1. Aitereya Upanisad Shankaras Bhashya and English Translation Venkatramiah D

AITAREYOPANIṢAD

WITH

SRĪ ŚAMKARĀCHĀRYA'S BHĀṢYA

ENGLISH VERSION

BY

D. VENKATRAMIAH, B.A., L.T.

Retired Circle Inspector of Education, Mysore Service

THE BANGALORE PRINTING & PUBLISHING CO., LTD.

MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE CITY

1934

K.C.RamachandraRao

5 - 12 - 1958

॥ श्री ॥

ನನ್ನ ಯಜಮಾನರು ದಿವಂಗತ ಸರ್ವಜ್ಞ ಸೇವಾ ಧುರೀಣ

ಶ್ರೀ ಕೆ. ವಿ. ರಾಮಚಂದ್ರರಾಯರ

ಸ್ಮರಣೆಯಾಗಿ ಪೂರ್ಣಪ್ರಜ್ಞ ವಿದ್ಯಾಪೀಠದ ಪುಸ್ತಕ ಭಂಡಾರಕ್ಕೆ

ಗ್ರಂಥ ದಾನ

ಶ್ರೀಮತಿ ಡಿ. ವಿ. ಪದ್ಮಾವತಮ್ಮ

15-12-1986

AITAREYOPANIṢAD

WITH

SRĪ ŚAṀKARĀCHĀRYA'S BHĀṢYA

ENGLISH VERSION

BY

D VENKATRAMIAH, B.A., L.T.

Retired Circle Inspector of Education, Mysore Service

BANGALORE CITY :

PRINTED AT THE BANGALORE PRESS, MYSORE ROAD

1934

Rs. 1-8

PREFACE The Sanskrit text and the Bhāṣya are both printed here to facilitate reference in following the English version. The division adopted in the existing editions of the Aitareya so far as the Upanisadic text is concerned, seems arbitrary and the lack of punctuation in the Bhāsya adds considerably to the difficulty of comprehending the sense. My paragraphing of the Bhāsya closely follows the arguments set forth by the commentator. The reader cannot fail to perceive a certain charm of diction even in this prose-Upanisad and this is what inclined me to give it a poetic garb but I trust the English rendering will be found to be strictly faithful to the original. My English translation of Kathakopanisad published by Messrs Macmillan & Co. in 1928, secured a fair degree of appreciation from the reviewers which I thought was justification enough to undertake the present work. I feel it my duty to express my obligations to Pandit Venkateśa Sāstri of Śamkara Mutt, Bangalore, and to Professor Hiriyanna of Mysore whom I have consulted with great profit on some of the knotty passages in the commentary.

BANGALORE, June 1934 D V.

INTRODUCTION

The Aitareya Upanisad is but a section of the Aitareya Āranyaka of the Rig Veda Brāhmana There are five Āranyakas of which the present Upanisad forms the fourth, fifth and sixth adhyāyas of the second Āranyaka The seventh adhyāya which contains only the peace-chant is also included in the Upanisad making a total of six adhyāyas as shown below —

II Āranyaka —

Adhyāya IV, Chap 1 begins with ‘Ātmā vā idam’

" " " 11 " 'Tā etā devatāh'

" " " 111 " 'Sa iksatēmē nu'

" " V, " 1V " 'Om Puruse ha vā'

" VI, " V " 'Ko'yam ātmā iti'

", VII, " V1 " 'Vānme manasi'

These six chapters are known as ātmasatka since in them we find the nature of Ātman expounded as contrasted with the rest of the Artarēyā)ranyaka dealing with ritual and meditation (upāsana) known as Prānavidyā

With a view to showing that the central teaching of this Upanisad is the unity of the Ātman which is to be realized through right knowledge and not by ritual, Śamkara prefaces his commentary with a discussion of

enjoined on one in the second Āśrama can be pursued along with Vedantic discipleship under a guru. Others are of the view that even in this preliminary stage one should join the ascetic order, as without absolute renunciation one finds it difficult to pursue Brahmavidvā

The qualifications insisted upon in a student of the Vedanta are .-

(i) Discriminations of things of eternal and of ephemeral values—नित्यानित्यवस्तुविवेक

नित्यानित्यवस्तुविवेक

(i) Discriminations of things of eternal and of ephemeral values—

(ii) Distaste for the rewards of this and other worlds—इहामुत्रफलमोगविरागः,

इहामुत्रफलमोगविरागः

(ii) Distaste for the rewards of this and other worlds—

(iii) Attainment of the six virtues—शमदमादिषट्कसंपत्ति,

शमदमादिषट्कसंपत्ति

(iii) Attainment of the six virtues—

(iv) Desire for freedom—मुमुक्षुत्वम

मुमुक्षुत्वम

(iv) Desire for freedom—

The six virtues under (iii) are .-Mental equipoise—शम ; withdrawing the senses from their objects—दम: ; abstention from works—उपरति.; endurance of opposites like cold and heat, pleasure and pain, etc —तीतिक्षा, cultivation of the powers of concentration—समाधिय• ; faith in the Vedantic verities as inculcated by the preceptor—श्रद्धा Here abstention from works' (उपरति) is taken by some to mean Samnyāsa and Śamkara appears to be in agreement with that view. A few among his adherents maintain that uparati means only the absence of distractions (Viksepābhāva) and that a householder is fit for Vedantic study since such peace is possible for him also Examples of

Janaka and others are cited in support of the view that the assumption of Samnyāsa is not indispensable for the pursuit of Brahmavidyā.

Śaṅkara whıle concedıng that a householder is not disqualified for such study declares that a seeker will find adequate leisure and freedom from distractions only in Samnyāsa. Hence he would recommend renunciation even for those who have not attained jñāna—अविदुषापि सुमुक्ष्णा पारित्राज्य कर्तव्यमेव. He takes his

शान्तोदान्त उपरतस्तितिक्षु समाहितो भूतवात्मन्येवात्मानं पश्यति

stand on the following text :—

अत्याश्रमिभ्यः परमं पवित्रं प्रोच्यते सम्यगृपिसंघजुषम्

न कर्मणा न प्रजया धनेन त्यागेनैके अमृतत्वमानशुः

What Śaṅkara would impress is that without the abandonment of the concerns of life, knowledge cannot be pursued with unabated vigour and devotion.

As regards Vidvat-Samnyāsa which is the second variety mentioned above, no injunction is necessary since renunciation inevitably follows the rise of knowledge and it is for this reason that Śaṅkara points out the incongruity of a knower (Jñānin) remaining at home discharging the duties of a householder. Those who

1 Cf Advaita Vedānta Paribhāṣā. Prayojanapariccheda, where uparati is explained both ways, by Dharmarājādhvarindra. The commentator, his son Rāmakr̥ṣṇa Dīkṣita, however, is somewhat harsh on those who advocate asceticism as essential for the study of Vedanta. He thinks that it is only the pseudo-Samnyāsins elate with the honours done to them by householders who insist upon asceticism as a necessary preliminary for entering upon Vedantic inquiry.

advocate that even after the dawn of knowledge a man may continue to fulfil the obligations of the second Āśrama, are endeavouring to support the Samuchchaya doctrine which Śamkara assails in no uncertain terms. Since the injunction is absolute even secular Karma seems prohibited so far as the jñānin is concerned but an important exception is made even in his case. Work undertaken with the object of helping humanity is not regarded as holding the worker in bondage to samsāra. This is the lokasamgraha type of duty as enjoined in the Bhagavadgīta Srī Kṛṣṇa and Janaka though they were liberated souls continued to work lest mankind should go astray by thinking that a life of inaction is to be preferred to that of endeavour and service.1

Still the weight of Śamkara's opinion being on the side of Samnyāsa, it may be urged that this life of isolation recommended as the goal of a seeker after knowledge is likely to make him too self-centred to think of the general interests of society. In his quest for his own freedom he is neglecting thousands who are held in bondage. There is an over-estimate, it is

न मे पार्थास्ति कर्तव्यं त्रिषु लोकेषु किचन । नानवाप्तमवाप्तव्यं वर्त एव च कर्मणि ॥ यद्यद्वाहं न वर्तेयं जातु कर्मण्यतन्द्रितः । मम वर्मानुवर्तन्ते मनुष्याः पार्थ सर्वशः ॥ उत्सीदेयुरिमे लोका न कुर्यां कर्म चेदहम् । संक्रस्य च कर्ता स्वस्युपहन्यामिमाः प्रजाः ॥

1 Cf Bhagavadgīta, III, 22-24.

said, of 'subjective worth' and the demands of humanity receive little or no response. Exception is also taken to Samnyāsa on grounds of personal morality. One often comes across critics who argue that freed as he is from all ethical obligations a Samnyāsin might violate the accepted code of morality without the least compunction. One need not tarry long in refuting these superficial observations It has been noted above that a neophyte has to pass through a state of preliminary discipline which strengthens his character and enables him to rise above selfishness of every kind. When he voluntarily embraces the life of a Samnyāsin, it is not that he undervalues the needs of the particular society to which he belongs or of the larger world. All that this new life means is a new attitude. His aim now is to reach the Highest Reality. He has passed through the lower stages of spiritual evolution and while he appears to be not toiling with the rest of his brethren it should not be forgotten that he exercises a silent but none the less an irresistible influence for good upon them. That itself is the service he is rendering to the society around him and that is the highest and the most beneficent service that man could render to man. He may seem to be hiding from the public vision but his is 'the sightless song of the lark'. Baseless too is the charge levelled against Samnyāsa that it is liable to lead one astray. The very fact that the aspirant has renounced the world argues an amount of self-restraint which will stand four-square to all the temptations of the flesh. Liberty and not libertinism (yathākāmitva) is his rule of life.

When the purblind eye has shed the scales how could the vision continue to be blurred ?1

The Upanisad proper begins with an elaborate account of the world-creation, the whole of the fourth adhyāya being devoted to it. Śaṁkara after meticulously expounding the texts gives as his final opinion that no serious consideration need be attached to this account since the world-phenomena are but the fabrication of the primal ignorance. The creation Śrutis are to be understood only in a secondary sense and they are, as Śaṁkara puts it, but arthavāda. It is a well-recognized Advaitic doctrine that the creation is a mere superimposition on the Absolute—adhyāropa which is followed by the negation of all that is attributed to the Brahman by pointing out that the multiplex universe is but an appearance having no independent existence apart from its ground, viz., the Brahman. Such an exposition of the nature of Reality is known as adhyāropāpavāda—superimposition followed by negation. It is only when the uninstructed mind is made aware of the nature of the vast concourse of things which constitute the world that it can clearly grasp the nature of the Supreme Reality which sustains the universe of names and forms. The Eternal remains in lone purity in describing which the words

"Are like the babblings in a dream Of nightmare, when the babblings break the dream."

1 For a fuller discussion of the topic of Samnyāsa the reader is referred to Śaṁkara's commentary on Chāndogya Upanisad, II. 23-1 and on Vedanta Sūtra, III, 4-19

It is the Nameless that assumes countless names, and predication of any kind—Is, Is not, etc., (cf p. 93), is impossible of that which is Peace, Bliss and Secondless (शान्तम्, शिवम्, अद्वैतम्, Mandukya Up.)

The next topic of importance, which forms in fact the central teaching of the Aitareyopanisad is the unity of Ātman. The contention that there are three selves, Jīva, Īśvara and Parabrahma (p. 76) is met by the argument that the ordinary instruments of knowledge are inadequate to prove the existence of even Jīva—the individual soul. Neither perception nor inference is a fit instrument for the comprehension of the self. Though it is conceded that the self cannot be brought within the compass of sense-perception by practically all Indian philosophers, it is contended that the Ātman can be the object of inferential knowledge.

Against this view it is urged that inference is a mental act and the self when engaged in it is incapable of cognizing anything else except what is being inferred. In other words, the Vrttijñāna, i e, consciousness as conditioned by antahkarana, has reference to only one mental act and is discursive in character It is only the Ātman that can, being the witness of all mental and sensory activities, be regarded as the common ground of such activities. While the pure secondless Ātman is a necessary presupposition for all modes of consciousness, the delimited Ātman functions only in time It is in this way that the contradictory texts like ' the Ātman is hearer,' ' the Ātman is non-hearer,' etc., (p. 831) can be reconciled.

Now the Aitareya begins with the text—' Ātman alone there was at first ' testifying to the secondless nature of Ātman. To the query, ' Who is this Ātman whom we adore ? ' (Chap. V, 1), the answer is given that the Ātman is Hiranyagarbha himself, the Lord of the universe, known as Prajña which Prajña is finally equated with Brahma—' Prajñānam Brahma '. We have here the first of the six canons of interpretation accepted by the Indian philosophers of practically all schools, namely, the coherence between the beginning and the end or the first statement and the last (agreement between Upakramu and Upa-samhāra); the second is the repetition—abhyāsa pointing to unity as indicated in the passage, ' And he perceived that very Being—the Brahman—overspreading all ' (p. 69) ; the third is apūrvaiva or newness since no human means of knowledge can prove the unity of Ātman; the fourth is the reward—phala—promised in land of bliss—Svarga (p. 108); the fifth is arthavāda or laudation as indicated in the texts describing the world-creation and Ātman's entry into the body: ' He slit the suture of the skull and entered by that door ' (p. 65); finally, we have the test known as yukti or reason as when it is pointed out that the three states of waking, dream and sleep are all illusory, in the text— ' For him there are three states and all the three are but dreams ' (p. 66).

Thus the finale of the teaching, namely, the unity of Ātman and Parabrahman is confirmed by these six well-recognized tests of interpretation

Before closing this somewhat brief introduction reference may perhaps be made to Professor Keith's observations on this Upanisad which forms, as noted above, adhyāyas 4-6 of the Aitareya Āranyaka. In his introduction to the Āranyaka published by the Clarendon Press, he says that he follows neither the Advaitic school of thought nor of the Vaisnava. At the same time he admits that the interpretation of the Upanisads is far from easy or certain. Though disagreeing with Śaṁkara or for that matter with any of the great Indian thinkers, he concedes that these are "the first books of a new faith and were fated to be the source of a system of philosophy whose influence in India is still permanent". We need not pause to examine Professor Keith's attitude towards the Vedanta The philological method which consists, to use his own words, "in extracting what seems the most natural meaning from the actual words", can only lead to such jejune results. Our object is to present a faithful rendering of the Upanisad as expounded by one of the most prominent schools of Vedantic thought and to enable the reader to discern in however small a degree the depth and beauty of its teaching The approach to the Upanisads, we may add, should be made in a spirit of sympathy and reverence, for then only will they serve as the way of life.

॥ ॐ तत्सद्ब्रह्मणे नमः ॥

ऐतरेयोपानिषत् ।

AITAREYOPANISAD

WITH

SRĪ ŚAMKARĀCHĀRYA'S BHĀSYA

॥ संक्षिप्त भाष्यम् ॥

INTRODUCTION

परिसमाप्तं कर्म सहापरब्रह्मविषयविज्ञानेन सैषा कर्मणो ज्ञान-साहितस्य परा गन्तव्यत्वविज्ञानाद्वारेणापसहितता । "एतस्सत्य ब्रह्म प्राणाराध्यम्"; "एष एको देवः"; "एतस्यैव प्राणस्य सर्वे देवाः विभूतयः";

The description of karma embracing scriptural rites and observances and of the knowledge of the lower Brahman, has been concluded and what ultimate good the performance of works along with meditation (Jñāna) will yield has been indicated by means of laudatory passages (of the third chapter of the second Aitareya).1 These passages are : “This Brahman known as Prāna is truth”, “He is the one God”, “Of this God alone all the other gods are but manifestations”,

"एतस्य प्राणस्यैषमभाव गच्छन्देवता अप्येति" इत्युक्तम् ।

"This deity (i.e., other gods) also attain to the state of Prāna".

1 Meditation on saguna or qualified Brahman is insisted on as an integral part of the ritual. Uktha is praise-chant in prose as contrasted with Udgitha which is in verse.

"Realizing his oneness with this Prāna he becomes one with all the gods"

सोडयं देवतान्यथालक्षणं परः पुरुषार्थे । पुरुष मोक्षः। स चायं यथोक्तेन ज्ञानकर्मसमुच्चयसाधनेन प्राप्यो नात. परमस्तींयके प्रतिपन्नाः ; तानिराचिकीर्षुस्त्तरं केवलात्मज्ञानविधानार्थमात्मा व इदंमत्याद्याह ।

Some philosophers hold that the summum bonum1 of man consists in his attainment of the deity which he adores, that itself is salvation, that salvation is to be sought only in the path of knowledge unsevered from works,2 and that there is nothing else higher than this. With the object of refuting the view of these (philosophers) and establishing the doctrine that the way of knowledge alone (leads to salvation) the following Upanisad has set out with the Text "Ātman alone there was in the beginning", etc 3

कथं पुनरकर्मसंबन्धकेवलात्मविज्ञानविधानार्थे उत्तरो ग्रन्थ इति गम्यते । अन्यार्थोनदगमात् । तथा च पूर्वोक्तानां देवतानामग्न्यादीनां संसारित्वं दर्शयिष्यतशानायादिद्दोषवत्त्वेन तमशानापिपासाभ्यामन्ववर्ज-दिव्यादिना । अशनायादिमत्सर्वं संसार एव परस्य तु ब्रह्मणोस-ज्ञानायाध्यतयश्रृते: ।

1 पुरुषार्थे is literally 'human value' The goal reached through समुच्चय is considered as the ultimate human value.

2 ज्ञानकर्मसमुच्चयसाधनेन — by combining ritualistic practices with jñāna—meditation.

3 The aim of this Upaniṣad is to bring home the doctrine that salvation is to be attained only by the knowledge of the Absolute and that ritual as well as meditation, however useful as a preliminary discipline, must be transcended finally.

What justification is there, one might question, for the supposition that this Upaniṣad which is the sequel (to the Upāsana section) enjoins for the attainment of salvation the knowledge of Ātman only unrelated in any manner to action?

The answer is that no other interpretation can possibly be put upon (the Upaniṣad)1 To explain : gods like Agni, etc., mentioned before (as objects of meditation) will presently be shown as subject to samsāra because of their contamination with hunger, etc.: "He assailed him with hunger and thirst" (1. 2) and it cannot be doubted that hunger and thirst are the characteristics of samsāra. Of Parabrahma, however, the śruti declares that He is exempt from hunger, etc.

भवत्वेवं केवलात्मज्ञानं मोक्षसाधनं न स्वात्रकर्मैवाधिकारियते । अकर्मिण आश्रम्यनतरस्येहाश्रवणात् । कर्म च गृहीतसहस्रलक्षणं प्रस्तुत्यानंतरमेवाऽऽत्मज्ञानं प्रारभ्यते । तस्मैःसंहारात्; यथा कर्मैवन्धनः पुरुषस्य सूर्यात्मनः स्थावरजङ्गमादि-सर्वप्राण्यात्मत्वमुक्तं ब्राह्मणेन मन्त्रेण च सूर्यमात्मेत्यादिना ; तथैव "पुष्ण ब्रह्मोष इन्द्रः" इत्याद्युपक्रम्य सर्वप्राण्यात्मत्वम्, "यच्च स्थावरं

1 The beginning of this Upaniṣad—" आत्मा वा इदमेक एवाग्र आसीत् " would be purposeful if salvation is to be had from a knowledge of निर्गुणब्रह्म.

2 Cp. " यो ऽशनायापिपासे शोकं मोहं जरां मृत्युमत्येति "—Brh Up., III, 5. 1, " आनन्दो ब्रह्मेति व्यजानात् "—Tait Bhrugu-vallu. Thus it will be noticed that liberation means the knowledge of the nirguṇa—निर्विशेषात्मविषयत्वी.

सर्वे तत्पज्ञानेत्रामि" स्युपसंहरिष्यति । तथा च संहितोपनिषदि——" एतं ह्येव बहूवृचा महत्युक्थे मीमांसन्ते " इत्यादिना कर्मसंबन्धनिधनवमुक्त्वा " सर्वेषु भूतेष्वेतमेव ब्रह्मेत्याचक्षते " इत्युपसंहरति । तथा तस्यैव योड्यमशारीरः प्रज्ञातमित्युक्तस्य यश्रासावादित्य एकमेव तादिति विद्यादित्येकत्वमुक्तम् । इहापि कोड्यमात्मेत्युपक्रम्य प्रज्ञास्मैव प्रज्ञानं ब्रह्मोति दर्शयिष्यति । तस्मादाकर्मसंबन्ध्यात्मज्ञानम्

Let us admit that the knowledge of Ātman only is the means to liberation; but there is no warrant for the supposition that this knowledge has to be pursued by none but an ascetic (samnyāsin) who has abandoned all works No specific mention as regards the agent (adhikārin) is made, i.e., it is not stated that ātmajñāna is meant only for one, who by forsaking works belongs to a different order (samnyāsa). As a matter of fact, the Āranyaka begins with the description of karma known as Brhatīsahasra1 and then deals with ātmajñāna. Hence one performing the prescribed duties alone is declared fit for ātmajñāna.2

1 प्रस्तुत्य-उपक्रम्य, having begun Brhatīsahasra is the name of a śastra or praise-chant recited in the form of prose as contrasted with stotra which is sung The earlier portion of Aitareya lays down that a thousand ṛks (which are all in the bṛhatī metre) have to be recited. Śastram is thus defined —अप्रगीतस्राधयगुणिनिष्ठगुणाभिधानम्. Cp. II. iii. 5-6-7-8.

2 न केवलं विशेषश्रवणं किन्तु सन्निधानात् कर्मणि प्रतीते: कर्मसंबन्धित्वनियमश्रवणं चास्ति It is not only that there is no specific injunction but because the Upanisad comes so close upon 'the karma section, evidently association with karma is enjoined on one who pursues ātmajñāna and not on the ascetic who has abandoned works.

Further, the knowledge of Brahman (Ātmajñāna) is not dissociated from karma because the conclusion is the same both of the earlier and later sections, i.e., the Brāhmaṇa and the Mantra portions (of Ṛgveda) declare that one who follows the path of Karma will

as the ātman of Sūrya (becoming identical with Sūrya) permeate all bodies—static and dynamic, in such texts as "Sūrya is Ātma"; even so, this Upaniṣad having begun with the statement "He is Brahman, He is Indra" (III. 1 6), concludes with the text "All that is static is governed by Brahman (Prajña) thereby showing that Brahman (Prajña) is the inner self of all beings. Similarly, the Samhitopanisad begins with1

"The Ṛgvedins contemplate this Brahman in the great praise-chant which is known as Bṛhatīsahasra," and thus having indicated the association of works (with ātmajñāna) concludes with the text "In all beings it is the same (Ātman) that is regarded as Brahman". Again the one who is described (in Samhitopanisad) as bodiless and of the essence of pure sentience is here also referred to (in identical terms). Setting forth the query, "Who is Ātman', the Upanisad ends by pointing out in the text "Prajñāna is Brahman" that Prajñāna itself is Brahman. Hence Ātmajñāna is not dissociated from works

पुनरुक्त्यानेर्थैक्यामिति चेत्कथं "प्राणो वा अहंस्मृपे" इत्यादि-ग्राह्यानेन "सूर्ये आत्मा" इति च मन्त्रेण च निर्धार्यतस्याडSत्मन "आत्मा

1 बहू ऋच: Those who recite the Ṛgveda which contains many ṛks. मीमासन्ते-उपास्यन्ते, meditate upon. The Samhitopanisad is the section following the Ātmasatka in the Aitarevāranualka.

वा इदम्" इत्यादिवाक्येन कोडयमात्मेति प्रश्नपूर्वकं पुनर्निर्धारणं पुनरुक्तमनर्थकमिति चेत् ।

The question may well arise, how do you meet the charge of repetition? (For example), in the earlier section (Ait. Up., II. 2. 3-11), it is stated, 'I am Prāṇa, O, Ṛṣi'; again, in the Mantra section (Rgveda I. 115. 1) 'Sūrya is the Ātman' (of both the moving and the stationary worlds). Of this Ātman so determined, a restatement in the present section of the Brāhmaṇa1 (beginning with) 'This Ātman alone' there was in the beginning together with the query 'Who is Ātman?' referring to the same Prāṇa would be mere repetition and purposeless.

न । तस्यैव धर्मान्तराविशेषणनिर्धारणार्थत्वात् पुनरुक्ततादोषः ।

'No' says the Pūrvapakṣin, who rebuts the charge of tautology by pointing out that the sequel predicates certain other specific attributes to Him only (Prāṇa) not mentioned before. How? Prāṇa, whose knowledge

कथम्, तस्यैव कर्मसंवन्धिनो जगत्सृष्टिस्थितिसंहारादिधर्मैविशेषनिर्धारणार्थत्वात् । केवलोपास्त्यर्थत्वाद्वा । अथवाSऽत्मेत्यादिपरो ग्रन्थसंदर्भे आत्मनः कर्मणोऽन्यत्रोपासनामात्रौ कर्मप्रस्तावाद्विहितस्वात्केवलोS-

considers that a combination of works and knowledge leads to salvation), that it would be a blemish to the teaching if the sequel merely repeats what has already been enjoined in the first part of the Scripture. He anticipates the objection and meets it.

प्यात्मोपास्य इत्येवमर्थः । भेदाभेदोपास्यत्वाद्वैक एवाइSS आत्मा कर्मविषये भेददृष्टिभाक् । स एवं कर्मैकदेशभेदेनाप्युपास्य इत्येवमपुनरुक्तता ।

1 It may be urged, says the Samuchchayavādin (one who

pre-supposes karma, has the additional attributes of creating, sustaining and destroying the worlds;1 or the objection may be met by assuming that the teaching of the subsequent section commencing with ‘Ātman alone indeed, etc.’, is for the mere purpose of meditation (Upāsana) since in dealing with the ritualistic portion even meditation becomes part of karma and cannot receive a separate treatment.2 Or we may understand the teaching to refer to meditation of the Ātman viewed both as ‘bhinna’ and ‘abhinna’ i.e., when one is performing karma Ātman is to be viewed as distinct and separate but when not performing karma as identical with the person meditating.3 Thus there is no room for the charge of repetition.

पूर्वोत्तरब्राह्मणयोरेकार्थत्वे वक्ष्यमाणमपि प्राणात्मकविषयं स्यात् ।

1 etc. If the previous and subsequent Brāhmaṇas convey the same teaching what follows (in the Upaniṣad) relating to Prāṇa considered as Ātman is tautological since the identity of Prāṇa and Ātman has already been established. The Brāhmaṇa here refers to the section containing the Aitareya Upaniṣad—Ānandagiri.

2 Here, however, meditation on pure Ātman is prescribed without however abandoning the injunction that both karma and meditation are to be practised. The idea of the Pūrvapakṣin is that though the meditation described here is dissociated both from Karma and Uktha, which is subsidiary to it, the doctrine of Samuchchaya is not abandoned, since meditation refers to the qualified Brahman and as such is associated with works.

भेदेति-इदं तया उपास्यः ; अभेदेति-अहं तैल्यथे:।

3 The sense of separateness is prominent when the meditation takes the form of ‘this is Ātman’ and identity is explicit in the form of ‘I am Ātman’.

"विद्यां चाविद्यां च यस्तद्वेदोभयं सह । अविद्यया मृत्युं तीर्त्वा विद्ययाऽमृतमश्नुते" इति । "कुर्वैवेह कर्माणि जिजीविषेच्छत᳚ समाः" इति च वाजिनाम् । न च वर्षशतात्मकपरमायुर्यंन्त्योऽनाम् येन कर्मपरित्यागेनाऽऽत्मानमुपासीत । दर्शितं च "तावन्तं पुरुषायुषोऽह᳚ hस्राणि भवन्ति" इति । वर्षशतं चाऽऽस्युः कर्मणे वयास्म् । दर्शितश्र मन्त्रः "कुर्वैवेह कर्माणि" इत्यादिः । तथा "यावजीवममिहोत्रं जुहोति" ; "यावजीवं दर्शपूर्णमासाभ्यां यजेत" इत्यादि श्र । "तं यज्ञपात्रीद᳚हन्ति" इति च । ऋतत्रयश्रुते श्व ।

Further the Scripture of the Vājasaneyins explicitly enjoins a lifelong performance of works: "He who clearly grasps the significance of the conjoint performance of meditation and works will overcome death by works and gain divine bliss by meditation"; "If one is desirous of living a hundred years, one should go on doing works here unceasingly".1 A man's life does not extend beyond a hundred years and as he is enjoined to perform karma till the moment of death there is no chance for meditation on the Ātman after completing the prescribed duties It has also been declared that "a man's days are to be counted by the number of letters in the thousand rks of Brhatīsahasra (each rk in the brhatī metre contains thirty-six letters)," "By performing here works only etc"; "Till life lasts perform sacrifice", "Till life lasts perform sacrifice on new moon and full moon days", "They burn him

1 Īśāvāsyopanisaḍ (belonging to Śuklayajurveda. Vāja-saneya śā kha, 11 and 2.)

with the sacrificial utensils he has maintained "; all indicating the obligation to perform karma till the moment of death. Also there is the śruti relating to the three debts1 one has to discharge.

तन्न पारेग्र्याज्यादिशां व्यस्थायाथ भिक्षाचर्ये चरन्तीलात्मज्ञानस्तत्परोऽर्थवादोऽनधिकृतार्थो वा ।

If attention is drawn to the text enjoining renunciation, ' They forsake the world (i.e., having abandoned desire for wife, children, and wealth) and beg for food ',2 the answer is that such passages are meant only to extol the knowledge of self or they may be taken to apply to those who by some physical defect are unfit for the performance of karma.3

1 जायमानो वै ब्राह्मणस्तिभिर्ह ऋणवान् जायते—Tait. Samhita, 6. 3 Indeed a Brahmin that is born is born with three debts. The three debts are: 1. Dēvarṇa which is discharged by sacrificing to gods, 2. Pitṛṇa discharged by begetting sons, 3. Ṛṣirṇa discharged by the study of the Vedas. The implications is that the discharging of the first two of these obligations is possible only to a householder and not to one who becomes an ascetic.

2 Bṛh. Up., III. 5 1. 3 सर्वे मन्त्रार्थपि आत्मा ज्ञातव्य इति ज्ञानस्ततिः विधिवदऽपि कर्मोऽधिकृतान्ध पड्वर्गादि विषयत्वमेव—Ānandagiri. To the criticism that scriptural injunctions regarding saṁnyāsa would become inoperative the Pūrvapakṣin says that nothing more than mere praise of ātmajñāna (to be acquired even at the sacrifice of all one's possessions) is implied in these injunctions and that the mandatory character of the texts holds good in the case of those who are unfit for karma, such as the blind and the halt, to whom jñāna though not karma is possible.

न । परमार्थविधाने फलादर्शने क्रियानुपपत्तेः । यदुक्तं " कर्मिणा एव चाडडमज्ञानं कर्मसंनिधिञ्च " इत्यादि तत्र । परं ह्यासकामं सर्वसंसारदोषवर्जितं ब्रह्माहमस्मीत्यात्मत्वेन विज्ञाने कृतेन क्रतेन वा प्रयोजनमातमनोडपइयतः फलादर्शने क्रिया नोपपद्यते ।

(Now follows Śaṁkara's refutation of the arguments thus far advanced in defence of the inseparable association of works with knowledge.) No, (says the Siddhāntin) when the knowledge of the ultimate reality is attained there is no idea of reward and in consequence karma (its means) has no place and the contention that the knowledge of self is enjoined on him only who adheres to the path of works and that such knowledge is related to karma, is untenable1. Because when one realizes one's identity with the supreme self in whom all the desires are fulfilled (āptakāma) and who is rid of all the impurities of saṃsāra there is nothing else for such a person to gain by works either accomplished in the past (sañchita) or to be accomplished in the future (āgāmi). When there is no consciousness of a result following from it, activity is inconceivable.

फलादर्शने डपि नियुक्तत्वात्करोतीति चेत् । न । नियोगाविषयात्मदर्शनेनादिष्टयोगमनिष्टवियोगं चास्सत्मन् प्रयोजनं पइयस्तदुपायार्थी यो

1 If as is averred the enlightened man is also bound to perform karma, the question will be whether he has to do it in the expectation of some positive reward as in the case of kāmyakarma—permitted voluntary ritual, or do it merely on the strength of the mandatory character of the śruti enjoining it. The latter is the view of Prabhākara in regard to the daily ritual नित्यकर्म—Ānandagiri.

भवति स नियोगस्या विषयो दृष्टे लोके न तु तद्विपरीतानियोगाविषय-ब्रह्मात्मत्वदर्शी । ब्रह्मात्मत्वदर्शीऽपि संस्क्रिययुज्येत नियोगाविषयोडपि सन्न कश्चिन्नियुक्त इति सर्वं कर्म सर्वेण सर्वत्र कर्तव्यं प्राप्नोति तच्चानिष्टम् । न च स नियुक्तः शक्यते केनाचित् ।

If it be said that even in the absence of such consciousness, a man does engage in action because of the scriptural injunction, the answer is that self-realization implies the conviction that the self is beyond the pale of any injunction (i.e., no injunction is operative as regards the one who has realized the truth of the identity of the individual self with the Supreme). It is a matter of common experience that an injunction is applicable only in the case of one who recognizing the benefit to be derived by the acquisition of that which pleases him and by the riddance of that which displeases him is in search of some means to attain his object. But no such injunction is of any value to him who has turned away from the world and set his heart on the Supreme of which no injunction can be predicated.1 Nor is it valid to hold that a seer may be enjoined to perform works even though he is not a fit subject for any injunction. For in that case, the incidence of

1 In confuting the view of Prabhākara that the sense of duty is the only motive for action, Śaṁkara takes for granted that a consciousness of some beneficial result (Istasādhanatājñāna) is essential to all activity. This view is as we know the one held by the Bhāttas but is accepted by Śaṁkara also. He makes an exception, however, in the case of a knower of the self from whose standpoint the distinction between end and means does not exist.

scriptural injunction being absent, it will become obligatory on all to perform all actions at all times—a result which is disastrous.1 Further he is not to be commanded by any one whatsoever2

आज्ञायित्वात्तु प्रयमवत्वाद्वाचस्पतिः स्वविज्ञाननिश्चिते वचसी स्वयमेव नियुक्तो जते नापि बहुविषस्वाम्यविवेकेन भृत्येन । आत्मारास्य नित्यत्वे सति स्वातन्र्याद्वार्नप्रति नियोज्यवसामर्थ्यमिति चेत् । न । उत्तदोषात् । तथाडपि सर्वेण सर्वदा सर्वं शिष्टं कर्म कर्तव्यामित्युक्तो दोषोऽप्यपरिहार्य एव । तदपि शास्त्रेणैव विधीयत इति चेत्, यथा कर्मकर्तव्यताशास्त्रेण कृतं तथा तद्‌प्यात्मज्ञानं तस्यैव कर्मिणः शास्त्रेण विधीयत इति चेत् । विरुद्धार्थबोधकत्वानुपपत्तेः । न हेकस्मिन्नृताकृतासंबन्धित्वं तद्विपरीतत्वं च बोधयितुं शक्यम् । शीतोष्णतामिवाश्रये ।

Even the Veda cannot be mandatory to him because it has sprung from him only. The Veda (God's word) which emanates from divine recollection (at each creation) cannot be binding on one who has attained Īśvarahood3 How can the all-knowing master be

1 What the Siddhāntin means to say is that if the opponent's view is accepted unrestrained action which counts neither the competency of the doer nor the right occasion of its accomplishment will ensue

2 Having attained the divine estate the vidvān is himself become the source of all mandates; hence neither any person nor the Veda can command him.

3 If it be said that an enlightened person takes it as scriptural injunction, then how can a person who has become one with the Supreme Being lay down a law to himself? It is incompatible for the same person to be both the subject and the object of an injunction—एकत्र कर्मकर्तृत्वविरोधात्.

guided by a servant of small wits ?1 It may be urged that the scripture is eternal and its authority being underived from Īśvara is binding on all including the knower. But then the objection will remain unanswered,2 namely, the necessity of recognizing, that all enjoined actions (siṣṭa) are obligatory and should be performed by all at all times. It may be asserted that the scripture itself enjoins on the same individual both

स्वामीसचिव्हि मृत्येन स्वामिनेव नियुज्यते । संबोधनीय एवाड्सौ सुस्थो राजेव वन्दिभिः ॥

1 Cp. Sureśvar's Sambandha Vārtika, St. 240. The Veda commanding the self is like a servant waking his master from sleep but when once he is awake the servant withdraws from him

There are two points to be noted here :-(i) The absurdity of Īśvara's laying down a law unto himself ; (ii) The incongruity of the Veda, which as the work of Īśvara obviously gives expression to very much less than what its author knows, presuming to instruct him.

2 If Īśvara is the author of the Veda, which is the view of the Naiyāyikas then the objection pointed out above will arise ; for if it should command the knower who is identical with Īśvara it would mean a dependent authority commanding one who is the source of its authority. Though it may legitimately command everyone else it must make an exception in the case of its own author. On the other hand if it is assumed with the Mīmāṃsakas that the Veda is self-existent (svatas- siddha) and has had no author, even the single exception noted above disappears rendering the knower also liable to be commanded. The answer is that if its injunctions are to be understood as of universal application nothing but social dis- integration will follow as no reason exists to restrict and regulate their operation.

action and self-knowledge Just as the performance of works is a scriptural mandate, so is the acquisition of Ātmajñāna. But it cannot be so, since it is impossible that the scripture can make two statements which are contradictory to each other. Of one and the same person it is not possible to speak of his entire dissociation from works—accomplished and to be accomplished—and again of his association with works (which is a contradictory statement). It will be like the assertion that fire is both hot and cold.

न चेष्टयोगाचिकीर्षोस्सत्मनोऽनिष्टवियोगाचिकीर्षोश्च शास्त्रकृतात् सर्वप्राणिनां तर्हेनाच्छाद्य कृतं चेतदुभयं गोपालादीनां न दर्शयेताशाङ्कनत्व-तेषाम् । यद्वि स्वतोद्रप्राप्तं तच्छास्त्रेण बोधयितव्यस्याम् ! तच्चेत्कृतकर्तव्यताविरोध्यात्मज्ञानं शास्त्रेण कृतं कथम् तद्विरुद्धां कर्तव्यतां पुनरुपादयेच्छी-तत्किमिवाश्रौ तम इव च भानौ ।

1 'The contention of the Pūrvapakṣin is that even in an enlightened person desire for action is generated by the Śāstra though likes and dislikes have been suppressed by him, as witness the injunction "One desirous of svarga should perform Jyotiṣṭoma." The Siddhāntin's reply is that it is only when

place only when a thing cannot be known by one's unaided intellect). Since that is so, the scripture has enjoined only self-knowledge which by its very nature is subversive of all action past and future; and how can it generate again its very opposite—a desire for action? Would it not be like predicating cold of fire and darkness of sun?

न बोधयत्येवेति चेत् । न । स म आत्मेति विद्यात्प्रज्ञानं ब्रह्मेति चोपसंहारात् । तद्यमानमेवावेक्ष्यतरवमसीत्येवमादिक्यानां तत्परत्वात् । उत्पन्नस्य च ब्रह्मास्मविज्ञानस्यावाघ्यमानत्वान्नानुत्पत्तं भान्तं वेति शङ्क्यं वक्तुम् ।

Then (the Pūrvapakṣin) may say that such knowledge (i.e., of the self) is not inculcated at all. "You are wrong," (says the Siddhāntin), because of the scriptural text, "Know, He is my Self,"1 "Pure consciousness is Brahman"—thus ends the present Upanisad.2 "He understood that (Brahman residing in the body as Jīva) as his self"3; "That thou art".4 These and other passages all point to the identity (of Jīva with Brahman). When once the knowledge of the Brahman being one's own self is gained, it is impossible to regard it as not significant at all because

there is desire that Śāstra teaches the means but does not generate the desire itself :--

स्वभावत* प्राप्तप्रयोजनार्थितानुवादेन तदुपायमात्रं शास्त्रेण बोध्यते, न तु साध्याधीयते—Ānandagiri.

1 Samhitopanisad, Aitareya Āranyaka, III. 4-10.

2 Ait. Up., III. 1.

3 Brh. Up., I. 4-10. Lit. 'It knew only itself.'

4 Chhāndogya Up.. VI. 8-7.

as a matter of fact we do not fail to understand it; nor could it be considered as a myth and an illusion as the sense it conveys is never contradicted.

त्यागेऽपि प्रयोजनाभावस्य तुल्यत्वस्मिति चेत् " नाकृतeneह कष्ठन् " इति स्मृतेः। य आहुःवादित्वा ब्रह्म त्युत्थानमेव कुयांदिति तेषामप्येष समानो दोषः प्रयोजनाभाव इति चेत्। न। अक्रियामात्रत्वादत्युत्थानस्य । अविद्यानिमित्तो हि प्रयोजनस्य भावो न वस्तुधर्मः। सर्वेषामिनां तद्- (दृश्)शेनात्। प्रयोजनतृष्णया च प्रेयःमाणस्य वाद्धन.कायैः प्रवृत्तिदर्शनात्। " सोऽकामयत जायामे स्वात् " इत्यादिना पुत्रादि-

पादृक्तलक्षणं काम्यमेवेति " उभे होत साध्यसाधनलक्षणे एषणे एव " इति वाजसनेयिब्राह्मणेsवधारणात्।

Renunciation (abstention from karma) even in the case of an enlightened person, it may be said, is as purposeless (as adherence to karma) since the Smṛti declares "for him here is no purpose served by performing some deed or not performing it."2 Those who aver that renunciation alone must be embraced after acquiring the knowledge of Brahman (are liable to) the same charge as renunciation also yields no fruit. This is not so (there is a vital difference between the two). Renunciation on the part of the Jñānin means mere cessation from works and nothing else. All notions of recompense arise from ignorance (avidyā); only and not from anything inherent in the object.

1 If a verbal statement is to be dismissed as invalid it must be on one of these considerations · unintelligibility, indecisiveness, contradiction. Here none of these features of aprāmānyatā is found.

2 Bhagavadgītā, III 18

This is common experience 1 When one is prompted by longings to achieve an end, one's thought, speech, and bodily movements manifest themselves. (The scripture also supports this view.) "Let me have a wife, so he desired "2 showing in this and other texts that the five-fold motives for action relating to sons, wealth, etc., all arise out of desire only.3 "Both the end and the means are prompted by one's desire only "4 This point is made explicit in Vājasaneya Brāhmaṇa.5

अविद्याकामदोषनिमित्ताया वाङ्मनः कायप्रवृत्तेः पाङ्क्तलक्षणाया विदुषोऽविद्यादिदोषभावादनुपपत्तेः क्रियाभावमात्रं व्यवस्थानं न तु यागादिदेवतुष्ट्यैरूपं भावात्मकं तच्च विद्यात्पुरुषपधर्म इति न प्रयोजनमन्वे-षण्यम् । न हि तमसि प्रविष्टस्योदित आलोके यत्नतेऽपड्कण्टकाद्यपतनं तत्किंप्रयोजनमिति प्राहुःम् । व्यवस्थानं तद्वदेथेप्राप्तस्वान्न चोदनाहैमिति ।

1 There are two readings: (a) तद्धर्शनात् because it is seen in all, viz., that longing for an object proceeds from one's own desire and not from anything inherent in the object. (b) तद दर्शोनात् since such a desire is not seen in an enlightened person as he is rid of avidyā.

2 Brh Up., I. 4. 1.

3 पाङ्क्तलक्षणं कर्म karma or ritual, so called because it is characterized by five, viz., wife, husband, son, wealth acquired from gods, wealth acquired from men. Cp. Taitt Up. Siksā-valli, Ch. 8th :—पत्नी यजमान पुत्र दैव मानुषवित्तै। पञ्चभिः संपाद्यते इति यज्ञः, पाङ्क्त इर्थः:. The five indispensable elements for a sacrifice are here mentioned

4 Brh Up, III. 5. 1.

5 Brh Up, I. 4. 17.

गाहस्थ्ये चेत्परब्रह्मविज्ञानं जातं तत्रैवास्त्वकुर्वंत आसनं न ततोऽन्यत्र गमनामिति चेत् ।

Because all activity connected with speech, mind and body is the result of the taint of desire generated by nescience, there is no room for the operation of the five motives to action (noted above) in an enlightened person who is free from the taint of avidyā and has nothing to do with works. Renunciation is nothing more than the abandonment of works (or as Ānandagiri puts it, renunciation in the case of a knower follows from no effort of his own—ayatanasiddham). It is not positive activity, something to be done like a yāga, etc. Abandonment of desire is the very characteristic of a Brahmajñānin (and results from no effort) Hence no other specific advantage is to be sought there He who has started on his journey in the dark will, when the light dawns, avoid falling into a pit or mire or treading on thorns and no question ought to arise as to the benefits of avoiding such risks. It will then be argued that since renunciation perforce results with the dawn of knowledge it is not something that can aptly come under scriptural injunction, hence if one should acquire in the state of a house-holder the knowledge of Parabrahman one might remain at home abandoning all works and need not proceed elsewhere (i.e., need not take on the order of samnyāsa).1

1 अर्थप्राप्तस्वात्, etc.—Since renunciation does not depend upon one's effort but is the immediate consequence of ātma-jñāna there is no room here for the operation of the śruti like

न । कामप्रयुक्तत्वाद्गृहस्थस्य । एतावान्वै कामः, उभे ह्येते एषणे एवेत्यवधारणात् । कामनिमित्तपुत्रादिवित्तादिसंबन्धनियमाभावमात्रं न हि ततोडन्यत्र गमनं व्युत्थानमुच्यते । ततो न गाईस्थ एवाकुर्वत आसनमुत्पन्नंविद्यास्य । एतेन गुरुशुश्रूषातपोरस्स्यप्रतिपत्तिर्विदुषः सिद्धा ।

No. This argument cannot stand. The life of a householder implies desire, and renunciation is impossible as long as that desire lasts. There is the authority of the scriptures: "Indeed thus far is Kāma";1 "Both these (sādhya and sādhana—object sought and the means adopted therefor) are desires only." It is only the absence of attachment to sons, wealth, etc., generated by desire that really constitutes the departure from grhasthāsrama (vyutthānam) and that is regarded as renunciation.2 Hence in the case of "व्युत्थाय अथ भिक्षाचर्यं चरन्ति"; hence no unavoidable necessity for an enlightened man to abandon his homestead. It is entirely optional. He might remain at home even after spiritual enlightenment and need not formally enter on the ascetic order· so says the Pūrvapakṣin

1 "एतावान्वै कामः" Brh. Up., I. 4; जाया पुत्र वित्त कर्म लक्षणा साधनैषणा—Śaṅkara.

'Thus far indeed is desire' wife, sons, wealth and works are the means by which a man can discharge his obligations to Rṣis, manes of his ancestors and gods.

2 The reading of the commentary here should be changed as follows: 'काम निमित्त पुत्रवित्तादि संबंधाभाव मात्रमेव हि । omitting न. Cp. the Smṛti: नलिङ्ग धर्मकारणं, whose equivalent in English is 'It is not the cowl that makes the monk'. The mark of a Paramahaṃsa is the total absence of all taint o desire—even the particular garb of a Saṁnyāsin has no attraction for him.

one who has abandoned works and has gained the divine knowledge, residence at home is incompatible. It also follows from this that for a knower discipleship under a teacher, penance, meditation, etc., are ruled out.

अत्र केचिद्रगृहस्थाः भिक्षाटनादिभयात्परिभवाच्च त्रस्यमानाः सूक्ष्म-दृष्टिं दर्शयन्ति उत्तमाद्रु: । भिक्षोरपि भिक्षाटनादिनियमदर्शनादेह-धारणमात्रार्थिनो गृहस्थस्यापि साध्यसाधनैषणोभयविनिर्मुक्तस्य देहमात्र-धारणार्थेऽशनाच्छादनमात्रसुपजीवतो गृह एवावस्थानामिति ।

Now some house-holders afraid of a mendicant's life and fearing also that they might be put to humiliation argue thus like knowing men: Well, since an ascetic is enjoined to beg for food just enough to sustain his body, let a house-holder who has ceased to cherish desires to achieve ends and the means of their accomplishment and who is content with the minimum allowance of food and clothing necessary for the sustenance of the body keep to the house (and not wander away in the garb of a samnyāsin).

1 If it is said that with the suppression of all desires even apprenticeship under a teacher should cease, the Siddhāntin admits that it is so since attachment of every kind vanishes after one acquires the true knowledge.

2 Those who argue thus are guided by no principle; but the evident fear of mendicancy is the root cause of their trend of argument. It is to ridicule such men that Śaṁkara begins the next section with the words 'Some house-holders argue thus, etc.' सूक्ष्म दृष्टि तां--का कथा व्यक्तिरेकेण स्थूल दृष्टय., sarcastic for dull-witted men—Ānandagiri.

न स्वगृहाविशेषपरिग्रह नियमस्यकामप्रयुक्तत्वादित्युक्तोत्तरमेतत् । स्वगृहाविशेषपरिग्रहाभावे च शरीरधारणमात्रप्रयुक्ताशनाच्छादनार्थीन: स्वपरिग्रहविशेषाभावेऽथोऽद्रिक्शुकत्वमेव ।

No; (such a view cannot be valid). It has already been stated that the sense of ownership argues a craving (for the home and its belongings).1 But if such ownership is denied it follows as a corollary that mendicancy alone should be resorted to, by one who seeks food and raiment for the bare maintenance of life.

शरीरधारणार्थीयां भिक्षाटनादिषु प्रवृत्तो यथा नियमो भिक्षो: शौचादौ च तथा गृहिणोऽपि विधुषोऽकामिनोऽस्तु नित्यकर्मसु नियमेन प्रवृत्तिर्यावज्जीवादिति तेनियुक्तत्वात्प्रतिवादाय परिहारायैति ।

Others again urge that because certain precepts are laid down for the guidance of an ascetic both in regard to the acceptance of food and daily ablutions the house-holder who has received enlightenment and renounced desires should also attend without fail (niyaména) to the obligatory duties such as the performance of Nityakarma prescribed in texts like

1 There is no reference to this point above if we understand it literally although the fact that ownership implies desire has been mentioned in general. It is for this reason that Anandagiri understands from the word grha, wife, to whom one of the Upanisadic passages cited above specifically refers. This does not, however, alter the sense of the passage in any way. The reading should be स्वपरिग्रह विशेषाभावे and not विशेषभावे.

' throughout life, etc.,' to avoid the sins resulting from their neglect

एतन्न्रियोगाविषयत्वेन विदुषः प्रयुक्तमशक्यनिर्योजयत्वाद्वाच्चेति । यावज्जीवादिनित्यचोदनानर्थक्यामिति चेत् । न ।

अविद्वद्दृष्टयत्वेनार्थवत्त्वात् । यतु भिक्षोः शरीरधारणमात्रप्रवृत्तस्य प्रवृत्तोर्नियतत्वं तत्प्रवृत्तेन प्रयोजकम् ।

आचमनप्रवृत्तस्य पिपासापगमवन्नानुप्रयोजनार्थत्वमवगम्यते । न चाग्निहोत्रादीनां तदूदरार्थप्राप्तिनियतत्वोपपत्तिः ।

अर्थप्राप्तप्रवृत्तिनियमोऽपि प्रयोजनाभावेऽनुपपन्नं एवेति चेत् । न । तन्नियमस्म्य पूर्वंप्रवृत्तिसिद्धत्वात्तद्विधिक्रमे यत्नगौरवादर्थप्राप्तस्य व्युत्थानस्य पुनर्वचनाद्द्विषः कत्थ्यत्स्वोपपत्तिः ।

(To this the answer is) that the application of the Vedic mandate is irrelevant and that in fact he is not the one fit for receiving commands (in other words he is beyond the sphere of the 'ought'). Nor can it be said that the śruti ordaining the performance of agnihotra and other obligatory acts (nityakarman) in texts like 'throughout life' is rendered obsolete thereby, for the injunction does apply to persons who have not yet attained to the level of a knower of Brahman. (The śruti becomes meaningful and does not therefore fail of its purpose) The contention that there is injunction regarding mendicancy in the case of an ascetic whose activity is limited only to the preservation of his body (is untenable), for that

1 'यावज्जीवादि, etc.' The śruti lays down 'यावज्जीवं अग्निहोत्रं जुहोति.' Having advanced the view that a man may continue to reside at home after enlightenment the opponent now adds that he must also not forsake the nityakarman.

injunction does not furnish the motive for his activity (which is natural to him.—svabhāvataḥ). One who sips water as forming part of the purificatory ritual may have one's thirst slightly quenched but that is only incidental and the quenching of thirst is not the motive for the mandate.1 (In the case of a householder on the other hand) the injunction to perform agnihotra does not as in this case arise incidentally (but is positive. Hence there is no parallel between the two cases.) Then it may be said that one need not follow any injunction even of an incidental character since no good will result from it; but it must be understood that the habit of subjecting oneself to discipline has been acquired already, i.e., when preparing oneself for knowledge and to suppress it now involves greater trouble than in following it. Besides the śruti also reinforces it. It follows, therefore, that the enlightened person does renounce the world, thereby recognizing the Vedic injunction though it be by the way.

आविदुषोऽपि मुमुक्षुणा पारित्राज्यं कर्तव्यमेव । तथा च " शान्तो-

दान्तः " इत्यादिवचनं प्रमाणम् । शमदमादीनां चाडSत्मदर्शनसाधना-

1 The counter argument is that in case the rule regarding agnihotra does not apply to the Vidvān let not the rule regarding begging also apply to him. But the reasoning here is wrong, for there is no injunction in the latter case. If impelled by hunger he should go about for food then he is required to bind himself to certain restrictions such as going only to seven houses, etc., but seeking food is optional with him and is not mandatory. There is no injunction impelling him to act.

नामन्याश्रमेष्वनुपपत्ते: । "अत्याश्रमिभ्य: परमं पवित्रं प्रोवाच सस्यगृंहिसंघजुष्टम्" इति च श्वेताश्वतरे विज्ञायते । "न कर्मणा न प्रजया धनैन केऽमृतत्वमानशु:" इति च कैवल्यश्रुति: । "ज्ञात्वा नैष्कर्म्यमाचरेत्" इति च स्मृतेः । "ब्रह्माश्रमपदे वसेत्" इति च । ब्रह्मचर्यादिविद्यासाधनानां च साकल्येनात्याश्रमिभूपपत्तेर्गौह-स्थ्येऽसंभावात् ।

The ascetic life is a sine qua non even for those who are yet unenlightened but who are in search of immortality, as witness the textual authority—‘ He shall cultivate peace of mind and curb all desires ’1 Self-restraint, detachment and such other virtues as are aids to ātmajñāna are not (fully) compatible with any life other than that of an ascetic ‘The sage expounded to the holy ascetics the exalted knowledge of the Brahman,’ this is known from the Svetā-svatara2 ‘It is not by rites, not by progeny or wealth but by renunciation have some men attained the immortal state’ this is Kaivalya Śruti Kai Up, 2. ‘The saṃnyāsa should be embraced having been initiated into the knowledge of the Brahman’, this we learn from the smrti. And this also—‘Let one become an ascetic (as it leads to the understanding of the Brahman ’) A life of celibacy and other auxiliaries (to the knowledge of the transcendental self) are possible in their entirety for those who have entered the sam-nyāsa order and not when they are in the family-fold

1 तस्मादेवं विच्छान्तो दान्त उपरतस्तितिक्षु: । समाहितो भूत्वात्मन्येवात्मानं पश्यति । Brh. Up., IV. 4-23.

2 Svet. Up., VI. 21.

If (indeed) the knowledge of the Supreme Self were possible to one devoted to karma only, then it would not be proper to conclude (as the previous section has done) with the assignment of a reward (Hiranyagarbhalokaprāpti or devatāpyaya) that is only within the sphere of samsāra. If it be urged that it is angaphala (the answer) is, no.1 The knowledge of the ātman which is the very negation of karma is the subject-matter of the divine science of Brahmavidya which can never suffer association with karma. The means to immortality is all names, forms, and action recoil. If angaphala (subsidiary reward) stands related to Jñāna, that Jñāna cannot have for its object an entity pure and attributeless—a conclusion which is undesirable. Having begun with "Where however all is Ātman to him"2 the Vājasaneya Brāhmana denies to the wise man action, agency, result, and in fact activity of any kind and the very opposite of this is predicated of the ignorant man, having said " where indeed apparent duality, etc ", the text makes it clear that the scope of samsāra is characterised by action, agency, and fruit of action. So here also having in

1 What the opponent now urges is that although liberation is the outcome of Jñāna, karma which must remain associated with Jñāna has its own subsidiary reward (angaphala) to offer, namely, the attainment of the world of Hiranyagarbha. Hence in his view there is no contradiction between samsāraphala and muktiphala. To this the answer is that the true self is relationless and it is therefore inconceivable that we should think of angaphala in respect of it.

2 Brh. Up., II. 4-14.

the conclusion (of the earlier portions of the Aitareya) described the way of attaining the state of the gods, all within the region of samsāra characterised by hunger, etc., the Upanisad proceeds to expound for the attainment of immortality, the knowledge which has for its comprehension the sole reality (the basis of phenomenal existence).

ऋणप्रतिबन्धादविदुषि एव मनुष्यपितृदेवलोकप्राप्तौ प्रति, न विदुषि । "सोडयं मनुष्यलोक: पुत्रेणैव" इत्यादिलोकत्रयसाधननियमश्रुते: । विदुषश्रणप्रतिबन्धाभावो दर्शित आत्मलोकार्थिन: " किं प्रजया करिष्याम: " इत्यादिना । तथा " एतद् ह स्म वै तद्विद्वांस आहुक्रषय: कावषेय: " इत्यादि । " एतद् ह स्म वै तत्पूर्वे विद्वांसोऽनिहोत्रं न जुहवाँ-चक्र: " इति च कौषीतकिब्राह्मणम् ।

The obligation to discharge one's debt which one owes to men, manes, and gods is enjoined on the unenlightened person only and not on the enlightened. (In other words the obstacle resulting from rṇas is only with reference to the attainment of the three lokas and not to the wise who do not seek them.) The śruti, " That world of men by sons only etc.", is imperative in regard to the means of attaining the three worlds.1 To the wise man who is longing for the world of Ātman (ātmaloka) the non-fulfilment of rṇas does not serve as an obstacle as made evident in

1 सोडयं मनुष्यलोक: पुत्रेणैवजिज्ञो नान्येन कर्मणा ; कर्मेणा पितृलोक:, विद्यया देवलोक: ।। Brh. Up., I. 5-16. To attain (conquer) the world of men one has to rear a family and not by any other karma, by ritual the world of manes and by meditation (Vedic study) the world of gods.

passages like "What shall we do with progeny?"1 So also, "Indeed the wise ṛsis—Kāvaṣeyas say, etc."2 "Indeed in times past the enlightened men gave up performing agnihotra " thus is said by the Kauṣītakins. (Kau. Up., II. 5.)

आविदुषस्तर्ह्यणानुपाकरणे पारित्राज्यानुपपत्तिरिति चेत् । न । प्राग्गहेस्थ्यप्रतिपत्तेर् ऋणित्वासंभवादधिकारानारुढोऽस्मृणीकृत्य चेतस्यात्सर्वस्यैषणित्वमिल्यानिष्टं प्रसज्येत । प्रतिपन्नागारहस्थ्यस्यापि " गृहाद्‌नी भूत्वा प्रब्रजेद्‌यादि वेतरथा ब्रह्मचर्याद्‌देव प्रब्रजेद्‌द्‌हाद्‌ वा नाद्‌वा " इत्यात्मदर्शने-पायसाधनत्वेनेष्यत एव पारित्राज्यम् ।

Then if it be urged that to an unenlightened person the order of samnyāsa is prohibited as he has not fulfilled his obligations (the answer is) no, since no obligation exists before he enters on a married life (i.e. he may embrace samnyāsa immediately in the Brahmacharya stage). If again it be urged that he is indebted even though he has not become a house-holder then indebtedness will accompany all āśramas (shutting out altogether the door to liberation)—an undesirable consequence Having passed on to the life of a vānaprastha (the hermit's life) from that of the house-holder one may become a samnyāsin; or else in some other manner: from bachelorhood one may pass on to

1 Brh. Up 2 " एतद्‌द्रस्म वैतद्‌विद्वांस आहु ऋषयः । कावषेयाः । क्रिमर्था वयमध्येष्यामहे, etc."—Aitareyāranyaka, III. 2-6. "Why indeed should we chant the Vedas? So say the wise sages, the Kāvaṣeyas," because they have accomplished every thing by meditation and jñāna, there is no thought of gaining any reward here or elsewhere.

samnyāsa, from the household or from the hermitage. Thus verily is samnyāsa commended even to one who has embraced the house-holder's life for the cultivation of the means for the knowledge of the Ātman.1

वाज्छतिान्तद्विशुद्धिनामविद्यादोषमुखोविषयं कृतार्थता । छान्दोग्ये च केषांचिद्द्रादशरात्रमिहोत्रं हुत्त्वा तत् उध्वं परित्यागः श्रूयते ।

The scriptural texts enjoining life-long performance of wo1ks find their fulfilment in the case of those who are lacking in knowledge and are not actuated by a desire for liberation In Chchandogya it is enjoined on the followers of some of its branches (Śākha) that having performed agnihotra (kindled Agnihotra Fire) for twelve nights they should give it up.

यत्वननाधिकार्तानां पारिग्रहाद्यमिति । तत्र । तेषां पृथग्वेत्सन्नाभिरन- शिको वेत्यादिश्रवणात् । सर्वेस्मृतिपु चाविशेषेणास्सश्रमविकल्पः प्रसिद्धः समुच्ययश्र ।

The statement that asceticism is intended for those who are unfit (to pursue ritualistic practices by reason of some physical defect) is untenable. Because for them samnyāsa is enjoined in a different śruti—“ whether his fire is extinguished or whether he has no fire, etc.” From the smṛtis also it is evident that without making any exception option is given to choose any one of the āśramas or follow one after another in succession ; (the idea is that a man may become an ascetic either

1 “ ब्रह्मचर्ये समाप्य गृही भवेत्, गृहीभूत्वा वनी भवेत्, वनीभूत्वा प्रनजेत् यदि वेतरथा- ब्रह्मचर्यादेव प्रव्रजेत् गृहाद्वा वनाद्वा,” etc. Jābala Up., IV Section. 2 Jābala Up., IV Section.

after the three stages are passed or in any one of them, provided renunciation has come to him, it being immaterial whether he is physically fit or not.)1

यतु विदुषोऽर्थेप्सं व्युत्थानामित्यशाङ्खार्थेत्वे गृहे वने वा तिष्ठतो न विशेष इत्थं तदसदेव । व्युत्थानस्यैवाङ्गत्वप्राप्तत्वाद्वन्थावस्थाने स्तो । अन्यत्रावस्थानस्य कामकर्मप्रयुक्तत्वं ह्यवोचाम । तद्भावमात्रं व्युत्थानमिति च ।

Again the contention that the enlightened person may choose at will either to remain within the familycircle or in a forest since his renunciation is only consequential and not the outcome of any direct scriptural teaching is not valid.2 Renunciation alone and not residence at home is the incidental result. "We have already said (says the Siddhāntin) that

1 Cf. (a) ग्रह्णाचारी गृहस्थोवा वानप्रस्थोऽथ भिक्षुक । य इच्छेतपरमंस्थानसुतमा वृत्तिमाश्रयेत् ॥ (b) अधीतप विधिवद्वेदान्पुनर्जातुपपाद्य धर्मतः । इष्ट्रा च शक्तितो यज्ञैर्मनो मोक्षे निवेशयेत् ॥

2 It has been already shown that there is no valid ground for the doubt whether an ascetic could remain at home or not. Here is refuted the contention of the opponent that no restriction should be placed on the jñānin as to his residence, which may be at home or in a forest (यथेष्टं चेष्टा). Because asceticism is only the indirect result and not the outcome of a scriptural injunction, the opponent pleads for freedom to the ascetic to choose the home or the forest "No," says the Vedāntin, "because the incidental character of the śruti is applicable only to renunciation and not to residence at home." —Ānandagiri. Cf. व्युत्थाय भिक्षाचर्यं चरेचत्—Having abandoned works, go about with the begging bowl of an ascetic.

residence at home presupposes desire and its promptings to action and also that renunciation is merely its absence (which here means discarding home).

यथाकामित्वं जु विदुषोऽनन्तसम्प्राप्तमत्यान्तमूढाविषयत्वेनावगमात् । तथा शास्त्रचोदितमपि कर्मोडस्त्वमविदाद्विप्राप्तौ गृहाश्रमतयाडवगम्यते किसुतात्यान्ताविवेकिनिमित्तं यथाकामित्वम् । न चुनन्मादतिमिरदृष्ट्युपलब्धं वस्तु तद्पगमेऽपि तथैव स्यादुन्मादतिमिरानिमित्तत्वादेव तस्य । तस्मादात्मविदो न्युत्थानव्यतिरेकेण न यथाकामित्वं न चान्यत्क-

यथा कामित्वं यथा कामित्वम् । न च उन्माद तिमिर दृष्टि उप लब्धं वस्तु तद् अपगमे अपि तथा एव स्यात् उन्माद तिमिर अनिमित्तत्वात् एव तस्य । तस्मात् आत्म विदो न उत्थान व्यतिरेकेण न यथा कामित्वं न च अन्यत् क-

तऽ्योमिल्येततिसिद्धम् ।

तङ्योमिल्येततिसिद्धम् ।

It can never happen that a man of wisdom will allow his conduct to be swayed by his desires since that can be expected only of the most ignorant. For surely, when he discards karma though enjoined by the scriptures because it is so burdensome what doubt that he will renounce action prompted by extreme thoughtlessness? An object which comes within one's ken because of one's mental or optical aberration ceases to exist so soon as the aberration is gone because its very existence is due to such mental or optical defect The conclusion therefore is that for one who has realized the nature of the Ātman there is nothing other than renunciation; he will neither follow the lead of his desires nor discharge any (scriptural) duty.

यत्तु—“विद्यां चाविद्यां च यस्तद्वेदोभयं सह । विद्या वतो विद्यया सहाचविद्या वर्तते इत्ययमर्थः । कर्तृहेतौँकिसनपुरुष एकदैव न सह संवन्ध्येयातामित्यर्थः । यथा रक्तिकागां रजतशुक्तिकाज्ञाने

यत् तु—“विद्यां च अविद्यां च यः तत् वेदोभय सह । न विद्यावतो विद्यया सहाचविद्या वर्तते इत्यमर्थः । कर्तृहेतौँकिसनपुरुष एकदैव न सह संवन्ध्येयातामित्यर्थः । यथा रक्तिकागां रजतशुक्तिकाज्ञाने

एकस्य पुरुषस्य । “दूरमेते विपरीते विषूची अविद्या या च विद्या” इति ज्ञातोति हि कार्तके । तस्माच्च विद्यायां सत्यामविद्यासंभवोऽस्ति ।

एकस्य पुरुषस्य । “दूरमेते विपरीते विषूची अविद्या या च विद्या” इति ज्ञातोति हि कार्तके । तस्माच्च विद्यायां सत्यामविद्यासंभवोऽस्ति ।

(There is a scriptural text, however, which seems to support the samuchchaya doctrine ) The text, however, " What knowledges is and what is not knowledge, he who knows them both, etc." (has to be interpreted aright).1 It is not that it inculcates the co-existence of knowledge and action in the enlightened person. Then what does it mean? It means that their simultaneous existence is impossible in the same individual just as it is impossible for a person to have the notions of nacre and silver at the same time. The Katha makes it clear: " Avidyā and Vidyā are opposed to each other and lead in diverse ways.2" Hence when knowledge dawns ignorance must vanish

तपसा ब्रह्म विजिज्ञासस्व । इत्यादिदर्शने: । तप आदिविद्यात्पोसाधनं गुरुपासनादि च कर्मोविद्यासमकत्वादविद्योच्यते । तेन विद्यासुतपांय मृत्युं कामयतितरति । ततो निष्कामस्तत्त्वैषणो ब्रह्मविद्ययाडमृतत्वमश्नुते इति । इत्येतमर्थं दर्शयन्नाह—" अविद्यया मृत्युं तीर्त्वा विद्ययाडमृतमश्नुते " इति ।

" Meditate and know the Brahman ", etc.3 From this and other texts what is meant is that meditation

1 विद्या चाविद्या च यस्तद्वेदोभयं सह । अविद्यया मृत्युं तीर्त्वा विद्ययाडमृतमश्नुते ॥—Isa. Up., 2. He who understands that Vidyā and Avidyā can exist in the same person, only at different times and not simultaneously (एकदा), he by avidyā, i e. upāsana, overcomes death and by vidyā attains immortality.'

2 दूरमेते विपरीते विषूची आविद्या च वियेयति ज्ञात्ता, etc. — Katha Up., I, 2-4.

3 Tait. Up, Bhrgu Valli.

Nirguna—the attributeless Brahman. This position will be made clear also in the exposition that follows. To sum up, the subsequent section (viz., the Aitareya Upaniṣad) is concerned with the inculcation of the Knowledge (vidyā) leading to the realization of the identity of the individual self with the pure Brahman —the only reality unrelated to action.

CHAPTER I

CHAPTER I

प्रथमाध्यायः

CHAPTER I

उ॒ आात्मा वा इदमेक एवाग्र आसीत् ।

Om, Atman lone this was at first.

CHAPTER I

आत्मेति । आत्माऽस॒न्प्रोतेरत्तेरततेऽ परः सर्वज्ञः सर्वशक्तिरज्ञाना-भयोड्द्रयो वा इद॒ नामरूपकर्मभेदाभिन्नं जगदात्मैवैकोडग्रे जगत्सृष्टेः प्रागासीत् ।

Ātman is so called because, it is pervading, destroying and unlimited also ; (this Ātman is) Paramātman (who is) all-wise, all-powerful, free from all the characteristics of samsāra—such as hunger, etc. ; of the nature of eternal purity, wisdom and freedom; birthless, ageless, immortal, fearless and secondless It is verily so1 (वा इदं). This which has been described (in Pūrvakāṇḍa) as being differentiated by name and form, viz., the Universe, existed as the one Ātman only at first, i.e., before creation.

CHAPTER I

1 वा इदं, वै इदं ; “अभिव्यक्त नामरूपव्यावर्तनेनात्म मात्राव-धारणार्थो वै शब्द इष्याह。” The particle वै is used to emphasize the notion of Ātman by dissociating it from its manifestations—name and form ; इदं goes with the sentence following—“this that which has been described as etc.”

किं नेदानीं स एकः । न । कथं तर्ह्यासीत्‌उच्यते । यद्यपीदानीं स एवैकस्थाड्‌भ्यस्ति विशेषः । प्रागु‌पत्तेर‌द्याकृतनानारूपभेदात्म-भूतमात्मैकशब्द‌प्रत्ययगोचरं जगदिदानीं व्याकृतनानारूपभेद‌स्तवादनेकशब्द‌प्रत्ययगोचरमात्मैकशब्द‌प्रत्ययगोचर चेति विशेषः । यथा सलिलात्पृथक्फेननामरूपव्याकरणात्प्राक्सलिलैकशब्द‌प्रत्ययगोचरमेव फेनं यदा सलिलात्पृथग्भूत‌नामरूपभेदेन व्याकृतं भवति तदा सलिलं फेनं चेत्यनेकशब्द‌प्रत्ययभाक्सलिलमेवेति चैकशब्द‌प्रत्ययभाक्च फेनं भवति तद्वत् ।

Then is He not now the single existing entity? (and is there something else beside Him?) No. Then how is it that the past tense 'existed' is used? (The reason is) that though even now He alone exists, there is a difference. Before creation, the world undifferentiated by name and form, remaining undistinguished from Ātman, cognizable by the notion conveyed by the single word Ātman, is now, because it is differentiated by name and form, cognized by notions conveyed by several words and it is also cognized by the single word Ātman.1 This is the difference. For example, the notion of 'foam' remains merged in that of 'water' before it is differentiated from 'water' and assigned a name and a form. The two notions 'water' and 'foam' will arise only after this differentiation and what was previously indicated by a single

1 आत्मैकशब्दप्रत्ययगोचरं च—even after differentiation, the wise understand that it is only the Ātman that manifests itself under various names and forms. 'आत्मैकशब्दप्रत्ययगोचरत्वं विवेकिनाम्‌' इत्यर्थे ।

word 'water', is thereafter designated by several words, such as 'water', 'foam', etc. And (it must be understood that) the notion 'foam' is comprehended also by the single term 'water'.1

नान्यात्किंचन मिषत् ।

And nothing other was there to act.

नान्यात्किंचन न किंचिदपि मिषन्निमिषद्व्यापारवदितरद्वा । यथा सांख्यानामननात्सपक्षपाति स्वतन्त्रं प्रधानम् । यथा च काणादानामणवो न तद्वदिहान्यदात्मनः किंचिदपि वस्तु विद्यते । किं तद्वात्मैवैक आसीदिवाभिग्रायः ।

No other operating or functioning entity beside the Ātman there existed or any other; like the Pradhāna (primordial matter) of the Sāṅnkhyas, falling under the category of insentient existence and regarded as independent (of Puruṣa), or like the atoms (apart from Īśvara) of the Kāṇādas, here (in the Vedānta) no entity independent of Ātman (is admitted) to exist. What then? Ātman alone existed—that is the import (of the text).2

1 Vede Note (1) page 36. By implication, the passage means that it is only to the undiscriminating mind that the world of variety appears to be real The wise regard it as a mere manifestation of the Supreme

2 मिषत्—व्यापारवत्, इतरद्वा—The use of the phrase इतरद्वा is to exclude the existence of even those objects which do not operate The point is that though Māyā is premised (to account for the world-creation) a second entity apart from Ātman is negated because Māyā cannot operate by itself and

स ईक्षत लोकान्नु सृजा इति ।

Let me create the worlds—so thought the Lord. स सर्वज्ञस्वाभाव्यादात्मैकः सन्नीक्षत लोकान्नु सृजा इति । ननु प्रागुत्पत्तेस्तर्कायोकारणत्वाकथनमीश्वरत्ववान् । नायं दोषः । सर्वज्ञस्वाभाव्यात् तथा च मन्त्रवर्णः——“अपाणिपादो जवनो ग्रहीता ” इत्यादि: । केनाभिप्रायेणेत्याह- लोकानम्भःप्रभृतीन् प्राणिकर्मैफलभोगस्थानभूतान्नु सृजै सृजेडहंमिति ।

स इमाँल्लोकानसृजत ।

He, the Ātman being omniscient by nature and secondless, cogitated (perceived) thus, ‘Let me create the worlds’. It might be questioned, how, before the creation, Īśvara perceived having neither body nor the senses. There is no flaw here; because of his omniscience by nature. To the same effect is the Śruti, ‘without hands and feet he runs and grasps’, etc. What object had He (in creating the worlds) ? The answer is here: ‘Let me create the worlds and the rest which are the regions where the results of karma done by the creatures may be enjoyed.’1 (And) He created (all) these worlds. एवमीक्षत्वाSSस लोकेच्य स आत्मेमाँल्लोकानसृजत सृष्टवान् । यथेह has no independent existence. Hence it may be inferred that Ātman is without a second अद्वितीय and that the world has a mere phenomenal existence since, before its creation, it existed only as Ātman. 1 If the phenomenal aspect of the Universe is well brought home its negation becomes evident. It is in this sense that the creation-Śrutis have to be understood.

बुद्धिमांस्तक्षादिरेवंकारान्प्रासादादीन्सृज इतीक्षित्रेक्षानन्तरं प्रासादादीन्-

Having cognitated,1 He the Ātman created these worlds; just as here an intelligent carpenter or some other (workman) having first decided upon the plan of constructing a mansion builds it, even so (has Īśvara created the worlds).

सृजति तद्वत् ।

ननु सोपादानस्तक्षादि: प्रासादादीन्सृजतीति युक्तं निरुपादानस्वात्मा

It is no doubt true that a carpenter builds a mansion with the aid of appropriate materials (like timber, etc.) but how can Ātman who is without such materials create the worlds?

कथं लोकान्सृजतीति । नैष दोष: । सैलिलफेनस्थानीयेये आत्मभूते

No objection can be raised (on this ground).

नामरूपे अव्याकृते आत्मैकशब्दवाच्ये व्याकृतफेनस्थानीयस्य जगत

Just as foam is spoken of separately though it is a variant of the same substance—water, and is designated by a single name (सैलिलफेन, the undifferentiated foam, standing for Ātman) before the change occurs,

उपादानभूते संभवत: । तस्मादात्मभूतनामरूपोपादान सन्सर्वज्ञो

so the one and the same Brahman may become the

जगच्चिन्मिमीत इत्यविरुद्धम् । अथवा यथा विज्ञानवान्मायावी निरुपादान

The analogy of the carpenter is to show that the creation is accomplished by a Being endowed with consciousness and not by the insentient Pradhāna and the like

आत्मानमेवाडSडुत्मान्तरत्वेनाडSडकाशेन गच्छन्तमिव निर्मिमीते तथा

सर्वज्ञो देव: सर्वशक्तिमहामाय आत्मानमेवाडSडुत्मान्तरत्वेन जगदूपेण

निर्मिमीते इति युक्ततरम् । एवं च सन्ति कार्यकारणोभयासद्राद्यादि-

पक्षाश्र न प्रसज्यन्ते सुनिराकृताश्र भवन्ति ।

1 The analogy of the carpenter is to show that the creation is accomplished by a Being endowed with consciousness and not by the insentient Pradhāna and the like

cause of the manifested world which corresponds to the differentiated foam. Hence the All-knowing becoming the material cause created the Universe since he is the substratum of the Universe of names and forms.1 Or just as a magician having deliberated beforehand projects without any material aid his own self into a different self as though moving in the sky, the all-knowing Īśvara, all-potent, the mighty magician, projects his self into a different self—the world-manifestation, this is a better explanation (of creation).2 Hence the position of those who hold that either the effect is unreal or the cause or both, becomes untenable and their views are thus wholly contradicted.3

1 From the text ‘लोकानसृजत’, ‘He created the worlds,’ Brahman’s being the efficient cause of the Universe alone can be inferred but from another text ‘सोसृजायत बहुस्याँ प्रजायै यत्’—His being the material cause also is established. Cf. Śamkara-Bhāsya on Vedānta Sūt, I 4. 23 where it is explained how Brahman is both the efficient and the material cause of the Universe.

Another point to be noticed is that Brahman being the sole entity without a second can create the worlds only with the aid of Māyā or beginningless Illusion and as such He is only the Vivartopādāna or the mere ground of the Universe and not Parināmyupādāna, the evolutionary cause

2 The second explanation is preferred because it brings home the Vivartopādānātva of Brahman as against his Parināmyupādānatva and further it has the support of the Scriptures.

3 The materialists—यदृच्छावादिन्, are of the view that creation is the result of chance concatenation of elements; the Naiyāyikas—asat्कार्यवादिन्, that a totally new thing comes

कां लोकानसृजतेयाह—

Which worlds did He create? It is these :-

अम्भो मरीचीम्रमापोडदोऽम्भः परेण दिवं चोः प्रतिष्ठाडन्तरिक्षं मरीचयः पृथिवी मरो या अधस्तात्त आपः ।

Ambhas, Marichi, Maram, Apah; That Ambhas is above the Heavens Sustained by them; the Marichis form The sky; the Maram is the earth And those below, they are the Apah.

अम्भो मरीचीम्रमाप इति । आकाशादिक्रमेणाण्डमुत्पाद्याम्भः-प्रभृतितो लोकानसृजत । तत्सामभ्रःप्रसृतोऽन्वयसेव व्याचष्टे श्रुतिः । अदस्तादम्भःशब्दवाच्यो लोकः परेण दिवं चुलोकात्परेण परस्तात्सोडम्भः-शब्दवाच्योऽम्भोभरणात् । चोः प्रतिष्ठाडडश्रयस्त्याम्भसो लोकस्य । चुलोकादधस्तादन्तरिक्षं यत्तन्नमरीचयः । एकोऽप्यनेकस्थानभेदात् बहु-वचनभाऽड्मरीचय इति । मरीचीभिरवा रशिमभिः संबन्धात् । पृथिवी मरो त्रियन्तेऽसिन्भूतान्निति या अधस्तात्पृथिव्यथास्ता आप उच्यन्त आमोतेलोका: । यद्यपि पञ्चभूतात्मकवं लोकानां तथाडप्यद्ववाहुल्याद्वनानामभिरेवाम्भो मरीचीम्रमाप इत्युच्यते ।

Having created the mundane egg in due order beginning with ether,1 He brought into existence Ambhas and the rest. The scripture itself explains what these mean. That region designated by the word Ambhas is above the heavenly world. It is into being out of a previous non-existence ; and a Section of the Bauddhas, that both cause and effect are void.

1 Cf. Tait. Up., II. 1.

called Ambhas because it is filled with water. The heaven sustains the watery world. The sky which is beneath the heavenly world is known as Marīchis.1 Though one, the plural 'Marīchis' is used because of the several regions which it fills, or because the myriad rays of the sun pervade it. The Maram (from mr—to die) is the earth, because all creatures on it die. That which is below the earth is described as Āpaḥ because the people living there are filled with joy.2 Though the worlds are composed of the five elements, still on account of the preponderance of water the creation is described as Ambhas, Marichis, Maram, and Āpaḥ (which are all names of water).

स ईक्षतेऽने नु लोकाल्लोकपालान्नु सृजा इति ।

He pondered—these are the worlds (I've wrought); May I create the Lords of the worlds.

सर्वांणि चैवंफलानि पादानाधिष्ठानभूतांश्रतुरो लोकान्सृष्टा—स ईश्वरः पुनरेवैक्षत । इमे न्वसृज्यःप्रसृतयो मया सृष्टा लोकाः परिपालयितृवर्जिता विनश्येयुः । तस्मादेशां रक्षणार्थं लोकपालांल्लोकानां पालयितॄन्श्रु सृजे सृजेडहंमिति ।

Having created the four worlds in which the fruit of all actions is reaped, and the deities presiding over them, the Lord again pondered—these worlds which I have created are without protectors; they will surely perish. I shall, therefore, create protectors for safeguarding these worlds.

1 The reason is, the sky is the substratum of the rays of the sun. It is through the sky-medium that the sun's rays travel.

2 The worlds beneath the earth are known as Pātāla fit for enjoyment by the dwellers therein such as Nāgas. Āpaḥ is connected with āpyāyanam (giving pleasure). Here the use of 'āpaḥ' is to designate the lower regions.

of karma is experienced by all the creatures,1 He, the Over-Lord, thought again thus :-These worlds indeed, Ambhas and so forth which have been created by me, are sure to perish if left without their guardians. Therefore I will create for the well-being of these worlds, their rulers.

एवमीक्षित्वा—

Having thought thus :-

सोडुच एव पुरुषं समुद्दृत्यामूर्छयत् ।

From out the waters e'en He bore The Purusa up and fashioned him

सोडद्रय एवाप्रधानेभ्य एव पञ्चभूतेभ्यो येषाम्भःप्रभृतीनिसृष्ट्वां-

He, Īśvara, from the waters only,2 i.e., from the five elements (of which the water is the most important)

स्तेभ्य एवतस्रथः । पुरुषं पुरुषाकारं शिरःपाण्यादिमन्तं समुद्दृत्याद्रयः

समुपादाय मृत्पिण्डमिव कुलालः पृथिव्या अमूर्छयन्मूर्छितवान्संपिण्डित-

वान्स्वावयवसंयोजनेऽर्थः ।

1 सर्वप्राणिकर्मफलोपादानाधिष्ठानभूताश्चतुरो लोकान् । Having created the four worlds which are the abodes (अधिष्ठान) of the fruit of karma which all the creatures have to experience. The consequences of one's deeds have to be realized in the world of men or of gods.

2 The Purusa is described as having been brought out from the depths of waters, though as a matter of fact the Virāt was fashioned from the five elements ; this is because of the preponderance of the water-element.

अमूर्छयत्—मृत् कठिनं अकरोत्—He hardened it as the potter

hardens the clay.

having created the Ambhas and the rest of the worlds, from them alone lifted up Puruṣa, as the potter takes out the clay-lump from the earth and gave him shape by joining limbs thereto.

तमभ्यतपत्तस्याभितप्तस्य मुखं निरभिद्यत यथाऽण्डम् ।

He brooded over him; in him Thus brooded o'er burst forth the mouth As in the egg (of a bird when hatched).

तं पिण्डं पुरुषविद्धमुदहिःयाभ्यतपत् । तदभिध्यानं संकल्पं कृतवानित्यर्थः । " यस्य ज्ञानमयं तपः " इत्यादिश्रुते । तस्याभितप्तस्येश्व-संकल्पेन तपसाsभितप्तस्य पिण्डस्य मुखं निरभिद्यत मुखाकारं सुषिर-मजायत । यथा पक्षिणाऽण्ड निरभिद्यततन्म् ।

He brooded over that, i.e., the lump, desirous of giving it the shape of a man:-the meaning is that following His contemplation the Lord formed a resolution. 'His penance consists in mere thought, etc.,' according to the Śruti.² By Īśvara's resolve which is His penance a hole in the shape of mouth manifested

¹ The Puruṣa is the Virāḍīma, the presiding Lord over the aggregate of gross elements—स्थूलशरीराभिमानी। He is the guardian of the visible universe.

² अस्यतपत्-अभिध्यानं, संकल्पं कृतवान्—He resolved. Īśvara created the worlds by will Cp यस्य ज्ञानमयं तप — Mund. Up., I 1. 9. God's penance is no other than pure thought and does not involve any austere practice as in the case of men. Chand. Up., VI 2. gives a detailed account of the order of creation—सृष्टिक्रम.

itself in that mass which was brooded over by Him, just as a bird's egg bursts when hatched.

मुखाद्वाग्वाचोऽमिनोऽसिके निरभिद्येतां नासिकाभ्यां प्राणः प्राणाद्वायुरक्षीणि निरभिद्येतामश्र्यां नक्ष-श्रक्शुष आदित्यः कर्णौ निरभिद्येतां कर्णाभ्यां श्रोत्रं श्रोत्रादिदिशोऽस्त्वड्निरभिद्यत त्वचो लोमानि लोमभ्य ओषधिवनस्पतयो हृदयं निरभिद्यत हृदयान्मनो मनसश्चन्द्रमा नामभिर्निरभिद्यत नाम्या अपानोऽपा-नान्मृत्यु: शिक्षं निरभिद्यत शिक्षाद्रेतो रेत आपः ॥

From out the mouth (came forth) the speech Agni from speech ; the nostrils two Burst forth, from nostrils breath ; Vayu The sight from eyes, and Aditya From sight ; and both the ears burst forth, Hearing from ears, and space from hearing ; The skin came forth, from skin the hairs, The herbs and plants from hairs ; the heart Burst forth, from heart the mind, from mind The moon ; the navel (then) burst forth, From the navel, downward air, And death from downward air ; burst forth The engendering organ then and from The organ seed, water from seed.

तस्माद्विभिद्रान्मुखाद्वाक्करणामिन्द्रियं निरवततं तद्विष्ठातरडमिसस्तो वाचो लोकपाल । तथा नासिके निरभिद्येतां नासिकाभ्यां प्राणः

प्राणाद्वायुरीति सर्वत्राधिष्ठानं करणं देवतां च त्रयं क्रमेण निर्भिनत्ति ।

From that, i.e., from the mouth thus burst forth the speech-sense was produced. Agni from thence, the Lord of the worlds having speech as his seat. So also the nostrils burst forth; from the nostrils prāṇa1 proceeded; from prāṇa, Vāyu. What is to be understood is, that in all cases, the seat of each sense, the sense-organ, and the presiding deity manifested themselves in order. Proceeded also, the two ears, the skin, the heart, the seat of antahkarana, the mind—the navel—the place where all the vital airs are intertwined. Because of its connection with the downward wind the sense of evacuation is called apāna. Of that the presiding deity is Death. As in the other case, the generative organ (both male and female) proceeded. (The Āpah which is the presiding deity here is Prajāpati conditioned by the five elements as indicated by the word āpah.)

आक्ष्षीणी कर्णौ त्वग्ध्रियमन्त करणाधिष्ठानं मनोऽन्तःकरणं नाभिः सर्वप्राणबन्धनस्थानम् । तस्मादपानसंयुक्तत्वादपान इति पाघ्विन्द्रियमुख्यते ।

तस्याधिष्ठात्री देवता मृत्युः । यथाडन्यत्र तथाडन्यत्र शिक्षं निरभिद्यत प्रजननेन्द्रियस्थानमिन्द्रियं रेतो रेतोविसर्गोऽर्थस्त्वल्परतस उच्यते रेतस आप इति ।

1 प्राणेन्द्रियं—The word prāṇa denotes the sense of smell. त्वग्लोम denotes the sense of touch connected with the skin on which लोम, the hair, grows. हृदयान्मनः—From the heart arises the mind; the primary feelings have their seat in the heart.

CHAPTER II

द्वितीयाध्यायः

CHAPTER II

ताः एता देवताः सृष्टाः असिन्महत्यर्णवे प्राप्तत्न् ।

Those very gods created thus Into the mighty ocean fell.

CHAPTER II

ताः एताः अग्न्यादयो देवताः लोकपालत्वेन संकल्प्य सृष्टाः ईश्वरेण, असिन्संसारार्णवंवे संसारसुमुद्रे महत्याविद्याकामकर्मप्रभवदु खोदके तीव्ररोगजरामृत्युमहाग्राहेडनादावनन्तेडपारे निरालम्बे विषयेन्त्रियजनितसुखलवलक्षणविश्रान्ते पञ्चेन्द्रियार्थतृणमारुतविक्षोभेऽस्थितानथेशतमहोमौ महारौरवाच्चनैकनिरयगतहाहेत्यादिकूजिताक्रोशानुचूलतमहावे सज्जाज्वलनावदानाम्भोधौ मोक्षतृषिर एतासिन्महत्यर्णवंवे प्राप्ततन्पतितवत्यः ।

Those deities—Agni and the rest created by Īśvara as meant for the guardianship of the worlds—fell into this great ocean of samsāra (life). filled with the waters of sorrow generated by the doings of men prompted by desires, themselves the offspring of primal ignorance (avidyā); infested by monster-crocodiles in the shape of dire diseases, old age and death; beginningless, endless, shoreless, refugeless, affording rest (seeming) in the slight pleasures begotten of the contact of senses and their objects; agitated by the mighty waves of the thousand and one pangs raised by the tempestuous wind of desire for satisfying the cravings of the five senses; echoing with the howlings and dolorous cries of those who are plunged in many an infernal region;

disclosing at the same time the ship of wisdom sailing on the bosom of the ocean, well-stowed with the provision of such personal virtues as truth, righteousness, charity, sympathy, non-violence, tranquillity, detachment, courage, and so on; and having the well-defined route—association with the holy preceptors and renunciation—pointing to the shore beyond of liberation—into such a vast ocean the gods fell!

तस्मादन्यादितेतेनाप्ययल्लक्षणादपि या गतिर्योध्यातां ज्ञानकर्मसमुच्चयानुष्ठानफलभूता साधिपि नालं संसारदुःखोपशमायेल्ययं विवक्षितोऽथेदत्र। यत्पैव तस्मादेवं विदित्वा परं ब्रह्मास्सरमास्सतत्मन् सर्वभूतानां च यो वक्ष्यमाणविशेषणः प्रकृतिश्र जगदुरुपस्थितस्स्थितिसंहारहेतुत्वेन सर्वसंसरदुःखोपशमनाय वेदितव्यः। तस्मात् "रूपं पन्था पतत्कर्म-

Hence the path of knowledge and works combined, the pursuit of which enables one to attain to the deity of Agni and the rest (i.e., becoming one with the God of one's meditation) as already described in the Karmakānda is not adequate for stilling the sorrows of life. This is what has to be understood here. When this is the case and knowing thus (i.e., that the performance of works combined with meditation is not the true path for the attainment of wisdom), one ought to comprehend that He who is described in the sequel as the inner being of one's self and also of all the objects of creation and who is here described as the originator, preserver and destroyer of the universe is Himself the supreme Brahman so that by such

तद्धैतत्सत्यं यदेतत्परब्रह्मात्मज्ञानम्"। "नान्यः पन्था विद्यतेऽयनाय" इति मन्त्रवर्णात्।

comprehension the miseries of recurring births may come to end. We have the scriptural corroboration—'That is the path, that is karma, that is Brahman, that is truth, that is the knowledge of the unity of Parabrahma and Ātma'1; 'For liberation there is no other path ".2

तं मशनापिपासाभ्यामन्ववार्जंत् ।

Assailed He him with hunger and thirst.

तं स्थानकरणदेवतोत्पत्तिबीजभूतं पुरुषं प्रथमोत्पादितं पिण्डमात्मान- मशनायापिपासाभ्यामन्ववार्जंदनुगामितवान्संयोजितवानित्यर्थः । तस्य कारणभूतस्याशनायादिदोषवस्त्वात्मककार्यभूतानामापे देवतानामशनायादि- मत्त्वम् ।

Him who is the source from which spring the seat of each sense, the sense-organ, and the presiding deity, the Puruṣa—the first created, the unitary individual (Virāt), the universal self, He (Īśvara) united with hunger and thirst. Because the Virāt who is the cause is contaminated with hunger and thirst, those that are produced by him, viz, the gods are also associated with them.3

1 Ait Āraṇyaka. II.1.1. 2 Svet. Up., III 8, VI.15. The Vedic texts quoted above make it evident that for the attainment of mokṣa, the knowledge of the unity of Ātman and Brahman and not the pursuit of knowledge and karma is the proper means Works and meditation, however. are a preliminary discipline but certainly they are not the direct path to deliverance. 3 Īśvara first subjected the Virāt-deha, the aggregate body, to hunger and thirst and as a consequence gods like

पुनर्गवाकृतिं रट्ठाडभवन् । न वै नोड्सदर्थमधिष्ठानायान्रमतुमयं रपिण्डोडलं, न वै पर्योसोडतुं न योग्य इत्यर्थः ।

Thus addressed Īśvara having as at first lifted up, for their sake only, from out the waters a lump of earth and hardening it turned it into the form of a cow's body and showed it to them—the gods. They however, seeing the figure of the cow, said, ' No, indeed this body is not adequate for us to serve as our abode and for the enjoyment of food.'1

ताम्योऽश्वमानयत्ता अनुवन्न वै नोड्यमलमिति ।

He brought a horse to them; they said, 'For us indeed this is no good.'

गावि प्रत्याख्याते ताम्योऽश्वमानयत्ता अनुवन्न वै नोड्यमलमिति । पूर्ववत् ।

When the cow was discarded, Īśvara led a horse to them but they said as before, 'This is not adequate for us.'2

What is here referred to is the microcosmic as opposed to the macrocosmic creation—the Virāt.

1 नालं, अलं means sufficient; it is not the right one for our abode 'The gods rejected the cow because lacking in the upper row of teeth it cannot pull the grass by the root.' This explanation seems somewhat fanciful What is meant is that creation does not reach perfection in animals

2 Though there is no physical defect in the horse as in the case of the cow it has the mental defect of non-discrimination.

ताभ्यः पुरुषमानयत्ताऽब्रवन्त्सुकृतं ऋतेति पुरुषो वाव सुकृतं ता अब्रवीद्यथायतनं प्रविशतेति ।

He brought a man to them; they said, 'Well done, hurrah ! 'tis man alone The master-piece.' To them He said, 'Let enter each his own abode.'

सर्वप्रत्यार्ध्याने ताभ्यः पुरुषमानयत्स्वयोनिभूतम् । ताः स्वयोनिपुरुषं दृष्ट्वाडखिन्राः सत्यः सुकृतं शोभनं कृतमिदमाधिष्ठानं बत्तेत्यब्रुवन् । तस्मात्पुरुषो वाव पुरुष एव सुकृतं सत्र्पुण्यकर्महेतुत्वात् । स्वयं वा स्वेनैवात्मना स्वमायाभिः कृतत्वात्सुकृतमुख्यते । ता देवता ईश्वरोऽस्यवीदिष्टमासामिदमाधिष्ठानमिति मत्वा सर्वे हे स्वयोनिपु रमन्ते । अतो यथायतनं यस्य यथाद्दनादिक्रियायोग्यमायतनं तत्प्रविशतेति ।

When all were rejected (the whole of the animal kingdom as indicated by the mention of cow and horse), He brought to them man, born of himself (i.e., having a body similar to that of Virāt Purusa).1 Seeing man born of Īśvara himself the gods became elated with joy and exclaimed, 'Hurrah ! our abode is indeed well done ! It is man alone that is the best of creation for it is from him that all good deeds proceed. Because man was created directly by Īśvara by his magic powers, this creation is pronounced to be well

1 When the horse was rejected because of its lack of discrimination Parameśvara created man endowed with intelligence. At once the gods uttered words of joy ; cf. Ait. Āran-yaka, II. 3. 2, where reasons are given for preferring man to animals

accomplished—sukṛtam or svakṛtam. Īśvara knowing that such an abode would be pleasing to the gods said to them, ' All rejoice to dwell in their native home; you may enter your respective abodes residing in which from eternity each deity has been aptly functioning.'1

अग्निर्वाग्मूत्वा मुखं प्राविशद्वायुः प्राणो भूत्वा नासिके प्राविशादित्यश्शकृन्मूलत्वादक्षिणी प्रविशदिशः श्रोत्रं भूत्वा कर्णौ प्राविशन्नोषधिवनस्पतयोलोमानी भूत्वा त्वचं प्राविशन्नद्रमामनो मूलवा हृदयं प्राविशान्मृत्युरपानो भूत्वा नाभिं प्राविशदापो रेतो भूत्वा शिश्नं प्राविशन् ।

And Agni turned to speech, entered The mouth, and Vayu turned to breath Entered the nostrils, Aditya To sight he turned, entered the eyes, To hearing quarters turned, entered The ears, and herbs and plants to hairs Did turn, entered the skin, and Moon, To mind did turn, entered the heart ; And Death did turn to downward air, Entered the navel and waters To seed did turn and the organ sought.

तथाडसिस्वलनुज्ञा प्रतिलभ्येश्वस्य नगयांमिव बलाधिकृतादयोस्स्रिवांगाभिमानी वागेव भूत्वा स्वां योनिं मुखं प्राविशतथोकार्थेमन्यत् ।

1 Let each god enter his own abode (the aperture in the body) and let there be no trespassing.

वायुर्‍नासिके आदित्योऽक्षिणी दिशः कर्णावोषाधिवनस्पतयस्त्वचं चन्द्रमा हृदयं मृत्युर्‍नाभिमापः शिश्नं प्राविशन्‌ ।

'So be it as Thou commandest'; thus accepting God's injunctions just as the generals of armies enter a town (at the command of their sovereign), Agni, the presiding deity over speech, became speech itself and entered the mouth, his own place of birth. The rest of the passage has to be construed similarly. Vāyu (entered) the nostrils; the Sun, the two eyes; the quarters (diśah), the two ears, shrubs and plants, the skin; the Moon, the heart: Death, the navel, the waters, the generative organ.1

तमशनापिपासे अन्रतामावाभ्यामभिप्रजानीहि त इब्रवीदेतस्मै वां देतास्वाभजाम्येतासु भागिन्यौ करोमीति । तस्माद्यसै कसै च देतायै हविर्गृह्यते भागिन्यावेवास्यामशनापिपासे भवतः ॥

And Hum, Hunger and Thirst addressed, 'To us, O Lord (a place) assign.' He answered them, 'In these same gods I offer you your place; with them Partakers make, that so to which God so-ever oblation is given Hunger and Thirst therein will share.'

1 The mere physical or mental faculties cannot function without impulsion from a conscious being. Hence the deities Agni and the rest are spoken of as presiding over the different senses. It is not to be supposed, however, that the relation between these deities and the senses is one of cause and effect. For a fuller elucidation of this topic, vide Ved. Sūt, II. 4-14.

एवं लब्धाधिष्ठानासु देवतासु निराधिष्ठाने सत्यावशनायापिपासे त्यथे: । स ईश्वर एवमुक्तस्ते अशनायापिपासे अब्रवीत् । न हि युवयोर्भावरूपत्वाच्चेतनावद्रूस्त्वनाश्रित्यान्नातृत्वं संभवति । तस्मादेतास्ववाग्न्याद्यासु वां युज । देवतास्विध्यत्स्वात्माधिदेवतास्वोभयामि वृत्तिसंविभाग-

Thus when the deities secured their residence, Hunger and Thirst, remaining without any resting place, said to Īśvara, ‘Think of a site and grant it to us.’ Thus addressed, Īśvara said to them, ‘Since you belong to the category of abstract notions, enjoyment of food is not possible for you without association with a tangible body as in the case of a sentient being. Therefore in these very gods, Agni and the rest who dwell both within and outside the human body I assign you your abode and make you partakers of their subsistence’ Since Īsvara with the object of making them sharers in the oblations offered to the gods, decreed thus in the beginning of creation, even now hunger and thirst are sharers of oblations like rice-cakes, etc., offered for the acceptance of whichsoever deity.1

नानुगृह्णामि । एतासु भागिन्यौ यद्देवत्यो यो भागो हविरादिलक्षण: स्यातस्यास्तेनैव भागेन भागिन्यौ भागवत्यौ वां करोमि इति सृष्ट्यादावीश्वर एवं व्यदधाद्यस्मात्कस्यै च देवताया अर्थाय हविगृह्यते चरपुरोडाशादिलक्षणं भागिन्यावेव भागवत्यावेवास्यां देवता-यामशनायापिपासे भवतः ॥

1 It is the jīva (self) that derives satisfaction from food and drink; still as the jīva is in reality the Brahman and is free from such affections as hunger and thirst, his supposed enjoyment is therefore only through the satisfaction of the sense-deities.

CHAPTER III

तृतीयाध्यायः

CHAPTER III

स ईक्षतेमे नु लोकाश्र लोकपालाश्रवमेष्यः सृजा इति ।

He pondered thus—yes, these are the worlds, Their rulers these; let me create For them (what) food (sustains their being).

CHAPTER III

स एवमीश्वर ईक्षत । कथं इमे नु लोकाश्र लोकपालाश्र मया सृष्टा अशनायापिपासाभ्यां च संयोजिनाः । अतः नैवां स्थितिरन्नमन्तरेण तस्मादन्नमेष्यो लोकपालेभ्यः सृजै सृज इति ।

"Thus thought he," the Lord. How? "Well these worlds and their rulers have been created by me and conjoined with hunger and thirst Their existence is now impossible without food Therefore I shall create food for these world-rulers." Even so is seen in the world that men in power exercise freedom in their own sphere both in bestowing largess and in meeting out punishment. Similarly, Mahesvara, because He is the Supreme Ruler, has freedom in inflicting punishment or bestowing gifts on all.1

CHAPTER III

एवं हि लोक ईश्वराणामनुग्रहे निग्रहे च स्वातन्त्र्यं दृष्टं स्वेषु तद्वन्महेश्वरस्यापि सर्वेश्वरत्वात्सर्वोन्र्राति निग्रहानुग्रहेऽपि खातन्त्र्यमेव ।

1 It pleased the Lord even without the prayers of the deities to think of creating food for them In his potency he can do and undo 'things. There is his Īśvaratva.

सोऽपोऽसृयतपताभ्योऽभितस्साभ्यो मूर्तिरजायत या वै सा मूर्तिरजायतान्नं वै तत् ।

He brooded over the waters (there) And from the waters brooded o'er A solid substance rose and that Itself was verily the food.

स ईश्वरोऽन्नं निससृक्षुस्तैव पूर्वां काम उद्दिश्याभ्यतपत् । ताभ्योऽभितस्साभ्य उपादानभूताभ्यो मूर्तिधनरूपं धारणसमर्थं चराचरलक्षणमजायतोंत्पन्नमन्नं वै तन्मूर्तिरूपं या वै सा मूर्तिरजायत ।

He the Lord, desirous of creating food, brooded over the waters mentioned before. From the waters thus brooded over serving as the material cause something solid, sentient and non-sentient, was born capable of sustaining beings. That which sprang up as solid substance that indeed was the created food.1

तदेनत्सृष्टं पराडत्यजिघांसत्तद्वाचाडजिघृक्षत्तन्नाशक्रोद्वाचाडग्रहोतुं स यदैनद्वाचाडऽगृह्णादभिल्याहत्य हैवाऽऽनमत्प्स्यत् ।

What thus as food created was Away it turned and began to flee,

१ सोऽपोऽसृयतपत्, Īśvara brooded over the waters. Here, water being one of the elements stands for all the five elements पंचभूतानि. मूर्तिरजायत, Organic matter—both vegetable and animal, like rice, wheat, mouse, etc., was born. अन्नं वै तत्, that (organic substance) serves indeed as food—rice and wheat for man, mouse for cat, etc. धारण समरथे शरीर धारण समथे capable of sustaining life.

And he desired with speech to grasp But failed to grasp the same with speech; And if indeed he'd grasped the food With speech by uttering 'food', Even to-day appeased would be!

तदेनद्रं लोकपालानामर्थे॑ऽभिमुखे सृष्टं॑ तथाथा मूषकादिमौंज- रादिगोचरे सन्मम मृत्युुरन्नाद इति मत्वा पराग्रवतीति पराड्सदत्तू- त्ल्याजिघांसदतिगन्तुमैच्छत्पलायितुं प्रारभतेत्यर्थः। तदन्नाभिप्रायं मत्वा स लोकलोकपालसंघातः कार्यकारणलक्षणः पिण्डः प्रथममजत्वादिन्यांश्रान्त्या- दानपञ्यंस्तदन्नं वाचा वदनव्यापारेणाजिघृक्षद्धर्हीतमैच्छत्तदन्नं नाशक्रोऽ समर्थोऽभवद्वाचा वदनक्रियया ग्रहीतुमुपादातुम्। स प्रथमजः शारीरी यद्यै॒ हैनद्राचाडग्रहैष्यदग्रहीतवान्स्यात्सवोंडपि लोकस्तत्कार्यंभूतत्वादन्न- मभिप्याहलत्य हैवाक्षमत्पश्यन्तृक्षोऽभविष्यत्। न चेतदस्यतो नाशक्रोद्वाचा ग्रहीतुमित्यवगच्छामः पूर्तेजोडपि। समानमुत्तरम्

That food which was created and placed within the sight of the world-rulers turned away and began to run as evidenced when a rat being within the range of a cat's sight runs away thinking, 'the cat is my death, my eater'. He, the aggregate being, representing the world-agents (like agni, vāyu, etc.), the embodied self, because he was the first in creation and so not having seen other eaters of food, desired to secure his food, by words, i.e, by the action of the tongue (by mearly uttering the name 'food'). But he was not able to get it by merely expressing his desire for food in words. If he, the first-born, Virāt the first embodied Being, had grasped the food by speech only the men now who are all his creation, by the mere mention of the word 'food' would have had their hunger appeased. But

With his eye he wished to grasp the food But failed to grasp the food with his eye, Indeed by sight had he grasped the food Appeased by seeing man would be; With his ear he wished to grasp the food But failed to grasp the food with his ear, Indeed with his ear had he grasped the food Appeased by hearing man would be; With the skin he wished to grasp the food But failed to grasp the food with his skin. Indeed with his skin had he grasped the food Appeased by touching man would be; With his mind he wished to grasp the food But failed to grasp the food with his mind, Indeed with his mind had he grasped the food Appeased by thinking man would be; With the begetting organ he wished to grasp the food But failed to grasp the food; Had he with the organ grasped the food Appeased by ejecting man would be, With his breath he wished to grasp the food With it he caught the food and ate, That breath which grasps the food, the same Indeed is giver of life by food.

तत्प्राणेन तच्चक्षुषा तच्छ्रोत्रेण तच्वचा तन्मनसा तच्चिच्छ्रेण तेन तेन करणच्यापारेणातं प्रहातुमशकनवन्पश्रादपानेन वायुना मृखचिच्छद्रेण तदन्नमधिगृषृत्तदावयत्तदन्नमेवं जग्राहाशितवान् । तेन स एषोडपानवायुरन्नस्य प्रहोडनग्राहक इत्येतत् । यद्वायुर्यो वायुरन्नायुरन्नाबन्धनोऽन्नजीवनो वै प्रसिद्धं स पुष्यो यो वायु: ।

He by scenting, by hearing, by touch, by mind, by the regenerative organ, i.e., by the distinctive functions of the sense organs failed to secure the food; then with the aid of apānavāyu caught the food in the mouth; in other words, he succeeded in eating the food Because he ate the food with the aid of apāna that air that courses down the hollow of the mouth, that apāna is called annagrāhaka,—catcher of food. That air which binds the food and supports life thereby is known as annāyuh.1

स ईक्षत कथं निवदं मदते स्यादिति स ईक्षत कतरेण प्राप्येति स ईक्षत यदि वाचा डभिव्याहतं यदि प्राणेनाभिप्राणितं यदि चक्षुषा दृष्टं यदि श्रोत्रेण श्रुतं यदि त्वचा स्पृष्टं यदि मनसा ध्यातं यद्यपानेनाभ्यपानितं यदि शिश्नेन विसृष्टमथ कोऽहमिति॥

1 It is matter of common experience that we are able to swallow our food with the help of apāna, i e, of the air which we draw in through the mouth अन्नायु:—अन्नद्वारेण आयुष्यहेतु:—the air is the prime cause in supporting life through food. It is therefore called the cord that binds life—अन्नदाम. When this cord gets thin life abandons the body ; cf यावद्यसिमञ्ज्जीरं प्राणो वसति तावदायुः (Kau. Up., III. 2), life lasts only so long as the breath remains in the body.

He pondered—how can this remain Bereft of me? He pondered thus :— By which of the two (ways) may I get in? He thought—if speech can name, if nose can smell, if eye can see, if ear can hear, if skin can feel, if mind can think, if apāna can digest, If the organ can beget, what am I?

स एतं लोकलोकपालसंघातास्थितिमचिन्तयित्वा पुरपौरतत्पालयितास्थितिसमां स्वामीवेक्षत । कथं नु केन प्रकारेणेति चितर्कयन्निदं मद्दते मामन्तरेण पुरस्वामिनम् । यदिदं कार्यकरणसंघातं कार्यं वक्ष्यमाणं कथं नु खलु मामन्तरेण स्वात्परार्थं सत्त् । यदि वागादिभिर्य्याहतामित्यादि केवलमेव वाग्यवहारणादि तन्निरर्थकं न कथंचन भवेद्दलिसतुल्यादिवत् । पौरवच्यादिभिः प्रयुज्यमानं स्वार्थं सतत्त्स्वामिनमन्तरेणासत्येव स्वामिनि तद्वत् । तस्मान्मया परेण स्वामिनाडृष्टान्ना कृताकृतफलसाक्षिभूतेन भोक्त्रा भवितव्यं पुरस्ख्येव राज्ञा । यदिदं नामैतत्संहतकार्येस्य परार्थत्वं परार्थिनं मां चेतनमन्तरेण भवेत्पुरपौरकार्योमिव तत्स्वामिनम् । अथ कोडहं किंस्वरूपः कस्य वा स्वामी । यद्यहं कार्यकरणसंघातमनु-

प्रविश्य वागाद्यभिय्राहतादिफलं नोपलभेय राज्ञेव परमप्रविश्याधिक्तपुरुषकृताकृतावेक्षणम्, न कश्चिन्नमामयञ्चत्नेवंरूपश्रेष्ठ्यधिगच्छेद्विचारयेत् । विपर्यये तु योडयं वागाद्यभिग्याहतादीदमिति वेद स सन्नेदनरूपश्रेष्ठ्याधिगन्तग्योडहं स्याम् । यदर्थोमिदं संहतानां वागादीनामभिग्याहतादि । यथा स्तमभकुड्यादीनां प्रासादादिसंहतानां स्वावयवैरसंहतपरार्थत्वं तद्वदिति । एवमीक्षत्वादत्: कतरण प्रपद्या इति । प्रपदं च मूर्धो चास्य संघातस्य प्रवेशमार्गावनयोः कतरण मार्गेणदं कार्यकरणसंघातलक्षणं पुरं प्रपचै प्रपध्येयामिति ।

Having brought into existence, in this manner, the worlds and the world-rulers and individual beings all depending upon food, comparable to a city and its inhabitants requiring one for their protection, He reflected as a king would reflect. How? In what way, without me, the lord of the city, can this aggregate, this manifold creation to be described presently, exist, being from its nature intended for the benefit of some one other than itself? If speech and the rest by themselves could go on functioning, their activities would be in vain, just as feast and laudation would be useless if there is no king to accept them. Hence like a king in regard to a city I, who am different from the world of creation, but yet its substratum and sole witness, must become the enjoyer (as sākṣin) of the fruit of deeds accomplished and to be accomplished (by men). If the functions of the aggregate(Kāryakāranasamghata) meant for another could go on without me, who am that other, and their very self, it will be like the activities undertaken by the citizens with no thought of their ruler. Then who am I? What is my nature? Whose ruler am I either? Suppose I keep away from entering the human body and do not experience the fruit of speech, etc (i.e., if I am not the witness of the bodily and mental activities), as does a king who enters the city and witnesses acts of commission and omission on the part of his subjects, none will ever bestow any thought on my existence or my nature. If on the contrary I cognise the names uttered by speech, etc., I shall be understood as the very principle of cognition. Just as a mansion—a structure composed of pillars and

walls, is intended for one who is not an element in that aggregate, so here (as regards the body and the senses).1 He then took thought as to which of the two ways he should choose to enter the body. The two entrances to this corporal aggregate are (at one end) the feet and (at the other) the crown of the head. His concern was by which of these two ways he should find ingress into the body.2

1 The entry of Īśvara into the composite body is justified on two grounds—(1) An aggregate like the body implies an owner for whose sake it exists, and the functions of the sense of speech, etc., become possible only when informed by Īśvara (2) The real nature of Īśvara can be understood only through Jiva. Unrelated to the Ātman, the Absolute is impossible of comprehension :—यत प्रवेशस्य वागादिद्रव्यवहारसिद्धिर्मत्स्वरूपबोधश्रुति प्रयोजनद्वय सिद्ध्यर्थं कतंऽन्यत्वं—for a comparison of the human body to a house vide Upadeśasāhasrī, para 56.

2 What a vast preparation for the pilgrimage of Jīva ! What tribulation to the servitors and camp-followers ! The worlds were created first, then the gods presiding over the elements, like agni, vāyu, etc., then the senses and sense-organs, food for man and beast, and finally Īśvara individuating himself entered the body as Jīva to experience the joys and sorrows of life It may here be remarked that the Upaniṣad refers to both macrocosmic and microcosmic creations. The gods, the cosmic deities are as it were so many categories imbued with spirit and the very same gods function in man propelling his dufferent senses. As such they are microcosmic. Reference to the entry of Ātman by the toe (प्रपदाग्राभ्यां = पादाग्राभ्यां) occurs in Ait. Āraṇyaka, II, 1-4 ; also in Mait. Up., II, 2—स वायुरिव आत्मानं कृत्वाडऽन्तरं प्राविशत्.

स एतमेव सीमां विदार्यैंतया द्वारापापद्यत ।

He slit the suture of the skull Indeed and entered by that door.

एवमीक्षित्वा न तावन्मदृश्यतस्य प्राणस्य मम सर्वांथीधिकृतस्य प्रवेशमार्गेण प्रपदाभ्यामधः प्रपद्ये । किं तर्हि पारिशेष्यादस्य मूर्धानं विदार्य प्रपद्येयमिति लोक द्वेक्षिकतकारी स सृष्टेश्वर एतमेव मूर्धैसीमानं केशविभागावसानं विदार्यै छिद्रं कृत्वैतया द्वारामार्गेणैव लोकं कार्यकारणसंघातं प्राप्यत प्रविश ।

He thought thus--It is not meet that I should enter by the forepart of the feet meant as entrance to my servant, Prāṇa, who carries out my behests. If so which entrance remains? As one could judge for oneself in the world, the other entrance is the suture in the head which being cut affords ingress. He thus splitting open the suture following up to end of the line parting the hair entered the body.1

सैषा विदृतिनों द्वास्तदेतन्नानन्दनम् ।

That very door is Vidrti named It is (indeed) the door of bliss!

1 Īśvara cut open the head along the line where the two skulls meet and entered the middle of the body in his essence as Jñānaśakti, knowledge-principle. Hence it is that the head is predominantly the seat of thinking (consciousness). As Īśvara entered the body by the tip of the foot in his essence as Kriyāśakti, active-principle, motor activity is predominant in the body below the neck. But for the informing spirit of Īśvara, the world would remain a dead matter. This is indeed divine incarnation!

सेयं हि प्रसिद्धा द्वाः। मूर्धिनि तैलादिधारणकाले तद्रसादिसंवेदनात्। सैषा विद्धातिरविदारितस्वाद्रिद्रातिनो॑म प्रासिद्धा द्वाः। इतराणि तु श्रोत्रादिद्वाराणि भृत्यादिस्थानीयस साधारणमार्गत्वाच्छ नान्दनन्द-हेतूनि। इदं तु द्वारं परमेश्वरस्यैव केवलस्येति। तदेतन्नान्दनं नन्दनमेव नान्दनमिति दृश्यं छान्दसम्। नन्दननेन द्वारेण गत्वा परामिन् ब्रह्माण्णाति।

That passage is indeed well known to all, for when anointing the crown of the head with oil one experiences the cooling sensation. Because the passage is made by cutting open the head it is called Vidrti The other openings like the ear and the rest are ordinary passages meant for agni, etc., who are the servants of Iśvara and therefore cannot produce full pleasure. This door, however, is intended for Parameśvara alone. And it is the door of bliss ; Nāndanam is nandanam-joy ; the lengthening of the vowel is justifiable by Vedic usage. The meaning is that the soul departing by this door rejoices in Parabrahman.1

तस्य तत्र आवस्थात्रयः स्वप्ना अव-मावस्थोड्यमावस्थोऽयमावस्थ इति ॥

For him three seats there are, and three The dreams ; this is the seat, this The seat, this is the seat—Ev'n thus.

1 The door-way by which Iśvara entered the body is known as विदृति (cut) because of its distinction from the ordinary entrances like the socket of the eye, etc., intended to serve as passages to His servants like agni and the rest. This door-way is also known as नन्दनं द्वारं, happy gate.

तस्यैव सृष्टा प्रविष्टस्य जीवेनाऽऽडस्मना राज्ञ इव पुरीं त्रय आवसथाः ।

To him (Īśvara), who having created thus entered the body as jīvatman, there are three resorts just as a king may have three cities for his residence;

जागरितकाले इन्द्रियस्थानं दक्षिणं चक्षुः । स्वप्नकाले ऽन्तरम् । सुषुप्ति-काले हृदयाकाश इत्येतदक्ष्यमाणाः वा त्रय आवसथाः ।

in the waking state, the region of the sense of sight—the right eye, in the dream state, the inward organ—the mind, and in the deep slumber state, the ether in the heart

पितृशरीरं मातृ-गर्भांशयः स्वंच शरीरमिति । त्रयः स्वप्नजाग्रत्सुषुप्त्याख्याः ।

Or the three residences may be those to be mentioned hereafter, namely, the father's body, the mother's womb, and his own body.

नतु जागरितं प्रबोधरूपत्वात् स्वप्नः । नैवं । स्वप्न एव ।

The three dreams are what are called the waking, the dream, and sleep conditions. It may be objected that waking being a normal conscious state cannot be described as dream.

कथम् । परमार्थस्वात्प्रबोधाभावात्स्वप्नवद्रसद्रसत्वाद्रसुतदर्शनाच्च ।

That is not so. It is dream only. How? Because there has not arisen the consciousness of the ultimate reality and because the world-spectacle is as illusory as the dream-world.

अयमेवाऽऽडसस्रक्षुद्दक्षिणं प्रथमः । मनोडन्तरं द्वितीयः । हृदयाकाशास्तृतीयः ।

(Now) the right eye is the first residence, the mind is the second, and the ether in the heart is the third.

अयमावसथ इत्युक्तानुकीर्तनमेव तेषु द्वयमावसथे तेषु पर्योयेरणाऽऽडस्मभावेन वर्तमानो ऽविद्यया दीर्घकाले गाढं प्रसुसः स्वाभाविक्या न प्रभुध्यते ऽ-नेकशतसहस्रानर्थसंकिपातजदुःखमुद्राभिघातानुभवैरपि ।

because if at death the jīva should take its exit by this crevice —ब्रह्मरंध्र—it attains liberation by reaching Brahmalōka

स जातः शरीरेऽप्रविष्टो जीवात्मना भूतान्यभिव्यैष्यद्व्याकरोत् ।

He having been born, i.e., having entered the body as the individual soul, assigned names to all things.

स एतमेव पुरुषं ब्रह्म तत्- ममपश्यदिदमदर्शोमितीँ॥

And he perceived that very Being— The Brahman, over-spreading all— And wondering cried—for sure I've seen.

स कदाचित्परमकार्ष्णिकेनाऽSस्स्वार्येणाऽSस्संज्ञानप्रबोधकृच्छ्रद्धिकायां वेदान्तमहावाक्यभेयां तत्क्षणेमूले तादृशमानायामेतमेव सृष्ट्यादिकर्तृत्वेन

1 He perceived all things beginning with the elements, as identical with himself and gave utterance to this understanding thus · 'I am man', 'blind am I', 'happy am I', etc. Even so the śruti : 'Let me enter the body as jīvāt-man and differentiate things by name and form.' When the knowledge of the true nature of the Ātman which is subversive of all notions of duality is acquired, how could Īśvara delude himself by such identity ? The śruti therefore says : 'What else besides the Ātman is there for me to name ?' There is none. Or this mantra may be taken as concluding the discourse on superimposition by denying the existence of every thing but the Ātman.

The second verse of the Mantra is not commented upon by Śamkara either because he might have thought its import to be plain or the omission is due to the negligence of the scribe.

Sāyana in his Dīpikā interprets the mantra as meaning that the individuated soul at some distant future acquiring right knowledge through the study of the scriptures and discipleship under a preceptor understands that in the world there is nought beside the Absolute, i.e., he realizes that all is but superimposition—अध्यारोप.

प्रकृतं पुरुषं पुरी आयानमात्मानं ब्रह्म गृहत्ततमं तत्कारणैकेन लुघसेन ततततमं व्यास्ततमं परिपूर्णमाकारावत्प्रत्यकुध्यतापइयत् । कथम् । इदं ब्रह्म ममास्स्मन्: स्वरूपमदर्शं दृष्टवानस्मि । अहो इति विचारणाथो प्लुतिः पूर्वम् ।

When, however, on some rare occasion a preceptor in his graciousness beats in the recesses of his ears the sounding drum of the great Vedāntic text (mahāvākya like ‘tatvamasi’) he, the individual jīva comprehends this very Puruṣa—the one who has been described as the creator, etc., and who dwells in the body—this Brahman—the vast, who is all-pervading (‘tatatamam’ should be ‘tattatamam one ‘ta’ having been left out) and who fills all like ether. How (does he comprehend)? I have realized that this Brahman is of the nature of my own self (i.e., Brahman and my ātman are one)! Itī—the prolation of the vowel is to indicate prolonged thought on the part of the individual who arrives at last to the conclusion that his self is identical with the Absolute; and it also indicates the joy of success achieved after deep reflection.1

1 Īśvara when he takes on the flesh plunges as it were into the depths of samsāra and finds no release till by divine grace and fruition of discipleship and scriptural study he comes to know the real nature of both organic and inorganic creation It is by reflection on what he has heard and studied that he gets the conviction that the world is an illusion and that nothing exists other than Brahman. Hence the basic reality of the world of perception is Brahman only. It is only thus that the magic superimposition अध्यास is sublated.

तस्मादिदन्द्रोनामेदन्द्रो ह वै नाम तमिदन्द्रं सन्तामिन्द्र इत्याचक्षते परोक्षेण ।

Therefore Idamdra is His name For sure Idamdra is His name And Him who is as Idamdra known They call Indra by His indirect name.

यस्मादिदमित्येवं यस्साक्षादपरोक्षाद्द्राक् सच्चिदान्तरमपश्यदपरोक्षेण तस्मादिदं पश्यतीन्द्रों नाम परमात्मा । इन्द्रो ह वै नाम प्रसिद्धो लोक ईश्वर: । तमेवमदन्द्रं सन्तामिन्द्र इति परोक्षेण परोक्षाभिध्यानेन- ssचक्षते ब्रह्माविद: । स्तुत्यचहारार्थं पूज्यतमस्वात्मप्रत्यक्षनामग्रहणभयात् ।

Because the jīva directly perceived his own ātman as the self-luminous universal inner principle, therefore Idamdra (literally, It-seeing) is his name. Hence it is, that Paramātma (because he is one with the jīva) is Idamdra. And it is well known that the śrutis describe Īśvara as Idamdra. Yes, the same Idamdra is given (by the elision of a letter) the indirect name, Indra by the knowers of Brahman for practical purposes (such as for prayer and worship). They are afraid of addressing him directly because he is the most adorable Being.

परोक्षप्रिया इव हि देवा: परोक्षप्रिया इव हि देवा: ॥

Indeed the gods love secrecy Indeed the gods love secrecy !

तथा हि परोक्षप्रिया: परोक्षनामग्रहणप्रिया इव झोते हि यस्साद्देवा: , किसु सर्वदेवानामपि देवो महेश्वर: । द्विवचनं प्रकृताध्यायपरिसमा प्ल्यर्थेम् ।॥

Yes, the gods love to be addressed indirectly, because they are worthy of adoration. When that is so what should be said of Maheśvara who is the Lord of Lords!

The repetition of the statement is to indicate the close of the present chapter.1

आसिंश्रतुर्थेऽध्याय एष वाक्यायां, जगदुत्पत्तिस्थितिप्रलयकृत्संसारिसर्वज्ञ: सर्वशक्ति: सर्ववित्सर्वोऽमिदं जगत्स्वतोडन्यद्रस्वान्तरमनुपादीयेव-

स्डकाशादिक्रमेण सृष्टा स्वात्मप्रबोधनार्थं सर्वाणि च प्राणादिमच्छरीराणि स्वयं प्रविवेश प्रविभ्य च स्वसात्कमानं यथाभूतमिदं ब्रह्मासृजति साक्षात्प्रत्यबुध्यत, तस्मात्स एष सर्वशरीरेष्वेक एवास्स्था नान्य द्वेति । अन्योडपि सम आत्मा ब्रह्मासृज्येवं विद्यादित्यात्मा च इदमेक एवाग्र

आसीदिति । ब्रह्म तदोमिति चोचिम्र ।

This is the gist of the fourth Adhyāya.

1 In the world of men also it is well known that a preceptor loves one who addresses him indirectly as आचार्ये, उपाध्याय, and not by his direct name विष्णुमित्र, etc. When it is said that the gods love being addressed by other than their direct names it means that they would like to remain behind the veil !

2 It is true that the previous texts refer only to the creation of the worlds and of food indicating thereby origination and preservation only but by implication the Lord's power of destruction also has to be understood—Ānandagiri.

3 सर्वज्ञ:, one who knows all things in their entirety; सर्ववित्, one who knows the particulars of all things.

the order of ether, etc.,1 the whole universe by his own might without the aid of any other material object himself entered all living bodies so that his nature might be clearly cognised. And after the entry he (as jīva) woke up to the immediate knowledge—‘I am this very Brahman who is my ātman’.2 Therefore he alone is the one entity in all bodies and no other. Another scriptural text also says ‘(Know that) He is my ātman’,3 which means ‘Know I am Brahman’. In the beginning indeed all this was ātman4 ‘alone’. It has also been said that ‘Brahman is all-pervading.’5 In other texts also this (the oneness of jīva and Ātman) is stated.

अन्यत्र च सर्वगतस्य सर्वात्मनो वाडप्रमात्रामन्यप्रविष्टं नास्तीति कथं सीमात्र विदार्ये प्राप्यते पिपीलिकेव सुषिरम्

To one who is all-pervading and who is the inner self of all, there is not even so much space as the point

1 Cf. आत्मन आकाशास्संभूत:, आकाशाद्वायु:—Tait. Up, II, 1.

2 This means that Īśvara and no other is the single entity in all bodies.

3 The full text is स आत्मेति विद्यात्—Ait. Āranyaka, III, 2-4.

4 The identity of jīva and Īśvara is expressed as it is by such knowledge only that samsāra ceases to exist. सम आत्मा, may be split up either as सम•, एक•, आत्मा or as स•, ईश्वर•, मे, मम, आत्मस्वरूप:—Ibid., I, 1.

5 Cf. i स दे वस्सोम्य इदमग्र आसीत्—Chan. Up., VI, 2, 1.

ii. तदेतद् ब्रह्म अपूर्वं अनन्तरमबाह्यं etc.—Brh Up., I, 3-10.

of a hair unpenetrated.1 Then how could it be said that he entered like a worm (lit. an ant) the fissure in the head caused by cutting open the skull ?

नन्वत्नल्पामिदं चोद्यं बहु चात्र चोदितान्यस्म । अकरण: सन्नीक्षिताडनुपादाय किंचिल्लोकानसृजतादृभ्यः पुरुषं समुद्भूयामूढयत । तस्याभिध्यानान्मुखादि निर्भिन्नं मुखादिभ्यश्राग्न्यादयो लोकपालास्तेषां वाशानायापिपासादिसंयोजनं तदायतनप्रार्थनं तदर्थे वागादिप्रदर्शनं तेषां यथायतनप्रवेशनं सृष्ट्याक्रमस्य पलायनं वागादिभिस्तज्जिघृक्षा । पतत्सद्व सीमाविदारणप्रवेशस्ममेव ।

(Referring to the interlocutor Śamkara says)—‘The objection that you have raised is indeed a trifle. Several such (contradictions) could be pointed out here Having no sense-organ he is the seer; without any material object he created the worlds (with no extraneous aid he created the Universe), having lifted up the puruṣa from out the waters he fashioned him (he joined hands, feet, etc., to the lump taken out of the waters), by his contemplation (brooding over the purusa), the mouth, etc., burst forth ; from the mouth, etc., (came forth) Agni and the rest who are the rulers of the regions; the uniting them with hunger and thirst, their prayer for habitation ; for that purpose the presentation of cows, etc., their (gods') entry into their respective abodes; the flight of the food created by (Īśvara), the desire to grasp the food by speech, etc.—all these are on a par with the slitting open the skull and entry therein.

1 Svet. Up., V, 9.

amplification of the story (of creation) is in consonance with the practice obtaining among men ; (instruction by a parable is more helpful in inculcating a doctrine than its direct teaching). The latter explanation is to be preferred.1 There is absolutely nothing to be gained by the knowledge of the story of creation. It is patent, however, that all the Upanisads declare that the gain from the knowledge of the unity of Ātman is immortality. Further, the doctrine of the unity of Ātman has the support of the Smṛtis like the Bhagavad-gītā : " (who sees) the one and the same supreme Lord unchanged and residing in all beings ".2

ननु त्रय आत्मानो भोक्ता कर्ता संसारी जीव एकः सर्वलोकशाखा-प्रसिद्धः । अनेकप्राणिकर्मफलोपभोगयोग्यनेकाधिष्ठानवल्लोकदेहनिर्माणेन लिङ्गेन यथाशास्त्रप्रदर्शितेन पुरप्रासादादिनिर्माणालिङ्गेन तद्विषयकौशल-ज्ञानवांस्तकर्ता तक्षादिरिवेश्वरः सर्वज्ञो जगतः कर्ता द्वितीयश्चेतन आत्माऽऽत्मगम्यते । " यतो वाचोनिवर्तन्ते ", " नेति नेति " इत्यादिशास्त्र-प्रसिद्ध औपनिषद पुरुषप्रसृततिय । एवमेते त्रय आत्मानोऽन्योन्य-विलक्षणाः ! तत्र कथमेक एवास्स्तमाद्वितीयोऽसंसारीति ज्ञातुं शक्यते ।

(A second) objection is raised. There are three selves (Ātmanānah)—the one is jīva, the individual self, who is the enjoyer, doer, and saṃsārin, as corroborated both by experience and scriptures. The second self is īśvara, the all-knower and the world-creator whose existence is to be inferred from the fact of the creation of manifold worlds and bodies (to serve) as fit abodes

1 Vide Note on Arthavāda (ante).

2 Bhagavadgītā, XIII. 27.

for the enjoyment of the fruit of action and as corroborated by the scriptures and on the analogy of the inference of the existence of a builder (तक्ष, carpenter) skilled in the knowledge of construction after we see a built city or a mansion, etc.1 The third self is the puruṣa of the Upanisads so well borne witness to by the scriptures in passages like "from whom words recoil,"2 " Not that, not that".3 Hence these three selves are dissimilar to each other. How is it then possible to conceive of Ātman as one only, having no second and unrelated to the life-current?

तत्र जीव एव तावत्कथं ज्ञायते ।

To this question the answer is ‘How do you even know jīva?’4

नन्वेवं ज्ञायते श्रोता मन्ता द्रष्टाSSदेष्टाSSघोष्टा वि­ज्ञाता प्रज्ञातेति ।

Is it not thus that the jiva is understood, i.e., as hearer, thinker, seer, utterer of words, utterer of sounds,5 knower and reflector?

1 This is what may be termed the design-argument. 2 Tait. Up., Anandavalli. 3 Brh. Up., II, 3-6 4 What the Vedāntin means to say is that there is no means (instrument of knowledge) to prove the existence of the jiva. The more so is it difficult to understand the jiva with the attributes as described by the opponent. 5 आदेष्टा—वर्णात्मकशब्दवक्ता, i.e., one who utters articulate sounds ; आघोष्टा—घ्वन्यात्मकशब्दवक्ता, i.e., one who utters mere sounds

ननु विप्रतिषिद्धं, ज्ञायते यः श्रवणादिकर्तृत्वेनमतो मन्ताडविज्ञातो विज्ञातोति च1। तथा न मतेःसन्तारं मन्वीथान विज्ञातेरविज्ञातारं विजानीया इत्यादि च ।

Is there not here contradiction? Ie (jīva) who is known as agent in the act of hearing, etc, is (according to the śruti) unknowable and unthinkable. Alike there is the text: "You cannot cognize the cognizer of cognition, you cannot understand the understander of understanding.2"

सत्यं विप्रतिषिद्धम्। यदि प्रत्यक्षेण ज्ञायेत सुखादिवत्। प्रत्यक्षज्ञानं च निवार्यते न मतेःसन्तारमित्यादिना। ज्ञायते तु श्रवणादिलिङ्गेन तत्र कृतो विप्रतिषेधः ।

True, there would be contradiction if jīva be the object of perception like pleasure, etc. (i.e, felt experience).3 The text 'not the cognizer of cognition, etc,' negates perceptive knowledge; jīva, however, is known through inferential marks like hearing. Where then is the contradiction?"4

ननु श्रवणादिलिङ्गेनापि कथं ज्ञायते यावता यदा शृणोत्यात्मा श्रोत्रस्य शब्दं तदा तस्य श्रवणं5ैयैव वर्तेमानत्वानमननविज्ञानक्रिये न

1 The altered reading according to Ānandagiri is :- श्रवणादिकर्तृत्वेना मतेगद्विज्ञात इति च. 2 Brh. Up., III, 7-23. 3 Pleasure and pain are directly cognized by the Sākṣin. 4 In his answer, the opponent admits the untenability of his position only on the supposition that the jīva is an object of perception. for then the texts cannot be reconciled ; but he takes his stand upon inference. The jīva or individual self can be inferred by the fact of our hearing, thinking, etc. Hearing implies the hearer ; thinking, the thinker, and so on.

संभवत आत्मनि परत्र वा । तथाडन्यत्रापि मननादिक्रियासु श्रवणादिक्रियाश्र स्वविषयेष्वेव । न हि मन्तव्यादन्यत्र मन्तुमिन्ननक्रिया संभवति ।

The Siddhāntin rejoins. How can the jīva be inferred even by the inferential mark of one's act of hearing, etc., since when one is hearing something that can be heard one is engaged in that act of hearing only and it is not possible for an act of inference to exist either with reference to one's self or another 21 Other mental processes such as are involved in the act of thinking, etc. though similar cannot exist side by side; (in other words, if it be urged that similar processes may exist together if not dissimilar ones as hearing and inference, the answer is that even then co-existence is impossible).2

1 Since there cannot exist two psychical processes at the same time, while the mind is directed towards hearing something, inference (मनन) and cogitation (विज्ञान) are impossible. Hence the Vedāntin combats the view that the jīva can be inferred by such acts as hearing, etc. In the act of hearing the self is occupied with that act only and neither the Ātman nor anything else (outside of oneself as ' the mountain has fire') can be inferred then. Here in this passage 'Manana', and 'Vijñāna' should both be taken to mean 'inference', since the opponent's object is to establish jīva by means of inference

2 Then the opponent varies his argument : It is not that an inferential mark is the cause—लिङ्ग as witness the sūtra— 'linga or hetu is not the instrument by which an inference is drawn because even when the linga has disappeared an inference is possible.' But it is the consciousness of linga or mark that is the karana And it is not necessary that at the time of arriving at inference this consciousness should exist.

नञु मनसा सर्वमेव मन्तव्यम् ।

(The opponent says;) 'Are not all things known by the mind?' (What he means to say is that the mind can reach all including the Ātman.)

सत्यमेवम् । तथापि सर्वमपि मन्तव्यं मन्तारमन्तरण न मन्तु शक्यम् ।

'True, it is so'; 'but still (it must be admitted that) it (i.e., all that is to be known) is incapable of being known without a knower.'

यद्येवं किं स्यात् ।

'Well, if it be so what is it that you gain?'

इदमन्त्र स्यात् । सर्वस्य योजयित्ता स मन्तैवैति न मन्तव्यः स्यात् । न च द्वितीयो मन्तुरमन्ताडस्ति यदा स आत्मनैव मन्तव्यस्तदा येन च मन्तव्य आत्माडडत्मना यश्र मन्तव्य आत्मा तौ ह्रौ प्रसज्येयाताम् । एक एवंआSSत्मा द्विधा मन्तुरमन्तव्यतेन द्वृशक्ली भवेदंशादिवदुभयथाड-प्यनुपपत्तिरेव । यथा प्रदीपय: प्रकाशकत्वानुपपत्ति: समत्वा- तद्वत् । न च मन्तुरन्तव्ये मननऽयापारशून्य: कालोऽस्त्यात्ममनननाय । यदाडपि लिझेनाडडत्मानं मनुते मन्ता तदाडपि पूर्ववदेव लिझेन मन्तव्य आत्मा यश्र तस्य मन्ता तौ ह्रौ प्रसज्येयाताम् । एक एवं वा द्विधोति पूर्वोक्तौ दोषौ ।

It acquires its karnatva by its presence at the moment previous to the origination of inference. Hence there is no flaw in the argument that the existence of jīva is a fact of inference. The Siddhāntin points out that even when considering the marks लिझ्ञानि the sākṣin आत्मा is premised as inseparably mixed up with these upādhis or limitations since the Ātman as sākṣin is inherently free from attributes.

'This then results; he who is the knower of all is the knower only and cannot (himself) be an object to be known.'1 There is no second knower of the (first) knower. If this knower (the first) is to be known by an Ātman, then there would be need for two selves (ātmānau) : that by which the one self is to be known and the other self which is to be known.2 Or the one self only will have to be split up like a bamboo into two parts the one being regarded as knower (mantā) and the other as object to be known

1 The view of the Bhātta school of Mīmāṃsakas is that the Ātman consists of two parts, one achit and the other chit (जडबोधात्मक) the second being the perceiver and the first perceived. This view is brought forward by the Pūrva-pakṣin forgetting the fact that then the Ātman would be composed of parts—सावयवत्व।

Let not, then, says the opponent, inference of the self arise from the act of hearing something outside, say, sound but the act of hearing may point at the same time to the Ātman as its object viṣaya.

But hearing, etc., can only relate to their appropriate objects (and not to the Ātman) who is the agent in all forms of knowing). Moreover the śruti says, "inference cannot grasp one who infers', i.e., the process of inference which is a mental act cannot refer to anything except that which is its suitable object Hence the Ātman cannot be an object of inference as stated by the opponent.

2 Opponent—Even admitting that apart from manas there is a knower (manta) what is it that results ?

Siddhānti.—This is it that results. The ātman cannot become an object of cognition, for he is himself the cognizer and the same being cannot be both subject and object.

(mantavya)1 Either way the view (advanced) will not hold good : (whether one ātman is regarded as split up into two or two distinct ātmans are posited in one and the same body, it will lead to absurdity). Of two lights one is not the illuminator and the other illuminated, both being of like nature (of luminous character). It is so here. Nor can it be said that there is any time at which the mind is left disengaged when it can cognize the ātman.2 If you say that the ātman can be inferred (लिङ्गेन) even then you will have to posit one self that infers and the other that is inferred or conceived, or a single ātman has to be regarded as being split up into two. In either case the said blemish remains.

न प्रत्यक्षेण नाप्यनुमानेन ज्ञायते चेत्कथमुच्यते सम आत्मेति विद्यादिति । कथं वा श्रोता मन्तेल्यादि ।

1 Two alternatives are premised—either the knower of ātman must be insentient जड़ or अनात्मा, or another sentient being. Both suppositions would lead to absurdity. 2 There is no time when the mind free from occupations (i.e., when it is not functioning) can cognize the ātman Cp " परां चिकीषोर्नियतृणां स्वयंभू: etc." Kaṭha Up. II. 1, 1. The perception of things outside but not of the inner self is possible for the senses since they are all fixed into the body outside, by God. If however the mind remains steadfast and unruffled by the life-current, then the ātman shines itself, i e, the self-luminous ātman becomes manifest when distractions cease to affect the mind. The point is that though a purified mind can reflect the ātman it does not serve as an instrument for its understanding.

(Now the Pūrvapakṣin confronts the Siddhāntin with scriptural texts opposed to the view expressed by the latter ; the śruti definitely says that Ātman is to be known.)

If Ātman remains undiscovered either by perception (pratyakṣa) or by inference (anumāna) how is the text 'Know the one self is Brahman' or 'Know He is myself' to be explained? How again can Ātman be described as He is the hearer, thinker, etc., (i.e., the agent in hearing, etc., whose existence is indicated by the act of hearing, thinking, etc. ?)

ननु श्रोत्रत्वादि धर्मैवानात्मा श्रोत्रत्वादि च प्रसिद्ध आत्मनः किमत्र विषमं पर्यासि । यद्यपि तव न विषमं तथापि मम तु विषमं प्रतिभाति ।

कथम् । यदाऽसौ श्रोता तदा न मन्ता यदा मन्ता तदा न श्रोता । तत्रैव सति पक्षे श्रोता मन्ता पक्षे न श्रोता नापि मन्ता । तथाऽऽन्यत्राऽपि च । यदैवं तदा श्रोत्रत्वादि धर्मैवानात्मा श्रोत्रत्वादि धर्मैवान्वेति संशयस्थाने कथम् तव न वैषम्यम् । यदा देवदत्तो गच्छति तदा न स्थाता गन्तैव । यदा तिष्ठति तदा न गन्ता स्थातैव तदाऽस्य पक्षे एव गन्तृत्वं स्थातृत्वं च न नित्यं गन्तृत्वं स्थातृत्वं वा तद्भवत् ।

(The Siddhāntin answers):—'Are you not aware that Ātman is possessed of the qualities of hearing, etc., and is it not well known that non-hearing also is predicated of Ātman? What discrepancy do you see here? Though you may think that there is nothing incongruous in your reasoning, viz., that Ātman must either be śrota—hearer, or aśrota—non-hearer and not both, to me, however, your statement is evidently discrepant. How? (you may ask). When he (Ātman) is hearer, then he is not thinker; when he is thinker then

he is not hearer. When this is so, sometimes he is śrota and manta and sometimes he is not śrota or manta either (but not always śrota or manta). The same holds good as regards other mental activities. Hence it is clear that Ātman may be characterized by the qualities of hearing, etc., and also of non-hearing, etc. Thus when there is the possibility of an alternative how do you (feel sure) that your view is not partial? When Devadatta is going he is not standing but is going only. When he is standing he is not going but standing only. Therefore his going and standing alike are variable and neither going nor standing is cunstant. Similar is the Ātman in possessing the qualities of hearing and non-hearing, etc.'1

Ānandagiri's gloss which throws some light on this rather difficult passage is summarised below :-There are two readings here.-According to the first the criticism (पूर्वपक्ष) begins with 'न प्रत्यक्षेप' and ends with 'मन्तेल्यादि'; the answer (सिद्धान्त) begins with 'ननुश्रोतृत्वादि' and ends with 'स्थातृत्वं वा तद्वत्'; according to the second where 'प्रसिद्धं अनात्मन:' is to be substituted for 'प्रसिद्धं आत्मन:', the criticism begins with 'न प्रत्यक्षेप' and ends with 'प्रसिद्धं अनात्मन ', the rest of the passage being the answer as above The objection according to the first reading is raised on the ground that contradictory attributes like hearer and non-hearer, thinker and non-thinker, etc , cannot be attributed to Ātman and that to be consistent the positive attributes (श्रेतृत्व, etc.), alone should be regarded as constant and the negative ones explained otherwise The answer is based on the existence of the (seemingly contradictory) texts and it is explained that

अत्र काणादादयः पश्यन्ति । पक्षप्राप्तेनैव श्रोतृत्वादिनाSSस्मोच्यते श्रोता मन्तेत्यादिसंयोगजत्वमयोगपद्यं च ज्ञानस्य ह्याचक्षते । दर्शयन्ति चान्यत्रमनः अभूवं नादर्शंमित्यादि युगपज्ज्ञानानुपपत्तिमनसो लिङ्गमिति च न्याययम् ।

In this connection the Logicians (Kānādas and the rest interpose and thinking that they have scored a there is no inconsistency in Ātman's being described as both hearer and non-hearer, because the mental operations of hearing, thinking, etc., do not take place simultaneously. When one is hearing, one is not thinking ; and when one is thinking, one is not hearing ; hence Ātman is both श्रोता and अश्रोता. According to the second reading the statement of the objector is to be construed thus. ‘श्रोतामन्ता’ इत्यादि श्रुत्या श्रोतृवादि धर्मवानात्मा इति वाक्यं, ननु तत् कथं स्यात् ; अश्रोतृत्वादिव प्रसिद्धमनातमनः. Following the text " He is hearer, thinker, etc." Ātman, it must be described, as possessing the attributes of hearing, etc., but how is this possible according to you who maintain that Ātman is not to be known either by the senses or by inference—(नप्रत्यक्षेण नाप्यनुमानेन) ; and further you cannot maintain that non-hearing is characteristic of Ātman, for the world-experience is against such a view. Non-hearing is a quality of that which is other than the Ātman. The Siddhāntin tries to show that both characteristics, hearing and non-hearing can be reconciled in Ātman and that thereby the claims of the scriptural texts and of experience can be satisfied. The answer to the first question, " how is the text—‘ know he is my-Ātman’ to be understood if the pramāṇas, perception, inference, etc , fail to reach him," is that, as explained later on, it means that the Ātman being self-luminous is self-evident and not cognizable by other means. Here however it is only the second question, ‘ how is the text’ ‘ he is the hearer, thinker, etc.,’ that is answered.

victory) observe (as follows):-it is because of the occasional nature only, of hearing, etc., that the Ātman is described as hearer, thinker, etc. It is well known also that a thought (jñāna) is the out-come of contact (between the Ātman and manas) and does not simultaneously arise with another thought as is evident in such expressions as, 'my mind was elsewhere,' 'I did not notice this,' and so on. There is the textual authority (Gautama Sūtra, I. 1 16) for them.-The fact that two thoughts cannot rise together is the proof of the existence of manas. Such a view they consider as conforming to reason.

भवत्वेनं किं तव नष्टं यद्येवं स्यात् ।

Now the Pūrvapakṣin asks the Siddhāntin: ' Let it be so, what is it that you lose if it is pertinent as the logicians say ?1

1 The Vaiśeṣikas hold that hearing, thinking, etc., are the attributes of Ātman who in consequence is engaged now in one act and now in another, indicating that thought processes appear and disappear in him ; hence the Ātman is described as hearer, thinker, etc. They assume a mind which is of atomic size as a necessary factor in explaining all forms of jñāna implying that mental acts can only succeed one another and therefore be kadācitka and not nitya. The Siddhāntin relying on the śruti refuses to accept this doctrine Even in suṣupti deep slumber, when the mind has ceased to function, according to him there is some form of experience and that state is not a mere blank as the Vaiśika takes it to be.

The final verdict of Vedānta is that Ātman being the Sākṣin is Eternal' Witness of all mental acts ; so Ātman is eternal hearer, etc., but as the mental modes themselves are fleeting and unreal they are not characteristics of Ātman who is therefore eternal non-hearer, etc.

अस्त्वेवं तवेष्टं चेत्, श्रुयर्थस्तु न संभवति ।

'Yes, let it be so if you desire, the śruti, however, cannot mean that.'

किं न श्रोता मन्तेत्यादि श्रुत्यर्थः ।

Why not the śruti mean that the Ātman is hearer, thinker, etc.

न । न श्रोता न मन्तेत्यादिवचनात् ।

No, because the scripture has it that he is neither hearer nor thinker, etc.

ननु पाक्षिकत्वेन प्रत्युक्तं त्वया ।

Did you not aver (in reply to my objection) that hearing, etc., were occasional traits of Ātman ?1

न, नित्यमेव श्रोतृत्वाद्यभ्युपगमात् । न हि श्रोत्रुः श्रुतेरपपरिलोपो विद्यत इत्यादि श्रुते: ।

No, because it is maintained that such traits are permanent: 'indeed there is no cessation of the hearing of the hearer'. Such is the śruti.2

एवं तर्हि नित्यमेव श्रोतृत्वाद्यभ्युपगमे प्रत्यक्षविरुद्धा युगपज्जानोत्पत्तिरज्ञानाभावश्राद्धत्मनि कल्पितः स्यात् । तच्चानिष्टमिति ।

If the permanency of hearing, etc., be accepted, simultaneous manifestation of all forms of consciousness, a thing opposed to experience, and absence (at any time) of ajñāna (lack of consciousness) would result in Ātman. This is something undesired.

1 No doubt the Siddhāntin did make this answer but only as the view of the Kāṇādas. 2 Brh. Up., IV. 3. 27.

नोभयदोषोपपत्तिरात्मन्. श्रुत्यादिधर्मवत्त्वात्त्वश्रुते: । अनित्यानां मूर्तीनां चक्षुरादीनां दृष्ट्याद्ध्यानित्यमेव संयोगवियोगधर्मित्वात् । यथाडिमेज्वलनं तृणादिसंयोगजत्वात् । न तु नित्यस्यामूर्तस्यासंयोगविभागधर्मिण: संयोगजदृष्ट्याद्ध्यानिधर्मवत्त्वं संभवति । तथा च श्रुति:—“न हि द्रष्टुर्दृष्टेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यते” इत्याद्या ।

There is no room for either of the two charges, because of the existence of the śruti declaring hearing, etc. (in its double form of sāksijñāna and vrttijñāna) as characteristics of Ātman.1 It is only in the case of the sense of sight, etc., which are impermanent, gross, and which function or not according as they come into contact or otherwise with objects that impermanency is predicated, even as the bursting of fire into flame is occasional (impermanent) because it results from contact with (some combustibles) like straw, etc. Of Ātman, however, who is eternal, non-material, who by his nature cannot enter into relation with and so cannot be said to dissociate himself from (any object) perception and other (mental processes) which arise from contact (of sense and object) and which are fleeting in their nature cannot be the actual characteristics. 1 We should speak of two kinds of knowing in respect of the self, the one which constitutes its essence and is eternal, the other which as a mode of the Antahkarana is impermanent Hence the śruti describes the Ātman as नित्यश्रोता and नित्यमन्ता hearer, thinker in its nature as sākṣin; again the śruti describes the Ātman as ‘न श्रोता, न मन्ता’ in its relation to the superimposed hearing which is occasional. Therefore the declaration of the śruti regarding jīva that he is both hearer and non-hearer, etc., is valid.

Even so the sruti:—‘Of the seer seeing will not fail,' etc.

एवं तर्हि द्वे दृष्टी चक्षुरोडनित्या दृष्टिरनित्या चास्स्मनः । तथा च दृे श्रुती श्रोत्रस्यानित्या नित्यास्सरमस्वरूपस्य । तथा हे मती विज्ञाति वाद्यावाद्ये ।

If so there will be two orders of sight: one impermanent, that of the eye, and the other permanent, that of the Ātman; so also two orders of hearing: of the ear impermanent, and permanent, that of the Ātman, so also two orders of cogitation and reflection, viz., external and internal

एवं हेतोरियम् श्रुतिरुपपन्ना भवति दृष्टेर्दृष्टा श्रुते. श्रोतेल्याद्या । लोकेऽपि प्रसिद्धं चक्षुरस्तिमिरागमापायैरनेक्षा दृष्टिरन्तरा दृष्टिरिति चक्षुर्दृष्टेर्नित्यत्वम्, तथा च श्रुतिमन्त्यादीनाम्; आत्मदृष्ट्यादीनां च नित्यत्वं प्रसिद्धमेव लोके वदति श्रुतीतचक्षुः: स्वप्नेSप्य मया दृष्ट इति । तथाऽऽत्मगतबाधिर्यैः: स्वप्ने श्रुतो मन्त्रोSद्यादि । यदि चक्षु:-संयोगजैवाडSत्मनोऽनित्या दृष्टिस्तन्नाशे न पश्येत । न हि दृष्टुदृष्टेरिल्याद्या च श्रुतिरनुपपन्ना स्यात् । ननु चक्षुः पुरुषे येन स्वप्ने प्रतीयतेऽद्या च श्रुति: । नित्यात्स्मनो दृष्टिराद्यास्ति नित्यदृष्टेरप्रोहिका ।

आत्मदृष्टेस्तद्धदभावस्तमनित्यत्वादिभ्रान्तानिमित्तं लोकस्येति युक्तम्। यथा श्रुति:—ध्यायततीव लिलायतीवैति । तस्मादात्मदृष्टेर्नित्यत्वान्न यौगपद्य-मयोगपद्यं वाडस्ति । बाह्यानित्यदृष्टयुपाधिवशात्तु लोकस्य तार्किकाणां चाडSगमसंग्रहायवर्जितत्वादनित्यादृष्टिरिति आन्तिरुपपन्नैव । जीवेश्वरपरमात्मभेदकल्पना चैतन्निमित्तैव । तथाऽऽस्ति नास्तीत्याद्याश्र

यावन्तो वाङ्मानसयोर्भेदा यच्चैकं भवन्ति तद्विषयाया नित्याया दृष्टेर्निर्वि-

षाय: ।

आस्ति नास्तीयेकं नानागुणवदगुणं जानाति न जानाति क्रियावद-

क्रियं फलवदफलं सबीजं निर्बीजं सुखं दुःखं मध्यमध्यं शून्यमशून्यं

परोक्षमन्य इति वा सर्ववाङ्मात्रयागोचरे स्वरूपे यो विकलपथितुमिच्छति

स नूनं खमपि चर्मवद्वृष्टियितुमिच्छति सोपानमिव च पदं यामारोढुम् ।

जले खे च मीनानां वयसां च पदं दिदक्षते । नेति नेति, यतो वाचो

निवर्तन्ते, इत्यादि श्रुतिभ्य: । को अद्धा वेदेत्यादिमन्त्रवर्णात् ।

Yes, thus only the śruti, 'He is the seer of sight, (i.e., the seer is eternal while the vrttis associated with sight, etc., are evanescent). It is common knowledge that the sight of the (physical eye is impermanent) because (we speak of) the loss of sight when some eye-disease blinds the eye and of its restoration after the disappearance of the disease Even so as regards hearing, thinking, etc But of the sight, etc , of the Ātman permanency is indeed a matter 'of universal acceptance. A man whose eyes are plucked out does surely say 'to-day in dream my brother was seen by me ;' so also a man who is unmistakably deaf, 'to- day in my dream I heard the Vedic Mantra, etc.' If eye (with the object) were itself the sight of the Ātman, and with the loss of the eye, the sight also disappeared,

then the man with blinded eyes could not see blue, yellow, etc., in dreams; the śruti, 'the sight indeed of the seer, etc.,' would be inappropriate then, and also the śruti 'that by which

one who sees dreams is Sākṣin'.¹ It is the eternal sight of the Ātman that illuminates the fleeting external sights (i.e., all our sense-activities presuppose the light of the eternal consciousness, but for the light of the Ātman the world would be nought). Because the external sights (i.e., the activities of the senses and of the antahkarana in general) appear (sometimes) and disappear (at other times) and are characterized by (the quality of) impermanence, it is quite intelligible that the sight of the Ātman being the illuminator (of the sense-objects) should appear to the world as evanescent due to the illusory transference to it of features belonging to the sense-activities ¹ One's sight directed towards a (rapidly) moving torch appears also to move.

¹ The objection may be raised that since sight in dreams is independent of the eye the term sight is itself a misnomer. To this it may be replied that the application of the term ' sight' is restricted to the immediate knowledge of form, etc., which need not necessarily presume the existence of the eye. In dreams objects of sight there are, without the aid of the eye. It should not be supposed that dream-perception is recollection because it is immediate (अपरोक्ष). It is not illusory knowledge because it is not negated as long as the dream lasts Further the experience one has in deep slumber and which is recalled after one wakes up with the feeling of having had a happy sleep must be eternal, for then all the sense-organs including Manas are quiescent and in consequence there is no room for any impermanent experience resulting from sense-contact.

उपाधिगत धर्माणां उपधेये प्रतीति:

—The characteristics of mental modes are superimposed on jīva.

It is so here. The śruti (Brh. Up, IV 37) also (corroborates this view) —“(The Ātman) appears to contemplate, appears to move." Hence, because the sight of the Ātman is eternal (i.e., because of the eternality of the witnessing consciousness) there is no question of simultaneous or non-simultaneous notions arising.1 Deluded by external and fleeting sights and not having come under the discipline of scriptural study and tradition it is but natural for common people and even for rationalistic philosophers (like Kāṇādas) to delude themselves into thinking that Ātman's perception is evanescent. It is for this very reason that they imagine that Jīva, Īśvara and Paramātma are distinct entities (i.e., they not only imagine that Ātman's sentience is discursive but posit also discrete Ātmans.) Similar is the ascription of existence, non-existence, etc., to the eternal and attributeless Ātman whose nature is such that all distinctions whatsoever2 of speech and thought become merged in Him.

1 The notion of simultaneity gets its significance only with reference to the multiple objects but not with reference to Ātman who is one —अनेकनिरूप्यत्वायोगपदस्य तद्भावरूपत्वद्वैगुण्यप्रसङ्गेकस्य दृष्टौ तद्भावसपि नास्ति

2 वाङ्मनसोरमेदः ; वाग्भेदः=नामविशेषा ; मनसो भेदः=रूप विशेषा

When Ātman is realized both names and forms become merged in Him; ' All Vedas become one there (in Ātman), all men become one there.' The very nature of Ātman is eternal perception which is homogeneous and unassociated. Hence the attribution of predicates like existence by the āstikas ('Theists) and non-existence by the anāstikas (Nihilists) or both existence and non-existence by the Jainas, etc., to the

'Is', 'Is not', one, many, qualified, unqualified, cognizant, non-cognizant, kinetic, static, fruitful, unfruitful, having origin, having no origin, is joy, is sorrow, is inside (body) only, is not inside,1 is blank, is not blank, it is other than me, I am other than that2 and so on—thus whoever wishes to superimpose such contradictory notions upon that which by nature cannot be grasped by speech or thought (i.e., cannot be comprehended either by verbal description or by any process of reasoning), he certainly also desires to roll up the sky like a piece of leather, certainly also desires to step up the sky as if climbing a flight of steps, yes, he wishes to trace the path of fishes in water and of birds in the firmament. (What do the śrutis say?) "He is not that, he is not that", "From him speech rebounds," and so on; "who truly knows It?" so says the Vedic Mantras.

कथं तर्हि तस्य स म आत्मेति वेदनं बूढि केन प्रकारेण तमहं स म आत्मेति विद्याम् । अन्राऽSद्यायिकामाचक्षते । काश्चित्किल मनुष्यो मुग्धः कैश्चिदुक्तः कंसिनाश्रिदपराधे सति धिक्त्वां नासी मनुष्य इति । स मुग्धतयाSSस्तमनो मनुष्यत्वं प्रत्याययितुं कंचिदुपेल्याऽडडह । ब्रवीतु भवान्कोऽहमस्मीति । स तस्य मुग्धतां ज्ञात्वाऽSडडह । कस्मैन् बोधयिष्यामīti । स्थावराद्यात्मभावमपोढुं न त्वममनुष्य इत्युक्त्वोपपराम । स तं मुग्धः प्रत्याह । भवान्मां बोधयितुं प्रवृत्तस्तूष्णीं बभूव किं न

eternal witnessing consciousness or eternal, homogeneous perception has its source in avidyā only.

1 अमध्ययम्—Ātman is both inside and outside the body.

2 परः—मत्तः परिदृश्यमान पदार्थे (अयं) अन्यः, तत्—परिदृश्यमान पदार्थात अहं अन्य, I am other than the things perceived.

बोधयतीति । तद्रेव तद्वतो वचनम् । नास्यमनुष्य इत्युक्तेऽपि मनुष्यत्वमात्मनो न प्रतिपद्यते यः स कथम् मनुष्योऽसौयुक्तोऽपि मनुष्यत्वमात्मनः प्रतिपद्येत ।

Then how, tell me, can the knowledge of the Ātman as enjoined in the śruti, 'He is my Ātman', arise? In what manner can I know, 'He is my Ātman' ?1 (In answering the query) they (the Vedāntins) relate an anecdote :—A certain foolish person for having committed an offence was rebuked by some one thus, 'you be cursed, you are no human being!' As he was a dunce he went to a third party to make sure if he was a man and said, 'please, your worship, tell me who am I?' Perceiving his stupidity he said to him-self—'Let me teach him step by step.' Then having dispelled the idea of his being any one of the inanimate objects he said 'You are not non-human' and assumed silence. That stupid man once again asked, 'You, sir, having begun to instruct me are now silent; why don't you instruct me?' 'Exactly alike is your utterance' (says the Siddhāntin), 'He who cannot comprehend that he is a man when he is told, 'You are not non-human', how can such a man comprehend that

1 If neither word nor thought can compass the Ātman, then, the questioner says, it is impossible for the knowledge of the Ātman to arise. But such a position is indefensible since the evidence of the śruti which declares that the Ātman is to be known as one's own self is unassailable. Hence the questioner seems to merely present his difficulty thus: 'I am not criticising the śruti but asking its right explanation'

he is a human being even when he is told, 'you are a human being?'"

तस्माद्यथाशास्त्रोपदेश एवाऽऽस्य लौकिकोऽविधिनान्यः। न ह्यग्रेदों तृणाद्यन्येन केनाऽचिद्द्रव्यं शक्यम्। अत एव शास्त्रसात्मस्वरूपं बोधयितुं प्रवृत्तं सदृशमनुष्यत्वप्रतिपेधनेनैव नोति नेतीत्युक्त्वोपरराम। तथाडनन्तरमबाध्यमयमात्मा ज्ञह सर्वानुभूःरित्यनुशासनम्। "तत्वमसि" "यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाऽभूत्केन कं पश्येत" इत्येवमादिपे च।

Hence the scriptural method of instruction alone is the right one and none other for the proper understanding of the Brahman It is indeed impossible to burn straw, etc., by anything except fire. Therefore it is that the scripture having begun to expound the nature of self remained silent after making the statement—not that, not that, very like the denial of the non-human nature (of the questioner in the illustration). Such is also the scriptural injunction :—‘ Nothing intervenes between the Ātman and something else', 'Nothing

1 When the possibility of his being anything that is non-human is excluded by a detailed demonstration, the enlightenment of his own true nature needs must follow ; otherwise there is some defect in the man's faculty of comprehension. When what is a subjective and immediate experience is shrouded by something, all that is required is to remove the object obscuring it and it is unnecessary to denote specifically what that experience is ; for with the removal of the veil it reveals itself. But if a person cannot be made to see the truth by this negative method it means that he is unfit to receive instruction because of his dense ignorance.

Cf. अपरोक्षतया प्रतीयमानेऽपि वस्तुनि, विपर्ययेेण गृहीते विपर्यय निरासमात्रे यत्नः कार्यः, न तु स्वरूपबोधे, तस्य स्वयमेव प्रतीतेः.

exists outside (the Ātman)' 'This Ātman is Brahman who is the all-witness', 'That thou art'1, 'When, however, all becomes identified with the Ātman, then what can be perceived and by whom?'2 (Brh. Up., II. 4. 14).

यावद्यमेवं यथोक्तमिममात्मानं न वेत्ति तावदयं बाह्यानित्यदृष्टिलक्षणमुपाधिमात्मत्वेनोपेत्याविद्ययोपाधिद्रुमानात्मनो मन्यमानो ब्रह्मादिस्थावरान्तेषु देहातिरेकनिरस्थानेषु पुनः पुनरावर्तिमानोऽविद्याकामकर्मवशात्संसरति ।

So long as a person fails to realize the true nature of the self in the way inculcated, he goes on holding the superimposed notions of sight, etc., which are external and transient as identical with the Ātman and holding too that such ascriptions really belong to the Ātman, again and again takes on births in the (different) orders of beings ranging from Brahma (Hiranyagarbha) to a tiny insect and surrendering

1 'तत्त्वमसि' इत्यत्रापि तत्पदार्थेसामानाधिकरण्ये न त्वं पदर्थे कर्तृत्वादिनिषेधेनैव तस्य (जीवस्य) ब्रह्मत्वबोधः:—In the passage 'That Thou art', the jīva's identity with the Brahman is established by negating agency, etc., of the jīva. The same negative process is followed in explaining 'तत्केन कं पश्येत्'. Here is denied the possibility of the Ātman's becoming the object of sight.

2 The method of negation is the only right method. When the superimpositions such as, 'I am a man,' etc., are all negated as in 'not that, not that' the Ātman shines by its own light and requires no further pramāṇa for its proof. The scripture in its exposition of the Ātman is concerned only with the removal of false ascriptions.

himself to the desires and actions which avidyā engenders remains unredeemed in samsāra.1

स एवं संसारसुप्तदेहेन्द्रियसंघातं त्यजति । त्यक्त्वासङ्‌न्यमुपादत्ते । पुनः पुनरेवमेव नद्रीस्रोतोवजन्ममरणप्रवन्धाविच्छेदेन वर्तमानः कामि-

रेवस्थाभवंतत इत्येतस्मै दर्शयन्त्याह श्रुतयःपरास्मृतहता: ।

Thus passing through life he abandons the aggregate of the body and the sense-organs which he has assumed ; having abandoned (one body) he takes another and this process goes on repeatedly like the continuous current of a river , and being unable to escape from the bonds of births and deaths, he is held bound to one of the (three) orders of beings (Deva, manusya, and thiryak, i.e., gods, men and beasts). Impressing this idea and with a view to creating a feeling of detachment the śruti states what is detailed in the following section.

1 Since it is evident that the Ātman in its essence is pure and uncontaminated and that agency (कर्तृत्व), enjoyment, etc., are but false ascriptions ; since again Īśvara is identical with the Brahman and that predicates like all-knowingness, etc., are also false ascriptions, the conclusion is that there is only one Ātman and not three as averred by the pūrva-pakṣin. It is Māyā that is the cause of the diremption of the Brahman into Jīva and Īśvara.

CHAPTER IV

ॐ पुरुषे ह वा अयमादितो गर्भो भवति यदेतद्रेतः ।

Om ! In man indeed the jiva first Appears conceived, for there as seed (the food that one doth eat is changed).

CHAPTER IV

अयमेवाविद्याकामकर्मोभिमानवान्यज्ञादिकर्म कृत्वा स्वाह्लोकात्-भूमादिक्रमेण चन्द्रलोकं प्राप्य क्षीणकर्मा वृष्ट्यादिक्रमेणैवं लोकं प्राप्याऽऽभूतः पुरुषाश्रौ हुतः । तस्मिन्पुरुषे ह वा अयं संसारी रसादिक्रमेणैवऽऽदितः प्रथमतो रेतोरूपेण गर्भो भवतीयेतदाह यदेतत्पुरुषे रेतस्तेन रूपेणोति ।

The very jiva actuated by desires due to nescience engages himself in ritualistic practices and as a result reaches gradually the region of the moon by the path of smoke and comes down along with rain, etc., to this world after working out his karma (in Chandraloka). Enveloped in food he is offered up in the fire of man. And in him the jiva having now entered samsāra (the

1 The direction that pregnant women should withdraw indicates that women enjoyed equal privileges with men in learned assemblies where they could participate in religious and philosophical discussions. Since the subject of this Chapter relates to the processes of gestation, it is appropriate that expectant mothers should not be permitted to listen to such a delicate topic.

life-current) is conceived at first, since he is imbedded in the seed to which the food is changed after being successively transformed into different juices.1

तदेतत्सर्वेभ्योऽङ्गेभ्योऽभ्यस्तेजः संभूतमन्न्ये- वास्सतमानं विभर्ति तददः शियं सिञ्च- त्यथैनज्जनयति तदस्य प्रथमं जन्म ।

That seed which is their quintessence From all the limbs doth issue forth; And thus within his self alone He bears himself. But when he casts The seed in woman, he begets The seed and that is the first of his births.

यच्चैतद्रेतोऽन्नमयस्य पिण्डस्य सर्वेभ्योऽङ्गेभ्योऽङ्गवयवेभ्यो रसादि- लक्षणेभ्योऽभ्यस्तेजः साररूपं शरीरस्य संभूतं परिणिष्पन्नं तत्पुरुषस्याड्डत्म- भूतत्वादात्मा । तमात्मानं रेतोरूपेण गर्भीभूतमात्मन्येव स्वशरीर एवाडडत्मानं बिभर्ति धारयति । तद्वेतो यदा योषिन्काले भार्यंतुमती तस्यां योषामौ सिञ्चत्युपगच्छन्त । अथ तदैनदेतद्वेत आत्मनो

1 The śruti proceeds now to describe the career of the soul enslaved by ignorance. A life of piety and sacrifice leads one along the path of the fathers—पितृयान or भूमादिमार्ग to Chandraloka otherwise known as Svarga or पितृलोक, but who after a temporary sojourn there, is hurled down to this world. The imponderable jīva in its descent is conveyed by rain which fructifies the earth and so the jīva takes its lodgement in the grain which latter, becoming the food of man, is changed into the vital fluid and gives asylum to the jīva. Hence it is said that the first conception of jīva is in man, i.e., in the body of the father.

गर्भंभूतं जनयति पिता । तदस्य पुरुषस्य स्थानाधिगमनं रेतःसेक्काले रेतोरूपेणास्य संसारिणः प्रथमं जन्म प्रथमावस्थाभिव्यक्तिः, तदेतदुक्तं पुरस्तादस्मादात्मादमुमात्मानमित्यादिना ।

The seed in man who is nourished by food is the quintessence of all his organs and having proceeded from them constitutes, as it were, his very self. The man may be said to be carrying himself within himself since it is his bodily essence only that is turned into the seed and is lodged in him (as the foetus is lodged in the womb). When he transfers that seed to his wife at the time she is fit to conceive he is said to deposit it in the fire of woman. He, the father, is then delivered of the seed which he had borne. Hence the jiva in his career (samsāra) takes his first birth when having been conceived as seed in man is transferred to the woman.1

तत्क्षिया आत्मभूयं गच्छति यथा स्वमज्ञं तथा तस्मादेनां न हिनस्ति साड्यैतमात्मानमन्र गतं भावयाति ।

That seed is now become transformed Into the woman's very self ; As is her limb so is it now, And her therefore it doth not hurt. And she protects that self of his Which has its lodgement found in her.

तद्वेतो यस्यां क्रियां सिक्तं सत्तस्या आत्मभूयमात्माऽऽत्यातिरेकतां यथा पितुरेवं गच्छति प्राप्नोति यथा स्वमझं स्वनादि तथा तद्देव ।

1 Cf Chand. Up., V. 8. 1.

तस्मादेतोरेनां मातरं स गर्भो न हिनस्ति पितृकादिवत् । यस्यास्त्वनादि स्वाङ्गवदात्मभूयं गतं तस्माद्वा हिनस्ति न बाधते इत्यर्थः । साधन्तर्वैल्न्ये-तमस्य भरतुरात्मानमात्राऽऽत्मन् उदरे गतं प्रविष्टं बुद्ध्वा भावयति वर्धयति परिपालयति गर्भविरुद्धाशनादिपरिहारमनुकूलाशनाद्युपयोगं च कुर्वती ।

The vital germ having been transferred to the woman becomes her very self, i.e., it remains inseparable from her even as it was part and parcel of the father. As is a limb of hers, say the bosom, so is it now. For that reason the foetus does no injury to the mother as an abcess does. Because the seed has become one with her body like her bosom it does not cause her pain. Being pregnant and knowing that her husband's self has entered her body and found lodgement within herself she nourishes it and helps its growth by eschewing such food as is detrimental to a pregnant woman and taking that which is wholesome.1

सा भावयित्री भावयितव्या भवति तं स्त्री गर्भं विभर्ति सोडग्र एव कुमारं जन्मनोडग्रेऽधिभावयति ।

And she the protectress then deserves Herself all care. The woman bears The son in her womb and the man bestows His protecting care on the child before 'Tis born and when 'tis born and after.

1 From this it is evident that during pregnancy which is a critical period, the growing child requires all possible care. भावयति—भावयेत, indicative for the imperative mood.

सा भावयित्री वर्धयित्री भर्तुरात्मनो गर्भभूतस्य भावयितव्या रक्षयितव्या च भवति । न ह्युपकारप्रत्युपकारमन्तरेण लोके कस्यचिच्चेनचित्संबन्ध उपपद्यते । तं गर्भं स्त्री यथोक्तेन गर्भेधारणविधानेन बिभर्ति धारयत्यग्रे प्राजनन्मनः । स पिताऽऽड्म एव पूर्वमेव जातमात्रं जन्मनोऽध्यूर्ध्वं जन्मनो जातं कुमारं जातकर्मादिना पिता भावयति ।

Because she protects and nourishes during pregnancy what is in essence the very self of her husband she too deserves to be well taken care of by the husband. No relationship of any kind will arise in the world without mutual obligation. The mother bears the child in her pregnancy as aforesaid, the father looks after it before its nativity (by requiring his wife to go through the sīmanta —“parting of the hair” ceremony), at the time of nativity (by certain auspicious rites to ensure easy delivery), and after nativity by jātakarma or birth ritual.

स यत्कुमारं जन्मनोऽग्रेऽधिभावयत्यात्मानमेव तद्भावयत्येषां लोकानां सतत्या एवं सतता हीमे लोकास्तदस्य द्वितीयं जन्म ।

That son whom he with tender care Protects at birth and after birth Is verily his self whom he Has cherished that so these worlds may last Without a break. Even thus these worlds Retain their one perpetual course. Thus born he has his second birth.

स पिता यद्यस्माकुमारं जन्मनोऽध्यूर्ध्वंमग्रे जातमात्रमेव जातकर्मादिना यद्भावयति तदात्मानमेव भावयति पितुरात्मैव हि पुत्ररूपेण जायते । तथा ह्युक्तं पातञ्जलेषु प्रविशत्यादि । तस्मिन्मथेमानम्‍मानं

पुत्ररूपेण जनयित्वा भावयतीति । उच्चयते—एषा लोकानां संतत्या आविच्छेदायैष्यर्थः । विचिच्छेदेरन्हीं लोका: पुत्रोत्पादनादि यदि न कुयु: केचन । एवं पुत्रोत्पादनादिकर्मोविच्छेदेनैव सन्तता: प्रबन्धरूपेण वर्तन्ते हि यस्यादिमे लोकास्तस्मादवविच्छेदाय तत्कर्तव्यं न मोक्षायेत्यर्थः । तदस्य संसारिण: कुमाररूपेण मातुरुदराद्याक्रम्यैस्मन् तदेतत्स्वरूपापेक्षया द्वितीयं जन्म द्वितीयावस्थाभिव्यक्तिः ।

The father when he cherishes his son just when born and even afterwards by performing such ceremonies as jātakarma, cherishes (it may be said) his own self, because it is the father's self only that is born as son. So says the śruti, 'The husband enters the wife, etc.' Why does the father cherish the child having begotten (as it were) his own self? Lest there should be discontinuity in the world-process.1 If none begot children the world-process would indeed cease. Because the continuous succession of the generations of men is possible only by not ceasing to beget sons it is binding on one to possess sons. It (the obligation), however, is not for the purpose of obtaining one's release.2 Hence when he, the samsārin, leaves the mother's womb as son he is (said to take on) the second birth in contradistinction to (his state) as the seed, i.e., his second state manifests itself.

1 लोक here should be taken to mean sons and grandsons through whom the father attains the worlds of svarga, etc.

2 पुत्रोत्पादनस्य लोकसंततिरेव प्रयोजनमिति वदन्त्या श्रुति: तस्य मोक्षसाधनत्वं निरस्तं. The propagating of one's progeny is only for the purpose of maintaining the world-cycle in unbroken continuity. It is by no means helpful for one's mokṣa.

सोडस्यायमात्मा पुण्येभ्यः कर्मेभ्यः प्रतिबध्यते ।

That son who is his very self Is stationed now in his father's stead His acts of merit to continue. अस्य पुत्रः सङ्गाय पुत्रात्मा पुण्येभ्यः शास्त्राक्तेभ्यः कर्मेभ्यः कर्मनिष्पादनार्थं प्रतिबध्यते पितुः स्थाने पित्रा यस्कृतंङ्गं तत्करणाय प्रतिबिधीयत इत्यर्थः । तथा च सम्प्रत्तिविद्याया वाजसनेयके—"पित्रा-तुशिष्टोऽहं ब्रह्माहं यज्ञ इत्यादि प्रतिपद्य[ते]" इति ।

Being born as the very self of his father the son steps into his place to perform all the good deeds enjoined in the scriptures. He now represents the father in whatever deed he, the father, had to do. In the vājasaneyaka (śuklayajurveda) dealing with the Samprattividyā,1 it is stated thus : " Commanded by my father I am Brahman, I am sacrifice."2

अथास्यायामितर आत्मा कृतकृत्यो वयोगतः प्रैति स इतः प्रयन्नेव पुनर्जायते तदस्य तृतीयं जन्म ।

1 सम्प्रत्ति: संप्रदानं स कर्तव्यस्य पुत्रे स्थापनं यत्रोच्यते सा सम्प्रत्ति-विद्येऽर्थ:—Ānandagiri. Sampratti means the giving away or transference ; that topic is termed Samprattividyā wherein is described the duty which, having been transferred to him by the father, the son has to do ; vide Brh. Up., I. v-17. 2 Desiring to reach the heavenly regions the father when about to part this life addresses his son thus : ' You are Brahman, you are Yogin, you are loka ', i.e, the Veda (Brah- man) which I had to recite, you recite; the sacrifice I had to perform, you perform ; the worlds to be obtained by me, you ought to attain.' Cf. Br̥h. Up., I. 5. 17.

Then, this his other self, from life Doth part, his duties all discharged And decrepit with age. And he Assumes another birth while yet He is casting his mortal self behind: And of his births that is the third.

अथानन्तरं पुत्रे निवेशयाऽऽत्मनो भारमस्य पुत्रस्येतरोडयं य: पित्र्यात्मा कृतकृत्य: कृतेऽन्यायणत्रयाद्द्विसुक्त: । कृतकृत्य इत्यर्थ: । वयोगतो गतवया जीर्ण: सन्नप्रति क्रियते । स इतोडस्मात्प्रयण एव शरीरं परित्यजन्ैव तृणजलूकावदेहान्तरमुपाददान: कर्मचितं पुनर्जीयते ।

After transferring his own responsibility to his son this alter ego, namely, the father, having accomplished his duties by fulfilling the three obligations and wasted with years, dies and while yet leaving his body behind, like the caterpillar takes on another body as determined by his karma. That life which he has to assume after death constitutes his third birth.1

ननु संसृत: पितु: सकाशाद्देतोरूपेण प्रथमं जन्म । तस्यैव

1 It is to be noted that the śruti declares that the assump-tion of a new body by those who depart either along the path of the gods देव्यान or of the manes पितृयान is only after reaching the worlds beyond ; Cf. Ved. Sut. IV 3. 35. Hence doubt arises as to how the jīva can take on another body even when departing this life. It is explained that the jīva when about to migrate assumes the subtle body वासनामय शरीर, though not the gross body which alone is the proper vehicle for experiencing joy and sorrow. The question, however, is purely eschatological.

कुमाररूपेण मातृद्रितीयं जन्मोत्तम् । तस्यैव तृतीयंये जन्मनि वक्तव्ये प्रेतस्य पितुर्यज्ञनं ततृतोयामिति कथं सुच्यते । नैष दोषः । पितापुत्रयो-

A question may be raised. A samsārin (one who has entered on the life-current) has his first birth in the form of seed in relation to his father; and it is said that for him there is the second birth in the form of son in relation to his mother; if to him only, a third birth is to be ascribed how can the birth of his deceased father be regarded as his third birth? Here is no flaw : because we have already spoken of the identity between his self and that of his father. Again the son also having shifted the burden on to his son is born again while in the act of leaving this world. What has been said in one place is in reality to be understood in another place; such is the implication of the śruti, as witness the identity of selves in the case of father and son.

रैकाल्म्यस्य विवाक्षितत्वात् । सोऽपि पुत्रः स्वपुत्रे भारं निधायेतः प्रयन्नेव पुनर्जीयते यथा पिता । तदन्यत्रोक्तमितरत्राप्युक्तमेव भवतीति मन्यते श्रुति: । पितापुत्रयोरैकात्म्यक्त्वात् ।

तदुक्तमृषिणा--

(Referring to the Supreme Reality) the mantra (Ṛṣi) has said.—

गर्भे नु सन्नन्वेषामवेदमहं देवानां जनिमानि विश्वा । शतं मा पुर आयसीररक्षन्नधः श्येनो जवसा निरदीयमिति गर्भ एवैतच्च्छयानो वामदेव एवंसुवाच ।

"Albeit I dwelt inside the womb, All the births of all the gods

I saw ; and a hundred bodies Iron-wrought held me fast ; Then out I came as quick as a hawk Thus spake Vamadeva while yet in the womb.

एवं संसारावस्थाविभव्यकित्त्रियेण जन्ममरणप्रवन्धासृजः सर्वों लोकः संसारसमुद्रे निपातितः कथंचिद्यथाश्रुतयुक्तमात्मानं विजानाति ' यस्यां कस्यांचिदवस्थायां तदैव मुक्तसर्वसंसारबन्धनः कृतकृत्यो भवतीये तदस्तु तद्विणा मन्त्रेणास्युक्तमित्याह——गर्भे नु मातुर्गर्भोभूय एय सन् । न्वाति वितर्के ! अनेकजन्मान्तरभावनापरिपाकवशादेशां देवानां वागग्न्यादीनां जनिमानि जन्मानि विश्वा विश्वानि सर्वाण्यनुवेदमहमहो अनुवुद्धवानस्मीत्यर्थः । शतमनेकं बहून्यो मा मां पुर आयसीरायस्यो लोहमध्य इवाभेद्यानि शरीराण्यभिप्रायः । अरक्षणरक्षितवयः । संसारपाशनिर्गमनादधोंडधः इयमेव जालं भित्वा जवेसज्जी निकृतेःसोमध्यान् निर्गीयं निर्गतोऽस्मि । अहो ; गर्भे एव शयानो वामदेव ऋषिरेवमुवाच-

Thus migrating from one to the other of the three states as they become manifest in turn the whole of mankind has entered on the endless cycle of births and deaths and fallen into the ocean of samsāra. If how- ever some individual (a purified jiva) in whatever stage he might be (either in the mother's womb or in any of the āśramas-brahmacharya, etc ) should realise the nature of the Ātman as delineated in the scriptures, in that stage only, he finds that all his worldly ties are snapped and that he has achieved the ultimate aim of life. The mantra (Ṛṣi) also has given utterance to this truth in the hymn beginning with the words, `In the womb, etc.' i.e., remaining in the mother's womb only. The particle 'nu' indicates reflection.

Having cogitated upon the problem of self and non-self (Bhāvana) through many a life I came to know of all the births of all the gods like Vāk, Agni, etc. Ah ! I woke up (from my slumbers).' The second half of the mantra may be interpreted thus: ' Manifold have been the bodies which like impenetrable iron houses held me safe (lest I should escape). As a bird cuts underneath,1 the net 'in which it has been caught and escapes so I got out quick with the strength of the knowledge of the Ātman.'2 Ah! the Ṛsi Vāmadeva even when dwelling in the womb spoke thus.

स एव विद्वान्साच्छरीरभेदादूर्ध्व उत्क्रम्यामुष्मिन्स्वर्गे लोके सर्वान्कामानाप्त्वाडमृतः समभवत्समभवत् ॥ (यथास्थानं गाभिण्यः)

1 अधः=अधोलोकेषु; निकृष्टलोकेषु, रक्षण, i.e., kept me safe in the lower worlds ; or अध may be understood as having been used for अथ—then, after receiving enlightenment.

What was previously said in the Brāhmaṇa (पुरुषहव etc ,) is repeated here in the mantra " Ah ! residing in the womb, etc."

2 Because the process of purification had gone on in previous births enlightenment was imminent and Vāmadeva spoke words of wisdom while yet in the mother's womb He remained in life as a Jīvanmukta till his prārabdha-karma was worn out and then with the severance of his mortal self he reached the highest state of bliss No doubt to one in the womb there is no instruction either from the scriptures or from a preceptor but the discipline of past lives came to fruition and the truth dawned on Vāmadeva even before his actual birth.

Emerging thus from these mortal coils The enlightened sage his upward path Betook and in the land of bliss Had all his longings satisfied; Became immortal, became immortal. (Let the pregnant women re-assemble).

स वामदेव ऋषिरथोक्तमात्मानमेवं विद्वान्साच्छरीरभेदाच्छरीरस्य-विद्यापारिकलिप्तस्यास्यसवदनिंभेदस्य जननमरणाध्यानेकानर्थशताविष्ट-शरीरप्रबन्धनस्य परमात्मज्ञानामृतोपयोगजनितव्रीत्थंकृतभेदाच्छरीरौत्प-तिबीजाविद्या निमित्तोपमर्दहेतोः शरीरविनाशादित्यर्थं । ऊर्ध्वः परमात्मभूतः सन्नधोभावात्संसारादुक्त्रम्य ज्ञानावद्योतितामलसर्वात्मभाव-मापन्रः सन्नमुष्मिन्नयथोक्केजरेडमरेडमृतेऽभेय सर्वज्ञेऽपूर्वे डनपे डनन्ते- बाह्ये प्रज्ञानामृतैकरसे प्रदीपवच्चिवर्णमलयगमत्स्वर्गी लोके स्वसिद्धात्मनि स्वे स्वरूपेऽमृतः सम्भवद्वातमज्ञानेन पूर्वमासकामतया जीवत्रेव सर्व- कामानाप्त्वेत्यर्थः । द्विर्वचनं सफलस्य सोदाहरणस्य परसमाप्तिप्रदर्शनार्थम् ॥

He, the Ṛṣi Vāmadeva, realizing the nature of the Ātman as described, having forced his way out of his body which is fashioned by nescience, and is as impenetrable as iron, and held in the grip of saṃsāra teeming with a hundred ills due to recurring births and deaths—all with the strength generated by the tasting of the nectar of divine knowledge (paramātma jñāna) and thus having caused the destruction of the seed of saṃsāra which is the product of avidyā; in other words, with the decay and death of the body he rose upwards, became himself paramātman—the Absolute, stepping out of the downward-dragging saṃsāra and assuming the pure

state of universal self, illumined by knowledge, attained the supreme state of radiant bliss in that region of joy (svarga),1 descnibed as ageless, deathless, immortal, fearless, all-wise, having neither priority nor posteriority, endless, having no exteriority, being one continuous flow of the nectar of wisdom. This attainment of bliss is no other than the return to one's own true nature. Even in the Jivanmukti state the liberated self will have had its desires fulfilled (there is no greater joy than that which comes from one's realization of the supreme).2 The repetition (of samabhavat-attained) is to indicate the conclusion of the description of the fruit of ātma-jñāna and of the illustration therefor.

1 The word स्वर्ग should not be taken to mean the land of joy which is its usual sense. It is not the goal of one who has scrupulously performed the Vedic ritual that is spoken of here. It means the bliss of Brahman, liberation itself. The term svarga is appropriate only to the state of eternal happiness. In a relative sense alone can it be applied to the region abounding in the joys of sense.

2 Though the pleasures of sense are absent in the liberated condition it must be pointed out that all our worldly happiness is but an infinitesimal fraction of the joy that comes from Brahmajñāna. It is but a partial expression of the all-pervading bliss of the knowledge of the eternal and it baffles all attempts at definition and description. When the Jīvan-mukti state is attained the purified self becomes the Supreme Ātman who is the giver of all joys from the smallest to the highest (Cf. Tait Up., II. 8.1-4). Śaṅkara therefore explains that the joys mentioned as falling to the share of Vāmadeva refer to the felicities of the Jīvanmukti state.

CHAPTER V

पंचमोऽध्यायः

CHAPTER V

ॐ कोऽयमात्मेति वयमुपास्महे कतरः स आत्मा ।

Om ! who is this Atman whom we adore? Which of the two is he, that Atman ?

CHAPTER V

ब्रह्माविद्यासाधनकृतसर्वात्मभावफलावाप्तौ वामदेवाद्याचार्यैः परम्परया श्रुत्यादवद्योत्समानां ब्रह्मावित्परिषद्यत्नत्प्रसिद्धामुपलभमानाः श्रुसूक्ष्मो ब्राह्मणा अथुना ब्रह्म जिज्ञासवोऽनित्यत्वसाधनलक्षणात्संसाराद् जीवभावाद् व्यावृत्तस्वो विचारयन्नतोऽन्योन्यं पृच्छन्ति कोऽयमात्मेति कथमात्मानमथमात्मेति साक्षाद् उपास्महे कः स आत्मेति । यं चाऽऽडात्मानमयमात्मेति साक्षादुपासीनो वामदेवोऽब्रवीत् सम्भवत्तमेव वयमस्युपास्महे को जु खलु स आत्मेति । एवं जिज्ञासापूर्वमन्योन्यं पृच्छतामति कान्ताविशेषाविषयश्रुतिसंस्कारजनिता स्मृतिरजायत । तं प्रपदाभ्यां प्राप्यते ब्रह्मैष पुरुषः । स एतमेव सीमानं विदारैरैतया द्वारा प्राप्यते । अत्र ह्येते ब्राह्मणा इतरतरप्रातिकूल्येन प्रतिपन्ने इति ।

Intent on achieving the goal of universal selfhood (सर्वात्मभाव) rendered possible only with the aid of Brahma-vidyā, which preceptors like Vāmadeva and the rest (by their realization) and the scriptures (by their teaching) have made explicit and which is the most reputed topic of discussion in the assembly of the

CHAPTER V

ते चास्य पिण्डस्याऽऽड्मभूते । तयोरन्यतर आत्मोपास्यो भवितुमर्हति । योडत्रोपास्तः कः स आत्मेति विशेषानिधोरणार्थं पुनरन्योन्यं पप्रच्छुविचारयन्तः ।

learned, the Brāhmanās, the seekers after Brahman, longing for immortality, now discoursing on Brahman and anxious to get rid of their finite selfhood (जीवभावत्व) which is impermanent, subject to the operation of the law of cause and effect and bound to (the wheel of) samsāra, ask each the other in their inquiry, "Who is this Ātman? Who is the Ātman whom we are endeavouring to realize as our own immediate self ?1 We would also like to realize that very Ātman meditating on whom as his very self the Ṛṣi Vāmadeva became immortal." When thus interlocuting, there flashed upon their minds the recollection of a former scriptural text (1. III. 6) wherein specific reference had been made to the entry of the two Puruṣas into the body: "Brahman entered this person by the feet ": "He split open the skull and entered the same person by this passage".2 Here, two Brahmans are seen to have entered the body from opposite directions. They both became the selves of this body. But one of these two selves is fit to be meditated upon That is to be meditated upon? Thus in order to determine who in special has to be regarded as the object of meditation they (the Brahma-seekers) again questioned each other, i.e., conducted their investigation.

१ उपास्महे, lit. we meditate upon; but here the word upāsana means realization.

1 उपास्महे, lit. we meditate upon; but here the word upāsana means realization.

२ Prāṇa (Hiraṇyagarbha) and Brahman are both described as having found entry into the body. Doubt arises as to which of these two should the seekers turn their minds.

2 Prāṇa (Hiraṇyagarbha) and Brahman are both described as having found entry into the body. Doubt arises as to which of these two should the seekers turn their minds.

येन वा पश्यति येन वा शृणोति येन चा गन्धान्जिघ्रति येन वा वाचं व्याकरोति येन वा स्वादु चास्वादु च विजानाति ।

And that indeed by which he sees And that indeed by which he hears And that indeed by which he smells The scents, and that indeed by which He utters speech, and that by which He tastes what's sweet and what is not.

पुनस्तेषां विचारयतां विशेषविचारणास्पदविषया मतिरभूत् । कथम्, द्रे वस्तुनी आस्सिनि पिण्ड उपलभ्येते अनेकभेदाभिन्नेन करणेन येनोप- लभते यथैक उपलभते करणान्तरोपलब्धाविषयस्मृतिप्रतिसंधानात् । नत्र न तावद्येनोपलभते स आत्मा अवितसर्हैति । के न पुनरुपलभन्त इति । उच्यते । येन वा चक्षुर्भूतेन रूपं पश्यति येन वा श्रोत्रभूतेन शब्दं येन वा प्राणभूतेन गन्धान्जिघ्रति येन वाक्करणभूतेन वाचं नामालिमकां व्याकरोति गौरश्व इत्येवमाद्यां साध्वसाध्वाति च येन वा जिह्वाभूतेन स्वादु चास्वादु च त्रिजानातीति ।

Again to those engaged in deliberation there arose the desire to make a more specific enquiry. How? Two entities are cognized in the body : that which serves as an instrument of cognition through its different functional activities and that which cognizes remaining single, by recollecting and recognizing (pratyabhijñā) what has been garnered by the senses.1

1 The witnessing consciousness साक्षिन् is one, and being the ground of all modes of cognition acquires as many names as are the channels of cognition. Cf. “श्रोत्रस्य श्रोत्रं मनसो मनो यद्वाचो ह वाचं स उ प्राणस्य प्राणश्रकुषश्र्चक्षु:” Kena Up, 1-2; also Brh Up., IV. 4-18.

Of these two the one through whose instrumentality cognition takes place is not fit to become the Ātman (because it is only an instrument). (Hence the cognizer must be the Ātman as explained later on.) By what then is cognition possible (i.e., who is it that cognizes?) This is the answer:-By that which having become sight perceives shapes, by that which having become hearing hears sounds, by that which having become (the sense of) smell scents odours, by that which having become (the organ of) speech distinguishes words which are only names as gau (cow) and asvaḥ (horse), etc., and determines which are (grammatically) correct and which not; and by that which having become (the sense of) taste understands what is sweet and what is not.

कि पुनस्तदेवैकमनेकधा भिन्न करणामिति, उच्चयते—

How again is it to be understood that the very (prāṇa which entered the body by the feet) is the single sense-organ split up into diverse ones? The śruti answers :-

तदेतदृदयं मनश्श्रैतत् ।

The same is the heart, the same is the mind.

यदुक्तं पुरस्तात्प्रज्ञानां रेतो हृदयं हृदयस्य रेतो मनो मनसा सृष्टा आपश्श्र वरुणश्श्र हृद्यान्नम्नो मनसश्श्रन्द्रमा आस्तदेवैतदृदयं मनश्श्रैकेन्द्रियं दनेकधा । एतेनान्तःकरणेनैकेन चक्षुर्भूतानि रूपं पश्यति श्रोत्रभूतानि शृणोति प्राणभूतानि जिघ्रति वाग्भूतेन वदति जिह्वाभूतेन रसयति स्वेनैव विकार्पणारूपेण मनसा विकल्पयति हृदयरूपेणाध्यवस्यति । तस्मात्सर्वकरणविषयङ्यापारकमेकमिदं करणं सर्वोपलब्ध्यर्थमुपलब्धृ । तथा च

कौषीताकिनामू—" प्रज्ञया वाचं समारुह्य वाचा सर्वाणि नामान्यामोति प्रज्ञया चक्षुः समारुह्य चक्षुषा सर्वाणि रूपाण्यामोति" इत्यादि । वाजसनेयके च—" मनसा ह्येव पर्याप्ति मनसा श्रृणोति हृद्येन हि रूपाणि जानाति" इत्यादि ।

What was said before, viz., " that the heart is the very essence of men; the mind is the very essence of the heart " (Ait. Āranyaka, II. 1-3 ); " and that from the mind waters and Varuna were created; from the mind and from the heart the moon "; that same heart and mind being one only, appear as many. With this single internal sense—antahkarana—as (transforming itself into) the sense of sight, he, the purusa, sees shapes and colours; as the sense of hearing hears; as the sense of smell smells ; as the speech-sense utters is speech; as the taste-sense tastes , with the mind which is but its own transformation cogitates and with itself as heart (antahkarana) determines (adhyavasyaṅi).¹ Hence this one sense serves the purpose of bringing within the range of the cognizer all forms and all varieties of knowledge (i.e., it discharges the functions of all sensory organs). Thus say the Kauṣītakis (Kau. Up.,

तस्माद्दृदयमनोवाच्यस्य सर्वोपलब्धिकरणत्वं प्रसिद्धम् । तदात्मकक्ष्ष प्राणो यो वै प्राणः सा प्रज्ञा या वै प्रज्ञा स प्राण इति ब्राह्मणम् । करणसंहतिरूपपक्ष्र प्राण इत्यवोचाम प्राण-संवाददै ।

¹ Antahkarana (heart or mind) is the one internal sense of which the other sense-organs are only facets as it were. In its cogitating function it goes by the name of mind. Antah-karaṇa as actuation is prāṇa and as intellection. mind possesses both kriyāśakti and jñānaśakti

III. 6-6

तस्माच्चत्पदभ्यां प्रापच्यत तद्ब्रह्म तदुपलभधुरुपलब्धिकरणत्वेन गुण-भूतत्वानैव तदस्तु ब्रह्मोपास्यात्मा भवितुमर्हति। पारिशेष्याद्दस्योप-लब्धुरुपलब्धोपास्य आत्मा नोऽप्याकं भवितुमर्हतीति निश्रयं कृतवन्तः ।

III. 6-6) : " The Ātman reflected in antahkarana identifies himself with the sense of speech and with speech appropriates all names; with prajñā he identifies himself with the sense of sight and with the eye appropriates all forms" and so on. In the Vājasaneyaka (Brh Up., I. 5-3) (it is said that) "with the mind only he sees, with the mind hears; certainly with the heart knows (different) shapes" and so on. Hence it is well known that the organ termed heart or mind is the one instrument of knowledge which can bring within its compass the functions of all sense-organs. The Prāṇa is identical with it (not different from the heart); as witness the Brāhmaṇa. "That which is prajñā is prāṇa." In the prāṇa-dialogue, etc., it has been said that prāṇa is but the aggregate of the senses (cf. Chand. Up., III. 18 ; VII. 15).1 It is therefore evident that the Brahman who finds entry by the feet serving only as the channel of knowledge to the person and hence playing only a

1 The prāṇa becomes the substrate of all senses because it is identical with the antahkarana. Prāṇa therefore should be regarded as an indriya or sense-organ. All functions, sensory, mental, volitional and organic, proceed from the identical source—Ātman mirroring forth in antah-karaṇa.

subordinate part (गुणभूतत्वात्) is not fit to be the Brahman of contemplation (and realization). The alternative (by way of residue) then is that the knower, the Ātman, for whom the innumerable notions of the heart and mind to be herein detailed are intended, is the fit object of contemplation by us. Thus they (the seers) decided.

तदन्तःकरणोपाधिस्थस्योपलब्धुः प्रज्ञानरूपस्य ब्रह्मण उपलब्य्यर्था या अन्तःकरणवृत्तयो बाह्यान्तर्वर्तिविषयाविषयास्ता इमा उच्च्यन्ते—

Those mental modes, which relate to both what is objective and subjective (बाह्यान्तर्वर्तिविषयविषया:) and which are meant for the cognizer, i.e., Brahman who is consciousness itself and whose cognition results from his being conditioned (अध्यस्य) by antahkarana, are here related :—

संज्ञानमाज्ञानं विज्ञानं प्रज्ञानं मेधा दृष्टिधीरितर्मतिमनोषा जूति: स्मृतिः संकल्प: क्रतुरसुः कामो वश इति ।

Apprehension, overlordship, erudition, Knowledge, retentiveness and alertness of sense, Fortitude, deliberation and freedom, Bodily anguish and recollection Discrimination, zeal, endeavour to meet One's physical wants, desire and love;

संज्ञानं संज्ञास्विशेतनभावः । आज्ञानमाज्ञासिरीश्वरभावः । विज्ञानं कलादिपरिज्ञानम् । प्रज्ञानं प्रज्ञासिः प्रज्ञता । मेधा ग्रन्थधारणसामर्थ्येम् । दृष्टिरिन्द्रियद्वारा सर्वविषयोपलब्धिः । धृतिधीःरणमवसान्नानां शरीरोन्द्रिय—

यां यद्योत्कम्भनं भवति धृत्या शरीरसन्धन्तीति हि वदन्ति मातिमन्ननम् । मनीषा तत्र स्वातन्त्र्यम् । जूतिश्वेतसो रजादिदु:खित्त्व-भाव: । स्मृति: सरणम् । संकल्प: चिरुकृष्णादिभावेन संकल्पनं रूपादीनाम् । क्रतुर्ध्यवसाय: । असु: प्राणनादिजीवनाक्रियानिमित्ता वृत्ति: । कामोऽस्मिन्हितविषयाकाड्क्षा तृष्णा । वश: स्त्रीष्यतिकराद्याभिलाष: । इत्येवमाखा अन्त:करणवृत्तय: प्रज्ञासिमात्रस्योपलब्धधुरुपलब्ध्यर्थ-त्वाच्छुद्धप्रज्ञानरूपस्य ब्रह्मण उपाधिभूतास्तदुपाधिजनितगुणनामधेयानि भवन्ति संज्ञानादीनि ।

Samjñānam is apprehension which is the mark of sentient beings; ājñānam is the sense of mastery; vijñānam is knowledge of arts, etc., prajñānam is comprehension; medhā is retentiveness of knowledge obtained from studying works; dṛṣṭi is the power of grasping all objects through sense-activity; dhṛtiḥ is fortitude by which the otherwise drooping bodily and sense-organs are supported as when they say 'they carry the body with steadfastness'; matiḥ is pondering free choice); jūtiḥ is the state of suffering caused by diseases, etc., smṛtiḥ is recollection, sankalpah is differentiation as when sorting white and black among colours, kratuḥ is zealous pursuit of an object; asuḥ is the pursuit of a calling for one's living; kāmaḥ is the thirsting desire for an object that is not within one's reach (for the time being), vaśaḥ is the desire for the company of women - these and other mental modes (अन्त करण वृत्तय ) because they subserve the cognizer who is mere sentience in the act of cognition, are to be regarded as the limiting factors of Brahman wha is

of the nature of pure consciousness, and the names, apprehension, etc., which are the outcome of upādhis become in a figurative sense (गौण) the names of Brahman.1

सर्वाण्यवंतानि प्रज्ञानस्य नामधेयानि भवन्ति ।

All these, of Prajna, are only names.

सर्वाण्येवैतानि प्रज्ञानसिमात्रस्य प्रज्ञानस्य नामधेयानि भवन्ति न स्वतः साक्षात् । तथा चोक्तं प्राण एव प्राणो नाम भवतीत्यादि ।

All these (beginning with चेतनापञ्चयति and ending with कामोऽवश.) indeed become the names of pure Consciousness, i.e., of that which is known as Pra-jñānam but not directly (can they manifest themselves because the vrttis are insentient).2 To this effect the śruti declares : "By the act of breathing only, He (the Supreme Being) is styled prāṇa, etc." Brh. Up., I. 4-7.

1 After establishing that prāṇa is a karaṇa or sense-organ and that as such cannot become the object of devotion, the scripture proceeds to the inference of the existence of Brahman—the cognizer, through the Karaṇa vrttis or mental modes. viz, samjñānam, etc. There must be one to witness the operations of the mind and He is the Brahman.

2 This is reducing variety into unity. It is by their superimposition on the luminous self that the mental modes like seeing, hearing, etc., acquire their illuminating character, i.e., power to bring objects within one's cognizance. The one sentience prajñānam is the invariable concomitant of all notions and this is no other than the Ātman rid of all ascriptions—शोधितः. It is other than the senses, other than the sense-perceptions, being self-luminous, the constant witness of all mental modes :—सर्वकरण तद्वृत्तिव्यतिरिक्तः स्व-प्रकाशात्मकः सर्वसाक्षी सर्ववृत्त्यनुगतः एक आत्मा शोधितः.

एष ब्रह्मैष इन्द्र एष प्रजापतिरेते सर्वे देवाः इमानि च पञ्च महाभूतानि पृथिवी वायुराकाश आपो ज्योतींषीत्येतानीमानि च क्षुद्रमिश्राणि व।

He is Brahman,1 He is Indra2 He is the Lord of beings and all The gods and the great elements five : Earth and air, sky, waters and fire And creatures mixed of inferior kind.

स एष प्रज्ञानघनः आत्मा ब्रह्मापरं सर्वशरीरस्य प्राणः प्रज्ञातमाडन्तःकरणोपाधिस्वानुप्रविष्टो जलभेदगतसूर्यप्रतिबिम्बवद्विरण्यगर्भः प्राणः प्रज्ञात्मा। एष एवेन्द्रो गुणादेवराजो वा। एष प्रजापतिर्यः प्रथमजः शरीरो। यतो मुखादीनि भेदद्वाराणि जायन्ते। स प्रजापतिरेष एव। येड्येतेडन्यान्यादयः सर्वे देवाः एष एव। इमानि च सर्वशरीररोपादानभूतानि पञ्च पृथिव्यादीनि महाभूतान्यन्यानि ज्ञानादिस्वलक्षणण्येतानि। किंचेमानि च क्षुद्रमिश्राणि क्षुद्रैरल्पकर्मिश्राणि। इवशब्दोदर्थकः।

That person who is of the nature of pure wisdom—the Ātman, the lower Brahman (अपरब्रह्म) is the life principle (प्राण or क्रियाशक्ति) dwelling in all bodies, is prajñātma (ज्ञानशक्ति). He, as Hiranyagarbha, has entered the reflecting medium of the inner sense-organ (antahkarana) and appears like so many reflections of the karana) and appears like so many reflections of the

1 एषब्रह्म—This Ātman is Brahman, i e., not the Absolute but the lower Brahman. 2 Indra is the name of the Supreme Being (Cf. 1-3), but here used to denote conditioned Brahman or Indra, the ruler of Svarga.

sun in different sheets of water and is described again as prāṇa and prajñāatma. Himself is Indra (in the sense of Īśvara; cf. I. 3-10) because of his qualities, or the king of gods (Indra, the lord of Svarga). He is Prajāpati, who is the first-born embodied being.1 It is the very Prajāpati from whom were born Agni and the rest of the world-preservers (fashioned in the Virāt Puruṣa—the lump described in 1-1). He is also Agni and all the other gods. He is again the five elements which are the material cause of all bodies, viz., earth, and the rest of the gross elements. He is all that is food and is fit for food. Finally, He constitutes all the lower order of beings—the conglomerate of tiny organisms.2 The particle ‘iva’ is expletive.

बीजानितराणि चेतराणि चाण्डजानि च जारुजानि च स्वेदजानि चोद्रिज्जानि चाश्वा गावः पुरुषा हस्तिनो यत्किंचेदं प्राणि जङ्गं च पतत्रि च यच्च स्थावरं सर्वं तत्पज्ञानेत्रं प्रज्ञाने प्रतिष्ठितं प्रज्ञानैत्रो लोकः प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्ठा प्रज्ञानं ब्रह्म ।

1 प्रजापतिः—The Virāt or the aggregate of all gross bodies as distinguished from Hiranyagarbha, the aggregate of all subtle bodies. 2 क्षुद्रमिश्राणि—The mass of inferior creatures. क्षुद्रैः—अल्पकैः, मशक पिपीलिकादि देहैर्मिश्राणि, i e., composed of such tiny living organisms as gnats, worms, etc. The idea is that the whole creation from Hiranyagarbha down to the smallest living creature is but an emanation from the Supreme Reality.

The progenitors, each of its kind— Those born of egg, those born of womb, Those born of sweat and those that sprout, Horses and cows, men and elephants And all the rest of living beings— Yes, those that walk and those that fly, And those again of movement void, All this is under the lordly sway Of Prajna ; is rooted in Prajna ; And swayed by Prajna is the world, And Prajna is the stay of all ; (Verily) Prajnanam is Brahman.

सपोंदीनि बीजानि कारणानीतराणि चेतराणि च द्वैराइयेन निदिंइय- मानानि कानि तानि उच्यन्ते । अण्डजानि पक्ष्यादीनि । जारुजानि जरायुजानि मनुष्यादीनि । स्वेदजानि यूका‍दीनि । उद्दिज्जानि च वृक्षा- दीनि । अश्वा गावः पुरुषा हस्तिनोडन्यान्च यत्किंचेदं प्राणिजातम् । किं तत् । जङ्गं यचचलति पतत्यां गच्छति । यच्च पतत्रि । आकाशेन पतनशीलम् । यच्च स्थावरमचलं सर्वं तद्रशेषत: प्रज्ञानेत्रं प्रज्ञासि: प्रज्ञा तच्च ब्रह्मैव नीयते डनेति नेत्रं प्रज्ञा नेत्रं यस्य तदिवं प्रज्ञानेत्रम् । प्रज्ञाने ब्रह्मण्युतपत्तिस्थितिलयकालेषु प्रतिष्ठितं प्रज्ञाश्रयामित्यर्थः । प्रज्ञानেত্রो लोक: पूर्ववत् । प्रज्ञानवश्वों सर्व एव लोक: । प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्ठा सर्वस्य जगत: । तस्मात्प्रज्ञानं ब्रह्म ।

तदेतद्वर्यस्यस्तमितसर्वोंपाधिविशेषं सानिरस्तनं निर्मेलं नि:क्षियं शान्तमेकमद्वयं नेति नेतीति सर्वविशेषपोहसंवेच्यं सर्वशब्द- प्रत्ययागोचरं तद्वन्ताविशुद्धप्रज्ञोपाधिसंबन्धेन सर्वज्ञमीश्वरं सर्व- साधारणान्याकृतजगद्रीजप्रवर्तकं नियन्तृत्वादन्तर्यामीसंञ्जं भवति । तदेव व्याकृतजगद्रीजभूतबुद्ध्यात्माभिमानलक्षणहिरण्यगर्भसंञ्जं भवति । तदेवान्तरंण्डोनूतप्रथमशारीरोपाधिमद्विराट्प्रजापतिसंञ्जं भवति । तदू- तारग्न्याद्युपाधिमहेतासंञं भवति । तथा विशेषशरीरोराधिष्वपि ।

ब्रह्मादिस्तम्बपर्यन्तेपु तत्स्नामरूपलाभो ब्रह्माणः । तदेवैकं सर्वोपाधिभेदभिन्नं

Serpents and the rest are the propagators (of their species) and the several beings are divided into distinct classes as described here.1 Which are these? They are :-Those born of egg like birds, etc.; those born of womb like men, etc. (jāru, jarāyu, womb), those born of sweat like lice, etc., and those born of seed like trees. Horses, cattle, men, elephants; and all the assemblage of the living beings:-which is that? That which moves, i.e., performs movement by walking with its feet, that which flies with its wings in the sky; that which is static, i.e., devoid of motion—all this without exception is under the sway of Prajñā (Prajñānetram). Prajñapti (consciousness) is Prajñā and that is Brahman Himself, that which is controlled by this is netram. Hence Prajñānetram means that (the whole universe) which has Prajñā as its controller.2 The gist of the passage is that the Universe of beings has its stay in Prajñā (Brahman) at the time of its origination, its sustentation, and its dissolution or in other words, the universe is wholly dependent on Brahman.

सर्वेः प्राणिभिस्ताकिंक्ष सर्वेःप्रकारेण ज्ञायतेऽपि विकल्प्यते चानेकधा ।

एतमेके वदन्त्यग्रिं मनुमन्थे प्रजापतिम् ।

इन्द्रमेके परे प्राणमपरे ब्रह्म शाश्वतम् ॥

इत्याथा स्मृतिः ॥

1 The whole creation is classed as the static स्थावर and dynamic जंगम.

2 प्रज्ञानেত্রो लोकः—सर्वस्य स्फुरणहेतुः—Brahman is the cause of the world-manifestation. It is the light of the world.

world is under the sway of Prajñā as explained above or the whole world has Prajñā as its eye, i.e., its very manifestation or appearance is dependent on Prajñā Prajñā is the ground, the underlying basis of the whole universe. Therefore Prajñānam is Brahman.1 That Brahman who is free from all ascriptions and is untainted, pure, actionless, peace, one only, secondless characterized by such epithets as 'not that', 'not that', and understandable only by negating all qualifications and incapable of being cognized by notions conveyed by words—that same Brahman when delimited by Māya which is pure super-imposition (Visuddho-pādhi)

१ प्रज्ञानं ब्रह्म—Pure consciousness is Brahman. This aphoristic formula is regarded as one of the mahāvākyas or great statements pointing to the identity of Ātman and Parabrahman—the individual soul and the Supreme On a par with this Ṛgvedic text we have अहं ब्रह्मास्मि (Brh. Up., IV 1-10 of Yajurveda) 'I am Brahman', तत्वमसि (Chand. Up, VI. 11-1 of Samaveda) 'That thou art'; अयमात्मा ब्रह्म (Mand. Up, 2 of Atharvaveda) 'This Ātman is Brahman'. The Aitareya Upaniṣad begins with the text आत्मा वा इदमेक एवाग्र आसीत्—Ātman alone there was in the beginning and concludes with the text प्रज्ञानं ब्रह्म—the Prajñānam or the individual is Brahman. It is therefore evident that the sole teaching of the Upaniṣad is to inculcate the knowledge that Ātman and Parabrahman are identical. In accounting for the world creation the Upaniṣad declares that the infinite variety of physical objects and mental notions are but names of Prajñāna (सर्वण्येवैतानी प्रज्ञानस्य नामधेयानि भवन्ति) and are themselves devoid of all substantial reality The diremption of the Absolute is only apparent and phenomenal.

acquires the designation of the all-wise Īśvara and causing the universal undifferentiated world-seed to fructify, acquires mastery over all and thus is designated as antaryāmin (the indwelling ruler). The same Brahman gets the name of Hiranyagarbha who is the differentiated root-cause of the universe, when identifying himself with intellect (buddhi); coming out of the mundane egg the same Brahman who is the Virāt as the first embodied Being acquires the designation of Prajāpati (becomes Virāt when conditioned by the mundane egg and this Virāt is called Prajāpati) and is (known as) the first embodied being. That Brahman again delimited by Agni and the rest proceeding from it (the mundane egg) acquires the designation of devata. Similarly Brahman acquires several designations according to the several body limiting conditions. From Hiranyagarbha down to the smallest worm, Brahman acquires respective names and forms. Hence it is, that not only the generality of common people but even learned men (men well versed in reasoning) regard this single entity differentiated thus by all the upādhis, in all manner of ways and imagine it too as of several kinds.

"Some call It Agni, others Manu, Prajāpati, Some Indra; others, Prāna; others Brahman; Śāśvatam (eternal)."

Such are the smṛtis (in support of the diversity of names by which the Absolute is known).1

1 The creation process is summed up. The notion of plurality arises because of the variety assumed by the one Supreme Being It is the difference in the superimposition--

स एतेन प्रज्ञेनाऽऽत्मनाssलोकादुत्क्रम्याऽमु-ञ्जन्मस्वर्गे लोके सर्वाऽकामानाप्त्वाऽमृतः सम-भवत्तस्मभवत् ।

His inner self exalted thus To state divine, he left this world And in that world of supreme bliss Obtained all that his heart desired And gained Eternal Life and gained Eternal Life.

स वामदेवोऽन्यो वैवं यथोक्तं ब्रह्म वेद प्रज्ञेनाऽऽत्मना येनैव पूर्वे विद्वांसोडमृताः अभूवंस्थाड्यमपि विद्वानेतैव प्रज्ञेनाऽऽत्मनाssलोकादुत्क्रम्येत्यादि उदाहर्यातम् । अस्माल्लोकादुत्क्रम्याऽमुष्मन्स्वर्गाँल्लोकान् सर्वाऽकामानाप्त्वाऽमृतः समभवोदित्योमात् ॥

He, i.e., Vāmadeva or any other seer1 like him having understood the Brahman as described above, pure or impure. that accounts for the different levels of evolution, knowledge, attainment and ethical purity in men and gods. The Absolute appears to sunder itself into distincts but with the dawn of knowledge the appearances vanish altogether and the pure Being alone remains. The ethical implication of the Absolutistic doctrine is unmistakable. It is only when we understand the true nature of the Ātman—its all-embracing character, that we turn away from the mechanism of matter and find solace in the spirit and we rise above our narrow selves by our realising that the indwelling Ātman is the same as that which pervades the universe. Then we become alive to our kinship with the whole of creation and transcend our finiteness. 1 वामदेवो अन्यो वा—The object here is not to point out that Vāmadeva in particular obtained immortality by self-realisation but to emphasize the fact that any seeker who realises

to be his inner consciousness just as wise men of old reached immortality by holding to the truth that Prajñānam is Brahman, quitted the world1 with the same realisation of identity...the rest has already been explained (II 8 and 9). Om !2

that his own soul rid of all impurities is no other than the "Supreme Self is certain to attain Eternal Life.

1 There is no going hence in mokṣa. A liberated soul need not traverse any region to reach its goal, nor need it take a flight upward as does a bird quitting its nest. All that is necessary is the abandonment of the illusory notion that the body itself is the Ātman—देहात्मभाव—and the realisation that the individual soul and the Supreme are one. Hence the phrase प्रज्ञानात्मना.

2 Om iti—Śaṅkara concludes his commentary with the auspicious utterance 'Om'; iti marks the end of the work.

CHAPTER VI

षष्ठोऽध्यायः हरिः ॐ। वाङ्मे मनसि प्रतिष्ठिता मनो मे वाचि प्रतिष्ठितमाविरावीर्मे एधि वेदस्य म आणीस्थः श्रुतं मे मा प्रहासीः अनाधीतेनाहोरात्रान्संदधाम्यृतं वदिष्यामि सत्यं वदिष्यामि तन्मामवतु तद्वक्तारमवतु अवतु मामवतु वक्तारमवतु वक्तारम्। ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥

Harih Om! My speech is rooted in my mind My mind is rooted in my speech; Brahman, reveal thyself to me, Ye mind and speech enable me To grasp the truth that the scriptures teach. Let what I have heard slip not from me; I join day with night in study, I think the truth, I speak the truth; May That protect me, may That protect The teacher, protect me, Protect the teacher, protect the Teacher. Om ! Peace, Peace, Peace. These verses invoking divine blessings are chanted at the commencement of the Vedic study and also at its conclusion. The disciple sends up an earnest prayer to God—the Supreme Reality तत्त् both for himself and

for him who is his preceptor. The achievement from a successful pursuit of scriptural study is, in the case of the pupil (śiṣya), the riddance of his avidyā with all its ills, and in the case of the teacher (ācārya), the happiness of having found a worthy disciple to whom he could impart the traditional wisdom.—Vidyāraṇya.

अकर्मी

an ascetic, samnyāsin

आत्यन्ताप्रशमं

mere renunciation

अकुर्वंतः

of one who has renounced works

अङ्गफलम्

subsidiary result

अज

birthless

अजरः

without old age

अणवः

atoms from which, according to the Vaiśesikas, the world-process begins

अण्डम्

Mundane egg

अत्याश्रमी

samnyāsin

अर्थप्राप्तत्वात्

because of its incidental occurrence

अर्थवादः

eulogy

अद्वयः

secondless

अधिष्ठानम्

the ground, the substratum

अध्यात्माधिदैवतासु

in those gods who dwell within as well as outside the body

अनधिकृतार्थः

meant for him who is not the adhikārin

अनुष्ठेयरूपम्

of the nature of something to be religiously followed

अनुज्ञा

command

अनुमानम्

inference

अनुशासनम्

.. 95

अन्तर्वती

.. 101

अन्तःकरणम्

.. 113

अन्ववायित-संयोगितम्

.. 49

अपरब्रह्म

.. 1

अपान

.. 45

अभ्यतपत्

.. 44

अमूर्तस्य

.. 88

अमृतत्त्वम्

.. 25, 75

अमृतः

.. 126

अवस्थान

.. 30

आविद्या

.. 16, 17, 47, 67, 96

अविदुषः

.. 27

अव्याकृतनामरूपभेदाभूतम्

.. 36, 122

असम्पन्नम्

.. 25

असत्-वादि

.. 39

असंशारी

.. 72

आकाश

.. 41

आख्यायिका

.. 75, 93

आगम-श्रुति

.. 89

आत्मज्ञानम्

.. 9

आत्मदर्शनम्

.. 23

आत्मदृष्टिः

the eternal sight of the Ātman

आत्मविद्या

knowledge of self, the doctrine of the Ātman

आत्मस्वरूपम्

the nature of Ātman

आपः

the nether worlds

आप्तकामम्

one who has obtained all desires

आग्रायः

the Veda

आयतनम्

abode

आलोकः

light

इन्द्र

the Lord of Svarga used in the sense of the Supreme Brahman

इष्टयोगानुकोर्षा

desire to obtain what one likes

उक्थम्

praise-chant in prose

उत्पन्नविद्यस्य

to one who is enlightened

उत्पादयेत्

would generate

उत्सन्नाग्नि:

he whose sacrificial fire is extinguished

उन्मादान्तिमिरनिमित्तत्वात्

caused by mental or optical derangement

एषणम्

desire

(एषणत्रयं—पुत्रैषणा, दारैषणा, वित्तैषणाख्येभति)

करणम्

• the sense-organ

कर्म

• rites enjoined by the scriptures

कर्मी

• one engaged in ritual

क्रिया

• ritual

कृताकृतफलसाक्षी

• Īśvara who is the eternal witness of man's deeds both committed and omitted

कृतकर्तव्यताविरोधि

• that which is opposed to past and future actions

काणादानाम्

• of the followers of the Vaiśeṣika system founded by Kanāda

कामप्रयुक्तत्वात्

• prompted by desire

कार्यकरणलक्षण:, पिण्ड:

• the bodily aggregate

कार्यकरणसंघातम्

• the bodily aggregate, the composite of the body and the senses

गृहस्थ्यम्

• life of a house-holder

गुणफलम्

• the same as Angaphala—subsidiary reward

गुरुपसदनम्

• pupils.h.i.p under a preceptor

चरुपुरोडाशादिलक्षणम्

• like boiled rice and rice-cake

चन्द्रमसम्-चन्द्रमसं लोकम्

• the region of the moon or Svarga

चोद्यम्

• question, objection

चोदनाहैम्

• fit to come under scriptural injunction

जगदुत्पत्तिस्थितिसहारहेतुत्वेन

owing to origination, preservation and destruction of the world

जगदात्मा

world-self

जागरितकाले

in the waking state

जातकर्म

the birth-ceremony, one of the sixteen karmas enjoined in the Dharma Sāstras

जीव:

individual soul

ज्ञानम्

upāsana or meditation

ज्ञानकर्मसुच्ययानुष्ठानम्

performance of ritual along with meditation

तप:

meditation

तार्किक:

logician

त्यकतैषण:

one who is free from desires (cf. एषणत्रय)

त्याग:

renunciation

तृण्मारुत:

the wind of desire

तृणजलूका

caterpillar

देवराज:

the king of Gods, Indra

देवता

the presiding deity

देवताप्ययम्

becoming identical with the deity

देहधारणम्

bodily sustenance

द्युलोक:

Heavenly world

द्वैतम्

duality

धर्मोत्तरम्

• other attributes

धूमादिक्रमेण

• धूममार्गे is the path of smoke by which those who have performed karma as enjoined in the Sāstras reach svarga after death

नामरूपभेदः

• differentiated by name and form

निग्रहानुग्रहौ

• punishment and bestowal of gifts

नित्यकर्म

• obligatory duty such as Sandhyā

नित्यशुद्धबुद्धमुक्तस्वभाव

• (Ātman) is of eternal purity, wisdom and freedom

नित्यत्वे सति

• being eternal

निर्मिमीते

• creates

नियमः

• injunction

नियुक्तत्वात्

• because it is enjoined

नियोग

• scriptural injunction

निरालम्ब

• supportless, refugeless

निर्वाणम्

• Mokṣa, liberation

नेतिनेति

• not that, not that—the negation of the empirical world

पञ्चभूतेभ्यः

• from out of the five elements

पञ्चमहाभूतानि

• the five elements

पञ्चेन्द्रियाणि

• the five senses

परः पुरुषार्थः

• the highest good

परमार्थविज्ञानम्

the knowledge of the Supreme

परमात्मज्ञानामृतम्

nectar of divine knowledge

परम्

the Absolute, the Brahman

परागति:

the highest state

परिभव:

neglect, humiliation

पञ्चकलक्षणम्

characterised by five

पारित्राज्यम्

renunciation, asceticism

पिण्डम्

the virāṭ (gross body)

पुनरुक्ति:

repetition

पुनर्वचनम्

reinforcing, repeating

पूर्वज:

the first-born

प्रत्यवाय

sin

प्रत्ययगोचरम्

cognized by notions

प्रत्यक्ष:

perception

प्रथमज:

the first in creation, Hiranyagarbha

प्रधानम्

the first category of the Sāmkhyas from which the world is evolved

प्रज्ञाति:

consciousness

प्रज्ञानं ब्रह्म

Pure consciousness is Brahman

प्रज्ञात्मा

Brahman as jñānaśakti or thought-principle

प्राण:

another name for Hiranyagarbha, also life-breath

बहुवित्

one whose knowledge is vast

वृहत्सीसहस्लक्षणम्

ब्रह्मचर्येम्

bachelorhood

ब्रह्मवित्

the knower of Brahman

ब्रह्मविद्या

knowledge of the Divine

ब्रह्म

the Absolute

ब्रह्मापरम्

the Lower Brahman

ब्रह्मात्मदर्शी

one who has realized that the Self is Brahman

ब्रह्मात्मविज्ञानम्

knowledge that the Brahman is Ātman (one's own self)

भावरूपत्वात्

being abstract in nature

भावात्मकम्

positive in character

म्रान्तम्

one who is deluded

भिक्षाचर्येम्

mendicancy

मरम्

earth

मरीचि:

the sky filled with the sun's rays

मन्त्रवर्ण:

Śruti

महावाक्यानि

the great texts, like तत् त्वम् असि, अहं ब्रह्मास्मि.

महामायावी

Īśvara, spoken of as a great magician

मुमुक्षु

one desirous of liberation

मृत्यु:

Death

मोक्ष:

Liberation

यत्नगौरवात्

on account of great effort

यथाकामित्वम्

uncontrolled behaviour

यज्ञः - ritualistic sacrifice

yāvajjīvādis̐rutit̐ - Scriptural text enjoining performance of ritual till life lasts .. 29

ल

लिङ्गम् - mark, middle term .. 85 लोकपालाः - the world-protectors .. 42, 120 लोकाः - the worlds .. .. 42

व

वचसा - by the vāk or word which here means the Veda .. .. 12 वनस्पतयः - plants .. .. 45, 53 वागभिमानी - presiding deity over speech .. .. 53 विदित्वा - having known, after enlightenment .. 16 विदुषः - of the wise man .. .. 17, 19 विधि: - injunction .. .. .. 95 विपरीतत्वम् - what is diametrically opposite .. 12 विषयेन्द्रियजनितम् - born of the sense-object contact .. 47 वृत्तय. - notions, वृत्ति is also used to denote a mental mode .. .. 116 वैराग्यम् - renunciation, desirelessness .. .. 97 व्युत्थानम् - renunciation, turning away from Samsāra .. .. .. 16, 17

श

शास्त्रेण - on the authority of the Scriptures .. .. 12 शास्त्रकृता - ordained by the Scriptures .. .. 14 शास्त्रचोदितम् - enjoined by the Scriptures .. 31

शास्त्रोपदेश

Vedic teaching

शिष्टकर्म

enjoined action

श्रुति:

the Veda

सड्कल्प्य

having determined

समुचयसाधनम्

means of attaining liberation by combining ritualistic practices with meditation

सम्प्राप्तिविद्या

मंसारदोषवर्जितम्

one whom life's ills do not afflict

ममारसमुद्र

sea of Samsāra

साकल्येन

in entirety

साध्यसाधनलक्षणम्

साध्य that which is to be accomplished - effect; साधन that by which something is to be accomplished - cause or means

साड्ख्यानाम्

of the followers of the Sāmkhya system founded by Kapila

सुषुप्ति:

deep slumber, the third of the three states (अवस्थात्रय)

स्वर्ग

the region of bliss

स्वतोऽप्राप्तम्

that which cannot be ascertained by one's own effort, i.e., beyond the reach of human means

स्वयोनिभूतम्

born of himself

स्वामी

master

स्थावरजङ्गमादि

static and dynamic objects, etc.

स्तुतिपर:

extolling

हवि:

oblations

हृदयाकाश:

ether within the orifice of the heart regarded as the fit medium for the manifestation of Īśvara

1300-33—Printed at The Bangalore Press, Mysore Road, Bangalore City, by T. Subramania Aiyar, Superintendent