāstaṃ parāduryo'nyatrātmano

lokānveda devāstaṃ parāduryo'nyatrātmano devānveda bhūtāni taṃ

parāduryo'nyatrātmano bhūtāni veda sarvaṃ taṃ parādād yo'nyatrātmanaḥ

sarvaṃ vededaṃ brahmedaṃ kṣatramime lokā ime devā imāni bhūtānīdagͫ

sarvaṃ yadayamātmā .. 6..



Meaning:- The Brahmana ousts (slights) one who knows him as different from the Self. The Kshatriya ousts one who knows him as different from the Self. Worlds oust one who knows them as different from the Self. The gods oust one who knows them as different from the Self. Beings oust one who knows them as different from the Self. All ousts one who knows it as different from the Self. This Brahmana, this Kshatriya, these worlds, these gods, these beings, and this all are this Self.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:-
Objection:- How can the knowledge of one thing lead to that of another?
Reply:- The objection is not valid, for there is nothing besides the Self. If there were, it would not be known, but there is no such thing; the Self is everything. Therefore It being known, everything would be known. How is it that the Self is everything? The Sruti answers it:- The Brahmana ousts or rejects the man who knows him to be different from the Self, i.e. who knows that the Brahmana is not the Self. The Brahmana does so out of a feeling that this man considers him to be different from the Self. For the Supreme Self is the self of all. Similarly the Ksatriya, worlds, the gods, beings, and all oust him. This Brahmana and all the rest that have been enumerated are this Self that has been introduced as the object to be realised through hearing etc. Because everything springs from the Self, is dissolved in It, and remains imbued with It during continuance, for it cannot be perceived apart from the Self. Therefore everything is the Self.

Translation By Max Müller

6. 'Whosoever looks for the Brahman-class elsewhere than in the Self, was [1] abandoned by the Brahman-class. Whosoever looks for the Kshatra-class elsewhere than in the Self, was abandoned by the Kshatra-class. Whosoever looks for the worlds elsewhere than in the Self, was abandoned by the worlds. Whosoever looks for the Devas elsewhere than in the Self, was abandoned by the Devas [2]. Whosoever looks for creatures elsewhere than in the Self, was abandoned by the creatures. Whosoever looks for anything elsewhere than in the Self, was abandoned by everything. This Brahman-class, this Kshatra-class, these worlds, these Devas [3], these [4] creatures, this everything, all is that Self.

Footnote:

1. The commentator translates, 'should be abandoned.' 2. B. inserts, Whosoever looks for the Vedas, &c. 3. B. adds, these Vedas. 4. B. has, all these creatures.


Sloka : 2.4.7

मन्त्र ७[II.iv.7]

स यथा दुन्दुभेर्हन्यमानस्य न बाह्याञ्छब्दाञ्छक्नुयाद् ग्रहणाय

दुन्दुभेस्तु ग्रहणेन दुन्दुभ्याघातस्य वा शब्दो गृहीतः ॥ ७॥

mantra 7[II.iv.7]

sa yathā dundubherhanyamānasya na bāhyāñchabdāñchaknuyād grahaṇāya

dundubhestu grahaṇena dundubhyāghātasya vā śabdo gṛhītaḥ .. 7..



Meaning:- As, when a drum is beaten, one cannot distinguish its various particular notes, but they are included in the general note of the drum or in the general sound produced by different kinds of strokes.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- But how can we know that all this but the Self now? Because of the inherence of Pure Intelligence in everything we conclude that everything is That. An illustration is being given:- We see in life that if a thing cannot be perceived apart from something else, the latter is the essence of that things. As, for instance, when a drum or the like is beaten with a stick etc., one cannot distinguish its various particular notes from the general note of the drum, but they are included in, taken as modifications of, the general note:- We say these are all notes of the drum, having no existence apart from the general note of the drum. Or the particular notes produced by different kinds of strokes are included in the general sound produced by those strokes:- They cannot be perceived as distinct notes, on account of having nor separate existence. Similarly nothing particular is perceived in the waking and dream states apart from Pure Intelligence. Therefore those things should be considered non-existent apart from Pure Intelligence.

Translation By Max Müller

7. 'Now as [1] the sounds of a drum, when beaten, cannot be seized externally (by themselves), but the sound is seized, when the drum is seized or the beater of the drum;

Footnote:

1. I construe sa yathâ with evam vai in § 12, looking upon § 11 as probably a later insertion. The sa is not the pronoun, but a particle, as in sa yadi, sa ket, &c.


Sloka : 2.4.8

मन्त्र ८[II.iv.8]

स यथा शङ्खस्य ध्मायमानस्य न बाह्याञ्छब्दाञ्छक्नुयाद् ग्रहणाय

शङ्खस्य तु ग्रहणेन शङ्खध्मस्य वा शब्दो गृहीतः ॥ ८॥

mantra 8[II.iv.8]

sa yathā śaṅkhasya dhmāyamānasya na bāhyāñchabdāñchaknuyād grahaṇāya

śaṅkhasya tu grahaṇena śaṅkhadhmasya vā śabdo gṛhītaḥ .. 8..



Meaning:- As, when a conch is blown, one cannot distinguish its various particular notes, but they are included in the general note of the conch or in the general sound produced by different kinds of playing.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Similarly, as, when a conch is blown, connected or filled with sound, one cannot distinguish its various particular notes, etc. --- to be explained as before.

Translation By Max Müller

8., And as the sounds of a conch-shell, when blown, cannot be seized externally (by themselves), but the sound is seized, when the shell is seized or the blower of the shell;


Sloka : 2.4.9

मन्त्र ९[II.iv.9]

स यथा वीणायै वाद्यमानायै न बाह्याञ्छब्दाञ्छक्नुयाद् ग्रहणाय

वीणायै तु ग्रहणेन वीणावादस्य वा शब्दो गृहीतः ॥ ९॥

mantra 9[II.iv.9]

sa yathā vīṇāyai vādyamānāyai na bāhyāñchabdāñchaknuyād grahaṇāya

vīṇāyai tu grahaṇena vīṇāvādasya vā śabdo gṛhītaḥ .. 9..



Meaning:- As, when a Vina is played, one cannot distinguish its various particular notes, but they are included in the general note of the Vina or in the general sound produced by different kinds of playing.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Similarly, as when a Vina is played, etc. The dative case in 'Vinayai' stands for the genitive. The citation of many examples here is for indicating varieties of genus; for there are many distinct kinds of genus, sentient and insentient. It is to show how through a series of intermediate steps they are included in a supreme genus, Pure Intelligence, that so many examples are given. Just as a drum, a conch and a Vina have distinct general and particular notes of their own, which are included in sound in general, so during the continuance of the universe we may know all things to be unified in Brahman, because the varieties of genus and particulars are not different from It.

Translation By Max Müller

9. 'And as the sounds of a lute, when played, cannot be seized externally (by themselves), but the sound is seized, when the lute is seized or the player of the lute;


Sloka : 2.4.10

मन्त्र १०[II.iv.10]

स यथाऽऽर्द्रैधाग्नेरभ्याहितात्पृथग्धूमा विनिश्चरन्त्येवं

वा अरेऽस्य महतो भूतस्य निःश्वसितमेतद् यदृग्वेदो यजुर्वेदः

सामवेदोऽथर्वाङ्गिरस इतिहासः पुराणं विद्या उपनिषदः श्लोकाः

सूत्राण्यनुव्याख्यानानि व्याख्यानान्य्सामवेदसथर्वाङ्गिरससितिहासस्पुराणं

विद्यासुपनिषदस्श्लोकास्सूत्राणि अनुव्याख्यानानि व्याख्याननि अस्यैवैतानि

निःश्वसितानि ॥ १०॥

mantra 10[II.iv.10]

sa yathā''rdraidhāgnerabhyāhitātpṛthagdhūmā viniścarantyevaṃ

vā are'sya mahato bhūtasya niḥśvasitametad yadṛgvedo yajurvedaḥ

sāmavedo'tharvāṅgirasa itihāsaḥ purāṇaṃ vidyā upaniṣadaḥ ślokāḥ

sūtrāṇyanuvyākhyānāni vyākhyānānysāmavedasatharvāṅgirasasitihāsaspurāṇaṃ

vidyāsupaniṣadasślokāssūtrāṇi anuvyākhyānāni vyākhyānani asyaivaitāni

niḥśvasitāni .. 10..



Meaning:- As from a fire kindled with wet faggot diverse kinds of smoke issue, even so, my dear, the Rig-Veda, Yajur-Veda, Sama-Veda, Atharvangirasa, history, mythology, arts, Upanishads, pithy verses, aphorisms, elucidations and explanations are (like) the breath of this infinite Reality. They are like the breath of this (Supreme Self).





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Likewise it may be understood that the universe, at the time of its origin as also prior to it, is nothing but Brahman. As before the separation of the sparks, smoke, embers and flames, all these are nothing but fire, and therefore there is but one substance, fire, so it is reasonable to suppose that this universe differentiated into names anf forms is, before its origin, nothing but Pure Intelligence. This is expressed as follows:- As from a fire kindled with wet faggot diverse kinds of smoke issue. The word 'smoke' is suggestive of sparks etc. as well --- meaning smoke, sparks, etc., issue. Like this example, O Maitreyi, all this is like the breath of this infinite Reality, the Supreme Self that is being discussed. 'Breath' here means, like the breath. As a man breathes without the slightest effort, so do all these come out of That. What are those things that are spoken of as issuing from That as Its breath? The Rg-Veda, Yajur-Veda, Sama-Veda, Atharvangirasa, i.e. the four kinds of Mantras. History, such as the dialogue between Urvasi and Pururavas --- 'The nymph Urvasi,' and so on (S. XI. iv. iv. 1); it is this Brahmana that is meant. Mythology, such as, 'This universe was in the beginning unmanifest,' etc. (Tai. II. 7). Arts, which treat of music, dancing, etc. --- 'This is also Veda,' etc. (S. XIII. iv. iii. 10 ' 14). Upanisads, such as, 'It should be meditated upon as dear,' etc. (IV. 1. 3). Pithy verses, the Mantras occurring in the Brahmanas, such as, 'Regarding this there are the following pithy verses' (IV. iii. 11; IV. iv. . Aphorisms, those passages of the Vedas that present the truth in a nutshell, for example, 'The Self alone is to be meditated upon' (I. iv. 7). Elucidations --- of the Mantras. Explanations, eulogistic passages. Or 'elucidations' may be of the 'aphorisms' above. As the passage, 'The Self alone is to be meditated upon,' or the passage, 'He (who worships another god thinking), 'He is one, and I am another,' does not know. He is like an animal (to the gods)' (I. iv. 10), has this concluding portion of the present chapter as its elucidation. And 'explanations' may be of the Mantras. Thus these are the eight divisions of the Brahmanas.
So only the Mantras and Brahmanas are meant (And not the popular meanings of those eight terms.). It is the eternally composed and already existent Vedas that are manifested like a man's breath --- without any thought or effort on his part. Hence they are authority as regards their meaning, independently of any other means of knowledge. Therefore those who aspire after well-being must accept the verdict of the Vedas on knowledge or on rites, as it is. The differentiation of forms invariably depends on the manifestation of their names (The one implies the other.). Name and form are the limiting adjuncts of the Supreme Self, or which, they are differentiated, it is impossible to tell whether they are identical with or different from It, as is the case with the foam of water. It is name and form in all their stages (Varying degress of grossness or subtleness.) that constitute relative existence. Hence name has been compared to breatth. By this statement it is implied that form too is like breath. By this statement it is implied that form too is like breath. Or we may explain it differently:- In the passage, 'The Brahman ousts one ' all this is the Slef' (II. iv. 6; IV. v. 7), the entire world of duality has been spoken of as the domain of ignorance. This may lead to a doubt about the authority of the Vedas. In order to remove this doubt it is said that since the Vedas issue without any effort like a man's breath, they are an authority; they are not like other books.

Translation By Max Müller

10. 'As clouds of smoke proceed by themselves out of a lighted fire kindled with damp fuel, thus, verily, O Maitreyî, has been breathed forth from this great Being what we have as Rig-veda, Yagur-veda, Sama-veda, Atharvâṅgirasas, Itihâsa (legends), Purâna (cosmogonies), Vidyâ (knowledge), the Upanishads, Slokas (verses), Sûtras (prose rules), Anuvyâkhyânas (glosses), Vyâkhyânas (commentaries) [1]. From him alone all these were breathed forth.

Footnote:

1. B. adds, what is sacrificed, what is poured out, food, drink, this world and the other world, and all creatures.


Sloka : 2.4.11

मन्त्र ११[II.iv.11]

स यथा सर्वासामपाꣳ समुद्र एकायनमेवꣳ सर्वेषाꣳ

स्पर्शानां त्वगेकायनमेवꣳ सर्वेषां गन्धानां नासिकैकायनं

एवꣳ सर्वेषाꣳ रसानां जिह्वैकायनमेवꣳ सर्वेषाꣳ

रूपाणां चक्षुरेकायनमेवꣳ सर्वेषाꣳ शब्दानाꣳ

श्रोत्रमेकायनमेवꣳ सर्वेषाꣳ सङ्कल्पानां मन एकायनं

एवꣳ सर्वासां विद्यानाꣳ हृदयमेकायनमेवꣳ सर्वेषां

कर्मणाꣳ हस्तावेकायनमेवꣳ सर्वेषामानन्दानामुपस्थ एकायनं

एवꣳ सर्वेषां विसर्गाणां पायुरेकायनमेवꣳ सर्वेषामध्वनां

पादावेकायनमेवꣳ सर्वेषां वदानां वागेकायनम् ॥ ११॥

mantra 11[II.iv.11]

sa yathā sarvāsāmapāgͫ samudra ekāyanamevagͫ sarveṣāgͫ

sparśānāṃ tvagekāyanamevagͫ sarveṣāṃ gandhānāṃ nāsikaikāyanaṃ

evagͫ sarveṣāgͫ rasānāṃ jihvaikāyanamevagͫ sarveṣāgͫ

rūpāṇāṃ cakṣurekāyanamevagͫ sarveṣāgͫ śabdānāgͫ

śrotramekāyanamevagͫ sarveṣāgͫ saṅkalpānāṃ mana ekāyanaṃ

evagͫ sarvāsāṃ vidyānāgͫ hṛdayamekāyanamevagͫ sarveṣāṃ

karmaṇāgͫ hastāvekāyanamevagͫ sarveṣāmānandānāmupastha ekāyanaṃ

evagͫ sarveṣāṃ visargāṇāṃ pāyurekāyanamevagͫ sarveṣāmadhvanāṃ

pādāvekāyanamevagͫ sarveṣāṃ vadānāṃ vāgekāyanam .. 11..



Meaning:- As the ocean is the one goal of all sorts of water, as the skin is the one goal of all kinds of touch, as the nostrils are the one goal of all odours, as the tongue is the one goal of all savours, as the eye is the one goal of all colours , as the ear is the one goal of all sounds, as the Manas is the one goal of all deliberations, as the intellect is the one goal of all kinds of knowledge, as the hands are the one goal of all sort of work, as the organ of generation is the one goal of all kinds of enjoyment, as the anus is the one goal of all excretions, as the feet are the one goal of all kinds of walking, as the organ of speech is the one goal of all Vedas.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Moreover, it is not only at the time of its origin and continuance that the universe, on account of its non-existence apart from Pure Intelligence, is Brahman, but it is so at the time of dissolution also. Just as bubbles, foam, etc. are non-existent apart from water, so name, form and action, which are the effects of Pure Intelligence and dissolve in It are non-existent apart from It. Therefore Brahman is to be known as Pure Intelligence, one and homogeneous. So the text runs as follows --- the examples are illustrative of dissolution --- As the ocean is the one goal, meeting place, the place of dissolution or unification, of all sorts of water such as that or rivers, tanks and lakes. Likewise as the skin is the one goal of all kinds of touch such as soft or hard, rough or smooth, which are identical in nature with air (As representing the vital force.). By the word 'skin,' touch in general that is perceived by the skin, is meant; in it different kinds of touch are merged, like different kinds of water in the ocean, and become nonentities without it, for they were merely its modifications. Similarly, that touch in general, denoted by the word 'skin,' is merged in the deliberation of the Manas, that is to say, in a general consideration by it, just as different kinds of touch are included in touch in general perceived by the skin; without this consideration by the Manas it becomes a nenentity. The consideration by the Manas also is merged in a general cognition by the intellect, and becomes non-existent without it. Becoming mere consciousness, it is merged in Pure Intelligence, the Supreme Brahman, like different kinds of water in the ocean. When, through these successive steps, sound and the rest, together with their receiving organs, are merged in Pure Intelligence, there are no more limiting adjunts, and only Brahman, which is Pure Intelligence, comparable to a lump of salt, homogeneous, infinite, boundless and without a break, remains. Therefore the Self alone must be regarded as one without a second.

Similarly, the nostrils, i.e. odour in general, (are the one goal) of all odours, which are modes of earth. Likewise, the tongue, or taste in general perceived by the tongue, of all savours, which are modes of water. So also the eye, or colour in general perceived by the eye, of all colours, which are modes of light. So also (the ear, or) sound in general perceived by the ear, of all sounds, as before. Similarly, the generalities of sound and the rest are merged in deliberation, i.e. a general consideration of them by the Manas. This consideration by the Manas again is merged in mere consciousness, i.e. a general cognition by the intellect. Becoming mere consciousness, it is merged in the Supreme Brahman, which is Pure Intelligence. Similarly, the objects of the motor organs such as different kinds of speaking, taking, walking, excretion and enjoyment, are merged in their general functions, like different kinds of water in the ocean, and can no more be distinguished. These general functions are again nothing but the vital force, which is identical with intelligence. The Kausitaki Upanisad reads, 'That which is the vital force is intelligence, and that which is intelligence is the vital force' (III. 3).

Objection:- In everyone of those instances the mergence of the objects only has been spoken of, but not that of the organs. What is the motive for this?
Reply:- True, but the Sruti considers the organ to be of the same category as the objects, not of a different category. The organs are but modes of the objects in order to perceive them, as a lamp, which is but a mode of colour, is an instrument for revealing all colours. Similarly, the organs are but modes of all particular objects in order to perceive them, as is the case with a lamp. Hence no special care is to be taken to indicate the dissolution of the organs; for these being the same as objects in general, their dissolution is implied by that of the objects.
It has been stated as a proposition that 'This all are this Self (II. iv. 6). The reason given for this is that the universe is of the same nature as the Self, springs from the Self, and is merged in It. Since there is nothing but Intelligence at the time of the origin, continuance and dissolution of the universe, therefore what has been stated as, 'Intelligence is Brahman' (Ai. V. 3) and 'All this is but the Self' (Ch. VII. Xxv. 2), is established through reasoning. The Pauranikas hold that this dissolution is natural (The effects dissolving into their causes.). While that which is consciously effected by the knowers of Brahman through their knowledge of It is called extreme dissolution, which happens through the cessation of ignorance. What follows deals specially with that.

Translation By Max Müller

11. 'As all waters find their centre in the sea, all touches in the skin, all tastes in the tongue, all smells in the nose, all colours in the eye, all sounds in the ear, all percepts in the mind, all knowledge in the heart, all actions in the hands, all movements in the feet, and all the Vedas in speech,--


Sloka : 2.4.12

मन्त्र १२[II.iv.12]

स यथा सैन्धवखिल्य उदके प्रास्त उदकमेवानुविलीयेत न

हास्योद्ग्रहणायेव न हास्योद्ग्रहणायैव स्याद् यतो यतस्त्वाददीत

लवणमेवैवं वा अर इदं महद् भूतमनन्तमपारं विज्ञानघन

एवैतेभ्यो भूतेभ्यः समुत्थाय एतेभ्यस्भूतेभ्यस्समुत्थाय

तान्येवानुविनश्यति न प्रेत्य सञ्ज्ञाऽस्तीत्यरे ब्रवीमीति होवाच

याज्ञवल्क्यः ॥ १२॥

mantra 12[II.iv.12]

sa yathā saindhavakhilya udake prāsta udakamevānuvilīyeta na

hāsyodgrahaṇāyeva na hāsyodgrahaṇāyaiva syād yato yatastvādadīta

lavaṇamevaivaṃ vā ara idaṃ mahad bhūtamanantamapāraṃ vijñānaghana

evaitebhyo bhūtebhyaḥ samutthāya etebhyasbhūtebhyassamutthāya

tānyevānuvinaśyati na pretya sañjñā'stītyare bravīmīti hovāca

yājñavalkyaḥ .. 12..



Meaning:- As a lump of salt dropped into water dissolves with (its component) water, and no one is able to pick it up, but from wheresoever one takes it, it tastes salt, even so, my dear, this great, endless, infinite Reality is but Pure Intelligence. (The Self) comes out (as a separate entity) from these elements, and (this separateness) is destroyed with them. After attaining (this oneness) it has no more consciousness. This is what I say, my dear. So said Yajnavalkya.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- An illustration on the point is being given:- As a lump of salt, etc. The derivative meaning of the word 'Sindhu' is water, because it 'flows.' That which is a modification or product of water is 'Saindhava,' or salt. 'Khilya' is the same as 'Khila' (a lump). A lump of salt dropped into water, its cause, dissolves with the dissolution of (its component) water. The solidification
of a lump through its connection with particles of earth and heat goes when the lump comes in contact with water, its cause. This is the dissolution of (the component) water, and along with it the lump of salt is said to be dissolved. No one, not even an expert is able to pick it up as before. The particle 'iva' is expletive; the meaning is, none can at all pick it up. Why? From wheresoever, from whichsoever part, one takes the water and tastes it, it is salt. But there is no longer any lump.

Like this illustration, O Maitreyi, is this great Reality called the Supreme Self, from which you have been cut off by ignorance as a separte entity, through your connection with the limiting adjuncts of the body and organs, and have become mortal, subject to birth and death, hunger and thirst, and other such relative attributes, and identified with name, form and action, and think you are born of such and such a family. That separate existence of yours, which has sprung from the delusion engendered by contact with the limiting adjuncts of the body and organs, enters its cause, the great Reality, the Supreme Self, which stands for the ocean, which is undecaying, immortal, beyond fear, pure and homogeneous like a lump of salt, and which Pure Intelligence, infinite, boundless, without a break and devoid of differences caused by the delusion brought on by ignorance. When that separate existence has entered and been merged in its cause, in other words, when the differences created by ignorance are gone, the universe becomes one without a second, 'the great Reality.' Great, because It is greater than everything else and is the cause of the ether etc.; Reality (Bhuta) --- always a fact, for It never deviates from Its nature.
The verbal suffix 'kta' here denotes past, present and future. Or the word 'Bhuta' may denote truth. The expression then would mean:- It is great and true. There may be things in the relative world as big as the Himalayas, for instance, created by a dream or illusion, but they are not true; hence the text adds the qualifying word 'true.' It is endless. Sometimes this may be in a relative sense; hence the text qualifies it by the term infinite. Pure Intelligence:- Lit. a solid mass of intelligence. The word 'Ghana' (a solid mass) excludes everything belonging to a different species, as 'a solid mass of gold or iron.' The particle 'eva' (only) is intensive. The idea is that there is no foreign element in It.

Question:- If It is one without a second, really pure and untouched by the miseries of the relative world, whence is this separate existence of the individual self, in which it is born and dies, is happy or miserable, possessed of the ideas of 'I and mine,' and so on, and which is troubled by many arelative attribute?
Reply:- I will explain it. There are the elements transformed into the body, organs and sense-objects, consisting of name and form. They are like the foam and bubbles on the limpid water of the Supreme Self. The mergence of these elements down to sense-objects in Brahman, which is Pure Intelligence, through a discriminating knowledge of the Truth has been spoken of --- like the emptying of rivers into the ocean. From these elements called 'truth,' i.e. with their aid, and the self comes out like a lump of salt. As from water reflections of the sun, moon, etc. arise, or from the proximity of such limiting adjuncts as a red cotton-pad a transparent crystal turns red and so forth, so from the limiting adjuncts of the elements, transformed into the body and organs, the self comes out clearly as an individualised entity. These elements, transformed into the body, organs and sense-objects, form which the self comes out as an individual, and which are the cause of its individualisation, are merged, like rivers in the ocean, by the realisation of Brahman through the instruction of the scriptures and the teacher, and are destroyed. And when they are destroyed like the foam and bubbles of water, this individualised existence too is destroyed with them. As the reflections of the sun, moon, etc. and the colour of the crystal vanish when their causes, the water, the red cotton-pad, and so on, are removed, and only the (sun), moon etc., remain as they are, so the endless, infinite and limpid Pure Intelligence alone remains.
After attaining (this oneness) the self, freed from the body and organs, has no more particular consciousness. This is what I say, my dear Maitreyi. No more is there such particular consciousness as, 'I so and so am the son of so and so; this is my land and wealth; I am happy or miserable.' For it is due to ignorance, and since ignorance is absolutely destroyed by the realisation of Brahman, how can the knower of Brahman, who is established in his nature as Pure Intelligence, possibly have any such particular consciousness? Eve when a man is in the body (For instance, in the state of deep sleep.), particular consciousness is (sometimes) impossible; so how can it ever exist in a man who has been absolutely freed from the body and organs? So said Yajnavalkya --- propounded this philosophy of the highest truth to his wife, Maitreyi.

Translation By Max Müller

12. 'As a lump of salt [1], when thrown into water, becomes dissolved into water, and could not be taken out again, but wherever we taste (the water) it is salt,--thus verily, O Maitreyî, does this great Being, endless, unlimited, consisting of nothing but knowledge [2], rise from out these elements, and vanish again in them. When he has departed, there is no more knowledge (name), I say, O Maitreyî.' Thus spoke Yâgñavalkya.

Footnote:

1. See Khând. Up. VI, 13. 2. As a mass of salt has neither inside nor outside, but is altogether a mass of taste, thus indeed has that Self neither inside nor outside, but is altogether a mass of knowledge. B.


Sloka : 2.4.13

मन्त्र १३[II.iv.13]

सा होवाच मैत्रेय्यत्रैव मा भगवानमूमुहद् न प्रेत्य सञ्ज्ञाऽस्तीति ।

स होवाच न वा अरेऽहं मोहं ब्रवीम्यलं वा अर इदं विज्ञानाय ॥ १३॥

mantra 13[II.iv.13]

sā hovāca maitreyyatraiva mā bhagavānamūmuhad na pretya sañjñā'stīti .

sa hovāca na vā are'haṃ mohaṃ bravīmyalaṃ vā ara idaṃ vijñānāya .. 13..



Meaning:- Maitreyi said, 'Just here you have thrown me into confusion, sir - by saying that after attaining (oneness) the self has no more consciousness'. Yajnavalkya said, 'Certainly, I am not saying anything confusing, my dear; this is quite sufficient for knowledge, O Maitreyi'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Thus enlightened, Maitreyi said, 'By attributing contradictory qualities just here, to this identical entity, Brahman, you have thrown me into confusion, revered sir.' So she says, 'Just here,' etc. How he attributed contradictory qualities is being explained:- 'Having first stated that the self is but Pure Intelligence, you now say that after attaining (oneness) it has no more consciousness. How can it be only Pure Intelligence, and yet after attaining oneness have no more consciousness? The same fire cannot both be hot and cold. So I am confused on this point.' Yajnavalkya said, 'O Maitreyi, certainly I am not saying anything confusing, i.e. not using confusing language.'
Maitreyi:- Why did not mention contradictory qualities --- Pure Intelligence and, again, absence of consciousness?
Yajnavalkya:- I did not attribute them to the same entity. It is you who through mistake have taken one and the same entity to be possessed of contradictory attributes. I did not say this. What I said was this:- When that individual existence of the self which is superimposed by ignorance and is connected with the body and organ is destroyed by knowledge, the particular consciousness connected with the body etc., consistinng of a false notion, is destroyed on the destruction of the limiting adjuncts, the body and organs, for they are deprived of their cause, just as the reflections of the moon etc., and their effects, the light and so forth, vanish when the water and the like, which form their support, are gone. But just as the sun, moon, etc., which are the realities behind the reflections, remain as
they are, so that Pure Intelligence which is the transcendent Brahman remains unchanged. So It has been referred to as 'Pure Intelligence.' It is the Self of the whole universe, and does not really pass out with the destruction of the elements. But the individual existence, which is due to ignorance, is destroyed. 'Modifications are but names, a mere effort of speech,' says another Sruti (Ch. VI. i. 4 ' 6 and iv. 1 ' 4). But this real. 'This self, my dear, is indestructible' (IV. v. 14). Therefore this 'great, endless, infinite Reality' ---- already explained (par. 12) --- is quite sufficient for knowledge, O Maitreyi. Later it will be said, 'For the knower's function of knowing can never be lost; because it is immortal' (IV. iii. 30).

Translation By Max Müller

13. Then Maitreyî said:- 'Here thou hast bewildered me, Sir, when thou sayest that having departed, there is no more knowledge [1].' But Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'O Maitreyî, I say nothing that is bewildering. This is enough, O beloved, for wisdom [2].

Footnote:

1. 'Here, Sir, thou hast landed me in utter bewilderment. Indeed, I do not understand him.' B. 2. Verily, beloved, that Self is imperishable, and of an indestructible nature. B.


Sloka : 2.4.14

मन्त्र १४[II.iv.14]

यत्र हि द्वैतमिव भवति तदितर इतरं जिघ्रति तदितर इतरं

पश्यति तदितर इतरꣳ श‍ृणोति तदितर इतरमभिवदति तदितर

इतरं मनुते तदितर इतरं विजानाति । यत्र वा अस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्

तत्केन कं जिघ्रेत् तत्केन कं पश्येत् तत्केन कꣳ श‍ृणुयात् तत्केन

कमभिवदेत् तत्केन कं मन्वीत तत्केन कं विजानीयात् । येनेदꣳ

सर्वं विजानाति तं केन विजानीयाद् विज्ञातारमरे केन विजानीयादिति ॥ १४॥

इति चतुर्थं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ पञ्चमं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 14[II.iv.14]

yatra hi dvaitamiva bhavati taditara itaraṃ jighrati taditara itaraṃ

paśyati taditara itaragͫ śṛṇoti taditara itaramabhivadati taditara

itaraṃ manute taditara itaraṃ vijānāti . yatra vā asya sarvamātmaivābhūt

tatkena kaṃ jighret tatkena kaṃ paśyet tatkena kagͫ śṛṇuyāt tatkena

kamabhivadet tatkena kaṃ manvīta tatkena kaṃ vijānīyāt . yenedagͫ

sarvaṃ vijānāti taṃ kena vijānīyād vijñātāramare kena vijānīyāditi .. 14..

iti caturthaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha pañcamaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- Because when there is duality, as it were, then one smells something, one sees something, one hears something, one speaks something, one thinks something, one knows something. (But) when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the self, then what should one smell and through what, what should one see and through what, what should one hear and through what, what should one speak and through what, what should one think and through what, what should one know and through what? Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known - through what, O Maitreyi, should one know the Knower?





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Why then is it said that after attaining oneness the self has no more consciousness? Listen. Because when, i.e. in the presence of the particular or individual aspect of the Self due to the limiting adjuncts, the body and organs conjured up by ignorance, there is duality, as it were, in Brahman, which really is one without a second, i.e. there appears to be something different from the Self.

Objection:- Since duality is put forward as an object for comparison, is it not taken to be real?
Reply:- No, for another Sruti says, 'Modifications are but names, a mere effort of speech' (Ch. VI. i. 4 ' 6 and iv. 1 ' 4), also 'One only without a second' (Ch. VI. ii. 1), and 'All this is but the Self' (Ch. VII. xxv. 2).
Then, just because there is duality as it were, therefore, one, he who smells, viz the unreal individual aspect of the Supreme Self, comparable to the reflection of the moon etc. in water, smells something that can be smell, through something else, viz the nose. 'One' and 'something' refer to two typical factors of an action, the agent and object, and 'smells' signifies the action and its result. As, for instance, in the word 'cuts.' This one word signifies the repeated strokes dealt and the separation of the object cut into two; for an action ends in a result, and the result cannot be perceived apart from the action. Similarly he who smells a thing that can be smelt does it through the nose. The rest is to be explained as above. One knows something. This is the state of ignorance. But when ignorance has been destroyed by the knowledge of Brahman, there is nothing but the Self. When to the knower of Brahman everything, such as name and form, has been merged in the Self and has thus become the Self, then what object to be smelt should one smell, who should smell, and through what instrument? Similarly what should one see and hear? Everywhere an action depends on certain factors; hence when these are absent, the action cannot take place; and in the absence of an action there can be no result. Therefore so long as there is ignorance, the operation of actions and their factors and results can take place, but not in the case of a knower of Brahman. For to him everything is the Self, and there are no factors or results of actions apart from That. Nor can the universe, being an unreality, be the Self of anybody. Therefore it is ignorance that conjures up the idea of the non-Self; strictly speaking, there is nothing but the Self. Therefore when one truly realises the unity of the Self, there cannot be any consciousness of actions and their factors and
results. Hence, because of contradiction, there is an utter absence of actions and their means for the knower of Brahman. The worlds 'what' and 'through what' are meant as a fling, and suggest the sheer impossibility of the other factors of an action also; for there cannot possibly be any such factors as the instrument. The idea is that no one by any means can smell anything in any manner.
Even in the state of ignorance, when one sees something, through what instrument should one know That owing to which all this is known? For that instrument of knowledge itself falls under the category of objects. The knower may desire to know, not about itself, but about objects. As fire does not burn itself, so the self does not know itself, and the knower can have no knowledge of a thing that is not its object. Therefore through what instrument should one know the knower owing to which this universe is known, and who else should know it? And when to the knower of Brahman who has discriminated the Real from the unreal there remains only the subject, absolute and one without a second, through what instrument, O Maitreyi, should one know that Knower?

Translation By Max Müller

14. 'For when there is as it were duality, then one sees the other, one smells the other, one hears the other [1], one salutes the other [2], one perceives the other [3], one knows the other; but when the Self only is all this, how should he smell another [4], how should he see [5] another [6], how should he hear [7] another, how should he salute [8] another, how should he perceive another [9], how should he know another? How should he know Him by whom he knows all this? How, O beloved, should he know (himself), the Knower [10]?'

Footnote:

1. B. inserts, one tastes the other. 2. B. inserts, one hears the other. 3. B. inserts, one touches the other. 4. See, B. 5. Smell, B. 6. B. inserts taste. 7. Salute, B. 8. Hear, B. 9. B. inserts, how should he touch another? 10.


Sloka : 2.5.1

मन्त्र १[II.v.1]

इयं पृथिवी सर्वेषां भूतानां मध्वस्यै पृथिव्यै सर्वाणि

भूतानि मधु यश्चायमस्यां पृथिव्यां तेजोमयोऽमृतमयः

पुरुषो यश्चायमध्यात्मꣳ शारीरस्तेजोमयोऽमृतमयः पुरुषः

अमृतमयस्पुरुषसयमेव स योऽयमात्मेदममृतमिदं ब्रह्मेदꣳ

सर्वम् ॥ १॥

mantra 1[II.v.1]

iyaṃ pṛthivī sarveṣāṃ bhūtānāṃ madhvasyai pṛthivyai sarvāṇi

bhūtāni madhu yaścāyamasyāṃ pṛthivyāṃ tejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ

puruṣo yaścāyamadhyātmagͫ śārīrastejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣaḥ

amṛtamayaspuruṣasayameva sa yo'yamātmedamamṛtamidaṃ brahmedagͫ

sarvam .. 1..



Meaning:- This earth is (like) honey to all beings, and all beings are (like) honey to this earth. (The same with) the shining immortal being who is in this earth, and the shining, immortal, corporeal being in the body. (These four) are but this Self. This (Self-knowledge) is (the means of) immortality; this (underlying unity) is Brahman; this (knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of becoming) all.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- This well-known earth is the honey or effect --- being like honey --- of all beings from Hiranyagarbha down to a clump of grass. Just as a beehive is made by a great many bees, so is this earth made by all beings. Likewise, all beings are the honey or effect of this earth. Also, the shining, i.e. possessed of the light of intelligence, and immortal being who is in this earth, and the shining, immortal --- as above --- corporeal being in the body, i.e. the self as identified with the subtle body; are like honey --- being helpful --- to all beings, and all beings are like honey to them. This we gather from the particle 'ca' (and) in the text. Thus these four are the composite effect of all beings, and all beings are the effect of these four. Hence the universe has originated from the same cause. That one cause from which it has sprung is alone real --- it is Brahman; everything else is an effect, a modification, a mere name, an effort of speech merely. This is the gist of this whole section dealing with the series of things mutually helpful. (The above fourfold division) is but this Self that has been premised in the passage, 'This all is the Self' (II. iv. 6). This Self-knowledge is the means of immortality that has been explained to Maitreyi. This (underlying unity) is the Brahman which has been introduced at the beginning of this chapter in the passages, 'I will speak to you about Brahman' (II. i. 1) and 'I will teach you (about Brahman)' (II. i. 15), and the knowledge of which is called the knowledge of Brahman. This knowledge of Brahman is that by means of which one becomes all (the universe).

Translation By Max Müller

1. This earth is the honey [1] (madhu, the effect) of all beings, and all beings are the honey (madhu, the effect) of this earth. Likewise this bright, immortal person in this earth, and that bright immortal person incorporated in the body (both are madhu). He indeed is the same as that Self, that Immortal, that Brahman, that All.

Footnote:

1. Madhu, honey, seems to be taken here as an instance of something which is both cause and effect, or rather of things which are mutually dependent on each other, or cannot exist without one other. As the bees make the honey, and the honey makes or supports the bees, bees and honey are both cause and effect, or at all events are mutually dependent on one other. In the same way the earth and all living beings are looked upon as mutually dependent, living beings presupposing the earth, and the earth presupposing living beings. This at all events seems to be the general idea of what is called the Madhuvidyâ, the science of honey, which Dadhyak communicated to the Asvins.


Sloka : 2.5.2

मन्त्र २[II.v.2]

इमा आपः सर्वेषां भूतानां मध्वसामपाꣳ सर्वाणि भूतानि मधु

यश्चायमास्वप्सु तेजोमयोऽमृतमयः पुरुषः यश्चायमध्यात्मꣳ

रैतसस्तेजोमयोऽमृतमयः पुरुषोऽयमेव स योऽयमात्मेदममृतं

इदं ब्रह्मेदꣳ सर्वम् ॥ २॥

mantra 2[II.v.2]

imā āpaḥ sarveṣāṃ bhūtānāṃ madhvasāmapāgͫ sarvāṇi bhūtāni madhu

yaścāyamāsvapsu tejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣaḥ yaścāyamadhyātmagͫ

raitasastejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣo'yameva sa yo'yamātmedamamṛtaṃ

idaṃ brahmedagͫ sarvam .. 2..



Meaning:- This water is (like) honey to all beings, and all beings are (like) honey to this water. (The same with) the shining immortal being who is in this water, and the shining, immortal being identified with the seed in the body. (These four) are but this Self. This (Self-knowledge) is (the means of) immortality; this (underlying unity) is Brahman; this (knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of becoming) all.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Likewise water. In the body it exists specially in the seed.

Translation By Max Müller

2. This water is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this water. Likewise this bright, immortal person in this water, and that bright, immortal person, existing as seed in the body (both are madhu). He indeed is the same as that Self, that Immortal, that Brahman, that All.


Sloka : 2.5.3

मन्त्र ३[II.v.3]

अयमग्निः सर्वेषां भूतानां मध्वस्याग्नेः सर्वाणि भूतानि मधु

यश्चायमस्मिन्नग्नौ तेजोमयोऽमृतमयः पुरुषो यश्चायमध्यात्मं

वाङ्मयस्तेजोमयोऽमृतमयः पुरुषोऽयमेव स योऽयमात्मेदममृतं

इदं ब्रह्मेदꣳ सर्वम् ॥ ३॥

mantra 3[II.v.3]

ayamagniḥ sarveṣāṃ bhūtānāṃ madhvasyāgneḥ sarvāṇi bhūtāni madhu

yaścāyamasminnagnau tejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣo yaścāyamadhyātmaṃ

vāṅmayastejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣo'yameva sa yo'yamātmedamamṛtaṃ

idaṃ brahmedagͫ sarvam .. 3..



Meaning:- This fire is (like) honey to all beings, and all beings are (like) honey to this fire. (The same with) the shining immortal being who is in this fire, and the shining, immortal being identified with the organ of speech in the body. (These four) are but this Self. This (Self-knowledge) is (the means of) immortality; this (underlying unity) is Brahman; this (knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of becoming) all.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Similarly fire. It exists specially in the organ of speech (Cf. 'Fire entered the mouth as the organ of speech' (Ai. I. ii. 4).

Translation By Max Müller

3. This fire is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this fire. Likewise this bright, immortal person in this fire, and that bright, immortal person, existing as speech in the body (both are madhu). He indeed is the same as that Self, that Immortal, that Brahman, that All.


Sloka : 2.5.4

मन्त्र ४[II.v.4]

अयं वायुः सर्वेषां भूतानां मध्वस्य वायोः सर्वाणि भूतानि मधु

यश्चायमस्मिन्वायौ तेजोमयोऽमृतमयः पुरुषो यश्चायमध्यात्मं

प्राणस्तेजोमयोऽमृतमयः पुरुषोऽयमेव स योऽयमात्मेदममृतम्।

इदं ब्रह्मेदꣳ सर्वम् ॥ ४॥

mantra 4[II.v.4]

ayaṃ vāyuḥ sarveṣāṃ bhūtānāṃ madhvasya vāyoḥ sarvāṇi bhūtāni madhu

yaścāyamasminvāyau tejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣo yaścāyamadhyātmaṃ

prāṇastejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣo'yameva sa yo'yamātmedamamṛtam.

idaṃ brahmedagͫ sarvam .. 4..



Meaning:- This air is (like) honey to all beings, and all beings are (like) honey to this air. (The same with) the shining immortal being who is in this air, and the shining, immortal being who is the vital force in the body. (These four) are but this Self. This (Self-knowledge) is (the means of) immortality; this (underlying unity) is Brahman; this (knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of becoming) all.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Likewise air. It is the vital force in the body. The elements are called honey, because they help by furnishing materials for the body. While the beings, shining and so forth, residing in them are called honey, because they help by serving as the organs. As has been said, 'The earth is the body of that organ of speech, and this fire is its luminous organ' (I. v. 11).

Translation By Max Müller

4. This air is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this air. Likewise this bright, immortal person in this air, and that bright, immortal person existing as breath in the body (both are madhu). He indeed is the same as that Self, that Immortal, that Brahman, that All.


Sloka : 2.5.5

मन्त्र ५[II.v.5]

अयमादित्यः सर्वेषां भूतानां मध्वस्याऽऽदित्यस्य सर्वाणि

भूतानि मधु यश्चायमस्मिन्नादित्ये तेजोमयोऽमृतमयः पुरुषो

यश्चायमध्यात्मं चाक्षुषस्तेजोमयोऽमृतमयः पुरुषोऽयमेव

स योऽयमात्मेदममृतमिदं ब्रह्मेदꣳ सर्वम् ॥ ५॥

mantra 5[II.v.5]

ayamādityaḥ sarveṣāṃ bhūtānāṃ madhvasyā''dityasya sarvāṇi

bhūtāni madhu yaścāyamasminnāditye tejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣo

yaścāyamadhyātmaṃ cākṣuṣastejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣo'yameva

sa yo'yamātmedamamṛtamidaṃ brahmedagͫ sarvam .. 5..



Meaning:- This sun is (like) honey to all beings, and all beings are (like) honey to this sun. (The same with) the shining immortal being who is in this sun, and the shining, immortal being identified with the eye in the body. (These four) are but this Self. This (Self-knowledge) is (the means of) immortality; this (underlying unity) is Brahman; this (knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of becoming) all.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- So also the sun is like honey. In the body, the being identified with the eye.

Translation By Max Müller

5. This sun is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this sun. Likewise this bright, immortal person in this sun, and that bright, immortal person existing as the eye in the body (both are madhu). He indeed is the same as that Self, that Immortal, that Brahman, that All.


Sloka : 2.5.6

मन्त्र ६[II.v.6]

इमा दिशः सर्वेषां भूतानां मध्वासां दिशाꣳ सर्वाणि भूतानि मधु

यश्चायमासु दिक्षु तेजोमयोऽमृतमयः पुरुषो यश्चायमध्यात्मꣳ

श्रौत्रः प्रातिश्रुत्कस्तेजोमयोऽमृतमयः पुरुषोऽयमेव स

योऽयमात्मेदममृतमिदं ब्रह्मेदꣳ सर्वम् ॥ ६॥

mantra 6[II.v.6]

imā diśaḥ sarveṣāṃ bhūtānāṃ madhvāsāṃ diśāgͫ sarvāṇi bhūtāni madhu

yaścāyamāsu dikṣu tejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣo yaścāyamadhyātmagͫ

śrautraḥ prātiśrutkastejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣo'yameva sa

yo'yamātmedamamṛtamidaṃ brahmedagͫ sarvam .. 6..



Meaning:- These quarters is (like) honey to all beings, and all beings are (like) honey to these quarters. (The same with) the shining immortal being who is these quarters, and the shining, immortal being identified with the ear and with the time of hearing in the body. (These four) are but this Self. This (Self-knowledge) is (the means of) immortality; this (underlying unity) is Brahman; this (knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of becoming) all.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Likewise, the quarters are like honey. Although the ear is the counterpart of the quarters in the body, yet the being identified with the time of hearing is mentioned, because he is specially manifest at the time of hearing sounds.

Translation By Max Müller

6. This space (disah, the quarters) is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this space. Likewise this bright, immortal person in this space, and that bright, immortal person existing as the ear in the body (both are madhu). He indeed is the same as that Self, that Immortal, that Brahman, that All.


Sloka : 2.5.7

मन्त्र ७[II.v.7]

अयं चन्द्रः सर्वेषां भूतानां मध्वस्य चन्द्रस्य सर्वाणि

भूतानि मधु यश्चायमस्मिंश्चन्द्रे तेजोमयोऽमृतमयः पुरुषो

यश्चायमध्यात्मं मानसस्तेजोमयोऽमृतमयः पुरुषोऽयमेव स

योऽयमात्मेदममृतमिदं ब्रह्मेदꣳ सर्वम् ॥ ७॥

mantra 7[II.v.7]

ayaṃ candraḥ sarveṣāṃ bhūtānāṃ madhvasya candrasya sarvāṇi

bhūtāni madhu yaścāyamasmiṃścandre tejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣo

yaścāyamadhyātmaṃ mānasastejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣo'yameva sa

yo'yamātmedamamṛtamidaṃ brahmedagͫ sarvam .. 7..



Meaning:- This moon is (like) honey to all beings, and all beings are (like) honey to this moon. (The same with) the shining immortal being who is in this moon, and the shining, immortal being identified with the mind in the body. (These four) are but this Self. This (Self-knowledge) is (the means of) immortality; this (underlying unity) is Brahman; this (knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of becoming) all.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Similarly the moon. In the body, the being identified with the mind.

Translation By Max Müller

7. This moon is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this moon. Likewise this bright, immortal person in this moon, and that bright, immortal person existing as mind in the body (both are madhu). He indeed is the same as that Self, that Immortal, that Brahman, that All.


Sloka : 2.5.8

मन्त्र ८[II.v.8]

इयं विद्युत्सर्वेषां भूतानं मध्वस्यै विद्युतः सर्वाणि भूतानि मधु

यश्चायमस्यां विद्युति तेजोमयोऽमृतमयः पुरुषो यश्चायमध्यात्मं

तैजसस्तेजोमयोऽमृतमयः पुरुषोऽयमेव स योऽयमात्मेदममृतं

इदं ब्रह्मेदꣳ सर्वम् ॥ ८॥

mantra 8[II.v.8]

iyaṃ vidyutsarveṣāṃ bhūtānaṃ madhvasyai vidyutaḥ sarvāṇi bhūtāni madhu

yaścāyamasyāṃ vidyuti tejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣo yaścāyamadhyātmaṃ

taijasastejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣo'yameva sa yo'yamātmedamamṛtaṃ

idaṃ brahmedagͫ sarvam .. 8..



Meaning:- This lightning is (like) honey to all beings, and all beings are (like) honey to this lightning. (The same with) the shining immortal being who is in this lightning, and the shining, immortal being identified with light in the body. (These four) are but this Self. This (Self-knowledge) is (the means of) immortality; this (underlying unity) is Brahman; this (knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of becoming) all.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- So it is with lightning. In the body, the being identified with the light that is in the organ of touch.

Translation By Max Müller

8. This lightning is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this lightning. Likewise this bright, immortal person in this lightning, and that bright, immortal person existing as light in the body (both are madhu). He indeed is the same as that Self, that Immortal, that Brahman, that All.


Sloka : 2.5.9

मन्त्र ९[II.v.9]

अयꣳ स्तनयित्नुः सर्वेषां भूतानां मध्वस्य स्तनयित्नोः सर्वाणि

भूतानि मधु यश्चायमस्मिन्स्तनयित्नौ तेजोमयोऽमृतमयः पुरुषो

यश्चायमध्यात्मꣳ शाब्दः सौवरस्तेजोमयोऽमृतमयः पुरुषो

ऽयमेव स योऽयमात्मेदममृतमिदं ब्रह्मेदꣳ सर्वम् ॥ ९॥

mantra 9[II.v.9]

ayagͫ stanayitnuḥ sarveṣāṃ bhūtānāṃ madhvasya stanayitnoḥ sarvāṇi

bhūtāni madhu yaścāyamasminstanayitnau tejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣo

yaścāyamadhyātmagͫ śābdaḥ sauvarastejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣo

'yameva sa yo'yamātmedamamṛtamidaṃ brahmedagͫ sarvam .. 9..



Meaning:- This cloud is (like) honey to all beings, and all beings are (like) honey to this cloud. (The same with) the shining immortal being who is in this cloud, and the shining, immortal being identified with sound and voice in the body. (These four) are but this Self. This (Self-knowledge) is (the means of) immortality; this (underlying unity) is Brahman; this (knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of becoming) all.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Likewise the cloud. Although the being identified with sound is the one represented in the body, yet as he is specially manifest in voice, he is here mentioned as such.

Translation By Max Müller

9. This thunder [1] is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this thunder. Likewise this bright, immortal person in this thunder, and that bright, immortal person existing as sound and voice in the body (both are madhu). He indeed is the same as that Self, that Immortal, that Brahman, that All.

Footnote:

1. Stanayitnu, thunder, is explained by the commentator as Parganya.


Sloka : 2.5.10

मन्त्र १०[II.v.10]

अयमाकाशः सर्वेषां भूतानां मध्वस्याऽऽकाशस्य सर्वाणि

भूतानि मधु यश्चायमस्मिन्नाकाशे तेजोमयोऽमृतमयः पुरुषो

यश्चायमध्यात्मꣳ हृद्याकाशस्तेजोमयोऽमृतमयः पुरुषः

ऽयमेव स योऽयमात्मेदममृतमिदं ब्रह्मेदꣳ सर्वम् ॥ १०॥

mantra 10[II.v.10]

ayamākāśaḥ sarveṣāṃ bhūtānāṃ madhvasyā''kāśasya sarvāṇi

bhūtāni madhu yaścāyamasminnākāśe tejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣo

yaścāyamadhyātmagͫ hṛdyākāśastejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣaḥ

'yameva sa yo'yamātmedamamṛtamidaṃ brahmedagͫ sarvam .. 10..



Meaning:- This ether is (like) honey to all beings, and all beings are (like) honey to this ether. (The same with) the shining immortal being who is in this ether, and the shining, immortal being identified with the ether in the heart, in the body. (These four) are but this Self. This (Self-knowledge) is (the means of) immortality; this (underlying unity) is Brahman; this (knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of becoming) all.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Similarly the ether. In the body, the ether in the heart.
It has been stated that the elements beginning with earth and ending with the ether as also the gods, identified respectively with the body and the organs, are like honey to each individual because of their helpfulness. What connects them with these individuals so that they are helpful like honey, is now being described:-

Translation By Max Müller

10. This ether is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this ether. Likewise this bright, immortal person in this ether, and that bright, immortal person existing as heart-ether in the body (both are madhu). He indeed is the same as that Self, that Immortal, that Brahman, that All.


Sloka : 2.5.11

मन्त्र ११[II.v.11]

अयं धर्मः सर्वेषां भूतानां मध्वस्य धर्मस्य सर्वाणि भूतानि मधु

यश्चायमस्मिन्धर्मे तेजोमयोऽमृतमयः पुरुषो यश्चायमध्यात्मं

धार्मस्तेजोमयोऽमृतमयः पुरुषोऽयमेव स योऽयमात्मेदममृतं

इदं ब्रह्मेदꣳ सर्वम् ॥ ११॥

mantra 11[II.v.11]

ayaṃ dharmaḥ sarveṣāṃ bhūtānāṃ madhvasya dharmasya sarvāṇi bhūtāni madhu

yaścāyamasmindharme tejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣo yaścāyamadhyātmaṃ

dhārmastejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣo'yameva sa yo'yamātmedamamṛtaṃ

idaṃ brahmedagͫ sarvam .. 11..



Meaning:- This righteousness (Dharma) is (like) honey to all beings, and all beings are (like) honey to this righteousness. (The same with) the shining immortal being who is in this righteousness, and the shining, immortal being identified with righteousness in the body. (These four) are but this Self. This (Self-knowledge) is (the means of) immortality; this (underlying unity) is Brahman; this (knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of becoming) all.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- This righteousness, etc. Although righteousness is not directly perceived, it is here described by the word 'this' as though it were, because the effects initiated by it (earth etc.) are directly perceived. Righteousness has been explained (I. iv. 14) as consisting of the Srutis and Smrtis, as the power which controls even the Ksatriyas etc., which causes the variety of the universe through the transformation of the elements, and which is practised by people. This last is another reason why it has been mentioned here as something directly perceived --- as 'this righteousness.' There truth and righteousness, being respectively conformity with the scriptures and approved conduct, have been spoken of as one. Here, however, in spite of their identity they are mentioned as separte, because they produce their effects in two distinct forms --- visible and invisible. Righteousness that is invisibile, called Apurva (Lit. new, According to the Mimamsakas every action, after it is over, remains in a subtle form, which has the peculair, indestructible power of materialising at a subsequent period as the tangible result of that action.), produces its effects invisibly in a general and a particular form. In its general form it directs the elements such as earth, and in its particular form it directs the aggregate of body and organs in matters relating to the body. Of these, the shining being who is in this righteousness that directs the elements such as earth, and, in the body, (the being identified with righteousness) that fashions the aggregate of body and organs (are also like honey to all beings and vice versa).

Translation By Max Müller

11. This law (dharmah) is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this law. Likewise this bright, immortal person in this law, and that bright, immortal person existing as law in the body (both are madhu). He indeed is the same as that Self, that Immortal, that Brahman, that All.


Sloka : 2.5.12

मन्त्र १२[II.v.12]

इदꣳ सत्यꣳ सर्वेषां भूतानां मध्वस्य सत्यस्य सर्वाणि

भूतानि मधु यश्चायमस्मिन्सत्ये तेजोमयोऽमृतमयः पुरुषो

यश्चायमध्यात्मꣳ सात्यस्तेजोमयोऽमृतमयः पुरुषोऽयमेव स

योऽयमात्मेदममृतमिदं ब्रह्मेदꣳ सर्वम् ॥ १२॥

mantra 12[II.v.12]

idagͫ satyagͫ sarveṣāṃ bhūtānāṃ madhvasya satyasya sarvāṇi

bhūtāni madhu yaścāyamasminsatye tejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣo

yaścāyamadhyātmagͫ sātyastejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣo'yameva sa

yo'yamātmedamamṛtamidaṃ brahmedagͫ sarvam .. 12..



Meaning:- This truth is (like) honey to all beings, and all beings are (like) honey to this truth. (The same with) the shining immortal being who is in this truth, and the shining, immortal being identified with truth in the body. (These four) are but this Self. This (Self-knowledge) is (the means of) immortality; this (underlying unity) is Brahman; this (knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of becoming) all.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Likewise that righteousness, in its visible form as good conduct that is practised, comes to be known as truth. It also is twofold --- general and particular. The general form is inherent in the elements, and the particular form in the body and organs. Of these, (the being who is) in this truth that is inherent in the elements and consists of present action, and, in the body, (the being identified with the truth) that is inherent in the body and organs (are like honey to all beings and vice versa). 'The wind blows through truth,' says another Sruti (Mn. XXII. 1).

Translation By Max Müller

12. This true [1] (satyam) is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this true. Likewise this bright, immortal person in what is true, and that bright, immortal person existing as the true in the body (both are madhu). He indeed is the same as that Self, that Immortal, that Brahman, that All.

Footnote:

1. Satyam, the true, the real, not, as it is generally translated, the truth.


Sloka : 2.5.13

मन्त्र १३[II.v.13]

इदं मानुषꣳ सर्वेषां भूतानां मध्वस्य मानुषस्य सर्वाणि

भूतानि मधु यश्चायमस्मिन्मानुषे तेजोमयोऽमृतमयः पुरुषो

यश्चायमध्यात्मं मानुषस्तेजोमयोऽमृतमयः पुरुषोऽयमेव स

योऽयमात्मेदममृतमिदं ब्रह्मेदꣳ सर्वम् ॥ १३॥

mantra 13[II.v.13]

idaṃ mānuṣagͫ sarveṣāṃ bhūtānāṃ madhvasya mānuṣasya sarvāṇi

bhūtāni madhu yaścāyamasminmānuṣe tejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣo

yaścāyamadhyātmaṃ mānuṣastejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣo'yameva sa

yo'yamātmedamamṛtamidaṃ brahmedagͫ sarvam .. 13..



Meaning:- This human species is (like) honey to all beings, and all beings are (like) honey to this human species. (The same with) the shining immortal being who is in this human species, and the shining, immortal being identified with the human species in the body. (These four) are but this Self. This (Self-knowledge) is (the means of) immortality; this (underlying unity) is Brahman; this (knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of becoming) all.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- This particular aggregate of body and organs is directed by righteousness and truth. The human and other species are the particular types to which it belongs. We observe in life that all beings are helpful to one another only by belonging to the human or other species. Therefore these species, human and the rest, are like honey to all beings. These too may be indicated
in two ways --- externally as well as internally (From the standpoint of the person describing them.).

Translation By Max Müller

13. This mankind is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this mankind. Likewise this bright, immortal person in mankind, and that bright, immortal person existing as man in the body (both are madhu). He indeed is the same as that Self, that Immortal, that Brahman, that All.


Sloka : 2.5.14

मन्त्र १४[II.v.14]

अयमात्मा सर्वेषां भूतानां मध्वस्याऽऽत्मनः सर्वाणि भूतानि मधु

यश्चायमस्मिन्नात्मनि तेजोमयोऽमृतमयः पुरुषो यश्चायमात्मा

तेजोमयोऽमृतमयः पुरुषोऽयमेव स योऽयमात्मेदममृतमिदं

ब्रह्मेदꣳ सर्वम् ॥ १४॥

mantra 14[II.v.14]

ayamātmā sarveṣāṃ bhūtānāṃ madhvasyā''tmanaḥ sarvāṇi bhūtāni madhu

yaścāyamasminnātmani tejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣo yaścāyamātmā

tejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣo'yameva sa yo'yamātmedamamṛtamidaṃ

brahmedagͫ sarvam .. 14..



Meaning:- This (cosmic) body is (like) honey to all beings, and all beings are (like) honey to this (cosmic) body. (The same with) the shining immortal being who is in this (cosmic) body, and the shining, immortal being who is this (individual) self. (These four) are but this Self. This (Self-knowledge) is (the means of) immortality; this (underlying unity) is Brahman; this (knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of becoming) all.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- The aggregate of bodies and organs which is connected with the human and other species, designated here as this body (i.e. the cosmic body), is like honey to all beings.

Objection:- Has this not been indicated by the term 'corporeal being' in the passage dealing with earth (II. v. 1)?
Reply:- No, for there only a part, viz that which is a modification of earth, was meant. But here the cosmic body, the aggregate of bodies and organs devoid of all distinctions such as those pertaining to the body and the elements, and consisting of all the elements and gods, is meant by the expression 'this body.' The shining, immortal being who is in this (cosmic) body refers to the cosmic mind which is the essence of the subtle (II. iii. 3). Only a part of it was mentioned as being associated with earth etc. But no manifestation with reference to the body is mentioned here, because the cosmic mind has no such limitation. The term this self refers to the only remaining entity, the individual self, whose purpose this aggregate of gross and subtle bodies subserves.

Translation By Max Müller

14. This Self is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this Self Likewise this bright, immortal person in this Self, and that bright, immortal person, the Self (both are madhu). He indeed is the same as that Self, that Immortal, that Brahman, that All.


Sloka : 2.5.15

मन्त्र १५[II.v.15]

स वा अयमात्मा सर्वेषां भूतानामधिपतिः सर्वेषां भूतानाꣳ

राजा । तद्यथा रथनाभौ च रथनेमौ चाराः सर्वे समर्पिता

एवमेवास्मिन्नात्मनि सर्वाणि भूतानि सर्वे देवाः सर्वे लोकाः सर्वे प्राणाः

सर्व एत आत्मानः समर्पिताः ॥ १५॥

mantra 15[II.v.15]

sa vā ayamātmā sarveṣāṃ bhūtānāmadhipatiḥ sarveṣāṃ bhūtānāgͫ

rājā . tadyathā rathanābhau ca rathanemau cārāḥ sarve samarpitā

evamevāsminnātmani sarvāṇi bhūtāni sarve devāḥ sarve lokāḥ sarve prāṇāḥ

sarva eta ātmānaḥ samarpitāḥ .. 15..



Meaning:- This Self, already mentioned, is the ruler of all beings, and the king of all beings. Just as all the spokes are fixed in the nave and the felloe of a chariot-wheel, so are all beings, all gods, all worlds, all organs and all these (individual) selves fixed in this Self.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- This Self, already mentioned, refers to the Self (That is, the individual self as merged in the Supreme Self.) in which the remaining individual self of the last paragraph was stated to be merged (II. iv. 12). When the latter, which is possessed of the limiting adjunct of the body and organs created by ignorance, has been merged through the knowledge of Brahman in the true Self (or Brahman), it --- such a self --- becomes devoid of interior or exterior, entire, Pure Intelligence, the Self of all beings, and an object of universal homage --- the absolute ruler of all beings, not like a prince or a minister, but the king of all beings. The expression 'ruler of all' qualifies the idea of kingship. One may be a king by just living like a king, but he may not be the ruler of all. Hence the text adds the qualifying epithet 'ruler of all.' Thus the sage, the knower of Brahman, who is the Self of all beings, becomes free. The question, 'Men think, 'Through the knowledge of Brahman we shall become all.' Well, what did that Brahman know by which It became all?' (I. iv. 9) --- is thus answered.
That is, by hearing of one's own self as the Self of all from the teacher and the Srutis, by reflecting on It through reasoning, and by realising It at first hand, as explained in this and the previous section (one becomes all). Even before realisation one has always been Brahman, but through ignorance one considered oneslef different from It; one has always been all, but through ignorance one considered oneself otherwise. Therefore, banishing this ignorance through the knowledge of Brahman, the knower of Brahman, having all the while been Brahman, became Brahman, and having throughout been all, became all.
The import of the scripture that was briefly indicated (In. I. iv. 10 and II. i. 1.) has been completely dealt with. Now illustrations are being given to show that in this knower of Brahman who is the self of all and has realised himself as such, the whole universe is fixed:- Just as all the spokes are fixed in the nave and the felloe of a chariot-wheel, so are all beings from Hiranyagarbha down to a clump of grass, all gods, such as Fire, all worlds, such as this earth, all organs, such as that of speech, and all these selves, which penetrate every body like a reflection of the moon in water and are conjured up by ignorance --- in short, the whole universe, fixed in this Self, i.e. in the knower of Brahman who has realised his identity with the Supreme Self. It has been stated (I. iv. 10) that Vamadeva, who was a knower of Brahman, realised that he had been Manu and the sun; this identification with all is thus explained:- This man of realisation, this knower of Brahman, identifies himself with all as his limiting adjunct, is the self of all, and becomes all. Again he is without any limiting adjuncts, without name, devoid of interior or exterior, entire, Pure Intelligence, birthless, undecaying, immortal, fearless, immovable, to be described as 'Not this, not this,' neither gross nor subtle, and so on.
The logicians and certain self-styled scholars versed in the Srutis (Mimamsakas), not knowing this import of them, think that they are contradictory, and fall into an abyss of confusion by attempting fanciful interpretations. This import of which we speak is borne out by the following Mantras of the scriptures:- 'One and unmoved, but swifter than the mind' (Is. 4), and 'It moves, and does not move' (Is. 5). Similarly in the Taittiriya Aranyaka, 'Than which there is nothing higher or lower' (Sv. III. 9; Mn. X. 4) and 'He goes on singing this hymn:- I am the food, I am the food, I am the food,' etc. (Tai. III. x. 5). So in the Chandogya Upanisad, 'Laughing (or eating), playing and enjoying' (VIII. xii. 3), 'If he desires to attain the world of the manes, (by his mere wish they appear)' (Ch. VIII. ii. 1), 'Possessed of all odours and all tastes' (Ch. III. xiv. 2), and so on. In the Mundaka Upanisad too, '(That which) knows things in a general and a particular way' (I. i. 9 and II. ii. 7), and 'It is farther than the farthest, and again It is here, right near' (Mu. III. i. 7). In the Katha Upanisad too, 'Minuter than an atom and bigger than the biggest' (II. 20), and 'Who (but me can know) that Deity who has both joy and the absence of it?' (Ka. II. 21). Also 'Staying, It surpasses those that run' (Is. 4). Similarly in the Gita:- 'I am the Vedic sacrifice and that enjoined in the Smrtis' (IX. 16), 'I am the father of this universe' (IX. 17), '(The self) does not take on anybody's demerits' (V. 15), '(Living) the same in all beings' (XIII. 27), 'Undivided among divided (things)' (XVIII. 20), and 'The devourer as well as producer' (XIII. 16). Considering these and similarl scriptural texts as apparently contradictory in their import, they, with a view to arriving at their true meaning on the strength of their own intellect, put forward fanciful interpretations, as, for instance, that the self exists or does not exist, that it is or is not the agent, is free or bound, momentary, mere consciousness, or nothing --- and never go beyond the domain of ignorance, because everywhere they see only contradictions. Therefore those alone who tread the path shown by the Srutis and spiritual teachers, transcend ignorance. They alone will succeed in crossing this unfathomable ocean of delusion, and not those others who follow the lead of their own clever intellect.

The knowledge of Brahman leading to immortality has been completely dealt with. It was this that Maitreyi asked of her husband in the words, 'Tell me, sir, only of that which you know to be leading to immortality' (II. iv. 3; IV. v. 4). In order to extol this knowledge of Brahman the following story is
introduced. The two Mantras are meant to give the purport of the story in brief. Since both Mantra and Brahmana extol it, the capacity of the knowledge of Brahman to confer immortality and the attainment of identity with all becomes obvious as if it were set up on the highway. As the rising sun dispels the gloom of night, so (does the knowledge of Brahman remove ignorance). The knowledge of Brahman is also eulogiesd in this way, that being in the custody of King Indra it is difficult of attainment even by the gods, since this knowledge carefully preserved by Indra was attained after great pains even by the Asvins, who are doctors to the gods. They had to behead the teaching Brahmana and fix a horse's head on him. When this was severed by Indra, they restored the Brahmana's head to it place, and heard the entire knowledge of Brahman from his own lips. Therefore there neither has been nor will be --- and of course there is not --- any better means of realising our life's ends than this. So this is the highest tribute that can be paid to it.

The knowledge of Brahman is further extolled thus:- It is well known in the world that rites are the means to attain all our life's ends; and their performance depends on wealth, which cannot possibly confer immortality. This can be attained only through Self-knowledge independently of rites. Through it could easily be treated of in the ritualistic portion, under the Pravargya rites, yet because of its contradiction to rites, this Self-knowledge, coupled only with renunciation of the world, is discussed as the means of immortality, after that portion is passed. This shows that there is no better means of attaining our life's ends than this. In another way also is the knowledge of Brahman eulogies. Everybody delights in company. The Sruti says, 'He (Viraj) was not happy (alone). Therefore people (to this day) do not like to be alone' (I. iv. 3). Yajnavalkya, though just like any other man, gave up, through his Self-knowledge, his attachment to worldly objects, such as the wife, children and wealth, became satisfied with knowledge, and took delight only in the Self. The knowledge of Brahman is further eulogised thus:- Since Yajnavalkya, on the eve of his departure from the worldly life, instructed his beloved wife about it just to please her. We infer this from the following, 'You say what is after my heart. Come, take your seat,' etc. (II. iv. 4).

Translation By Max Müller

15. And verily this Self is the lord of all beings, the king of all beings. And as all spokes are contained in the axle and in the felly of a wheel, all beings, and all those selfs (of the earth, water, &c.) are contained in that Self.


Sloka : 2.5.16

मन्त्र १६[II.v.16]

इदं वै तन्मधु दध्यङ्ङाथर्वणोऽश्विभ्यामुवाच । उवाच

तदेतदृषिः पश्यन्नवोचत् । तद्वां नरा सनये दꣳस उग्रं

आविष्कृणोमि तन्यतुर्न वृष्टिम् । दध्यङ् ह यन्मध्वाथर्वणो वां

अश्वस्य शीर्ष्णा प्र यदीमुवाचेति ॥ १६॥

mantra 16[II.v.16]

idaṃ vai tanmadhu dadhyaṅṅātharvaṇo'śvibhyāmuvāca . uvāca

tadetadṛṣiḥ paśyannavocat . tadvāṃ narā sanaye dagͫsa ugraṃ

āviṣkṛṇomi tanyaturna vṛṣṭim . dadhyaṅ ha yanmadhvātharvaṇo vāṃ

aśvasya śīrṣṇā pra yadīmuvāceti .. 16..



Meaning:- This is that meditation on things mutually helpful which Dadhyac, versed in the Atharva-Veda, taught the Asvins. Perceiving this the Rishi (Mantra) said, 'O Asvins in human form, that terrible deed called Damsa which you committed out of greed, I will disclose as a cloud does rain - (how you learnt) the meditation on things mutually helpful that Dadhyac, versed in the Atharva-Veda, taught you through a horse's head.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- We have said that the story given here is for the sake of eulogy. What is that story? It is as follows:- This refers to what has just been dealt, for it is present to the mind. The particle 'vai' is a reminder. It reminds us of the story narrated elsewhere (S. XIV. I. i., iv.) in a different context, which is suggested by the word that. That meditation on things mutually helpful which was only hinted at, but not clearly expressed, in the section dealing with the rite called, Pravargya, is described in this section in the words, 'This earth,' etc. (II. v. 1). How was it hinted at there? --- 'Dadhyac, versed in the Atharva-Veda, taught these Asvins the section dealing with the meditaion on things mutually helpful. It was a favourite subject with them. Therefore he came to them (wishing to teach them) thus' (S. XIV. I. iv. 13):- 'He said, 'Indra has told me that he will behead me the moment I teach it to anybody; therefore I am afraid of him. It he does not behead me, then I will accept you as my disciples.' They said, 'We will protect you from him.'
'How will you protect me?' 'When you will accept us as your disciples, we shall cut off your head, remove it elsewhere and preserve it. Then bringing a horse's head, we shall fix it on you; you will teach us through that. As you do so, Indra will cut off that head of yours. Then we shall bring your own head and replace it on you.' 'All right,' said the Brahmana, and accepted the Asvins as his disciples. When he did so, they cut off his head and kept it by elsewhere; then bringing a horse's head they fixed it on him; through that he taught them. As he was teachign them, Indra cut it on him' (S. XIV. I. i. 22 ' 24). On that occasion, however, only that portion of the meditation on things mutually helpful was taught which forms part of the rite called Pravargya, but not the secret portion known as Self-knowledge. The story that was recited there is mentioned here for the sake of eulogy. This is that meditation on things mutually helpful which Dadhyac; versed in the Atharva-Veda taught the Asvins through this device.
Perceving this deed, the Rsi or Mantra said:- O Asvins in human form, that terrible deed, etc. 'That' qualifies the remove Damsa, which is the name of the deed. What kind of deed was it? 'Terrible.' Why was it committed?' Out of greed. People commit terrible deeds in the world tempted by greed; these Asvins too apear to have done exactly like that. What you have done in secret, I will disclose. Like what? As a cloud does rain. In the Vedas the particle 'na' used after a word denotes comparison, not negation, as in the expression, 'Asvam na,' (like a horse). 'I will disclose your terrible deed as a cloud indicates rain through rumbling noise etc.' --- this is the construction.

Objection:- How can these two Mantras be in praise of the Asvins? They rather condemn them.
Reply:- There is nothing wrong in it; they are eulogistic, not condemnatory. Because in spite of doing such a despicable deed, they passed off absolutely scatheless; nor did they suffer anything in the unseen realm. Therefore these two Mantras are eulogistic. People sometimes rightly construe blame as praise, and likewise it is common knowledge that praise may be blame in disguise.
The secret meditation on things mutually helpful, known as Self-knowledge, that Dadhyac, versed in the Atharva-Veda, taught you through a horse's head. 'Ha' and 'im' are expletives.

Translation By Max Müller

16. Verily Dadhyak Âtharvana proclaimed this honey (the madhu-vidyâ) to the two Asvins, and a Rishi, seeing this, said (Rv. I, 116, 12):- 'O ye two heroes (Asvins), I make manifest that fearful deed of yours (which you performed) for the sake of gain [1], like as thunder [2] makes manifest the rain. The honey (madhu-vidyâ) which Dadhyak Âtharvana proclaimed to you through the head of a horse,' . . .

Footnote:

1. The translation here follows the commentary. 2. Tanyatu, here explained as Parganya.


Sloka : 2.5.17

मन्त्र १७[II.v.17]

इदं वै तन्मधु दध्यङ्ङाथर्वणोऽश्विभ्यामुवाच । तदेतदृषिः

पश्यन्नवोचत् । आथर्वणायाश्विनौ दधीचेऽश्व्यꣳ शिरः

प्रत्यैरयतम् । स वां मधु प्रवोचदृतायन् त्वाष्ट्रं यद् दस्रावपि

कक्ष्यं वामिति ॥ १७॥

mantra 17[II.v.17]

idaṃ vai tanmadhu dadhyaṅṅātharvaṇo'śvibhyāmuvāca . tadetadṛṣiḥ

paśyannavocat . ātharvaṇāyāśvinau dadhīce'śvyagͫ śiraḥ

pratyairayatam . sa vāṃ madhu pravocadṛtāyan tvāṣṭraṃ yad dasrāvapi

kakṣyaṃ vāmiti .. 17..



Meaning:- This is that meditation on things mutually helpful which Dadhyac, versed in the Atharva-Veda, taught the Asvins. Perceiving this the Rishi said, 'O Asvins, you set a horse's head on (the shoulders of) Dadhyac, versed in the Atharva-Veda. O terrible ones, to keep his word, he taught you the (ritualistic) meditation on things mutually helpful connected with the sun, as also the secret (spiritual) meditation on them.'





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- This is that meditation, etc. --- is to be explained as in the preceding paragraph; it refers to the other Mantra that relates the same story. Dadhyac, versed in the Atharva-Veda, etc. There may be others versed in the Atharva-Veda; so the term is qualified by mention of the name, Dadhyac. 'O Asvins,' etc. --- this is spoken by the Rsi (Here Sankara explains the word is its literal and more plausible meaning In paragraph 16 it was explained as the Mantra itself. The name of the sage is Kaksivat. For the verses given in paragraphs 16, 17 and 19 see R. --- I. cxvi. 12, I. cxvii. 22 and VI, x1vii. 18 respectively.) who visualised the Mantra. 'When the Brahmana's head was severed, you cut off a horse's head --- O the cruetly of it! --- and set it on the Brahmana's shoulders. And he taught you the meditation on things mutually helpful that he had promised to teach you.' Why did he run the risk of his life to do this? To keep his word --- desiring to fulfil his promise. This is a hint that keeping one's solemn promise is more important than even life. What was the meditation on things mutually helpful that he taught? That which was connected with the sun:- The head of Yajna (Lit. sacrifice. Here it means Visnu, who is identified with it. For the story, how Visnu, proud of his well-earned pre-eminence over the other gods, stood resting his chin on the extremity of a bow, and how the others out of jealousy got some white-ants to gnaw off the bow-string, which resulted in the severing of Visnu's head, see S. XIV. 1. i. 6 ' 10. Compare also Tai. A. V. i. 3 ' 6.), being severed, became the sun. To restore the head the rite called Pravargya was started. The meditation concerning the severing of the head of Yajna, its restoration, and so on, which forms a part of the rite, is the meditation on things mutually helpful connected with the sun. Terrible ones --- who destroy their rival forces, or kill their enemies. 'He taught you not only the ritualistic meditation on things mutually helpful connected with the the sun, but also the secret meditation on them relating to the Supreme Self' that is dealt with in the present section, in fact, throughout this and the preceding chapter. The verb 'taught' is to be repeated here from above.

Translation By Max Müller

17. Verily Dadhyak Âtharvan[1] proclaimed this honey to the two Asvins, and a Rishi, seeing this, said (Rv. I, 117, 22):- 'O Asvins, you fixed a horse's head on Âtharvana Dadhyak, and he, wishing to be true (to his promise), proclaimed to you the honey, both that of Tvashtri [2] and that which is to be your secret, O ye strong ones.

Footnote:

1. Saṅkara distinguishes here between Atharvana and Âtharvana, if the text is correct. 2. Saṅkara explains Tvashtri as the sun, and the sun as the head of the sacrifice which, having been cut off, was to be replaced by the pravargya rite. The knowledge of this rite forms the honey of Tvashtri. The other honey which is to be kept secret is the knowledge of the Self, as taught before in the Madhu-brâhmana.


Sloka : 2.5.18

मन्त्र १८[II.v.18]

इदं वै तन्मधु दध्यङ्ङाथर्वणोऽश्विभ्यामुवाच । तदेतदृषिः

पश्यन्नवोचत् पुरश्चक्रे द्विपदः पुरश्चक्रे चतुष्पदः । पुरः

स पक्षी भूत्वा पुरः पुरुष आविशदिति । स वा अयं पुरुषः सर्वासु

पूर्षु पुरिशयो नैनेन किंचनानावृतं नैनेन किंचनासंवृतम् ॥ १८॥

mantra 18[II.v.18]

idaṃ vai tanmadhu dadhyaṅṅātharvaṇo'śvibhyāmuvāca . tadetadṛṣiḥ

paśyannavocat puraścakre dvipadaḥ puraścakre catuṣpadaḥ . puraḥ

sa pakṣī bhūtvā puraḥ puruṣa āviśaditi . sa vā ayaṃ puruṣaḥ sarvāsu

pūrṣu puriśayo nainena kiṃcanānāvṛtaṃ nainena kiṃcanāsaṃvṛtam .. 18..



Meaning:- This is that meditation on things mutually helpful which Dadhyac, versed in the Atharva-Veda, taught the Asvins. Perceiving this the Rishi said, 'He made bodies with two feet and bodies with four feet. That supreme Being first entered the bodies as a bird (the subtle body).' On account of his dwelling in all bodies, He is called the Purusha. There is nothing that is not covered by Him, nothing that is not pervaded by Him.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- This is that meditation, etc. --- is to be explained as before. The two foregoing Mantras sum up the story that is connected with the rite called Pravargya. They express in the form of a story the purport of the two chapters that have a bearing on that rite. Now the text proceeds to describe through the two following Mantras the purport of the two chapters that deal with the meditation on Brahman. It has been said that the Brahmana versed in the Atharva-Veda also taught the Asvins a secret meditation on things mutually helpful. What that meditation was, is now being explained. He made bodies, etc. --- the Supreme Lord who made this universe come out of the unmanifested state, in the course of His manifesting the undifferentiated name and form, after first projecting worlds, such as this earth, made bodies with two feet, viz human and bird bodies, and bodies with four feet, viz animal bodies. That Supreme Being, the Lord, first entered the bodies as a bird, i.e. as the subtle Body. The text itself explains it:- On account of His dwelling in all bodies He is called the Purusa. There is nothing that is not covered by Him; likewise, there is nothing that is not pervaded by Him. That is, everything is enveloped by Him as its inside and outside. Thus it is He who as name and form --- as the body and organs --- is inside and outside everything. In other words, the Mantra, 'He made bodies,' etc. briefly enunciates the unity of the Self.

Translation By Max Müller

18. Verily Dadhyak Âtharvana proclaimed this honey to the two Asvins, and a Rishi, seeing this, said:- 'He (the Lord) made bodies with two feet, he made bodies with four feet. Having first become a bird, he entered the bodies as purusha (as the person).' This very purusha is in all bodies the purisaya, i.e. he who lies in the body (and is therefore called purusha). There is nothing that is not covered by him, nothing that is not filled by him.


Sloka : 2.5.19

मन्त्र १९[II.v.19]

इदं वै तन्मधु दध्यङ्ङाथर्वणोऽश्विभ्यामुवाच । तदेतदृषिः

पश्यन्नवोचत् । रूपꣳरूपं प्रतिरूपो बभूव तदस्य रूपं

प्रतिचक्षणाय । इन्द्रो मायाभिः पुरुरूप ईयते युक्ता ह्यस्य हरयः

शता दशेतिययं वै हरयोऽयं वै दश च सहस्रणि बहूनि

चानन्तानि च । तदेतद्ब्रह्मापूर्वमनपरमनन्तरमबाह्यमयमात्मा

ब्रह्म सर्वानुभूरित्यनुशासनम् ॥ १९॥

इति पञ्चमं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ षष्ठं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 19[II.v.19]

idaṃ vai tanmadhu dadhyaṅṅātharvaṇo'śvibhyāmuvāca . tadetadṛṣiḥ

paśyannavocat . rūpagͫrūpaṃ pratirūpo babhūva tadasya rūpaṃ

praticakṣaṇāya . indro māyābhiḥ pururūpa īyate yuktā hyasya harayaḥ

śatā daśetiyayaṃ vai harayo'yaṃ vai daśa ca sahasraṇi bahūni

cānantāni ca . tadetadbrahmāpūrvamanaparamanantaramabāhyamayamātmā

brahma sarvānubhūrityanuśāsanam .. 19..

iti pañcamaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha ṣaṣṭhaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- This is that meditation on things mutually helpful which Dadhyac, versed in the Atharva-Veda, taught the Asvins. Perceiving this the Rishi said, '(He) transformed Himself in accordance with each form; that form of His was for the sake of making Him known. The Lord on account of Maya (notions superimposed by ignorance) is perceived as manifold, for to Him are yoked ten organs, nay, hundreds of them. He is the organs; He is ten and thousands - many and infinite. That Brahman is without prior or posterior, without interior or exterior. This self, the perceiver of everything, is Brahman. This is the teaching.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- This is that meditation, etc. --- is to be explained as before. (He) transformed Himself in accordance with each form, or (to put it differently) assumed the likeness of each form. A son has the same form as, or resembles, his parents. A quadruped is not born of bipeds, nor vice versa. The same Lord, in the process of manifesting name and form, 'transformed Himself in accordance with each form.' Why did He come in so many forms?' That form of His was for the sake of making Him known. Were name and form not manifested, the transcendent nature of this Self as Pure Intelligence would not be known. When, however, name and form are manifested as the body and organs, it is possible to know Its nature. The Lord on account of Maya or diverse knowledge, or (to give an alternative meaning) the false identification created by name, form and the elements, not in truth, is perceived as manifold, because of these notions superimposed by ignorance, although He is ever the same Pure Intelligence. Why? For to Him are yoked, like horses to a chariot, ten organs --- called 'Hari' because they draw ---- nay, hundreds of them, for the pupose of revealing their objects; 'hundreds,' because there are a great many beings. Since there are a large number of sense-objects (the Supreme Self appears as manifold). It is to reveal them, and not the Self, that the organs are yoked. As the Katha Upanisad says, 'The self-born Lord injured the organs by making them outgoing in their tendencies' (IV. 1). Therefore the Self is known not in Its true nature as homogeneous Pure Intelligence, but merely as the sense-objects.

Question:- Then this Lord is one entity, and the organs another?
Reply:- No; He is the organs; He is ten and thousands --- many and infinite --- because there are an infinite number of beings. In short, that Brahman which is the self is without prior, i.e. cause, or posterior, i.e. effect, without interior or exterior, i.e. having no other species within It or without It. What is this homogeneous Brahman? This self. What is that? The inner Self that sees, hears, thinks, understands, knows; the perceiver of everything, because as the self of all it perceives everything.
This is the teaching of all Vedanta texts --- the gist of them. It leads to immortality and fearlessness. The import of the scriptures has been fully dealt with.

Translation By Max Müller

19. Verily Dadhyak Âtharvana proclaimed this honey to the two Asvins, and a Rishi, seeing this, said (Rv. VI, 47, 18):- 'He (the Lord) became like unto every form [1], and this is meant to reveal the (true) form of him (the Âtman). Indra (the Lord) appears multiform through the Mâyâs (appearances), for his horses (senses) are yoked, hundreds and ten.' This (Âtman) is the horses, this (Âtman) is the ten, and the thousands, many and endless. This is the Brahman, without cause and without effect, without anything inside or outside; this Self is Brahman, omnipresent and omniscient. This is the teaching (of the Upanishads).

Footnote:

1. He assumed all forms, and such forms, as two-footed or four-footed animals, remained permanent. Comm.


Sloka : 2.6.1

मन्त्र १[II.vi.1]

अथ वꣳशः पौतिमाष्यो गौपवनाद् गौपवनः पौतिमाष्यात्

पौतिमाष्यो गौपवनाद् गौपवनः कौशिकात् कौशिकः कौण्डिन्यात्

कौण्डिन्यः शाण्डिल्याच्छाण्डिल्यः कौशिकाच्च गौतमाच्च गौतमः ॥ १॥

mantra 1[II.vi.1]

atha vagͫśaḥ pautimāṣyo gaupavanād gaupavanaḥ pautimāṣyāt

pautimāṣyo gaupavanād gaupavanaḥ kauśikāt kauśikaḥ kauṇḍinyāt

kauṇḍinyaḥ śāṇḍilyācchāṇḍilyaḥ kauśikācca gautamācca gautamaḥ .. 1..



Meaning:- Now the line of teachers:- Pautimasya (received it) from Gaupavana. Gaupavana from another Pautimasya. This Pautimasya from another Gaupavana. This Gaupavana from Kausika. Kausika from Kaundinya. Kaundinya from Sandilya. Sandilya from Kausika and Gautama. Gautama -

Translation By Max Müller

1. Now follows the stem [1]:- 1) Pautimâshya from Gaupavana,
2) Gaupavana from Pautimâshya,
3) Pautimâshya from Gaupavana,
4) Gaupavana from Kausika,
5) Kausika from Kaundinya,
6) Kaundinya from Sândilya,
7) Sândilya from Kausika and Gautama,
8) Gautama

Footnote:

1. The line of teachers and pupils by whom the Madhukânda (the fourth Brâhmana) was handed down) The Mâdhyandina-sâkhâ begins with ourselves, then 1) Saurpanâyya, 2) Gautama, 3) Vâtsya, 4) Vâtsya and Pârâsarya, 5) Sâṅkritya and Bhâradvâga, 6) Audavâhi and Sândilya, 7) Vaigavâpa and Gautama, 8) Vaigavâpâyana and Vaishtapureya, 9) Sândilya and Rauhinâyana, 10) Saunaka Âtreya, and Raibhya, 11) Pautimâshyâyana and Kaundinyâyana:- 12) Kaundinya, 13) Kaundinya, 14) Kaundinya and Âgnivesya, 15) Saitava, 16) Pârâsarya, 17) Gâtukarnya, 18) Bhâradvâga, 19) Bhâradvâga, Âsurâyana, and Gautama, 20) Bhâradvâga, 21) Vaigavâpâyana) Then the same as the Kânvas to Gâtukarnya, who learns from Bhâradvâga, who learns from Bhâradvâga, Âsurâyana, and Yâska) Then Traivani &c) as in the Kânva-vamsa)


Sloka : 2.6.2

मन्त्र २[II.vi.2]

आग्निवेश्यादग्निवेश्यः शाण्डिल्याच्चानभिम्लाताच्चानभिम्लात

आनभिम्लातादनभिम्लात अनभिम्लातादनभिम्लातो गौतमाद् गौतमः

सैतवप्राचीनयोग्याभ्याꣳ, सैतवप्राचीनयोग्यौ पाराशर्यात्

पाराशर्यो भारद्वाजाद् भारद्वाजो भारद्वाजाच्च गौतमाच्च

गौतमो भारद्वाजाद् भारद्वाजः पाराशर्यात् पाराशर्यो वैजवापायनाद्

वैजवापायनः कौशिकायनेः कौशिकायनिः ॥ २॥

mantra 2[II.vi.2]

āgniveśyādagniveśyaḥ śāṇḍilyāccānabhimlātāccānabhimlāta

ānabhimlātādanabhimlāta anabhimlātādanabhimlāto gautamād gautamaḥ

saitavaprācīnayogyābhyāgͫ, saitavaprācīnayogyau pārāśaryāt

pārāśaryo bhāradvājād bhāradvājo bhāradvājācca gautamācca

gautamo bhāradvājād bhāradvājaḥ pārāśaryāt pārāśaryo vaijavāpāyanād

vaijavāpāyanaḥ kauśikāyaneḥ kauśikāyaniḥ .. 2..



Meaning:- From Agnivesya. Agnivesya from Sandilya and Anabhimlata. Anabhimlata from another of that name. He from a third Anabhimlata. This Anabhimlata from Gautama. Gautama from Saitava and Pracinayogya. They from Parasarya. Parasarya from Bharadvaja. He from Bharadvaja and Gautama. Gautama from another Bharadvaja. He from another Parasarya. Parasarya from Baijavapayana. He from Kausikayani. Kausikayani -

Translation By Max Müller

2. from Âgnivesya, 9) Âgnivesya from Sândilya and Ânabhimlâta,
10) Sândilya and Ânabhimlâta from Ânabhimlâta,
11) Ânabhimlâta from Ânabhimlâta,
12) Ânabhimlâta from Gautama,
13) Gautama from Saitava and Prâkînayogya,
14) Saitava and Prâkînayogya from Pârasarya,
15) Pârasarya from Bhâradvâga,
16) Bhâradvâga from Bhâradvâga and Gautama,
17) Gautama from Bharadvâga, 18) Bharadvâga from Pârâsarya,
19) Pârâsarya from Vaigavâpâyana,
20) Vaigavâpâyana from Kausikâyani,
21 [1]) Kausikâyani

Footnote:

1. From here the Vamsa agrees with the Vamsa at the end of IV, 6)


Sloka : 2.6.3

मन्त्र ३[II.vi.3]

घृतकौशिकाद् घृतकौशिकः पाराशर्यायणात् पारशर्यायणः

पाराशर्यात् पाराशर्यो जातूकर्ण्याज् जातूकर्ण्य आसुरायणाच्च यास्काच्च्-

ऽऽसुरायणस्त्रैवणेस्त्रैवणिरौपजन्धनेरौपजन्धनिरासुरासुरिर्भारद्वाजाद्

भारद्वाज आत्रेयादत्रेयो माण्टेर्माण्टिर्गौतमाद् गौतमो गौतमाद् गौतमो

वात्स्याद् वात्स्यः शाण्डिल्याच्छाण्डिल्यः कैशोर्यात्काप्यात् कैशोर्यः

काप्यः कुमारहारितात् कुमारहारितो गालवाद् गालवो विदर्भीकौण्डिन्याद्

विदर्भीकौण्डिन्यो वत्सनपातो बाभ्रवाद् वत्सनपाद्बाभ्रवः

पथः सौभरात् पन्थाः सौभरोऽयास्यादाङ्गिरसादयास्य

आङ्गिरस आभूतेस्त्वाष्ट्रादाभूतिस्त्वाष्ट्रो विश्वरूपात्त्वाष्ट्राद्

विश्वरूपस्त्वाष्ट्रोऽश्विभ्यामश्विनौ दधीच आथर्वणाद्

दध्यङ्ङाथर्वणोऽथर्वणो दैवादथर्वा दैवो मृत्योः

प्राध्वꣳसनान् मृत्युः प्राध्वꣳसनः प्रध्वꣳसनात्

प्रध्वꣳसन एकर्षेः एकर्षिर्विप्रचित्तेर्विप्रचित्तिर्व्यष्टेर्व्यष्टिः

सनारोः सनारुः सनातनात् सनातनः सनगात् सनगः परमेष्ठिनः

परमेष्ठी ब्रह्मणो ब्रह्म स्वयम्भु ब्रह्मणे नमः ॥ ३॥

इति षष्ठं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

॥ इति बृहदारण्यकोपनिषदि द्वितीयोऽध्यायः ॥

अथ तृतीयोध्यायः ॥

अथ प्रथमं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 3[II.vi.3]

ghṛtakauśikād ghṛtakauśikaḥ pārāśaryāyaṇāt pāraśaryāyaṇaḥ

pārāśaryāt pārāśaryo jātūkarṇyāj jātūkarṇya āsurāyaṇācca yāskācc-

''surāyaṇastraivaṇestraivaṇiraupajandhaneraupajandhanirāsurāsurirbhāradvājād

bhāradvāja ātreyādatreyo māṇṭermāṇṭirgautamād gautamo gautamād gautamo

vātsyād vātsyaḥ śāṇḍilyācchāṇḍilyaḥ kaiśoryātkāpyāt kaiśoryaḥ

kāpyaḥ kumārahāritāt kumārahārito gālavād gālavo vidarbhīkauṇḍinyād

vidarbhīkauṇḍinyo vatsanapāto bābhravād vatsanapādbābhravaḥ

pathaḥ saubharāt panthāḥ saubharo'yāsyādāṅgirasādayāsya

āṅgirasa ābhūtestvāṣṭrādābhūtistvāṣṭro viśvarūpāttvāṣṭrād

viśvarūpastvāṣṭro'śvibhyāmaśvinau dadhīca ātharvaṇād

dadhyaṅṅātharvaṇo'tharvaṇo daivādatharvā daivo mṛtyoḥ

prādhvagͫsanān mṛtyuḥ prādhvagͫsanaḥ pradhvagͫsanāt

pradhvagͫsana ekarṣeḥ ekarṣirvipracittervipracittirvyaṣṭervyaṣṭiḥ

sanāroḥ sanāruḥ sanātanāt sanātanaḥ sanagāt sanagaḥ parameṣṭhinaḥ

parameṣṭhī brahmaṇo brahma svayambhu brahmaṇe namaḥ .. 3..

iti ṣaṣṭhaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

.. iti bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadi dvitīyo'dhyāyaḥ ..

atha tṛtīyodhyāyaḥ ..

atha prathamaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- From Ghrtakausika. Ghrtakausika from Parasaryayana. He from Parasarya. Parasarya from Jatukarnya. Jatukarnya from Asurayana and Yaska. Asurayana from Traivani. Traivani from Aupajandhani. He from Asuri. Asuri from Bharadvaja. Bharadvaja from Atreya. Atreya from Manti. Manti from Gautama. Gautama from another Gautama. He from Vatsya. Vatsya from Sandilya. Sandilya from Kaisorya Kapya. He from Kumaraharita. Kumaraharita from Galava. Galava from Vidarbhi-kaundinya. He from Vatsanapat Babhrava. He from Pathin Saubhara. He from Ayasya Angirasa. He from Abhuti Tvastra. He from Visvarupa Tvastra. He from the Asvins. They from Dadhyac Atharvana. He from Atharvan Daiva. He from Mrtyu Pradhvamsana. He from Pradhvamsana. Pradhvamsana from Ekarsi. Ekarsi from Viprachitti. Viprachitti from Vyasri. Vyasti from Sanaru. Sanaru from Sanatana. Sanatana from Sanaga. Sanaga from Paramesthin (Viraj). He from Brahman (Hiranyabarbha). Brahman is self born. Salutation to Brahman.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:-
Now the line of teachers for the first two chapters called Madhukanda, which aim at expounding the knowledge of Brahman, is being given as a eulogy on the latter. This is also a Mantra to be expounded and regularly repeated. The word 'Vamsa' (line of teachers) is so called because of its resemblance to a bamboo. Just as a bamboo is divided into sections, so is this line of teachers divided into sections beginning from the top down to the root. The order of succession of teachers of the first four chapters (of the last book (Of which the opening chapter of this work forms the third chapter (Kanva recension.) of the Satapatha Brahmana) is here spoken of as 'Vamsa'. In this list the names in the nominative case stand for the disciples, and those in the ablative case stand for the teachers. Paramesthin is Viraj. From Brahman or Hiranyagarbha (In whose mind the Vedas were revealed through the grace of the Lord, the 'Brahman' next mentioned.); beyond him the line of teachers does not extend. As for Brahman (The Supreme Brahman, of which the Vedas are but another form; hence there can be no question of their originating from some other source.), It is selfborn, eternal. Salutation to that eternal Brahman.

Translation By Max Müller

3. from Ghritakausika, 22) Ghritakausika from Pârâsaryâyana,
23) Pârâsaryâyana from Pârâsarya,
24) Pârâsarya from Gâtûkarnya [1],
25) Gâtûkarnya from Âsurâyana and Yâska [2],
26) Âsurâyana and Yâska from Traivani,
27) Traivani from Aupagandhani,
28) Aupagandhani from Âsuri,
29) Âsuri from Bhâradvâga,
30) Bhâradvâga from Âtreya,
31) Âtreya from Mânti,
32) Mânti from Gautama,
33, Gautama from Gautama,
34) Gautama from Vâtsya,
35) Vâtsya from Sândilya,
36) Sândilya from Kaisorya Kâpya,
37) Kaisorya Kâpya from Kumârahârita,
38) Kumârahârita from Gâlava,
39) Gâlava from Vidarbhî-kaundinya,
40) Vidarbhî-kaundinya from Vatsanapât Bâbhrava,
41) Vatsanapât Bâbhrava from Pathi Saubhara,
42) Pathi Saubhara from Ayâsya Âṅgirasa,
43) Ayâsya Âṅgirasa from Âbhûti Tvâshtra,
44) Âbhûti Tvâshtra from Visvarûpa Tvâshtra,
45) Visvarûpa Tvâshtra from Asvinau, 46) Asvinau from Dadhyak Âtharvana,
47) Dadhyak Âtharvana from Atharvan Daiva,
48) Atharvan Daiva from Mrityu Prâdhvamsana,
49) Mrityu Prâdhvamsana from Prâdhvamsana,
50) Prâdhvamsana from Ekarshi,
51) Ekarshi from Viprakitti [3],
52) Viprakitti from Vyashti,
53) Vyashti from Sanâru,
54) Sanâru from Sanâtana,
55) Sanâtana from Sanaga,
56) Sanaga from Parameshthin,
57) Parameshthin from Brahman,
58) Brahman is Svayambhu, self-existent)
Adoration to Brahman [4])

Footnote:

1. Bhâradvâga, in Mâdhyandina text) 2. Bhâradvâga, Âsurâyana, and Yâska, in Mâdhyandina text) 3. Vipragitti, in Mâdhyandina text) 4. Similar genealogies are found Brih) Âr) Up) IV, 6, and VI, 5)


Sloka : 3.1.1

मन्त्र १ [III.i.1]

ॐ जनको ह वैदेहो बहुदक्षिणेन यज्ञेनेजे । तत्र ह कुरुपञ्चालानां

ब्राह्मणा अभिसमेता बभूवुस्तस्य ह जनकस्य वैदेहस्य विजिज्ञासा

बभूव कः स्विदेषां ब्राह्मणानामनूचानतम इति । स ह गवाꣳ

सहस्रमवरुरोध दशदश पादा एकैकस्याः श‍ृङ्गयोराबद्धा बभूवुः ॥ १॥

mantra 1 [III.i.1]

oṃ janako ha vaideho bahudakṣiṇena yajñeneje . tatra ha kurupañcālānāṃ

brāhmaṇā abhisametā babhūvustasya ha janakasya vaidehasya vijijñāsā

babhūva kaḥ svideṣāṃ brāhmaṇānāmanūcānatama iti . sa ha gavāgͫ

sahasramavarurodha daśadaśa pādā ekaikasyāḥ śṛṅgayorābaddhā babhūvuḥ .. 1..



Meaning:- Om. Janaka, Emperor of Videha, performed a sacrifice in which gifts were freely distributed. Vedic scholars from Kuru and Panchala were assembled there. Emperor Janaka of Videha had a desire to know, 'Which is the most erudite of these Vedic scholars?' He had a thousand cows confined in a pen, and on the horns of each cow were fixed ten Padas (of gold).





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- There was a ruler of Videha named Janaka, who was an Emperor. He performed a sacrifice in which gifts were freely distributed. Or the sacrifice itself may have had that name (Bahu-daksina), referred to elsewhere in the Vedas. Or the horse sacrifice may here be so called because of the abundance of gifts in it. Vedic scholars from Kuru and Pancala --- which are famous for their large number of scholars --- were assembled in that sacrifice, either on invitation or as spectators. Seeing that large assembly of scholars, Emperor Janaka of Videha, the sacrificer, had a desire to know which was the greatest Vedic scholar among them. He thought like this:- 'Which is the most erudite of these Vedic scholars? They are all versed in the Vedas, but which is the greatest of them?' Being desirous of knowing this, he, as a means to finding it out, had a thousand young cows confined in a pen. The cows are being described. On the horns of each cow were fixed ten padas --- a Pada being a quarter of a Pala --- of gold, five on each horn.

Translation By Max Müller

1. Ganaka Vaideha (the king of the Videhas) sacrificed with a sacrifice at which many presents were offered to the priests of (the Asvamedha). Brâhmanas of the Kurus and the Pâñkâlas had come thither, and Ganaka Vaideha wished to know, which of those Brâhmanas was the best read. So he enclosed a thousand cows, and ten pâdas (of gold) [1] were fastened to each pair of horns.

Footnote:

1. Palakaturbhâgah pâdah suvarnasya. Comm.


Sloka : 3.1.2

मन्त्र २ [III.i.2]

तान्होवाच ब्राह्मणा भगवन्तो यो वो ब्रह्मिष्ठः स एता गा

उदजतामिति । ते ह ब्राह्मणा न दधृषुरथ ह याज्ञवल्क्यः स्वमेव

ब्रह्मचारिणमुवाचैताः सौम्योदज सामश्रवा३ इति । ता होदाचकार ।

ते ह ब्राह्मणाश्चुक्रुधुः कथं नु नो ब्रह्मिष्ठो ब्रुवीतेत्यथ ह

जनकस्य वैदेहस्य होताऽश्वलो बभूव । स हैनं पप्रच्छ त्वं

नु खलु नो याज्ञवल्क्य ब्रह्मिष्ठोऽसी३ इति । स होवाच नमो वयं

ब्रह्मिष्ठाय कुर्मो गोकामा एव वयꣳ स्म इति । तꣳ ह तत एव

प्रष्टुं दध्रे होताऽश्वलः ॥ २॥

mantra 2 [III.i.2]

tānhovāca brāhmaṇā bhagavanto yo vo brahmiṣṭhaḥ sa etā gā

udajatāmiti . te ha brāhmaṇā na dadhṛṣuratha ha yājñavalkyaḥ svameva

brahmacāriṇamuvācaitāḥ saumyodaja sāmaśravā3 iti . tā hodācakāra .

te ha brāhmaṇāścukrudhuḥ kathaṃ nu no brahmiṣṭho bruvītetyatha ha

janakasya vaidehasya hotā'śvalo babhūva . sa hainaṃ papraccha tvaṃ

nu khalu no yājñavalkya brahmiṣṭho'sī3 iti . sa hovāca namo vayaṃ

brahmiṣṭhāya kurmo gokāmā eva vayagͫ sma iti . tagͫ ha tata eva

praṣṭuṃ dadhre hotā'śvalaḥ .. 2..



Meaning:- He said to them, 'Revered Brahmanas, let him who is the best Vedic scholar among you drive these cows (home).' None of the Brahmanas dared. Then Yajnavalkya said to a pupil of his, 'Dear Samasravas, please drive these cows (home).' He drove them. The Brahmanas were enraged. 'How does he dare to call himself the best Vedic scholar among us?' there was a Hotr of Emperor Janaka of Videha named Asvala. He now asked Yajnavalkya, 'Yajnavalkya, are you indeed the best Vedic scholar among us?' Yajnavalkya replied, 'I bow to the best Vedic scholar, I just want the cows'. Thereupon the Hotr Asvala determined to interrogate him.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Having the cows thus confined, he said addressing those Brahmanas, 'Revered Brahmanas, you are all Vedic scholars; let him who is specially so among you drive these cows home.' None of the Brahmanas thus addressed dared to announce his surpassing Vedic scholarship. When they were thus silenced, Yajnavalkya said to a pupil of his, 'Dear Samasravas, please drive these cows home.' 'Samasravas' means one who learns how to chant the Saman. Hence by implication Yajnavalkya is made out to be versed in all the four Vedas (The ground are as follows:- He is principally a teacher of the Yajur-Veda; the pupil in question learns from him how to chant the Saman, which is the Rc set to music; so he must also know these two Vedas; and the Atharva-Veda is subsidiary to the other three.). He drove the cows towards his teacher's home. Yajnavalkya, by accepting the prize meant for the best Vedic scholar, indirectly
declared himself as such; so the Brahmanas were enraged. The reason for their anger is being stated:- How does he dare to call himself the best Vedic scholar among us who are each a great scholar? Among the Brahmanas thus enraged, there was a Hotr of Janaka, the sacrificer, named Asvala. He prided himself upon being the greatest Vedic scholar, and was insolent owing to royal patronage. So he challenged Yajnavalkya as follows:- 'Yajnavalkya, are you indeed the best Vedic scholar among us?' The prolonged accent (in the verb) signifies censure. Yajnavalkya replied:- 'I bow to the best Vedic scholar, now I just want the cows.' Thereupon, i.e. when he accepted the prize meant for the best Vedic scholar and thereby declared himself to be one, the Hotr Asvala determined to interrogate him.

Translation By Max Müller

2. And Ganaka spoke to them:- 'Ye venerable Brâhmanas, he who among you is the wisest, let him drive away these cows.' Then those Brâhmanas durst not, but Yâgñavalkya said to his pupil:- 'Drive them away, my dear.' He replied:- 'O glory of the Sâman [1]' and drove them away. The Brâhmanas became angry and said:- 'How could he call himself the wisest among us?' Now there was Asvala, the Hotri priest of Ganaka Vaideha. He asked him:- 'Are you indeed the wisest among us, O Yâgñavalkya?' He replied:- 'I bow before the wisest (the best knower of Brahman), but I wish indeed to have these cows.' Then Asvala, the Hotri priest, undertook to question him.

Footnote:

1. One expects iti after udaga, but Sâmasravas is applied to Yâgñavalkya, and not to the pupil. Yâgñavalkya, as the commentator observes, was properly a teacher of the Yagur-veda, but as the pupil calls him Sâmasravas, he shows that Yâgñavalkya knew all the four Vedas, because the Sâmans are taken from the Rig-veda, and the Atharva-veda is contained in the other three Vedas. Regnaud, however, refers it to the pupil, and translates, 'Ô toi qui apprends le Sâma-veda.'


Sloka : 3.1.3

मन्त्र ३ [III.i.3]

याज्ञवल्क्येति होवाच यदिदꣳ सर्वं मृत्युनाऽऽप्तꣳ, सर्वं

मृत्युनाऽभिपन्नं केन यजमानो मृत्योराप्तिमतिमुच्यत इति ।

होत्रर्त्विजाऽइना वाचा वाग्वै यज्ञस्य होता । तद्येयं वाक् सोऽयमग्निः

स होता सा मुक्तिः साऽतिमुक्तिः ॥ ३॥

mantra 3 [III.i.3]

yājñavalkyeti hovāca yadidagͫ sarvaṃ mṛtyunā''ptagͫ, sarvaṃ

mṛtyunā'bhipannaṃ kena yajamāno mṛtyorāptimatimucyata iti .

hotrartvijā'inā vācā vāgvai yajñasya hotā . tadyeyaṃ vāk so'yamagniḥ

sa hotā sā muktiḥ sā'timuktiḥ .. 3..



Meaning:- 'Yajnavalkya', said he, 'since all this is overtaken by death, and swayed by it, by what means does the sacrificer go beyond the clutches of death?' 'Through the organ of speech - through fire, which is the (real) priest called Hotr. The sacrificer's organ of speech is the Hotr. This organ of speech is fire; this fire is the Hotr; this (fire) is liberation; this (liberation) is emancipation'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- 'Yajnavalkya,' said he. In the section on the Udgitha (I. iii.) comprised in the Madhukanda it has briefly been explained how a sacrificer can escape death through the rite with five factors coupled with the meditation about it. The present section being an examination of that, a rather detailed treatment is being given here in order to introduce some particulars about that meditation. 'Since all this, the accessories of this rite, such as the priests and the fire, is overtaken by death, i.e. by ritualistic work attended with our natural attachment --- not only overtaken, but also swayed by death, by what means, or meditation, does the sacrificer go beyond the clutches of death, become independent of it?'

Objection:- Has it not already been said in the section on the Udgitha that he transcends death by identifying himself with the vital force in the mouth?
Reply:- Yes, but the particulars that have been omitted there will be given here. So there is nothing wrong in it.
Yajnavalkya said, 'Through the organ of speech --- through fire, which is the (real) priest called Hotr.' The explanation follows. Who is that Hotr through whom the sacrificer transcends death? 'The sacrificer's organ of speech is the Hotr.' 'Sacrifice' here means the sacrificer. Witness the Sruti, 'The sacrifice is the sacrificer' (S. XIV. II. ii. 24). The sacrificer's organ of speech is the Hotr with reference to sacrifices. How? This organ of speech of the sacrificer is the well-known fire, with reference to the gods. This has already been explained under the topic of the three kinds of food (I. v. 11). And that fire is the Hotr, for the Sruti says, 'Fire is the Hotr' (S. VI. iv. ii. 6). These two auxiliaries of a sacrifice, viz the priest called Hotr with reference to sacrifices, and the organ of speech with reference to the body, being limited, are 'overtaken by the death,' i.e. are continually changed by ritualistic work directed by our natural attachment due to ignorance, and are therefore 'swayed by death.' If the sacrificer looks upon them as fire, their divine form, it conduces to his (As also the Hotr's.) liberation from death. So the text says:- This is liberation, i.e. the Hotr who is fire is liberation. In other words, looking upon the Hotr as fire is that. As soon as the sacrificer looks upon the two accessories as fire, he is freed from death consisting in his limited natural attachment relating to the body and the elements. Therefore that Hotr, when looked upon as fire, is 'liberation,' i.e. the means of liberation, for the sacrificer. This is emancipation:- That which is liberation is emancipation, i.e. a means to it.
To look upon those who limited accessories as fire, which is their unlimited divine form, is liberation. This liberation that consists in looking upon (the Hotr and the organ of speech) in their divine aspect is also spoken of as the resulting emancipation --- becoming one with fire, their divine form --- which takes one beyond the death that consists in attachment to limitations relating to the body and the elements. It is called emancipation, because that liberation itself is a means to it. It has already been explained in the section on the Udgitha that the identification of the organ of speech etc. with fire and so on is itself the emancipation of the sacrificer. There it has been said in a general way that identity with the vital force in the mouth is the means of liberation, but the particulars have not been given. Here some details, viz the viewing of the organ of speech etc. as fire and so on, are given. The emancipation from death here dealt with is the same as that which has been described as a result in the section on the Udgitha in the words, '(That fire) having transcended death, shines,' etc. (I. iii. 12).

Translation By Max Müller

3. 'Yâgñavalkya, he said, 'everything here (connected with the sacrifice) is reached by death, everything is overcome by death. By what means then is the sacrificer freed beyond the reach of death?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'By the Hotri priest, who is Agni (fire), who is speech. For speech is the Hotri of the sacrifice (or the sacrificer), and speech is Agni, and he is the Hotri. This constitutes freedom, and perfect freedom (from death).'


Sloka : 3.1.4

मन्त्र ४ [III.i.4]

याज्ञवल्क्येति होवाच यदिदꣳ सर्वमहोरात्राभ्यामाप्तꣳ,

सर्वमहोरात्राभ्यामभिपन्नं केन यजमानोऽहोरात्रयोराप्तिमतिमुच्यत

इत्यध्वर्युणर्त्विजा चक्षुषाऽऽदित्येन चक्षुर्वै

यज्ञस्याध्वर्युस्तद्यदिदं चक्षुः सोऽसावादित्यः सोऽध्वर्युः सा

मुक्तिः साऽतिमुक्तिः ॥ ४॥

mantra 4 [III.i.4]

yājñavalkyeti hovāca yadidagͫ sarvamahorātrābhyāmāptagͫ,

sarvamahorātrābhyāmabhipannaṃ kena yajamāno'horātrayorāptimatimucyata

ityadhvaryuṇartvijā cakṣuṣā''dityena cakṣurvai

yajñasyādhvaryustadyadidaṃ cakṣuḥ so'sāvādityaḥ so'dhvaryuḥ sā

muktiḥ sā'timuktiḥ .. 4..



Meaning:- 'Yajnavalkya', said he, 'since all this is overtaken by day and night, and swayed by them, by what means does the sacrificer go beyond the clutches of day and night?' 'Through the eye - through the sun, which is the (real) priest called Adhvaryu. The eye of the sacrificer is the Adhvaryu. This eye is the sun; this sun is the Adhvaryu; this (sun) is liberation; this (liberation) is emancipation'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- 'Yajnavalkya,' said he. The emancipation from death, which is another name for ritualistic work directed by our natural attachment due to ignorance, has been explained. Time is the cause of changes in the accessories of rites, such as the new-and full-moon sacrifices, on which death, that is to say, ritualistic work with attachment, rests. This paragraph is introduced, since emancipation from that time should be separately indicated; because even without the performance of rites, we notice before and after it, the action of time as the cause of these changes in the acceessories of the rites. So the text goes on:- Since all this is overtaken by day and night. That time has two forms:- one consisting of day, night, etc., and the other consisting of lunar days etc.The emancipation from the former type of time is being first indicated, since everything is born, grows and dies because of the day and night; so also with the accessories of a sacrifice. The eye of the sacrificer is the Adhvaryu; here too 'sacrifice' means the sacrificer. The rest of the paragraph is to be explained as before. When the two accessories viz the sacrificer's eye and the Adhvaryu, are stripped of their limitations relating to the body and the elements, and are looked upon in their divine aspect, this is liberation. In other words, the viewing of the Adhvaryu as the sun is liberation. This liberation is emancipation, as in the preceding paragraph; because there can be no day and night for one who has identified himself with the sun.

Translation By Max Müller

4. 'Yâgñavalkya,' he said, 'everything here is reached by day and night, everything is overcome by day and night. By what means then is the sacrificer freed beyond the reach of day and night?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'By the Adhvaryu priest, who is the eye, who is Âditya (the sun) [1]. For the eye is the Adhvaryu of the sacrifice, and the eye is the sun, and he is the Adhvaryu. This constitutes freedom, and perfect freedom.'

Footnote:

1. One expects âdityena kakshushâ, instead of kakshushâdityena, but see § 6.


Sloka : 3.1.5

मन्त्र ५ [III.i.5]

याज्ञवल्क्येति होवाच यदिदꣳ सर्वं

पूर्वपक्षापरपक्षाभ्यामाप्तꣳ, सर्वं

पूर्वपक्षापरपक्षाभ्यामभिपन्नं केन यजमानः

पूर्वपक्षापरपक्षयोराप्तिमतिमुच्यत इत्युद्गात्रर्त्विजा वायुना प्राणेन

प्राणो वै यज्ञस्योद्गाता । तद्योऽयं प्राणः स वायुः स उद्गाता सा मुक्तिः

साऽतिमुक्तिः ॥ ५॥

mantra 5 [III.i.5]

yājñavalkyeti hovāca yadidagͫ sarvaṃ

pūrvapakṣāparapakṣābhyāmāptagͫ, sarvaṃ

pūrvapakṣāparapakṣābhyāmabhipannaṃ kena yajamānaḥ

pūrvapakṣāparapakṣayorāptimatimucyata ityudgātrartvijā vāyunā prāṇena

prāṇo vai yajñasyodgātā . tadyo'yaṃ prāṇaḥ sa vāyuḥ sa udgātā sā muktiḥ

sā'timuktiḥ .. 5..



Meaning:- 'Yajnavalkya', said he, 'since all this is overtaken by the bright and dark fortnights, and swayed by them, by what means does the sacrificer go beyond the bright and dark fortnights /' 'Through the vital force - through air, which is the (real) priest called Udgatir. The vital force of the sacrificer is the Udgatir. This vital force is air, and it is the Udgatir; this (air) is liberation; this (liberation) is emancipation.'





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Now the emancipation from time represented by lunar days etc. is being indicated:- Since all this, etc. The sun is the cause of the days and nights, which (taken together) are alike, but not of the lunar days from the first to the fifteenth; these are subject to increase and decrease, and are caused by the moon. Therefore through identification with the moon one goes beyond the bright and dark fortnights, just as through identification with the sun one goes beyond day and night. Now the vital force of the sacrificer is air. It again is the Udgatr, as we know from the section on the Udgitha, where it has been settled:- 'Indeed he chanted through speech and the vital force' (I. iii. 24). Also, 'Water is the body of this vital force, and that moon is its luminous organ' (I. v. 13).
Since the vital force, air and moon are one, the Sruti considers that there is no difference between summing up with the moon (As the
Madhyandina recension does.) and with air, and mentions air as the divine form. Moreover, the changes of the moon are due to air (Really, the cosmic vital force (Sutratman), of which air is the conventional symbol.). Therefore air is the cause even of that (moon) which makes the division of time into lunar days etc. Hence it is all the more reasonable that one who has identified oneself with air goes beyond time as divided into lunar days etc. So another Sruti (the Madhyandina recension) states that the viewing (of the accessories of a sacrifice) as the moon is liberation and emancipation; while here, in the Kanva recension, the viewing of the two accessories as their cause, viz air, is called liberation and emancipation. Thus there is no contradiction between the two texts.

Translation By Max Müller

5. 'Yâgñavalkya,' he said, 'everything here is reached by the waxing and waning of the moon, everything is overcome by the waxing and waning of the moon. By what means then is the sacrificer freed beyond the reach of the waxing and waning of the moon?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'By the Udgâtri priest, who is Vâyu (the wind), who is the breath. For the breath is the Udgâtri of the sacrifice, and the breath is the wind, and he is the Udgâtri. This constitutes freedom, and perfect freedom.'


Sloka : 3.1.6

मन्त्र ६ [III.i.6]

याज्ञवल्क्येति होवाच यदिदमन्तरिक्षमनारम्बणमिव केनाऽऽक्रमेन

यजमानः स्वर्गं लोकमाक्रमत इति ब्रह्मणर्त्विजा मनसा चन्द्रेण

मनो वै यज्ञस्य ब्रह्मा । तद्यदिदं मनः सोऽसौ चन्द्रः स ब्रह्मा

सा मुक्तिः सातिमुक्तिरित्यतिमोक्षा अथ सम्पदः ॥ ६॥

mantra 6 [III.i.6]

yājñavalkyeti hovāca yadidamantarikṣamanārambaṇamiva kenā''kramena

yajamānaḥ svargaṃ lokamākramata iti brahmaṇartvijā manasā candreṇa

mano vai yajñasya brahmā . tadyadidaṃ manaḥ so'sau candraḥ sa brahmā

sā muktiḥ sātimuktirityatimokṣā atha sampadaḥ .. 6..



Meaning:- 'Yajnavalkya', said he, 'since the sky is, as it were, without a support, through what support does the sacrificer go to heaven?' 'Through the mind - through the moon, which is the (real) priest called Brahman. The mind of the sacrificer is the Brahman. This mind is the moon; the moon is the Brahman; this (moon) is liberation; this (liberation) is emancipation'. So far about the ways of emancipation; now about the meditations based on resemblance.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- The way the sacrificer transcends the form of death known as time has been explained. Now what is that support by means of which he attains a result transcending death, which is a limitation --- in other words, is emancipated? This paragraph answers the point:- Since the sky, so familiar to us, is, as it were, without a support, etc. The words 'as it were' indicate that there is a support to it, but it is not known. An inquiry into this unknown support is being made by the use of the pronominal adjective 'Kena' (through what); otherwise the attainment of result would be impossible. What is that support by means of which the sacrificer attains the result of his rites and is released? --- is the question. Through what support does the sacrificer go to heaven as the result (of his rites) --- in other words, is released? Through the mind --- through the moon, which is the (real) priest called Brahman; this is to be explained as before. Now what is familiar to us as the mind of the sacrificer with reference to the body is the moon with reference to the gods; for it is a well-known fact that the mind in the body is the same as the moon among the gods. The moon again is the priest called Brahman. Hence the sacrificer beholds the limited form of the Brahman among the elements, and that of his own mind in the body, as the unlimited moon. That is to say, through the support of the mind viewed as the moon he attains heaven as the result of his rites --- in other words, is released. The word 'iti' indicates the conclusion of the topic; that is, such are the various ways of emancipation from death. The topic is concluded, because all kinds of meditation regarding the accessories of a sacrifice have been dealt with in this connection. So far about the ways of emancipation, i.e. such are the various ways of emancipation.

Now the meditations based on resemblance are being spoken of. By this is meant a meditation, by virtue of some point of resemblance, on rites with inferior results like the Agnihotra, as rites with superior results, in order to obtain these results; or it is a meditation on some part of the lesser rite as those very results. Even when people try with all their ardour to undertake measures for bringing about certain ends, they may fail of their object through some defect. So a man who regularly tends the sacrificial fire takes up any rite, such as the Agnihotra, that suits him, and if he happens to know the results of particular rites, achieves the results he seeks through meditation. Otherwise it would be impossible for people of even the upper three castes, who are qualified for them, to perform the Rajasuya (A sacrifice usually performed by emperors. The other three are sacrifices in which a horse, some substitute for a man, and animals in general are respectively sacrificed. All the four are elaborate and expensive undertaking beyond the means of most people.), Asvamedha, Naramedha and Sarvamedha sacrifices. Their reciting of scriptures relating to those would merely be devotional study, unless there be some means of attaining the results of those rites. Those people can attain these results simply by means of the meditation based on resemblance; hence such meditations are fruitful, and are therefore being described.

Translation By Max Müller

6. 'Yâgñavalkya,' he said, 'this sky is, as it were, without an ascent (staircase.) By what approach does the sacrificer approach the Svarga world?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'By the Brahman priest, who is the mind (manas), who is the moon. For the mind is the Brahman of the sacrifice, and the mind is the moon, and he is the Brahman. This constitutes freedom, and perfect freedom. These are the complete deliverances (from death).' Next follow the achievements.


Sloka : 3.1.7

मन्त्र ७ [III.i.7]

याज्ञवल्क्येति होवाच कतिभिरयमद्यर्ग्भिर्होतास्मिन्यज्ञे करिष्यतीति ।

तिसृभिरिति । कतमास्तास्तिस्र इति । पुरोनुवाक्या च याज्या च शस्यैव

तृतीया । किं ताभिर्जयतीति । यत् किञ्चेदं प्राणभृदिति ॥ ७॥

mantra 7 [III.i.7]

yājñavalkyeti hovāca katibhirayamadyargbhirhotāsminyajñe kariṣyatīti .

tisṛbhiriti . katamāstāstisra iti . puronuvākyā ca yājyā ca śasyaiva

tṛtīyā . kiṃ tābhirjayatīti . yat kiñcedaṃ prāṇabhṛditi .. 7..



Meaning:- 'Yajnavalkya', said he, 'with how many kinds of Rik will the Hotr do his part in this sacrifice to-day?' 'With three kinds'. 'Which are those three?' 'The preliminary, the sacrificial, and the eulogistic hymns as the third'. 'What does he win through them?' 'All this that is living'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- 'Yajnavalkya,' said he, to draw his attention, 'with how many kinds of Rc will the Hotr do his part --- recite hymns --- in this sacrifice to-day?' The other said, 'With three kinds of Rc.' When he said this, Asvala asked him again, 'Which are those three?' The first question was about the number, the second about the Rces themselves. The preliminary, that class of hymns which are used before a sacrifice; the sacrificial, those hymns that are used in performing sacrifice; and the eulogistic hymns, that class of hymns which are used in praise (to the deities). Every kind of Rc, whether used in praise or otherwise, is included in these three classes. 'What does he win through them?' 'All this that is living.' From the parity of number he wins through this whatever is living (in the three worlds). That is, on account of the similarity in number etc. he gets all this result through meditation.

Translation By Max Müller

7. 'Yâgñavalkya,' he said, 'how many Rik verses will the Hotri priest employ to-day at this sacrifice?' 'Three,' replied Yâgñavalkya. 'And what are these three?' 'Those which are called Puronuvâkyâ, Yâgyâ, and, thirdly, Sasyâ [1].' 'What does he gain by them?' 'All whatsoever has breath.'

Footnote:

1. The Puronuvâkyâs are hymns employed before the actual sacrifice, the Yâgyâs accompany the sacrifice, the Sasyâs are used for the Sastra. All three are called Stotriyâs.


Sloka : 3.1.8

मन्त्र ८ [III.i.8]

याज्ञवल्क्येति होवाच कत्ययमद्याध्वर्युरस्मिन्यज्ञ आहुतीर्होष्यतीति ।

तिस्र इति । कतमास्तास्तिस्र इति । या हुता उज्ज्वलन्ति या हुता अतिनेदन्ते या

हुता अधिशेरते । किं ताभिर्जयतीति । या हुता उज्ज्वलन्ति देवलोकमेव

ताभिर्जयति दीप्यत इव हि देवलोको । या हुता अतिनेदन्ते पितृलोकमेव

ताभिर्जयत्यतीव हि पितृलोको । या हुता अधिशेरते मनुष्यलोकमेव

ताभिर्जयत्यध इव हि मनुष्यलोकः ॥ ८॥

mantra 8 [III.i.8]

yājñavalkyeti hovāca katyayamadyādhvaryurasminyajña āhutīrhoṣyatīti .

tisra iti . katamāstāstisra iti . yā hutā ujjvalanti yā hutā atinedante yā

hutā adhiśerate . kiṃ tābhirjayatīti . yā hutā ujjvalanti devalokameva

tābhirjayati dīpyata iva hi devaloko . yā hutā atinedante pitṛlokameva

tābhirjayatyatīva hi pitṛloko . yā hutā adhiśerate manuṣyalokameva

tābhirjayatyadha iva hi manuṣyalokaḥ .. 8..



Meaning:- 'Yajnavalkya', said he, 'how many kinds of oblations will the Adhvaryu offer in this sacrifice to-day?' 'Three'. 'Which are those three?' 'Those that blaze up on being offered, those that make a great noise, when offered, and those that sink on being offered'. 'What does he win through them?' 'Through those that blaze up on being offered he wins the world of the gods, for this world shines, as it were. Through those that make a great noise, when offered, he wins the world of the manes, for this world is full of uproar. And through those that sink on being offered, he wins the human world, for this world is lower.'





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- 'Yajnavalkya,' said he, etc. This has already been explained. 'How many kinds of oblations will the Adhvaryu offer in this sacrifice to-day?' 'Three.' 'Which are those three?' etc. --- already explained. Yajnavalkya replied:- Those that blaze up on being offered, such as oblations of wood and clarified butter. Those that make a great noise, when offered, such as flesh. And those that sink, penetrate the earth, on being offered, e.g. milk and Soma juice. 'What does he win through them,' through the oblations thus offered? Through those that blaze up on being offered, etc. --- The offerings made are bright, and the result, the world of the gods, is also bright. On account of this similarity he meditates that the bright offerings he is making are the very form of the result he seeks through his rite, viz the world of the gods --- that he is achieving that very result, the world of the gods. Through those oblations that make a great noise when offered, he wins the world of the manes, because of the similarity in producing horrible noises. For, attached to the world of the manes is the city of Yama, where people subjected to tortures by him cry, 'Alas, we are undone, release us, oh, release us!' So also do the offerings of meat etc. make a noise. On account of this similarity with the world of the manes he meditates that he is actually attaining that world. Through those offerings that sink on being offered, he wins the human world, because both are equally related to the surface of the earth. For this world is lower than the higher worlds, which are to be attained; or 'lower' because of the similarity in going down (Too often men having evil tendencies degenerate.). Therefore, while offering oblations of milk or Soma, he meditates that he is actually attaining the human world.

Translation By Max Müller

8. 'Yâgñavalkya,' he said, 'how many oblations (âhuti) will the Adhvaryu priest employ to-day at this sacrifice?' 'Three,' replied Yâgñavalkya. 'And what are these three?' 'Those which, when offered, flame up; those which, when offered, make an excessive noise; and those which, when offered, sink down [1].' 'What does he gain by them?' 'By those which, when offered, flame up, he gains the Deva (god) world, for the Deva world flames up, as it were. By those which, when offered, make an excessive noise, he gains the Pitri (father) world, for the Pitri world is excessively (noisy) [2]. By those which, when offered, sink down, he gains the Manushya (man) world, for the Manushya world is, as it were, down below.'

Footnote:

1. These oblations are explained as consisting of wood and oil, of flesh, and of milk and Soma. The first, when thrown on the fire, flame up. The second, when thrown on the fire, make a loud hissing noise. The third, consisting of milk, Soma, &c., sink down into the earth. 2. On account of the cries of those who wish to be delivered out of it. Comm.


Sloka : 3.1.9

मन्त्र ९ [III.i.9]

याज्ञवल्क्येति होवाच कतिभिरयमद्य ब्रह्मा यज्ञं दक्षिणतो

देवताभिर्गोपायतीत्येकयेति । कतमा सैकेति । मन एवेत्यनन्तं वै

मनो ंअन्ता विश्वे देवा अनन्तमेव स तेन लोकं जयति ॥ ९॥

mantra 9 [III.i.9]

yājñavalkyeti hovāca katibhirayamadya brahmā yajñaṃ dakṣiṇato

devatābhirgopāyatītyekayeti . katamā saiketi . mana evetyanantaṃ vai

mano ṃantā viśve devā anantameva sa tena lokaṃ jayati .. 9..



Meaning:- 'Yajnavalkya', said he, 'through how many gods does this Brahman from the right protect the sacrifice to-day?' 'Through one'. 'Which is that one?' 'The mind. The mind is indeed infinite, and infinite are the Visvadevas. Through this meditation he wins an infinite world'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- 'Yajnavalkya,' said he, etc. --- is to be explained as before. Through how many gods does this priest called Brahman from the right, sitting in his particular seat, protect the sacrifice? The plural number in 'gods' is merely for the sake of conformity. To explain:- The priest protects the sacrifice through one god only; so one who knows this should not put a question using the plural number. But because that was used in the questions and answers in the two preceding paragraphs --- 'Through how many?' 'Through three.' 'How many?' 'Three' --- here too the plural is used in the question; or the plural form is used in order to puzzle the opponent. 'Through one,' replied Yajnavalkya; the god through whom the Brahman protects the sacrifice from his seat on the right is one. 'Which is that one?' The mind is that god; it is through the mind, through meditation, that the Brahman does his function. 'The mind and speech are the two ways of a sacrifice; the Brahman rectifies one of them (speech) through the mind (or silence),' so says another Sruti (Ch. IV. xvi. 1 ' 2). Therefore the mind is that god, and through it the Brahman protects the sacrifice. And that mind is indeed infinite, because of its modifications. The word 'indeed' signifies that it is a well-known fact. Everybody knows that the mind is infinite. The gods identify themselves with its infinity:- And infinite are the Visvadevas; for another Sruti says, 'In which (mind) all the gods become one,' etc. Through this meditation he wins an infinite world, because of the similarity as regards infinitude.

Translation By Max Müller

9. 'Yâgñavalkya,' he said, 'with how many deities does the Brahman priest on the right protect to-day this sacrifice?' 'By one,' replied Yâgñavalkya. 'And which is it?' 'The mind alone; for the mind is endless, and the Visvedevas are endless, and he thereby gains the endless world.'


Sloka : 3.1.10

मन्त्र १० [III.i.10]

याज्ञवल्क्येति होवाच कत्ययमद्योद्गाताऽस्मिन्यज्ञे स्तोत्रियाः स्तोष्यतीति ।

तिस्र इति । कतमास्तास्तिस्र इति । पुरोनुवाक्या च याज्या च शस्यैव

तृतीया कतमास्ता या अध्यात्ममिति । प्राण एव पुरोनुवाक्याऽपानो याज्या

व्यानः शस्या । किं ताभिर्जयतीति । पृथिवीलोकमेव पुरोनुवाक्यया

जयत्यन्तरिक्षलोकं याज्यया द्युलोकꣳ शस्यया ततो ह होताऽश्वल

उपरराम ॥ १०॥

इति प्रथमं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ द्वितीयं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 10 [III.i.10]

yājñavalkyeti hovāca katyayamadyodgātā'sminyajñe stotriyāḥ stoṣyatīti .

tisra iti . katamāstāstisra iti . puronuvākyā ca yājyā ca śasyaiva

tṛtīyā katamāstā yā adhyātmamiti . prāṇa eva puronuvākyā'pāno yājyā

vyānaḥ śasyā . kiṃ tābhirjayatīti . pṛthivīlokameva puronuvākyayā

jayatyantarikṣalokaṃ yājyayā dyulokagͫ śasyayā tato ha hotā'śvala

upararāma .. 10..

iti prathamaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha dvitīyaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- 'Yajnavalkya', said he, 'how many classes of hymns the Udgatir chant in this sacrifice to-day?' 'Three classes'. 'Which are those three?' 'The preliminary, the sacrificial, and the eulogistic hymns as the third'. 'Which are those that have reference to the body?' 'The Prana is the preliminary hymn, the Apana is the sacrificial hymn, and the Vyana is the eulogistic hymn'. 'What does he win through them?' 'Through the preliminary hymns he wins the earth, through the sacrificial hymns he wins the sky, and through the eulogistic hymns he wins heaven'. Thereupon the Hotr Asvala kept silent.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- 'Yajnavalkya,' said he, etc. --- is to be explained as before. 'How many classes of hymns will the Udgatr chant?' By the word 'hymns' is meant a collection of Rces that can be chanted. All Rces whatsoever, whether capable of being chanted or not, are comprised in just three classes, says Yajnavalkya; and they are explained as the preliminary, the sacrificial and the eulogistic hymns as the third. It has already been said that the aspirant wins 'all this that is living.' One may ask, 'Through what similarity?' The answer is being given:- 'Which are those three Rces that have reference to the body?' 'The Prana is the preliminary hymn,' because both begin with the letter p. 'The Apana is the sacrificial hymn,' because it comes next in order. Also, the gods eat the oblations offered with the help of Apana (Which has its seat between the heart and the navel and carries things down.), and a sacrifice is also an offering. 'The Vyana is the eulogistic hymn,' for another Sruti says, 'He utters the Rc without the help of the Prana or the Apana (That is, through the Vyana.)' (Ch. I. iii. 4). 'What does he win through them?' --- already explained. The similarity with regard to particular relations that was not mentioned before is being given here; the rest has already been explained. Because of the similarity (Both come in first.) of relation to a particular world (viz the earth), through the preliminary hymns he wins the earth; through the sacrificial hymns he wins the sky, because both occupy an intermediate position; through the eulogistic hymns he wins heaven, because both occupy the highest position. Thereupon, i.e. when his questions had been aswered, the Hotr Asvala kept silent, realising that his opponent was too deep for him.

Translation By Max Müller

10. 'Yâgñavalkya,' he said, 'how many Stotriyâ hymns will the Udgâtri priest employ to-day at this sacrifice?' 'Three,' replied Yâgñavalkya. 'And what are these three?' 'Those which are called Puronuvâkyâ, Yâgyâ, and, thirdly, Sasyâ.' 'And what are these with regard to the body (adhyâtmam)?' 'The Puronuvâkyâ is Prâna (up-breathing), the Yâgyâ the Apâna (down-breathing), the Sasyâ the Vyâna (back-breathing).' 'What does he gain by them?' 'He gains the earth by the Puronuvâkyâ, the sky by the Yâgyâ, heaven by the Sasyâ.' After that Asvala held his peace.


Sloka : 3.2.1

मन्त्र १[III.ii.1]

अथ हैनं जारत्कारव आर्तभागः पप्रच्छ । याज्ञवल्क्येति होवाच

कति ग्रहाः कत्यतिग्रहा इत्यष्टौ ग्रहा अष्टावतिग्रहा इति ये तेऽष्टौ

ग्रहा अष्टावतिग्रहाः कतमे त इति ॥ १॥

mantra 1[III.ii.1]

atha hainaṃ jāratkārava ārtabhāgaḥ papraccha . yājñavalkyeti hovāca

kati grahāḥ katyatigrahā ityaṣṭau grahā aṣṭāvatigrahā iti ye te'ṣṭau

grahā aṣṭāvatigrahāḥ katame ta iti .. 1..



Meaning:- Then Artabhaga, of the line of Jaratkaru, asked him. 'Yajnavalkya', said he, 'how many are the Grahas, and how many are the Atigrahas?' 'There are eight Grahas and eight Atigrahas'. 'Which are those eight Grahas and eight Atigrahas?'





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Then, i.e. when Asvala had stopped, Artabhaga, the son of Rtabhaga of the line of Jaratkaru, asked Yajnavalkya, already introduced. 'Yajnavalkya, said he --- this is to draw his attention. The particle 'ha' suggests the narration of a past incident. As before, comes the question, 'How many are the Grahas, and how many are the Atigrahas?' The particle 'iti' marks the close of the speech.

Objection:- The subject-matter of the question, viz the Grahas and Atigrahas, may be either known or not known. If they are known, then their number, which is an attribute, is also known. In that case, the question regarding it, 'How many are the Grahas, and how many are the Atigrahas?' is out of place. If, on the other hand, the Grahas and Atigrahas are not known, then the question should be regarding their nature:- 'What are the Grahas, and what are the Atigrahas?' and not, 'How many are the Grahas, and how many are the Atigrahas?' Again, questions may be asked regarding the particulars of things about which we have a general knowledge, as, for instance, 'Which of these belong to the Katha recension and which to the Kalapa?' But no such things as Grahas and Atigrahas are known in life. If they were, the question might be regarding their particulars.
Reply:- It has been asked (III. i. 3) how the sacrificer 'goes beyond' death. It is only one who is controlled by a Graha (that
which seizes) that can be liberated. It has been mentioned twice --- 'This is liberation; this is emancipation' (Ibid). Therefore the Grahas and Atigrahas are known things.

Objection:- Even in that case (only) four Grahas and Atigrahas have been mentioned (In III. i. 3 ' 6.), viz the vocal organ, the eye, the vital force and the mind. So the question 'how many' is not to the point, for the number is already known.
Reply:- Not so, because there the number was indefinite. The passage in question did not seek to fix it at four. Here, however, in the meditation on the Grahas and Atigrahas, the attribute of number is sought to be fixed at eight; so the question is quite in order. Therefore liberation and emancipation have been mentioned twice in the passage, 'This is liberation; this is emancipation.' The Grahas and Atigrahas too are settled facts. Hence Artabhaga asked, 'How many are the Grahas, and how many are the Atigrahas?' 'How many are the Grahas, and how many are the Atigrahas?' Yajnavalkya replied, 'There are eight Grahas and eight Atigrahas.' 'Which, in particular, are those eight Grahas and eight Atigrahas that you have spoken of?'

Translation By Max Müller

1. Then Gâratkârava Ârtabhâga [1] asked. 'Yâgñavalkya,' he said, 'how many Grahas are there, and how many Atigrahas [2]?' 'Eight Grahas,' he replied,' and eight Atigrahas.' 'And what are these eight Grahas and eight Atigrahas?'

Footnote:

1. A descendant of Ritabhâga of the family of Garatkâru. 2. Graha is probably meant originally in its usual sacrificial sense, as a vessel for offering oblations. But its secondary meaning, in which it is here taken, is a taker, a grasper, i.e. an organ of sense, while atigraha is intended for that which is grasped, i.e. an object of sense.


Sloka : 3.2.2

मन्त्र २[III.ii.2]

प्राणो वै ग्रहः । सोऽपानेनातिग्राहेण गृहीतोऽपानेन हि

गन्धाञ्जिघ्रति ॥ २॥

mantra 2[III.ii.2]

prāṇo vai grahaḥ . so'pānenātigrāheṇa gṛhīto'pānena hi

gandhāñjighrati .. 2..



Meaning:- The Prana (nose) indeed is the Graha; it is controlled by the Atigraha, the Apana (odour), for one smells odours through the Apana (the air breathed in).





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Yajnavalkya replied:- The Prana indeed is the Graha. 'Prana' here means the nose, from the context. It, the nose, is connected with air. 'Apana' here means odour; it is so called because it always accompanies odour, for everybody smells with the nose odours presented by the air that is breathed in (Apana). This is expressed by the sentence:- For one smells odours throguh the Apana.

Translation By Max Müller

2. 'Prâna (breath) is one Graha, and that is seized by Apâna (down-breathing) as the Atigrâha [1], for one smells with the Apâna.'

Footnote:

1. Here the â is long, khândasatvât.


Sloka : 3.2.3

मन्त्र ३[III.ii.3]

वाग्वै ग्रहः । स नाम्नातिग्राहेण गृहीतो वाचा हि नामान्यभिवदति ॥ ३॥

mantra 3[III.ii.3]

vāgvai grahaḥ . sa nāmnātigrāheṇa gṛhīto vācā hi nāmānyabhivadati .. 3..



Meaning:- The organ of speech indeed is the graha; it is controlled by the Atigraha, name, for one utters names through the organ of speech.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- The organ of speech indeed is the Graha. The organ of speech, as confined to one particular body, deals with things to which people are attached, and makes utterances that are untrue, pernicious, rude, offensive, and so on. It thus controls or captures people; hence it is a Graha. It, this Graha called the organ of speech, is controlled by the Atigraha, name, that is, by whatever is uttered. The long vowel in 'Atigraha' is a Vedic licence. For the organ of speech is meant to express something; it is used by that for just that purpose; hence it is controlled by that, and there is no deliverance for it until it has done this function. Therefore the organ of speech is said to be controlled by the Atigraha, name, for it is a fact that people, impelled by their attachment to something to be expressed, get into all sorts of troubles.

Translation By Max Müller

3. 'Speech (vâk) is one Graha, and that is seized by name (nâman) as the Atigrâha, for with speech one pronounces names.


Sloka : 3.2.4

मन्त्र ४[III.ii.4]

जिह्वा वै ग्रहः । स रसेनातिग्राहेण गृहीतो जिह्वया हि रसान्विजानाति ॥ ४॥

mantra 4[III.ii.4]

jihvā vai grahaḥ . sa rasenātigrāheṇa gṛhīto jihvayā hi rasānvijānāti .. 4..



Meaning:- The tongue indeed is the Graha; it is controlled by the Atigraha, taste, for one knows tastes through the tongue.

Translation By Max Müller

4. 'The tongue is one Graha, and that is seized by taste as the Atigrâha, for with the tongue one perceives tastes.'


Sloka : 3.2.5

मन्त्र ५[III.ii.5]

चक्षुर्वै ग्रहः । स रूपेणातिग्राहेण गृहीतश्चक्षुषा हि रूपाणि

पश्यति ॥ ५॥

mantra 5[III.ii.5]

cakṣurvai grahaḥ . sa rūpeṇātigrāheṇa gṛhītaścakṣuṣā hi rūpāṇi

paśyati .. 5..



Meaning:- The eye indeed is the Graha; it is controlled by the Atigraha, colour, for one sees colours through the eye.

Translation By Max Müller

5. 'The eye is one Graha, and that is seized by form as the Atigrâha, for with the eye one sees forms.'


Sloka : 3.2.6

मन्त्र ६[III.ii.6]

श्रोत्रं वै ग्रहः । स शब्देनातिग्राहेण गृहीतः श्रोत्रेण हि

शब्दाञ्श‍ृणोति ।

mantra 6[III.ii.6]

śrotraṃ vai grahaḥ . sa śabdenātigrāheṇa gṛhītaḥ śrotreṇa hi

śabdāñśṛṇoti .



Meaning:- The ear indeed is the Graha; it is controlled by the Atigraha, sound, for one hears sounds through the ear.

Translation By Max Müller

6. 'The ear is one Graha, and that is seized by sound as the Atigrâha, for with the ear one hears sounds.'


Sloka : 3.2.7

मन्त्र ७[III.ii.7]

मनो वै ग्रहः । स कामेनातिग्राहेण गृहीतो मनसा हि कामान्कामयते ॥ ७॥

mantra 7[III.ii.7]

mano vai grahaḥ . sa kāmenātigrāheṇa gṛhīto manasā hi kāmānkāmayate .. 7..



Meaning:- The mind indeed is the Graha; it is controlled by the Atigraha, desire, for one wishes desires through the mind.

Translation By Max Müller

7. 'The mind is one Graha, and that is seized by desire as the Atigrâha, for with the mind one desires desires.'


Sloka : 3.2.8

मन्त्र ८[III.ii.8]

हस्तौ वै ग्रहः । स कर्मणाऽतिग्राहेण गृहीतो हस्ताभ्याꣳ हि

कर्म करोति ॥ ८॥

mantra 8[III.ii.8]

hastau vai grahaḥ . sa karmaṇā'tigrāheṇa gṛhīto hastābhyāgͫ hi

karma karoti .. 8..



Meaning:- The hands indeed is the Graha; it is controlled by the Atigraha, work, for one does work through the hands.

Translation By Max Müller

8. 'The arms are one Graha, and these are seized by work as the Atigrâha, for with the arms one works work.'


Sloka : 3.2.9

मन्त्र ९[II.ii.9]

त्वग्वै ग्रहः । स स्पर्शेनातिग्राहेण गृहीतस्त्वचा हि स्पर्शान्वेदयत ।

इत्येतेऽष्टौ ग्रहा अष्टावतिग्रहाः ॥ ९॥

mantra 9[II.ii.9]

tvagvai grahaḥ . sa sparśenātigrāheṇa gṛhītastvacā hi sparśānvedayata .

ityete'ṣṭau grahā aṣṭāvatigrahāḥ .. 9..



Meaning:-

Translation By Max Müller

9. 'The skin is one Graha, and that is seized by touch as the Atigrâha, for with the skin one perceives touch. These are the eight Grahas and the eight Atigrahas.'


Sloka : 3.2.10

मन्त्र १०[III.ii.10]

याज्ञवल्क्येति होवाच यदिदꣳ सर्वं मृत्योरन्नं का स्वित्सा देवता

यस्या मृत्युरन्नमित्यग्निर्वै मृत्युः सोऽपामन्नमप पुनर्मृत्युं

जयति ॥ १०॥

mantra 10[III.ii.10]

yājñavalkyeti hovāca yadidagͫ sarvaṃ mṛtyorannaṃ kā svitsā devatā

yasyā mṛtyurannamityagnirvai mṛtyuḥ so'pāmannamapa punarmṛtyuṃ

jayati .. 10..



Meaning:- 'Yajnavalkya', said he, 'since all this is the food of death, who is that god whose food is death?' 'Fire is death; it is the food of water. (One who knows thus) conquers further death'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- When the topic of the Grahas and Atigrahas (organs and objects) was concluded, Artabhaga, spoke again. 'Yajnavalkya,' said he, 'since all this manifested universe is the food of death --- everything is born and imperilled, being swallowd by death in the form of the Grahas and Atigrahas --- who is that god whose food is death even?' --- for another Sruti says, 'Whose sauce is death'(Ka. II. 25). The intention of the questioner is this:- If Yajnavalkya mentions the death of death, it will lead to an infinite regress. If, on the other hand, he does not mention it, liberation from this death in the form of the Grahas and
Atigrahas will be impossible. For liberation can take place only when this form of death is destroyed, and this would be possible if there be the death of death even. Hence, considering the question unanswerable, he asks, 'Who is that god?' (Yajnavalkya said):- There is the death of death.

Objection:- This will lead to an infinite regress, since that death too may have its death.
Reply:- No, because you cannot conceive another destroyer for that which is the death of all.
Objection:- How do you know that there is the death of death?
Reply:- We see it. Fire, for instancce, is the death of all, being a destroyer. But it is swallowed by water; hence it is the food of water. So believe that there is the death of death, and it swallows all the Grahas and Atigrahas. When these fetters are destroyed --- swallowed by that death --- liberation from relative existence becomes possible, for it has already been said that the Grahas and Atigrahas are the fetters. So it is clear that we can get rid of these; hence our efferts to get rid of bondgae are fruitful. Therefore (one who knows thus) conquers further death.

Translation By Max Müller

10. 'Yâgñavalkya,' he said, 'everything is the food of death. What then is the deity to whom death is food?' 'Fire (agni) is death, and that is the food of water. Death is conquered again.'


Sloka : 3.2.11

मन्त्र ११[III.ii.11]

याज्ञवल्क्येति होवाच यत्रायं पुरुषो म्रियत उदस्मात्प्राणाः

क्रामन्त्यहो३ नेति नेति होवाच याज्ञवल्क्योऽत्रैव समवनीयन्ते स

उच्छ्वयत्याध्मायति आध्मातो मृतः शेते ॥ ११॥

mantra 11[III.ii.11]

yājñavalkyeti hovāca yatrāyaṃ puruṣo mriyata udasmātprāṇāḥ

krāmantyaho3 neti neti hovāca yājñavalkyo'traiva samavanīyante sa

ucchvayatyādhmāyati ādhmāto mṛtaḥ śete .. 11..



Meaning:- 'Yajnavalkya', said he, 'when the (liberated) man dies, do his organs go up from him, or do they not?' 'No', replied Yajnavalkya, '(They) merge in him only. The body swells, is inflated, and in that state lies dead.'





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- 'When, after death (That is, the organs and objects.) has been swallowed by another death, viz the realisation of the Supreme Self, this liberated man of realisation dies, do his organs, such as those of speech, called the Grahas, and the Atigrahas, such as name, which in the form of impressions are in him and impel him to action, go up from him, the dying knower of Brahman, or do they not?' 'No,' replied Yajnavalkya, 'they do not. The organs and objects, becoming one with the Supreme Self, attain identity with, or merge in him only, their cause, the man of realisation, who is the Reality of the Supreme Brahman --- like waves in the ocean.' The following passage from another Sruti shows the dissolution of the organs, designated by the word 'digit,' in the Supreme Self, 'So do these sixteen digists of the seer, which have the Self as their merging place, dissolve on reaching It' (Pr. VI. 5). Here their identification with the Supreme Self is shown. Does not the man dies then? 'No, it is the body that dies, for it swells, is inflated by the external air like a pair of bellows, and in that state lies dead, motionless.' The gist of the passage is that the liberated man, after his bondage has been destroyed, does not go anywhere.

Translation By Max Müller

11. 'Yâgñavalkya,' he said, 'when such a person (a sage) dies, do the vital breaths (prânas) move out of him or no?' 'No,' replied Yâgñavalkya; 'they are gathered up in him, he swells, he is inflated, and thus inflated the dead lies at rest.'


Sloka : 3.2.12

मन्त्र १२[III.ii.12]

याज्ञवल्क्येति होवाच यत्रायं पुरुषो म्रियते किमेनं न जहातीति ।

नामेत्यनन्तं वै नामानन्ता विश्वे देवा अनन्तमेव स तेन लोकं जयति ॥ १२॥

mantra 12[III.ii.12]

yājñavalkyeti hovāca yatrāyaṃ puruṣo mriyate kimenaṃ na jahātīti .

nāmetyanantaṃ vai nāmānantā viśve devā anantameva sa tena lokaṃ jayati .. 12..



Meaning:- 'Yajnavalkya', said he, 'when this man dies, what is it that does not leave him?' 'Name. The name indeed is infinite, and infinite are the Visvadevas. He (who knows thus) wins thereby a really infinite world'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Is it only the organs of a liberated man that are merged, or is it also all (That is, the objects.) that moves them to action? If it is only the former, but not the latter, then with the presence of these stimulating causes the organs would again be likely to function. If, on the other hand, everything, such as desire and action, is merged, then only liberation is possible. It is to bring this out that the next question is put:- 'Yajnavalkya,' said he, 'when this man dies, what is it that does not leave him?' The other said:- Name. That is, everything is merged; only the name (That he is a liberated man. This too as others see it.) is left because of its relation to the type, for the name is eternal. The name indeed is infinite --- the infinity of the name is its eternity
--- and infinite are the Visvadevas, because they possess the infinity of the name. He (who knows thus) wins thereby a really infinite world. Having identified himself with the Visvadevas who possess the infinity of the name, he wins through this realisation nothing less than an infinite world.

Translation By Max Müller

12. 'Yâgñavalkya,' he said, 'when such a man dies, what does not leave him?' 'The name,' he replied; 'for the name is endless, the Visvedevas are endless, and by it he gains the endless world.'


Sloka : 3.2.13

मन्त्र १३[III.ii.13]

याज्ञवल्क्येति होवाच यत्रास्य पुरुषस्य मृतस्याग्निं वागप्येति वातं

प्राणश्चक्षुरादित्यं मनश्चन्द्रं दिशः श्रोत्रं पृथिवीꣳ

शरीरमाकाशमात्मौषधीर्लोमानि वनस्पतीन्केशा अप्सु लोहितं च

रेतश्च निधीयते क्वायं तदा पुरुषो भवतीत्यहर सौम्य हस्तं

आर्तभागेति होवाऽऽचावामेवैतस्य वेदिष्यावो न नावेतत्सजन इति । तौ

होत्क्रम्य मन्त्रयां चक्राते तौ ह यदूचतुः कर्म हैव तदूचतुरथ

ह यत्प्रशꣳसतुः कर्म हैव तत् प्रशꣳसतुः पुण्यो वै पुण्येन

कर्मणा भवति पापः पापेनेति । ततो ह जारत्कारव आर्तभाग उपरराम ॥ १३॥

इति द्वितीयं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ तृतीयं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 13[III.ii.13]

yājñavalkyeti hovāca yatrāsya puruṣasya mṛtasyāgniṃ vāgapyeti vātaṃ

prāṇaścakṣurādityaṃ manaścandraṃ diśaḥ śrotraṃ pṛthivīgͫ

śarīramākāśamātmauṣadhīrlomāni vanaspatīnkeśā apsu lohitaṃ ca

retaśca nidhīyate kvāyaṃ tadā puruṣo bhavatītyahara saumya hastaṃ

ārtabhāgeti hovā''cāvāmevaitasya vediṣyāvo na nāvetatsajana iti . tau

hotkramya mantrayāṃ cakrāte tau ha yadūcatuḥ karma haiva tadūcaturatha

ha yatpraśagͫsatuḥ karma haiva tat praśagͫsatuḥ puṇyo vai puṇyena

karmaṇā bhavati pāpaḥ pāpeneti . tato ha jāratkārava ārtabhāga upararāma .. 13..

iti dvitīyaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha tṛtīyaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- 'Yajnavalkya', said he, 'when the vocal organ of a man who dies is merged in fire, the nose in air, the eye in the sun, the mind in the moon, the ear in the quarters, the body in the earth, the ether of the heart in the external ether, the hair on the body in herbs, that on the head in trees, and the blood and the seed are deposited in water, where is then the man?' 'Give me your hand, dear Artabhaga, we will decide this between ourselves, we cannot do it in a crowded place.' They went out and talked it over. What they mentioned there was only work, and what they praised there was also work alone. (Therefore) one indeed becomes good through good work and evil through evil work. Thereupon Artabhaga, of the line of Jaratkaru, kept silent.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- The death that consists in bondage in the form of the Grahas and Atigrahas (organs and objects) has beenn described, and because that death has its death, liberation is possible. This liberation is the dissolution, here itself, of the Grahas and Atigrahas, like the extinction of a light. It is to ascertain the nature of the stimulating cause of that death which consists in the bondage called the Grahas and Atigrahas that this paragraph is introduced. 'Yajnavalkya,' said he.

Here some (The reference is to Bhatrprapanca.) say:- Even though the Grahas and Atrigrahas together with their stimulating cause are rooted out, a man is not liberated. Separated from the Supreme Self by ignoracne, which springs from himself and is comparable to a desert (on earth), and at the same time turning away from the world of enjoyment, he, with his name only left and his desires and past work rooted out, remains in an intermediate stage. His perception of duality should be removed by the realisation of the unity of the Supreme Self. So now meditation on the Supreme Self has to be introduced. Thus this school conceives an intermediate stage called Apavarga or release, and establishes a link with the next section.

Now we ask these people how it is that the disembodied man, after his organs have been destroyed, attains the realisation of the Supreme Self through hearing, reflection and meditation. They themselves maintain that a man whose organs have been dissolved has only his name left, the Sruti too says, '(The body) lies dead' (III. ii. 11). So they cannot even in imagination establish their position. If, on the other hand, they think that a man, during his very lifetime, has only ignorance left in him and turns away from the world of enjoyment, they should explain what this is due to. If they would attribute it to his identification with the whole universe, individual and collective, it has already been refuted. (Only two courses are open:-) Either the sage, endowed with meditation on his identity with the universe, individual and collective, combined with rites, may, after death, with his organs dissolved, attain identity with the universe or with Hiranyagarbha. Or in his ver lifetime he may, with his organs intact, turn away --- become averse --- from the world of enjoyment and be inclined towards the realisation of the Supreme Self. But both cannot be attained through means requiring one and the same effort:- If the effort be the means of attaining the state of Hiranyagarbha, it cannot be the means of turning away from the world of enjoyment; and if it be the means of turning away from the world of enjoyment, and inclining towards the Supreme Self, it cannot be the means of attaining the state of Hiranyagarbha, for what helps to cause motion cannot at the same time help to stop it. If, on the other hand, he attains after death the state of Hiranyagarbha, and then, with his organs dissolved and only the name left, is qualified (as Hiranyagarbha) for the knowledge of the Supreme Self, then instruction about the knowledge of the Supreme Self for us ordinary people would be meaningless; whereas such Sruti texts as, 'Whoever among the gods knew It (also became That),' etc. (I. iv. 10), teach that the knowledge of Brahman is for bringing the highest end of life within the reach of all. Therefore the above conceit is very poor and altogether contrary to the teachings of the scriptues. Now let us return to our subject.

In order to ascertain what starts the bondage known as the Grahas and Atigrahas (organs and objects) the text says:- When the vocal organ of a man who dies without attaining the highest knowledge, and remaining possessed of the idea that he has a head, hands, etc., is merged in fire, the nose is merged in air, the eye in the sun --- the verb 'is merged' is understood in each case --- the mind in the moon, the ear in the quarters, the body in the earth. The word 'Atman' here means the ether of the heart, which is the seat of the self:- it is merged in the external ether. The hair on the body is merged in herbs, that on the head is merged in trees, and the blood and the seed are deposited in water:- The word 'deposited' indicates that they are to be withdrawn (When a new body is taken.). In every case the words 'vocal organ' etc. refer to their presiding deities; the organs themselves do not depart before liberation. When the presiding deities cease to work, the organs become like tools, such as a bill-hook, laid down; and the agent, man, being disembodied, is helpless. So the question is being asked regarding his support, 'Where is then the man?' --- i.e. on what does he then rest? The question is:- 'What is that support resting on which he again takes the body and organs, and which starts the bondage known as the Grahas and Atigrahas?'
The answer is being given:- 'Exponents of different schools have put forward different things, viz nature (These are respectively advocated by the Mimamsakas, materialists, astrologers, Vaidikas, believers in the gods, idealists, and nihilists --- the last two being Buddhist schools.), chance, time, work, destiny, mere consciousness, and void, as the support in question. Therefore, being open to various disputes, the truth cannot be ascertained by the usual method of defeating the opponent. If you want to know the truth in this matter, give me your hand, dear Artabhaga, we will decide this question that you have asked between ourselves. Why? Because we cannot decide it in a crowded place, and we must retire to a solitary place to discuss it.' They went out, etc. is the narration of the Sruti. What Yajnavalkya and Artabhaga did after retiring to the solitary place is being stated:- They went out of the crowded place and talked it over. First they took up one after another the different conventional views on the subject and discussed them. Listen what they mentioned at the end of the discussion, after refuting all the tentative views. There they mentioned only work as the support which caused the repeated taking up of the body and organs. Not only this:- having accepted time, work, destiny and God as causes, what they praised there was work alone. Since it is decided that the repeated taking up of the body and organs, known also as the Grahas and Atigrahas, is due to work, therefore one indeed becomes good through good work enjoined by the scriptures, and becomes its opposite, evil, through the opposite or evil work. When Yajnavalkya had thus answered his questions, Artabhaga, of the line of Jaratkaru, thereupon, finding it impossible to dislodge him, kept silent.

Translation By Max Müller

13. 'Yâgñavalkya,' he said,' when the speech of this dead person enters into the fire [1], breath into the air, the eye into the sun, the mind into the moon, the hearing into space, into the earth the body, into the ether the self, into the shrubs the hairs of the body, into the trees the hairs of the head, when the blood and the seed are deposited in the water, where is then that person?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Take my hand, my friend. We two alone shall know of this; let this question of ours not be (discussed) in public.' Then these two went out and argued, and what they said was karman (work), what they praised was karman [2], viz. that a man becomes good by good work, and bad by bad work. After that Gâratkârava Ârtabhâga held his peace.

Footnote:

1. The commentator explains purusha here by asamyagdarsin, one who does not know the whole truth. See also Deussen, Vedânta, p. 405, and p. 399, note. 2. What is intended is that the samsâra continues by means of karman, while karman by itself never leads to moksha.


Sloka : 3.3.1

मन्त्र १[III.iii.1]

अथ हैनं भुज्युर्लाह्यायनिः पप्रच्छ । याज्ञवल्क्येति

होवाच मद्रेषु चरकाः पर्यव्रजाम ते पतञ्चलस्य काप्यस्य

गृहानैम । तस्याऽऽसीद् दुहिता गन्धर्वगृहीता तमपृच्छाम

कोऽसीति । सोऽब्रवीत् सुधन्वाऽऽङ्गिरस इति । तं यदा

लोकानामन्तानपृच्छामाथैतदथैनमब्रूम क्व पारिक्षिता अभवन्निति

क्व पारिक्षिता अभवन् स त्वा पृच्छामि याज्ञवल्क्य क्व पारिक्षिता

अभवन्निति ॥ १॥

mantra 1[III.iii.1]

atha hainaṃ bhujyurlāhyāyaniḥ papraccha . yājñavalkyeti

hovāca madreṣu carakāḥ paryavrajāma te patañcalasya kāpyasya

gṛhānaima . tasyā''sīd duhitā gandharvagṛhītā tamapṛcchāma

ko'sīti . so'bravīt sudhanvā''ṅgirasa iti . taṃ yadā

lokānāmantānapṛcchāmāthaitadathainamabrūma kva pārikṣitā abhavanniti

kva pārikṣitā abhavan sa tvā pṛcchāmi yājñavalkya kva pārikṣitā

abhavanniti .. 1..



Meaning:- Then Bhujyu, the grandson of Lahya, asked him. 'Yajnavalkya', said he, 'we travelled in Madra as students, and we came to the house of Patanchala of the line of Kapi. His daughter was possessed by a Gandharva. We asked him, "Who are you?" He said, "I am Sudhanvan, of the line of Angiras". When we asked him about the limits of the world, we said to him, "Where were the descendants of Pariksit?" And I ask you, Yajnavalkya, where were the descendants of Pariksit? (Tell me) where were the descendants of Pariksit?'





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Then, when the descendant of Jaratkaru had stopped, the grandson of Lahya named Bhujyu asked him. 'Yajnavalkya,' said he. The meditation on the horse sacrifice has been spoken of at the beginning of the book, and this sacrifice produces both collective and individual results. Whether combined with meditation, or performed exclusively through it, it is the highest of all rites. The Smrti says, 'There is nothing more heinous than killing a noble Brahmana nor anything more meritorious than the horse sacrifice,' for through it one attains both collective and individual results. Of these, whatever (The reference is to the gods such as fire, sun and air.) is within the universe has been shown to be the individual results of the horse sacrifice. While it has been said, 'Death (This is the collective result.) becomes his self, and he becomes one with these deities' (I. ii. 7). This Death is Hunger, and is variously called Cosmic Intelligence, the Aggregate, the First-born, Air, Cosmic Energy, Satya and Hiranyagarbha. That which is the essence of the whole universe, individual and collective, which is the inner self or subtle body of all beings, the essence of the subtle, in which the actions of all beings inhere, and which is the highet result of rites as also of the meditations connected with them --- has the manifested universe for its field. How far its range is --- what is its extent, spreading all round like a globe, has to be stated. If this is done, the entire world of bondage will have been described. In order to show the extraordinary character of the meditation on identity with that universe, collective and individual, Bhujyu mentions an incident of his own life. He thinks of confusing his opponent by this means.
'We travelled in the territory called Madra as students, observing the appropriate vow for study, or as priests called Adhvaryus, and we came to the house of Patancala, of the line of Kapi. His daughter was possessed by a Gandharva,' some being other than human; or the word may mean the fire that is worshipped in the house --- the deity who is a priest (to the gods). We conclude thus from his special knowledge, for an ordinary being cannot possibly have such knowledge. 'We all sat round him and asked him, 'Who are you? --- What is your name, and what kind of being are you?' He, the Gandharva, said, 'I am named Sudhanvan, of the line of Angiras.' When we asked him about the limits of the world, we, among that group desirous of knowing the extent of the cosmic orb, priding ourselves upon our good fortune, said to him --- what? --- 'Where were the descendants of Pariksit (Their names are given in S. XIII. v. iv. 1 ' 3.)?' And the Gandharva told us all about it. So I have been instructed by a celestial being, and you do not have that knowledge; hence you are defeated.' This is his idea. 'Being possessed of this revealed knowledge from The Gandharva, I ask you, Yajnavalkya, where were the descendants of Pariksit? Do you know this, Yajnavalkya? Tell me, I ask you, where were the descendants of Pariksit?'

Translation By Max Müller

1. Then Bhugyu Lâhyâyani asked. 'Yâgñavalkya,' he said, 'we wandered about as students [1], and came to the house of Patañkala Kâpya. He had a daughter who was possessed by a Gandharva. We asked him, 'Who art thou?' and he (the Gandharva) replied:- 'I am Sudhanvan, the Âṅgirasa.' And when we asked him about the ends of the world, we said to him, 'Where were the Pârikshitas [2]? Where then were the Pârikshitas, I ask thee, Yâgñavalkya, where were the Pârikshitas?'

Footnote:

1. The commentator explains karakâh as adhyayanârtham vratakaranâk karakâh, adhvaryavo vâ. See Professor R. G. Bhandarkar, in Indian Antiquary, 1883, p. 145. 2. An old royal race, supposed to have vanished from the earth.


Sloka : 3.3.2

मन्त्र २[III.iii.2]

स होवाचोवाच वै सोऽगच्छन्वै ते तद् यत्राश्वमेधयाजिनो

गच्छन्तीति । क्व न्वश्वमेधयाजिनो गच्छन्तीति । द्वात्रिꣳशतं

वै देवरथाह्न्यान्ययं लोकस्तꣳ समन्तं पृथिवी द्विस्तावत्पर्येति

ताꣳ समन्तं पृथिवी द्विस्तावत्समुद्रः पर्येति । तद्यावती क्षुरस्य

धारा यावद्वा मक्षिकायाः पत्रं तावानन्तरेणाऽऽकाशस्तान् इन्द्रः

सुपर्णो भूत्वा वायवे प्रायच्छत् तान् वायुरात्मनि धित्वा तत्रागमयद्यत्र

अश्वमेधयाजिनोऽभवन्नित्येवमिव वै स वायुमेव प्रशशꣳस

तस्माद्वायुरेव व्यष्टिर्वायुः समष्टिरप पुनर्मृत्युं जयति य एवं

वेद । ततो ह भुज्युर्लाह्यायनिरुपरराम ॥ २॥

इति तृतीयं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ चतुर्थं ब्रह्मणम् ।

mantra 2[III.iii.2]

sa hovācovāca vai so'gacchanvai te tad yatrāśvamedhayājino

gacchantīti . kva nvaśvamedhayājino gacchantīti . dvātrigͫśataṃ

vai devarathāhnyānyayaṃ lokastagͫ samantaṃ pṛthivī dvistāvatparyeti

tāgͫ samantaṃ pṛthivī dvistāvatsamudraḥ paryeti . tadyāvatī kṣurasya

dhārā yāvadvā makṣikāyāḥ patraṃ tāvānantareṇā''kāśastān indraḥ

suparṇo bhūtvā vāyave prāyacchat tān vāyurātmani dhitvā tatrāgamayadyatra

aśvamedhayājino'bhavannityevamiva vai sa vāyumeva praśaśagͫsa

tasmādvāyureva vyaṣṭirvāyuḥ samaṣṭirapa punarmṛtyuṃ jayati ya evaṃ

veda . tato ha bhujyurlāhyāyanirupararāma .. 2..

iti tṛtīyaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha caturthaṃ brahmaṇam .



Meaning:- Yajnavalkya said, 'The Gandharva evidently told you that they went where the performers of the horse sacrifice go'. 'And where do the performers of the horse sacrifice go?' 'Thirty-two times the space covered by the sun's chariot in a day makes this world; around it, covering twice the area, is the earth; around the earth, covering twice the area, is the ocean. Now, as is the edge of a razor, or the wing of a fly, so is there just that much opening at the junction (of the two halves of the cosmic shell). (Through that they go out.) Fire, in the form of a falcon, delivered them to the air; the air, putting them in itself, took them where the (previous) performers of the horse sacrifice were'. Thus did the Gandharva praise the air. Therefore the air is the diversity of individuals, and the air is the aggregate. He who knows it as such conquers further death. Thereupon Bhujyu, the grandson of Lahya, kept silent.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Yajnavalkya said, 'The Gandharva evidently told you that they, the descendants of Pariksit, went where the performers of the horse sacrifice go.' The particle 'vai' recalls a past incident. When his question was answered, Bhujyu asked, 'And where do the performers of the horse sacrifice go?' With a view to telling where they go, Yajnavalkya described the dimensions of the cosmic orb:- Thirty-two times the space covered by the sun's chariot in a day makes this world, surrounded by the mountain Lokaloka. This is the world which constitutes the body of Viraj, and in which people reap the fruits of their past actions.

This much is the Loka; beyond this is the Aloka. Around it, covering twice the area of this world is the earth. Similarly around the earth, covering twice the area, is the ocean, which the writers of the Puranas name after rain-water. Now the size of the opening at the junction of the two halves of the cosmic shell is being given. Through this opening as an exit the performers of the horse sacrifice go out and spread. Now, as is the edge of a razor, or the wing of a fly possessed of fineness, so is there just that much opening at the junction (of the two halves of the cosmic shell). The word 'Indra' is a synonym of God; here it refers to the fire that is kindled in the horse sacrifice, and the meditation on which has been described in the words, 'His head is the east,' etc. (I. ii. 3). Fire, in the form of a falcon, with wings, tails, etc., delivered them, the descendants of Parksit, who had performed the horse sacrifice and had attained fire to the air, because, being gross, it itself had no access there. The air, putting them in itself, making them a part of itself, took them where the previous performers of the horse sacrifice were. Thus did the Gandharva praise the air, which was the goal (Being the cosmic vital force.) of the performers of the horse sacrifice.
The story is finished:- but the Sruti gives us the gist of it directly, stepping out of the garb of the story. Because the air (vital force) is the inner self of all beings, moving and stationary, and is also outside them, therefore the air is the diversity of individuals, in forms relating to the body, the elements and the
gods; similarly the air is the aggregate, as the one cosmic vital force. He who knows it as such attains identity with the air in its individual and collective form.
 
What he gains by this is being stated:- He conquers further death, i.e. after dying once, he dies no more. Thereupon, when his question had been answered, Bhujyu, the grandson of Lahya, kept silent.

Translation By Max Müller

2. Yâgñavalkya said:- 'He said to thee, I suppose, that they went where those go who have performed a horse-sacrifice.' He said:- 'And where do they go who have performed a horse-sacrifice?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'Thirty-two journeys of the car of the sun is this world. The earth surrounds it on every side, twice as large, and the ocean surrounds this earth on every side, twice as large. Now there is between [1] them a space as large as the edge of a razor or the wing of a mosquito. Indra, having become a bird, handed them (through the space) to Vâyu (the air), and Vâyu (the air), holding them within himself, conveyed them to where they dwell who have performed a horse-sacrifice. Somewhat in this way did he praise Vâyu indeed. Therefore Vâyu (air) is everything by itself, and Vâyu is all things together. He who knows this, conquers death.' After that Bhugyu Lâhyâyani held his peace.

Footnote:

1. The commentator explains that this small space or hole is between the two halves of the mundane egg.


Sloka : 3.4.1

मन्त्र १[III.iv.1]

अथ हैनमूषस्तश्चाक्रायणः पप्रच्छ । याज्ञवल्क्येति होवाच

यत्साक्षादपरोक्षाद्ब्रह्म य आत्मा सर्वान्तरस्तं मे व्याचक्ष्वेत्येष त

आत्मा सर्वान्तरः । कतमो याज्ञवल्क्य सर्वान्तरो । यः प्राणेन प्राणिति

स त आत्मा सर्वान्तरो योऽपानेनापानिति स त आत्मा सर्वान्तरो यो व्यानेन

व्यानिति स त आत्मा सर्वान्तरो य उदानेनोदानिति स त आत्मा सर्वान्तर

एष त आत्मा सर्वान्तरः ॥ १॥

mantra 1[III.iv.1]

atha hainamūṣastaścākrāyaṇaḥ papraccha . yājñavalkyeti hovāca

yatsākṣādaparokṣādbrahma ya ātmā sarvāntarastaṃ me vyācakṣvetyeṣa ta

ātmā sarvāntaraḥ . katamo yājñavalkya sarvāntaro . yaḥ prāṇena prāṇiti

sa ta ātmā sarvāntaro yo'pānenāpāniti sa ta ātmā sarvāntaro yo vyānena

vyāniti sa ta ātmā sarvāntaro ya udānenodāniti sa ta ātmā sarvāntara

eṣa ta ātmā sarvāntaraḥ .. 1..



Meaning:- Then Usata, the son of Chakra, asked him. 'Yajnavalkya', said he, 'explain to me the Brahman that is immediate and direct - the self that is within all.' 'This is your self that is within all'. 'Which is within all, Yajnavalkya?' 'That which breathes through the Prana is your self that is within all. That which moves downwards through the Apana is your self that is within all. That which pervades through the Vyana is your self that is within all. That which goes out through the Udana is your self that is within all. This is your self that is within all.'





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Then Usata, the son of Cakra, asked him, Yajnavalkya, who has already been introduced. The Brahman that is
immediate, not obstructed from the seer or subject by anything, and direct, not used in a figurative sense, like the ear and so forth, which are considered to be Brahman. What is that? The self that is within all. The word 'self' refers to the inner (individual) self, that being the accepted meaning of the term. The words 'Yat' and 'Yah' (Neuter and masculine forms of the Sanskrti word meaning 'that'.) indicate that the self familiar to all is identical with Brahman. Explain that self to me, speak about it clearly, as one shows a cow by taking hold of its horns, as much as to say, 'This is it.'

Thus addressed, Yajnavalkya replied, 'This is your self that is within all.' The qualification 'that is within all' is suggestive of all qualifications whatsoever. That which is 'immediate' or unobstructed, and 'direct' or used in its primary sense, and which is 'Brahman' or the vastest, the self of all and within all --- all these specifications refer to the self. 'What is that?', 'This self of yours? --- that by which your body and organs are ensouled is your self, i.e. the self of the body and organs.' 'There is first the body; within it is the subtle body consisting of the organs; and the third is that whose existence is being doubted. Which of these do you mean as my self that is within all?' Thus spoken to, Yajnavalkya said, 'That which breathes (lit. does the function of the Prana) through the Prana, which operates in the mouth and nose, in other words, 'which makes the Prana breathe' (Ke. I. 9), is your self. i.e. the individual self of the body and organs.' The rest is similar in meaning. That which moves downwards through the Apana, which pervades through the Vyana --- the long i in the two verbs in this clause is a Vedic licence --- by which the body and organs are made to breathe and do other functions, like a wooden puppet. Unless they are operated by an intelligent principle, they cannot do any such function such as breathing, as is the case with the wooden puppet. Therefore it is on account of being operated by the individual self, which is distinct from them, that they breathe and do other functions, as does the puppet. Hence that principle distinct from the body and organs exists which makes them function.

Translation By Max Müller

1. Then Ushasta Kâkrâyana asked. 'Yâgñavalkya,' he said, 'tell me the Brahman which is visible, not invisible [1], the Self (âtman), who is within all.' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'This, thy Self, who is within all.' 'Which Self, O Yâgñavalkya, is within all?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'He who breathes in the up-breathing, he is thy Self, and within all. He who breathes in the down-breathing, he is thy Self, and within all. He who breathes in the on-breathing, he is thy Self, and within all. He who breathes in the out-breathing, he is thy Self, and within all. This is thy Self, who is within all.'

Footnote:

1. Deussen, Vedanta, p. 163, translates, 'das immanente, nicht transcendente Brahman,' which is right, but too modern.


Sloka : 3.4.2

मन्त्र २[III.iv.2]

स होवाचोषस्तश्चाक्रायणः यथा विब्रूयादसौ गौरसावश्व

इत्येवमेवैतद्व्यपदिष्टं भवति । यदेव साक्षादपरोक्षाद् ब्रह्म

य आत्मा सर्वान्तरः तं मे व्याचक्ष्वेति । एष त आत्मा सर्वान्तरः ।

कतमो याज्ञवल्क्य सर्वान्तरो । न दृष्टेर्द्रष्टारं पश्येर्न श्रुतेः

श्रोतारꣳ श‍ृणुया न मतेर्मन्तारं मन्वीथा न विज्ञातेर्विज्ञातारं

विजानीया एष त आत्मा सर्वान्तरोऽतोऽन्यदार्तं ततो होषस्तस्चाक्रायण

उपरराम ॥ २॥

इति चतुर्थं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ पञ्चमं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 2[III.iv.2]

sa hovācoṣastaścākrāyaṇaḥ yathā vibrūyādasau gaurasāvaśva

ityevamevaitadvyapadiṣṭaṃ bhavati . yadeva sākṣādaparokṣād brahma

ya ātmā sarvāntaraḥ taṃ me vyācakṣveti . eṣa ta ātmā sarvāntaraḥ .

katamo yājñavalkya sarvāntaro . na dṛṣṭerdraṣṭāraṃ paśyerna śruteḥ

śrotāragͫ śṛṇuyā na matermantāraṃ manvīthā na vijñātervijñātāraṃ

vijānīyā eṣa ta ātmā sarvāntaro'to'nyadārtaṃ tato hoṣastascākrāyaṇa

upararāma .. 2..

iti caturthaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha pañcamaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- Usata, the son of Chakra, said, 'You have indicated it as one may say that a cow is such and such, or a horse is such and such. Explain to me the Brahman that is immediate and direct - the self that is within all'. 'This is your self that is within all'. 'Which is within all, Yajnavalkya?' 'You cannot see that which is the witness of vision; you cannot hear that which is the hearer of hearing; you cannot think that which is the thinker of thought; you cannot know that which is the knower of knowledge. This is your self that is within all; everything else but this is perishable.' Thereupon Usata, the son of Chakra, kept silent.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Usasta, the son of Cakra, said:- As somebody first proposes one thing and then, being in doubt, may say something else --- for instance, having proposed to point out a cow or a horse, he merely describes them through certain characteristics of theirs, such as walking, and says, 'A cow is that which walks,' or 'A horse is that which runs' --- so you too have indicated Brahman through certain characteristics, such as breathing. To be brief, give up your trick prompted by your hankering after the cows, and explain to me the Brahman that is immediate and direct --- the self that is within all. Yajnavalkya replied:- I stick to the proposition that I first made, that your self is such and such; it is exactly as I have described it.
You asked me to present the self as one would a jar etc. I do not do so, because it is impossible. Why is it impossible? Owing to the very nature of the thing. What is that? Its being the witness of vision etc., for the self is the witness of vision. Vision is of two kinds, ordinary and real. Ordinary vision is a function of the mind as connected with the eye; it is an act, and as such it has a beginning and an end. But the vision that belongs to the self is like the heat and light of fire; being the very essence of the witness, it has neither beginning nor end. Because it appears to be connected with the ordinary vision, which is produced and is but a limiting adjunct of it, it is spoken of as the witness, and also as differentiated into witness and vision. The ordinary vision, however, is coloured by the objects seen through the eye, and of course has a beginning; it appears to be connected with the ternal vision of the self, and is but its reflection; it originates and ends, pervaded by the other. It is therefore that the eternal vision of the self is metaphorically spoken of as the witness, and although eternal seeing, is spoken of as sometimes seeing and sometimes not seeing. But as a matter of fact the vision of the seer never changes. So it will be said in the fourth chapter, 'It thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were' (IV. iii. 7), and 'The vision of the witness can never be lost' (IV. iii. 23).

This is the meaning of the following passage:- You cannot see that which is the witness of vision, i.e. which pervades by its eternal vision the act of our ordinary vision. This latter, which is an act, is affected by the objects seen, and reveals only colour (form), but not the inner self that pervades it. Therefore you cannot see that inner self which is the witness of vision. Similarly you cannot hear that which is the hearer of hearing; you cannot think that which pervades thought, the mere function of the mind; you cannot know that which pervades knowledge, the mere function of the intellect. This is the very nature of the thing; therefore it cannot be shown like a cow etc.
Some (Bhartrprapanca is meant.) explainn the passage, 'You cannot see the witness of vision,' etc. differently. According to them, 'the witness of vision' means 'that which sees,' the agent or cause of vision in general, without any distinction of kind. In other words, they regard the genitive case in the term 'of vision' as having accusative force. That vision is caused and is an effect, like a jar. The suffix in the word 'Drastr' (witness) indicates agency. Therefore, these commentators opine, the expression 'the witness of vision' means 'the agent of vision'. But they fail to see that the term 'of vision' then becomes redundant; or even if they see it, they take it as a repetition, or as a faulty reading not worth anything, and pay no attention to it. How are the words redundant? They are redundant, because the word 'Drastr' itself would be enough to indicate the agency of vision; then one should only say, 'You cannot see the witness.' For the text uses the suffix 'trc' with the verb, and in grammar this always indicates agency of the act denoted by the verb. We only say, 'One is conducting the traveller or the cutter'; we should not, in the absence of any special meaning, say, 'the traveller of travelling, or 'the cutter of cutting.'Nor should the extra words be dismissed as a mere elucidation, if there is any alternative explanation; and it is not a faulty reading, since all (Students of both Kanva and Madhyandina recensions.) unanimously accept it. Therefore it is a defect of the commentators' understanding, and not a mistake on the part of the students.
But the way we have explained it, viz that the self endowed with eternal vision, as opposed to the ordinary vision, should be pointed out, accounts for the two words 'witness' and
'vision' (in the expression 'the witness of vision') as describing the subject and the object, with a view to defining the nature of the self. It will also agree with the passage, 'The vision of the witness (can never be lost)' etc. (IV. iii. 23), occurring elsewhere, as also with the clauses, '(Through which) the eyes see' (Ke. I. 7), '(By which) this ear is heard' (Ke. I. , occurring in another text. It is also consonant with reason. In other words, the self can be eternal if only it is immutable; it is a conntradiction in terms to say that a thing is changeful and yet eternal. Moreover, the Sruti texts, 'It thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were' (IV. iii. 22), 'The vision of the witness can never be lost,' and 'This is the eternal glory of a knower of Brahman' (IV. iv. 23), would otherwise be inconsistent.

Objection:- But such terms as 'witness,' 'hearer,' 'thinker' and 'knower' would also be inconsistent if the self is immutable.
Reply:- Not so, for they only repeat conventional expressions as people think them. They do not seek to define the truth of the self. Since the expressions 'the witness of vision' etc. cannot otherwise be explained, we conclude that they mean what we have indicated. Therefore the opponents' rejection of the qualifying term 'of vision' is only due to ignorance. This is your self specified by all those above-mentioned epithets. Everything else but this self, whether it is the gross body or the subtle body consisting of the organs, is perishable. This only is imperishable, changeless. Thereupon Usasta, the son of Cakra, kept silent.

Translation By Max Müller

2. Ushasta Kâkrâyana said:- 'As one might say, this is a cow, this is a horse, thus has this been explained by thee. Tell me the Brahman which is visible, not invisible, the Self, who is within all.' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'This, thy Self, who is within all.' 'Which Self, O Yâgñavalkya, is within all?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'Thou couldst not see the (true) seer of sight, thou couldst not hear the (true) hearer of hearing, nor perceive the perceiver of perception, nor know the knower of knowledge. This is thy Self, who is within all. Everything also is of evil.' After that Ushasta Kâkrâyana held his peace.


Sloka : 3.5.1

मन्त्र १[III.v.1]

अथ हैनं कहोलः कौषीतकेयः पप्रच्छ पप्रच्छ याज्ञवल्क्येति

होवाच यदेव साक्षादपरोक्षाद्ब्रह्म य आत्मा सर्वान्तरस्तं मे

व्याचक्ष्वेत्येष त आत्मा सर्वान्तरः । कतमो याज्ञवल्क्य सर्वान्तरो ।

योऽशनायापिपासे शोकं मोहं जरां मृत्युमत्येत्येतं वै तमात्मानं

विदित्वा ब्राह्मणाः पुत्रैषणायाश्च वित्तैषणायाश्च लोकैषणायाश्च

व्युत्थायाथ भिक्षाचर्यं चरन्ति । या ह्येव पुत्रैषणा सा वित्तैषणा

या वित्तैषणा सा लोकैषणोभे ह्येते एषणे एव भवतस्तस्माद्ब्राह्मणः

पाण्डित्यं निर्विद्य बाल्येन तिष्ठासेत् । बाल्यं च पाण्डित्यं च

निर्विद्याथ मुनिरमौनं च मौनं च निर्विद्याथ ब्राह्मणः । स

ब्राह्मणः केन स्याद् येन स्यात् तेनेदृश एवातोऽन्यदार्तम् । य एवं

वेद एवातोऽन्यदार्तम् । ततो ह कहोलः कौषीतकेय उपरराम ॥ १॥

इति पञ्चमं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ षष्ठं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 1[III.v.1]

atha hainaṃ kaholaḥ kauṣītakeyaḥ papraccha papraccha yājñavalkyeti

hovāca yadeva sākṣādaparokṣādbrahma ya ātmā sarvāntarastaṃ me

vyācakṣvetyeṣa ta ātmā sarvāntaraḥ . katamo yājñavalkya sarvāntaro .

yo'śanāyāpipāse śokaṃ mohaṃ jarāṃ mṛtyumatyetyetaṃ vai tamātmānaṃ

viditvā brāhmaṇāḥ putraiṣaṇāyāśca vittaiṣaṇāyāśca lokaiṣaṇāyāśca

vyutthāyātha bhikṣācaryaṃ caranti . yā hyeva putraiṣaṇā sā vittaiṣaṇā

yā vittaiṣaṇā sā lokaiṣaṇobhe hyete eṣaṇe eva bhavatastasmādbrāhmaṇaḥ

pāṇḍityaṃ nirvidya bālyena tiṣṭhāset . bālyaṃ ca pāṇḍityaṃ ca

nirvidyātha muniramaunaṃ ca maunaṃ ca nirvidyātha brāhmaṇaḥ . sa

brāhmaṇaḥ kena syād yena syāt tenedṛśa evāto'nyadārtam . ya evaṃ

veda evāto'nyadārtam . tato ha kaholaḥ kauṣītakeya upararāma .. 1..

iti pañcamaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha ṣaṣṭhaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- Then Kahola, the son of Kusitaka, asked him, 'Yajnavalkya', said he, 'explain to me the Brahman that is immediate and direct - the self that is within all'. 'This is your self that is within all'. 'Which is within all, Yajnavalkya?' 'That which transcends hunger and thirst, grief, delusion, decay and death. Knowing this very Self the Brahmanas renounce the desire for sons, for wealth and for the worlds, and lead a mendicant's life. That which is the desire for sons is the desire for wealth, and that which is the desire for wealth is the desire for worlds, for both these are but desires. Therefore the knower of Brahman, having known all about scholarship, should try to live upon that strength which comes of knowledge; having known all about this strength and scholarship, he becomes meditative; having known all about both meditativeness and its opposite, he becomes a knower of Brahman. How does that knower of b behave? Howsoever he may behave, he is just such. Except this, everything is perishable.' Thereupon Kahola, the son of Kusitaka, kept silent.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Then Kahola, the son of Kusitaka, asked him, 'Yajnavalkya,' said he --- to be explained as before --- 'explain to me the Brahman that is immediate and direct --- the self that is within all,' knowing which one is freed from bondage. Yajnavalkya said, 'This is your self.

Question:- Do Usasta and Kahola ask about one and the same self, or do they ask of different selves having similar characteristics?
Some (Bhartrprapanca is meant.) say:- It ought to be different selves,, for then only can the two questions be other than a repetition. Had Usasta and Kahola asked about the same self, then one question having dealt with that, the second would have been redundant; and the passage in question is not a mere elucidation. Therefore the two selves must be different, viz the individual self and the Supreme Self.
Reply:- No, because of the use of the word 'your.' It has been said in the reply, 'This is your self' (III. iv. 1 ' 2; this text), and the same aggregate of body and organs cannot have two selves, for each aggregate possesses a single self. Nor can Usasta and Kahola mean selves essentially different from each other, since both cannot be primary and self and within all. If one of the two be Brahman in a primary sense, the other must be secondary; similarly with selfhood and being within all, for these terms are contradictory. If one of the two Brahmans be the self, primary and within all, then the other must be non-self, secondary and not within all. Therefore one and the same self has been mentioned twice with a view to telling something special about it. That part only of the second question which is common to the first is a repetition of the latter, and the second question is introduced in order to furnish some detail not mentioned before.

Objection:- What is this detail?
Reply:- It is this. In the first question it has been stated that there is a self distinct from the body, whose bondage together with its stimulating causes has been spoken of:- but in the second something more is added, viz that this self is beyond such relative attributes as hunger --- a detail, by knowing which, together with renunciation, one is freed from the bondage above spoken of. Therefore we conclude that in both cases the question and answer, ending with the words, 'This is your self that is within all,' have an identical meaning.

Objection:- How can the same self possess contradictory attributes, such as being beyond hunger etc. and having them?
Reply:- The objection is not valid, having already been refuted. We have repeatedly said that the relative existence of the self is but a delusion caused by its association with limiting adjuncts, such as the body and organs, which are but the modifications of name and form. We have also made this clear while explaining the apparently contradictory passages of the Srutis. For instance, a rope, a mother-of-pearl, or the sky, becomes a snake, silver, or blue respectively, owing to attributes imputed by people, but in themselves they are just a rope, a mother-of-pearl, or the sky. Thus there is no contradiction if things possess contradictory attributes.

Objection:- Will not such Upanisadic texts as, 'One only without a second' (Ch. VI. ii. 1), and 'There is no difference whatsoever in It' (IV. iv. 19; Ka. IV. 11), be contradicted if you admit the existence of the limiting adjuncts, name and form?
Reply:- No; this has already been refuted by the illustrations of the foam of water and (the modifications of) clay etc. But when name and form are tested from the standpoint of the highest truth in the light of the above Sruti texts, as to whether they are different from the Supreme Self or not, they cease to be separate entities, like the foam of water, or like the modifications (of clay), such as a jar. It is then that such passages as, 'One only without a second,' and 'There is no difference whatsoever in It,' have scope from the standpoint of the Supreme Self as referring to the highest realisation. But when, on account of our primordial ignorance, the reality of Brahman, although remaining as it is, naturally untouched by anything --- like the reality of the rope, the mother-of-pearl and the sky --- is not discriminated from such limiting adjuncts as the body and organs, which are created by name and form, and our natural vision of those adjuncts remains, then this phenomenal existence consisting of things different from Brahman has fully play. This unreal, phenomenal existence created by differentiation is indeed a fact for those who do not believe in things as different from Brahman as well as for those who do believe. But the believers of the highest truth, while discussing in accordance with the Srutis, the actual existence or non-existence of things apart from Brahman, conclude that Brahman alone is the one without a second, beyond all finite relations. So there is no contradiction between the two views. We do not maintain the existence of things different from Brahman in the state when the highest truth has been definitely known, as the Srutis say, 'One only without a second,' and 'Without interior or exterior' (II. v. 19; III. viii. . Nor do we deny the validity, for the ignorant, of actions with their factors and results while the relative world of name and form exists. Therefore scriptural or conventional outlook depends entirely on knowledge or ignorance. Hence there is no apprehension of a contradiction between them. In fact, all schools must admit the existence or non-existence of the phenomenal world according as it is viewed from the relative or the absolute standpoint.

Regarding the nature of the self as it is in reality, once more the question is asked:- 'Which is within all, Yajnavalkya?' The other replied, 'That which transcends hunger and thirst.' --- The word 'which' in the text should be construed with 'transcends' coming shortly after. --- As the sky, fancied by the ignorant as being concave and blue, is really without these qualities, being naturally untouched by them, similalry Brahman, although fancied as being subject to hunger, thirst, etc., by the ignorant, who think that they are hungry or thirsty, really transcends these qualities, being naturally untouched by them, for the Sruti says, 'It is not affected by human misery, being beyond it' (Ka. V. 11) --- i.e. by misery attributed by ignorant people. Hunger and thirst have been compounded in the text, as both are vital functions.

Grief is desrie. The discomfort that one feels as one reflects on some covetable thing is the seed of desire for one afflicted with a hankering, because it kindles desire; while delusion is a mistake, a confusion, arising from a false notion; it is ignorance, the fruitful source of all troubles. The two words are not compounded, as grief and delusion produce different results. They have their seat in the mind. (The self also transcends) decay and death, which centre in the body. 'Decay' is that modification of the body and organs which is marked by wrinkles, grey hair, etc. 'Death' is the fall of the body, the last modification to overtake it. These, hunger and the rest, which centre in the vital force, mind and body; and which are present in beings in an unbroken succession like days and nights, etc., and like the waves of an ocean, are called the relative or transmigratory existence with regard to them. But that which is described as the witness of vision and so forth, which is immediate or unobstructed and direct or used in a primary sense, which is within all, and is the self of all beings from Hiranyagarbha down to a clump of grass, is ever untouched by such relative attributes as hunger and thirst, as the sky is untouched by impurities like the clouds etc.

Knowing this very Self, their own reality, as 'I am this, the Supreme Brahman, eternally devoid of relative attributes, and ever satisfied,' the Brahmanas --- they are mentioned because they alone are qualified for renunciation --- renounce, lit. rise up in an opposite direction to --- what? --- the desire for sons, as means to winning this world, thinking, 'We will win this world through sons' --- in other words, marriage; hence the meaning is, they do not marry. (The desire) for wealth:- procuring cattle etc., which are the means of rites, in order that one may perform rites through them and win the world of the manes, or that one may win the world of the gods either by combining rites with meditation, which is divine wealth, or solely through meditation on Hiranyagarbha. Some say that one cannot renounce divine wealth, since it is through this that renunciation is possible. But this view is wrong, for divine wealth also falls within the category of desires, as we know from the Sruti passage, 'This much indeed is desire' (I. iv. 17). It is meditation on the gods such as Hiranyagarbha that is spoken of as wealth, because it leads to the world of the gods. The Knowledge of Brahman, which concerns the unconditioned Pure Intelligence, cannot certainly be the means of attaining the world of the gods. Witness the Sruti texts, 'Therefore It became all' (I. iv. 10), and 'For he becomes their self' (Ibid.). It is through the knowledge of Brahman that renunciation takes places, for there is the specific statement, 'Knowing this very Self.' Therefore they renounce all these three objects of desire which lead to worlds that are not the Self. --- 'Esana' means desire, for the Sruti says, 'This much indeed is desire.' --- That is to say, they cease to hanker after all this threefold means of attaining worlds that are not the Self.

Every desire for means is a desire for results; therefore the text says that desire is one. How? That which is the desire for sons is the desire for wealth, for both are equally means to tangible results. And that which is the desire for wealth is the desire for worlds, for it is directed towards the results. People adopt different means, actuated by the desire for results. Hence desire is one, because the desire for worlds cannot be attained without the requisite means; for both these are but desires, one being but a means to the other. Therefore the knower of Brahman has nothing to do with rites or their accessories. --- 'Brahmanas' in the text means those of past times. --- The rites and their accessories here spoken of refer to the holy thread etc., which are means to the performance of rites pertaining to the gods, the manes and man, for through them these rites are performed. Compare the Sruti, 'The holy thread that hangs straight down from the neck is for rites pertaining to men' (Tai. S. II. v. ii. 1). Therefore the ancient Brahmanas --- knowers of Brahman --- renouncing rites and their accessories, such as the holy thread, embrace the life of a monk (of the highest class) known as the Paramahamsa, and lead a mendicant's life, live upon begging --- giving up the insignia of a monk's life prescribed by the Smrtis, which are the means of livelihood for those who have merely had recourse to that life. Witness the Smrtis:- 'The knower of Brahman wears no signs,' 'Therefore the knower of religion, who wears no signs, (should practise its principles)' (cf. Mbh. XIV. x1vi. 51), and 'His signs are not manifest, nor his behaviour' (cf. Va. X.). And the Sruti:- 'Then he becomes a monk, wears the ochre robe, shaves his head, and does not accept (superfluous) gifts,' etc. (Ja. 5); also, 'Having cut off his hair together with the tuft and giving up the holy thread,' etc. (Ks. I., II. 3).

Objection:- Because of the use of the present tences in it, the passage, 'The Brahmanas renounce ' and live a mendicant life,' should be taken as a merge eulogy; it has none of the three suffixes denoting an injunction. Therefore, on the strength of a mere eulogy the abandonment of the holy thread and other such accessories of rites prescribed by the Srutis and Smrtis cannot be urged. 'He only who wears the holy thread may study the Vedas, officiate in sacrifices, or perform them' (Tai. A. II. i. 1). In the first place, the study of the Vedas is enjoined in the mendicant life:- 'By giving up the study of the Vedas one becomes a Sudra; therefore one must not do not' (Quoted in Va. X). Also Apastamba:- 'Uttering speech only when studying the Vedas' (Ap. II. xxi. 10, 21). The scriptures condemn giving up the study of the Vedas in the verse, 'Quitting the study of the Vedas, condemning the Vedas, deceitful evidence, murder of a friend and eating forbidden or uneatable food --- these six acts are equivalent to drinking' (M. XI. 56). Secondly, the passage, 'One should wear the holy thread while serving the preceptors, old people and guests, while performing sacrifices, repeating sacred formulae, eating, rinsing one's mouth and studying the Vedas' (Ap. I. xv. 1), enjoins the holy thread as an accessory of those acts, and the Srutis and Smrtis prescribe such acts as the attending on the preceptors, study of the Vedas, eating and rinsing one's mouth among the duties of a monk; therefore we cannot understand the passage in question as advocating the giving up of the holy thread. Though the renunciation of desires is enjoined, yet it means the renunciation of only the three desires, viz those concerning sons and so forth, and not of all rites and their means. If all rites are abandoned, it will be doing something not enjoined by the Srutis, and discarding the holy thread etc., actually enjoined by them. This omission of acts enjoined and commitment of those forbidden would be a grave offence. Therefore the assumption that such insignia as the holy thread should be abandoned, is merely an instance of the blind following the blind (thoughtless procedure).
Reply:- No, for the Sruti says, 'The monk should give up the holy thread, the study of the Vedas, and all such things' (Ks. 4; Kr. 2). Moreover, the ultimate aim of the Upanisads is to teach Self-knowledge. It has already been stated, 'The Self is to be realised --- to be heard of, reflected on,' etc. (II. iv. 5); and it is common knowledge that that very Self is to be known as immediate and direct, as being within all, and devoid of the relative attributes of hunger etc. Since this entire Upanisad sets itself to bringing this out, the passage in question cannot form a part of some other (ritualistic) injunction, and is therefore not a eulogy. For Self-knowledge is to be attained, and the Self, being devoid of the attributes of hunger etc., is to be known as different from the means and results of an action. To know the Self as identified with these is ignorance. Witness of the Srutis:- 'He (who worships another god thinking), 'He is one, and I am another,' does not know' (I. iv. 10), 'He goes from death to death who sees difference, as it were, in It' (IV. iv. 19; Ka. IV. 10), 'It should be realised in one form only' (IV. iv. 20), 'One only without a second' (Ch. VI. ii. 1), 'Thou art That' (Ch. VI. viii. 7), etc. The means and results of an action are different from the Self that is beyond such relative attributes as hunger, and fall within the category of ignorance, as is proved by hundreds of texts like the following:- 'When there is duality, as it were' (II. iv. 14; IV. v. 15), 'He who worships another god thinking, 'He is one, and I am another,' does not know,' 'While those who know It as otherwise (become dependent and attain perishable worlds),' etc. (Ch. VII. xxv. 2).

Knowledge and ignorance cannot co-exist in the same individual, for they are contradictory like light and darkness. Therefore the knower of the Self must not be supposed to have relations with the sphere of ignorance consisting of actions, their factors and their results, for it has been deprecated in such passages as, 'He goes from death to death,' etc. (IV. iv. 19). All actions with their factors and results, which fall within the category of ignorance, are meant to be shunned through the help of knowledge, the opposite of ignorance; and such auxiliaries as the holy thread fall within the same category. Therefore desire is different from and associated with things other than the Self, which by Its nature is neither the means nor the result of an action. They, the means and the resultt of an action, are both desires, and the holy thread etc. and the ceremonies to be performed through them are classed under means. This has been clenched by a reason in the clause, 'For both these are but desires' (this text). Since such means as the holy thread and the ceremonies to be performed through them are within the range of ignorance, are forms of desires, and are things to be shunned, the renunciation of them is undoubtedly enjoined.

Objection:- Since this Upanisad seeks to inculcate Self-knowledge, the passage relating to the renunciation of desires is just a eulogy on that, and not an injunction.
Reply:- No, for it is to be performed by the same individual on whom Self-knowledge is enjoined. The Vedas can never connect with the same individual something that is enjoined and something that is not enjoined. Just as the Srutis cannot pressing, pouring, and drinking (of the Soma juice) with the same individual --- that he should press the juice out, pour it into the fire, and drink what is left --- because all the three are obligatory, similarly Self-knowledge, renunciation of desires and begging would be connected with the same individual if only these were obligatory.

Objection:- Suppose we say that being under the category of ignorance and being (auxiliaries of) desires, the abandonment of the holy thread etc. is a mere corollary to the injunction on Self-knowledge, and not a separate injunction.
Reply:- No. Since it is connected with the same individual along with the injunction of Self-knowledge, the obligatory nature of this renunciation as also the begging is all the more clearly established; and the objection that it is a mere eulogy because of the use of the present tense does not hold, since it is analogous to such injunctions as that the sacrificial post is (Here 'is' means 'must be.') made of fig-wood.

Objection:- We admit that the passage, '(The Brahmanas) renounce desires ' and lead a mendicant life,' enjoins
monasticism. In this life, however, such means as the holy thread and certain insignia are enjoined by the Srutis and Smrtis. Therefore the passage in question means that accessories other than these, although the latter are (auxiliaries of) desires, should be renounced.
Reply:- Not so, for we know that there is another kind of monasticism different from this one. The latter is connected with the same individual as Self-knowledge, and is characterised by the renunciation of desires. This monasticism is a part of Self-knowledge because it is the renunciation of desires, which contradict Self-knowledge, and which are within the province of ignorance. Besides this there is another kind of monasticism, which is an order of life and leads to the attainment of the world of Hiranyagarbha and so on; it is about this that means like the holy thread and particular insignia are enjoined. When there is this other kind of monasticism in which the adoption of means like the (auxiliaries of) desires is just a duty peculiar to that life, it is wrong to contradict Self-knowledge that is enjoined by all the Upanisads. If one seeks to adopt means like the holy thread, which are within the province of ignorance and are (auxiliaries of) desires, it would certainly be contradicting the knowledge of one's self --- which is neither the means nor the result of an action, and is devoid of such relative attributes as hunger --- as being identical with Brahman. And it is wrong to contradict this knowledge, for all the Upanisads aim at this.

Objection:- Does not the Sruti itself contradict this by teaching the adoption of desires in the words, '(The Brahmanas) lead a
mendicant life'? That is to say, after enjoining the renunciation of desires it teaches in the same breath the adoption of a part of them, viz begging. Does this not imply the adoption of other connected things as well?
Reply:- No, the begging does not imply other things as well, just as the drinking of the remnant (of Soma juice) after the oblation has been offered does not include any additional things; since it relates only to the disposal (Pratipatti-karma is the disposal of the accessories of a rite after they have served their purpose, to prevent their interfering with other work.) of what is left, it implies nothing else. Moreover, the begging has no purifying effect; the drinking of the juice might purify a person, but not the begging. Though there may be some merit in obseving the rules regarding it, yet its application to the knower of Brahman is inadmissible.

Objection:- If this is so, why should there be mention of his begging his food?
Reply:- It is quite in order, because the passage thereby enjoins the rejection of other means of subsistence.

Objection:- Still what is the necessity of that?
Reply:- None, if his realisation has reached that point of inaction; we accept that view.
As to the texts regarding monasticism, such as, 'He only who wears the holy thread may study (the Vedas),' etc. (Tai A. II. i. 1), we have already answered your objection by saying that they concern only the monasticism of those who have not known Brahman:- we have pointed out that Self-knowledge would otherwise be contradicted.
That the knower of Brahman has no work ('Work' in this connection means ritualistic work.) to do is shown by the following Smrti passage, 'The gods consider him a knower of Brahman who has no desires, who undertakes no work, who does not salute or praise anybody, and whose work has been exhausted, but who himself is unchanged' (Mbh. XII. cc1xix. 34). Also, 'The knower of Brahman wears no signs,' etc. (cf. Mbh. XIV. x1vi. 51). Therefore the knower of the Self should embrace that vow of the highest order of monks which is characterised by the renunciation of desires and the abandonment of all work together with its means.
Since the ancient Brahmanas, knowing this Self as naturally different from the means and result of an action, renounced all desires, which are such means and results, and lead a mendicant life, giving up work producing visible and invisible results, together with its means, therefore to this day the knower of Brahman, having known all about scholarship or this knowledge of the Self from the teacher and the Srutis --- having fully mastered it --- should renounce desires. This is the culmination of that scholarship, for it comes with the elimination of desires, and is contradictory to them. Since scholarship regarding the Self cannot come without the automatically enjoined by the knowledge of the Self. This is emphasised by the use of the suffix 'ktvac' in the passage in question, as referring to the same individual who has the knowledge of the Self. Therefore the knower of Brahman, after renouncing desires, should try to live upon that strength which comes of knowledge.

Those others who are ignorant of the Self derive their strength from the means and results of actions. The knower of Brahman avoids that and resorts simply to the strength which comes of the knowledge of the Self, which is naturally different from the means and results of an action. When he does this, his organs have no more power to drag him down to the objects of desire. It is only the fool without the strength of knowledge who is attracted by his organs to desires concerning objects, visible or invisible. Strength is the total elimination of the vision of objects by Self-knowledge; hence the knower of Brahman should try to live upon that strength. As another Sruti puts it, 'Through the Self one attains strength' (Ke. II. 4); also, 'This Self is unattainable by the weak' (Mu. III. ii. 4).
Having known all about this strength and scholarship, he becomes meditative, in other words, a Yogin. What a knower of Brahman should do is to eliminate all ideas of the non-Self; doing this, he accomplishes his task and becomes a Yogin. After having known all about scholarship and strength, which respectively mean Self-knowledge and the elimination of ideas of the non-Self, he knows all about meditativeness too --- which is the culminating result of the latter --- and its opposite, and becomes a knower of Brahman, or accomplishes his task; he attains the conviction that all is Brahman. Because he has reached the goal, therefore he is a Brahmana, a knower of Brahman; for then his status as a knower of Brahman is literally true. Therefore the text says:- How does that knower of Brahman behave? Howsoever he may behave, he is just such --- a knower of Brahman as described above.

The expression, 'Howsoever he may behave,' is intended for a tribute to this state of a knower of Brahman, and does not mean reckless behaviour. Except this state of realisation of Brahman, which is the true state of one's self that is beyond hunger etc. and is eternally satisfied, everything, i.e. desires, which are within the category of ignorance, is perishable lit. beset with troubles --- unsubstantial like a dream, an illusion, or a mirage; the Self alone is detached and eternally free. Thereupon Kahola, the son of Kusitaka, kept silent.

Translation By Max Müller

1. Then Kahola Kaushîtakeya asked. 'Yâgñavalkya, 'he said, 'tell me the Brahman which is visible, not invisible, the Self (Âtman), who is within all.' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'This, thy Self, who is within all.' 'Which Self, O Yâgñavalkya, is within all?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'He who overcomes hunger and thirst, sorrow, passion, old age, and death. When Brâhmanas know that Self, and have risen above the desire for sons [1], wealth, and (new) worlds [2], they wander about as mendicants. For a desire for sons is desire for wealth, a desire for wealth is desire for worlds. Both these are indeed desires. Therefore let a Brâhmana, after he has done with learning, wish to stand by real strength [3]; after he has done with that strength and learning, he becomes a Muni (a Yogin); and after he has done with what is not the knowledge of a Muni, and with what is the knowledge of a Muni, he is a Brâhmana. By whatever means he has become a Brâhmana, he is such indeed [4]. Everything else is of evil.' After that Kahola Kaushîtakeya held his peace.

Footnote:

1. See Brih. Âr. Up. IV, 4, 22. 2. Life in the world of the Fathers, or in the world of the Gods. 3. Knowledge of the Self, which enables us to dispense with all other knowledge. 4. Mr. Gough proposes as an alternative rendering:- 'Let a Brâhmana renounce learning and become as a child; and after renouncing learning and a childlike mind, let him become a quietist; and when he has made an end of quietism and non-quietism, he shall become a Brâhmana, a Brâhmana indeed.' Deussen takes a similar view, but I doubt whether 'the knowledge of babes' is not a Christian rather than an Indian idea, in spite of Saṅkara's remarks on Ved. Sûtra, III, 4, 50, which are strangely at variance with his commentary here. Possibly the text may be corrupt, for tishthâset too is a very peculiar form. We might conjecture balyena, as we have abalyam, in IV, 4, 1. In Kaush. Up. III, 3, âbâlyam stands for âbălyam, possibly for ăbălyam. The construction of kena syâd yena syât tenedrisa eva, however, is well known.


Sloka : 3.6.1

मन्त्र १[III.vi.1]

अथ हैनं गार्गी वाचक्नवी पप्रच्छ याज्ञवल्क्येति होवाच

यदिदꣳ सर्वमप्स्वोतं च प्रोतं च कस्मिन्नु खल्वाप

ओताश्च प्रोताश्चेति । वायौ गार्गीति । कस्मिन्नु खलु वायुरोतश्च

प्रोतश्चेत्यन्तरिक्षलोकेषु गार्गीति । कस्मिन्नु खल्वन्तरिक्षलोका

ओताश्च प्रोताश्चेति । गन्धर्वलोकेषु गार्गीति । कस्मिन्नु गन्धर्वलोका

ओताश्च प्रोताश्चेत्यादित्यलोकेषु गार्गीति । कस्मिन् नु खल्वादित्यलोका

ओताश्च प्रोताश्चेति । चन्द्रलोकेषु गार्गीति । कस्मिन्नु खलु

चन्द्रलोका ओताश्च प्रोताश्चेति । नक्षत्रलोकेषु गार्गीति । कस्मिन्नु

खलु नक्षत्रलोका ओताश्च प्रोताश्चेति । देवलोकेषु गार्गीति ।

कस्मिन्नु खलु देवलोका ओताश्च प्रोताश्चेति इन्द्रलोकेषु गार्गीति ।

कस्मिन्नु खल्विन्द्रलोका ओताश्च प्रोताश्चेति । प्रजापतिलोकेषु

गार्गीति । कस्मिन्नु खलु प्रजापतिलोका ओताश्च प्रोताश्चेति ।

ब्रह्मलोकेषु गार्गीति । कस्मिन्नु खलु ब्रह्मलोका ओताश्च प्रोताश्चेति ।

स होवाच गार्गि मातिप्राक्षीर्मा ते मूर्धा व्यपप्तदनतिप्रश्न्यां

वै देवतामतिपृच्छसि । गार्गि माऽतिप्राक्षीरिति । ततो ह गार्गी

वाचक्नव्युपरराम ॥ १॥

इति षष्ठं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ सप्तमं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 1[III.vi.1]

atha hainaṃ gārgī vācaknavī papraccha yājñavalkyeti hovāca

yadidagͫ sarvamapsvotaṃ ca protaṃ ca kasminnu khalvāpa

otāśca protāśceti . vāyau gārgīti . kasminnu khalu vāyurotaśca

protaścetyantarikṣalokeṣu gārgīti . kasminnu khalvantarikṣalokā

otāśca protāśceti . gandharvalokeṣu gārgīti . kasminnu gandharvalokā

otāśca protāścetyādityalokeṣu gārgīti . kasmin nu khalvādityalokā

otāśca protāśceti . candralokeṣu gārgīti . kasminnu khalu

candralokā otāśca protāśceti . nakṣatralokeṣu gārgīti . kasminnu

khalu nakṣatralokā otāśca protāśceti . devalokeṣu gārgīti .

kasminnu khalu devalokā otāśca protāśceti indralokeṣu gārgīti .

kasminnu khalvindralokā otāśca protāśceti . prajāpatilokeṣu

gārgīti . kasminnu khalu prajāpatilokā otāśca protāśceti .

brahmalokeṣu gārgīti . kasminnu khalu brahmalokā otāśca protāśceti .

sa hovāca gārgi mātiprākṣīrmā te mūrdhā vyapaptadanatipraśnyāṃ

vai devatāmatipṛcchasi . gārgi mā'tiprākṣīriti . tato ha gārgī

vācaknavyupararāma .. 1..

iti ṣaṣṭhaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha saptamaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- Then Gargi, the daughter of Vacaknu, asked him, 'Yajnavalkya', she said, 'if all this is pervaded by water, by what is water pervaded?' 'By air, O Gargi'. 'By what is air pervaded?' 'By the sky, O Gargi'. 'By what is the sky pervaded?' 'By the world of the Gandharvas, O Gargi'. 'By what is the world of the Gandharvas pervaded?' 'By the sun, O Gargi.' 'By what is the sun pervaded?' 'By the moon, O Gargi.' 'By what is the moon pervaded?' 'By the stars, O Gargi'. 'By what are the stars pervaded?' 'By the world of the gods, O Gargi'. 'By what is the world of the gods pervaded?' 'By the world of Indra, O Gargi'. By what is the world of Indra pervaded?' 'By the world of Viraj, O Gargi'. 'By what is the world of Viraj pervaded?' ' By the world of Hiranyagarbha, O Gargi'. 'By what is the world of Hiranyagarbha pervaded?' He said, 'Do not, O Gargi, push your inquiry too far, lest your head should fall off. You are questioning about a deity that should not be reasoned about. Do not, O Gargi, push your inquiry too far.' Thereupon Gargi, the daughter of Vacaknu, kept silent.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- To describe the nature of that which has been stated to be the immediate and direct Brahman --- the self that is within all, the three sections up to that dealing with the story of Sakalya are being introduced. The elements from earth up to the ether are arranged one within the other. The idea is to show how an aspirant --- the subject or seer --- can realise his own self, which is immediate and direct, which is within all and beyond all relative attributes, by taking up each relatively external element and eliminating it. Then Gargi, the daughter of Vacaknu, asked him. 'Yajnavalkya,' she said, 'if all this, all that is composed of earth, is pervaded within and without (lit. placed like the warp and woof --- or woof and warp --- in a cloth) by water.' Otherwise it would be scattered like a handful of fried barley flour. The following inference is suggested:- We observe that whatever is an effect, limited and gross is respectively pervaded by that which is an effect, limited and gross is respectively pervaded by that which is the cause, unlimited and subtle, as earth is pervaded by water. Similarly (in the series from earth to the ether) each preceding element must be pervaded by the succeeding one, till we come to the self that is within all. This is the import of the question.

Now these five elements are so arranged that each preceding one is held together by the succeeding element, which is its cause and is more subtle and pervasive. And there is nothing below the Supreme Self which is different from the elements (So the different worlds enumerated in this paragraph are included in them.), for the Sruti says, 'The Truth of truth' (II. i. 20; II. iii. 6). The truth is the five elements, and the Truth of truth is the Supreme Self. 'By what is water pervaded?' Since it too is an effect, gross and limited, it must be pervaded by something; and what is that? All the subsequent questions are to be construed in this way. 'By air, O Gargi.' One may object that the answer should be fire; to which we reply that the answer is all right.

Fire cannot independently manifest itself like the other elements! it must take the help of particles of earth or water; hence it is not mentioned as pervading water. 'By what is air pervaded?' 'By the sky, O Gargi.' The same elements combining with one another form the sky; this is pervaded by the world of the Gandharvas, this again by the sun, the sun by the moon, the moon by the stars, the stars by the world of the gods, this by the world of Indra, this again by the world of Viraj, i.e. by the elements composing the body of Viraj; the world of Viraj is pervaded by the world of Hiranyagarbha, i.e. by the elements composing the universe. The plural is used in the text ('worlds' instead of 'world') because these worlds, arranged in an ascending order of subtely, are each composed of the same five elements transformed so as to become fit abodes for the enjoyment of beings. 'By what is the world of Hiranyagarbha pervaded?' Yajnavalkya said, 'Do not, O Gargi, push your inquiry too far --- disregarding the proper method of inquiry into the nature of the deity (The Sutra, which is described in the next section.); that is, do not try to know through inference about a deity that must be approached only through personal instruction (Agama), lest by so doing your head should fall off.' The nature of the deity is to be known from the scriptues alone, and Gargi's question, being inferential, disregarded this particular means of approach. 'You are questioning about a deity that should not be reasoned about, but known only through its special means of approach, the scriptures. Therefore do not, O Gargi, push your inquiry too far, unless you wish to die.' Thereupon Gargi, the daughter of Vacaknu, kept silent.

Translation By Max Müller

1. Then Gârgî Vâkaknavî asked. 'Yâgñavalkya,' she said, 'everything here is woven, like warp and woof, in water. What then is that in which water is woven, like warp and woof?' 'In air, O Gârgî,' he replied. 'In what then is air woven, like warp and woof?' 'In the worlds of the sky, O Gârgî, 'he replied. 'In what then are the worlds of the sky woven, like warp and woof?' 'In the worlds of the Gandharvas, O Gârgî,' he replied. 'In what then are the worlds of the Gandharvas woven, like warp and woof?' 'In the worlds of Âditya (sun), O Gârgî,' he replied. 'In what then are the worlds of Âditya (sun) woven, like warp and woof?' 'In the worlds of Kandra (moon), O Gârgî,' he replied. 'In what then are the worlds of Kandra (moon) woven, like warp and woof?' , In the worlds of the Nakshatras (stars), O Gârgî,' he replied. 'In what then are the worlds of the Nakshatras (stars) woven, like warp and woof?' 'In the worlds of the Devas (gods), O Gârgî,' he replied. 'In what then are the worlds of the Devas (gods) woven, like warp and woof?' 'In the worlds of Indra, O Gârgî,' he replied. 'In what then are the worlds of Indra woven, like warp and woof?' 'In the worlds of Pragâpati, O Gârgî,' he replied. 'In what then are the worlds of Pragâpati woven, like warp and woof?' 'In the worlds of Brahman, O Gârgî,' he replied. 'In what then are the worlds of Brahman woven, like warp and woof?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'O Gârgî, Do not ask too much, lest thy head should fall off. Thou askest too much about a deity about which we are not to ask too much [1]. Do not ask too much, O Gârgî.' After that Gargî Vâkaknavî held her peace.

Footnote:

1. According to the commentator questions about Brahman are to be answered from the Scriptures only, and not to be settled by argument.


Sloka : 3.7.1

मन्त्र १[III.vii.1]

अथ हैनमूद्दालक आरुणिः पप्रच्छ याज्ञवल्क्येति

होवाच मद्रेष्ववसाम पतञ्चलस्य काप्यस्य गृहेषु

यज्ञमधीयानास्तस्याऽऽसीद्भार्या गन्धर्वगृहीता । तमपृच्छाम

कोऽसीति । सोऽब्रवीत् कबन्ध आथर्वण इति । सोऽब्रवीत्पतञ्चलं

काप्यं याज्ञिकाꣳश्च वेत्थ नु त्वं काप्य तत्सूत्रं येनायं

च लोकः परश्च लोकः सर्वाणि च भूतानि सन्दृब्धानि

भवन्तीति । सोऽब्रवीत्पतञ्चलः काप्यो नाहं तद् भगवन् वेदेति ।

सोऽब्रवीत् पतञ्चलं काप्यं याज्ञिकाꣳश्चः वेत्थ नु त्वं काप्य

तमन्तर्यामिणं य इमं च लोकं परं च लोकꣳ सर्वाणि च भूतानि

योऽन्तरो यमयतीति । सोऽब्रवीत् पतञ्चलः काप्यो नाहं तं भगवन्

वेदेति । सोऽब्रवीत् पतञ्चलं काप्यं याज्ञिकाꣳश्च यो वै तत्

काप्य सूत्रं विद्यात्तं चान्तर्यामिणमिति स ब्रह्मवित् स लोकवित् स

देववित् स वेदवित् स भूतवित् स आत्मवित् स सर्वविदिति तेभ्योऽब्रवीत्

तदहं वेद । तच्चेत्त्वं याज्ञवल्क्य सूत्रमविद्वाꣳस्तं

चान्तर्यामिणं ब्रह्मगवीरुदजसे मूर्धा ते विपतिष्यतीति । वेद वा अहं

गौतम तत्सूत्रं तं चान्तर्यामिणमिति । यो वा इदं कश्चिद्ब्रूयात् वेद

वेदेति । यथा वेत्थ तथा ब्रूहीति ॥ १॥

mantra 1[III.vii.1]

atha hainamūddālaka āruṇiḥ papraccha yājñavalkyeti

hovāca madreṣvavasāma patañcalasya kāpyasya gṛheṣu

yajñamadhīyānāstasyā''sīdbhāryā gandharvagṛhītā . tamapṛcchāma

ko'sīti . so'bravīt kabandha ātharvaṇa iti . so'bravītpatañcalaṃ

kāpyaṃ yājñikāgͫśca vettha nu tvaṃ kāpya tatsūtraṃ yenāyaṃ

ca lokaḥ paraśca lokaḥ sarvāṇi ca bhūtāni sandṛbdhāni

bhavantīti . so'bravītpatañcalaḥ kāpyo nāhaṃ tad bhagavan vedeti .

so'bravīt patañcalaṃ kāpyaṃ yājñikāgͫścaḥ vettha nu tvaṃ kāpya

tamantaryāmiṇaṃ ya imaṃ ca lokaṃ paraṃ ca lokagͫ sarvāṇi ca bhūtāni

yo'ntaro yamayatīti . so'bravīt patañcalaḥ kāpyo nāhaṃ taṃ bhagavan

vedeti . so'bravīt patañcalaṃ kāpyaṃ yājñikāgͫśca yo vai tat

kāpya sūtraṃ vidyāttaṃ cāntaryāmiṇamiti sa brahmavit sa lokavit sa

devavit sa vedavit sa bhūtavit sa ātmavit sa sarvaviditi tebhyo'bravīt

tadahaṃ veda . taccettvaṃ yājñavalkya sūtramavidvāgͫstaṃ

cāntaryāmiṇaṃ brahmagavīrudajase mūrdhā te vipatiṣyatīti . veda vā ahaṃ

gautama tatsūtraṃ taṃ cāntaryāmiṇamiti . yo vā idaṃ kaścidbrūyāt veda

vedeti . yathā vettha tathā brūhīti .. 1..



Meaning:- Then Uddalaka, the son of Aruna, asked him. 'Yajnavalkya', said, 'in Madra we lived in the house of Patanchala Kapya (descendant of Kapi), studying the scriptures on sacrifices. His wife was possessed by a Gandharva. We asked him who he was. He said, "Kabandha, the son of Atharvan". He said to Patanchala Kapya and those who studied the scriptures on sacrifices, "Hapya, do you know that Sutra by which this life, the next life and all beings are held together?" Patanchala Kapya said, "I do not know it, sir". The Gandharva said to him and the students, "Kapya, do you know that Internal Ruler who controls this and the next life and all beings from within?" Patanchala Kapya said, "I do not know Him, sir". The Gandharva said to him and the students, "He who knows that Sutra and that Internal Ruler as above indeed knows Brahman, knows the worlds, knows the gods, knows the Vedas, knows beings, knows the self, and knows everything". He explained it all to them. I know it. If you, Yajnavalkya, do not know that Sutra and that Internal Ruler, and still take away the cows that belong only to the knowers of Brahman, your head shall fall off'. 'I know, O Gautama, that Sutra and that Internal Ruler'. 'Any one can say, "I know, I know". Tell us what you know.'





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Now the Sutra, the innermost entity of the world of Hiranyagarbha, has to be described; hence this section. This Sutra should be approached through personal instruction, which is therefore being introduced through an anecdote:- Then Uddalaka, the son of Aruna, asked him. 'Yajnavalkya,' he said, 'in the territory called Madra we lived in the house of Patancala Kapya --- of the line of Kapi --- studying the scriptures on sacrifices. His wife was possessed by a Gandharva. We asked him who he was. He said, 'Kabandha, the son of Athravan.' He, the Gandharva, said to Patancala Kapya and his pupils who studied the scriptues on sacrifices, 'Kapya, do you know that Sutra by which this life, the next life and all beings, from Hiranyagarbha down to a clump of grass, are held together, strung like a garland with a thread?' Thus addressed, Kapya reverentially said, 'I do not know it, the Sutra, sir.' The Gandharva again said to the teacher and us:- Kapya, do you know that Internal Ruler --- this is being specified --- who controls this and the next life and all beings from within, causes them to move like wooden puppets, i.e. makes them perform their respective functions? Thus addressed, Patancala Kapya reverentially said, 'I do not know Him, sir.' The Gandharva again said --- this is in praise of the meditation on the Sutra and the Internal Ruler within it --- 'Kapya, he who knows that Sutra and that Internal Ruler who is within the Sutra and governs it, as described above, indeed knows Brahman or the Supreme Self, knows worlds, such as the earth, controlled by the Internal Ruler, knows the gods, such as Fire, presiding over those worlds, knows the Vedas, which are the authority for all, knows beings, Viraj (The word used is 'Brahman,' which in such contexts generally means Hiranyagarbha. Here, however, It is to be taken in the sense of Viraj, for Hiranyagarbha, being the same as the Sutra, cannot be held together by it.) and the rest, who are held together by the Sutra and controlled by the Internal Ruler who is within it, knows the self, which is the agent and experiencer and is controlled by the same Internal Ruler, and knows everything --- the whole world also similarly controlled.' This praise of the meditation on the Sutra and the Internal Ruler tempted Kapya and us to hear of it; and the Gandharva explained both to them and us. I know this meditation on the Sutra and the Internal Ruler, having been instructed by the Gandharva. If you, Yajnavalkya, do not know that Sutra and that Internal Ruler, i.e. do not know Brahman, and still wrongly take away the cows that belong only to the knowers of Brahman, I will burn you with my curse, and your head shall fall off.' Thus addressed Yajnavalkya said, 'I know, O Gautama (descendant of Gotama), that Sutra about which the Gandharva told you, and that Internal Ruler about whom you have known from him.' At this Gautama retorted:- 'Any one, any fool, can say what you have said --- what? --- 'I know, I know,' lauding himself. What is the good of that bluster? Show it in action; tell us what you know about them.'

Translation By Max Müller

1. Then Uddâlaka Âruni [1] asked. 'Yâgñavalkya,' he said, 'we dwelt among the Madras in the houses of Patañkala Kâpya, studying the sacrifice. His wife was possessed of a Gandharva, and we asked him:- "Who art thou?" He answered:- "I am Kabandha Âtharvana." And he said to Patañkala Kâpya and to (us) students:- "Dost thou know, Kâpya, that thread by which this world and the other world, and all beings are strung together?" And Patañkala Kâpya replied:- "I do not know it, Sir." He said again to Patañkala Kâpya and to (us) students:- "Dost thou know, Kâpya, that puller (ruler) within (antaryâmin), who within pulls (rules) this world and the other world and all beings?" And Patañkala Kâpya replied:- "I do not know it, Sir." He said again to Patañkala Kâpya and to (us) students:- "He, O Kâpya, who knows that thread and him who pulls (it) within, he knows Brahman, he knows the worlds, he knows the Devas, he knows the Vedas, he knows the Bhûtas (creatures), he knows the Self, he knows everything." Thus did he (the Gandharva) say to them, and I know it. If thou, O Yâgñavalkya, without knowing that string and the puller within, drivest away those Brahma-cows (the cows offered as a prize to him who best knows Brahman), thy head will fall off.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'O Gautama, I believe I know that thread and the puller within.' The other said:- 'Anybody may say, I know, I know. Tell what thou knowest.'

Footnote:

1. Afterwards addressed as Gautama; see before, p. 1, note.


Sloka : 3.7.2

मन्त्र २[III.vii.2]

स होवाच वायुर्वै गौतम तत्सूत्रं वायुना वै गौतम सूत्रेणायं

च लोकः परश्च लोकः सर्वाणि च भूतानि सन्दृब्धानि भवन्ति ।

तस्माद्वै गौतम पुरुषं प्रेतमाहुर्व्यस्रꣳसिषतास्याङ्गानीति

वायुना हि गौतम सूत्रेण संदृब्धानि भवन्तीत्येवमेवैतद्

याज्ञवल्क्यान्तर्यामिणं ब्रूहीति ॥ २॥

mantra 2[III.vii.2]

sa hovāca vāyurvai gautama tatsūtraṃ vāyunā vai gautama sūtreṇāyaṃ

ca lokaḥ paraśca lokaḥ sarvāṇi ca bhūtāni sandṛbdhāni bhavanti .

tasmādvai gautama puruṣaṃ pretamāhurvyasragͫsiṣatāsyāṅgānīti

vāyunā hi gautama sūtreṇa saṃdṛbdhāni bhavantītyevamevaitad

yājñavalkyāntaryāmiṇaṃ brūhīti .. 2..



Meaning:- He said, 'Vayu, O Gautama, is that Sutra. Through this Sutra or Vayu this and the next life and all beings are held together. Therefore, O Gautama, when a man dies, they say that his limbs have been loosened, for they are held together, O Gautama, by the Sutra or Vayu.' 'Quite so, Yajnavalkya. Now describe the Internal Ruler.'





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- He, Yajnavalkya, said, etc. The Sutra, by which the world of Hiranyagarbha is at the present moment pervaded, as earth by water, and which can be known only through personal instruction, has to be described. It is for this that Uddalaka's question in the preceding paragraph has been introduced. So Yajnavalkya answers it by saying, 'Vayu, O Gautama, is that Sutra, and nothing else.' 'Vayu' is that subtle entity which like the ether supports earth etc., which is the material of the subtle body --- with its seventeen constitutents (The five elements, the ten organs, the vital force (with its fivefold function) and mind (in its fourfold aspect). Or, the ten organs, the five vital force, Manas and Intellect.) --- in which the past actions and impressions of beings inhere, which is collective as well as individual, and whose external forms, like the waves of an ocean, are the forty-nine Maruts.
That principle of Vayu is called the Sutra. 'Through this Sutra or Vayu this and the next life and all beings are held or strung together. This is well known (to those who know the Sutra); it is also common knowledge. How? Becaue Vayu is the Sutra and supports everything, therefore, O Gautama, when a man dies, they say that his limbs have been loosened.' When the thread (Sutra) is gone, gems etc. that are strung on it are scattered; similarly Vayu is the Sutra. It the limbs of a man are strung on it, like gems on a thread, it is but natural that they will be loosened when Vayu is gone. Hence it is concluded:- 'For they are held together, O Gautama, by the Sutra or Vayu.' 'Quite so, Yajnavalkya, you have rightly described the Sutra. Now describe the Internal Ruler, who is within and controls it.' Thus addressed, Yajnavalkya said:-

Translation By Max Müller

2. Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Vâyu (air) is that thread, O Gautama. By air, as by a thread, O Gautama, this world and the other world, and all creatures are strung together. Therefore, O Gautama, people say of a dead person that his limbs have become unstrung; for by air, as by a thread, O Gautama, they were strung together.' The other said:- 'So it is, O Yâgñavalkya. Tell now (who is) the puller within.'


Sloka : 3.7.3

मन्त्र ३[III.vii.3]

यः पृथिव्यां तिष्ठन्पृथिव्या अन्तरो यं पृथिवी न वेद

यस्य पृथिवी शरीरं यः पृथिवीमन्तरो यमयत्येष त

आत्माऽन्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ ३॥

mantra 3[III.vii.3]

yaḥ pṛthivyāṃ tiṣṭhanpṛthivyā antaro yaṃ pṛthivī na veda

yasya pṛthivī śarīraṃ yaḥ pṛthivīmantaro yamayatyeṣa ta

ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛtaḥ .. 3..



Meaning:- He who inhabits the earth, but is within it, whom the earth does not know, whose body is the earth, and who controls the earth from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- He who inhabits the earth ' is the Internal Ruler. Now all people inhabit the earth; so there may be a presumption that the reference is to anyone of them. To preclude this, the text specifies Him by saying, 'Who is within the earth.' One may think that the deity identified with the earth is the Internal Ruler; hence the text says, 'Whom even the deity identified with the earth does not know as a distinct entity dwelling within her.' Whose body is the earth itself and none other --- whose body is the same as that of the deity of the earth. The 'body' implies other things as well; i.e. the organs of this deity are also those of the Internal Ruler. The body and organs of the deity of the earth are the result of her own past actions; they are the body and organs of the Internal Ruler as well, for He has no past actions, being ever free. Since He is by nature given to doing things for others, the body and organs of the latter serve
as His; He has no body and organs of His own. This is expressed as follows:- 'Whose body is the earth.' The body and the organs of the deity of the earth are regularly made to work or stop work by the mere presence of the Lord as witness. Such an Isvara, called Narayana, who controls the deity of the earth, i.e. directs her to her particular work, from within, is the Internal Ruler about whom you have asked, your own immortal self, as also mine and that of all beings. 'Your' implies 'others' as well. 'Immortal,' that is to say, devoid of all relative attributes.

Translation By Max Müller

3. Yâgñavalkya said:- 'He who dwells in the earth, and within the earth [1], whom the earth does not know, whose body the earth is, and who pulls (rules) the earth within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'

Footnote:

1. I translate antara by 'within,' according to the commentator, who explains it by abhyantara, but I must confess that I should prefer to translate it by 'different from,' as Deussen does, l. c. p. 160, particularly as it governs an ablative.


Sloka : 3.7.4

मन्त्र ४[III.vii.4]

योऽप्सु तिष्ठन्नद्भ्योऽन्तरो यमापो न विदुः यस्यापः शरीरं

योऽपोऽन्तरो यमयत्येष त आत्माऽन्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ ४॥

mantra 4[III.vii.4]

yo'psu tiṣṭhannadbhyo'ntaro yamāpo na viduḥ yasyāpaḥ śarīraṃ

yo'po'ntaro yamayatyeṣa ta ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛtaḥ .. 4..



Meaning:- He who inhabits water, but is within it, whom water does not know, whose body is water, and who controls water from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

Translation By Max Müller

4. 'He who dwells in the water, and within the water, whom the water does not know, whose body the water is, and who pulls (rules) the water within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'


Sloka : 3.7.5

मन्त्र ५[III.vii.5]

योऽग्नौ तिष्ठन्नग्नेरन्तरो यमग्निर्न वेद यस्याग्निः शरीरं

योऽग्निमन्तरो यमयति एष त आत्मान्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ ५॥

mantra 5[III.vii.5]

yo'gnau tiṣṭhannagnerantaro yamagnirna veda yasyāgniḥ śarīraṃ

yo'gnimantaro yamayati eṣa ta ātmāntaryāmyamṛtaḥ .. 5..



Meaning:- He who inhabits fire, but is within it, whom fire does not know, whose body is fire, and who controls fire from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

Translation By Max Müller

5. 'He who dwells in the fire, and within the fire, whom the fire does not know, whose body the fire is, and who pulls (rules) the fire within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'


Sloka : 3.7.6

मन्त्र ६[III.vii.6]

योऽन्तरिक्षे तिष्ठन्नन्तरिक्षादन्तरो यमन्तरिक्षं न वेद

यस्यान्तरिक्षꣳ शरीरं योऽन्तरिक्षमन्तरो यमयत्येष त

आत्माऽन्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ ६॥

mantra 6[III.vii.6]

yo'ntarikṣe tiṣṭhannantarikṣādantaro yamantarikṣaṃ na veda

yasyāntarikṣagͫ śarīraṃ yo'ntarikṣamantaro yamayatyeṣa ta

ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛtaḥ .. 6..



Meaning:- He who inhabits the sky, but is within it, whom the sky does not know, whose body is the sky, and who controls the sky from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

Translation By Max Müller

6. 'He who dwells in the sky, and within the sky, whom the sky does not know, whose body the sky is, and who pulls (rules) the sky within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'


Sloka : 3.7.7

मन्त्र ७[III.vii.7]

यो वायौ तिष्ठन्वायोरन्तरो यं वायुर्न वेद यस्य वायुः शरीरं यो

वायुमन्तरो यमयत्येष त आत्माऽन्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ ७॥

mantra 7[III.vii.7]

yo vāyau tiṣṭhanvāyorantaro yaṃ vāyurna veda yasya vāyuḥ śarīraṃ yo

vāyumantaro yamayatyeṣa ta ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛtaḥ .. 7..



Meaning:- He who inhabits air, but is within it, whom air does not know, whose body is air, and who controls air from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

Translation By Max Müller

7. 'He who dwells in the air (vâyu), and within the air, whom the air does not know, whose body the air is, and who pulls (rules) the air within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'


Sloka : 3.7.8

मन्त्र ८[III.vii.8]

यो दिवि तिष्ठन्दिवोऽन्तरो यं द्यौर्न वेद यस्य द्यौः शरीरं यो

दिवमन्तरो यमयत्येष त आत्माऽन्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ ८॥

mantra 8[III.vii.8]

yo divi tiṣṭhandivo'ntaro yaṃ dyaurna veda yasya dyauḥ śarīraṃ yo

divamantaro yamayatyeṣa ta ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛtaḥ .. 8..



Meaning:- He who inhabits heaven, but is within it, whom heaven does not know, whose body is heaven, and who controls heaven from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

Translation By Max Müller

8. 'He who dwells in the heaven (dyu), and within the heaven, whom the heaven does not know, whose body the heaven is, and who pulls (rules) the heaven within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'


Sloka : 3.7.9

मन्त्र ९[III.vii.9]

य आदित्ये तिष्ठन्नादित्यादन्तरो यमादित्यो न वेद यस्याऽऽदित्यः

शरीरं य आदित्यमन्तरो यमयत्येष त आत्माऽन्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ ९॥

mantra 9[III.vii.9]

ya āditye tiṣṭhannādityādantaro yamādityo na veda yasyā''dityaḥ

śarīraṃ ya ādityamantaro yamayatyeṣa ta ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛtaḥ .. 9..



Meaning:- He who inhabits the sun, but is within it, whom the sun does not know, whose body is the sun, and who controls the sun from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

Translation By Max Müller

9. 'He who dwells in the sun (Âditya), and within the sun, whom the sun does not know, whose body the sun is, and who pulls (rules) the sun within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'


Sloka : 3.7.10

मन्त्र १०[III.vii.10]

यो दिक्षु तिष्ठन्दिग्भ्योऽन्तरो यं दिशो न विदुर्यस्य दिशः शरीरं

यो दिशोऽन्तरो यमयत्येष त आत्माऽन्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ १०॥

mantra 10[III.vii.10]

yo dikṣu tiṣṭhandigbhyo'ntaro yaṃ diśo na viduryasya diśaḥ śarīraṃ

yo diśo'ntaro yamayatyeṣa ta ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛtaḥ .. 10..



Meaning:- He who inhabits the quarters, but is within it, whom the quarters does not know, whose body is the quarters, and who controls the quarters from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

Translation By Max Müller

10. 'He who dwells in the space (disah), and within the space, whom the space does not know, whose body the space is, and who pulls (rules) the space within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'


Sloka : 3.7.11

मन्त्र ११[III.vii.11]

यश्चन्द्रतारके तिष्ठꣳचन्द्रतारकादन्तरो यं चन्द्रतारकं

न वेद यस्य चन्द्रतारकꣳ शरीरं यश्चन्द्रतारकमन्तरो

यमयत्येष त आत्माऽन्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ ११॥

mantra 11[III.vii.11]

yaścandratārake tiṣṭhagͫcandratārakādantaro yaṃ candratārakaṃ

na veda yasya candratārakagͫ śarīraṃ yaścandratārakamantaro

yamayatyeṣa ta ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛtaḥ .. 11..



Meaning:- He who inhabits the moon and stars, but is within it, whom the moon and stars does not know, whose body is the moon and stars, and who controls the moon and stars from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

Translation By Max Müller

11. 'He who dwells in the moon and stars (kandra-târakam), and within the moon and stars, whom the moon and stars do not know, whose body the moon and stars are, and who pulls (rules) the moon and stars within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'


Sloka : 3.7.12

मन्त्र १२[III.vii.12]

य आकाशे तिष्ठन्नाकाशादन्तरो यमाकाशो न वेद यस्याऽऽकाशः

शरीरं य आकाशमन्तरो यमयत्येष त आत्माऽन्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ १२॥

mantra 12[III.vii.12]

ya ākāśe tiṣṭhannākāśādantaro yamākāśo na veda yasyā''kāśaḥ

śarīraṃ ya ākāśamantaro yamayatyeṣa ta ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛtaḥ .. 12..



Meaning:- He who inhabits the ether, but is within it, whom the ether does not know, whose body is the ether, and who controls the ether from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

Translation By Max Müller

12. 'He who dwells in the ether (âkâsa), and within the ether, whom the ether does not know, whose body the ether is, and who pulls (rules) the ether within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'


Sloka : 3.7.13

मन्त्र १३[III.vii.13]

यस्तमसि तिष्ठꣳस्तमसोऽन्तरो यं तमो न वेद यस्य तमः

शरीरं यस्तमोऽन्तरो यमयत्येष त आत्मान्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ १३॥

mantra 13[III.vii.13]

yastamasi tiṣṭhagͫstamaso'ntaro yaṃ tamo na veda yasya tamaḥ

śarīraṃ yastamo'ntaro yamayatyeṣa ta ātmāntaryāmyamṛtaḥ .. 13..



Meaning:- He who inhabits darkness, but is within it, whom darkness does not know, whose body is darkness, and who controls darkness from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

Translation By Max Müller

13. 'He who dwells in the darkness (tamas), and within the darkness, whom the darkness does not know, whose body the darkness is, and who pulls (rules) the darkness within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'


Sloka : 3.7.14

मन्त्र १४[III.vii.14]

यस्तेजसि तिष्ठꣳस्तेजसोऽन्तरो यं तेजो न वेद यस्य तेजः शरीरं

यस्तेजोऽन्तरो यमयत्य्स एष त आत्माऽन्तर्याम्यमृत इत्यधिदैवतं

अथाधिभूतम् ॥ १४॥

mantra 14[III.vii.14]

yastejasi tiṣṭhagͫstejaso'ntaro yaṃ tejo na veda yasya tejaḥ śarīraṃ

yastejo'ntaro yamayatysa eṣa ta ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛta ityadhidaivataṃ

athādhibhūtam .. 14..



Meaning:- He who inhabits light, but is within it, whom light does not know, whose body is light, and who controls light from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. This much with reference to the gods. Now with reference to the beings.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- The rest is to be similarly explained. He who inhabits water, fire, the sky, air, heaven, the sun, the quarters, the moon and stars, the ether, darkness --- the external darkness that obstructs vision, and light, light in general, which is the opposite of darkness. This much with reference to the gods, i.e. the meditation on the Internal Ruler as pertaining to the gods. Now with reference to the beings. i.e. the meditation on the Internal Ruler as pertaining to the different grades of beings from Hiranyagarbha down to a clump of grass.

Translation By Max Müller

14. 'He who dwells in the light (tegas), and within the light, whom the light does not know, whose body the light is, and who pulls (rules) the light within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.' So far with respect to the gods (adhidaivatam); now with respect to beings (adhibhûtam).


Sloka : 3.7.15

मन्त्र १५[III.vii.15]

यः सर्वेषु भूतेषु तिष्ठन्सर्वेभ्यो भूतेभ्योऽन्तरो यꣳ सर्वाणि

भूतानि न विदुर्यस्य सर्वाणि भुतानि शरीरं यः सर्वाणि भूतान्यन्तरो

यमयत्येष त आत्माऽन्तर्याम्यमृत इत्यधिभूतमथाध्यात्मम् ॥ १५॥

mantra 15[III.vii.15]

yaḥ sarveṣu bhūteṣu tiṣṭhansarvebhyo bhūtebhyo'ntaro yagͫ sarvāṇi

bhūtāni na viduryasya sarvāṇi bhutāni śarīraṃ yaḥ sarvāṇi bhūtānyantaro

yamayatyeṣa ta ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛta ityadhibhūtamathādhyātmam .. 15..



Meaning:- He who inhabits all beings, but is within it, whom no being knows, whose body is all beings, and who controls all beings from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. This much with reference to the beings. Now with reference to the body.

Translation By Max Müller

15. Yâgñavalkya said:- 'He who dwells in all beings, and within all beings, whom all beings do not know, whose body all beings are, and who pulls (rules) all beings within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'


Sloka : 3.7.16

मन्त्र १६[III.vii.16]

यः प्राणे तिष्ठन्प्राणादन्तरो यं प्राणो न वेद यस्य प्राणः शरीरं

यः प्राणमन्तरो यमयत्येष त आत्माऽन्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ १६॥

mantra 16[III.vii.16]

yaḥ prāṇe tiṣṭhanprāṇādantaro yaṃ prāṇo na veda yasya prāṇaḥ śarīraṃ

yaḥ prāṇamantaro yamayatyeṣa ta ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛtaḥ .. 16..



Meaning:- He who inhabits the nose, but is within it, whom the nose does not know, whose body is the nose, and who controls the nose from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

Translation By Max Müller

16. 'He who dwells in the breath (prâna), and within the breath, whom the breath does not know, whose body the breath is, and who pulls (rules) the breath within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'


Sloka : 3.7.17

मन्त्र १७[III.vii.17]

यो वाचि तिष्ठन्वाचोऽन्तरो यं वाङ्न वेद यस्य वाक् शरीरं यो

वाचमन्तरो यमयत्येष त आत्माऽन्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ १७॥

mantra 17[III.vii.17]

yo vāci tiṣṭhanvāco'ntaro yaṃ vāṅna veda yasya vāk śarīraṃ yo

vācamantaro yamayatyeṣa ta ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛtaḥ .. 17..



Meaning:- He who inhabits the organ of speech, but is within it, whom the organ of speech does not know, whose body is the organ of speech, and who controls the organ of speech from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

Translation By Max Müller

17. 'He who dwells in the tongue (vâk), and within the tongue, whom the tongue does not know, whose body the tongue is, and who pulls (rules) the tongue within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'


Sloka : 3.7.18

मन्त्र १८[III.vii.18]

यश्चक्षुषि तिष्ठꣳश्चक्षुषोऽन्तरो यं चक्षुर्न

वेद यस्य चक्षुः शरीरं यश्चक्षुरन्तरो यमयत्येष त

आत्माऽन्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ १८॥

mantra 18[III.vii.18]

yaścakṣuṣi tiṣṭhagͫścakṣuṣo'ntaro yaṃ cakṣurna

veda yasya cakṣuḥ śarīraṃ yaścakṣurantaro yamayatyeṣa ta

ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛtaḥ .. 18..



Meaning:- He who inhabits the eye, but is within it, whom the eye does not know, whose body is the eye, and who controls the eye from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

Translation By Max Müller

18. 'He who dwells in the eye, and within the eye, whom the eye does not know, whose body the eye is, and who pulls (rules) the eye within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'


Sloka : 3.7.19

मन्त्र १९[III.vii.19]

यः श्रोत्रे तिष्ठञ्छ्रोत्रादन्तरो यꣳ श्रोत्रं न वेद

यस्य श्रोत्रꣳ शरीरं यः श्रोत्रमन्तरो यमयत्य्स एष त

आत्माऽन्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ १९॥

mantra 19[III.vii.19]

yaḥ śrotre tiṣṭhañchrotrādantaro yagͫ śrotraṃ na veda

yasya śrotragͫ śarīraṃ yaḥ śrotramantaro yamayatysa eṣa ta

ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛtaḥ .. 19..



Meaning:- He who inhabits the ear, but is within it, whom the ear does not know, whose body is the ear, and who controls the ear from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

Translation By Max Müller

19. 'He who dwells in the ear, and within the ear, whom the ear does not know, whose body the ear is, and who pulls (rules) the ear within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'


Sloka : 3.7.20

मन्त्र २०[III.vii.20]

यो मनसि तिष्ठन्मनसोऽन्तरो यं मनो न वेद यस्य मनः शरीरं

यो मनोऽन्तरो यमयत्येष त आत्माऽन्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ २०॥

mantra 20[III.vii.20]

yo manasi tiṣṭhanmanaso'ntaro yaṃ mano na veda yasya manaḥ śarīraṃ

yo mano'ntaro yamayatyeṣa ta ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛtaḥ .. 20..



Meaning:- He who inhabits the mind (Manas), but is within it, whom the mind does not know, whose body is the mind, and who controls the mind from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

Translation By Max Müller

20. 'He who dwells in the mind, and within the mind, whom the mind does not know, whose body the mind is, and who pulls (rules) the mind within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'


Sloka : 3.7.21

मन्त्र २१[III.vii.21]

यस्त्वचि तिष्ठꣳस्त्वचोऽन्तरो यं त्वङ्न वेद यस्य त्वक् शरीरं

यस्त्वचमन्तरो यमयत्येष त आत्माऽन्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ २१॥

mantra 21[III.vii.21]

yastvaci tiṣṭhagͫstvaco'ntaro yaṃ tvaṅna veda yasya tvak śarīraṃ

yastvacamantaro yamayatyeṣa ta ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛtaḥ .. 21..



Meaning:- He who inhabits the skin, but is within it, whom the skin does not know, whose body is the skin, and who controls the skin from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

Translation By Max Müller

21. 'He who dwells in the skin, and within the skin, whom the skin does not know, whose body the skin is, and who pulls (rules) the skin within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'


Sloka : 3.7.22

मन्त्र २२[III.vii.22]

यो विज्ञाने तिष्ठन्विज्ञानादन्तरो यꣳ विज्ञानं न वेद

यस्य विज्ञानꣳ शरीरं यो विज्ञानमन्तरो यमयत्येष त

आत्माऽन्तर्याम्यमृतः ॥ २२॥

mantra 22[III.vii.22]

yo vijñāne tiṣṭhanvijñānādantaro yagͫ vijñānaṃ na veda

yasya vijñānagͫ śarīraṃ yo vijñānamantaro yamayatyeṣa ta

ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛtaḥ .. 22..



Meaning:- He who inhabits the intellect, but is within it, whom the intellect does not know, whose body is the intellect, and who controls the intellect from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

Translation By Max Müller

22. 'He who dwells in knowledge [1], and within knowledge, whom knowledge does not know, whose body knowledge is, and who pulls (rules) knowledge within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'

Footnote:

1. Self, i.e. the individual Self, according to the Mâdhyandina school; see Deussen, p. 161.


Sloka : 3.7.23

मन्त्र २३[III.vii.23]

यो रेतसि तिष्ठन् रेतसोऽन्तरो यꣳ रेतो न वेद यस्य रेतः

शरीरं यो रेतोऽन्तरो यमयत्येष त आत्माऽन्तर्याम्यमृतोऽदृष्टो

द्रष्टाऽश्रुतः श्रोताऽमतो मन्ताऽविज्ञतो विज्ञाता । नान्योऽतोऽस्ति

द्रष्टा नान्योऽतोऽस्ति श्रोता नान्योऽतोऽस्ति मन्ता नान्योऽतोऽस्ति

विज्ञातैष त आत्माऽन्तर्याम्यमृतोऽतोऽन्यदार्तं ततो होद्दालक

आरुणिरुपरराम ॥ २३॥

इति सप्तमं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ अष्टमं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 23[III.vii.23]

yo retasi tiṣṭhan retaso'ntaro yagͫ reto na veda yasya retaḥ

śarīraṃ yo reto'ntaro yamayatyeṣa ta ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛto'dṛṣṭo

draṣṭā'śrutaḥ śrotā'mato mantā'vijñato vijñātā . nānyo'to'sti

draṣṭā nānyo'to'sti śrotā nānyo'to'sti mantā nānyo'to'sti

vijñātaiṣa ta ātmā'ntaryāmyamṛto'to'nyadārtaṃ tato hoddālaka

āruṇirupararāma .. 23..

iti saptamaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha aṣṭamaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- He who inhabits the organ of generation, but is within it, whom the organ of generation does not know, whose body is the organ of generation, and who controls the organ of generation from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. He is never seen, but is the Witness; He is never heard, but is the Hearer; He is never thought, but is the Thinker; He is never known, but is the Knower. There is no other witness but Him, no other hearer but Him, no other thinker but Him, no other knower but Him. He is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. Everything else but Him is mortal.' Thereupon Uddalaka, the son of Aruna, kept silent.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Now with reference to the body. He who inhabits the nose together with the vital force, the organ of speech, the eye, the ear, the mind (Manas), the skin, the intellect and the organ of generation (lit. the seed). Why is it that the deities of the earth and so on, in spite of their exceptional powers, fail to see, like men etc., the Internal Ruler who lives in them and controls them? This is being answered:- He is never seen, never the object of anybody's ocular perception, but being close to the eye as Pure Intelligence, He Himself is the Witness.

Similarly He is never heard, or perceived by anybody through the ear, but He Himself, with His never-failing power of hearing, is the Hearer, being close to all ears. Likewise He is never thought, never becomes the object of deliberation by the mind, for people think of those things that they have seen or heard, and the Internal Ruler, never being seen or heard, is never thought; but He is the Thinker, for His thinking power never wanes, and He is close to all minds. Similarly, He is never known or definitely grasped like colour etc., or like pleasure and so forth; but He Himself is the Knower, for His intelligence never fails, and He is close to the intellect. Now the statements, 'Whom the earth does not know,' and 'Whom no being knows,' may mean that the individual selves (the deities of the earth etc.) that are controlled are different from the Internal Ruler who controls. To remove this presumption of difference, the text goes on to say:- There is no other witness but Him, this Internal Ruler; similarly, no other hearer but Him, no other thinker but Him, and no other knower but Him. He, except whom there is no other witness, hearer, thinker and knower, who is never seen but is the Witness, who is never heard but is the Hearer, who is never thought but is the Thinker, who is never known but is the Knower, who is immortal, devod of all relative attributes, and is the distributor of the fruits of everybody's actions --- is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. Everything else but Him, this Isvara or Atman, is mortal. Thereupon Uddalaka, the son of Aruna, kept silent.

Translation By Max Müller

23. 'He who dwells in the seed, and within the seed, whom the seed does not know, whose body the seed is, and who pulls (rules) the seed within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal; unseen, but seeing; unheard, but hearing; unperceived, but perceiving; unknown, but knowing. There is no other seer but he, there is no other hearer but he, there is no other perceiver but he, there is no other knower but he. This is thy Self, the ruler within, the immortal. Everything else is of evil.' After that Uddâlaka Âruni held his peace.


Sloka : 3.8.1

मन्त्र १[III.viii.1]

अथ ह वाचक्नव्युवाच ब्राह्मणा भगवन्तो हन्ताहमिमं द्वौ

प्रश्नौ प्रक्ष्यामि तौ चेन्मे वक्ष्यति न वै जातु युष्माकमिमं

कश्चिद्ब्रह्मोद्यं जेतेति । पृच्छ गार्गीति ॥ १॥

mantra 1[III.viii.1]

atha ha vācaknavyuvāca brāhmaṇā bhagavanto hantāhamimaṃ dvau

praśnau prakṣyāmi tau cenme vakṣyati na vai jātu yuṣmākamimaṃ

kaścidbrahmodyaṃ jeteti . pṛccha gārgīti .. 1..



Meaning:- Then the daughter of Vachaknu said, 'Revered Brahmans, I shall him two questions, Should he answer me those, none of you can ever beat him in describing Brahman.' 'Ask, O Gargi'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Then the daughter of Vacaknu said. Having previously been warned by Yajnavalkya, she had desisted lest her head should fall off. Now she asks the permission of the Brahmanas to interrogate him once more. 'Revered Brahmanas, please listen to what I say. I shall ask him, Yajnavalkya, two more questions, if you will permit it. Should he answer me those, none of you can ever possibly beat him in describing Brahman.' Thus addressed, the Brahmanas gave her the permission. 'Ask, O Gargi.'

Translation By Max Müller

1. Then Vâkaknavî [1] said:- 'Venerable Brâhmanas, I shall ask him two questions. If he will answer them, none of you, I think, will defeat him in any argument concerning Brahman.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Ask, O Gârgî.'

Footnote:

1. Gârgî, not the wife of Yâgñavalkya.


Sloka : 3.8.2

मन्त्र २[III.viii.2]

सा होवाचाहं वै त्वा याज्ञवल्क्य यथा काश्यो वा वैदेहो वोग्रपुत्र

उज्ज्यं धनुरधिज्यं कृत्वा द्वौ बाणवन्तौ सपत्नातिव्याधिनौ हस्ते

कृत्वोपोत्तिष्ठेदेवमेवाहं त्वा द्वाभ्यां प्रश्नाभ्यामुपोदस्थाम् ।

तौ मे ब्रूहीति । पृच्छ गार्गीति ॥ २॥

mantra 2[III.viii.2]

sā hovācāhaṃ vai tvā yājñavalkya yathā kāśyo vā vaideho vograputra

ujjyaṃ dhanuradhijyaṃ kṛtvā dvau bāṇavantau sapatnātivyādhinau haste

kṛtvopottiṣṭhedevamevāhaṃ tvā dvābhyāṃ praśnābhyāmupodasthām .

tau me brūhīti . pṛccha gārgīti .. 2..



Meaning:- She said, 'I (shall ask) you (two questions). As a man of Banaras or the King of Videha, scion of a warlike dynasty, might string his unstrung bow and appear close by, carrying in his hand two bamboo-tipped arrows highly painful to the enemy, even so, O Yajnavalkya, do I confront you with two questions. Answer me those'. 'Ask, O Gargi'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Having received the permission, she said to Yajnavalkya, 'I shall ask you two questions.' The extra words are to be supplied from the preceding paragraph. Yajnavalkya was curious to know what they were. So, in order to indicate that the questions were hard to answer, she said through an illustration:- As a man of Banaras --- the inhabitants of which are famous for their valour --- or the King of Videha, scion of a warlike dynasty, might string his unstrung bow and appear close by, carrying in his hand two bamboo-tipped arrows --- an arrow might be without this bamboo-tip; hence the specification --- highly painful to the enemy, even so, O Yajnavalkya, do I confront you with two questions, comparable to arrows. Answer me those, if you are a knower of Brahman. The other said, 'Ask, O Gargi.'

Translation By Max Müller

2. She said:- 'O Yâgñavalkya, as the son of a warrior from the Kâsîs or Videhas might string his loosened bow, take two pointed foe-piercing arrows in his hand and rise to do battle, I have risen to fight thee with two questions. Answer me these questions.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Ask, O Gârgî.'


Sloka : 3.8.3

मन्त्र ३[III.viii.3]

सा होवाच यदूर्ध्वं याज्ञवल्क्य दिवो यदवाक्पृथिव्या यदन्तरा

द्यावापृथिवी इमे यद्भूतं च भवच्च भविष्यच्चेत्याचक्षते

कस्मिꣳस्तदोतं च प्रोतं चेति ॥ ३॥

mantra 3[III.viii.3]

sā hovāca yadūrdhvaṃ yājñavalkya divo yadavākpṛthivyā yadantarā

dyāvāpṛthivī ime yadbhūtaṃ ca bhavacca bhaviṣyaccetyācakṣate

kasmigͫstadotaṃ ca protaṃ ceti .. 3..



Meaning:- She said, 'By what, O Yajnavalkya, is that pervaded which is above heaven and below the earth, which is this heaven and earth as well as between them, and which they say was, is and will be?'





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- She said:- By what, O Yajnavalkya, is that Sutra, already referred to, pervaded as the element earth is by water, which is above heaven, or the upper half of the cosmic shell, and below the earth, or the lower half of the cosmic shell, which is this heaven and earth as well as between them, between the two halves of the cosmic shell, and which they say, on the authority of the scriptures, was in the past, is doing its function at the present moment, and will be continuing in future, as is inferable from indications --- which (Sutra) is described as all this, in which, in other words, the whole dualistic universe is unified?

Translation By Max Müller

3. She said:- 'O Yâgñavalkya, that of which they say that it is above the heavens, beneath the earth, embracing heaven and earth [1], past, present, and future, tell me in what is it woven, like warp and woof?'

Footnote:

1. Deussen, p. 143, translates, 'between heaven and earth,' but that would be the antariksha.


Sloka : 3.8.4

मन्त्र ४[III.viii.4]

स होवाच यदूर्ध्वं गार्गि दिवो यदवाक्पृथिव्या यदन्तरा

द्यावापृथिवी इमे यद्भूतं च भवच्च भविष्यच्चेत्याचक्षत

आकाशे तदोतं च प्रोतं चेति ॥ ४॥

mantra 4[III.viii.4]

sa hovāca yadūrdhvaṃ gārgi divo yadavākpṛthivyā yadantarā

dyāvāpṛthivī ime yadbhūtaṃ ca bhavacca bhaviṣyaccetyācakṣata

ākāśe tadotaṃ ca protaṃ ceti .. 4..



Meaning:- He said, 'That, O Gargi, which is above heaven and below the earth, which is this heaven and earth as well as between them, and which they say was, is and will be, is pervaded by the Unmanifested ether.'





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Yajnavalkya said, 'That, O Gargi, which you have referred to as being above heaven, etc. --- all that which is called the Sutra --- is pervaded by the unmanifested ether:- This manifested universe consisting of the Sutra exists in the unmanifested ether, like earth in water, in the past, present and future, in its origin, continuance and dissolution.'

Translation By Max Müller

4. Yâgñavalkya said:- 'That of which they say that it is above the heavens, beneath the earth, embracing heaven and earth, past, present, and future, that is woven, like warp and woof, in the ether (âkâsa).'


Sloka : 3.8.5

मन्त्र ५[III.viii.5]

सा होवाच नमस्तेऽस्तु याज्ञवल्क्य यो म एतं व्यवोचोऽपरस्मै

धारयस्वेति । पृच्छ गार्गीति ॥ ५॥

mantra 5[III.viii.5]

sā hovāca namaste'stu yājñavalkya yo ma etaṃ vyavoco'parasmai

dhārayasveti . pṛccha gārgīti .. 5..



Meaning:- She said, 'I bow to you, Yajnavalkya, who have fully answered this question of mine. Now be ready for the other question.' 'Ask, O Gargi".





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- She again said, 'I bow to you --- these and the following words indicate the difficult nature of the question --- who have fully answered this question of mine.
The reason why it is difficult to answer is that the Sutra itself is inscrutable to ordinary people and difficult to explain; how much more so, then, is that which pervades it! Therefore I bow to you. Now be ready, hold yourself steady, for the other question. Yajnavalkya said, 'Ask, O Gargi.'

Translation By Max Müller

5. She said:- 'I bow to thee, O Yâgñavalkya, who hast solved me that question. Get thee ready for the second.' Yâgñavalkya said [1]:- 'Ask, O Gârgî.'

Footnote:

1. This repetition does not occur in the Mâdhyandina text.


Sloka : 3.8.6

मन्त्र ६[III.viii.6]

सा होवाच यदूर्ध्वं याज्ञवल्क्य दिवो यदवाक् पृथिव्याः यदन्तरा

द्यावापृथिवी इमे यद्भूतं च भवच्च भविष्यच्चेत्याचक्षते

आचक्षते कस्मिꣳस्तदोतं च प्रोतं चेति ॥ ६॥

mantra 6[III.viii.6]

sā hovāca yadūrdhvaṃ yājñavalkya divo yadavāk pṛthivyāḥ yadantarā

dyāvāpṛthivī ime yadbhūtaṃ ca bhavacca bhaviṣyaccetyācakṣate

ācakṣate kasmigͫstadotaṃ ca protaṃ ceti .. 6..



Meaning:- She said, 'By what, O Yajnavalkya, is that pervaded which is above heaven and below the earth, which is this heaven and earth as well as between them, and which they say was, is and will be?'





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- All this has been explained. The question and the answer are repeated in this and the next paragraph in order to emphasise the truth already stated by Yajnavalkya. Nothing new is introduced.

Translation By Max Müller

6. She said:- 'O Yâgñavalkya, that of which they say that it is above the heavens, beneath the earth, embracing heaven and earth, past, present, and future, tell me in what is it woven, like warp and woof?'


Sloka : 3.8.7

मन्त्र ७[III.viii.7]

स होवाच यदूर्ध्वं गार्गि दिवो यदवाक्पृथिव्या यदन्तरा

द्यावापृथिवी इमे यद्भूतं च भवच्च भविष्यच्चेत्याचक्षत

आकाश एव तदोतं च प्रोतं चेति । कस्मिन्नु खल्वाकाश ओतश्च

प्रोतश्चेति ॥ ७॥

mantra 7[III.viii.7]

sa hovāca yadūrdhvaṃ gārgi divo yadavākpṛthivyā yadantarā

dyāvāpṛthivī ime yadbhūtaṃ ca bhavacca bhaviṣyaccetyācakṣata

ākāśa eva tadotaṃ ca protaṃ ceti . kasminnu khalvākāśa otaśca

protaśceti .. 7..



Meaning:- He said, 'That, O Gargi, which is above heaven and below the earth, which is this heaven and earth as well as between them, and which they say was, is and will be, is pervaded by the Unmanifested ether alone.' 'By what is the Unmanifested ether pervaded?'





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Yajnavalkya repeated Gargi's question as it was, and emphasised what he had already stated by saying, 'By the unmanifested ether alone.' Gargi said, 'By what is the unmanifested ether pervaded?' She considered the question unanswerable, for the unmanifested ether itself, being beyond time past, present and future, was difficult to explain:- much more so was the Immutable (Brahman) by which the unmanifested ether was pervaded; hence It could not be explained. Now, if Yajnavalkya did not explain It for this reason, he would lay himself open to the charge of what is called in the system of logic 'non-comprehension', if, on the other hand, he tried to explain It, not withstanding the fact that It was a thing that could not be explained, he would be guilty of what is called 'a contradiction'; for the attempt to explain what cannot be explained is such a contradiction.

Translation By Max Müller

7. Yâgñavalkya said:- 'That of which they say that it is above the heavens, beneath the earth, embracing heaven and earth, past, present, and future, that is woven, like warp and woof, in the ether.' Gârgî said:- 'In what then is the ether woven, like warp and woof?'


Sloka : 3.8.8

मन्त्र ८[III.viii.8]

स होवाचैतद्वै तदक्षरऽ गार्गि ब्राह्मणा

अभिवदन्त्यस्थूलमनण्वह्रस्वमदीर्घमलोहितमस्नेहमच्छायमतमो-

ऽवाय्वनाकाशमसङ्गं अचक्षुष्कमश्रोत्रमवाग्

अमनोऽतेजस्कमप्राणममुखममात्रं अनन्तरमबाह्यं न तदश्नाति

किं चन न तदश्नाति कश्चन ॥ ८॥

mantra 8[III.viii.8]

sa hovācaitadvai tadakṣara' gārgi brāhmaṇā

abhivadantyasthūlamanaṇvahrasvamadīrghamalohitamasnehamacchāyamatamo-

'vāyvanākāśamasaṅgaṃ acakṣuṣkamaśrotramavāg

amano'tejaskamaprāṇamamukhamamātraṃ anantaramabāhyaṃ na tadaśnāti

kiṃ cana na tadaśnāti kaścana .. 8..



Meaning:- He said:- O Gargi, the knowers of Brahman say, this Immutable (Brahman) is that. It is neither gross nor minute, neither short nor long, neither red colour nor oiliness, neither shadow nor darkness, neither air nor ether, unattached, neither savour nor odour, without eyes or ears, without the vocal organ or mind, non-luminous, without the vital force or mouth, not a measure, and without interior or exterior. It does not eat anything, nor is It eaten by anybody.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- With a view to evading both the charges, he, Yajnavalkya said:- O Gargi, the knowers of Brahman say, this is that about which you have asked, 'By what is the unmanifested ether pervaded?' What is it? The Immutable, i.e. which does not decay or change.
By referring to the opinion of the knowers of Brahman, he evades both the charges by suggesting that he will say nothing objectionable, nor that he has filled to comprehend the question. When he thus answered her question, Gargi must have rejoined, 'Tell me, what is that Immutable which the knowers of Brahman speak of?' Thus addressed, Yajnavalkya said:- It is not gross, i.e. is other gross. Then It must be minute? No, nor minute. Then is It short? Neither short. Then It must be long? No, nor long. By this fourfold negation of size all the characteristics of a substance are denied of It; in other words, this Immutable is not a substance. Is It then red colour, which is a quality? No, It is different from that too --- neither red colour; red colour is a quality of fire. Is It then the oiliness of water (It is an assumption of the Vaisesika philosophy that oiliness is the quality of water.)? No, nor oiliness. Is It then a shadow, being altogether indescribable? No, It is different from that too --- neither shadow. Is It then darkness? No, nor darkness. Let It then be air. No, neither air. May It then be the ether? No, nor ether. Is It then sticky like lac? No, It is unattahced. Is It then savour? Neither savour. Let It then be odour. No, nor adour. Has It then eyes? No, It is without eyes, for It has not instrument of vision; as the Mantra says, 'He sees without eyes' (Sv. III. 19). Similarly It is without ears, as the Sruti puts it:- 'He hears without ears' (Ibid). Let It then have the vocal organ. No, It is without the vocal organ. Similarly It is without the mind. Likewise It is non-luminous, for It has no lustre like that of fire etc. It is without the vital force; the vital force in the body is denied of It. Has It then a mouth or opening? No, It is without a mouth. Not a measure:- It does not measure anything. Is It then porous? No, It is without interior. Then may be It has an exterior? No. It has no exterior. Is It then an eater?
No, It does not eat anything. Then is It anybody's food? No, nor is It eaten by anybody. In other words, It is devoid of all attributes, for It is one only without a second; so what is there that can be specified, and through what?

Translation By Max Müller

8. He said:- 'O Gârgî, the Brâhmanas call this the Akshara (the imperishable). It is neither coarse nor fine, neither short nor long, neither red (like fire) nor fluid (like water); it is without shadow, without darkness, without air, without ether, without attachment [1], without taste, without smell, without eyes, without ears, without speech, without mind, without light (vigour), without breath, without a mouth (or door), without measure, having no within and no without, it devours nothing, and no one devours it.'

Footnote:

1. Not adhering to anything, like lac or gum.


Sloka : 3.8.9

मन्त्र ९[III.viii.9]

एतस्य वा अक्षरस्य प्रशासने गार्गि सूर्याचन्द्रमसौ विधृतौ

तिष्ठत एतस्य वा अक्षरस्य प्रशासने गार्गि द्यावापृथिव्यौ

विधृते तिष्ठत एतस्य वा अक्षरस्य प्रशासने गार्गि

निमेषा मुहूर्ता अहोरात्राण्यर्धमासा मासा ऋतवः संवत्सरा इति

विधृतास्तिष्ठन्त्येतस्य वा अक्षरस्य प्रशासने गार्गि प्राच्योऽन्या

नद्यः स्यन्दन्ते श्वेतेभ्यः पर्वतेभ्यः प्रतीच्योऽन्या यां यां

च दिशमन्वेतस्य वा अक्षरस्य प्रशासने गार्गि ददतो मनुष्याः

प्रशꣳसन्ति यजमानं देवा दर्वीं पितरोऽन्वायत्ताः ॥ ९॥

mantra 9[III.viii.9]

etasya vā akṣarasya praśāsane gārgi sūryācandramasau vidhṛtau

tiṣṭhata etasya vā akṣarasya praśāsane gārgi dyāvāpṛthivyau

vidhṛte tiṣṭhata etasya vā akṣarasya praśāsane gārgi

nimeṣā muhūrtā ahorātrāṇyardhamāsā māsā ṛtavaḥ saṃvatsarā iti

vidhṛtāstiṣṭhantyetasya vā akṣarasya praśāsane gārgi prācyo'nyā

nadyaḥ syandante śvetebhyaḥ parvatebhyaḥ pratīcyo'nyā yāṃ yāṃ

ca diśamanvetasya vā akṣarasya praśāsane gārgi dadato manuṣyāḥ

praśagͫsanti yajamānaṃ devā darvīṃ pitaro'nvāyattāḥ .. 9..



Meaning:- Under the mighty rule of this Immutable, O Gargi, the sun and moon are held in their positions; under the mighty rule of this Immutable, O Gargi, heaven and earth maintain their positions; under the mighty rule of this Immutable, O Gargi, moments, Muhurtas, days and nights, fortnights, months, seasons and years are held in their respective places; under the mighty rule of this Immutable, O Gargi, some rivers flow eastward from the White Mountains, others flowing westward continue in that direction, and still others keep to their respective courses; under the mighty rule of this Immutable, O Gargi, men praise those that give, the gods depend on the sacrificer, and the manes on independent offerings (Darvihoma).





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- The Sruti, by attempting to negate various attributes of the Immutable, has indicated Its existence. Yet, anticipating the popular misconception about It, is adduces an inferential evidence in favour of Its existence:- Under the mighty rule of this Immutable, the Brahman that has been known to be within all, immediate and direct --- the self that is devoid of all attributes such as hunger, O Gargi, the sun and moon, which are like two lamps giving light to all beings by day and night respectively, are held in their positions, as a kingdom remains unbroken and orderly under the mighty rule of a king. They must have been created for the purpose of giving light by a Universal Ruler who knows of what use they will be to all, for they serve the common good of all beings by giving light, as we see in the case of an ordinary lamp (As from a lamp we infer the existence of its maker, so from the sun and moon we infer the existence of an omniscient God, 'the Immutable.'). Therefore That exists which has made the sun and moon and compels them, though they are powerful and independent, to rise and set, increase and decrease, according to fixed placce, time and causes (A drsta or the resultant of the past work of beings.). Thus there exists their mighty Ruler, the Immutable, as the lamp has its maker and regulator. Under the mighty rule of this Immutable, O Gargi, heaven and earth maintain their positions, although they are by nature subject to disruption because of having parts, inclined to fall owing to their weight, liable to separate, being a compound, and are independent, each being presided over by a conscious deity identifying itself with it. It is this Immutable which is like a boundary wall that preserves the distinctions among things --- keeps all things within their limits; hence the sun and moon do not transgress the mighty rule of this Immutable. Therefore Its existence is proved. The unfailing sign of this is the fact that heaven and earth obey a fixed order; this would be impossible were there not a conscious, transcendent Ruler. Witness the Mantra, 'Who has made heaven powerful and the earth firm' (R. X. cxxi. 5).

Under the mighty rule of this Immutable, O Gargi, moments, Muhurtas, etc. --- all these divisions of time, which count all things past, present and future that are subject to birth --- are held in their respective places. As in life an accountant appointed by his master carefully calculates all items of incomes and expenditure, so are these divisions of time controlled by their master, the Immutable. Similarly some rivers, such as the Ganga, flow eastward from the White Mountains, the Himalayas, for instance, and they, notwithstanding their power to do otherwise (Since the deities identifying themselves with these are sentient beings.), keep to their original courses; this too indicates a Ruler. Others flowing westward, such as the Indus, continue in that direction, and still others keep to their respective courses, do not deviate from the courses they have taken; this is another indication.
Moreover, even learned men praise those that give gold etc., even at a personal sacrifice. Now the conjunction and disjunction of gifts, their donors and their recipients are seen to take place before our eyes in this very life. But the subsequent recombination (of the donor and the fruit of his gift) is a matter we do not directly see. Still people praise the charitable, for they observe on other evidence that those that give are rewarded. This would be impossible were there no Ruler who, knowing the various results of actions, brought about this union of the giver and the reward, for the act of giving obviously perishes then and there. Therefore there must be someone who connects the givers with the results of their charity.

Objection:- Cannot the extraordinary result of an action (Apurva) serve this purpose?
Reply:- No, for there is nothing to prove its existence.
Objection:- Does not the same objection apply to the Ruler too?
Reply:- No, for it is an established fact that the Srutis seek to posit His existence. We have already said that the Srutis aim at delineating the Reality. Besides, the implication on which the theory of the extraordinary result depends is out of place, for the fruition can be otherwise accounted for. We observe that the reward of service is obtained from the person served; and as service is an act, and sacrifices, gifts, offering oblations in the fire, etc., are just as much acts, it is fitting that the reward for their performance should come from those in whose honour they are performed, viz God and so forth. Since we can explain the obtaining of rewards without sacrificing the directly observed inherent power of acts, it is improper to sacrifice that power.
Moreover, it involves a superfluity of assumptions. We must assume either God or the extraordinary result. Now we observe that it is the very nature of an act of sevice that it is rewarded by the person served, not by the extraordinary result; and no one has ever actually experienced this result. So (in your view) we have to assume that the extraordinary result, which nobody has ever observed, exists; that it has the power to confer rewards; and that having this power, it does in addition confer them. On our side, however, we have to assume only the existence of the person served, viz God, but neither His power to confer rewards nor His exercise of it, for we actually observe that the person served rewards the service. The grounds for inferring His existence have already been shown in the text:- 'Heaven and earth maintain their positions,' etc. (this text). Likewise the gods, although they are so powerful, depend on the sacrificer for their livelihood --- for such means of subsistence as the porridge and cakes. That in spite of their ability to live otherwise they have taken to this humiliating course of life, is possible only because of the mighty rule of the Lord. Similarly the manes depend for their subsistence on independent offerings. The rest is to be explained as before.

Translation By Max Müller

9. 'By the command of that Akshara (the imperishable), O Gârgî, sun and moon stand apart [1]. By the command of that Akshara, O Gârgî, heaven and earth stand apart. By the command of that Akshara, O Gârgî, what are called moments (nimesha), hours (muhûrta), days and nights, half-months, months, seasons, years, all stand apart. By the command of that Akshara, O Gârgî, some rivers flow to the East from the white mountains, others to the West, or to any other quarter. By the command of that Akshara, O Gârgî, men praise those who give, the gods follow the sacrificer, the fathers the Darvî-offering.'

Footnote:

1. Each follows its own course.


Sloka : 3.8.10

मन्त्र १०[III.viii.10]

यो वा एतदक्षरं गार्ग्यविदित्वाऽस्मिꣳल्लोके जुहोति यजते

तपस्तप्यते बहूनि वर्षसहस्राण्यन्तवदेवास्य तद्भवति लोको भवति

यो वा एतदक्षरं गार्ग्यविदित्वाऽस्माल्लोकात्प्रैति स कृपणोऽथ य

एतदक्षरं गार्गि विदित्वाऽस्माल्लोकात्प्रैति स ब्राह्मणः ॥ १०॥

mantra 10[III.viii.10]

yo vā etadakṣaraṃ gārgyaviditvā'smigͫlloke juhoti yajate

tapastapyate bahūni varṣasahasrāṇyantavadevāsya tadbhavati loko bhavati

yo vā etadakṣaraṃ gārgyaviditvā'smāllokātpraiti sa kṛpaṇo'tha ya

etadakṣaraṃ gārgi viditvā'smāllokātpraiti sa brāhmaṇaḥ .. 10..



Meaning:- He, O Gargi, who in this world, without knowing this Immutable, offers oblations in the fire, performs sacrifices and undergoes austerities even for many thousand years, finds all such acts but perishable; he, O Gargi, who departs from this world without knowing this Immutable, is miserable. But he, O Gargi, who departs from this world after knowing this Immutable, is a knower of Brahman.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Here is another reason for the existence of the Immutable, because until one knows It, one is bound to suffer transmigration; and That must exist the knowledge of which puts a stop to it, for this is but logical.
Objection:- May not rites alone do this?
Reply:- No, he, O Gargi, who in this world, without knowing this Immutable offers oblations in the fire, performs sacrifices and undergoes austerities even for many thousand years, finds all such acts but perishable. After he has enjoyed their fruits, those rites are inevitably exhausted. Besides, that mighty Ruler, the Immutable, exists by knowing which misery is at an end --- transmigration is stopped, and not knowing which the ritualists is miserable --- enjoys only the results of his rites and moves in an endless series of births and deaths. So the text says:- He, O Gargi, who departs from this world without knowing this Immutable, is miserable, like a slave etc. bought for a price. But he, O Gargi, who departs from this world after knowing this Immutable, is a knower of Brahman. It may be contended that like the heat and light of fire, the rulership of the Immutable is natural to the insentient Pradhana (of the Samkhyas, and not to Brahman). The reply is being given:-

Translation By Max Müller

10. 'Whosoever, O Gârgî, without knowing that Akshara (the imperishable), offers oblations in this world, sacrifices, and performs penance for a thousand years, his work will have an end. Whosoever, O Gargî, without knowing this Akshara, departs this world, he is miserable (like a slave) [1]. But he, O Gârgî, who departs this world, knowing this Akshara, he is a Brâhmana.'

Footnote:

1. He stores up the effects from work, like a miser his riches,' Roer. 'He is helpless,' Gough.


Sloka : 3.8.11

मन्त्र ११[III.viii.11]

तद्वा एतदक्षरं गार्ग्यदृष्टं द्रष्टृश्रुतꣳ श्रोत्त्रमतं

मन्त्रविज्ञातं विज्ञातृ नान्यदतोऽस्ति द्रष्टृ नान्यदतोऽस्ति

श्रोतृ नान्यदतोऽस्ति मन्तृ नान्यदतोऽस्ति विज्ञात्त्रेतस्मिन्नु

खल्वक्षरे गार्ग्याकाश ओतश्च प्रोतश्चेति ॥ ११॥

mantra 11[III.viii.11]

tadvā etadakṣaraṃ gārgyadṛṣṭaṃ draṣṭṛśrutagͫ śrottramataṃ

mantravijñātaṃ vijñātṛ nānyadato'sti draṣṭṛ nānyadato'sti

śrotṛ nānyadato'sti mantṛ nānyadato'sti vijñāttretasminnu

khalvakṣare gārgyākāśa otaśca protaśceti .. 11..



Meaning:- This Immutable, O Gargi, is never seen but is the Witness; It is never heard, but is the Hearer; It is never thought, but is the Thinker; It is never known, but is the Knower. There is no other witness but This, no other hearer but This, no other thinker but This, no other knower but This. By this Immutable, O Gargi, is the (Unmanifested) ether pervaded.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- This Immutable, O Gargi, is never seen by anybody, not being a sense-object, but is Itself the Witness, being vision itself. Likewise It is never heard, not being an object of hearing, but is Itself the Hearer, being hearing itself. So also It is never thought, not being an object of the mind, but is Itself the Thinker, being thought itself. Similarly It is never known, not being an object of the intellect, but is Itself the Knower, being intelligence itself. Further, there is no other witness but This, the Immutable; this Immutable Itself is everywhere the Witness, the subject of vision. Similarly there is no other hearer but This; this Immutable Itself is everywhere the Hearer.
There is no other thinker but This; this Immutable Itself is everywhere the Thinker, thinking through all minds. There is no other knower but This; this Immutable Itself --- neither the insentient Pradhana nor anything else --- is the Knower, knowing through all intellects. By this Immutable, O Gargi, is the (unmanifested) ether pervaded. The Brahman which is immediate and direct, which is the self within all and is beyond the relative attributes of hunger etc., and by which the (unmanifested) ether is pervaded, is the extreme limit, the ultimate goal, the Supreme Brahman, the Truth of truth (the elements) beginning with earth and ending with the ether.

Translation By Max Müller

11. 'That Brahman,' O Gârgî, 'is unseen, but seeing; unheard, but hearing; unperceived, but perceiving; unknown, but knowing. There is nothing that sees but it, nothing that hears but it, nothing that perceives but it, nothing that knows but it. In that Akshara then, O Gârgî, the ether is woven, like warp and woof.'


Sloka : 3.8.12

मन्त्र १२[III.viii.12]

सा होवाच ब्राह्मणा भगवन्तस्तदेव बहु मन्येध्वं यदस्मान्नमस्कारेण

मुच्येध्वं न वै जातु युष्माकमिमं कश्चिद्ब्रह्मोद्यं जेतेति ततो ह

वाचक्नव्युपरराम ॥ १२॥

इत्यष्टमं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ नवमं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 12[III.viii.12]

sā hovāca brāhmaṇā bhagavantastadeva bahu manyedhvaṃ yadasmānnamaskāreṇa

mucyedhvaṃ na vai jātu yuṣmākamimaṃ kaścidbrahmodyaṃ jeteti tato ha

vācaknavyupararāma .. 12..

ityaṣṭamaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha navamaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- She said, 'Revered Brahmans, you should consider yourselves fortunate if you can get off from him through salutations. Never shall any of you beat him in describing Brahman'. Then the daughter of Vachaknu kept silent.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- She said:- 'Revered Brahmanas, listen to my words. You should consider yourselves fortunate if you can get off from him, Yajnavalkya, through salutations, by saluting him. You must never even hope to defeat him, much less do it. Why? Because never shall any of you beat him, Yajnavalkya, in describing Brahman. I already said that if he answered my two question, none could beat him. I still have the conviction that in describing Brahman he has no match.' Then the daughter of Vacaknu kept silent.

In the section dealing with the Internal Ruler it has been said, 'Whom the earth does not know,' and 'Whom no being knows.' Now what is the similarity as well as difference among the Internal Ruler whom they do not know, those who do not know Him, and the conscious Principle which, being the subject of the activities of vision etc. of all things, is spoken of as the Immutable?

Regarding this (Some sectional views within the Vedantic school itself are being presented.) some say:- The Internal Ruler is the slightly agitated state of the ocean of Supreme Brahman, the Immutable, which never changes its nature. The individual self, which does not know that Internal Ruler, is the extremely agitated state of that ocean. They also imagine five (Viz the individual, species, Viraj, Sutra and destiny.) other states of Brahman; again they maintain that Brahman has eight (Viz the above five together with the Undifferentiated, the Witness and the individual self.) states. Others say that these are but the powers of the Immutable, which according to them, has unlimited powers. Still others maintain that these are modiciations of the Immutable.
Now the states and powers are inadmissible, for the Srutis declare the Immutable to be beyond the relative attributes of hunger etc. Certainly one and the same thing cannot simultaneously be both beyond hunger etc. and subject to those conditions. The same argument applies to the Immutable having powers, while the flaws in attributing modifications and parts to the Immutable have already been pointed out in the second chapter. Hence all these views are wrong.
What then is the difference among them? It is all due to the limiting adjuncts, we reply:- instrinsically there is neither difference nor identity among them, for they are by nature Pure Intelligence, homogeneous like a lump of salt. Witness the Sruti too:- 'Without prior or posterior, without interioror exterior.' 'This self is Brahman' (II. v. 19); also in the Mundaka Upanisad:- 'It includes the interior and exterior, and is unborn' (II. i. 2).

Therefore the unconditioned Self, being beyond speech and mind, undifferentiated and one, is designated as 'Not this, not this'; when It has the limiting adjuncts of the body and organs, which are characterised by ignorance, desire and work, It is called the transmigrating individual self; and when the Self has the limiting adjunct of the power of eternal and unlimited knowledge (i.e. Maya), It is called the Internal Ruler and Isvara. The same Self, as by nature transcendent, absolute and pure, is called the Immutable and Supreme Self. Similarly, having the limiting adjuncts of the bodies and organs of Hiranyagarbha, the Undifferentiated, the gods, the species, the individual, men, animals, spirits, etc., the Self assumes those particular names and forms. Thus have we explained this through the Sruti passage:- 'It moves, and does not move' (Is. 5). In this light alone such texts as, 'This is your self (that is within all)' (III. iv. 1 ' 2; III. v. 1), 'He is the inner Self of all beings' (Mu. II. i. 4), 'This (self) being hidden in all beings,' etc. (Ka. III. 12), 'Thou art That' (Ch. VI. viii. 7), 'I Myself am all this' (Ch. VII. xxv. 1), 'All this is but the Self' (Ibid. 2), and 'There is no other witness but Him' (III. vii. 23), do not prove contadictory; but in any view they cannot be harmonised. Therefore the above entities differ only because of their limiting adjuncts, but not otherwise, for all the Upanisads conclude:- 'One only without a second' (Ch. VI. ii. 1).

Translation By Max Müller

12. Then said Gargî:- 'Venerable Brâhmans, you may consider it a great thing, if you get off by bowing before him. No one, I believe, will defeat him in any argument concerning Brahman.' After that Vâkaknavî held her peace.


Sloka : 3.9.1

मन्त्र १[III.ix.1]

अथ हैनं विदग्धः शाकल्यः पप्रच्छ कति देवा याज्ञवल्क्येति ।

स हैतयैव निविदा प्रतिपेदे यावन्तो वैश्वदेवस्य निविद्युच्यन्ते

त्रयश्च त्री च शता त्रयश्च त्री च सहस्रेत्योमिति होवाच कत्येव

देवा याज्ञवल्क्येति । त्रयस्त्रिꣳशदित्योमिति होवाच । कत्येव देवा

याज्ञवल्क्येति । षडित्योमिति होवाच । कत्येव देवा याज्ञवल्क्येति ।

त्रय इत्योमिति होवाच । कत्येव देवा याज्ञवल्क्येत्य्द्वावित्योमिति होवाच ।

कत्येव देवा याज्ञवल्क्येत्यध्यर्ध इत्योमिति होवाच । कत्येव देवा

याज्ञवल्क्येत्येक इत्योमिति होवाच । कतमे ते त्रयश्च त्री च शता

त्रयश्च त्री च सहस्रेति ॥ १ ॥

mantra 1[III.ix.1]

atha hainaṃ vidagdhaḥ śākalyaḥ papraccha kati devā yājñavalkyeti .

sa haitayaiva nividā pratipede yāvanto vaiśvadevasya nividyucyante

trayaśca trī ca śatā trayaśca trī ca sahasretyomiti hovāca katyeva

devā yājñavalkyeti . trayastrigͫśadityomiti hovāca . katyeva devā

yājñavalkyeti . ṣaḍityomiti hovāca . katyeva devā yājñavalkyeti .

traya ityomiti hovāca . katyeva devā yājñavalkyetydvāvityomiti hovāca .

katyeva devā yājñavalkyetyadhyardha ityomiti hovāca . katyeva devā

yājñavalkyetyeka ityomiti hovāca . katame te trayaśca trī ca śatā

trayaśca trī ca sahasreti .. 1 ..



Meaning:- Then Vidagdha, the son of Sakala, asked him. 'How many gods are there, Yajnavalkya?' Yajnavalkya decided it through this (group of Mantras known as) Nivid (saying), 'As many as are indicated in the Nivid of the Visvadevas - three hundred and three, and three thousand and three'. 'Very well', said Sakalya, 'how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?' 'Thirty-three'. 'Very well', said the other, 'how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?' 'six'. 'Very well', said Sakalya, 'how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?' 'Three'. 'Very well', said the other, 'how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?' 'Two'. 'Very well', said Sakalya, 'how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?' 'One and a half'. 'Very well', said Sakalya, 'how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?' 'One'. 'Very well', said Sakalya, 'which are those three hundred and three and three thousand and three?'





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Then Vidagdha, the son of Sakala, asked him, 'How many gods are there, Yajnavalkya?' Yajnavalkya decided the number asked for by Sakalya through this Nivid that is just going to be mentioned. 'As many gods as are indicated in the Nivid of the eulogistic hymn on the Visvadevas.' The Nivid is a group of verses giving the number of the gods, which are recited in the eulogistic hymn on the Visvadevas. 'There are as many gods as are mentioned in that Nivid.' Which is that Nivid? The words of that Nivid are quoted:- 'Three hundred and three gods, and again three thousand and three gods. So many gods are there.' 'Very well,' said Sakalya, 'you know their intermediate number correctly.' He next asks the smaller number of these very gods, 'How many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?' (Yajnavalkya answers one by one:-) Thirty three, six, three, two, one and a half, and one. After asking the larger and the smaller number of the gods, he now asks about their identity,' Which are those three hundred and three, and three thousand and three?'

Translation By Max Müller

1. Then Vidagdha Sâkalya asked him [1]:- 'How many gods are there, O Yâgñavalkya?' He replied with this very Nivid [2]:- 'As many as are mentioned in the Nivid of the hymn of praise addressed to the Visvedevas, viz. three and three hundred, three and three thousand [3].' 'Yes,' he said, and asked again:- 'How many gods are there really, O Yâgñavalkya?' 'Thirty-three,' he said. 'Yes,' he said, and asked again:- 'How many gods are there really, O Yâgñavalkya?' 'Six,' he said. 'Yes,' he said, and asked again:- 'How many gods are there really, O Yâgñavalkya?' 'Three,' he said. 'Yes,' he said, and asked again:- 'How many gods are there really, O Yâgñavalkya?' 'Two,' he said. 'Yes,' he said, and asked again:- 'How many gods are there really, O Yâgñavalkya?' 'One and a half (adhyardha),' he said. 'Yes,' he said, and asked again:- 'How many gods are there really, O Yâgñavalkya?' 'One,' he said. 'Yes,' he said, and asked:- 'Who are these three and three hundred, three and three thousand?'

Footnote:

1. This disputation between Yâgñavalkya and Vidagdha Sâkalya occurs in a simpler form in the Satapatha-brâhmana, XI, p. 873. He is here represented as the first who defies Yâgñavalkya, and whom Yâgñavalkya asks at once, whether the other Brâhmans had made him the ulmukâvakshayana, the cat's paw, literally one who has to take a burning piece of wood out of the fire (ardha. dagdhakâshtham ulmukam; tasya vahirnirasanam avakshayanam vinâsah). The end, however, is different, for on asking the nature of the one god, the Prâna, he is told by Yâgñavalkya that he has asked for what he ought not to ask, and that therefore he will die and thieves will carry away his bones. 2. Nivid, old and short invocations of the gods; devatâsaṅkhyâvâkakâni mantrapâdni kânikid vaisvadeve sastre sasyante. Saṅkara, and Dvivedagaṅga. 3. This would make 3306 devatâs.


Sloka : 3.9.2

मन्त्र २[III.ix.2]

स होवाच महिमान एवैषामेते त्रयस्त्रिꣳशत्त्वेव देवा इति कतमे

ते त्रयस्त्रिꣳशदित्यष्टौ वसव एकादश रुद्रा द्वादशाऽऽदित्यास्ते

एकत्रिꣳशदिन्द्रश्चैव प्रजापतिश्च त्रयस्त्रिꣳशाविति ॥ २॥

mantra 2[III.ix.2]

sa hovāca mahimāna evaiṣāmete trayastrigͫśattveva devā iti katame

te trayastrigͫśadityaṣṭau vasava ekādaśa rudrā dvādaśā''dityāste

ekatrigͫśadindraścaiva prajāpatiśca trayastrigͫśāviti .. 2..



Meaning:- Yajnavalkya said, 'these are but the manifestation of them, but there are only thirty-three gods.' 'Which are those thirty-three?' 'The eight Vasus, the eleven Rudras and the twelve Adityas - these are thirty-one and Indra and Prajapati make up the thirty-three'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Yajnavalkya said, 'These, the three hundred and three etc., are but the manifestations of them, the thirty-three gods. But really there are only thirtythree gods.' 'Which are those thirty-three?' The reply is being given:- 'The eight Vasus, the eleven Rudras and the twelve Adityas --- these are thirty-one, and Indra and Prajapati make up the thirty-three.'

Translation By Max Müller

2. Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'They are only the various powers of them, in reality there are only thirty-three gods [1].' He asked:- 'Who are those thirty-three?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'The eight Vasus, the eleven Rudras, the twelve Âdityas. They make thirty-one, and Indra and Pragâpati make the thirty-three [2].'

Footnote:

1. 'The glories of these are three and thirty.' Gough, p. 172. 2. Trayastrimsau, i.e. trayastrimsatah pûranau.


Sloka : 3.9.3

मन्त्र ३[III.ix.3]

कतमे वसव इत्यग्निश्च पृथिवी च वायुश्चान्तरिक्षं

चाऽऽदित्यश्च द्यौश्च चन्द्रमाश्च नक्षत्राणि चैते वसव

एतेषु हीदं वसु सर्वꣳ हितमिति तस्माद्वसव इति ॥ ३॥

mantra 3[III.ix.3]

katame vasava ityagniśca pṛthivī ca vāyuścāntarikṣaṃ

cā''dityaśca dyauśca candramāśca nakṣatrāṇi caite vasava

eteṣu hīdaṃ vasu sarvagͫ hitamiti tasmādvasava iti .. 3..



Meaning:- 'Which are the Vasus /' 'Fire, the earth, air, the sky, the sun, heaven, the moon and the stars - these are the Vasus, for in these all this is placed; therefore they are called Vasus.'





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- 'Which are the Vasus?' The identity of each group of the gods is being asked. 'Fire, the earth,' etc. --- from fire up to the stars are the Vasus. Transforming themselves into the bodies and organs of all beings, which serve as the support for their work and its fruition, as also into their dwelling-places, these gods help every being to live, and they themselves live too. Because they help others to live (Vas), therefore they are called Vasus.

Translation By Max Müller

3. He asked:- 'Who are the Vasus.' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'Agni (fire), Prithivî (earth), Vâyu (air), Antariksha (sky), Âditya (sun), Dyu (heaven), Kandramas (moon), the Nakshatras (stars), these are the Vasus, for in them all that dwells (this world) [1] rests; and therefore they are called Vasus.'

Footnote:

1. The etymological explanation of Vasu is not quite clear, and the commentator hardly explains our text. Perhaps vasu is meant for the world or the dwellers therein. The more usual explanation occurs in the Satap. Brâh. p. 1077, ete hîdam sarvam vâsayante tadyad idam sarvam vâsayante tasmâd vasava iti; or on p. 874, where we read te yad idam sarvam &c.


Sloka : 3.9.4

मन्त्र ४[III.ix.4]

कतमे रुद्रा इति । दशेमे पुरुषे प्राणा आत्मैकादशस्ते

यदाऽस्माच्छरीरान्मर्त्यादुत्क्रामन्त्यथ रोदयन्ति तद्यद्रोदयन्ति

तस्माद्रुद्रा इति ॥ ४॥

mantra 4[III.ix.4]

katame rudrā iti . daśeme puruṣe prāṇā ātmaikādaśaste

yadā'smāccharīrānmartyādutkrāmantyatha rodayanti tadyadrodayanti

tasmādrudrā iti .. 4..



Meaning:- 'Which are the Rudras?' 'The ten organs in the human body, with the mind as the eleventh. When they depart from this mortal body, they make (one's relatives) weep. Because they then make them weep, therefore they are called Rudras.'





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- 'Which are the Rudras?' 'The ten sensory and motor organs in the human body, with the mind as the eleventh. When they, these organs, depart from this mortal body, after a person has completely experienced the results of his past work, they make his relatives weep. Because they then make them weep (Rud), therefore they are called Rudras.'

Translation By Max Müller

4. He asked:- 'Who are the Rudras?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'These ten vital breaths (prânas, the senses, i.e. the five gñânendriyas, and the five karmendriyas), and Âtman [1], as the eleventh. When they depart from this mortal body, they make us cry (rodayanti), and because they make us cry, they are called Rudras.'

Footnote:

1. Âtman is here explained as manas, the common sensory.


Sloka : 3.9.5

मन्त्र ५[III.ix.5]

कतम आदित्या इति । द्वादश वै मासाः संवत्सरस्यैत आदित्या एते

हीदꣳ सर्वमाददाना यन्ति ते यदिदꣳ सर्वमाददाना यन्ति

तस्मादादित्या इति ॥ ५॥

mantra 5[III.ix.5]

katama ādityā iti . dvādaśa vai māsāḥ saṃvatsarasyaita ādityā ete

hīdagͫ sarvamādadānā yanti te yadidagͫ sarvamādadānā yanti

tasmādādityā iti .. 5..



Meaning:- 'Which are the Adityas?' 'The twelve months (are parts) of a year; these are the Adityas, for they go taking all this with them. Because they go taking all this with them, therefore they are called Adityas.'





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- 'Which are the Adityas?' 'It is well known that the twelve months are parts of a year; these are the Adityas. How? For, as they rotate, they go taking a person's longevity and the results of his work with them. Because they go taking (Ada) all this with them, therefore they are called Adityas.'

Translation By Max Müller

5. He asked:- 'Who are the Âdityas?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'The twelve months of the year, and they are Âdityas, because they move along (yanti), taking up everything [1] (âdadânâh). Because they move along, taking up everything, therefore they are called Âdityas.'

Footnote:

1. The life of men, and the fruits of their work.


Sloka : 3.9.6

मन्त्र ६[III.ix.6]

कतम इन्द्रः कतमः प्रजापतिरिति । स्तनयित्नुरेवेन्द्रो यज्ञः

प्रजापतिरिति । कतमः स्तनयित्नुरित्यशनिरिति । कतमो यज्ञ इति ।

पशव इति ॥ ६॥

mantra 6[III.ix.6]

katama indraḥ katamaḥ prajāpatiriti . stanayitnurevendro yajñaḥ

prajāpatiriti . katamaḥ stanayitnurityaśaniriti . katamo yajña iti .

paśava iti .. 6..



Meaning:- 'Which is Indra, and which is Prajapati?' 'The cloud itself is Indra, and the sacrifice is Prajapati'. 'Which is the cloud?' 'Thunder (strength).' 'Which is the sacrifice?' 'Animals'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- 'Which is Indra, and which is Prajapati?' 'The cloud itself is Indra, and the sacrifice is Prajapati.' 'Which is the cloud?' 'Thunder,' i.e. vigour or strength, which kills others; that is Indra, for it is his function. 'Which is the sacrifice?' 'Animals,' for they are the means of a sacrifice. Because a sacrifice has no form of its own and depends on its means, the animals, therefore they are called sacrifice.

Translation By Max Müller

6. He asked:- 'And who is Indra, and who is Pragâpati?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'Indra is thunder, Pragâpati is the sacrifice.' He asked:- 'And what is the thunder?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'The thunderbolt.' He asked:- 'And what is the sacrifice?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'The (sacrificial) animals.'


Sloka : 3.9.7

मन्त्र ७[III.ix.7]

कतमे षडित्यग्निश्च पृथिवी च वायुश्चान्तरिक्षं

चाऽऽदित्यश्च द्यौश्चैते षड् एते हीदꣳ सर्वं षडिति ॥ ७॥

mantra 7[III.ix.7]

katame ṣaḍityagniśca pṛthivī ca vāyuścāntarikṣaṃ

cā''dityaśca dyauścaite ṣaḍ ete hīdagͫ sarvaṃ ṣaḍiti .. 7..



Meaning:- 'Which are the six (gods)?' 'Fire, the earth, air, the sky, the sun, and heaven - these are the six. Because all those (gods) are (comprised in) these six.'





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- 'Which are the six (gods)?' The same gods, fire and the rest, that are classed as Vasus, leaving out the moon and the stars, become six in number. 'Because all those (thirty-three and other gods) that have been spoken of are just these six.' In other words, the (previous) elaborations consisting of the Vasus and others are all included in these six.

Translation By Max Müller

7. He asked:- 'Who are the six?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'Agni (fire), Prithivî (earth), Vâyu (air), Antariksha (sky), Âditya (sun), Dyu (heaven), they are the six, for they are all [1] this, the six.'

Footnote:

1. They are the thirty-three gods.


Sloka : 3.9.8

मन्त्र ८[III.ix.8]

कतमे ते त्रयो देवा इति इम एव त्रयो लोका एषु हीमे सर्वे देवा इति ।

कतमौ तौ द्वौ देवावित्यन्नं चैव प्राणश्चेति । कतमोऽध्यर्ध

इति । योऽयं पवत इति ॥ ८॥

mantra 8[III.ix.8]

katame te trayo devā iti ima eva trayo lokā eṣu hīme sarve devā iti .

katamau tau dvau devāvityannaṃ caiva prāṇaśceti . katamo'dhyardha

iti . yo'yaṃ pavata iti .. 8..



Meaning:- 'Which are the three gods?' 'These three worlds alone, because in these all those gods are comprised.' 'Which are the two gods?' 'Matter and the vital force.' 'Which are the one and a half?' 'This (air) that blows.'





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- 'Which are the three gods?' 'These three worlds alone.' The earth and the fire taken together make one god, the sky
and air make another, and heaven and the sun make a third:- these are the three gods. Because in these three gods all the gods are comprised, therefore these are the three gods:- this is the view of a certain section of philologists. 'Which are the two gods?' 'Matter and the vital force' --- these are the two gods; that is to say, these include all the gods that have been enumerated. 'Which are the one and a half?' 'This air that blows.'

Translation By Max Müller

8. He asked:- 'Who are the three gods?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'These three worlds, for in them all these gods exist.' He asked:- 'Who are the two gods?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'Food and breath.' He asked:- 'Who is the one god and a half?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'He that blows.'


Sloka : 3.9.9

मन्त्र ९[III.ix.9]

तदाहुर्यदयमेक एव एक इवैव पवते ।आथ कथमध्यर्ध इति ।

यदस्मिन्निदꣳ सर्वमध्यार्ध्नोत् तेनाध्यर्ध इति । कतम एको देव

इति । प्राण इति स ब्रह्म त्यदित्याचक्षते ॥ ९॥

mantra 9[III.ix.9]

tadāhuryadayameka eva eka ivaiva pavate .ātha kathamadhyardha iti .

yadasminnidagͫ sarvamadhyārdhnot tenādhyardha iti . katama eko deva

iti . prāṇa iti sa brahma tyadityācakṣate .. 9..



Meaning:- 'Regarding this some say, 'Since the air blows as one substance, how can it be one and a half?' ' It is one and a half because through its presence all this attains surpassing glory'. 'Which is the one god?' 'The vital force (Hiranyagarbha); it is Brahman, which is called Tyat (that).'





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- 'Regarding this some say in objection, 'Since the air blows as one substance, how can it be one and a half?' It is one and a half because through its presence all this attains surpassing glory.' 'Which is the one god?' 'The vital force; it, the vital force, is Brahman, for it is vast, being the sun total of all the gods. And this Brahman is called Tyat (that),' which is a word denoting remotenss. Thus the gods are one and many. The infinite number of gods are included in the limited number mentioned in the Nivid; these again are included in the succeesive (smaller) numbers, thirty-three and so on, up to the one vital force. It is this one vital force that expands into all those numbers up to the infinite. Thus the vital force alone is one and infinite as also possessed of the intermediate numbers. That this one god, the vital force, has different names, forms, activities, attributes and powers is due to individual differences of qualification (People perform different kinds of meditation and rites, and acquire different grades of mental culture, thereby attaining identity with fire etc. which are all parts of the cosmic vital force. Hence the above differences.).

Now eight other forms of that same vital force which is a form of Brahman are being set forth:-

Translation By Max Müller

9. Here they say:- 'How is it that he who blows like one only, should be called one and a half (adhyardha)?' And the answer is:- 'Because, when the wind was blowing, everything grew (adhyardhnot).' He asked:- 'Who is the one god?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'Breath (prâna), and he is Brahman (the Sûtrâtman), and they call him That (tyad).'


Sloka : 3.9.10

मन्त्र १०[III.ix.10]

पृथिव्येव यस्याऽऽयतनमग्निर्लोको मनो ज्योतिर्यो वै तं पुरुषं

विद्यात्सर्वस्याऽऽत्मनः परायणꣳ, परायणं स वै वेदिता स्याद्

याज्ञवल्क्य । वेद वा अहं तं पुरुषꣳ सर्वस्याऽऽत्मनः परायणं

यमात्थ य एवायꣳ शारीरः पुरुषः स एष । वदैव शाकल्य

तस्य का देवतेत्यमृतमिति होवाच ॥ १०॥

mantra 10[III.ix.10]

pṛthivyeva yasyā''yatanamagnirloko mano jyotiryo vai taṃ puruṣaṃ

vidyātsarvasyā''tmanaḥ parāyaṇagͫ, parāyaṇaṃ sa vai veditā syād

yājñavalkya . veda vā ahaṃ taṃ puruṣagͫ sarvasyā''tmanaḥ parāyaṇaṃ

yamāttha ya evāyagͫ śārīraḥ puruṣaḥ sa eṣa . vadaiva śākalya

tasya kā devatetyamṛtamiti hovāca .. 10..



Meaning:- 'He who knows that being whose abode is the earth, whose instrument of vision is fire, whose light is the Manas, and who is the ultimate resort of the entire body and organs, knows truly, O Yajnavalkya'. 'I do know that being of whom you speak - who is the ultimate resort of the entire body and organs. It is the very being who is identified with the body. Go on, Sakalya.' 'Who is his deity (cause)?' 'Nectar (chyle)', said he.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- He who knows that being or god whose abode is the earth, whose instrument of vision is fire:- 'Loka' here means that through which one sees; that is to say, who sees through fire. Whose light is the Manas, who considers the pros and cons of a thing through the Manas. In other words, this god has the earth for his body and fire for his eye, weights things through the mind, identifies himself with the earth, and is possessed of a body and organs. And who is the ultimate resort of the entire body and organs. That is to say, as the skin, flesh and blood derived from the mother, which stand for the field, he is the ultimate resort of the bone, marrow and sperm derived from the father, which stand for the seed, as well as of the organs. He who knows it as such knows truly, is a scholar. You do not know him, Yajnavalkya, but still pose as a scholar. This is his idea.

'If knowing him confers scholarship, I do know that being of whom you speak --- who is the ultimate resort of the entire body and organs.' Then Sakalya must have said, 'If you know that being, tell me what his description is.' 'Listen what is it,' says the other, 'it is the being who is identified with the body, which preponderates in earthy elements, i.e. who is represented by the three constituents of the body, or sheaths, as they are called, derived from the mother --- that is the god about whom you have asked, Sakalya. But there is something more to be said about him by way of description; go on, Sakalya, i.e. ask about it.' Thus challenged, he was furious like a goaded elephant and said, 'Who is his deity, the deity of that god identified with the body? That from which something emanates has been spoken of in this section as the deity of that thing. 'Nectar,' said he. 'Nectar' here means chyle, or the watery essence of the food that is eaten, which produces the blood derived from the mother; for it generates the blood stored in a woman, and this blood produces the skin, flesh and blood of the foetus, which are the support of its bone, marrow, etc. The common portions of the next seven paragraphs need no explanation.

Translation By Max Müller

10. Sâkalya said [1]:- 'Whosoever knows that person (or god) whose dwelling (body) is the earth, whose sight (world) is fire [2], whose mind is light,--the principle of every (living) self, he indeed is a teacher, O Yâgñavalkya.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'I know that person, the principle of every self, of whom thou speakest. This corporeal (material, earthy) person, "he is he." But tell me [3], Sâkalya, who is his devatâ [4] (deity)?' Sâkalya replied:- 'The Immortal [5].'

Footnote:

1. I prefer to attribute this to Sâkalya, who is still the questioner, and not Yâgñavalkya; but I am not quite satisfied that I am right in this, or in the subsequent distribution of the parts, assigned to each speaker. If Sâkalya is the questioner, then the sentence, veda vâ aham tam purusham sarvasyâtmanah parâyanam yam âttha, must belong to Yâgñavalkya, because he refers to the words of another speaker. Lastly, the sentence vadaiva has to be taken as addressed to Sâkalya. The commentator remarks that, he being the questioner, one expects prikkha instead of vada. But Yâgñavalkya may also be supposed to turn round on Sâkalya and ask him a question in turn, more difficult than the question addressed by Sâkalya to Yâgñavalkya, and in that case the last sentence must be taken as an answer, though an imperfect one, of Sâkalya's. The commentator seems to think that after Yâgñavalkya told Sâkalya to ask this question, Sâkalya was frightened and asked it, and that then Yâgñavalkya answered in turn. 2. The Mâdhyandina text varies considerably. It has the first time, kashur lokah for agnir lokah. I keep to the same construction throughout, taking mano gyotih, not as a compound, but like agnir loko yasya, as a sentence, i.e. mano gyotir yasya. 3. Ask me. Comm. 4. That from which he is produced, that is his devatâ. Comm. 5. According to the commentator, the essence of food, which produces blood, from which the germ receives life and becomes an embryo and a living being.


Sloka : 3.9.11

मन्त्र ११[III.ix.11]

काम एव यस्याऽऽयतनꣳ हृदयं लोको मनो ज्योतिर्यो वै तं

पुरुषं विद्यात्सर्वस्याऽऽत्मनः परायणꣳ, स वै वेदिता स्याद्

याज्ञवल्क्य । वेद वा अहं तं पुरुषꣳ सर्वस्याऽऽत्मनः परायणं

यमात्थ य एवायं काममयः पुरुषः स एष वदैव शाकल्य तस्य का

देवतेति । स्त्रिय इति होवाच ॥ ११॥

mantra 11[III.ix.11]

kāma eva yasyā''yatanagͫ hṛdayaṃ loko mano jyotiryo vai taṃ

puruṣaṃ vidyātsarvasyā''tmanaḥ parāyaṇagͫ, sa vai veditā syād

yājñavalkya . veda vā ahaṃ taṃ puruṣagͫ sarvasyā''tmanaḥ parāyaṇaṃ

yamāttha ya evāyaṃ kāmamayaḥ puruṣaḥ sa eṣa vadaiva śākalya tasya kā

devateti . striya iti hovāca .. 11..



Meaning:- 'He who knows that being whose abode is lust, whose instrument of vision is the intellect, whose light is the Manas, and who is the ultimate resort of the entire body and organs, knows truly, O Yajnavalkya'. 'I do know that being of whom you speak - who is the ultimate resort of the entire body and organs. It is the very being who is identified with lust. Go on, Sakalya'. 'Who is his deity?' 'Women', said he.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- 'Whose abode is lust,' or the desire for sex-pleasures; that is, who has lust as his body. 'Whose instrument of vision is the intellect,' i.e. who sees through the intellect. 'It is the very being identified with lust,' and the same in the body as well. 'Who is his deity?' 'Women,' said he, for men's desire is inflamed through them.

Translation By Max Müller

11. Sâkalya said:- 'Whosoever knows that person whose dwelling is love (a body capable of sensual love), whose sight is the heart, whose mind is light.--the principle of every self, he indeed is a teacher, O Yâgñavalkya.' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'I know that person, the principle of every self, of whom thou speakest. This love-made (loving) person, he is he." But tell me, Sâkalya, who is his devatâ?' Sâkalya replied:- 'The women [1].'

Footnote:

1. Because they excite the fire of love. Comm.


Sloka : 3.9.12

मन्त्र १२[III.ix.12]

रूपाण्येव यस्याऽऽयतनं चक्षुर्लोको मनो ज्योतिर्यो वै तं पुरुषं

विद्यात्सर्वस्याऽऽत्मनः परायणꣳ, स वै वेदिता स्याद् याज्ञवल्क्य ।

वेद वा अहं तं पुरुषꣳ सर्वस्याऽऽत्मनः परायणं यमात्थ

य एवासावादित्ये पुरुषः स एष वदैव शाकल्य तस्य का देवतेति ।

सत्यमिति होवाच ॥ १२॥

mantra 12[III.ix.12]

rūpāṇyeva yasyā''yatanaṃ cakṣurloko mano jyotiryo vai taṃ puruṣaṃ

vidyātsarvasyā''tmanaḥ parāyaṇagͫ, sa vai veditā syād yājñavalkya .

veda vā ahaṃ taṃ puruṣagͫ sarvasyā''tmanaḥ parāyaṇaṃ yamāttha

ya evāsāvāditye puruṣaḥ sa eṣa vadaiva śākalya tasya kā devateti .

satyamiti hovāca .. 12..



Meaning:- 'He who knows that being whose abode is colours, whose instrument of vision is the eye, whose light is the Manas, and who is the ultimate resort of the entire body and organs, knows truly, O Yajnavalkya'. 'I do know that being of whom you speak - who is the ultimate resort of the entire body and organs. It is the very being who is in the sun. Go on Sakalya'. 'Who is his deity?' 'Truth (the eye),' said he.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- 'Whose abode is colours, 'white, black, etc. 'It is the being who is in the sun,' for he is the particular effect of all colurs (Being produced by them for their own manifestation.).' 'Who is his deity?' 'Truth,' said he. 'Truth' here means the eye, for the sun among the gods is the product (So says the Sruti (e.g. R. X. xc. 13.) of the eye in one's body.

Translation By Max Müller

12. Sâkalya said:- 'Whosoever knows that person whose dwelling are the colours, whose sight is the eye, whose mind is light,--the principle of every self, he indeed is a teacher, O Yâgñavalkya.' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'I know that person, the principle of every self, of whom thou speakest. That person in the sun, "he is he." But tell me, Sâkalya, who is his devatâ?' Sâkalya replied:- 'The True [1].'

Footnote:

1. The commentator explains satya, the true, by the eye, because the sun owes its origin to the eye.


Sloka : 3.9.13

मन्त्र १३[III.ix.13]

आकाश एव यस्याऽऽयतनꣳ श्रोत्रं लोको मनो ज्योतिर्यो वै तं

पुरुषं विद्यात्सर्वस्याऽऽत्मनः परायणꣳ, स वै वेदिता स्याद्

याज्ञवल्क्य । वेद वा अहं तं पुरुषꣳ सर्वस्याऽऽत्मनः परायणं

यमात्थ य एवायꣳ श्रौत्रः प्रातिश्रुत्कः पुरुषः स एष वदैव

शाकल्य तस्य का देवतेति । दिश इति होवाच ॥ १३॥

mantra 13[III.ix.13]

ākāśa eva yasyā''yatanagͫ śrotraṃ loko mano jyotiryo vai taṃ

puruṣaṃ vidyātsarvasyā''tmanaḥ parāyaṇagͫ, sa vai veditā syād

yājñavalkya . veda vā ahaṃ taṃ puruṣagͫ sarvasyā''tmanaḥ parāyaṇaṃ

yamāttha ya evāyagͫ śrautraḥ prātiśrutkaḥ puruṣaḥ sa eṣa vadaiva

śākalya tasya kā devateti . diśa iti hovāca .. 13..



Meaning:- 'He who knows that being whose abode is the ether, whose instrument of vision is the ear, whose light is the Manas, and who is the ultimate resort of the entire body and organs, knows truly, O Yajnavalkya'. 'I do know that being of whom you speak - who is the ultimate resort of the entire body and organs. It is the very being who is identified with the ear and with the time of hearing. Go on, Sakalya'. 'Who is his deity?' 'The quarters', said he.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- 'Whose abode is the ether,' etc. 'It is the being who is identified with the ear and particularly with the time of hearing.' 'Who is his deity?' 'The quarters,' said he, for (the Srutis say) it is from the quarters that this particular being within the body is produced.

Translation By Max Müller

13. Sâkalya said:- 'Whosoever knows that person whose dwelling is ether, whose sight is the ear, whose mind is light,--the principle of every self, he indeed is a teacher, O Yâgñavalkya.' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'I know that person, the principle of every self, of whom thou speakest. The person who hears [1] and answers, "he is he." But tell me, Sâkalya, who is his devatâ?' Sâkalya replied:- 'Space.'

Footnote:

1. Read srautra instead of srotra; see Brih. Âr. Up. II, 5, 6.


Sloka : 3.9.14

मन्त्र १४[III.ix.14]

तम एव यस्याऽऽयतनꣳ हृदयं लोको मनो ज्योतिर्यो वै तं

पुरुषं विद्यात्सर्वस्याऽऽत्मनः परायणꣳ, स वै वेदिता स्याद्

याज्ञवल्क्य । वेद वा अहं तं पुरुषꣳ सर्वस्याऽऽत्मनः परायणं

यमात्थ य एवायं छायामयः पुरुषः स एष वदैव शाकल्य तस्य

का देवतेति । मृत्युरिति होवाच ॥ १४॥

mantra 14[III.ix.14]

tama eva yasyā''yatanagͫ hṛdayaṃ loko mano jyotiryo vai taṃ

puruṣaṃ vidyātsarvasyā''tmanaḥ parāyaṇagͫ, sa vai veditā syād

yājñavalkya . veda vā ahaṃ taṃ puruṣagͫ sarvasyā''tmanaḥ parāyaṇaṃ

yamāttha ya evāyaṃ chāyāmayaḥ puruṣaḥ sa eṣa vadaiva śākalya tasya

kā devateti . mṛtyuriti hovāca .. 14..



Meaning:- 'He who knows that being whose abode is darkness, whose instrument of vision is the intellect, whose light is the Manas, and who is the ultimate resort of the entire body and organs, knows truly, O Yajnavalkya'. 'I do know that being of whom you speak - who is the ultimate resort of the entire body and organs. It is the very being who is identified with shadow (ignorance). Go on, Sakalya'. 'Who is his deity?' 'Death', said he.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- 'Whose abode is darkness,' such as that of the night. In the body 'it is the very being identified with shadow, or ignorance.' 'Who is his deity?' 'Death,' said he. Among the gods this is his cause (according to the Srutis).

Translation By Max Müller

14. Sâkalya said:- 'Whosoever knows that person whose dwelling is darkness, whose sight is the heart, whose mind is light,--the principle of every self, he indeed is a teacher, O Yâgñavalkya.' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'I know that person, the principle of every self, of whom thou speakest. The shadowy [1] person, "he is he." But tell me, Sâkalya, who is his devatâ?' Sâkalya replied:- 'Death.'

Footnote:

1. Shadow, khâyâ, is explained here by agñâna, ignorance, not by gñâna, knowledge.


Sloka : 3.9.15

मन्त्र १५[III.ix.15]

रूपाण्येव यस्याऽऽयतनं चक्षुर्लोको मनो ज्योतिर्यो वै तं पुरुषं

विद्यात्सर्वस्याऽऽत्मनः परायणꣳ, परायणं स वै वेदिता स्याद्

याज्ञवल्क्य । वेद वा अहं तं पुरुषꣳ सर्वस्याऽऽत्मनः परायणं

यमात्थ य एवायमादर्शे पुरुषः स एष वदैव शाकल्य तस्य का

देवतेत्यसुरिति होवाच ॥ १५॥

mantra 15[III.ix.15]

rūpāṇyeva yasyā''yatanaṃ cakṣurloko mano jyotiryo vai taṃ puruṣaṃ

vidyātsarvasyā''tmanaḥ parāyaṇagͫ, parāyaṇaṃ sa vai veditā syād

yājñavalkya . veda vā ahaṃ taṃ puruṣagͫ sarvasyā''tmanaḥ parāyaṇaṃ

yamāttha ya evāyamādarśe puruṣaḥ sa eṣa vadaiva śākalya tasya kā

devatetyasuriti hovāca .. 15..



Meaning:- 'He who knows that being whose abode is (particular) colours, whose instrument of vision is the eye, whose light is the Manas, and who is the ultimate resort of the entire body and organs, knows truly, O Yajnavalkya'. 'I do know that being of whom you speak - who is the ultimate resort of the entire body and organs. It is the very being who is in a looking-glass. Go on, Sakalya'. 'Who is his deity?' 'The vital force', said he.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- 'Whose abode is colours.' In paragraph 12 colours in general were referred to; but here particular colours, those that reflect, are meant. The particular abode of the god who dwells in these colours is reflecting objects, such as a looking-glass. 'Who is his deity?' 'The vital force,' said he. That being called reflection emanates from the vital force (Being dependent on friction etc., which requires strength.).

Translation By Max Müller

15. Sâkalya said:- 'Whosoever knows that person whose dwelling are (bright) colours, whose sight is the eye, whose mind is light,--the principle of every self, he indeed is a teacher, O Yâgñavalkya.' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'I know that person, the principle of every self, of whom thou speakest. The person in the looking-glass, "he is he." But tell me, Sâkalya, who is his devatâ?' Sâkalya replied:- 'Vital breath' (asu).


Sloka : 3.9.16

मन्त्र १६[III.ix.16]

आप एव यस्याऽऽयतनꣳ हृदयं लोको मनो ज्योतिर्यो वै तं पुरुषं

विद्यात्सर्वस्याऽऽत्मनः परायणꣳ, परायणं स वै वेदिता स्याद्

याज्ञवल्क्य । वेद वा अहं तं पुरुषꣳ सर्वस्याऽऽत्मनः परायणं

यमात्थ य एवायमप्सु पुरुषः स एष वदैव शाकल्य तस्य का देवतेति ।

वरुण इति होवाच ॥ १६॥

mantra 16[III.ix.16]

āpa eva yasyā''yatanagͫ hṛdayaṃ loko mano jyotiryo vai taṃ puruṣaṃ

vidyātsarvasyā''tmanaḥ parāyaṇagͫ, parāyaṇaṃ sa vai veditā syād

yājñavalkya . veda vā ahaṃ taṃ puruṣagͫ sarvasyā''tmanaḥ parāyaṇaṃ

yamāttha ya evāyamapsu puruṣaḥ sa eṣa vadaiva śākalya tasya kā devateti .

varuṇa iti hovāca .. 16..



Meaning:- 'He who knows that being whose abode is water, whose instrument of vision is the intellect, whose light is the Manas, and who is the ultimate resort of the entire body and organs, knows truly, O Yajnavalkya'. 'I do know that being of whom you speak - who is the ultimate resort of the entire body and organs. It is the very being who is in water. Go on, Sakalya'. 'Who is his deity?' 'Varuna (rain)', said he.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- 'Whose abode is water' in general. He specially lives in the water of resorvoirs, wells, tanks, etc. 'Who is his deity?' 'Varuna (rain).' Because the water that is (drunk and) forms the body comes from rain; it is again the cause of the water of reservoirs etc (Through the person who digs them.).

Translation By Max Müller

16. Sâkalya said:- 'Whosoever knows that person whose dwelling is water, whose sight is the heart, whose mind is light,--the principle of every self, he indeed is a teacher, O Yâgñavalkya.' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'I know that person, the principle of every self, of whom thou speakest. The person in the water, "he is he." But tell me, Sâkalya, who is his devatâ?' Sâkalya replied:- 'Varuna.'


Sloka : 3.9.17

मन्त्र १७[III.ix.17]

रेत एव यस्याऽऽयतनꣳ हृदयं लोको मनो ज्योतिर्यो वै तं

पुरुषं विद्यात्सर्वस्याऽऽत्मनः परायणꣳ, स वै वेदिता स्याद्

याज्ञवल्क्य । वेद वा अहं तं पुरुषꣳ सर्वस्याऽऽत्मनः परायणं

यमात्थ य एवायं पुत्रमयः पुरुषः स एष वदैव शाकल्य तस्य

का देवतेति । प्रजापतिरिति होवाच ॥ १७॥

mantra 17[III.ix.17]

reta eva yasyā''yatanagͫ hṛdayaṃ loko mano jyotiryo vai taṃ

puruṣaṃ vidyātsarvasyā''tmanaḥ parāyaṇagͫ, sa vai veditā syād

yājñavalkya . veda vā ahaṃ taṃ puruṣagͫ sarvasyā''tmanaḥ parāyaṇaṃ

yamāttha ya evāyaṃ putramayaḥ puruṣaḥ sa eṣa vadaiva śākalya tasya

kā devateti . prajāpatiriti hovāca .. 17..



Meaning:- 'He who knows that being whose abode is the seed, whose instrument of vision is the intellect, whose light is the Manas, and who is the ultimate resort of the entire body and organs, knows truly, O Yajnavalkya'. 'I do know that being of whom you speak - who is the ultimate resort of the entire body and organs. It is the very being who is identified with the son. Go on, Sakalya'. 'Who is his deity?' 'Prajapati (the father)', said he.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- 'Whose abode is the seed.' 'It is the very being identified with the son,' who is the particular abode of the being who inhabits the seed. 'The very being identified with the son' here means the bones, marrow and seed derived from the father. 'Who is his deity?' 'Prajapati,' said he. 'Prajapati' here means the father, for from him the son is born.

Translation By Max Müller

17. Sâkalya said:- 'Whosoever knows that person whose dwelling is seed, whose sight is the heart, whose mind is light,--the principle of every self, he indeed is a teacher, O Yâgñavalkya.' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'I know that person, the principle of every self, of whom thou speakest. The filial person, "he is he." But tell me, Sâkalya, who is his devatâ?' Sâkalya replied:- 'Pragâpati.'


Sloka : 3.9.18

मन्त्र १८[III.ix.18]

शाकल्येति होवाच याज्ञवल्क्यस्त्वाꣳ स्विदिमे ब्राह्मणा

अङ्गारावक्षयणमक्रता३ इति ॥ १८॥

mantra 18[III.ix.18]

śākalyeti hovāca yājñavalkyastvāgͫ svidime brāhmaṇā

aṅgārāvakṣayaṇamakratā3 iti .. 18..



Meaning:- 'Sakalya', said Yajnavalkya, 'have these Vedic scholars made you their instrument for burning charcoals?'





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- For the sake of meditation one and the same vital force has been inculcated in eight different forms; each god having three divisions, viz abode (general form), being (special
manifestation) and diety (cause), is but a form of the vital force. The text now goes on to show how the same vital force, divided into five forms according to the different quarters, is unified in the mind. When Sakalya kept silent, Yajnavalkya addressed him, subjecting him to the spell of an evil spirit, as it were. 'Sakalya,' said he, 'have these Vedic scholars made you their instrument for burning charcoals such as fire-tongs?' The particle 'svid' denotes deliberation. He means, 'They must have done so, but you do not perceive that you are being consumed by me.'

Translation By Max Müller

18. Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Sâkalya, did those Brâhmanas (who themselves shrank from the contest) make thee the victim [1]?' Sâkalya said:- 'Yâgñavalkya, because thou hast decried the Brâhmanas of the Kuru-Pañkâlas, what [2] Brahman dost thou know?'

Footnote:

1. Aṅgârâvakshayana is explained as a vessel in which coals are extinguished, and Ânandagiri adds that Yâgñavalkya, in saying that Sâkalya was made an aṅgârâvakshayana by his fellow Brâhmans, meant that he was given up by them as a victim, in fact that he was being burnt or consumed by Yâgñavalkya. I should prefer to take aṅgârâvakshayana in the sense of ulmukâvakshayana, an instrument with which one takes burning coals from the fire to extinguish them, a pair of tongs. Read sandamsa instead of sandesa. Kshi with ava means to remove, to take away. We should call an aṅgârâvakshayana a cat's paw. The Brâhmanas used Sâkalya as a cat's paw. 2. It seems better to take kim as the interrogative pronoun than as an interrogative particle.


Sloka : 3.9.19

मन्त्र १९[III.ix.19]

याज्ञवल्क्येति होवाच शाकल्यो यदिदं कुरुपञ्चालानां

ब्राह्मणानत्यवादीः किं ब्रह्म विद्वानिति । दिशो वेद सदेवाः सप्रतिष्ठा

इति । यद्दिशो वेत्थ सदेवाः सप्रतिष्ठाः ॥ १९॥

mantra 19[III.ix.19]

yājñavalkyeti hovāca śākalyo yadidaṃ kurupañcālānāṃ

brāhmaṇānatyavādīḥ kiṃ brahma vidvāniti . diśo veda sadevāḥ sapratiṣṭhā

iti . yaddiśo vettha sadevāḥ sapratiṣṭhāḥ .. 19..



Meaning:- 'Yajnavalkya', said Sakalya, 'is it because you know Brahman that you have thus flouted these Vedic scholars of Kuru and Panchala?' 'I know the quarters with their deities and supports'. 'If you know the quarters with their deities and supports --





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- 'Yajnavalkya,' said Sakalya, 'is it because you know Brahman that you have thus flouted these Vedic scholars of Kuru and Pancala by suggesting that they themselves were afraid and made me their fire-tongs?' Yajnavalkya said, 'This is my knowledge of Brahman --- what is it? --- that I know the quarters, i.e. the meditation concerning them; not the quarters alone, but with their presiding deities and supports as well.' The other said, 'If you know the quarters with their deities and supports, i.e. if you say you know the meditation with its results ---

Translation By Max Müller

19. Yâgñavalkya said:- 'I know the quarters with their deities and their abodes.' Sâkalya said:- 'If thou knowest the quarters with their deities and their abodes,


Sloka : 3.9.20

मन्त्र २०[III.ix.20]

किन्देवतोऽस्यां प्राच्यां दिश्यसीत्यादित्यदेवत इति । स

आदित्यः कस्मिन्प्रतिष्ठित इति । चक्षुषीति । कस्मिन्नु चक्षुः

प्रतिष्ठितमिति । रूपेष्विति चक्षुषा हि रूपाणि पश्यति । कस्मिन्नु

रूपाणि प्रतिष्ठितानीति । हृदय इति होवाच हृदयेन हि रूपाणि जानाति

हृदये ह्येव रूपाणि प्रतिष्ठितानि भवन्तीत्येवमेवैतद् याज्ञवल्क्य ॥ २०॥

mantra 20[III.ix.20]

kindevato'syāṃ prācyāṃ diśyasītyādityadevata iti . sa

ādityaḥ kasminpratiṣṭhita iti . cakṣuṣīti . kasminnu cakṣuḥ

pratiṣṭhitamiti . rūpeṣviti cakṣuṣā hi rūpāṇi paśyati . kasminnu

rūpāṇi pratiṣṭhitānīti . hṛdaya iti hovāca hṛdayena hi rūpāṇi jānāti

hṛdaye hyeva rūpāṇi pratiṣṭhitāni bhavantītyevamevaitad yājñavalkya .. 20..



Meaning:- 'What deity are you identified with in the east?' 'With the deity, sun'. 'On what does the sun rest?' 'On the eye'. 'On what does the eye rest?' 'On colours, for one sees colours with the eye'. 'On what do colours rest?' 'On the heart (mind)', said Yajnavalkya, 'for one knows colours through the heart; it is on the heart that colours rest'. 'It is just so, Yajnavalkya'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- 'What deity are you identified with in the east? --- what deity have you who are identified with the quarters?' Yajnavalkya, realising his own heart or mind --- divided in five forms according to the quarters and identified with the quarters --- and through it the whole universe, as his own self, stood facing the east, with the conviction that he was the quarters. We gather this from his clain that he knew the quarters with their supports. Sakalya according to Yajnavalkya's statement asks, 'What deity are you identified with in this quarter?' Everywhere in the Vedas it is stated that in this very life one becomes identified with and attains the god one meditates upon. It will be stated further on, 'Being a god, he attains the gods' (IV. i. 2). The idea is this:- You are identified with the quarters; who is your presiding deity in the east? --- as the east, which deity are you united with? Yajnavalkya said:- 'With the deity, sun --- the sun is my deity in the east.' This is in substantiation of his claim that he knew the quarters with their deities; the other part, that relating to their supports, remains to be dealt with; so the text goes on:- 'On what does the sun rest?' 'On the eye,' for the Vedic Mantras and Brahmanas --- for instance, 'From the eye the sun was produced' (R.X. xc. 13, etc.) and 'From the eye came the sun' (Ai. I. 4) --- say that the sun is produced from the eye that is in the body; and an effect rests on its cause. 'On what does the eye rest?' 'On colours.' The eye, itself a modification of colours, is directed by them so as to perceive them; it is produced by those very colours that direct it to perceive them. Therefore the eye, together with the sun, and the east, and all that lie in the east, rests on colours; the entire east, together with the eye, is but colours. 'On what do these colours rest?' 'On the heart,' said Yajnavalkya. Colours are made by the heart; it is the heart that is transformed into them, 'for everybody knows colours through the heart.' 'Heart' here refers to the intellect and Manas taken together (i.e. mind). Therefore 'it is on the heart that colours rest.' The idea is that since one remembers colours, lying as impressions, through the heart, therefore colours rest on the heart. 'It is just so, Yajnavalkya.'

Translation By Max Müller

20. 'Which is thy deity in the Eastern quarter?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Âditya (the sun).' Sâkalya said:- 'In what does that Âditya abide?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In the eye.' Sâkalya said:- 'In what does the eye abide?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In the colours, for with the eye he sees the colours.' Sâkalya said:- 'And in what then do the colours abide?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In the heart [1], for we know colours by the heart, for colours abide in the heart [2].' Sâkalya said:- 'So it is indeed, O Yâgñavalkya.'

Footnote:

1. Heart stands here for buddhi and manas together. Comm. 2. In the text, published by Dr. Roer in the Bibliotheca Indica, a sentence is left out, viz. hridaya ity uvâka, hridayena hi rûpâni gânâti, hridaye hy eva rûpâni pratishthitâni bhavantîty.


Sloka : 3.9.21

मन्त्र २१[III.ix.21]

किन्देवतोऽस्यां दक्षिणायां दिश्यसीति । यमदेवत इति । स यमः

कस्मिन्प्रतिष्ठित इति । यज्ञ इति । कस्मिन्नु यज्ञः प्रतिष्ठित इति।

दक्षिणायामिति । कस्मिन्नु दक्षिणा प्रतिष्ठितेति श्रद्धायामिति यदा

ह्येव श्रद्धत्तेऽथ दक्षिणां ददाति श्रद्धायाꣳ ह्येव दक्षिणा

प्रतिष्ठितेति कस्मिन्नु श्रद्धा प्रतिष्ठितेति हृदय इति होवाच

हृदयेन हि श्रद्धां जानाति हृदये ह्येव श्रद्धा प्रतिष्ठिता

भवतीत्येवमेवैतद् याज्ञवल्क्य ॥ २१॥

mantra 21[III.ix.21]

kindevato'syāṃ dakṣiṇāyāṃ diśyasīti . yamadevata iti . sa yamaḥ

kasminpratiṣṭhita iti . yajña iti . kasminnu yajñaḥ pratiṣṭhita iti.

dakṣiṇāyāmiti . kasminnu dakṣiṇā pratiṣṭhiteti śraddhāyāmiti yadā

hyeva śraddhatte'tha dakṣiṇāṃ dadāti śraddhāyāgͫ hyeva dakṣiṇā

pratiṣṭhiteti kasminnu śraddhā pratiṣṭhiteti hṛdaya iti hovāca

hṛdayena hi śraddhāṃ jānāti hṛdaye hyeva śraddhā pratiṣṭhitā

bhavatītyevamevaitad yājñavalkya .. 21..



Meaning:- 'What deity are you identified with in the south?' 'With the deity, Yama (the god of justice)'. On what does Yama rest?' 'On the sacrifice'. 'On what does the sacrifice rest?' 'On the remuneration (of the priests).' 'On what does the remuneration rest?' 'On faith, because whenever a man has faith, he gives remuneration to the priests; therefore it is on faith that the remuneration rests'. 'On what does faith rest?' 'On the heart', said Yajnavalkya, 'for one knows faith through the heart; therefore it is on the heart that faith rests'. 'It is just so, Yajnavalkya'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- 'What deity are you identified with in the south?' etc. --- should be explained as before:- Who is your deity in the south? 'With the deity, Yama --- I am the south, and Yama is my deity.' 'On what does Yama rest?' 'On the sacrifice.' Yama together with the south rests on the sacrifice, his cause. How can Yama be the effect of a sacrifice? This is being answered:- The priests officiate in the sacrifice, and the sacrificer redeems it from them by means of the remuneration, and wins the south together with Yama through that sacrifice. Hence Yama, being its effect, rests on the sacrifice, together with the south. 'On what does the sacrifice rest?' 'On the remuneration (of the priests).' The sacrifice is redeemed through the remuneration; therefore it is the effect of the remuneration. 'On what does the remenuration rest?' 'On faith.' 'Faith' means liberality --- faith in the Vedas coupled with devotion. How does the remuneration rest on faith?' 'Because whenever a man has faith, he gives remuneration to the priests; if he has no faith, he does not give it. Therefore it is on faith tha the remuneration rests.' 'On what does faith rest?' 'On the heart,' said Yajnavalkya, 'faith is a modification of the heart, for one knows faith through the heart, and a modification rests on that which has it; therefore it is on the heart that faith rests.' 'It is just so, Yajnavalkya.'

Translation By Max Müller

21. Sâkalya said:- 'Which is thy deity in the Southern quarter?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Yama.' Sâkalya said:- 'In what does that Yama abide?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In the sacrifice.' Sâkalya said:- 'In what does the sacrifice abide?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In the Dakshinâ (the gifts to be given to the priests).' Sâkalya said:- 'In what does the Dakshinâ abide?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In Sraddhâ (faith), for if a man believes, then he gives Dakshinâ, and Dakshinâ truly abides in faith.' Sâkalya said:- 'And in what then does faith abide?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In the heart, for by the heart faith knows, and therefore faith abides in the heart.' Sâkalya said:- 'So it is indeed, O Yâgñavalkya.'


Sloka : 3.9.22

मन्त्र २२[III.ix.22]

किन्देवतोऽस्यां प्रतीच्यां दिश्यसीति । वरुणदेवत इति । स वरुणः

कस्मिन् प्रतिष्ठित इत्यप्स्विति । कस्मिन्न्वापः प्रतिष्ठितेति रेतसीति ।

कस्मिन्नु रेतः प्रतिष्ठितेति इति हृदय इति तस्मादपि प्रतिरूपं

जातमाहुर्हृदयादिव सृप्तो हृदयादिव निर्मित इति हृदये ह्येव

रेतः प्रतिष्ठितं भवतीत्येवमेवैतद् याज्ञवल्क्य ॥ २२॥

mantra 22[III.ix.22]

kindevato'syāṃ pratīcyāṃ diśyasīti . varuṇadevata iti . sa varuṇaḥ

kasmin pratiṣṭhita ityapsviti . kasminnvāpaḥ pratiṣṭhiteti retasīti .

kasminnu retaḥ pratiṣṭhiteti iti hṛdaya iti tasmādapi pratirūpaṃ

jātamāhurhṛdayādiva sṛpto hṛdayādiva nirmita iti hṛdaye hyeva

retaḥ pratiṣṭhitaṃ bhavatītyevamevaitad yājñavalkya .. 22..



Meaning:- 'What deity are you identified with in the west?' 'With the deity, Varuna (the god of rain)'. 'On what does Varuna rest?' 'On water'. 'On what does water rest?' 'On the seed'. 'On what does the seed rest?' 'On the heart. Therefore do they say of a new-born child closely resembles (his father), that he has sprung from (his father's) heart, as it were - that he has been made out of (his father's) heart, as it were. Therefore it is on the heart that the seed rests'. 'It is just so, Yajnavalkya'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- 'What deity are you identified with in the west?' 'With the deity, Varuna --- Varuna is my presidinng deity in that direction.' 'On what does Varuna rest?' 'On water,' for Varuna is the effect of water. Witness the Srutis, 'Faith is water' (Tia. S. I. vi. 8. 1), and 'From faith he created Varuna.' 'On what does water rest?' 'On the seed,' for the Sruti says, 'From the seed was water created' (cf. Ai. I. i. 4). 'On what does the seed rest?'

'On the heart,' because the seed is the effect of the heart. Lust is a modification of the heart, for the seed issues from the heart of a man under its influence. 'Therefore do they say of a new-born child, who closely resembles (his father), that he has sprung from his father's heart, as it were, that he has been made out of (his father's) heart, as it were, as an ear-ring is made out of gold. Therefore, it is on the heart that the seed rests.' 'It is just so, Yajnavalkya.'

Translation By Max Müller

22. Sâkalya said:- 'Which is thy deity in the Western quarter?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Varuna.' Sâkalya said:- 'In what does that Varuna abide?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In the water.' Sâkalya said:- 'In what does the water abide?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In the seed.' Sâkalya said:- 'And in what does the seed abide?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In the heart. And therefore also they say of a son who is like his father, that he seems as if slipt from his heart, or made from his heart; for the seed abides in the heart.' Sâkalya said:- 'So it is indeed, O Yâgñavalkya.'


Sloka : 3.9.23

मन्त्र २३[III.ix.23]

किन्देवतोऽस्यामुदीच्यां दिश्यसीति । सोमदेवत इति । स सोमः

कस्मिन्प्रतिष्ठित इति । दीक्षायामिति । कस्मिन्नु दीक्षा प्रतिष्ठितेति

सत्य इति तस्मादपि दीक्षितमाहुः सत्यं वदेति सत्ये ह्येव दीक्षा

प्रतिष्ठितेति कस्मिन्नु सत्यं प्रतिष्ठितमिति हृदय इति होवाच

हृदयेन हि सत्यं जानाति हृदये ह्येव सत्यं प्रतिष्ठितं

भवतीत्येवमेवैतद् याज्ञवल्क्य ॥ २३॥

mantra 23[III.ix.23]

kindevato'syāmudīcyāṃ diśyasīti . somadevata iti . sa somaḥ

kasminpratiṣṭhita iti . dīkṣāyāmiti . kasminnu dīkṣā pratiṣṭhiteti

satya iti tasmādapi dīkṣitamāhuḥ satyaṃ vadeti satye hyeva dīkṣā

pratiṣṭhiteti kasminnu satyaṃ pratiṣṭhitamiti hṛdaya iti hovāca

hṛdayena hi satyaṃ jānāti hṛdaye hyeva satyaṃ pratiṣṭhitaṃ

bhavatītyevamevaitad yājñavalkya .. 23..



Meaning:- 'What deity are you identified with in the north?' 'With the deity, Soma (the moon and the creeper)' 'On what does Soma rest?' 'On initiation'. 'On what does initiation rest?' 'On truth. Therefore do they say to one initiated, "Speak the truth"; for it is on truth that initiation rests'. 'On what does truth rest?' 'On the heart', said Yajnavalkya, 'for one knows truth through the heart; therefore it is on the heart that truth rests'. 'It is just so, Yajnavalkya'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- 'What deity are you identified with in the north?' 'With the deity, Soma.' 'Soma' here means both the moon and creeper. 'On what does Soma rest?' 'On initiation,' for the initiated sacrificer purchases the Soma creeper, and sacrificing with that creeper along with meditation, attains (his identity with) the north, presided over by the moon and named after her. 'On what does initiation rest?' 'On truth.' How? Because initiation rests on truth, 'therefore do they say to one initiated:- Speak the truth,' lest the cause being spoilt, the effect also be spoilt. Therefore 'it is on truth that initiation rests.' 'On what does truth rest?' 'On the heart,' said Yajnavalkya, 'for one knows truth through the heart; therefore it is on the heart that truth rests.' 'It is just so, Yajnavalkya.'

Translation By Max Müller

23. Sâkalya said:- 'Which is thy deity in the Northern quarter?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Soma.' Sâkalya said:- 'In what does that Soma abide?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In the Dîkshâ [1].' Sâkalya said:- 'In what does the Dîkshâ abide?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In the True; and therefore they say to one who has performed the Dîkshâ, Speak what is true, for in the True indeed the Dîkshâ abides.' Sâkalya said:- 'And in what does the True abide?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In the heart, for with the heart do we know what is true, and in the heart indeed the True abides.' Sâkalya said:- 'So it is indeed, O Yâgñavalkya.'

Footnote:

1. Dîkshâ is the initiatory rite for the Soma sacrifice. Having sacrificed with Soma which has to be bought, the sacrificer becomes endowed with wisdom, and wanders to the North, which is the quarter of Soma.


Sloka : 3.9.24

मन्त्र २४[III.ix.24]

किन्देवतोऽस्यां ध्रुवायां दिश्यसीत्यग्निदेवत इति । सोऽग्निः

कस्मिन्प्रतिष्ठित इति वाचीति । कस्मिन्नु वाक्प्रतिष्ठितेति हृदय इति ।

कस्मिन्नु हृदयं प्रतिष्ठितमिति

mantra 24[III.ix.24]

kindevato'syāṃ dhruvāyāṃ diśyasītyagnidevata iti . so'gniḥ

kasminpratiṣṭhita iti vācīti . kasminnu vākpratiṣṭhiteti hṛdaya iti .

kasminnu hṛdayaṃ pratiṣṭhitamiti



Meaning:- 'What deity are you identified with in the fixed direction (above)?' 'With the deity, fire'. 'On what does fire rest?' 'On speech'. 'On what does speech rest?' 'On the heart'. 'On what does the heart rest?'





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- 'What deity are you identified with in the fixed direction?' Being the same to all who dwell round Mount Meru (The directions east, west, etc., vary according to the relative position of the dwellers this mountain, the east being that in which they see the sun rise. But the direction overhead is obviously constant to all of them.), the direction overhead is called the fixed directin.
 'With the deity, fire,' for overhead there is more light, and fire is luminous. 'On what does fire rest?' 'On speech.' 'On what does speech rest?' 'On the heart.' Now Yajnavalkya, through his heart extending in all directions, has realised all the quarters as his own self; the quarters, with their deities and supports, are a part and parcel of him, and he is identified with name, colour (form) and action. Of these, colour together with the east is one with his heart. Mechancial rites, the act of procreation and rites combined with meditation, representing the south, west and north respectively, together with their results and presiding deities, are likewise unified in his heart. And all names together with the overhead direction also reach his heart through speech. The whole universe is comprised in these; colour (form), action and name; and all these are but (modifications of) the heart. Therefore Sakalya asks about the heart, which is the embodiment of everything:- 'On what does the heart rest?'

Translation By Max Müller

24. Sâkalya said:- 'Which is thy deity in the zenith?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Agni.' Sâkalya said:- 'In what does that Agni abide.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In speech.' Sâkalya said:- 'And in what does speech abide Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In the heart.' Sâkalya said:- 'And in what does the heart abide?'


Sloka : 3.9.25

मन्त्र २५[III.ix.25]

अहल्लिकेति होवाच याज्ञवल्क्यो यत्रैतदन्यत्रास्मन्मन्यासै ।

यद्ध्येतदन्यत्रास्मत्स्याच्छ्वानो वैनदद्युर्वयाꣳसि

वैनद्विमथ्नीरन्निति ॥ २५॥

mantra 25[III.ix.25]

ahalliketi hovāca yājñavalkyo yatraitadanyatrāsmanmanyāsai .

yaddhyetadanyatrāsmatsyācchvāno vainadadyurvayāgͫsi

vainadvimathnīranniti .. 25..



Meaning:- 'You ghost', said Yajnavalkya, 'when you think the heart is elsewhere than in us, (then the body is dead). Should it be elsewhere than in us, dogs would eat this body, or birds tear it to pieces'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- 'You ghost,' said Yajnavalkya, addressing him by a different name, 'when you think the heart, or the mind, which is the self (In a figurative sense.) of the body, is elsewhere than in us, (then the body is dead). Should it be elsewhere than in us, dogs would then eat this body, or birds tear it to pieces. Therefore the heart rests on me, i.e. the body' --- this is the idea. The body also, as consisting of name, colour (form) and action, rests on the heart.

Translation By Max Müller

25. Yâgñavalkya said:- 'O Ahallika [1], when you think the heart could be anywhere else away from us, if it were away from us, the dogs might eat it, or the birds tear it.'

Footnote:

1. A term of reproach, it may be a ghost or preta, because ahani lîyate, it disappears by day.


Sloka : 3.9.26

मन्त्र २६[III.ix.26]

कस्मिन्नु त्वं चात्मा च प्रतिष्ठितौ ‍ स्थ इति । प्राण इति । कस्मिन्नु

प्राणः प्रतिष्ठित इत्यपान इति । कस्मिन्न्वपानः प्रतिष्ठित इति ।

व्यान इति । कस्मिन्नु व्यानः प्रतिष्ठित इत्युदान इति । कस्मिन्नूदानः

प्रतिष्ठित इति । समान इति । स एष नेति नेत्यात्माऽगृह्यो न

हि गृह्यतेऽशीर्यो न हि शीर्यतेऽसङ्गो न हि सज्यतेऽसितो

न व्यथते न रिष्यत्येतान्यष्टावायतनान्यष्टौ लोका अष्टौ देवा

अष्टौ पुरुषाः । स यस्तान्पुरुषान्निरुह्य प्रत्युह्यात्यक्रामत् तं

त्वौपनिषदं पुरुषं पृच्छामि । तं चेन्मे न विवक्ष्यसि मूर्धा

ते विपतिष्यतीति । तꣳ ह न मेने शाकल्यस्तस्य ह मूर्धा विपपात

अपि हास्य परिमोषिणोऽस्थीन्यपजह्रुरन्यन्मन्यमानाः ॥ २६॥

mantra 26[III.ix.26]

kasminnu tvaṃ cātmā ca pratiṣṭhitau stha iti . prāṇa iti . kasminnu

prāṇaḥ pratiṣṭhita ityapāna iti . kasminnvapānaḥ pratiṣṭhita iti .

vyāna iti . kasminnu vyānaḥ pratiṣṭhita ityudāna iti . kasminnūdānaḥ

pratiṣṭhita iti . samāna iti . sa eṣa neti netyātmā'gṛhyo na

hi gṛhyate'śīryo na hi śīryate'saṅgo na hi sajyate'sito

na vyathate na riṣyatyetānyaṣṭāvāyatanānyaṣṭau lokā aṣṭau devā

aṣṭau puruṣāḥ . sa yastānpuruṣānniruhya pratyuhyātyakrāmat taṃ

tvaupaniṣadaṃ puruṣaṃ pṛcchāmi . taṃ cenme na vivakṣyasi mūrdhā

te vipatiṣyatīti . tagͫ ha na mene śākalyastasya ha mūrdhā vipapāta

api hāsya parimoṣiṇo'sthīnyapajahruranyanmanyamānāḥ .. 26..



Meaning:- On what do the body and the heart rest?' 'On the Prana'. 'On what does the Prana rest?' 'On the Apana.' 'On what does the Apana rest?' 'On the Vyana.' 'On what does the Vyana rest?' 'On the Udana'. 'On what does the Udana rest?' 'On the Samana'. This self is That which has been described as 'Not this, not this'. It is imperceptible, for it is never perceived; undecaying, for It never decays; unattached, for It is never attached; unfettered - It never feels pain, and never suffers injury. 'These are the eight abodes, the eight instruments of vision, the eight deities and the eight beings. I ask you of that Being who is to be known only from the Upanishads, who definitely projects those beings and withdraws them into Himself, and who is at the same time transcendent. If you cannot clearly tell me of Him, your head shall fall off'. Sakalya did not know Him; his head fell off; and robbers snatched away his bones, mistaking them for something else.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- 'You have stated that the body and the heart --- the effect and the instrument --- rest on each other. I therefore ask you:- On what do the body and the heart rest?' 'On the Prana':- The body and the mind rest on the force called Prana (For the functions of these see commentary on I. v. 3.). 'On what does the Prana rest?' 'On the Apana':- That force called Prana would go out (through the mouth and nostrils), were it not held back by the force called Apana. 'On what does the Apana rest?' 'On the Vyana':- That force called Apana would also depart (through the lower orifice) as the Prana would (through the mouth and nostrils), were they not both held back by the force called Vyana, which occupies an intermediate position. 'On what does the Vyana rest?' 'On the Udana':- All the three forces would go out in all directions, were they not fixed, as to a post, to the Udana. 'On what does the Udana rest?' 'On the Samana,' for all these forces rest on the Samana. The idea is this:- The body, mind and the vital forces are interdependent and work together as an orderly aggregate, dominated by the purpose of the individual self. Now that transcendent Brahman, which is immediate and direct, by which all these up to the ether are regulated, on which they rest, and by which they are pervaded, has to be described. Hence the text goes on:-

This self is That which has been described in the Madhukanda (Consisting of chapters I and II.) as 'Not this, not this' (II. iii. 6). It is imperceptible, not perceivable. How? Because It is beyond the characteristics of effects, therefore It is imperceptible. Why? For It is never perceived. Only a differentiated object, which is within the range of the organs, can be perceived:- but the Self is the opposite of that. Similarly undecaying. What is gross and made up of parts decays, as, for instance, the body; but the Self is the opposite of that; hence It never decays. Likewise unattached. A gross object, being related to another gross object, is attached to it; but the Self is the opposite of that:- hence It is never attached. Similarly unfettered, or free. Whatever is gross becomes bound; but It, being the opposite of that, is free, and for that reason never feels pain. Hence also It never suffers injury. Being beyond such characteristics of effects as perception, decay, attachment and bondage, It never suffers injury, in other words, is never destroyed.

The Sruti, out of eagerness, has set aside the order (Of the dialogue. Now it is Yajnavalkya who is asking.), stepped out of the story and described in its own form the Being who is to be known only from the Upanisads. Then it resumes the garb of the story and says (through Yajnavalkya):- These are the eight abodes, described above (in pars. 10 ' 17) in the words, 'Whose abode is the earth,' etc.; the eight instruments of vision, fire etc.; the eight deities, referred to in, ' 'Nectar (chyle),' said he,' etc. (par. 10); the eight beings, mentioned in, 'The very being who is identified with the body' (Ibid.), etc. I ask you, who are proud of your learning, of that Being devoid of hunger etc. who is to be known only from the Upanisads, and through no other means of knowledge, who definitely projects those beings, those identified with the body etc., divided into eight groups of four items (viz abode, instrument of vision, light and deity.) each, so as to constitute the universe as it is, and withdraws them through the east etc. into Himself, i.e. into the heart (mind), and who is at the same time transcendent, beyond the attributes of such limiting adjuncts as identification with the heart. If you cannot clearly tell me of Him, your head shall fall off, said Yajnavalkya. Sakalya did not know that Being who is to be known only from the Upanisads; his head fell off. The story is ended. 'Sakalya did not know Him,' etc., is the narration of the Sruti.
Further, robbers snatched away even his bones as they were being carried to his home by his disciples for the funeral rites --- why? --- mistaking them for something else, viz treasure in it. A previous anecdote is here referred to. In the Astadhyayi (S. XI). It consists of eight chapters and treats of rituals.) there occurs a dialogue between Yajnavalkya and Sakalya with a similar ending. There Yajnavalkya gave a curse:- ' 'You shall die in an unholy place at an inauspicious moment, and even your bones shall not reach home.' He died exactly like that; and robbers seized his bones too, mistaking them for something else' (S. XI. vi. iii. 11). The moral of the story is that one should not be disrespectful, but rather submissive to a true knower of Brahman. That story is here referred to in order to teach conduct and also to extol the knowledge of Brahman.

How can that Brahman which has been indicated as 'Not this, not this' by the elimination of everything else, be positively indicated? In order to answer this, as also to state the cause of the universe, the Sruti again resorts to the story. The point of the story is that one may take away cattle by defeating Vedic scholars who do not truly know Brahman. In view of the customary procedure (That things belonging to Brahmanas must not be taken without their consent.) Yajnavalkya said:-

Translation By Max Müller

26. Sâkalya said:- 'And in what dost thou (thy body) and the Self (thy heart) abide?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In the Prâna (breath).' Sâkalya said:- 'In what does the Prâna abide?' Yâgñavalkya said:- In the Apâna (down-breathing) [1].' Sâkalya said:- 'In what does the Apâna abide?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In the Vyâna (back-breathing ) [2].' Sâkalya said:- 'In what does the Vyâna-abide?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In the Udâna (the out-breathing) [3].' Sâkalya said:- 'In what does the Udâna abide?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'In the Samâna [4]. That Self (âtman) is to be described by No, no [5]! He is incomprehensible, for he cannot be (is not) comprehended; he is imperishable, for he cannot perish; he is unattached, for he does not attach himself; unfettered, he does not suffer, he does not fail.' 'These are the eight abodes (the earth, &c.), the eight worlds (fire, &c.), the eight gods (the immortal food, &c.), the eight persons (the corporeal, &c.) He who after dividing and uniting these persons [6], went beyond (the Samâna), that person, taught in the Upanishads, I now ask thee (to teach me). If thou shalt not explain him to me, thy head will fall.' Sâkalya did not know him, and his head fell, nay, thieves took away his bones, mistaking them for something else.

Footnote:

1. Because the prâna would run away, if it were not held back by the apâna. 2. Because the apâna would run down, and the prâna up, if they were not held back by the vyâna. 3. Because all three, the prâna, apâna, and vyâna, would run away in all directions, if they were not fastened to the udâna. 4. The Samâna can hardly be meant here for one of the five prânas, generally mentioned before the udâna, but, as explained by Dvivedagaṅga, stands for the Sûtrâtman. This Sûtrâtman abides in the Antaryâmin, and this in the Brahman (Kûtastha), which is therefore described next. Could Samâna be here the same as in IV, 3, 7? 5. See before, II, 3, 6; also IV, 2, 4; IV, 4, 22; IV, 5, 115. 6. Dividing them according to the different abodes, worlds, and persons, and uniting them at last in the heart.


Sloka : 3.9.27

मन्त्र २७[III.ix.27]

अथ होवाच ब्राह्मणा भगवन्तो यो वः कामयते स मा पृच्छतु

सर्वे वा मा पृच्छत यो वः कामयते तं वः पृच्छामि सर्वान्वा

वः पृच्छामीति । ते ह ब्राह्मणा न दधृषुः ॥ २७॥

mantra 27[III.ix.27]

atha hovāca brāhmaṇā bhagavanto yo vaḥ kāmayate sa mā pṛcchatu

sarve vā mā pṛcchata yo vaḥ kāmayate taṃ vaḥ pṛcchāmi sarvānvā

vaḥ pṛcchāmīti . te ha brāhmaṇā na dadhṛṣuḥ .. 27..



Meaning:- Then he said, 'Revered Brahmanas, whichsoever amongst you wishes may interrogate me or all of you may. Or I shall question whichsoever amongst you wishes, or all of you'. The Brahmanas did not dare.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Then, after the Brahmanas were silent, he said, addressing them, 'Revered Brahmanas, whichsoever amongst you wishes, 'I shall question Yajnavalkya', may come forward and do so, or all of you may. Or I question whichsoever amongst you wishes, 'Let Yajnavalkya question me', or question all of you.' The Brahmanas, even though thus addressed, did not dare to give any reply whatsoever.

Translation By Max Müller

27. Then Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Reverend Brâhmanas, whosoever among you desires to do so, may now question me. Or question me, all of you. Or whosoever among you desires it, I shall question him, or I shall question all of you. But those Brâhmanas durst not (say anything).


Sloka : 3.9.28

मन्त्र २८[III.ix.28]

तान्हैतैः श्लोकैः पप्रच्छ यथा वृक्षो वनस्पतिस्तथैव

पुरुषोऽमृषा तस्य लोमानि पर्णानि त्वगस्योत्पाटिका बहिः ॥ १॥ त्वच

एवास्य रुधिरं प्रस्यन्दि त्वच उत्पटः तस्मात्तदतृण्णात्प्रैति रसो

वृक्षादिवाऽऽहतात् ॥ २॥ माꣳसान्यस्य शकराणि किनाटꣳ

स्नाव तत्स्थिरम् । अस्थीन्यन्तरतो दारूणि मज्जा मज्जोपमा कृता ॥ ३॥

यद्वृक्षो वृक्णो रोहति मूलान्नवतरः पुनः मर्त्यः

स्विन्मृत्युना वृक्णः कस्मान्मूलात्प्ररोहति ॥ ४॥ रेतस इति मा

वोचत जीवतस्तत्प्रजायते धानारुह इव वै वृक्षोऽञ्जसा प्रेत्य

सम्भवः ॥ ५॥ यत्समूलमावृहेयुर्वृक्षं न पुनराभवेत् । मर्त्यः

स्विन्मृत्युना वृक्णः कस्मान्मूलात्प्ररोहति ॥ ६॥ जात एव न जायते

को न्वेनं जनयेत्पुनः विज्ञानमानन्दं ब्रह्म रातिर्दातुः परायणं

तिष्ठमानस्य तद्विद इति ॥ ७॥ ॥ २८ ॥

इति नवमं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

॥ इति बृहदारण्यकोपनिषदि तृतीयोऽध्यायः ॥

अथ चतुर्तोऽध्यायः ।

अथ प्रथमं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 28[III.ix.28]

tānhaitaiḥ ślokaiḥ papraccha yathā vṛkṣo vanaspatistathaiva

puruṣo'mṛṣā tasya lomāni parṇāni tvagasyotpāṭikā bahiḥ .. 1.. tvaca

evāsya rudhiraṃ prasyandi tvaca utpaṭaḥ tasmāttadatṛṇṇātpraiti raso

vṛkṣādivā''hatāt .. 2.. māgͫsānyasya śakarāṇi kināṭagͫ

snāva tatsthiram . asthīnyantarato dārūṇi majjā majjopamā kṛtā .. 3..

yadvṛkṣo vṛkṇo rohati mūlānnavataraḥ punaḥ martyaḥ

svinmṛtyunā vṛkṇaḥ kasmānmūlātprarohati .. 4.. retasa iti mā

vocata jīvatastatprajāyate dhānāruha iva vai vṛkṣo'ñjasā pretya

sambhavaḥ .. 5.. yatsamūlamāvṛheyurvṛkṣaṃ na punarābhavet . martyaḥ

svinmṛtyunā vṛkṇaḥ kasmānmūlātprarohati .. 6.. jāta eva na jāyate

ko nvenaṃ janayetpunaḥ vijñānamānandaṃ brahma rātirdātuḥ parāyaṇaṃ

tiṣṭhamānasya tadvida iti .. 7.. .. 28 ..

iti navamaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

.. iti bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadi tṛtīyo'dhyāyaḥ ..

atha caturto'dhyāyaḥ .

atha prathamaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- He asked them through these verses:- (1) As a large tree, so indeed is a man. (This is) true. His hair is its leaves, his skin its outer bark. (2) It is from his skin that blood flows, and from the bark sap. Therefore when a man is wounded, blood flows, as sap from a tree that is injured. (3) His flesh is its inner bark, and his sinews its innermost layer of bark; it is tough. His bones lie under, as does its wood; his marrow is comparable to its pith. (4) If a tree, after it is felled, springs again from its root in a newer form, from what root does man spring forth after he is cut off by death? (5) Do not say, ‘From the seed,’ (for) it is produced in a living man. A tree springs also from the seed; after it is dead it certainly springs again (from the seed as well). (6) If a tree is pulled out with its root, it no more sprouts, From what root does a mortal spring forth after he is cut off by death? (7) If you think he is ever born, I say, no, he is again born. Now who should again bring him forth?—Knowledge, Bliss, Brahman, the supreme goal of the distributor of wealth as well as of him who has realised Brahman and lives in It.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- When the Brahmanas were silent, he asked them through the following verses:- As in the world is a large tree --- the word 'Vanaspati' qualifies the word 'tree' --- so indeed is a man. This is true. His hair is its leaves:- A man's hair corresponds to the leaves of a tree. His skin is its outer bark.
It is from a man’s skin that blood flows, and it is from the bark of a large tree that sap exudes. Since a man and a large tree thus resemble each other in all respects, therefore when a man is wounded, blood flows, as sap from a tree that is injured or cut. Similarly a man’s flesh is the inner bark of a large tree. A man’s sinews are the innermost layer of bark in a tree, that layer which is under the inner bark and attached to the wood; it is tough, or strong, like the sinews. A man’s bones lie under the sinews; similarly under the innermost bark is the wood. A man’s marrow is comparable to the pith of a large tree. There is no difference between the two; they resemble each other. If a tree, after it is felled, springs again from its root in a newer form, etc. We have seen that previous to this feature there was complete similarity between a tree and a man. We notice, however, this peculiarity in a tree that it springs again after it is felled, while we do not see that a man cut off by death springs forth again. But there must be a renascence from some source. Therefore I ask you, from what root does man spring forth after he is cut off by death? In other words, whence is a dead man reborn? If you say that he springs from the seed, do not say (ṣo), you should not say so. Why? Because the seed is produced in a living man, not in a dead man. A tree springs also from the seed, not from the trunk only.—The particle ‘iva’ is expletive.—A large tree, after it is dead, certainly sprīngs again from the seed as well. If a tree is pulled out with its root or its seed, it no more sprouts. Therefore I ask you about the root of the whole universe:- From what root does a mortal spring forth after he is cut off by death? If you think he is ever born. and there is nothing more to ask about him—a question about birth is possible only of one who is yet to be born, andyhot of one who is already born; but a man is ever born, so no question about his birth is admissible —I say, no. What happens then? After death he is again born of a certainty, for otherwise you would be assuming that a man reaps the fruits of actions that he has never done, and fails to obtain those of actions he has actually done. So I ask you, who should again bring him, the dead man, forth?
The Brāhmaṇas did not know that:- that root of the universe out of which the dead man is again born was unknown to them. Hence, being the best of the knowers of Brahman, Yājñavalkya defeated the Brāh-manas and took away the cows. The story is finished. The Śruti in its own form now tells us of the root of the universe, about which Yājñavalkya asked the Brāhmaṇas, and gives the words that directly describe Brahman:- Knowledge, or Pure Intelligence, which is also Bliss, not smitten with pain like sense-perception, but serene, beneficent, matchless, spontaneous, ever content and homogeneous. What is that? Brahman, which has both the characteristics (Knowledge and Bliss). The supreme goal, or the bestower of the fruits ot actions, of the distributor of wealth. i.e. of the sacrificer who engages in rites—the word ‘Rāti’ (wealth) has a possessive force— as well as the supreme goal of him who has realised Brahman and lives in It, having renounced all desires and doing no (ritualistic) work.
Here is something to discuss. The word ‘bliss’ is generally known to denote pleasure; and here we find the word ‘bliss’ used as an epithet of Brahman in the expression 'Bliss, Brahman.’ Elsewhere in the Śrutis too we have:- ‘He knew bliss to be Brahman’ (Tai. III. 6), ‘Knowing the bliss of Brahman’ (Tai. II. 7), 'If this Supreme Self were not bliss' (Tai. II. 7), ‘That which is infinite is bliss’ (Ch. VII. xxiii. 1), 'This is its supreme bliss,’ etc. (IV. iii. 32). The word ‘bliss’ is also commonly known to refer to pleasure that is cognised. The use of the word ‘bliss’ in the above quotations would be justified if the bliss of Brahman be an object of cognition. It may be urged:- On the authority of the Śrutis, Brahman is bliss that is cognised; so what is there to discuss? The reply is:- Not so, for we notice Śruti texts that are contradictory. It is true that in the Śrutis the word ‘bliss’ refers to Brahman; but there is also the negation of knowledge when there is oneness. For example:- ‘But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should one see and through what,.. what should one know and through what?' (II. vi. 14; IV. v. 15), ‘Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, knows nothing else, that is the infinite’ (Ch. VII. xxiv. 1), ‘Being fully embraced by the Supreme Self, he knows neither anything outside of himself,’ etc. (IV. iii. 21). Therefore on account of the contradictory Śruti texts a discussion is necessary. Hence we should discuss in order to ascertain the true meaning of the Vedic passages. Moreover, there is a divergence of opinion among the advocates of liberation. The Sāṃkhya and Vaiáeṣika schools, for instance, while believing in liberation, hold that there is no joy to be cognised in it, thus differing from others, who maintain that there is surpassing joy in it, known only to the person concerned.
Now what is the correct position? Prima facie view:- There is joy to be cognised in liberation, for the Śrutis mention bliss etc. with regard to it, as in the following passages:- ‘Laughing (or eating), playing and enjoying’ (Ch. VIII. xii. 3), ‘If he desires to attain the world of the Manes, (by his mere wish they appear)’ (Ch. VIII. ii. 1), ‘That which knows things in a general and particular way’ (Mu. I. i. 9 and XI. ii. 7), ‘Enjoys all desires,’ etc. (Tai. II. v. i).
Objection:- But is not knowledge impossible when there is oneness, since the different factors of an action are then absent? Every action depends on a number of factors, and cognition too is an action. Tentative answer:- The objection does not hold. On the authority of the Śrutis we must admit that there is knowledge of the bliss of Brahman. We have already said that such Śruti texts as, ‘Knowledge, Bliss,' etc., would be meaningless if the bliss itself were incapable of being cognised.
Objection:- But even a scriptural text cannot make fire cold or water hot, for these texts are merely informative. They cannot tell us that in some other country fire is cold, or that in some inaccessible country water is hot. Tentative answer:- Not so, for we observe bliss and knowledge in the individual self. Texts such as, ‘Knowledge, Bliss,’ etc., do not convey a meaning that clashes with perception and other means of knowledge, as for instance the sentence, ‘Fire is cold,’ does. On the contrary, we feel their agreement with them. One directly knows the self to be blissful, as when one feels, ‘I am happy.’ So the agreement in question with perception etc. is quite clear. Therefore Brahman, which is bliss, being knowledge as well, knows Itself. Thus would the śruti texts cited above, viz. ‘Laughing (or eating), playing, enjoying,’ etc., which prove the existence of bliss in the Self, be found to be consistent. Advaitin's reply:- You are wrong, for there can be no knowledge in the absence of the body and organs. Absolute separation from the body is liberation, and when there is no body there can be no organs, for they will havç no support. Hence too there will be na knowledge, there being no body and organs. If knowledge cduld arise even in the absence of the body and organs, there would be no necessity for any one to possess them. Moreover (if Brahman as Knowledge Absolute cognises the bliss in liberation), it will contradict the oneness of Brahman.
Objection:- Suppose we say that the Supreme Brahman, being eternal Knowledge, ever knows Itself as Bliss Absolute? Reply:- No, (this has just been answered). Even the man under bondage, when freed from relative existence, would regain his real nature (Brahman). (So the same argument would apply to him also.) Like a quantity of water thrown into a tank, he does, not retain a separate existence so as to know the blissful Brahman. Hence, to say that the liberated man knows the blissful Self is meaningless. If, on the other hand, the liberated man, being different from Brahman, knows the bliss of Brahman and the individual self as, ‘I am the Bliss Absolute,’ then the oneness of Brahman is contradicted, which would be against all Śrutis; and there is no third alternative. Moreover, if Brahman ever knows Its own bliss, it is superfluous to distinguish between awareness and unawareness. If It is constantly aware of this bliss, then that is Its nature; hence there is no sense in maintaining that It cognises Its own bliss. Such a view would be tenable if ever there was the possibility of Its not knowing that bliss, as for instance a man knows himself and another (by an act of will). There is certainly no sense in distinguishing between a state of awareness and one of unawareness in the case of a man whose mind is uninterruptedly absorbed in an arrow, for instance. If, on the other hand, Brahman or the Self is supposed to be knowing Its bliss interruptedly, then in the intervals when It does not cognise Itself, It must know something else[18]; and the Self would become changeful, which would make It non-permanent. Hence the text, ‘Knowledge, Bliss,’ etc., must be interpreted as setting forth the nature of Brahman, and not signifying that the bliss of the Self is cognised.
Objection If this bliss is not cognised, such Śruti texts as ‘Laughing (or eating), playing/ etc., will be contradicted. Reply:- No, for such texts only describe actions happening normally, because of the identity of the liberated man with all (infinite existence). That is to say, since the liberated man is identified with all, therefore wherever we observe the laughing etc.—in the Yogins or in the gods—the Śrutis merely describe them as they are with regard to the liberated man, simply on account of his identity with all. It is but a eulogy on liberation, which is synonymous with such identity.
Objection:- If those passages merely describe what happens normally, then there is the chance of the liberated man’s being affected by misery also. If, in other words, he partakes of the laughing etc., happening normally to the Yogins and others, he may also suffer the misery that (plants and other) stationary existences experience. Reply:- No, all these objections have already (p. 306) been refuted on the ground that the distinctions of happiness, misery, etc., are but superimposed by the delusion created by contact with the limiting adjuncts, the body and organs, which are the products of name and form. We have also stated the respective spheres. of the apparently contradictory Śruti texts (p. 393). Hence all passages containing the word ‘bliss’ should be interpreted like the sentence, ‘This is its supreme bliss’ (IV. iii. 32).

Translation By Max Müller

28. Then Yâgñavalkya questioned them with these Slokas:- 1) 'As a mighty tree in the forest, so in truth is man, his hairs are the leaves, his outer skin is the bark. 2) 'From his skin flows forth blood, sap from the skin (of the tree); and thus from the wounded man [1] comes forth blood, as from a tree that is struck. 3) 'The lumps of his flesh are (in the tree) the layers of wood, the fibre is strong like the tendons [2] . The bones are the (hard) wood within, the marrow is made like the marrow of the tree. 4) 'But, while the tree, when felled, grows up again more young from the root, from what root, tell me, does a mortal grow up, after he has been felled by death? 5) 'Do not say, "from seed," for seed is produced from the living [3]; but a tree, springing from a grain, clearly [4] rises again after death [5]. 6) 'If a tree is pulled up with the root, it will not grow again; from what root then, tell me, does a mortal grow up, after he has been felled by death? 7) 'Once born, he is not born (again); for who should create him again [6]?' 'Brahman, who is knowledge and bliss, he is the principle, both to him who gives gifts [7], and also to him who stands firm, and knows.'

Footnote:

1. In the Mâdhyandina-sâkhâ, p. 1080, tasmât tadâtunnât, instead of tasmât tadâtrinnât. 2. Saṅkara seems to have read snâvavat, instead of snâva, tat sthiram, as we read in both Sâkhâs. 3. Here the Mâdhyandinas (p. 1080) add, gâta eva na gâyate, ko nv enam ganayet punah, which the Kânvas place later. 4. Instead of añgasâ, the Mâdhyandinas have anyatah. 5. The Mâdhyandinas have dhânâruha u vai, which is better than iva vai, the iva being, according to Saṅkara's own confession, useless. The thread of the argument does not seem to have been clearly perceived by the commentators. What the poet wants to say is, that a man, struck down by death, does not come to life again from seed, because human seed comes from the living only, while trees, springing from grain, are seen to come to life after the tree (which yielded the grain or the seed) is dead. Pretya-sambhava like pretya-bhâva, means life after death, and pretyasambhava, as an adjective, means coming to life after death. 6. This line too is taken in a different sense by the commentator. According to him, it would mean:- 'If you say, He has been born (and there is an end of all questioning), I say, No; he is born again, and the question is, How?' This is much too artificial. The order of the verses in the Mâdhyandina-sâkhâ is better on the whole, leading up more naturally to the question, 'From what root then does a mortal grow up, after he has been felled by death?' When the Brâhmans cannot answer, Yâgñavalkya answers, or the Sruti declares, that the root from whence a mortal springs again, after death, is Brahman. 7. Saṅkara explains râtir dâtuh as râter dâtuh, a reading adopted by the Mâdhyandinas. He then arrives at the statement that Brahman is the principle or the last source, also the root of a new life, both for those who practise works and for those who, having relinquished works, stand firm in knowledge. Regnaud (II, p. 138) translates:- 'C'est Brahma (qui est) l'intelligence, le bonheur, la richesse, le but suprême de celui qui offre (des sacrifices), et de celui qui réside (en lui), de celui qui connaît.'


Sloka : 4.1.1

मन्त्र १ [IV.i.1]

ॐ जनको ह वैदेह आसां चक्रेऽथ ह याज्ञवल्क्य आवव्राज । तꣳ

होवाच याज्ञवल्क्य किमर्थमचारीः पशूनिच्छन्नण्वन्तानित्युभयमेव

सम्राड् इति होवाच ॥ १॥

mantra 1 [IV.i.1]

oṃ janako ha vaideha āsāṃ cakre'tha ha yājñavalkya āvavrāja . tagͫ

hovāca yājñavalkya kimarthamacārīḥ paśūnicchannaṇvantānityubhayameva

samrāḍ iti hovāca .. 1..



Meaning:- Om. Janaka, Emperor of Videha, took his seat, when there came Yajnavalkya. Janaka said to him, 'Yajnavalkya, what has brought you here? To have some animals, or to hear some subtle questions asked?' 'Both, O Emperor', said Yajnavalkya.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Janaka, Emperor of Videha, took his seat, i.e. gave audience to those who wanted to see him, when there came Yajnavalkya, either to have or maintain something of his own or, in view of the Emperor's desire for knowledge, to do him a favour. Offering his guest adequate worship, Janaka said to him, 'Yajnavalkya, what has brought you here? Is it to have some more animals, or to hear some subtle questions asked --- to hear from me questions on subtle subjects till decisions are arrived at?' 'Both animals and questions, O Emperor.' The word 'Emperor' indicates that Janaka must have performed the Vajapeya sacrifice. 'Emperor' also means one who rules over territories through his vassals who obey his commands; or the word may mean, 'Ruler of all India.'

Translation By Max Müller

1. When Ganaka Vaideha was sitting (to give audience), Yâgñavalkya approached, and Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'Yâgñavalkya, for what object did you come, wishing for cattle, or for subtle questions [1]?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'For both, Your Majesty;

Footnote:

1. Anv-anta, formed like Sûtrânta, Siddhânta, and probably Vedânta, means subtle questions.


Sloka : 4.1.2

मन्त्र २[IV.i.2]

यत्ते कश्चिदब्रवीत् तच्छृणवामेत्यब्रवीन् मे जित्वा शैलिनिर्वाग्वै

ब्रह्मेति । यथा मातृमान्पितृमानाचार्यवान्ब्रूयात् तथा

तच्छैलिरब्रवीद् वाग्वै ब्रह्मेत्यवदतो हि किꣳ स्यादित्यब्रवीत्तु ते

तस्याऽऽयतनं प्रतिष्ठाम् । न मेऽब्रवीदित्येकपाद्वा एतत् सम्राड् इति ।

स वै नो ब्रूहि याज्ञवल्क्य । वागेवाऽऽयतनमाकाशः प्रतिष्ठा

प्रज्ञेत्येनदुपासीत । का प्रज्ञता याज्ञवल्क्य । वागेव सम्राड्

इति होवाच वाचा वै सम्राड् बन्धुः प्रज्ञायत ऋग्वेदो यजुर्वेदः

सामवेदोऽथर्वाङ्गिरस इतिहासः पुराणं विद्या उपनिषदः श्लोकाः

सूत्राण्यनुव्याख्यानानि व्याख्यानानीष्टꣳ हुतमाशितं पायितमयं च

लोकः परश्च लोकः सर्वाणि च भूतानि वाचैव सर्वाणि च भूतानि

वाचा एव सम्राट् प्रज्ञायन्ते वाग्वै सम्राट् परमं ब्रह्म नैनं

वाग्जहाति सर्वाण्येनं भूतान्यभिक्षरन्ति । देवो भूत्वा देवानप्येति य

एवं विद्वानेतदुपास्ते । हस्त्यृषभꣳ सहस्रं ददामीति होवाच

जनको वैदेहः । स होवाच याज्ञवल्क्यः पिता मेऽमन्यत नाननुशिष्य

हरेतेति ॥ २॥

mantra 2[IV.i.2]

yatte kaścidabravīt tacchṛṇavāmetyabravīn me jitvā śailinirvāgvai

brahmeti . yathā mātṛmānpitṛmānācāryavānbrūyāt tathā

tacchailirabravīd vāgvai brahmetyavadato hi kigͫ syādityabravīttu te

tasyā''yatanaṃ pratiṣṭhām . na me'bravīdityekapādvā etat samrāḍ iti .

sa vai no brūhi yājñavalkya . vāgevā''yatanamākāśaḥ pratiṣṭhā

prajñetyenadupāsīta . kā prajñatā yājñavalkya . vāgeva samrāḍ

iti hovāca vācā vai samrāḍ bandhuḥ prajñāyata ṛgvedo yajurvedaḥ

sāmavedo'tharvāṅgirasa itihāsaḥ purāṇaṃ vidyā upaniṣadaḥ ślokāḥ

sūtrāṇyanuvyākhyānāni vyākhyānānīṣṭagͫ hutamāśitaṃ pāyitamayaṃ ca

lokaḥ paraśca lokaḥ sarvāṇi ca bhūtāni vācaiva sarvāṇi ca bhūtāni

vācā eva samrāṭ prajñāyante vāgvai samrāṭ paramaṃ brahma nainaṃ

vāgjahāti sarvāṇyenaṃ bhūtānyabhikṣaranti . devo bhūtvā devānapyeti ya

evaṃ vidvānetadupāste . hastyṛṣabhagͫ sahasraṃ dadāmīti hovāca

janako vaidehaḥ . sa hovāca yājñavalkyaḥ pitā me'manyata nānanuśiṣya

hareteti .. 2..



Meaning:- 'Let me hear what any one of your teachers may have told you'. 'Jitvan, the son of Silina, has told me that the organ of speech (fire) is Brahman'. 'As one who has a mother, a father and a teacher should say, so has the son of Silina said this - that the organ of speech is Brahman, for what can a person have who cannot speak? But did he tell you about its abode (body) and support?' 'No, he did not'. 'This Brahman is only one-footed, O Emperor'. 'Then you tell us, Yajnavalkya'. 'The organ of speech is its abode, and the ether (the Undifferentiated) its support. It should be meditated upon as intelligence'. 'What is intelligence, Yajnavalkya?' 'The organ of speech itself, O Emperor', said Yajnavalkya, 'through the organ of speech, O Emperor, friend is known; The Rig-Veda, Yajur-Veda, Sama-Veda, Atharvangirasa, (Vedic) history, mythology, arts, Upanishads, verses, aphorisms, elucidations and explanations, (the effects of) sacrifices, (of) offering oblations in the fire and (of) giving food and drink, this world and the next, and all beings are known through the organ of speech alone, O Emperor. The organ of speech, O Emperor, is the supreme Brahman. The organ of speech never leaves him who, knowing thus, meditates upon it, all beings eagerly come to him, and being a god, he attains the gods.' 'I give you a thousand cows with a bull like an elephant', said Emperor Janaka. Yajnavalkya replied, 'My father was of opinion that one should not accept (wealth) from a disciple without fully instructing him'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- 'But let me hear what any one of your teachers --- for you serve several of them --- may have told you.'
The other said, 'My teacher Jitvan, the son of Silina, has told me that the organ of speech, i.e. its presiding deity (fire), is Brahman.' Yajnavalkya said, 'As one who has a mother adequately to instruct him in his childhood, a father to instruct him after that, and a teacher to instruct him from his initiation with the holdy thread up to the completion of his studies, should say to his disciple, so has Jitvan, the son of Silina, said this --- that the organ of speech is Brahman. One who has had the advantage of these three sources of purification is a teacher in the primary sense of the word, and never fails to be an authority himself. For what can a person have who cannot speak? --- he achieves nothing either in this life or in the next.
'But did he tell you about the abode and support of that Brahman?' 'Abode' means the body; 'support' is permanent resort. Janaka said, 'No, he did not.' Yajnavalkya said, 'If so this Brahman is only one-footed, and lacking the remaining three feet, it will not produce any effect, even though meditated upon.' 'Then you tell us, Yajnavalkya, for you know (about them)'. Yajnavalkya said, 'The organ of speech is its abode, or the body of the deity of the organ of speech (fire), which is a form of Brahman, and the ether known as the Undifferentiated is its support as its origin, during its continuance and at its dissolution. It should be meditated upon as intelligence. The secret name of intelligence is the fourth chapter of Brahman; one should meditate upon this Brahman as intelligence.'

'What is intelligence, Yajnavalkya? Is intelligence itself meant, or its effect (speech)? It is different from the organ of speech, like the body and support?'
'No.' 'What is it then?' 'The organ of speech itself, O Emperor,' said Yajnavalkya, 'is intelligence:- Intelligence is not different from the organ of speech.'
How is it? The reply is being given:- Through the organ of speech, O Emperor, a friend is known, when somebody says, 'He is our friend.' Likewise the Rg-Veda etc. Sacrifices mean the spiritual effects produced by them; the same with offering oblations, as well as giving food and drink. This world, the present life, the
next world, the life to come, and all beings are known through the organ of speech alone, O Emperor. Therefore the organ of speech, O Emperor, is the Supreme Brahman. The organ of speech never leaves him, the knower of the Brahman described above, who knowing thus meditates upon it, all beings eagerly come to him with offerings etc., and being a god in this very life, he attains the gods, is merged in them after death.
 'I give you a thosand cows with a bull like an elephant,' said Emperor Janaka, as a return for the instruction received.
Yajnavalkya replied, 'My father was of opinion that one should not accept wealth from a disciple without fully instructing or satisfying him. I too hold that view.'

Translation By Max Müller

2. 'Let us hear what anybody may have told you.' Ganaka Vaideha replied:- 'Gitvan Sailini told me that speech (vâk) is Brahman.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'As one who had (the benefit of a good) father, mother, and teacher might tell, so did Sailini [1] tell you, that speech is Brahman; for what is the use of a dumb person? But did he tell you the body (âyatana) and the resting-place (pratishthâ) of that Brahman?' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'He did not tell me.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Your Majesty, this (Brahman) stands on one leg only [2].' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'Then tell me, Yâgñavalkya.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'The tongue is its body, ether its place, and one should worship it as knowledge.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'What is the nature of that knowledge?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'Your Majesty, speech itself (is knowledge). For through speech, Your Majesty, a friend is known (to be a friend), and likewise the Rig-Veda, Yagur-veda, Sâma-veda, the Atharvâṅgirasas, the Itihâsa (tradition), Purâna-vidyâ (knowledge of the past), the Upanishads, Slokas (verses), Sûtras (rules), Anuvyâkhyânas and Vyâkhyânas (commentaries [3], &c.); what is sacrificed, what is poured out, what is (to be) eaten and drunk, this world and the other world, and all creatures. By speech alone, Your Majesty, Brahman is known, speech indeed, O King, is the Highest Brahman. Speech does not desert him who worships that (Brahman) with such knowledge, all creatures approach him, and having become a god, he goes to the gods.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'I shall give you (for this) a thousand cows with a bull as big as an elephant.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'My father was of opinion that one should not accept a reward without having fully instructed a pupil.'

Footnote:

1. Roer and Poley give here Sailina; Weber also (pp. 1080 and 1081) has twice Sailina (Silinasyâpatyam). 2. This seems to mean that Gitvan's explanation of Brahman is lame or imperfect, because there are four pâdas of that Brahman, and he taught one only. The other three are its body, its place, and its form of worship (pragñetîyam upanishad brahmanas katurthah pâdah). See also Maitr. Up. VII, p. 221. 3. See before, II, 4, 10; and afterwards, IV, 5, 11.


Sloka : 4.1.3

मन्त्र ३[IV.i.3]

यदेव ते कश्चिदब्रवीत्तच्छृणवामेत्यब्रवीन्म ऊदङ्कः शौल्बायनः

प्राणो वै ब्रह्मेति । यथा मातृमान्पितृमानाचार्यवान्ब्रूयात्

तथा तच्छौल्वायनोऽब्रवीत् प्राणो वै ब्रह्मेत्यप्राणतो हि

किꣳ स्यादित्यब्रवीत्तु ते तस्याऽऽयतनं प्रतिष्ठाम् । न

मेऽब्रवीदित्येकपाद्वा एतत् सम्राड् इति । स वै नो ब्रूहि याज्ञवल्क्य ।

प्राण एवाऽऽयतनमाकाशः प्रतिष्ठा प्रियमित्येनदुपासीत ।

का प्रियता याज्ञवल्क्य । प्राण एव सम्राड् इति होवाच प्राणस्य

वै सम्राट् कामायायाज्यं याजयत्यप्रतिगृह्यस्य प्रतिगृह्णात्यपि

तत्र वधाशङ्कं भवति यां दिशमेति प्राणस्यैव सम्राट् कामाय

प्राणो वै सम्राट् परमं ब्रह्म । नैनं प्राणो जहाति सर्वाण्येनं

भूतान्यभिक्षरन्ति । देवो भूत्वा देवानप्येति य एवं विद्वानेतदुपास्ते ।

हस्त्यृषभꣳ सहस्रं ददामीति होवाच जनको वैदेहः । स

होवाच याज्ञवल्क्यः पिता मेऽमन्यत नाननुशिष्य हरेतेति ॥ ३॥

mantra 3[IV.i.3]

yadeva te kaścidabravīttacchṛṇavāmetyabravīnma ūdaṅkaḥ śaulbāyanaḥ

prāṇo vai brahmeti . yathā mātṛmānpitṛmānācāryavānbrūyāt

tathā tacchaulvāyano'bravīt prāṇo vai brahmetyaprāṇato hi

kigͫ syādityabravīttu te tasyā''yatanaṃ pratiṣṭhām . na

me'bravīdityekapādvā etat samrāḍ iti . sa vai no brūhi yājñavalkya .

prāṇa evā''yatanamākāśaḥ pratiṣṭhā priyamityenadupāsīta .

kā priyatā yājñavalkya . prāṇa eva samrāḍ iti hovāca prāṇasya

vai samrāṭ kāmāyāyājyaṃ yājayatyapratigṛhyasya pratigṛhṇātyapi

tatra vadhāśaṅkaṃ bhavati yāṃ diśameti prāṇasyaiva samrāṭ kāmāya

prāṇo vai samrāṭ paramaṃ brahma . nainaṃ prāṇo jahāti sarvāṇyenaṃ

bhūtānyabhikṣaranti . devo bhūtvā devānapyeti ya evaṃ vidvānetadupāste .

hastyṛṣabhagͫ sahasraṃ dadāmīti hovāca janako vaidehaḥ . sa

hovāca yājñavalkyaḥ pitā me'manyata nānanuśiṣya hareteti .. 3..



Meaning:- 'Let me hear whatever any one may have told you'. 'Udanka, the son of Sulba, has told me that the vital force (Vayu) is Brahman'. 'As one who has a mother, a father and a teacher should say, so has the son of Sulba said this - that the vital force is Brahman, for what can a person have who does not live? But did he tell you about its abode (body) and support?' 'No, he did not'. 'This Brahman is only one-footed, O Emperor'. 'Then you tell us, Yajnavalkya'. 'The vital force is its abode, and the ether (the Undifferentiated) its support. It should be meditated upon as dear'. 'What is dearness, Yajnavalkya?' The vital force itself, O Emperor', said Yajnavalkya; 'for the sake of the vital force, O Emperor, a man performs sacrifices for one for whom they should not be performed, and accepts gifts one from whom they should not be accepted, and it is for the sake of the vital force, O Emperor, that one runs the risk of one's life in any quarter one may go to. The vital force, O Emperor, is the Supreme Brahman. The vital force never leaves him who, knowing thus, meditates upon it, all beings eagerly come to him, and being a god, he attains the gods'. 'I give you a thousand cows with a bull like an elephant', said Emperor Janaka. Yajnavalkya replied, 'My father was of opinion that one should not accept (wealth) from a disciple without fully instructing him'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- 'Let me hear whatever,' etc. 'Udanka, the son of Sulba, has told me that the vital force is Brahman.' 'The vital force' means the deity Vayu, as 'the organ of speech' in the preceding paragraph meant the deity fire. 'The vital force is its abode, and the ether (the Undifferentiated) its support.' Its secret name:- 'It should be meditated upon as dear.' 'For the sake of the vital force, O Emperor, a man performs sacrifices for one for whom they should not be performed, such as even an outcast, and even accepts gifts from one from whom they should not be accepted, for instance, an Ugra (One born of a Ksatriya father and a Sudra mother, and supposed to be generally characterised by cruelty.); and one runs the risk of one's life in any quarter infested by robbers etc. that one may go to. All this is possible because the vital force is dear:- It is for the sake of the vital force, O Emperor. Therefore the vital force, O Emperor, is the Supreme Brahman. The vital force never leaves him,' etc. The rest has been explained.

Translation By Max Müller

3. Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Let us hear what anybody may have told you.' Ganaka Vaideha replied:- 'Udaṅka Saulbâyana told me that life (prâna) [1] is Brahman.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'As one who had (the benefit of a good) father, mother, and teacher might tell, so did Udaṅka Saulbâyana tell you that life is Brahman; for what is the use of a person without life? But did he tell you the body and the resting-place of that Brahman?' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'He did not tell me.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Your Majesty, this (Brahman) stands on one leg only.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'Then tell me, Yâgñavalkya.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Breath is its body, ether its place, and one should worship it as what is dear.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'What is the nature of that which is dear?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'Your Majesty, life itself (is that which is dear);' because for the sake of life, Your Majesty, a man sacrifices even for him who is unworthy of sacrifice, he accepts presents from him who is not worthy to bestow presents, nay, he goes to a country, even when there is fear of being hurt [2], for the sake of life. Life, O King, is the Highest Brahman. Life does not desert him who worships that (Brahman) with such knowledge, all creatures approach him, and having become a god, he goes to the gods.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'I shall give you (for this) a thousand cows with a bull as big as an elephant.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'My father was of opinion that one should not accept a reward without having fully instructed a pupil.'

Footnote:

1. See Taitt. Up. III, 3. 2. Or it may mean, he is afraid of being hurt, to whatever country he goes, for the sake of a livelihood.


Sloka : 4.1.4

मन्त्र ४[IV.i.4]

यदेव ते कश्चिदब्रवीत् तच्छृणवामेत्यब्रवीन्मे

बर्कुर्वार्ष्णश्चक्षुर्वै ब्रह्मेति । यथा मातृमान्पितृमानाचार्यवान्

ब्रूयात् तथा तद्वार्ष्णोऽब्रवीत्च्चक्षुर्वै ब्रह्मेत्यपश्यतो

हि किꣳ स्यादित्यब्रवीत्तु ते तस्याऽऽयतनं प्रतिष्ठाम् । न

मेऽब्रवीदित्येकपाद्वा एतत् सम्राड् इति । स वै नो ब्रूहि याज्ञवल्क्य ।

चक्षुरेवाऽऽयतनमाकाशः प्रतिष्ठा सत्यमित्येतदुपासीत । का

सत्यता याज्ञवल्क्य । चक्षुरेव सम्राड् इति होवाच चक्षुषा वै

सम्राट् पश्यन्तमाहुरद्राक्षीरिति । स आहाद्राक्षमिति तत्सत्यं भवति

चक्षुर्वै सम्राट् परमं ब्रह्म नैनं चक्षुर्जहाति सर्वाण्येनं

भूतान्यभिक्षरन्ति । देवो भूत्वा देवानप्येति य एवं विद्वानेतदुपास्ते ।

हस्त्यृषभꣳ सहस्रं ददामीति होवाच जनको वैदेहः । स

होवाच याज्ञवल्क्यः पिता मेऽमन्यत नाननुशिष्य हरेतेति ॥४॥

mantra 4[IV.i.4]

yadeva te kaścidabravīt tacchṛṇavāmetyabravīnme

barkurvārṣṇaścakṣurvai brahmeti . yathā mātṛmānpitṛmānācāryavān

brūyāt tathā tadvārṣṇo'bravītccakṣurvai brahmetyapaśyato

hi kigͫ syādityabravīttu te tasyā''yatanaṃ pratiṣṭhām . na

me'bravīdityekapādvā etat samrāḍ iti . sa vai no brūhi yājñavalkya .

cakṣurevā''yatanamākāśaḥ pratiṣṭhā satyamityetadupāsīta . kā

satyatā yājñavalkya . cakṣureva samrāḍ iti hovāca cakṣuṣā vai

samrāṭ paśyantamāhuradrākṣīriti . sa āhādrākṣamiti tatsatyaṃ bhavati

cakṣurvai samrāṭ paramaṃ brahma nainaṃ cakṣurjahāti sarvāṇyenaṃ

bhūtānyabhikṣaranti . devo bhūtvā devānapyeti ya evaṃ vidvānetadupāste .

hastyṛṣabhagͫ sahasraṃ dadāmīti hovāca janako vaidehaḥ . sa

hovāca yājñavalkyaḥ pitā me'manyata nānanuśiṣya hareteti ..4..



Meaning:- 'Let me hear whatever any one may have told you'. 'Barku, the son of Vrsna, has told me that the eye (sun) is Brahman'. 'As one who has a mother, a father and a teacher should say, so has the son of Vrsna said this - that the eye is Brahman. For what can a person have who cannot see? But did he tell you about its abode (body) and support?' 'No, he did not'. 'This Brahman is only one-footed, O Emperor'. 'Then you tell us, Yajnavalkya'. 'The eye is its abode, and the ether (the Undifferentiated) its support. It should be meditated upon as truth'. 'What is truth, Yajnavalkya?' ''The eye itself, O Emperor', said Yajnavalkya; if a person, O Emperor, says to one who has seen with his eyes, "Have you seen?" and the latter answers, "Yes, I have", then it is true. The eye, O Emperor, is the Supreme Brahman. The eye never leaves him who, knowing thus, meditates upon it; all beings eagerly come to him; and being a god, he attains the gods'. 'I give you a thousand cows with a bull like an elephant', said Emperor Janaka. Yajnavalkya replied, 'My father was of opinion that one should not accept (wealth) from a disciple without fully instructing him'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- 'Let me hear,' etc. Barku, the son of Vrsna, etc. The eye is Brahman:- The sun is the presiding deity of the eye. The secret name is truth. 'Because what one hears with the ears may be false, but not what one sees with the eyes, therefore if a person, O Emperor, says to one who has seen with the eyes, 'Have you seen the elephant?' and he answers, 'Yes, I have,' then it is considered true; while if another says, 'I have heard of it,' it may not correspond with fact. But what is seen with the eyes is always true, as it corresponds with fact.'

Translation By Max Müller

4. Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Let us hear what anybody may have told you.' Ganaka Vaideha replied:- 'Barku Vârshna told me that sight (kakshus) is Brahman.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'As one who had (the benefit of a good) father, mother, and teacher might tell, so did Barku Vârshna tell you that sight is Brahman; for what is the use of a person who cannot see? But did he tell you the body and the resting-place of that Brahman?' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'He did not tell me.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Your Majesty, this (Brahman) stands on one leg only.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'Then tell me, Yâgñavalkya.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'The eye is its body, ether its place, and one should worship it as what is true.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'What is the nature of that which is true?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'Your Majesty, sight itself (is that which is true); for if they say to a man who sees with his eye, "Didst thou see?" and he says, "I saw," then it is true. Sight, O King, is the Highest Brahman. Sight does not desert him who worships that (Brahman) with such knowledge, all creatures approach him, and having become a god, he goes to the gods.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'I shall give you (for this) a thousand cows with a bull as big as an elephant.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'My father was of opinion that one should not accept a reward without having fully instructed a pupil.'


Sloka : 4.1.5

मन्त्र ५[IV.i.5]

यदेव ते कश्चिदब्रवीत् तच्छृणवामेत्यब्रवीन्मे गर्दभीविपीतो

भारद्वाजः श्रोत्रं वै ब्रह्मेति यथा मातृमान्पितृमानाचार्यवान्ब्रूयात्

तथा तद्भारद्वाजोऽब्रवीच्छ्रोत्रं वै ब्रह्मेत्यश‍ृण्वतो

हि किꣳ स्यादित्यब्रवीत्तु ते तस्याऽऽयतनं प्रतिष्ठाम् । न

मेऽब्रवीदित्येकपाद्वा एतत् सम्राड् इति । स वै नो ब्रूहि याज्ञवल्क्य ।

श्रोत्रमेवाऽऽयतनमाकाशः प्रतिष्ठाऽनन्तमित्येनदुपासीत ।

काऽनन्तता याज्ञवल्क्य । दिश एव सम्राड् इति होवाच तस्माद्वै

सम्राड् अपि यां काञ्च दिशं गच्छति नैवास्या अन्तं गच्छत्यनन्ता

हि दिशो दिशो वै सम्राट् श्रोत्रꣳश्रोत्रं वै सम्राट् परमं

ब्रह्म । नैनꣳ श्रोत्रं जहाति सर्वाण्येनं भूतान्यभिक्षरन्ति ।

देवो भूत्वा देवानप्येति य एवं विद्वानेतदुपास्ते । हस्त्यृषभꣳ

सहस्रं ददामीति होवाच जनको वैदेहः । स होवाच याज्ञवल्क्यः

पिता मेऽमन्यत नाननुशिष्य हरेतेति ॥ ५॥

mantra 5[IV.i.5]

yadeva te kaścidabravīt tacchṛṇavāmetyabravīnme gardabhīvipīto

bhāradvājaḥ śrotraṃ vai brahmeti yathā mātṛmānpitṛmānācāryavānbrūyāt

tathā tadbhāradvājo'bravīcchrotraṃ vai brahmetyaśṛṇvato

hi kigͫ syādityabravīttu te tasyā''yatanaṃ pratiṣṭhām . na

me'bravīdityekapādvā etat samrāḍ iti . sa vai no brūhi yājñavalkya .

śrotramevā''yatanamākāśaḥ pratiṣṭhā'nantamityenadupāsīta .

kā'nantatā yājñavalkya . diśa eva samrāḍ iti hovāca tasmādvai

samrāḍ api yāṃ kāñca diśaṃ gacchati naivāsyā antaṃ gacchatyanantā

hi diśo diśo vai samrāṭ śrotragͫśrotraṃ vai samrāṭ paramaṃ

brahma . nainagͫ śrotraṃ jahāti sarvāṇyenaṃ bhūtānyabhikṣaranti .

devo bhūtvā devānapyeti ya evaṃ vidvānetadupāste . hastyṛṣabhagͫ

sahasraṃ dadāmīti hovāca janako vaidehaḥ . sa hovāca yājñavalkyaḥ

pitā me'manyata nānanuśiṣya hareteti .. 5..



Meaning:- 'Let me hear whatever any one may have told you'. 'Gardabhivipita, of the line of Bharadvaja, has told me that the ear (the quarters) is Brahman'. 'As one who has a mother, a father and a teacher should say, so has the descendant of Bharadvaja said this - that the ear is Brahman. For what can a person have who cannot hear? But did he tell you about its abode (body) and support?' 'No, he did not'. 'This Brahman is only one-footed, O Emperor'. 'Then you tell us, Yajnavalkya'. 'The ear is its abode, and the ether (the Undifferentiated) its support. It should be meditated upon as infinite'. 'What is infinity, Yajnavalkya?' 'The quarters themselves, O Emperor', said Yajnavalkya; 'therefore, O Emperor, to whatever direction one may go, one never reaches its end. (Hence) the quarters are infinite. The quarters, O Emperor, are the ear, and the ear, O Emperor, is the Supreme Brahman. The ear never leaves him who, knowing thus, meditates upon it; all beings eagerly come to him; and being a god, he attains the gods'. 'I give you a thousand cows with a bull like an elephant', said Emperor Janaka. Yajnavalkya replied, 'My father was of opinion that one should not accept (wealth) from a disciple without fully instructing him'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- 'Let me hear,' etc. Gardabhivipita, of the line of Bharadvaja, etc. The ear is Brahman:- The quarters are the presiding deities of the ear. 'It should be meditated upon as infinite.' 'What is the infinity of the ear?' 'Because the quarters themselves are the infinity, therefore, O Emperor, to whatever direction, east or north, one may go, one never reaches its end. Hence the quarters are infinite. The quarters, O Emperor, are the ear. Therefore the infinity of the quarters is also that of the ear.'

Translation By Max Müller

5. Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Let us hear what anybody may have told you.' Ganaka Vaideha replied:- 'Gardabhîvibhîta Bhâradvâga told me that hearing (sruta) is Brahman.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'As one who had (the benefit of a good) father, mother, and teacher might tell, so did Gardabhîvibhîta Bhâradvâga tell you that hearing is Brahman; for what is the use of a person who cannot hear? But did he tell you the body and the resting-place of that Brahman?' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'He did not tell me.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Your Majesty, this (Brahman) stands on one leg only.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'Then tell me, Yâgñavalkya.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'The ear is its body, ether its place, and we should worship it as what is endless.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'What is the nature of that which is endless?' Yâgñavalkya, replied:- 'Your Majesty, space (disah) itself (is that which is endless), and therefore to whatever space (quarter) he goes, he never comes to the end of it. For space is endless. Space indeed, O King, is hearing [1], and hearing indeed, O King, is the Highest Brahman. Hearing does not desert him who worships that (Brahman) with such knowledge, all creatures approach him, and having become a god, he goes to the gods.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'I shall give you (for this) a thousand cows with a bull as big as an elephant.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'My father was of opinion that one should not accept a reward without having fully instructed a pupil.'

Footnote:

1. Dvivedagaṅga states, digbhâgo hi pârthivâdhishthânâvakkhinnah srotram ity ukyate, atas tayor ekatvam.


Sloka : 4.1.6

मन्त्र ६[IV.i.6]

यदेव ते कश्चिदब्रवीत् तच्छृणवामेत्यब्रवीन्मे सत्यकामो जाबालो

मनो वै ब्रह्मेति यथा मातृमान्पितृमानाचार्यवान्ब्रूयात् तथा

तज्जाबालो अब्रवीन् मनो वै ब्रह्मेत्यमनसो हि किꣳ स्यादित्यब्रवीत्तु

ते तस्याऽऽयतनं प्रतिष्ठाम् । न मेऽब्रवीदित्येकपाद्वा एतत् सम्राड्

इति । स वै नो ब्रूहि याज्ञवल्क्य । मन एवाऽऽयतनमाकाशः

प्रतिष्ठाऽऽनन्द इत्येनदुपासीत । काऽऽनन्दता याज्ञवल्क्य ।

मन एव सम्राड् इति होवाच मनसा वै सम्राट् स्त्रियमभिहार्यते तस्यां

प्रतिरूपः पुत्रो जायते स आनन्दो । मनो वै सम्राट् परमं ब्रह्म नैनं

मनो जहाति सर्वाण्येनं भूतान्यभिक्षरन्ति । देवो भूत्वा देवानप्येति

य एवं विद्वानेतदुपास्ते । हस्त्यृषभꣳ सहस्रं ददामीति होवाच

जनको वैदेहः । स होवाच याज्ञवल्क्यः पिता मेऽमन्यत नाननुशिष्य

हरेतेति ॥ ६॥

mantra 6[IV.i.6]

yadeva te kaścidabravīt tacchṛṇavāmetyabravīnme satyakāmo jābālo

mano vai brahmeti yathā mātṛmānpitṛmānācāryavānbrūyāt tathā

tajjābālo abravīn mano vai brahmetyamanaso hi kigͫ syādityabravīttu

te tasyā''yatanaṃ pratiṣṭhām . na me'bravīdityekapādvā etat samrāḍ

iti . sa vai no brūhi yājñavalkya . mana evā''yatanamākāśaḥ

pratiṣṭhā''nanda ityenadupāsīta . kā''nandatā yājñavalkya .

mana eva samrāḍ iti hovāca manasā vai samrāṭ striyamabhihāryate tasyāṃ

pratirūpaḥ putro jāyate sa ānando . mano vai samrāṭ paramaṃ brahma nainaṃ

mano jahāti sarvāṇyenaṃ bhūtānyabhikṣaranti . devo bhūtvā devānapyeti

ya evaṃ vidvānetadupāste . hastyṛṣabhagͫ sahasraṃ dadāmīti hovāca

janako vaidehaḥ . sa hovāca yājñavalkyaḥ pitā me'manyata nānanuśiṣya

hareteti .. 6..



Meaning:- 'Let me hear whatever any one may have told you'. 'Satyakama, the son of Jabala, has told me that the Manas (here, the moon) is Brahman'. 'As one who has a mother, a father and a teacher should say, so has the son of Jabala said this - that the Manas is Brahman. For what can a person have without the Manas? But did he tell you about its abode (body) and support?' 'No, he did not'. 'This Brahman is only one-footed, O Emperor'. 'Then you tell us, Yajnavalkya'. 'The Manas is its abode, and the ether (the Undifferentiated) its support. It should be meditated upon as bliss'. 'What is bliss, Yajnavalkya?' 'The manas itself, O Emperor', said Yajnavalkya; 'with the Manas, O Emperor, a man (fancies and) woos a woman. A son resembling him is born of her, and he is the cause of bliss. The Manas, O Emperor, is the Supreme Brahman. The Manas never leaves him who, knowing thus, meditates upon it; all beings eagerly come to him; and being a god, he attains the gods'. 'I give you a thousand cows with a bull like an elephant', said Emperor Janaka. Yajnavalkya replied, 'My father was of opinion that one should not accept (wealth) from a disciple without fully instructing him'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- 'Satyakama, the son of Jabala,' etc. The moon is the presiding deity of the Manas. The secret name is bliss. 'Because the Manas itself is bliss, therefore with the Manas a man fancies and woos a woman. From that a son resembling him is born of that woman, and that son is the cause of bliss; therefore the Manas, which brings this son into being, is bliss.'

Translation By Max Müller

6. Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Let us hear what anybody may have told you.' Ganaka Vaideha replied:- 'Satyakâma Gâbâla told me that mind [1] (manas) is Brahman.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'As one who had (the benefit of a good) father, mother, and teacher might tell, so did Satyakâma Gâbâla tell you that mind is Brahman; for what is the use of a person without mind? But did he tell you the body and the resting-place of that Brahman?' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'He did not tell me.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Your Majesty, this (Brahman) stands on one leg only.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'Then tell me, Yâgñavalkya.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Mind itself is its body, ether its place, and we should worship it as bliss.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'What is the nature of bliss?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'Your Majesty, mind itself; for with the mind does a man desire a woman, and a like son is born of her, and he is bliss. Mind indeed, O King, is the Highest Brahman. Mind does not desert him who worships that (Brahman) with such knowledge, all creatures approach him, and having become a god, he goes to the gods.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'I shall give you (for this) a thousand cows with a bull as big as an elephant.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'My father was of opinion that one should not accept a reward without having fully instructed a pupil.'

Footnote:

1. See also Taitt. Up. III, 4.


Sloka : 4.1.7

मन्त्र ७[IV.i.7]

यदेव ते कश्चिदब्रवीत् तच्छृणवामेत्यब्रवीन्मे विदग्धः शाकल्यो

हृदयं वै ब्रह्मेति यथा मातृमान्पितृमानाचार्यवान्ब्रूयात्

तथा तच्छाकल्योऽब्रवीद् धृदयं वै ब्रह्मेत्यहृदयस्य हि

किꣳ स्यादित्यब्रवीत्तु ते तस्याऽऽयतनं प्रतिष्ठां ‍ । न

मेऽब्रवीदित्येकपाद्वा एतत् सम्राड् इति । स वै नो ब्रूहि याज्ञवल्क्य ।

हृदयमेवाऽऽयतनमाकाशः प्रतिष्ठा स्थितिरित्येनदुपासीत । का

स्थितिता याज्ञवल्क्य । हृदयमेव सम्राड् इति होवाच हृदयं वै

सम्राट् सर्वेषां भूतानामायतनꣳ हृदयं वै सम्राट्, सर्वेषां

भूतानां प्रतिष्ठा हृदये ह्येव सम्राट् सर्वाणि भूतानि प्रतिष्ठितानि

भवन्ति हृदयं वै सम्राट् परमं ब्रह्म नैनꣳ हृदयं

जहाति सर्वाण्येनं भूतान्यभिक्षरन्ति । देवो भूत्वा देवानप्येति य

एवं विद्वानेतदुपास्ते । हस्त्यृषभꣳ सहस्रं ददामीति होवाच

जनको वैदेहः । स होवाच याज्ञवल्क्यः पिता मेऽमन्यत नाननुशिष्य

हरेतेति ॥ ७॥

इति प्रथमं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ द्वितीयं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 7[IV.i.7]

yadeva te kaścidabravīt tacchṛṇavāmetyabravīnme vidagdhaḥ śākalyo

hṛdayaṃ vai brahmeti yathā mātṛmānpitṛmānācāryavānbrūyāt

tathā tacchākalyo'bravīd dhṛdayaṃ vai brahmetyahṛdayasya hi

kigͫ syādityabravīttu te tasyā''yatanaṃ pratiṣṭhāṃ . na

me'bravīdityekapādvā etat samrāḍ iti . sa vai no brūhi yājñavalkya .

hṛdayamevā''yatanamākāśaḥ pratiṣṭhā sthitirityenadupāsīta . kā

sthititā yājñavalkya . hṛdayameva samrāḍ iti hovāca hṛdayaṃ vai

samrāṭ sarveṣāṃ bhūtānāmāyatanagͫ hṛdayaṃ vai samrāṭ, sarveṣāṃ

bhūtānāṃ pratiṣṭhā hṛdaye hyeva samrāṭ sarvāṇi bhūtāni pratiṣṭhitāni

bhavanti hṛdayaṃ vai samrāṭ paramaṃ brahma nainagͫ hṛdayaṃ

jahāti sarvāṇyenaṃ bhūtānyabhikṣaranti . devo bhūtvā devānapyeti ya

evaṃ vidvānetadupāste . hastyṛṣabhagͫ sahasraṃ dadāmīti hovāca

janako vaidehaḥ . sa hovāca yājñavalkyaḥ pitā me'manyata nānanuśiṣya

hareteti .. 7..

iti prathamaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha dvitīyaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- 'Let me hear whatever any one may have told you'. 'Vidagdha, the son of Sakala, has told me that the heart (mind, here, Prajapati ) is Brahman'. 'As one who has a mother, a father and a teacher should say, so has the son of Sakala said this - that the heart is Brahman. For what can a person have without the heart? But did he tell you about its abode (body) and support?' 'No, he did not'. 'This Brahman is only one-footed, O Emperor'. 'Then you tell us, Yajnavalkya'. 'The heart is its abode, and the ether (the Undifferentiated) its support. It should be meditated upon as stability'. 'What is stability, Yajnavalkya?' 'The heart itself, O Emperor', said Yajnavalkya; 'the heart, O Emperor, is the abode of all beings, and the heart, O Emperor, is the support of all beings; on the heart, O Emperor, all beings rest; the heart, O Emperor, is the Supreme Brahman. The heart never leaves him who, knowing thus, meditates upon it; all beings eagerly come to him; and being a god, he attains the gods'. 'I give you a thousand cows with a bull like an elephant', said Emperor Janaka. Yajnavalkya replied, 'My father was of opinion that one should not accept (wealth) from a disciple without fully instructing him'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Vidagdha, the son of Sakala, etc. The heart is Brahman. The heart, O Emperor, is the abode of all beings. We have already said in the section relating to Sakalya that all beings consisting of name, form and action depend on the heart (mind) and rest on it (See commentary on III. ix. 24.). 'Therefore on the heart, O Emperor, all beings rest. Hence it should be meditated upon as stability.' Prajapati (Hiranyagarbha) is the presiding deity of the heart.

Translation By Max Müller

7. Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Let us hear what anybody may have told you.' Ganaka Vaideha replied:- 'Vidagdha Sâkalya told me that the heart (hridaya) is Brahman.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'As one who had (the benefit of a good) father, mother, and teacher might tell, so did Vidagdha Sâkalya tell you that the heart is Brahman; for what is the use of a person without a heart? But did he tell you the body and the resting-place of that Brahman?' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'He did not tell me.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Your Majesty, this (Brahman) stands on one leg only.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'Then tell me, Yâgñavalkya.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'The heart itself is its body, ether its place, and we should worship it as certainty (sthiti).' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'What is the nature of certainty?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'Your Majesty, the heart itself; for the heart indeed, O King, is the body of all things, the heart is the resting-place of all things, for in the heart, O King, all things rest. The heart indeed, O King, is the Highest Brahman. The heart does not desert him who worships that (Brahman) with such knowledge, all creatures approach him, and having become a god, he goes to the gods.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'I shall give you (for this) a thousand cows with a bull as big as an elephant.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'My father was of opinion that one should not accept a reward without having fully instructed a pupil.'


Sloka : 4.2.1

मन्त्र १[IV.ii.1]

जनको ह वैदेहः कूर्चादुपावसर्पन्नुवाच नमस्तेऽस्तु याज्ञवल्क्यानु

मा शाधीति । स होवाच यथा वै सम्राण् महान्तमध्वानमेष्यन्रथं

वा नावं वा समाददीतैवमेवैताभिरुपनिषद्भिः समाहितात्माऽस्यसि

एवं वृन्दारक आढ्यः सन्नधीतवेद उक्तोपनिषत्क इतो विमुच्यमानः

क्व गमिष्यसीति । नाहं तद् भगवन् वेद यत्र गमिष्यामीत्यथ वै

तेऽहं तद्वक्ष्यामि यत्र गमिष्यसीति । ब्रवीतु भगवानिति ॥ १॥

mantra 1[IV.ii.1]

janako ha vaidehaḥ kūrcādupāvasarpannuvāca namaste'stu yājñavalkyānu

mā śādhīti . sa hovāca yathā vai samrāṇ mahāntamadhvānameṣyanrathaṃ

vā nāvaṃ vā samādadītaivamevaitābhirupaniṣadbhiḥ samāhitātmā'syasi

evaṃ vṛndāraka āḍhyaḥ sannadhītaveda uktopaniṣatka ito vimucyamānaḥ

kva gamiṣyasīti . nāhaṃ tad bhagavan veda yatra gamiṣyāmītyatha vai

te'haṃ tadvakṣyāmi yatra gamiṣyasīti . bravītu bhagavāniti .. 1..



Meaning:- Janaka, Emperor of Videha, rose from his lounge and approaching Yajnavalkya said, 'Salutations to you, Yajnavalkya, please instruct me'. Yajnavalkya replied, 'As one wishing to go a long distance, O Emperor, should secure a chariot or a boat, so have you fully equipped your mind with so many secret names (of Brahman). You are likewise respected and wealthy, and you have studied the Vedas and heard the Upanishads; (but) where will you go when you are separated from this body?' 'I do not know, sir, where I shall go'. 'Then I will tell you where you will go'. 'Tell me, sir'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Janaka, Emperor of Videha, etc. As Yajnavalkya knew all aspects of Brahman with their attributes, Janaka gave up his pride of teachership, rose from his lounge, a particular kind of seat, and approaching Yajnavalkya, i.e. prostrating himself at his feet, said, 'Salutations to you, Yajnavalkya, please instruct me.' The word 'iti' marks the close of his speech. Yajnavalkya replied, 'As in the world one wishing to go a long distance should secure a chariot, if he wants to go by land, or a boat, if he wants to go by water, so have you fully equipped your mind with so many secret names (of Brahman) --- by meditating upon Brahman in so many aspects bearing those names. Not only that, you are likewise respected and wealthy, not poor, and you have studied the Vedas and heard the Upanisads from teachers. Though you are thus endowed with all glories, you are but in the midst of fear owing to the absence of Self-knowledge, i.e. you are far from achieving the object of your life, till you realise the Supreme Brahman. With all this outfit serving as a boat or a chariot, where will you go when you are separated from this body? What will you attain?' 'I do not know, sir, where I shall go.' 'If thus you do not know where you will go to achieve the object of your life, then I will tell you where you will go.' 'Tell me, sir, if you are gracious to me.' 'Listen.'

Translation By Max Müller

1. Ganaka Vaideha, descending from his throne, said:- 'I bow to you, O Yâgñavalkya, teach me.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Your Majesty, as a man who wishes to make a long journey, would furnish himself with a chariot or a ship, thus is your mind well furnished by these Upanishads [1]. You are honourable, and wealthy, you have learnt the Vedas and been told the Upanishads. Whither then will you go when departing hence?' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'Sir, I do not know whither I shall go.' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'Then I shall tell you this, whither you will go.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'Tell it, Sir.'

Footnote:

1. This refers to the preceding doctrines which had been communicated to Ganaka by other teachers, and particularly to the upâsanas of Brahman as knowledge, dear, true, endless, bliss, and certainty.


Sloka : 4.2.2

मन्त्र २[IV.ii.2]

इन्धो ह वै नामैष योऽयं दक्षिणेऽक्षन्पुरुषस्तं वा एतमिन्धꣳ

सन्तमिन्द्र इत्याचक्षते परोक्षेणैव परोक्षप्रिया इव हि देवाः

प्रत्यक्षद्विषः ॥ २॥

mantra 2[IV.ii.2]

indho ha vai nāmaiṣa yo'yaṃ dakṣiṇe'kṣanpuruṣastaṃ vā etamindhagͫ

santamindra ityācakṣate parokṣeṇaiva parokṣapriyā iva hi devāḥ

pratyakṣadviṣaḥ .. 2..



Meaning:- This being who is in the right eye is named Indha. Though he is Indha, he is indirectly called Indra, for the gods have a fondness, as it were, for indirect names, and hate to be called directly.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- This being who is specially located in the right eye --- the being in the sun who has been described before in the dictum, 'The eye is Brahman' (IV. i. 4), and is called Satya --- is named Indha. This being, on account of his resplendence, has an obvious name, Indha. Though he is Indha, he is indirectly called Indra, for the gods have a fondness, as it were, for indirect names, and hate to be called directly. Thus you have attained the self called Vaisvanara.

Translation By Max Müller

2. Yâgñavalkya said:- 'That person who is in the right eye [1], he is called Indha, and him who is Indha they call indeed [2] Indra mysteriously, for the gods love what is mysterious, and dislike what is evident.

Footnote:

1. See also Maitr. Up. VII, p. 216. 2. The Mâdhyandinas read paroksheneva, but the commentator explains iva by eva. See also Ait. Up. I, 3, 14.


Sloka : 4.2.3

मन्त्र ३[IV.ii.3]

अथैतद्वामेऽक्षणि पुरुषरूपमेषाऽस्य पत्नी विराट् तयोरेष

सꣳस्तावो य एषोऽन्तर्हृदय आकाशोऽथैनयोरेतदन्नं

य एषोऽन्तर्हृदये लोहितपिण्डोऽथैनयोरेतत्प्रावरणं

यदेतदन्तर्हृदये जालकमिवाथैनयोरेषा सृतिः सञ्चरणी

यैषा हृदयादूर्ध्वा नाड्युच्चरति । यथा केशः सहस्रधा

भिन्न एवमस्यैता हिता नाम नाड्योऽन्तर्हृदये प्रतिष्ठिता

भवन्त्येवमस्य एताशितास्नाम नाड्यसन्तर्हृदये प्रतिष्ठितास्भवन्ति

एताभिर्वा एतदास्रवदास्रवति तस्मादेष प्रविविक्ताहारतर इवैव

भवत्यस्माच्छारीरादात्मनः ॥ ३॥

mantra 3[IV.ii.3]

athaitadvāme'kṣaṇi puruṣarūpameṣā'sya patnī virāṭ tayoreṣa

sagͫstāvo ya eṣo'ntarhṛdaya ākāśo'thainayoretadannaṃ

ya eṣo'ntarhṛdaye lohitapiṇḍo'thainayoretatprāvaraṇaṃ

yadetadantarhṛdaye jālakamivāthainayoreṣā sṛtiḥ sañcaraṇī

yaiṣā hṛdayādūrdhvā nāḍyuccarati . yathā keśaḥ sahasradhā

bhinna evamasyaitā hitā nāma nāḍyo'ntarhṛdaye pratiṣṭhitā

bhavantyevamasya etāśitāsnāma nāḍyasantarhṛdaye pratiṣṭhitāsbhavanti

etābhirvā etadāsravadāsravati tasmādeṣa praviviktāhāratara ivaiva

bhavatyasmācchārīrādātmanaḥ .. 3..



Meaning:- The human form that is in the left eye is his wife, Viraj (matter). The space that is within the heart is their place of union. Their food is the lump of blood (the finest essence of what we eat) in the heart. Their wrap is the net-like structure in the heart. Their road for moving is the nerve that goes upward from the heart; it is like a hair split into a thousand parts. In this body there are nerves called Hita, which are placed in the heart. Through these the essence of our food passes as it moves on. Therefore the subtle body has finer food than the gross body.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- The human form that is in the left eye is his wife, Viraj. Of Indra or the self called Vaisvanara whom you have attained, Viraj, or matter, is the wife, both being objects of enjoyment. This couple, matter and its enjoyer, is united in dreams (Visva (or Vaisvanara), Taijasa and Prajna are the names of the self as identified with the gross, the subtle and the causal body, respectively, in the states of wakefulness, dream and dreamless sleep. Hence the Vaisvanara itself is now being described as the Taijasa for the purpose of meditation.). How? The space that is within the lump of flesh called the heart is their place of union, the place where Indra and his wife enjoy each other's company. Their food, or means of sustenance, is the following.
What is it? The lump of blood --- (lit.) blood in the form of a lump --- in the heart. The food we eat takes two forms; the gross part goes down (and is excreted), and the rest is metabolised in two ways under the action of the internal heat. That part of the chyle which is of medium fineness passes through the successive stages of blood etc., and nourishes the gross body made up of the five elements. The finest part of the chyle is 'the lump of blood,' which. penetrating our fine nerves, causes Indra --- identified with the subtle body and called Taijasa --- who is united with his wife in the heart, to stay in the body. This is what is expressed by the passage, 'Their food,' etc. There are other things also. Their wrap is, etc. People who sleep after their meals use wraps; the Sruti is fancying that similarity here. What is the wrap of this couple? The net-like structure in the heart. 'Net-like,' because of the numerous openings of the nerves. Their road for moving, or coming from the dream to the waking state, is the nerve that goes upward from the heart. Its size is being given:- As in the world a hair split into a thousand parts is extremely fine, so is it. In this body there are nerves called Hita, which are placed in that lump of flesh, the heart. From it they branch off everywhere like the filaments of a Kadamba flower. Through these extremely fine nerves the food passes as it moves on. The body of Indra (the subtle body) is nourished by this food and held fast as by a cord. Because the gross body is nourished by gross food, but this subtle body, the body of Indra, is sustained by fine food.
The food that nourishes the gross body is also fine, in comparison with the gross substances in the body that are eliminated; but the food that sustains the subtle body is finer than that. Hence the gross body has fine food, but the subtle body has finer food than the gross body. 'Sarira' in the text is the same as 'Sarira' (body). The idea is that the Taijasa is nourished by finer food than the Vaisvanara.

Translation By Max Müller

3. 'Now that which in the shape of a person is in the right eye, is his wife, Virâg [1]. Their meeting-place [2] is the ether within the heart, and their food the red lump within the heart. Again, their covering [3] is that which is like net-work within the heart, and the road on which they move (from sleep to waking) is the artery that rises upwards from the heart. Like a hair divided into a thousand parts, so are the veins of it, which are called Hita [4], placed firmly within the heart. Through these indeed that (food) flows on flowing, and he (the Taigasa) receives as it were purer food [5] than the corporeal Self (the Vaisvânara).

Footnote:

1. Indra is called by the commentator Vaisvânara, and his wife Virâg. This couple, in a waking state, is Visva; in sleep, Taigasa. 2. Samstâva, lit. the place where they sing praises together, that is, where they meet. 3. Prâvarana may also mean hiding-place, retreat. 4. Hita, a name frequently given to these nâdîs; see IV, 3, 20; Khând. Up. VI, 5, 3, comm.; Kaush. Up. IV, 20. See also Katha Up. VI, 16. 5. Dvivedagaṅga explains that food, when it is eaten, is first of all changed into the coarse food, which goes away downward, and into the subtler food. This subtler food is again divided into the middle juice that feeds the body, and the finest, which is called the red lump.


Sloka : 4.2.4

मन्त्र ४[IV.ii.4]

तस्य प्राची दिक्प्राञ्चः प्राणाः दक्षिणा दिग्दक्षिणे प्राणाः प्रतीची

दिक्प्रत्यञ्चः प्राणा उदीची दिगुदञ्चः प्राणाः ऊर्ध्वा दिगूर्ध्वाः

प्राणाः अवाची दिगवाञ्चः प्राणाः सर्वा दिशः सर्वे प्राणाः । स एष

नेति नेत्याऽत्मागृह्यो न हि गृह्यतेऽशीर्यो न हि शीर्यतेऽसङ्गो

न हि सज्यतेऽसितो न व्यथते न रिष्यत्य्व्यथते असङ्गस्न हि

सज्यते असितस्न व्यथते न रिष्यति अभयं वै जनक प्राप्तोऽसीति

होवाच याज्ञवल्क्यः । स होवाच जनको वैदेहोऽभयं त्वा गच्छताद्

याज्ञवल्क्य यो नो भगवन्न् अभयं वेदयसे नमस्तेऽस्त्विमे विदेहा

अयमहमस्मि ॥ ४॥

इति द्वितीयं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ तृतीयं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 4[IV.ii.4]

tasya prācī dikprāñcaḥ prāṇāḥ dakṣiṇā digdakṣiṇe prāṇāḥ pratīcī

dikpratyañcaḥ prāṇā udīcī digudañcaḥ prāṇāḥ ūrdhvā digūrdhvāḥ

prāṇāḥ avācī digavāñcaḥ prāṇāḥ sarvā diśaḥ sarve prāṇāḥ . sa eṣa

neti netyā'tmāgṛhyo na hi gṛhyate'śīryo na hi śīryate'saṅgo

na hi sajyate'sito na vyathate na riṣyatyvyathate asaṅgasna hi

sajyate asitasna vyathate na riṣyati abhayaṃ vai janaka prāpto'sīti

hovāca yājñavalkyaḥ . sa hovāca janako vaideho'bhayaṃ tvā gacchatād

yājñavalkya yo no bhagavann abhayaṃ vedayase namaste'stvime videhā

ayamahamasmi .. 4..

iti dvitīyaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha tṛtīyaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- Of the sage (who is identified with the vital force), the east is the eastern vital force, the south the southern vital force, the west the western vital force, the north the northern vital force, the direction above the upper vital force, the direction below the nether vital force, and all the quarters the different vital forces. This self is That which has been described as 'Not this, Not this', 'It is imperceptible, for It is never perceived; undecaying, for It never decays; unattached, for It is never attached; unfettered - It never feels pain, and never suffers injury. You have attained That which is free from fear, O Janaka', said Yajnavalkya. 'Revered Yajnavalkya', said Emperor Janaka, 'may That which is free from fear be yours, for you have made That which is free from fear known to us. Salutations to you! Here is this (empire of) Videha, as well as myself at your service!'





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- This Taijasa which is identified with the heart (mind) is supported by the subtle vital force, and becomes the vital force, (here, the Prajna). Of the sage who has first attained the Vaisvanara, then the Taijasa, or the self identified with the mind, and after that the self identified with the vital force (Prajna), the east is the eastern vital force; similarly the south the southern vital force, likewise the west the western vital force, the north the northern vital force, the direction above the upper vital force, the direction below the nether vital force, and all the quarters the different vital forces. Thus the sage identifies himself, by stages, with the vital force that comprises everything. Then withdrawing this all-comprising vital force into the inner self, he next attains the natural state of the Witness, the transcendent Self that is described as 'Not this, not this.' This self which the sage thus attains is That which has been described as 'Not this, not this.' This passage, up to 'never suffers injury, 'has already been explained (III. ix. 26). 'You have attained That which is free from fear due to birth, death, etc., O Janaka,' said Yajnavalkya. This is in fulfilment of the statement, 'Then I will tell you where you will go.' 'Revered Yajnavalkya,' said Emperor Janaka, 'may That which is free from fear be yours, too, for you have made that which is free from fear, the Brahman, known or accessible to us, by the removal of the veil of ignorance created by the limiting adjuncts. What else can I give you in return for this knowledge, for you have presented the Atman Itself? Hence salutations to you! This (empire of) Videha is yours --- enjoy it as you will:- I myself too am at your service. Please use me as well as the empire just as you like.'

Translation By Max Müller

4. 'His (the Taigasa's) Eastern quarter are the prânas (breath) which go to the East; 'His Southern quarter are the prânas which go to the South; 'His Western quarter are the prânas which go to the West; 'His Northern quarter are the prânas which go to the North; 'His Upper (Zenith) quarter are the prânas which go upward; 'His Lower (Nadir) quarter are the prânas which go downward; 'All the quarters are all the prânas. And he (the Âtman in that state) can only be described by No [1], no! He is incomprehensible, for he cannot be comprehended; he is undecaying, for he cannot decay; he is not attached, for he does not attach himself; he is unbound, he does not suffer, he does not perish. O Ganaka, you have indeed reached fearlessness,'--thus said Yâgñavalkya. Then Ganaka said:- 'May that fearlessness come to you also who teachest us fearlessness. I bow to you. Here are the Videhas, and here am I (thy slave).'

Footnote:

1. See Brih. Up. II, 3, 6; IV, 9, 26.


Sloka : 4.3.1

मन्त्र १[IV.iii.1]

जनकꣳ ह वैदेहं याज्ञवल्क्यो जगाम स मेने न वदिष्य

इति स मेने न वदिष्य इत्यथ ह यज्जनकश्च वैदेहो

याज्ञवल्क्यश्चाग्निहोत्रे समूदाते तस्मै ह याज्ञवल्क्यो वरं ददौ ।

स ह कामप्रश्नमेव वव्रे । तꣳ हास्मै ददौ । तꣳ ह सम्राडेव

पूर्वं पप्रच्छ ॥ १॥

mantra 1[IV.iii.1]

janakagͫ ha vaidehaṃ yājñavalkyo jagāma sa mene na vadiṣya

iti sa mene na vadiṣya ityatha ha yajjanakaśca vaideho

yājñavalkyaścāgnihotre samūdāte tasmai ha yājñavalkyo varaṃ dadau .

sa ha kāmapraśnameva vavre . tagͫ hāsmai dadau . tagͫ ha samrāḍeva

pūrvaṃ papraccha .. 1..



Meaning:- Yajnavalkya went to Janaka, Emperor of Videha. He thought he would not say anything. Now Janaka and Yajnavalkya had once talked on the Agnihotra, and Yajnavalkya had offered him a boon. He had begged the liberty of asking any questions he liked; and Yajnavalkya had granted him the boon. So it was the e who first asked him.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Yajnavalkya went to Janaka, Emperor of Videha. While going, he thought he would not say anything to the Emperor.
The object of the visit was to get more wealth and maintain that already possessed. Yajnavalkya, although he had resolved not to say anything, explained whatever Janaka asked. Why did he act contrary to his intentions? The answer to this is given by the story here related.
Sometime in the past there had been a talk between Janaka and Yajnavalkya on the subject of the Agnihotra (Daily offering of oblations in the sacred fire.). On that occasion Yajnavalkya, pleased with Janaka's knowledge on the subject, had offered him a boon. Janaka thereupon had begged the liberty of asking any questions he liked; and Yajnavalkya had granted him the boon. On the strength of that boon it was the Emperor Janaka who first asked him, though Yajnavalkya was in no mood to explain and was silent. That Janaka had not put his question on the previous occasion was due to the fact that the knowledge of Brahman is contradictory to rituals (hence the topic would be out of place) and is independent:- It is not the effect of anything, and serves the highest end of man independently of any auxiliary factors.

Translation By Max Müller

1. Yâgñavalkya came to Ganaka Vaideha, and he did not mean to speak with him [1]. But when formerly Ganaka Vaideha and Yâgñavalkya had a disputation on the Agnihotra, Yâgñavalkya had granted him a boon, and he chose (for a boon) that he might be free to ask him any question he liked. Yâgñavalkya granted it, and thus the King was the first to ask him a question.

Footnote:

1. The introduction to this Brâhmana has a very peculiar interest, as showing the close coherence of the different portions which together form the historical groundwork of the Upanishads. Ganaka Vaideha and Yâgñavalkya are leading characters in the Brihadâranyaka-upanishad, and whenever they meet they seem to converse quite freely, though each retains his own character, and Yâgñavalkya honours Ganaka as king quite as much as Ganaka honours Yâgñavalkya as a Brâhmana. Now in our chapter we read that Yâgñavalkya did not wish to enter on a discussion, but that Ganaka was the first to address him (pûrvam paprakkha). This was evidently considered not quite correct, and an explanation is given, that Ganaka took this liberty because on a former occasion Yâgñavalkya had granted him permission to address questions to him, whenever he liked. It might be objected that such an explanation looks very much like an after-thought, and we find indeed that in India itself some of the later commentators tried to avoid the difficulty by dividing the words sa mene na vadishya iti, into sam enena vadishya iti, so that we should have to translate, 'Yâgñavalkya came to Ganaka intending to speak with him.' (See Dvivedagaṅga's Comm. p. 1141.) This is, no doubt, a very ingenious conjecture, which might well rouse the envy of European scholars. But it is no more. The accents decide nothing, because they are changed by different writers, according to their different views of what the Pada text ought to be. What made me prefer the reading which is supported by Saṅkara and Dvivedagaṅga, though the latter alludes to the other padakkheda, is that the tmesis, sam enena vadishye, does not occur again, while sa mene is a common phrase. But the most interesting point, as I remarked before, is that this former disputation between Ganaka and Yâgñavalkya and the permission granted to the King to ask any question he liked, is not a mere invention to account for the apparent rudeness by which Yâgñavalkya is forced to enter on a discussion against his will, but actually occurs in a former chapter. In Satap. Br. XI, 6, 2, 10, we read:- tasmai ha Yâgñavalkyo varam dadau; sa hovâka, kâmaprasna eva me tvayi Yâgñavalkyâsad iti, tato brahmâ Ganaka âsa. This would show that Ganaka was considered almost like a Brâhmana, or at all events enjoyed certain privileges which were supposed to belong to the first caste only. See, for a different view, Deussen, Vedânta, p. 203; Regnaud (Matériaux pour servir à l'histoire de la philosophie de l'Inde), Errata; and Sacred Books of the East, vol. i, p. lxxiii.


Sloka : 4.3.2

मन्त्र २[IV.iii.2]

याज्ञवल्क्य किञ्ज्योतिरयं पुरुष इत्यादित्यज्योतिः सम्राड् इति

होवाचाऽऽदित्येनैवायं ज्योतिषाऽऽस्ते पल्ययते कर्म कुरुते

विपल्येतीत्येवमेवैतद् याज्ञवल्क्य ॥ २॥

mantra 2[IV.iii.2]

yājñavalkya kiñjyotirayaṃ puruṣa ityādityajyotiḥ samrāḍ iti

hovācā''dityenaivāyaṃ jyotiṣā''ste palyayate karma kurute

vipalyetītyevamevaitad yājñavalkya .. 2..



Meaning:- 'Yajnavalkya, what serves as the light for a man?' 'The light of the sun, O Emperor', said Yajnavalkya; 'it is through the light of the sun that he sits, goes out, works and returns'. 'It is just so, Yajnavalkya'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Yajnavalkya --- Janaka addresses him by name to draw his attention --- what serves as the light for a man, which he uses in his everyday life? The question is about the ordinary man, with head, hands, etc., identifying himself with the body and organs. Does he use a light extraneous to his body, which is made up of parts, or does some light included in this aggregate of parts serve the purpose of a light for him? This is the question.

Question:- What difference does it make if he uses a light extraneous to his body or one forming a part of it?
Reply:- Listen, It if is decided that he by his very nature has to use a light extraneous to his body, then with regard to the effects of a light that is invisible we shall infer that they are also due to an extraneous light. If, on the other hand, he acts through a light not extraneous to the body, but part and parcel, of himself, then, where the effects of a light are visible, though the light itself is invisible, we can infer that the light in question must be an inner one. If, however, there is no restriction as to whether the light that a person uses is within or without himself, then there is no decision on the matter of the light. Thinking thus, Janaka asks Yajnavalkya, 'What is the light for a man?'

Objection:- Well, if Janaka is so clever at reasoning, what is the use of his asking questions? Why does he not decide it for himself?
Reply:- True, but here the thing to be inferred, the grounds of inference, and their various relations are so subtle that they are considered a puzzle even for a number of scholars, not to speak of one. It is for this reason that in deciding subtle religious matters deliberation by a conference is sought. A good deal also depends upon individual qualifications. A conference may accordingly consist of ten persons, or three, or one. Therefore, though the Emperor is skilled in reasoning, yet, it is quite proper for him to ask Yajnavalkya, because people may have varying capacities for understanding. Or it may be that the Sruti itself teaches us through the garb of a story, by setting forth a mode of reasoning in conformity with our ways of thinking.
Yajnavalkya, too, knowing Janaka's intention, desired to teach him about the light of the self that is other than the body, and took up a ground of inference that would establish this extra-corporeal light. For instance he said, 'The light of the well-known sun, O Emperor.' How? 'It is through the light of the sun, which is outside his body and helps the function of the eyes, that the ordinary man sits, goes out to the field or forest, and going there works and returns the way he went.' The use of many specifications is to indicate that the light (Which remains the same under all these varying circumstances.) is well known to be essentially different from the body; and the
citing of many external lights is to show that the ground of inference is unfailing. 'It is just so, Yajnavalkya.'

Translation By Max Müller

2. 'Yâgñavalkya,' he said, 'what is the light of man [1]?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'The sun, O King; for, having the sun alone for his light, man sits, moves about, does his work, and returns.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'So indeed it is, O Yâgñavalkya.'

Footnote:

1. Read kimgyotir as a Bahuvrîhi. Purusha is difficult to translate. It means man, but also the true essence of man, the soul, as we should say, or something more abstract still, the person, as I generally translate it, though a person beyond the Ego.


Sloka : 4.3.3

मन्त्र ३[IV.iii.3]

अस्तमित आदित्ये याज्ञवल्क्य किञ्ज्योतिरेवायं पुरुष इति । चन्द्रमा

एवास्य ज्योतिर्भवतीति चन्द्रमसैवायं ज्योतिषास्ते पल्ययते कर्म

कुरुते विपल्येतीत्येवमेवैतद् याज्ञवल्क्य ॥ ३॥

mantra 3[IV.iii.3]

astamita āditye yājñavalkya kiñjyotirevāyaṃ puruṣa iti . candramā

evāsya jyotirbhavatīti candramasaivāyaṃ jyotiṣāste palyayate karma

kurute vipalyetītyevamevaitad yājñavalkya .. 3..



Meaning:- 'When the sun has set, Yajnavalkya, what exactly serves as the light for a man?' 'The moon serves as his light. It is through the light of the moon that he sits, goes out, works and returns'. 'It is just so, Yajnavalkya'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Likewise, 'When the sun has set, Yajnavalkya, what exactly serves as the light for a man?' 'The moon serves as his light.'

Translation By Max Müller

3. Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'When the sun has set, O Yâgñavalkya, what is then the light of man?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'The moon indeed is his light; for, having the moon alone for his light, man sits, moves about, does his work, and returns.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'So indeed it is, O Yâgñavalkya.'


Sloka : 4.3.4

मन्त्र ४[IV.iii.4]

अस्तमित आदित्ये याज्ञवल्क्य चन्द्रमस्यस्तमिते किञ्ज्योतिरेवायं पुरुष

इत्यग्निरेवास्य ज्योतिर्भवत्यग्निनैवायं ज्योतिषाऽऽस्ते पल्ययते

कर्म कुरुते विपल्येतीत्येवमेवैतद् याज्ञवल्क्य ॥ ४॥

mantra 4[IV.iii.4]

astamita āditye yājñavalkya candramasyastamite kiñjyotirevāyaṃ puruṣa

ityagnirevāsya jyotirbhavatyagninaivāyaṃ jyotiṣā''ste palyayate

karma kurute vipalyetītyevamevaitad yājñavalkya .. 4..



Meaning:- 'When the sun and the moon have set, Yajnavalkya, what exactly serves as the light for a man?' 'The fire serves as his light. It is through the fire that he sits, goes out, works and returns'. 'It is just so, Yajnavalkya'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- When the sun and the moon have both set, the fire serves as the light.

Translation By Max Müller

4. Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'When the sun has set, O Yâgñavalkya, and the moon has set, what is the light of man?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'Fire indeed is his light; for, having fire alone for his light, man sits, moves about, does his work, and returns.'


Sloka : 4.3.5

मन्त्र ५[IV.iii.5]

अस्तमित आदित्ये याज्ञवल्क्य चन्द्रमस्यस्तमिते शान्तेऽग्नौ

किञ्ज्योतिरेवायं पुरुष इति । वागेवास्य ज्योतिर्भवतीति वाचैवायं

ज्योतिषास्ते पल्ययते कर्म कुरुते विपल्येतीति । तस्माद्वै सम्राड् अपि

यत्र स्वः पाणिर्न विनिर्ज्ञायतेऽथ यत्र वागुच्चरत्युपैव तत्र

न्येतीत्येवमेवैतद् याज्ञवल्क्य ॥ ५॥

mantra 5[IV.iii.5]

astamita āditye yājñavalkya candramasyastamite śānte'gnau

kiñjyotirevāyaṃ puruṣa iti . vāgevāsya jyotirbhavatīti vācaivāyaṃ

jyotiṣāste palyayate karma kurute vipalyetīti . tasmādvai samrāḍ api

yatra svaḥ pāṇirna vinirjñāyate'tha yatra vāguccaratyupaiva tatra

nyetītyevamevaitad yājñavalkya .. 5..



Meaning:- When the sun and the moon have both set, and the fire has gone out, Yajnavalkya, what exactly serves as the light for a man?' 'Speech (sound) serves as his light. It is through the light of speech that he sits, goes out, works and returns. Therefore, O Emperor, even when one's own hand is not clearly visible, if a sound is uttered, one manages to go there.'. 'It is just so, Yajnavalkya'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- When the fire has gone out, speech serves as the light. 'Speech' here means sound. Sound, which is the object of hearing, stimulates the ear, its organ; this gives rise to discrimination in the mind; through that mind a man engages in an outward action. Elsewhere it has been said, 'It is through the mind that one sees and hears' (I. v. 3). How can speech be called a light, for it is not known to be such? The answer is being given:- 'Therefore, O Emperor,' etc. Because a man lives and moves in the world helped by the light of speech, therefore it is a well-known fact that speech serves a light. How? 'Even when, as in the rainy season, owing to the darkness created by clouds generally blotting out all light, one's own hand is not clearly visible --- though every activity is then stopped owing to the want of external light --- if a sound is uttered, for instance, a dog barks or an ass brays, one manages to go there. That sound acts as a light and connects the ear with the mind; thus speech (sound) does the function of a light there. With the help of that sound serving as a light, the man actually goes there, works at that place and returns.' The mention of the light of speech includes odour etc.
For when odour and the rest also help the nose and other organs, a man is induced to act or dissuaded from it, and so on. So they too help the body and organs. 'It is just so, Yajnavalkya.'

Translation By Max Müller

5. Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'When the sun has set, O Yâgñavalkya, and the moon has set, and the fire is gone out, what is then the light of man?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'Sound indeed is his light; for, having sound alone for his light, man sits, moves about, does his work, and returns. Therefore, O King, when one cannot see even one's own hand, yet when a sound is raised, one goes towards it.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'So indeed it is, O Yâgñavalkya.'


Sloka : 4.3.6

मन्त्र ६[IV.iii.6]

अस्तमित आदित्ये याज्ञवल्क्य चन्द्रमस्यस्तमिते शान्तेऽग्नौ शान्तायां

वाचि किञ्ज्योतिरेवायं पुरुष इत्यात्मैवास्य ज्योतिर्भवत्यात्मनैवायं

ज्योतिषाऽऽस्ते पल्ययते कर्म कुरुते विपल्येतीति ॥ ६॥

mantra 6[IV.iii.6]

astamita āditye yājñavalkya candramasyastamite śānte'gnau śāntāyāṃ

vāci kiñjyotirevāyaṃ puruṣa ityātmaivāsya jyotirbhavatyātmanaivāyaṃ

jyotiṣā''ste palyayate karma kurute vipalyetīti .. 6..



Meaning:- When the sun and the moon have both set, the fire has gone out, and speech has stopped, Yajnavalkya, what exactly serves as the light for a man?' 'The self serves as his light. It is through the light of the self that he sits, goes out, works and returns.' 'It is just so, Yajnavalkya'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- When speech also has stopped and other external aids too, such as odour, all the activities of the man would stop. The idea is this:- When the eyes and other organs, which are outgoing in their tendencies, are helped in the waking state by such lights as the sun, then a man vividly lives and moves in the world. So we see that in the waking state a light extraneous to his body, which is an aggregate of parts, serves as the light for him. From this we conclude that when all external light is blotted out in the states of dream and profound sleep, as well as in similar circumstances of the waking state, a light extraneous to his body serves the purpose of a light for him. We see also that the purpose of a light is served in dreams, as, for instance, meeting and parting from friends, and going to other places, etc.; and we awake from deep sleep with the remembrance (Which shows that the light in question was there.) that we slept happily and knew nothing. Therefore there exists some extraneous light. What is that light which acts when speech has stopped? The reply is being given:- 'The self serves as his light.' By the word 'self' is meant that light which is different from one's body and organs, and illumines them like such external lights as the sun, but is itself not illumined by anything else. And on the principle of the residuum it is inside the body; for it has already been proved that it is different from the body and organs, and we have seen that a light which is different from the body and organs and helps their work is perceived by such organs as the eye; but the light that we are discussing (the self) is not perceived by the eye etc. when such lights as the sun have ceased to work. Since, however, we see that the usual effects of a light are there, we conclude that 'it is through the light of the self that he sits, goes out, works and returns.' Therefore we understand that this light must be inside the body. But it is different from such lights as the sun and immaterial. That is why, unlike the sun etc., it is not perceived by the eye and so forth.

Objection (by the materialist):- No, for we see that only things of the same class help each other. You are wrong to state as a proved fact that there is an inner light different from the sun etc. Why? Because we observe that the body and organs, which are material, are helped by such lights as the sun, which also are material and of the same class as the things helped. Here too we must infer in accordance with observed facts. Supposing that the light that helps the work of the body and organs is different from them like the sun etc., still it must be inferred as being of the same class as these, for the very reason that it helps them, as is the case with such lights as the sun. Your statement that because it is internal and is not perceived, it is different (from such lights as the sun), is falsified in the case of the eye etc.; for lights such as the eye are not perceived and are internal, but they are material just the same. Therefore it is only your imagination that you have proved the light of the self to be essentially different from the body etc.
Moreover, as the existence of the light in question depends on that of the body and organs, it is presumed to possess the characteristics of the latter. Your inference (For example, whatever reveals another thing is different from it.) being of the kind that is not based on a causal relation, it is fallacious, because it is contradicted (For instance, the eye, which (according to the materialists) reveals the body, is not different from it.); and it is by means of such an inference that you establish the light in question (the self) to be different from the body and organs, like the sun and so forth (being different from the objects they reveal). Besides, perception cannot be nullified by inference; and we see that this aggregate of body and organs sees, hears, thinks and knows. If that other lights helps this aggregate like the sun etc., it cannot be the self, any more than the sun and the rest are. Rather it is the aggregate of body and organs, which directly does the functions of seeing etc., that is the self, and none else, for inference is invalid when it contradicts perception.
Reply:- If this aggregate be the self that does the functions of seeing etc., how is it that, remaining as it is, it sometimes performs those functions and sometimes does not?

Objection:- There is nothing wrong on it, because it is an observed fact. You cannot challenge facts on the ground of improbability. When you actually observe a fire-fly to be both luminous and non-luminous, you do not have to infer some other cause for it. If, however, you do infer it from some common feature, you may as well infer anything about everything, and nobody (including yourself) wants that. Nor must one deny the natural property of objects, for the natural heat of fire or the cold of water is not due to any other cause.
Reply:- Suppose we say it all depends on the merits or demerits of people.

Objection:- Then those merits or demerits themselves might habitually depend on some other cause.
Reply:- What if they do?
Objection:- It would lead to an infinite regress, which is not desirable.
Reply:- Not so, for in dreams and remembrance we notice only things seen before. What the advocate of the nature theory has said about the functions of sight etc. belonging to the body, and not to the self, which is different from it, is wrong, for if these functions really belonged to the body, one would not see in a dream only things already seen. A blind man dreaming sees only things that he has already seen, and not unfamiliar forms, which one would find in Sakadvipa (One of the mythical divisions of the earth situated round Mt. Meru.), for instance. This proves that he alone who sees in dream only familiar things also saw things before, while the eyes were there --- and not the body. If the body were the seer, it would not see in dream only familiar sights when the eyes, the instruments of its vision, are taken out. And we know that even blind men, who have had their eyes taken out, say, 'To-day I saw in a dream the Himalayan peak that I had seen before.' Therefore it is clear that it is not the body, but he who dreams, that also saw things when the eyes were intact.

Similarly, in the case of remembrance, he who remembers being also the one who say, the two are identical. Thus only can a person, after shutting his eyes, remember the forms he has seen before, just as he saw them. Therefore that which is shut is not the seer; but that which, when the eyes are shut, sees forms in remembrance, must have been the seer when the eyes were open. This is further proved by the fact that when the body is dead, no vision takes place, although the body is intact. If the body itself were the seer, even a dead body would continue to see and do similar functions. Therefore it is clear that the real agent of seeing etc. is not the body, but that whose absence deprives the body of the power of vision, and whose presence gives it that power.

Objection:- Suppose the eyes and other organs themselves were the agents of vision and so forth.
Reply:- No:- the remembrance that one is touching the very thing that one has seen, would be impossible if there were different agents for these two acts.

Objection:- Then let us say, it is the mind.
Reply:- No; the mind also, being an object like colour etc., cannot be the agent of vision and so forth. Therefore we conclude that the light in question is inside the body, and yet different from it like the sun etc.
You said, 'Some light which is of the same class as the body and organs must be inferred, since the sun and the like are of the same class as the things they help.' This is wrong, for there is no hard and fast rule about this help. To explain:- We see that fire is kindled with the help of straw, grass and other fuel, which are all modifications of earth. But from this we must not conclude that everywhere it is the modifications of earth that help to light a fire, for we notice that water, which belongs to a different class, helps to kindle the fire of lightning and the fire in the stomach. Therefore, when something is helped by another, there is no restriction about their being of the same class or of different classes. Sometimes men are helped by men, their own species, and sometimes by animals, plants, etc., which are of different species. Therefore the reason you added for your contention, that the body and organs are helped by lights that are of the same class as they, like the sun etc., falls to the ground.
Further you said that the argument put forward by us (Viz that the light we are speaking of must be within the body and yet different from it, for unlike the sun etc., it is invisible.) does not prove the light in question to be either internal or different from the bdy and organs, because the reason stated is falsified in the case of the eye etc. This is wrong; all we have to do is to add to it the qualifying phrase 'except the eyes and other organs.' Your statement that the light in question must be a characteristic of the body is also incorrect, for it involves a contradiction with inference. The inference was that the light must be something other than the body and organs, like the sun etc.; and this premise of yours contradicts that. That the existence of the light depends on that of the body has been disproved by the fact that the light is absent in a dead body. If you challenge the validity of an inference of the kind not based on a causal relation, all our activities, including eating and drinking, would be impossible, which you certainly do not desire. We see in life that people who have experienced that hunger and thirst, for instance, are appeased by eating and drinking, proceed to adopt these means, expecting similar results; all this would be impossible. As a matter of fact, however, people who have the experience of eating and drinking infer, on the ground of similarity, that their hunger and thirst would be appeased if they ate and drank again, and proceed to act accordingly.

Your statement that this very body performs the functions of seeing etc., has already been refuted on the ground that in dreams and remembrance the seer is other than the body. This also refutes the view that the light in question is something other than the self. Your reference to the fire-fly etc. being sometimes luminous and sometimes not, is not in point, for the appearance or disappearance of the glow is due to the contraction or expansion of its wings or other parts of its body. You said that we must admit merit and demerit to have the nature of inevitably producing results. If you admit this, it will go against your own assumption (That there is no extra-corporeal self acquiring in every birth merit and demerit which determine its future.). By this the objection of an infinite regress is also refuted. Therefore we conclude that there is a light which is other than the body and within it, and it is the self.

Translation By Max Müller

6. Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'When the sun has set, O Yâgñavalkya, and the moon has set, and the fire is gone out, and the sound hushed, what is then the light of man?' Yâgñavalkya said:- 'The Self indeed is his light; for, having the Self alone as his light, man sits, moves about, does his work, and returns.'


Sloka : 4.3.7

मन्त्र ७[IV.iii.7]

कतम आत्मेति । योऽयं विज्ञानमयः प्राणेषु हृद्यन्तर्ज्योतिः

विज्ञानमयः प्राणेषु हृद्यन्तर्ज्योतिः पुरुषः पुरुषस्स समानः

सन्नुभौ लोकावनुसञ्चरति । ध्यायतीव लेलायतीव स हि स्वप्नो

भूत्वेमं लोकमतिक्रामति मृत्यो रूपाणि ॥ ७॥

mantra 7[IV.iii.7]

katama ātmeti . yo'yaṃ vijñānamayaḥ prāṇeṣu hṛdyantarjyotiḥ

vijñānamayaḥ prāṇeṣu hṛdyantarjyotiḥ puruṣaḥ puruṣassa samānaḥ

sannubhau lokāvanusañcarati . dhyāyatīva lelāyatīva sa hi svapno

bhūtvemaṃ lokamatikrāmati mṛtyo rūpāṇi .. 7..



Meaning:- 'Which is the self?' 'This infinite entity (Purusha) that is identified with the intellect and is in the midst of the organs, the (self-effulgent) light within the heart (intellect). Assuming the likeness (of the intellect), it moves between the two worlds; it thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were. Being identified with dream, it transcends this world - the forms of death (ignorance etc.).'





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Though the self has been proved to be other than the body and organs, yet, owing to a misconception caused by the
observation that things which help others are of the same class as they, Janaka cannot decide whether the self is just one of the organs or something different, and therefore asks:- Which is the self? The misconception is quite natural, for the logic involved is too subtle to grasp easily. Or, though the self has been proved to be other than the body, yet all the organs appear to be intelligent, since the self is not perceived as distinct from them; so I ask you:- Which is the self? Among the body, organs, vital force and mind, which is the self you have spoken of --- through which light, you said, a man sits and does other kinds of work? Or, which of these organs is 'this self identified with the intellect' that you have meant, for all the organs appear to be intelligent? As, when a number of Brahmanas are assembled, one may ask, 'They are all highly qualified, but which of these is versed in all the six branches (Phonetics, ritual, grammar, philogy, prosody and astronomy.) of the Vedas?' In the first explanation, 'Which is the self?' --- is the question, and 'This infinite entity that is identified with the intellect,' etc. --- is the answer; in the second, 'Which of the organs is the self that is identified with the intellect?' --- is the question. Or the whole sentence, 'Which is this self that is identified with the intellect and is in the midst of the organs, the light within the heart?' --- is the question. The words, 'That is identified with the intellect,' etc. give a precise description of the self that has been known only in a general way. But the word 'iti' in, 'Which is the self,' ought to mark the end of the question, without its being connected with a remote word. Hence we conclude that the expression, 'Which is the self' --- is really the question, and all the rest of the sentence, beginning with, 'This infinite entity that is identified with the intellect,' etc., is the answer.

The word 'this' has been used with reference to the self, since it is directly known to us. 'Vijnanamaya' means identified with the intellect; the self is so called because of our failure to discriminate its association with its limiting adjunct, the intellect, for it is perceived as associated with the intellect, as the planet Rahu (The ascending node of the moon.) is with the sun and the moon. The intellect is the instrument that helps us in everything, like a lamp set in front amidst darkness. It has been said, 'It is through the mind that one sees and hears' (I. v. 3). Every object is perceived only as associated with the light of the intellect, as objects in the dark are lighted up by a lamp placed in front; the other organs are but the channels for the intellect. Therefore the self is described in terms of that, as 'identified with the intellect.' Those (The reference is to Bhartrprapanca.) who explain the word 'Vijnanamaya' as a modification of the consciousness that is the Supreme Self, evidently go against the import of the Srutis, since in the words 'Vijnanamaya,' 'Manomaya,' etc., the suffix 'mayat' denotes something else than modification; and where the meaning of a word is doubtful, it can be ascertained by a reference to a definite use of the word elsewhere, or from a supplementary statement; or else on the strength of irrefutable logic (If the self be a modification of the intellect, liberation would be impossible.). From the use of the expression, 'Through its association with the intellect (Sankara here takes the Madhyandina reading 'Sadhih' instead of 'Sa hi,' as in the text he follows.),' a little further on, and from the words 'within the heart (intellect),' the word 'Vijnanamaya' ought to mean 'identificated with the intellect.'

The locative case in the term 'in the midst of the organs' indicates that the self is different from the organs, as 'a rock in the midst of the trees' indicates only nearness; for there is a doubt about the identity or difference of the self from the organs. 'In the midst of the organs' means 'different from the organs,' for that which is in the midst of certain other things is of course different from them, as 'a tree in the midst of the rocks.' Within the heart:- One may think that the intellect, which is of the same class as the organs, is meant, as being in the midst of the organs. This is refuted by the phrase 'within the heart.' 'Heart' is primarily the lotus-shaped lump of flesh; here it means the intellect, which has its seat in the heart. The expression therefore means 'within the intellect.' The word 'within' indicates that the self is different from the modifications of the intellect. The self is called light, because it is self-effulgent, for through this light, the self-effugent Atman, this aggregate of body and organs sits, goes out and works, as if it were sentient, as a jar placed in the sun (shines). Or as an emerald or any other gem, dropped for testing into milk etc., imparts its lustre to them, so does this luminous self, being finer than even the heart or intellect, unify and impart its lustre to the body and organs, including the intellect etc., although it is within the intellect; for these have varying degrees of fineness or grossness in a certain order (From the objects to the self we have an ascending order of fineness, and from the self to the objects an ascending order of grossness.), and the self is the innermost of them all.

The intellect, being transparent and next to the self, easily catches the reflection of the intelligence of the self. Therefore even wise men happen to identify themselves with it first; next comes the Manas, which catches the reflection of the self through the intellect:- then the organs, through contact with the Manas; and lastly the body, through the organs. Thus the self successively illumines with its own intelligence the entire aggregate of body and organs. It is therefore that all people identify themselves with the body and organs and their modifications indefinitely according to their discrimination. The Lord also has said in the Gita, 'As the one sun, O Arjuna, illumines the whole world, so the self, the owner of the field of the body, illumines the whole body' (G. XIII. 33); also, '(Know) the light of the sun (which illumines the entire world, to be Mine),' etc. (G. XV. 12). The Katha Upanisad also has it, 'Eternal in the midst of transitory things, the intelligent One among all intelligent beings' (Ka. V. 13); also, 'It shining, everything else shines; this universe shines through Its light' (Ka. V. 15). The Mantra also says, 'Kindled by which light, the sun shines' (Tai. B. III. xii. 9. 7). Therefore the self is the 'light within the intellect,' 'Purusa,' i.e. infinity entity, being all-pervading like the ether. Its self-effulgent is infinite, because it is the illuminer of everything, but is itself not illumined by anything else. This infinite entity of which you ask, 'Which is the self?' is self-effulgent.

It has been said that when the external lights that help the different organs have ceased to work, the self, the infinite entity that is the light within the intellect, helps the organs through the mind. Even when the external aids of the organs, viz the sun and other lights, exist, since these latter (being compounds) subserve the purpose of some other agency, and the body and organs, being insentient, cannot exist for themselves, this aggregate of body and organs cannot function without the help of the self, the light that lives for itself. It is always through the help of the light of the self that all our activities take place. 'This intellect and Manas are consciousness ' (all these are but names of Intelligence or the Atman)' (Ai. V. 2), says another Sruti, for every act of people is attended with the ego, and the reason for this ego (The reflection of the individual self in the intellect constitutes this ego.) we have already stated through the illustration of the emerald.
Though it is so, yet during the waking state that light called the self, being beyond the organs and being particularly mixed up in the diversity of functions of the body and the organs, internal and external, such as the intellect, cannot be shown extricated from them, like a stalk of grass from its sheath; hence, in order to show it in the dream state, Yajnavalkya begins:- Assuming the likeness ' it moves between the two worlds. The infinite entity that is the self-effulgent Atman, assuming the likeness --- of what? --- of the intellect, which is the topic, and is also contiguous. In the phrase, 'within the hear' there occurs the word 'heart,' meaning the intellect, and it is quite close; therefore that is meant. And what is meant by 'likeness'? The failure to distinguish (between the intellect and the self) as between a horse and a buffalo. The intellect is that which is illumined, and the light of the self is that which illumines, like light; and it is well known that we cannot distinguish the two. It is because light is pure that it assumes the likeness of that which it illumines. When it illumines something coloured, it assumes the likeness of that colour. When, for instance, it illumines something green, blue or red, it is coloured like them. Similarly the self, illumining the intellect, illumines through it the entire body and organs, as we have already stated through the illustration of the emerald. Therefore through the similarity of the intellect, the self assumes the likeness of everything. Hence it will be described later on as 'Identified with everything' (IV. iv. 5).
Therefore it cannot be taken apart from anything else, like a stalk of grass from its sheath, and shown in its self-effulgent form. It is for this reason that the whole world, to its utter delusion, superimposes all activities peculiar to name and form on the self, and all attributes of this self-effulgent light on name and form, and also superimposes name and form on the light of the self, and thinks, 'This is or is not the self; it has or has not such and such attributes; it is or is not the agent; it is pure or impure; it is bound or free; it is fixed or gone or come; it exists or does not exist,' and so on. Therefore 'assuming the likeness (of the intellect) it moves' alternately 'between the two worlds' --- this one and the next, the one that has been attained and the one that is to be attained --- by successively discarding the body and organs already possessed, and taking new ones, hundreds of them, in an unbroken series. This movement between the two worlds is merely due to its resembling the intellect, nor natural to it. That it is attributable to its resembling the limiting adjuncts of name and form created by a confusion, and is not natural to it, is being stated:- Because, assuming the likeness (of the intellect), it moves alternately between the two worlds. The text goes on to show that this is a fact of experience. It thinks, as it were:- By illumining the intellect, which does the thinking, through its own self-effulgent light that pervades the intellect, the self assumes the likeness of the latter and seems to think, just as light (looks coloured). Hence people mistake that the self thinks; but really it does not. Likewise it shakes, as it were:- When the intellect and other organs as also the Pranas move, the self, which illumines them, becomes like them, and therefore seems to move rapidly; but really the light of the self has no motion.
How are we to know that it is owing to the delusive likeness of the intellect that the self moves between the two worlds and does other activities, and not by itself? This is being answered by a statement of the reason:- Being identified with dreams, etc. The self seems to become whatever the intellect which it resembles becomes. Therefore when the intellect turns into dream, i.e. takes on the modification called dream, the self also assumes that form; when the intellect wants to wake up, it too does that. Hence the text says:- Being identified with dream, revealing the modification known as dream assumed by the intellect, and thereby resembling it, it transcends this world, i.e. the body and organs, functioning in the waking state, round which our secular and scriptural activities are centred. Because the self stands revealing by its own distinct light the modification known as dream assumed by the intellect, therefore it must really by self-effulgent, pure and devoid of agent and action with its factors and results. It is only the likeness of the intellect that gives rise to the delusion that the self moves between the two worlds and has other such activities. The forms of death, i.e. work, ignorance, etc. Death has no other forms of its own; the body and organs are its forms. Hence the self transcends those forms of death, on which actions and their results depend.

Buddhist (There are four schools of Buddhism, viz the Vaibhasika, Sautrantika, Yogacara and Madhyamika, all maintaining that the universe consists only of ideas and is momentary --- every idea lasting only for a moment and being immediately replaced by another exactly like it. The first two schools both believe in an objective world, of course ideal; but whereas the first holds that that world is cognisable through perception, the second maintains that it can only be inferred. The third school, also called Vijnanavadin, believes that there is no external world, and that the subjective world alone is real. The last school, called also Sunyavadin (nihilist), denies both the worlds.) objection:- We say there is no such thing as the light of the self similar to the intellect and revealing it, for we expeirence nothing but the intellect either through perception or through inference, just as we do not experience a second intellect at the same time. You say that since the light that reveals and the jar, for instance, that is revealed are not distinguishable in spite of their difference, they resemble each other. We reply that in that particular case, the light being perceived as different from the jar, there may well be similarity between them, because they are merely joined together, remaining all the while different. But in this case we do not similarly experience either through percpetion or through inference any other light revealing the intellect, just as the light reveals the jar. It is the intellect which, as the consciousness that reveals, assumes its own form as well as those of the objects. Therefore neither through perception nor through inference is it possible to establish a separate light which reveals the intellect.
What has been said above by way of example, viz that there may be similarity between the light that reveals and the jar, for instance, that is revealed, because they are merely joined together, remaining all the while different, has been said only tentatively (This is the view of the Yogacara school as opposed to that of the first two.); it is not that the jar that is revealed is different from the light that reveals it. In reality it is the self-luminous jar that reveals itself; for (each moment) a new jar is produced, and it is consiousness that takes the form of the self-luminous jar or any other object. Such being the case, there is no instance of an external object, for everything is mere consciousness.
Thus the Buddhists, after conceiving the intellect as tainted by assuming a double form, the revealer and the revealed (subject and object), desire to purify it. Some of them (The Yogacaras.) for instance, maintain that consciousness is untrammelled by the dualism of subject and object, is pure and momentary; others want to deny that even. For instance, the Madhyamikas hold that consciousness is free from the dual aspect of subject and object, hidden and simply void, like the external objects such as a jar.

All these assumptions are contradictory to this Vedic path of well-being that we are discussing, since they deny the light of the self as distinct from the body and illumining the consciousness of the intellect. Now to those who believe in an objective world we reply:- Objects such as a jar are not self-luminous:- a jar in darkness never reveals itself, but is noticed as being regularly revealed by coming in contact with the light of a lamp etc. Then we say that the jar is in contact with light. Even though the jar and the light are in contact, they are distinct from each other, for we see their difference, as between a rope and a jar, when they repeatedly come in contact and are disjoined. This distinction means that the jar is revealed by something else; it certainly does not reveal itself.

Objection:- But do we not see that a lamp reveals itself? People do not use another light to see a lamp, as they do in the case of a jar etc. Therefore a lamp reveals itself.
Reply:- No, for there is no difference as regards its being revealed by something else (the self). Although a lamp, being luminous, reveals other things, yet it is, just like a jar etc., invariably revealed by an intelligence other than itself. Since this is so, the lamp cannot but be revealed by something other than itself.
Objection:- But there is a difference. A jar, even though revealed by an intelligence, requires a light different from itself (to manifest it), while the lamp does not require another lamp. Therefore the lamp, though revealed by something else, reveals itself as well as the jar.
Reply:- Not so, for there is no difference, directly or indirectly (between a jar and a lamp). As the jar is revealed by an intelligence, so is equally the lamp. Your statement that the lamp reveals both itself and the jar is wrong. Why? Because what can its condition be when it does not reveal itself? As a matter of fact, we notice no difference in it, either directly or indirectly. A thing is said to be revealed only when we notice some difference in it through the presence or absence of the revealing agent. But there can be no question of a lamp being present before or absent from itself; and when no difference is caused by the presence or absence, it is idle to say that the lamp reveals itself.

But as regards being revealed by an intelligence, the lamp is on a par with the jar etc. Therefore the lamp is not an illustration in point to show that consciousness (of the intellect) reveals itself; it is revealed by an intelligence just as much as the external objects are. Now, if consciousness is revealed by an intelligence, which consciousness is it? --- the one that is revealed (the consciousness of the intellect), or the one that is reveals (i.e. the consciousness of the self)? Since there is a doubt on the point, we should infer on the analogy of observed facts, not contrary to them. Such being the case, just as we see that such external objects as a lamp are revealed by something different from them (the self), so also should consciousness --- through it reveals other things like a lamp --- be inferred, on the ground of its being revealed by an intelligence, to br revealed, not be itself, but by an intelligence different from it. And that
other entity which reveals consciousness is the self --- the intelligence that is different from that consciousness.

Objection:- But that would lead to an infinite regress.
Reply:- No; it has only been stated on logical grounds that because consciousness is an object revealed by something, the latter must be distinct from that consciousness. Obviously there cannot be any infallible ground for inferring that the self literally reveals the consciousness in question, or that, as the witness, it requires another agency to reveal it. Therefore there is no question of an infinite regress.

Objection:- If consciousness is revealed by something else, some means of revelation is required, and this would again lead to an infinite regress.
Reply:- No, for there is no such restriction; it is not a universal rule. We cannot lay down an absolute condition that whenever something is revealed by another, there must be some means of revelation besides the two --- that which reveals and that which is revealed, for we observe diversity of conditions. For instance, a jar is perceived by something different from itself, viz the self; here light like that of a lamp, which is other than the perceiving subject and the perceived object, is a means. The light of the lamp etc. is neither a part of the jar nor of the eye. But though the lamp, like the jar, is perceived by the eye, the latter does not require any external means corresponding to the light, over and above the lamp (which is the object). Hence we can never lay down the rule that wherever a thing is perceived by something else, there must be some means besides the two. Therefore, if consciousness is admitted to be revealed by a subject different from it, the charge of an infinite regress, either through the means or through the perceiving subject (the self), is altogether untenable. Hence it is proved that there is another light, viz the light of the self, which is different from consciousness.

Objection (by the idealist):- We say there is no external object like the jar etc. or the lamp apart from consciousness; and it is commonly observed that a thing which is not perceived apart from something else is nothing but the latter; as, for instance, things like the jar and cloth seen in dream consciousness. Because we do not perceive the jar, lamp and so forth seen in a dream apart from the dream consciousness, we take it for granted that they are nothing but the latter. Similarly in the waking state, the jar, lamp and so forth, not being perceived apart from the consciousness and nothing more. Therefore there is no external object, such as the jar or lamp, and everything is but consciousness. Hence your statement that since consciousness is revealed, like the jar etc. by something else, there is another light besides consciousness, is groundless:- for everything being but consciousness, there is no illustration to support you.
Reply:- No, for you admit the existence of the external world to a certain extent. You do not altogether deny it.

Objection:- We deny it absolutely.
Reply:- No. Since the words 'consciousness,' 'jar' and 'lamp' are different and have different meanings, you cannot help admitting to a certain extent the existence of external objects. If you do not admit the existence of objects different from consciousness, such words as 'consciousness,' 'jar' and 'cloth,' having the same meaning, would be synonymous. Similarly, the means being identical with the result, your scriptures inculcating a difference between them would be useless, and their author (Buddha) would be charged with ignorance.

Moreover, you yourself admit that a debate between rivals as well as its defects are different from consciousness. You certainly do not consider the debate and its defects to be identical with one's consciousness, for the opponent, for instance, has to be refuted. Nobody admits that is is either his own consciousness or his own self that is meant to be refuted; were it so, all human activiteis would stop. Nor do you assume that the opponent perceives himself; rather you take it for granted that he is perceived by others. Therefore we conclude that the whole objective world is perceived by something other than itself, because it is an object of our perception in the waking state, just like other objects perceived in that state, such as the opponent --- which is an easy enough illustration:- or as one series (The series called Hari, for instance, is perceived by the series called Rama.) of (momentary) consciousnesses, or any single one (Buddha's knowledge, for instance, perceives that of any ordinary mortal.) of them, is perceived by another of the same kind. Therefore not even the idealist can deny the existence of another light different from consciousness.

Objection:- You are wrong to say that there is an external world, since in dream we perceive nothing but consciousness.
Reply:- No, for even from this absence of external objects we can demonstrate their difference from consciousness. You yourself have admitted that in dream the consciousness of a jar or the like is real; but in the same breath you say that there is no jar apart from that consciousness! The point is, whether the jar which forms the object of that consciousness is unreal or real, in either case you have admitted that the consciousness of the jar is real (The reality of the consciousness presupposes the existence of external objects, which alone determine the form of that consciousness.), and it cannot be denied, for there is no reason to support the denial. By this (The impossibility of doing away with the distinction between knowledge and the object known.) the theory of the voidness of everything is also refuted; as also the Mimamsaka view that the Self is perceived by the individual self as the 'I' (For the same thing cannot be both subject and object.). Mimamsaka view that the Self is perceived by the individual self as the 'I' (For the same thing cannot be both subject and object.).
Your statement that every moment a different jar in contact with light is produced is wrong, for even at a subsequent moment we recognise it to be the same jar.

Objection:- The recognition may be due to similarity, as in the case of hair, nails, etc. that have been cut and have grown anew.
Reply:- No, for even in that case the momentariness is disproved. Besides, the recognition is due merely to an identity of species. When the heair, nails, etc. have been cut and have grown again, there being an identity of species as hair, nails, etc., their recognition as such due to that identity is unquestionable. But when we see the hair, nails, etc. that have grown again after being cut, we never have the idea that they are, individually, those identical hairs or nails. When after a great lapse of time we see on a person hair, nails, etc. of the same size as before, we perceive that the hair, nails, etc. we see at that particular moment are like those seen on the previous occasion, but never that they are the same ones. But in the case of a jar etc. we perceive that they are identical. Therefore the two cases are not parallel.
When a thing is directly recognised as identical, it is improper to infer that is is something else, for when an inference contradicts perception, the ground of such inference becomes fallacious. Moreover, the perception of similarity is impossible because of the momentariness of knowledge (held by you).
The perception of similarity takes place when one and the same person sees two things at different times. But according to you the person who sees a thing does not exist till the next moment to see another thing, for consciousness, being momentary, ceases to be as soon as it has seen some one thing.
To explain:- The perception of similarity takes the form of 'This is like that.'

'That' refers to the remembrance of something seen; 'this' to the perception of something present. If, after remembering the past experience denoted by 'that,' consciousness should linger till the present moment referred to by 'this,' then the doctrine of momentariness would be gone. If, however, the remembrance ends with the notion of 'that,' and a different perception relating to the present (arises and) dies with the notion of 'this,' then no perception of similarity expressed by, 'This is like that,' will result, since there will be no single consciousness perceiving more than one thing (so as to draw the comparison). Further, it will be impossible to describe our experiences. Since consciousness ceases to exist just after seeing what was to be seen, we cannot use such expressions as, 'I see this,' or 'I saw that,' for the person who has seen them will not exist till the moment of making these utterances. Or, if he does, the doctrine of momentariness will be contradicted. If, on the other hand, the preson who makes these utterances and perceives the similarity is other than the one who saw those things, then, like the remarks of a man born blind about particular colours and his perception of their similarity, the writing of scriptural books by the omniscient Buddha and other such things will all become an instance of the blind following the blind. But this is contrary to your views. Moreover, the charges of obtaining results of actions not done and not obtaining those of actions already done, are quite patent in the doctrine of momentariness.

Objection:- It is possible to describe a past experience by means of a single chain-like perception that takes place so as to include both the preceding and the succeeding perceptions, and this also accounts for the comparison, 'This is like that.'
Reply:- Not so, for the past and the present perceptions belong to different times. The present perception is one link of the chain and the past perception another, and these two perceptions belong to different times. If the chain-like perception touches the objects of both these perceptions, then the same consciousness extending over two moments, the doctrine of momentariness again falls to the ground. And such distinctions as 'mine' and 'yours' being impossible (Since there is only one consciousness, and that also momentary.), all our dealings in the world will come to naught.
Moreover, since you hold everything to be but consciousness perceptible only to itself, and at the same time say that consciousness is by nature but the reflection of pellucid knowledge, and since there is no other witness to it, it is impossible to regard it as various, such as transitory, painful, void and unreal. Nor can consciousness be treated as having many contradictory parts, like a pomegranate etc., for according to you it is of the nature of pellucid knowledge. Besides, if the transitoriness, painfulness, etc. are parts of consciousness, the very fact that they are perceived will throw them into the category of objects, different from the subject. If, on the other hand, consciousness is essentially transitory, painful and so on, then it is impossible to conceive that it will become pure by getting rid of those characteristics, for a thing becomes pure by getting rid of the impurities that are connected with it, as in the case of a mirror etc., but it can never divest itself of its natural property. Fire, for instance, is never seen to part with its natural light or heat. Though the redness and other qualities of a flower are seen to be removed by the addition of other substances, yet even there we infer that those features were the result of pervious combinations, for we observe that by subjecting the seeds to a particular process, a different quality is imparted to flowers, fruits etc. Hence consciousness cannot be conceived to be purified.
Besides you conceive consciousness to be impure when it appears in the dual character of subject and object. That too is impossible, since it does not come in contact with anything else. A thing cannot surely come in contact with something that does not exist; and when there is no contact with anything else, the properties that are observed in a thing belong naturally to it, and cannot be separated from it, as the heat of fire, or the light of the sun.
Therefore we conclude that your assumption that consciousness becomes impure by coming temporarily in contact with something else, and is again free from this impurity, is merely an instance of the blind following the blind, and is unsupported by any evidence.
Lastly, the Buddhistic assumption that the extinction of that consciousness is the highest end of human life, is untenable, for there is no recipient of results. For a person who has got a thorn stuck into him, the relief of the pain caused by it is the result (he seeks); but if he dies, we do not find any recipient of the resulting cessation of pain. Similarly, if consciousness is altogether extinct and there is nobody to reap that benefit, to talk of it as the highest end of human life is meaningless. If that very entity or self, designated by the word 'person' --- consciousness, according to you --- whose well-being is meant, is extinct, for whose sake will the highest end be? But those who (with us) believe in a self different from consciousness and witnessing many objects, will find it easy to explain all phenomena, such as the remembrance of things previously seen and the contact and cessation of pain --- the impurity, for instance, being ascribed to contact with extraneous things, and the purification to dissociation from them. As for the view of the nihilist, since it is contradicted by all the evidences of knowledge, no attempt is being made to refute it.

Translation By Max Müller

7. Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'Who is that Self?' Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'He who is within the heart, surrounded by the Prânas [1] (senses), the person of light, consisting of knowledge. He, remaining the same, wanders along the two worlds [2], as if [3] thinking, as if moving. During sleep (in dream) he transcends this world and all the forms of death (all that falls under the sway of death, all that is perishable).

Footnote:

1. Sâmîpyalakshanâ saptamî, Dvivedagaṅga. See Brih. Up. IV, 4, 22. 2. In this world, while awake or dreaming; in the other world, while in deep sleep. 3. The world thinks that he thinks, but in reality he does not, he only witnesses the acts of buddhi, or thought.


Sloka : 4.3.8

मन्त्र ८[IV.iii.8]

स वा अयं पुरुषो जायमानः शरीरमभिसम्पद्यमानः पाप्मभिः

सꣳसृज्यते । स उत्क्रामन्म्रियमाणः पाप्मनो विजहाति ॥ ८॥

mantra 8[IV.iii.8]

sa vā ayaṃ puruṣo jāyamānaḥ śarīramabhisampadyamānaḥ pāpmabhiḥ

sagͫsṛjyate . sa utkrāmanmriyamāṇaḥ pāpmano vijahāti .. 8..



Meaning:- That man, when he is born, or attains a body, is connected with evils (the body and organs); and when he dies, or leaves the body, he discards those evils.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Just as in this word a man, in the same body, is identified with dream and in that state lives in the light that is his own self, transcending the body and organs, so is that man who is being discussed, when he is born, connected with evils, i.e. with their inseparable concomitants or effects, the body and organs, which are the support of merit and demerit. How is he born? When he attains a body, with the organs and all, i.e. identifies himself with it. When that very person dies, or leaves the body, to take another body in turn, he discards those evils, i.e. the body and organs, which are but forms of evil and have fastened themselves on him. The phrase 'leaves the body' is an explanation of 'dies.' Just as in his present body he, resembling the intellect, continuously moves between the waking and dream states by alternately taking and giving up the body and organs, by way of birth and death, until he attains liberation. Therefore it is proved from this conjunction and disjunction that the light of the self about which we have been talking is distinct from these evils, the body and organs. It may be contended that there are not those two worlds between which the man can move alternately through birth and death as between the waking and dream states. The latter of course are matters of experience, but the two worlds are not known through any means of knowledge. Therefore these waking and dream states themselves must be the two worlds in question. This is being answered by the following text:-

Translation By Max Müller

8. 'On being born that person, assuming his body, becomes united with all evils; when he departs and dies, he leaves all evils behind.


Sloka : 4.3.9

मन्त्र ९[IV.iii.9]

तस्य वा एतस्य पुरुषस्य द्वे एव स्थाने भवत इदं च परलोकस्थानं

च सन्ध्यं तृतीयꣳ स्वप्नस्थानं तस्मिन्सन्ध्ये स्थाने

तिष्ठन्नेते उभे स्थाने पश्यतीदं च परलोकस्थानं च अथ

यथाक्रमोऽयं परलोकस्थाने भवति तमाक्रममाक्रम्योभयान्पाप्मन

आनन्दाꣳश्च पश्यति । पश्यति स यत्र प्रस्वपित्यस्य लोकस्य

सर्वावतो मात्रामपादाय स्वयं विहत्य स्वयं निर्माय स्वेन भासा स्वेन

ज्योतिषा प्रस्वपित्यत्रायं पुरुषः स्वयं ज्योतिर्भवति ॥ ९॥

mantra 9[IV.iii.9]

tasya vā etasya puruṣasya dve eva sthāne bhavata idaṃ ca paralokasthānaṃ

ca sandhyaṃ tṛtīyagͫ svapnasthānaṃ tasminsandhye sthāne

tiṣṭhannete ubhe sthāne paśyatīdaṃ ca paralokasthānaṃ ca atha

yathākramo'yaṃ paralokasthāne bhavati tamākramamākramyobhayānpāpmana

ānandāgͫśca paśyati . paśyati sa yatra prasvapityasya lokasya

sarvāvato mātrāmapādāya svayaṃ vihatya svayaṃ nirmāya svena bhāsā svena

jyotiṣā prasvapityatrāyaṃ puruṣaḥ svayaṃ jyotirbhavati .. 9..



Meaning:- That man only two abodes, this and the next world. The dream state, which is the third, is at the junction (of the two). Staying at that junction, he surveys the two abodes, this and the next world. Whatever outfit he may have for the next world, providing himself with that he sees both evils (sufferings) and joys. When he dreams, he takes away a little of (the impressions of) this all-embracing world (the waking state), himself puts the body aside and himself creates (a dream body in its place), revealing his own lustre by his own light - and dreams. In this state the man himself becomes the light.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- That man has only two abodes, no third or fourth. Which are they? This and the next world. The present life, consisting of the body, organs, objects and their impressions, which we now perceive, and the future life, to be experienced after we have given up the body and the rest.

Objection:- Is not the dream state also the next world? In that case the assertion about 'only two abodes' is wrong.
Reply:- No, the dream state, which is the third, is at the junction of this and the next world:- hence the definite pronouncement about two abodes. The junction of two villages does not certainly count as a third village. How do we know about the existence of the next world, in relation to which the dream state may be at the junction? Because staying at that junction he surveys the two abodes. Which are the two? This and the next world. Therefore, over and above the waking and dream states, there are the two worlds between which the man (the individual self), resembling the intellect, moves, in an unbroken series of births and deaths.
How does he, staying in the dream state, survey the two worlds, what help does he take, and what process does he follow? This is being answered:- Listen how he surveys them. Whatever outfit --- 'Akrama' is that by means of which one proceeds, i.e. support or outfit --- the man may have for the attainment of the next world, i.e. whatever knowledge, work and previous experience he may have for this end, providing himself with that --- just ready to take him to the next world, like a seed about to sprout --- he sees both evils and joys. The plural is due to the varied results of virtue and vice, meaning both kinds. 'Evils' refer to their results, or sufferings, for they themselves cannot be directly experienced; the joys are the results of virtue. He feels both sufferings and joys consisting of the impressions of experiences in previous lives; while those glimpses of the results of merits and demerits that are to come in his future life, he experiences through the urge of those merits and demerits, or through the grace of the gods. How are we to know that in dream one experiences the sufferings and joys that are to come in the next life? The answer is:- Because one dreams may things that are never to be experienced in this life. Moreover, a dream is not an entirely new experience, for most often it is the memory of past experiences. Hence we conclude that the two worlds exist apart from the waking and dream states.

An objection is raised:- It has been said that in the absence of such external lights as the sun, the man identified with the body and organs lives and moves in the world with the help of the light of the self, which is different from the body and organs.
But we say that there is never an absence of such lights as the sun to make it possible for one to perceive this self-effulgent light as isolated from the body and organs, because we perceive these as always in contact with those external lights. Therefore the self as an absolute, isolated light is almost or wholly a nonentity. If, however, it be ever perceived as an absolute, isolated light free from the contact of the elements and their derivatives, external and internal, then all your statements would be correct.
This is being answered as follows:-
When he, the self that is being discussed, dreams freely, what is his outfit then, and in what way does he dream, or attain the junction between this world and the next?
The answer is being given:- He takes away a little of this all-embracing world, or the world we experience in the waking state. 'All-embracing' (Sarvavat (Two derivations are given. In the first, 'Sarva' (all) is joined to the verb 'Ava,' to protect; in the second, it takes the suffix 'vat,' denoting possession.):- Lit, protecting or taking care of everything; it refers to the body and organs in contact with sense-objects and their reactions. Their all-embracing character has been explained in the section dealing with the three kinds of food in the passage beginning with, 'Now this self,' etc. (I. iv. 16). Or the word may mean:- possessing all the elements and their derivatives, which (In their threefold division pertaining to the body, the gods, etc.) serve to attach him to the world:- in other words, the waking state. 'Sarvavat' is the same as 'Sarvavat.' He detaches a portion of these, i.e. is tinged by the impressions of the present life. Himself puts the body aside, lit. kills it, i.e. makes it inert or unconscious. In the waking state, the sun and other deities help the eyes etc. so that the body may function, and the body functions because the self experiences the results of its merits and demerits. The cessation of the experience of those results in this body is due to the exhuastion of the work done by the self:- hence the self is described as killing the body. And himself creates a dream body composed of past impressions, like one created by magic. This creation too is the consequence of his past work; hence it is spoken of as being created by him. Revealing his own lustre, consisting in the perception of sense-objects, the mind itself being modified in the form of diverse impressions of the latter. It is these modifications that then take the place of objects, and are spoken of as being themselves of the nature of lustre in that state. With this his own lustre as object, and revealing it (the mass of impressions of sense-objects) by his own light, i.e. as the detached subject or witness possessing constant vision, he dreams. Being in this state is called dreaming. In this state, at this time, the man, or self, himself becomes the detached light, free from the contact of the elements and their derivatives, external and internal.

Objection:- It is stated that the self then has glimpses of the impressions of the waking state. If so, how can it be said that 'in that state the man himself becomes the light'?
Reply:- There is nothing wrong in it, because the glimpses are but objects (not the subject). In that way alone can the man be shown to be himself the light then, and not otherwise, when there is no object to be revealed as in profound sleep. When, however, that lustre consisting of the impressions of the waking state is perceived as an object, then, like a sword drawn from its sheath, the light of the self, the eternal witness, unrelated to anything and distinct from the body and such organs as the ey, is realised as it is, revealing everything. Hence it is proved that 'in that state the man himself becomes the light.'

Objection:- How can the man himself be the light in dream, when we come across at that time all the phenomena of the waking state dependent on the relation between the subject and object, and such lights as the sun are seen to help the eye and other organs just the same as in the waking state? In the face of these, how can the assertion be made that 'in that state the man himself becomes the light'?
Reply:- Because the phenomena of dreams are different. In the waking state, the light of the self is mixed up with the functions of the organs, intellect, Manas, (external) lights, etc. But in dream, since the organs do not function, and since such lights as the sun that help them are absent, the self becomes distinct and isolated. Hence the dream state is different.
Objection:- The sense-objects are perceived in dreams just the same as in the waking state. How then do you adduce their difference on the ground that the organs do not then function?
Reply:- Listen

Translation By Max Müller

9. 'And there are two states for that person, the one here in this world, the other in the other world, and as a third [1] an intermediate state, the state of sleep. When in that intermediate state, he sees both those states together, the one here in this world, and the other in the other world. Now whatever his admission to the other world may be, having gained that admission, he sees both the evils and the blessings [2]. 'And when he falls asleep, then after having taken away with him the material from the whole world, destroying [3] and building it up again, he sleeps (dreams) by his own light. In that state the person is self-illuminated.

Footnote:

1. There are really two sthânas or states only; the place where they meet, like the place where two villages meet, belongs to both, but it may be distinguished as a third. Dvivedagaṅga (p. 1141) uses a curious argument in support of the existence of another world. In early childhood, he says, our dreams consist of the impressions of a former world, later on they are filled with the impressions of our senses, and in old age they contain visions of a world to come. 2. By works, by knowledge, and by remembrance of former things; see Brih. Up. IV, 4, 2. 3. Dividing and separating the material, i.e. the impressions received from this world. The commentator explains mâtrâ as a portion of the impressions which are taken away into sleep. 'Destroying' he refers to the body, which in sleep becomes senseless, and 'building up' to the imaginations of dreams.


Sloka : 4.3.10

मन्त्र १०[IV.iii.10]

न तत्र रथा न रथयोगा न पन्थानो भवन्त्यथ

रथान्रथयोगान्पथः सृजते । न तत्राऽऽनन्दा मुदः प्रमुदो

भवन्त्यथाऽऽनन्दान्मुदः प्रमुदः सृजते । न तत्र वेशान्ताः

पुष्करिण्यः स्रवन्त्यो भवन्त्यथ वेशान्तान्पुष्करिणीः स्रवन्तीः

सृजते स हि कर्ता ॥ १०॥

mantra 10[IV.iii.10]

na tatra rathā na rathayogā na panthāno bhavantyatha

rathānrathayogānpathaḥ sṛjate . na tatrā''nandā mudaḥ pramudo

bhavantyathā''nandānmudaḥ pramudaḥ sṛjate . na tatra veśāntāḥ

puṣkariṇyaḥ sravantyo bhavantyatha veśāntānpuṣkariṇīḥ sravantīḥ

sṛjate sa hi kartā .. 10..



Meaning:- There are no chariots, nor animals to be yoked to them, nor roads there, but he creates the chariots, the animals and the roads. There are no pleasures, joys, or delights there, but he creates the pleasures, joys and delights. There are no pools, tanks, or rivers there, but he creates the pools, tanks and rivers. For he is the agent.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- There are no such objects as chariots there, in dream. Nor are there animals to be yoked to them, such as horses; nor roads for the chariots. But he himself creates the chariots, the animals and the roads. But how does he create them, since there are no trees etc. that are the necessaries of the chariots and so forth? The reply is being given:- It has been said. 'He takes away a little of this all-embracing world, himself puts the body aside, and himself creates.' The modifications of the mind are a little of this world, i.e. are its impressions; the former, detaching the latter --- in other words, being transformed into the impressions of chariots etc. --- and being stimulated by the person's past work, which is the cause of their perception, appear as the sense-objects; this is expressed by the words 'and himself creates,' and also by the clause, 'He creates the chariots,' etc. Really there are neither activities of the organs nor such lights as the sun that help them, nor such objects as the chariots to be illumined by them, but only their impressions are visible, having no existence apart from the palpable modification of the mind that are stir lated by the person's previous work, which is the cause of the perception of those impressions. The light with constant visions that witnesses them, the light of the self, is perfectly isolated in this state, like a sword separated from its sheath.

Similarly, there are no pleasures, kinds of happiness, joys such as those caused by the birth of a son etc., or delights, which are those very joys heightened, but he creates the pleasures, etc. Likewise, there are no pools, tanks, or rivers there, but he creates the pools etc. in the form of impressions only. For he is the agent. We have already said that his agency consists in merely being the cause of the work that generates the modifications of the mind representing those impressions. Direct activity is then out of the question, for there are no menas. Activity is impossible without its factors.
In dream there cannot be any such factors of an action as hands and feet. But in the waking state, when they are present, the body and organs, illumined by the light of the self, perform work that (later on) produce the modifications of the mind representing the impressions of the chariot etc. Hence it is said, 'For he is the agent.' This has been stated in the passage,' It is through the light of the self that he sits, goes out, works and returns' (IV. iii. 6). There too, strictly speaking, the light of the self has no direct agency, except that it is the illuminer of everything. The light of the self, which is Pure Intelligence, illumines the body and organs through the mind, and they perform their functions being illumined by it; hence in the passage quoted the agency of the self is merely figurative. What has been stated in the passage, 'It thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were' (IV. iii. 7), is here repeated in the clause, 'For he is the agent,' in order to furnish a reason (For the creation of chariots etc. in drawn.).

Translation By Max Müller

10. 'There are no (real) chariots in that state, no horses, no roads, but he himself sends forth (creates) chariots, horses, and roads. There are no blessings there, no happiness, no joys, but he himself sends forth (creates) blessings, happiness, and joys. There are no tanks there, no lakes, no rivers, but he himself sends forth (creates) tanks, lakes, and rivers. He indeed is the maker.


Sloka : 4.3.11

मन्त्र ११[IV.iii.11]

तदेते श्लोका भवन्ति स्वप्नेन शारीरमभिप्रहत्या सुप्तः

सुप्तानभिचाकशीति । शुक्रमादाय पुनरैति स्थानꣳ हिरण्मयः

पुरुष एकहꣳसः ॥ ११॥

mantra 11[IV.iii.11]

tadete ślokā bhavanti svapnena śārīramabhiprahatyā suptaḥ

suptānabhicākaśīti . śukramādāya punaraiti sthānagͫ hiraṇmayaḥ

puruṣa ekahagͫsaḥ .. 11..



Meaning:- Regarding this there are the following pithy verses:- 'The radiant infinite being (Purusha) who moves alone, puts the body aside in the dream state, and remaining awake himself and taking the shining functions of the organs with him, watches those that are asleep. Again he comes to the waking state.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Regarding this subject that has just been treated of, there are the following pithy verses or Mantras:-
The radiant --- lit. golden; the light that is Pure Intelligence --- infinite being who moves alone through the waking and dream states, this world and the next, and so on, puts the body aside, makes it inert, in the dream state, and remaining awake himself, being possessed of the constant power of vision etc., and taking the shining --- lit. pure --- functions of the organs with him, watches those that are asleep, all external and internal things that are centred in the modifications of the mind and appear as impressions --- things that have ceased to be in their own forms. In other words, he reveals them through his
own constant vision. Again he comes to the waking state, in order to work.

Translation By Max Müller

11. 'On this there are these verses:- 'After having subdued by sleep all that belongs to the body, he, not asleep himself, looks down upon the sleeping (senses). Having assumed light, he goes again to his place, the golden person [1], the lonely bird. (1)

Footnote:

1. The Mâdhyandinas read paurusha, as an adjective to ekahamsa, but Dvivedagaṅga explains paurusha as a synonym of purusha, which is the reading of the Kânvas.


Sloka : 4.3.12

मन्त्र १२[IV.iii.12]

प्राणेन रक्षन्नपरं कुलायं बहिष्कुलायादमृतश्चरित्वा स

ईयतेऽमृतो यत्रकामꣳ हिरण्मयः पुरुष एकहꣳसः ॥ १२॥

mantra 12[IV.iii.12]

prāṇena rakṣannaparaṃ kulāyaṃ bahiṣkulāyādamṛtaścaritvā sa

īyate'mṛto yatrakāmagͫ hiraṇmayaḥ puruṣa ekahagͫsaḥ .. 12..



Meaning:- 'The radiant infinite being who is immortal and moves alone, preserves the unclean nest (the body) with the help of the vital force, and roams out of the nest. Himself immortal, he goes wherever he likes.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Likewise he preserves the unclean --- lit. worthless --- nest, the body, extremely loathsome as consisting of many filthy things, with the help of the vital force that has a fivefold function --- otherwise it would be taken for dead --- but he himself roams out of that nest. Though he dreams staying in the body, yet, having no connection with it, like the ether in the body, he is said to be roaming out. Himself immortal, he goes wherever he likes:- For whatever objects his desire is roused, he attains them in the form of impressions.

Translation By Max Müller

12. 'Guarding with the breath (prâna, life) the lower nest, the immortal moves away from the nest; that immortal one goes wherever he likes, the golden person, the lonely bird. (2)


Sloka : 4.3.13

मन्त्र १३[IV.iii.13]

स्वप्नान्त उच्चावचमीयमानो रूपाणि देवः कुरुते बहूनि । उतेव स्त्रीभिः

सह मोदमानो जक्षदुतेवापि भयानि पश्यन् ॥ १३॥

mantra 13[IV.iii.13]

svapnānta uccāvacamīyamāno rūpāṇi devaḥ kurute bahūni . uteva strībhiḥ

saha modamāno jakṣadutevāpi bhayāni paśyan .. 13..



Meaning:- 'In the dream world, the shining one, attaining higher and lower states, puts forth innumerable forms. He seems to be enjoying himself in the company of women, or laughing, or even seeing frightful things.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Further, in the dream world, the shining one, attaining higher and lower states, as gods and animals, for instance, puts forth innumerable forms, as impressions. He seems to be enjoying himself in the company of women, or laughing with friends, or even seeing frightful things, such as lions and tigers.

Translation By Max Müller

13. 'Going up and down in his dream, the god makes manifold shapes for himself, either rejoicing together with women, or laughing (with his friends), or seeing terrible sights. (3)


Sloka : 4.3.14

मन्त्र १४[IV.iii.14]

आराममस्य पश्यन्ति न तं पश्यति कश्चनेति । तं नाऽऽयतं

बोधयेदित्याहुः । दुर्भिषज्यꣳ हास्मै भवति यमेष न

प्रतिपद्यते ॥ १४॥ अथो खल्वाहुर्जागरितदेश एवास्यैष यानि ह्येव

जाग्रत् पश्यति तानि सुप्त इत्यत्रायं पुरुषः स्वयं ज्योतिर्भवति ।

सोऽहं भगवते सहस्रं ददाम्यत ऊर्ध्वं विमोक्षाय ब्रूहीति ॥ १४॥

mantra 14[IV.iii.14]

ārāmamasya paśyanti na taṃ paśyati kaścaneti . taṃ nā''yataṃ

bodhayedityāhuḥ . durbhiṣajyagͫ hāsmai bhavati yameṣa na

pratipadyate .. 14.. atho khalvāhurjāgaritadeśa evāsyaiṣa yāni hyeva

jāgrat paśyati tāni supta ityatrāyaṃ puruṣaḥ svayaṃ jyotirbhavati .

so'haṃ bhagavate sahasraṃ dadāmyata ūrdhvaṃ vimokṣāya brūhīti .. 14..



Meaning:- 'All see his sport, but none sees him'. They say, 'Do not wake him up suddenly'. If he does not find the right organ, the body becomes difficult to doctor. Others, however, say that the dream state of a man is nothing but the waking state, because he sees in dream only those things that he sees in the waking state. (This is wrong) In the dream state the man himself becomes the light. 'I give you a thousand (cows), sir. Please instruct me further about liberation'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- All see his sport, consisting of the impressions of villages, cities, women, eatables, etc. conjured up by the self, but none sees him. What a pity that although the self is totally distinct from the body and organs and is present before their very eyes, people are yet unfortunate enough not to see it, notwithstanding its capacity of being seen! This is how the Sruti is commiserating with mankind. The idea is that in dream the self becomes altogether distinct and is itself the light.

They say, 'Do not wake him up suddenly.' There is also a popular belief that proves the self to be distinct from the body and organs in dreams. What is that? Physicians and others say, 'Do not wake up a sleeping man suddenly or violently.' They say so only because they see that (in dream) the self goes out of the body of the waking state through the gates of the organs and remains isolated outside. They also see the possibility of harm in this, viz that if the self is violently roused, it may not find those gates of the organs. This is expressed as follows:- If he does not find the right organ, the body becomes difficult to doctor. The self may not get back to those gates of the organs through which it went out, taking the shining functions of the latter, or it may misplace these functions. In that case defects such as blindness and deafness may result, and it is difficult for the body to be treated. Therefore from the above popular notion also we can understand the self-luminosity of the Atman in dream.

Being identified with dream, the self transcends the forms of death; therefore in dream it is itself the light. Others, however, say that the dream state of a man is nothing but the waking state --- that the dream state, which is the junction between this world and the next, is not a state distinct from either of them, but identical with this world, i.e. the waking state. Supposing this is so, what follows from this? Listen. If the dream state is nothing but the waking state, the self is not dissociated from the body and organs, but rather mixed up with them; hence the self is not itself the light. So in order to refute the self-luminosity of the Atman, these people say that the dream state is identical with the waking state. And they state their reason for taking it as the waking state:- Because a man sees in dreams only those things , elephants etc., that he sees in the waking state. All this is wrong, because then the organs are at rest. One dreams only when the organs have ceased to function. Therefore no other light (than the self) can exist in that state. This has been expressed by the words, 'There are no chariots, nor animals,' etc. (IV. iii. 10). Therefore in the dream state the man himself undoubtedly becomes the light.
By the illustration of dream it has been proved that there is the self-luminous Atman, and that it transcends the forms of death. Since it alternately moves between this world and the next, and so on, it is distinct from them. Likewise it is distinct from the nests of the waking and dream states. And Yajnavalkya has proved that since it moves alternately from one to the other, it is eternal. Hence, to requite the knowledge received, Janaka offers a thousand cows. 'Because you have thus instructed me, I give you a thousand cows, sir. You have permitted me to ask any question I like, and I want to ask about liberation.
What you have told me about the self is helpful for that; as subserving that end, however, it is only a part of what I want. Hence I request you to instruct me further about liberation, so that I may hear the decision about the whole of my desired question, and through your grace be altogether free from this relative existence.' The git of a thousand cows is for the solution of a part of the meaning of the term 'liberation.'
What was stated at the beginning of this section, viz 'It is through the light of the self that he sits,' etc. (IV. iii. 6), has been proved in the dream state by a reference to the experiences of that state in the passage, 'In this state the man (self) himself becomes the light' (IV. iii. 9).
But regarding the statement, 'Being identified with dream, it transcends this world --- the forms of death (ignorance etc.)' (IV. iii. 7), it is contended that the self transcends merely the forms of death, not death itself. We see it plainly in dreams that though the self is separated from the body and organs, it experiences joy, fear, etc.; therefore it certainly does not transcend death, for we see the effects of death (i.e. work), such as joy and fear, at the time. If it is naturally handicapped by death, then it cannot attain liberation, for nobody can part with his nature. If, however, death is not the nature of the self, then liberation from it will be possible. In order to show that death is not the natural characteristic of the self, Yajnavalkya, already prompted by Janaka with the words, 'Please instruct me further about liberation' (IV. iii. 14), sets himself to this task:-

Translation By Max Müller

14. 'People may see his playground [1] but himself no one ever sees. Therefore they say, Let no one wake a man suddenly, for it is not easy to remedy, if he does not get back (rightly to his body)." 'Here some people (object and) say:- "No, this (sleep) is the same as the place of waking, for what he sees while awake, that only he sees when asleep [2]." No, here (in sleep) the person is self-illuminated (as we explained before).' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'I give you, Sir, a thousand. Speak on for the sake of (my) emancipation.'

Footnote:

1. Cf. Susruta III, 7, 1. 2. I have translated this according to the commentator, who says:- 'Therefore the Self is self-illuminated during sleep. But others say the state of waking is indeed the same for him as sleep; there is no other intermediate place, different from this and from the other world.... And if sleep is the same as the state of waking, then is this Self not separate, not cause and effect, but mixed with them, and the Self therefore not self-illuminated. What he means is that others, in order to disprove the self-illumination, say that this sleep is the same as the state of waking, giving as their reason that we see in sleep or in dreams exactly what we see in waking. But this is wrong, because the senses have stopped, and only when the senses have stopped does one see dreams. Therefore there is no necessity for admitting another light in sleep, but only the light inherent in the Self. This has been proved by all that went before.' Dr. Roer takes the same view in his translation, but Deussen (Vedânta, p. 205) takes an independent view, and translates:- I Therefore it is said:- It (sleep) is to him a place of waking only, for what he sees waking, the same he sees in sleep. Thus this spirit serves there for his own light.' Though the interpretations of Saṅkara and Dvivedagaṅga sound artificial, still Dr. Deussen's version does not remove all difficulties. If the purusha saw in sleep no more than what he had seen before in waking, then the whole argument in favour of the independent action, or the independent light of the purusha, would go; anyhow it would be no argument on Yâgñavalkya's side. See also note to paragraph 9, before.


Sloka : 4.3.15

मन्त्र १५[IV.iii.15]

स वा एष एतस्मिन्सम्प्रसादे रत्वा चरित्वा दृष्ट्वैव पुण्यं

च पापं च पुनः प्रतिन्यायं प्रतियोन्याद्रवति स्वप्नायैव एव स

यत्तत्र किञ्चित्पश्यत्यनन्वागतस्तेन भवत्यसङ्गो ह्ययं पुरुष

इत्येवमेवैतद् याज्ञवल्क्य । सोऽहं भगवते सहस्रं ददाम्यत

ऊर्ध्वं विमोक्षायैव ब्रूहीति ॥ १५॥

mantra 15[IV.iii.15]

sa vā eṣa etasminsamprasāde ratvā caritvā dṛṣṭvaiva puṇyaṃ

ca pāpaṃ ca punaḥ pratinyāyaṃ pratiyonyādravati svapnāyaiva eva sa

yattatra kiñcitpaśyatyananvāgatastena bhavatyasaṅgo hyayaṃ puruṣa

ityevamevaitad yājñavalkya . so'haṃ bhagavate sahasraṃ dadāmyata

ūrdhvaṃ vimokṣāyaiva brūhīti .. 15..



Meaning:- After enjoying himself and roaming, and merely seeing (the result of) good and evil (in dream), he (stays) in a state of profound sleep, and comes back in the inverse order to his former condition, the dream state. He is untouched by whatever he sees in that state, for this infinite being is unattached. 'It is just so, Yajnavalkya. I give you a thousand (cows), sir. Please instruct me further about liberation itself.'





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- He, the self-luminous being who is under consideration and who has been pointed out in the dream state, (stays) in a state of profound sleep, 'Samprasada' --- the state of highest serenity. In the waking state a man gets impurities due to the commingling of innumerable activities of the body and organs; he gets a little joy by discarding them in dreams; but in profound sleep he gets the highest serenity; hence this state is called 'Samprasada.' The self in a state of profound sleep will be later on described as, 'For he is then beyond all the woes of his heart' (IV. iii. 22), and 'Pure like water, one, and the witness' (IV. iii. 32). He stays in a state of profound sleep, having gradually attained the highest serenity. How does he attain it?
After enjoying himself --- just before passing into the state of profound sleep --- in the dream state itself, by having a sight etc. of his friends and relatives, and roaming, sporting in various ways, i.e. experiencing the fatigue due to it, and merely seeing, not doing, good and evil, i.e. their results (pleasure and pain).
We have already said that good and evil cannot be directly visualised. Hence he is not fettered by them. Only one who does good and evil is so fettered; one certainly cannot come under their binding influence by merely seeing them. Therefore, being identified with dream, the self transcends death also, not merely its forms. Hence death cannot be urged to be its nature. Were it so, the self would be doing things in dream; but it does not. If activity be the nature of the self, it will never attain liberation; but it is not, for it is absent in dream. Hence the self can get rid of death in the form of good and evil.

Objection:- But is not activity its nature in the waking state?
Reply:- No, that is due to its limiting adjuncts, the intellect etc. This has been proved on the ground of apparent activity from the text, 'It thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were' (IV. iii. 7). Therefore, since the self wholly transcends the forms of death in dream, death can never be urged to be natural to it, nor is liberation an impossibility. 'Roaming' in that state, i.e. experiencing the resulting fatigue, and afterwards experiencing the state of profound sleep, he comes back in the inverse order of that by which he went, i.e. retracing his steps, to his former condition, viz the dream state. It was out of this that he passed into the state of profound sleep, and now he returns to it.
It may be asked, how is one to know that a man does not do good and evil in dream, but merely sees their results? Rather the presumtion is that as he does good and evil in the waking state, so he does them in the dream state also, for the experience is the same in both cases. This is being answered:- He, the self, is untouched by whatever results of good and evil he sees in that dream state. If he actually did anything in dream, he would be bound by it; and it would pursue him even after he woke up. But it is not known in everyday life that he is pursued by deeds done in dreams. Nobody considers himself a sinner on account of sins committed in dream; nor do people who have heard of them condemn or shun him. Therefore he is certainly untouched by them.
Hence he only appears to be doing things in dream, but actually there is no activity. The pithy verse has already been quoted:- 'He seems to be enjoying himself in the company of women' (IV. iii. 13). And those who describe their dream experiences use the words 'as if' in this connection, as, for instance, 'I saw to-day as if a herd of elephants was running.' Therefore the self has no activity (in dream).

How is it that it has no activity? (This is being explained:-) We see that an action is caused by the body and organs, which have form, with something else that has form. We never see a formless thing being active; and the self is formless, hence it is unattached. And because this self is unattached, it is untouched by what is sees in dream. Therefore we cannot by any means attribute activity to it, since activity proceeds from the contact of the body and organs, and that contact is non-existent for the self, for this infinite being (self) is unattached. Therefore it is immortal. 'It is just so, Yajnavalkya. I give you a thousand (cows), sir, for you have fully shown that the self is free from action --- which is a part of the meaning of the term 'liberation.' Please instruct me further about liberation itself.'

Translation By Max Müller

15. Yâgñavalkya said:- 'That (person) having enjoyed himself in that state of bliss (samprasâda, deep sleep), having moved about and seen both good and evil, hastens back again as he came, to the place from which he started (the place of sleep), to dream [1]. And whatever he may have seen there, he is not followed (affected) by it, for that person is not attached to anything.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'So it is indeed, Yâgñavalkya. I give you, Sir, a thousand. Speak on for the sake of emancipation.'

Footnote:

1. The Mâdhyandinas speak only of his return from svapnânta to buddhânta, from sleep to waking, instead of his going from sainprasâda (deep sleep) to svapnâ (dream), from svapnâ to buddhânta, and from buddhânta again to svapnânta, as the Kânvas have it. In § 18 the Kânvas also mention svapnânta and buddhânta only, but the next paragraph refers to sushupti.


Sloka : 4.3.16

मन्त्र १६[IV.iii.16]

स वा एष एतस्मिन्त्स्वप्ने रत्वा चरित्वा दृष्ट्वैव पुण्यं च पापं च

पुनः प्रतिन्यायं प्रतियोन्याद्रवति बुद्धान्तायैव आद्रवति बुद्धान्ताय

एव स यत्तत्र किञ्चित्पश्यत्यनन्वागतस्तेन भवत्यसङ्गो ह्ययं

पुरुष इत्येवमेवैतद् याज्ञवल्क्य । सोऽहं भगवते सहस्रं ददाम्यत

ऊर्ध्वं विमोक्षायैव ब्रूहीति ॥ १६॥

mantra 16[IV.iii.16]

sa vā eṣa etasmintsvapne ratvā caritvā dṛṣṭvaiva puṇyaṃ ca pāpaṃ ca

punaḥ pratinyāyaṃ pratiyonyādravati buddhāntāyaiva ādravati buddhāntāya

eva sa yattatra kiñcitpaśyatyananvāgatastena bhavatyasaṅgo hyayaṃ

puruṣa ityevamevaitad yājñavalkya . so'haṃ bhagavate sahasraṃ dadāmyata

ūrdhvaṃ vimokṣāyaiva brūhīti .. 16..



Meaning:- After enjoying himself and roaming in the dream state, and merely seeing (the results of) good and evil, he comes back in the inverse order to his former condition, the waking state. He is untouched by whatever he sees in that state, for this infinite being is unattached. 'It is just so, Yajnavalkya. I give you a thousand (cows), sir. Please instruct me further about liberation itself.'





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:-
Objection:- In the preceding paragraph the non-attachment of the self has been stated as the cause of its inactivity in the passage, 'For this infinite being is unattached.' It has also been stated before that under the sway of past work 'he goes wherever he likes' (IV. iii. 12). Now desire is an attachment; hence the reason adduced --- 'For this infinite being is unattached' --- is fallacious.
Reply:- It is not. How? This is how the self is unattached:- On his return from the state of profound sleep, after enjoying himself and roaming in the dream state, and merely seeing (the results of) good and evil, he comes back in the inverse order to his former condition --- all this is to be explained as before --- the waking state; therefore this infinite being (self) is unattached. If he were attached, or smitten by desire, in the dream state, he would, on his return to the waking state, be affected by the evils due to that attachment.
Just as, being unattached in the dream state, he is not affected, on his return to the waking state, by the evils due to attachment in the dream state, so he is not affected by them in the waking state either. This is expressed by the following text:-

Translation By Max Müller

16. Yâgñavalkya said:- 'That (person) having enjoyed himself in that sleep (dream), having moved about and seen both good and evil, hastens back again as he came, to the place from which he started, to be awake. And whatever he may have seen there, he is not followed (affected) by it, for that person is not attached to anything.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'So it is indeed, Yâgñavalkya. I give you, Sir, a thousand. Speak on for the sake of emancipation.'


Sloka : 4.3.17

मन्त्र १७[IV.iii.17]

स वा एष एतस्मिन्बुद्धान्ते रत्वा चरित्वा दृष्ट्वैव पुण्यं च पापं

च पुनः प्रतिन्यायं प्रतियोन्याद्रवति स्वप्नान्तायैव ॥ १७॥ आद्रवति

स्वप्नान्ताय एव

mantra 17[IV.iii.17]

sa vā eṣa etasminbuddhānte ratvā caritvā dṛṣṭvaiva puṇyaṃ ca pāpaṃ

ca punaḥ pratinyāyaṃ pratiyonyādravati svapnāntāyaiva .. 17.. ādravati

svapnāntāya eva



Meaning:- After enjoying himself and roaming in the waking state, and merely seeing (the result of) good and evil, he comes back in the inverse order to his former condition, the dream state (or that of profound sleep).





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- After enjoying himself and roaming in the waking state, etc. --- to be explained as before. 'He is untouched by whatever he sees in that --- waking --- state, for this infinite being is unattached (Sankara supplies this from the preceding paragraphs.).'

Objection:- How is the assertion made about his 'merely' seeing'? As a matter of fact, he does good and evil in the waking state, and sees their results too.
Reply:- Not so, for his agency is attributable to his merely revealing the different factors of an action. Such texts as, 'It is through the light of the self that he sits,' etc. (IV. iii. 6), show that the body and organs work, being revealed by the light of the self. For this reason agency is figuratively attributed to the self, which naturally has none. So it has been said, 'It thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were' (IV. iii. 7). The agency is simply due to its limiting adjuncts, the intellect etc., and is not natural to it. Here, however, the self is described from the standpoint of reality independently of the limiting adjuncts:- 'Merely seeing (the results of) good and evil,' not actually doing them. Hence there is no fear of contradiction between this and the previous text, because the self, freed from its limiting adjuncts, really neither does anything nor is affected by the results of any action. As the Lord has said, 'The immutable Supreme Self, O Arjuna, being without beginning and without attributes, neither does anything nor is affected by its results although It is in the body' (G. XIII. 31). And the gift of a thousand cows is made because Yajnavalkya has shown the self to be free from desire. Similarly this and the preceding paragraph prove the non-attachment of the self. Because, passing into the dream state and that of profound sleep, it is not affected by what it did in the waking state --- for we do not then find actions such as theft --- therefore in all the three states the self is naturally unattached. Hence it is immortal, or distinct from the attributes of the three states.
He comes back to his former condition, the state of profound sleep (Svapnanta). Since the dream state, with its function of seeing visions, has already been mentioned by the word 'Svapna,' the addition of the word 'Anta' (end) will be appropriate if we take the word 'Svapnanta' in the sense of dreamless sleep, which state will also be referred to in the passage, 'He runs for this state' (IV. iii. 19). If, however, it is argued by a reference to the following passages (Where the word 'Anta' occurs thrice, meaning not end, but state.), 'After enjoying himself and roaming in the dream state' (IV. iii. 34), and 'Moves to both these states, the dream and waking states' (IV. iii. 18), that here also the word 'Svapnanta' means the dream state, with its function of seeing visions, there is nothing wrong in that interpretation too, for non-attachment of the self, which is sought to be established, is certainly established thereby. Therefore, on returning to the dream state after enjoying himself and roaming in the waking state, and merely seeing (the results of) good and evil,' he is not pursued by the evils of the waking state.

Thus the idea that has been established by the last three paragraphs is that this self is itself the light and distinct from the body and organs and their stimulating causes, desire and work, on account of its non-attachment --- 'For this infinite being is unattached.' How do we know that the self is unattached? Because it moves by turn from the waking of the dream state, from this to the state of profound sleep, from that again to the dream state, then to the waking state, from that again to the dream state, and so on, which proves that it is distinct from the three states.
This idea has also been previously introduced in the passage, 'Being identified with dream, it transcends this world --- the forms of death' (IV. iii. 7). Having treated this at length, the Sruti now proceeds to give an illustration, which is the only thing that remains.

Translation By Max Müller

17. Yâgñavalkya said:- 'That (person) having enjoyed himself in that state of waking, having moved about and seen both good and evil, hastens back again as he came, to the place from which he started, to the state of sleeping (dream).


Sloka : 4.3.18

मन्त्र १८[IV.iii.18]

तद्यथा महामत्स्य उभे कूलेऽनुसञ्चरति पूर्वं चापरं चैवमेवायं

पुरुष एतावुभावन्तावनुसञ्चरति स्वप्नान्तं च बुद्धान्तं च ॥

१८॥ अन्तौ अनुसञ्चरति स्वप्नान्तम् च बुद्धान्तम् च

mantra 18[IV.iii.18]

tadyathā mahāmatsya ubhe kūle'nusañcarati pūrvaṃ cāparaṃ caivamevāyaṃ

puruṣa etāvubhāvantāvanusañcarati svapnāntaṃ ca buddhāntaṃ ca ..

18.. antau anusañcarati svapnāntam ca buddhāntam ca



Meaning:- As a great fish swims alternately to both the banks (of a river), eastern and western, so does this infinite being move to both these states, the dream and waking states.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- In support of the idea set forth above, the following illustration is being given:- As in the world a great fish that moves freely, never being swayed by the river-currents, but rather stemming them, swims alternately to both the banks of a river, eastern and western, and while swimming between them, is not overpowered by the intervening current of water, so does this infinite being move to both these states --- which are they? --- the dream and waking states. The point of the illustration is that the body and organs, which are forms of death, together with their stimulating causes, desire and work, are the attributes of the non-self, and that the self is distinct from them. All this has already been exhaustively explained.

In the preceding paragraphs the self-luminous Atman, which is different from the body and organs, has been stated to be distinct from desire and work, for it moves alternately to the three states. These relative attributes do not belong to it per se:- its relative existence is only due to its limiting adjuncts, and is superimposed by ignorance; this has been stated to be the gist of the whole passage. There, however, the three states of waking, dream and profound sleep have been described separately --- not shown together as a group. For instance, it has been shown that in the waking state the self appears through ignorance as connected with attachment, death (work), and the body and organs; in the dream state it is perceived as connected with desire, but free from the forms of death; and in the state of profound sleep it is perfectly serene and unattached, this non-attachment being the additional feature. If we consider all these passages together, the resulting sense is that the self is by nature eternal, free, enlightened and pure. This comprehensive view has not yet been shown; hence the next paragraph. It will be stated later on that the self becomes such only in the state of profound sleep:- 'That is his form --- beyond desires, free from evils, and fearless' (IV. iii. 21). As it is such, i.e. unique, the self desires to enter this state. How is that? The next paragraph will explain it. As the meaning becomes clear through an illustration, one is being put forward.

Translation By Max Müller

18. 'In fact, as a large fish moves along the two banks of a river, the right and the left, so does that person move along these two states, the state of sleeping and the state of waking.


Sloka : 4.3.19

मन्त्र १९[IV.iii.19]

तद्यथास्मिन्नाऽकाशे श्येनो वा सुपर्णो वा विपरिपत्य श्रान्तः

सꣳहत्य पक्षौ संलयायैव ध्रियत ध्रियते एवमेवायं पुरुष

एतस्मा अन्ताय धावति यत्र सुप्तो न कं चन कामं कामयते न कं

चन स्वप्नं पश्यति ॥ १९॥ स्वप्नम् पश्यति

mantra 19[IV.iii.19]

tadyathāsminnā'kāśe śyeno vā suparṇo vā viparipatya śrāntaḥ

sagͫhatya pakṣau saṃlayāyaiva dhriyata dhriyate evamevāyaṃ puruṣa

etasmā antāya dhāvati yatra supto na kaṃ cana kāmaṃ kāmayate na kaṃ

cana svapnaṃ paśyati .. 19.. svapnam paśyati



Meaning:- As a hawk or a falcon flying in the sky becomes tired, and stretching its wings, is bound for its nest, so does this infinite being run for this state, where, falling asleep, he craves no desire and sees no dream.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- As a hawk or a falcon (Suparna), a swifter kind of hawk, flying or roaming in the external sky becomes tired, exhausted with undertaking different flights, and stretching its wings, is bound for, directs itself towards, its nest --- lit. where it has a perfect rest --- so does this infinite being run for this state, where, falling asleep, he craves no desire and sees no dream. This last clause describes what is denoted by the word 'state.' The words 'craves no desire' shut out all desires of the dream and waking states without reservation, the negative particle having that all-inclusive force. Similarly with 'and sees no dream.' The experience of the waking state also is considered by the Sruti to be but dream; hence it says, 'And sees no dream.' Another Sruti passage bears this out:- 'He has three abodes, three dream states' (Ai. III. 12). As the bird in the illustration goes to its nest to remove the fatigue due to flight, so the Jiva (self), connected with the results of action done by the contact of the body and organs in the waking and dream states, is fatigued, as the bird with its flight, and in order to remove that fatigue enters his own nest or abode, i.e. his own self, distinct from all relative attributes and devoid of all exertion caused by action with its factors and results.
It may be questioned:- If this freedom from all relative attributes be the nature of the Jiva, and his relative existence be due to other things, viz the limiting adjuncts, and if it be ignorance that causes this relative existence through those extraneous limiting adjuncts, is that ignorance natural to him, or is it adventitious, like desire, work, etc? If it be the latter, then liberation is possible. But what are the proofs of its being adventitious, and why should ignorance not be the natural characteristic of the self? Hence, in order to determine the nature of ignorance, which is the root of all evil, the next paragraph is introduced.

Translation By Max Müller

19. 'And as a falcon, or any other (swift) bird, after he has roamed about here in the air, becomes tired, and folding his wings is carried to his nest, so does that person hasten to that state where, when asleep, he desires no more desires, and dreams no more dreams.


Sloka : 4.3.20

मन्त्र २०[IV.iii.20]

ता वा अस्यैता हिता नाम नाड्यो यथा केशः सहस्रधा भिन्नस्तावताऽणिम्ना

तिष्ठन्ति शुक्लस्य नीलस्य पिङ्गलस्य हरितस्य लोहितस्य पूर्णा ।

नीलस्य पिङ्गलस्य हरितस्य लोहितस्य पूर्णासथ यत्रैनं घ्नन्तीव

जिनन्तीव हस्तीव विच्छाययति गर्तमिव पतति यदेव जाग्रद्भयं

पश्यति तदत्राविद्यया मन्यतेऽथ यत्र देव इव राजेवाहमेवेदꣳ

सर्वोऽस्मीति मन्यते सोऽस्य परमो लोकाः ॥ २०॥

mantra 20[IV.iii.20]

tā vā asyaitā hitā nāma nāḍyo yathā keśaḥ sahasradhā bhinnastāvatā'ṇimnā

tiṣṭhanti śuklasya nīlasya piṅgalasya haritasya lohitasya pūrṇā .

nīlasya piṅgalasya haritasya lohitasya pūrṇāsatha yatrainaṃ ghnantīva

jinantīva hastīva vicchāyayati gartamiva patati yadeva jāgradbhayaṃ

paśyati tadatrāvidyayā manyate'tha yatra deva iva rājevāhamevedagͫ

sarvo'smīti manyate so'sya paramo lokāḥ .. 20..



Meaning:- In him are those nerves called Hita, which are as fine as a hair split into a thousand parts, and filled with white, blue, brown, green and red (serums). (They are the seat of the subtle body, in which impressions are stored). Now when (he feels) as if he were being killed or overpowered, or being pursued by an elephant, or falling into a pit, (in short) conjures up at the time through ignorance whatever terrible things he has experienced in the waking state, (that is the dream state). And when (he becomes) a god, as it were, or a king, as it were, thinks, 'This (universe) is myself, who am all', that is his highest state.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- In him, in this man with a head, hands, etc., are those nerves called Hita (Referred to in II. i. 19. and IV. ii. 3.), which are as fine as a hair split into a thousand parts, and they are filled with white, blue, brown, green and red serums. Many and various are the colours of the serums, owing to the intermixture, in various proportions, of nerve matter, bile and phlegm. The subtle body with its seventeen constituents has its seat in these nerves, which have the fineness of the thousandth part of the tip of a hair, are filled with serums, white and so on, and spread all over the body.
All impressions due to the experience of high and low attributes of the relative universe are centred in this. This subtle body, in which the impressions are stored, is transparent like a crystal because of its fineness; but owing to its contact with foreign matter, viz the serums in the nerves, it undergoes modifications under the influence of past merit and demerit, and manifests itself as impressions in the form of women, chariots, elephants, etc. Now, such beings the case, when a man has the false notion called ignorance based on past impressions, that some people --- enemies or robbers --- have come and are going to kill him. This is being described by the text:- As if he, the dreamer, were being killed or overpowered. Nobody is killing or overpowering him; it is simply his mistake due to te past impressions created by ignorance. Or being pursued or chased by an elephant, or falling into a pit, a dilapidated well, for instance. He fancies himself in his position. Such are the false impressions that arise in him --- extremely low ones, resting on the modifications of the mind brought about by his past iniquity, as is evidenced by their painful nature. In short, he conjures up at the time, i.e. in dream, when there is no elephant or the like, through the impressions created by ignorance, which have falsely manifested themselves, whatever terrible things, such as an elephant, he has experienced in the waking state.

Then when ignorance decreases and knowledge increases, (the result is as follows). The text describes the content and nature of the knowledge:- And when he himself becomes a god, as it were. When, in the waking state, meditation regarding the gods prevails, he considers himself a god, as it were, on account of the impressions generated by it. The same thing is being said of the dream state too:- He becomes 'a god, as it were.' Or a king, as it were:- Having been installed as the ruler of a state (in the waking state), he thinks in his dreams also that he is a king, for he is imbued with the impressions of his kingly state. Similarly, when (in the waking state) his ignorance is extremely attenuated, and the knowledge that he comprises all arises, he thinks under the influence of these impressions in the dream state also, 'This (universe) is myself, who am all.' That, this identity with all (the universe), is his highest state, the Atman's own natural, supreme state. When, prior to this realisation of identity with all, he views the latter as other than himself even by a hair's breadth, thinking, 'This is not myself,' that is the state of ignorance. The states divorced from the self that are brought on by ignorance, down to stationary existence, are all inferior states. Compared with these --- states with which the Jiva (individual self) has relative dealings --- the above state of identity with all, infinite and without interior or exterior, is his supreme state. Therefore, when ignorance is eliminated and knowledge reaches its perfection, the state of identity with all, which is another name for liberation, is attained. That is to say, just as the self-effulgence of the Atman is directly perceived in the dream state, so is this result of knowledge.

Similarly, when ignorance increases and knowledge vanishes, the results of ignorance are also directly perceived in dream:- 'Now when (he feels) as if he were being killed or overpowered,' etc. Thus the results of knowledge and ignorance are identity with all and identity with finite things, respectively. Through pure knowledge a man is identified with all, and through ignorance he is identified with finite things, or separated from something else. He is in conflict with that from which he is separated, and because of this conflict he is killed, overpowered or pursued. All this takes place because the results of ignorance, being finite things, are separated from him. But if he is all, what is there from which he may be separated, so as to be in conflict; and in the absence of conflict, by whom would he be killed, overpowered or pursued? Hence the nature of ignorance proves to be this, that it represents that which is infinite as finite, presents things other than the self that are non-existent, and makes the self appear as limited. Thence arises the desire for that from which he is separated; desire prompts him to action, which produces results. This is the gist of the whole passage. It will also be stated later on, 'When there is duality, as it were, then one sees something,' etc. (II. iv. 14; IV. v. 15). Thus the nature of ignorance with its effects has been set forth; and as opposed to these, the effect of knowledge also, viz the attainment of identity with all, has been shown. That ignorance is not the natural characteristic of the self, since it automatically decreases as knowledge increases, and when the latter is at its highest, with the result that the self realises its identity with all, ignorance vanishes altogether, like the notion of a snake in a rope when the truth about it is known. This has been stated in the passage, 'But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the self, then what should one see and through what?' etc. (Ibid.). Therefore ignorance is not a natural characteristic of the self, for that which is natural to a thing can never be eliminated, as the heat and light of the sun. Therefore liberation from ignorance is possible.

Translation By Max Müller

20. 'There are in his body the veins called Hitâ, which are as small as a hair divided a thousandfold, full of white, blue, yellow, green, and red [1]. Now when, as it were, they kill him, when, as it were they overcome him, when, as it were, an elephant chases him, when, as it were, he falls into a well, he fancies, through ignorance, that danger which he (commonly) sees in waking. But when he fancies that he is, as it were, a god, or that he is, as it were, a king [2], or "I am this altogether," that is his highest world [3].

Footnote:

1. Dvivedagaṅga explains that if phlegm predominates, qualified by wind and bile, the juice in the veins is white; if wind predominates, qualified by phlegm and bile, it is blue; if bile predominates, qualified by wind and phlegm, it is yellow; if wind and phlegm predominate, with little bile only, it is green; and if the three elements are equal, it is red. See also Ânandagiri's gloss, where Susruta is quoted. Why this should be inserted here, is not quite clear, except that in sleep the purusha is supposed to, move about in the veins. 2. Here, again, the commentator seems to be right, but his interpretation does violence to the context. The dangers which a man sees in his sleep are represented as mere imaginations, so is his idea of being of god or a king, while the idea that he is all this (aham evedam sarvah, i.e. idam sarvam, see Saṅkara, p. 873, l. 11) is represented as the highest and real state. But it is impossible to begin a new sentence with aham evedam sarvam, and though it is true that all the preceding fancies are qualified by iva, I prefer to take deva and râgan as steps leading to the sarvâtmatva. 3. The Mâdhyandinas repeat here the sentence from yatra supto to pasyati, from the end of § 19.


Sloka : 4.3.21

मन्त्र २१[IV.iii.21]

तद्वा अस्यैतदतिच्छन्दा अपहतपाप्माभयꣳ रूपम् । तद्यथा प्रियया

स्त्रिया सम्परिष्वक्तो न बाह्यं किं चन वेद नाऽऽन्तरमेवमेवायं

पुरुषः प्राज्ञेनाऽऽत्मना सम्परिष्वक्तो न बाह्यं किं चन वेद

नाऽऽन्तरम् । सम्परिष्वक्तस्न बाह्यम् किम् चन वेद न अन्तरं तद्वा

अस्यैतदाप्तकाममात्मकाममकामं रूपम् शोकान्तरम् ॥ २१॥

mantra 21[IV.iii.21]

tadvā asyaitadaticchandā apahatapāpmābhayagͫ rūpam . tadyathā priyayā

striyā sampariṣvakto na bāhyaṃ kiṃ cana veda nā''ntaramevamevāyaṃ

puruṣaḥ prājñenā''tmanā sampariṣvakto na bāhyaṃ kiṃ cana veda

nā''ntaram . sampariṣvaktasna bāhyam kim cana veda na antaraṃ tadvā

asyaitadāptakāmamātmakāmamakāmaṃ rūpam śokāntaram .. 21..



Meaning:- That is his form - beyond desires, free from evils and fearless. As a man, fully embraced by his beloved wife, does not know anything at all, either external or internal, so does this infinite being (self), fully embraced by the Supreme Self, not know anything at all, either external or internal. That is his form - in which all objects of desire have been attained and are but the self, and which is free from desire and devoid of grief.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Now liberation in the form of identity with all, which is the result, devoid of action with its factors and results, of knowledge, and in which there is no ignorance, desire, or work, is being directly pointed out. This has already been introduced in the passage, 'Where falling asleep, it craves no desire and sees no dream' (par. 19). That, this identity with all which has been spoken of as 'his highest state,' is his form --- beyond desire (Aticchanda). This word is to be turned into neuter, since it qualifies the word 'Rupa' (form). 'Chanda' means desire; hence 'Aticchanda' means transcending desire. There is another word 'Chandas' ending is s, which means a metre, such as the Gayatri. But here the word means desire; hence it must end in a vowel. Nevertheless, the reading 'Aticchanda' should be taken as the usual Vedic licence. In common parlance too the word 'Chanda' is used in the sense of desire, as in 'Svacchanda' (free), 'Paracchanda' (dependent on others' will), etc. Hence the word must be turned into 'Aticchandam' (neuter) to mean that this form of the self is free from desire. Likewise, free from evils. 'Evils' mean both merits and demerits, for it has elsewhere (par. been said, 'Is connected with evils,' and 'Discards those evils.' 'Free from evils' means 'devoid of merits and demerits.' Also, fearless. Fear is an effect of ignorance, for it has already been said that through ignorance he conjures up terrible things (par. 20). Hence the word must be construed as denying the cause through the effect. 'Fearless form' means one that is bereft of ignorance. This identity with all which is the result of knowledge is this form --- beyond desire, free from evils and fearless. It is fearless because it is devoid of all relative attributes.
This has already been introduced at the conclusion of the preceding section, by the competent personal statement, 'You have attained That which is free from fear, O Janaka' (IV. ii. 4). But here it is elaborated by argument to impress the meaning conveyed by the competent personal statement in question.

This Atman is itself the light that is Pure Intelligence, and reveals everything by its own intelligence. It has been said (pars. 15 and 16) that (he is untouched by) the roaming or by whatever he sees, or enjoys, or knows in that (dream) state. And it is also proved by reasoning that the eternal nature of the self is that it is the light of Pure Intelligence. (Now an objection is being raised:-) If the self remains intact in its own form in the state of profound sleep, why does it not know itself as 'I am this,' or know all those things that are outside, as it does in the waking and dream states? The answer is being given:- Listen why it does not know. Unity is the reason. How is that? This is explained by the text. As the intended meaning is vividly realised through an illustration, it goes on to say:- As in the world, a man fully embraced by his beloved wife, both desiring each other's company, does not know anything at all, either external to himself, as, 'This is something other than myself,' or internal, as 'I am this, or I am happy or miserable' --- but he knows everything outside and inside when he is not embraced by her and is separated, and fails to know only during the embrace owing to the attainment of unity --- so, like the example cited, does this infinite being, the individual self, who is separated (from the Supreme Self), like a lump of salt, through contact with a little of the elements (the body and organs) and enters this body and organs, like the reflection of the moon etc. in water and so forth, being fully embraced by, or unified with, the Supreme Self, his own real, natural, supremely effulgent Self, and being identified with all, without the least break, not know anything at all, either external, something outside, or internal, within himself, such as, 'I am this, or I am happy or miserable.'

You asked me why, in spite of its being the light that is Pure Inelligence, the self fails to know in the state of profound sleep.
I have told you the reason --- it is unitty, as of a couple fully embracing each other. Incidentally it is implied that variety is the cause of particular consciousness; and the cause of that variety is, as we have said, ignorance, which brings forward something other than the self. Such being the case, when the Jiva is freed from ignorance, he attains but unity with all. Therefore, there being no such division among the factors of an action as knowledge and known, whence should particular consciousness arise, or desire manifest itself, in the natural, immutable light of the self?
Because this identity with all is his form, therefore that is his form, the form of this self-effulgent Atman, in which all objects of desire have been attained, because it comprises all. That from which objects of desire are different has hankering after them, as the form called Devadatta, for instance, in the waking state. But this other form is not so divided from anything; hence in it all objects of desire have been attained. It may be asked, can that form not be divided from other things that exist, or is the self the only entity that exists? The answer is, there is nothing else but the self. How? Because all objects of desire are but the self in this form. In states other than that of profound sleep, i.e. in the waking and dream states, things are separated, as it were, from the self and are desired as such. But to one who is fast alseep, they becomes the self, since there is no ignorance to project the idea of difference. Hence also is this from free from desire, because there is nothing to be desired, and devoid of grief (Sokantara). 'Antara' means a break or gap; or it may mean the inside or core (Hence grief cannot hurt it, for it is its very self.). In either case, the meaning is that this form of the self is free from grief.

Translation By Max Müller

21. 'This indeed is his (true) form, free from desires, free from evil, free from fear [1]. Now as a man, when embraced by a beloved wife, knows nothing that is without, nothing that is within, thus this person, when embraced by the intelligent (prâgña) Self, knows nothing that is without, nothing that is within. This indeed is his (true) form, in which his wishes are fulfilled, in which the Self (only) is his wish, in which no wish is left,--free from any sorrow [2].

Footnote:

1. The Kânva text reads atikkhandâ apahatapâpmâ. Saṅkara explains atikkhandâ by atikkhandam, and excuses it as svâdhyâyadharmahthah. The Mâdhyandinas read atikkhando, but place the whole sentence where the Kânvas put âptakâmam &c., at the end of § 21. 2. The Kânvas read sokântaram, the Mâdhyandinas asokântaram, but the commentators arrive at the same result, namely, that it means sokasûnyam, free from grief Saṅkara says:- sokântaram sokakkhidram sokasûnyam ityetak, khokamadhyaman iti vi; sarvathâpy asokam. Dvivedagaṅga says:- na vidyate soko 'ntare madhye yasya tad asokântaram (ra, Weber) sokasûnyam.


Sloka : 4.3.22

मन्त्र २२[IV.iii.22]

अत्र पिताऽपिता भवति माताऽमाता लोका अलोका देवा अदेवा वेदा अवेदा

अत्र स्तेनोऽस्तेनो भवति भ्रूणहाऽभ्रूणहा चाण्डालोऽचण्डालः

पौल्कसोऽपौल्कसो श्रमणोऽश्रमण स्तापसोऽतापसोऽनन्वागतं

पुण्येनानन्वागतं पापेन अश्रमणस्तापससतापससनन्वागतस्पुण्येन

अनन्वागतस्पापेन तीर्णो हि तदा सर्वाञ्छोकान्हृदयस्य भवति ॥ २२॥

mantra 22[IV.iii.22]

atra pitā'pitā bhavati mātā'mātā lokā alokā devā adevā vedā avedā

atra steno'steno bhavati bhrūṇahā'bhrūṇahā cāṇḍālo'caṇḍālaḥ

paulkaso'paulkaso śramaṇo'śramaṇa stāpaso'tāpaso'nanvāgataṃ

puṇyenānanvāgataṃ pāpena aśramaṇastāpasasatāpasasananvāgataspuṇyena

ananvāgataspāpena tīrṇo hi tadā sarvāñchokānhṛdayasya bhavati .. 22..



Meaning:- In this state a father is no father, a mother no mother, worlds no worlds, the gods no gods, the Vedas no Vedas. In this state a thief is no thief, the killer of a noble Brahmana no killer, a Chandala no Chandala, a Pulkasa no Pulkasa, a monk no monk, a hermit no hermit. (This form of his) is untouched by good work and untouched by evil work, for he is then beyond all the woes of his heart (intellect).





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- It has been said that the self-effulgent Atman that is being described is free from ignorance, desire and work, for it is unattached, while they are adventitious. Here an objection is raised:- The Sruti has said that though the self is Pure Intelligence, it does not know anything (in the state of profound sleep) on account of its attaining unity, as in the case of a couple in each other's embrace. The Sruti has thereby practically said that like desire, work, etc., the self-effulgence of the Atman is not its nature, since it is not perceived in the state of profound sleep. This objection is refuted by a reference to the illustration of the couple in each other's embrace, and it is asserted that the self-effulgence is certainly present in profound sleep, but that it is not perceived on account of unity; it is not adventitious like desire, work, etc. Having incidentally mentioned this, the text takes up the topic under discussion, viz that the form of the self that is directly perceived in the state of profound sleep is free from ignorance, desire and work. Hence it is a statement of fact to describe this form as beyond all relations. Because in the state of profound sleep the self has a form that is 'beyond desire, free from evils and fearless,' therefore in this state a father is no father. His fatherhood towards the son, as being the begetter, is on account of action, from which he is dissociated in this state. Therefore the father, notwithstanding the fact of his being such, is no father, because he is entirely free from the action that relates him to the son. Similarly we understand by implication that the son also ceases to be a son to his father, for the relation of both is produced by action, and he is then beyond it, since it has been said, 'Free from evils' (IV. iii. 21).

Likewise a mother is no mother, worlds, which are either won or to be won through rites, are no worlds, owing to his dissociation from those rites. Similarly the gods, who are a part of the rites, are no gods, because he transcends his relation to those rites. The Vedas too, consisting of the Brahmanas, which describe the means, the goal and their relation, as well as the Mantras, and forming part of the rites, since they deal with them, whether already read or yet to be read, are connected with a man through those rites. Since he transcends those rites, the Vedas too are then no Vedas.
Not only is the man beyond his relation to his good actions, but he is also untouched by his terribly evil actions. So the text says:- In this state a thief, one who has stolen a Brahmana's gold --- we know this from his mention along with one who has killed a noble Brahmana --- is free from that dire action for
which he is called a thief, a despicable sinner. Similarly the killer of a noble Brahmana is no killer. Likewise a Candala, etc. Not only is a man free from the actions done by him in his present life, but he is also free from those dire actions of his past life that degrade him to an exceedingly low birth. A Candala is one born of a Surda father and a Brahmana mother. --- 'Candala' is but a variant of the same word. --- Not being connected with the work that caused his low birth, he is no Candala. A Pulkasa is one born of a Sudra father and a Ksatriya mother. --- 'Paulkasa' is a variant of the same word. --- He too is no Pulkasa. Similarly a man is dissociated from the duties of his particular order of life. For instance, a monk is no monk, being free from the duties that make him one. Likewise a hermit or recluse is no hermit. The two orders mentioned are suggestive of all the castes, orders, and so on.
In short, (this form of his) is untouched by good work, rites enjoined by the scriptures, as well as by evil work, the omission to perform such rites, and the committing of forbidden acts. The word 'untouched' is in the neuter gender inasmuch as it qualifies 'form,' the 'fearless form' of the preceding paragraph. What is the reason of its being untouched by them? The reason is being stated:- For he, the self of a nature described above, is then beyond all the woes, or desires. It is these desires for coveted things that in their absence are converted into woes. A man who has either failed to attain those things or lost them keeps ruminating on their good qualities and is afflicted. Hence woe, attachment and desire are synonyms. (The clause therefore means:-) Because in the state of profound sleep he transcends all desires; for it has been said, 'He craves no desires' (IV. iii. 19), and 'Beyond desires' (IV. iii. 21). Coming in the wake of those terms, the word 'woe' ought to mean desires. Desires again are the root of action; it will be stated later on, 'What it desires, it resolves; and what it resolves, it works out' (IV. iv. 5). Therefore, since he transcends all desires, it has been well said, 'It is untouched by good work,' etc.

Of his heart:- The heart is the lotus-shaped lump of flesh, but being the seat of the internal organ, intellect, it refers to that by a metonymy, as when we speak of cries from the chairs (meaning persons occupying them). The woes of his heart, or intellect --- for they abide there, since it has been said, 'Desire, resolve, (etc. are but the mind)' (I. v. 3). It will also be said later on, 'The desires that dwell in his heart' (IV. iv. 7). This and the other statement about 'the woes of his heart' repudiate the error that they dwell in the self, for it has been said that being no more related to the heart in the state of profound sleep, the self transcends the forms of death. Therefore it is quite appropriate to say that being no more related to the heart, it transcends the relation to desires abiding in the heart.
Those (The reference is to Bhartrprapanca.) who maintain that the desires and impressions dwelling in the heart go farther and affect the self, which is related to it, and even when it is dissociated from the self, they dwell in the latter, like the scent of flowers etc. in the oil in which they have been boiled, can find no meaning whatsoever for such scriptural statements, as, 'Desrie, resolve,' 'It is on the heart (mind) that colours rest' (III. ix. 20), 'The woes of his heart,' etc.

Objection:- They are referred to the intellect merely because they are produced through this organ.
Reply:- No, for they are specified in the words, '(That) dwell in (his) heart.' This and the other statement, 'It is on the heart that colours rest,' would hardly be consistent if the intellect were merely the instrument of their production. Since the purity of the self is the meaning intended to be conveyed, the statement that desires abide in the intellect is truly appropriate. It admits of no other interpretation, for the Sruti says, 'It thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were' (IV. iii. 7).
Objection:- The specification about 'desires that dwell in his heart' implies that there are others that dwell in the self too.
Reply:- No, for it demarcates these desires from those that are not then in the heart. In other words, the epithet 'that dwell in his heart' does not contrast this particular seat of desires with some other seats, but contrasts these desires with those that are not in the heart at the time. For instance, those that have not yet sprung up --- the future ones --- or those that are past, having been checked by contrary ideas, are surely not in the intellect; and yet they may crop up in future. Hence the specification in contradistinction to them is quite in order, meaning those desires regarding some object that have sprung up and are present in the intelligent.
Objection:- Still the specification would be redundant.
Reply:- No, because more attention should be paid to them as objects to be shunned. Otherwise, by ascribing the desires to the self, you would be holding a view that is contrary to the wording of the Sruti and is undesirable (As standing in the way of liberation.).
Objection:- But does not the negation of a fact of normal experience in the passage, 'He craves no desires' (IV. iii. 19), mean that the Sruti mentions the desires as being in the self?
Reply:- No, for the experience in question about the self being the seat of desires is due to an extraneous agency (the intellect), as is evidenced by the Sruti passage, 'Being identified with dream through its association with the intellect' (IV. iii. 7). Besides there is the statement about the self being unattached, which would be incongruous if the self were the seat of desires; we have already said that attachment is desire.
Objection:- May we not say from the Sruti text, 'To whom all objects of desire are but the Self' (IV. iv. 6), that the self has desires regarding itself?
Reply:- No, that passage only means the absence of any other object of desire than the self.
Objection:- Does not the reasoning of the Vaisesika and other systems support the view that the self is the seat of desires etc.?
Reply:- No; the arguments of the Vaisesika and other systems are to be disregarded, since they contradict such specific
statements of the Srutis as, '(That) dwell in (his) heart' (IV. iv. 7). Any reasoning that contradicts the Srutis is a fallacy. Moreover, the self-effulgence of the Atman is contradicted. That is to say, since in the dream state desires etc. are witnessed by Pure Intelligence only, the views in question would contradict the self-effulgence of the Atman, which is stated as a fact by the Srutis and is also borne out by reason; for if the desires etc. inhere in the self (As qualities do in a substance.), they cannot again be its objects, just as the eye cannot see its own particulars.
The self-effulgence of the witness, the self, has been proved on the ground that objects are different entities from the subject. This would be contradicted if the self were supposed to be the seat of desires etc. Besides it contradicts the teachings of all scriptures. If the individual self be conceived as a part of the Supreme Self and as possessing desires etc., the meaning of all the scriptures would be set at naught. We have explained this at length in the second chapter. In order to establish the meaning of the scriptures that the individual self is identical with the Supreme Self, the idea that it is the seat of desires etc. must be refuted with the greatest care. If, however, that view be put forward, the very meaning of the scriptures would be contradicted. Just as the Vaisesikas and Naiyayikas, holding that desire and so forth are attributes of the self, are in disharmony with the meaning of the Upanisads, so also is this view not to be entertained, because it contradicts the meaning of the Upanisads.
It has been said that the self does not see (in the state of profound sleep) on account of unity, as in the case of the couple, and that it is self-effulgent. Self-effulgent means being Pure Intelligence by nature. Now the question is, if this intelliegence is the very nature of the self, like the heat etc. of fire, how should it, in spite of the unity, give up its nature, and fail to know? And if it does not give up its nature, how is it that it does not see in the state of profound sleep? It is self-contradictory to say that intelligence is the nature of the self and, again, that it does not know. The answer is, it is not self-contradictory; both these are possible. How?

Translation By Max Müller

22. 'Then a father is not a father, a mother not a mother, the worlds not worlds, the gods not gods, the Vedas not Vedas. Then a thief is not a thief, a murderer not a murderer [1], a Kândâla [2] not a Kândâla, a Paulkasa [3] not a Paulkasa, a Sraman[4] not a Sramana, a Tâpasa [5] not a Tâpasa. He is not followed by good, not followed by evil, for he has then overcome all the sorrows of the heart [6].

Footnote:

1. Bhrûnahan, varishthabrabmahantâ. 2. The son of a Sûdra father and a Brâhmana mother. 3. The son of a Sûdra father and a Kshatriya mother. 4. A mendicant. 5. A Vânaprastha, who performs penances. 6. I have translated as if the text were ananvâgatah punyena ananvâgatah pâpena. We find anvâgata used in a similar way in §§ 15, 16, &c. But the Kânvas read ananvâgatam punyena ananvâgatam pâpena, and Saṅkara explains the neuter by referring it to rûpam (rûpaparatvân napumsakaliṅgam). The Mâdhyandinas, if we may trust Weber's edition, read ananvâgatah punyenânvâgatah pâpena. The second anvâgatah may be a mere misprint, but Dvivedagaṅga seems to have read ananvâgatam, like the Kânvas, for he says:- ananvâgatam iti rûpavishayo napumsakanirdesah.


Sloka : 4.3.23

मन्त्र २३[IV.iii.23]

यद्वै तन्न पश्यति पश्यन्वै तन्न पश्यति न हि

द्रष्टुर्दृष्टेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यतेऽविनाशित्वान् न तु तद्द्वितीयमस्ति

ततोऽन्यद्विभक्तं यत्पश्येत् ॥ २३॥

mantra 23[IV.iii.23]

yadvai tanna paśyati paśyanvai tanna paśyati na hi

draṣṭurdṛṣṭerviparilopo vidyate'vināśitvān na tu taddvitīyamasti

tato'nyadvibhaktaṃ yatpaśyet .. 23..



Meaning:- That it does not see in that state is because, though seeing then, it does not see; for the vision of the witness can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can see.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- That it does not see in that state of profound sleep is because, thought seeing then, it does not see. You think that it does not see in the state of profound sleep; but do not think so. Why? Because it is seeing then.

Objection:- But we know that in the state of profound sleep it does not see, because then neither the eye nor the mind, which are the instruments of vision, is working. It is only when the eye, ear, etc. are at work that we say one is seeing or hearing. But we do not find the organs working. Therefore we conclude that it must surely not be seeing.
Reply:- Certainly not; it is seeing; for the vision of the witness can never be lost. As the heat of fire lasts as long as the fire, so is the witness, the self, immortal, and because of this its vision too is imperishable; it lasts as long as the witness.
Objection:- Do you not contradict yourself by saying in the same breath that it is a vision of the witness, and that it is never lost? Vision is an act of the witness; one is called a witness just because one sees. Hence it is impossible to say that vision, which depends on an act of the witness, is never lost.
Reply:- It must be undying, because the Sruti says it is never lost.
Objection:- No, a Sruti text merely informs (it cannot alter a fact). The destruction of something that is artificially made is a logical necessity, and cannot be prevented even by a hundred texts, because a text only informs about a thing just as it is.
Reply:- The objection does not hold. The vision of the witness is possible, like the sun etc. revealing things. Just as the sun and the like are naturally ever-luminous and reveal things through their natural, constant light, and when we speak of them as revealing things, we do not mean that they are naturally non-luminous and only reveal things by a fresh act each time, but that they do not so through their natural, constant light, so is the self called witness on account of its imperishable, eternal vision.
Objection:- Then its function as a witness is secondary.
Reply:- No. Thus only can it be shown to be a witness in the primary sense of the word, because if the self were observed to exercise the function of seeing in any other way, then the former way might be secondary. But the self has no other method of seeing. Therefore thus only can we understand its being a witness in the primary sense, not otherwise. Just as the sun and other luminaries reveal things through their constant,
natural light, and not through one produced for the time being, (so is the self a witness through its eternal, natural intelligence), and that is its function as a witness in the primary sense, for there cannot be any other witness besides it. Therefore there is not the least trace of self-contradiction in the statement that the vision of the witness is never lost.

Objection:- We observe that words having the suffix 'trc' are used only to denote an agent of temporary acts, such as 'Chettr' (cutter), 'Bhettr' (breaker or piercer) and 'Gantr' (traveller). So why not the word 'Drastr' (seer or witness) also in that sense?
Reply:- No, for we see it otherwise in the word 'Prakasayitr' (revealer).
Objection:- We admit this in the case of luminous agencies, for there it can have no other sense, but not in the case of the self.
Reply:- Not so, for the Sruti says its vision is never lost.
Objection:- This is contradicted by our experience that we sometimes see and sometimes do not see.
Reply:- No, for this is simply due to particular activities of our organs. We observe also that those who have had their eyes removed keep the vision that belongs to the self intact in dream. Therefore the vision of the self is imperishable, and through that imperishable, self-luminous vision the Atman continues to see in the state of profound sleep.

How is it, then, that it does not see? This is being answered:- But there is not that second thing, the object, separate from it which it can see, or perceive. Those things that caused the particular visions (of the waking and dream states), viz the mind (with the self behind it), the eyes, and forms, were all presented by ignorance as something different from the self. They are now unified in the state of profound sleep, as the individual self has been embraced by the Supreme Self. Only when the self is under limitations, do the organs stand as something different to help it to particular experiences.
But it is now embraced by its own Supreme Self, which is Pure Intelligence and the Self of all, as a man is by his beloved wife. Hence the organs and objects do not stand as different entities; and since they are absent, there is no particular experience, for this is the product of the organs etc., not of the self, and only appears as the product of the self. Therefore it is an erroneous notion produced by this (absence of particular experience) that the vision of the self is lost.

Translation By Max Müller

23. 'And when (it is said that) there (in the Sushupti) he does not see, yet he is seeing, though he does not see [1]. For sight is inseparable from the seer, because it cannot perish. But there is then no second, nothing else different from him that he could see.

Footnote:

1. This is the old Upanishad argument that the true sense is the Self, and not the eye. Although therefore in the state of profound sleep, where the eye and the other senses rest, it might be said that the purusha does not see, yet he is a seer all the time, though he does not see with the eye. The seer cannot lose his character of seeing, as little as the fire can lose its character of burning, so long as it is fire. The Self sees by its own light, like the sun, even where there is no second, no object but the Self, that could be seen.


Sloka : 4.3.24

मन्त्र २४[IV.iii.24]

यद्वै तन्न जिघ्रति जिघ्रन्वै तन्न जिघ्रति न हि

घ्रातुर्घ्रातेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यतेऽविनाशित्वान् न तु तद्द्वितीयमस्ति

ततोऽन्यद्विभक्तं यज्जिघ्रेत् ॥ २४॥

mantra 24[IV.iii.24]

yadvai tanna jighrati jighranvai tanna jighrati na hi

ghrāturghrāterviparilopo vidyate'vināśitvān na tu taddvitīyamasti

tato'nyadvibhaktaṃ yajjighret .. 24..



Meaning:- That it does not smell in that state is because, though smelling then, it does not smell; for the smeller's function of smelling can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can smell.

Translation By Max Müller

24. 'And when (it is said that) there (in the Sushupti) he does not smell, yet he is smelling, though he does not smell. For smelling is inseparable from the smeller, because it cannot perish. But there is then no second, nothing else different from him that he could smell.


Sloka : 4.3.25

मन्त्र २५[IV.iii.25]

यद्वै तन्न रसयते रसयन्वै तन्न रसयते न हि रसयितू

रसयितेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यतेऽविनाशित्वान् न तु तद्द्वितीयमस्ति

ततोऽन्यद्विभक्तं यद्रसयेत् ॥ २५॥

mantra 25[IV.iii.25]

yadvai tanna rasayate rasayanvai tanna rasayate na hi rasayitū

rasayiterviparilopo vidyate'vināśitvān na tu taddvitīyamasti

tato'nyadvibhaktaṃ yadrasayet .. 25..



Meaning:- That it does not taste in that state is because, though tasting then, it does not taste; for the taster's function of tasting can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can taste.

Translation By Max Müller

25. 'And when (it is said that) there (in the Sushupti) he does not taste, yet he is tasting, though he does not taste. For tasting is inseparable from the taster, because it cannot perish. But there is then no second, nothing else different from him that he could taste.


Sloka : 4.3.26

मन्त्र २६[IV.iii.26]

यद्वै तन्न वदति वदन्वै तन्न वदति न हि वक्तुर्वक्तेर्विपरिलोपो

विद्यतेऽविनाशित्वान् न तु तद्द्वितीयमस्ति ततोऽन्यद्विभक्तं यद्वदेत् ॥ २६॥

mantra 26[IV.iii.26]

yadvai tanna vadati vadanvai tanna vadati na hi vakturvakterviparilopo

vidyate'vināśitvān na tu taddvitīyamasti tato'nyadvibhaktaṃ yadvadet .. 26..



Meaning:- That it does not speak in that state is because, though speaking then, it does not speak; for the speaker's function of speaking can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can speak.

Translation By Max Müller

26. 'And when (it is said that) there (in the Sushupti) he does not speak, yet he is speaking, though he does not speak. For speaking is inseparable from the speaker, because it cannot perish. But there is then no second, nothing else different from him that he could speak.


Sloka : 4.3.27

मन्त्र २७[IV.iii.27]

यद्वै तन्न श‍ृणोति श‍ृण्वन्वै तन्न श‍ृणोति न हि श्रोतुः

श्रुतेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यतेऽविनाशित्वान् न तु तद्द्वितीयमस्ति

ततोऽन्यद्विभक्तं यच्छृणुयात् ॥ २७॥

mantra 27[IV.iii.27]

yadvai tanna śṛṇoti śṛṇvanvai tanna śṛṇoti na hi śrotuḥ

śruterviparilopo vidyate'vināśitvān na tu taddvitīyamasti

tato'nyadvibhaktaṃ yacchṛṇuyāt .. 27..



Meaning:- That it does not hear in that state is because, though hearing then, it does not hear; for the listener's function of hearing can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can hear.

Translation By Max Müller

27. 'And when (it is said that) there (in the Sushupti) he does not hear, yet he is hearing, though he does not hear. For hearing is inseparable from the hearer, because it cannot perish. But. there is then no second, nothing else different from him that he could hear.


Sloka : 4.3.28

मन्त्र २८[IV.iii.28]

यद्वै तन्न मनुते मन्वानो वै तन्न मनुते न हि मन्तुर्मतेर्विपरिलोपो

विद्यतेऽविनाशित्वान् न तु तद्द्वितीयमस्ति ततोऽन्यद्विभक्तं

यन्मन्वीत ॥ २८॥

mantra 28[IV.iii.28]

yadvai tanna manute manvāno vai tanna manute na hi manturmaterviparilopo

vidyate'vināśitvān na tu taddvitīyamasti tato'nyadvibhaktaṃ

yanmanvīta .. 28..



Meaning:- That it does not think in that state is because, though thinking then, it does not think; for the thinker's function of thinking can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can think.

Translation By Max Müller

28. 'And when (it is said that) there (in the Sushupti) he does not think, yet he is thinking, though he does not think. For thinking is inseparable from the thinker, because it cannot perish. But there is then no second, nothing else different from him that he could think.


Sloka : 4.3.29

मन्त्र २९[IV.iii.29]

यद्वै तन्न स्पृशति स्पृशन्वै तन्न स्पृशति न हि स्प्रष्टुः

स्पृष्टेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यतेऽविनाशित्वान् न तु तद्द्वितीयमस्ति

ततोऽन्यद्विभक्तं यत्स्पृशेत् ॥ २९॥

mantra 29[IV.iii.29]

yadvai tanna spṛśati spṛśanvai tanna spṛśati na hi spraṣṭuḥ

spṛṣṭerviparilopo vidyate'vināśitvān na tu taddvitīyamasti

tato'nyadvibhaktaṃ yatspṛśet .. 29..



Meaning:- That it does not touch in that state is because, though touching then, it does not touch; for the toucher's function of touching can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can touch.

Translation By Max Müller

29. 'And when (it is said that) there (in the Sushupti) he does not touch, yet he is touching, though he does not touch. For touching is inseparable from the toucher, because it cannot perish. But there is then no second, nothing else different from him that he could think.


Sloka : 4.3.30

मन्त्र ३०[IV.iii.30]

यद्वै तन्न विजानाति विजानन्वै तन्न विजानाति न हि

विज्ञातुर्विज्ञातेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यतेऽविनाशित्वान् न तु तद्द्वितीयमस्ति

ततोऽन्यद्विभक्तं यद्विजानीयात् ॥ ३०॥

mantra 30[IV.iii.30]

yadvai tanna vijānāti vijānanvai tanna vijānāti na hi

vijñāturvijñāterviparilopo vidyate'vināśitvān na tu taddvitīyamasti

tato'nyadvibhaktaṃ yadvijānīyāt .. 30..



Meaning:- That it does not know in that state is because, though knowing then, it does not know; for the knower's function of knowing can never be lost, because it is imperishable. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can know.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- The rest is to be similarly explained:- That it does not smell, That it does not taste, That is does not speak, That it does not hear, That it does not think, That it does not touch, That it does not know. Though thinking and knowing are aided by vision etc., yet they have activities concerning objects past, present and future that do not depend on the eyes and other organs. Hence they are separately mentioned.
Now the question is, are the vision and so forth attributes different from the self and from one another, like the heat, light, combustion, etc. of fire, or are they different phases of an attribute identical with the self, the difference being caused only by extraneous limiting adjuncts? On this some (Bhartrprapanca is meant.) say:- The self is an entity that by itself has both unity and difference, just as a cow is one as a substance, but its features, the dewlap etc., are different from one another. As gross substances have both unity and difference, so we can infer that formless substances without parts also have both unity and difference. Since this is observed to be the universal rule, the vision and so forth belonging to the self are different from one another, but as the self they are one. To this we reply:- No, for the passage in question has a different meaning. The passage, 'That it does not see in that state,' etc. does not mean to show that the vision and so forth are attributes different from the self, but it is introduced in order to answer the following objection:- If the Atman be self-luminous intelligence, how is it that it does not know in the state of profound sleep? Surely then it must be otherwise. This is how it is being answered:- Its natural self-luminous intelligence manifests itself in the waking and dream states through many such limiting adjuncts as the eyes, and comes to be designated as vision etc. But in the state of profound sleep, owing to the cessation of activities of the different limiting adjuncts, viz the mind and organs, these latter do not appear, and therefore the nature of the self cannot be perceived as differentiated by them. Nevertheless, it is spoken of as being present in a way that is a mere recapitulation of normal experience. Hence the view that the passage in question presents the attributes, such as vision, as different from the self, is based on an ignorance of its true meaning.
Moreover, it would be in conflict with the Sruti text that speaks of the self as homogeneous Pure Intelligence, like a lump of salt, and also with texts like the following:- 'Knowledge, Bliss' (III. ix. 28), 'Truth, Knowledge' (Tai. II. i. 1), and 'Intelligence is Brahman' (Ai. V. 3). From the common use of words also we know this. We often use such expressions as, 'One knows colour through the eyes,' 'One knows sound through the ears,' 'One knows the taste of food through the tongue,' etc., which show that the objects denoted by the words 'vision' etc. can be designated as knowledge alone. And the use of words is a means of knowledge.

Examples also corroborate this view. Just as in the world as crystal is naturally transparent, and for that very reason it assumes different colours through juxtapostion with different limiting adjuncts, such as green, blue, or red colour, yet no one can imagine that crystal has any other attribute but its natural transparency, such as green, blue, or red colour, similarly the different powers of vision etc. are observed in the light called the self, which is naturally Pure Intelligence, simply owing to its juxtaposition with such limiting adjuncts as the eyes, because Pure Intelligence, like the crystal, is naturally transparent. The self-luminosity of the Atman is another reason. Just as the light of the sun, coming in contact with things to be illumined, appears as green, blue, yellow, red, and so on, though in reality, it cannot be so divided, so does the light called the self; revealing the whole universe as also the eyes etc., assume their likeness. This has been stated in the passage, 'It is through the light of the self that he sits,' etc. (IV. iii. 6).
Besides, substances that have no parts cannot be conceived as multiple, for there is no such example. Though the ether is conceived as possessing diverse attributes such as all-pervasiveness, and atoms as possessing various qualities, such as odour and savour, yet, when discrimintated, these prove to be due only to extraneous limiting adjuncts. The ether, for instance, has no attribute of its own called all-pervasiveness; it is through its association with the universe as a limiting adjunct that it is designated as all-pervading; but as a matter of fact it is present everywhere in its natural form. The question of going or coming does not arise with regard to the ether in itself, for going is an action that connects something existing at a particular place with some other place, and this action is impossible in a thing that admits of no differentiation. Similarly, different attributes can never be in the ether. The same is also true of atoms etc. An atom, say of earth, which consists only of odour, is the minutest particle of it, and is itself odour; one cannot conceive that it again has a property called odour. It may be urged that an atom can have savour etc. But that is due to its contact with water and so on. Therefore there is no example to prove that a substance which has no parts can possess many attributes. This also refutes the view that the powers of vision and so forth of the Supreme Self can have different modifications such as the eye and colours.

Translation By Max Müller

30. 'And when (it is said that) there (in the Sushupti) he does not know, yet he is knowing, though he does not know. For knowing is inseparable from the knower, because it cannot perish. But there is then no second, nothing else different from him that he could know.


Sloka : 4.3.31

मन्त्र ३१[IV.iii.31]

यत्र वा अन्यदिव स्यात् तत्रान्योऽन्यत्पश्येदन्योऽन्यज्जिघ्रेद्

अन्योऽन्यद्रसयेदन्योऽन्यद्वदेदन्योऽन्यच्छृणुयादन्योऽन्यन्मन्वीता

न्योऽन्यत्स्पृशेदन्योऽन्यद्विजानीयात् ॥ ३१॥

mantra 31[IV.iii.31]

yatra vā anyadiva syāt tatrānyo'nyatpaśyedanyo'nyajjighred

anyo'nyadrasayedanyo'nyadvadedanyo'nyacchṛṇuyādanyo'nyanmanvītā

nyo'nyatspṛśedanyo'nyadvijānīyāt .. 31..



Meaning:- When there is something else, as it were, then one can see something, one can smell something, one can taste something, one can speak something, one can hear something, one can think something, one can touch something, or one can know something.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- It has been said that in the state of profound sleep there is not, as in the waking and dream states, that second thing differentiated from the self which it can know; hence it knows no particulars in profound sleep. Here it is objected:- If this is its nature, why does it give up that nature and have particular knowledge? If, on the other hand, it is its nature to have this kind of knowledge, why does it not know particulars in the state of profound sleep? The answer is this:- When, in the waking or dream state, there is something else besides the self, as it were, presented by ignorance, then one, thinking of oneself as different from that something --- though there is nothing different from the self, nor is there any self different from it --- can see something. This has been shown by a reference to one's experience in the dream state in the passage, 'As if he were being killed, or overpowered' (IV. iii. 20). Similarly one can smell, taste, speak, hear, think, touch and know something.

Translation By Max Müller

31. 'When (in waking and dreaming) there is, as it were, another, then can one see the other, then can one smell the other, then can one speak to the other, then can one hear the other, then can one think the other, then can one touch the other, then can one know the other.


Sloka : 4.3.32

मन्त्र ३२[IV.iii.32]

सलिल एको द्रष्टाद्वैतो भवत्येष ब्रह्मलोकः सम्राड् इति

हैनमनुशशास याज्ञवल्क्य। एषास्य परमा गतिरेषास्य परमा सम्पद्

एषोऽस्य परमो लोक एषोऽस्य परम आनन्द एतस्यैवाऽऽनन्दस्यान्यानि

भूतानि मात्रामुपजीवन्ति ॥ ३२॥

mantra 32[IV.iii.32]

salila eko draṣṭādvaito bhavatyeṣa brahmalokaḥ samrāḍ iti

hainamanuśaśāsa yājñavalkya. eṣāsya paramā gatireṣāsya paramā sampad

eṣo'sya paramo loka eṣo'sya parama ānanda etasyaivā''nandasyānyāni

bhūtāni mātrāmupajīvanti .. 32..



Meaning:- It becomes (transparent) like water, one, the witness, and without a second. This is the sphere )(state) of Brahman, O Emperor. Thus did Yajnavalkya instruct Janaka:- This is its supreme attainment, this is its supreme glory, this is its highest world, this is its supreme bliss. On a particle of this very bliss other beings live.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- When, however, that ignorance which presents things other than the self is at rest, in that state of deep sleep, there being nothing separated from the self by ignorance, what should one see, smell, or know, and through what? Therefore, being fully embraced by his own self-luminous Supreme Self, the Jiva (individual self) becomes infinite, perfectly serene, with all his desires, attained, and the Self the only object of his desires, transparent like water, one, because there is no second:- It is ignorance that separates a second entity, and that is at rest in the state of profound sleep; hence 'one'. The witness, because the vision that is identical with the light of the self is never lost. And without a second, for there, is no second entity different from the self to be seen. This is immortal and fearless. This is the sphere of Brahman, the world that is Brahman:- In profound sleep the self, bereft of its limiting adjuncts, the body and organs, remains in its own supreme light of the Atman, free from all relations, O Emperor. Thus did Yajnavalkya instruct Janaka. This is spoken by the Sruti.

How did he instruct him? This is its supreme attainment, the attainment of the individual self. The other attainments, characterised by the taking of a body, from the state of Hiranyagarbha down to that of a clump of grass, are created by ignorance and therefore inferior to this, being within the sphere of ignorance. But this identification with all, in which one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, knows nothing else, is the highest of all attainments, such as identity with the gods, that are achieved through meditation and rites. This too is its supreme glory; the highest of all its splendours, being natural to it; other glories are artificial. Likewise this is its highest world; the other worlds, which are the result of its past work, are inferior to it; this, however, is not attainable by any action, being natural; hence 'this is its highest world.' Similarly this is its supreme bliss, in comparison with the other joys that are produced by the contact of the organs with their objects, since it is eternal; for another Sruti says, 'That which is infinite is bliss' (Ch. VII. xxiii. 1). 'That in which one sees something ' knows something, is puny,' mortal, secondary joy. But this is the opposite of that; hence 'this is its supreme bliss.' On a particle of this very bliss, projected by ignorance, and perceived only during the contact of the organs with their objects, other beings live. Who are they? Those that have been separated from that bliss by ignorance, and are considered different from Brahman. Being thus different, they subsist on a fraction of that bliss which is perceived through the contact of the organs with their objects.

Translation By Max Müller

32. 'An ocean [1] is that one seer, without any duality; this is the Brahma-world [2], O King.' Thus did Yâgñavalkya teach him. This is his highest goal, this is his highest Success, this is his highest world, this is his highest bliss. All other creatures live on a small portion of that bliss.

Footnote:

1. Salila is explained as salilavat, like the ocean, the seer being one like the ocean, which is one only. Dr. Deussen takes salila as a locative, and translates it 'In dem Gewoge,' referring to Svetâsvatara-upanishad VI, 15. 2. Or this seer is the Brahma-world, dwells in Brahman, or is Brahman.


Sloka : 4.3.33

मन्त्र ३३[IV.iii.33]

स यो मनूष्याणाꣳ राद्धः समृद्धो भवत्यन्येषामधिपतिः

सर्वैर्मानुष्यकैर्भोगैः सम्पन्नतमः अन्येषां सम्पन्नतमस्स

मनुष्याणां परम आनन्दोऽथ ये शतं मनुष्याणामानन्दाः स एकः

पितृणां जितलोकानामानन्दोऽथ ये शतं पितृणां जितलोकानामानन्दाः

स एको गन्धर्वलोक आनन्दोऽथ ये शतं गन्धर्वलोक आनन्दाः

स एकः कर्मदेवानामानन्दो ये कर्मणा देवत्वमभिसम्पद्यन्तेऽथ

ये शतं कर्मदेवानामानन्दाः स एक आजानदेवानामानन्दो यश्च

श्रोत्रियोऽवृजिनोऽकामहतोऽथ ये शतमाजानदेवानामानन्दाः

स एकः प्रजापतिलोक आनन्दो यश्च श्रोत्रियोऽवृजिनोऽकामहतो

अथ ये शतं प्रजापतिलोक आनन्दाः स एको ब्रह्मलोक आनन्दो यश्च

श्रोत्रियोऽवृजिनोऽकामहतोऽथैष एव परम आनन्द एष ब्रह्मलोकः

सम्राड् इति होवाच याज्ञवल्क्यः । सोऽहं भगवते सहस्रं ददाम्यत

ऊर्ध्वं विमोक्षायैव ब्रूहीत्यत्र ह याज्ञवल्क्यो बिभयांचकारः

मेधावी राजा सर्वेभ्यो माऽन्तेभ्य उदरौत्सीदिति ॥ ३३॥

mantra 33[IV.iii.33]

sa yo manūṣyāṇāgͫ rāddhaḥ samṛddho bhavatyanyeṣāmadhipatiḥ

sarvairmānuṣyakairbhogaiḥ sampannatamaḥ anyeṣāṃ sampannatamassa

manuṣyāṇāṃ parama ānando'tha ye śataṃ manuṣyāṇāmānandāḥ sa ekaḥ

pitṛṇāṃ jitalokānāmānando'tha ye śataṃ pitṛṇāṃ jitalokānāmānandāḥ

sa eko gandharvaloka ānando'tha ye śataṃ gandharvaloka ānandāḥ

sa ekaḥ karmadevānāmānando ye karmaṇā devatvamabhisampadyante'tha

ye śataṃ karmadevānāmānandāḥ sa eka ājānadevānāmānando yaśca

śrotriyo'vṛjino'kāmahato'tha ye śatamājānadevānāmānandāḥ

sa ekaḥ prajāpatiloka ānando yaśca śrotriyo'vṛjino'kāmahato

atha ye śataṃ prajāpatiloka ānandāḥ sa eko brahmaloka ānando yaśca

śrotriyo'vṛjino'kāmahato'thaiṣa eva parama ānanda eṣa brahmalokaḥ

samrāḍ iti hovāca yājñavalkyaḥ . so'haṃ bhagavate sahasraṃ dadāmyata

ūrdhvaṃ vimokṣāyaiva brūhītyatra ha yājñavalkyo bibhayāṃcakāraḥ

medhāvī rājā sarvebhyo mā'ntebhya udarautsīditi .. 33..



Meaning:- He who is perfect of physique and prosperous among men, the ruler of others, and most lavishly supplied with all human enjoyments, represents greatest joy among men. This human joy multiplied a hundred times makes one unit of joy for the manes who have won that world of theirs. The joy of these manes who have won that world multiplied a hundred times makes one unit joy in the world of the celestial minstrels. This joy in the world of the celestial minstrels multiplied a hundred times makes one unit of joy for the gods by action - those who have attained their godhead by their actions. This joy of the gods by action multiplied a hundred times makes one unit of joy for the gods by birth, as also of one who is versed in the Vedas, sinless and free from desire. This joy of the gods by birth multiplied a hundred times makes one unit of joy in the world of Prajapati (Viraj), as well as one who is versed in the Vedas, sinless and free from desire. This joy in the world of Prajapati multiplied a hundred times makes one unit of joy in the world of Brahman (Hiranyagarbha), as well as of one who is versed in the Vedas, sinless and free from desire. This indeed is the supreme bliss. This is the state of Brahman, O Emperor, said Yajnavalkya. 'I give you a thousand (cows), sir. Please instruct me further about liberation itself'. At this Yajnavalkya was afraid that the intelligent Emperor was constraining him to finish with all his conclusions.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- (It has been said that) all beings from Hiranyagarbha down to men live on particles or fractions of the supreme bliss. In order to convey an idea of this bliss as a whole through its parts, as of a rock of salt through its grains, the present paragraph is introduced. He who is perfect of physique, having no physical defects, and prosperous, provided with luxuries, among men; also the ruler of others, the independent lord of people of the same class, not a mere provincial ruler; and most lavishly supplied with all human enjoyments --- the adjective 'human' excludes the materials of heavenly enjoyment; he is the foremost among those who possess all these human luxuries --- represents (lit. is) the greatest joy among men. The identity of joy and its possessor in this sentence ('joy' meaning 'enjoyer') indicates that this joy is not different from the self. For it has been said in the passage, 'When there is something else, as it were,' etc. (IV. iii. 21), that the lower degrees of bliss have only emanated from the supreme bliss in the dual form of subject and object; hence it is but proper to bring out this identity in the phrase 'greatest joy'. Kings like Yudhisthira are examples in point. The Sruti teaches us about this supreme bliss, in which differences cease, by making a start with human joy, which we all know, and multiplying it a hundred times in successive steps. Now, where this joy increasing a hundred times at each step reaches its limit, and where mathematical differences cease, there being nothing else but the self to be see, hear or think, that is the supreme bliss, and in order to describe this the text proceeds:-
This human joy multiplied a hundred times makes one unit of joy for the manes. They are qualified by the clause 'who have won that world of theirs,' i.e. who have pleased the manes by the performance of obsequial rites etc., and have won their way to their world. Their measure of joy is the human joy multiplied a hundred times. That again multiplied a hundred times makes one unit of joy in the world of the celestial minstrels. That again multiplied a hundred times makes one unit of joy for the gods of action --- those who have attained their godhead by their actions, such as the Agjnihotra enjoined by the Srutis. Similarly one unit of joy for the gods by birth, those who are gods from their very birth, as well as of one who is versed in the Vedas, sinless, i.e. doing what is prescribed by the scriptures, and free from desire for all objects below the level of the gods by birth. That his joy equals theirs is gathered from the word 'ca' (and) in the text. That multiplied a hundred times makes one unit of joy in the world of Prajapati, i.e. in the body of Viraj, as well as of one who is versed in the Vedas, sinless and free from desire --- this has already been explained --- and who meditates on him. That multiplied a hundred times makes one unit of joy in the world of Brahman, i.e. in the body of Hiranyagarbha, as well as of one who, etc. --- already explained. After this mathematical calculations cease.
This has been called the supreme bliss, of which the joys in the world of Hiranyagarbha etc. are but particles, like drops of an ocean.

That in which the other joys, increasing step by step in multiples of hundred, merge, and which is experienced by one versed in the Vedas, is indeed the supreme bliss called Samprasada (that experienced in profound sleep); for in it one sees nothing else, hears nothing else (and so on). Hence it is infinite, and for that reason immortal; the other joys are the opposite of that. The Vedic erudition and sinlessness (mentioned above) are common to the other joys too. It is the difference made by the absence of desire that leads to the increase of joy a hundred times. Here it is suggested by implication that Vedic erudition, sinlessness and the absence of desire are the means of attaining the particular types of joy; as such rites as the Agnihotra are means to the attainment of godhead by the gods. Of these, the two factors, Vedic erudition and sinlessness, are common to the lower planes too; hence they are not regarded as means to the attainment of the succeeding kinds of joy. For this the absence of desire is understood to be the means, since it admits of degrees of renunciation. This supreme bliss is known to be the experience of the Vedic scholar who is free from desire. Vedavyasa also says, 'The sense-pleasures of this world and the great joys of heaven are not worth one-sixteenth part of the bliss that comes of the cessation of desire' (Mbh. XII. c1xxiii. 47).
This is the state of Brahman, O Emperor, said Yajnavalkya. For this instruction I give you a thousand cows, sir.
Please instruct me further about liberation itself --- this has been explained. At this last request Yajnavalkya was afraid --- the Sruti tells us the reason of his fear:- he was afraid, not for his lack of ability to teach or for ignorance, but --- that the intelligent Emperor was constraining him to finish with all his conclusions. 'Whatever questions of his regarding liberation I answer, the Emperor, being intelligent, takes all to be but a part of the questions that he is at liberty to ask me, and every time puts me new questions to answer. On the plea of asking his wished-for questions covered by the boon, he wants to possess all my knowledge' --- this was the cause of Yajnavalkya's fear.

Translation By Max Müller

33. 'If a man is healthy, wealthy, and lord of others, surrounded by all human enjoyments, that is the highest blessing of men. Now a hundred of these human blessings make one blessing of the fathers who have conquered the world (of the fathers). A hundred blessings of the fathers who have conquered this world make one blessing in the Gandharva world. A hundred blessings in the Gandharva world make one blessing of the Devas by merit (work, sacrifice), who obtain their godhead by merit. A hundred blessings of the Devas by merit make one blessing of the Devas by birth, also (of) a Srotriya [1] who is without sin, and not overcome by desire. A hundred blessings of the Devas by birth make one blessing in the world of Pragâpati, also (of) a Srotriya who is without sin, and not overcome. by desire. A hundred blessings in the world of Pragâpati make one blessing in the world of Brahman, also (of) a Srotriya who is without sin, and not overcome by desire. And this is the highest blessing [2]. 'This is the Brahma-world, O king,' thus spake Yâgñavalkya. Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'I give you, Sir, a thousand. Speak on for the sake of (my) emancipation.' Then Yâgñavalkya was afraid lest the King, having become full of understanding, should drive him from all his positions [3].

Footnote:

1. An accomplished student of the Veda. 2. See Taitt. Up. II, 8, p. 59; Khând. Up. VIII, 2, 1-10; Kaush. Up. I, 3-5; Regnaud, II, p. 33 seq. 3. Saṅkara explains that Yâgñavalkya was not afraid that his own knowledge might prove imperfect, but that the king, having the right to ask him any question he liked, might get all his knowledge from him.


Sloka : 4.3.34

मन्त्र ३४[IV.iii.34]

स वा एष एतस्मिन्स्वप्नान्ते रत्वा चरित्वा दृष्ट्वैव पुण्यं च पापं

च पुनः प्रतिन्यायं प्रतियोन्याद्रवति बुद्धान्तायैव ॥ ३४॥

mantra 34[IV.iii.34]

sa vā eṣa etasminsvapnānte ratvā caritvā dṛṣṭvaiva puṇyaṃ ca pāpaṃ

ca punaḥ pratinyāyaṃ pratiyonyādravati buddhāntāyaiva .. 34..



Meaning:- After enjoying himself and roaming in the dream state, and merely seeing the effects of merits and demerits, he comes back, in the inverse order, to his former condition, the waking state.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- It has been shown (par. 9) that the individual self becomes itself the light in dream. Further on it has also been shown, by a reference to its moving between the dream and waking states, that it is different from the body and organs, and by the illustration of the great fish, that it is free from desire and work on account of its non-attachment. Again the effects of ignorance in the dream state have been shown in the passage, 'As if he were being killed,' etc. By implication the nature of ignorance too has been ascertained as the superimpostion of attributes other than the true ones, and as not being a natural attribute of the self. Similarly the effects of knowledge too have been shown in the dream state, by a reference to one's experience, as identity with all, in the passage, 'When he thinks, 'This (universe) is myself, who am all,' that is his highest state' (IV. iii. 20). It has also been stated that identity with all, which is its nature --- its transcendent form, in which it is free from all such relative attributes as ignorance, desire and work --- is directly experienced in the state of profound sleep. The Atman is self-luminous and is the supreme bliss; this is the subject-matter of knowledge; this is the perfectly serene state, and the culmination of happiness --- all this has been explained by the foregoing passages. And they are illustrations of liberation and bondage, which are the effects of knowledge and ignorance respectively. These two have been indicated with their causes and effects.
But Janaka, mistaking that all that has merely been an illustration, thinks that liberation and bondage, which are the themes they seek to illustrate, are yet to be explained together with their causes by Yajnavalkya, as coming under his wished-for questions covered by the boon. Hence his fresh request:- 'Please instruct me further about liberation itself.'
Now it has been said that the same self-luminous Atman moves unattached like a great fish between the dream and waking states. As it moves like the great fish between these two states, alternately relinquishing and taking up the body and organs, which are the forms of death, so at the time of death and birth it is alternately disconnected from and connected with those very forms of death. Its journey, referred to in the passage, 'It moves between the two worlds,' was barely indicated as the theme that was illustrated by its moving between the dream and waking states. That journey with its causes has to be described at length; hence the rest of this section. In a preceding paragraph (par. 17) the self has been spoken of as going from the waking to the dream state, and thence to the state of profound sleep, which is the illustration for liberation. The present paragraph is related to that, since it seeks to show how, coming down from that state, it goes through the relative activities of the waking state. The Jiva, passing from the waking to the dream state, and thence to the state of profund sleep, stays there for a while; then he comes slightly down, and after enjoying himself and roaming in the dream state, etc. --- all this has been explained --- he comes back to the waking state.

Translation By Max Müller

34. And Yâgñavalkya said:- 'That (person), having enjoyed himself in that state of sleeping (dream), having moved about and seen both good and bad, hastens back again as he came, to the place from which he started, to the state of waking [1].

Footnote:

1.


Sloka : 4.3.35

मन्त्र ३५[IV.iii.35]

तद्यथाऽनः सुसमाहितमुत्सर्जद्यायादेवमेवायꣳ शारीर आत्मा

प्राज्ञेनाऽऽत्मनाऽन्वारूढ उत्सर्जन्याति यत्रैतदूर्ध्वोच्छ्वासी

भवति ॥ ३५॥ उत्सर्जम् याति यत्रैतदूर्ध्वोच्छ्वासी भवति ॥ ३५॥

mantra 35[IV.iii.35]

tadyathā'naḥ susamāhitamutsarjadyāyādevamevāyagͫ śārīra ātmā

prājñenā''tmanā'nvārūḍha utsarjanyāti yatraitadūrdhvocchvāsī

bhavati .. 35.. utsarjam yāti yatraitadūrdhvocchvāsī bhavati .. 35..



Meaning:- Just as a cart, heavily loaded, goes on rumbling, so does the self that is in the body, being presided over by the Supreme Self, go making noises, when breathing becomes difficult.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- From here onwards transmigration of the self is being described. To show that as the self came from the dream to the waking state, so it will pass from this body to the next, an example is being given:- Just as in life a cart, fully or heavily loaded with utensils and other such household effects as a mortar and pestle, a winnowing-fan and cooking vessels, as also eatables, goes on rumbling under the load, driven by the carter, so does the self that is in the body, i.e. the self that has the subtle body as its limiting adjunct, which moves between this and the next world, as between the waking and dream states, through birth and death, consisting respectively in the association with and dissolution from the body and organs, called evils, and the departure of which is immediately followed by that of the vital force etc., being presided over, or revelaed, by the self-luminous Supreme Self, go making noises. As has been said, 'It is through the light of the self that he sits, goes out,' etc. (IV. iii. 6).

It should be noted here that when the subtle body, which has the vital force as its chief constituent, and which is revealed by the self-luminous Atman, goes, the self, of which it is the limiting adjunct also seems to go. As another Sruti says, 'On whose (departure must I depart)?' (Pr. VI. 3), and 'It thinks, as it were' (IV. iii. 7). Hence the text says, 'Presided over by the Supreme Self.' Otherwise how can the self, being unified with the Supreme Self, go making noises like a cart? Therefore (the meaning is that) the self, with the subtle body as its limiting adjunct, goes making noises (the death rattle), afflicted by the feeling of pain as the vital parts are slashed. When does that happen? When breathing becomes difficult --- when the man is gasping for breath. The word 'etat' is an adverb (meaning 'thus'). Although this is an occurrence that is commonly observed, the Sruti repeats it only to stimulate a spirit of renunciation in us. So miserable is this relative existence! Since at the time of death the vital parts are slashed, causing loss of memory and putting a man in a helpless state of mind on account of the pangs felt, so that he cannot adopt the requisite means for his well-being, therefore, before that crisis comes, he must be alert in practising the means conducive to that end. This is what the Sruti says out of compassion.

Translation By Max Müller

35. 'Now as a heavy-laden carriage moves along groaning, thus does this corporeal Self, mounted by the intelligent Self, move along groaning, when a man is thus going to expire [1].

Footnote:

1.


Sloka : 4.3.36

मन्त्र ३६[IV.iii.36]

स यत्रायमणिमानं न्येति जरया वोपतपता वाऽणिमानं निगच्छति

तद्यथाऽऽम्रं वोदुम्बरं वा पिप्पलं वा बन्धनात्प्रमुच्यत एवमेवायं

पुरुष एभ्योऽङ्गेभ्यः सम्प्रमुच्य पुनः प्रतिन्यायं प्रतियोन्याद्रवति

प्राणायैव ॥ ३६॥ प्राणाय एव

mantra 36[IV.iii.36]

sa yatrāyamaṇimānaṃ nyeti jarayā vopatapatā vā'ṇimānaṃ nigacchati

tadyathā''mraṃ vodumbaraṃ vā pippalaṃ vā bandhanātpramucyata evamevāyaṃ

puruṣa ebhyo'ṅgebhyaḥ sampramucya punaḥ pratinyāyaṃ pratiyonyādravati

prāṇāyaiva .. 36.. prāṇāya eva



Meaning:- When this (body) becomes thin - is emaciated through old age or disease - then, as a mango, or a fig, or a fruit of the Peepul tree is detached from its stalk, so does this infinite being, completely detaching himself from the parts of the body, again go, in the same way that he came, to particular bodies, for the unfoldment of his vital force.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- When, and owing to what, does that difficulty of breath take place? How does it take place, and what for? The answers to these questions are being given:- When this human body that is a product of ignorance, with a head, hands, etc., becomes thin. Why? Through old age, being naturally worn out like a fruit ripened by time, or disease, literally, that which causes affliction, hence, fever etc. Afflicted with disease, the body, owing to impaired digestion, cannot digest the food that is eaten, and not being nourished by its essence, gets thin. This is what is meant by the expression 'or through disease.' When the body is extremely emaciated by fever and other causes, dyspnoea sets in, and at this stage the man goes making noises like the overloaded cart. Whosoever has a body must be overtaken by old age, suffer from disease etc., and have leanness; these are inevitable evils. The fact is mentioned to generate a spirit of renunciation in us.

How he leaves the body when he goes making noises is being described through an illustration. Then, as a mango, or a fig, or a fruit of the peepul tree, etc. The citing of many and dissimilar examples is for the purpose of stating that death may come from any cause, since the causes of death are indefinite and innumerable. This too is for stimulating renunciation:- Since he is subject to death from so many causes, he is always in the jaws of death. Is detached from its stalk (Bandhana):- The word 'Bandhana' may mean the sap that binds it to the stalk, or it may mean the stalk to which it is attached. As the fruit is detached from the sap or the stalk by the wind and many other causes, so does this infinite being, the self that is identified with the subtle body, i.e. has this as its limiting adjunct, completely detaching himself from the parts of the body, such as the eye --- not preserving the body through the vital force, as he does when he goes into the state of profound sleep, but withdrawing the organs together with the vital force --- again go, etc. The word 'again' suggests that he has before this also gone many a time from one body to another, as he moves frequently between the dream and waking states. In the same way that he came to his present body, to particular bodies, according to his past work, knowledge, and so forth. What for? For the unfoldment of his vital force:- Though literally it would mean 'for the vital force,' yet, since he goes along with it, the epithet would be meaningless. He goes from one body to another only for the unfoldment of the vital force. It is by this means, and not by the mere existence of the vital force, that he fulfils his object, viz. the enjoyment of the results of his work. Therefore in order that the vital force may be auxiliary to that, the specification 'for the unfoldment of his vital force' is appropriate.
Now it may be objected:- When the Jiva goes leaving this body, he has no power to take up another, for he is disscoiated from his body and organs. Nor are there others who, like servants, would wait for him with another body made ready, as a king's retinue waits for him with a house kept ready. How under the circumstances can he take up another body? The answer is:- He has adopted the whole universe as his means to the realisation of the results of his work; and he is going from one body to another to fulfill this object. Therefore the whole universe, impelled by his work, waits for him with the requisite means for the realisation of the results of his work made ready. Witness the Sruti:- 'A man is born into the body that has been made for him' (S. VI. II. ii. 27). It is analogous to the case of a man about to return from the dream to the waking state. The process is being explained by a familiar illustration:-

Translation By Max Müller

36. 'And when (the body) grows weak through old age, or becomes weak through illness, at that time that person, after separating himself from his members, as an Amra (mango), or Udumbara (fig), or Pippala-fruit is separated from the stalk, hastens back again as be came, to the place from which he started, to (new) life.


Sloka : 4.3.37

मन्त्र ३७[IV.iii.37]

तद्यथा राजानमायन्तमुग्राः प्रत्येनसः सूतग्रामण्योऽन्नैः

पानैरवसथैः प्रतिकल्पन्ते अयमायात्ययमागच्छतीत्येवꣳ

हैवंविदꣳ सर्वाणि भूतानि प्रतिकल्पन्त इदं

ब्रह्माऽऽयातीदमागच्छतीति ॥ ३७॥

mantra 37[IV.iii.37]

tadyathā rājānamāyantamugrāḥ pratyenasaḥ sūtagrāmaṇyo'nnaiḥ

pānairavasathaiḥ pratikalpante ayamāyātyayamāgacchatītyevagͫ

haivaṃvidagͫ sarvāṇi bhūtāni pratikalpanta idaṃ

brahmā''yātīdamāgacchatīti .. 37..



Meaning:- Just as when a king is coming, the Ugras set against particular offences, the Sutas and the leaders of the village wait for him with varieties of food and drink and mansions ready, saying, 'Here he comes, here he comes', so for the person who knows about the results of his work, all the elements wait saying, 'Here comes Brahman, here he comes'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Just as when a king, duly installed on the throne, is coming to some place within his kingdom, the Ugras, a particular caste, or so called from their fierce deeds, set against particular offences, appointed to punish thieves etc., the Sutas, a hybrid caste, and the leaders of the village, anticipating the king's visit, wait for him with varieties of food, such as those that are chewed or otherwise eaten, and drink, such as wine, and mansions, such as palaces, ready, saying, 'Here he comes, here he comes,' so for the person who knows about the results of his work, i.e. the transmigrating self --- for the results of one's work are the topic under consideration, and they are referred to by the word 'evam' (thus) --- all the elements that make up his body, together with the presiding deities, Indra and the rest, who help the organs to function, wait with the means of enjoying the fruits of his work made ready --- being impelled by his work, saying, 'Here comes Brahman,' our enjoyer and master, 'here he comes'.

Translation By Max Müller

37. 'And as policemen, magistrates, equerries, and governors wait for a king who is coming back, with food and drink, saying, "He comes back, he approaches," thus do all the elements wait on him who knows this, saying, "That Brahman comes, that Brahman approaches."


Sloka : 4.3.38

मन्त्र ३८[IV.iii.38]

तद्यथा राजानं प्रयियासन्तमुग्राः प्रत्येनसः

सूतग्रामण्योऽभिसमायन्त्येवमेवेममात्मानमन्तकाले सर्वे प्राणा

अभिसमायन्ति यत्रैतदूर्ध्वोच्छ्वासी भवति ॥ ३८॥

इति तृतीयं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ चतुर्थं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 38[IV.iii.38]

tadyathā rājānaṃ prayiyāsantamugrāḥ pratyenasaḥ

sūtagrāmaṇyo'bhisamāyantyevamevemamātmānamantakāle sarve prāṇā

abhisamāyanti yatraitadūrdhvocchvāsī bhavati .. 38..

iti tṛtīyaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha caturthaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- Just as when the king wishes to depart, the Ugras set against particular offences, the Sutas and the leaders of the village approach him, so do all the organs approach the departing man at the time of death, when breathing becomes difficult.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Who accompany him as he thus wishes to go? And do those who accompany him go prompted by an act of his, or do they go of their own accord in conformity with his past work, together with the elements that make up his new body, called the next world? Regarding this an illustration is being given:- Just as when the king wishes to depart, the Ugras set against particular offences, the Sutas and the leaders of the village approach him in a body, unbidden by the king, and simply knowing that he wishes to go, so do all the organs approach the departing man, the experiencer of the fruits of his work, at the time of death, when breathing becomes difficult. This last clause has been explained (While commenting on par. 35 above.).

Translation By Max Müller

38. 'And as policemen, magistrates, equerries, and governors gather round a king who is departing, thus do all the senses (prânas) gather round the Self at the time of death, when a man is thus going to expire.'


Sloka : 4.4.1

मन्त्र १[IV.iv.1]

स यत्रायमात्माऽबल्यं न्येत्य सम्मोहमिव न्येत्यथैनमेते प्राणा

अभिसमायन्ति स एतास्तेजोमात्राः समभ्याददानो हृदयमेवान्ववक्रामति स

यत्रैष चाक्षुषः पुरुषः पराङ्पर्यावर्ततेऽथारूपज्ञो भवति ॥ १॥

mantra 1[IV.iv.1]

sa yatrāyamātmā'balyaṃ nyetya sammohamiva nyetyathainamete prāṇā

abhisamāyanti sa etāstejomātrāḥ samabhyādadāno hṛdayamevānvavakrāmati sa

yatraiṣa cākṣuṣaḥ puruṣaḥ parāṅparyāvartate'thārūpajño bhavati .. 1..



Meaning:- When this self becomes weak and senseless, as it were, the organs come to it. Completely withdrawing these particles of light, it comes to the heart. When the presiding deity of the eye turns back from all sides, the man fails to notice colour.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- When this self, which is under consideration, becomes weak. Really it is the body that becomes weak, but its weakness is figuratively spoken of as that of the self; for being formless, it can never by itself become weak. Similarly it becomes senseless, as it were, i.e. fails to discriminate. It cannot by itself be senseless or otherwise, for it is the eternal self-luminous Intelligence; hence the expression 'as it were.' The state of helplessness noticeable at the time of death, which is caused by the withdrawal of the orgas, is attributed by ordinary people to the self. So they say, 'Oh, he has become senseless!'

Or the expression 'as it were' should be connected with both the adjectives, meaning 'becomes weak, as it were, and senseless, as it were,' for both states are alike due to extraneous limiting adjuncts, and both the verbs agree with the same subject. At this time the organs, such as that of speech, come to it, the self. Then this self that is in the body is detached from the parts of the body. How does this detachment take place, and how do the organs come to the self? This is being answered:- Completely withdrawing these particles of light, i.e. the organs, such as the eye, so called because they reveal colour etc. The adverb 'completely' shows the distinction of this state from dream, in which they are just drawn in, not absolutely, as in this case, as is known from such passages as, 'The organ of speech is absorbed, the eye is absorbed' (II. i. 17), 'He takes away a little of this all-embracing world (the waking state)' (IV. iii. 9), and 'Taking the shining functions of the organs with him,' etc. (IV. iii. 11). It comes to the heart, i.e. the ether in the lotus of the heart; in other words, its intelligence is manifested in the heart; (The withdrawal in question is attributed to the self) simply because the activities of the intellect and so forth are at rest.

The Atman by itself cannot move or undergo such changes as the stopping of activities, for it has been said, 'It thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were' (IV. iii. 7). It is through its limiting adjuncts, such as the intellect, that all changes are attributed to the self.
When does it withdraw the particles of light?
This is being answered:- The presiding deity of the eye --- lit. the being associated with the eye --- who is a part of the sun, being directed by the experiencer's past work, goes on helping the functions of the eye as long as he lives, but he ceases to help the eye and is merged in his own self, the sun, when the man is about to die. This has been stated in the passage, 'When the vocal organ of the dead man has been merged in fire, the vital force in Vayu, the eye in the sun,' etc. (III. ii. 13). They will again occupy (their respective places) when the man takes another body. This (double phenomenon) takes place when a man is fast asleep, and when he wakes up. This is expressed by the text:- When the presiding deity of the eye turns back from all sides, the dying man fails to notice colour. At this time the self completely withdraws the particles of light, the eye and other organs, as in the dream state.

Translation By Max Müller

1. Yâgñavalkya continued:- 'Now when that Self, having sunk into weakness [1], sinks, as it were, into unconsciousness, then gather those senses (prânas) around him, and he, taking with him those elements of light, descends into the heart When that person in the eye [2] turns away, then he ceases to know any forms.

Footnote:

1. In the Kaush. Up. III, 3, we read yatraitat purusha ârto marishyan âbâlyam etya sammohati. Here âbâlyam should certainly be âbălyam, as in the commentary; but should it not be ăbălyam, as here. See also Brih. Up. III, 5, 1, note. 2. Kâkshusha purusha is explained as that portion of the sun which is in the eye, while it is active, but which, at the time of death, returns to the sun.


Sloka : 4.4.2

मन्त्र २[IV.iv.2]

एकीभवति न पश्यतीत्याहुरेकीभवति न जिघ्रतीत्याहुरेकीभवति

न रसयतीत्याहुरेकीभवति न वदतीत्याहुरेकीभवति

न श‍ृणोतीत्याहुरेकीभवति न मनुत इत्याहुरेकीभवति न

स्पृशतीत्याहुरेकीभवति न विजानातीत्याहुस्तस्य हैतस्य हृदयस्याग्रं

प्रद्योतते तेन प्रद्योतेनैष आत्मा निष्क्रामति चक्षुष्टो वा मूर्ध्नो

वाऽन्येभ्यो वा शरीरदेशेभ्यस्तमुत्क्रामन्तं प्राणोऽनूत्क्रामति

प्राणमनूत्क्रामन्तꣳ सर्वे प्राणा अनूत्क्रामन्ति । सविज्ञानो भवति

सविज्ञानमेवान्ववक्रामति । तं विद्याकर्मणी समन्वारभेते पूर्वप्रज्ञा

च ॥ २॥

mantra 2[IV.iv.2]

ekībhavati na paśyatītyāhurekībhavati na jighratītyāhurekībhavati

na rasayatītyāhurekībhavati na vadatītyāhurekībhavati

na śṛṇotītyāhurekībhavati na manuta ityāhurekībhavati na

spṛśatītyāhurekībhavati na vijānātītyāhustasya haitasya hṛdayasyāgraṃ

pradyotate tena pradyotenaiṣa ātmā niṣkrāmati cakṣuṣṭo vā mūrdhno

vā'nyebhyo vā śarīradeśebhyastamutkrāmantaṃ prāṇo'nūtkrāmati

prāṇamanūtkrāmantagͫ sarve prāṇā anūtkrāmanti . savijñāno bhavati

savijñānamevānvavakrāmati . taṃ vidyākarmaṇī samanvārabhete pūrvaprajñā

ca .. 2..



Meaning:- (The eye) becomes united (with the subtle body); then people say, 'He does not see'. (The nose) becomes united; then they say, 'He does not smell'. (The tongue) becomes united; then they say, 'He does not taste'. (The vocal Organ) becomes united; then they say, 'He does not speak'. (The ear) becomes united; then they say, 'He does not hear'. (The Manas) becomes united; then they say, 'He does not think'. (The skin) becomes united; then they say, 'He does not touch'. (The intellect) becomes united; then they say, 'He does not know'. The top of the heart brightens. Through that brightened top the self departs, either through the eye, or through the head, or through any other part of the body. When it departs, the vital force follows; when the vital force departs, all the organs follow. Then the self has particular consciousness, and goes to the body which is related to that consciousness. It is followed by knowledge, work and past experience.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Every organ becomes united with the subtle body of the dying man; then people at his side say of him, 'He does not see.' Similarly, when on the withdrawal of its presiding deity the nose becomes united with the subtle body, they say, 'He does not smell.' The rest is to be similarly explained. The moon or Varuna is the deity of the tongue; when he stops functioning, they say, 'He does not taste.' Similarly they say that he does not speak, hear, think, touch, know. This means that at that time the presiding deities cease to work, and the organs are united in the heart (That is, the subtle body with its seat in the heart.). What takes place in the body after the organs have been united in the heart is now being stated:- The top of the heart mentioned above, i.e. of the orifice of the heart --- its 'top' here means the nerve-end, which is the exit for the self --- brightens, as in the dream state, its own lustre due to the drawing in of the organs being revealed by its own light as the Atman (IV. iii. 9.). Through that top brightened by the light of the Atmna, the individual self, with the subtle body as its limiting adjunct, departs. As the Prasna Upanisad puts it:- 'On whose departure must I depart, and on whose stay, must I stay? ---
He projected the vital force' (VI. 3).
In the subtle body the self-effulgent intelligence of the Atman is always particularly manifest. It is because of this limiting adjunct that the self comes under relative existence involving all such changes as birth and death, going and coming. The twelve organs, including the intellect, consist of it; it is the Sutra (III. vii. 2.), the life, and the inmost self of the movable and immovable universe. As the self departs with the help of the light at the top of the heart, by which way does it leave the body? Through the eye, it if has a store of work or relative knowledge that would take it to the sun, or through the head, if they are such as would entitle it to go to the world of Hiranyagarbha, or through any other part of the body, according to its past work and knowledge.
When it, the individual self, departs for the next world, i.e. when it has the intention to go there, the vital force follows, like the Prime Minister of a king; and when the vital force departs, all the organs, such as that of speech, follow. This simply denotes conformity to their respective leaders, not that the vital force and the organs go one after the other, as it happens in a party (The particle 'anu' (after), here means 'according to.' Really they all go together.).
Then the self has particular consciousness, as in dream, in consequence of its past work, not independently. It if had this consciousness independently, everybody would achieve the end of his life; but it never has that. Hence Vyasa says, '(A man attains whatever he thinks of at the moment of death) if he has always been imbued with that idea' (G. VIII. 6). As a matter of fact, everybody has at that moment a consciousness which consists of impressions in the form of particular modifications of his mind (regarding the next life) that are induced by his past work.
And goes to the body which is related to that consciousness, i.e. is revealed by that particular consciousness. Therefore, in order to have freedom of action at the time of death, those aspirants after the future life who have faith should be alert in the practice of the system of Yoga and right knowledge, and in the acquistion of particular merit (by doing good deeds). All the sacred books also carefully seek to dissuade men from doing evil; for nothing can be done at the dying moment, since there is no independence then for the man, who is carried away by his past work. It has been said, 'One indeed becomes good through good work and evil through evil work' (III. ii. 13). The aim of the Upanisads in all the recensions is to prescribe remedies for this evil. There is no other way to eradicate this evil completely except by following the course laid down by them. Therefore all should try to practise the remedies prescribed by the Upanisads; this is the gist of the whole passage.
It has been stated that the departing self, loaded with materials, goes making noises like a cart. Now, as it starts for the next world, what is its food on the way or for consumption on reaching that world, corresponding to the carter's load, and what are the materials for building its new body and organs?
The answer is being given:- It, this self journeying to the next world, is followed by knowledge of all sorts, that which is enjoined or forbidden as well as that (Regarding common or trivial things; similarly with work.) which is neither enjoined nor forbidden; also work, enjoined or forbidden, and neither enjoined nor forbidden, and past experience, i.e. the impressions of experiences regarding the results of past actions. These impressions take part in initiating fresh actions as also in bringing past actions to fruition; hence they too accompany. Without these impressions no action can be done, nor any results of past actions be achieved, for the organs are not skilful in unpractised work. But when the organs are prompted to work by the impressions of past experience, they can easily attain skill even without practice in this life. It is frequently observed that some are clever in certain kinds of work, such as painting, from their very birth, even without practice in this life, while others are unskilful even in some very easy tasks. Similarly, in the enjoyment of sense-objects also, some are observed to be naturally skilful or dull. All this is due to the revival or non-revival of past experience. Therefore without past experience we cannot understand how anybody can proceed to do any work or to enjoy the results of past work. Hence these three --- knowledge, work and past experience --- are the food on the way to the next world, corresponding to the load of the carter. Since these three are the means of attaining another body and enjoying (the results of one's past work), therefore one should cultivate only the good forms of them, so that one may have a desirable body and desirable enjoyments. This is the purport of the whole passage.

Now the question is, when the self loaded with knowledge etc., is about to go to another body, does it leave the old body and go to another, like a bird going to another tree? Or is it carried by another body serving as a vehicle to the place where, according to its past work, it is to be born? Or does it stay here, while its organs become all-pervading and function as such? Or is it that so long as it remains in the body, its organs are contracted to the limits of that, but when it dies they become all-pervading --- like the light of a lamp when the (enclosing) jar is broken --- and contract again when a new body is made (Of the different views given above, the first three are those of the Jains, the Devatavadins (the upholders of the theory of angel-guides), and the Samkhya and allied schools respectively, while the fourth represents the Vedantic view.)? Or, as in the Vaisesika system, does only the mind go to the place where the new body is to be made?
Or is there any other theory in the sytem of Vedanta?
This is beign answered:- We know from the Sruti text, 'These are all equal, and all infinite' (I. v. 13), that the organs are all-comprising (In their form relating to the gods.). Another reason for this is their resting on the vital force, which is all-comprising. Their limitation with reference to the body and the elements (as colour etc.) is due to the work, knowledge and past impressions of men. Therefore, though the organs are naturally all-pervading and infinite, since the new body is made in accordance with the preson's work, knowledge and past impressions, the functions of the organs also contract or expand accordingly. As it has been said, 'Equal to a white ant, equal to a mosquito, equal to an elephant, equal to these three worlds, equal to this universe' (I. iii. 22). It is also supported by the following:- 'He who meditates upon these as infinite', etc. (I.v. 13), and '(One becomes) exactly as one meditates upon Him,' etc. (S. X. v. ii. 20). Therefore the impressions called past experience, under the control of the person's knowledge and work, stretch out, like a leech, from the body, retaining their seat in the heart, as in the dream state, and build another body in accordance with his past work; they leave their seat, the old body, when a new body is made. An illustration on this point is being given:-

Translation By Max Müller

2. '"He has become one," they say, "he does not see [1]." "He has become one," they say, "he does not smell." "He has become one," they say, "he does not taste." "He has become one," they say, "he does not speak." "He has become one," they say, "he does not hear." "He has become one," they say, "he does not think." "He has become one," they say, "he does not touch." "He has become one," they say, "he does not know." The point of his heart [2] becomes lighted up, and by that light the Self departs, either through the eye [3], or through the skull [4], or through other places of the body. And when he thus departs, life (the chief prâna) departs after him, and when life thus departs, all the other vital spirits (prânas) depart after it. He is conscious, and being conscious he follows [5] and departs. 'Then both his knowledge and his work take hold of him, and his acquaintance with former things [6].'

Footnote:

1. Ekîbhavati is probably a familiar expression for dying, but it is here explained by Saṅkara, and probably was so intended, as meaning that the organs of the body have become one with the Self (liṅgâtman). The same thoughts are found in the Kaush. Up. III, 3, prâna ekadhâ bhavati. 2. The point where the nâdîs or veins go out from the heart. 3. When his knowledge and deeds qualify him to proceed to the sun. Saṅkara. 4. When his knowledge and deeds qualify him to proceed to the Brahma-world. 5. This is an obscure passage, and the different text of the Mâdhyandinas shows that the obscurity was felt at an early time. The Mâdhyandinas read:- Samgñânam anvavakrâmati sa esha gñah savigñâno bhavati. This would mean, 'Consciousness departs after. He the knowing (Self) is self-conscious.' The Kânvas read:- Savigñâno bhavati, savigñânam evânvavakrâmati. Roer translates:- 'It is endowed with knowledge, endowed with knowledge it departs;' and he explains, with Saṅkara, that the knowledge here intended is such knowledge as one has in a dream, a knowledge of impressions referring to their respective objects, a knowledge which is the effect of actions, and not inherent in the self. Deussen translates:- 'Sie (die Seele) ist von Erkenntnissart, und was von Erkenntnissart ist, ziehet ihr nach.' The Persian translator evidently thought that self-consciousness was implied, for he writes:- 'Cum quovis corpore addictionem sumat . . . . in illo corpore aham est, id est, ego sum.' 6. This acquaintance with former things is necessary to explain the peculiar talents or deficiencies which we observe in children. The three words vidyâ, karman, and pûrvapragñâ often go together (see Saṅkara on Brih. Up. IV, 3, 9). Deussen's conjecture, apûrvapragñâ, is not called for.


Sloka : 4.4.3

मन्त्र ३[IV.iv.3]

तद्यथा तृणजलायुका तृणस्यान्तं

गत्वाऽन्यमाक्रममाक्रम्यात्मानमुपसꣳहरत्येवमेवायमात्मेदꣳ

शरीरं निहत्याविद्यां

गमयित्वाऽन्यमाक्रममाक्रम्याऽऽत्मानमुपसꣳहरति ॥ ३॥

mantra 3[IV.iv.3]

tadyathā tṛṇajalāyukā tṛṇasyāntaṃ

gatvā'nyamākramamākramyātmānamupasagͫharatyevamevāyamātmedagͫ

śarīraṃ nihatyāvidyāṃ

gamayitvā'nyamākramamākramyā''tmānamupasagͫharati .. 3..



Meaning:- Just as a leech supported on a straw goes to the end of it, takes hold of another support and contracts itself, so does the self throw this body aside - make it senseless - take hold of another support, and contract itself.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Regarding this passing on to another body the following is an illustration:- Just as a leech supported on a straw goes to the end of it, takes hold of another straw as support and contracts itself, i.e. one part of its body, to where the other part is, so does the self, the transmigrating self that is being discussed, throw this body, the one already taken, aside, as it does when entering the dream state --- make it senseless by withdrawing itself from it --- take hold of another support or body, as the leech does another straw, by stretching out its impressions, and contract itself, i.e. identify itself, at the place where the new body is being formed, with that new body, movable or immovable --- as in dream the self creates a new body and dwells, as it were, in that dream body.
There the organs, under the sway of the person's past work, are combined so as to manifest their functions; an external body, like one made of straw and clay, is also formed. When the organs have been arranged, the presiding deities, fire and the rest come to the body to help the organ of speech and so forth. This is the process of the formation of a new body.
Now, in this formation of a new body does the self again and again crush the materials that are always there ready at hand and with them make a new body, or does it collect new materials every time? This is being answered through an illustration.

Translation By Max Müller

3. 'And as a caterpillar, after having reached the end of a blade of grass, and after having made another approach (to another blade) [1], draws itself together towards it, thus does this Self, after having thrown off this body [2] and dispelled all ignorance, and after making another approach (to another body), draw himself together towards it.

Footnote:

1. See Brih. Up. IV, 3, 9, a passage which shows how difficult it would be always to translate the same Sanskrit words by the same words in English; see also Brahmopanishad, p. 245. 2. See Brih. Up. IV, 3, 9, and IV, 3, 13


Sloka : 4.4.4

मन्त्र ४[IV.iv.4]

तद्यथा पेशस्कारी पेशसो मात्रामपादायान्यन्नवतरं कल्याणतरꣳ

रूपं तनुत एवमेवायमात्मेदꣳ शरीरं निहत्याविद्यां

गमयित्वाऽन्यन्नवतरं कल्याणतरꣳ रूपं कुरुते पित्र्यं वा

गान्धर्वं वा दैवं वा प्राजापत्यं वा ब्राह्मं वाऽन्येषां वा भूतानाम् ॥

४॥ ब्राह्मम् वा प्राजापत्यम् वा दैवम् वा अन्येभ्यस्वा भूतेभ्यस्

mantra 4[IV.iv.4]

tadyathā peśaskārī peśaso mātrāmapādāyānyannavataraṃ kalyāṇataragͫ

rūpaṃ tanuta evamevāyamātmedagͫ śarīraṃ nihatyāvidyāṃ

gamayitvā'nyannavataraṃ kalyāṇataragͫ rūpaṃ kurute pitryaṃ vā

gāndharvaṃ vā daivaṃ vā prājāpatyaṃ vā brāhmaṃ vā'nyeṣāṃ vā bhūtānām ..

4.. brāhmam vā prājāpatyam vā daivam vā anyebhyasvā bhūtebhyas



Meaning:- Just as a goldsmith takes apart a little quantity of gold and fashions another - a newer and better - form, so does the self throw this body away, or make it senseless, and make another - a newer and better - form suited to the manes or the celestial minstrels, or the gods, or Viraj, or Hiranyagarbha, or other beings.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Just as a goldsmith take apart a little quantity of gold and fashions another --- a newer and better --- form than the previous model, so does the self --- these and the following words have been explained --- again and again crush the five elements beginning with earth and ending with the ether that are always ready at hand, which have been described in the second chapter in the passage, 'Brahman has but two forms' (II. iii. 1), and stand for the gold --- and make another --- a newer and better --- form, or body, suited to the manes, i.e. fit for enjoyments in the world of the manes, or the celestial minstrels, i.e. fit for for their enjoyments, or the gods, or Viraj, or Hiranyagarbha, or other beings, according to its past work and knowledge.
All those things which are the limiting adjuncts of the self and are styled its bonds, and connected with which it is considered identified with them, are here gathered together and pointed out in a group:-

Translation By Max Müller

4. And as a goldsmith, taking a piece of gold, turns it into another, newer and more beautiful shape, so does this Self, after having thrown off this body and dispelled all ignorance, make unto himself another, newer and more beautiful shape, whether it be like the Fathers, or like the Gandharvas, or like the Devas, or like Pragâpati, or like Brahman, or like other beings.


Sloka : 4.4.5

मन्त्र ५[IV.iv.5]

स वा अयमात्मा ब्रह्म विज्ञानमयो मनोमयः प्राणमयश्चक्षुर्मयः

श्रोत्रमयः पृथिवीमय आपोमयो वायुमय आकाशमयस्तेजोमयोऽतेजोमयः

काममयोऽकाममयः क्रोधमयोऽक्रोधमयो धर्ममयोऽधर्ममयः

सर्वमयस्श्रोत्रमयसाकाशमयस्वायुमयस्तेजोमय-

सापोमयस्पृथिवीमयस्क्रोधमयसक्रोधमय- शर्षमयसहर्षमयस्

तद्यदेतदिदम्मयोऽदोमय इति यथाकारी यथाचारी तथा भवति ।

साधुकारी साधुर्भवति पापकारी पापो भवति पुण्यः पुण्येन कर्मणा

भवति पापः पापेन । अथो खल्वाहुः काममय एवायं पुरुष इति स

यथाकामो भवति तत्क्रतुर्भवति यत्क्रतुर्भवति तत्कर्म कुरुते

यत्कर्म कुरुते तदभिसम्पद्यते ॥ ५॥

mantra 5[IV.iv.5]

sa vā ayamātmā brahma vijñānamayo manomayaḥ prāṇamayaścakṣurmayaḥ

śrotramayaḥ pṛthivīmaya āpomayo vāyumaya ākāśamayastejomayo'tejomayaḥ

kāmamayo'kāmamayaḥ krodhamayo'krodhamayo dharmamayo'dharmamayaḥ

sarvamayasśrotramayasākāśamayasvāyumayastejomaya-

sāpomayaspṛthivīmayaskrodhamayasakrodhamaya- śarṣamayasaharṣamayas

tadyadetadidammayo'domaya iti yathākārī yathācārī tathā bhavati .

sādhukārī sādhurbhavati pāpakārī pāpo bhavati puṇyaḥ puṇyena karmaṇā

bhavati pāpaḥ pāpena . atho khalvāhuḥ kāmamaya evāyaṃ puruṣa iti sa

yathākāmo bhavati tatkraturbhavati yatkraturbhavati tatkarma kurute

yatkarma kurute tadabhisampadyate .. 5..



Meaning:- That self is indeed Brahman, as also identified with the intellect, the Manas and the vital force, with the eyes and ears, with earth, water, air and the ether, with fire, and what is other than fire, with desire and the absence of desire, with anger and the absence of anger, with righteousness and unrighteousness, with everything --identified, in fact, with this (what is perceived) and with that (what is inferred). As it does and acts, so it becomes; by doing good it becomes good, and by doing evil it becomes evil - it becomes virtuous through good acts and vicious through evil acts. Others, however, say, 'The self is identified with desire alone. What it desires, it resolves; what it resolves, it works out; and what it works out, it attains.'





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- That self which thus transmigrates is indeed Brahman, the Supreme Self that is beyond hunger etc., as also identified with the intellect (Vijnanamaya), being noticed through it; for it has been said, 'Which is the self? This infinite entity (Purusa) that is identified with the intellect and is in the midst of the organs,' etc. (IV. iii. 7). The self is called Vijnanamaya, resembling the intellect, because it is conceived as possessing the attributes of the intellect, as in the passage, 'It thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were' (Ibid.). Likewise identified with the Manas, because of its proximity to that. Also identified with the vital force that has the fivefold function; for which reason the individual self is observed as moving, as it were. Similarly identified with the eyes, when it sees forms. Likewise identified with the ears, when it hears sounds. Thus, as each particular organ functions, the self becomes identified with that.

Similarly, being identified with the eyes and other organs through the intellect and vital force, the self becomes identified with such elements as earth. When a body preponderating in elements of earth has to be made, it becomes identified with earth. Similarly, when creating a watery body in the world of Varuna and so forth, it becomes identified with water. Likewise, when an aerial body has to be made, it becomes identified with air. Similarly, when making an ethereal body, it is identified with air. Similarly, when making an ethereal body, it is identified with the ether. Thus when it makes bodies for the gods, which preponderate in elements of fire, it becomes identified with fire. As opposed to these, the bodies of animals, of denizens of hell, of ghosts, and so forth, are composed of materials other than fire; with regard to them the text says, identified with what is other than fire. Similarly, being identified with the body and organs, the self, on seeing something to be attained, forms the false notion that it has got this one, and has to get that one and, setting its heart on that, becomes identified with desire. When, on seeing evil in that thing, its longing for it ceases, and the mind becomes serene, pure and calm, then it becomes identified with the absence of desire. Likewise, when that desire is somehow frustrated, it takes the form of anger, and the self becomes identified with anger. When that anger is appeased by some means, and the mind becomes serene and peaceful, it is called the absence of anger; the self becomes identified with that. Thus the self, becoming identified with desire and anger as also with the absence of them, becomes identified with righteousness and unrighteousness, for without desire, anger, etc. the tendency to righteousness and so forth cannot arise. Witness the Smrti:- 'Whatever action a man does, is the outcome of desire' (M. II. 4).

Being identified with righteousness and unrighteousness it becomes identified with everything. Everything is the effect of righteousness and unrighteousness:- whatever is differentiated is the result of these two. The self, on attaining it, becomes identified with that. In shor, identified, in fact, with this, i.e. with objects that are perceived, and therefore with that. 'That' refers to imperceptible objects that are indicated only by their perceptible effects. The mind has an infinite number of thoughts, which cannot be definitely specified; they are known at particular moments through their effects, which lead us to infer this or that particular thought is in one's mind. Through that perceptible effect --- which marks the identification of the self with 'this' or the perceptible --- its remote or internal activity is indicated; and it is therefore designated as identified at present with 'that' or the imperceptible. To put it briefly, as it habitually does and acts, so it becomes. 'Doing' refers to prescribed conduct as indicated, for instance, by injunctions and prohibitions, while 'action' is not so prescribed; this is the distinction between them. By doing good it becomes good:- This amplifies the idea of 'As it does,' and by doing evil it becomes evil, amplifies the idea of 'As it acts.'

The use of a suffix denoting habit (in four words of the text) may lead to a notion that the identification with good and evil actions consists in intense association with them, not in merely doing them. To remove this it is said, it becomes virtuous through good acts and vicious through evil acts.
The identification comes of merely doing good and evils acts, and does not require habitual performance. The latter only intensifies the identification; this is the difference. The long and short of it is, that doing good and bad deeds under the impulse of desire, anger, etc., is the cause of the Atman's identification with everything, its undergoing transmigration and passing from one body to another; for, impelled by this, the self takes one body after another. Therefore good and bad deeds are the cause of its transmigratory existence. Scriptural injunctions and prohibitions are directed to this. Herein lies the utility of the scriptures.
Others, other authorities on bondage and liberation, however, say:- It is true that good and bad deeds prompted by desire etc. are the cause of a man's taking a body; still it is under the influence of desire that he accumulates these deeds. When desire is gone, work, though present, does not lead to the accumulation of merit or demerit. Even if he goes on doing good and bad deeds, these, bereft of the desire, produce no results; therefore desire is the root of transmigratory existence. As the Mundaka Upanisad says, 'He who longs for objects of desire, making much of them, is born along with those desires in places where he will realise them' (III. ii. 2). Therefore the self is identified with desire alone. Its identification with other things, though it may be present, does not produce any results; hence the text emphatically says, 'Identified with desire alone.' Being identified with desire, what it desires, it resolves.
That desire manifests itself as a slight longing for a particular object, and, if unchecked, takes a more definite shape and becomes resolve. Resolve is determination, which is followed by action. What it resolves as a result of the desire, it works out by doing the kind of work that is calculated to procure the objects resolved upon. And what it works out, it attains, i.e. its results. Therefore desire is the only cause of its identification with everything as also of undergoing transmigration.

Translation By Max Müller

5. 'That Self is indeed Brahman, consisting of knowledge, mind, life, sight, hearing, earth, water, wind, ether, light and no light, desire and no desire, anger and no anger, right or wrong, and all things. Now as a man is like this or like that [1], according as he acts and according as he behaves, so will he be:--a man of good acts will become good, a man of bad acts, bad. He becomes pure by pure deeds, bad by bad deeds. 'And here they say that a person consists of desires. And as is his desire, so is his will; and as is his will, so is his deed; and whatever deed he does, that he will reap.

Footnote:

1. The iti after adomaya is not clear to me, but it is quite clear that a new sentence begins with tadyadetat, which Regnaud, II, p. 101 and p. 139, has not observed.


Sloka : 4.4.6

मन्त्र ६[IV.iv.6]

तदेष श्लोको भवति । तदेव सक्तः सह कर्मणैति लिङ्गं मनो

यत्र निषक्तमस्य । प्राप्यान्तं कर्मणस्तस्य यत्किञ्चेह करोत्ययम् ।

तस्माल्लोकात्पुनरैत्यस्मै लोकाय कर्मण् इति नु कामयमानोऽथाकामयमानो

योऽकामो निष्काम भवति आप्तकाम आत्मकामो न तस्य प्राणा उत्क्रामन्ति

ब्रह्मैव सन्ब्रह्माप्येति ॥ ६॥

mantra 6[IV.iv.6]

tadeṣa śloko bhavati . tadeva saktaḥ saha karmaṇaiti liṅgaṃ mano

yatra niṣaktamasya . prāpyāntaṃ karmaṇastasya yatkiñceha karotyayam .

tasmāllokātpunaraityasmai lokāya karmaṇ iti nu kāmayamāno'thākāmayamāno

yo'kāmo niṣkāma bhavati āptakāma ātmakāmo na tasya prāṇā utkrāmanti

brahmaiva sanbrahmāpyeti .. 6..



Meaning:- Regarding this there is the following pithy verse:- 'Being attached he, together with the work, attains that result to which his subtle body or mind is attached. Exhausting the results of whatever work he did in this life, he returns from that world to this for (fresh) work'. Thus does the man who desires (transmigrate). But the man who does not desire (never transmigrates). Of him who is without desires, who is free from desires, the objects of whose desire have been attained, and to whom all objects of desire are but the Self - the organs do not depart. Being but Brahman, he is merged in Brahman.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Regarding this subject there is also the following pithy verse:- Being attached, i.e. with his desire for it roused, he, the man who transmigrates, together with the work that he did with attachment to its result, attains that result to which his subtle body or mind is firmly attached, i.e. for which it yearns, since he did the work out of a desire for that. --- The mind is called the subtle body, Linga, because it is the principal part of the latter; or the word' Linga' may mean a sign, that which indicates the self. --- Therefore, only on account of this attachment of his mind, he attains the result through that action. This proves that desire is the root of transmigratory existence. Hence a knower of Brahman who has rooted out his desires may work, but it will produce no (baneful) results; for the Sruti says, 'For one who has completely attained the objects of his desire and realised the Self, all desires dissolve in this very life' (Mu. III. ii. 2).

Further, exhausting the results of work --- what kind of work? whatever work he did in this life, by experiencing them, he returns from that world to this for work, since work holds the foremost place in this world. Hence the text says, 'For work,' i.e. to work again. After working again, he on account of his attachment to results, again goes to the next world, and so on. Thus does the man who desires transmigrate. Since it is this man of desire who transmigrates thus, therefore the man who does not desire, does not transmigrate anywhere.

It has been said that only the man who is attached to results transmigrates. Since one who has no desires cannot perform (ritualistic) work, the man who does not desire necessarily attains liberation. How does a man cease to desire? He who is without desires is the man who does not diesre. How is this absence of desire attained? This is being explained:- Who is free from desires, i.e. whom desires have left. How do they leave? The objects of whose desire have been attained. How are they attained? Because he is one to whom all objects of desire are but the Self --- who has only the Self, and nothing else separate from It that can be desired; to whom the Self alone exists --- the Pure Intelligence without interior or exterior, entire and homogeneous; and neither above nor below nor in the middle is there anything else but the Self to be desired. What should a person desire who has realised:- When everything has become the Self to one, what should one see, hear, think or know, and through what? For a thing that is known as other than oneself may becomes an object of desire. But such a thing does not exist for the knower of Brahman, the objects of whose desire have all been attained. He to whom all objects of desire, being but the Self, are already attained, is alone free from desires, is without desires, and does not desire any more; hence he attains liberation. For he to whom everything is the Self, has nothing else to desire. It is contradictory to say that he has something other than the Self to desire, and again, that to him everything is the Self. Since a man who has realised his identity with all has nothing to desire, he cannot perform rites.

Those who hold that even a knower of Brahman must perform rites in order to avoid evil (Produced by the non-performance of the regular rites.), cannot say that to him everything is the Self, for they regard the evil that they wish him to avoid as different from the Self. Whereas we call him a knower of Brahman who constantly knows the Self that is beyond hunger etc. and untouched by evil; he constantly sees the Self that is beyond hunger and so forth. Work can never touch him who does not see anything other than the Self to be avoided or received. But one who is not a knower of Brahman must perfrom rites to avoid evil. Hence there is no contradiction. Therefore, having no desires, the person who does not desire is no more born; he attains only liberation.
Since the man who does not desire has no work and therefore has no cause to go to the next world, his organs, such as that of speech, do not depart or go up from the body. That man of realisation who has attained all the objects of his desires, since they are but the Self to him, has become Brahman in this very life, for as an illustration of the Infinite Brahman the following form was pointed out:- 'That is his form --- in which the objects of desire have been attained and are but the Self, and which is free from desires' (IV. iii. 21). Now that of which the above is an illustration is being concluded in the words, 'But the man who does not desire,' etc. How does such a man attain liberation? This is being stated:- He who sees the Self, as in the state of profound sleep, as undifferentiated, one without a second, and as the constant light of Pure Intelligence only this disinterested man has no work and consequently no cause for transmigration; therefore his organs, such as that of speech, do not depart. Rather, this man of realisation is Brahman in this very life, though he seems to have a body. Being but Brahman, he is merged in Brahman. Because he has no desires that cause the limitation of non-Brahmanhood, therefore 'being but Brahman he is merged in Brahman' in this very life, not after the body falls. A man of realisation, after his death, has no change of condition --- something different from what he was in life, but he is only not connected with another body. This is what is meant by his becoming 'merged in Brahman'; for it liberation was a change of condition, it would contradict the unity of the Self that all the Upanisads seek to teach. And liberation would be the effect of work, not of knowledge --- which nobody would desire. Further, it would become transitory, for nothing that has been produced by an action is seen to be eternal, but liberation is admitted to be eternal, as the Mantra says, 'This is the eternal glory (of a knower of Brahman),' etc. (IV. iv. 23).

Moreover, nothing but the inherent nature of a thing can be regarded as eternal. If liberation is the nature of the self, like the heat of fire, it cannot be said to be a consequence of human activity. The heat or light of fire is surely not a consequence of the activity of fire; it is a contradiction in terms to say that they are, and yet that they are the natural properties of fire. If it be urged that they are an outcome of the activity of combustion, the answer is, no because they depend on manifestion by the removal of obstructions to one's perception. That fire is manifested through its qualities of heat and light by the process of combustion etc., is due, not to the fire itself, but to the fact that those qualities, not being connected with anybody's vision, were hidden, and are manifested when the obstructions to vision are removed by the process of combustion. This leads to the error that the qualities of heat and light are produced by the combustion. If heat and light are not admitted as the natural properties of fire, well then, we shall cite as examples whatever be its natural properties. Nobody can say that things have no natural properties at all.
Nor can liberation be a mere negative something --- the cessation of bondage, like the breakikng of fetters, for the Supreme Self is supposed to be the only entity that exists. As the Sruti says, 'One only without a second' (Ch. VI. ii. 1). And there is no other entity that is bound, whose freedom from bonage, as from fetters, would be liberation, for we have spoken at length of the absence of any other entity but the Supreme Self. Therefore, as we have also said, the cessation of ignorance (Which is the cause of the idea of bondage.) alone is commonly called liberation, like the disappearance of the snake, for instance, from the rope when the erroneous notion about its existence has been dispelled.

Those who hold that in liberation a new (That is, different from those arising from sense-contact.) knowledge and bliss are manifested, should explain what they mean by manifestation. If it means ordinary perception or the cognition of objects, they should state whether the knowledge or bliss that is manifested is existent or non-existent. If it is existent, it is the very self of that liberated man to whom it is manifested; hence, there being possibly no bar to the perception, it will always be manifest, and for this reason it is meaningless to specify its being manifest to the liberated man. If, however, it is manifest only at certain times (That is, in the state of relative existence, being frequently obstructed by iniquity etc.), then because of the obstacles to its perception, it is different from the self, and therefore there arises the question of its manifestation through some other means; hence there will be the necessity of these means also (Which will make liberation akin to relative existence.). But if the knowledge and bliss in question have the same support as the perception, then, there being no possibility of obstacles, they will either by always manifest or always hidden; there is no warrant for conceiving an intermediate stage between the two. Now attributes that have the same support, and are part and parcel of the same substance, cannot have the relation of subject and object to one another. Besides, the entity that is subject to transmigration before the manifestation of knowledge and bliss, and liberated after it, must be different from the Supreme Self, the eternally manifest Knowledge Absolute, for the two are totally different from each other, like heat and cold; and if differences are admitted in the Supreme Self, the Vedic position will be abandoned.

Objection:- If liberation makes no difference from the present state, it is unreasonable to make a particular effort for it, and the scriptures too becomes uselss.
Reply:- No, for both are necessary to remove the delusion created by ignorance. Really there is no such distinction as liberation and bondage in the self, for it is eternally the same; but the ignorance regarding it is removed by the knowledge arising from the teachings of the scriptures, and prior to the receiving of these teachings, the effort to attain liberation is perfectly reasonable.
Objection:- There will be some difference in the self that is under ignorance, due to the cessation or continuance of that ignorance.
Reply:- No; we have already said that it is admitted to be the creation of ignorance, like a rope, a desert, a mother-of-pearl and the sky, appearing as a snake, water, silver, and blue respectively.
Objection:- But there will be some difference in the self due to its being or not being the cause of ignorance, as in the case of man affected with the eye-disease called Timira (Which causes distorted vision.) or free from it.
Reply:- No, for the Sruti denies that the Atman by itself is the cause of ignorance, as in the passage, 'It thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were' (IV. iii. 7); and the error we call ignorance is due to a combination of diverse activities. Another reason is that ignorance is an object witnessed by the self (Therefore it cannot be an integral part of the subject.). He who visualises the error of ignorance as something distinct from his own self, like a jar etc., is not himself under that error.

Objection:- Surely he is under that error, for one feels that one sometimes has the notion, 'I do not know, I am confused.'
Reply:- No, for that too is distinctly perceived. He who distinctly perceives a thing cannot surely be said to be mistaken about it; it is self-contradictory to say that he perceives it distinctly, and at the same time, that he is mistaken about it.
You say that a person feels, 'I do not know, I am confused'; thereby you admit that he visualises his ignorance and confusion, in other words, that these become the objects of his experience. So how can the ignorance and confusion, which are objects, be at the same time a description of the subject, the perceiver? If, on the other hand, they are a description of the subject, how can they be objects and be perceived by the subject? An object is perceived by an act of the subject. The object is one thing, and the subject another; it cannot be perceived by itself. Tell me how under such circumstances the ignorance and confusion can be a description of the subject. Moreover, a person who sees ignorance as something distinct --- perceives it as an object of his own cognition --- does not regard it as an attribute of the perceiver, as is the case with thinness, colour, and so forth in the body. (Similarly the effects of ignorance also are not attributes of the self).

Objection:- But everybody perceives pleasure, pain, desire, effort, etc. (as belonging to himself).
Reply:- Even then the man who perceives them is admittedly different from them.
Objection:- Well, we have referred to the person who says, 'I do not know what you say, I am confused.' What do you say to that?
Reply:-Let him regard himself as ignorant and confused; we, however, accept one who sees like this as knowing and possessed of a clear perception. For instance, Vyasa has said that the owner of the field (the self) reveals the entire field (body and mind), including desire (An adaptation of Gita XIII. 33.). And there are hundreds of texts like the following:- '(He sees truly who) sees the Supreme Lord living the same in all beings --- the immortal Principle in the midst of things perishable' (G. XIII. 27). Therefore the Atman by itself has no difference due to bondage or liberation, knowledge or ignorance, for it is admitted to be always the same and homogeneous by nature.
Those, however, who, considering the reality of the self to be different, reduce the scriptures dealing with bondage and liberation to mere plausible statements, would dare to find the footprints of birds in the sky, to pull the sky with their clenched hands, or to cover it as with a skin. But we can do no such thing. We hold that it is the definite conclusion of all the Upanisads that we are nothing but the Atman, the Brahman that is always the same, homogeneous, one without a second, unchanging, birthless, undecaying, immortal, deathless and free from fear. Therefore the statement, 'He is merged in Brahman' (this text), is but a figurative one, meaning the cessation, as a result of knowledge, of the continuous chain of bodies for one who has held an opposite view.
Transmigration, which was the thing that was sought to be explained by the example of going into the waking and dream states, has been described; so also its causes --- knowledge, work and past experience. Those limiting adjuncts, the elements comprising the body and organs, surrounded by which the self experiences the transmigratory existence, have also been mentioned. After stating, as a prima facie view, that their immediate causes are good and bad deeds, the cause has finally been decided to be desire. Having described bondage and its cause by showing that the decision of the Brahmana on this point agrees with that of the Mantra, the Sruti has concluded the topic with the words, 'Thus does the man who desires (transmigrate)' (IV. iv. 6). Then beginning with, 'But the man who does not desire (never transmigrates)' (Ibid.), liberation consisting in the identity with all, which is the thing that was sought to be explained by the example of the state of profound sleep, has been described. And the cause of liberation has been stated to be the attainment of all objects of desire through their becoming the Self. But since this state is unattainable without Self-knowledge, the cause of liberation has by implication been stated to be the knowledge of Brahman. Therefore, though desire has been said to be the root of bondage, it is ignorance that, being the opposite of what leads to liberation (knowledge), has virtually been stated to be the cause of bondage. Here also liberation and its means have been dealt with by the Brahmana. To strengthen that, a Mantra, called Sloka, is being quoted:-

Translation By Max Müller

6. 'And here there is this verse:- "To whatever object a man's own mind is attached, to that he goes strenuously together with his deed; and having obtained the end (the last results) of whatever deed he does here on earth, he returns again from that world (which is the temporary reward of his deed) to this world of action." 'So much for the man who desires. But as to the man who does not desire, who, not desiring, freed from desires, is satisfied in his desires, or desires the Self only, his vital spirits do not depart elsewhere,--being Brahman, he goes to Brahman.


Sloka : 4.4.7

मन्त्र ७[IV.iv.7]

तदेष श्लोको भवति यदा सर्वे प्रमुच्यन्ते कामा येऽस्य हृदि

श्रिताः । अथ मर्त्योऽमृतो भवत्यत्र ब्रह्म समश्नुत इति ॥

तद्यथाऽहिनिर्व्लयनी वल्मीके मृता प्रत्यस्ता शयीतैवमेवेदꣳ

शरीरꣳ शेतेऽथायमशरीरोऽमृतः प्राणो ब्रह्मैव तेज एव

सोऽहं भगवते सहस्रं ददामीति होवाच जनको वैदेहः ॥ ७॥

mantra 7[IV.iv.7]

tadeṣa śloko bhavati yadā sarve pramucyante kāmā ye'sya hṛdi

śritāḥ . atha martyo'mṛto bhavatyatra brahma samaśnuta iti ..

tadyathā'hinirvlayanī valmīke mṛtā pratyastā śayītaivamevedagͫ

śarīragͫ śete'thāyamaśarīro'mṛtaḥ prāṇo brahmaiva teja eva

so'haṃ bhagavate sahasraṃ dadāmīti hovāca janako vaidehaḥ .. 7..



Meaning:- Regarding this there is this pithy verse:- 'When all the desires that dwell in his heart (mind) are gone, then he, having been mortal, becomes immortal, and attains Brahman in this very body'. Just as the lifeless Slough of a snake is cast off and lies in the ant-hill, so does this body lie. Then the self becomes disembodied and immortal, (becomes) the Prana (Supreme Self), Brahman, the Light. 'I give you a thousand (cows), sir', said Janaka, Emperor of Videha.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Regarding this very theme there is this pithy verse or Mantra:- When all the desires, forms of yearning, of the knower of Brahman all the objects of whose desire are the Self, are gone, are destroyed together with their root. That dwell in his heart, those well-known desires concerning this and the next life, viz the desire for children, wealth and worlds, that abide in the intellect (mind) of the ordinary man. Then he, having been mortal, becomes immortal, being divested of desires together with their root. It is practically implied that desires concerning things other than the Self fall under the category of ignorance, and are but forms of death. Therefore, on the cessation of death, the man of realisation becomes immortal. And attains Brahman, the identity with Brahman, i.e. liberation, living in this very body. Hence liberation does not require such things as going to some other place. Therefore the organs of a man of realisation do not depart; they are merged in their cause, the self, just where they are. As has been said (III. ii. 12), only their names remain.

But how is it that when the organs have been merged, and the body also has dissolved in its cause, the liberated sage lives in the body identified with all, but does not revert to his former embodied existence, which is subject to transmigration? The answer is being given:- Here is an illustration in point. Just as in the world the lifeless slough of a snake is cast off by it as no more being a part of itself, and lies in the ant-hill, or any other nest of a snake, so does this body, discarded as non-self by the liberated man, who corresponds to the snake, lie like dead.
Then the other, the liberated man identified with all --- who corresponds to the snake --- though he resides just there like the snake, becomes disembodied, and is no more connected with the body. Because formerly he was embodied and mortal on account of his identification with the body under the influence of his desires and past work; since that has gone, he is now disembodied, and therefore immortal. Prana means that which lives. It will be said in a succeeding verse, 'The Vital Force of the vital force' (IV. iv. 18):- and another Sruti says, 'The mind (individual self), my dear, is tethered to the Prana (Supreme Self)' (Ch. VI. viii. 2). From the context and the sentence also it is clear that the word 'Prana' here means the Supreme Self. Brahman, the same as the Supreme Self. What is that? The Light of Pure Intelligence, the light of the Atman, illumined by which the universe gets its eye of knowledge, and beaming with intelligence, remains unshaken in its path.

That wished-for question for the purpose of liberation, about which Yajnavalkya had given Janaka a boon, has been elaborately answered by the Sruti taking the form of the story of Janaka and Yajnavalkya. It deals with bondage and liberation together with their causes, by means of themes and
illustrations. The way of deliverance from relative existence has been told to all. Now the Sruti itself states that Janaka said such and such to compensate for the instructions he had received. What was it? 'Thus delivered, I give you a thousand cows, sir, as a requital for the instructions received,' said Janaka, Emperor of Videha. Now, since the meaning of liberation has been ascertained, why does he not offer himself as well as the empire of Videha, but merely give a thousand cows, as when only a part of liberation was explained? What is the idea behind it?
Here some say, Janaka, who takes delight in the knowledge of the Self, wants to hear again through Mantras what he has already heard (Through the Brahmana.); hence he does not offer everything. He thinks he will do it at the end, after he has heard what he wants to from Yajnavalkya. He is afraid lest, in case he offers everything now, the sage should think that he does not want to hear any more, and withhold the Mantras. So he gives a thousand cows to intimate his desire to hear more. All this is wrong, for the Sruti, being trustworthy authority, can never have recourse to a subterfuge like a man. Besides there is something more to be explained; though liberation, which is attainable through Self-knowledge, has been explained, a part of the latter, viz the relinquishment of desires that is called renunciation, is yet to be described. Therefore the view that the Emperor merely wishes to hear the Mantras is not sound. A resort to repetition can be made only when there is no other way out, and should be avoided when there is an alternative; and we have already said that renunciation is not a mere eulogy on Self-knowledge. It may be urged that in that case the Emperor should say, '(Please instruct me) further about liberation itself.' To this we reply:- The objection does not hold. The Emperor thinks that renunciation is not a direct incentive to liberation like Self-knowledge; hence, according to this view, it can go in like Pratipattikarma. For the Smrti says, 'One should give up the body through renunciation.' Even if renunciation were a means to liberation, it would not necessitate the request. '(Please instruct me) further about liberation itself,' because renunciation merely serves to mature Self-knowledge, which is the means of liberation.

Translation By Max Müller

7. 'On this there is this verse:- "When all desires which once entered his heart are undone, then does the mortal become immortal, then he obtains Brahman. 'And as the slough of a snake lies on an ant-hill, dead and cast away, thus lies this body; but that disembodied immortal spirit (prâna, life) is Brahman only, is only light.' Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'Sir, I give you a thousand.'


Sloka : 4.4.8

मन्त्र ८[IV.iv.8]

तदेते श्लोका भवन्ति । अणुः पन्था विततः पुराणो माꣳ

स्पृष्टोऽनुवित्तो मयैव । तेन धीरा अपियन्ति ब्रह्मविदः स्वर्गं

लोकमित ऊर्ध्वं विमुक्ताः ॥ ८॥

mantra 8[IV.iv.8]

tadete ślokā bhavanti . aṇuḥ panthā vitataḥ purāṇo māgͫ

spṛṣṭo'nuvitto mayaiva . tena dhīrā apiyanti brahmavidaḥ svargaṃ

lokamita ūrdhvaṃ vimuktāḥ .. 8..



Meaning:- Regarding this there are the following pithy verses:- the subtle, extensive, ancient way has touched (been reached by) me. (Nay) I have realised it myself. Through that sages - the knowers of Brahman - (also) go to the heavenly sphere (liberation) after the fall of this body, being freed (even while living).





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Regarding this subject, that liberation is attained by the knower of Brahman all the objects of whose desire are the Self --- a subject that has been dealt with by both Mantra and Brahmana in the preceding portion --- there are the following pithy verses showing the details:- The subtle, being difficult to comprehend; extensive, or on account of another reading, 'Vitara,' effectively leading to liberation; ancient primeval, being revealed by the eternal Srutis, not modern like the misleading paths emanating from the intellect of the logicians; way the path of knowledge that conduces to liberation; has touched me, i.e. has been reached by me. That which is attained by somebody is connected with him as if it touched him; hence the path of liberation consisting in the knowledge of Brahman, having been attained by me, is said to have touched me. I have not merely attained it but have realised it myself. Realisation (Anuvedana) is that attainment which, as knowledge ripens, culminates in the ultimate results, as eating culminates in satisfaction. In the previous clause only a contact with knowledge is meant. This is the difference.

Objection:- Is this seer of the Mantras the only person who has achieved the result of the knowledge of Brahman, and has none else done it, so that he asserts, 'I have realised it myself'?
Reply:- There is nothing wrong in it. It is a eulogy on the knowledge of Brahman, inasmuch as its results is unique --- it is subjective. Such indeed is Self-knowledge:- it gives one the conviction that one is completely blessed, and it requires no other witness than the testimony of one's own experience; so what can be better than this? Thus it is a glorification of the knowledge of Brahman; not that no other knower of Brahman attains that result. For the Sruti says, 'Whoever among the gods (knew It also became That)' (I. iv. 10), which shows that the knowledge of Brahman is accessible to all. This is conveyed by the text:- Through that path of the knowledge of Brahman sages, men of illumination, i.e. other knowers of Brahman also, go to the heavenly sphere, or liberation, which is the result of the knowledge of Brahman --- 'Heavenly sphere' generally means heaven, the abode of the gods, but here from the context it means liberation --- after the fall of this body, being freed even while living.

Translation By Max Müller

8.  [1]. 'On this there are these verses:- 'The small, old path stretching far away [2] has been found by me. On it sages who know Brahman move on to the Svarga-loka (heaven), and thence higher on, as entirely free [3].

Footnote:

1. This may be independent matter, or may be placed again into the mouth of Yâgñavalkya. 2. Instead of vitatah, which perhaps seemed to be in contradiction with anu there is a Mâdhyandina reading vitara, probably intended originally to mean leading across. The other adjective mâm̐sprishta I cannot explain. Saṅkara explains it by mâm sprishtah, mayâ labdhah. 3. That this is the true meaning, is indicated by the various readings of the Mâdhyandinas, tena dhîrâ apiyanti brahmavida utkramya svargam lokam ito vimuktâh. The road is not to lead to Svarga only, but beyond.


Sloka : 4.4.9

मन्त्र ९[IV.iv.9]

तस्मिञ्छुक्लमुत नीलमाहुः पिङ्गलꣳ हरितं लोहितं च । एष

पन्था ब्रह्मणा हानुवित्तस्तेनैति ब्रह्मवित्पुण्यकृत्तैजसश्च ॥ ९॥

mantra 9[IV.iv.9]

tasmiñchuklamuta nīlamāhuḥ piṅgalagͫ haritaṃ lohitaṃ ca . eṣa

panthā brahmaṇā hānuvittastenaiti brahmavitpuṇyakṛttaijasaśca .. 9..



Meaning:- Some speak of it as white, others as blue, grey, green, or red. This path is realised by a Brahmana (knower of Brahman). Any other knower of Brahman who has done good deeds and is identified with the Supreme Light, (also) treads this path.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Seekers after liberation are at variance regarding this path leading to liberation. How? Some aspirants speak of it as white, pure or limpid, others as blue, others as grey, green, or red, according to their experience. In reality, however, they are the nerves Susumna and so forth, filled with phlegm and other liquids, for they have already been mentioned in the words, '(Filled) with white, blue, grey,' etc. (IV. iii. 20). Or they consider the sun to be this path of liberation, because of the reference in another Sruti, 'He is white, he is blue,' etc. (Ch. VIII. vi. 1). Besides, the path of realisation cannot have any colour, white or any other. In either case these white and other colours refer to some other path than that of the knowledge of Brahman, which is the one under consideration.

It may be urged that the word 'white' refers to the pure monistic path. To this we reply:- Not so, for it is enumerated along with the words 'blue,' 'yellow,' (This word does not occur in the above text.) etc., denoting colour. The white and other paths that the Yogins designate as the paths of liberation, are not really such, for they fall within the range of relative existence. They merely lead to the world of Hiranyagarbha and so on, for relate to the exit through particular parts of the body:- 'Through the eye, or through the head, or through any other part of the body' (IV. iv. 2). Therefore the path of liberation is the absorption of the body and such organs as the eye in this very life, like the going out of a lamp --- when transmigration is impossible owing to the exhaustion of all desires through their attainment by the transformation of all objects of desire as the Self. This path of knowledge is realised by a Brahmana who has given up all his desires, and become one with the Supreme Self. Any other knower of Brahman also treads this path of the knowledge of Brahman. What kind of knower of Brahman? Who first of all has done good deeds and then given up the desire for children etc., and is identified with the Supreme Light --- by connecting himself with the Light of the Supreme Self, is metamorphosed into that, i.e. has become the Atman in this very life. Such a knower of Brahman treads this path.
One who combines good work with knowledge is not meant here, for we have said that these are contradictory. The Smrti too says, 'Salutation to that Embodiment of Liberation whom serene monks, fearless about rebirth, attain after the cessation of the effects of their good and bad deeds' (Mbh. XII. x1vi. 56). There is also the exhortation to relinquish merit and demerit:- 'Give up doing good and evil' (Mbh. XII. cccxxxvii. 40). And there are the following Smrti passages:- 'The gods consider him a knower of Brahman who has no desires, who undertakes no work, who does not salute or praise anybody, and whose work has been exhausted, but who himself is unchanged' (Mbh. XII. cc1xix. 34), 'For a knower of Brahman there is no wealth comparable to unity, sameness, truthfulness, virtue, steadfastness, non-injury, candour, and withdrawal from all activities' (Mbh. XII. c1xxiv. 37). Here also the Sruti, a little further on, after giving the reason why work will be unnecessary, in the passage, 'This is the eternal glory of a knower of Brahman:- it neither increases nor decreases through work' (IV. iv. 23), will advise the giving up of all activities in the words, 'Therefore he who knows it as such becomes self-controlled, calm,' etc. (Ibid.). Therefore the clause, 'Who has done good deeds,' should be explained as we have done. Or the sentence may mean:- The knower of Brahman who treads this path is a doer of good deeds and a Yogin who has controlled his senses (Through meditation on the Dahara (the ether in the heart) etc., and attained extraordinary powers.
This is Anandagiri's explanation of the word 'Taijasa.' 'Tejas' according to him means the organs.). Thus it is a eulogy on the knowledge of Brahman. A doer of good and a Yogin of this type are considered highly fortunate people in the world. Hence these two epithests serve to glorify the knower of Brahman (By describing him as being of equal status to the other two.).

Translation By Max Müller

9. 'On that path they say that there is white, or blue, or yellow, or green, or red [1]; that path was found by Brahman, and on it goes whoever knows Brahman, and who has done good, and obtained splendour.

Footnote:

1. See the colours of the veins as given before, IV, 3, 20.


Sloka : 4.4.10

मन्त्र १०[IV.iv.10]

अन्धं तमः प्रविशन्ति येऽविद्यामुपासते । ततो भूय इव ते तमो य

उ विद्यायाꣳ रताः ॥ १०॥

mantra 10[IV.iv.10]

andhaṃ tamaḥ praviśanti ye'vidyāmupāsate . tato bhūya iva te tamo ya

u vidyāyāgͫ ratāḥ .. 10..



Meaning:- Into blinding darkness (ignorance) enter those who worship ignorance (rites). Into greater darkness, as it were, than that enter those who are devoted to knowledge (the ceremonial portion of the Vedas).





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Into blinding darkness, i.e. darkness that obstructs one's vision, or ignorance that leads to transmigration, enter those who worship, i.e. follow ignorance, the opposite of knowledge, i.e. work consisting of ends and means, in other words, those who practise rites. Into greater darkness, as it were, than even that enter those who are devoted, or attached, to knowledge, that portion of the Vedas which deals with things that are the outcome of ignorance, i.e. the ritualistic portion, in other words, those who disregard the teachings of the Upanisads, saying that that portion alone which deals with the injunctions and prohibitions is the Vedas, and there is none other.

Translation By Max Müller

10. 'All who worship what is not knowledge (avidyâ) enter into blind darkness:- those who delight in knowledge, enter, as it were, into greater darkness [1].

Footnote:

1. See Vâg. Up. 9. Saṅkara in our place explains avidyâ by works, and vidyâ by the Veda, excepting the Upanishads.


Sloka : 4.4.11

मन्त्र ११[IV.iv.11]

अनन्दा नाम ते लोका अन्धेन तमसाऽऽवृताः ताꣳस्ते

प्रेत्याभिगच्छन्त्यविद्वाꣳसोऽबुधो जनाः ॥ ११॥

mantra 11[IV.iv.11]

anandā nāma te lokā andhena tamasā''vṛtāḥ tāgͫste

pretyābhigacchantyavidvāgͫso'budho janāḥ .. 11..



Meaning:- Miserable are those worlds enveloped by (that) blinding darkness (ignorance). To them, after death, go those people who are ignorant and unwise.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- What is the harm if they enter into the darkness that obstructs one's vision? This is being answered:- Miserable are those worlds enveloped by that blinding darkness which obstructs one's vision; that is, they are the province of that darkness of ignorance. To them, after death, go --- who? --- those people who are ignorant. The word 'people' means common folk, or those subject to repeated births. Will only ignorance in general take one there? No, they must be unwise (Abudh) too. The word is formed from the root 'budh', meaning, to know, by the addition of the suffix 'kvip'; that is, devoid of the knowledge of the Self.

Translation By Max Müller

11. 'There are [1] indeed those unblessed worlds, covered with blind darkness. Men who are ignorant and not enlightened go after death to those worlds.

Footnote:

1. See Vâg. Up. 3; Katha Up. I. 3.


Sloka : 4.4.12

मन्त्र १२[IV.iv.12]

आत्मानं चेद्विजानीयादयमस्मीति पूरुषः किमिच्छन्कस्य कामाय

शरीरमनुसञ्ज्वरेत् ॥ १२॥

mantra 12[IV.iv.12]

ātmānaṃ cedvijānīyādayamasmīti pūruṣaḥ kimicchankasya kāmāya

śarīramanusañjvaret .. 12..



Meaning:- If a man knows the Self as 'I am this', then desiring what and for whose sake will he suffer in the wake of the body?





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- If a man, one in a thousand, knows the Self, which is his own as well as the Supreme Self, which knows the desires of all beings, which is in the heart (intellect), and is beyond the attributes of hunger etc. The word 'if' shows the rarity of Self-knowledge. Knows how? As 'I am this' Supreme Self, the witness of the perception of all beings, which has been described as 'Not this, not this,' and so on, than which there is no other seer, hearer, thinker and knower, which is always the same and is in all beings, and which is by nature eternal, pure, enlightened and free; desiring what other thing, of the nature of a result, distinct from his own Self, and for whose sake, for the need of what other person distinct from himself:- Because he as the Self has nothing to wish for, and there is none other than himself for whose sake he may wish it, he being the self of all, therefore desiring what and for whose sake will he suffer in the wake of the body --- deviate from his nature, or become miserable, following the misery created by his limiting adjunct, the body, i.e. imbibe the afflictions of the body? For this is possible for the man who does not see the Self and consequently desires things other than It. He struggles desiring something for himself, something else for his son, a third thing for his wife, and so on, goes the round of births and deaths, and is diseased when his body is diseased. But all this is impossible for the man who sees everything as the Self. This is what the Sruti says.

Translation By Max Müller

12. 'If a man understands the Self, saying, "I am He," what could he wish or desire that he should pine after the body [1].

Footnote:

1. That he should be willing to suffer once more the pains inherent in the body. The Mâdhyandinas read sarîram anu samkaret, instead of sañgvaret.


Sloka : 4.4.13

मन्त्र १३[IV.iv.13]

यस्यानुवित्तः प्रतिबुद्ध आत्माऽस्मिन्सन्देह्ये गहने प्रविष्टः । स

विश्वकृत् स हि सर्वस्य कर्ता तस्य लोकः स उ लोक एव ॥ १३॥

mantra 13[IV.iv.13]

yasyānuvittaḥ pratibuddha ātmā'sminsandehye gahane praviṣṭaḥ . sa

viśvakṛt sa hi sarvasya kartā tasya lokaḥ sa u loka eva .. 13..



Meaning:- He who has realised and intimately known the Self that has entered this perilous and inaccessible place (the body), is the maker of the universe, for he is the maker of all, (all is) his Self, and he again is indeed the Self (of all).





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Further, he, the knower of Brahman, who has realised and intimately known the Self --- how? known himself as the innermost Self, as 'I am the Supreme Brahman,' the Self that has entered this place (the body) which is perilous, beset with numerous dangers, and inaccessible with hundreds and thousands or obstacles to enlightenment through discrimination --- this knower of Brahman who has realisd this Self through intuition is the maker of the universe. How? Is it only in name? This is being answered:- No, not merely in name, for he is the maker of all:- He is not such under the influence of any extraneous agency. What then? All is his Self. Is the Self something different from him? The answer is:- He again is indeed the Self (Loka). The word 'Loka' here means the Self. That is to say, all is his Self, and he is the Self of all. This innermost Self which has entered this body, beset with dangers and inaccessible, and which the knower of Brahman realises through intuition, is not the individual self, but the Supreme Self, because It is the maker of the universe, the Self of all, and all is Its Self. One should meditate upon one's identity with the Supreme Self, the one only without a second:- This is the substance of the verse.

Translation By Max Müller

13. 'Whoever has found and understood the Self that has entered into this patched-together hiding-place [1], he indeed is the creator, for he is the maker of everything, his is the world, and he is the world itself [2].

Footnote:

1. The body is meant, and is called deha from the root dih, to knead together. Roer gives samdehye gahane, which Saṅkara explains by samdehe. Poley has samdeghe, which is the right Kânva reading. The Mâdhyandinas read samdehe. Gahane might be taken as an adjective also, referring to samdehe. 2. Saṅkara takes loka, world, for âtmâ, self.


Sloka : 4.4.14

मन्त्र १४[IV.iv.14]

इहैव सन्तोऽथ विद्मस्तद्वयं न चेदवेदिर्महती विनष्टिः । ये

तद्विदुरमृतास्ते भवन्त्यथेतरे दुःखमेवापियन्ति ॥ १४॥

mantra 14[IV.iv.14]

ihaiva santo'tha vidmastadvayaṃ na cedavedirmahatī vinaṣṭiḥ . ye

tadviduramṛtāste bhavantyathetare duḥkhamevāpiyanti .. 14..



Meaning:- Being in this very body we have somehow known that (Brahman). If not, (I should have been) ignorant, (and) great destruction (would have taken place). Those who know It become immortal, while others attain misery alone.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Further, being in this very body, so full of dangers, i.e. being under the spell of the long sleep of ignorance, we have somehow known that Brahman which is under consideration as our own self; oh, blessed are we --- this is the idea. If we had not known that Brahman which we have known, I should have been ignorant (Avedi). 'Vedi' is one who has knowledge; hence 'Avedi' means ignorant. The shortening of the last vowel does not affect the meaning. What harm would there have been had I been ignorant? Great, of infinite magnitude; destruction, consisting in births, deaths, etc., would have taken place. Oh, blessed are we that we have been saved from this great destruction by knowing Brahman, the one without a second;
this is the idea. As we have escaped this great destruction by knowing Brahman, so those who know It become immortal, while those others, people other than the knowers of Brahman, who do not thus know Brahman, attain misery alone, consisting in births, deaths, etc. That is to say, the ignorant never escape from them, for they regard misery itself (the body) as the Self.

Translation By Max Müller

14. 'While we are here, we may know this; if not, I am ignorant [1], and there is great destruction. Those who know it, become immortal, but others suffer pain indeed.

Footnote:

1. I have followed Saṅkara in translating avedih by ignorant, but the text seems corrupt.


Sloka : 4.4.15

मन्त्र १५[IV.iv.15]

यदैतमनुपश्यत्यात्मानं देवमञ्जसा । ईशानं भूतभव्यस्य न ततो

विजुगुप्सते ॥ १५॥

mantra 15[IV.iv.15]

yadaitamanupaśyatyātmānaṃ devamañjasā . īśānaṃ bhūtabhavyasya na tato

vijugupsate .. 15..



Meaning:- When a man after (receiving instructions from a teacher) directly realises this effulgent Self, the Lord of all that has been and will be, he no longer wishes to hide himself from it.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- But when a man, somehow meeting a highly merciful teacher and receiving his grace, afterwards directly realises this effulgent (Deva) Self, or, the Self that bestows on all the respective results of their deeds, the Lord of all that has been and will be, i.e. of the past, present and future, he no longer wishes particularly to hide himself from It, this Lord. Everyone who sees diversity wishes to hide himself from God. But this man sees unity, hence he is not afraid of anything. Therefore he does not want to hide himself any more. Or the meaning may be:- When he directly realises the effulgent Lord as identical with his own self, he no longer blames anybody, for he sees all as his self, and for that reason whom should he blame?

Translation By Max Müller

15. 'If a man clearly beholds this Self as God, and as the lord of all that is and will be, then he is no more afraid.


Sloka : 4.4.16

मन्त्र १६[IV.iv.16]

यस्मादर्वाक्संवत्सरोऽहोभिः परिवर्तते । तद्देवा ज्योतिषां

ज्योतिरायुर्होपासतेऽमृतम् ॥ १६॥

mantra 16[IV.iv.16]

yasmādarvāksaṃvatsaro'hobhiḥ parivartate . taddevā jyotiṣāṃ

jyotirāyurhopāsate'mṛtam .. 16..



Meaning:- Below which the year with its days rotates, upon that immortal Light of all lights the gods meditate as longevity.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Also, below which Lord, i.e. in a different category from it, the year, representing time which limits everything that is born, with its own parts, the days and nights, rotates, occupies a lower position without being able to limit It --- upon that immortal Light of all lights, which is the revealer of even such luminaries as the sun, the gods meditate as longevity. Things other than that perish, but not this Light, for it is the longevity of all. Because the gods meditate upon this Light through its attribute of longevity, therefore they are long-lived. Hence one who desires a long life should meditate upon Brahman throguh Its attribute of longevity.

Translation By Max Müller

16. 'He behind whom the year revolves with the days, him the gods worship as the light of lights, as immortal time.


Sloka : 4.4.17

मन्त्र १७[IV.iv.17]

यस्मिन्पञ्च पञ्चजना आकाशश्च प्रतिष्ठितः । तमेव मन्य

आत्मानं विद्वान्ब्रह्मामृतोऽमृतम् ॥ १७॥

mantra 17[IV.iv.17]

yasminpañca pañcajanā ākāśaśca pratiṣṭhitaḥ . tameva manya

ātmānaṃ vidvānbrahmāmṛto'mṛtam .. 17..



Meaning:- That in which the five groups of five and the (subtle) ether are placed, that very Atman I regard as the immortal Brahman. Knowing (Brahman) I am immortal.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Moreover, that Brahman in which the five groups of five, the celestial minstrels etc., who are five in number, viz the celestial minstrels, the manes, the gods, the Asuras and the Raksasas --- or the four castes with the Nisadas as the fifth --- and the ether called the Undifferentiated, which pervades the Sutra, are placed --- it has been said, 'By this Immutable, O Gargi, is the (unmanifested) ether pervaded' (III. viii. 11) --- that very Atman I regard as the immortal Brahman. I do not consider the Self as different from that. What then is it? Knowing Brahman, I am immortal. I was mortal only through ignorance. Since that is gone, I, the knowing one, am indeed immortal.

Translation By Max Müller

17. 'He in whom the five beings [1] and the ether rest, him alone I believe to be the Self,--I who know, believe him to be Brahman; I who am immortal, believe him to be immortal.

Footnote:

1. The five ganas, i.e. the Gandharvas, Pitris, Devas, Asuras, and Rakshas; or the four castes with the Nishâdas; or breath, eye, ear, food, and mind.


Sloka : 4.4.18

मन्त्र १८[IV.iv.18]

प्राणस्य प्राणमुत चक्षुषश्चक्षुरुत श्रोत्रस्य श्रोत्रं मनसो

ये मनो विदुः । ते निचिक्युर्ब्रह्म पुराणमग्र्यम् ॥ १८॥

mantra 18[IV.iv.18]

prāṇasya prāṇamuta cakṣuṣaścakṣuruta śrotrasya śrotraṃ manaso

ye mano viduḥ . te nicikyurbrahma purāṇamagryam .. 18..



Meaning:- Those who have known the Vital Force of the vital force, the Eye of the eye, the Ear of the ear, and the Mind of the mind, have realised the ancient, primordial Brahman.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Further, it is by being revealed by the light of the Atman that is Pure Intelligence, its own Self, that the vital force functions; therefore It is the Vital Force of the vital force. Those who have known the Vital Force of the vital force, as also the Eye of the eye, the Ear of the ear:- The eye and the other organs receive their powers of vision and so forth only by being inspired by the energy of Brahman; by themselves, divested of the light of the Atman that is Pure Intelligence, they are like wood or clods of earth; and the Mind of the mind --- in other words, those who have known the Self not as a sense-object, but as the innermost self whose existence is inferred from the functions of the eye etc., have realised, known with certainty, the ancient or eternal, and primordial Brahman; for the Mundaka Upanisad says, 'That which the knowers of the Self realise' (II. ii. 19).

Translation By Max Müller

18. 'They who know the life of life, the eye of the eye, the ear of the ear, the mind of the mind, they have comprehended the ancient, primeval Brahman [1].

Footnote:

1. See Talavak. Up. I, 2.


Sloka : 4.4.19

मन्त्र १९[IV.iv.19]

मनसैवानुद्रष्टव्यं नेह नानाऽस्ति किं चन । मृत्योः स

मृत्युमाप्नोति य इह नानेव पश्यति ॥ १९॥

mantra 19[IV.iv.19]

manasaivānudraṣṭavyaṃ neha nānā'sti kiṃ cana . mṛtyoḥ sa

mṛtyumāpnoti ya iha nāneva paśyati .. 19..



Meaning:- Through the mind alone (It) is to be realised. There is no difference whatsoever in It. He goes from death to death, who sees difference, as it were, in It.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- The means of the realisation of that Brahman is being described. Through the mind alone, purified by the knowledge of the supreme Truth, and in accordance with the instructions of the teacher, (It) is to be realised. There is no difference whatsoever in It, Brahman, the object of the realisation. Though there is no difference, one superimposes it through ignorance. He goes from death to death. Who? Who sees difference, as it were, in It. That is to say, really there is no duality apart from the superimposition of ignorance.

Translation By Max Müller

19. 'By the mind alone it is to be perceived [1], there is in it no diversity. He who perceives therein any diversity, goes from death to death.

Footnote:

1. See Katha Up. IV, 10-11.


Sloka : 4.4.20

मन्त्र २०[IV.iv.20]

एकधैवानुद्रष्टव्यमेतदप्रमयं ध्रुवम् । विरजः पर आकाशादज

आत्मा महान्ध्रुवः ॥ २०॥

mantra 20[IV.iv.20]

ekadhaivānudraṣṭavyametadapramayaṃ dhruvam . virajaḥ para ākāśādaja

ātmā mahāndhruvaḥ .. 20..



Meaning:- It should be realised in one form only, (for) It is unknowable and eternal. The Self is taintless, beyond the (subtle) ether, birthless, infinite and constant.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Because It is such, therefore It should be realised in one form only, viz as homogeneous Pure Intelligence, without any break in it, like the ether; for It, this Brahman, is unknowable, owing to the unity of everything (in Brahman).
One is known by another; but It is one, hence unknowable. Eternal, unchangeable, or immovable. It may be objected:- Surely this is contradictory --- to say that It is unknowable, and also that It is known:- 'It is known' means that It is cognised by the means of knowledge, and 'unknowable' is the denial of that. To this we reply:- It is all right, for only this much is denied that It, like other things, is known by any other means than scriptural evidence. Other things are cognised by the ordinary means independent of scriptural evidence; but the truth of the Self cannot thus be known by any other means of knowledge but that. The scriptures too describe It merely by the negation of the activites of the subject, the evidences of knowledge, and so on, in such terms as these:- When everything is the Self, what should one see, ' know, and through what? (An adaptation of II. iv. 14 and IV. v. 15.) --- and not by resorting to the usual function of a sentence in which something is described by means of names. Therefore even in the scriptures the Self is not presented like heaven or Mount Meru, for instance, for it is the very Self of those that present it. A presentation by someone has for its object something to be presented, and this is possible only when there is difference.

The knowledge of Brahman too means only the cessation of the identification with extraneous things (such as the body). The relation of identity with It has not to be directly established, for it is already there. Everybody always has that identity with It, but it appears to be related to something else. Therefore the scriptures do not enjoin that identity with Brahman should be established, but that the false identification with things other than That should stop. When the identification with other things is gone, that identity with one's own Self which is natural, becomes isolated; this is expressed by the statement that the Self is known. In Itself It is unknowable --- not comprehended through any means. Hence both statements are consistent.
The Self is taintless, i.e. free from the impurities of good and evil, beyond the ether, subtler, or more pervasive, than even the unmanifested ether, birthless --- the negation of birt implies that of the five succeeding changes (According to Yaska a thing comes into being, exists, grows, begins to decline, decays and dies.) of condition also, for these originate from birth ---- infinite, vaster than anything else, and constant, indestructible.

Translation By Max Müller

20. 'This eternal being that can never be proved, is to be perceived in one way only; it is spotless, beyond the ether, the unborn Self, great and eternal.


Sloka : 4.4.21

मन्त्र २१[IV.iv.21]

तमेव धीरो विज्ञाय प्रज्ञां कुर्वीत ब्राह्मणः ।

नानुध्यायाद्बहूञ्छब्दान् वाचो विग्लापनꣳ हि तदिति ॥ २१॥

mantra 21[IV.iv.21]

tameva dhīro vijñāya prajñāṃ kurvīta brāhmaṇaḥ .

nānudhyāyādbahūñchabdān vāco viglāpanagͫ hi taditi .. 21..



Meaning:- The intelligent aspirant after Brahman, knowing about this alone, should attain intuitive knowledge. (He) should not think of too many words, for it is particularly fatiguing to the organ of speech.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- The intelligent aspirant after Brahman, knowing about this kind of Self alone, from the instructions of a teacher and from the scriptures, should attain intuitive knowledge of what has been taught by the teacher and the scriptures, so as to put an end to all questioning --- i.e. practise the means of this knowledge, viz renunciation, calmness, self-control, withdrawal of the senses, fortitude and concentration. (He) should not think of too many words. This restriction on too many words implies that a few words dealing exclusively with the unity of the Self are permissible. The Mundaka Upanisad has it:- 'Meditate upon the Self with the help of the syllable Om' (II. ii. 6), and 'Give up all other speech' (II. ii. 5). For it, this thinking of too many words, is particularly fatiguing to the organ of speech.

Translation By Max Müller

21. 'Let a wise Brâhmana, after he has discovered him, practise wisdom [1]. Let him not seek after many words, for that is mere weariness of the tongue.

Footnote:

1. Let him practise abstinence, patience, &c., which are the means of knowledge.


Sloka : 4.4.22

मन्त्र २२[IV.iv.22]

स वा एष महानज आत्मा योऽयं विज्ञानमयः प्राणेषु य

एषोऽन्तर्हृदय आकाशस्तस्मिञ्छेते सर्वस्य वशी सर्वस्येशानः

सर्वस्याधिपतिः स न साधुना कर्मणा भूयान्नो एवासाधुना कनीयानेष

सर्वेश्वर एष भूताधिपतिरेष भूतपाल एष सेतुर्विधरण एषां

लोकानामसम्भेदाय । तमेतं वेदानुवचनेन ब्राह्मणा विविदिषन्ति

यज्ञेन दानेन तपसाऽनाशकेनैतमेव विदित्वा मुनिर्भवत्य्विदित्वा

मुनिस्भवति एतमेव प्रव्राजिनो लोकमिच्छन्तः प्रव्रजन्त्येतद्ध स्म

वै तत्पूर्वे विद्वाꣳसः प्रजां न कामयन्ते किं प्रजया करिष्यामो

येषां नोऽयमात्माऽयं लोक इति । ते ह स्म पुत्रैषणायाश्च

वित्तैषणायाश्च लोकैषणायाश्च व्युत्थायाथ भिक्षाचर्यं चरन्ति

या ह्येव पुत्रैषणा सा वित्तैषणा या वित्तैषणा सा लोकैषणोभे ह्येते

एषणे एव भवतः । स एष नेति नेत्यात्माऽगृह्यो न हि गृह्यते

ऽशीर्यो न हि शीर्यतेऽसङ्गो न हि सज्यतेऽसितो न व्यथते

न रिष्यत्येतमु हैवैते न तरत इत्यतः पापमकरवमित्यतः

कल्याणमकरवमित्युभे उ हैवैष एते तरति नैनं कृताकृते

तपतः ॥ २२॥

mantra 22[IV.iv.22]

sa vā eṣa mahānaja ātmā yo'yaṃ vijñānamayaḥ prāṇeṣu ya

eṣo'ntarhṛdaya ākāśastasmiñchete sarvasya vaśī sarvasyeśānaḥ

sarvasyādhipatiḥ sa na sādhunā karmaṇā bhūyānno evāsādhunā kanīyāneṣa

sarveśvara eṣa bhūtādhipatireṣa bhūtapāla eṣa seturvidharaṇa eṣāṃ

lokānāmasambhedāya . tametaṃ vedānuvacanena brāhmaṇā vividiṣanti

yajñena dānena tapasā'nāśakenaitameva viditvā munirbhavatyviditvā

munisbhavati etameva pravrājino lokamicchantaḥ pravrajantyetaddha sma

vai tatpūrve vidvāgͫsaḥ prajāṃ na kāmayante kiṃ prajayā kariṣyāmo

yeṣāṃ no'yamātmā'yaṃ loka iti . te ha sma putraiṣaṇāyāśca

vittaiṣaṇāyāśca lokaiṣaṇāyāśca vyutthāyātha bhikṣācaryaṃ caranti

yā hyeva putraiṣaṇā sā vittaiṣaṇā yā vittaiṣaṇā sā lokaiṣaṇobhe hyete

eṣaṇe eva bhavataḥ . sa eṣa neti netyātmā'gṛhyo na hi gṛhyate

'śīryo na hi śīryate'saṅgo na hi sajyate'sito na vyathate

na riṣyatyetamu haivaite na tarata ityataḥ pāpamakaravamityataḥ

kalyāṇamakaravamityubhe u haivaiṣa ete tarati nainaṃ kṛtākṛte

tapataḥ .. 22..



Meaning:- That great, birthless Self which is identified with the intellect and is in the midst of the organs, lies in the ether that is within the heart. It is the controller of all, the lord of all, the ruler of all. It does not grow better through good work nor worse through bad work. It is the lord of all, It is the ruler of all beings, It is the protector of all beings. It is the bank that serves as the boundary to keep the different worlds apart. The Brahmanas seek to know It through the study of the Vedas, sacrifices, charity, and austerity consisting in a dispassionate enjoyment of sense-objects. Knowing It alone, one becomes a sage. Desiring this world (the Self) alone, monks renounce their homes. This is (the reason for it); The ancient sages, it is said, did not desire children (thinking), 'What shall we achieve through children, we who have attained this Self, this world (result).' They, it is said, renounced their desire for sons, for wealth and for the worlds, and lived a mendicant's life. That which is the desire for sons is the desire for wealth, and that which is the desire for wealth is the desire for worlds, for both these are but desires. This self is That which has been described as 'Not this, Not this'. It is imperceptible, for It is never perceived; undecaying, for It never decays; unattached, for It is never attached; unfettered - It never feels pain, and never suffers injury. (it is but proper) that the sage is never overtaken by these two thoughts, 'I did an evil act for this', 'I did a good act for this'. He conquers both of them. Things done or not done do not trouble him.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Bondage and liberation together with their causes have been described by the preceding portion consisting of the Mantras and Brahmana. The nature of liberation has again been elaborately set forth by the quotation of pithy verses. Now it has to be shown how the whole of the Vedas is applicable to this subject of the Self; hence the present paragraph is introduced. By recapitulating the topic of Self-knowledge with its results in the way it has been dealt with in this chapter, it is sought to show that the entire Vedas, except the portion treating of ceremonies having material ends, are applicable to this. Hence the words, 'That great,' etc., recapitulating what has been stated. That refers to something already mentioned. What is it? It is pointed out by the words, 'Which is identified with intellect,' etc., which are intended to preclude any reference to the Self just mentioned (verse 20). Which one is meant then? The answer is:- Which is identified with the intellect and is in the midst of the organs. The passage is quoted for settling the doubt, for at the beginning of Janaka's questions it has been stated, 'Which is the self? --- This (infinite entity) that is identified with the intellect and is in the midst of the organs,' etc. (IV. iii. 7). The idea is this:- By the demonstration of desire, work and ignorance as attributes of the non-Self, the self-effulgent Atman that has been set forth in the passage in question is here freed from them and transformed into the Supreme Self, and it is emphatically stated, 'It is the Supreme Self, and nothing else'; it is directly spoken of as the great, birthless Self. The words, 'Which is identified with the intellect and is in the midst of the organs,' have been already explained and have the same meaning here. Lies in the ether that is within the lotus of the heart, the ether (Akasa) that is the seat of the intellect. The Atman lives in that ether containing the intellect. Or the meaning may be that the individual self in the state of profound sleep dwells in that unconditioned Supreme Self, called Akasa, which is its very nature. This has been explained in the second chapter by way of answer to the question, 'Where was it then?' (II. i. 16).
It is (From here up to 'worlds apart', the results accruing to one who realises one's identity with Brahman are being described.) the contoller of all, Hiranyagarbha, Indra, and the rest, for all live under It. As has been said, 'Under the mighty rule of this Immutable (O Gargi),' etc. (III. viii. 9). Not only the controller, but the lord of all, Hiranyagarbha, Indra and others. Lordship may sometimes be due to birth, like that of a prince over his servants, though they are stronger than he. To obviate this the text says, the ruler of all, the supreme protector, i.e. independent, not swayed by ministers and other servants like a prince. The three attributes of control etc. are interdependent. Because the Self is the ruler of all, therefore It is the lord of all, for it is well known that one who protects another as the highest authority, wields lordship over him; and because It is the lord of all, therefore It is the controller of all. Further, It, the infinite entity identified with the intellect, the light within the heart (intellect), being one with the Supreme Self, does not grow better, or improve from the previous state by the accession of some attributes, through good work enjoined by the scriptures, nor worse, i.e. does not fall from its previous state, through bad work forbidden by the scriptures. Moreover, everyone doing these functiions of presiding, protection, etc. is attended with merit and demerit consequent on bestowing favours and inflicting pains on others; why is the Self alone absolved from them? The answer is:- Because 'It is the lord of all,' and accustomed to rule over work also, therefore It is not connected with work. Further 'It is the ruler of all beings,' from Hiranyagarbha down to a clump of grass. The word 'ruler' has already been explained. It is the protector of all those beings. It is the bank --- what kind of bank? --- that serves as the boundary among the divisions of caste and order of life. This is expressed by the words 'to keep the different worlds,' beginning with the earth and ending with the world of Hiranyagarbha, apart, distinct from one another. If the Lord did not divide them like a bank, their limits would be obliterated. Therefore, in order to keep the worlds apart, the
Lord, from whom the self-effulgent Atman is not different, acts as the embankment.

One who knows it thus becomes 'the contoller of all,' and so on --- this sets forth the results of the knowledge of Brahman. The whole of the ceremonial portion of the Vedas, except that dealing with rites having material ends, is applicable as a means to this knowledge of Brahman as delineated, with the results described above, in the present chapter beginning with, 'What serves as the light for a man?' (IV. iii. 2 ' 6). How this can be done is being explained:-
The Brahmanas --- the word 'Brahmana' implies the Ksatriyas and Vaisyas as well, for all the three castes are equally entitled to the study of the Vedas --- seek to know It, this infinite entity as described above, that can be known only from the Upanisads, through the study of the Vedas consisting of the Mantras and Brahmanas --- by daily reading them. Or the passage may mean, 'They seek to know It through the Mantras and Brahmanas relating to the ceremonial portion' How do they seek to know It? 'Through sacrifices,' etc.

Some, (The reference is to Bhartrprapanca.) however, explain the passage as follows:- 'They seek to know that which is revealed by the Mantras and Brahmanas.' According to them the word 'Vedanuvacana' would mean only the Aranyaka, (Which include among others the Upanisads.) since the ceremonial portion does not speak of the Supreme Self; for the Sruti distinctly says, 'That Being who is to be known only from the Upanisads' (III. ix. 26). Besides, the word 'Vedanuvacana,' making no specification, refers to the whole of the Vedas; and it is not proper to exclude one portion of them.

Objection:-
Your interpretation is also one-sided, since it excludes the Upanisads.
Reply:- No, the objection does not apply to our first explanation, in which there is no contradiction. When the word 'Vedanuvacana' means daily reading the Upanisads too are of course included; hence no part of the meaning of the word is abandoned. Besides it is used along with the words 'sacrifices,' etc. It is to introduce sacrifices and other rites that the word 'Vedanuvacana' has been used. Therefore we understand that it means the rites, because the daily reading of the Vedas is also a rite.
Objection:- But how can they seek to know the Self through such rites as the daily reading of the Vedas, for they do not reveal the Self as the Upanisads do?
Reply:- The objection does not hold, for the rites are a means to purification. It is only when the rites have purified them, that people, with their minds clean, can easily know the Self that is revealed by the Upanisads. As the Mundaka Upanisad says, 'But his mind being purified, he sees through meditation that Self which has no parts' (III.i. . The Smrti also says, 'A man attains knowledge only when his evil work has been destroyed,' etc. (Mbh. XII. ccii. 9).
Objection:- How do you know that the regular rites are for purification?
Reply:- From such Sruti texts as the following:- 'He indeed sacrifices to the Self who knows, 'This particular part of my body is being purified by this (rite), and that particular part of my body is being improved by that (rite)',' etc. (S. XI. II. vi. 13). All the Smrtis too speak of rites as being purificatory, as, for instance, the passage, 'The forty-eight acts of purification,' etc. (cf. Gau. VIII. 22). The Gita also says, 'Sacrifices, charity and austerity are purifying to the intellect aspirant' (XVIII. 5), and 'All these knowers of sacrifices have their sins destroyed by the sacrifices' (IV. 30).
Through sacrifices, viz those performed with things and those consisting of knowledge, both of which conduce to purity; and one who, being purified has a clean mind, will spontaneously attain knowledge. Hence it is said, 'They seek to know through sacrifices.' Charity, for this too destroys one's sins and increases one's merits. And austerity. The word meaning without distinction all forms of austerity including (even extreme forms like) the Krcchra and Candrayana, it is qualified by the phrase:- consisting in a dispassionate enjoyment of sense-objects. This absence of unrestrained enjoyment is the real meaning of the word 'Anasaka,' not starvation, which will only lead to death, but not to Self-knowledge. The words 'study of the Vedas,' 'sacrifices,' 'charity' and 'austerity,' refer to all regual rites without exception. Thus the entire body of regular rites --- not those that have material ends --- serves as a means to liberation through the attainment of Self-knowledge. Hence we see that the section of the Vedas dealing with knowledge has the same import as that dealing with rites.
Similarly, knowing It alone, the Self as described in the preceding portion, in the above-mentioned way, one becomes a sage, a man of reflection, i.e. a Yogin. Knowing It alone, and none other, one becomes a sage. It may be urged that one can become a sage by knowing other things also; so how is it asserted, 'It alone'? To which we reply:- True, one can become a sage by knowing other things too, but not exclusively a sage; he may also become a ritualist. But knowing this Being that is to be known only from the Upanisads, one becomes a sage alone, and not a ritualist. Therefore it is to indicate his unique feature of becoming a sage that the text asserts, 'It alone.' Since action is impossible when the Self is known, as is indicated in the words, 'What should one see and through what?' --- only reflection can then take place. Further, desiring, or seeking, this world alone, their own Self, monks renounce their homes, lit. depart effectively, i.e. relinquish all rites.
Because of the assertion, 'Desiring this world alone,' we understand that those who seek the three external worlds (The earth, the world of the manes and heaven.) are not entitled to the monastic life, for a resident of the region of Banaras who wishes to reach Hardwar (Which lies at the north.) does not travel eastward. Therefore, for those who desire the three external worlds, sons, rites and meditation on the conditioned Brahman are the means, since the Sruti says, 'This world of men is to be won through the son alone, and by no other rite,' etc. (I. v. 16). Hence those who want them should not reject such means as the son and embrace the monastic life, for it is not a means to them. Therefore the assertion, 'Desiring this world alone monks renounce their homes,' is quite in order.
The attainment of the world of the Self is but living in one's own Self after the cessation of ignorance. Therefore, should a person desire that world of the Self, for him the chief and direct means of that would be the withdrawal from all activities, just as the son and the like are the means of the three external worlds; for acts that would lead to the birth of a son, for instance, are not means to the attainment of the Self. And we have already mentioned the contradiction involved in them on the ground of impossibility. Therefore, desiring to attain the world of the Self, they do renounce their homes, that is to say, must abstain from all rites. Just as for a man seeking the three external worlds, a son and so forth, are enjoined as the requisite means, so for one who has known about Brahman and desires to realised the world of the Self, the monastic life consisting in the cessation of all desires is undoubtedly enjoined.

Why do those seekers after the world of the Self particularly renounce their homes? The text gives the reason in the form of a laudatory passage. This is the reason for that monastic life:- The ancient sages, ancient knowers of the Self, it is said, did not desire children, as also rites and the meditation on the conditioned Brahman. --- The word 'children' suggests all these three means to the three external worlds. --- In other words, they did not strive for sons etc. as means to those three worlds. It may be objected that they must practise the meditation on the conditioned Brahman, since they could renounce desires on the strength of that alone. The answer is:- No, because it is excluded. To be explicit:- In the passages, 'The Brahmana ousts one who knows him as different from the Self' (II. iv. 6; IV. v. 7), and 'All ousts one,' etc. (Ibid.), even the meditation on the conditioned Brahman is excluded, for this Brahman too is included in the word 'all'. Also, 'Where one sees nothing else,' etc. (Ch. VII. xxiv. 1). Also because it has been forbidden to see in Brahman differences about prior or posterior, and interior or exterior, in the passage, 'Without prior or posterior, without interior or exterior' (II. v. 19). And 'Then what should one see ' know, and through what?' (II. iv. 14; IV. v. 15). Therefore there is no other reason for the renunciation of desires except the realisation of the Self.
What was their intention? They thought:- 'What object or result shall we achieve through the instrumentality of children, for they are definitely known to be the means of attaining an external world, and that world does not exist apart from our own Self, since everything is our own Self, and we are the Self of everything; and just because It is our Self, It cannot be produced, attained, modified or improved by any means. Acts that purify the performer of sacrifices to the Self merely concern his identification with the body and organs, for the Sruti speaks of the relation as between the whole and part, etc., regarding them, 'This particular part of my body is being purified by this (rite),' etc. (S. XI. II. vi. 13). One who sees the Self as Pure Intelligence, homogeneous and without a break cannot meditate upon purification or improvement based on a relation as between the whole and part. Therefore we shall achieve nothing through means such as children. It is only the ignorant man who has to attain results through them. Because a man who sees water in a mirage proceeds to drink from it, another who sees no water there, but a desert, cannot certainly be so inclined. Similarly, we who see the Truth, the world of the Self, cannot run after things to be achieved through children etc. --- things that are like a mirage and so forth, and are the objects of the defective vision of ignorant people.' This was their idea.
This is expressed as follows:- We beholders of the Truth who have attained this Self that is free from hunger etc. and is not to be modified by good or bad deeds, this world, this desired result. There are no means to be desired for realising this Self that is free from all such relative attributes as ends and means. It is only with regard to a thing which is attainable that means are looked for. If a search were made for means to secure something that is unattainable, it would be like swimming on land under the impression that it is water, or like looking for the footprints of birds in the sky. Therefore the knowers of Brahman, after realising this Self, should only renounce their homes, and not engage in rites; because the ancient knowers of Brahman, knowing this, did not want children. What they did after condemning this dealing with the world of ends and means as being the concern of the ignorant, is being described:- They, it is said, renounced their desire for sons, for wealth and for worlds, and lived a mendicant's life, etc. All this has been explained (III. v. 1).
Therefore, desiring the world of the Self monks renounce their homes, i.e. should renounce. Thus it is an injunction, and harmonises with the eulogy (that follows). The sentence, which is provided with a eulogy (immediately after), cannot itself have the force of glorifying the world of the Self, for the verb 'renounce' has for its eulogy the succeeding passage. 'This is (the reason),' etc. If the previous sentence were a eulogy, it would not require another eulogy; but the verb 'renounce' (as interpreted above) does require the eulogy, 'This is (the reason),' etc.

Because ancient sages, desisting from rites directed towards obtaining children etc., did renounce their homes, therefore people of to-day also renounce them, i.e. should renounce them. If we thus construe the passage, the verb 'renounce' cannot have the force of glorifying the world of the Self. We have explained (In III. v. 1.) this on the ground that the verb is connected by the Sruti with the same subject as that of 'knowing.' Moreover, the verb 'renounce' is here used along with 'the study of the Vedas,' etc. As the study of the Vedas and other such acts, which have been enjoined as means to the realisation of the Self, are to be taken literally, and not as eulogies, so also the renunciation of home, which has been mentioned along with them as a means to the attainment of the world of the Self, cannot be a eulogy. Besides, a distinction in the results has been made by the Sruti. The words, 'Knowing (The renunciation in question follows this indirect knowledge so as to mature it into actual realisation.) It --- this world of the Self --- alone' (this text), divide the Self as a result distinct from the other results, the external worlds, as a similar division has been made in the passage, 'This world is to be won through the son alone, and by no other rite; the world of the manes through rites' (I. vi. 16, adapted). Nor is the verb 'renounce' eulogistic of the world of the Self, as if this were something already known. Besides, like a principal sacrifice, it itself requires a eulogy. Further, were it a eulogy it would occur in the text once (As a matter of fact, there are several verbs in the passage that repeat the idea.). Therefore it is purely a mistake to consider it as a tribute to the world of the Self.

Nor can renunciation as an act to be performed be regarded as a eulogy. If, in spite of its being such an act, it is considerd to be a eulogy, then rites such as the new- and full-moon sacrifices, which are to be performed, would also become eulogies. Nor is renunciation clearly known to have been enjoined elsewhere outside the present topic, in which case it might be construed here as being eulogistic. If, however, renunciation is supposed to be enjoined anywhere, it should primarily be here; it is not possible anywhere else. If, again, renunciation is conceded to be enjoined on those who are not qualified for any rite, in that case acts such as the climbing of trees may also be considered as equally appropriate injunctions, for both are alike unknown as obligatory under the circumstances. Therefore there is not the least chance of the passage in question being a eulogy.

It may be asked:- If this world of the Self alone is desired, why do they not undertake work as a means to its attainment? What is the good of renunciation?
The answer is:- Because this world of the Self has no connection with work. That Self, desiring which they should renounce their homes, is not connected, either as a means or as an end, with any of the four kinds of work, viz those that are produced, etc. Therefore this self is That which has been described as 'Not this, not this'; It is imperceptible, for it is never perceived, etc. --- this is the description of the Self. Because it has been established by scriptural evidence as well as reasoning, specially in this dialogue between Janaka and Yajnavalkya, that the Self as described above is not connected with work and its results and means, is different from all relative attributes, beyond hunger etc., devoid of grossness and so on, birthless, undecaying, immortal, undying, beyond fear, by nature homogeneous Intelligence like a lump of salt, self-effulgent, one only without a second, without prior or posterior, and without interior or exterior --- therefore, after this Self is known as one's own Self, work can no more be done. Hence the Self is undifferentiated. One who has eyes does not surely fall into a well or on thorns while going along the way. Besides, the entire results of work are included in those of knowledge. And no wise man takes pains for a thing that can be had without any effort. 'If one gets honey near at hand, why go to a mountain for it? If the desired object is already attained, what sensible man would strive for it?' The Gita too says, 'All work, O Arjuna, together with its factors is finished with the attainment of knowledge' (IV. 33). Here (In IV. iii. 32.) also it has been stated that all other beings live on particles of this very Supreme Bliss that is accessible to the knower of Brahman. Hence the latter cannot undertake work.
Because this sage, desisting from all desires, after realising the Atman that has been described as 'Not this, not this' as his own Self, lives identified with That, therefore it is but proper --- these words are to be supplied to complete the sentence --- that he who has this knowledge and is identified with that Self is never overtaken by these two thoughts that are just going to be mentioned. Which are they? The following ones:- 'I did an evil act for this reason, for example, the maintenance of the body.
Oh, my action was wretched. This sinful act will take me to hell.' This repentance that comes to one who has done something wrong, does not overtake this sage who has become identified with the Self, described as 'Not this, not this.' Similarly 'I did a good act, such as the performance of a sacrifice or charity, for this reason, owing to the desire for results. So I shall enjoy the happiness that comes of it in another body.' This joy also does not overtake him. He, this knower of Brahman, conquers both of them, both these actions, good and bad. Thus for a monk who has known Brahman, both kinds of action, whether done in the past or in the present life, are destroyed, and no new ones are undertaken. Also, things done, such as the regular rites, or those very things not done --- the omission of them --- do not trouble him. It is the man who is ignorant of the Self that is troubled by actions done, for having to receive their results, and by those not done, by being visited with their adverse consequences. But this knower of Brahman burns all work to ashes with the fire of Self-knowledge. As the Smrti says, 'Just as a blazing fire (burns) the fuel (to ashes),' etc. (G. IV. 37). As to those actions that caused the present body, they are worked out through actual experience. Hence the knower of Brahman has no connection with work.

Translation By Max Müller

22. 'And he is that great unborn Self, who consists of knowledge, is surrounded by the Prânas, the ether within the heart [1]. In it there reposes the ruler of all, the lord of all, the king of all. He does not become greater by good works, nor smaller by evil works. He is the lord of all, the king of all things, the protector of all things. He is a bank [2] and a boundary, so that these worlds may not be confounded. Brâhmanas seek to know him by the study of the Veda, by sacrifice, by gifts, by penance, by fasting, and he who knows him, becomes a Muni. Wishing for that world (for Brahman) only, mendicants leave their homes. 'Knowing this, the people of old did not wish for offspring. What shall we do with offspring, they said, we who have this Self and this world (of Brahman) [3]? And they, having risen above the desire for sons, wealth, and new worlds, wander about as mendicants. For desire for sons is desire for wealth, and desire for wealth is desire for worlds. Both these are indeed desires only. He, the Self, is to be described by No, no [4]! He is incomprehensible, for he cannot be comprehended; he is imperishable, for he cannot perish; he is unattached, for he does not attach himself; unfettered, he does not suffer, he does not fail. Him (who knows), these two do not overcome, whether he says that for some reason he has done evil, or for some reason he has done good--he overcomes both, and neither what he has done, nor what he has omitted to do, burns (affects) him.

Footnote:

1. See Brih. Up. IV, 3, 7. 2. See Khând. Up. VIII, 4. 3. Cf. Brih. Up. III, 5, 1. 4. See Brih. Up. III, 9, 26; IV, 2, 4.


Sloka : 4.4.23

मन्त्र २३[IV.iv.23]

तदेतदृचाभ्युक्तम् । एष नित्यो महिमा ब्राह्मणस्य न वर्धते कर्मणा

नो कनीयान् । तस्यैव स्यात् पदवित्तं विदित्वा न लिप्यते कर्मणा

पापकेनेति । तस्मादेवंविच्छान्तो दान्त उपरतस्तितिक्षुः समाहितो

भूत्वाऽऽत्मन्येवाऽऽत्मानं पश्यति सर्वमात्मानं पश्यति नैनं पाप्मा

तरति सर्वं पाप्मानं तरति नैनं पाप्मा तपति सर्वं पाप्मानं तपति

विपापो विरजोऽविचिकित्सो ब्राह्मणो भवति एष ब्रह्मलोकः सम्राड् इति

होवाच याज्ञवल्क्यः । सोऽहं भगवते विदेहान्ददामि माम् चापि सह

दास्यायेति ॥ २३॥

mantra 23[IV.iv.23]

tadetadṛcābhyuktam . eṣa nityo mahimā brāhmaṇasya na vardhate karmaṇā

no kanīyān . tasyaiva syāt padavittaṃ viditvā na lipyate karmaṇā

pāpakeneti . tasmādevaṃvicchānto dānta uparatastitikṣuḥ samāhito

bhūtvā''tmanyevā''tmānaṃ paśyati sarvamātmānaṃ paśyati nainaṃ pāpmā

tarati sarvaṃ pāpmānaṃ tarati nainaṃ pāpmā tapati sarvaṃ pāpmānaṃ tapati

vipāpo virajo'vicikitso brāhmaṇo bhavati eṣa brahmalokaḥ samrāḍ iti

hovāca yājñavalkyaḥ . so'haṃ bhagavate videhāndadāmi mām cāpi saha

dāsyāyeti .. 23..



Meaning:- This has been expressed by the following hymn:- This is the eternal glory of a knower of Brahman:- it neither increases nor decreases through work. (Therefore) one should know the nature of that alone. Knowing it one is not touched by evil action. Therefore he who knows it as such becomes self-controlled, calm, withdrawn into himself, enduring and concentrated, and sees the self in his own self (body); he sees all as the Self. Evil does not overtake him, but he transcends all evil. Evil does not trouble him, (but) he consumes all evil. He becomes sinless, taintless, free from doubts, and a Brahmana (knower of Brahman). This is the world of Brahman, O Emperor, and you have attained it - said Yajnavalkya. 'I give you sir, the empire of Videha, and myself too with it, to wait upon you'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- This, what has been stated by the Brahmana, has been expressed by the following hymn:- This, what is described as 'Not this, not this,' etc., is the eternal glory of a knower of Brahman who has given up all desires. Other glories are due to work; hence they are not permanent; but this glory is distinct from them --- it is eternal, for it is natural.
How is it eternal?
The reason is being given:- It neither increases nor decreases through work --- it does not undergo the change called growth through good work done, nor does it undergo the change called decay through evil work. Since all changes are due to growth or decay, they are all negated by these two epithets. So this glory, being changeless, is eternal. Therefore one should know the nature of that glory alone. The word 'Pada' literally means that which is attained or known; hence it means only the nature of this glory; one should know that. What would come of knowing it? The answer is being given:- Knowing it, this glory, one is not touched by evil action, comprising both good and evil, for, to a knower of Brahman both are evil.

Since this glory of the knower of Brahman is thus unconnected with work, and is described as 'Not this, not this,' therefore he who knows it as such becomes self-controlled, desisting from the activities of the external organs; also calm, averse to the desires of the internal organ or mind; withdrawn into himself, free from all desires, or a monk; enduring, indifferent to the pairs of opposites (pleasure and pain, etc.); concentrated, attaining one-pointedness through dissociation from the movements of the organs and mind. This has been stated before in the words, 'Having known all about the strength that comes of knowledge, as well as scholarship,' etc. (III. v. 1). And sees the Self, the inner Intelligence, in his own self, the body and organs. Does he see only the Self limited to the body? No, he sees all as the Self, he sees that there is nothing different even by a hair's breadth from the self. By reason of his reflection he becomes a sage, giving up the three states of waking, dream and profound sleep. Evil, comprising merit and demerit, does not overtake him, the knower of Brahman who has this sort of realisation, but he, this knower of Brahman, transcends all evil, by realising it as his Self. Evil, consisting in what has been done or not done, does not trouble him, by producing the desired result or generating sin, but he, this knower of Brahman, consumes all evil, burns it to ashes with the fire of the realisation of the Self of all. He, who knows It as such, becomes sinless, devoid of merit and demerit, taintless, free from desires, free from doubts, and a Brahmana (knower of Brahman), with the firm conviction that he is the Self of all, the Supreme Brahman.

Such a man becomes in this state a Brahmana (lit. a knower of Brahman) in the primary sense of the word. Before living in this state of identity with Brahman, his Brahmanahood was but figurative. This identity with the Self of all is the world of Brahman, the world that is Brahman, in a real, not figurative, sense, O Emperor, and you have attained it, this world, of Brahman, which is fearless, and is described as 'Not this, not this' --- said Yajnavalkya.
Janaka, thus identified with Brahman --- helped on to this state by Yajnavalkya --- replied, 'Since you have helped me to attain the state of Brahman, I give you, sir, the empire of Videha, the whole of my dominion, and myself too with it, i.e. Videha, to wait upon you as a servant.' The conjunction 'and' shows that the word 'myself' is connected with the verb 'give'.
The topic of the knowledge of Brahman is finished, together with its offshoots and procedure as also renunciation. The highest end of man is also completely dealt with. This much is to be attained by a man, this is the culmination, this is the supreme goal, this is the highest good. Attaining this, one achieves all that has to be achieved and becomes a knower of Brahman. This is the teaching of the entire Vedas.

Translation By Max Müller

23. 'This has been told by a verse (Rik):- "This eternal greatness of the Brâhmana does not grow larger by work, nor does it grow smaller. Let man try to find (know) its trace, for having found (known) it, he is not sullied by any evil deed." 'He therefore that knows it, after having become quiet, subdued, satisfied, patient, and collected [1], sees self in Self, sees all as Self. Evil does not overcome him, he overcomes all evil. Evil does not burn him, he burns all evil. Free from evil, free from spots, free from doubt, he becomes a (true) Brâhmana; this is the Brahma-world, O King,'--thus spoke Yâgñavalkya. Ganaka Vaideha said:- 'Sir, I give you the Videhas, and also myself, to be together your slaves.'

Footnote:

1. See Deussen, Vedânta, p. 85.


Sloka : 4.4.24

मन्त्र २४[IV.iv.24]

स वा एष महानज आत्माऽन्नादो वसुदानो विन्दते वसु य एवं वेद ॥ २४॥

mantra 24[IV.iv.24]

sa vā eṣa mahānaja ātmā'nnādo vasudāno vindate vasu ya evaṃ veda .. 24..



Meaning:- That great, birthless Self is the eater of food and the giver of wealth (the fruits of one's work). He who knows It as such receives wealth (those fruits).





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- That great, birthless Self which has been expounded in the story of Janaka and Yajnavalkya, is the eater of all food, by living in all beings, and the giver of wealth, i.e. the fruits of the actions of all, in other words, he connects all beings with the results of their respective actions. He who knows It, this birthless Self that is the eater of food and the giver of 'wealth', as such, as described above, i.e. as endowed with these two attributes, eats food, as the Self of all beings, and receives wealth, the entire fruits of everybody's actions, being their very Self. Or the meaning may be, the Self is to be meditated upon as endowed with these attributes even by a man who wants visible results. By that meditation he becomes the eater of food and the receiver of wealth; that is to say, he is thereby connected with visible results --- with the power to eat (plenty of) food and with cows, horses, etc.

Translation By Max Müller

24. This [1] indeed is the great, the unborn Self, the strong [2], the giver of wealth. He who knows this obtains wealth.

Footnote:

1. As described in the dialogue between Ganaka and Yâgñavalkya. 2. Annâda is here explained as 'dwelling in all beings, and eating all food which they eat.'


Sloka : 4.4.25

मन्त्र २५[IV.iv.25]

स वा एष महानज आत्माऽजरोऽमरोऽमृतोऽभयो ब्रह्माभयं वै

ब्रह्माभयꣳ हि वै ब्रह्म भवति य एवं वेद ॥ २५॥

इति चतुर्थं ब्राह्मणम् ।

अथ पञ्चमं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 25[IV.iv.25]

sa vā eṣa mahānaja ātmā'jaro'maro'mṛto'bhayo brahmābhayaṃ vai

brahmābhayagͫ hi vai brahma bhavati ya evaṃ veda .. 25..

iti caturthaṃ brāhmaṇam .

atha pañcamaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- That great, birthless Self is undecaying, immortal, undying, fearless and Brahman (infinite). Brahman is indeed fearless. He who knows It as such certainly becomes the fearless Brahman.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Now the import of the whole Upanisad is being summed up in this paragraph, as much as to say that this is the substance of the entire Upanisad. That great, birthless Self is undecaying, i.e. It does not wear off; immortal, because It is undecaying. That which is born and decays also dies; but because It is indestructible on account of Its being birthless and undecaying, therefore It is undying. That is to say, since It is free from the three changes of condition --- birth and so on, It is also free from the other three changes of condition and their effects --- desire, work, delusion, etc., which are but forms of death. Hence also It is fearless:- Since It is possessed of the preceding attributes, It is devoid of fear. Besides, fear is an effect of ignorance; by the negation of that effect as well as of the six changes of condition, it is understood that ignorance too is negated. What is the fearless Self that is possessed of the above-mentioned attributes? Brahman, i.e. vast, or infinite, Brahman is indeed fearless:- It is a well-known fact. Therefore it is but proper to say that the Self endowed with the above attributes is Brahman.

He who knows It, the Self described above, as such, as the fearless Brahman, certainly becomes the fearless Brahman. This is the purport of the whole Upanisad put in a nutshell. It is to bring home this purport that the ideas of projection, maintenance, dissolution, etc., as well as those of action and its factors and results were superimposed on the Self. Again, by their negation --- by the elimination of the superimposed attributes through a process of 'Not this, not this' --- the truth has been known. Just as, in order to explain the nature of numbers from one up to a hundred thousand billions, a man superimposes them on certain lines (digits), calling one of them one, another ten, another hundred, yet another thousand, and so on, (According to their place.) and in so doing he only expounds the nature of numbers but he never says that the numbers are the lines; or just as in order to teach the alphabet, he has resource to a combination of leaf (Serving for paper.), ink, lines, etc., and through them explains the nature of the letters, but he never says that the letters are the leaf, ink, lines, etc., similarly in this exposition the one entity, Brahman, has been inculcated through various means, such as the projection (of the universe). Again, to eliminate the differences created by those hypothetical means, the truth has been summed up as 'Not this, not this,' In the end, that knowledge, further clarified so as to be undifferentiated, together with its result, has been concluded in this paragraph.

Translation By Max Müller

25. This great, unborn Self, undecaying, undying, immortal, fearless, is indeed Brahman. Fearless is Brahman, and he who knows this becomes verily the fearless Brahman.


Sloka : 4.5.1

मन्त्र १[IV.v.1]

अथ ह याज्ञवल्क्यस्य द्वे भार्ये बभूवतुर्मैत्रेयी च कात्यायनी च

तयोर्ह मैत्रेयी ब्रह्मवादिनी बभूव स्त्रीप्रज्ञैव तर्हि कात्यायन्यथ

ह याज्ञवल्क्योऽन्यद्वृत्तमुपाकरिष्यन् ॥ १॥

mantra 1[IV.v.1]

atha ha yājñavalkyasya dve bhārye babhūvaturmaitreyī ca kātyāyanī ca

tayorha maitreyī brahmavādinī babhūva strīprajñaiva tarhi kātyāyanyatha

ha yājñavalkyo'nyadvṛttamupākariṣyan .. 1..



Meaning:- Now Yajnavalkya had two wives, Maitreyi and Katyayani. Of these Maitreyi used to discuss Brahman, (while) Katyayani had then only an essentially feminine outlook. One day Yajnavalkya, with a view to embracing life -





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- The word 'now' (Atha) indicates sequence after the furnishing of reasons, for the preceding portion predominates in reasons. Then in this section relating to Maitreyi, which consists mainly of scriptural statements, the theme put forward in the preceding portion is concluded. The particle 'ha' (meaning, it is said) refers to a past incident. The sage Yajnavalkya, it is said, had two wives:- one was named Maitreyi, and the other, Katyayani. Of these two wives, Maitreyi used to discuss Brahman, (while) Katyayani had then only an essentially feminine outlook, minding hosehold needs. One day Yajnavalkya, with a view to embracing another life from the householder's life that he was then living, i.e. the monastic life (The sentence is carried over to the next paragraph)

Translation By Max Müller

1. Yâgñavalkya had two wives, Maitreyî and Kâtyâyanî. Of these Maitreyî was conversant with Brahman, but Kâtyâyanî possessed such knowledge only as women possess. And Yâgñavalkya, when he wished to get ready for another state of life (when he wished to give up the state of a householder, and retire into the forest),


Sloka : 4.5.2

मन्त्र २[IV.v.2]

मैत्रेयीति होवाच याज्ञवल्क्यः प्रव्रजिष्यन्वा अरेऽहमस्मात्स्थानादस्मि ।

हन्त तेऽनया कत्यायान्याऽन्तं करवाणीति ॥ २॥

mantra 2[IV.v.2]

maitreyīti hovāca yājñavalkyaḥ pravrajiṣyanvā are'hamasmātsthānādasmi .

hanta te'nayā katyāyānyā'ntaṃ karavāṇīti .. 2..



Meaning:- 'O Maitreyi, my dear', said Yajnavalkya, 'I am going to renounce this life for monasticism. Allow me to finish between you and Katyayani'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- He addressed his older wife by name and said, 'I am going to renounce this householder's life for monasticism, O Maitreyi. Please permit me. Allow me, if you wish, to finish between you and Katyayani.' All this has been explained.

Translation By Max Müller

2. Said, 'Maitreyî, verily I am going away from this my house (into the forest). Forsooth, let me make a settlement between thee and that Kâtyâyanî.'


Sloka : 4.5.3

मन्त्र ३[IV.v.3]

सा होवाच मैत्रेयी यन्नु म इयं भगोः सर्वा पृथिवी वित्तेन

पूर्णा स्यात् स्यां न्वहं तेनामृताऽऽहो३ नेति नेति होवाच याज्ञवल्क्यो

यथैवोपकरणवतां जीवितं तथैव ते जीवितꣳ स्यादमृतत्वस्य

तु नाऽऽशाऽस्ति वित्तेनेति ॥ ३॥

mantra 3[IV.v.3]

sā hovāca maitreyī yannu ma iyaṃ bhagoḥ sarvā pṛthivī vittena

pūrṇā syāt syāṃ nvahaṃ tenāmṛtā''ho3 neti neti hovāca yājñavalkyo

yathaivopakaraṇavatāṃ jīvitaṃ tathaiva te jīvitagͫ syādamṛtatvasya

tu nā''śā'sti vitteneti .. 3..



Meaning:- Thereupon Maitreyi said, 'Sir, if indeed this whole earth full of wealth be mine, shall I be immortal through that, or not?' 'No', replied Yajnavalkya, 'your life will be just like that of people who possess plenty of things, but there is no hope of immortality through wealth.'

Translation By Max Müller

3. Maitreyî said:- 'My Lord, if this whole earth, full of wealth, belonged to me, tell me, should I be immortal by it, or no?' 'No,' replied Yâgñavalkya, 'like the life of rich people will be thy life. But there is no hope of immortality by wealth.'


Sloka : 4.5.4

मन्त्र ४[IV.v.4]

सा होवाच मैत्रेयी येनाहं नामृता स्यां किमहं तेन कुर्याम् । यदेव

भगवान्वेद तदेव मे ब्रूहीति ॥ ४॥

mantra 4[IV.v.4]

sā hovāca maitreyī yenāhaṃ nāmṛtā syāṃ kimahaṃ tena kuryām . yadeva

bhagavānveda tadeva me brūhīti .. 4..



Meaning:- Then Maitreyi said, 'What shall I do with that which will not make me immortal? Tell me, sir, of that alone which you know (to be the only means of immortality).'





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Being thus addressed, Maitreyi said, 'If indeed this whole earth full of wealth be mine, shall I be immortal through that, i.e. rites to be performed through wealth, or not?' 'No,' replied Yajnavalkya, etc. --- already explained.

Translation By Max Müller

4. And Maitreyî said:- 'What should I do with that by which I do not become immortal? What my Lord knoweth [1] (of immortality), tell that clearly to me.'

Footnote:

1. The Kânva text has vettha instead of veda.


Sloka : 4.5.5

मन्त्र ५[IV.v.5]

स होवाच याज्ञवल्क्यः प्रिया वै खलु नो भवती सती प्रियमवृधद्

धन्त तर्हि भवत्येतद् व्याख्यास्यामि ते व्याचक्षाणस्य तु मे

निदिध्यासस्वेति ॥ ५॥

mantra 5[IV.v.5]

sa hovāca yājñavalkyaḥ priyā vai khalu no bhavatī satī priyamavṛdhad

dhanta tarhi bhavatyetad vyākhyāsyāmi te vyācakṣāṇasya tu me

nididhyāsasveti .. 5..



Meaning:- Yajnavalkya said, 'My dear, you have been my beloved (even before), and you have magnified what is after my heart. If you wish, my dear, I will explain it to you. As I explain it, meditate (upon its meaning).





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- He said, 'You have been my beloved even before, and you have magnified, determined, what is after my heart. Hence I am pleased with you. If you wish to know the means of immortality, my dear, I will explain it to you.'

Translation By Max Müller

5. Yâgñavalkya replied:- 'Thou who art truly dear to me, thou hast increased what is dear (to me in thee) [1]. Therefore, if you like, Lady, I will explain it to thee, and mark well what I say.'

Footnote:

1. The Kânva text has avridhat, which Saṅkara explains by vardhitavatî nirdhâritavaty asi. The Mâdhyandinas read avritat, which the commentator explains by avartayat, vartitavaty asi.


Sloka : 4.5.6

मन्त्र ६[IV.v.6]

स होवाच न वा अरे पत्युः कामाय पतिः प्रियो भवत्यात्मनस्तु कामाय

पतिः प्रियो भवति । न वा अरे जायायै कामाय जाया प्रिया भवत्यात्मनस्तु

कामाय जाया प्रिया भवति । न वा अरे पुत्राणां कामाय पुत्राः प्रिया

भवन्त्यात्मनस्तु कामाय पुत्राः प्रिया भवन्ति । न वा अरे वित्तस्य कामाय

वित्तं प्रियं भवत्यात्मनस्तु कामाय वित्तं प्रियं भवति ॥ न वा अरे

पशूनां कामाय पशवः प्रिया भवन्ति आत्मनस्तु कामाय पशवः प्रिया

भवन्ति । न वा अरे ब्रह्मणः कामाय ब्रह्म प्रियं भवत्यात्मनस्तु

कामाय ब्रह्म प्रियं भवति । न वा अरे क्षत्रस्य कामाय क्षत्रं

प्रियं भवत्यात्मनस्तु कामाय क्षत्रं प्रियं भवति । न वा अरे

लोकानां कामाय लोकाः प्रिया भवन्त्यात्मनस्तु कामाय लोकाः प्रिया भवन्ति ।

न वा अरे देवानां कामाय देवाः प्रिया भवन्त्यात्मनस्तु कामाय देवाः

प्रिया भवन्ति । न वा अरे वेदानां कामाय वेदाः प्रिया भवन्त्यात्मनस्तु

कामाय वेदाः प्रिया भवन्ति । न वा अरे भूतानां कामाय भूतानि प्रियाणि

भवन्त्यात्मनस्तु कामाय भूतानि प्रियाणि भवन्ति । न वा अरे सर्वस्य

कामाय सर्वं प्रियं भवत्यात्मनस्तु कामाय सर्वं प्रियं भवत्यात्मा

वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यो निदिध्यासितव्यो मैत्रेय्यात्मनि

खल्वरे दृष्टे श्रुते मते विज्ञात इदꣳ सर्वं विदितम् ।

mantra 6[IV.v.6]

sa hovāca na vā are patyuḥ kāmāya patiḥ priyo bhavatyātmanastu kāmāya

patiḥ priyo bhavati . na vā are jāyāyai kāmāya jāyā priyā bhavatyātmanastu

kāmāya jāyā priyā bhavati . na vā are putrāṇāṃ kāmāya putrāḥ priyā

bhavantyātmanastu kāmāya putrāḥ priyā bhavanti . na vā are vittasya kāmāya

vittaṃ priyaṃ bhavatyātmanastu kāmāya vittaṃ priyaṃ bhavati .. na vā are

paśūnāṃ kāmāya paśavaḥ priyā bhavanti ātmanastu kāmāya paśavaḥ priyā

bhavanti . na vā are brahmaṇaḥ kāmāya brahma priyaṃ bhavatyātmanastu

kāmāya brahma priyaṃ bhavati . na vā are kṣatrasya kāmāya kṣatraṃ

priyaṃ bhavatyātmanastu kāmāya kṣatraṃ priyaṃ bhavati . na vā are

lokānāṃ kāmāya lokāḥ priyā bhavantyātmanastu kāmāya lokāḥ priyā bhavanti .

na vā are devānāṃ kāmāya devāḥ priyā bhavantyātmanastu kāmāya devāḥ

priyā bhavanti . na vā are vedānāṃ kāmāya vedāḥ priyā bhavantyātmanastu

kāmāya vedāḥ priyā bhavanti . na vā are bhūtānāṃ kāmāya bhūtāni priyāṇi

bhavantyātmanastu kāmāya bhūtāni priyāṇi bhavanti . na vā are sarvasya

kāmāya sarvaṃ priyaṃ bhavatyātmanastu kāmāya sarvaṃ priyaṃ bhavatyātmā

vā are draṣṭavyaḥ śrotavyo mantavyo nididhyāsitavyo maitreyyātmani

khalvare dṛṣṭe śrute mate vijñāta idagͫ sarvaṃ viditam .



Meaning:- He said:- 'It is not for the sake of the husband, my dear, that he is loved, but for one's own sake that he is loved. It is not for the sake of the wife, my dear, that she is loved, but for one's own sake that she is loved. It is not for the sake of the sons, my dear, that they are loved, but for one's own sake that they are loved. It is not for the sake of wealth, my dear, that it is loved, but for one's own sake that it is loved. It is not for the sake of the Brahmana, my dear, that he is loved, but for one's own sake that he is loved. It is not for the sake of the Kshatriya, my dear, that he is loved, but for one's own sake that he is loved. It is not for the sake of worlds, my dear, that they are loved, but for one's own sake that they are loved. It is not for the sake of the gods, my dear, that they are loved, but for one's own sake that they are loved. It is not for the sake of beings, my dear, that they are loved, but for one's own sake that they are loved. It is not for the sake of all, my dear, that all is loved, but for one's own sake that it is loved. The Self, my dear Maitreyi, should be realised - should be heard of, reflected on and meditated upon. When the Self, my dear, is realised by being heard of, reflected on and meditated upon, all this is known.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- When the Self, my dear Maitreyi, is realised. How? By being first head of from the teacher and the scriptures, then reflected on, discussed through argument or reasoning --- the hearing is from the scriptures (and the teacher) alone, the reflection through reasoning --- and lastly meditated upon (lit. known), ascertained to be such and such and not otherwise. What happens then? All this that is other than Self is known, for there is nothing else but the Self.

Translation By Max Müller

6. And he said:- 'Verily, a husband is not dear, that you may love the husband; but that you may love the Self, therefore a husband is dear. 'Verily, a wife is not dear, that you may love the wife; but that you may love the Self, therefore a wife is dear. 'Verily, sons are not dear, that you may love the sons; but that you may love the Self, therefore sons are dear. 'Verily, wealth is not dear, that you may love wealth; but that you may love the Self, therefore wealth is dear. 'Verily, cattle [1] are not dear, that you may love cattle; but that you may love the Self, therefore cattle are dear. 'Verily, the Brahman-class is not dear, that you may love the Brahman-class; but that you may love the Self, therefore the Brahman-class is dear. 'Verily, the Kshatra-class is not dear, that you may love the Kshatra-class; but that you may love the Self, therefore the Kshatra-class is dear. 'Verily, the worlds are not dear, that you may love the worlds; but that you may love the Self, therefore the worlds are dear. 'Verily, the Devas are not dear, that you may love the Devas; but that you may love the Self, therefore the Devas are dear. 'Verily, the Vedas are not dear, that you may love the Vedas; but that you may love the Self, therefore the Vedas are dear. 'Verily, creatures are not dear, that you may love the creatures; but that you may love the Self, therefore are creatures dear. 'Verily, everything is not dear, that you may love everything; but that you may love the Self, therefore everything is dear. 'Verily, the Self is to be seen, to be heard, to be perceived, to be marked, O Maitreyî! When the Self has been seen, heard, perceived, and known, then all this is known!

Footnote:

1. Though this is added here, it is not included in the summing up in § 6.


Sloka : 4.5.7

मन्त्र ७[IV.v.7]

ब्रह्म तं परादाद् योऽन्यत्राऽऽत्मनो ब्रह्म वेद क्षत्रं तं परादाद्

योऽन्यत्राऽऽत्मनः क्षत्रं वेद लोकास्तं परादुः योऽन्यत्राऽऽत्मनो

लोकान्वेद देवास्तं परादुः योऽन्यत्रात्मनो देवान्वेद वेदास्तं

परादुर्योऽन्यत्रात्मनो वेदान्वेद भूतानि तं परादुर्योऽन्यत्राऽऽत्मनो

भूतानि वेद सर्वं तं परादाद् योऽन्यत्राऽऽत्मनः सर्वं वेदेदं

ब्रह्मेदं क्षत्रमिमे लोका इमे देवा इमे वेदा इमानि भूतानीदꣳ सर्वं

यदयमात्मा ॥ ७॥

mantra 7[IV.v.7]

brahma taṃ parādād yo'nyatrā''tmano brahma veda kṣatraṃ taṃ parādād

yo'nyatrā''tmanaḥ kṣatraṃ veda lokāstaṃ parāduḥ yo'nyatrā''tmano

lokānveda devāstaṃ parāduḥ yo'nyatrātmano devānveda vedāstaṃ

parāduryo'nyatrātmano vedānveda bhūtāni taṃ parāduryo'nyatrā''tmano

bhūtāni veda sarvaṃ taṃ parādād yo'nyatrā''tmanaḥ sarvaṃ vededaṃ

brahmedaṃ kṣatramime lokā ime devā ime vedā imāni bhūtānīdagͫ sarvaṃ

yadayamātmā .. 7..



Meaning:- The Brahmana ousts (slights) one who knows him as different from the Self. The Kshatriya ousts one who knows him as different from the Self. Worlds oust one who knows them as different from the Self. The gods oust one who knows them as different from the Self. The Vedas oust one who knows them as different from the Self. Beings oust one who knows them as different from the Self. All ousts one who knows it as different from the Self. This Brahmana, this Kshatriya, these worlds, these gods, these Vedas, these beings and these all -- are this Self.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- They oust this person who does not see rightly --- bar him from the absolute aloofness of the Self --- for his offence of looking on them as different from the Self. This is the idea.

Translation By Max Müller

7. 'Whosoever looks for the Brahman-class elsewhere than in the Self, was abandoned by the Brahman-class. Whosoever looks for the Kshatra-class elsewhere than in the Self, was abandoned by the Kshatra-class. Whosoever looks for the worlds elsewhere than in the Self, was abandoned by the worlds. Whosoever looks for the Devas elsewhere than in the Self, was abandoned by the Devas. Whosoever looks for the Vedas elsewhere than in the Self, was abandoned by the Vedas. Whosoever looks for the creatures elsewhere than in the Self, was abandoned by the creatures. Whosoever looks for anything elsewhere than in the Self, was abandoned by anything. 'This Brahman-class, this Kshatra-class, these worlds, these Devas, these Vedas, all these beings, this everything, all is that Self.


Sloka : 4.5.8

मन्त्र ८[IV.v.8]

स यथा दुन्दुभेर्हन्यमानस्य न बाह्याञ्छब्दाञ्छक्नुयाद् ग्रहणाय

दुन्दुभेस्तु ग्रहणेन दुन्दुभ्याघातस्य वा शब्दो गृहीतः ॥ ८॥

mantra 8[IV.v.8]

sa yathā dundubherhanyamānasya na bāhyāñchabdāñchaknuyād grahaṇāya

dundubhestu grahaṇena dundubhyāghātasya vā śabdo gṛhītaḥ .. 8..



Meaning:- As, when a drum is beaten, one cannot distinguish its various particular notes, but they are included in the general note of the drum or in the general sound produced by different kinds of strokes.

Translation By Max Müller

8. 'Now as the sounds of a drum, when beaten, cannot be seized externally (by themselves), but the sound is seized, when the drum is seized, or the beater of the drum;


Sloka : 4.5.9

मन्त्र ९[IV.v.9]

स यथा शङ्खस्य ध्मायमानस्य न बाह्याञ्छब्दाञ्छक्नुयाद् ग्रहणाय

शङ्खस्य तु ग्रहणेन शङ्खध्मस्य वा शब्दो गृहीतः ॥ ९॥

mantra 9[IV.v.9]

sa yathā śaṅkhasya dhmāyamānasya na bāhyāñchabdāñchaknuyād grahaṇāya

śaṅkhasya tu grahaṇena śaṅkhadhmasya vā śabdo gṛhītaḥ .. 9..



Meaning:- As, when a conch is blown, one cannot distinguish its various particular notes, but they are included in the general note of the conch or in the general sound produced by different kinds of playing.

Translation By Max Müller

9. 'And as the sounds of a conch-shell, when blown, cannot be seized externally (by themselves), but the sound is seized, when the shell is seized, or the blower of the shell;


Sloka : 4.5.10

मन्त्र १०[IV.v.10]

स यथा वीणायै वाद्यमानायै न बाह्याञ्छब्दाञ्छक्नुयाद्ग्रहणाय

वीणायै तु ग्रहणेन वीणावादस्य वा शब्दो गृहीतः ॥ १०॥

mantra 10[IV.v.10]

sa yathā vīṇāyai vādyamānāyai na bāhyāñchabdāñchaknuyādgrahaṇāya

vīṇāyai tu grahaṇena vīṇāvādasya vā śabdo gṛhītaḥ .. 10..



Meaning:- As, when a Vina is played, one cannot distinguish its various particular notes, but they are included in the general note of the Vina or in the general sound produced by different kinds of playing.

Translation By Max Müller

10. 'And as the sounds of a lute, when played, cannot be seized externally (by themselves), but the sound is seized, when the lute is seized, or the player of the lute;


Sloka : 4.5.11

मन्त्र ११[IV.v.11]

स यथाऽऽर्द्रैधाग्नेरभ्याहितस्य पृथग्धूमा विनिश्चरन्त्येवं

वा अरेऽस्य महतो भूतस्य निःश्वसितमेतद्यदृग्वेदो यजुर्वेदः

सामवेदोऽथर्वाङ्गिरस इतिहासः पुराणं विद्या उपनिषदः श्लोकाः

सूत्राण्यनुव्याख्यानानि व्याख्यानानि इष्टꣳ हुतमाशितं पायितमयं

च लोकः परश्च लोकः सर्वाणि च भूतान्यस्यैवैतानि सर्वाणि

निःश्वसितानि ॥ ११॥ सामवेदसथर्वाङ्गिरससितिहासस्पुराणं

विद्यासुपनिषदस्श्लोकास्सूत्राणि अनुव्याख्यानानि व्याख्याननि दत्तं

mantra 11[IV.v.11]

sa yathā''rdraidhāgnerabhyāhitasya pṛthagdhūmā viniścarantyevaṃ

vā are'sya mahato bhūtasya niḥśvasitametadyadṛgvedo yajurvedaḥ

sāmavedo'tharvāṅgirasa itihāsaḥ purāṇaṃ vidyā upaniṣadaḥ ślokāḥ

sūtrāṇyanuvyākhyānāni vyākhyānāni iṣṭagͫ hutamāśitaṃ pāyitamayaṃ

ca lokaḥ paraśca lokaḥ sarvāṇi ca bhūtānyasyaivaitāni sarvāṇi

niḥśvasitāni .. 11.. sāmavedasatharvāṅgirasasitihāsaspurāṇaṃ

vidyāsupaniṣadasślokāssūtrāṇi anuvyākhyānāni vyākhyānani dattaṃ



Meaning:- As from a fire kindled with wet faggot diverse kinds of smoke issue, even so, my dear, the Rig-Veda, Yajur-Veda, Sama-Veda, Atharvangirasa, history, mythology, arts, Upanishads, pithy verses, aphorisms, elucidations, explanations, sacrifices, oblations in the fire, food, drink, this world, the next world and all beings are (like) the breath of this infinite Reality. They are like the breath of this (Supreme Self).





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- In the second chapter, by a description of words as the breath of the Supreme Self it has virtually been stated through implication that objects (denoted by words) such as the worlds are also Its breath. Hence they have not been separately mentioned. But since the import of the entire scriptures is being summarised here, it is necessary to make the implied meaning explicit. Hence the worlds and the rest are separately mentioned.

Translation By Max Müller

11. 'As clouds of smoke proceed by themselves out of lighted fire kindled with damp fuel, thus verily, O Maitreyî, has been breathed forth from this great Being what we have as Rig-veda, Yagur-veda, Sâma-veda, Atharvâṅgirasas, Itihâsa, Purâna, Vidyâ, the Upanishads, Slokas, Sûtras, Anuvyâkhyânas, Vyâkhyânas, what is sacrificed, what is poured out, food, drink [1], this world and the other world, and all creatures. From him alone all these were breathed forth.

Footnote:

1. Explained by annadânanimittam and peyadânanimittam dharmagâtam. See before, IV, 1, 2.


Sloka : 4.5.12

मन्त्र १२[IV.v.12]

स यथा सर्वासामपाꣳ समुद्र एकायनमेवꣳ सर्वेषाꣳ

स्पर्शानां त्वगेकायनमेवꣳ सर्वेषां गन्धानां नासिकैकायनं

एवꣳ सर्वेषाꣳ रसानां जिह्वैकायनमेवꣳ सर्वेषाꣳ

रूपाणां चक्षुरेकायनमेवꣳ सर्वेषं शब्दानां श्रोत्रमेकायनं

एवꣳ सर्वेषाꣳ सङ्कल्पानां मन एकायनमेवꣳ सर्वासां

विद्यानाꣳ हृदयमेकायनमेवꣳ सर्वेषां कर्मणाꣳ

हस्तावेकायनमेवꣳ सर्वेषामानन्दानामुपस्थ एकायनमेवꣳ

सर्वेषां विसर्गाणां पायुरेकायनमेवꣳ सर्वेषामध्वनां

पादावेकायनमेवꣳ सर्वेषां वेदानां वागेकायनम् ॥ १२॥

mantra 12[IV.v.12]

sa yathā sarvāsāmapāgͫ samudra ekāyanamevagͫ sarveṣāgͫ

sparśānāṃ tvagekāyanamevagͫ sarveṣāṃ gandhānāṃ nāsikaikāyanaṃ

evagͫ sarveṣāgͫ rasānāṃ jihvaikāyanamevagͫ sarveṣāgͫ

rūpāṇāṃ cakṣurekāyanamevagͫ sarveṣaṃ śabdānāṃ śrotramekāyanaṃ

evagͫ sarveṣāgͫ saṅkalpānāṃ mana ekāyanamevagͫ sarvāsāṃ

vidyānāgͫ hṛdayamekāyanamevagͫ sarveṣāṃ karmaṇāgͫ

hastāvekāyanamevagͫ sarveṣāmānandānāmupastha ekāyanamevagͫ

sarveṣāṃ visargāṇāṃ pāyurekāyanamevagͫ sarveṣāmadhvanāṃ

pādāvekāyanamevagͫ sarveṣāṃ vedānāṃ vāgekāyanam .. 12..



Meaning:- As the ocean is the one goal of all sorts of water, as the skin is the one goal of all kinds of touch, as the nostrils are the one goal of all odours, as the tongue is the one goal of all savours, as the eye is the one goal of all colours , as the ear is the one goal of all sounds, as the Manas is the one goal of all deliberations, as the intellect is the one goal of all kinds of knowledge, as the hands are the one goal of all sort of work, as the organ of generation is the one goal of all kinds of enjoyment, as the anus is the one goal of all excretions, as the feet are the one goal of all kinds of walking, as the organ of speech is the one goal of all Vedas.

Translation By Max Müller

12. 'As all waters find their centre in the sea, all touches in the skin, all tastes in the tongue, all smells in the nose, all colours in the eye, all sounds in the ear, all percepts in the mind, all- knowledge in the heart, all actions in the hands, all movements in the feet, and all the Vedas in speech,--


Sloka : 4.5.13

मन्त्र १३[IV.v.13]

स यथा सैन्धवघनोऽनन्तरोऽबाह्यः कृत्स्नो रसघन एवै वं

वा अरेऽयमात्मानन्तरोऽबाह्यः कृत्स्नः प्रज्ञानघन एवैतेभ्यो

भूतेभ्यः समुत्थाय तान्येवानुविनयष्यतिति प्रज्ञानघनसेव

एतेभ्यस्भूतेभ्यस्समुत्थाय तानि एव अनुविनयति न प्रेत्य

सञ्ज्ञाऽस्तीत्यरे ब्रवीमीति होवाच याज्ञवल्क्यः ॥ १३॥

mantra 13[IV.v.13]

sa yathā saindhavaghano'nantaro'bāhyaḥ kṛtsno rasaghana evai vaṃ

vā are'yamātmānantaro'bāhyaḥ kṛtsnaḥ prajñānaghana evaitebhyo

bhūtebhyaḥ samutthāya tānyevānuvinayaṣyatiti prajñānaghanaseva

etebhyasbhūtebhyassamutthāya tāni eva anuvinayati na pretya

sañjñā'stītyare bravīmīti hovāca yājñavalkyaḥ .. 13..



Meaning:- As a lump of salt is without interior or exterior, entire, and purely saline in taste, even so is the Self without interior or exterior, entire, and Pure Intelligence alone. (The Self) comes out (as a separate entity) from these elements, and (this separateness) is destroyed with them. After attaining (this oneness) it has no more consciousness. This is what I say, my dear. So said Yajnavalkya.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- When through knowledge all the effects have been merged, the one Self remains like a lump of salt, without interior or exterior, entire, and Pure Intelligence. Formerly it possessed particular consciousness owing to the particular combinations with the elements. When that particular consciousness and its cause, the combination with the elements, have been dissolved through the knowledge --- after attaining (this oneness) it has no more (particular) consciousness --- this is what Yajnavalkya says.

Translation By Max Müller

13. 'As a mass of salt has neither inside nor outside, but is altogether a mass of taste, thus indeed has that Self neither inside nor outside, but is altogether a mass of knowledge; and having risen from out these elements, vanishes again in them. When he has departed, there is no more knowledge (name), I say, O Maitreyî,'--thus spoke Yâgñavalkya.


Sloka : 4.5.14

मन्त्र १४[IV.v.14]

सा होवाच मैत्रेय्यत्रैव मा भगवान्मोहान्तमापीपिपन् न वा अहमिमं

विजानामीति स होवाच न वा अरेऽहं मोहं ब्रवीम्यविनाशी वा

अरेऽयमात्माऽनुच्छित्तिधर्मा ॥ १४॥

mantra 14[IV.v.14]

sā hovāca maitreyyatraiva mā bhagavānmohāntamāpīpipan na vā ahamimaṃ

vijānāmīti sa hovāca na vā are'haṃ mohaṃ bravīmyavināśī vā

are'yamātmā'nucchittidharmā .. 14..



Meaning:- Maitreyi said, 'Just here you have led me into the midst of confusion, sir, I do not at all comprehend this'. He said, 'Certainly, I am not saying anything confusing. This self is indeed immutable and indestructible, my dear'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- She said, 'Just here, in this very thing, i.e. Pure Intelligence, you have led me into the midst of confusion, i.e. confounded me, by saying, 'After attaining (oneness) it has nor more consciousness.' Hence I do not at all comprehend --- clearly understand --- this Self that you have described.' He said, 'Certainly I am not saying anything confusing; for this self that is under consideration is indeed immutable (lit. undying) and indestructible, my dear Maiteryi.' That is to say, it is not subject to destruction either in the form of change or of extinction.

Translation By Max Müller

14. Then Maitreyî said:- 'Here, Sir, thou hast landed me in utter bewilderment. Indeed, I do not understand him.' But he replied:- 'O Maitreyî, I say nothing that is bewildering. Verily, beloved, that Self is imperishable, and of an indestructible nature.


Sloka : 4.5.15

मन्त्र १५[IV.v.15]

यत्र हि द्वैतमिव भवति तदितर इतरं पश्यति तदितर इतरं

जिघ्रति तदितर इतरꣳ रसयते तदितर इतरमभिवदति तदितर

इतरꣳ श‍ृणोति तदितर इतरं मनुते तदितर इतरꣳ स्पृशति

तदितर इतरं विजानाति । यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत् तत्केन कं

पश्येत् तत्केन कं जिघ्रेत् तत्केन कꣳ रसयेत् तत्केन कमभिवदेत्

तत्केन कꣳ श‍ृणुयात् तत्केन कं मन्वीत तत्केन कꣳ स्पृशेत्

तत्केन कं विजानीयाद्येनेदꣳ सर्वं विजानाति तं केन विजानीयात्

स एष नेति नेत्याऽत्मागृह्यो न हि गृह्यतेऽशीर्यो न हि शीर्यते

ऽसङ्गो न हि सज्यतेऽसितो न व्यथते न रिष्यति । विज्ञातारमरे

केन विजानीयादित्युक्तानुशासनासि मैत्रेय्येतावदरे खल्वमृतत्वमिति

होक्त्वा याज्ञवल्क्यो विजहार ॥ १५॥

इति पञ्चमं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ षष्ठं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 15[IV.v.15]

yatra hi dvaitamiva bhavati taditara itaraṃ paśyati taditara itaraṃ

jighrati taditara itaragͫ rasayate taditara itaramabhivadati taditara

itaragͫ śṛṇoti taditara itaraṃ manute taditara itaragͫ spṛśati

taditara itaraṃ vijānāti . yatra tvasya sarvamātmaivābhūt tatkena kaṃ

paśyet tatkena kaṃ jighret tatkena kagͫ rasayet tatkena kamabhivadet

tatkena kagͫ śṛṇuyāt tatkena kaṃ manvīta tatkena kagͫ spṛśet

tatkena kaṃ vijānīyādyenedagͫ sarvaṃ vijānāti taṃ kena vijānīyāt

sa eṣa neti netyā'tmāgṛhyo na hi gṛhyate'śīryo na hi śīryate

'saṅgo na hi sajyate'sito na vyathate na riṣyati . vijñātāramare

kena vijānīyādityuktānuśāsanāsi maitreyyetāvadare khalvamṛtatvamiti

hoktvā yājñavalkyo vijahāra .. 15..

iti pañcamaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha ṣaṣṭhaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- Because when there is duality, as it were, then one sees something, one smells something, one tastes something, one speaks something, one hears something, one thinks something, one touches something, one knows something. (But) when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should one see and through what, what should one smell and through what, what should one taste and through what, what should one speak and through what, what should one hear and through what, what should one think and through what, what should one touch and through what, what should one know and through what? Through what should one know that owing to which all this is known? This self is That which has been described as 'Not this, Not this'. It is imperceptible, for It is never perceived; undecaying, for It never decays; unattached, for It is never attached; unfettered - it never feels pain, and never suffers injury. Through what, O Maitreyi, should one know the Knower? So you have got the instruction, Maitreyi. This much indeed is (the means of) immortality, my dear. Saying this Yajnavalkya left.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- In all the four chapters one and the same self has been ascertained to be the Supreme Brahman. But the means to Its attainment are various. The goal of all of them, however, is that Self which has been pointed out in the second chapter in the words, 'Now therefore the description:- Not this, not this' (II. iii. 6). The same has also ben ascertained in the third chapter, in the dialogue between Sakalya and Yajnavalkya, where death (the falling off of the head) was mentioned as the wager; then at the end of the third chapter, next in the dialogue between Janaka and Yajnavalkya, and again here at the conclusion of the Upanisad. In order to show that all the four chapters are exclusively devoted to this Self, and that no other meaning is intended in between, the conclusion has been made with the words, 'This self is That which has been described as 'Not this. not this,' ' etc.

Since, in spite of the truth being presented in a hundred ways, the Self is the last word of it all, arrived at by the process of 'Not this, not this,' and nothing else is perceived either through reasoning or through scriptural statement, therefore the knowledge of this Self by the process of 'Not this, not this' and the renunciation of everything are the only means of attaining immortality. To bring out this conclusion the text says:- This much indeed --- this realisation of the Self, the one without a second, by the eliminating process of 'Not this, not this,' is (the means of) immortality, my dear Maitreyi, and this is independent of any auxiliary means. That of which you asked me saying, 'Tell me, sir, of that alone which you know (to be the only means of immortality),' is just this much. So you have known it. Saying this, describing this Self-knowledge, the means of immortality, to his beloved wife Maitreyi, Yajnavalkaya --- what did he do? --- did what he had first proposed saying, I am going to renounce this life' --- left, i.e. became a monk. The discussion of the knowledge of Brahman, culminating in renunciation, is finished. This much is the instruction, this is the teaching of the Vedas, this is the ultimate goal, this is the end of what a man should do to achieve his highest good.

Now we are going to have a discussion in order to get a clear conception of the meaning of the scriptues, for we see various conflicting statements in them. For instance, the following texts indicate that there is only one order of life (the householder's):- 'One should perform the Agnihotra for life' (Ba.), 'One should perform the new- and full-moon sacrifices for life' (Ibid.), 'One should wish to live a hundred years on earth only performing rites' (Is. 2), 'This Agnihotra is a sacrifice that must be continued till decay and death come' (S. XII. iv. ii. 1), and so on. There are also statements establishing another order of life (monasticism):- 'Knowing (the Self) ' they give up desires ' and renounce their homes (Adapted from III. v. 1 and IV. iv. 22.),' 'After finishing the student life he should be a householder, from that he should pass on to the life of a hermit in the forest, and then become a monk. Or he may do otherwise --- he should renounce the world from the student life itslef , or from the householder's life, or from the hermit life' (Np. 77; Ja. 4, adapted), 'There are but two outstanding paths --- first, the path of rites, and next, monasticism; of these, the latter excels' (cf. Tai. A. X. 1xii. 12), and 'Neither through rites nor through progeny nor through wealth, but through renunciation some attained immortaility' (Mn. X. 5; Kai. 2). Similarly the Smrtis:- 'One who leads the student life renounces' (Ap. II. xxi. 8, 19), 'One who leads a perfectly celibate life may enter into any order of life' (Va. VIII. 2), 'Some say he has an option of choosing his order of life' (Gau. III. 1); also, 'After studying the Vedas as a student, he should seek to have sons and grandsons to purify his ancestors. Lighting the sacred fires and making sacrifices according to the injunctions, he should retire into the forest and then seek to become a monk' (Mbh. XII. c1xxiv. 6), 'The Brahmana, after performing the sacrifice to Prajapati and giving all his wealth to the priests as remuneration, should place the fires within himself and renounce his home' (M. VI. 38), and so on.

Thus hundreds of contradictory passages from the Srutis and Smrtis are found, inculcating an option with regard to renunciation, or a succession among the orders of life, or the adoption of any one of them at will. The conduct of those who are versed in these scriptures has also been mutually conflicting. And there is disagreement even among great scholars who understand the meaning of the scriptures. Hence it is impossible for persons of shallow understanding clearly to grasp the meaning of the scriptures. It is only those who have a firm hold on the scriptures and logic, that can distinguish the particular meaning of any of those passages from that of the others. Therefore, in order to indicate their exact meaning, we shall discuss them according to our understanding.
Prima facie view:- The Vedas inculcate only rites, for such Sruti passages as, '(One should perform the Agnihotra) for life' (Ba.), admit of no other meaning. The Sruti speaks of the last rite of a man in these terms, 'They burn him with the sacrificial vessels.' There is also the statement about the rites being continued till decay and death come. Besides there is this hint, '(This) body, reduced to ashes,' etc. (V. xv. 1; Is. 17). If he were a monk, his body should not be reduced to ashes. The Smrti also says, 'He alone should be considered entitled to the study of these scriptures, whose rites from conception to the study of these scriptures, whose rites from conception to the funeral ground are performed with the utterance of sacred formulas, and no one else' (M. II. 16).
The rites that are enjoined by the Vedas to be performed in this life with the utterance of sacred formulas, are shown by the Smrti to terminate only on the funeral ground. And because a man who does not perform those rites is not entitled (to the study of the Smrtis), he is absolutely debarred from having any right to the study of the Vedas. Besides, it is forbidden to extinguish the sacred fire, as in the passage, 'He who extinguishes the sacred fire destroys the power of the gods' (Tai. S. I. v. ii. 1).

Question:- Since renunciation etc. are also enjoined, is not the import of the Vedas as inculcating rites only optional?
The opponent's answer:- No, for the Sruti texts inculcating renunciation etc. have a different meaning. To be explicit:- Because such Sruti texts as, 'One should perform the Agnihotra for life' (Ba.), and 'One should perform the new-and full-moon sacrifices for life' (Ibid.), make such rites dependent on (i.e. co-extensive with) life itself, and for that reason cannot be interpreted differently, while the passages inculcating renunciation etc. are applicable to those who are unfit for rites, therefore there is no option (with regard to the meaning of the Vedas as inculcating rites). Besides, since the Sruti says, 'One should wish to live a hundred years on earth only performing rites' (Is. 2), and the passage, 'One is absolved (from rites) either by extreme old age or by death' (S. XII. iv. i. 1), leaves no room for the ritualist to quit the rites except in the event of extreme old age or death, the injunction regarding their being continued in these cases up to the funeral ground, is not optional. Moreover, the blind, the hump-backed, and so forth, who are unfit for rites, surely deserve the compassion of the Sruti; hence the injunction about other orders of life such as monasticism are not out of place (as being applicable to them).

Question:- But there will be no room for the injunction regarding the sequence of monasticism.
The opponent's answer:- Not so, for the Visvajit and Sarvamedha sacrifices will be an exception (Because one has to part with all one's wealth in them. Hence any more performance of sacrifices would be impossible for want of wealth. These persons alone are then entitled to monasticism etc.) to the rule about the lifelong performance of sacrifices. In other words, these two sacrifices are the only exceptions to the injunction about the lifelong performance of sacrifices, and the succession referred to in the passage, 'After finishing the student life he should be a householder, from that he should pass on to the life of a hermit in the forest, and then becomes a monk' (Np. 77; Ja. 4, adapted), is applicable to these cases. There will thus be no contradiction. That is to say, if the injunction relating to the sequence of monasticism applies to such cases, then there is no contradiction, for the sequence holds good. But if it is regarded as applicable to other cases, the injunction about the lifelong performance of sacrifices is restricted in its scope. Whereas, if the sequence is applicable to the Visvajit and Sarvamedha sacrifices, there is no such contradiction.
The Advaitin's reply:- Your view is wrong, for you have admitted Self-knowledge to be the means of immortality. To be explicit:- You have admitted the Self-knowledge that has been introduced with the words, 'The Self alone is to be meditated upon' (I. iv. 7), and concluded with, 'This self is That which has been described as 'Not this, not this,' ' (III. ix. 26). So you are only reluctant to admit that this much alone is the means of immortality, independently of anything else. Now I ask you why you are intolerant of Self-knowledge.

Objection:- Here is my reason. As, to a person who wants heaven, but does not know the means of its attainment, the Vedas inculcate such means as the Agnihotra, so here also, to one who wants to attain immortality, but does not know the means of it, they inculcate the instruction desired --- 'Tell me, sir, of that alone which you know (to be the only means of immortality)' (II. iv. 3; IV. v. 4) --- in the words, 'This much ' my dear' (IV. v. 15).
Reply:- In that case, just as you admit the Agnihotra etc., inculcated by the Vedas, to be the means of attaining heaven, so also you should do with Self-knowledge. You should admit it to be the means of immortality exactly as it is inculcated, for in either case the authority is the same.

Objection:- What would happen it if is admitted?
Reply:- Since Self-knowledge destroys the cause of all actions, the awakening of knowledge would terminate them. Now rites such as the Agnihotra, which are connected with the wife and fire, can be performed only if there are agencies for whom they are meant, and this entails an idea of difference. In other words, they cannot be performed unless there are the gods --- Fire etc. --- for whose sake they are undertaken, and this last depends on the sacrificer's regarding the gods as different from himself. That notion of difference regarding the deities to be honoured, in view of which such deities are recommended by the Vedas as means to sacrifices, is destroyed in the state of enlightenment by knowledge, as we know from such Sruti passages as, 'He (who worships another god thinking), 'He is one, and I another,' does not know' (I. iv. 10), 'The gods oust one who knows them as different from the Self' (II. iv. 6; IV. v. 7), 'He goes from death to death who sees difference, as it were, in It' (IV. iv. 19; Ka. IV. 10), 'It should be realised in one form only' (IV. iv. 20), and 'He sees all as the Self' (IV. iv. 23). Nor is Self-knowledge dependent on place, time, circumstances, etc., for its relates to the Self, which is an eternal verity. It is rites which, being bound up with persons (i.e. subjective), may depend on place, time, circumstances, etc.; but knowledge, being bound up with reality (i.e. objective), never depends on them. As fire is hot, and as the ether is formless (independently of place, time, etc.), so also is Self-knowledge.

Objection:- It this is so, the Vedic injunctions about rites, which are an unquestionable authority, are nullified, and of two things possessing equal authority, one should not nullify the other.
Reply:- Not so, for Self-knowledge only destroys one's natural idea of difference. It does not nullify other injunctions; it only stops the idea of difference ingrained in us.
Objection:- Still, when the cause of rites is removed, they are impossible, and it virtually means that the injunctions regarding them are gone.
Reply:- No, it is not open to the charge, for it is analogous to the cessation of our tendency to perform rites having material ends, when desire itself has been removed. Just as a man, induced to perform a sacrifice leading to heaven by the injunction, 'One who desires heaven must perform sacrifices' (Ta. XVI. iii. 3), gives up his inclination to perform this kind of sacrificce with a material end when his desire has been removed by the injunctions forbidding desires. His action does not nullify the injunctions regarding rites with material ends.
Objection:- The injunction forbidding desires leads to an impression about the uselessness of them, and consequently the injunctions advocating rites with material ends cannot operate. So these injunctions are virtually nullified.
Reply:- If Self-knowledge nullifes the injunctions about rites in the same way, we admit this.
Objection:- But this would take away the authority of the injunctions about rites, just as the injunctions about rites with material ends are null and void when desire is forbidden. In other words, if rites are not to be undertaken, with the result that there is no one to perform them, then the injunctions about their performance become useless, and consequently the whole section of the Vedas dealing with such injunctions necessarily loses its authority.
Reply:- No, it will be operative prior to the awakening of Self-knowledge. Our natural consciousness of difference regarding action, its factors and its results, will, previous to the awakening of Self-knowledge, certainly continue to be an incentive to the performance of rites, just as, before the idea about the harmful nature of desires arises, our natural craving for heaven etc. will certainly induce us to engage in rites having material ends.

Objection:- In that case the Vedas are a source of evil.
Reply:- No, good and evil depend on one's intentions, for except liberation alone everything else comes within the province of ignorance. Good and evil are matters of personal whims, for we find that sacrifices are performed with death as their objective (The Mahabharata tells of King Yudhisthira's performing a sacrifice in advance concerning 'the great exit.') Therefore the injunctions about rites are operative only until one is confronted with those about Self-knowledge. Hence rites do not go hand in hand with Self-knowledge, which proves that this alone is the means of immortality, as set forth in the words, 'This much indeed is (the means of) immortality, my dear' (IV. v. 15), for knowledge is independent of rites. Hence, even without any explicit injunction to that effect, the enlightened sage can, for reasons already stated (In IV. iv. 23.), embrace the monastic life simply through his strong conviction about the identity of the individual self with Brahman that is devoid of the factors of an action such as the deity of whom it is performed as well as caste etc., and is immutable.
Since the ancient sages, not caring for children, renounced their homes on the ground stated in the clause, 'We who have attained this Self, this world' (IV. iv. 22), therefore, as it has been explained, this renunciation of their homes by the sages can take place simply by their knowing (That is, indirectly, from the teacher and the scriptures; direct realisation is not meant.) the word of the Self.
Similarly it is proved that the man who seeks illumination can also renounce the world, for there is the statement, 'Desiring this world alone monks renounce their homes' (Ibid.). And we have have said that rites are for the unenlightened. That is to say, because so long as ignorance persists there is scope for rites intended to produce, attain, modify, or purify, therefore rites, as we have stated, are also the means of Self-knowledge through the purification of the mind, as the Sruti says that the Brahmanas seek to know It through sacrifices etc.
Under the circumstances, if we examine the comparative efficacy, for bringing forth Self-knowledge, of the duties pertaining to the different orders of life, which concern only the unenlightened, we find that virtues such as the absence of pride, which are mainly intended for the control of the senses, and meditation, discrimination, non-attachment, etc., which deal with the mind, are the direct aids. The others, owing to the predominance of injury, attachment, aversion, etc. in them, are mixed up with a good deal of evil work. Hence the monastic life is recommended for seekers after liberation, as in the following passages, 'The giving up of all duties that have been described (as belonging to particular orders of life) is (best).
Renunciation, again, is the culmination of this giving up of the duties,' 'O Brahmana, what will you do with wealth, or friends, or a wife, for you shall have to die? Seek the Self that has entered the cave of your intellect. Where are your grandfather and other ancestors gone, as well as your father?' (Mbh. XII. c1xxiv. 38). In the Samkhya and Yoga systems also renunciation is spoken of as a direct means of knowledge. The absence of the impulsion of desire is another reason (why the seeker after liberation renounces the world). For all the scriptues tell us that the impulsion of desire is antagonistic to knowledge. Therefore, for a seeker after liberation who is disgusted with the world, the statement, 'He should renounce the world from the student life itself,' (Np. 77), is quite reasonable, even if he without knowledge.

Objection:- But we have said that renunciation is for the man who is unfit for rites, for there alone is the scope for them; otherwise the dictum of the Sruti about the lifelong performances of rites would be contradicted.
Reply:- The objection does not hold, for there is enough scope for those statements of the Sruti. We have already said that all rites are for the unenlightened man with desire. It is not absolutely that rites are enjoined for life. For men are generally full of desires, which concerns various objects and require the help of many rites and their means. The Vedic rites are the means of various results and are to be performed by a man related to a wife and the fire; they produce many results, being performed again and again, like agriculture etc., and take a hundred years to finish, either in the householder's life or in
the forest life. Hence in view of them the Sruti texts enjoin lifelong rites. The Mantra also says, 'One should wish to live a hundred years on earth only perfoming rites' (Is. 2). The giving up of rites after the Visvajit and Sarvamedha sacrifices refers to such a man; while in the case of those on whom lifelong rites are enjoined, these should be continued right up to the funeral ground, and the body consumed in fire. Or it may be that the injunctions of the Sruti about the lifelong performance of rites concern the other two castes except the Brahmana, for the Ksatriya and the Vaisya are not entitled to the monastic life. In that case, texts such as, 'Whose rites ' are performed with the utterance of sacred formulas' (M. II. 16), and 'The teachers speak of only one order of life,' etc. (Gau. III. 36; Bau. II. vi. 29), would refer to the Ksatriyas and Vaisyas. Therefore in accordance with a person's capacity, knowledge, non-attachment, desire, etc., the various methods of an option with regard to renunciation, or a succession among the orders of life, or the embracing of the monastic life are not contradictory. And since monasticism has been separately enjoined on those who are unfit for rites, in the passage, 'Whether he has completed his course of study or not, whether he has discarded (Wilfully, even when his wife is living.) the fire or been released (By the scriptures, on the death of his wife.) from it,' etc. (Ja. 4), (the above injunctions about monasticism refer to normal people qualified for rites). Therefore it is proved that the other three orders of life (besides the householder's life) are surely meant for those who are qualified for rites.

Translation By Max Müller

15. 'For when there is as it were duality, then one sees the other, one smells the other, one tastes the other, one salutes the other, one hears the other, one perceives the other, one touches the other, one knows the other; but when the Self only is all this, how should he see another, how should he smell another, how should he taste another, how should he salute another, how should he hear another, how should he touch another, how should he know another? How should he know Him by whom he knows all this? That Self is to be described by No, no [1]! He is incomprehensible, for he cannot be comprehended; he is imperishable, for he cannot perish; he is unattached, for he does not attach himself; unfettered, he does not suffer, he does not fail. How, O beloved, should he know the Knower? Thus, O Maitreyî, thou hast been instructed. Thus far goes immortality.' Having said so, Yâgñavalkya went away (into the forest).

Footnote:

1.


Sloka : 4.6.1

मन्त्र १[IV.vi.1]

अथ वꣳशः पौतिमाष्यो गौपवनाद् गौपवनः पौतिमाष्यात्

पौतिमाष्यो गौपवनाद् गौपवनः कौशिकात् कौशिकः कौण्डिन्यात्

कौण्डिन्यः शाण्डिल्याच्छाण्डिल्यः कौशिकाच्च गौतमाच्च गौतमः ॥ १॥

mantra 1[IV.vi.1]

atha vagͫśaḥ pautimāṣyo gaupavanād gaupavanaḥ pautimāṣyāt

pautimāṣyo gaupavanād gaupavanaḥ kauśikāt kauśikaḥ kauṇḍinyāt

kauṇḍinyaḥ śāṇḍilyācchāṇḍilyaḥ kauśikācca gautamācca gautamaḥ .. 1..



Meaning:- Now the line of teachers:- Pautimasya (received it) from Gaupavana. Gaupavana from another Pautimasya. This Pautimasya from another Gaupavana. This Gaupavana from Kausika. Kausika from Kaundinya. Kaundinya from Sandilya. Sandilya from Kausika and Gautama. Gautama -

Translation By Max Müller

1. Now follows the stem [1]:- 1) (We) from Pautimâshya,
2) Pautimâshya, from Gaupavana,
3) Gaupavana from Pautimâshya,   4) Pautimâshya from Gaupavana,
5) Gaupavana from Kausika,
6) Kausika from Kaundinya,
7) Kaundinya from Sândilya,
8) Sândilya from Kausika and Gautama,
9) Gautama

Footnote:

1. The line of teachers and pupils by whom the Yâgñavalkya-kânda was handed down) From 1-10 the Vamsa agrees with the Vamsa at the end of II, 6) The Mâdhyandina text begins with vayam, we, and proceeds to 1) Saurpanâyya, 2) Gautama, 3) Vâtsya, 4) Pârasarya, &c), as in the Madhukânda, p) 118, except in 10, where it gives Gaivantâyana for Âtreya) Then after 12) Kaundinyâyana, it gives 13) 14) the two Kaundinyas, 15) the Aurnavâbhas, 16) Kaundinya, 17) Kaundinya, 18) Kaundinya and Âgnivesya, 19) Saitava, 20) Pârâsarya, 2 1) Gâtukarnya, 22) Bhâradvâga, 2 3) Bhâradvâga, Âsurâyana, and Gautama, 24) Bhâradvâga, 25) Valâkâkausika, 26) Kâshâyana, 27) Saukarâyana, 28) Traivani, 29) Aupagandhani, 30) Sâyakâyana, p) Kausikâyani, &c), as in the Kânva text, from No) 22 to Brahman)


Sloka : 4.6.2

मन्त्र २[IV.vi.2]

आग्निवेश्यादग्निवेश्यो गार्ग्याद् गार्ग्यो गार्ग्याद् गार्ग्यो गौतमाद् गौतमः

सैतवात् सैतवः पाराशर्यायणात् पाराशार्यायणो गार्ग्यायणाद् गार्ग्यायण

उद्दालकायनादुद्दालकायनो जाबालायनाज् जाबालायनो माध्यन्दिनायनान्

माध्यन्दिनायनः सौकरायणात् सौकरायणः काषायणात् काषायणः

सायकायनात् सायकायनः कौशिकायनेः कौशिकायनिः ॥ २॥

mantra 2[IV.vi.2]

āgniveśyādagniveśyo gārgyād gārgyo gārgyād gārgyo gautamād gautamaḥ

saitavāt saitavaḥ pārāśaryāyaṇāt pārāśāryāyaṇo gārgyāyaṇād gārgyāyaṇa

uddālakāyanāduddālakāyano jābālāyanāj jābālāyano mādhyandināyanān

mādhyandināyanaḥ saukarāyaṇāt saukarāyaṇaḥ kāṣāyaṇāt kāṣāyaṇaḥ

sāyakāyanāt sāyakāyanaḥ kauśikāyaneḥ kauśikāyaniḥ .. 2..



Meaning:- From Agnivesya. Agnivesya from Sandilya and Anabhimlata. Anabhinlata from another of that name. He from a third Anabhimlata. This Anabhimlata from Gautama. Gautama from Saitava and Pracinayogya. They from Parasarya. Parasarya from Bharadvaja. He from Bharadvaja and Gautama. Gautama from another Bharatvaja. He from another Parasarya. Parasarya from Baijavapayana. He from Kausikayani. Kausikayani -

Translation By Max Müller

2. from Âgnivesya, 10) Âgnivesya from Gârgya,
11) Gârgya from Gârgya,
12) Gârgya from Gautama,
13) Gautama from Saitava,
14) Saitava from Pârâsaryâyana,
15) Pârâsaryâyana from Gârgyâyana,
16) Gârgyâyana from Uddâlakâyana,
17) Uddâlakâyana from Gâbâlâyana,
18) Gâbâlâyana from Mâdhyandânayana,
19) Mâdhyandânayana from Saukarâyana,
20) Saukarâyana from Kâshâyana,
21) Kâshâyana from Sâyakâyana,
22) Sâyakâyana from Kausikâyani [1],
23) Kausikâyani

Footnote:

1. From here the Vamsa agrees again with that given at the end of II, 6)


Sloka : 4.6.3

मन्त्र ३[IV.vi.3]

घृतकौशिकाद् घृतकौशिकः पाराशर्यायणात् पाराशर्यायणः

पाराशर्यात् पाराशर्यो जातूकर्ण्याज् जातूकर्ण्य आसुरायणाच्च यास्काच्चा

ऽऽसुरायणस्त्रैवणेस्त्रैवणिरौपजन्धनेरौपजन्धनिरासुरेरासुरिर्भारद्वाजाद्

भारद्वाज आत्रेयादात्रेयो माण्टेर्माण्टिर्गौतमाद् गौतमो गौतमाद् गौतमो

वात्स्याद् वात्स्यः शाण्डिल्याच्छाण्डिल्यः कैशोर्यात्काप्यात् कैशोर्यः

काप्यः कुमारहारितात् कुमारहारितो गालवाद् गालवो विदर्भीकौण्डिन्याद्

विदर्भीकौण्डिन्यो वत्सनपातो बाभ्रवाद् वत्सनपाद्बाभ्रव

पथः सौभरात् पन्थाः सौभरोऽयास्यादाङ्गिरसादयास्य

आङ्गिरस आभूतेस्त्वाष्ट्रादाभूतिस्त्वाष्ट्रो विश्वरूपात्त्वाष्ट्राद्

विश्वरूपस्त्वाष्ट्रोऽव्श्विभ्यामश्विनौ दधीच आथर्वणाद्

दध्यङ्ङाथर्वणोऽथर्वणो दैवादथर्वा दैवो मृत्योः

प्राध्वꣳसनान् मृत्युः प्राध्वꣳसनः प्रध्वꣳसनात्

प्रध्वꣳसन एकर्षेरेकर्षिर्विप्रचित्तेः विप्रचित्तिर्व्यष्टेर्व्यष्टिः

सनारोः सनारुः सनातनात् सनातनः सनगात् सनगः परमेष्ठिनः

परमेष्ठी ब्रह्मणो ब्रह्म स्वयम्भु ब्रह्मणे नमः ॥ ३॥

इति षष्ठं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

॥ इति बृहदारण्यकोपनिषदि चतुर्थोऽध्यायः ॥

अथ पञ्चमोऽध्यायः ।

अथ प्रथमं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 3[IV.vi.3]

ghṛtakauśikād ghṛtakauśikaḥ pārāśaryāyaṇāt pārāśaryāyaṇaḥ

pārāśaryāt pārāśaryo jātūkarṇyāj jātūkarṇya āsurāyaṇācca yāskāccā

''surāyaṇastraivaṇestraivaṇiraupajandhaneraupajandhanirāsurerāsurirbhāradvājād

bhāradvāja ātreyādātreyo māṇṭermāṇṭirgautamād gautamo gautamād gautamo

vātsyād vātsyaḥ śāṇḍilyācchāṇḍilyaḥ kaiśoryātkāpyāt kaiśoryaḥ

kāpyaḥ kumārahāritāt kumārahārito gālavād gālavo vidarbhīkauṇḍinyād

vidarbhīkauṇḍinyo vatsanapāto bābhravād vatsanapādbābhrava

pathaḥ saubharāt panthāḥ saubharo'yāsyādāṅgirasādayāsya

āṅgirasa ābhūtestvāṣṭrādābhūtistvāṣṭro viśvarūpāttvāṣṭrād

viśvarūpastvāṣṭro'vśvibhyāmaśvinau dadhīca ātharvaṇād

dadhyaṅṅātharvaṇo'tharvaṇo daivādatharvā daivo mṛtyoḥ

prādhvagͫsanān mṛtyuḥ prādhvagͫsanaḥ pradhvagͫsanāt

pradhvagͫsana ekarṣerekarṣirvipracitteḥ vipracittirvyaṣṭervyaṣṭiḥ

sanāroḥ sanāruḥ sanātanāt sanātanaḥ sanagāt sanagaḥ parameṣṭhinaḥ

parameṣṭhī brahmaṇo brahma svayambhu brahmaṇe namaḥ .. 3..

iti ṣaṣṭhaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

.. iti bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadi caturtho'dhyāyaḥ ..

atha pañcamo'dhyāyaḥ .

atha prathamaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- From Ghrtakausika. Ghrtakausika from Parasaryayana. He from Parasarya. Parasarya from Jatukarnya. Jatukarnya from Asurayana and Yaska. Asurayana from Traivani. Traivani from Aupajandhani. He from Asuri. Asuri from Bharadvaja. Bharadvaja from Atreya. Atreya from Manti. Manti from Gautama. Gautama from another Gautama. He from Vatsya. Vatsya from Sandilya. Sandilya from Kaisorya Kapya. He from Kumaraharita. Kumaraharita from Galava. Galava from Vidarbhi-kaundinya. He from Vatsanapat Babhrava. He from Pathin Saubhara. He from Ayasya Angirasa. He from Abhuti Tvastra. He from Visvarupa Tvastra. He from the Asvins. They from Dadhyac Atharvana. He from Atharvan Daiva. He from Mrtyu Pradhvamsana. He from Pradhvamsana. Pradhvamsana from Ekarsi. Ekarsi from Viprachitti. Viprachitti from Vyasri. Vyasti from Sanaru. Sanaru from Sanatana. Sanatana from Sanaga. Sanaga from Paramesthin (Viraj). He from Brahman (Hiranyabarbha). Brahman is self born. Salutation to Brahman.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Now the line of teachers for the two chapters relating to Yajnavalkya is being enumerated, like that of the Madhukanda. The explanation is the same as before. Brahman is self-born. Salutation to Brahman! Om.

Translation By Max Müller

3. from Ghritakausika, 24) Ghritakausika from Pârâsaryâyana,   25) Pârâsaryâyana from Pârâsarya,
26) Pârâsarya from Gâtukarnya,
27) Gâtukarnya from Âsurâyana and Yâska [1],
28) Âsurâyana from Travani,
29) Travani from Aupagandhani,
30) Aupagandhani from Âsuri,
31) Âsuri from Bhâradvâga,
32) Bhâradvâga from Âtreya,
33) Âtreya from Mânti,
34) Mânti from Gautama,
35) Gautama from Gautama,
36) Gautama from Vâtsya,
37) Vâtsya from Sândilya,
38) Sândilya from Kaisorya Kâpya,
39) Kaisorya Kâpya from Kumârahârita,
40) Kumârahârita from Gâlava,
41) Gâlava from Vidarbhî-kaundinya,
42) Vidarbhî-kaundinya from Vatsanapât Bâbhrava,
43) Vatsanapât Bâbhrava from Pathi Saubhara,
44) Pathi Saubhara from Ayâsya Âṅgirasa,
45) Ayâsya Âṅgirasa from Âbhûti Tvâshtra,
46) Âbhûti Tvâshtra from Visvarûpa Tvâshtra,
47) Visvarûpa Tvâshtra from Asvinau,
48) Asvinau from Dadhyak Âtharvana,
49) Dadhyak Âtharvana from Atharvan Daiva,
50) Atharvan Daiva from Mrityu Prâdhvamsana,
51) Mrityu Prâdhvamsana from Prâdhvamsana,
52) Prâdhvamsana from Ekarshi,
53) Ekarshi from Viprakitti [2],
54) Viprakitti from Vyashti,   55) Vyashti from Sanâru,
56) Sanâru from Sanâtana,
57) Sanâtana from Sanaga,
58) Sanaga from Parameshthin,
59) Parameshthin from Brahman,
60) Brahman is Svayambhu, self-existent)
Adoration to Brahman)  

Footnote:

1. The Mâdhyandina text has, 1) Bhâradvâga, 2) Bhâradvâga, Âsurâyana, and Yâska) 2. Vipragitti, Mâdhyandina text)


Sloka : 5.1.1

मन्त्र १[V.i.1]

ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदं पूर्णात्पूर्णमुदच्यते । पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय

पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते । ॐ३ खं ब्रह्म खं पुराणं वायुरं खमिति

ह स्माऽऽह कौरव्यायणीपुत्रो । वेदोऽयम्ं ब्राह्मणा विदुर्वेदैनेन

यद्वेदितव्यम् ॥ १॥

इति प्रथमं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ द्वितीयं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 1[V.i.1]

oṃ pūrṇamadaḥ pūrṇamidaṃ pūrṇātpūrṇamudacyate . pūrṇasya pūrṇamādāya

pūrṇamevāvaśiṣyate . oṃ3 khaṃ brahma khaṃ purāṇaṃ vāyuraṃ khamiti

ha smā''ha kauravyāyaṇīputro . vedo'yamṃ brāhmaṇā vidurvedainena

yadveditavyam .. 1..

iti prathamaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha dvitīyaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- Om. That (Brahman) is infinite, and this (universe) is infinite. The infinite proceeds from the infinite. (Then) taking the infinitude of the infinite (universe), it remains as the infinite (Brahman) alone. Om is the ether-Brahman - the eternal ether. 'The ether containing air,' says the son of Kauravyayani. It is the Veda, (so) the Brahmans (knowers of Brahman) know; (for) through it one knows what is to be known.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Om. That (Brahman) is infinite, and this (universe) is infinite. The infinite proceeds from the infinite. (Then) taking the infinitude of the infinite (universe), it remains as the infinite (Brahman) alone.

Commentary:-

Translation By Max Müller

1. That (the invisible Brahman) is full, this (the visible Brahman) is full} [1]. This full (visible Brahman) proceeds from that full (invisible Brahman). On grasping the fulness of this full (visible Brahman) there is left that full (invisible Brahman) [2]. Om (is) ether, (is) Brahman [3]. 'There is the old ether (the invisible), and the (visible) ether of the atmosphere,' thus said Kauravyâyanîputra. This (the Om) is the Veda (the means of knowledge), thus the Brâhmanas know. One knows through it all that has to be known.

Footnote:

1. Full and filling, infinite. 2. On perceiving the true nature of the visible world., there remains, i.e. there is perceived at once, as underlying it, or as being it, the invisible world or Brahman. This and the following paragraph are called Mantras. 3. This is explained by Saṅkara as meaning, Brahman is Kha, the ether, and called Om, i.e. Om and Kha are predicates of Brahman.


Sloka : 5.2.1

मन्त्र १[V.ii.1]

त्रयाः प्राजापत्याः प्रजापतौ पितरि ब्रह्मचर्यमूषुर्देवा मनुष्या

असुरा उषित्वा ब्रह्मचर्यं देवा ऊचुर्ब्रवीतु नो भवानिति । तेभ्यो

हैतदक्षरमुवाच द इति व्यज्ञासिष्टा३ इति । व्यज्ञासिष्मेति

होचुर्दाम्यतेति न आत्थेत्योमिति होवाच व्यज्ञासिष्टेति ॥ १॥

mantra 1[V.ii.1]

trayāḥ prājāpatyāḥ prajāpatau pitari brahmacaryamūṣurdevā manuṣyā

asurā uṣitvā brahmacaryaṃ devā ūcurbravītu no bhavāniti . tebhyo

haitadakṣaramuvāca da iti vyajñāsiṣṭā3 iti . vyajñāsiṣmeti

hocurdāmyateti na ātthetyomiti hovāca vyajñāsiṣṭeti .. 1..



Meaning:- Three classes of Prajapati's sons lived a life of continence with their father, Prajapati (Viraj) - the gods, men and Asuras. The gods, on the completion of their term, said, 'Please instruct us'. He told them the syllable 'Da' (and asked), 'have you understood?' (They) said, 'We have. You tell us:- Control yourselves'. (He) said, 'Yes, you have understood'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- The present section is introduced to prescribe the three disciplines of self-control etc. Three classes of Prajapati's sons lived a life of continence, i.e. lived as students, since continence is the most important part of a student's life, with their father, Prajapati. Who were they? The gods, men and Asuras, in particular. Of them, the gods, on the completion of their term --- what did they do? --- said to their father, Prajapati, 'Please instruct us.' When they thus sought his instruction, he told them only the syllable 'Da'; and saying it the father asked them, 'Have you understood the meaning of the syllable I told you by way of instruction, or not?' The gods said, 'We have.' 'If so, tell me what I said.' The gods said, 'You tell us:- Control yourselves, for you are naturally unruly.' The other said, 'Yes, you have understood rightly.'

Translation By Max Müller

1. The threefold descendants of Pragâpati, gods, men, and Asuras (evil spirits), dwelt as; Brahmakârins (students) with their father Pragâpati. Having finished their studentship the gods said:- 'Tell us (something), Sir.' He told them the syllable Da. Then he said:- 'Did you understand?' They said:- 'We did understand. You told us "Dâmyata," Be subdued.' 'Yes,' he said, 'you have understood.'


Sloka : 5.2.2

मन्त्र २[V.ii.2]

अथ हैनं मनुष्या ऊचुर्ब्रवीतु नो भवानिति । तेभ्यो

हैतदेवाक्षरमुवाच द इति व्यज्ञासिष्टा३ इति । व्यज्ञासिष्मेति

होचुर्दत्तेति न आत्थेत्योमिति होवाच व्यज्ञासिष्टेति ॥ २॥

mantra 2[V.ii.2]

atha hainaṃ manuṣyā ūcurbravītu no bhavāniti . tebhyo

haitadevākṣaramuvāca da iti vyajñāsiṣṭā3 iti . vyajñāsiṣmeti

hocurdatteti na ātthetyomiti hovāca vyajñāsiṣṭeti .. 2..



Meaning:- Then the men said to him, 'Please instruct us'. He told them the same syllable 'Da' (and asked), 'Have you understood?' (They) said, 'We have. You tell us:- Give'. (He) said, 'Yes, you have understood'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- The common portions are to be explained as before. 'You tell us:- Give --- distribute your wealth to the best of your might, for you are naturally avaricious. What else would you say for our benefit?' --- so said the men.

Translation By Max Müller

2. Then the men said to him:- 'Tell us something, Sir.' He told them the same syllable Da. Then he said:- 'Did you understand?' They said:- 'We did understand. You told us, "Datta," Give.' 'Yes,' he said, 'you have understood.'


Sloka : 5.2.3

मन्त्र ३[V.ii.3]

अथ हैनमसुरा ऊचुर्ब्रवीतु नो भवानिति । तेभ्यो हैतदेवाक्षरमुवाच

द इति व्यज्ञासिष्टा३ इति । व्यज्ञासिष्मेति होचुर्दयध्वमिति न

आत्थेत्योमिति होवाच व्यज्ञासिष्टेति । तदेतदेवैषा दैवी वागनुवदति

स्तनयित्नुर्द द द इति दाम्यत दत्त दयध्वमिति । तदेतत्त्रयꣳ

शिक्षेद् दमं दानं दयामिति ॥ ३॥

इति द्वितीयं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ तृतीयं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 3[V.ii.3]

atha hainamasurā ūcurbravītu no bhavāniti . tebhyo haitadevākṣaramuvāca

da iti vyajñāsiṣṭā3 iti . vyajñāsiṣmeti hocurdayadhvamiti na

ātthetyomiti hovāca vyajñāsiṣṭeti . tadetadevaiṣā daivī vāganuvadati

stanayitnurda da da iti dāmyata datta dayadhvamiti . tadetattrayagͫ

śikṣed damaṃ dānaṃ dayāmiti .. 3..

iti dvitīyaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha tṛtīyaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- Then the Asuras said to him, 'Please instruct us'. He told them the same syllable 'Da' (and asked), 'Have you understood?' (They) said, 'We have. You tell us:- Have compassion'. (He) said, 'Yes, you have understood'. That very thing is repeated by the heavenly voice, the cloud, as 'Da', 'Da', 'Da':- 'Control yourselves', 'Give', and 'have compassion'. Therefore one should learn these three - self-control, charity and compassion.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Similarly the Asuras took it as, 'Have compassion, be kind to all for you are cruel, given to injuring others, and so on.' That very instruction of Prajapati continues to this day. Prajapati, who formerly taught the gods and others, teaches us even today through the heavenly voice of the cloud. How? Here is the heavenly voice heard. Which is it? The cloud. As 'Da,' 'Da,' 'Da':- 'Control yourselves,' 'Give,' and 'Have compassion.' The syllable 'Da' is repeated thrice to represent in imitation the above three terms, not that a cloud produces three notes only, for we know of no such limitation as to number. Because to this day Prajapati gives the same instructions, 'Control yourselves,' 'Give' and 'Have Compassion,' therefore one should learn these three of Prajapati. What are they? Self-control, charity and compassion. Men should think, 'We must carry out the instructions of Prajapati.' The Smrti too says, 'Lust, anger and greed --- these are the three gateways to hell, destructive to the self; therefore one should renounce these three' (G. XVI. 21). The preceding portion is but a part of this injunction, 'One should learn,' etc. Still those who can guess the motives of others hold different views on why Prajapati spoke the same syllable 'Da' thrice to the gods etc., who wanted separate instructions, and how they too discriminatingly understood his intention from the same syllable 'Da'.

Regarding this some say:- The gods, men and Asuras, considering themselves guilty of a lack of self-control, charitableness and compassion respectively, lived as students with Prajapati, apprehensive of what he might say to them; and as soon as they heard the syllable 'Da', their own fears led them to understand its meaning. It is a well-known principle in life that sons and pupils are to be dissuaded from evil through instruction. Hence Prajapati was right in uttering just the syllable 'Da', and so too were the gods etc. in understanding it differently according to their respective defects, for the syllable 'Da' occurs in all the three worlds denoting 'self-control' etc. From this it is clear that when one is conscious of one's faults, one can be weaned from them through the briefest advice, as the gods etc. were through the mere syllable 'Da.'

Objection:- Well, this instruction was for the three classes, the gods and the rest, and even they were to adopt only one instruction apiece. It is not that even today men should learn all the three.
Reply:- In ancient times these three were practised by the gods etc. --- distinguished people. So men indeed should practice all of them.
Objection:- But should not compassion be excluded from the list, because it was pracitsed by the Asuras --- very undesirable people?
Reply:- No, for all the three are equally good instructions. Hence there is some other meaning to it. All the three classes, the gods and the rest, were Prajapati's sons, and a father would teach his sons only what is good for them; so Prajapati, who knew what was good for them, would not teach them otherwise. Therefore this instruction of his to his sons is exceedingly beneficent. Hence men indeed should learn all the three.

Or, there are no gods or Asuras other than men. Those among men who are wanting in self-control, but are otherwise endowed with many good qualities, are the gods; those who are particularly greedy are men; while those who are cruel and given to injuring others are the Asuras. So the same species, men, according to their lack of self-control and the other two defects, as well as to their tendencies of balance, activity and inertia, are given the titles of gods etc. Hence it is men who should learn all the three instructions, for Prajapati meant his advice for them alone; because men are observed to be wild, greedy and cruel. The Smrti too says, 'Lust, anger and greed (are the three gateways to hell); ' therefore one should renounce them' (G. XVI. 21).

Translation By Max Müller

3. Then the Asuras said to him:- 'Tell us something, Sir.' He told them the same syllable Da. Then he said:- 'Did you understand?' They said:- 'We did understand. You told us, "Dayadham," Be merciful.' 'Yes,' he said, 'you have understood.' The divine voice of thunder repeats the same, Da Da Da, that is, Be subdued, Give, Be merciful. Therefore let that triad be taught, Subduing, Giving, and Mercy.


Sloka : 5.3.1

मन्त्र १[V.iii.1]

एष प्रजापतिर्यद्धृदयमेतद्ब्रह्मैतत्सर्वम् । तदेतत्त्र्यक्षरꣳ

हृदयमिति । हृ इत्येकमक्षरमभिहरन्त्यस्मै स्वाश्चान्ये च य

एवं वेद । द इत्येकमक्षरं ददत्यस्मै स्वाश्चान्ये च य एवं वेद ।

यमित्येकमक्षरमेति स्वर्गं लोकं य एवं वेद ॥ १॥

इति तृतीयं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ चतुर्थं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 1[V.iii.1]

eṣa prajāpatiryaddhṛdayametadbrahmaitatsarvam . tadetattryakṣaragͫ

hṛdayamiti . hṛ ityekamakṣaramabhiharantyasmai svāścānye ca ya

evaṃ veda . da ityekamakṣaraṃ dadatyasmai svāścānye ca ya evaṃ veda .

yamityekamakṣarameti svargaṃ lokaṃ ya evaṃ veda .. 1..

iti tṛtīyaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha caturthaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- This is Prajapati - this heart (intellect). It is Brahman, it is everything. 'Hridaya' (heart) has three syllables. 'Hr' is one syllable. To him who knows as above, his own people and others bring (presents). 'Da' is another syllable. To him who knows as above, his own people and others give (their powers). 'Ya' is another syllable. He who knows as above goes to heaven.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:-
It has just been said that Prajapati instructs. Now who is this instructor, Prajapati?
This is being answered:- This is Prajapati. Who? This heart, i.e. the intellect, which has its seat in the heart. That heart in which, at the end of the section relating to Sakalya (III. ix.), name, form and work have been stated to merge by way of the divisions of the quarters, which resides in all beings and is identified with them all, is Prajapati, the projector of all beings. It is Brahman, being vast and identified with all. It is everything. It has been stated in the third chapter that the intellect is everything. Since it is everything, the intellect that is Brahman should be meditated upon.

Now, first of all, meditation on the syllables of the name 'Hrdaya' is being described. The name 'Hrdaya' has three syllables. Which are they --- 'Hr' is one syllable. To him, this sage, who knows as above, knows that 'Hr' is the same as the root 'Hr' meaning 'to bring', his own people, relatives, and others not related to him bring presents. This last word must be supplied to complete the sentence. Because the organs, which are a part of the intellect (its 'own'), and the objects, sound etc., which are not so related to it ('others'), bring their respective functions as offerings to the intellect that is Brahman, which in its turn passes them on to the Self, therefore he who knows that 'Hr' is a syllable of the name 'Hrdaya' also receives presents. This result is in accordance with the meditation. Similarly 'Da' too is another syllable. This too is a form of the root 'Da,' meaning 'to give,' inserted in the name 'Hrdaya' as one of its syllables. Here also, to him who knows as above, knows that because the organs, which are a part of the intellect, and the objects, which are not so related to it, give their respective powers to the intellect that is Brahman, which too gives its own power to the Self, therefore the syllable is called 'Da', his own people and others give their powers. Similarly 'Ya' too is another syllable. He who knows as above, that the form 'Ya,' derived from the root 'In,' meaning, to go, has been inserted in this name, goes to heaven. Thus one gets such conspicuous results from the meditation even on the syllables of its name; what should one say of the meditation on the reality of the heart itself? Thus the introduction of the syllables of its names is for the purpose of eulogising the heart (intellect).

Translation By Max Müller

1. Pragâpati is the heart, is this Brahman, is all this. The heart, hridaya, consists of three syllables. One syllable is hri, and to him who knows this, his own people and others bring offerings [1]. One syllable is da, and to him who knows this, his own people and others bring gifts. One syllable is yam, and he who knows this, goes to heaven (svarga) as his world.

Footnote:

1. Saṅkara explains that with regard to the heart, i.e. buddhi, the senses are 'its own people,' and the objects of the senses 'the others.'


Sloka : 5.4.1

मन्त्र १[V.iv.1]

तद्वै तदेतदेव तदास सत्यमेव । स यो हैतं महद्यक्षं

प्रथमजं वेद सत्यं ब्रह्मेति जयतीमाꣳल्लोकाञ् जित इन्न्वसावसद्

य एवमेतन्महद्यक्षं प्रथमजं वेद सत्यं ब्रह्मेति सत्यꣳ

ह्येव ब्रह्म ॥ १॥

इति चतुर्थं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ पञ्चमं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 1[V.iv.1]

tadvai tadetadeva tadāsa satyameva . sa yo haitaṃ mahadyakṣaṃ

prathamajaṃ veda satyaṃ brahmeti jayatīmāgͫllokāñ jita innvasāvasad

ya evametanmahadyakṣaṃ prathamajaṃ veda satyaṃ brahmeti satyagͫ

hyeva brahma .. 1..

iti caturthaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha pañcamaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- That (intellect-Brahman) was but this - Satya (gross and subtle) alone. He who knows this great, adorable, first-born (being) as the Satya-Brahman, conquers these worlds, and his (enemy) is thus conquered and becomes non-existent - he who knows this great, adorable, first-born (being) thus, as the Satya-Brahman, for Satya is indeed Brahman.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- In order to enjoin a meditation on that Brahman called Hrdaya (intellect) as Satya, the present section is being introduced. That refers to the intellect-Brahman. The particle 'vai' is a reminder. That intellect-Brahman who may be recalled --- is the meaning of the first 'Tat' (that).
He is being described in another way --- is the meaning of the second 'Tat.' What is that way? He was but this. With this last word the third 'Tat' is connnected. 'This' refers to something in the mind that will presently be stated. Who 'was but this'? He who has been described as the intellect-Brahman here the third 'Tat' comes in. What is he? This is being specified as Satya alone --- the Satya-Brahman, or Brahman that is 'Sat' and 'Tyat', the gross and subtle elements, in other words, consisting of the five elements. He, any one, who knows this being identified with Satya --- great, because of his vastness, adorable, first-born, since this Brahman was born before all other relative beings --- as the Satya-Brahman, gets the following result:- As the Satya Brahman has made all these worlds a part of himself, or conquered them, so he who knows the great, adorable, first-born Brahman identified with Satya, conquers these worlds. Also his enemy --- this world is understood --- is thus conquered, as the worlds are by Brahman, and becomes non-existent, i.e. is conquered. Who gets this result? To answer this the text concludes:- He who knows this great, adorable, first-born (being) thus as the Satya Brahman. Hence the result is aptly in accordance with the meditation, for Satya is indeed Brahman.

Translation By Max Müller

1. This (heart) indeed is even that, it was indeed the true [1] (Brahman). And whosoever knows this great glorious first-born as the true Brahman, he conquers these worlds, and conquered likewise may that (enemy) be [2]! yes, whosoever knows this great glorious first-born as the true Brahman; for Brahman is the true.

Footnote:

1. The true, not the truth; the truly existing. The commentator explains it as it was explained in II, 3, 1, as sat and tya, containing both sides of the Brahman. 2. An elliptical expression, as explained by the commentator:- May that one (his enemy) be conquered, just as that one was conquered by Brahman. If he conquers the world, how much more his enemy 1' It would be better, however, if we could take gita in the sense of vasîkrita or dânta, because we could then go on with ya evam veda.


Sloka : 5.5.1

मन्त्र १[V.v.1]

अप एवेदमग्र आसुस्ता आपः सत्यमसृजन्त सत्यं ब्रह्म

ब्रह्म प्रजापतिं प्रजापतिर्देवाꣳस्ते देवाः सत्यमेवोपासते

तदेतत्त्र्यक्षरꣳ सत्यमिति । स इत्येकमक्षरं तीत्येकमक्षरं

यमित्येकमक्षरम् । प्रथमोत्तमे अक्षरे सत्यं मध्यतोऽनृतं

तदेतदनृतमुभयतः सत्येन परिगृहीतꣳ सत्यभूयमेव भवति ।

नैनंविद्वाꣳसमनृतꣳ हिनस्ति ॥ १॥

mantra 1[V.v.1]

apa evedamagra āsustā āpaḥ satyamasṛjanta satyaṃ brahma

brahma prajāpatiṃ prajāpatirdevāgͫste devāḥ satyamevopāsate

tadetattryakṣaragͫ satyamiti . sa ityekamakṣaraṃ tītyekamakṣaraṃ

yamityekamakṣaram . prathamottame akṣare satyaṃ madhyato'nṛtaṃ

tadetadanṛtamubhayataḥ satyena parigṛhītagͫ satyabhūyameva bhavati .

nainaṃvidvāgͫsamanṛtagͫ hinasti .. 1..



Meaning:- This (universe) was but water (liquid oblations connected with sacrifices) in the beginning. That water produced Satya. Satya is Brahman. Brahman (produced) Prajapati, and Prajapati the gods. Those gods meditate upon Satya alone. This (name) 'Satya' consists of three syllables:- 'Sacrifice' is one syllable, 'Ti' is another syllable, and "Ya' is the third syllable. The first and last syllables are truth. In the middle is untruth. This untruth is enclosed on either side by truth. (Hence) there is a preponderance of truth. One who knows as above is never hurt by untruth.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- This section is in praise of the Satya-Brahman. He has been called great, adorable and first-born (V. iv. 1).
How is he the first-born?
This is being explained:- This was but water in the beginning. 'Water' here means the oblations that are connected with rites such as the Agnihotra. They are called water because they are liquid. This 'water,' after the rites are finished, maintains its connection with them in some invisible, subtle form, and is not alone, but united with the other elements; but it is given prominence on account of its connection with the rites. All the elements, which before their manifestation remain in an undifferentiated state, are together with the agent designated as water. That water, which is the seed of the universe, remains in its undifferentiated form. This entire universe, differentiated into name and form, was just this water in the beginning, and there was no other manifested object. Then that water produced Satya; therefore the Satya-Brahman is the first-born. The manifestation of the undifferentiated universe is what is spoken of here as the birth of Hiraynagarbha or Sutratman. Satya is Brahman. Why? Because of his greatness.

How is he great?
This is being explained:- Because he is the projector of everything. How? The Satya-Brahman (produced) Prajapati, the lord of all beings, Viraj, of which the sun etc. are the organs. The verb 'produced' is understood. Prajapati, Viraj, produced the gods. Since everything was produced in this order from the Satya-Brahman, therefore he is great. But how is he adorable? This is being explained:- Those gods who were thus produced meditate upon that Satya-Brahman, even superseding their father Viraj. Hence this first-born great one is adorable. Therefore he should be meditated upon with one's whole heart. The name of the Satya-Brahman also is Satya. This consists of three syllables. What are they? 'Sa' is one syllable, 'Ti' is another syllable. The i has been added to t for facility of indication. 'Ya' is the third syllable. Of these, the first and last syllables, 'Sa' and 'Ya,' are truth, being free from the form of death. In the middle is untruth.
Untruth is death, for the words 'Mrtyu' (death) and 'Anrta' (untruth) have both a t in them. This untruth, the later t, which is a form of death, is enclosed or encompassed on either side by truth, by the two syllables 'Sa' and 'Ya', which are forms of truth. Hence it is negligible, and there is a preponderance of truth. One who knows as above, knows the preponderance of truth and the insignificance of all death or untruth, is never hurt by untruth that he may have uttered unawares.

Translation By Max Müller

1. In the beginning this (world) was water. Water produced the true [1], and the true is 'Brahman. Brahman produced Pragâpati [2], Pragâpati the Devas (gods). The Devas adore the true (satyam) alone. This satyam consists of three syllables. One syllable is sa, another t(i), the third [3] yam. The first and last syllables are true, in the middle there is the untrue [4]. This untrue is on both sides enclosed by the true, and thus the true preponderates. The untrue does not hurt him who knows this.

Footnote:

1. Here explained by the commentator as Pûtrâtmaka Hiranyagarbha. 2. Here explained as Virâg. 3. Satyam is often pronounced satiam, as trisyllabic. Saṅkara, however, takes the second syllable as t only, and explains the i after it as an anubandha. The Kânva text gives the three syllables as sa, ti, am, which seems preferable; cf. Khând. Up. VIII, 3, 5; Taitt. Up. II, 6. 4. This is explained by a mere play on the letters, sa and ya having nothing in common with mrityu, death, whereas t occurs in mrityu and anrita. Dvivedagaṅga takes sa and am as true, because they occur in satya and amrita, and not in mrityu, while ti is untrue, because the t occurs in mrityu and amrita.


Sloka : 5.5.2

मन्त्र २[V.v.2]

तद्यत्तत्सत्यमसौ स आदित्यो । य एष एतस्मिन्मण्डले पुरुषो

यश्चायं दक्षिणेऽक्षन् पुरुषस्तावेतावन्योऽन्यस्मिन्प्रतिष्ठितौ

रश्मिभिरेषोऽस्मिन्प्रतिष्ठितः प्राणैरयममुष्मिन् स

यदोत्क्रमिष्यन्भवति शुद्धमेवैतन्मण्डलं पश्यति नैनमेते

रश्मयः प्रत्यायन्ति ॥ २॥

mantra 2[V.v.2]

tadyattatsatyamasau sa ādityo . ya eṣa etasminmaṇḍale puruṣo

yaścāyaṃ dakṣiṇe'kṣan puruṣastāvetāvanyo'nyasminpratiṣṭhitau

raśmibhireṣo'sminpratiṣṭhitaḥ prāṇairayamamuṣmin sa

yadotkramiṣyanbhavati śuddhamevaitanmaṇḍalaṃ paśyati nainamete

raśmayaḥ pratyāyanti .. 2..



Meaning:- That which is Satya is that sun - the being who is in that orb and the being who is in the right eye. These two rest on each other. The former rests on the latter through the rays, and the latter rests on the former through the function of the eyes. When a man is about to leave the body, he sees the solar orb as clear. The rays no more come to him.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Now a meditation on different parts of the body of the Satya-Brahman is being described:- That which is Satya, the first-born Satya-Brahman, is that sun. Who is he? The being who is in that orb, who thinks he is the sun, and the being who is in the right eye. They are both Satya-Brahman; the word
'and' shows this connection. Because these two, the beings in the sun and the eye, are but different forms of the Satya-Brahman, therefore they rest on each other, the solar being rests on the ocular being and vice versa, for there is a relation of mutual helpfulness between the self as identified with different parts of the body and the presiding deities. How they rest on each other is being explained:- The former, the solar being, rests on the latter, the being (individual self) who is identified in this body with the eye, through the rays, helping the other with his light. And the latter, the being who is in the eye, rests on the former, the being who is identified among the gods with the sun, through the function of the eyes, helping that deity (by revealing him). When a man, the individual self or the experiencer inhabiting this body, is about to leave the body, the solar being, who is the presiding deity of the eye, withdraws his rays and maintains a blank, indifferent pose. Then he, the individual self, sees the solar orb as clear, shorn of its beams, like the moon. This portent of death is incidentally mentioned, so that a man may be careful and take necessary steps. The rays no more come to him:- In the discharge of their master's duties, they used to do so before with regard to the being who is identified with the eye, in order to help him; but considering those duties finished, as it were, they no more come to him. Hence this mutual helpfulness between them shows that both are parts of the same Satya-Brahman.

Translation By Max Müller

2. Now what is the true, that is the Âditya (the sun), the person that dwells in yonder orb, and the person in the right eye. These two rest on each other, the former resting with his rays in the latter, the latter with his prânas (senses) in the former. When the latter is on the point of departing this life, he sees that orb as white only, and those rays (of the sun) do not return to him.


Sloka : 5.5.3

मन्त्र ३[V.v.3]

य एष एतस्मिन्मण्डले पुरुषस्तस्य भूरिति शिर एकꣳ शिर

एकमेतदक्षरं भुव इति बाहू द्वौ बाहू द्वे एते अक्षरे स्वरिति

प्रतिष्ठा द्वे प्रतिष्ठे द्वे एते अक्षरे । तस्योपनिषदहरिति ।

हन्ति पाप्मानं जहाति च य एवं वेद ॥ ३॥

mantra 3[V.v.3]

ya eṣa etasminmaṇḍale puruṣastasya bhūriti śira ekagͫ śira

ekametadakṣaraṃ bhuva iti bāhū dvau bāhū dve ete akṣare svariti

pratiṣṭhā dve pratiṣṭhe dve ete akṣare . tasyopaniṣadahariti .

hanti pāpmānaṃ jahāti ca ya evaṃ veda .. 3..



Meaning:- Of this being who is in the solar orb, the syllable 'Bhur' is the head, for there is one head, and there is this one syllable; the word 'Bhuvar' is the arms, for there are two arms, and there are these two syllables; the word 'Svar' is the feet, for there are two feet, and there are these two syllables. His secret name is 'Ahar'. He who knows as above destroys and shuns evil.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Now, of this being who is in the solar orb, called Satya, the Vyahrtis (Bhur, Bhuvar and Svar) are the limbs. How? The Vyahrti called 'Bhur' is his head, because it comes first. The Sruti itself points out the similarity between them:- There is one head, and there is this one syllable, Bhur. Each is one in number. The word 'Bhuvar' is the arms, because both are two in number. There are two arms, and there are these two syllables. Similarly the word 'Svar' is the feet, for there are two feet, and there are these two syllables. The word 'Pratistha' means the feet, for they help one to stand. The secret name of this Satya-Brahman who has the Vyahrtis as his limbs --- that name, called by which that Brahman turns to us, as it happens with us --- is 'Ahar.' He who knows as above, that 'Ahar' is derived from the root 'Han' or 'Ha,' meaning, 'to kill or to shun,' destroys and shuns evil.

Translation By Max Müller

3. Now of the person in that (solar) orb Bhûh is the head, for the head is one, and that syllable is one; Bhuvah the two arms, for the arms are two, and these syllables are two; Svar the foot, for the feet are two, and these syllables are two [1]. Its secret name is Ahar (day), and he who knows this destroys (hanti) evil and leaves (gahâti) it.

Footnote:

1. Svar has to be pronounced suvar.


Sloka : 5.5.4

मन्त्र ४[V.v.4]

योऽयं दक्षिणेऽक्षन्पुरुषस्तस्य भूरिति शिरः एकꣳ शिर

एकमेतदक्षरं भुव इति बाहू द्वौ बाहू द्वे एते अक्षरे स्वरिति

प्रतिष्ठा द्वे प्रतिष्ठे द्वे एते अक्षरे । तस्योपनिषदहमिति ।

हन्ति पाप्मानं जहाति च य एवं वेद ॥ ४॥

इति पज्ञ्चमं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ षष्ठं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 4[V.v.4]

yo'yaṃ dakṣiṇe'kṣanpuruṣastasya bhūriti śiraḥ ekagͫ śira

ekametadakṣaraṃ bhuva iti bāhū dvau bāhū dve ete akṣare svariti

pratiṣṭhā dve pratiṣṭhe dve ete akṣare . tasyopaniṣadahamiti .

hanti pāpmānaṃ jahāti ca ya evaṃ veda .. 4..

iti pajñcamaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha ṣaṣṭhaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- Of this being who is in the right eye, the syllable 'Bhur' is the head, for there is one head, and there is this one syllable; the word 'Bhuvar' is the arms, for there are two arms, and there are these two syllables; the word 'Svar' is the feet, for there are two feet, and there are these two syllables. His secret name is 'Aham'. He who knows as above destroys and shuns evil.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Similarly of this being who is in the right eye, the syllable 'Bhur' is the head, etc. to be explained as before. His secret name is 'Aham' (I), because he is the inner self. He who knows, etc. already explained.

Translation By Max Müller

4. Of the person in the right eye Bhûh is the head, for the head is one, and that syllable is one; Bhuvah the two arms, for the arms are two, and these syllables are two; Svar the foot, for the feet are two, and these syllables are two. Its secret name is Aham (ego), and he who knows this, destroys (hanti) evil and leaves (gahâti) it.


Sloka : 5.6.1

मन्त्र १[V.vi.1]

मनोमयोऽयं पुरुषो भाःसत्यस्तस्मिन्नन्तर्हृदये यथा व्रीहिर्वा यवो

वा स एष सर्वस्य सर्वस्येशानः सर्वस्याधिपतिः सर्वमिदं प्रशास्ति

यदिदं किञ्च ॥ १॥

इति षष्ठं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ सप्तमं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 1[V.vi.1]

manomayo'yaṃ puruṣo bhāḥsatyastasminnantarhṛdaye yathā vrīhirvā yavo

vā sa eṣa sarvasya sarvasyeśānaḥ sarvasyādhipatiḥ sarvamidaṃ praśāsti

yadidaṃ kiñca .. 1..

iti ṣaṣṭhaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha saptamaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- This being identified with the mind and resplendent (is realised by the Yogins) within the heart like a grain of rice or barley. He is the lord of all, the ruler of all, and governs whatever there is.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- This being identified with the mind, because he is perceivd there; also he perceives through the mind; and resplendent, lit. having lustre as his real state or nature. Since the mind reveals everything, and he is identified with the mind, therefore he is resplendent, i.e. is realised by the Yogins --- we must supply these words --- within the heart like a grain of rice or barley in size. He is the lord of all things, which are but variations of him. Even with lordship, one may be under the sway of ministers etc., but he is not like that. What then is he? He is the ruler, independent protector, and governs whatever there is --- the whole universe. The result of this meditation on Brahman identified with the mind is the attainment of identity with him as such, for the Brahman says, 'One becomes exactly as one meditates upon Him' (S. X. v. ii. 20).

Translation By Max Müller

1. That person, under the form of mind (manas), being light indeed [1], is within the heart, small like a grain of rice or barley. He is the ruler of all, the lord of all--he rules all this, whatsoever exists.

Footnote:

1. Bhâhsatya must be taken as one word, as the commentator says, bhâ eva satyam sadbhâvah svarûpam yasya so 'yam bhâhsatyo bhâsvarah.


Sloka : 5.7.1

मन्त्र १[V.vii.1]

विद्युद् ब्रह्मेत्याहुर्विदानाद्विद्युद् विद्यत्येनं पाप्मनो य एवं वेद

विद्युद्ब्रह्मेति । विद्युद्ध्येव ब्रह्म ॥ १॥

इति सप्तमं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ अथाष्टमं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 1[V.vii.1]

vidyud brahmetyāhurvidānādvidyud vidyatyenaṃ pāpmano ya evaṃ veda

vidyudbrahmeti . vidyuddhyeva brahma .. 1..

iti saptamaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha athāṣṭamaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- They say lightning is Brahman. It is called lightning (Vidyut) because it scatters (darkness). He who knows it as such - that lightning is Brahman - scatters evils (that are ranged against) him, for lightning is indeed Brahman.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Another meditation on the same Satya-Brahman, with particular result, is being introduced. They say lightning is Brahman. The derivation of lightning as Brahman is being given:- It is called lightning (Vidyut) because it scatters darkness. Really lightning flashes cleaving the darkness due to clouds. He who knows it as such, knows that lightning is Brahman as possessed of the above attributes, scatters or dispels all the evils that are ranged against him. It is a fitting result for one who knows, it as such --- that lightning is Brahman, for lightning is indeed Brahman.

Translation By Max Müller

1. They say that lightning is Brahman, because lightning (vidyut) is called so from cutting off (vidânât) [1]. Whosoever knows this, that lightning is Brahman, him (that Brahman) cuts off from evil, for lightning indeed is Brahman.

Footnote:

1. From do, avakhandane, to cut; the lightning cutting through the darkness of the clouds, as Brahman, when known, cuts through the darkness of ignorance.


Sloka : 5.8.1

मन्त्र १[V.viii.1]

वाचं धेनुमुपासीत । तस्याश्चत्वारः स्तनाः स्वाहाकारो वषट्कारो

हन्तकारः स्वधाकारस्तस्यै द्वौ स्तनौ देवा उपजीवन्ति स्वाहाकारं च

वषट्कारं च हन्तकारं मनुष्याः स्वधाकारं पितरः । तस्याः प्राण

ऋषभो मनो वत्सः ॥ १॥

इत्यष्टमं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ नवमं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 1[V.viii.1]

vācaṃ dhenumupāsīta . tasyāścatvāraḥ stanāḥ svāhākāro vaṣaṭkāro

hantakāraḥ svadhākārastasyai dvau stanau devā upajīvanti svāhākāraṃ ca

vaṣaṭkāraṃ ca hantakāraṃ manuṣyāḥ svadhākāraṃ pitaraḥ . tasyāḥ prāṇa

ṛṣabho mano vatsaḥ .. 1..

ityaṣṭamaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha navamaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- One should meditate upon speech (the Vedas) as a cow (as it were). She has four teats - the sounds "Svaha', 'Vasat', 'Hanta' and 'Svadha'. The gods live on two of her teats - the sounds 'Svaha' and 'Vasat', men on the sound 'Hanta', and the manes on the sound 'Svadha'. Her bull is the vital force, and her calf the mind.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Still another meditation on the same Brahman is being mentioned that speech is Brahman. 'Speech' here means the Vedas. One should meditate upon that speech (the Vedas) as, i.e. as if she was, a cow. Just as a cow secretes milk through her four teats for her calf to suck, so does this cow, speech, secrete through her four teats, to be presently mentioned, food for the goods etc. that is comparable to milk. Now what are those teats, and who are those for whom she secretes the food? The gods, corresponding to a calf, live on two of the teats of this cow, speech. Which are they? The sounds 'Svaha' and 'Vasat,' for through them oblations are offered to the gods. Men on the sound 'Hanta':- Food is given to men with the use of the word 'Hanta' (if you want). The manes on the sound 'Svadha,' for food is offered to the manes to the utterance of this word. Her bull, the bull for that cow, speech, is the vital force, for the Vedas are rendered fruitful by the vital force, and her calf the mind, for she is stimulated to secretion by the mind; because the Vedas are applied to a subject that has been thought over by the mind, therefore the mind stands for the calf. He who meditates upon this cow, speech, as such, attains identity with her.

Translation By Max Müller

1. Let him meditate on speech as a cow. Her four udders are the words Svâhâ, Vashat, Hanta, and Svadhâ [1]. The gods live on two of her udders, the Svâhâ and the Vashat, men on the Hanta, the fathers on the Svadhâ. The bull of that cow is breath (prâna), the calf the mind.

Footnote:

1. There are two udders, the Svâhâ and Vashat, on which the gods feed, i.e. words with which oblations are given to the gods. With Hanta they are given to men, with Svadhâ to the fathers.


Sloka : 5.9.1

मन्त्र १[V.ix.1]

अयमाग्निर्वैश्वानरो योऽयमन्तः पुरुषे येनेदमन्नं पच्यते

यदिदमद्यते । तस्यैष घोषो भवति यमेतत्कर्णावपिधाय श‍ृणोति ।

स यदोत्क्रमिष्यन्भवति नैनं घोषꣳ श‍ृणोति ॥ १॥

इति नवमं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ दशमं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 1[V.ix.1]

ayamāgnirvaiśvānaro yo'yamantaḥ puruṣe yenedamannaṃ pacyate

yadidamadyate . tasyaiṣa ghoṣo bhavati yametatkarṇāvapidhāya śṛṇoti .

sa yadotkramiṣyanbhavati nainaṃ ghoṣagͫ śṛṇoti .. 1..

iti navamaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha daśamaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- This fire that is within a man and digests the food that is eaten, is Vaisvanara. It emits this sound that one hears by stopping the ears thus. When a man is about to leave the body, he no more hears this sound.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Here is another meditation like the preceding ones. This fire is Vaisvanara. Which fire? This that is within a man. Is it the element fire that is one of the components of the body? No, it is the one called Vaisvanara, which digests the food. Which food? The food that is eaten by men. That is to say, the heat in the stomach. For direct sign of it the text says:- As that fire digests the food, it emits this sound. What is it? That one hears by stopping the ears thus, with one's fingers. The word 'Etat' is an adverb (meaning 'thus'). One should meditate upon that fire as Vaisvanara, or Viraj. Here too the result is identification with it. Incidentally a death omen is being described:- When a man, the experiencer in this body is about to leave the body, he no more hears this sound.

Translation By Max Müller

1. Agni Vaisvânara, is the fire within man by which the food that is eaten is cooked, i.e. digested. Its noise is that which one hears, if one covers one's ears. When he is on the point of departing this life, he does not hear that noise.


Sloka : 5.10.1

मन्त्र १[V.x.1]

यदा वै पुरुषोऽस्माल्लोकात्प्रैति स वायुमागच्छति तस्मै स तत्र

विजिहीते यथा रथचक्रस्य खं तेन स ऊर्ध्व आक्रमते । स

आदित्यमागच्छति तस्मै स तत्र विजिहीते यथालम्बरस्य खं तेन स

ऊर्ध्व आक्रमते । स चन्द्रमसमागच्छति तस्मै स तत्र विजिहीते यथा

दुन्दुभेः खं तेन स ऊर्ध्व आक्रमते । स लोकमागच्छत्यशोकमहिमं

तस्मिन्वसति शाश्वतीः समाः ॥ १॥

इति दशमं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

एकादशं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 1[V.x.1]

yadā vai puruṣo'smāllokātpraiti sa vāyumāgacchati tasmai sa tatra

vijihīte yathā rathacakrasya khaṃ tena sa ūrdhva ākramate . sa

ādityamāgacchati tasmai sa tatra vijihīte yathālambarasya khaṃ tena sa

ūrdhva ākramate . sa candramasamāgacchati tasmai sa tatra vijihīte yathā

dundubheḥ khaṃ tena sa ūrdhva ākramate . sa lokamāgacchatyaśokamahimaṃ

tasminvasati śāśvatīḥ samāḥ .. 1..

iti daśamaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

ekādaśaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- When a man departs from this world, he reaches the air, which makes an opening there for him like the hole of a chariot-wheel. He goes upwards through that and reaches the sun, who makes an opening there for him like the hole of a tabor. He goes upwards through that and reaches the moon, who makes an opening there for him like the hole of a drum. He goes upwards through that and reaches a world free from grief and from cold. He lives there for eternal years.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- This Section describes the goal and the result of all meditations. When a man who knows those meditations departs from this world, gives up the body, he reaches the air, which remains crosswise in the sky, motionless and impenetrable. The air makes an opening there, in its own body separates the parts of its own body, i.e. makes a holy in it for him, as he comes. What is the size of that hole? Like the hole of a chariot-wheel, which is of a well-known size. He, the sages, goes upwards (lit. upward-bound) through that and reaches the sun. The sun stands blocking the way for the prospective traveller to the world of Brahman; he too lets a sage with this kind of meditation pass. He makes an opening there for him like the hole of a tabor (Lambara), a kind of musical instrument. He goes upwards through that and reaches the moon. She too makes an opening there for him like the hole of a drum, the size of which is well known. He goes upwards through that and reaches a world, that of Hiranyagarbha. What kind of world? Free from grief, i.e. mental troubles, and from cold, i.e. physical sufferings. Reaching it, he lives there for eternal years, i.e. for many cycles of ours, which constitute the lifetime of Hiranyagarbha.

Translation By Max Müller

1. When the person goes away from this world, he comes to the wind. Then the wind makes room for him, like the hole of a carriage wheel, and through it he mounts higher. He comes to the sun. Then the sun makes room for him, like the hole of a Lambara [1], and through it he mounts higher. He comes to the moon. Then the moon makes room for him, like the hole of a drum, and through it he mounts higher, and arrives at the world where there is no sorrow, no snow [2]. There he dwells eternal years.

Footnote:

1. A musical instrument. 2. The commentator explains hima by bodily pain, but snow is much more characteristic.


Sloka : 5.11.1

मन्त्र १[V.xi.1]

एतद्वै परमं तपो यद्व्याहितस्तप्यते परमꣳ हैव लोकं

जयति य एवं वेदैतद्वै परमं तपो यं प्रेतमरण्यꣳ हरन्ति

परमꣳ हैव लोकं जयति य एवं वेदैतद्वै परमं तपो यं

प्रेतमग्नावभ्यादधति परमꣳ हैव लोकं जयति य एवं वेद ॥ ११॥

इति एकादशं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ द्वादशं ब्राह्मणम् । [V.xii.1]

अन्नं ब्रह्मेत्येक आहुस्तन्न तथा

पूयति वा अन्नमृते प्राणात्

प्राणो ब्रह्मेत्येक आहुस्तन्न तथा

शुष्यति वै प्राण ऋतेऽन्नाद्

एते ह त्वेव देवते

एकधाभूयं भूत्वा

परमतां गच्छतस्तद्ध स्माऽऽह प्रातृदः पितरं

किꣳ स्विदेवैवं विदुषे साधु कुर्यां

किमेवास्मा असाधु कुर्यामिति ।

स ह स्माह पाणिना

मा

प्रातृद

कस्त्वेनयोरेकधाभूयं भूत्वा परमतां गच्छतीति ।

तस्मा उ हैतदुवाच

वीत्यन्नं वै वि

अन्ने हीमानि सर्वाणि भूतानि विष्टानि ।

रमिति

प्राणो वै रं

प्राणे हीमानि सर्वाणि भूतानि रमन्ते ।

सर्वाणि ह वा अस्मिन् भूतानि विशन्ति

सर्वाणि भूतानि रमन्ते

य एवं वेद ॥ १२॥

इति द्वादशं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ त्रयोदशं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 1[V.xi.1]

etadvai paramaṃ tapo yadvyāhitastapyate paramagͫ haiva lokaṃ

jayati ya evaṃ vedaitadvai paramaṃ tapo yaṃ pretamaraṇyagͫ haranti

paramagͫ haiva lokaṃ jayati ya evaṃ vedaitadvai paramaṃ tapo yaṃ

pretamagnāvabhyādadhati paramagͫ haiva lokaṃ jayati ya evaṃ veda .. 11..

iti ekādaśaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha dvādaśaṃ brāhmaṇam . [V.xii.1]

annaṃ brahmetyeka āhustanna tathā

pūyati vā annamṛte prāṇāt

prāṇo brahmetyeka āhustanna tathā

śuṣyati vai prāṇa ṛte'nnād

ete ha tveva devate

ekadhābhūyaṃ bhūtvā

paramatāṃ gacchatastaddha smā''ha prātṛdaḥ pitaraṃ

kigͫ svidevaivaṃ viduṣe sādhu kuryāṃ

kimevāsmā asādhu kuryāmiti .

sa ha smāha pāṇinā

prātṛda

kastvenayorekadhābhūyaṃ bhūtvā paramatāṃ gacchatīti .

tasmā u haitaduvāca

vītyannaṃ vai vi

anne hīmāni sarvāṇi bhūtāni viṣṭāni .

ramiti

prāṇo vai raṃ

prāṇe hīmāni sarvāṇi bhūtāni ramante .

sarvāṇi ha vā asmin bhūtāni viśanti

sarvāṇi bhūtāni ramante

ya evaṃ veda .. 12..

iti dvādaśaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha trayodaśaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- This indeed is excellent austerity that a man suffers when he is ill. He who knows as above wins an excellent world. This indeed is excellent austerity that a man after death is carried to the forest. He who knows as above wins an excellent world. This indeed is excellent austerity that a man after death is placed in the fire. He who knows as above wins an excellent world.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- This indeed is excellent austerity. What is it? That a man suffers when he is ill, attacked with fever etc. One should think that this is excellent austerity, for both entail suffering. For a sage who thinks like that, without either condemning the disease or being dejected over it, that austerity itself serves to wipe out his evils. He who knows as above has his evils burnt by this austerity in the form of meditation, and wins an excellent world.
Similarly a dying man thinks from the very beginning --- what? --- this indeed is excellent austerity that after death he is carried to the forest by the priests for the funeral ceremony. He thinks that it will be excellent austerity for him, because in both there is this journey from the village to the forest; for it is well known that retirement from the village to the forest is excellent austerity. He who knows as above wins an excellent world. Similarly this indeed is excellent austerity that a man after death is placed in the fire, because in both there is this entering into the fire. He who knows as above wins an excellent world.

Translation By Max Müller

1. This is indeed the highest penance, if a man, laid up with sickness, suffers pain [1]. He who knows this, conquers the highest world. This is indeed the highest penance, if they carry a dead person into the forest [2]. He who knows this, conquers the highest world. This is indeed the highest penance, if they place a dead person on the fire [3]. He who knows this, conquers the highest world.

Footnote:

1. The meaning is that, while he is suffering pain from illness, he should think that he was performing penance. If he does that, he obtains the same reward for his sickness which he would have obtained for similar pain inflicted on himself for the sake of performing penance. 2. This is like the penance of leaving the village and living in the forest. 3. This is like the penance of entering into the fire.


Sloka : 5.13.1

मन्त्र १[V.xiii.1]

उक्थं प्राणो वा उक्थं प्राणो हीदꣳ सर्वमुत्थापयत्युद्धास्मा

धस्मादुक्थविद्वीरस्तिष्ठत्युक्थस्य सायुज्यꣳ सलोकतां जयति य

एवं वेद ॥ १॥

mantra 1[V.xiii.1]

ukthaṃ prāṇo vā ukthaṃ prāṇo hīdagͫ sarvamutthāpayatyuddhāsmā

dhasmādukthavidvīrastiṣṭhatyukthasya sāyujyagͫ salokatāṃ jayati ya

evaṃ veda .. 1..



Meaning:- (One should meditate upon the vital force as) the Uktha (a hymn of praise). The vital force is the Uktha, for it raises this universe. From him who knows as above rises a son who is a knower of the vital force, and he achieves union with and abode in the same world as the Uktha.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- The Uktha --- is another meditation. The Uktha is a hymn of praise. It is the principal feature of the Mahavrata sacrifice (Somayaga). What is that Uktha? The vital force is the Uktha. The vital force is chief among the organs, as the Uktha is among hymns of praise. Hence one should meditate upon the vital force as the Uktha. How is the vital force the Uktha? This is being explained:- For it raises this universe; because of this raising it is called the Uktha. No lifeless man ever rises. The result of the meditation on it is being stated:- From him who knows as above rises a son who is a knower of the vital force --- this is the visible result; and he achieves union with and abode in the same world as the Uktha --- this is the invisible result.

Translation By Max Müller

1. Next follows the Uktha [1]. Verily, breath (prâna) is Uktha, for breath raises up (utthâpayati) all this. From him who knows this, there is raised a wise son, knowing the Uktha; he obtains union and oneness with the Uktha.

Footnote:

1. Meditation on the hymn called uktha. On the uktha, as the principal part in the Mahâvrata, see Kaush. Up. III, 3; Ait. Âr. II, 1, 2. The uktha, yagus, sâman, &c. are here represented as forms under which prâna or life, and indirectly Brahman, is to be meditated on.


Sloka : 5.13.2

मन्त्र २[V.xiii.2]

यजुः प्राणो वै यजुः प्राणे हीमानि सर्वाणि भूतानि युज्यन्ते । युज्यन्ते

हास्मै सर्वाणि भूतानि श्रैष्ठ्याय यजुषः सायुज्यꣳ सलोकतां

जयति य एवं वेद ॥ २॥

mantra 2[V.xiii.2]

yajuḥ prāṇo vai yajuḥ prāṇe hīmāni sarvāṇi bhūtāni yujyante . yujyante

hāsmai sarvāṇi bhūtāni śraiṣṭhyāya yajuṣaḥ sāyujyagͫ salokatāṃ

jayati ya evaṃ veda .. 2..



Meaning:- (One should meditate upon the vital force as) the Yajus. The vital force is the Yajus, for all these beings are joined with one another if there is the vital force. All beings are joined for the eminence of him who knows as above, and he achieves union with and abode in the same world as the Yajus (vital force).





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- One should meditate upon the vital force as the Yajus too. The vital force is the Yajus (The name of one of the Vedas; but here it is given a figurative meaning. The same with 'Saman' in the next paragraph.). How is the vital force the Yajus? For all (these) beings are joined with one another if there is the vital force. None has the strength to unite with another unless he has life; hence the vital force is called he Yajus --- because it joins. The result that accrues to one who knows as above is being stated:- All beings are joined for the eminence of him who knows as above --- they try to make him their chief. And he achieves union with and abode in the same world as the Yajus or the vital force. These words have already been explained.

Translation By Max Müller

2. Next follows the Yagus. Verily, breath is Yagus, for all these beings are joined in breath [1]. For him who knows this, all beings are joined to procure his excellence; he obtains union and oneness with the Yagus.

Footnote:

1. Without life or breath nothing can join anything else; therefore life is called yagus, as it were yugus.


Sloka : 5.13.3

मन्त्र ३[V.xiii.3]

साम प्राणो वै साम प्राणे हीमानि सर्वाणि भूतानि सम्यञ्चि । सम्यञ्चि

हास्मै सर्वाणि भूतानि श्रैष्ठ्याय कल्पन्ते साम्नः सायुज्यꣳ

सलोकतां जयति य एवं वेद ॥ ३॥

mantra 3[V.xiii.3]

sāma prāṇo vai sāma prāṇe hīmāni sarvāṇi bhūtāni samyañci . samyañci

hāsmai sarvāṇi bhūtāni śraiṣṭhyāya kalpante sāmnaḥ sāyujyagͫ

salokatāṃ jayati ya evaṃ veda .. 3..



Meaning:- (One should meditate upon the vital force as) the Saman. The vital force is the Saman, for all these beings are united if there is the vital force. For him who knows as above all beings are united, and they succeed in bringing about his eminence, and he achieves union with abode in the same world as the Saman.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- One should also meditate upon the vital force as the Saman. The vital force is the Saman. How is the vital force the Saman? For all beings are united if there is the vital force. The vital force is called Saman because of this union --- causing them to unite. For him who knows as above all beings are united, and not only that, they succeed in bringing about his eminence. The rest is to be explained as before.

Translation By Max Müller

3. Next follows the Sâman. Verily, breath is the Sâman, for all these beings meet in breath. For him who knows this, all beings meet to procure his excellence; he obtains union and oneness with the Sâman.


Sloka : 5.13.4

मन्त्र ४[V.xiii.4]

क्षत्रं प्राणो वै क्षत्रं प्राणो हि वै क्षत्रं त्रायते हैनं प्राणः

क्षणितोः । प्र क्षत्रमत्रमप्नोति क्षत्रस्य सायुज्यꣳ सलोकतां

जयति य एवं वेद ॥ ४॥

इति त्रयोदशं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ चतुर्दशं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 4[V.xiii.4]

kṣatraṃ prāṇo vai kṣatraṃ prāṇo hi vai kṣatraṃ trāyate hainaṃ prāṇaḥ

kṣaṇitoḥ . pra kṣatramatramapnoti kṣatrasya sāyujyagͫ salokatāṃ

jayati ya evaṃ veda .. 4..

iti trayodaśaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha caturdaśaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- (One should meditate upon the vital force as) the Ksatra. The vital force is the Ksatra, for it is indeed the Ksatra. The vital force protects the body from wounds. He who knows as above attains this Ksatra (vital force) that has no other protector, and achieves union with and abode in the same world as the Ksatra.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- One should meditate upon the vital force as the Ksatra. The vital force is the Ksatra, for it is indeed the Ksatra, as is well known. How? This is being explained:- Because the vital force protects the body from wounds, injuries inflicted with weapons etc., by filling them up with new flesh, therefore it is well known as the Ksatra, on account of this healing of the wounds. The result that accrues to one who knows this is being stated:- He who knows as above attains this Ksatra, or the vital force, that has no other protector, is not protected by anything else (Atra). Or the word may be 'Ksatra-matra,' as another (the Madhyandina) recension has it; in which case the meaning will be, 'Attains identity with the Ksatra, or becomes the vital force.' And achieves union with and abode in the same world as the Ksatra.

Translation By Max Müller

4. Next follows the Kshatra. Verily, breath is the Kshatra, for breath is Kshatra, i.e. breath protects (trâyate) him from being hurt (kshanitoh). He who knows this, obtains Kshatra (power), which requires no protection; he obtains union and oneness with Kshatra [1].

Footnote:

1. Instead of Kshatram atram, another Sâkhâ, i.e. the Mâdhyandina, reads Kshatramâtram, which Dvivedagaṅga explains as, he obtains the nature of the Kshatra, or he obtains the Kshatra which protects (Kshatram âtram).


Sloka : 5.14.1

मन्त्र १[V.xiv.1]

भूमिरन्तरिक्षं द्यौरित्यष्टावक्षराण्यष्टाक्षरꣳ ह वा एकं

गायत्र्यै पदमेतदु हैवास्या एतत् स यावदेषु त्रिषु लोकेषु तावद्ध

जयति योऽस्या एतदेवं पदं वेद ॥ १॥

mantra 1[V.xiv.1]

bhūmirantarikṣaṃ dyaurityaṣṭāvakṣarāṇyaṣṭākṣaragͫ ha vā ekaṃ

gāyatryai padametadu haivāsyā etat sa yāvadeṣu triṣu lokeṣu tāvaddha

jayati yo'syā etadevaṃ padaṃ veda .. 1..



Meaning:- 'Bhumi' (the earth), 'Antariksa' (sky) and 'Dyaus' (heaven) make eight syllables, and the first foot of the Gayatri has eight syllables. So the above three worlds constitute the first foot of the Gayatri. He who knows the first foot of the Gayatri to be such wins as much as there is in those three worlds.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- The meditation on Brahman as possessed of different limiting adjuncts such as the heart has been stated. Now the meditation on it as possessing the limiting adjunct of the Gayatri has to be stated; hence the present section. Gayatri is the chief of the metres. It is called Gayatri because, as will be said later on, it protects the organs of those who recite it. Other metres have not this power. The verse Gayatri is identical with the vital force, and the latter is the soul (Because it helps their utterance.) of all metres. The vital force, as has been said, is called the Ksatra on account of its protecting the body by healing its wounds; (and Gayatri saves the organs of its reciters. So) Gayatri is identical with the vital force. Hence the meditation on Gayatri is being particularly enjoined. There is another reason. It is the cause of the birth of the Brahmanas, the noblest among the twice-born. From the passage, 'He created the Brahmana through Gayatri, the Ksatriya through Tristubh, and the Vaisya through Jagati' (Va. IV. 3, adapted), we know that the second birth (At the time of his initiation into the student life with the holy thread etc.) of the Brahmana is due to Gayatri. Therefore it is chief among the metres. The passages, 'The Brahmanas, renouncing their desires,' ettc. (III. v. 1), 'The Brahmanas speak of (that Immutable),' etc. (III. viii. , 'He is a Brahmana' (III. viii. 10), 'He becomes sinless, taintless, free from doubts, and a knower of Brahman' (IV. iv. 23), show that a Brahmana attains the highest end of his life; and that Brahmanahood is due to his second birth through Gayatri. Hence the nature of Gayatri should be described. Since the best among the twice-born (the Brahmana) who is created by Gayatri is entitled to the achievement of his life's ends without any obstruction, therefore this achievement is due to Gayatri. Hence with a view to enjoining a meditation on it the text says:- 'Bhumi', 'Antariksa' and 'Dyaus' make eight syllables, and the first foot of the Gayatri has eight syllables. The syllable 'Ya' (in the word 'Varenya') should be separated to supply the eighth syllable. The particles 'ha' and 'vai' indicate some well-known fact. So the above three worlds, the earth etc., constitute the first foot of the Gayatri, because both have eight syllables. The result accruing to one who knows the first foot ot the Gayatri consisting of the three worlds is as follows:- He who knows the first foot of the Gayatri to be such wins as much as there is to be won in those three worlds.

Translation By Max Müller

1. The words Bhûmi (earth), Antariksha (sky), and Dyu [1] (heaven) form eight syllables. One foot of the Gâyatrî consists of eight syllables. This (one foot) of it is that (i. e. the three worlds). And he who thus knows that foot of it, conquers as far as the three worlds extend.

Footnote:

1. Dyu, nom. Dyaus, must be pronounced Diyaus.


Sloka : 5.14.2

मन्त्र २[V.xiv.2]

ऋचो यजूꣳषि सामानीत्यष्टावक्षराण्यष्टाक्षरꣳ ह वा एकं

गायत्र्यै पदम् । एतदु हैवास्या एतत् स यावतीयं त्रयी विद्या तावद्ध

जयति योऽस्या एतदेवं पदं वेद ॥ २॥

mantra 2[V.xiv.2]

ṛco yajūgͫṣi sāmānītyaṣṭāvakṣarāṇyaṣṭākṣaragͫ ha vā ekaṃ

gāyatryai padam . etadu haivāsyā etat sa yāvatīyaṃ trayī vidyā tāvaddha

jayati yo'syā etadevaṃ padaṃ veda .. 2..



Meaning:- 'Reah', 'Yajumsi' and 'Samani' make eight syllables, and the second foot of the Gayatri has eight syllables. So the above three Vedas constitute the second foot of the Gayatri. He who knows the second foot of the Gayatri to be such wins as much as that treasury of knowledge, the three Vedas, has to confer.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Similarly 'Rcah,' 'Yajumsi,' and 'Samani,' the syllables of the names of that treasury of knowledge, the three Vedas, are also eight in number, and the second foot of the Gayatri has likewise eight syllables. So the above three Vedas, Rc, Yajus and Saman, constitute the second foot of the Gayatri, just because both have eight syllables. He who knows the second foot of the Gayatri to be such, consisting of the three Vedas, wins as much as that treasury of knowledge, the three Vedas, has to confer as result.

Translation By Max Müller

2. The Rikas, the Yagûmshi, and the Sâmâni form eight syllables. One foot (the second) of the Gâyatrî consists of eight syllables. This (one foot) of it is that (i.e. the three Vedas, the Rig-veda, Yagur-veda, and Sama-veda). And he who thus knows that foot of it, conquers as far as that threefold knowledge extends.


Sloka : 5.14.3

मन्त्र ३[V.xiv.3]

प्राणोऽपानो व्यान इत्यष्टावक्षराणि अष्टाक्षरꣳ ह वा एकं गायत्र्यै

पदमेतदु हैवास्या एतत् स यावदिदं प्राणि तावद्ध जयति योऽस्या

एतदेवं पदं वेद अथास्या एतदेव तुरीयं दर्शतं पदं परोरजा य

एष तपति यद्वै चतुर्थं तत्तुरीयं दर्शतं पदमिति ददृश

इव ह्येष परोरजा इति सर्वमु ह्येवैष रज उपर्युपरि तपत्येवꣳ

हैव श्रिया यशसा तपति योऽस्या एतदेवं पदं वेद ॥ ३॥

mantra 3[V.xiv.3]

prāṇo'pāno vyāna ityaṣṭāvakṣarāṇi aṣṭākṣaragͫ ha vā ekaṃ gāyatryai

padametadu haivāsyā etat sa yāvadidaṃ prāṇi tāvaddha jayati yo'syā

etadevaṃ padaṃ veda athāsyā etadeva turīyaṃ darśataṃ padaṃ parorajā ya

eṣa tapati yadvai caturthaṃ tatturīyaṃ darśataṃ padamiti dadṛśa

iva hyeṣa parorajā iti sarvamu hyevaiṣa raja uparyupari tapatyevagͫ

haiva śriyā yaśasā tapati yo'syā etadevaṃ padaṃ veda .. 3..



Meaning:- 'Prana', 'Apana' and 'Vyana' make eight syllables, and the third foot of the Gayatri has eight syllables. So the above three forms of vital force constitute the third foot of the Gayatri. He who knows the third foot of the Gayatri to be such wins all the living beings that are in the universe. Now its Turiya, apparently visible, supramundane foot is indeed this - the sun that shines. 'Turiya' means the fourth. 'Apparently visible foot', because he is seen, as it were. 'Supramundane', because he shines on the whole universe as its overlord. He who knows the fourth foot of the Gayatri to be such shines in the same way with splendour and fame.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Similarly 'Prana,' 'Apana' and 'Vyana,' these names of the vital force etc., have also eight syllables, and they constitute the third foot of the Gayatri. He who knows the third foot of the Gayatri to be such wins all the living beings that are in the universe. The Gayatri, as consisting of words, has only three feet. Now its fourth foot, which is the import of the verse, is being described:- Now the Turiya apparently visible, supramundane foot of that Gayatri is indeed this, viz. the sun that shines. The Sruti itself explains the meaning of the words in the above passage. The word 'Turiya' means what is generally known as the fourth. What is the meaning of the words 'apparently visible foot'? This is being answered:- Because he, the being who is in the solar orb, is seen, as it were; hence he is so described. What is the meaning of the word 'supramundane'? This is being explained:- Because he, this being in the solar orb, shines on the whole universe as its overlord. The word 'Rajas' means the universe produced out of Rajsa, or activity. The word 'upari' (lit. above) has been repeated twice to indicate his suzerainty over the whole universe. It may be urged that since the word 'whole' serves that purpose, it is useless to repeat the word 'upari'. The answer to this is that it is all right, because the word 'whole' may be taken to refer only to those worlds above which the sun is observed to shine, and the repetition of the word 'upari' removes this possibility. As another Sruti says, 'He rules the worlds that are beyond the sun and commands the enjoyments of the gods as well' (Ch. I. vi. . Therefore the repetition serves tto include all. As the sun shines with splendour, in the form of suzerainty and fame, so he who knows the fourth, apparently visible foot of the Gayatri to be such shines with splendour and fame.

Translation By Max Müller

3. The Prâna (the up-breathing), the Apâna (the down-breathing), and the Vyâna (the back-breathing) form eight syllables. One foot (the third) of the Gâyatrî consists of eight syllables. This (one foot) of it is that (i. e. the three vital breaths). And he who thus knows that foot of it, conquers as far as there is anything that breathes. And of that (Gâyatrî, or speech) this indeed is the fourth (turîya), the bright (darsata) foot, shining high above the skies [1]. What is here called turîya (the fourth) is meant for katurtha (the fourth); what is called darsatam padam (the bright foot) is meant for him who is as it were seen (the person in the sun); and what is called paroragas (he who shines high above the skies) is meant for him who shines higher and higher above every sky. And he who thus knows that foot of the Gâyatrî, shines thus himself also with happiness and glory.

Footnote:

1. Paronagas, masc., should be taken as one word, like paroksha, viz. he who is beyond all ragas, all visible skies.


Sloka : 5.14.4

मन्त्र ४[V.xiv.4]

सैषा गायत्र्येतस्मिꣳस्तुरीये दर्शते पदे परोरजसि प्रतिष्ठिता

तद्वै तत्सत्ये प्रतिष्ठितं चक्षुर्वै सत्यं चक्षुर्हि

वै सत्यं तस्माद्यदिदानीं द्वौ विवदमानावेयातामहम् अदर्शं

अहमश्रौषमिति य एव एवं ब्रूयादहम् अदर्शमिति तस्मा एव

श्रद्दध्याम । तद्वै तत्सत्यं बले प्रतिष्ठितं प्राणो वै बलं

तत्प्राणे प्रतिष्ठितं तस्मादाहुर्बलꣳ सत्यादोगीय इत्येवं वेषा

गायत्र्यध्यात्मं प्रतिष्ठिता । सा हैषा गयाꣳस्तत्रे प्राणा वै

गयास्तत्प्राणाꣳस्तत्रे तद्यद्गयाꣳस्तत्रे तस्माद् गायत्री नाम ।

स यामेवामूꣳ सावित्रीमन्वाहैषैव सा । स यस्मा अन्वाह तस्य

प्राणाꣳस्त्रायते ॥ ४॥

mantra 4[V.xiv.4]

saiṣā gāyatryetasmigͫsturīye darśate pade parorajasi pratiṣṭhitā

tadvai tatsatye pratiṣṭhitaṃ cakṣurvai satyaṃ cakṣurhi

vai satyaṃ tasmādyadidānīṃ dvau vivadamānāveyātāmaham adarśaṃ

ahamaśrauṣamiti ya eva evaṃ brūyādaham adarśamiti tasmā eva

śraddadhyāma . tadvai tatsatyaṃ bale pratiṣṭhitaṃ prāṇo vai balaṃ

tatprāṇe pratiṣṭhitaṃ tasmādāhurbalagͫ satyādogīya ityevaṃ veṣā

gāyatryadhyātmaṃ pratiṣṭhitā . sā haiṣā gayāgͫstatre prāṇā vai

gayāstatprāṇāgͫstatre tadyadgayāgͫstatre tasmād gāyatrī nāma .

sa yāmevāmūgͫ sāvitrīmanvāhaiṣaiva sā . sa yasmā anvāha tasya

prāṇāgͫstrāyate .. 4..



Meaning:- That Gayatri rests on this fourth, apparently visible, supramundane foot. That again rests on truth. The eye is truth, for the eye is indeed truth. Therefore if even today two persons come disputing, one saying, 'I saw it', and another, 'I heard of it', we believe him only who says, 'I saw it'. That truth rests on strength. The vital force is strength. (Hence) truth rests on the vital force. Therefore they say strength is more powerful than truth. Thus the Gayatri rests on the vital force within the body. That Gayatri saved the Gayas. The organs are the Gayas; so it saved the organs. Now, because it saved the organs, therefore it is called the Gayatri. The Savitri that the teacher communicates to the pupil is no other than this. It saves the organs of him to whom it is communicated.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- That Gayatri with three feet which has been described, which comprises the three worlds, the three Vedas and the vital force, rests on this fourth, apparently visible, supramundane foot, because the sun is the essence of the gross and subtle universe. Things deprived of their essence becomes lifeless and unstable, as wood and so forth are when their pith is burnt. So the three-footed Gayatri, consisting of the gross and subtle universe, rests with its three feet on the sun. That fourth foot (the sun) again rests on truth. What is that truth? The eye is truth. How? For the eye is indeed truth --- it is a well-known fact. How? Therefore if even today two persons come disputing, giving contradictory accounts, one saying, 'I saw it,' and another, 'I heard of it --- the thing is not as you saw it,' of the two we believe him only who says, 'I saw it,' and not him who says, 'I heard of it.' What a man hears of may sometimes be false, but not what he sees with his own eyes. So we do not believe the man who says, 'I heard of it.'
Therefore the eye, being the means of the demonstration of truth, is truth. That is to say, the fourth foot of the Gayatri with the other three feet rests on the eye. It has also been stated:- 'On what does that sun rest? --- On the eye' (III. ix. 20).
That truth which is the support of the fourth foot of the Gayatri rests on strength. What is that strength? The vital force is strength. Truth rests on that strength or the vital force. So it has been stated that everything is pervaded by the Sutra (III. vii. 2). Since truth rests on strength, therefore they say strength is more powerful than truth. It is also a well-known fact that a thing which supports another is more powerful than the latter. We never see anything weak being the support of a stronger thing. Thus, in the above-mentioned way, the Gayatri rests on the vital force within the body. That Gayatri is the vital force; hence the universe rests on the Gayatri. The Gayatri is that vital force in which all the gods, all the Vedas, and rites together with their results are unified. So, as the vital force, it is the self, as it were, of the universe. That Gayatri saved the Gayas. What are they? The organs, such as that of speech, are the Gayas, for they produce sound (This is primarily true of the vocal organ, but the whole group is named after it.). So it saved the organs. Because it saved the organs (of the priests using them), therefore it is called the Gayatri; owing to this saving of the organs it came to be known as the Gayatri. The Savitri or hymn to the sun that the teacher communicates --- first a quarter of it, then half, and finally the whole --- to the pupil, after investing him with the holy thread at the age of eight, is no other than this Gayatri, which is identical with the vital force, and is the self, as it were, of the universe. What the child receives from him is now explained here. It saves the organs of him, the child, to whom it is communicated, from falling into hell and other dire fates.

Translation By Max Müller

4. That Gâyatrî (as described before with its three feet) rests on that fourth foot, the bright one, high above the sky. And that again rests on the True (satyam), and the True is the eye, for the eye is (known to be) true. And therefore even now, if two persons come disputing, the one saying, I saw, the other, I heard, then we should trust the one who says, I saw. And the True again rests on force (balam), and force is life (prâna), and that (the True) rests on life [1]. Therefore they say, force is stronger than the True. Thus does that Gâyatrî rest with respect to the self (as life). That Gâyatrî protects (tatre) the vital breaths (gayas); the gayas are the prânas (vital breaths), and it protects them. And because it protects (tatre) the vital breaths (gayas), therefore it is called Gâyatrî. And that Savitri verse which the teacher teaches [2], that is it (the life, the prâna, and indirectly the Gâyatrî); and whomsoever he teaches, he protects his vital breaths.

Footnote:

1. Saṅkara understood the True (satyam) by tad, not the balam, the force. 2. The teacher teaches his pupil, who is brought to him when eight years old, the Sâvitrî verse, making him repeat each word, and each half verse, till he knows the whole, and by teaching him that Sâvitrî, he is supposed to teach him really the prâna, the life, as the self of the world.


Sloka : 5.14.5

मन्त्र ५[V.xiv.5]

ताꣳ हैतामेके सावित्रीमनुष्टुभमन्वाहुर्वागनुष्टुब् एतद्वाचमनुब्रूम

इति । न तथा कुर्याद् गायत्रीमेवानुब्रूयाद् । यदि ह वा अप्येवंविद्बह्विव

प्रतिगृह्णाति न हैव तद्गायत्र्या एकं चन पदं प्रति ॥ ५॥

mantra 5[V.xiv.5]

tāgͫ haitāmeke sāvitrīmanuṣṭubhamanvāhurvāganuṣṭub etadvācamanubrūma

iti . na tathā kuryād gāyatrīmevānubrūyād . yadi ha vā apyevaṃvidbahviva

pratigṛhṇāti na haiva tadgāyatryā ekaṃ cana padaṃ prati .. 5..



Meaning:- Some communicate (to the pupil) the Savitri that is Anustubh (saying), 'speech is Anustubh; we shall impart that to him'. One should not do like that. One should communicate that Savitri which is the Gayatri. Even if a man who knows as above accepts too much as gift, as it were, it is not (enough) for even one foot of the Gayatri.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Some, the followers of certain recensions of the Vedas, communicate to the initiated pupil the Savitri that is produced from, or composed in, the metre called Anustubh. Their intention is being stated:- They say, 'Speech is Anustubh, and it is also Sarasvati in the body. We shall impart that speech Sarasvati --- to the boy.' One should not do, or know, like that. What they say is totally wrong. What then should one do? One should communicate that Savitri which is the Gayatri. Why? Because it has already been said that the Gayatri is the vital force. If the child is taught about the vital force, he will be automatically taught about speech, and Sarasvati, and the other organs as well. Having stated this incidentally, the text goes on to praise the knower of the Gayatri:- Even if a man who knows as above accepts too much as gift, as it were really there is no such things as too much for him, for he is identified with the universe --- it, the whole amount of gift received, is not enough for even one foot of the Gayatri.

Translation By Max Müller

5. Some teach that Sâvitrî as an Anushtubh [1] verse, saying that speech is Anushtubh, and that we teach that speech. Let no one do this, but let him teach the Gâyatrî as Sâvitrî [2]. And even if one who knows this receives what seems to be much as his reward (as a teacher), yet this is not equal to one foot of the Gâyatrî.

Footnote:

1. The verse would be, Rig-veda V, 82, 1:- Tat savitur vrinîmahe vayam devasya bhoganam
Sreshtham sarvadhâtamam turam bhagasya dhîmahi. 2. Because Gâyatrî represents life, and the pupil receives life when be learns the Gâyatrî.


Sloka : 5.14.6

मन्त्र ६[V.xiv.6]

स य इमाꣳस्त्रींल्लोकान्पूर्णान्प्रतिगृह्णीयात् सोऽस्या एतत्प्रथमं

पदमाप्नुयाद् । अथ यावतीयं त्रयी विद्या यस्तावत्प्रतिगृह्णीयात्

सोऽऽस्या एतद्द्वितीयं पदमाप्नुयादथ यावदिदं प्राणि

यस्तावत्प्रतिगृह्णीयात् सोऽस्या एतत्तृतीयं पदमाप्नुयादथास्या

एतदेव तुरीयं दर्शतं पदं परोरजा य एष तपति नैव केन

चनाप्यं कुत उ एतावत्प्रतिगृह्णीयात् ॥ ६॥

mantra 6[V.xiv.6]

sa ya imāgͫstrīṃllokānpūrṇānpratigṛhṇīyāt so'syā etatprathamaṃ

padamāpnuyād . atha yāvatīyaṃ trayī vidyā yastāvatpratigṛhṇīyāt

so''syā etaddvitīyaṃ padamāpnuyādatha yāvadidaṃ prāṇi

yastāvatpratigṛhṇīyāt so'syā etattṛtīyaṃ padamāpnuyādathāsyā

etadeva turīyaṃ darśataṃ padaṃ parorajā ya eṣa tapati naiva kena

canāpyaṃ kuta u etāvatpratigṛhṇīyāt .. 6..



Meaning:- He who accepts these three worlds replete (with wealth), will be receiving (the results of knowing) only the first foot of the Gayatri. He who accepts as much as this treasury of knowledge, the Vedas (has to confer), will receive (the results of knowing) only its second foot. And he who accepts as much as (is covered by) all living beings, will receive (the results of knowing) only its third foot. With its fourth, apparently visible, supramundane foot - the sun that shines - is not to be counter balanced by any gift received. Indeed how could any one accept so much as gift?





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- He, that knower of the Gayatri, who accepts these three worlds, the earth etc., replete with wealth such as cattle and horses, will be receiving only the first foot of the Gayatri, which has been explained. That acceptance will counterbalance the results of knowing only its first foot, but will not produce any additional sin. He who accepts as much as this treasury of knowledge, the Vedas, (has to confer), will receive only its second foot. It will set off the results of knowing only its second foot. Similarly he who accepts as much as (is covered by) all living beings, will receive only its third foot. It will match the results of knowing only its third foot. All this is said merely as a supposition. Should any one accepts gifts equivalent even to all the three feet, it will wipe out the results of knowing only those three feet, but cannot lead to a new fault. Of course there is no such donor or recipient; it is imagined only to extol the knowledge of the Gayatri. Supposing such a donor and recipient were available, this accpetance of gifts would not be considered a fault. Why? Because there would still be left the knowledge of the fourth foot of the Gayatri, which is among the highest achievements of a man. This is pointed out by the text:- While its fourth, apparently visible, supramundane foot the sun that shines is not to be counterbalanced by any gift received, as the other feet mentioned above are. Even these three are not to be thus counterbalanced. All this has been said as a mere hypothetical proposition. Indeed how could any one accept so much as gift --- equivalent to the three worlds, and so on? Hence the Gayatri should be meditated upon in this (entire) form.

Translation By Max Müller

6. If a man (a teacher) were to receive as his fee these three worlds full of all things, he would obtain that first foot of the Gâyatrî. And if a man were to receive as his fee everything as far as this threefold knowledge extends, he would obtain that second foot of the Gâyatrî. And if a man were to receive as his fee everything whatsoever breathes, he would obtain that third foot of the Gâyatrî. But 'that fourth bright foot, shining high above the skies [1]' cannot be obtained by anybody--whence then could one receive such a fee?

Footnote:

1. See before, § 2.


Sloka : 5.14.7

मन्त्र ७[V.xiv.7]

तस्या उपस्थानं गायत्र्यस्येकपदी द्विपदी त्रिपदी चतुष्पद्यपदसि न

हि पद्यसे । नमस्ते तुरीयाय दर्शताय पदाय परोरजसेऽसावदो मा

प्रापदिति यं द्विष्यादसावस्मै कामो मा समृद्धीति वा न हैवास्मै स

कामः समृद्ध्यते यस्मा एवमुपतिष्ठतेऽहमदः प्रापमिति वा ॥ ७॥

mantra 7[V.xiv.7]

tasyā upasthānaṃ gāyatryasyekapadī dvipadī tripadī catuṣpadyapadasi na

hi padyase . namaste turīyāya darśatāya padāya parorajase'sāvado mā

prāpaditi yaṃ dviṣyādasāvasmai kāmo mā samṛddhīti vā na haivāsmai sa

kāmaḥ samṛddhyate yasmā evamupatiṣṭhate'hamadaḥ prāpamiti vā .. 7..



Meaning:- Its salutation:- 'O Gayatri, thou art one-footed, two-footed, there-footed and four-footed, and thou art without any feet, for thou art unattainable. Salutation to thee, the fourth, apparently visible, supramundane foot! May the enemy never attain his object!' (Should the knower of the Gayatri) bear hatred towards anybody, (he should) either (use this Mantra):- 'Such and such - way his desired object never flourish!' - in which case that object of the person against whom he thus salutes the Gayatri, never flourishes - or (he may say), 'May I attain that (cherished object) of his!'





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Its salutation, the salutation of the Gayatri --- literally, the word 'Upasthana' means going near and staying, or 'saluting --- with the following sacred formula:- 'O Gayatri, thou art one-footed, with the three worlds as thy first foot, two-footed, with the three Vedas as thy second foot, three-footed, with the three forms of the vital force as thy third foot, and four-footed, with the sun as thy fourth foot. Thus thou art attained or known by the meditating aspirants. Beyond that thou art without any feet, in thy own supreme, unconditioned form. Thou has no foot (Pada), that is, means of attainment, for thou art unatttainable, being the Self described as 'Not this, not this.' Hence salutation to thee, the fourth, apparently visible, supramundane foot --- in thy relative aspect! May the enemy, the evil that stands in the way of my realisation of thee, never attain his object, of obstructing this realisation! The word 'iti' marks the close of the sacred formula. Should the knower of the Gayatri himself bear hatred towards anybody, he should either use the following sacred formula against him in his salutation to the Gayatri:- 'Such and such --- naming him --- may his, Devadatta's desired object never flourish!
-- in which case that object of the person, Devadatta, against whom he thus salutes the Gayatri, never flourishes. Or he may salute the Gayatri saying, 'May I attain that cherished object of Devadatta.' Of the three Mantras given above --- 'May the enemy never attain,' etc. --- anyone may be used at option according to the intention of the aspirant.

Translation By Max Müller

7. The adoration [1] of that (Gâyatrî):- 'O Gâyatrî, thou hast one foot, two feet, three feet, four feet [2]. Thou art footless, for thou art not known. Worship to thy fourth bright foot above the skies.' If [3] one (who knows this) hates some one and says, 'May he not obtain this,' or 'May this wish not be accomplished to him,' then that wish is not accomplished to him against whom he thus prays, or if he says, 'May I obtain this.'

Footnote:

1. Upasthâna is the act of approaching the gods, προσκύνησις Angehen, with a view of obtaining a request. Here the application is of two kinds, abhikârika, imprecatory against another, and abhyudayika, auspicious for oneself. The former has two formulas, the latter one. An upasthâna is here represented as effective, if connected with the Gâyatrî. 2. Consisting of the three worlds, the threefold knowledge, the threefold vital breaths, and the fourth foot, as described before. 3. I have translated this paragraph very freely, and differently from Saṅkara. The question is, whether dvishyât with iti can be used in the sense of abhikâra, or imprecation. if not, I do not see how the words should be construed. The expression yasmâ upatishthate is rightly explained by Dvivedagaṅga, yadartham evam upatishthate.


Sloka : 5.14.8

मन्त्र ८[V.xiv.8]

एतद्ध वै तज्जनको वैदेहो बुडिलमाश्वतराश्विमुवाच यन्नु हो

तद्गायत्रीविदब्रूथा अथ कथꣳ हस्ती भूतो वहसीति । मुखꣳ

ह्यस्याः सम्राण् न विदां चकारेति होवाच । तस्या अग्निरेव मुखं

यदि ह वा अपि बह्विवाग्नावभ्यादधति सर्वमेव तत्सन्दहत्येवꣳ

हैवैवंविद् यद्यपि बह्विव पापं कुरुते सर्वमेव तत्सम्प्साय शुद्धः

पूतोऽजरोऽमृतः सम्भवति ॥ ८॥

इति चतुर्दशं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ पञ्चदशं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 8[V.xiv.8]

etaddha vai tajjanako vaideho buḍilamāśvatarāśvimuvāca yannu ho

tadgāyatrīvidabrūthā atha kathagͫ hastī bhūto vahasīti . mukhagͫ

hyasyāḥ samrāṇ na vidāṃ cakāreti hovāca . tasyā agnireva mukhaṃ

yadi ha vā api bahvivāgnāvabhyādadhati sarvameva tatsandahatyevagͫ

haivaivaṃvid yadyapi bahviva pāpaṃ kurute sarvameva tatsampsāya śuddhaḥ

pūto'jaro'mṛtaḥ sambhavati .. 8..

iti caturdaśaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha pañcadaśaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- On this Janaka, Emperor of Videha, is said to have told Budila, the son of Asvatarasva, 'Well, you gave yourself out as a knower of the Gayatri; then why, alas, are you carrying (me) as an elephant?' He replied, 'Because I did not know its mouth, O Emperor'. 'Fire is its mouth. Even if they put a large quantity of fuel into the fire, it is all burnt up. Similarly, even if one who knows as above commits a great many sins, he consumes them all and becomes pure, cleansed, undecaying and immortal'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- In order to enjoin the mouth of the Gayatri a eulogistic story is being narrated in this paragraph. --- The particles 'ha' and 'vai' refer to a past incident. --- On this subject of the knowledge of the Gayatri, Janaka, Emperor of Videha, is said to have told Budila, the son of Asvatarasva, 'Well, you gave yourself out as a knower of the Gayatri --- said you were one --- then why are you acting contrary to that satement? If you really were a knower of Gayatri, then why, alas, as a result of your sin in accepting gifts, are you carrying (me) as an elephant?' The adverb 'nu' indicates deliberation. Thus reminded by the Emperor, he replied, 'Because I did not know its mouth, O Emperor. My knowledge of the Gayatri, being deficient in one part, has been fruitless.' (The Emperor said), 'Listen then, fire is its into the fire, it, that fuel, is all burnt up. Similarly, even if one who knows as above, that fire is the mouth of the Gayatri who himself is identified with the Gayatri and has fire as his mouth --- commits a great many sins such as those due to the acceptance of gifts etc., he consumes all those sins and becomes pure like the fire, cleansed of those sins due to the acceptance of gifts etc., undecaying and immortal,' because he is identified with the Gayatri.

Translation By Max Müller

8. And thus Ganaka Vaideha spoke on this point to Budila Âsvatarâsvi [1]:- 'How is it that thou who spokest thus as knowing the Gâyatrî, hast become an elephant and carriest me?' He answered:- 'Your Majesty, I did not know its mouth. Agni, fire, is indeed its mouth; and if people pile even what seems much (wood) on the fire, it consumes it all. And thus a man who knows this, even if he commits what seems much evil, consumes it all and becomes pure, clean, and free from decay and death.'

Footnote:

1. Asvatarasyâsvasyâpatyam, Saṅkara.


Sloka : 5.15.1

मन्त्र १[V.xv.1]

हिरण्मयेन पात्रेण सत्यस्यापिहितं मुखम् । तत्त्वं पूषन्न् अपावृणु

सत्यधर्माय दृष्टये । पूषन्न् एकर्षे यम सूर्य प्राजापत्य

व्यूह रश्मीन् । समूह तेजो यत्ते रूपं कल्याणतमं तत्ते पश्यामि ।

योऽसावसौ पुरुषः सोऽहमस्मि । वायुरनिलममृतमथेदं

भस्मान्तꣳ शरीरम् । ॐ३ क्रतो स्मर कृतꣳ स्मर क्रतो स्मर

कृतꣳ स्मर । अग्ने नय सुपथा रायेऽस्मान् विश्वानि देव वयुनानि

विद्वान् । युयोध्यस्मज्जुहुराणमेनो भूयिष्ठां ते नम उक्तिं विधेम ॥ १॥

इति पञ्चदशं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

॥ इति बृहदारण्यकोपनिषदि पञ्चमोऽध्यायः ॥

अथ षष्ठोऽध्यायः ।

अथ प्रथमं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

mantra 1[V.xv.1]

hiraṇmayena pātreṇa satyasyāpihitaṃ mukham . tattvaṃ pūṣann apāvṛṇu

satyadharmāya dṛṣṭaye . pūṣann ekarṣe yama sūrya prājāpatya

vyūha raśmīn . samūha tejo yatte rūpaṃ kalyāṇatamaṃ tatte paśyāmi .

yo'sāvasau puruṣaḥ so'hamasmi . vāyuranilamamṛtamathedaṃ

bhasmāntagͫ śarīram . oṃ3 krato smara kṛtagͫ smara krato smara

kṛtagͫ smara . agne naya supathā rāye'smān viśvāni deva vayunāni

vidvān . yuyodhyasmajjuhurāṇameno bhūyiṣṭhāṃ te nama uktiṃ vidhema .. 1..

iti pañcadaśaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

.. iti bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadi pañcamo'dhyāyaḥ ..

atha ṣaṣṭho'dhyāyaḥ .

atha prathamaṃ brāhmaṇam ..



Meaning:- The face (nature) of Satya (Brahman) is hidden (as it were) with a golden vessel. O Pusan (nourisher of the world - the sun), remove it, so that I, whose reality is Satya, may see (the face). O Pusan, O solitary Rishi (seer or traveller), O Yama (controller), O Surya (sun), O son of Prajapati (God or Hiranyagarbha), take away thy rays, curb thy brightness. I wish to behold that most benignant form of thine. I myself am that person; and I am immortal. (When my body falls) may my vital force return to the air (cosmic force), and this body too, reduced to ashes, (go to the earth)! O fire, who art the syllable 'Om', O Deity of deliberations, recollect, recollect all that I have done, O Deity of deliberations, recollect, recollect all that I have done. O Fire, lead us along the good way towards our riches (deserts). O Lord, thou knowest everybody's mental states; remove the wily evil from us. We utter repeated salutations to thee.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- The man who has combined meditation with rites is praying to the sun in his dying moments. This is topical too, for the sun is the fourth foot of the Gayatri, and the salutation to him is under consideration; hence he is being prayed to. The face, or real nature, of Satya, or the Satya-Brahman, is hidden, as it were, with a golden or shining vessel, the solar orb, as something held dear is kept hidden with a vessel. 'Hidden,' because no one whose mind is not concentrated can see it. O Pusan --- the sun is so called because he nourishes the world remove it, that vessel serving as a cover, as it were, because of its obstructing vision, i.e. remove the cause of obstruction to the vision, so that I, whose reality is Satya (Satya-Brahman), in other words, who am identical with thee, may see (the face). The names Pusan etc. are for addressing the sun. O solitary Rsi or seer, because of his vision, for he is the soul of the universe and as the eye sees everything. Or the word may mean 'O solitary traveller,' for the Sruti says, 'The sun roams alone' (Tai. S. VII. iv. xviii. 1).

O Yama (controller), for the control of the whole world is due to thee. O Surya, literally, one who efficiently directs the liquids, or his rays, or the vital force or intellect of all beings. O son of Prajapati or God, who is the Lord of all beings, or of Hiranyagarbha. Take away thy rays, curb thy brightness, so that I may see thee; for I cannot see thee as thou art, being blinded by thy dazzling light, as one cannot see things when it lightens. Hence withdraw thy radiance. I wish to behold that most benignant form of thine. 'I wish' should be changed into 'we wish.' I myself am that person whose limbs are the syllables of the Vyahrtis, 'Bhur' (earth), 'Bhuvar' (sky) and 'Svar' (heaven), called 'person' (Purusa) because of his having the form of a man. 'Ahar' (day) and 'Aham' (I) have been mentioned (V. v. 3, 4) as the secret names of the being in the sun and the being in the eye respectively (who are identical). That is referred to here. And I am immortal. The word 'immortal' should be thus construed. When my body falls --- while I am immortal and identified with the Satya-Brahman --- may my vital force in the body return to the external air (cosmic force). Similarly, may the other deities return to their respective sources. And this body too, being reduced to ashes, go to the earth!

Now he is praying to the deity, Fire, who is identified with his deliberations and presides over the mind:- O Fire, who art the syllable 'Om' --- the words 'Om' and 'Krato' are both used here as vocatives --- or 'Om' is his symbol. O Deity of deliberations, being identified with the mind, recollect what is to be recollected, for a desirable goal is attained through thy recollection at the time of death; hence I pray to thee:- Recollect all that I have done. The repetition is expressive of earnestness. Also, O Fire, lead us along the good way towards our riches, i.e. for receiving the fruits of our work; not along the southern, dark way that leads to return, but along the good, bright way. O Lord, thou knowest everybody's mental states. Remove all the wily evil from us. Freed from it through thy grace, we shall go along the northern way. But we are unable to serve thee; we only utter repeated salutations to thee. That is to say, we shall serve thee through the utterance of salutations, for we are too weak to do anything else.

Translation By Max Müller

1.  [1]The face of the True (the Brahman) is covered with a golden disk [2]. Open that, O Pûshan [3], that we may see the nature of the True [4].

Footnote:

1. These verses, which are omitted here in the Mâdhyandina text, are found at the end of the Vâgasaneyi-upanishad 15-18. They are supposed to be a prayer addressed to Âditya by a dying person. 2. Mahîdhara on verse 17:- The face of the true (purusha in the sun), is covered by a golden disk.' Saṅkara explains here mukha, face, by mukhyam svarûpam, the principal form or nature. 3. Pûshan is here explained as a name of Savitri, the sun; likewise all the names in the next verse. 4. Cf. Maitr. Up. VI, 35.


Sloka : 6.1.1

मन्त्र १[VI.i.1]

ॐ यो ह वै ज्येष्ठं च श्रेष्ठं च वेद ज्येष्ठश्च

श्रेष्ठश्च स्वानां भवति । प्राणो वै ज्येष्ठश्च श्रेष्ठश्च ।

ज्येष्ठश्च श्रेष्ठश्च स्वानां भवत्यपि च येषां बुभूषति य

एवं वेद ॥ १॥

mantra 1[VI.i.1]

oṃ yo ha vai jyeṣṭhaṃ ca śreṣṭhaṃ ca veda jyeṣṭhaśca

śreṣṭhaśca svānāṃ bhavati . prāṇo vai jyeṣṭhaśca śreṣṭhaśca .

jyeṣṭhaśca śreṣṭhaśca svānāṃ bhavatyapi ca yeṣāṃ bubhūṣati ya

evaṃ veda .. 1..



Meaning:- Om. He who knows that which is the oldest and greatest, becomes the oldest and greatest among his relatives. The vital force is indeed the oldest and greatest. He who knows it to be such becomes the oldest and greatest among his relatives as well as among those of whom he wants to be such.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- It has been stated that Gayatri is the vital force. But why is Gayatri the vital force, and not the organs such as that of speech?
Because the vital force is the oldest and greatest, which the organs are not. How is it the oldest and greatest? The present section is introduced to settle this point. Or, meditation on the vital force alone as the 'Uktha,' 'Yajus,' 'Saman,' 'Ksatra,' etc. has been described, although there are other things such as the eye. The present section gives only the reason, which is its connection with the preceding chapter, on account of its immediate sequence. But this section is not a part of that chapter. These two chapters being of the nature of a supplement, such meditations on the vital force, with specific results of their own, as have not been mentioned before, have to be described; this is what the Sruti intends to do.

He who knows that which is the oldest and greatest, i.e. has the attributes of priority in age and greatness --- what is is will be presently mentioned --- surely becomes the oldest and greatest among his relatives. The particles 'ha' and 'vai' are emphatic. The pupil, tempted by this mention of the result, is eager to put his question, when the teacher says to him:- The vital force is indeed the oldest and The vital force is indeed the oldest and greatest. But how is one to know that it is such, since at conception all the organs (of the embryo) are equally connected with the formative elements contributed by the parents? The answer is that nevertheless the seed, if lifeless, will not develop; which means that the vital force begins to function earlier than the eye and other organs; hence it is the oldest in age. Besides, the vital force goes on fostering the embryo from the moment of conception, and it is only after it (the vital force) has begun to function that the eye and other organs begin their work. Hence the vital force is legitimately the oldest of the organs. But one may be the olest member in a family without being the greatest, because of his lack of good qualities; and the second, or the youngest member may be the greatest by reason of his superior qualities, but not the oldest. Not so, however, with the vital force. It is indeed the oldest and greatest. How is it known to be the greatest? It will be shown through the ensuing conversation. In any case, he who knows, or meditates upon the vital force as the oldest and greatest, becomes the oldest and greatest among his relatives, by virtue of meditation on a thing that is oldest and greatest, as well as among those other than his relatives, of whom he wants to be the oldest and greatest. The man who meditates upon the vital force as the oldest and greatest attains this result. It may be questioned how a person can be oldest as will, since it depends on age. But the answer is that there is nothing wrong in it, since 'being the oldest' here means functioning (before the rest) as the vital force does.

Translation By Max Müller

1. Harih, Om. He who knows the first and the best, becomes himself the first and the best among his people. Breath is indeed the first and the best. He who knows this, becomes the first and the best among his people, and among whomsoever he wishes to be so.


Sloka : 6.1.2

मन्त्र २[VI.i.2]

यो ह वै वसिष्ठां वेद वसिष्ठः स्वानां भवति । वाग्वै वसिष्ठा ।

वसिष्ठः स्वानां भवत्यपि च येषां बुभूषति , य एवं वेद ॥ २॥

mantra 2[VI.i.2]

yo ha vai vasiṣṭhāṃ veda vasiṣṭhaḥ svānāṃ bhavati . vāgvai vasiṣṭhā .

vasiṣṭhaḥ svānāṃ bhavatyapi ca yeṣāṃ bubhūṣati , ya evaṃ veda .. 2..



Meaning:- He who knows the Vasistha (that which best helps to dwell or cover) becomes the Vasistha among his relatives. The organ of speech is indeed the Vasistha. He who knows it as such becomes the Vasistha among his relatives as well as among those of whom he wants to be such.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- He who knows the Vasistha becomes the Vasistha among his relatives. The result is according to the meditation. He also becomes the Vasistha among those other than his relatives, of whom he wants to be the Vasistha. 'Then please tell me what this Vasistha is.' The organ of speech is indeed the Vasistha. The derivative meaning of the word is 'that which helps one to dwell, or covers one splendidly.' For people who have the gift of speech become rich and live in splendour; or the word may be derived from the root 'Vas,' meaning 'to cover,' for speaks overcome others through their eloquence. Hence by realising the organ of speech as the Vasistha one becomes such. The result is in accordance with the realisation.

Translation By Max Müller

2. He who knows the richest [1], becomes himself the richest among his people. Speech is the richest. He who knows this, becomes the richest among his people, and among whomsoever he wishes to be so.

Footnote:

1. Here used as a feminine, while in the Khând. Up. V, 1, it is vasishtha.


Sloka : 6.1.3

मन्त्र ३[VI.i.3]

यो ह वै प्रतिष्ठां वेद प्रतितिष्ठति समे प्रतितिष्ठति दुर्गे ।

चक्षुर्वै प्रतिष्ठा चक्षुषा हि समे च दुर्गे च प्रतितिष्ठति ।

प्रतितिष्ठति समे प्रतितिष्ठति दुर्गे य एवं वेद ॥ ३॥

mantra 3[VI.i.3]

yo ha vai pratiṣṭhāṃ veda pratitiṣṭhati same pratitiṣṭhati durge .

cakṣurvai pratiṣṭhā cakṣuṣā hi same ca durge ca pratitiṣṭhati .

pratitiṣṭhati same pratitiṣṭhati durge ya evaṃ veda .. 3..



Meaning:- He who knows Pratistha (that which has steadiness) lives steadily in difficult as well as smooth places and times. The eye indeed is Pratistha, for through the eye one lives steadily in difficult as well as smooth places and times. He who knows it as such lives steadily in difficult as well as smooth places and times.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- He who knows Pratistha, that which has the attribute of steadiness --- lit. that by means of which one lives steadily --- has this result:- He lives steadily in smooth places and times, as also in difficult or inaccessible places and difficult times such as those of famine. 'If it is so, please tell me what that Pratistha is.' The eye indeed is Pratistha. How? For by seeing them through the eye one lives steadily in difficult as well as smooth places and times. Hence the results are quite appropriate; He who knows it as such lives steadily in difficult as well as smooth places and times.

Translation By Max Müller

3. He who knows the firm rest, becomes himself firm on even and uneven ground. The eye indeed is the firm rest, for by means of the eye a man stands firm on even and uneven ground. He who knows this, stands firm on even and uneven ground.


Sloka : 6.1.4

मन्त्र ४[VI.i.4]

यो ह वै सम्पदं वेद सꣳ हास्मै पद्यते यं कामं कामयते ।

श्रोत्रं वै सम्पच्छ्रोत्रे हीमे सर्वे वेदा अभिसम्पन्नाः । सꣳ

हास्मै पद्यते यं कामं कामयते य एवं वेद ॥ ४॥

mantra 4[VI.i.4]

yo ha vai sampadaṃ veda sagͫ hāsmai padyate yaṃ kāmaṃ kāmayate .

śrotraṃ vai sampacchrotre hīme sarve vedā abhisampannāḥ . sagͫ

hāsmai padyate yaṃ kāmaṃ kāmayate ya evaṃ veda .. 4..



Meaning:- He who knows Sampad (prosperity) attains whatever object he desires. The ear indeed is Sampad, for all these Vedas are acquired when one has the ear (intact). He who knows it to be such attains whatever object he desires.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- He who knows Sampad, that which has the attribute of prosperity, gets this result:- He attains whatever object he desires. But what is it that has got this attribute? The ear indeed is Sampad. How is the ear endowed with this attribute? For all Vedas are acquired when one has the ear, because only one who has the organ of hearing can study them, and objects of desire depend on the performance of rites that are enjoined by the Vedas. Therefore the ear is possessed of prosperity. Hence the result is in accordance with the meditation:- He who knows it to be such attains whatever object he desires.

Translation By Max Müller

4. He who knows success, whatever desire he desires, it succeeds to him. The ear indeed is success. For in the ear are all these Vedas successful. He who knows this, whatever desire he desires, it succeeds to him.


Sloka : 6.1.5

मन्त्र ५[VI.i.5]

यो ह वा आयतनं वेदाऽऽयतनꣳ स्वानां भवति आयतनं जनानाम् ।

मनो वा आयतनमायतनꣳ स्वानां भवत्यायतनं जनानां य एवं

वेद ॥ ५॥

mantra 5[VI.i.5]

yo ha vā āyatanaṃ vedā''yatanagͫ svānāṃ bhavati āyatanaṃ janānām .

mano vā āyatanamāyatanagͫ svānāṃ bhavatyāyatanaṃ janānāṃ ya evaṃ

veda .. 5..



Meaning:- He who knows the abode becomes the abode of his relatives as well as of (other) people. The Manas indeed is the abode. He who knows it to be such becomes the abode of his relatives as well as of (other) people.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- He who knows the abode becomes the abode of his relatives as well as of other people. What is that abode? The Manas indeed is the abode of the organs and objects. The latter become objects of enjoyment for the self only when they get an abode in the Manas; and the organs start and stop their work in accordance with the deliberations of the Manas. Hence it is the abode of the organs. Therefore the results are according to the meditation:- He who knows it to be such becomes the abode of his relatives as well as of (other) people.

Translation By Max Müller

5. He who knows the home, becomes a home of his own people, a home of all men. The mind indeed is the home. He who knows this, becomes a home of his own people and a home of all men.


Sloka : 6.1.6

मन्त्र ६[VI.i.6]

यो ह वै प्रजातिं वेद प्रजायते ह प्रजया पशुभी रेतो वै प्रजातिः ।

प्रजायते ह प्रजया पशुभिर्य एवं वेद ॥ ६॥

mantra 6[VI.i.6]

yo ha vai prajātiṃ veda prajāyate ha prajayā paśubhī reto vai prajātiḥ .

prajāyate ha prajayā paśubhirya evaṃ veda .. 6..



Meaning:- He who knows Prajati (that which has the attribute of generation) is enriched with children and animals. The seed (organ) has this attribute. He who knows it to be such is enriched with children and animals.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- He who knows Prajati is enriched with children and animals. The seed has this attribute; the word 'seed' refers to the organ of generation. The result is in keeping with the meditation:- He who knows it to be such is enriched with children and animals.

Translation By Max Müller

6. He who knows generation [1], becomes rich in offspring and cattle. Seed indeed is generation. He who knows this, becomes rich in offspring and cattle.

Footnote:

1. This is wanting in the Khând. Up. Roer and Poley read Pragâpati for pragâti. MS, I. O. 3 75 has pragâti, MS. I. O. 1973 pragâpati.


Sloka : 6.1.7

मन्त्र ७[VI.i.7]

ते हेमे प्राणा अहꣳश्रेयसे विवदमाना ब्रह्म जग्मुस्तद्धोचुः को नो

वसिष्ठ इति । तद्धोवाच यस्मिन्व उत्क्रान्त इदꣳ शरीरं पापीयो

मन्यते स वो वसिष्ठ इति ॥ ७॥

mantra 7[VI.i.7]

te heme prāṇā ahagͫśreyase vivadamānā brahma jagmustaddhocuḥ ko no

vasiṣṭha iti . taddhovāca yasminva utkrānta idagͫ śarīraṃ pāpīyo

manyate sa vo vasiṣṭha iti .. 7..



Meaning:- These organs, disputing over their respective greatness, went to Brahman and said to him, 'Which of us is the Vasistha?' He said, 'That one of you will be the Vasistha, who departing from among yourselves, people consider this body far more wretched'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- These organs, that of speech and the rest, disputing over --- lit. giving contradictory accounts of ---- their respective greatness, each claiming that it was the greatest, went to Brahman, or Prajapati denoted by the word 'Brahman,' and said to him,' 'Which of us is the Vasistha --- (best) lives and overcomes others?' He, Brahman, being asked by them, said, 'That one of you will be the Vasistha, who departing from the body from among yourselves, people consider this body far more wretched than before' --- for the body, being an aggregate of many impure things, is wretched even while a person is alive; it will be more so then. This is said for creating a feeling of disgust in us. Prajapati, although he knew it, did not say, 'This is the Vasistha,' to avoid offending the rest.

Translation By Max Müller

7. These Prânas (senses), when quarrelling together as to who was the best, went to Brahman [1] and said:- 'Who is the richest of us?' He replied:- 'He by whose departure this body seems worst, he is the richest.'

Footnote:

1. Here we have Pragâpati, instead of Brahman, in the Khând. Up.; also sreshtha instead of vasishtha.


Sloka : 6.1.8

मन्त्र ८[VI.i.8]

वाग्घोच्चक्राम । सा संवत्सरं प्रोष्या।आ।आगत्योवाच कथमशकत

मदृते जीवितुमिति । ते होचुर्यथाऽकला अवदन्तो वाचा प्राणन्तः

प्राणेन पश्यन्तश्चक्षुषा श‍ृण्वन्तः श्रोत्रेण विद्वाꣳसो मनसा

प्रजायमाना रेतसैवमजीविष्मेति । प्रविवेश ह वाक् ॥ ८॥

mantra 8[VI.i.8]

vāgghoccakrāma . sā saṃvatsaraṃ proṣyā.ā.āgatyovāca kathamaśakata

madṛte jīvitumiti . te hocuryathā'kalā avadanto vācā prāṇantaḥ

prāṇena paśyantaścakṣuṣā śṛṇvantaḥ śrotreṇa vidvāgͫso manasā

prajāyamānā retasaivamajīviṣmeti . praviveśa ha vāk .. 8..



Meaning:- The organ of speech went out. After staying a whole year out it came back and said, 'How did you manage to live without me?' They said, 'We lived just as dumb people do, without speaking through the organ of speech, but living through the vital force, seeing through the eye, hearing through the ear, knowing through the mind and having children through the organ of generation.' So the organ of speech entered.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Being thus addressed by Brahman, the organs went out one by one to try their power. Of them the organ of speech went out of the body first. Then after staying a whole year out it came back and said, 'How did you manage to live without me?' Thus addressed, they said, 'We lived just as in the world dumb people do, without speaking through the organ of speech, but living, doing the vital function, through the vital force, seeing, doing the function of vision, through the eye, similarly, hearing through the ear, knowing, considering what should or should not be done, and so on, through the mind and having children through the organ of generation.' Being thus answered by the organs, the organ of speech, realising that it was not the Vasistha in the body, entered.

Translation By Max Müller

8. The tongue (speech) departed, and having been absent for a year, it came back and said:- 'How have you been able to live without me?' They replied:- 'Like unto people, not speaking with the tongue, but breathing with breath, seeing with the eye, hearing with the ear, knowing with the mind, generating with seed. Thus we have lived.' Then speech entered in.


Sloka : 6.1.9

मन्त्र ९[VI.i.9]

चक्षुर्होच्चक्राम । तत्संवत्सरं प्रोष्याऽऽगत्योवाच कथमशकत

मदृते जीवितुमिति । ते होचुर्यथान्धा अपश्यन्तश्चक्षुषा

प्राणन्तः प्राणेन वदन्तो वाचा श‍ृण्वन्तः श्रोत्रेण विद्वाꣳसो

मनसा प्रजायमाना रेतसैवमजीविष्मेति । प्रविवेश ह चक्षुः ॥ ९॥

mantra 9[VI.i.9]

cakṣurhoccakrāma . tatsaṃvatsaraṃ proṣyā''gatyovāca kathamaśakata

madṛte jīvitumiti . te hocuryathāndhā apaśyantaścakṣuṣā

prāṇantaḥ prāṇena vadanto vācā śṛṇvantaḥ śrotreṇa vidvāgͫso

manasā prajāyamānā retasaivamajīviṣmeti . praviveśa ha cakṣuḥ .. 9..



Meaning:- The eye went out. After staying a whole year out it came back and said, 'How did you manage to live without me?' They said, 'We lived just as blind people do, without seeing through the eye, but living through the vital force, speaking through the organ of speech, hearing through the ear, knowing through the mind and having children through the organ of generation.' So the eye entered.

Translation By Max Müller

9. The eye (sight) departed, and having been absent for a year, it came back and said:- 'How have you been able to live without me?' They replied:- 'Like blind people, not seeing with the eye, but breathing with the breath, speaking with the tongue, hearing with the ear, knowing with the mind, generating with seed. Thus we have lived.' Then the eye entered in.


Sloka : 6.1.10

मन्त्र १०[VI.i.10]

श्रोत्रꣳ होच्चक्राम । तत्संवत्सरं प्रोष्याऽऽगत्योवाच

कथमशकत मदृते जीवितुमिति । ते होचुर्यथा बधिरा अश‍ृण्वन्तः

श्रोत्रेण प्राणन्तः प्राणेन वदन्तो वाचा पश्यन्तश्चक्षुषा

विद्वाꣳसो मनसा प्रजायमाना रेतसैवमजीविष्मेति । प्रविवेश ह

श्रोत्रम् ॥ १०॥

mantra 10[VI.i.10]

śrotragͫ hoccakrāma . tatsaṃvatsaraṃ proṣyā''gatyovāca

kathamaśakata madṛte jīvitumiti . te hocuryathā badhirā aśṛṇvantaḥ

śrotreṇa prāṇantaḥ prāṇena vadanto vācā paśyantaścakṣuṣā

vidvāgͫso manasā prajāyamānā retasaivamajīviṣmeti . praviveśa ha

śrotram .. 10..



Meaning:- The ear went out. After staying a whole year out it came back and said, 'How did you manage to live without me?' They said, 'We lived just as deaf people do, without hearing through the ear, but living through the vital force, speaking through the organ of speech, seeing through the eye, knowing through the mind and having children through the organ of generation.' So the ear entered.

Translation By Max Müller

10. The ear (hearing) departed, and having been absent for a year, it came back and said:- 'How have you been able to live without me?' They replied:- 'Like deaf people, not hearing with the ear, but breathing with the breath, speaking with the tongue, seeing with the eye, knowing with the mind, generating with seed. Thus we have lived.' Then the ear entered in.


Sloka : 6.1.11

मन्त्र ११[VI.i.11]

मनो होच्चक्राम । तत्संवत्सरं प्रोष्याऽऽगत्योवाच कथमशकत

मदृते जीवितुमिति । ते होचुर्यथा मुग्धा अविद्वाꣳसो मनसा

प्राणन्तः प्राणेन वदन्तो वाचा पश्यन्तश्चक्षुषा श‍ृण्वन्तः

श्रोत्रेण प्रजायमाना रेतसैवमजीविष्मेति । प्रविवेश ह मनः ॥ ११॥

mantra 11[VI.i.11]

mano hoccakrāma . tatsaṃvatsaraṃ proṣyā''gatyovāca kathamaśakata

madṛte jīvitumiti . te hocuryathā mugdhā avidvāgͫso manasā

prāṇantaḥ prāṇena vadanto vācā paśyantaścakṣuṣā śṛṇvantaḥ

śrotreṇa prajāyamānā retasaivamajīviṣmeti . praviveśa ha manaḥ .. 11..



Meaning:- The mind went out. After staying a whole year out it came back and said, 'How did you manage to live without me?' They said, 'We lived just as idiots do, without knowing through the mind, but living through the vital force, speaking through the organ of speech, seeing through the eye, hearing through the ear and having children through the organ of generation.' So the mind entered.

Translation By Max Müller

11. The mind departed, and having been absent for a year, it came back and said:- 'How have you been able to live without me?' They replied:- 'Like fools, not knowing with their mind, but breathing with the breath, seeing with the eye, hearing with the ear, generating with seed. Thus we have lived.' Then the mind entered in.


Sloka : 6.1.12

मन्त्र १२[VI.i.12]

रेतो होच्चक्राम । तत्संवत्सरं प्रोष्याऽऽगत्योवाच कथमशकत

मदृते जीवितुमिति । ते होचुर्यथा क्लीबा अप्रजायमाना रेतसा प्राणन्तः

प्राणेन वदन्तो वाचा पश्यन्तश्चक्षुषा श‍ृण्वन्तः श्रोत्रेण

विद्वाꣳसो मनसैवमजीविष्मेति । प्रविवेश ह रेतः ॥ १२॥

mantra 12[VI.i.12]

reto hoccakrāma . tatsaṃvatsaraṃ proṣyā''gatyovāca kathamaśakata

madṛte jīvitumiti . te hocuryathā klībā aprajāyamānā retasā prāṇantaḥ

prāṇena vadanto vācā paśyantaścakṣuṣā śṛṇvantaḥ śrotreṇa

vidvāgͫso manasaivamajīviṣmeti . praviveśa ha retaḥ .. 12..



Meaning:- The organ of generation went out. After staying a whole year out it came back and said, 'How did you manage to live without me?' They said, 'We lived just as eunuchs do, without having children through the organ of generation, but living through the vital force, speaking through the organ of speech, seeing through the eye, hearing through the ear and knowing through the mind.' So the organ of generation entered.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Likewise the eye went out, etc. All this is to be explained as before. The ear, the mind, the organ of generation.

Translation By Max Müller

12. The seed departed, and having been absent for a year, it came back and said:- 'How have you been able to live without me?' They replied:- 'Like impotent people, not generating with seed, but breathing with the breath, seeing with the eye, hearing with the ear, knowing with the mind. Thus we have lived.' Then the seed entered in.


Sloka : 6.1.13

मन्त्र १३[VI.i.13]

अथ ह प्राण उत्क्रमिष्यन् यथा महासुहयः सैन्धवः

पड्वीशशङ्कून्संवृहेदेवꣳ हैवेमान्प्राणान्संववर्ह । ते होचुर्मा

भगव उत्क्रमीर्न वै शक्ष्यामस्त्वदृते जीवितुमिति । तस्यो मे बलिं

कुरुतेति तथेति ॥ १३॥

mantra 13[VI.i.13]

atha ha prāṇa utkramiṣyan yathā mahāsuhayaḥ saindhavaḥ

paḍvīśaśaṅkūnsaṃvṛhedevagͫ haivemānprāṇānsaṃvavarha . te hocurmā

bhagava utkramīrna vai śakṣyāmastvadṛte jīvitumiti . tasyo me baliṃ

kuruteti tatheti .. 13..



Meaning:- Then as the vital force was about to go out, it uprooted those organs just as a great, fine horse from Sind pulls out the pegs to which his feet are tied. They said, 'Please do not go out, sir, we cannot live without you'. 'Then give me tribute.' 'All right'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Then as the vital force was about to go out, the vocal and other organs were immediately dislodged from their places. This is being illustrated by an example:- It uprooted those organs from their places, just as in life a great, large-sized fine, noble-featured, horse from Sind, the place of his origin, simultaneously pulls out the pegs to which his feet are tied, when the rider mounts on him to test him. They, the organ of speech etc., said, 'Please do not go out, sir, for we cannot live without you.' (The vital force said:-) 'If you have thus understood my eminence, then, as I am the chief here, give me tribute.' This conversation among the organs is an imaginary one devised to teach how a wise man should test the greatness of his peers. It is thus that a wise man finds out who is the greatest among them. That mode of testing is presented in the form of a conversation; for otherwise it is absurd to think that each one of the organs, which work together, can actually go out by turns for the space of a year, and so on. Therefore, only the wise man who wants to know, for purposes of meditation, which is the greatest of the organs, reasons in this way. The organs, when demanded tribute, agreed saying, 'All right.'

Translation By Max Müller

13. The (vital) breath, when on the point of departing, tore up these senses, as a great, excellent horse of the Sindhu country might tare up the pegs to which he is tethered. They said to him:- 'Sir, do not depart. We shall not be able to live without thee.' He said:- 'Then make me an offering.' They said:- 'Let it be so.'


Sloka : 6.1.14

मन्त्र १४[VI.i.14]

सा ह वागुवाच यद्वा अहं वसिष्ठाऽस्मि त्वं तद्वसिष्ठोऽसीति ।

यद् वा अहं प्रतिष्ठास्मि त्वं तत्प्रतिष्ठोऽसीति चक्षुर्यद्वा

अहꣳ सम्पदस्मि त्वं तत् सम्पदसीति श्रोत्रम् । यद् वा

अहमायतनमस्मि त्वं तदायतनमसीति मनो यद्वा अहं प्रजातिरस्मि

त्वं तत् प्रजातिरसीति रेतस्तस्यो मे किमन्नं किं वास इति । यदिदं

किञ्चाऽऽश्वभ्य आ कृमिभ्य आ कीटपतङ्गेभ्यस्तत्तेऽन्नमापो

वास इति । न ह वा अस्यानन्नं जग्धं भवति नानन्नं प्रतिगृहीतं

य एवमेतदनस्यान्नं वेद । तद् विद्वाꣳसः श्रोत्रिया अशिष्यन्त

आचामन्त्यशित्वाऽऽचामन्त्येतमेव तदनमनग्नं कुर्वन्तो मन्यन्ते ॥ १४॥

इति प्रथमं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ द्वितीयं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 14[VI.i.14]

sā ha vāguvāca yadvā ahaṃ vasiṣṭhā'smi tvaṃ tadvasiṣṭho'sīti .

yad vā ahaṃ pratiṣṭhāsmi tvaṃ tatpratiṣṭho'sīti cakṣuryadvā

ahagͫ sampadasmi tvaṃ tat sampadasīti śrotram . yad vā

ahamāyatanamasmi tvaṃ tadāyatanamasīti mano yadvā ahaṃ prajātirasmi

tvaṃ tat prajātirasīti retastasyo me kimannaṃ kiṃ vāsa iti . yadidaṃ

kiñcā''śvabhya ā kṛmibhya ā kīṭapataṅgebhyastatte'nnamāpo

vāsa iti . na ha vā asyānannaṃ jagdhaṃ bhavati nānannaṃ pratigṛhītaṃ

ya evametadanasyānnaṃ veda . tad vidvāgͫsaḥ śrotriyā aśiṣyanta

ācāmantyaśitvā''cāmantyetameva tadanamanagnaṃ kurvanto manyante .. 14..

iti prathamaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha dvitīyaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- The organ of speech said, 'That attribute of the Vasistha which I have is yours'. The eye:- 'That attribute of steadiness which I have is yours'. The ear:- 'That attribute of prosperity which I have is yours'. The mind:- 'That attribute of abode which I have is yours'. The organ of generation:- 'That attribute of generation which I have is yours'. (The vital force said:) 'Then what will be my food and my dress?' (The organs said:) 'Whatever is (known as) food, including dogs, worms, insects and moths, is your food, and water your dress'. He who knows the food of the vital force to be such, never happens to eat anything that is not food, or to accept anything that is not food. Therefore wise men who are versed in the Vedas sip a little water just before and after eating. They regard it as removing the nakedness of the vital force.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- The organ of speech came forward first to offer the tribute and said, 'That attribute of the Vasistha which I have is yours. With that you are the Vasistha.' The eye:- 'That attribute of steadiness which I have is yours. You are that steadiness.' The rest is similar. The other organs gave one by one their attributes of prosperity, abode and generation. (The vital force said:-) 'If it is so, you have handsomely paid me tribute. Now tell me, endowed with such attributes that I am, what will be my food and my dress?' The others said, 'Whatever is known in the world as food, including dogs, worms, insects and mouths whatever is food for dogs etc., and with that every food that is eaten by other creatures --- is all your food.' We are here enjoined to look upon everything as the food of the vital force.

Some say that he who knows the food of the vital force can eat anything with impunity. This is wrong, for it has been forbidden by other scriptures.
Objection:- May this not be an alternative to them (Meaning that ordinary people must abide by that restriction, but he who knows the food of the vital force may eat anything.)?
Reply:- No, for this is not an injunction in favour of promiscuous eating. The passage, 'He never happens to eat anything that is not food,' is merely a eulogy on the meditation enjoined about regarding everything as the food of the vital force, for it should be treated as a part of that injunction. It has no power to contradict what has been enjoined by other scriptures, for it has quite a different meaning (viz to extol the above meditation). What is sought to be enjoined here is the idea that everything is the food of the vital force, not that one should eat everything. Your assumption that the eating of everything is allowable is totally false, for there is no authority to support it.

Objection:- The man who knows about the food of the vital force is identified with the latter, and as such everything can be regarded as his food; hence the eating of everything is surely allowable in his case.
Reply:- No, for anything and everything cannot be one's food. It is true that this sage is identified with the vital force, but he possesses a body through which he has attained his knowledge, and the eating of every kind of food such as those of worms, insects and gods is incongruous with it (Nobody can possibly want to eat anything and everything.). Hence it is meaningless to declare in that connection that the eating of all sorts of food is free from blame, for the blame in question would never arise.

Objection:- But as identified with the vital force, he does eat the food of even worms, insects, etc.
Reply:- True, but there is no scriptural prohibition regarding it. So it would be quite in order, like the Palasa flower (Butea Frondosa), which is naturally red. Hence it would be meaningless to say that he is allowed to eat everything as the vital force, for the eating of everything would not in that case amount to a blame. But the prohibition is with regard to the sage in relation to a particular body, and no exception has been made in his favour. Therefore he will certainly incur blame if he transgresses that prohibition, for the passage, 'He never happens to eat anything that is not food,' has a different meaning.
Moreover, the meditation on everything as the food of the vital force is being enjoined here not for the vital force as associated with the body of a Brahmana etc., but for the vital force in general. Just as, although everything may be food for the vital force in a general way, some kind of food helps to sustain the life of certain creatures, as poison does for the worm born in it, but it would do palpable harm in the form of death etc. to others in spite of its being the food of the vital force, similarly, although everything is food for the vital force, yet, if it eats forbidden food while associated with the body of a Brahmana etc., it will certainly incur blame. Therefore it is entirely misleading to think that the eating of forbidden food is harmless.
'And water that is drunk will stand for your dress.' Here too we are enjoined to look upon water as the dress of the vital force. It cannot of course be used as dress. Therefore the natural act of drinking water should be meditated upon as dressing the vital force. He who knows the food of the vital force to be such --- that everything is its food --- never happens to eat anything that is not food. Even if he eats something that should not be eaten, that too becomes regular food, and he is not touched by the blame due to it. It is a eulogy on this meditation, as we have said. Similarly he never happens to accept anything that is not food. Even if he accepts something that is forbidden, an elephant, for example, that too becomes the kind of food that it is allowable to accept. There too he is not touched by the blame of accepting something that is unacceptable --- which is also said by way of eulogy. The result of the meditation, however, is identification with the vital force, for what has just been stated is not meant to be a result of the meditation, but simply a eulogy on it.

Objection:- Why should not this itself be the result?
Reply:- It cannot, for he who sees the vital force as his own self attains identity with it as its result. And since he is identified with the vital force, and has thus becomes the self of all, even a forbidden food becomes allowable food; similarly even unacceptable gifts becomes acceptable. This is a eulogy (As a matter of fact, such acts are just as much forbidden for this sage as for any other person.) on the meditation, taking the acts just as they occur in life. Hence that passage has not the force of an injunction directed to a definite result.
Since water is the dress of the vital force, therefore wise men, Brahmanas, who are versed in the Vedas sip a little water just before and after eating. What do they mean by it? This is being stated:- They regard it as removing the nakedness of the vital force. It is a fact that a person giving a dress to another thinks that he is removing tha nakedness of the latter; and it has already been said that water is the dress of the vital force. The passage means that while drinking water one should think that one is giving a dress to the vital force.

Objection:- But a person sips water just before and after meals with the objects of purification. If that also means removing the nakedness of the vital force, the act of sipping would have a double effect. But one and the same act of sipping should not have a double effect. It it is for purification, it is not for dressing the vital force, and vice verse. Under the circumstances there should be another sipping of water to dress the vital force.
Reply:- No, for it can be explained by the twofoldness of the action. These are two separate actions. The sipping of water by one before and after eating enjoined by the Smrti is for the sake of purification, and is simply an act; there the purification does not require any meditation etc.
Here we are enjoined to look upon the water that forms part of the act of sipping as dress for the vital force. But if that is done, it will not contradict the purpose of purification attaching to the act of sipping, for it will be a different act (from meditation). Therefore in the act of sipping water before and after eating, we are simply enjoined to meditate upon the water as being the dress of the vital force. It is an injunction, since it is not known from any other source.

Translation By Max Müller

14. Then the tongue said:- 'If I am the richest, then thou art the richest by it.' The eye said:- 'If I am the firm rest, then thou art possessed of firm rest by it.' The ear said:- 'If I am success, then thou art possessed of success by it.' The mind said:- 'If I am the home, thou art the home by it.' The seed said:- 'If I am generation, thou art possessed of generation by it.' He said:- 'What shall be food, what shall be dress for me?' They replied:- 'Whatever there is, even unto dogs, worms, insects, and birds [1], that is thy food, and water thy dress. He who thus knows the food of Ana (the breath) [2], by him nothing is eaten that is not (proper) food, nothing is received that is not (proper) food. Srotriyas (Vedic theologians) who know this, rinse the mouth with water when they are going to eat, and rinse the mouth with water after they have eaten, thinking that thereby they make the breath dressed (with water).'

Footnote:

1. It may mean, every kind of food, such as is eaten by dogs, worms, insects, and birds. 2. We must read, with MS. I. O. 375, anasyânnam, not annasyânnam, as MS. I. O. 1973, Roer, and Poley read. Weber has the right reading, which is clearly suggested by Khând. Up. V, 2, 1.


Sloka : 6.2.1

मन्त्र १[VI.ii.1]

श्वेतकेतुर्ह वा आरुणेयः पञ्चालानां परिषदमाजगाम । स आजगाम

जैवलिं प्रवाहणं परिचारयमाणम् । तमुदीक्ष्याभ्युवाद कुमारा३ इति ।

स भोः ३ इति प्रतिशुश्राव अनुशिष्टोऽन्वसि पित्रेत्योमिति होवाच ॥ १॥

mantra 1[VI.ii.1]

śvetaketurha vā āruṇeyaḥ pañcālānāṃ pariṣadamājagāma . sa ājagāma

jaivaliṃ pravāhaṇaṃ paricārayamāṇam . tamudīkṣyābhyuvāda kumārā3 iti .

sa bhoḥ 3 iti pratiśuśrāva anuśiṣṭo'nvasi pitretyomiti hovāca .. 1..



Meaning:- Svetaketu, the grandson of Aruna, came to the assembly of the Panchalas. He approached Pravahana, the son of Jivala, who was being waited on (by his servants). Seeing him the King addressed him, 'Boy!' He replied, 'Yes, sir'. 'Have you been taught by your father?' He said, 'Yes'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Svetaketu, the grandson of Aruna, after being taught by his father, came to the assembly of the Pancalas to display his learning. The Pancalas were famous (for their learning). With the proud idea of conquering first their assembly, and then the royal court, he approached Pravahana, the son of Jivala, and the King of Pancala, who was being waited on by his servants. The particle 'ha' refers to a past incident, and 'vai' indicates certainty. The King had already heard of his pride of learning, and wished to teach him a lesson. Seeing him, he addressed him as soon as he arrived, 'Boy!' The prolongation of the accent in the address is expressive of censure. Thus addressed, he replied, 'Yes, sir (The word 'Bhoh' (sir) is used in addressing a Brahmana teacher.).' Though a Ksatriya is not entitled to this form of address, he used it in anger. The King said, 'Have you been taught by your father?' The other said, 'Yes I have. If you are in doubt, you can question me.'

Translation By Max Müller

1. Svetaketu Âruneya went to the settlement of the Pañkâlas. He came near to Pravâhana Gaivali [1], who was walking about (surrounded by his men). As soon as he (the king) saw him, he said:- 'My boy!' Svetaketu replied:- 'Sir!' Then the king said:- 'Have you been taught by your father!' 'Yes,' he replied.

Footnote:

1. The MSS. I. O. 375 and 1973 give Gaivali, others Gaibali. He is a Kshatriya sage, who appears also in Khând. Up. I, 8, 1, as silencing Brâhmanas.


Sloka : 6.2.2

मन्त्र २[VI.ii.2]

वेत्थ यथेमाः प्रजाः प्रयत्यो विप्रतिपद्यन्ता३ इति । नेति होवाच ।

वेत्थो यथेमं लोकं पुनरापद्यन्ता३ इति । नेति हैवोवाच । वेत्थो

यथाऽसौ लोक एवं बहुभिः पुनःपुनः प्रयद्भिर्न सम्पूर्यता३ इति

नेति हैवोवाच । वेत्थो यतिथ्यामाहुत्याꣳ हुतायामापः पुरुषवाचो

भूत्वा समुत्थाय वदन्ती३ इति । नेति हैवोवाच । वेत्थो देवयानस्य वा

पथः प्रतिपदं पितृयाणस्य वा यत्कृत्वा देवयानं वा पन्थानं

प्रतिपद्यन्ते पितृयाणं वाऽपि हि न ऋषेर्वचः श्रुतं द्वे

सृती अश‍ृणवं पितृणामहं देवानामुत मर्त्यानां ताभ्यामिदं

विश्वमेजत्समेति यदन्तरा पितरं मातरं चेति । नाहमत एकं चन

वेदेति होवाच ॥ २॥

mantra 2[VI.ii.2]

vettha yathemāḥ prajāḥ prayatyo vipratipadyantā3 iti . neti hovāca .

vettho yathemaṃ lokaṃ punarāpadyantā3 iti . neti haivovāca . vettho

yathā'sau loka evaṃ bahubhiḥ punaḥpunaḥ prayadbhirna sampūryatā3 iti

neti haivovāca . vettho yatithyāmāhutyāgͫ hutāyāmāpaḥ puruṣavāco

bhūtvā samutthāya vadantī3 iti . neti haivovāca . vettho devayānasya vā

pathaḥ pratipadaṃ pitṛyāṇasya vā yatkṛtvā devayānaṃ vā panthānaṃ

pratipadyante pitṛyāṇaṃ vā'pi hi na ṛṣervacaḥ śrutaṃ dve

sṛtī aśṛṇavaṃ pitṛṇāmahaṃ devānāmuta martyānāṃ tābhyāmidaṃ

viśvamejatsameti yadantarā pitaraṃ mātaraṃ ceti . nāhamata ekaṃ cana

vedeti hovāca .. 2..



Meaning:- 'Do you know how these people diverge after death?' 'No', said he. 'Do you know how they return to this world?' 'No', said he. 'Do you know how the other world is never filled by so many people dying thus again and again?' 'No', said he. 'Do you know after how many oblations are offered water (the liquid offerings) rises up possessed of a human voice (or under the name of man) and speaks?' 'No', said he. 'Do you know the means of access to the way of the gods, or that to the way of the manes - doing which people attain either the way of the gods or the way of the manes? We have heard the words of the Mantra:- 'I have heard of two routes for men, leading to the manes and the gods. Going along them all this is united. They lie between the father and the mother (earth and heaven)."' He said, 'I know not one of them'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- 'Well then, do you know, how these familiar people diverge after death? The prolongation of the final accent in the verb suggests deliberation. 'While going along the same route they come to a point where the roads split; some take the one, and some the other; this is the divergence. Do you know how these people are divided?' --- this is the idea. 'No,' said the other. 'Then do you know how they return to this world?' 'No,' said Svetaketu. 'Do you know how the other world is never filled by so many people dying thus, in the familiar way, again and again?' 'No,' said he. 'Do you know after how many oblations are offered water rises up, appears perfectly, possessed of a human voice (or under the name of man) and speaks?' This happens when it takes a human form. 'No,' said he. 'Very well. But do you know the means of access to the way of the gods, or that to the way of the manes --- in other words, the kind of (ritualistic) work doing which people attain either the way of the gods or the way of the manes?' The latter part of the sentence explains the word 'Pratipad' (means of access). That is to say, do you know the means of attaining the two worlds?
'We have heard the words of the Mantra that express this sense.' That is, there is a Mantra too expressing this idea. What is that Mantra? It is this:- I have heard of two routes. One of them leads to the manes, is connected with the world of the manes; that is, one attains the world of the manes through that way. --- The word 'Aham' (I) agress with the verb 'Asrnavam' (have heard), which is separated by the word 'Pitrnam.' --- And another is related to the gods; it leads to the gods. Who go by those two routes to the manes and the gods? This is being answered:- For, or relating to, men. That is, men only go by those routes. Going along those two routes all this (The universe as means and end. The routes connect this world with the next world, and departed spirits travel along them to their destination.) is united; and those two routes lie between the father and the mother. Who are they? The two halves of the shell of the universe consisting of heaven and earth. The Brahmana gives the following explanation of the words:- 'This (earth) is the mother, and that (heaven) is the father' (S. XIII. ii. ix. 7; Tai. B. III. viii. ix. 1). These two routes are within the two halves of the universe and hence belong to the relative world.
They cannot lead to absolute immortality. Svetaketu said, 'I know not one of this set of questions.'

Translation By Max Müller

2. The king said:- 'Do you know how men, when they depart from here, separate from each other?' 'No,' he replied. 'Do you know how they come back to this world?' 'No,' he replied [1]. 'Do you know how that world does never become full with the many who again and again depart thither?' 'No,' he replied. 'Do you know at the offering of which libation the waters become endowed with a human voice and rise and speak?' 'No,' he replied. 'Do you know the access to the path leading to the Devas and to the path leading to the Fathers, i.e. by what deeds men gain access to the path leading to the Devas or to that leading to the Fathers? For we have heard even the saying of a Rishi:- "I heard of two paths for men, one leading to the Fathers, the other leading to the Devas. On those paths all that lives moves on, whatever there is between father (sky) and mother (earth)."' Svetaketu said:- 'I do not know even one of all these questions.'

Footnote:

1. The same question is repeated in Roer's edition, only substituting sampadyante for âpadyante. The MSS. I. O. 375 and 1973 do not support this.


Sloka : 6.2.3

मन्त्र ३[VI.ii.3]

अथैनं वसत्योपमन्त्रयां चक्रेऽनादृत्य वसतिं कुमारः

प्रदुद्राव । स आजगाम पितरं तꣳ होवाचेति वाव किल नो

भवान्पुराऽनुशिष्टानवोच इति । कथꣳ, सुमेध इति । पञ्च

मा प्रश्नान्राजन्यबन्धुरप्राक्षीत् ततो नैकञ्चन वेदेति । कतमे त

इति इम इति ह प्रतीकान्युदाजहार ॥ ३॥

mantra 3[VI.ii.3]

athainaṃ vasatyopamantrayāṃ cakre'nādṛtya vasatiṃ kumāraḥ

pradudrāva . sa ājagāma pitaraṃ tagͫ hovāceti vāva kila no

bhavānpurā'nuśiṣṭānavoca iti . kathagͫ, sumedha iti . pañca

mā praśnānrājanyabandhuraprākṣīt tato naikañcana vedeti . katame ta

iti ima iti ha pratīkānyudājahāra .. 3..



Meaning:- Then the King invited him to stay. The boy, disregarding the invitation to stay, hurried away. He came to his father and said to him, 'Well, did you not tell me before that you had (fully) instructed me?' 'How (did you get hurt), my sagacious child?' 'That wretch of a Kshatriya asked me five questions, and I knew not one of them.' 'Which are they?' 'These', and he quoted their first words.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Then, after he had removed his pride of learning, the King invited him, Svetaketu, who is being discussed, to stay, saying, 'Please stay here. Let water be brought for washing your feet, and the customary offering to respected guests be made.' The boy, Svetaketu, disregarding the inivitation to stay, hurried away to his father. He came to his father and said to him, 'Well, did you not tell me before, at the time of my finishing the study, that you had instructied me in every branch of learning?' Hearing the reproachful words of his son, the father said, 'How did you get hurt, i.e. come by your grief, my sagacious child?' He said, 'Listen what happened to me. That wretch of a Ksatriya --- lit. an associate of the Ksatriyas; a term of reproach --- asked me five questions, and I knew not one of them.' 'Which are they --- those questions asked by the King?' inquired the father. To which the son replied, 'These,' and he quoted the first words of those questions.

Translation By Max Müller

3. Then the king invited him to stay and accept his hospitality. But the boy, not caring for hospitality, ran away, went back to his father, and said:- 'Thus then you called me formerly well-instructed!' The father said:- 'What then, you sage?' The son replied:- 'That fellow of a Râganya asked me five questions, and I did not know one of them.' 'What were they?' said the father. 'These were they,' the son replied, mentioning the different heads.


Sloka : 6.2.4

मन्त्र ४[VI.ii.4]

स होवाच तथा नस्त्वं तात जानीथा यथा यदहं किञ्च वेद

सर्वमहं तत्तुभमवोचम् । प्रेहि तु तत्र प्रतीत्य ब्रह्मचर्यं

वत्स्याव इति । भवानेव गच्छत्विति । स आजगाम गौतमो यत्र

प्रवाहणस्य जैवलेरास । तस्मा आसनमाहृत्योदकमहारयां चकाराथ

हास्मा अर्घ्यं चकार । तꣳ होवाच वरं भगवते गौतमाय दद्म

इति ॥ ४॥

mantra 4[VI.ii.4]

sa hovāca tathā nastvaṃ tāta jānīthā yathā yadahaṃ kiñca veda

sarvamahaṃ tattubhamavocam . prehi tu tatra pratītya brahmacaryaṃ

vatsyāva iti . bhavāneva gacchatviti . sa ājagāma gautamo yatra

pravāhaṇasya jaivalerāsa . tasmā āsanamāhṛtyodakamahārayāṃ cakārātha

hāsmā arghyaṃ cakāra . tagͫ hovāca varaṃ bhagavate gautamāya dadma

iti .. 4..



Meaning:- The father said, 'My child, believe me, whatever I knew I told you every bit of it. But come, let us go there and live as students'. 'You go alone, please'. At this Gautama came to where King Pravahana, the son of Jivala, was giving audience. The King gave him a seat, had water brought for him, and made him the reverential offering. Then he said, 'We will give revered Gautama, a boon'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- The father, to soothe his angry child, said, 'My child, believe me, whatever of meditations I knew, I told you every bit of it. Who is dearer to me than you, for whom I would withhold anything? I too do not know what the King asked about. Therefore come, let us go there and live as students with the King, to learn it.' The boy said, 'You go alone, please, I do not care to see his face.' At this Gautama, i.e. Aruni, who was descended from the line of Gotama, came to where King Pravahana, the son of Jivala, was holding a sitting, or giving audience. Or the genitive case in the two words in the text (denoting the King's name) should be changed into the nominative. The King gave him a respectable seat, had water brought for him, his guest Gautama, through servants, and made him the reverential offering (Arghya) through his priest, as also the Madhuparka (An offering consisting of honey, curds, etc.) with sacred texts uttered. Having thus worshipped him, he said to him, 'We will give to revered Gautama a boon,' consisting of cows, horses, etc.

Translation By Max Müller

4. The father said:- 'You know me, child, that whatever I know, I told you. But come, we shall go thither, and dwell there as students.' 'You may go, Sir,' the son replied. Then Gautama went where (the place of) Pravâhana Gaivali was, and the king offered him a seat, ordered water for him, and gave him the proper offerings. Then he said to him:- 'Sir, we offer a boon to Gautama.'


Sloka : 6.2.5

मन्त्र ५[VI.ii.5]

स होवाच प्रतिज्ञातो म एष वरो यां तु कुमारस्यान्ते

वाचमभाषथास्तां मे ब्रूहीति ॥ ५॥

mantra 5[VI.ii.5]

sa hovāca pratijñāto ma eṣa varo yāṃ tu kumārasyānte

vācamabhāṣathāstāṃ me brūhīti .. 5..



Meaning:- Aruni said, 'You have promised me this boon. Please tell me what you spoke to my boy about'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Gautama said, 'You have promised me this boon. Make yourself firm in this promise. Please tell me what you spoke to my boy, or son, about --- those questions. This is my boon.'

Translation By Max Müller

5. Gautama said:- 'That boon is promised to me; tell me the same speech which you made in the presence of my boy.'


Sloka : 6.2.6

मन्त्र ६[VI.ii.6]

स होवाच दैवेषु वै गौतम तद्वरेषु मानुषाणां ब्रूहीति ॥ ६॥

mantra 6[VI.ii.6]

sa hovāca daiveṣu vai gautama tadvareṣu mānuṣāṇāṃ brūhīti .. 6..



Meaning:- The King said, 'This comes under heavenly boons, Gautama. Please ask some human boon'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- The King said, 'This what you ask, comes under heavenly boons. Please ask some human boon.'

Translation By Max Müller

6. He said:- 'That belongs to divine boons, name one of the human boons.'


Sloka : 6.2.7

मन्त्र ७[VI.ii.7]

स होवाच विज्ञायते हास्ति हिरण्यस्यापात्तं गोअश्वानां दासीनां प्रवाराणां

परिधानस्य मा नो भवान्बहोरनन्तस्यापर्यन्तस्याभ्यवदान्यो भूदिति ।

स वै गौतम तीर्थेनेच्छासा इत्युपैम्यहं भवन्तमिति वाचा ह स्मैव

पूर्व उपयन्ति । स होपायनकीर्त्योवास ॥ ७॥

mantra 7[VI.ii.7]

sa hovāca vijñāyate hāsti hiraṇyasyāpāttaṃ goaśvānāṃ dāsīnāṃ pravārāṇāṃ

paridhānasya mā no bhavānbahoranantasyāparyantasyābhyavadānyo bhūditi .

sa vai gautama tīrthenecchāsā ityupaimyahaṃ bhavantamiti vācā ha smaiva

pūrva upayanti . sa hopāyanakīrtyovāsa .. 7..



Meaning:- Aruni said, 'You know that I already have gold, cattle and horses, maid-servants, retinue, and dress. Be not ungenerous towards me alone regarding this plentiful, infinite and inexhaustible (wealth).' 'Then you must seek it according to form, Gautama'. 'I approach you (as a student)'. The ancients used to approach a teacher simply through declaration. Aruni lived as a student by merely announcing that he was at his service.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Gautama said, 'You too know that I have them. So the human boon that you propose to give me will do me no good. Because I too already have plenty of gold, cattle and horses, maid-servants, retinue and dress.' The words 'Apattam asti' (there is attainment) should be connected with all the terms. 'And what I already have, neither I should ask of you, nor you should give me. You have promised me a boon. You alone know what is proper under the circumstances --- that you should keep your promise. I have also another thing on my mind:- Having been generous everywhere, be not ungenerous, stingy, towards me alone regarding this wealth --- plentiful, infinite, i.e. producing such results, and inexhaustible, i.e. reaching down to one's sons and grandsons. You should not deny such wealth to me alone. You will not deny it to anybody eles.' Thus addressed, the King said, 'Then you must seek to have this learning according to form, that prescribed by the scriptures.' At this Gautama said, 'I approach you as a student.' The ancients --- Brahmanas seeking instruction from Ksatriyas or Vaisyas, or Ksatriyas seeking it from Vaisyas, as a matter of necessity --- used to approach a teacher simply through declaration, not by actually approaching his feet or serving him. Hence Gautama lived as a student by merely announcing that he was at his service, without actually approaching the Kings' feet.

Translation By Max Müller

7. He said:- 'You know well that I have plenty of gold, plenty of cows, horses, slaves, attendants, and apparel; do not heap on me [1] what I have already in plenty, in abundance, and superabundance.' The king said:- 'Gautama, do you wish (for instruction from me) in the proper way?' Gautama replied:- 'I come to you as a pupil.' In word only have former sages (though Brahmans) come as pupils (to people of lower rank), but Gautama actually dwelt as a pupil (of Pravâhana, who was a Râganya) in order to obtain the fame of having respectfully served his master [2].

Footnote:

1. Abhyavadânya is explained as niggardly, or unwilling to give, and derived from vadânya, liberal, a-vadânya, illiberal, and abhi, towards. This, however, is an impossible form in Sanskrit. Vadânya means liberal, and stands for avadânya, this being derived from avadâna, lit. what is cut off, then a morsel, a gift. In abhyavadânya the original a reappears, so that abhyavadânya means, not niggardly, but on the contrary, liberal, i.e. giving more than is required. Avadânya has never been met with in the sense of niggardly, and though a rule of Pânini sanctions the formation of a-vadânya, it does not say in what sense. Abhyavadâ in the sense of cutting off in addition occurs in Satap. Br. II, 5, 2, 40; avadânam karoti, in the sense of making a present, occurs Maitr. Up. VI, 33. 2. The commentator takes the opposite view. In times of distress, he says, former sages, belonging to a higher caste, have submitted to become pupils to teachers of a lower caste, not, however, in order to learn, but simply in order to live. Therefore Gautama also becomes a pupil in name only, for it would be against all law to act otherwise. See Gautama, Dharma-sûtras VII, i, ed, Stenzler; translated by Bühler, p. 209.


Sloka : 6.2.8

मन्त्र ८[VI.ii.8]

स होवाच तथा नस्त्वं गौतम माऽपराधास्तव च पितामहा यथेयं

विद्येतः पूर्वं न कस्मिꣳश्चन ब्राह्मण उवास तां त्वहं तुभ्यं

वक्ष्यामि को हि त्वैवं ब्रुवन्तमर्हति प्रत्याख्यातुमिति ॥ ८॥

mantra 8[VI.ii.8]

sa hovāca tathā nastvaṃ gautama mā'parādhāstava ca pitāmahā yatheyaṃ

vidyetaḥ pūrvaṃ na kasmigͫścana brāhmaṇa uvāsa tāṃ tvahaṃ tubhyaṃ

vakṣyāmi ko hi tvaivaṃ bruvantamarhati pratyākhyātumiti .. 8..



Meaning:- The King said:- Please do not take offence with us, Gautama, as your paternal grandfathers did not (with ours). Before this, this learning never rested with a Brahmana. But I shall teach it to you; for who can refuse you when you speak like this?





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- When Gautama thus declared his preference for this unavoidable humiliation to ignorance, the King, thinking that he was hurt, said begging his pardon:- Please do not take offence with us, Gautama, as your paternal grandfathers did not with ours. That is to say, you should observe that attitude of your grandfathers towards us. Know that before this transmission to you, this learning that you have asked for never rested with a Brahmana. It has all along come down through a line of Ksatriya teachers. I too should, if possible, maintain that tradition. Hence I said, 'This comes under heavenly boons, Gautama. Please ask some human boon' (VI. ii. 6). But it cannot be maintained any more, for your boon cannot be withheld. I shall teach even this learning to you; for who else even can refuse you when you speak like this? Then why should I not teach it to you?

Translation By Max Müller

8. The king said:- 'Do not be offended with us, neither you nor your forefathers, because this knowledge has before now never dwelt with any Brâhman[1]. But I shall tell it to you, for who could refuse you when you speak thus?

Footnote:

1. Here, too, my translation is hypothetical, and differs widely from Saṅkara.


Sloka : 6.2.9

मन्त्र ९[VI.ii.9]

असौ वै लोकोऽग्निर्गौतम । तस्याऽऽदित्य एव समिद् रश्मयो धूमो

ऽहरर्चिर्दिशोऽङ्गारा अवान्तरदिशो विस्फुलिङ्गास्तस्मिन्नेतस्मिन्नग्नौ

देवाः श्रद्धां जुह्वति तस्या आहुत्यै सोमो राजा सम्भवति ॥ ९॥

mantra 9[VI.ii.9]

asau vai loko'gnirgautama . tasyā''ditya eva samid raśmayo dhūmo

'hararcirdiśo'ṅgārā avāntaradiśo visphuliṅgāstasminnetasminnagnau

devāḥ śraddhāṃ juhvati tasyā āhutyai somo rājā sambhavati .. 9..



Meaning:- That word (heaven), O Gautama, is fire, the sun is its fuel, the rays its smoke, the day its flame, the four quarters its cinder, and the intermediate quarters its sparks. In this fire the gods offer faith (liquid oblations in subtle form). Out of that offering King Moon is born (a body is made in the moon for the sacrificer).





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- 'That world, O Gautama, is fire,' etc. The fourth question is being answered first. The order of the questions is broken, because on the solution of this question depends that of the others. That world, heaven, O Gautama, is fire. We are enjoined to look upon heaven, which is not fire, as fire, as in the case of man and woman later on. Of that fire, heaven, the sun is the fuel, because of the kindling, for heaven is illumined by the sun. The rays its smoke, because of the similarity of rising from the fuel, for the rays emanate from the sun, and smoke, as we know, comes out of the fuel. The day its flame, because both are bright. The four quarters its cinder, because both present a pacified state (Space, like cinder, has no heat or lustre.). The intermediate quarters its sparks, because they are scattered like sparks. In this fire of heaven, possessed of such attributes, the gods, Indra-etc., offer faith as an oblation. Out of that offering King Moon, King of the manes and Brahmanas, is born.
Now who are the gods, how do they offer oblations, and what is this oblation called faith? We have just touched on this point elsewhere in our introductory remarks on this section. In order to ascertain the six things referred to by the words, 'But certainly you do not know the departure of these two oblations,' etc., certain things have been stated in the portion dealing with the Agnihotra. These are some of the statements:- 'These two oblations of the Agnihotra, after being offered, depart. They enter the sky, of which they make an Ahavaniya fire (The chief of the three Vedic sacrificial fires which the upper three castes are regularly required to tend. The oblations to the gods are offered in it.), with air as its fuel, and the sun's rays its white oblation. They offer libations to the sky and depart from there. They enter heaven, of which they make an Ahavaniya fire, with the sun as its fuel,' and so on (S. XI. vi. ii. 6 ' 7). Of course, these oblations of the Agnihotra depart together with their accessories. Whatever accessories they are known to possess here, such as the Ahavaniya fire, fuel, smoke, cinder, sparks and the articles of oblation, they take along with them as they leave this world for heaven. There, although everything is in an undifferentiated state during the dissolution of the world, those ingredients retain their separate existence in an extremely subtle form --- the fire remaining as fire, the fuel as fuel, the smoke as smoke, the cinder as cinder, the sparks as sparks and the articles of oblations as articles of oblation such as milk. That ceremony of the Agnihotra with its accessories, which never ceases to exist, but remains in a subtle form known as the Apurva, reappears in its old form at the time of manifestation, by making use of the sky etc. as the Ahavaniya fire and so on as before. The ceremony of the Agnihotra is like that even today.

Thus the nature of those six things beginning with the departure of the oblations and ending with the departure of the sacrificer for the next world, has been ascertained earlier in the Satapatha Brahmana, in the portion dealing with rites, and it has been stated that it is with a view to eulogising those two oblations of the Agnihotra that the whole universe has been described as being the development of the Apurva of those oblations. But here the object is to describe the results of the sacrificer's rites and to enjoin meditation on the five fires beginning with the fire of heaven, as a means to attaining the northern way, in order that he may enjoy the results of specific rites; hence the meditation on heaven as fire etc. is introduced. It should be noted that those forms of the vital force in the body that serve as priests in the Agnihotra here, become Indra etc. on attaining their form relating to the gods, and they serve as priests there, offering oblations in the fire of heaven. They (as a part of the sacrificer) performed the Agnihotra here with a view to attaining its results, and it is they who, at the time of reaping the results, also become priests in different places in the next world, assuming suitable forms, and being called by the name of gods. The liquid substances too, which, forming a part of the Agnihotra ceremony, are here poured into the Ahavaniya fire and are devoured by it, assume an invisible, subtle form and accompany the agent, the sacrificer, to the other world, going through smoke etc. first to the sky and thence to heaven. When those subtle liquid substances --- which are the effects of the act of offering, form a part of the Agnihotra, and are known as 'faith' --- enter heaven with the agent, to construct a new body for him in the lunar sphere, they are said to be offered as oblations. Entering heaven, they produce a body for the agent in the lunar sphere. This is referred to in the passage:- The gods offer faith. Out of that offering King Moon is born; for the Sruti says, 'Faith is water' (Tai. S. I. vi. viii.1).

The question was, 'Do you know after how many oblations are offered water rises up possessed of a human voice and speaks?' In order to answer it, the statemennt has been made:- 'That world is fire.' Therefore, it is clear that the liquid substances which form a part of the sacrifice and produce the body of the agent are designated as 'faith.' 'Water' only is mentioned as rising up possessed of a human voice, on account of the preponderance of liquid elements in the body, not that the truth four elements are absent in it. The formation of the body is due to the performance of the Agnihotra, and liquid substances are a part of it. Hence water (as typifying liquids) is the most important factor in the formation of the body. This is another reason why it is spoken of as 'rising up possessed of a human voice,' for everywhere it is the sacrificer who has a rebirth. So, although in the portion dealing with the Agnihotra the six things such as the departure of the two oblations have been mentioned so as to glorify the oblations of the Agnihotra alone, yet all Vedic rites such as the Agnihotra are meant; for after introducing rites with five factors, which are connected with the wife and fire, it has been said, 'The world of the manes (is to be won) through rites' (I. v. 16). It will also be stated later on, 'While those who conquer the worlds through sacrifices, charity and austerity,' etc.

Translation By Max Müller

9. 'The altar (fire), O Gautama, is that world (heaven) [1]; the fuel is the sun itself, the smoke his rays, the light the day, the coals the quarters, the sparks the intermediate quarters. On that altar the Devas offer the sraddhâ libation (consisting of water [2]). From that oblation rises Soma, the king (the moon).

Footnote:

1. Cf. Khând. Up. V, 4. 2. Deussen translates In diesem Feuer opfern die Götter den Glauben.'


Sloka : 6.2.10

मन्त्र १०[VI.ii.10]

पर्जन्यो वा अग्निर्गौतम । तस्य संवत्सर एव समिदभ्राणि धूमो

विद्युदर्चिरशनिरङ्गारा ह्रादुनयो विस्फुलिङ्गास्तस्मिन्नेतस्मिन्नग्नौ

देवाः सोमꣳ राजानं जुह्वति तस्या आहुत्यै वृष्टिः सम्भवति ॥ १०॥

mantra 10[VI.ii.10]

parjanyo vā agnirgautama . tasya saṃvatsara eva samidabhrāṇi dhūmo

vidyudarciraśaniraṅgārā hrādunayo visphuliṅgāstasminnetasminnagnau

devāḥ somagͫ rājānaṃ juhvati tasyā āhutyai vṛṣṭiḥ sambhavati .. 10..



Meaning:- Parjanya (the god of the rain), O Gautama, is fire, the year is its fuel, the clouds its smoke, lightning its flame, thunder its cinder, and the rumblings its sparks. In this fire the gods offer King Moon. Out of that offering rain is produced.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Parjanya, O Gautama, is fire, the second receptalce of the two oblations in the order of their return. Parjanya is a god identifying himself with the materials of rain. The year is its fuel, for this fire of Parjanya is kindled by that as it revolves with its parts commening with autumn and ending with summer. The clouds its smoke, being produced from smoke, or because of its cloudy appearance. Lightning its flame, since both are luminous. Thunder its cinder, because both represent a pacified state and are hard. The rumblings of the clouds its sparks, because both scatter and are numerous. In this receptacle of the two oblations the gods, those very priests mentioned above, offer King Moon, who was produced out of the offering of 'faith' in the fire of heaven; he is offered in the second fire, that of Parjanya, and out of that offering of the moon rain is produced.

Translation By Max Müller

10. 'The altar, O Gautama, is Parganya (the god of rain); the fuel is the year itself, the smoke the clouds, the light the lightning, the coals the thunderbolt, the sparks the thunderings. On that altar the Devas offer Soma, the king (the moon). From that oblation rises rain.


Sloka : 6.2.11

मन्त्र ११[VI.ii.11]

अयं वै लोकोऽग्निर्गौतम । तस्य पृथिव्येव समिद्

अग्निर्धूमो रात्रिरर्चिश्चन्द्रमा अङ्गारा नक्षत्राणि

विष्फुलिङ्गास्तस्मिन्नेतस्मिन्नग्नौ देवा वृष्टिं जुह्वति तस्या आहुत्या

अन्नꣳ सम्भवति ॥ ११॥

mantra 11[VI.ii.11]

ayaṃ vai loko'gnirgautama . tasya pṛthivyeva samid

agnirdhūmo rātrirarciścandramā aṅgārā nakṣatrāṇi

viṣphuliṅgāstasminnetasminnagnau devā vṛṣṭiṃ juhvati tasyā āhutyā

annagͫ sambhavati .. 11..



Meaning:- This world, O Gautama, is fire, the earth is its fuel, fire its smoke, the night its flame, the moon its cinder, and stars its sparks. In this fire the gods offer rain. Out of that offering food is produced.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- This world, O Gautama, is fire. 'This world' means the abode where all creatures are born and experience the results of their past work, and which consists of action, its factors and its results; it is the third fire. The earth is the fuel of that fire, for this world ('This world' and 'the earth' stand to each other in relation of a person and his body.) is kindled by the earth, which is provided with numerous materials for the enjoyment of living beings. Fire its smoke, for both rise from their abode, earth; because fire is produced out of the fuel, which preponderates in earth, and smoke too arises from the same source. The night its flame, because both originate from the contact of fuel. As a flame is produced by the conctact of fuel with fire, so is the night by the contact of the fuel of the earth, for the earth's shadow is called the darkness of night (Which is caused by a part of the earth obstructing the sun's rays.). The moon its cinder, both being produced from flames; for cinder is produced from flames, and so is the moon in the night; or because both represent a pacified state. The stars its sparks, because both scatter. In this, etc. --- to be explained as before --- (the gods) offer rain. Out of that offering food is produced, for it is a well-known fact that food, such as rice and barley, is produced from rain.

Translation By Max Müller

11. 'The altar, O Gautama, is this world [1]; the fuel is the earth itself, the smoke the fire, the light the night, the coals the moon, the sparks the stars. On that altar the Devas offer rain. From that oblation rises food.

Footnote:

1. Here a distinction is made between ayam loka, this world, and prithivî, earth, while in the Khând. Up. ayam loka is the earth, asau loka the heaven.


Sloka : 6.2.12

मन्त्र १२[VI.ii.12]

पुरुषो वा अग्निर्गौतम । तस्य व्यात्तमेव समित् प्राणो धूमो

वागर्चिश्चक्षुरङ्गाराः श्रोत्रं विस्फुलिङ्गास्तस्मिन्नेतस्मिन्नग्नौ

देवा अन्नं जुह्वति तस्या आहुत्यै रेतः सम्भवति ॥ १२॥

mantra 12[VI.ii.12]

puruṣo vā agnirgautama . tasya vyāttameva samit prāṇo dhūmo

vāgarciścakṣuraṅgārāḥ śrotraṃ visphuliṅgāstasminnetasminnagnau

devā annaṃ juhvati tasyā āhutyai retaḥ sambhavati .. 12..



Meaning:- Man, O Gautama, is fire, the open mouth is its fuel, the vital force its smoke, speech its flame, the eye its cinder, and the ear its sparks. In this fire the gods offer food. Out of that offering the seed is produced.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Man, O Gautama, is fire. The familiar human being with a head, hands, etc., is the fourth fire. The open mouth is its fuel, for through it a man is kindled (shines) in speech, study of the Vedas, etc., as fire is with fuel. The vital force its smoke, both rising from the same source, for the vital force rises from smoke, both rising from the same source, for the vital force rises from the mouth. Speech or the word its flame, for both reveal. A flame reveals things, and speech or the word signifies its object. The eye its cinder, because both represent a pacified state, or are the sources of light. The ear its sparks, owing to the similarity of scattering. In this fire (the gods) offer food.
One may say, we do not see any gods here offering food.
The answer is, that is no objection, for the forms of the vital force can be taken as gods. With reference to the deities, Indra and others are the gods; in the body the same are the forms of the vital force and they put food into a man. Out of that offering the seed is produced, for it is the outcome of food.

Translation By Max Müller

12. 'The altar, O Gautama, is man; the fuel the opened mouth, the smoke the breath, the light the tongue, the coals the eye, the sparks the ear. On that altar the Devas offer food. From that oblation rises seed.


Sloka : 6.2.13

मन्त्र १३[VI.ii.13]

योषा वा आग्निर्गौतम । तस्या उपस्थ एव समिल्लोमानि

धूमो योनिरर्चिर्यदन्तः करोति तेऽङ्गारा अभिनन्दा

विस्फुलिङ्गास्तस्मिन्नेतस्मिन्नग्नौ देवा रेतो जुह्वति तस्या आहुत्यै पुरुषः

सम्भवति । स जीवति यावज्जीवत्यथ यदा म्रियते । १३॥

mantra 13[VI.ii.13]

yoṣā vā āgnirgautama . tasyā upastha eva samillomāni

dhūmo yonirarciryadantaḥ karoti te'ṅgārā abhinandā

visphuliṅgāstasminnetasminnagnau devā reto juhvati tasyā āhutyai puruṣaḥ

sambhavati . sa jīvati yāvajjīvatyatha yadā mriyate . 13..



Meaning:- Woman, O Gautama, is fire. In this fire the gods offer the seed. Out of that offering a man is born. He lives as long as he is destined to live. Then, when he dies --





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Woman, O Gautama, is fire, the fifth one to serve as the receptacle of the sacrifice. In that fire the gods offer the seed. Out of that offering a man is born. Thus water (liquids), designated as 'faith,' being successively offered in the fires of heaven, rain-god, this world, man and woman, in the increasingly grosser forms of faith, moon, rain, food and seed respectively, produce what we call man. The fourth question, 'Do you know after how many oblations are offered water rises up possessed of a human voice and speaks?' (par.2), has been thus answered, viz that when the fifth oblation is offered in the fire of woman, water, transformed into the seed, becomes possessed of a human voice. He, that man, born in this order, lives. How long? As long as he is destined to live, i.e. as long as the resultant of his past work, which makes him stay in his body lasts. Then, on the exhaustion of that, when he dies.

Translation By Max Müller

13. 'The altar, O Gautama, is woman [1]. On that altar the Devas offer seed. From that oblation rises man. He lives so long as he lives, and then when he dies,

Footnote:

1. Tasyâ upastha eva samil, lomâni dhûmo, yonir arkir, yad antahkaroti te 'ṅgârâ, abhinandâ visphuliṅgâh.


Sloka : 6.2.14

मन्त्र १४[VI.ii.14]

अथैनमग्नये हरन्ति । तस्याग्निरेवाग्निर्भवति समित्समिद्

धूमो धूमोऽर्चिरर्चिरङ्गारा अङ्गारा विस्फुलिङ्गा

विस्फुलिङ्गास्तस्मिन्नेतस्मिन्नग्नौ देवाः पुरुषं जुह्वति तस्या आहुत्यै

पुरुषो भास्वरवर्णः सम्भवति ॥ १४॥

mantra 14[VI.ii.14]

athainamagnaye haranti . tasyāgnirevāgnirbhavati samitsamid

dhūmo dhūmo'rcirarciraṅgārā aṅgārā visphuliṅgā

visphuliṅgāstasminnetasminnagnau devāḥ puruṣaṃ juhvati tasyā āhutyai

puruṣo bhāsvaravarṇaḥ sambhavati .. 14..



Meaning:- They carry him to be offered in the fire. The fire becomes his fire, the fuel his fuel, the smoke his smoke, the flame his flame, the cinder his cinder, and the sparks his sparks. In this fire the gods offer the man. Out of that offering the man emerges radiant.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Then the priests carry him, the dead man, to be offered in the fire. The well-known fire becomes his fire, the receptacle for the sacrifice in which he himself is to be oblation; no new fire if to be imagined. The familiar fuel his fuel, the smoke his smoke, the flame his flame, the cinder his cinder, and the sparks his sparks. All these familiar objects are meant. In this fire the gods offer the man as the last oblation.
Out of that offering the man emerges radiant, exceedingly bright, having been purified by all the riites performed from conception to the funeral ceremony.

Translation By Max Müller

14. 'They take him to the fire (the funeral pile), and then the altar-fire is indeed fire, the fuel fuel, the smoke smoke, the light light, the coals coals, the sparks sparks. In that very altar-fire the Devas offer man, and from that oblation man rises, brilliant in colour.


Sloka : 6.2.15

मन्त्र १५[VI.ii.15]

ते य एवमेतद्विदुर्ये चामी अरण्ये श्रद्धाꣳ सत्यमुपासते

तेऽर्चिरभिसम्भवन्त्यर्चिषोऽहोऽह्न आपूर्यमाणपक्षं

आपूर्यमाणपक्षाद्यान्षण्मासानुदङ्ङादित्य एति मासेभ्यो देवलोकं

देवलोकादादित्यमादित्याद्वैद्युतं तान्वैद्युतान्पुरुषो मानस एत्य

ब्रह्मलोकान् गमयति ते तेषु ब्रह्मलोकेषु पराः परावतो वसन्ति ।

तेषां न पुनरावृत्तिः ।

mantra 15[VI.ii.15]

te ya evametadvidurye cāmī araṇye śraddhāgͫ satyamupāsate

te'rcirabhisambhavantyarciṣo'ho'hna āpūryamāṇapakṣaṃ

āpūryamāṇapakṣādyānṣaṇmāsānudaṅṅāditya eti māsebhyo devalokaṃ

devalokādādityamādityādvaidyutaṃ tānvaidyutānpuruṣo mānasa etya

brahmalokān gamayati te teṣu brahmalokeṣu parāḥ parāvato vasanti .

teṣāṃ na punarāvṛttiḥ .



Meaning:- Those who know this as such, and those others who meditate with faith upon the Satya-Brahman in the forest, reach the deity identified with the flame, from him the deity of the day, from him the deity of the fortnight in which the moon waxes, from him the deities of the six months in which the sun travels northward, from them the deity identified with the world of the gods, from him the sun, and from the sun the deity of lightning. (Then) a being created from the mind (of Hiranyagarbha) comes and conducts them to the worlds of Hiranyagarbha. They attain perfection and live in those worlds of Hiranyagarbha for a great many superfine years. They no more return to this world.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Now in order to answer the first question it is being stated:- Those who know this meditation on the five fires as such, as described above --- the word 'such' refers to the five fires described in terms of fire, fuel, smoke, flame, cinder, sparks, faith (liquid offerings), etc., so the meaning is --- those who know these five fires as above.

Objection:- Is not this meditation the same as that on the two oblations of the Agnihotra? For there, in the course of the discussion on the six things such as the departure of the two oblations, it has been stated, 'They make heaven itself the Ahavaniya fire,' etc. Here too there are many points of similarity, as for example the other world is fire, the sun is the fuel, and so on. Therefore this meditation is just a part of that.
Reply:- No, because this is an answer to the question, 'After how many oblations are offered,' etc. So the word 'such' must refer to that much only which is covered by the answer to this question. Otherwise the question would be useless. Now, since the number of the fires is already known (In the portion dealing with the Agnihotra.), the fires themselves are to be described here.

Objection:- Suppose we say that the fires and so forth are known, but are merely repeated here.
Reply:- In that case, they must be repeated as they occur there, not in such terms as, 'That word is fire (There are discrepancies. The sky, for instance, is omitted, and so on.).'

Objection:- The mention of heaven etc. is suggestive of the remaining items.
Reply:- Even then the first and last items should be quoted to suggest the rest. Another Sruti bears out our contention. In a section of the Chandogya Upanisad treating of the same subject there are the words, 'Those who know the five fires,' (V. x. 10), which shows that the number of the fires is fiexd as five. Therefore this meditation on the five fires cannot be a part of the Agnihotra (Because in that case the fire in which the first offerings are made would begin the series, thus making the number six.). The similarity as regards the fire, fuel, etc., to which you referred is, as we have said, only for the sake of extolling the Agnihotra. Therefore a mere knowledge of the six things such as the departure of the oblations will not lead to the attainment of the deities of the flame etc., for this has been enjoined through a knowledge of the five fires that are being discussed, as is evident from the use of the word 'such' in the text.
But who are 'those who know this as such'? The householers (Representing the second of the four orders of life. The other three orders are represented by students (who come firsts, hermits and monks.), of course. One may object:- Is it not the purpose of the Sruti to enjoin that they by means of sacrifices etc. are to attain the southern way characterised by the deity of smoke and so on? The answer is:- Not so; for there may be householders not knowing the five fires for whom sacrifices etc. are enjoined as means. Besides, the hermit and the monk have been indirectly mentioned, for they are connected with rites that only a householder can perform. Hence students also are meant by the words, 'Who know this as such.' They enter the northern way, as we know on the authority of the Smrti, 'Eighty-eight thousand sages who led a celibate life attained (relative) immortality through the northern route of the sun' (cf. Vis. II. viii. 92, 94). Therefore those householders who know as above, that they are born of fire, are childern of fire --- who know that they have been born out of a number of fires in this order, and are but another form of fire, and those others who meditate with --- not upon --- faith upon the Satya-Brahman (See V. iv. 1 and V. v. 1 ' 2.), or Hiranyagarbha, in the forest, in other words, the hermits and monks who constantly live in the forest all reach the deity identified with the flame.
As long as the householders do not know either the meditation on the five fires or the Satya-Brahman, they are born from the fire of woman when the fifth oblation beginning with that of faith (the liquids) has been offered in order, and agin perform rites like the Agnihotra, with a view to attaining the other world. Through those rites they again go to the world of the manes, passing in order the deity of smoke etc., and again return, passing in order the rain-god and so forth. Then they are again born of the fire of woman, again perform rites, and so on, thus rotating constantly like a Persian wheel (Ghatiyantra, a contrivance for drawing water from a well, in which a series of bowls are fixed to an endless chain which, when pulled, makes each bowl come up filled with water and get emptied at the top.) by their comings and goings between this world and the next. But when they know the meditation on the five fires, they are freed from this rotations and reach the flame. The 'flame' here does not mean a tongue of fire, but the deity identified with the flame and called by that name, who is stationed in the northern route. They reach him, for monks have no direct relation to the flame. Hence the word means the deity of that name. From him the deity of the day. Since there can be no restriction with regard to the time of death, the word 'day' also means the deity of the day. Death occurs as soon as the term of live is over:- one cannot make the rule that a knower of this meditation must die at daytime; so the day cannot be fixed as such time. Nor do those who dies at night wait for the day, for another Sruti says, 'He reaches the sun as quickly as the glance of the mind' (Ch. VIII. vi. 5).

From him the fortnight in which the moon waxes:- That is, being conducted by the deity of the day, they reach the deity of the bright fortnight. From him, being conducted by the deity of the bright fornight, they reach the six months in which the sun travels northward. The plural in the word 'months' indicates that a group of six deities identified with the northward journey of the sun is meant. From them the world of the gods:- Being conducted by this group of deities, they reach the deity identified with the world of the gods. From him they reach the sun, and from the sun the deity of, or identified with, lightning. As they reach the deity of lightning, a being created from the mind of Hiranyagarbha, a denizen of his world, comes and conducts them to the worlds of Hiranyagarbha. The plural in the word 'worlds' indicates that there are higher and lower planes in that world, which is possible, as there may be differences of grade in meditations. Being conducted there by that being, they attain perfection and live in those worlds of Hiranyagarbha for a great many superfine years, i.e. many human cycles, which constitute the lifetime of Hiranyagarbha (A human cycle or Kalpa consists of 432 million years and constuites a day of Hiranyagarbha. He lives a hundred years according to this scale.). They, after reaching the world of Hiranyagarbha, no more return to this world, for the word 'here' occurs in the Madhyandina recension.

Objection:- The word 'here' just indicates upon a type, meaning this and similar worlds, as in the passage, 'The full-moon sacrifice should be performed on the next day.'
Reply:- No, for then the qualifying word 'here' would be redundant. That is to say, if they did not return at all, the use of the word 'here' would be meaningless. In the passage cited, the fact that the sacrifice has to be performed on the next day would not be known, were it not mentioned; so the specification is all right. The term 'next day' has not been used there superfluously, on the ground (adduced by you) that it represents a type (Meaning, any day. The question is, the Caturmasya sacrifice being performed on the full-moon day, when is the full-moon sacrifice to be performed? The Sruti decides it by saying that it should be performed on the next day. This applies to all cases. Hence the term 'next day', assuming that it represents a type, demarcates that particular day from all other days, and is therefore not superfluous.
Similarly, the word 'here' is significant, meaning that they return in another cycle.). Only where the relevancy of a qualifying word is not to be found after investigation, is it proper to discard it as redundant; but not where the significance of the word is patent. Therefore we understand that they return after the lapse of the present cycle.

Translation By Max Müller

15. 'Those who thus know this (even Grihasthas), and those who in the forest worship faith and the True [1] (Brahman Hiranyagarbha), go to light (arkis), from light to day, from day to the increasing half, from the increasing half to the six months when the sun goes to the north, from those six months to the world of the Devas (Devaloka), from the world of the Devas to the sun, from the sun to the place of lightning. When they have thus reached the place of lightning a spirit [2] comes near them, and leads them to the worlds of the (conditioned) Brahman. In these worlds of Brahman they dwell exalted for ages. There is no returning for them.

Footnote:

1. Saṅkara translates, 'those who with faith worship the True,' and this seems better. 2. 'A person living in the Brahma-world, sent forth, i.e. created, by Brahman, by the mind,' Saṅkara. 'Der ist nicht wie ein Mensch,' Deussen, p. 392.


Sloka : 6.2.16

मन्त्र १६[VI.ii.16]

अथ ये यज्ञेन दानेन तपसा लोकाञ्जयन्ति ते

धूममभिसम्भवन्ति धूमाद्रात्रिꣳ, रात्रेरपक्षीयमाणपक्षं

अपक्षीयमाणपक्षाद्यान्षण्मासान्दक्षिणादित्य एति मासेभ्यः

पितृलोकं पितृलोकाच्चन्द्रं ते चन्द्रं प्राप्यान्नं

भवन्ति ताꣳस्तत्र देवा यथा सोमꣳ राजानमाप्यायस्व

अपक्षीयस्वेत्येवमेनाꣳस्तत्र भक्षयन्ति । तेषां यदा

तत्पर्यवैत्यथेममेवाऽऽकाशमभिनिष्पद्यन्ते आकाशाद्वायुं

वायोर्वृष्टिं वृष्टेः पृथिवीं ते पृथिवीं प्राप्यान्नं भवन्ति ते

पुनः पुरुषाग्नौ हूयन्ते ततो योषाग्नौ जायन्ते ते लोकान्प्रत्युथायिनस्त

एवमेवानुपरिवर्तन्तेऽथ य एतौ पन्थानौ न विदुस्ते कीटाः पतङ्गा

यदिदं दन्दशूकम् ॥ १६॥

इति द्वितीयं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ तृतीयं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 16[VI.ii.16]

atha ye yajñena dānena tapasā lokāñjayanti te

dhūmamabhisambhavanti dhūmādrātrigͫ, rātrerapakṣīyamāṇapakṣaṃ

apakṣīyamāṇapakṣādyānṣaṇmāsāndakṣiṇāditya eti māsebhyaḥ

pitṛlokaṃ pitṛlokāccandraṃ te candraṃ prāpyānnaṃ

bhavanti tāgͫstatra devā yathā somagͫ rājānamāpyāyasva

apakṣīyasvetyevamenāgͫstatra bhakṣayanti . teṣāṃ yadā

tatparyavaityathemamevā''kāśamabhiniṣpadyante ākāśādvāyuṃ

vāyorvṛṣṭiṃ vṛṣṭeḥ pṛthivīṃ te pṛthivīṃ prāpyānnaṃ bhavanti te

punaḥ puruṣāgnau hūyante tato yoṣāgnau jāyante te lokānpratyuthāyinasta

evamevānuparivartante'tha ya etau panthānau na viduste kīṭāḥ pataṅgā

yadidaṃ dandaśūkam .. 16..

iti dvitīyaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha tṛtīyaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- While those who conquer the worlds through sacrifices, charity and austerity, reach the deity of smoke, from him the deity of the night, from him the deity of the fortnight in which the moon wanes, from him the deities of the six months in which the sun travels southward, from them the deity of the world of the manes, and from him the moon. Reaching the moon they become food. There the gods enjoy them as the priests drink the shining Soma juice (gradually, saying, as it were), 'Flourish, dwindle'. And when their past work is exhausted, they reach (become like) this ether, from the ether air, from air rain, and from rain the earth. Reaching the earth they become food. Then they are again offered in the fire of man, thence in the fire of woman, whence they are born (and perform rites) with a view to going to other worlds. Thus do they rotate. While those others who do not know these two ways become insects and moths, and these frequently biting things (gnats and mosquitoes).





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- While those who do not know as above, who, knowing only the six things such as the departure of the two oblations connected with the Agnihotra, are mere ritualists, who conquer the worlds the plural in 'worlds' suggests here also varieties of results through sacrifices such as the Agnihotra, charity, the distribution of gifts among beggars outside the altar, and austerity such as Krcchra and Candrayana (Both these are penances consisting in fasting according to certain rules.) without initiation etc. also outside the altar reach smoke. Here too, as in the northern route, the words 'smoke' etc. refer to deities. That is, they reach the deity of smoke. Here also the deities are conductors, as before. From him the deity of the night, from him the deity of the fortnight in which the moon wanes, from him the deities of the six months in which the sun travels southward, from them the deity of the world of the manes, and from him the moon. Reaching the moon they become food. There the gods enjoy them, these ritualists who reaching the moon have become food, as masters do their servants as the priests here drink in sacrifices the shining Soma juice (saying, as it were), 'Flourish, dwindle'. The words 'flourish, dwindle' are not a sacred formula, but simply mean that priests frequently cheer up the Soma juice that is in the bowl and gradually finish it by drinking in other words, they drink it at intervals (not all at once). Similarly the gods too enjoy the ritualists who have got new bodies in the moon and have become the materials of their luxury, giving them frequent intervals of rest by rewarding them according to their past work. That is cheering them like cheering the Soma juice. And when their past work sacrifices, charity, etc., that led them to the moon --- is exhausted, they reach this well-known ether. The liquids called faith which were offered in the fire of heaven and took the form of the moon --- with which a new watery bood was built for the ritualists, in the moon, for their enjoyment melt on the expiry of the momentum of their past work, like a lump of ice in contact with sunshine. In that state they become fine and look like the ether. This is expressed by the words, 'They reach this ether.'
Then those ritualists, living with that kind of body in the sky, are blown hither and thither by the east-wind etc. This is what is meant by the words, 'From the ether air.' From air they reach rain. This has been stated in the passage, 'They offer King Moon in the fire of the rain-god' (par. 10, adapted). Then they drop on the earth as rain. Reaching the earth they become food such as rice and barley. This has been expressed in the passage, 'In the fire of this world they offer rain. Out of that food is produced' (par. 11, adapted). Then they as food are again offered in the fire of man, an adult. Thence as the seed they are offered in the fire of woman, whence they are born, and perform rites such as the Agnihotra, with a view to going to other worlds. Then they move repeatedly between the moon and this world, passing in order the deity of smoke etc. Thus do they, these ritualists, continuously rotate in a circle like the Persian wheel, until they know Brahman, so as to attain the northern way (Which leads to gradual liberation, depending on continued spiritual practice of the aspirants.), or immediate liberation. As it has been said, 'Thus does the man who desires (transmigrate)' (IV. iv. 6).

While those others who do not know these two ways, the northern and southern, i.e. do not practise either meditation or rites to attain the northern or the southern way what do they become? become insects and moths, and these frequently biting things, i.e. gnats and mosquitoes. Thus this last transmigratory existence is very painful, and it is extremely difficult for one who has fallen into it to get out of it again. So another Sruti says, 'They become these tiny creatures that come and go repeatedly, of which it has been said, 'as it were:- Be born and die' (Ch. V. x. . The purport of the entire passage is that we must therefore try our best to give up our natural pursuit of work and knowledge, and practise those rites or meditations which are enjoined by the scriptures and are the means of attaining the southern or the northern way. So it has been stated in another Sruti, 'The deliverance from this (the state of becoming rice etc.) is indeed much more difficult' (Ch. V. x. 6). 'Therefore one should cultivate a disgust (for return to the world)' (Ibid. , i.e. strive for liberation. It is clear that between these two even, greater care should be taken to secure the means of attaining the northern way, for it has been said, 'Thus do they rotate' (this text).
So all the questions have been answered. The fourth question, 'After how many oblations,' etc., has been first answered in the passage beginning with, 'That world' (par. 9), and ending with, 'A man is born' (par. 13). The fifth question, concerning the means of attaining the way of the gods or the way of the manes, has been answered next by a description of the means of attaining the northern and southern ways. This has also answered the first question by saying that starting with fire some reach the deity of the flame, and some the deity of smoke, and here is the divergence. The answer to the second question, concerning the return to this world, has been given by the statement that they return to this world, passing successively through the stages of the ether etc.; and that has also dealt with the third question by stating that the other world is not filled up for that very reason, as also owing to the fact that some becomes insects, moths, etc.

Translation By Max Müller

16. 'But they who conquer the worlds (future states) by means of sacrifice, charity, and austerity, go to smoke, from smoke to night, from night to the decreasing half of the moon, from the decreasing half of the moon to the six months when the sun goes to the south, from these months to the world of the fathers, from the world of the fathers to the moon. Having reached the moon, they become food, and then the Devas feed on them there, as sacrificers feed on Soma, as it increases and decreases [1]. But when this (the result of their good works on earth) ceases, they return again to that ether, from ether to the air, from the air to rain, from rain to the earth. And when they have reached the earth, they become food, they are offered again in the altar-fire, which is man (see § 11), and thence are born in the fire of woman. Thus they rise up towards the worlds, and go the same round as before. 'Those, however, who know neither of these two paths, become worms, birds,, and creeping things.'

Footnote:

1. See note 4 on Khând. Up. V, 10, and Deussen, Vedânta, p. 393. Saṅkara guards against taking âpyâyasvâpakshîyasva as a mantra. A similar construction is gâyasva mriyasva, see Khând. Up. V, 10, 8.


Sloka : 6.3.1

मन्त्र १[VI.iii.1]

स यः कामयते महत्प्राप्नुयामित्युदगयन आपूर्यमाणपक्षस्य

पुण्याहे द्वादशाहमुपसद्व्रती भूत्वौदुम्बरे कꣳसे चमसे वा

सर्वौषधं फलानीति सम्भृत्य परिसमुह्य परिलिप्याग्निमुपसमाधाय

परिस्तीर्याऽऽवृताऽऽज्यꣳ सꣳस्कृत्य पुꣳसा नक्षत्रेण

मन्थꣳ सन्नीय जुहोति । यावन्तो देवास्त्वयि जातवेदस्तिर्यञ्चो

घ्नन्ति पुरुषस्य कामान् तेभ्योऽहं भागधेयं जुहोमि ते मा तृप्ताः

सर्वैः कामैस्तर्पयन्तु स्वाहा । या तिरश्ची निपद्यतेऽहं विधरणी

इति तां त्वा घृतस्य धारया यजे सꣳराधनीमहꣳ । स्वाहा ॥ १॥

mantra 1[VI.iii.1]

sa yaḥ kāmayate mahatprāpnuyāmityudagayana āpūryamāṇapakṣasya

puṇyāhe dvādaśāhamupasadvratī bhūtvaudumbare kagͫse camase vā

sarvauṣadhaṃ phalānīti sambhṛtya parisamuhya parilipyāgnimupasamādhāya

paristīryā''vṛtā''jyagͫ sagͫskṛtya pugͫsā nakṣatreṇa

manthagͫ sannīya juhoti . yāvanto devāstvayi jātavedastiryañco

ghnanti puruṣasya kāmān tebhyo'haṃ bhāgadheyaṃ juhomi te mā tṛptāḥ

sarvaiḥ kāmaistarpayantu svāhā . yā tiraścī nipadyate'haṃ vidharaṇī

iti tāṃ tvā ghṛtasya dhārayā yaje sagͫrādhanīmahagͫ . svāhā .. 1..



Meaning:- He who wishes to attain greatness (should perform) on an auspicious day in a fortnight in which the moon waxes, and under a male constellation, during the northward march of the sun, (a sacrifice in the following manner):- He should undertake for twelve days a vow connected with the Upasads (i.e. live on milk), collect in a cup of bowl made of fig wood all herbs and their grains, sweep and plaster (the ground), purify the offerings in the prescribed manner, interpose the Mantha (paste made of those things), and offer oblations with the following Mantras:- 'O Fire, to all those gods under you, who spitefully frustrate men's desires, I offer their share. May they, being satisfied, satisfy me with all objects of desire! Svaha. To that all-procuring deity who turns out spiteful under your protection, thinking she is the support of all, I offer this stream of clarified butter. Svaha'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- The results of meditation and rites have been stated. Of these, meditation is independent, but rites depend on both divine and human wealth. So for the sake of rites wealth must be acquired, and that in a harmless way. Hence for that purpose the ceremony called Mantha (paste) is being inculcated as a means to attaining greatness; for if greatness is attained, wealth follows as a matter of course.
So the text says:- He who wishes to attain greatness, i.e. wants to be great. The reference is to one who desires wealth and is qualified for the performance of rites. The time for the ceremony of Mantha which is sought to be enjoined, is being stated:- During the northward march of the sun. This covers a large extent of time, so it is being restricted to a fortnight in which the moon waxes, i.e. the bright fortnight.
That too is a long period; hence, on an auspicious or favourable day, i.e. on calculated to bring success to one's undertaking. He should undertake for twelve days, counting back from the auspicious day on which he intends to perform the rites and including it, a vow connected with the Upasads. These are well-known rites in connection with the Jyotistoma sacrifice, in which the sacrificer has to drink cow's milk according to the yield of an increasing and decreasing number of teats of the animals. But since those rites are not to be combined here, only the drinking of milk, without any restriction as to details, is meant.

Objection:- If the compound in 'Upasad-vrata' is expounded so as to mean 'the vow that consists of the Upasada,' then all the details of procedure have to be observed. So why not observe them?
Reply:- Because it is a ceremony according to the Smrti. This ceremony of Mantha is enjoined by the Smrti (and not the Sruti).
Objection:- How can a ceremony that is enjoined by the Sruti be one in accordance with the Smrti?
Reply:- The Sruti here is merely repeating the Smrti. Were it a Vedic ceremony, it would be related to the Jyotistoma sacrifice as a part is to a whole, and as such, must conform to all the characteristics of the main sacrifice. But it is not a Vedic ceremony. For this reason it is also to be performed in the Avasthya (household) fire (Which is not lighted or maintained according to Vedic rites.); and the entire procedure is to be in accordance with the Smrti. So the vow in question is that of living on milk.

Collect in a cup or bowl made of fig wood, in a vessel of this wood, whether shaped like a cup or a bowl the option being with regard to the shape, and not the material, which must be fig wood all herbs that are available and within one's means:- The ten cultivated species such as rice and barley, to be enumerated later on, must be included; ther is no harm in having more. And their grains, as far as available and within ones' means. The word 'iti' is suggestive of the collection of all the materials, that is to say, including all other things that are to be collected. The order of procedure should be understood to be in accordance with the Grhya (Not Srauta Sutras.) Sutras. Sweep and plaster:- These are cleaning the ground. Bring in the fire:- It is implied that the sacrifice is to be performed in the Avasathya fire, for the word is in the singular, and there is mention of the fire being brought in, which is only possible of a fire that already exists (The three fires, Garhapatya, Ahavaniya and Daksina, connected with Vedic sacrifices, have to be lighted each time.). Spread the Kusa grass. Purify the offerings in the prescribed manner:- Since the ceremony is in accordance with the Smrti, the manner referred to is that of the 'Sthalipaka' (A religious ceremony observed by householders. The word literally means 'cooking in a pot.'). Under a male constellation, one having a masculine name, associated with the auspicious day. Interpose the Mantha:- Having crushed all those herbs and grains, soaked them in curd, honey and clarified butter in that fig bowl, and rubbed them up with a rod, place the paste between himself and the fire. And offer oblations, with a fig ladle, in a part of the fire prescribed for this purpose, with the following Mantras, beginning with, 'O Fire, to all those gods.' etc.

Translation By Max Müller

1. If a man wishes to reach greatness (wealth for performing sacrifices), he performs the upasad rule during twelve days [1] (i. e. he lives on small quantities of milk), beginning on an auspicious day of the light half of the moon during the northern progress of the sun, collecting at the same time in a cup or a dish made of Udumbara wood all sorts of herbs, including fruits. He sweeps the floor (near the house-altar, âvasathya), sprinkles it, lays the fire, spreads grass round it according to rule [2], prepares the clarified butter (âgya), and on a day, presided over by a male star (nakshatra), after having properly mixed the Mantha [3] (the herbs, fruits, milk, honey, &c.), he sacrifices (he pours âgya into the fire), saying [4]:- 'O Gâtavedas, whatever adverse gods there are in thee, who defeat the desires of men, to them I offer this portion; may they, being pleased, please me with all desires.' Svâhâ! 'That cross deity who lies down [5], thinking that all things are kept asunder by her, I worship thee as propitious with this stream of ghee.' Svâhâ!

Footnote:

1. Yasmin punye 'nukûle 'hni karma kikîrshati tatah prâk punyâham evârabhya dvâdasâham upasadvratî. 2. As the whole act is considered smârta, not srauta, the order to be observed (âvrit) is that of the sthâlîpâka. 3. Dravadravye prakshiptâ mathitâh saktavah is the explanation of Mantha, given in Gaimin. N. M. V. p. 406. 4. These verses are not explained by Saṅkara, and they are absent in the Khând. Up. V, 2, 6, 4. 5. The Mâdhyandinas read nipadyase.


Sloka : 6.3.2

मन्त्र २[VI.iii.2]

ज्येष्ठाय स्वाहा श्रेष्ठाय स्वाहेत्यग्नौ हुत्वा मन्थे

सꣳस्रवमवनयति । प्राणाय स्वाहा वसिष्ठायै स्वाहेत्यग्नौ हुत्वा

मन्थे सꣳस्रवमवनयति । वाचे स्वाहा प्रतिष्ठायै स्वाहेत्यग्नौ

हुत्वा मन्थे सꣳस्रवमवनयति । चक्षुषे स्वाहा सम्पदे स्वाहेति

अग्नौ हुत्वा मन्थे सꣳस्रवमवनयति । श्रोत्राय स्वाहाऽऽयतनाय

स्वाहेत्यग्नौ हुत्वा मन्थे सꣳस्रवमवनयति । मनसे स्वाहा प्रजात्यै

स्वाहेत्यग्नौ हुत्वा मन्थे सꣳस्रवमवनयति । रेतसे स्वाहेति अग्नौ

हुत्वा मन्थे सꣳस्रवमवनयति ॥ २॥

mantra 2[VI.iii.2]

jyeṣṭhāya svāhā śreṣṭhāya svāhetyagnau hutvā manthe

sagͫsravamavanayati . prāṇāya svāhā vasiṣṭhāyai svāhetyagnau hutvā

manthe sagͫsravamavanayati . vāce svāhā pratiṣṭhāyai svāhetyagnau

hutvā manthe sagͫsravamavanayati . cakṣuṣe svāhā sampade svāheti

agnau hutvā manthe sagͫsravamavanayati . śrotrāya svāhā''yatanāya

svāhetyagnau hutvā manthe sagͫsravamavanayati . manase svāhā prajātyai

svāhetyagnau hutvā manthe sagͫsravamavanayati . retase svāheti agnau

hutvā manthe sagͫsravamavanayati .. 2..



Meaning:- Offering oblations in the fire saying, 'Svaha to the oldest, Svaha to the greatest', he dips the remnant adhering to the ladle into the paste. Offering oblations in the fire saying, 'Svaha to the vital force, Svaha to the Vasistha', he drips the remnant, etc. Offering oblations saying, 'Svaha to the organ of speech, Svaha to that which has steadiness', he drips, etc. Offering oblations saying, Svaha to the eye, Svaha to prosperity', he drips etc. Offering oblations saying, 'Svaha to the ear, Svaha to the abode', he drips, etc. Offering oblations saying, 'Svaha to the Manas, Svaha to Prajati', he drips, etc. Offering oblations saying, 'Svaha to the organ of generation', he drips, etc.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Offering two oblations each time beginning with, 'Svaha to the oldest, Svaha to the greatest,' he drips the remnant adhering to the ladle into the paste. The words 'oldest,' 'greatest,' etc., which are characteristics of the vital force, indicate that only the knower of the vital force is entitled to this ceremony.

Translation By Max Müller

2. He then says, Svâhâ to the First, Svâhâ to the Best, pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar). He then says, Svâhâ to Breath, Svâhâ to her who is the richest, pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar). He then says, Svâhâ to Speech, Svâhâ to the Support, pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar). He then says, Svâhâ to the Eye, Svâhâ to Success, pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar). He then says, Svâhâ to the Ear, Svâhâ to the Home, pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar). He then says, Svâhâ to the Mind, Svâhâ to Offspring, pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar). He then says, Svâhâ to Seed, pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar).


Sloka : 6.3.3

मन्त्र ३[VI.iii.3]

अग्नये स्वाहेत्यग्नौ हुत्वा मन्थे सꣳस्रवमवनयति । सोमाय

स्वाहेत्यग्नौ हुत्वा मन्थे सꣳस्रवमवनयति । भूः स्वाहेत्यग्नौ

हुत्वा मन्थे सꣳस्रवमवनयति । भुवः स्वाहेत्यग्नौ हुत्वा

मन्थे सꣳस्रवमवनयति । स्वः स्वाहेत्यग्नौ हुत्वा मन्थे

सꣳस्रवमवनयति । भूर्भुवः स्वः स्वाहेत्यग्नौ हुत्वा

मन्थे सꣳस्रवमवनयति । ब्रह्मणे स्वाहेत्यग्नौ हुत्वा

मन्थे सꣳस्रवमवनयति । क्षत्राय स्वाहेत्यग्नौ हुत्वा

मन्थे सꣳस्रवमवनयति । भूताय स्वाहेत्यग्नौ हुत्वा मन्थे

सꣳस्रवमवनयति । भविष्यते स्वाहेत्यग्नौ हुत्वा मन्थे

सꣳस्रवमवनयति । विश्वाय स्वाहेत्यग्नौ हुत्वा मन्थे

सꣳस्रवमवनयति । सर्वाय स्वाहेत्यग्नौ हुत्वा मन्थे

सꣳस्रवमवनयति । प्रजापतये स्वाहेत्यग्नौ हुत्वा मन्थे

सꣳस्रवमवनयति ॥ ३॥

mantra 3[VI.iii.3]

agnaye svāhetyagnau hutvā manthe sagͫsravamavanayati . somāya

svāhetyagnau hutvā manthe sagͫsravamavanayati . bhūḥ svāhetyagnau

hutvā manthe sagͫsravamavanayati . bhuvaḥ svāhetyagnau hutvā

manthe sagͫsravamavanayati . svaḥ svāhetyagnau hutvā manthe

sagͫsravamavanayati . bhūrbhuvaḥ svaḥ svāhetyagnau hutvā

manthe sagͫsravamavanayati . brahmaṇe svāhetyagnau hutvā

manthe sagͫsravamavanayati . kṣatrāya svāhetyagnau hutvā

manthe sagͫsravamavanayati . bhūtāya svāhetyagnau hutvā manthe

sagͫsravamavanayati . bhaviṣyate svāhetyagnau hutvā manthe

sagͫsravamavanayati . viśvāya svāhetyagnau hutvā manthe

sagͫsravamavanayati . sarvāya svāhetyagnau hutvā manthe

sagͫsravamavanayati . prajāpataye svāhetyagnau hutvā manthe

sagͫsravamavanayati .. 3..



Meaning:- Offering an oblation in the fire saying, 'Svaha to fire', he drips the remnant adhering to the ladle into the paste. Offering and oblation saying, 'Svaha to the moon,' he drips, etc. Offering an oblation saying, 'Svaha to the earth', he drips, etc. Offering an oblation saying, 'Svaha to the sky', he drips, etc. Offering an oblation saying, 'Svaha to heaven', he drips, etc. Offering an oblation saying, 'Svaha to the earth, sky and heaven', he drips, etc. Offering an oblation saying, 'Svaha to the Brahmana', he drips, etc. Offering an oblation saying, 'Svaha to the Kshatriya', he drips, etc. Offering an oblation saying, 'Svaha to the past', he drips, etc. Offering an oblation saying, 'Svaha to the future', he drips, etc. Offering an oblation saying, 'Svaha to the whole', he drips, etc. Offering an oblation saying, 'Svaha to all', he drips, etc. Offering an oblation saying, 'Svaha to Prajapati', he drips, etc.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Beginning with, 'Svaha to the organ of generation,' he offers one oblation each time, and drips the remnant adhering to the ladle into the paste. Then he stirs the paste again with another rod.

Translation By Max Müller

3. He then says, Svâhâ to Agni (fire), pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar). He then says, Svâhâ to Soma, pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar). He then says, Bhûh (earth), Svâhâ, pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar). He then says, Bhuvah (sky), Svâhâ, pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar). He then says, Svah (heaven), Svâhâ, pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar). He then says, Bhûr, Bhuvah, Svah, Svâhâ, pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar). He then says, Svâhâ to Brahman (the priesthood), pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar). He then says, Svâhâ to Kshatra (the knighthood), pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar). He then says, Svâhâ to the Past, pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar). He then says, Svâhâ to the Future, pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar). He then says, Svâhâ to the Universe, pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar). He then says, Svâhâ to all things, pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar). He then says, Svâhâ to Pragâpati, pours ghee into the fire, and throws what remains into the Mantha (mortar).


Sloka : 6.3.4

मन्त्र ४[VI.iii.4]

अथैनमभिमृशति भ्रमदसि ज्वलदसि

पूर्णमसि प्रस्तब्धमस्येकसभमसि हिङ्कृतमसि

हिङ्क्रियमाणमस्युद्गीथमस्युद्गीयमानमसि श्रावितमसि

प्रत्याश्रावितमस्यर्द्रे सन्दीप्तमसि विभूरसि प्रभूरस्यन्नमसि

ज्योतिरसि निधनमसि संवर्गोऽसीति ॥ ४॥

mantra 4[VI.iii.4]

athainamabhimṛśati bhramadasi jvaladasi

pūrṇamasi prastabdhamasyekasabhamasi hiṅkṛtamasi

hiṅkriyamāṇamasyudgīthamasyudgīyamānamasi śrāvitamasi

pratyāśrāvitamasyardre sandīptamasi vibhūrasi prabhūrasyannamasi

jyotirasi nidhanamasi saṃvargo'sīti .. 4..



Meaning:- Then he touches the paste saying, 'You move (as the vital force), you burn (as fire), you are infinite (as Brahman), you are still (as the sky). You combine everything in yourself. You are the sound 'Him', and are uttered as 'Him' (in the sacrifice by the Prastotr). You are the Udgitha and are chanted (by the Udgatr). You are recited (by the Adhvaryu) and recited back (by the Agnidhra). You are fully ablaze in a humid (cloud). You are omnipresent, and master. You are food (as the moon), and light (as fire). You are death, and you are that in which all things merge'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Then he touches the paste uttering the Mantra, 'You move,' etc.

Translation By Max Müller

4. Then he touches it (the Mantha, which is dedicated to Prâna, breath), saying:- 'Thou art fleet (as breath). Thou art burning (as fire). Thou art full (as Brahman). Thou art firm (as the sky). Thou art the abode of all (as the earth). Thou hast been saluted with Hiṅ (at the beginning of the sacrifice by the prastotri). Thou art saluted with Hiṅ (in the middle of the sacrifice by the prastotri). Thou hast been sung (by the udgâtri at the beginning of the sacrifice). Thou art sung (by the udgâtri in the middle of the sacrifice). Thou hast been celebrated (by the adhvaryu at the beginning of the sacrifice). Thou art celebrated again (by the âgnîdhra in the middle of the sacrifice). Thou art bright in the wet (cloud). Thou art great. Thou art powerful. Thou art food (as Soma). Thou art light (as Agni, fire, the eater). Thou art the end. Thou art the absorption (of all things).'


Sloka : 6.3.5

मन्त्र ५[VI.iii.5]

अथैनमुद्यच्छत्यमꣳस्यामꣳ हि ते महि । स हि

राजेशानोऽधिपतिः स माꣳ राजेशनोऽधिपतिं करोत्विति ॥ ५॥

mantra 5[VI.iii.5]

athainamudyacchatyamagͫsyāmagͫ hi te mahi . sa hi

rājeśāno'dhipatiḥ sa māgͫ rājeśano'dhipatiṃ karotviti .. 5..



Meaning:- Then he takes it up saying, 'You know all (as the vital force); we too are aware of your greatness. The vital force is the king, the lord, the ruler. May it make me king, lord and ruler!'





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Then he takes it up with the vessel, in his hand, saying, 'You know all,' etc.

Translation By Max Müller

5. Then he holds it (the Mantha) forth, saying 'Thou [1] knowest all, we know thy greatness. He is indeed a king, a ruler, the highest lord. May that king, that ruler make me the highest lord.'

Footnote:

1. These curious words â mamsi â mamhi te mahi are not explained by Saṅkara. Ânandagiri explains them as I have translated them. They correspond to 'amo, nâmâsy ama hi te sarvam idam' in the Khând. Up. V, 2, 6, 6. The Mâdhyandinas read:- 'âmo 'sy âmam hi te mayi, sa hi râgâ, &c. Dvivedagaṅga translates:- thou art the knower, thy knowledge extends to me.'


Sloka : 6.3.6

मन्त्र ६[VI.iii.6]

अथैनमाचामति तत्सवितुर्वरेण्यम् । मधु वाता ऋतायते मधु

क्षरन्ति सिन्धवः । माध्वीर्नः सन्त्वोषधीः । भूः स्वाहा । भर्गो

देवस्य धीमहि मधु नक्तमुतोषसो मधुमत्पार्थिवꣳ रजः । मधु

द्यौरस्तु नः पिता । भुवः स्वाहा । धियो यो नः प्रचोदयात् । मधुमान्नो

वनस्पतिर्मधुमाꣳ अस्तु सूर्यः । माध्वीर्गावो भवन्तु नः । स्वः

स्वाहेति । सर्वां च सावित्रीमन्वाह सर्वाश्च मधुमतीरहमेवेदꣳ

सर्वं भूयासम् । भूर्भुवः स्वः स्वाहेत्यन्तत आचम्य पाणी प्रक्षाल्य

जघनेनाग्निं प्राक्षिराः संविशति । प्रातरादित्यमुपतिष्ठते

दिशामेकपुण्डरीकमसि अहं मनुष्याणामेकपुण्डरीकं भूयासमिति ।

यथेतमेत्य जघनेनाग्निमासीनो वꣳशं जपति ॥ ६॥

mantra 6[VI.iii.6]

athainamācāmati tatsaviturvareṇyam . madhu vātā ṛtāyate madhu

kṣaranti sindhavaḥ . mādhvīrnaḥ santvoṣadhīḥ . bhūḥ svāhā . bhargo

devasya dhīmahi madhu naktamutoṣaso madhumatpārthivagͫ rajaḥ . madhu

dyaurastu naḥ pitā . bhuvaḥ svāhā . dhiyo yo naḥ pracodayāt . madhumānno

vanaspatirmadhumāgͫ astu sūryaḥ . mādhvīrgāvo bhavantu naḥ . svaḥ

svāheti . sarvāṃ ca sāvitrīmanvāha sarvāśca madhumatīrahamevedagͫ

sarvaṃ bhūyāsam . bhūrbhuvaḥ svaḥ svāhetyantata ācamya pāṇī prakṣālya

jaghanenāgniṃ prākṣirāḥ saṃviśati . prātarādityamupatiṣṭhate

diśāmekapuṇḍarīkamasi ahaṃ manuṣyāṇāmekapuṇḍarīkaṃ bhūyāsamiti .

yathetametya jaghanenāgnimāsīno vagͫśaṃ japati .. 6..



Meaning:- Then he drinks it saying, 'The radiant sun is adorable --; The winds are blowing sweetly, the rivers are shedding honey, may the herbs be sweet unto us! Svaha to the earth. Glory we meditate upon; May the nights and days be charming, and the dust of the earth be sweet, may heaven, our father, be gracious! Svaha to the sky. May he direct our intellect; May the Soma creeper be sweet unto us, may the sun be kind, may the quarters be helpful to us! Svaha to heaven'. Then he repeats the whole Gayatri and the whole Madhumati, and says at the end, 'May I be all this! Svaha to the earth, sky and heaven.' Then he drinks the whole remnant, washes his hands, and lies behind the fire with his head to the east. In the morning he salutes the sun saying, 'Thou art the one lotus of the quarters; may I be the one lotus of men!' Then he returns the way he went, sits behind the fire, and repeats the line of teachers.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Then he drinks it. He drinks the first draught, uttering the first foot of the Gayatri, one portion of the Madhumati and the first Vyahrti (The Vyahrtis are the three syllables 'Bhur,' 'Bhuvar' and 'Svar,' meaning respectively the earth, sky and heaven.). Similarly he drinks the second draught, uttering the second foot of the Gayatri, the second portion of the Madhumati and the second Vyahrti. Likewise the drinks the third draught, uttering the third foot of the Gayatri, the third portion of the Madhumati and the third Vyahrti. Then he repeats the whole Gayatri and the whole Madhumati, and says at the end, 'May I be all this! Svaha to the earth, sky and heaven.' Then he drinks the whole remnant. He should arrange beforehand so that the whole quantity of paste may be finished in four draughts. What adhers to the vessel, he should scrape and drink quietly. He washes his hands, and lies behind the fire with his head to the east. After saying his morning prayers, he salutes the sun with the Mantra:- 'Thou art the one lotus of the quarters,' etc. Then he returns the way he went, sits behind the fire, and repeats the line of teachers.

Translation By Max Müller

6. Then he eats it, saying:- 'Tat savitur varenyam [1] (We meditate on that adorable light)--The winds drop honey for the righteous, the rivers drop honey, may our plants be sweet as honey! Bhûh (earth) Svâhâ! 'Bhargo devasya dhîmahi (of the divine Savitri)--May the night be honey in the morning, may the air above the earth, may heaven, our father, be honey! Bhuvah (sky) Svâhâ!' 'Dhiyo yo nah prokodayât (who should rouse our thoughts)--May the tree be full of honey, may the sun be full of honey, may our cows be sweet like honey! Svah (heaven) Svâhâ!' He repeats the whole Sâvitrî verse, and all the verses about the honey, thinking, May I be all this! Bhûr, Bhuvah, Svah, Svâhâ! Having thus swallowed all, he washes his hands, and sits down behind the altar, turning his head to the East. In the morning he worships Âditya (the sun), with the hymn, 'Thou art the best lotus of the four quarters, may I become the best lotus among men.' Then returning as he came, he sits down behind the altar and recites the genealogical list [2].

Footnote:

1. Rv. III, 62, 10. 2. This probably refers to the list immediately following.


Sloka : 6.3.7

मन्त्र ७[VI.iii.7]

तꣳ हैतमूद्दालक आरुणिर्वाजसनेयाय याज्ञवल्क्यायान्तेवासिन

उक्त्वोवाचापि य एनꣳ शुष्के स्थाणौ निषिञ्चेज् शुष्के स्थाणौ

निषिञ्चेत् जायेरञ्छाखाः प्ररोहेयुः पलाशानीति ॥ ७॥

mantra 7[VI.iii.7]

tagͫ haitamūddālaka āruṇirvājasaneyāya yājñavalkyāyāntevāsina

uktvovācāpi ya enagͫ śuṣke sthāṇau niṣiñcej śuṣke sthāṇau

niṣiñcet jāyerañchākhāḥ praroheyuḥ palāśānīti .. 7..



Meaning:- Uddalaka, the son of Aruni, taught this to his pupil Yajnavalkya, the Vajasaneya, and said, 'Should one sprinkle it even on a dry stump, branches would grow and leaves sprout'.

Translation By Max Müller

7. Uddâlaka Âruni told this (Mantha-doctrine) to his pupil Vâgasaneya Yâgñavalkya, and said:- 'If a man were to pour it on a dry stick, branches would grow, and leaves spring forth.'


Sloka : 6.3.8

मन्त्र ८[VI.iii.8]

एतमु हैव वाजसनेयो याज्ञवल्क्यो मधुकाय पैङ्ग्यायान्तेवासिन

उक्त्वोवाचापि य एनꣳ शुष्के स्थाणौ निषिञ्चेज् स्थाणौ निषिञ्चेत्

जायेरञ्छाखाः प्ररोहेयुः पलाशानीति ॥ ८॥

mantra 8[VI.iii.8]

etamu haiva vājasaneyo yājñavalkyo madhukāya paiṅgyāyāntevāsina

uktvovācāpi ya enagͫ śuṣke sthāṇau niṣiñcej sthāṇau niṣiñcet

jāyerañchākhāḥ praroheyuḥ palāśānīti .. 8..



Meaning:- The Yajnavalkya, the Vajasaneya, taught this to his pupil Madhuka, the son of Paingi and said, 'Should one sprinkle it even on a dry stump, branches would grow and leaves sprout'.

Translation By Max Müller

8. Vâgasaneya Yâgñavalkya told the same to his pupil Madhuka Paiṅgya, and said:- 'If a man were to pour it on a dry stick, branches would grow, and leaves spring forth.'


Sloka : 6.3.9

मन्त्र ९[VI.iii.9]

एतमु हैव मधुकः पैङ्ग्यश्चूलाय भागवित्तयेऽन्तेवासिन

उक्त्वोवाचापि य एनꣳ शुष्के स्थाणौ निषिञ्चेज् जायेरञ्छाखाः

प्ररोहेयुः पलाशानीति ॥ ९॥

mantra 9[VI.iii.9]

etamu haiva madhukaḥ paiṅgyaścūlāya bhāgavittaye'ntevāsina

uktvovācāpi ya enagͫ śuṣke sthāṇau niṣiñcej jāyerañchākhāḥ

praroheyuḥ palāśānīti .. 9..



Meaning:- Madhuka, the son of Paingi, again taught this to his pupil Cula, the son of Bhagavitta, and said, 'Should one sprinkle it even on a dry stump, branches would grow and leaves sprout'.

Translation By Max Müller

9. Madhuka Paiṅgya told the same to his pupil Kûla Bhâgavitti, and said:- 'If a man were to pour it on a dry stick, branches would grow, and leaves spring forth.'


Sloka : 6.3.10

मन्त्र १०[VI.iii.10]

एतमु हैव चूलो भागवित्तिर्जानकय आयस्थूणायान्तेवासिन उक्त्वोवाचापि य

एनꣳ शुष्के स्थाणौ निषिञ्चेज् यसेनम् शुष्के स्थाणौ निषिञ्चेत्

जायेरञ्छाखाः प्ररोहेयुः पलाशानीति ॥ १०॥

mantra 10[VI.iii.10]

etamu haiva cūlo bhāgavittirjānakaya āyasthūṇāyāntevāsina uktvovācāpi ya

enagͫ śuṣke sthāṇau niṣiñcej yasenam śuṣke sthāṇau niṣiñcet

jāyerañchākhāḥ praroheyuḥ palāśānīti .. 10..



Meaning:- Then Cula, the son of Bhagavitta, taught this to his pupil Janaki, the son of Ayasthuna, and said, 'Should one sprinkle it even on a dry stump, branches would grow and leaves sprout'.

Translation By Max Müller

10. Kûla Bhâgavitti told the same to his pupil Gânaki Âyasthûna, and said:- 'If a man were to pour it on a dry stick, branches would grow, and leaves spring forth.'


Sloka : 6.3.11

मन्त्र ११[VI.iii.11]

एतमु हैव जानकिरयस्थूणः सत्यकामाय जाबालायान्तेवासिन उक्त्वोवाचापि

य एनꣳ शुष्के स्थाणौ निषिञ्चेज् जायेरञ्छाखाः प्ररोहेयुः

पलाशानीति ॥ ११॥

mantra 11[VI.iii.11]

etamu haiva jānakirayasthūṇaḥ satyakāmāya jābālāyāntevāsina uktvovācāpi

ya enagͫ śuṣke sthāṇau niṣiñcej jāyerañchākhāḥ praroheyuḥ

palāśānīti .. 11..



Meaning:- Janaki, the son of Ayasthuna, again taught this to Satyakama, the son of Jabala, and said, 'Should one sprinkle it even on a dry stump, branches would grow and leaves sprout'.

Translation By Max Müller

11. Gânaki Âyasthûna told the same to his pupil Satyakâma Gâbâla, and said:- 'If a man were to pour it on a dry stick, branches would grow, and leaves spring forth.'


Sloka : 6.3.12

मन्त्र १२[VI.iii.12]

एतमु हैव सत्यकामो जाबालोऽन्तेवासिभ्य उक्त्वोवाचापि य एनꣳ

शुष्के स्थाणौ निषिञ्चेज् जायेरञ्छाखाः प्ररोहेयुः पलाशानीति ।

तमेतं नापुत्राय वाऽनन्तेवासिने वा ब्रूयात् ॥ १२॥

mantra 12[VI.iii.12]

etamu haiva satyakāmo jābālo'ntevāsibhya uktvovācāpi ya enagͫ

śuṣke sthāṇau niṣiñcej jāyerañchākhāḥ praroheyuḥ palāśānīti .

tametaṃ nāputrāya vā'nantevāsine vā brūyāt .. 12..



Meaning:- And Satyakama, the son of Jabala, in his turn, taught this to his pupils and said, 'Should one sprinkle it even on a dry stump, branches would grow and leaves sprout'. One must not teach this to anyone but a son or a pupil.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- (He repeats the line of teachers) beginning with, Uddalaka, the son of Aruna, taught this, and ending with, Satyakama, the son of Jabala, taught this to his pupils and said, 'Should one sprinkle it even on a dry stump, branches would surely grow and leaves sprout.' The teacher Satyakama taught this doctrine of the Mantha, handed down by a single line of teachers beginning with Uddalaka, to a large number of pupils and said. What did he say? Should one sprinkle it, this paste, purified for the purpose of drinking, even on a dry or dead stump, branches would surely grow on that tree, and leaves sprout, as on a living stump. So it goes without saying that this ceremony will fulfil one's desires. It is a eulogy on this ceremony, meaning that it is infallible in its results. There are six (A pupil, a knower of the Vedas, an intelligent person, one who pays, a dear son, and one who exchanges another branch of learning.) qualified recipients of learning. Of them only two, viz the son of pupil, are being declared as eligible for this doctrine of the Mantha together with the meditation on the vital force.

Translation By Max Müller

12. Satyakâma Gâbâla told the same to his pupils, and said:- 'If a man were to pour it on a dry stick, branches would grow, and leaves spring forth.' Let no one tell this [1] to any one, except to a son or to a pupil [2].

Footnote:

1. The Mantha-doctrine with the prânadarsana. Comm. 2. It probably means to no one except to one's own son and to one's own disciple. Cf. Svet. Up. VI, 22.


Sloka : 6.3.13

मन्त्र १३[VI.iii.13]

चतुरौदुम्बरो भवत्यौदुम्बरः स्रुव औदुम्बरश्चमस औदुम्बर

इध्म औदुम्बर्या उपमन्थन्यौ । दश ग्राम्याणि धान्यानि भवन्ति

व्रीहियवास्तिलमाषा अणुप्रियङ्गवो गोधूमाश्च मसूराश्च खल्वाश्च

खलकुलाश्च तान्पिष्टान्दधनि मधुनि घृत उपसिञ्चत्याज्यस्य

जुहोति ॥ १३॥

इति तृतीयं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ चतुर्थं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 13[VI.iii.13]

caturaudumbaro bhavatyaudumbaraḥ sruva audumbaraścamasa audumbara

idhma audumbaryā upamanthanyau . daśa grāmyāṇi dhānyāni bhavanti

vrīhiyavāstilamāṣā aṇupriyaṅgavo godhūmāśca masūrāśca khalvāśca

khalakulāśca tānpiṣṭāndadhani madhuni ghṛta upasiñcatyājyasya

juhoti .. 13..

iti tṛtīyaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha caturthaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- Four things are made of fig wood:- the ladle, the bowl, the fuel and the two mixing rods. The cultivated grains are ten in number:- Rice, barley, sesame, beans, Anu, Priyangu, wheat, lentils, pulse and vetches. They should be crushed and soaked in curds, honey and clarified butter, and offered as an oblation.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Four things are made of fig wood. This has been explained. The cultivated grains are ten in number. We have already said that the ten species of cultivated grains must be included. They are being enumerated:- rice, barley, sesamum, beans, Anu, called by that name, Priyangu, called in some parts 'Kangu,' pulse (Khalva), or Nispava, popularly called 'Valla,' and vetches (Khalakula), or Kulattha. In addition to these all other herbs and grains should be procured as far as possible, as we have said, barring only those that are unfit for sacrificial purposes.

Translation By Max Müller

13. Four things are made of the wood of the Udumbara tree, the sacrificial ladle (sruva), the cup (kamasa), the fuel, and the two churning sticks. There are ten kinds of village (cultivated) seeds, viz. rice and barley (brîhiyavâs), sesamum and kidney-beans (tilamâshâs), millet and panic seed (anupriyaṅgavas), wheat (godhûmâs), lentils (masûrâs), pulse (khalvâs), and vetches (khalakulâs [1]) . After having ground these he sprinkles them with curds (dadhi), honey, and ghee, and then offers (the proper portions) of clarified butter [2]gya).

Footnote:

1. I have given the English names after Roer, who, living in India, had the best opportunity of identifying the various kinds of plants here mentioned. The commentators do not help us much. Saṅkara says that in some places Priyaṅgu (panic seed or millet) is called Kaṅgu; that Khalva, pulse, is also called Nishpâva and Valla, and Khalakula, vetches, commonly Kulattha. Dvivedagaṅga adds that Anu is called in Guzerat Moriya, Priyaṅgu Kaṅgu, Khalva, as nishpâva, Valla, and Khalakula Kulattha. 2.


Sloka : 6.4.1

मन्त्र १[VI.iv.1]

एषां वै भूतानां पृथिवी रसः पृथिव्या आपोऽपामोषधय

ओषधीनां पुष्पाणि पुष्पाणां फलानि फलानां पुरुषः पुरुषस्य रेतः ॥ १॥

mantra 1[VI.iv.1]

eṣāṃ vai bhūtānāṃ pṛthivī rasaḥ pṛthivyā āpo'pāmoṣadhaya

oṣadhīnāṃ puṣpāṇi puṣpāṇāṃ phalāni phalānāṃ puruṣaḥ puruṣasya retaḥ .. 1..



Meaning:- The earth is the essence of all these beings, water the essence of the earth, herbs of water, flowers of herbs, fruits of flowers, man of fruits, and the seed of man.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- The present section is introduced to lay down the method by which to obtain the kind of son who, by the manner of his birth and conception and by his good qualities, will help to achieve the worlds both for himself and for his father. Only a person who knows the meditation on the vital force and has performed the ceremony of the Mantha leading to prosperity, is entitled to this ceremony of the Mantha leading to the birth of a son. When a man wants to perform this ceremony, he should, after performing the former ceremony, wait for the right time of his wife. This we understand from the mention of the seed being the quintessence of the herbs etc. The earth is the essence of all these beings, moving and stationary, for it has been stated that it 'is like honey to all beings' (II. v. 1, adapted). Water is the essence of the earth, for it is pervaded by water. Herbs are the essence of water, for the herbs etc. are the effects of water. Flowers of herbs, fruits of flowers, man of fruits, and the seed of man, for another Sruti says, 'It is the essence emanating from all parts of the body' (Ai. IV. 1).

Translation By Max Müller

1. The earth is the essence of all these things, water is the essence of the earth, plants of water, flowers of plants, fruits of flowers, man of fruits, seed of man.


Sloka : 6.4.2

मन्त्र २[VI.iv.2]

स ह प्रजापतिरीक्षांचक्रे हन्तास्मै प्रतिष्ठां कल्पयानीति स

स्त्रियꣳ ससृजे । ताꣳ सृष्ट्वाऽध उपास्त तस्मात्स्त्रियमध

उपासीत स एतं प्राञ्चं ग्रावाणमात्मन एव समुदपारयत्

तेनैनामभ्यसृजत् ॥ २॥

mantra 2[VI.iv.2]

sa ha prajāpatirīkṣāṃcakre hantāsmai pratiṣṭhāṃ kalpayānīti sa

striyagͫ sasṛje . tāgͫ sṛṣṭvā'dha upāsta tasmātstriyamadha

upāsīta sa etaṃ prāñcaṃ grāvāṇamātmana eva samudapārayat

tenaināmabhyasṛjat .. 2..



Meaning:- Prajapati thought, 'Well, let me make an abode for it', and he created woman.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Prajapati, the Creator, thought, 'Since the seed is thus the quintessence of all beings, what can be a fit abode for it?' Thinking thus he created woman.

Translation By Max Müller

2. And Pragâpati thought, let me make an abode for him, and he created a woman (Satarûpâ). Tâm [1] srishtvâdha upâsta, tasmât striyam adha upâsîta. Sa etam prâñkam grâvânam âtmana eva samudapârayat, tenainâm abhyasrigat.

Footnote:

1. I have given those portions of the text which did not admit of translation into English, in Sanskrit. It was not easy, however, to determine always the text of the Kânva-sâkhâ. Poley's text is not always correct, and Roer seems simply to repeat it. Saṅkara's commentary, which is meant for the Kânva text, becomes very short towards the end of the Upanishad. It is quite sufficient for the purpose of a translation, but by no means always for restoring a correct text. MS. Wilson 369, which has been assigned to the Kânva-sâkhâ, and which our Catalogue attributes to the same school, gives the Mâdhyandina text, and so does MS. Mill 108. I have therefore collated two MSS. of the India Office, which Dr. Rost had the kindness to select for me, MS. 375 and MS. 1973, which I call A. and B.


Sloka : 6.4.3

मन्त्र ३[VI.iv.3]

तस्या वेदिरुपस्थो लोमानि बर्हिश्चर्माधिषवणे समिद्धो मध्यतस्तौ

मुष्कौ । स यावान्ह वै वाजपेयेन यजमानस्य लोको भवति तावानस्य

लोको भवति य एवं विद्वानधोपहासं चरत्यासाꣳ स्त्रीणाꣳ

सुकृतं वृङ्क्तेऽथ य इदमविद्वानधोपहासं चरत्याऽस्य स्त्रियः

सुकृतं वृञ्जते ॥ ३॥

mantra 3[VI.iv.3]

tasyā vedirupastho lomāni barhiścarmādhiṣavaṇe samiddho madhyatastau

muṣkau . sa yāvānha vai vājapeyena yajamānasya loko bhavati tāvānasya

loko bhavati ya evaṃ vidvānadhopahāsaṃ caratyāsāgͫ strīṇāgͫ

sukṛtaṃ vṛṅkte'tha ya idamavidvānadhopahāsaṃ caratyā'sya striyaḥ

sukṛtaṃ vṛñjate .. 3..



Meaning:- ............

Translation By Max Müller

3. Tasyâ vedir upastho, lomâni barhis, karmâdhishavane, samiddho [1] madhyatas, tau mushkau. Sa yâvân ha vai vâgapeyena yagamânasya loko bhavati tâvân asya loko bhavati ya evam vidvân adhopahâsam karaty a sa [2] strînam sukritam vriṅkte 'tha ya idam avidvân adhopahâsam karaty âsya striyah sukritam vriñgate.

Footnote:

1. Roer reads samidho, but Saṅkara and Dvivedagaṅga clearly presuppose samiddho, which is in A. and B. 2. Roer has âsâm sa strînâm, Poley, A. and B. have âsâm strînâm. Saṅkara. (MS. Mill 64) read â sa strînâm, and later on âsya striyah, though both Roer and Poley leave out the â here too (â asyeti khedah).


Sloka : 6.4.4

मन्त्र ४[VI.iv.4]

एतद्ध स्म वै तद्विद्वानुद्दालक आरुणिराहैतद्ध स्म वै तद्विद्वान्नाको

मौद्गल्य आहैतद्ध स्म वै तद्विद्वान् कुमारहारित आह एतद् ध स्म

वै तद् विद्वान् कुमारहारितसाह बहवो मर्या ब्राह्मणायना निरिन्द्रिया

विसुकृतोऽस्माल्लोकात्प्रयन्ति य इदमविद्वाꣳसोऽधोपहासं चरन्तीति ।

बहु वा इदꣳ सुप्तस्य वा जाग्रतो वा रेतः स्कन्दति ॥ ४॥

mantra 4[VI.iv.4]

etaddha sma vai tadvidvānuddālaka āruṇirāhaitaddha sma vai tadvidvānnāko

maudgalya āhaitaddha sma vai tadvidvān kumārahārita āha etad dha sma

vai tad vidvān kumārahāritasāha bahavo maryā brāhmaṇāyanā nirindriyā

visukṛto'smāllokātprayanti ya idamavidvāgͫso'dhopahāsaṃ carantīti .

bahu vā idagͫ suptasya vā jāgrato vā retaḥ skandati .. 4..



Meaning:- Knowing verily this, Uddalaka, the son of Aruna, Naka, the son of Mudgala, and Kumaraharita said, 'Many men -Brahmanas only in name - who have union without knowing as above, depart from this world impotent and bereft of merits'.

Translation By Max Müller

4. Etad dha sma vai tadvidvân Uddâlaka Ârunir âhaitad dha sma vai tadvidvân Nâko Maudgalya âhaitad dha sma vai tadvidvân Kumârahârita âha, bahavo maryâ brâhmanâyanâ [1] nirindriyâ visukrito'smâl lokât prayanti [2] ya idam avidvâmso 'dhopahâsam karantîti. Bahu vâ [3] idam suptasya va gâgrato vâ retah skandati,

Footnote:

1. Brâhmanâyanâh, the same as brahmabandhavah, i.e. Brâhmans by descent only, not by knowledge. 2. Narakam gakkhantîtyarthah. Dvivedagaṅga. 3. Bahu vâ svalpam vâ.


Sloka : 6.4.5

मन्त्र ५[VI.iv.5]

तदभिमृशेदनु वा मन्त्रयेत यन्मेऽद्य रेतः पृथिवीमस्कान्त्सीद्

यदोषधीरप्यसरद् यदपः । इदमहं तद्रेत आददे

पुनर्मामैत्विन्द्रियं पुनस्तेजः पुनर्भगः । पुनरग्निर्धिष्ण्या

यथास्थानं कल्पन्तामित्यनामिकाङ्गुष्ठाभ्यामादायान्तरेण स्तनौ वा

भ्रुवौ वा निमृज्यात् ॥ ५॥

mantra 5[VI.iv.5]

tadabhimṛśedanu vā mantrayeta yanme'dya retaḥ pṛthivīmaskāntsīd

yadoṣadhīrapyasarad yadapaḥ . idamahaṃ tadreta ādade

punarmāmaitvindriyaṃ punastejaḥ punarbhagaḥ . punaragnirdhiṣṇyā

yathāsthānaṃ kalpantāmityanāmikāṅguṣṭhābhyāmādāyāntareṇa stanau vā

bhruvau vā nimṛjyāt .. 5..



Meaning:- ............

Translation By Max Müller

5. Tad abhimrised anu vâ mantrayeta yan me 'dya retah prithivîm askântsîd yad oshadhîr apy asarad yad apah, idam aham tad reta âdade punar mâm aitv indriyam punas tegah punar bhagah, punar agnayo [1] dhishnyâ yathâsthânam kalpantâm, ity anâmikâṅgushthâbhyâm âdâyântarena stanau vâ bhruvau vâ nimriñgyât [2].

Footnote:

1. The Mâdhyandina text has agnayo, and Dvivedagaṅga explains it by dhîshnyâ agnayah sarîrasthitâh. Poley and Roer have punar agnir dhishnyâ, and so have A. and B. 2. Nirmrigyât, A.; nimriñgyât, B.


Sloka : 6.4.6

मन्त्र ६[VI.iv.6]

अथ यद्युदक आत्मानं पश्येत् तदभिमन्त्रयेत मयि तेज

इन्द्रियं यशो द्रविणꣳ सुकृतमिति । श्रीर्ह वा एषा स्त्रीणां

यन्मलोद्वासास्तस्मान्मलोद्वाससं यशस्विनीमभिक्रम्योपमन्त्रयेत ॥ ६॥

mantra 6[VI.iv.6]

atha yadyudaka ātmānaṃ paśyet tadabhimantrayeta mayi teja

indriyaṃ yaśo draviṇagͫ sukṛtamiti . śrīrha vā eṣā strīṇāṃ

yanmalodvāsāstasmānmalodvāsasaṃ yaśasvinīmabhikramyopamantrayeta .. 6..



Meaning:- If man sees his reflection in water, he should recite the following Mantra:- '(May the gods grant) me lustre, manhood, reputation, wealth and merits'. She (his wife) is indeed the goddess of beauty among women. Therefore he should approach this handsome woman and speak to her.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- If perchance he sees his reflection in water, he should recite the following Mantra:- '(May the gods grant) me lustre', etc. She is indeed the goddess of beauty among women. Therefore he should approach this handsome woman and speak to her, when she has taken a bath after three nights.

Translation By Max Müller

6. If a man see himself in the water [1], he should recite the following verse:- 'May there be in me splendour, strength, glory, wealth, virtue.' She is the best of women whose garments are pure [2]. Therefore let him approach a woman whose garments are pure, and whose fame is pure, and address her.

Footnote:

1. Dvivedagaṅga adds, retoyonâv udake retahsikas tatra svakkhâyâdarsane prâyaskittam âha. 2. Trirâtravratam kritvâ katurtha 'hni snâtâm.


Sloka : 6.4.7

मन्त्र ७[VI.iv.7]

सा चेदस्मै न दद्यात् काममेनामवक्रिणीयात् सा चेदस्मै नैव दद्यात्

काममेनां यष्ट्या वा पाणिना वोपहत्यातिक्रामेदिन्द्रियेण ते यशसा यश

आदद इत्ययशा एव भवति ॥ ७॥

mantra 7[VI.iv.7]

sā cedasmai na dadyāt kāmamenāmavakriṇīyāt sā cedasmai naiva dadyāt

kāmamenāṃ yaṣṭyā vā pāṇinā vopahatyātikrāmedindriyeṇa te yaśasā yaśa

ādada ityayaśā eva bhavati .. 7..



Meaning:- If she is not willing, he should buy her over; and if she is still unyielding, he should strike her with a stick or with the hand and proceed, uttering the following Mantra, 'I take away your reputation', etc. She is then actually discarded.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- If she is not willing, he should buy her over, press his wishes through ornaments etc.; and if she is still unyielding, he should strike her with a stick or with the hand, and announcing that he was going to curse her and make her unforunate, he should proceed, uttering the following Mantra:- 'I take away your reputation,' etc. As a result of that curse, she comes to be known as barren and unfortunate, and is then actually discredited.

Translation By Max Müller

7. If she do not give in [1], let him, as he likes, bribe her (with presents). And if she then do not give in, let him, as he likes, beat her with a stick or with his hand, and overcome her [2], saying:- 'With manly strength and glory I take away thy glory,'--and thus she becomes unglorious [3].

Footnote:

1. Instead of connecting kâmam with dadyât, Dvivedagaṅga explains it by yathâsakti. 2. Atikram, scil. maithunâya. 3. Bandhyâ durbhagâ.


Sloka : 6.4.8

मन्त्र ८[VI.iv.8]

सा चेदस्मै दद्यादिन्द्रियेण ते यशसा यश आदधामीति यशस्विनावेव

भवतः ॥ ८॥

mantra 8[VI.iv.8]

sā cedasmai dadyādindriyeṇa te yaśasā yaśa ādadhāmīti yaśasvināveva

bhavataḥ .. 8..



Meaning:- If she is willing, he should proceed, uttering the following Mantra:- 'I transmit reputation into you', and they both become reputed.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- If she is willing, or agreeable to her husband, then he should proceed, uttering the following Mantra:- 'I transmit reputation into you.' Then they both become reputed.

Translation By Max Müller

8. If she give in, he says:- 'With manly strength and glory I give thee glory,'--and thus they both become glorious.


Sloka : 6.4.9

मन्त्र ९[VI.iv.9]

स यामिच्छेत् कामयेत मेति तस्यामर्थं निष्ठाय मुखेन मुखꣳ

सन्धायोपस्थमस्या अभिमृश्य जपेदङ्गादङ्गात्सम्भवसि

हृदयादधिजायसे । स त्वमङ्गकषायोऽसि दिग्धविद्धमिव

मादयेमाममूं मयीति ॥ ९॥

mantra 9[VI.iv.9]

sa yāmicchet kāmayeta meti tasyāmarthaṃ niṣṭhāya mukhena mukhagͫ

sandhāyopasthamasyā abhimṛśya japedaṅgādaṅgātsambhavasi

hṛdayādadhijāyase . sa tvamaṅgakaṣāyo'si digdhaviddhamiva

mādayemāmamūṃ mayīti .. 9..



Meaning:- ............

Translation By Max Müller

9. Sa yâm ikkhet kâmayeta meti tasyâm artham nishtâya [1] mukhena mukham sandhâyopastham asyâ abhimrisya gaped aṅgâdaṅgât sambhavasi hridayâd adhi gâyase, sa tvam aṅgakashâyo [2] 'si digdhaviddhâm [3] iva mâdayemâm amûm mayîti [4].

Footnote:

1. Nishtâya, A. B.; nishthâya, Roer, Poley; the same in § 10. 2. Sa tvam aṅgânâm kashâyo raso 'si. 3. Vishaliptasaraviddhâm mrigîm iva. 4. Mâdayeti is the reading of the Mâdhyandina text. Poley, Roer, A. and B. read mâdayemâm amûm mayîti. Ânandagiri has mrigîm ivâmûm madiyâm striyam me mâdaya madvasâm kurv ityarthah. Dvivedagaṅga explains mâdayeti.


Sloka : 6.4.10

मन्त्र १०[VI.iv.10]

अथ यामिच्छेन् न गर्भं दधीतेति तस्यामर्थं निष्ठाय मुखेन

मुखꣳ सन्धायाभिप्राण्यापान्यादिन्द्रियेण ते रेतसा रेत आदद इत्यरेता

एव भवति ॥ १०॥

mantra 10[VI.iv.10]

atha yāmicchen na garbhaṃ dadhīteti tasyāmarthaṃ niṣṭhāya mukhena

mukhagͫ sandhāyābhiprāṇyāpānyādindriyeṇa te retasā reta ādada ityaretā

eva bhavati .. 10..



Meaning:- ............

Translation By Max Müller

10. Atha yâm ikkhen na garbham dadhîteti [1] tasyâm artham nishtâya mukhena mukham sandhâyâbhiprânyâpânyâd indriyena te retasâ reta âdada ity aretâ [2] eva bhavati.

Footnote:

1. Rûpabhramsayauvanahânibhayât. 2. Agarbhinî.


Sloka : 6.4.11

मन्त्र ११[VI.iv.11]

अथ यामिच्छेद् दधीतेति तस्यामर्थं निष्ठाय मुखेन मुखꣳ

सन्धायापान्याभिप्राण्यादिन्द्रियेण ते रेतसा रेत आदधामीति गर्भिण्येव

भवति ॥ ११॥

mantra 11[VI.iv.11]

atha yāmicched dadhīteti tasyāmarthaṃ niṣṭhāya mukhena mukhagͫ

sandhāyāpānyābhiprāṇyādindriyeṇa te retasā reta ādadhāmīti garbhiṇyeva

bhavati .. 11..



Meaning:- ............

Translation By Max Müller

11. Atha yâm ikkhed garbham dadhîteti tasyâm artham nishtâya mukhena mukham sandhâyâpânyâbhiprânyâd indriyena te retâsa reta âdadhâmîti garbhiny eva bhavati.


Sloka : 6.4.12

मन्त्र १२[VI.iv.12]

अथ यस्य जायायै जारः स्यात् तं चेद् द्विष्यादामपात्रेऽग्निमुपसमाधाय

प्रतिलोमꣳ शरबर्हिस्तीर्त्वा तस्मिन्नेताः शरभृष्टीः

प्रतिलोमाः सर्पिषाऽक्ता जुहुयान् मम समिद्धेऽहौषीः प्राणापानौ

त आददेऽसाविति । मम समिद्धेऽहौषीः पुत्रपशूꣳस्त आददे

ऽसाविति । मम समिद्धेऽहौषीरिष्टासुकृते त आददेऽसाविति ।

मम समिद्धेऽहौषीराशापराकाशौ त आददेऽसाविति । स वा एष

निरिन्द्रियो विसुकृतोऽस्माल्लोकात्प्रैति यमेवंविद्ब्राह्मणः शपति ।

तस्मादेवंवित्छ्रोत्रियस्य दारेण नोपहासमिच्छेदुत ह्येवंवित्परो

भवति ॥ १२॥

mantra 12[VI.iv.12]

atha yasya jāyāyai jāraḥ syāt taṃ ced dviṣyādāmapātre'gnimupasamādhāya

pratilomagͫ śarabarhistīrtvā tasminnetāḥ śarabhṛṣṭīḥ

pratilomāḥ sarpiṣā'ktā juhuyān mama samiddhe'hauṣīḥ prāṇāpānau

ta ādade'sāviti . mama samiddhe'hauṣīḥ putrapaśūgͫsta ādade

'sāviti . mama samiddhe'hauṣīriṣṭāsukṛte ta ādade'sāviti .

mama samiddhe'hauṣīrāśāparākāśau ta ādade'sāviti . sa vā eṣa

nirindriyo visukṛto'smāllokātpraiti yamevaṃvidbrāhmaṇaḥ śapati .

tasmādevaṃvitchrotriyasya dāreṇa nopahāsamiccheduta hyevaṃvitparo

bhavati .. 12..



Meaning:- If a man's wife has a lover whom he wishes to injure, he should put the fire in an unbaked earthen vessel, spread stalks of reed and Kusa grass in an inverse way, and offer the reed tips, soaked in clarified butter, in the fire in an inverse way, saying, 'Thou hast sacrificed in my kindled fire, I take away thy Prana and Apana - such and such. Thou hast sacrificed in my kindled fire, I take away thy sons and animals - such and such. Thou hast sacrificed in my kindled fire, I take away thy Vedic rites and those done according to the Smriti - such and such. Thou hast sacrificed in my kindled fire, I take away thy hopes and expectations - such and such'. The man whom a Brahmana with knowledge of this ceremony curses, departs from this world emasculated and shorn of his merits. Therefore one should not wish even to cut jokes with the wife of a Vedic scholar who knows this ceremony, for he who has such knowledge becomes an enemy.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- If a man's wife has a lover whom he wishes to injure, i.e. to cast an evil spell on him, he should perform the following rite:- He should put the fire in an unbaked earthen vessel --- everything to be done in an inverse way --- and offer the reed tips, soaked in clarified butter, in the fire in an inverse way, accompanied by the following Mantras, 'Thou hast sacrificed,' etc., and at the end of each mention his name, 'such and such.' The man whom a Brahmana with knowledge of this ceremony curses, departs shorn of his merits. Therefore one should not wish even to cut jokes with the wife of a Vedic scholar who knows this ceremony, much less give any more serious offence, for even he who has such knowledge becomes an enemy.

Translation By Max Müller

12. Now again, if a man's wife has a lover and the husband hates him, let him (according to rule) [1] place fire by an unbaked jar, spread a layer of arrows in inverse order [2], anoint these three arrow-heads [3] with butter in inverse order, and sacrifice, saying:- 'Thou hast sacrificed in my fire, I take away thy up and down breathing, I here [4].' 'Thou hast sacrificed in my fire, I take away thy sons and cattle, I here.' 'Thou hast sacrificed in my fire, I take away thy sacred and thy good works, I here.' 'Thou hast sacrificed in my fire, I take away thy hope and expectation, I here.' He whom a Brâhmana who knows this curses, departs from this world without strength and without good works. Therefore let no one wish even for sport with the wife of a Srotriya [5] who knows this, for he who knows this, is a dangerous enemy.

Footnote:

1. Âvasathyâgnim eva pragvâlya. 2. Paskimâgram dakshinâgram vâ yathâ syât tathâ. 3. Tisrah is left out by Roer and Poley, by A. and B. 4. I have translated according to the Kânva text, as far as it could be made out. As there are four imprecations, it is but natural that tisrah should be left out in the Kânva text. It is found in the Mâdhyandina text, because there the imprecations are only three in number, viz. the taking away of hope and expectation, of sons and cattle, and of up and down breathing. Instead of asâv iti, which is sufficient, the Mâdhyandina text has asâv iti nâma grihnâti, and both Ânandagiri and Dvivedagaṅga allow the alternative, âtmanah satror vâ nâma grihnâti, though asau can really refer to the speaker only. 5. Roer reads dvârena; Poley, A. and B. dârena; the Mâdhyandinas gâyâyâ. Saṅkara, according to Roer, interprets dvârena, but it seems that dvârena is used here in the singular, instead of the plural. See Pâraskara Grihya-sûtras I, 11.


Sloka : 6.4.13

मन्त्र १३[VI.iv.13]

अथ यस्य जायामार्तवं विन्देत् त्र्यहं कꣳसे न पिबेदहतवासा

नैनां वृषलो न वृषल्युपहन्यात् अपहन्यात् त्रिरात्रान्त आप्लुत्य

व्रीहीनवघातयेत् ॥ १३॥

mantra 13[VI.iv.13]

atha yasya jāyāmārtavaṃ vindet tryahaṃ kagͫse na pibedahatavāsā

naināṃ vṛṣalo na vṛṣalyupahanyāt apahanyāt trirātrānta āplutya

vrīhīnavaghātayet .. 13..



Meaning:- If anybody's wife has the monthly sickness, she should drink of three days out of a cup (Kamsa). No Sudra man or woman should touch her. After three nights she should bathe, put on a new cloth, and be put to thresh rice.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- If anybody's wife has, etc. This paragraph should precede the passage beginning with 'She is indeed the goddess of beauty among women' (par. 6), for the sake of consistency. She should drink for three days out of a cup (Kamsa). No Sudra man or woman should touch her. After three nights, when she has finished the three nights' vow, she should bathe, put on a new cloth --- these words, though at some distance, should be connected here and be put to thresh rice.

Translation By Max Müller

13. When the monthly illness seizes his wife, she should for three days not drink from a metal vessel, and wear a fresh dress. Let no Vrishala or Vrishalî (a Sûdra man or woman) touch her. At the end of the three days, when she has bathed, the husband should make her pound rice [1].

Footnote:

1. To be used for the ceremony described in § 14 seq.


Sloka : 6.4.14

मन्त्र १४[VI.iv.14]

स य इच्छेत् पुत्रो मे शुक्लो जायेत वेदमनुब्रुवीत सर्वमायुरियादिति

क्षीरौदनं पाचयित्वा सर्पिष्मन्तमश्नीयातामीश्वरौ जनयितवै ॥ १४॥

mantra 14[VI.iv.14]

sa ya icchet putro me śuklo jāyeta vedamanubruvīta sarvamāyuriyāditi

kṣīraudanaṃ pācayitvā sarpiṣmantamaśnīyātāmīśvarau janayitavai .. 14..



Meaning:- He who wishes that his son should be born fair, study one Veda and attain a full term of life, should have rice cooked in milk, and he and his wife should eat it with clarified butter. Then they would be able to produce such a son.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- He who wishes that his son should be born fair in complexion, study one Veda and attain a full term of life, i.e. a hundred years, should have, etc.

Translation By Max Müller

14. And if a man wishes that a white son should be born to him, and that he should know one Veda, and live to his full age, then, after having prepared boiled rice with milk and butter, they should both eat, being fit to have offspring.


Sloka : 6.4.15

मन्त्र १५[VI.iv.15]

अथ य इच्छेत् पुत्रो मे कपिलः पिङ्गलो जायेत द्वौ वेदावनुब्रुवीत

सर्वमायुरियादिति दध्योदनं पाचयित्वा सर्पिष्मन्तमश्नीयातामीश्वरौ

जनयितवै ॥ १५॥

mantra 15[VI.iv.15]

atha ya icchet putro me kapilaḥ piṅgalo jāyeta dvau vedāvanubruvīta

sarvamāyuriyāditi dadhyodanaṃ pācayitvā sarpiṣmantamaśnīyātāmīśvarau

janayitavai .. 15..



Meaning:- He who wishes that his son should be born tawny or brown, study two Vedas and attain a full term of life, should have rice cooked in curd, and he and his wife should eat it with clarified butter. Then they would be able to produce such a son.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Have rice cooked in curd. If he wishes his son to be versed in two Vedas, he should follow this rule about eating.

Translation By Max Müller

15. And if a man wishes that a reddish [1] son with tawny eyes should be born to him, and that he should know two Vedas, and live to his full age, then, after having prepared boiled rice with coagulated milk and butter, they should both eat, being fit to have offspring.

Footnote:

1. Kapilo varnatah piṅgalah piṅgâkshah.


Sloka : 6.4.16

मन्त्र १६[VI.iv.16]

अथ य इच्छेत् पुत्रो मे श्यामो लोहिताक्षो जायेत त्रीन्वेदाननुब्रुवीत

सर्वमायुरियादित्युदौदनं पाचयित्वा सर्पिष्मन्तमश्नीयातामीश्वरौ

जनयितवै ॥ १६॥

mantra 16[VI.iv.16]

atha ya icchet putro me śyāmo lohitākṣo jāyeta trīnvedānanubruvīta

sarvamāyuriyādityudaudanaṃ pācayitvā sarpiṣmantamaśnīyātāmīśvarau

janayitavai .. 16..



Meaning:- He who wishes that his son should be born dark with red eyes, study three Vedas and attain a full term of life, should have rice cooked in water and he and his wife should eat with clarified butter. Then they would be able to produce such a son.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Simple, natural rice is meant. The mention of water is for precluding other ingredients.

Translation By Max Müller

16. And if a man wishes that a dark son should be born to him with red eyes, and that he should know three Vedas, and live to his full age, then, after having prepared boiled rice with water and butter, they should both eat, being fit to have offspring.


Sloka : 6.4.17

मन्त्र १७[VI.iv.17]

अथ य इच्छेद् दुहिता मे पण्डिता जायेत सर्वमायुरियादिति तिलौदनं

पाचयित्वा सर्पिष्मन्तमश्नीयातामीश्वरौ जनयितवै ॥ १७॥

mantra 17[VI.iv.17]

atha ya icched duhitā me paṇḍitā jāyeta sarvamāyuriyāditi tilaudanaṃ

pācayitvā sarpiṣmantamaśnīyātāmīśvarau janayitavai .. 17..



Meaning:- He who wishes that a daughter should be born to him who would be a scholar and attain a full term of life, should have rice cooked with sesame, and he and his wife should eat it with clarified butter. Then they would be able to produce such a daughter.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- The scholarship of the daughter is regarding domestic affairs only, for she is not entitled to read the Vedas. Rice and sesamum should be boiled together.

Translation By Max Müller

17. And if a man wishes that a learned daughter should be born to him, and that she should live to her full age, then, after having prepared boiled rice with sesamum and butter, they should both eat, being fit to have offspring.


Sloka : 6.4.18

मन्त्र १८[VI.iv.18]

अथ य इच्छेत् पुत्रो मे पण्डितो विगीतः समितिङ्गमः शुश्रूषितां

वाचं भाषिता जायेत सर्वान्वेदाननुब्रुवीत सर्वमायुरियादिति

माꣳसौदनं पाचयित्वा सर्पिष्मन्तमश्नीयातामीश्वरौ जनयितवै ।

औक्षेण वाऽऽर्षभेण वा ॥ १८॥

mantra 18[VI.iv.18]

atha ya icchet putro me paṇḍito vigītaḥ samitiṅgamaḥ śuśrūṣitāṃ

vācaṃ bhāṣitā jāyeta sarvānvedānanubruvīta sarvamāyuriyāditi

māgͫsaudanaṃ pācayitvā sarpiṣmantamaśnīyātāmīśvarau janayitavai .

aukṣeṇa vā''rṣabheṇa vā .. 18..



Meaning:- ............





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- 'Vigita (reputed) literally means 'variously praised.' Frequenting the assemblies, i.e. eloquent, for scholarship has been separately mentioned. Delightful, lit. pleasant to hear, i.e. words that are chaste and pregnant with meaning. Rice cooked together with meat. The meat is restricted to that of a vigorous bull, able to breed, or one more advanced in years.

Translation By Max Müller

18. And if a man wishes that a learned son should be born to him, famous, a public man, a popular speaker, that he should know all the Vedas, and that he should live to his full age, then, after having prepared boiled rice with meat and butter, they should both eat, being fit to have offspring. The meat should be of a young or of an old bull.


Sloka : 6.4.19

मन्त्र १९[VI.iv.19]

अथाभिप्रातरेव स्थालीपाकावृताऽऽज्यं चेष्टित्वा

स्थालीपाकस्योपघातं जुहोत्यग्नये स्वाहाऽनुमतये स्वाहा देवाय सवित्रे

सत्यप्रसवाय स्वाहेति हुत्वोद्धृत्य प्राश्नाति । प्राश्येतरस्याः

प्रयच्छति । प्रक्षाल्य पाणी उदपात्रं पूरयित्वा तेनैनां

त्रिरभ्युक्षत्युत्तिष्ठातो विश्वावसोऽन्यामिच्छ प्रपूर्व्याꣳ सं

जायां पत्या सहेति ॥ १९॥

mantra 19[VI.iv.19]

athābhiprātareva sthālīpākāvṛtā''jyaṃ ceṣṭitvā

sthālīpākasyopaghātaṃ juhotyagnaye svāhā'numataye svāhā devāya savitre

satyaprasavāya svāheti hutvoddhṛtya prāśnāti . prāśyetarasyāḥ

prayacchati . prakṣālya pāṇī udapātraṃ pūrayitvā tenaināṃ

trirabhyukṣatyuttiṣṭhāto viśvāvaso'nyāmiccha prapūrvyāgͫ saṃ

jāyāṃ patyā saheti .. 19..



Meaning:- In the very morning he purifies the clarified butter according to the mode of Sthalipaka, and offers Sthalipaka oblations again and again, saying, 'Svaha to fire, Svaha to Anumati, Svaha to the radiant sun who produces infallible results'. After offering, he takes up (the remnant of the cooked food), eats part of it and gives the rest to his wife. Then he washes his hands, fills the water-vessel and sprinkles her thrice with that water, saying. 'Get up from here, Visvavasu, and find out another young woman (who is) with her husband.'





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- In the very morning he takes the rice, produced by the threshing, purifies the clarified butter according to the mode of Sthalipaka, boils the rice and offers Sthalipaka oblations again and again, saying, 'Svaha to fire,' etc. Here all the details must be understood as being in accordance with the Grhya Sutras. After offering, he takes up the remnant of the cooked food, eats part of it and gives the rest to his wife. Then he washes his hands, sips a little water, fills the water-vessel and sprinkles his wife thrice with that water, saying the following Mantra:- 'Get up from here,' etc. The Mantra is to be uttered once.

Translation By Max Müller

19. And then toward morning, after having, according to the rule of the Sthâlîpâka (pot-boiling), performed the preparation of the Âgya (clarified butter [1]), he sacrifices from the Sthâlîpâka bit by bit, saying:- 'This is for Agni, Svâhâ! This is for Anumati, Svâhâ! This is for the divine Savitri, the true creator, Svâhâ!' Having sacrificed, he takes out the rest of the rice and eats it, and after having eaten, he gives it to his wife. Then he washes his hands, fills a water-jar, and sprinkles her thrice with it, saying:- 'Rise hence, O Visvâvasu [2], seek another blooming girl, a wife with her husband.'

Footnote:

1. Karum srapayitvâ. 2. Name of a Gandharva, as god of love. See Rig-veda X, 85, 22. Dvivedagaṅga explains the verse differently, so that the last words imply, I come together with my own wife.


Sloka : 6.4.20

मन्त्र २०[VI.iv.20]

अथैनामभिपद्यतेऽमोऽहमस्मि सा त्वꣳ सा त्वमस्यमोऽहꣳ

सामाहमस्मि ऋक्त्वं द्यौरहं पृथिवी त्वम् । तावेहि सꣳरभावहै

सह रेतो दधावहै पुꣳसे पुत्राय वित्तय इति ॥ २०॥

mantra 20[VI.iv.20]

athaināmabhipadyate'mo'hamasmi sā tvagͫ sā tvamasyamo'hagͫ

sāmāhamasmi ṛktvaṃ dyaurahaṃ pṛthivī tvam . tāvehi sagͫrabhāvahai

saha reto dadhāvahai pugͫse putrāya vittaya iti .. 20..



Meaning:- He embraces her saying, 'I am the vital force, and you are speech; you are speech, and I am the vital force; I am Saman, and you are Rik; I am heaven, and you are the earth; come, let us strive together so that we may have a male child.'





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Then he purifies her with Mantras, and both eat the rice cooked in milk or other things according to the kind of child
desired. This is the order to be followed. While retiring, he embraces her, saying the following Mantra:- 'I am the vital force,' etc.

Translation By Max Müller

20. Then he embraces her, and says:- 'I am Ama (breath), thou art Sâ (speech) [1]. Thou art Sâ (speech), I am Ama (breath). I am the Sâman, thou art the Rik [2]. I am the sky, thou art the earth. Come, let us strive together, that a male child may be begotten [3].'

Footnote:

1. Because speech is dependent on breath, as the wife is on the husband. See Khând. Up. I, 6, 1. 2. Because the Sâma-veda rests on the Rig-veda. 3. This is a verse which is often quoted and explained. It occurs in the Atharva-veda XIV, 71, as 'amo 'ham asmi si tvam, sâmâham asmy rik tvam, dyaur aham prithivî tvam; tâv iha sam bhavâva pragâm â ganayâvahai.' Here we have the opposition between amah and sâ, while in the Ait. Brâhmana VIII, 27, we have amo 'ham asmi sa tvam, giving amah in opposition to sa. It seems not unlikely that this was an old proverbial formula, and that it meant originally no more than 'I am he, and thou art she.' But this meaning was soon forgotten. In the Khând. Up. I, 6, 1, we find sâ explained as earth, ama as fire (Sacred Books of the East, vol. i, p. 13). In the Ait. Brâhmana sâ is explained as Rik, ama as Sâman. I have therefore in our passage also followed the interpretation of the commentary, instead of rendering it, 'I am he, and thou art she; thou art she, and I am he.'


Sloka : 6.4.21

मन्त्र २१[VI.iv.21]

अथास्या ऊरू विहापयति विजिहीथां द्यावापृथिवी इति । तस्यामर्थं

निष्ठाय मुखेन मुखꣳ सन्धाय त्रिरेनामनुलोमामनुमार्ष्टि

विष्णुर्योनिं कल्पयतु त्वष्टा रूपाणि पिꣳशतु आसिञ्चतु

प्रजापतिर्धाता गर्भं दधातु ते । गर्भं धेहि सिनीवालि गर्भं धेहि

पृथुष्टुके । गर्भं ते आश्विनौ देवावाधत्तां पुष्करस्रजौ ॥ २१॥

mantra 21[VI.iv.21]

athāsyā ūrū vihāpayati vijihīthāṃ dyāvāpṛthivī iti . tasyāmarthaṃ

niṣṭhāya mukhena mukhagͫ sandhāya trirenāmanulomāmanumārṣṭi

viṣṇuryoniṃ kalpayatu tvaṣṭā rūpāṇi pigͫśatu āsiñcatu

prajāpatirdhātā garbhaṃ dadhātu te . garbhaṃ dhehi sinīvāli garbhaṃ dhehi

pṛthuṣṭuke . garbhaṃ te āśvinau devāvādhattāṃ puṣkarasrajau .. 21..



Meaning:- ............

Translation By Max Müller

21. Athâsyâ ûrû vihâpayati, vigihîthâm dyâvâprithivî iti tasyâm artham nishtâya mukhena mukham sandhâya trir enâm anulomâm [1] anumârshti, Vishnur yonim kalpayatu, Tvashtâ rûpâni pimsatu, âsiñkatu Pragâpatir Dhâtâ garbham dadhatu te. Garbham dhehi Sinîvâli, garbham dhehi prithushtuke, garbham te Asvinau devâv âdhattâm pushkarasragau.

Footnote:

1. Anulomam, mûrdhânam ârabhya pâdântam.


Sloka : 6.4.22

मन्त्र २२[VI.iv.22]

हिरण्मयी अरणी याभ्यां निर्मन्थतामाश्विनौ तं ते गर्भꣳ हवामहे

दशमे मासि सूतये । यथाऽग्निगर्भा पृथिवी यथा द्यौरिन्द्रेण

गर्भिणी वायुर्दिशां यथा गर्भ एवं गर्भं दधामि तेऽसाविति ॥ २२॥

mantra 22[VI.iv.22]

hiraṇmayī araṇī yābhyāṃ nirmanthatāmāśvinau taṃ te garbhagͫ havāmahe

daśame māsi sūtaye . yathā'gnigarbhā pṛthivī yathā dyaurindreṇa

garbhiṇī vāyurdiśāṃ yathā garbha evaṃ garbhaṃ dadhāmi te'sāviti .. 22..



Meaning:- ............

Translation By Max Müller

22. Hiranmayî aranî yâbhyâm nirmanthatâm [1] asvinau [2], tam te garbham havâmahe [3] dasame mâsi sûtave. Yathâgnigarbhâ prithivî, yathâ dyaur indrena garbhinî, vâyur disâm yathâ garbha evam garbham dadhâmî te 'sav iti [4].

Footnote:

1. Nirmathitavantau. 2. Asvinau devau, Mâdhyandina text. 3. Dadhâmahe, Mâdhyandina text. Instead of sûtave, A. has sûyate, B. sûtaye. 4. Iti nâma grihnâti, Mâdhyandina text. Saṅkara says, asâv iti tasyâh. Ânandagiri says, asâv iti patyur vâ nirdesah; tasyâ nâma grihnâtîti pûrvena sambandhah. Dvivedagaṅga says, ante bhartâsâv aham iti svâtmano nâma grihnâti, bhâryâyâ vâ.


Sloka : 6.4.23

मन्त्र २३[VI.iv.23]

सोष्यन्तीमद्भिरभ्युक्षति यथा वायुः पुष्करिणीꣳ समिङ्गयति

सर्वतः । एवा ते गर्भ एजतु सहावैतु जरायुणा । इन्द्रस्यायं व्रजः

कृतः सार्गलः सपरिश्रयः । तमीन्द्र निर्जहि गर्भेण सावराꣳ

सहेति ॥ २३॥

mantra 23[VI.iv.23]

soṣyantīmadbhirabhyukṣati yathā vāyuḥ puṣkariṇīgͫ samiṅgayati

sarvataḥ . evā te garbha ejatu sahāvaitu jarāyuṇā . indrasyāyaṃ vrajaḥ

kṛtaḥ sārgalaḥ sapariśrayaḥ . tamīndra nirjahi garbheṇa sāvarāgͫ

saheti .. 23..



Meaning:- ............

Translation By Max Müller

23. Soshyantîm [1] adbhir abhyukshati. Yathâ vâyuh [2] pushkarinîm samiñgayati sarvatah, evâ te garbha egatu sahâvaitu garâyunâ. Indrasyâyam vragah kritah sârgalah [3] saparisrayah [4], tam indra nirgahi garbhena sâvarâm [5] saheti.

Footnote:

1. See Pâraskara Grihya-sûtra I. 16 seq. 2. Vatâh, M. 3. Argadayâ nirodhena saha vartamânah sârgadah, Dvivedagaṅga. 4. Saparisrayah, parisrayena pariveshtanena garâyunâ sahitah, Dvivedagaṅga. 5. Sâvarâm is the reading given by Poley, Roer, A. and B. Ânandagiri explains:- garbhanihsaranânantaram yâ mâmsapesî nirgakkhati sâvarâ, tâm ka nirgamayety arthah. Dvivedagaṅga (ed. Weber) writes:- nirgamyamânamâmsapesî sâ-avarasabdavâkyâ, tam sâvaram ka nirgamaya.


Sloka : 6.4.24

मन्त्र २४[VI.iv.24]

जातेऽग्निमुपसमाधायाङ्क आधाय कꣳसे पृषदाज्यꣳ सन्नीय

पृषदाज्यस्योपघातं जुहोत्यस्मिन्सहस्रं पुष्यासमेधमानः स्वे

गृहे । अस्योपसन्द्यां मा च्छैत्सीत् प्रजया च पशुभिश्च स्वाहा ।

मयि प्राणाꣳस्त्वयि मनसा जुहोमि स्वाहा । यत् कर्मणाऽत्यरीरिचं

यद्वा न्यूनमिहाकरम् । अग्निष्टत्स्विष्टकृद्विद्वान् स्विष्टꣳ सुहुतं

करोतु नः स्वाहेति ॥ २४॥

mantra 24[VI.iv.24]

jāte'gnimupasamādhāyāṅka ādhāya kagͫse pṛṣadājyagͫ sannīya

pṛṣadājyasyopaghātaṃ juhotyasminsahasraṃ puṣyāsamedhamānaḥ sve

gṛhe . asyopasandyāṃ mā cchaitsīt prajayā ca paśubhiśca svāhā .

mayi prāṇāgͫstvayi manasā juhomi svāhā . yat karmaṇā'tyarīricaṃ

yadvā nyūnamihākaram . agniṣṭatsviṣṭakṛdvidvān sviṣṭagͫ suhutaṃ

karotu naḥ svāheti .. 24..



Meaning:- When (the son) is born, he should bring in the fire, take him in his lap, put a mixture of curd and clarified butter in a cup, and offer oblations again and again with that, saying, 'Growing in this home of mine (as the son), may I maintain a thousand people! May (the goddess of fortune) never depart with children and animals from his line! Svaha. The vital force that is in me, I mentally transfer to you. Svaha. If I have done anything too much or to little in this ceremony, may the all-knowing beneficent fire make it just right for me - neither too much nor too little! Svaha.'





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Now the post-natal ceremony is being described. When the son is born, he should bring in the fire, take the son in his lap, put a mixture of curd and clarified butter in a cup, and offer oblations again and again (in little quantities) with that in the prescribed part of the fire, uttering the following Mantra:- 'Growing in this,' etc.

Translation By Max Müller

24.  [1]. When the child is born, he prepares the fire, places the child on his lap, and having poured prishadâgya, i.e. dadhi (thick milk) mixed with ghrita (clarified butter) into a metal jug, he sacrifices bit by bit of that prishadâgya, saying:- 'May I, as I increase in this my house, nourish a thousand! May fortune never fail in his race, with offspring and cattle, Svâhâ!' 'I offer to thee. in my mind the vital breaths which are in me, Svâhâ!' 'Whatever [2] in my work I have done too much, or whatever I have here done too little, may the wise Agni Svishtakrit make this right and proper for us, Svâhâ!'

Footnote:

1. These as well as the preceding rules refer to matters generally treated in the Grihya-sûtras; see Âsvalâyana, Grihya-sûtras I, 13 seq.; Pâraskara, Grihya-sûtras I, 11 seq.; Sâṅkâkyana, Grihya-sûtras I, 19 seq. It is curious, however, that Âsvalâyana I, 13, 1, refers distinctly to the Upanishad as the place where the pumsavana and similar matters were treated. This shows that the Upanishads were known before the composition of the Grihya-sûtras, and explains perhaps, at least partially, why the Upanishads were considered as rahasya. Âsvalâyana says, 'Conception, begetting of a boy, and guarding the embryo are to be found in the Upanishad. But if a man does not read the Upanishad, let him know that he should feed his wife,' &c. Nârâyana explains that Âsvalâyana here refers to an Upanishad which does not exist in his own Sâkhâ, but he objects to the conclusion that therefore the garbhâdhâna and other ceremonies need not be performed, and adds that some hold it should be performed, as prescribed by Saunaka and others. 2. Âsvalâyana, Grihya-sûtra I, 10, 23.


Sloka : 6.4.25

मन्त्र २५[VI.iv.25]

अथास्य दक्षिणं कर्णमभिनिधाय वाग्वागिति त्रिरथ दधि मधु

घृतꣳ सन्नीयानन्तर्हितेन जातरूपेण प्राशयति । भूस्ते दधामि

भुवस्ते दधामि स्वस्ते दधामि भूर्भुवः स्वः सर्वं त्वयि दधामीति ॥ २५॥

mantra 25[VI.iv.25]

athāsya dakṣiṇaṃ karṇamabhinidhāya vāgvāgiti triratha dadhi madhu

ghṛtagͫ sannīyānantarhitena jātarūpeṇa prāśayati . bhūste dadhāmi

bhuvaste dadhāmi svaste dadhāmi bhūrbhuvaḥ svaḥ sarvaṃ tvayi dadhāmīti .. 25..



Meaning:- Then putting (his mouth) to the child's right ear, he should thrice repeat, 'Speech, speech'. Next mixing curd, honey and clarified butter, he feeds him with (a strip of) gold not obstructed (by anything), saying, 'I put the earth into you, I put the sky into you, I put heaven into you, I put the whole of the earth, sky and heaven into you'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Then putting his own mouth to the child's right ear he should thrice repeat, 'Speech, speech (Wishing that the Vedas may enter him.).' Next, mixing curd, honey and clarified butter, he feels him with (a strip of) gold not obstructed (by anything), uttering the following Mantras, one at a time:- 'I put,' etc.

Translation By Max Müller

25. Then putting his mouth near the child's right ear, he says thrice, Speech, speech [1]! After that he pours together thick milk, honey, and clarified butter, and feeds the child with (a ladle of) pure gold [2], saying:- 'I give thee Bhûh, I give thee Bhuvah, I give thee Svah [3]. Bhûr, Bhuvah, Svah, I give thee all [4].'

Footnote:

1. Trayîlakshanâ vâk tvayi pravisatv iti gapato 'bhiprâyah. 2. Cf. Pâraskara Grihya-sûtras I, 16, 4, anâmikayâ suvarnântarhitayâ; Sâṅkhâyana, Grihya-sûtras I, 24, prâsayeg gâtarupena. 3. Bhûr bhuvah svah are explained by Dvivedagaṅga as the Rig-veda, Yagur-veda, and Sâma-veda. They might also be earth, air, and heaven. See Sâṅkhâyana, Grihya-sûtras 1, 24; Bhur rigvedam tvayi dadhâmi, &c. 4. The Mâdhyandinas add here another verse, which the father recites while he strokes his boy:- 'Be a stone, be an axe, be pure gold. Thou art my Self, called my son; live a hundred harvests.' The same verse occurs in the Âsvalâyana Grihya-sûtras I, 15, 3.


Sloka : 6.4.26

मन्त्र २६[VI.iv.26]

अथास्य नाम करोति वेदोऽसीति । तदस्यैतद्गुह्यमेव नाम भवति ॥ २६॥

mantra 26[VI.iv.26]

athāsya nāma karoti vedo'sīti . tadasyaitadguhyameva nāma bhavati .. 26..



Meaning:- The he gives him a name, 'You are Veda (knowledge)'. That is his secret name.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Then he gives him a name. 'You are Veda.' That, the word 'Veda,' is his secret name.

Translation By Max Müller

26.  [1]. Then he gives him his name, saying:- 'Thou art Veda;' but this is his secret name [2].

Footnote:

1. The two ceremonies, here described, are the âyushya-karman and the medhâganana. They are here treated rather confusedly. Pâraskara (Grihya-sûtras I, 16, 3) distinguishes the medhâganana and the âyushya. He treats the medhâganana first, which consists in feeding the boy with honey and clarified butter, and saying to him bhûs tvayi dadhâmi, &c. The âyushya consists in repeating certain verses in the boy's ear, wishing him a long life, &c. In Âsvalâyana's Grihya-sûtras, I, 15, 1 contains the âyushya, I, 15, 2 the medhâganana. Sâṅkhâyana also (I, 24) treats the âyushya first, and the medhâganana afterwards, and the same order prevails in the Mâdhyandina text of the Brihadâranyaka-upanishad. 2. In the Mâdhyandina text these acts are differently arranged.


Sloka : 6.4.27

मन्त्र २७[VI.iv.27]

अथैनं मात्रे प्रदाय स्तनं प्रयच्छति यस्ते स्तनः शशयो यो

मयोभूर्यो रत्नधा वसुविद्यः सुदत्रो येन विश्वा पुष्यसि वार्याणि

सरस्वति तमिह धातवे करिति ॥ २७॥

mantra 27[VI.iv.27]

athainaṃ mātre pradāya stanaṃ prayacchati yaste stanaḥ śaśayo yo

mayobhūryo ratnadhā vasuvidyaḥ sudatro yena viśvā puṣyasi vāryāṇi

sarasvati tamiha dhātave kariti .. 27..



Meaning:- Then he hands him to his mother to be suckled, saying, 'Offering Sarasvati, that breast of thine which is stored with results, is the sustainer of all, full of milk, the obtainer of wealth (one's deserts) and generous, and through which thou nourishest all who are worthy of it (the gods etc.) - transfer that here (to my wife, for my babe) to suck'.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Then he hands him, the child who is in his lap, to his mother to be suckled with the following Mantra:- 'O Sarasvati, that breast,' etc.

Translation By Max Müller

27. Then he hands the boy to his mother and gives him her breast, saying:- 'O Sarasvatî, that breast of thine which is inexhaustible, delightful, abundant, wealthy, generous, by which thou cherishest all blessings, make that to flow here [1].'

Footnote:

1. Rig-veda I, 164, 49.


Sloka : 6.4.28

मन्त्र २८[VI.iv.28]

अथास्य मातरमभिमन्त्रयते । इलाऽसि मैत्रावरुणी वीरे वीरमजीजनत् ।

सा त्वं वीरवती भव याऽस्मान्वीरवतोऽकरदिति । तं वा एतमाहुरतिपिता

बताभूरतिपितामहो बताभूः । परमां बत काष्ठां प्रापयच्छ्रिया

यशसा ब्रह्मवर्चसेन य एवंविदो ब्राह्मणस्य पुत्रो जायत इति ॥ २८॥

इति चतुर्थं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

अथ पञ्चमं ब्राह्मणम् ।

mantra 28[VI.iv.28]

athāsya mātaramabhimantrayate . ilā'si maitrāvaruṇī vīre vīramajījanat .

sā tvaṃ vīravatī bhava yā'smānvīravato'karaditi . taṃ vā etamāhuratipitā

batābhūratipitāmaho batābhūḥ . paramāṃ bata kāṣṭhāṃ prāpayacchriyā

yaśasā brahmavarcasena ya evaṃvido brāhmaṇasya putro jāyata iti .. 28..

iti caturthaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

atha pañcamaṃ brāhmaṇam .



Meaning:- Then he addressed the mother:- 'You are the adorable Arundhati, the wife of Vasistha; you have brought forth a male child with the help of me, who am a man. Be the mother of many sons, for you have given us a son'. Of him who is born as the child of a Brahmana with this particular knowledge, they say, 'You have exceeded your father, and you have exceeded your grandfather. You have reached the extreme limit of attainment through your splendour, fame and Brahmanical power.'





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Then he addresses the mother as follows:- 'You are the adorable,' etc. Of him who is born, etc. --- A son born in this way becomes the object of praise in such terms as the following:- That he surpasses his father and grandfather, and that he has reached the highest degree of attainment through his splendour, fame and Brahmanical power. The Brahmana who possesses such knowledge and gets a son, also deserves similar tribute. This is understood.

Translation By Max Müller

28.  [1]. Then he addresses the mother of the boy:- 'Thou art Ilâ Maitrâvarunî:- thou strong woman hast born a strong boy. Be thou blessed with strong children thou who hast blessed me with a strong child.' And they say of such a boy:- 'Ah, thou art better than thy father; ah, thou art better than thy grandfather. Truly he has reached the highest point in happiness, praise, and Vedic glory who is born as the son of a Brâhmana that knows this.'

Footnote:

1. These verses are differently explained by various commentators. Ânandagiri explains ilâ as stutyâ, bhogyâ. He derives Maitrâvarunî from Maitrâvaruna, i.e. Vasishtha, the son of Mitrâvarunau, and identifies her with Arundhatî. Dvivedagaṅga takes idâ as bhogyâ, or idâpâtrî, or prithivîrûpâ, and admits that she may be called Maitrâvarunî, because born of Mitrâvarunau. Vîre is rightly taken as a vocative by Dvivedagaṅga, while Ânandagiri explains it as a locative, mayi nimittabhûte. One expects agîganah instead of agîganat, which is the reading of A. and B. The reading of the Mâdhyandinas, âgîganathâh, is right grammatically, but it offends against the metre, and is a theoretical rather than a real form. If we read agîganah, we must also read akarah, unless we are prepared to follow the commentator, who supplies bhavatî.


Sloka : 6.5.1

मन्त्र १[VI.v.1]

अथ वꣳशः । पौतिमाषीपुत्रः कात्यायनीपुत्रात् कात्यायनीपुत्रो

गौतमीपुत्राद् गौतमीपुत्रो भारद्वाजीपुत्राद् भारद्वाजीपुत्रः

पाराशरीपुत्रात् पाराशरीपुत्र औपस्वस्तीपुत्रादौपस्वस्तीपुत्रः

पाराशरीपुत्रात् पाराशरीपुत्रः कात्यायनीपुत्रात् कात्यायनीपुत्रः

कौशिकीपुत्रात् कौशिकीपुत्र आलम्बीपुत्राच्च वैयाघ्रपदीपुत्राच्च

वैयाघ्रपदीपुत्रः काण्वीपुत्राच्च कापीपुत्राच्च कापीपुत्रः ॥ १॥

mantra 1[VI.v.1]

atha vagͫśaḥ . pautimāṣīputraḥ kātyāyanīputrāt kātyāyanīputro

gautamīputrād gautamīputro bhāradvājīputrād bhāradvājīputraḥ

pārāśarīputrāt pārāśarīputra aupasvastīputrādaupasvastīputraḥ

pārāśarīputrāt pārāśarīputraḥ kātyāyanīputrāt kātyāyanīputraḥ

kauśikīputrāt kauśikīputra ālambīputrācca vaiyāghrapadīputrācca

vaiyāghrapadīputraḥ kāṇvīputrācca kāpīputrācca kāpīputraḥ .. 1..



Meaning:- Now the line of teachers:- The son of Pautimsa (received it) from the son of Katyayani. He from the son of gautami. The son of Gautami from the son of Bharadvaji. He from the son of Parasari. The son of Parasari from the son of Aupasvasti. He from the son of another Parasari. He from the son of Katyayani. The son of katyayani from the son of Kausiki. The son of Kausiki from the son of Alambi and the son of Vaiyaghrapadi. The son of Vaiyaghrapadi from the son of Kanvi and the son of Kapi. The son of Kapi -

Translation By Max Müller

1. Now follows the stem [1]:- 1) Pautimâshîputra from Kâtyâyanîputra,   2) Kâtyâyanîputra from Gotamîputra,
3) Gotamîputra from Bhâradvâgîputra,
4) Bhâradvâgîputra from Pârâsarîputra,
5) Pârâsarîputra from Aupasvatîputra,
6) Aupasvatîputra from Pârâsarîputra,
7) Pârâsarîputra from Kâtyâyanîputra,
8) Kâtyâyanîputra from Kausikîputra,
9) Kausikîputra from Âlambîputra and Vaiyâghrapadîputra,
10) Âlambîputra and Vaiyâghrapadîputra from Kânvîputra,
11) Kânvîputra from Kâpîputra,
12) Kâpîputra

Footnote:

1. The Mâdhyandinas begin with vayam, we, then 1) Bhâradvâgîputra, 2) Vâtsîmandavîputra, 3) Pârasarîputra, 4) Gârgîputra, 5) Pârâsarî-kaundinîputra, 6) Gârgîputra, 7) Gârgîputra, 8) Bâdeyîputra, 9) Maushikîputra, 10) Hârikarnîputra, 11) Bhâradvâgîputra, 12) Paiṅgîputra, 13) Saunakîputra, 14) Kâsyapî-bâlâkyâ-mâtharîputra, 15) Kautsîputra, 16) Baudhîputra, 17) Sâlaṅkâyanîputra, 18) Vârshaganîputra, 19) Gautamîputra, 20) Âtreyîputra, 21) Gautamîputra, 22) Vâtsîputra, 23) Bhâradvâgîputra, 24) Pârâsarîputra, 25) Vârkârunîputra; then from No) 20 as in the Kânva text) This stem is called by Saṅkara, Samastapravakanavamsah, and Ânandagiri adds, pûrvau vamsau purushaviseshitau, tritîyas tu strîviseshitah, strîprâdhânyât) Dvivedagaṅga writes, putramanthakarmanah strîsamskârârthatvenoktatvât tatsannidhânâd ayam vamsah strîprâdhânyenokyate)


Sloka : 6.5.2

मन्त्र २[VI.v.2]

आत्रेयीपुत्रादात्रेयीपुत्रो गौतमीपुत्राद् गौतमीपुत्रो भारद्वाजीपुत्राद्

भारद्वाजीपुत्रः पाराशरीपुत्रात् पाराशरीपुत्रो वात्सीपुत्राद् वात्सीपुत्रः

पाराशरीपुत्रात् पाराशरीपुत्रो वार्कारुणीपुत्राद् वार्कारुणीपुत्रो

वार्कारुणीपुत्राद् वार्कारुणीपुत्र आर्तभागीपुत्रादार्तभागीपुत्रः

शौङ्गीपुत्राच्चौङ्गीपुत्रः साङ्कृतीपुत्रात् साङ्कृतीपुत्र

आलम्बायनीपुत्रादालम्बायनीपुत्र आलम्बीपुत्रादालम्बीपुत्रो जायन्तीपुत्राज्

जायन्तीपुत्रो माण्डूकायनीपुत्रान् माण्डूकायनीपुत्रो माण्डूकीपुत्रान्

माण्डूकीपुत्रः शाण्डिलीपुत्राच्छाण्डिलीपुत्रो राथीतरीपुत्राद् राथीतरीपुत्रो

भालुकीपुत्राद् भालुकीपुत्रः क्रौञ्चिकीपुत्राभ्यां क्रौञ्चिकीपुत्रौ

वैदभृतीपुत्राद् वैदभृतीपुत्रः कार्शकेयीपुत्रात् कार्शकेयीपुत्रः

प्राचीनयोगीपुत्रात् प्राचीनयोगीपुत्रः साञ्जीवीपुत्रात् साञ्जीवीपुत्रः

प्राश्नीपुत्रादासुरिवासिनः प्राश्नीपुत्र आसुरायणादासुरायण आसुरेरासुरिः ॥ २॥

mantra 2[VI.v.2]

ātreyīputrādātreyīputro gautamīputrād gautamīputro bhāradvājīputrād

bhāradvājīputraḥ pārāśarīputrāt pārāśarīputro vātsīputrād vātsīputraḥ

pārāśarīputrāt pārāśarīputro vārkāruṇīputrād vārkāruṇīputro

vārkāruṇīputrād vārkāruṇīputra ārtabhāgīputrādārtabhāgīputraḥ

śauṅgīputrāccauṅgīputraḥ sāṅkṛtīputrāt sāṅkṛtīputra

ālambāyanīputrādālambāyanīputra ālambīputrādālambīputro jāyantīputrāj

jāyantīputro māṇḍūkāyanīputrān māṇḍūkāyanīputro māṇḍūkīputrān

māṇḍūkīputraḥ śāṇḍilīputrācchāṇḍilīputro rāthītarīputrād rāthītarīputro

bhālukīputrād bhālukīputraḥ krauñcikīputrābhyāṃ krauñcikīputrau

vaidabhṛtīputrād vaidabhṛtīputraḥ kārśakeyīputrāt kārśakeyīputraḥ

prācīnayogīputrāt prācīnayogīputraḥ sāñjīvīputrāt sāñjīvīputraḥ

prāśnīputrādāsurivāsinaḥ prāśnīputra āsurāyaṇādāsurāyaṇa āsurerāsuriḥ .. 2..



Meaning:- From the son of Atreyi. The son of Atreyi from the son of gautami. The son of Gautami from the son of Bharadvaji. He from the son of parasari. The son of Parasari from the son of Vatsi. The son of Vatsi from the son of another Parasari. The son of Parasari from the son of Varkaruni. He from the son of another Varkaruni. This one from the son of Artabhagi. He from the son of Saungi. The son of Saungi from the son of Samkrti. He from the son of Alambayani. He again from the son of Alambi. The son of Alambi from the son of jayanti. He from the son of Mandukayani. He in his turn from the son of Manduki. The son of manduki from the son of Sandili. The son of Sandili from the son of Rathitari. He from the son of Bhaluki. The son of Bhaluki from the two sons of Kraunciki. They from the son of Vaidabhrti. He from the son of Karsakeyi. He again from the son of Pracinayogi. He from the son of Samjivi. The son of Samjivi from Asurivasin, the son of Prasni. The son of Prasni from Asurayana. He from Asuri. Asuri -

Translation By Max Müller

2. from Âtreyîputra, 13) Âtreyîputra from Gautamîputra,
14) Gautamîputra from Bhâradvâgîputra,
15) Bhâradvâgîputra from Pârasarîputra,
16) Pârasarîputra from Vâtsîputra,
17) Vâtsîputra from Pârasarîputra,
18 [1]) Pârasarîputra from Vârkârunîputra,
19) Vârkârunîputra from Vârkârunîputra,
20) Vârkârunîputra from Ârtabhagîputra,
21) Ârtabhagîputra from Sauṅgîputra,
22) Sauṅgîputra from Sâṅkritîputra,
23 [2]) Sâṅkritîputra from Âlambâyanîputra,
24) Âlambâyanîputra from Âlambîputra,
25) Âlambîputra from Gayantîputra,
26) Gayantîputra from Mândûkâyanîputra,
27) Mândûkâyanîputra from Mândûkîputra,
28) Mândûkîputra from Sândilîputra,
29) Sândilîputra from Râthîtarîputra,
30 [3]) Râthîtarîputra from Bhâlukîputra, 31) Bhâlukîputra from Krauñkikîputrau,
32) Krauñkikîputrau from Vaittabhatîputra [4],
33) Vaittabhatîputra from Kârsakeyîputra [5],
34) Kârsakeyîputra from Prâkînayogîputra,
35) Prâkînayogîputra from Sâñgîvîputra [6],
36) Sâñgîvîputra from Prâsñîputra Âsurivâsin,
37) Prâsñîputra Âsurivâsin from Âsurâyana,
38) Âsurâyana from Âsuri,
39) Âsuri

Footnote:

1. M) has only one) 2. M) inverts 23 and 24) 3. Deest in M) 4. Vaidabhritîputra, M) 5. Bhâlukîputra, M) 6. Kârsakeyîputra after 35 in M)


Sloka : 6.5.3

मन्त्र ३[VI.v.3]

याज्ञवल्क्याद् याज्ञवल्क्य ऊद्दालकादूद्दालकोऽरुणादरुण

उपवेशेरुपवेशिः कुश्रेः कुश्रिर्वाजश्रवसो वाजश्रवा जीह्वावतो

बाध्योगाज् जीह्वावान्बाध्योगोऽसिताद्वार्षगणादसितो वार्षगणो

हरितात्कश्यपाद्द् हरितः कश्यपः शिल्पात्कश्यपाच्छिल्पः

कश्यपः कश्यपान्नैध्रुवेः कश्यपो नैध्रुविर्वाचो वागम्भिण्याः

अम्भिण्यादित्यादादित्यानीमानि शुक्लानि यजूꣳषि वाजसनेयेन

याज्ञवल्क्येनाऽऽख्ययन्ते ॥ ३॥

mantra 3[VI.v.3]

yājñavalkyād yājñavalkya ūddālakādūddālako'ruṇādaruṇa

upaveśerupaveśiḥ kuśreḥ kuśrirvājaśravaso vājaśravā jīhvāvato

bādhyogāj jīhvāvānbādhyogo'sitādvārṣagaṇādasito vārṣagaṇo

haritātkaśyapādd haritaḥ kaśyapaḥ śilpātkaśyapācchilpaḥ

kaśyapaḥ kaśyapānnaidhruveḥ kaśyapo naidhruvirvāco vāgambhiṇyāḥ

ambhiṇyādityādādityānīmāni śuklāni yajūgͫṣi vājasaneyena

yājñavalkyenā''khyayante .. 3..



Meaning:- From Yajnavalkya. Yajnavalkya from Uddalaka. Uddalaka from Aruna. Aruna from Upavesi. Upavesi from Kusri. Kusri from Vajasravas. He from Jihvavat, the son of Badhyoga. He from Asita, the son of Varsagana. He from Harita Kasyapa. He from Silpa Kasyapa. This one from Kasyana, the son of Nidhruva. He from Vac. She from Ambhini. She from the sun. These white Yajuses received from the sun are explained by Yajnavalkya Vajasaneya.

Translation By Max Müller

3. from Yâgñavalkya, 40) Yâgñavalkya from Uddâlaka,
41) Uddâlaka from Aruna,
42) Aruna from Upavesi,
43) Upavesi from Kusri,
44) Kusri from Vâgasravas,
45) Vâgasravas from Gihvâvat Vâdhyoga,
46) Gihvâvat Vâdhyoga from Asita Vârshagana,
47) Asita Vârshagana from Harita Kasyapa,
48) Harita Kasyapa from Silpa Kasyapa,
49) Silpa Kasyapa from Kasyapa Naidhruvi,
50) Kasyapa Naidhruvi from Vâk,
51) Vâk from Ambhinî,
52) Ambhinî from Âditya, the Sun) As coming from Âditya, the Sun, these pure [1] Yagus verses have been proclaimed by Yâgñavalkya Vâgasaneya)

Footnote:

1. They are called suklâni, white or pure, because they are not mixed with Brâhmanas, avyâmisni brâhmaṅena (doshair asaṅkîrnâni, paurusheyatvadoshadvârâbhâvâd ityarthah)) Or they are ayâtayâmâni, unimpaired) Ânandagiri adds, Pragâpatim ârabhya Sâñgîvîputraparyantam (No) 36) Vâgasaneyisâkhâsu sarvâsv eko vamsa ityâha samânam iti) Dvivedagaṅga says:- Vâgisâkhâvakkhinnânâm yagushâm Sûryenopadishtatvamgñavalkyena prâptatvam ka purâneshu prasiddham)


Sloka : 6.5.4

मन्त्र ४[VI.v.4]

समानमा साञ्जीवीपुत्रात् सञ्जिवीपुत्रो माण्डूकायनेर्माण्डूकायनिर्माण्डव्यान्

माण्डव्यः कौत्सात् कौत्सो माहित्थेर्माहित्थिर्वामकक्षायणाद् वामकक्षायणः

शाण्डिल्याच्छाण्डिल्यो वात्स्याद् वात्स्यः कुश्रेः कुश्रिर्यज्ञवचसो

राजस्तम्बायनाद् यज्ञवचा राजस्तम्बायनस्तुरात्कावषेयात् तुरः

कावषेयः प्रजापतेः प्रजापतिर्ब्रह्मणो ब्रह्म स्वयम्भु । ब्रह्मणे

नमः ॥ ४॥

इति पञ्चमं ब्राह्मणम् ॥

इति बृहदारण्यकोपनिषदि षष्ठोऽध्यायः ॥

इति वाजसनेयके बृहदारण्यकोपनिषत्समाप्ता ॥

mantra 4[VI.v.4]

samānamā sāñjīvīputrāt sañjivīputro māṇḍūkāyanermāṇḍūkāyanirmāṇḍavyān

māṇḍavyaḥ kautsāt kautso māhitthermāhitthirvāmakakṣāyaṇād vāmakakṣāyaṇaḥ

śāṇḍilyācchāṇḍilyo vātsyād vātsyaḥ kuśreḥ kuśriryajñavacaso

rājastambāyanād yajñavacā rājastambāyanasturātkāvaṣeyāt turaḥ

kāvaṣeyaḥ prajāpateḥ prajāpatirbrahmaṇo brahma svayambhu . brahmaṇe

namaḥ .. 4..

iti pañcamaṃ brāhmaṇam ..

iti bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadi ṣaṣṭho'dhyāyaḥ ..

iti vājasaneyake bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣatsamāptā ..



Meaning:- The same up to the son of Samjivi. The son of Samjivi from Mandukayani. Mandukayani from mandavya. Mandavya from Kautsa. Kautsa from Mahitthi. He from Vamakaksayana. He from Sandilya. Sandilya from Vatsya. Vatsya from Kusri. Kusri from Yajnavacas, the son of rajastamba. He from Tura, the son of Kavasi. He from Prajapati (Hiranyagarbha). Prajapati through his relation to Brahman (the Vedas). Brahman is self-born. Salutation to Brahman.





Commentary of Shankaracharya

Commentary:- Now the line of teachers of the whole Upanisad is being given. (They are here named after their mothers) because the wife holds the most important place (in this ceremony) (Because it is she who, being purified through sprinkling etc., produces a worthy son.). It has been mentioned that a gifted son is born. Hence the Upanisad is narrating the line of teachers by describing the son through the name of the mother. These white Yajuses, etc. 'White' because they are not mixed up (with human faults), or these Yajuses are pure or fresh. From Prajapati down to the son of Pautimasi is a descending order (if we read it inversely), with the teacher always mentioned first. (The line is) the same up to the son of Samjivi (Above him it bifurcates, to merge again at the top, the sun being identical with Prajapati or Hiranyagarbha.). Prajapati through his relation to Brahman or the Vedas. That Brahman (the Vedas) has come down the line from Prajapati and variously branched off among us. It is without beginning and end --- self-born, or eternal. Salutation to that Brahman (the Vedas). And salutation to the teachers who have followed it.

Translation By Max Müller

4.  [1]) The same as far as Sâñgîvîputra (No) 36), then 36) Sâñgîvîputra from Mândûkâyani,
37) Mândûkâyani from Mândavya,
38) Mândavya from Kautsa,
39) Kautsa from Mâhitthi,
40) Mâhitthi from Vâmakakshâyana,
41) Vâmakakshâyana from Sândilya,
42) Sândilya from Vâtsya,
43) Vâtsya from Kusri,
44) Kusri from Yagñavakas Râgastambâyana,
45) Yagñavakas Râgastambâyana from Tura Kâvasheya,
46) Tura Kâvasheya from Pragâpati,
47) Pragâpati from Brahman,
48) Brahman is Svayambhu, self-existent) Adoration to Brahman!

Footnote:

1. This last paragraph is wanting in the Mâdhyandina text, but a very similar paragraph occurs in Satapatha-brâhmana X, 6, 5, 9, where, however, Vâtsya comes before Sândilya)


Shanti Mantra (END)

ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ।

oṃ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ .


Summary

The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (Sanskrit: बृहदारण्यक उपनिषद्, Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad) is one of the Principal Upanishads and one of the first Upanishadic scriptures of Hinduism.

Prajapati created the universe from nothing

The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad starts by stating one of many Vedic theories of creation of the universe. It asserts that there was nothing before the universe started, then Prajapati created from this nothing the universe as a sacrifice to himself, imbued it with Prana (life force) to preserve it in the form of cosmic inert matter and individual psychic energy.

Atman and Brahman are identical Oneness

The Brahmana 4 in the first chapter, announces the Upanishad’s non-dual, monistic metaphysical premise that Atman and Brahman are identical Oneness, with the assertion that because the universe came out of nothingness when the only principle existent was “I am he”, the universe after it came into existence continues as Aham brahma asmi (I am Brahman).

True reality behind perceived reality

The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad starts the second chapter as a conversation between Ajatashatru and Balaki Gargya on theory of dreams, positing that human beings see dreams entirely unto themselves because mind draws, in itself, the powers of sensory organs, which it releases in the waking state.

The struggle man faces, asserts Brihadaranyaka in brahmana 3, is in his attempt to realize the “true reality behind perceived reality”. That is Atman-Brahman, inherently and blissfully existent, yet unknowable because it has no qualities, no characteristics, it is “neti, neti” (literally, “not this, not this”).

Soul is the true, the immortal

In fourth brahmana, the Upanishad presents a dialogue between a husband and wife, as Yajnavalkya and Maitreyi, on nature of love and spirituality, whether and how is Atman related to deep connection and bonds between human beings. He asserts that this knowledge of the Soul, the Self, the Brahman is what makes one immortal, the connection immortal. All longing is the longing for the Soul, because Soul is the true, the immortal, the real and the infinite bliss.

The Madhu theory - Atman exists

In the Madhu theory, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad asserts that “Atman exists” (soul exists), that all organic beings (plants, animals, human beings and gods) are wandering souls yet One with each other and the Brahman (Cosmic Soul); it further asserts that inorganic nature (fire, air, earth, water, space) is the field where the beings act, and where their numerous actions create fruits that they separately and together experience. The Upanishad then states that everything is connected, beings affect each other, organic beings affect the inorganic nature, inorganic nature affects the organic beings, one is the “honey” (result, fruit, food) of the other, everyone and everything is mutually dependent, nourishing and nurturing each other, all because it came from one Brahman, because it is all one Brahman, because all existence is blissful oneness.

Graha and atigraha (sensory action and sense)

The third chapter is a metaphysical dialogue between ten ancient sages, on the nature of Reality, Atman and Mukti. Among other things, the chapter presents the theory of perceived empirical knowledge using the concepts of graha and atigraha (sensory action and sense). It lists 8 combinations of graha and atigraha: breath and smell, speech and name (ideas), tongue and taste, eye and form, ear and sound, skin and touch, mind and desire, arms and work respectively.

It is your soul which is inside all

The fourth brahmana of the third chapter asserts, “it is your soul which is inside all”, all souls are one, immanent and transcendent.

Soul is the inner controller of beings

The seventh brahmana discusses how and why the soul interconnects and has the oneness through all organic beings, all inorganic nature, all of universe. It asserts that the soul is the inner controller of beings, conflated with the interaction of nature, psyche and senses, often without the knowledge of beings. It is the soul, nevertheless, that is the true and essence, states the Upanishad.

The soul manifests in human life in six forms

The fourth chapter of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad starts as a dialogue between King Janaka and Yajnavalka. It explores various aspects of the “Soul exists” theory, its phenomenal manifestations, and its philosophical implications on soteriology. The Upanishad, in the first brahmanam of fourth chapter, states that the soul manifests in human life in six forms: Prajna (consciousness), Priyam (love and the will to live), Satyam (reverence for truth, reality), Ananta (endlessness, curiosity for the eternal), Ananda (bliss, contentness), and Sthiti (the state of enduring steadfastness, calm perseverance).

What happens to soul after one dies?

In the second brahmanam, the Upanishad explores the question, “what happens to soul after one dies?”, and provides the root of two themes that play central role in later schools of Hinduism: one, of the concept of soul as individual souls (dualism), and second of the concept of soul being One and Eternal neither comes nor goes anywhere, because it is everywhere and everyone in Oneness (non-dualism).

Namaste

The hymn 4.2.4 of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is one of many instances in the ancient Sanskrit text where the characters involved in philosophical debate greet each other with Namaste (नमस्ते), a practice in the culture of India.

Moksha

The third brahmanam of the fourth chapter discusses the premises of moksha (liberation, freedom, emancipation, self-realization), and provides some of the most studied hymns of Brihadaranyaka.

Knowledge is Self, Knowledge is freedom, Knowledge powers inner peace

The fourth brahmanam continues to build the thematic description of Atman-Brahman (Self, Soul) and the state of self-realization as achieved. Yajnavalkya declares that Knowledge is Self, Knowledge is freedom, Knowledge powers inner peace. In hymn 4.4.22, the Upanishad states, “He is that great unborn Self, who consists of Knowledge, is surrounded by the Prânas (life-force), the ether within the heart. In it [Soul] there reposes the ruler of all, the lord of all, the king of all. He does not become greater by good works, nor smaller by evil works. He is the lord of all, the king of all things, the protector of all things. He is a bank and a boundary, so that these worlds may not be confounded. He who knows him [soul], becomes a Muni. Wishing for that world, mendicants leave their homes.”

Empirical reality and truth is Brahman

Some brahmanams in the last section of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, such as the second and third brahmanam in fifth chapter, append ethical theories, while fourth brahmanam in the fifth chapter asserts that “empirical reality and truth is Brahman”. In the fourth brahmanam of sixth chapter, sexual rituals between a husband and wife are described to conceive and celebrate the birth of a child.

Introduction by Shankaracharya

Om. Salutation to Brahman (Hiranyagarbha (The being identified with the cosmic mind.) and the other sages forming the line of teachers who have handed down the knowledge of Brahman. Salutation to our own teacher.

With the words, ‘The head of the sacrificial horse is the dawn,’ etc. begins the Upanisad connected with the Vajasaneyi-Brahmana. This concise commentary is being written on it to explain to those who wish to turn away from this relative world (Samsara), the knowledge of the identity of the individual self and Brahman, which is the means of eradicating the cause of this world (ignorance). This knowledge of Brahman is called ‘Upanisad’ because it entirely removes this relative world together with its cause from those who betake themselves to this study, for the root ‘sad’ prefixed by ‘upa’ and ‘ni’ means that. Books also are called Upanisads as they have the same end in view.

This Upanisad consisting of six chapters is called ‘Aranyaka’ as it was taught in the forest (Aranya). And because of its large size it is called Brhadaranyaka. Now we are going to describe its relation to the ceremonial portion of the Vedas. The whole of the Vedas is devoted to setting forth the means of attaining what is good and avoiding what is evil, in so far as these are not known through perception and inference, for all people naturally seek these two ends. In matters coming within the range of experience, a knowledge of the means of attaining the good and avoiding the evil ends is easily available through perception and inference. Hence the Vedas are not to be sought for that. Now, unless a person is aware of the existence of the self in a future life, he will not be induced to attain what is good and avoid what is evil in that life. For we have the example of the materialists. Therefore the scriptures proceed to discuss the existence of self in a future life and the particular means of attaining the good and avoiding the evil in that life. For we see one of the Upanisads starts with the words, ‘There is a doubt among men regarding the life after death, some saying that the self exists, and others that it does not’ (Ka. I. 20), and concludes, ‘It is to be realised as existing indeed’ (Ka. VI. 13), and so on. Also, beginning with, ‘How (the self remains) after death’ (Ka. V. 6), it ends with, ‘Some souls enter the womb to get a new body, while others are born as stationary objects (plants etc.), all according to their past work and knowledge’ (Ka. V. 7). Elsewhere beginning with, ‘The man (self) himself becomes the light’ (IV. iii. 9), it ends with, ‘It is followed by knowledge, work’ (IV. iv. 2). Also, ‘One becomes good through good work and evil through evil work’ (III. ii. 13). Again beginning with, ‘I will instruct you’ (II. i. 15), the existence of the extra-corporeal self is established in the passage, ‘Full of consciousness (i.e. identified with the mind),’ etc. (II. i. 16 – 17).

Objection: Is it not a matter of perception?

Reply: No, for we see the divergence of opinion among different schools. Were the existence of the self in a future body a matter of perception, the materialists and Buddhists would not stand opposed to us, saying that there is no self. For nobody disputes regarding an object of perception such as a jar, saying it does not exist.

Objection: You are wrong, since a stump, for instance, is looked upon as a man and so on.

Reply: No, for it vanishes when the truth is known. There are no more contradictory views when the stump, for instance, has been definitely known as such through perception. The Buddhists, however, in spite of the fact that there is the egoconsciousness, persistently deny the existence of the self other than the subtle body (The five elements, ten organs, vital force (with its fivefold function) and mind (in its fourfold aspect). Or the ten organs, five vital forces, Manas and intellect.). Therefore, being different from objects of perception, the existence of the self cannot be proved by this means. Similarly, inference too is powerless.

Objection: No, since the Sruti (Veda) points out certain grounds of inference (Such as desires etc., which must have a basis, and this is the self.) for the existence of the self, and these depend on perception, (these two are also efficient means of the knowledge of the self).

Reply: Not so, for the self cannot be perceived as having any relation to another life. But when its existence has been known from the Sruti and from certain empirical grounds of inference cited by it, the Mimamsakas and logicians, who follow in its foot-steps, fancy that those Vedic grounds of inference such as the ego-consciousness are the products of their own mind, and declare that the self is knowable through perception and inference. In any case, a man who believes that there is a self which gets into relation with a future body, seeks to know the particular means of attaining the good and avoidng the evil in connection with that body. Hence the ceremonial portion of the Vedas is introduced to acquaint him with these details. But the cause of that desire to attain the good and avoid the evil, viz ignorance regarding the Self, which express itself as the idea of one’s being the agent and experiencer, has not been removed by its opposite, the knowledge of the nature of the self as being identical with Brahman. Until that is removed, a man prompted by such natural defects of his as attachment or aversion to the fruits of his actions, proceeds to act even against the injunctions and prohibitions of the scriptures, and under the powerful urge of his natural defects, accumulates in thought, word and deed a good deal of work known as iniquity, producing harm, visible and invisible. This leads to degradation down to the state of stationary objects. Sometimes the impressions made by the scriptures are very strong, in which case he accumulates in thought, word and deed a great deal of what is known as good work which contributes to his well-being. This work is twofold: that attended with meditation, and that which is mechanical. Of these, the latter results in the attainment of the world of the Manes and so on; while work coupled with meditation leads to worlds beginning with that of the gods and ending with the world of the Manes and so on; while work coupled with meditation leads to worlds beginning with that of the gods and ending with the world of Hiranyagarbha (The being identified with the sum total of all minds.). The Sruti says on the point, ‘One who sacrifices to the Self is better than one who sacrifices to the gods,’ etc. (S. XI. ii. 6. 13, adapted). And the Smrti: ‘Vedic work ks twofold,’ etc. (M. XII. 88). When the good work balances the evil, one becomes a man. Thus the transmigration beginning with the state of Hiranyagarbha and the rest and ending with that of stationary objects, which a man with his natural defects of ignorance etc. attains through his good and bad deeds, depends on name, form and action. This manifested universe, consisting of means and ends, was in an undifferentiated state before its manifestation. That relative universe, without beginning and end like the seed and the sprout etc., created by ignorance and consisting in a superimposition of action, its factors and its results on the Self, is an evil. Hence for the removal of the ignorance of a man who is disgusted with this universe, this Upanisad is being commenced in order to inculcate the knowledge of Brahman which is the very opposite of that ignorance. This utility of this meditation concerning the horse sacrifice is this: Those who are not entitled to this sacrifice will get the same result through this meditation itself. Witness the Sruti passages: ‘Through meditation or through rites’ (S. X. iv. 3. 9), and ‘This (meditation on the vital force) certainly wins the world’ (I. iii. 28).

Objection: This meditation is just as part of the rite.

Reply: No, for the following Sruti passage allows option: ‘He who performs the horse sacrifice, or who knows it as such’ (Tai. S. V. iii. 12. 2). Since it occurs in a context dealing with knowledge, and since we see the same kind of meditation based or resemblance being applied to other rites (As in the passage ‘This world, O Gautama, is fire’ (VI. ii. 11). also, we understand that meditation will produce the same result. Of all rites the greatest is the horse sacrifice, for it leads to identity with Hiranyagarbha in his collective and individual aspects. And its mention here at the very beginning of this treatise on the knowledge of Brahman is an indication that all rites fall within the domain of relative existence. It will be shown later on that the result of this meditation is identification with Hunger or Death.

Objection: But the regula (Nitya) rites are not productive of relative results.

Reply: Not so, for the Sruti sums up the results of all rites together. Every rite is connected with the wife. In the passage, ‘Let me have a wife … This much indeed is desire’ (I. iv. 17), it is shown that all action is naturally prompted by desire, and that the results achieved through a son, through rites and through meditation are this world, the world of the Manes and that of the gods respectively (I. v. 16), and the conclusion arrived at will be that everything consists of the three kinds of food: ‘This (universe) indeed consists of three things: name, form and action’ (I.vi. 1). The manifested result of all action is nothing but the relative universe. It is these three which were in an undifferentiated state before manifestation. That again is manifested owing to the resultant of the actions of all beings, as a tree comes out of the seed. This differentiated annd undifferenttiated universe, consisting of the gross (Earth, water and fire are the gross world, and air and the ether the subtle world. Their essence is the simple form of each, before its combination with the other four elements.) and subtle worlds and their essence, falls within the category of ignorance, and has been superimposed by it on the Self as action, its factors and its results as if they were Its own form. Although the Self is different from them, has nothing to do with name, form and action, is one without a second and is eternal, pure, enlightened and free by nature, yet It appears as just the reverse of this, as consisting of differences of action, its factors and its results, and so on. Therefore for the removal of ignorance, the seed of defects such as desire and of action — like the removal of the idea of a snake from a rope — with regard to a man who is disgusted with this universe of means and ends, consisting of actions, their factors and their results — having realised that they are just so much, the knowledge of Brahman is being set forth. The first two sections beginning with, ‘The head of the sacrificial horse is the dawn,’ will be devoted to the meditation regarding the horse sacrifice. The meditation about the horse is described, as the horse is the most important thing in this sacrifice. Its importance is indicated by the fact that the sacrifice is named after it, and its presiding deity is Prajapati (Hiranyagarbha).

Indroduction by Max Müller

The Upanishads, Part 2 [1879]

THIS Upanishad has been so often edited and discussed that it calls for no special remarks. It forms part of the Satapatha-brâhmana. In the Mâdhyandina-sâkhâ of that Brâhmana, which has been edited by Professor Weber, the Upanishad, consisting of six adhyâyas, begins with the fourth adhyâya (or third prapâthaka) of the fourteenth book.

There is a commentary on the Brihadâranyaka-upanishad by Dvivedasrînârâyanasûnu Dvivedagaṅga, which has been carefully edited by Weber in his great edition of the Satapatha-brâhmana from a MS. in the Bodleian Library, formerly belonging to Dr. Mill, in which the Upanishad is called Mâdhyandinîya-brâhmana-upanishad.

In the Kânva-sâkhâ the Brihadâranyaka-upanishad forms the seventeenth book of the Satapatha-brâhmana, consisting of six adhyâyas.

As Saṅkara’s commentary and the gloss of Ânandatîrtha, edited by Dr. Roer in the Bibliotheca Indica, follow the Kânva-sâkhâ, I have followed the same text in my translation.

Besides Dr. Roer’s edition of the text, commentary and gloss of this Upanishad, there is Poley’s edition of the text. There is also a translation of it by Dr. Roer, with large extracts from Saṅkara’s commentary.


Want to Know More?

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

Call Now


Contact Us

To know more about our services, please contact us.

Your message has been sent. Thank you!