1. Aitereya Upanisad Venkataramiaha 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 ವಿವಂಗತ ಸರ್ವಜ್ಞ ಸೇವಾ ಧುರೀಣ

ಶ್ರೀ ಕೆ. ವಿ. ರಾಮಚಂದ್ರರಾಯರ

ಸ್ಮರ ಣೆಯಾಗಿ ಪೂರ್ಣಪ್ರಜ್ಞ ವಿದ್ಯಾಪೀಠದ ಪುಸ್ತಕ ಭಂಡಾರಕ್ಕೆ

ಗ್ರಂಥ ದಾನ

ಶ್ರೀಮತಿ ಡಿ. ವಿ. ಪದ್ಮಾವತಮ್ಮ

15-12-1986

AITAREYOPANISAD

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

the relative values of Karma and Jñāna. Karma as is well known is either secular or ritualistic. The former has reference to one's conduct in life and must conform to the generally accepted ethical standards. It is the latter, however, that requires special consideration since certain Indian schools of thought hold the view that it is the only way to liberation or at any rate that its association with jñāna is indispensable for the attainment of the spiritual goal.

Śaṅkara is positive that with the rise of knowledge Karma automatically ceases and that the two are as opposed to each other as light and darkness Karma of whatever kind is a hindrance to liberation as its fruit has to be enjoyed in one birth or another and consequently its performance involves one in the cycle of samsāra. It is only Ātmajñāna that cuts asunder the knots of samsāra eventuating in Moksa.

The point for consideration is whether one who is in quest of reality should renounce Karma and embrace Samnyāsa. Samnyāsa, however, may be either Vividisa-Samnyāsa or Vidvat-Samnyāsa. The first is voluntary renunciation which one embraces while yet a neophyte, to qualify oneself for Vedantic study. There appear to be different views as regards the necessity of entering on the order of Samnyāsa at the stage when one is undergoing the necessary discipline for the attainment of the higher knowledge. Some hold that it is no disqualification to remain a householder (गृहस्थ), for purposes of Vedantic study and that the duties

enjoined on one in the second Āśrama can be pursued

along with Vedantic disciplineship 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

Brahma-vidyā

The qualifications insisted upon in a student of the

Vedanta are.—

(i) Discriminations of things of eternal and of

नित्यानित्यवस्तु विवेक

ephemeral values—

(ii) Distaste for the rewards of this and other

इहामुत्रफलभोगविरागः,

worlds—

(iii) Attainment of the six virtues—

शमदमादि संपत्ति

(iv) Desire for freedom—

मुमुक्षुत्वम्

`The six virtues under (iii) are.—Mental equipoise—

शम

; withdrawing the senses from their objects—

दमः

; 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

श्रद्धा

preceptor—

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.1

Śaṅkara while conceding 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

शान्तोदन्त उपरतस्तितिक्षु समाहितो भूत्वात्मन्येवात्मानं पश्यति

"śāntodānta uparatas titikṣu samāhito bhūtvātman yevaātmanam paśyati"

अत्याश्रमिभ्यः परमं पवित्रं प्रोचाच सम्यगृपिसंघजुषम्

"atyāśramibhyaḥ paramam pavitraṁ provāca samyagṛpisaṅghajuṣam"

न प्रजया धनेन त्यागैनके अमृतत्वमानशु

"na prajayā dhanena tyāgaina ke amṛtatvamānaśu"

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 Paribhāsā. Prayojanapariccheda, where uparati is explained both ways, by Dharmarājādhvarīndra. The commentator, his son Rāmakṛṣṇa 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

advocate that even after the dawn of knowledge a man

may continue to fulfil the obligations of the second

may continue to fulfil the obligations of the second

Āśrama, are endeavouring to support the Samucchaya

Āśrama, are endeavouring to support the Samucchaya

doctrine which Śamkara assails in no uncertain terms.

doctrine which Śamkara assails in no uncertain terms.

Since the injunction is absolute even secular Karma

Since the injunction is absolute even secular Karma

seems prohibited so far as the jñānin is concerned but

seems prohibited so far as the jñānin is concerned but

an important exception is made even in his case.

an important exception is made even in his case.

Work undertaken with the object of helping humanity

Work undertaken with the object of helping humanity

is not regarded as holding the worker in bondage to

is not regarded as holding the worker in bondage to

samsāra. This is the lokasamgraha type of duty as

samsāra. This is the lokasamgraha type of duty as

enjoined in the Bhagavadgīta Srī Kṛṣṇa and Janaka

enjoined in the Bhagavadgīta Srī Kṛṣṇa and Janaka

though they were liberated souls continued to work

though they were liberated souls continued to work

lest mankind should go astray by thinking that a life

lest mankind should go astray by thinking that a life

of inaction is to be preferred to that of endeavour and

of inaction is to be preferred to that of endeavour and

service.1

service.1

Still the weight of Śamkara's opinion being on the

Still the weight of Śamkara's opinion being on the

side of Samnyāsa, it may be urged that this life of

side of Samnyāsa, it may be urged that this life of

isolation recommended as the goal of a seeker after

isolation recommended as the goal of a seeker after

knowledge is likely to make him too self-centred to

knowledge is likely to make him too self-centred to

think of the general interests of society. In his quest

think of the general interests of society. In his quest

for his own freedom he is neglecting thousands who

for his own freedom he is neglecting thousands who

are held in bondage. There is an over-estimate, it is

are held in bondage. There is an over-estimate, it is

न मे पार्थास्ति कर्तव्यं त्रिषु लोकेषु किचन ।

na me pārthāsti kartavyaṁ triṣu lokeṣu kincana |

1 Cf Bhagavadgīta, III, 22-24.

नानवाप्तमवाप्तव्यं वर्त एव च कर्मणि ॥

nānavāptamavāptavyaṁ varta eva ca karmani ||

यदि ह्याहं न वर्तेयं जातु कर्मण्यतन्द्रितः ।

yadi hyāhaṁ na varteyaṁ jātu karmaṇyatandritaḥ |

मम वर्त्मानुवर्तन्ते मनुष्याः पार्थ सर्वशः ॥

mama vartmānuvartante manuṣhyāḥ pārtha sarvaśaḥ ||

उत्सीदेयुरिमे लोका न कुर्यां कर्म चेदहम् ।

utsīdeyurime lokā na kuryāṁ karma cedaham |

सङ्करस्य च कर्ता स्यामुपहन्यामिमाः प्रजाः ॥

saṅkarasya ca kartā syāmupahanyāmimāḥ prajāḥ ||

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. Samkara 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 Srutis are to be understood only in a secondary sense and they are, as Samkara 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 Samkara'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 Vṛttijñāna, i e, consciousness as conditioned by antahkaraṇa, 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.

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

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 Śaṅkara 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.

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 Śaṅkara 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.

D. V.

॥ ॐ तत्सद्ब्रह्मणे नमः ॥

ऐतरेयोपानिषत् ।

Aitareyopanisad

AITAREYOPANISAD

WITH

SRĪ ŚAMKARĀCHĀRYA'S BHĀSYA

॥ संक्षिप्त भाष्यम् ॥

INTRODUCTION

परिसमाप्तं कर्म सहापरब्रह्मविषयविज्ञानेन सैषा कर्मणो ज्ञान-साहितस्य परा गन्तुमर्थविज्ञानद्वारेणापसह्हता । 'एतस्सत्य ब्रह्म प्राणाराध्यम्'; 'एष एको देवः'; 'एतस्यैव प्राणस्य सर्वे देवाः विभूतयः'; 'एतस्य प्राणस्यैडस्मभाव गच्छन्देवताः अप्यन्ति' इत्युक्तम् ।

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",

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 पर: पुरुषार्थे । पुरुष मोक्ष:। स चाथं यथोक्तेन ज्ञानकर्मसमुच्चयसाधनेन प्राप्यो नात. परमस्तीएके प्रतिपन्ना: ; तान्निराचिकीर्षुस्तरं 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 दर्शयिष्यतशानायादिद्रोषवत्वेन तमशानापिपासाभ्यामन्ववर्ज-दिव्यादिना । अशानायादिमत्सर्वं संसार एव परस्य तु ब्रह्मणोस-ज्ञानायाधयतयश्रूते: ।

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 Upanisad 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 saṃsāra 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 saṃsāra. Of Parabrahma, however, the śruti declares that He is exempt from hunger, etc.

भवत्चेवं केवलात्मज्ञानं मोक्षसाधनं न स्वात्रकर्मैवाधिकारियते । विशेषाश्रवणात् । अकर्मिण आश्रम्यनतरस्येहाश्रवणात् । कर्म च गृहीतसहस्रलक्षणं प्रस्तुत्यानंतरमेवास्मज्ञानं प्रारभ्यते । तस्मैःसंहारात् ; यथा कर्मैबन्धनः पुरुषस्य सूर्यात्मनः स्थावरजङ्गमादि-सर्वप्राण्यात्सत्वमुक्तं ब्रह्मणै मन्त्रैण च सूर्यम् आत्तमस्यादिना ; तथैव “पुष ब्रह्मौष इन्द्रः” इत्याद्युपक्रम्य सर्वप्राण्यात्सत्वमसृ

यच्च स्थावरं जङ्गमं च ।

1 The beginning of this Upaniṣad—“ Ātmā vā idam eka evāgra āsīt ” 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 कर्मसंबन्धनिर्धरस्वमुक्त्वा " सर्वेषु भूतेष्वेतमेव ब्रह्मेत्याचक्षते " इत्युपसंहरति । तथा तस्यैव योड्यमशरीरः 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.

1 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 विशेषश्रवण कितु 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.

2 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 (Prajñā) thereby showing that Brahman (Prajñā) 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 Brhatīsahasra," 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 अहंस्मृषे" इत्यादि-ग्राह्यानेन "सूर्य आत्मा" इति मन्त्रेण च निर्धारिरत्याऽऽडत्मन् "आत्मा

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 Aitarevāraṇualca.

1

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 ।

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.

अथवास्मिन्न्यादिपरो ग्रन्थसंदर्भे आत्मनः कर्मणोऽन्यत्रोपासनामात्रौ कर्मप्रस्तावाद्विहितस्वात्केवलोऽ-

प्यात्मोपास्य इत्येवमर्थः ।

भेदाभेदोपास्यत्वाद्वैक एवाइSS इमा 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;

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.

पूर्वोत्तरब्राझणयोरेकार्थत्वे वक्ष्यमाणमपि प्राणात्मविषयं स्यात् ।

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.

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:।

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 तीत्वा विदययाऽमृतमश्नुते" इति । "कुर्वेवेह कर्माणि जिजीविषेच्छत᳚ समाः" इति च वाजिनाम् । न च वर्षशतांतपरमायुरम᳚त्योऽनाम येन कर्मपरिल्यागेनाऽऽत्मानमुपासीत । दर्शितं च "तावन्त पुरुषायुषोऽह᳚ सहस्राणि भवन्ति" इति ।

"He who knows both vidya and avidya together, by avidya crosses death and by vidya attains immortality"; "One should certainly perform works here (in this world) and desire to live a hundred years" - thus is it declared in the Vajin texts. And there is no life beyond a hundred years for which one may renounce works and meditate on the Self. It is also shown (in the Vajasaneyin texts) that "There are as many thousands of years (of life) as are counted (in the mantra)";

Further the Scripture of the Vajasaneyins 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". 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 Atman 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 Brhatsahasra (each rk in the brhati 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",

वर्षशतं चाऽऽस्युः कर्मणेवा व्यासम् । दर्शितश्र मन्त्रः "कुर्वेवेह कर्माणि" इत्यादिः । तथा "यावजीवमभ्रिहोत्रं जुहोति"; "यावजीवं दर्शपूर्णमासाभ्यां यजेत" इत्यादि श्रुति । "तं यज्ञपातैर्देहान्ति" इति च ।

the life of a man is fully occupied with karma. The mantra "One should certainly perform works here" etc. shows this. Likewise (we have the text), "Till life lasts perform the Agnihotra sacrifice", "Till life lasts perform sacrifice on new moon and full moon days", etc. (We have also the text), "They burn him with the pangs of yajna";

"They burn him with the pangs of yajna". It is stated in the Isavasopanisad (belonging to the Vajasaneya Sakha) that the life-span of a man is a hundred years and that he should perform works throughout his life.

ऋतञ्च सत्यमृते श्रुते᳚श्व ।

1 Isavasopanisad (belonging to Śuklayajurveda. Vājasaneya śākha, 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.

तत्र पारेग्र्याज्यादिशां व्यस्थायाथ भिक्षाचर्ये चरन्तीलात्मज्ञानस्त्व-परोऽर्थवादोऽनधिकृतार्थो 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 ब्राह्मणस्तिभिर्हि 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 सर्वं मन्त्रारम्भणि आत्मा ज्ञातव्य इति ज्ञानस्तुतिः विध्यर्थेऽपि कर्मानधिकृतान्ध पङ्ग्वादि 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 । युक्तं " कर्मिणा एव चाडडमज्ञानं कर्मसंनिधौ च " इत्यादि तन्त्र । परं ह्यासकामं सर्वसंसारदोषवर्जितं ब्रह्माहमस्मीत्यात्मत्वेन विज्ञाने कृतेन कर्तव्येन वा प्रयोजनमात्रनोदपद्यत: फलादर्शने क्रिया नोपपद्यते ।

No, (the argument is not valid) because there is no scope for activity when the knowledge of the ultimate reality is imparted. The scripture 'The knower of Brahman becomes Brahman itself' etc. is valid. When one is detached from all worldly desires and has known 'I am Brahman' or has accomplished it, there is no purpose in performing actions.

(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 untenable 1. 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 । नियोगाविष्यात्‌मदर्शनादिष्टयोगमनिष्टवियोगं चास्सत्मन् प्रयोजनं पश्यस्तदुपायार्थी यो

Even if there is no result in view, one acts because one is enjoined to do so. No. The perception of the self is not the subject of injunction and one who sees a purpose in the attainment of what is desirable and the avoidance of what is undesirable

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 नियोगं शक्त्यते 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. 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, Śamkara takes for granted that a consciousness of some beneficial result (Iṣṭasādhanatā-jñāna) is essential to all activity. This view is as we know the one held by the Bhāṭṭas but is accepted by Śamkara 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

आत्मज्ञस्य तु स ब्रह्मवित्त्वादिह हि स्वविज्ञाननिष्ठत्वे वचसा स्वयमेव नियुज्यते नापि बहुविस्तवास्यविवेकिना भृत्येन । आत्मज्ञास्य नित्यत्वे सति स्वातन्र्याद्‌वान्यैः‌प्रतिनि युक्तृतवसामर्थ्येऽपि मिति चेत् । न । उत्कदोषात् । तथाड‌पि सर्वेण सर्वदा सर्वं शिष्टं कर्म कर्तव्यामित्युक्तो दोषो‌ड‌स्य परिहार्य एव । तदापि शास्त्रेणैव विधीयत इति चेत्, यथा कर्मकर्तव्यताशास्त्रेण कृतातथा तद्‌प्यात्संज्ञानंतस्यैव कर्मिणः शास्त्रेण विधीयत इति चेत् । विरुद्धार्थबोधकत्वानुपपत्तेः । न हि एकस्मिन्कृताकृतासंबन्धिस्वं तद्विपरीतत्वं च बोधयितुं शक्यम् । शीतोष्णतामिवश्रे: ।

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 unanswer-

ed,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

1 Cp. स्वामीसचिव्हि मृत्येन स्वामिनेव नियुज्यते ।

Sureśvar's Sambandha Vārtika, St. 240.

संबोधनीय एवाडसौ सुस्तो राजेव वन्दिभिः ॥

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 incon-

gruity 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 legiti-

mately 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

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 dissocia-

tion from works—accomplished and to be accomplish-

ed—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 चेष्टयोगाचिकीर्षोस्सत्मनोऽनिष्टवियोगाचिकीर्षोस्च शास्त्रकृतास्सर्व-

प्राणिनां तर्हेनाच्छावकृतं चेतदुभयं गोपालादीनां न दर्शयेताशाङ्क्यतया-

It is not by scriptural ordinance that one holds

तेषाम् । यद्वि स्वतोद्रप्तं तच्छास्त्रेण बोधयितव्यस्यैव नान्यस्य तद्विप्रतिषेध्या-

fast to that which one likes and discards what one

त्मज्ञानं शास्त्रेण कृतं कथम् । तद्विरुद्धां कृतिंघयतां पुनरुपादयेच्छी-

dislikes. For all creatures are alive to their own

तत्समिवाञ्छौ तम् इव च भानौ ।

interests If scriptural teaching were necessary it

would follow that herdsmen and the rest, ignorant of

scriptures, would be oblivious of both (what conduces

to their interest and what not) It is only when some-

thing cannot be known (by human means and one's

own experience) that scriptural enlightenment is neces-

sary 1 (In other words, scriptural injunction has a

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

Jyotiṣtoma." 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 । तद्‌ज्ञानमेवावेतरत्वमसीत्येवमादिक्यानां तत्परत्वात् । उत्पन्नस्य च ब्रह्मास्मविज्ञानस्यावाघ्यमनत्वान्नाऽऽनुत्पत्तं भ्रान्तं वेति शङ्कयं 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 Upaniṣad.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* प्राप्यप्रयोजनार्थितानुवादेन तदुपायमात्रं शास्त्रे॑ण बोध्यते, न तु साङ्ख्याधीयते—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 Chchāndogya 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 कष्षन " इति स्मृतेः। य आहुःवादित्वा ब्रह्म त्युत्थानमेव कुर्वीत तेषामप्येष समानो दोषः प्रयोजनाभाव इति चेत्। न। अक्रियामात्रत्वादत्युत्थानस्य । अविद्यानिमित्तो हि प्रयोजनस्य भावो न वस्तुधर्मः। सर्वेषां प्राणिनां तद्- (दुः)शेनात्। प्रयोजनतृष्णया च प्रेयःमाणस्य वाद्धन.कायैः प्रवृत्तिदर्शनात्। " सोडकामयत जाया मे स्वात् " इत्यादिना पुत्रादि- पादिक्तलक्षणं 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 Smrti 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 Jñanin 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 वाङ्मान कायप्रवृत्तेः पाङ्क्तलक्षणाया विदुषोऽविद्यादिदोषभावादनुपपत्तेः क्रियाभावमात्रं व्यवस्थानं न तु यागादिवदनुष्ठेयरूपं भावात्मकं तच्च विद्यावत्पुरुषपधमर्हति न प्रयोजनमन्वेष्टव्यम् । न हि तमसि प्रविष्टस्योन्दृत आलोके यत्नतेऽपङ्कण्टकाद्यपतनं तत्किंप्रयोजनमिति प्रश्नाहम् । व्यवस्थानं तदर्थेऽप्राप्तस्वान्न 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. Tant Up. Siksā-vali, Ch. 8th :-पत्नी यजमान पुत्र दैव मानुषवित्तै। पञ्चभिः संपाद्यते इति यज्ञः, पाङ्क्त इलर्थः. The five indispensable elements for a sacrifice are here mentioned

4 Brh Up, III. 5. 1.

5 Brh Up, I. 4. 17.

गाहंस्थ्ये 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.

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 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 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 ततोऽन्यत्र गमनं व्युत्थानमुच्यते । ततो न गाईस्थ एवाकुर्वत आसनमुत्पन्नंविद्यासु सिद्धः । एतेन गुरुगुश्रूषातपोरस्स्यप्रतिपत्तिर्विदुषः 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 उत्तमाद्रः । भिक्षोरपि भिक्षाटनादिनियमदर्शनाद्रहेतु-धारणमात्रार्थिनो गृहस्थस्यापि साध्यसाधनैषणोभयविनिर्मुक्तस्य देहमात्र-धारणार्थमशनाच्छादनमात्रसुपजीवतो गृह एवावस्थानामिति ।

Here some householders, afraid of begging and ridicule, show a subtle vision, (and say) : 'It is excellent. For a mendicant also, from the rule of begging etc., it is seen (that he does it) merely to sustain the body. So also a householder, having given up the desire for the means (of enjoyment) and for (their) accomplishment, may very well live (at home) merely to sustain the body, having food and clothing (just enough to keep him going).'

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 व्या अतिरेकेण स्थूल दृष्टय., sarcastic for dull-witted men—Ānandagiri.

न स्वगृहाविशेषपरिग्रह नियमस्यकामप्रयुक्तत्वादित्युक्तोत्तरमेतव् । स्वगृहाविशेषपरिग्रहाभावे च शरीरधारणमात्रप्रयुक्ताशनाच्छादनार्थीन: स्वपरिग्रहविशेषाभावेऽथोर्द्रिक्षुकत्वमेव ।

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 परिहारायेत ।

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

एतत्रियोगाविषयत्वेन विदुषः प्रस्युक्तमशक्यनिर्योजयत्वाद्वोच्यते । यावज्जीवादिनित्यचोदनानर्थक्यामिति चेत् । न । अविद्वद्विषयत्वेनार्थवत्त्वात् । यतु भिक्षोः शरीरधारणमात्रप्रयुक्तस्य प्रवृत्तेर्नियतत्वं तत्प्रवृत्तेनै प्रयोजकम् । आचमनप्रवृत्तस्य पिपासापगमवन्नानुप्रयोजनार्थत्वमवगम्यते । न चाग्निहोत्रादीनां तदृदृर्थप्राप्तप्रवृत्तिनियतत्वोपपत्ति: ।

अर्थप्राप्तप्रवृत्तिनियमोऽपि प्रयोजनाभावेऽनुपपन्नं एवेति चेत् । न । तत्रियमस्य पूर्वंप्रवृत्तिसिद्धत्वात्तद्वितिक्रमे यत्नगौरवादर्थप्राप्तस्य व्युत्थानस्य पुनर्वचनाद्विदुषः कर्तव्यत्वोपपत्ति: ।

(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 (nityakarma) 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 nityakarma.

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 सुसूक्ष्मा पारिग्रहोयं कर्तव्यमेव । तथा च " शान्तो-

दान्त: " इत्यादिवचनं प्रमाणम् । शामदमादीनां चाङ्गत्वमदर्शनसाधना-

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 त्यागेनैकेऽमृतत्वमानशु:" इति च कैवल्यश्रुति: ।

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

"ज्ञात्वा नैष्कर्म्यमाचारेत्" इति च स्मृतेः । "ब्रह्माश्रमपदे वसेत्" इति च । ब्रह्मचर्यादिविद्यासाधनानां च साकल्येनैत्याश्रमिभूपपत्तेर्गृहस्थेऽसंभवात् ।

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 saṃnyāsa order and not when they are in the family-fold

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

2 Svet. Up., VI. 21.

न चासंपन्नं साधनं कस्यचिदर्थेस्य साधनायालम् । यद्विज्ञानयोगीनी

No means that is inadequate can be productive of any result.

च गाहस्थ्याश्रमकर्मणि तेषां परं फलमुपसंहंतं देवताप्ययलक्षणं संसारविषयमेव ।

It has been conclusively established that the rites prescribed for house-holders in association with the knowledge (meditation) of the (conditioned Brahman—Saguna) yield us their highest fruit—devatāpyaya—becoming one with the God of one's devotion, all within the sphere of samsāra.

यद् कर्मिण एव परमात्मविज्ञानमभविष्यत्संसारविषयस्यैव फल-

Hence it is clear that ātmajñāna here expounded has no relation to karma.

स्योपसंहारो नोपपत्त्यत । अज्ञफलं तद्‌ति चेत्‍न । तद्‌िरोध्यात्मकवस्तु-

विषयत्वादात्मविद्याया: । निराकृतसर्वनामरूपकर्मपरमार्थांत्मवस्तुविषयं

ज्ञानममृतत्वसाधनम् । गुणफलसंबन्धे हि निराकृतसर्वविशेषात्मवस्तु-

विषयत्वं विज्ञानस्य न प्राप्नोति तच्चानिष्टम् । “यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैव-

भूतं” इत्यधिकृत्य क्रियाकारकफलादिसर्वव्यवहारनिराकरणादिदुष: ।

तद्‌रीपरित्याविदुषो यत्र हि द्वैतमिवेत्युक्त्वा क्रियाकारकफलरूपस्यैव

संसारस्य दर्शितत्वाच्च वाजसनेयिब्राह्मणे । तथेहापि देवताप्ययं संसार-

विषयं यत्फलमज्ञानायादिमद्रस्वात्मकं तत्फलमुपसंहृत्य केवलसर्वात्मक-

वस्तुविषयं ज्ञानममृतत्वाय वक्ष्योमिति प्रवर्तते ।

1 One might say that the qualifications required for entering upon Vedāntic study, viz., equanimity, temperance, and so forth are found in some sense even in house-holders implying that they are also fitted to pursue Brahmajñāna ; it is to refute such a view the Bhāṣya makes this statement. It is not by occasional practice of virtues like calmness, etc , that one acquires fitness for the study of the Vedānta, but it is by a systematic cultivation of these virtues so that they become one's second nature.

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.

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 mukti-phala. 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.

The knowledge of the ātman which is the very negation of karma is the subject-matter of the divine science of Brahmapidya 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" 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

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).

ऋणप्रतिबन्धादविदुष एव मनुष्यपितृदेवलोकप्राप्तौ प्रति, न विदुषः ।

"सोडयं मनुष्यलोकः पुत्रैणव" इत्यादिलोकत्रयसाधननियमश्रुते: ।

विदुष ऋणप्रतिबन्धाभावो दर्शित आत्मलोकार्थिन: " किं प्रजया करिष्याम: " इत्यादिना ।

तथा " एतद् ह स्म वै तद्विद्वांस आहुक्रुष्टय: कावषेय: " इत्यादि ।

" एतद् ह स्म वै तत्पूर्वे विद्वांसोऽडगिरोत्रं न जुछवां-

चक्र: " इति न कौषीतकिनाम ।

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 मनुष्यलोकः पुत्रैणवजिज्ञासो नान्येन कर्मणा ; कर्मेणा पितृलोकः,

विद्यया देवलोकः ॥ Bṛh. 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 Kauṣitakins.

आविदुषस्तर्ह्यणानुपाकरणे पारित्राज्यानुपपत्तिरिति चेत् । न । प्राग्ग-हैस्थप्रतिपत्तेःऋणित्वासंभवादधिकारानारुढोऽथ ऋणी चेत्स्यास्तर्वैस्यऋणितव-मित्यानिष्टं प्रसज्येत ।

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).

प्रतिपन्नागारहस्थ्यस्यापि "गृहाद्दनी भुत्वा प्रभ्रजेद्यादि वेतरथा ब्रह्मचर्याद्देव प्रव्रजेद्रहाद्वा वनाद्वा" इत्यात्मदर्शनो-पायसाधनत्वेनेष्यत एवं पारित्राज्यम् ।

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 "एतद्वैतदविद्वांस आहु ऋषयः । कावषेयाः । क्रिमर्था वयमध्येष्यामहे,

etc."—Aitareyāraṇyaka, 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

वावजिज्ञासादैश्वताहोमविद्यादेशमुखयोविशये कृताथौ । छान्दोग्ये च केषांचिद्द्रादशरात्रमिहोत्रं हुत्त्वा तत् उध्वंं 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 enjoned on the followers of some of its branches (Śākha) that having performed agnihotra (kindled Agnihotra Fire) for twelve nights they should give it up.

यत्वननाधिक्तानां पारिव्राज्यमिति । तत्र । तेषां पृथग्नेवोत्सन्नाश्रिरन- शिको वेत्यादिश्रवणात् । सर्वस्मातिपु चाविशेषेणास्सश्रमविकल्पः प्रसिद्धः समुच्यश्र ।

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, गृहाद्भूत्वा वनी भवेत्, वनी भूत्वा 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 व्युत्थानामित्यशाङ्कार्थस्ते गृहे चने वा तिष्ठतो न विशेष इत्य तदसत्त्वम् । व्युत्थानस्यैवाङ्गप्राप्तत्वादन्यत्रावस्थाने स्तोत्र । अन्यत्रावस्थानस्य कामकरंप्रयुक्तत्वं ह्यवोचाम । तदभावमात्रं 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) ग्रह्णचारी गृहस्थोवा वानप्रस्थोऽथ भिक्षुक ।

य इच्छेत्परमं स्थानमुत्तमां वृत्तिमाश्रयेत् ॥

(b) अर्धीषु विधिवद्वेदानपुनर्जातुप्रसादाय धर्मतत् ।

इष्टा च शक्तितो यज्ञैरम्नो मोक्षे निवेदयेत् ॥

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 भिक्षाचर्य्य 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 तु विदुषोडयन्तमप्राप्तमतयन्तमूढाविषयत्वेनावगमात् । तथा शास्त्रचोदितमपि कर्मोडविद्यादिदृक्षाप्राप्तिरुग्रहणादिवाग्यव्याप्ते: किमुताल्यन्ताविवेकिनिमित्तं यथाकामित्वम् । न चुनमादतिमिरदृष्ट्युपलब्धं वस्तु तदपगमेऽपि तथैव स्यादुन्मादतिमिरानिमित्तत्वादेव तस्य । तस्मादात्मविदो न्युत्थानव्यतिरेकेण न यथाकामित्वं न चान्यत्कतॄ्यमिल्येतत्सिद्धम् ।

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 यस्तद्वेदोभयꣳ सह ।” न विद्यावतो विद्यया सहाविद्या वर्तते इत्ययमर्थः । कर्तॄ्येकस्मिन्पुरुष एकदैव न सह संबध्येयातामित्यर्थः । यथा रक्तिकागां रजतशुक्तिकाज्ञाने इति ज्ञातोति हि कातके । तस्माच्च विद्यायां सत्यामविद्यासंभवोऽस्ति ।

The Śruti, “He who knows both knowledge and ignorance together” does not mean that a man of knowledge is associated with ignorance along with knowledge. Its purport is that both (knowledge and ignorance) cannot be related to one and the same person simultaneously. As when there is the cognition “This is silver” with reference to a piece of mother-of-pearl, there is the knowledge “This is not silver” at the time of the cognition of the true nature (of the object). Therefore when there is knowledge (of the Ātman) there cannot be ignorance (of it).

(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

" तमसा ब्रह्म विद्जिज्ञासस्व " इत्यादिदेशे: । तप आदिविद्यात्मकोपसाधनं गुरुपासनादि च कर्मोविद्यासङ्कल्वादविद्योच्यते । तेन विद्यासुतपांय मृत्युङ कामसङ्कितरति । ततो निष्कामस्तत्त्वैषणो ब्रह्मविद्ययाडमृतत्वमश्नुते इति । इत्येतमर्थं दर्शयन्नाह—" अविद्यया मृत्युं तीत्त्वा 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 तीत्त्वा विदयाडमृतमश्नुते ॥—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.

34

Nirguna—the attributeless Brahman.

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

प्रथमाॅध्यायः

ॐ आत्मा वा इदमेक एवाग्र आसीत् ।

Om, Atman lone this was at first.

आत्मेति । आत्माऽस᳚नोतिरत्तेरततेऽ᳚ परः सर्वेऽ᳚ सर्वशक्तिरज्ञा-

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 very so1 (वा इद᳚ं). 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.

यादिसर्व᳚संसारधर्मैर्वर्जितो नित्यशुद्धबुद्धमुक्तस्वभावोऽजोऽद्वयोऽमृतोऽ-

भयोड᳚द्वयो वा इद᳚ं नामरूपकर्मभेदाभिन्न᳚ जगदात्मैवैकोऽग्रे जगतः

सृष्टे᳚ः प्रागासीत् ।

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

किं नेदानीं स एवैकः । न । कथं तर्ह्यासीत्सिध्यते । यद्यपीदानीं स एवैकस्थाड्यस्ति विशेषः । प्रागुत्तेरड्याकृतनारूपभेदात्म-भूतमात्मैकशब्दप्रत्ययगोचरं जगदिदानीं व्याकृतनारूपभेदस्तवादनेकशब्दप्रत्ययगोचरमात्मैकशब्दप्रत्ययगोचर चेति विशेषः । यथा सलिलात्पृथक्फेननामरूपव्याकरणात्प्राक्सलिलैकशब्दप्रत्ययगोचरमेव फेनं यदा सलिलात्पृथङ्नामरूपभेदेन 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' आसीत् 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 ।

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 मिष्टत् ।

And nothing other was there to act.

नान्यात्किंचन न किंचिदपि मिष्टन्निमिष्टद्रव्यापारवदितरद्र । यथा सांख्यानामननात्पपक्षपाति स्वतन्त्रं प्रधानम् । यथा च काणादानामणवो न तद्वदिहान्यदात्मनः किंचिदपि वस्तु विद्यते । किं तद्वदात्मैवैक आसीदिवाभिग्रायः ।

No other operating or functioning entity beside the Ātman there existed or any other; like the Prakṛti (primordial matter) of the Sāṅkhyas, 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 Vide Note (11) 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 मिष्टत्—व्यापारवत्, इतरद्र ।—The use of the phrase इतरद्र 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 प्रतिपत्तेत्कार्यकरणावाक्थशरीरक्षितवान् । नायं दोषः । सर्वज्ञस्वाभाव्यात्, तथा च मन्त्रवर्णः——“अपाणिपादो जवनो ग्रहीता ” इत्यादि: । केनाभिप्रायेणेत्याह- लोकानम्भःप्रभृतीन्प्राणिकर्मेन्द्रियैफ्लोपभोगस्थानभूतान्नु सृजै सृजेडह्मिति ।

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.’

स इमाँल्लोकानसृजत ।

(And), He created (all) these worlds.

एवमीक्षत्वाSSस्लोच्य 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.

बुद्धिमांस्तक्षादिरेवंपकारान्प्रासादादीन्सृज इतीक्षित्रेक्षणान्तरं 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 कथं लोकान्सृजतीति । नैष दोष: । सैलिलफेनस्थानीयेये आत्मभूते नामरूपे अव्याकृते आत्मैकशब्दवाच्ये व्याकृतफेनस्थानीयस्य जगत उपादानभूते संभवत: । तस्मादात्मभूतनामरूपोपादान सन्सर्वज्ञो जगद्विसृजिमित्यपिरुद्धम् । अथवा यथा विज्ञानवान्मायावी निरुपादान आत्मानमेवाडSडुत्मान्तरत्वेनाडSडकाशेन गच्छन्तमिव निर्मिमीते तथा सर्वज्ञो देव: सर्वशक्तिमहामाय आत्मानमेवाडSडुत्मान्तरत्वेन जगदूपेण निर्मिमीते इति युक्ततरम् । एवं च सन्ति कार्यकरणोभयासद्राद्यादि-

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? No objection can be raised (on this ground). 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, so the one and the same Brahman may become the

पक्षाश्र न प्रसजन्ते 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.

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 बहुस्यां प्रजाये 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—असत्कार्यवादिन्, that a totally new thing comes

कां लोकानसृजतेल्याह—

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

Which worlds did He create? It is these :—

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-प्रभृतिलोकानसृजत । तत्क्राम्भःप्रभृतोनस्वयसेव व्याचचष्टे श्रुतिः । अदस्तादम्भःशब्दवाच्यो लोकः परेण दिवं चुलोकात्परेण परस्तादसोडम्भः-शब्दवाच्योऽम्भोभरणात् । चोः प्रतिष्ठाडडश्रयस्त्याम्भसो लोकस्य । चुलोकादधस्तादन्तरिक्षं यत्तन्नमरीचयः । एकोऽप्यनेकस्थानभेदात् बहुवचनभाङ्मरीचय इति । मरीचीभिरवा रशिमभिः संबन्धात् । पृथिवी मरो त्रिभ्यन्तेऽसिन्भूतान्ति या अधस्तात्पृथिव्यास्ता आप उच्यन्त आमोतेलोका: । यद्यपि पञ्चभूतात्मकवं लोकानां तथाडप्यड्यववाहुल्याद-

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

दवनामभिरेवाम्भो मरीचीम्रमाप इत्युच्यते ।

into being out of a previous non-existence; and a Section of the Baudddhas, 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. 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. 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 लोका लोकपालान्नु सृजा इति ।

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

सर्वेऽग्राणिकर्मफलोपादानाधिष्ठानभूतांश्रुतरो लोकान्सृष्टा—स ईश्वर: पुनरेवेक्षत । एते न्वम्भःप्रभृतयो मया सृष्टा लोकाः परिपालयितृवर्जिता विनश्येयुः । तस्मादेतां रक्षणार्थं लोकपालाल्लोकानां पालयितॄन्‌च सृजे लोकपालानिति ।

सर्वेऽग्राणिकर्मफलोपादानाधिष्ठानभूतां श्चतुरो लोकान्सृष्टा—स ईश्वर: पुनरेवेक्षत । एते न्वम्भः प्रभृतयो मया सृष्टा लोकाः परिपालयितृवर्जिता विनश्येयुः । तस्मादेतां रक्षणार्थं लोकपालाल्लोकानां पालयितॄन् सृजे सृजेडह मिति ।

Having created the four worlds in which the fruit

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:-

सोऽद्रुच एव पुरुषं समुद्दृत्यामूर्छयत् ।

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

सोऽद्भय एवाप्रथानेभ्य एव पञ्चभूतेभ्यो येषाम्भःप्रभृतीनिसृष्ट्वां- स्तेभ्य एवत्स्थः: । पुरुषं पुरुषाकारं शिर:पाण्यादिमन्तं समुद्दृत्याद्रय: समुपादाय मृत्पिण्डमिव कुलाल: पृथिव्या अमूर्छयन्नमूर्छितवान्संपिण्डित- वान्स्वावयवसंयोजनेऽर्थ: ।

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

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—मृत्कठिनं 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.1

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 पुरुषविद्धमुदिझयाभ्यतपत् । तदभिध्यानं संकल्पं कृतवानित्यर्थः । " यस्य ज्ञानमयं तपः " इत्यादिश्रुते । तस्याभितप्तस्येश्वरे संकल्पेन तपसाsऽभितप्तस्य पिण्डस्य मुखं निरभिद्यत मुखाकारं सुषिरमजायत । यथा पक्षिणाऽण्ड निरभिद्यतेऽवम् ।

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 अभ्यतपत्-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. 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

From out the mouth (came forth) the speech

प्राणः प्राणाद्वायरक्षिणी निरभिद्येतामश्र्यां नखु-

Agni from speech ; the nostrils two

श्रक्शुष आदित्यः कर्णौ निरभिद्येतां कर्णाभ्यां श्रोत्रं

Burst forth, from nostrils breath ; Vayu

श्रोत्रादिशास्त्वड्निरभिद्यत त्वचो लोमानि लोमभ्य

From breath ; and both the eyes burst forth,

ओषधिवनस्पतयो हृदयं निरभिद्यत हृदयान्मनो

The sight from eyes, and Aditya

मनसश्चन्द्रमा नामभिर्निरभिद्यत नाम्या अपानोऽपा-

From sight ; and both the ears burst forth,

नान्मृत्यु: शिश्नं निरभिद्यत शिश्नाद्रेतो आप: ॥

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.

तस्माद्वाभिनिर्नान्मुखाद्वाकरणामिन्द्रियं निरवततं तद्विष्ठातॄडभिस्सतों

वाचो लोकपाल । तथा नासिके निरभिद्येताम् । नासिकाभ्यां प्राणः

प्राणाद्वायुरीति सर्वत्राधिष्ठानं करणं देवता च त्रयं क्रमेण निर्भिद्यामिति ।

From that, i.e., from the mouth thus burst forth the speech-sense was produced.

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.

आक्ष्षिणी कर्णौ त्वग्ध्रियमन्त करणाधिष्ठानं मनोऽन्तःकरणं नाभिः सर्व-

the nostrils burst forth; from the nostrils prāṇa1 proceeded;

So also the nostrils burst forth; from the nostrils prāṇa1 proceeded; from prāṇa, Vāyu.

प्राणबन्धनस्थानम् । तस्याधिष्ठात्री देवता मृत्युः ।

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.

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,

यथाडन्यत्र तथा शिक्षं निरभिद्यत प्रजननेंद्रियस्थानमिन्द्रियं रेतो रेतोविसर्गोऽर्थस्त्वल्सह रेतसोऽच्यते रेतस

the skin, the heart, the seat of antahkarana, the mind—the navel—the place where all the vital airs are intertwined.

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.

आप इति ॥

Of that the presiding deity is Death. As in the other case, the generative organ (both male and female) proceeded.

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.)

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.

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

ता एता देवता: सृष्टा अस्मिन्महत्यर्णवे प्राप्तत्न् ।

Those very gods created thus Into the mighty ocean fell.

ता एता अग्न्यादयो देवता लोकपालत्वेन संकल्प्य सृष्टा ईश्वरेण,

Those deities—Agni and the rest created by Īśvara as meant for the guardianship of the worlds—fell into

अस्मिन्संसारार्णवंवे संसारसमुद्रे महताविद्याकामकर्मप्रभवदु:खोदके तीव्र-

this great ocean of samsāra (life). filled with the waters

रोगजरामृत्युमहाग्राहेडनादावनन्तेडपारे निरालम्बे विषयेन्‍द्रियजनित-

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

सुखलवलक्षणविश्रान्ते पञ्चेन्द्रियार्थतृष्णमारुतविक्षोभेऽस्थितानथेशतमहोमे

of dire diseases, old age and death; beginningless, endless, shoreless, refugeless, affording rest (seeming)

महारौरवाच्चनेकनिरयगतहाहेत्यादिक्रूजिताक्रोशनोज्ज्वलतमहावे सत्त्वाज्ञ-

in the slight pleasures begotten of the contact of senses and their objects; agitated by the mighty waves

दान्धाहिंसादिमद्भिरतिवामनुगुणपापैश्चोर्ज्जशङ्काहेतुपे सततदु:खार्त्तवेदनाभि:

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

मोक्षतैर एतस्मिन्महत्यर्णवे प्राप्ततन्पतितवत्यः ।

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!

तस्मादन्यादितेतेनाप्ययल्लक्षणाडपि या गतिर्योध्यातां ज्ञानकर्म-

Hence the path of knowledge and works combined,

समुच्चयानुष्ठानफलभूता साधिपि नालं संसारदुःखोपशमायेल्ययं विवक्षितोऽत्र । यत् एवं तस्मादेवं विदित्वा परं ब्रह्मैष्षमैष्षत्मन्: सर्वे-

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 Karmakāṇḍa is not adequate for stilling the sorrows of life. This is what has to be understood here.

भूतानां च यो वक्ष्यमाणविशेषणः प्रकृतिश्र जगदुरुपस्थितिसंहारहेतुत्वेन सर्वसंसरदुःखोपशमनाय वेदितव्यः । तस्मात् "रूपं पन्था पन्थकर्म-

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

तस्मशनापिपासाभ्यामन्ववाज्जत् ।

Assailed He him with hunger and thirst.

तं स्थानकरणदेवतोपास्विबीजभूतं पुरुषं प्रथमोत्पादितं पिण्डमाल्मान-

तं स्थानकरणदेवतोत्पत्ति बीजभूतं पुरुषं प्रथमोत्पादितं पिण्डमात्मान-

मशनायापिपासाभ्यामन्ववाज्जमनुगामितवान्संयोजितवानित्यर्थः । तस्य

मशनायापिपासाभ्यामन्ववाज्जमनुगामितवान्संयोजितवानित्यर्थः । तस्य

कारणभूतस्याशनायादिदोषवस्त्वात्मककार्यंभूतानामापे देवतानामशनायादि-

कारणभूतस्याशनायादिदोषवस्त्वात्मककार्यंभूतानामापे देवतानामशनायादि-

मत्त्वम् ।

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 Āit 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

4

F

तां एनमन्नुवाच्नायतमं नः प्रजानीहि यस्मिन्प्रति-

And they to Him thus spake, 'an abode,

ष्ठिता अन्नमदामेति ।

For us create wherein we may Reside and regale ourselves with food.'

तास्ततोऽशनायाविपासाभ्यां पिपासामाना एनं पितामहं ताष्ट्रारमन्नुव-

They the gods being thus tormented by hunger and

चक्तवसः । आयतनमधिष्ठानं नोऽस्मभ्यं प्रजानीहि विधत्स्व । यस्मिन्न्रायतने

thirst addressed Him, their grandfather (svajanaka-pindajanakam), the Creator thus : 'Permit us an abode

अतिष्ठिताः समथाः सत्योदन्रमदाम भक्षयाम इति ।

residing in which we may be able to enjoy our food.'1

ताभ्यो गामनयत्तां । अन्नवन्न वै नोऽयमलमिति ।

He brought a cow to them; they said,

एवमुक्त ईश्वरस्ताभ्यो देवताभ्यो गां गवाकृतिविशिष्टं पिण्डं ताभ्य

'For us indeed this is not good.'

एवाददयः पूर्ववत्पिण्डं समुदृधृत्य मूर्ध्नित्वर्‌ऽसन्नयदर्शितवान् ।

Agni who are but emanations of Virāt were also assailed by

ताः

hunger and thirst What is in the cause must be found in

the effect. Cf Śaṁkara's introduction.

1 The abode अधिष्ठानं, means the body. No doubt there was the Virāt-deha which the gods had entered but it was too vast for them to occupy and obtain sufficient food for their satisfaction as embodied in Virāt. Hence they prayed Īśvara to create individual bodies—व्यष्टि शरीरं, so that resting in them they could come into contact with the external world. This is their enjoyment, this is their food.

पुनर्गवाकृतिं रड्डाडभवन् । न वै नोड्सदर्थमधिष्ठानायान्रमतुमयं गपिण्डोडलं, 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.'

ताभ्योऽश्वमानयत्ता अन्रुवन्न वै नोड्यमलमिति ।

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

गावि प्रत्याख्याते ताभ्योऽश्वमानयत्ता अभुवन्न 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.'

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 पुरुषमानयत्ताऽनुवन्सुकृतं ब्रवीति

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.'

पुरुषो वाव सुकृतं ता अब्रवीद्यथायतनं प्रविशतेति ।

सर्वप्रत्यारयानि ताभ्यः पुरुषमानयत्स्वयोनिभूतम् ।

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).

ता: स्वयोनिपुरुषं दृष्ट्वाडखिन्दन् : सत्यः सुकृतं शोभनं कृतमिदमाधिष्ठानं बत्तेत्यब्रुवन् ।

तस्मात्पुरुषो वाव पुरुष एव सुकृतं सत्पुण्यकर्महेतुत्वात् ।

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.

स्वयं वा स्वेनैवासृजत्‍मना स्वमायाभिः कृतत्वात्सुकृतमुख्यते ।

ता देवता ईश्वरोद्भवीदिष्टमासादयिष्यामाधिष्ठानमिति मत्वा सर्वे हे स्वयोनिपु रमन्ते ।

Because man was created directly by Īśvara by his magic powers, this creation is pronounced to be well

अतो यथायतनं यस्य यथाद्दनादिक्रियायोग्यमायतनं तत्प्रविशतेति ।

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 प्राविशदादित्यश्शकुर्भूत्वा डक्षिणी प्राविशाद्दिशः श्रोत्रं भूत्वा कर्णौ प्राविशन्नोषधिवनस्पतयोलोमानी भूत्वा त्वचं प्राविशन्नद्रम मनो मूल्वा हृदयं प्राविशन्नृतयुरपानो 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.

तथाडसिस्वतनुञ्जा प्रतिलभ्येश्वरस्स नगयांमिव बलाधि कृतादयोस्स्रिवांगाभिमानी वागेव भूत्वा स्वां योनिं मुखं प्राविशत्तथो कतर्थेमन्यत् ।

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

वायुरन्नासिके आदित्योडक्षिणी दिशः कर्णावोष्ठौधिवनस्पतयस्त्वचं चन्द्रमा हृदयं मृत्युरोमिमापः 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 (diśaḥ), the two ears, shrubs and plants, the skin; the Moon, the heart: Death, the navel, the waters, the generative organ.

तमशनापिपासे अन्रतामावाभ्यामभिप्रजानीहोति ते अन्रवीदेताखेव वां देवतास्वाभजाम्येतासु भागिन्यौ करोमीति । तस्माद्यस्यै कस्यै च देवतायै 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 युवयोर्भावरूपत्वाच्चेतनावद्रुस्वनाश्रित्याश्रितत्वं संभवति । तस्मादेतास्ववग्न्यादासु वा युवां देवतास्वध्यात्माधिदैवतास्वोभयामि 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.

नानुगृह्णामि । एतासु भागिन्यौ यद्देवत्यो यो भागो हविरादिलक्षण: स्यातस्यास्तेनैव भागेन भागिन्यौ भागवत्यौ वां करोमोति सृष्ट्यादावीश्वर एवं व्यदधाद्यस्मादिदानीमपि यस्मै कस्यै च देवताया अर्थाय हविगृद्यते चरुपुरोडाशादिलक्षणं भागिन्यावेव भागवत्यावेवास्यां देवता-

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 Īśvara 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.

यामशनायापिपासे भवत: ॥

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

स ईक्षतेमे नु लोकाश्र लोकपालाश्रानमेभ्यः सृजा इति ।

He pondered thus—yes, these are the worlds,

Their rulers these; let me create

For them (what) food (sustains their being).

स एवमीश्वर ईक्षत । कथमिमे नु लोकाश्र लोकपालाश्र मया सृष्टा

"Thus thought he," the Lord. How? "Well these

अशनायापिपासाभ्यां च संयोजिनाः । अतो नैवां स्थितिरन्नमन्तरेण

worlds and their rulers have been created by me and

तस्मादन्नमेभ्यो लोकपालेभ्यः सृजै सृज इति । एवं हि लोक ईश्वराणाम्

conjoined with hunger and thirst Their existence is

नुग्रहे निग्रहे च स्वातन्त्र्यं दृष्टं स्वेषु तद्वन्महेश्वरस्यापि सर्वेश्वरत्वात्सर्वोन्र्राति

now impossible without food Therefore I shall create

निग्रहानुग्रहेपि खातन्त्र्यमेव ।

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

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.

सोऽपोडस्यतपत्ताभ्योडभितप्ताभ्यो मूर्तिरजायत या वै सा मूर्तिरजायतानं 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 ईश्वरोडन्नं विससृक्षुस्ता एव पूर्वां काम उदिश्याभ्यतपत् । ताभ्योऽभितप्ताभ्यो 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 पराडत्यजिघांसत्तद्वाचाडजिघृक्षत्तन्नाशक्रोद्राचाडगृह्णी तुं स यदैनद्वाचाडगृहैष्यदभिल्याहत्य हैवाऽऽनमतप्स्यत् ।

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

१ सोऽपोऽस्यतपत्, 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 समरथे capable of sustaining life.

1

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 लोकपालानामर्थे᳚ड्भिमुखे सृष्टं तद्यथा मूषकादिमौञ्ज-

रादिगोचरे सन्मम मृत्युर्नाद इति मत्वा पराग्रवतीति पराड्सदत्तू-

त्न्याजिघांसदतिगन्तुमैच्छत्पलायितुं प्रारभतेत्यर्थः। तदन्नाभिप्रायं मत्वा

स लोकलोकपालसंघातः कार्यकारणलक्षणः पिण्डः प्रथममजत्वादिन्यांश्रान्त्या-

दनपश्यंस्तदन्नं वाचा वदनव्यापारेणाजिघृक्षद्र्रहीतुमैच्छत्तदन्नं नाशक्रोन्न

समर्थो᳚डभवद्वाचा वदनक्रियया ग्रहीतुमुपादातुं। स प्रथमजः शारीरी

यद्यै᳚हन्नद्राचाडग्रहैष्यदग्रुहीत्वान्स्यात्स्वोंडपि लोकस्तत्कार्यंभूतत्वादन्न-

मभिप्याहत्य हैवान्नमत्रप्स्यतत्रुक्षो᳚ड्भाविष्यत। न चेतदस्यतो नाशक्रो᳚ड्राचा

ग्रहीतुमित्यवगच्छामः पूवें᳚जोडपि। समानमुत्तरं᳚

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

तत्प्राणेन तच्चक्षुषा तच्छ्रोत्रेण तच्वचा तन्मनसा तच्छिश्नेन तेन तेन करणच्यापारेणातं प्रहातुमशकनवन्‍पश्रादपानेन वायुना मृखच्‍छद्रेण तदन्नमधीगृक्ष्‍तत्‍तदावयत्‍तदन्नमेवं जग्राहाशितवान् । तेन स एषोडपानवायुरन्नस्य प्रहोढग्राहक इत्येतत् । यद्वायुर्यो वायुरन्नायुरन्नाबन्‍धनोद्-

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.

न्नाजीवनो वै प्रसिद्धं स पुष्‍यो 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 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——अन्नदाम्. When this cord gets thin life abandons the body ; cf यावद्यसिमञ्ज्जारीरें 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 एवं लोकलोकपालसंघातास्थितिमन्निमित्तां कृत्वा पुरपौरतत्पालयितृस्थितिसमां स्वामीवेक्षत । कथं नु केन प्रकारेणेति चितर्कयन्निदं मद्दते मामन्तरेण पुरस्वामिनम् । यदिदं कार्यकरणसंघातं कार्यं वक्ष्यमाणं कथं नु खलु मामन्तरेण स्वात्परार्थं सत्त् । यदि वागादिभिः्याह्हतादिकेवलमेव वाग्यवहारणादि तन्निरर्थकं न कथंचन भवेद्लिस्थुल्यादिदत्त् ।

पौरवन्धादिभिः प्रयुज्यमानं स्वार्थं सत्तत्स्वामिनमनन्तरेणासल्येव स्वामिनि तदृत्त् । तस्मान्मया परेण स्वामिनाडृष्टान्ना कृताकृतफलसाक्षिभूतेन भोक्त्रा भवितव्यम् पुरस्येव राज्ञा । यदिद् नामैतत्संहतकार्येस्य परार्थत्वं परार्थिनं मां चेतनमनन्तरेण भवेत्पुरपौरकार्यमिव तत्स्वामिनम् । अथ कोडहं किंस्वरूपः कस्य वा स्वामी । यद्यहं कार्यकरणसंघातमनु-

प्रविश्य वागाद्यभियाह्हतादिफलं नोपलभेय राज्ञेव परमप्रविश्याधिक्तपुरुषकृताकृतावेक्षणम्, न कश्चिन्नमामयं सन्नेवंरूपश्रेष्ठ्यधिगच्छेद्द्विचारयेत् । विपर्यये तु योज्यं वागादिभिः्याह्हतादीदमिति चेद स सन्न्वेदनरूपश्रेष्ठ्याधिगन्तव्योजहं स्वाम् । यदर्थमिदं संहतानां वागादीनामभिः्याह्हतादि । यथा स्तम्भकुड्यादीनां प्रासादादिसंहतानां स्वावयवैरसंहतपरार्थत्वं तदृदिति । एवमीक्षत्वादतत्: कतरण प्रपद्या इति । प्रपदं च मूर्ध्ना चास्य संघातस्य प्रवेशमार्गावनयोः कतरण मार्गेणदं कार्यकरणसंघातलक्षणं पुरं प्रपचै प्रपचेयामिति ।

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 वागादिग्यवहारसिद्धिर्‌मत्स्वरपबोधश्रुति प्रयोजनद्वय सिद्धयर्थं कतॄन्यत्वं—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 Upanisad 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 (प्रपदाग्र्यां= पादाग्राभ्यां) occurs in Ait. Āranyaka, II, 1-4 ; also in Mait. Up., II, 2—स वायुरिव आत्मानं कृत्वाडन्तरं प्राविशत्.

स वायुरिव आत्मानं कृत्वाडन्तरं प्राविशत्.

He, like air, having made the self, entered within.

स एतमेव सीमां विदार्यैंतया द्वाराऽऽपद्यत ।

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

एवमीक्षित्वा न तावन्मदृश्यतस्य प्राणस्य मम सर्वांथींधिकृतस्य प्रवेशमार्गेण प्रपदाभ्यामधः प्रपद्ये । किं तर्हि पारिशेष्यादस्य मूर्धानं विदार्य प्रपघ्येयमिति लोक द्वेक्षिकतकारी स स्रष्टेश्वर एतमेव मूर्धैस्सीमानं केशविभागावसानं विदार्यै छिद्रं कृत्वैतया द्वाराऽऽमार्गेणैव लोकं कार्यकारणसंघातं प्राप्यत प्रवेश ।

He thought thus--It is not meet that I should enter by the forepart of the feet meant as entrance to my servant, Prāna, 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 विदृतिनां द्वास्तदेतन्नान्दनम् ।

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 ! 5

सेयं हि प्रसिद्धा द्वाः। मूर्धिन तैलादिधारणकाले तद्रसादिसंवेदनात्। सैषा विद्धातिरविदारितस्वाद्रिद्रातिनो नाम प्रसिद्धा द्वाः। इतराणि तु श्रोत्रादिद्वाराणि भृत्यादिस्थानीयस साधारणमार्गत्वाच्छ नानन्दनहेतूनि। इदं तु द्वारं परमेश्वरस्यैव केवलेति। तदेतन्नानन्दनं नन्दनमेव नानन्दनमिति दैघ्यं छान्दसम्। नन्दनत्वेन द्वारेण गत्वा परामिनब्रह्माण्णाति।

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 अवमवस्थोडयमावस्थोडयमावसथ 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 जीवेनाऽऽड्‌डस्मना 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;

जागरितकाल इन्द्रियस्थानं दक्षिणं चक्षुः । स्वप्नकालेॽन्तरमनः । सुषुप्सिकाले हृद्याकाश इत्येतदक्ष्यमाणां 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 मातृगर्भांशयः स्वंच शरीरमिति । त्रयः स्वप्नजागरत्सुषुप्त्याख्याः ।

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 स्वप्नोॽपत्वान्न स्वप्नः । नैवं । स्वप्न एव । कथम् ।

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.

परमार्थस्वात्मप्रबोधभावात्स्वप्रमवदद्रष्टुदर्शनाच्च । अयमेवाऽऽड्‌डसस्रक्षुद्दक्षिणं प्रथमः । मनोऽन्तरं द्वितीयः । हृद्याकाशास्तृतीयः ।

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.

अयमावसथ इत्युक्तानुकीर्तनमेव तेषु द्वयमावसथ्यतेशु पर्योये॑णाऽऽड्‌डस्मभावेन वर्तमानोऽविद्यया दीर्घंकालं गाढं प्रसुसः स्वाभाविक्या न प्रभुध्यतेऽनेकशतसहस्रानर्धसंज्ञिपातजडुःखसुद्रराभिघातानुभवैरपि ।

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

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

residence; the mind, the internal organ is the second, and the heart-ether is the third. The phrase 'this is the seat' is repeated by way of emphatic assertion.

It is in these abodes that Īśvara mistaking himself as jīva, the individual soul, sojourning alternately and long lost in deep sleep, the operation of the congenital nescience is not awakened though subjected to the severest hammerings of sorrow caused by thousands upon thousands of calamities.

स जातो मृतान्यभिट्यैष्यसृ-क्तिमिहान्य वावादिषदिति ।

Thus born He named all things and thought If aught beside Him He could name.

1 Three points stand out clear—(1) The brain, the neck and the heart are the three centres of consciousness ; (2) all the three states—waking, dream and sleep—are of the nature of dream ; (3) the jīva is lost in profound slumber and fails to wake up even when assailed by countless griefs.

The justification for designating even the waking state as dream is because it satisfies the definition of dream. It is the obscuring of reality and the presentation of that which is other than reality that constitutes a dream. The awakening to Reality comes only with the dawn of knowledge.

" It is in contrast with the desired condition of the metaphysically awakened self that the ordinary condition of waking is regarded as 'sleep'." (Hume. The Thirteen Principal Upaniṣads, I. 297. Oxford University Press.)

For a description of the three states of waking, dream and sleep, vide Kauṣ Up, XII, XIII and XIV.

The Brahmopanisad describes the soul's abodes thus :-

नेत्रस्थं जाग्रतं विद्यात्कर्णे स्वपं विनिर्दिशेत् ।

सुपुषं हृदयस्थं तु तुरीयं मूर्ध्नि संस्थितम् ॥

स जातः शरीरेऽपविटो 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- ममपश्यदिदं मदर्शोमितीँ ।

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

स कदाचित्परमकार्ष्णिकेनाऽSचार्येणाऽSस्संज्ञानप्रबोधकृच्छद्धिकायां वेदान्तमहावाक्यभेयां तत्क्षणेमूले ताड्यमानायामेतमेव 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 sub- versive 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 dis- ciplineship 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 लुसेन तत्ततं व्यास्ततं परिपूर्णमाकाशवत्प्रत्यक्‍बुध्यतापइयत् । कथम् । इदं ब्रह्म ममास्स्मन्: स्वरूपमदर्शं दष्टवानस्मि । अहो इति विचारणाथों प्लुतिः पूर्वस् ।

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 ‘tatatam 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.

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.

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.

यस्मादिदमित्येवं यस्साक्षादपरोक्षाद्रुह् सर्वान्तरमपश्यदपरोक्षेण तस्मादिदं पश्यतीन्द्रो नाम परमात्मा । इन्द्रो ह वै नाम प्रसिद्धो लोक ईश्वर: । तमेवमिदन्द्रं सन्तामिन्द्र इति परोक्षेण परोक्षाभिध्यानेन- sसचक्षते ब्रह्माविद् । स्वाध्यवहारार्थं पूज्यतमस्वात्मप्रत्यक्षनामग्रहणभयात् ।

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 प्रकृताद्यायपरिसमा 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 वाक्यार्थो, जगदुत्पत्तिस्थितिप्रलयकृत्संसारी

सर्वज्ञः सर्वशक्तिः सर्ववित्सर्वोमिदं जगत्स्वतोडन्यद्रस्वन्तरमनुपादायैव-

डकाशादिक्रमेण सृष्ट्वा स्वात्मप्रबोधनार्थं सर्वाणि च प्राणादिमच्छरीराणि

स्वयं प्रविवेश प्रविश्य च स्वसात्करोति साक्षात्प्रत्ययबुद्धया, तस्मात्स एष सर्वशरीरेष्वेक एवास्तस्मा नान्य ईरते ।

अन्योऽपि सम आत्मा ब्रह्मास्मीत्येवं विद्यादित्यात्मा च इदमेक एवाग्र

आसीदिति । ब्रह्म तदोमिति चोच्यते ।

This is the gist of the fourth Adhyāya.

The Lord who is the originator, preserver and destroyer2 of the worlds is untouched by samsāra (not subject like the jīva to transmigration), is all-knowing, all-powerful,3 all-discerning. He having created in

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 सर्वज्ञः, 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

jiva) 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 वाडप्रामात्रंप्रविष्टं नास्तीति कथं सीमात्र विदाये प्रापचात 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 आकाशसंभूतः, आकाशाद्वायुः—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, आत्मस्वरूपः—Ibid., I, 1.

5 Cf. i स दे व सै म्य 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 चोदितान्यस्मृ । अकरण: सन्नीक्षिताडनुपादाय किंचिल्लोकानसृजतादृभ्यः पुरुषं समुद्भूयमूर्छयत् । तस्याभिध्यानान्मुखादि निर्भिन्नं मुखादिभ्यश्राग्न्यादयो लोकपालास्तेषां वाशनायापिपासादिसंयोजनं तदायतनप्रार्थनं तदर्थे वागादिप्रदर्शनं तेषां यथायतनप्रवेशनं सृष्ट्याक्रमस्य पलायनं वागादिभिस्तज्ज्ञश्रुक्षा । पतत्सद्व सीमाविदारणप्रवेधसम्ममेव ।

(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 puruṣa), 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 Smrtis like the Bhagavad-gita : "(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 । अनेकप्राणिकर्मफलोपभोगयोग्यनेकाविष्ठानवल्लोकदेहनिर्माणेन लिङ्गेन यथाशास्त्रप्रदर्शितेन पुरप्रासादादिनिर्माणालिङ्गेन तद्विषयककौशल-ज्ञानवांस्तकर्ता तक्षादिरिवेश्वरः सर्वज्ञो जगतः कर्ता द्वितीयश्चेतन आत्माडवगम्यते। "यतो वाचोनिवर्तन्ते ", "नेति नेति" इत्यादिशास्त्र-प्रसिद्ध औपनिषद पुरुषप्रसृततियैः । एवमेते त्रय आत्मानोऽन्योन्य-विलक्षणाः ! तत्र कथमेक एवास्स्तमाद्वितीयोऽसंसारीति ज्ञातुं शक्यते ।

Now, there are three selves (Ātmānah)—the one is jīva, the individual self, who is the enjoyer, doer, and samsārin, 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

(A second) objection is raised.

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 द्रष्टास्सदे॒श॒SSSघोषा वि॒ज्ञाता प्रज्ञातेति ।

Is it not thus that the jīva 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 jīva. The more so is it difficult to understand the jīva with the attributes as described by the opponent.

5 आदेश—वर्णात्मकशब्दवक्ता, i.e., one who utters articulate sounds ; आघोषा—घ्वन्यात्मकशब्दवक्ता, i.e., one who utters mere sounds

ननु विप्रतिषिद्धं, ज्ञायते यः श्रवणादिकर्तृत्वेनमतो मन्ताडविज्ञातो विज्ञातोति च1 । तथा न मतेःमतंन्तारं मन्वीथान विज्ञातेरविज्ञातारं विजानोता 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 निवार्यंते न मतेःमतंन्तारमित्यादिना । ज्ञायते तु श्रवणादिलिङ्गेन तत्कृतो विप्रतिषेधः ।

True, there would be contradiction if jiva be the object of perception like pleasure, etc. (ie, 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 श्रृणोत्यात्मा श्रोत्रेण शब्दं तदा तस्य श्रवणैक्रियैव वर्तेमानत्वान्मननविज्ञानक्रिये न

1 The altered reading according to Ānandagiri is :— श्रवणादिकर्तृत्वेना मतेःविज्ञात 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 jiva 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 मन्तुमिन्नक्रिया 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. 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).

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

1

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.

2

ननु 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?'

इदमस्तु स्यात् । सर्वस्य योज्यं मत्ता स मन्तैवेति न मन्तव्यं स्यात् । न च द्वितीयो मन्तुरमन्ताडस्ति यदा स आत्मनैव मन्तव्यस्तदा येन च मन्तव्य आत्माडSडडस्तमना यश्र मन्तव्य आत्मा तौ ह्रौ प्रसज्येयाताम् । एक एवाडSडस्तमा द्विधा मन्तुरमन्तव्यत्वेन द्विशक्ली भवेदंशादिवदुभयथाड-प्यनुपपत्तिरेव । यथा प्रदीपयोर्: प्रकाशयत्कार्यानुपपत्ति: समत्वा-तद्वत् । न च मन्तुरन्तव्ये मननऽयापारशून्य: कालोऽस्त्यात्ममनननाय । यदाडपि लिङ्गेनाडडस्तमानं मनुते मन्ता तदाडपि पूर्ववदेव लिङ्गेन मन्तव्य आत्मा यश्र तस्य मन्ता तौ ह्रौ प्रसज्येयाताम् । एक एव वा द्विधोति पूर्वोक्तो दोष: ।

It acquires its karṇatva 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 लिङ्गानि the sākṣin आत्मा is premixed 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 चेत्कथञ्च मुच्यते सम आात्मेति विद्याादिति । 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 चिकीर्षोनिवर्तनं स्वयंभू: etc.” Katha 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 । यद्यापि 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

यदैवं तदा श्रोत्रत्वादि धर्मैवानात्मा श्रोत्रत्वादि धर्मैवान्वेति संशयस्थाने कथं 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 तदृत्त् ।

(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 (श्रोतृत्व, 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 श्रोतृत्वादित्यादिसङ्ख्येयोगजात्वमयौगपद्यं च ज्ञानस्य ह्याचक्षते । दर्शयन्ति चान्यत्रमनः अभूवं नादर्शंमित्यादि युगपज्ज्ञानानुपपत्तिमनसो लिङ्गमिति च न्याय्यम् ।

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 श्रोतृत्वादि धर्मवानात्मा इति वाक्यं, ननु तत् कथम् स्यात् ; अश्रोतृत्वादिवच 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—(नप्रत्यक्ष 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 नष्टम् 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 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 Vaiśeṣika 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.

अस्से्वं तवेष्ठं चेत्, श्रुत्यर्थस्तु न संभवति ।

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

किं न श्रोता मन्तेत्यादिश्रुत्यर्थः ।

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 श्रुतेरुपरिलोपो

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

विद्यत इत्यादिश्रुतेः ।

एवं तर्हि नित्यमेव श्रोतृत्वाद्यभ्युपगमे प्रत्यक्षविरुद्धा युगपज्जानो-

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.

त्पत्तिरज्ञानाभावश्रादित्मानि कल्पितः स्यात् । तच्चानिष्टमिति ।

1 No doubt the Siddhāntin did make this answer but only as the view of the Kānādas.

2 Brh. Up., IV. 3. 27.

नोभयदोषोपपत्तिरात्मन्. श्रुत्यादिधर्मवत्त्वात्त्वश्रुते: । अनित्यानां मूर्तीनां चक्षुरादीनां दृष्ट्याद्ध्यानित्यमेव संयोगवियोगधर्मित्वात् । यथाडुङ्मेज्वलन्तृणादिसंयोगजत्वात्तद्वत् । न तु नित्यस्यामूर्तस्यासंयोगविभागधर्मिणःसंयोगादृष्ट्याद्ध्यानिधर्मवत्त्वं 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.

एवं तर्हि द्वे दृष्टी चक्षुरोडनित्या दृशिरनित्या चास्मनः । तथा च दृे श्रुती श्रोत्रस्यानित्या नित्यास्सरमस्वरूपस्य । तथा हे स्मती विज्ञाति वाद्यावाद्ये ।

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

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 हेत इयं श्रुतिरहपन्ना भवति दृष्टेर्द्दृशे श्रुते. श्रोतेल्याद्या । लोकेऽपि प्रसिद्धं चक्षुरस्तिमिरागामापाययोर्नश्टा दृष्टिर्जाता दृष्टिरिति नित्यत्वं प्रसिद्धमेव लोके वदति दृढीर्तचक्षुः: स्वप्नेऽध्य मया दृष्ट इति । तथाडSवगतबाधिर्यै: स्वप्ने श्रुतो मन्त्रोऽद्यादि ।

यदि चक्षु:-संयोगजैवाडSडडत्मनोऽनित्या दृष्टिस्तन्नाशे न पश्येत । न हि दृष्टुद्दृशेर्लियाद्या च श्रुतिरहपन्ना स्यात् । नित्यक्चुः पुरुषे येन स्वप्ने पुरुषतीर्याद्या च श्रुति: । नित्यात्सनो दृश्र्योर्हिका ।

बाह्यद्दष्टेश्रोपजनापायाद्यनित्यधर्मवत्त्वाद्दग्राहिकाया आत्मदृष्टेस्तद्वदभावस्वमनित्यत्वादिध्रान्तानिमित्तं लोकस्योति युक्तम् । यथा अ्रमणादिधर्मंचदलातादिवस्तुवियदृष्टिरूपि अमतीकं तद्वत् । तथा च श्रुति:—ध्यायततीव लिलायतीवैति । तस्मादात्मदृष्टेर्नित्यत्वान्न यौगपद्य-मयोगपद्यं वाडस्ति ।

बाह्यानित्यदृष्टयुपाधिवशात्तु लोकस्य तार्किकाणां चाडSगमसंग्रहार्ज्जिततत्त्ववादिनित्यादृष्टमनो दृष्टिरिति आन्तिरूपपन्नैव । जीवेश्वरपरमात्मभेदकल्पना चैतन्निमित्तैव । तथाडSस्ति नास्तीत्यादिाश्र

यावन्तो वाङ्मनस्योभयेदा यच्चेकं भवन्ति तद्विषयाया नित्याया दृष्टेर्निविशे-

As many as are the objects of speech and mind, so much is that (Brahman) which is the object of this eternal vision,

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

षाय: ।

firmly established.

आस्ति नास्तीत्येकं नानागुणवदगुणं जानाति न जानाति क्रियावद्-

It is known to exist or not to exist, to possess various qualities or to be devoid of them,

क्रियं फलवदफलं सबीजं निर्बीजं सुखं दुःखं मध्यसमध्यं शून्यमशून्यं

to be active or inactive, to yield results or not, to have a cause or not, to be happy or miserable, to be middling, to be void or not void,

परोऽहमन्य इति वा सर्ववाङ्मनस्यागोचरे स्वरूपे यो विकलप्यितुमिच्छति

or to imagine in its own nature, which is beyond the range of speech and mind, that it is different or not different (from oneself)

स नूनं खमपि चर्मवदृष्टियितुमिच्छति सोपानमिव च पदं यथमारोढुम् ।

he surely wishes to see even the sky as if it were a piece of leather and to ascend it as if it were a stair.

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

He desires to see the habitat of fishes in water and of birds in the sky. (The śruti negates all such superimpositions by saying) 'not this, not this'; (thereby indicating that) speech turns back

निवर्तन्ते, इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्य: । को अद्धा वेदेत्यादिमन्त्रवर्णात् ।

from there. (The śruti) 'who indeed knows' etc. also shows this.

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-activities2 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:

2 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.

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.

अनेकनिरूप्यत्वायोगपद्यस्तद्भावरूपत्वद्वैगुण्यादयोरेकस्य द्वैधी तद्भावरुपतां नाप्ति

The notion of simultaneity gets its significance only with reference to the multiple objects but not with reference to Ātman who is one

वाग्भेदा:=नामविशेषा:; मनसो भेदा:=रूप विशेषा

names and forms.

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 वृंहि केन प्रकारेण तमहं स म आत्मेति विद्यााम् । अन्राऽSड्यायिकामाचक्षते । काश्चित्किल मनुष्यो मुग्धः कैश्चिदुक्तः कंसिनाश्रिदपराऽधे सति धिक्त्वां नासी मनुष्य इति । स मुग्धतयाSडस्तमनो मनुष्यत्वं प्रत्याययितुं कंचिदुपेल्याडडह । ब्रवीतु भवान्कोऽहमस्मीति । स तस्य मुग्धतां ज्ञापयिष्यामि । कथमेण बोधयिष्यामीति । स्थावराद्यात्मभावमपोह्य न त्वममनुष्य इत्युक्त्वोपचाराम् । 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 पर:—मत्त: परिदृश्यमान- पदार्थ: (अयं) अन्य तत्—परिदृश्यमान पदार्थात अहं अन्य , I am other than the things perceived.

बोधयतीति। तद्रेव तद्वतो वचनम् । नास्यमनुष्य इत्युक्तेऽपि मनुष्यत्वमात्मनो न प्रतिपद्यते यः स कथं मनुष्योऽसौत्युक्तोऽपि 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'?

(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 एवार्थल्मावबोधयाविधिन्यन्य:। न ह्यग्रेदों तृणाद्यन्येन केनाचिद्द्रव्यं शक्यम्। अत एव शास्त्रमात्स्वरूपं बोधयितुं प्रवृत्तं सदृशमनुष्यत्वप्रतिपेधनेनैव नेति नेतीत्युक्त्वोपरराम । तथाडनन्तरमवाद्यमयमात्मा ब्रह्म सर्वानुभूयित्यनुशासनम्। "तत्त्वमसि" "यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्केनं पर्येत" 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 यत्न: कार्य:, न तु स्वरूपबोधे, तस्य स्वयमेव प्रतीते:.

अपरोक्षतया प्रतीयमानेऽपि वस्तुनि, विपर्ययेेण गृहीते विपर्यय निरासमात्रे यत्न: कार्य:, न तु स्वरूपबोधे, तस्य स्वयमेव प्रतीते:.

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 पुनरावर्तिमानोऽविद्याकामकर्मवशात्संसारति ।

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 'Tattvamasi'—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 एव संसारखुपातदेहेन्द्रियसंघातं त्यजति । त्यक्त्वास्न्यमुपादत्ते । पुनः पुनरेवमेव नद्रीस्रोतोवजन्ममरणप्रवन्धाविच्छेदेन वर्तमानः कामि-

रेष्वस्थाभवत्तत इत्येतस्मै दर्शयन्त्याह श्रुतयःपराग्यहन्ताः ।

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.

Reserved

CHAPTER IV

चतुर्थोऽध्यायः

(अपक्रामन्तु गर्भिण्यः)

(Let the pregnant women withdraw.)1

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).

अयमेवाविद्याकामकर्मोभिमानवान्यज्ञादिकर्म कृत्वा स्वाह्लोकात्-

The very jiva actuated by desires due to nescience engages himself in ritualistic practices and as a result

भूमादिकमेण चन्द्रलोकं प्राप्य क्षीणकर्मो वृष्ट्यादिक्रमेणैवं लोकं प्राप्याऽऽभूतः

reaches gradually the region of the moon by the path of smoke and comes down along with rain, etc., to this

पुरुषाऽऽभौ हुतः । तस्मिन्पुरुषे ह वा अयं संसारी रसादिक्रमेणाऽऽद्दितः

world after working out his karma (in Chandraloka). Enveloped in food he is offered up in the fire of man.

प्रथमतो रेतोरूपेण गर्भो भवतीयेतदाह यदेतत्पुरुषे रेतस्तेन रूपेणोच्यते ।

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- वाऽSस्तमानं 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 शारीरस्य संभूतं परिणिष्टप्रत् तत्पुरुषस्याऽऽडत्म- भूतत्वादात्मा । तमात्मानं रेतोरूपेण गर्भीभूतमात्मन्येव स्वशरीर एवाडSत्मानं बिभर्ति धारयति । तद्रेतो यदा योषिन्काले भार्यत्नुमती तस्यां योषामौ सिञ्चत्युपगच्छन्त । अथ तदैनदेतद्रेत 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 पुरस्तादसावात्माऽऽत्मानामित्यादिना ।

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

तत्क्षणया आत्मभूयं गच्छति यथा स्वमज्ञं तथा तस्मादेनां न हिनस्ति साऽऽत्मैतमात्मानमनु 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.

तद्रेतो यस्यां क्रियां सिक्तं सत्तस्या आत्मभूयमात्माऽऽ्यातिरेकतां यथा पितुरेव गच्छति प्राप्नोति यथा स्वमझं स्तनादि तथा तद्रदेव ।

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

तस्मादेतोरेनां मातरं स गर्भो न हिनस्ति पितृकादिवत् । यस्मात्तनानादि स्वाझ्झवदात्मभूयं गतं तस्माच्छ हिनस्ति न बाधते इत्यर्थः । साधन्तर्वैल्न्ये-तमस्य भरतुरात्मानमात्राडSत्मन 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.

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—भावयेत्, indicative for the imperative mood.

सा भावयित्री वर्धयित्री भर्तुरात्मनो गर्भभूतस्य भावयितव्या रक्षयितव्या च भवति । न ह्युपकारप्रत्युपकारमन्तरेण लोके कस्यचिच्चेनचित्संबन्ध उपपद्यते । तं गर्भं स्री यथोक्तेन गर्भेधारणविधानेन बिभर्ति धारयत्यग्रे प्राजनमनः । स पिताऽऽड्म एव पूर्वमेव जातमात्रं जन्मनोऽध्येव 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 simanta —“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 यथासाकुमारं जन्मनोऽध्येवंमग्रे जातमात्रमेव जातकर्मादिना यद्भावयति तदात्मानमेव भावयति पितुरात्मैव हि पुत्ररूपेण जायते । तथा ह्युक्तं पातञ्जलौ प्रविशति॑स्यादि । तस्मिन्मथेमान्मानं

पुत्ररूपेण जनयित्वा भावयतीति । उच्यते—एषा लोकानां संतत्या आविच्छेदायैष्यर्थः । विचिच्छेदेरन्हीं लोका: पुत्रोत्पादनादि यदि न कुयु: केचन । एवं पुत्रोत्पादनादिकर्माविच्छेदेनैव संतता: प्रबन्धरूपेण वर्तन्ते हि यस्मादिमे लोकास्तस्मादविच्छेदाय तत्कर्तव्यं न मोक्षायेत्यर्थः । तदस्य संसारिणः कुमाररूपेण मातुरुदराद्याक्रम्यैमनं 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 निरसत्।

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 सोडयमात्मा पुण्येभ्यः शास्त्रोक्तेभ्यः कर्मेभ्यः कर्मनिष्पादनार्थं प्रतिपत्तव्यं तत्करणाय प्रतिनिधीयत इत्यर्थः । तथा च सम्प्रत्तिविद्याया वाजसनेयके—“पित्रा-सतुशिष्टोऽहं ब्रह्माहं यज्ञ इत्यादि प्रतिपद्यत 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

अथास्यायमितर आत्मा कृतकृत्यो वयोग्तः प्रैति स इतः प्रयन्नेव पुनर्जायते तदस्य तृतीयं जन्म ।

1 सम्प्रत्ति: संप्रदानं स कर्तव्यस्य पुत्रे स्थापनं यत्रोच्यते सा सम्प्रत्ति-विद्येयर्थः—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 (Brahman) 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. Brh. 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:

अथानन्तरं पुत्रे निवेशयाऽऽत्मनो भारमस्य पुत्रस्येतरोडयं य: पित्र्यात्मा कृतकृत्य: कृतेऽन्यायणत्रयाद्दिसुक्त: । कृतकृत्य इत्यर्थ: । वयोगतो गतवया जीर्ण: सन्नैपैति त्रियते । स इतोडस्मात्प्रयण्रेव शरीरं परित्यजन्रेव तृणजलूकावदेहान्तरमुपाददान: कर्मचितं पुनर्जायते ।

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

तदस्य मृत्वा प्रातिपत्तव्यं यत्ततृतोयं जन्म ।

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 मातुर्द्वितीयं जन्मोक्तम् । तस्यैव वृत्या तृतीयेजन्मनि वक्तव्ये प्रेतस्य पितुर्यज्ञनम् ततृतोयामिति कथं सुच्यते । नैष दोषः । पितापुत्रयो-

The second birth of a man as a kumāra (son) from his mother is mentioned (in the smrti). When describing his third birth through the (putreṣṭi) vow (performed by him), how can it be said (in the smrti) that the performance of a sacrifice by the deceased father is his third (birth)? (In reply) there is no flaw.

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 । सोडपि पुत्रः स्वपुत्रे भारं निधायेतः प्रयन्नेव पुनर्जायते यथा पिता । तदन्वयोक्कामितरत्राप्युक्तमेव भवतीति मन्यते श्रुति: । पितापुत्रयोरैकात्मकत्वात् ।

Because the identity between the father and the son is sought to be conveyed (by the smrti). That son also, having shifted the burden on to his son, is born again while departing (from this world) just as his father (did). The śruti holds that what is stated with reference to one is applicable to the other also; because of the identity of the selves in the case of the father and the son.

तदुक्तमृषिणा——

As said by the Ṛṣi——

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

गर्भे नु सन्नन्वेषामवेदमहं देवानां जनिमानि विश्वा । शतं मा पुर आयसीररक्षन्नध: इयेनो जातासा निरदीयामिति गर्भ एवैतच्च्छयानो वामदेव एवमुवाच ।

While yet in the womb, I came to know of all the births of the gods. A hundred iron strongholds kept me (in the womb); then like a hawk, I broke away from there. Thus spoke Vāmadeva while still lying in the womb.

"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 संसारावस्थाविभव्यक्रित्रेण जन्ममरणप्रबन्धासृज्ः सर्वो लोकः संसारसमुद्रे निपातितः कथंचिद्यथाश्रुतयुक्तमात्मानं विजानाति यस्यां कस्यांचिदवस्थायां तदैव मुक्तसर्वसंसारबन्धनः कृतकृत्यो भवतीयेत्तदस्तु तद्विपणा मन्त्रेणाऽयुक्तमित्याह——गर्भे नु मातुःर्भोंसाय एव सन् । न्विति वितर्के । अनेकजन्मान्तरभावनापरिपाकवशादेशां देवानां वागग्न्यादीनां जनिमानि जन्मानि विश्वा विश्वानि सर्वाण्यनुवेदमहमहोऽनुभूद्धवानस्मीत्यर्थः । शतमनेकं बहुर्यो मां मां पुर आयसीरायस्यो लोहमध्य इवाभेद्यानि शरीराण्याभिम्रायः । अक्षणरक्षितवलयः । संसारपाशनिर्गमनादधोंडधः इयमेव जालं भित्वा जवेसज्जमज्ञातकृतसोमपान निर्गतोऽस्मि । अहो ; गर्भे एव शयानो वामदेव ऋषिरेवमुवाचै-तत् ।

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 however 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 एवं विद्वान्साच्छरीरभेदादूध्वे

उत्क्रम्यामुष्मिन्स्वर्गे लोके सर्वान्का-

मानाप्त्वाडमृतः समभवत्समभवत्

(यथास्थानं गामेष्ट्र:) ।

॥

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 ऋषिरथोक्तमात्मानमेव विद्वान्साच्छरीरमेदाच्छरीरस्य-

विद्यापारिकलिप्तस्याडSस्यवदान्तिमेंच्यास्य जननमरणाध्यानेकानर्थशताविष्ट-

शरीरप्रबन्धनस्य परमात्मज्ञानामृतोपयोगजनितवैराग्यंकृतभेदाच्छरीरौत्प-

तिबीजाविद्या निमित्तोपमर्दहेतोः शरीरविनाशादित्यर्थं. ऊर्ध्वः

परमात्मभूतः सन्न्रधोभावात्संसारादुत्क्रान्तः सन् ज्ञानावद्योतितात्मल्सर्वात्मभाव-

मापन्नः सन्न्रमुष्मिन्नथोक्रैSजरोSमरैSमृतैSडभय सर्वज्ञैSडपवेंSडनपरैSडन्नतेS-

बाह्ये प्रज्ञानामृतैकरसे प्रदीपवच्चिवर्णमल्स्यगमत्स्वर्गे लोके स्वसिद्धात्मनि

स्वे स्वरूपेऽSमृतः संभवादात्मज्ञानेन पूर्वमासकामतया जीवत्रेव सर्वो-

नकामानाप्नुयेथ। १ द्विर्वचनं सफलस्य सोदाहरणस्यैSडस्मज्ञानस्य

परिसमाप्तिप्रदर्शनार्थम् ॥

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 described 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 svarga 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 Jivan-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

ॐ कोऽयमात्मेति वयमुपास्महे कतरः स आत्मा ।

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

ब्रह्मविद्यासाधनकृतसर्वोऽस्मभावफलावाप्तौ वामदेवाद्याचार्यैः परम्परया श्रुत्यादवद्योत्समानां ब्रह्मविद्यत्परिषद्यत्नत्प्रसिद्धामुपलभमानाः सुसूक्ष्मवो ब्राह्मणाः अधुना ब्रह्म जिज्ञासवोऽनित्यात्साधनलक्षणात्संसाराद् जीवभावाद् ध्याविद्यृत्सवो विचारयन्नतोऽन्योन्यं पृच्छन्ति कोऽयमात्मेति कथं यमात्मानमथमात्मेति साक्षाद् द्वयमुपास्महे कः स आत्मेति । यं चाऽऽडात्मानमयमात्मान्ते साक्षादुपासीनो वामदेवोऽब्रवीत् सम्भवत्तमेव वयमस्युपास्महे को जु खलु स आत्मेति । एवं जिज्ञासापूर्वमन्योन्यं पृच्छतामति क्रान्ताविशेषाविषयश्रुतिसंस्कारजनित्ता स्मृतिरजायत । तं ग्रपदाभ्यां प्राप्तव्यत् ब्रह्मणि पुरुषम् । स एतमेव सीमानं विदारैरैतया द्वारा प्राप्तव्यत् । अत्र हि ब्राह्मण 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

ते चास्य पिण्डस्याद् स्मभूत । तयोरन्यतर आत्मोपास्यो भवितुमर्हैति । योडत्रोपास्तः कः स आत्मेति विशेषानिधोरणार्ध 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.

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

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 गन्धानाजिघ्रति 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 मतिरभूत । कथम्, त्रे वस्तुनी आस्सिनि पिण्ड उपलभ्येते अनेकभेदभिन्नेन करणेन येनोपलभते यश्रेक उपलभते करणान्तरोपलब्धाविषयस्मृतिप्रतिसंधानात् । न तु तावद्येनोपलभते स आत्मा अवितत्सर्हैति । के न पुनरुपलभत इति । उच्यते । येन वा चक्षुर्भूतेन रूपं पश्यति येन वा श्रोत्रभूतेन शब्दं येन वा प्राणभूतेन गन्धानाजिघ्रति येन वाक्करणभूतें वाचं नामालिमकां व्याकरोति गौरश्व इत्येवमाद्यां साध्वसाध्वाति च येन जिह्वाभूतेन स्वादु चास्वादु च त्रिजानातोति ।

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 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 च स उ प्राणस्य प्राणश्रकुषश्रकुः:” 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 asvah (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, उच्चते—

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 आपश्र्च वरुणश्र्च हृद्यान्नम्नो मनसश्श्रान्द्रमास्तदेवैतदृदयं मनश्श्रैकमेतदनेकधा । एतेनान्तःकरणेनैकेन चक्षुर्भूतेन रूपं पश्यति श्रोत्रभूतेन श्रृणोति घ्राणभूतेन जिघ्रति वाग्भूतेन वदति जिह्वाभूतेन रसयति स्वेनैव विकार्पणारूपेण मनसा विकल्पयति हृदयरूपेणाध्यवस्यति । तस्मात्सर्व-करणाविषयङ्यापारकमेकमिदं करणं सर्वोपलब्ध्यर्थमुपलब्धृ । तथा च

कौषीताकिनाम्—“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 ।

Kauṣītakinām—“Having mounted speech on intelligence, by speech he attains all names; having mounted the eye on intelligence, by the eye he attains all forms” etc. And in the Vājasaneyaka—“For, verily, with the mind alone one comprehends, with the mind alone one hears; for, verily, forms are known by the heart” etc.

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 puruṣa, 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 (adhyavasya)ti.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.,

तस्माद्दयमनोवाच्यस्य सर्वोपलब्धिकरणत्वं प्रासिद्धम् । तद्वात्मकक्ष्ष प्राणो यो वै प्राणः सा प्रज्ञा या वै प्रज्ञा स प्राण इति ब्राह्मणम् । करणसंहतिरूपेनैव प्राण इत्यवोचाम प्राणसंवाददौ ।

Therefore, it is well-known that the mind-speech is the means of attaining all knowledge. The Brāhmaṇa says, “The prāṇa which is the same as the self, is the same as the prajñā.” We have already spoken of prāṇa as the aggregate of the senses in the dialogue of the prāṇas.

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. Antahkarana as activation is prāṇa and as intellection. mind possesses both kriyāśakti and jñānaśakti

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. Antahkarana as activation is prāṇa and as intellection. mind possesses both kriyāśakti and jñānaśakti

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

तस्माच्चत्पदाभ्यां प्रापचयत तद्ब्रह्म तदुपलभधुरुपलब्धिकरणत्वेन गुण-भूतत्वानैव तदस्तु ब्रह्मोपास्यात्मा भवितुमर्हति। पारिशेष्याद्दस्योपलब्धुरुपलब्धोपास्य आत्मा नोऽप्याकं भवितुमर्हतीति निश्चयं कृतवन्तः ।

तस्माच्चत्पदाभ्यां प्रापचयत तद्ब्रह्म तदुपलभधुरुपलब्धिकरणत्वेन गुण-भूतत्वानैव तदस्तु ब्रह्मोपास्यात्मा भवितुमर्हति। पारिशेष्याद्दस्योपलब्धुरुपलब्धोपास्य आत्मा नोऽप्याकं भवितुमर्हतीति निश्चयं कृतवन्तः ।

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 (बाह्यान्तर्वर्तिविषयविषयाः) 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 दृष्टिधृतीर्मतिमनोषा 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 संज्ञासु श्रुतेनभावः । आज्ञानमाज्ञासिरीश्वरभावः । विज्ञानं कलादिपरिज्ञानम् । प्रज्ञानं प्रज्ञासिः प्रज्ञता । मेधा प्रन्थधारणसामर्थ्येम् । दृष्टिर्द्रष्टिरिन्द्रियद्वारा सर्वविषयोपलब्धिः । धृतिधारणमवसान्नानां शरीरोन्द्रिय-

याणां यथोत्तमभनं भवाति धृत्या शरीरसुद्धहन्तीति हि वदन्ति मातिमन्ननम् । मनीषा तत्र स्वातन्र्यम् । जूतिश्वेतसो रुजादिदुःखित्त्वभावः । स्मृतिः सरणम् । संकल्पः चिरुकृष्णादिभावेन संकल्पनं रूपादीनाम् । क्रतुर्ध्यवसायः । असुः प्राणनादिजीवनाक्रियानिमित्ता वृत्तिः । कामोऽसनिहितविषयाकाड्क्षा तृष्णा । वशः स्त्रीष्यातिकराद्याभिलाषः । इत्येवमाथा अन्तःकरणवृत्तयः प्रज्ञासिमात्रस्योपलब्धधुरुपलब्ध्यर्थ-त्वाच्छुद्धप्रज्ञानरूपस्य ब्रह्मण उपाधिभूतास्तदुपाधिजनितगुणनामधेयानि भवन्ति संज्ञानादीनि ।

yāṇāṃ yathottamabhaṇaṃ bhavāti dhṛtyā śarīrasuddhahantīti hi vadanti mātimannanam । manīṣā tatra svātantryam । jūtisśvetaso rujādiduḥkhittvabhāvaḥ । smṛtiḥ saraṇam । sankalpaḥ cirukṛṣṇādibhāvena sankalpanaṃ rūpādīnām । kraturdhṛyavasāyaḥ । asuḥ prāṇanādijīvanākriyānimittā vṛttiḥ । kāmo'sanihitaviṣayākāṅkṣā tṛṣṇā । vaśaḥ strīṣyātikarādyābhilāṣaḥ । ityevamāthā antaḥkaraṇavṛttayaḥ prajñāsimātrasyaupalabdhadhurupalabdhyaṛthattvācchuddhaṛajñānarūpasya brahmaṇa upādhibhūtāstadupādhi janitaguṇanāmadheyāni bhavanti saṃjñānādīni ।

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 who 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 प्रज्ञानमात्रस्य प्रज्ञानस्य नामधेयानि भवन्ति न स्वतः साक्षात् । तथा चोक्तं प्राण एव प्राणो नाम भवतीत्यादि ।

All these (beginning with प्राणवाप्रियते and ending with कामोवरश.) indeed become the names of pure Consciousness, i.e., of that which is known as Prajñanam 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 सर्ववृत्यनुगतः एक आत्मा शोधितः.

एष ब्रह्मैष इन्द्र एष प्रजापतिरेते सर्वे देवाः इमानि च पञ्च महाभूतानि पृथिवी वायुराकाश आपो ज्योतींषि इत्येतानि इमानि च श्रुत्रमिश्राणि ।

He is Brahman, He is Indra, 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 प्रज्ञात्माडन्तः-करणोपाधिस्वानुप्रविष्टो जलभेदगतसूर्यप्रतिबिम्बवद्वैरण्यगर्भः प्राणः प्रज्ञात्मा । एष एवेन्द्रः गुणादेवराजो वा । एष प्रजापतिर्यः प्रथमजः शरीरी । यतो मुखादीनि भेदद्वैरण्यगर्भादिदं लोकपालो जाता । स प्रजापतिरेष एव । यद्येतदग्न्यादयः सर्वे देवाः एष एव । इमानि च सर्वशरीरेषूपादानभूतानि पञ्च पृथिव्यादीनि महाभूतान्यज्ञानादस्वलक्षण- न्येतानि । किंचेमानि च श्रुत्रमिश्राणि श्रुतेरलपकैमिश्राणि । इतिशब्दोऽ- न्थकः ।

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 गाव: पुरुषा हस्तिनो यत्किचेदं प्राणि जङ्गं च पतत्रि च यच्च स्थावरं सर्वं तत्प्रज्ञानेतं प्रज्ञाने प्रतिष्ठितं प्रज्ञानेष्ट्रो लोक: प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्ठा प्रज्ञानं ब्रह्म ।

1 प्रजापति: —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.

क्षुद्रै: —अल्पकै:, 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 द्वाराइयेन निर्दिंय-

मानानि कानि तानि उच्यन्ते । अण्डजानि पक्ष्यादीनि । जारुजानि

जरायujani मनुष्यादीनि । स्वेदजानि यूकाadīni । उद्भिज्जानि च वृक्षा-

दीनि । अश्वा गाव: पुरुषा हस्तिनोऽन्यान्च यत्किंचेदं प्राणिजातम् । किं

तत् । जङ्गं यचचलति पद्भ्यां गच्छति । यच्च पतत्रि । आकाशेन

पतनशीलम् । यच्च स्थावरमचलं सर्वं तद्र्शेषत: प्रज्ञानetram प्रज्ञामsi प्रज्ञा

तच्च ब्रह्मैव नीयतेᳫनेति नेत्रं प्रज्ञा नेत्रं यस्य तदिदं प्रज्ञानetram । प्रज्ञाने

ब्रह्मण्युतपattis्थितिलभकालेषु प्रतिष्ठितं प्रज्ञाश्रयामित्यर्थ: । प्रज्ञानेत्रो

लोक: पूर्ववत् । प्रज्ञानवशवतां सर्व एव लोक: । प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्ठा सर्वेष जगत: ।

तस्मात्प्रज्ञानं ब्रह्म । तदेतदर्थल्यस्तमितसर्वोंपाधिविशेषं सनिirṣṇanं निर्मेलं

निṣ्क्रियं शान्तमेकमद्वयं नेति नेतीति सर्वविशेषपोहसंवेच्यं सर्वशब्द-

प्रत्ययागोचरं तद्वन्ताविशुद्धप्रज्ञोपाधिसंबन्धेन सर्वज्ञमीश्वरं सर्व-

साधारणान्यākृतजगद्ग्रवर्तकं नियन्तृत्वादन्तर्यामीसंञ्जं भवति ।

तदेव व्यक्तजगद्वीजभूतबुद्धयात्माभिमानलक्षणहिरण्यगर्भसंञ्जं भवति ।

तदेवान्तरन्डोᳫतप्रथमशरीरোপाधिमद्धिraṭप्रजापतिसंज्ञं भवति । तदु-

ᳫोताग्न्याद्युपाधिमहेतासंज्ञं भवति । तथा विशेषशरीरोपाधिष्वपि ।

ब्रह्मादिस्तम्बपर्यन्तेपु तत्स्नामरूपलाभो ब्रह्माणः । तदेवैकं सर्वोपाधिभेदभिन्नं

सर्वैः प्राणिभिस्ताकिंक्ष सर्वैःपकारैर् ज्ञायते विकल्प्यते चानेकधा ।

एतमेके वदन्त्यग्रिं मनुमन्थे प्रजापतिम् ।

इन्द्रमेके परे प्राणमपरे ब्रह्म शाश्वतम् ॥

इत्याथा स्मृतिः ॥

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.

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

world is under the sway of Prajñā as explained above

or the whole world has Prajñā as its eye, i.e., its very

or the whole world has Prajñā as its eye, i.e., its very

manifestation or appearance is dependent on Prajñā

manifestation or appearance is dependent on Prajñā

Prajñā is the ground, the underlying basis of the whole

Prajñā is the ground, the underlying basis of the whole

universe. Therefore Prajñānam is Brahman.1 That

universe. Therefore Prajñānam is Brahman.1 That

Brahman who is free from all ascriptions and is un

Brahman who is free from all ascriptions and is un

tainted, pure, actionless, peace, one only, secondless

tainted, pure, actionless, peace, one only, secondless

characterized by such epithets as ‘not that’, ‘not that’.

characterized by such epithets as ‘not that’, ‘not that’.

and understandable only by negating all qualifications

and understandable only by negating all qualifications

and incapable of being cognized by notions conveyed

and incapable of being cognized by notions conveyed

by words—that same Brahman when delimited by

by words—that same Brahman when delimited by

Māyā which is pure super-imposition (Visuddho-pādhi)

Māyā which is pure super-imposition (Visuddho-pādhi)

प्रज्ञानं ब्रह्म

Pure consciousness is Brahman.

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 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-

His inner self exalted thus

जिनस्वर्गे लोके सर्वान्कामानाप्त्वाssमृतः सम-

To state divine, he left this world

भवत्समभवत् ।

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

He, i.e., Vāmadeva or any other seer1 like him

पूर्वं विद्वांसोऽमृताऽभूवंस्थाड्यमपि विद्वानेतैव

having understood the Brahman as described above,

प्रज्ञेनाऽऽत्मनाssलोकादुत्क्रम्येत्यादि उदाहर्यातम् । अस्माल्लोका-

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

दुत्क्रम्याऽमुष्मन्स्वर्गाँल्लोकान्सर्वान्कामानाप्त्वाssमृतः समभवदत्योच्यते ॥

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

1 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 प्रतिष्ठितमाविरावीर्म एधि वेदस्य म आणीस्थः श्रुतं मे मा प्रहासीःरनेनाधीतेनाहोरात्रान्संदधाम्यृतं वदिष्यामि सत्यं वदिष्यामि तन्मामवतु तद्वक्तारमवतु अवतु मामवतु 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 तत् 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

3

आत्याश्रमम्

mere renunciation

16

अकुर्वंत:

of one who has renounced works

18

अङ्गफलम्

subsidiary result

25

अज

birthless

35

अजर:

without old age

35

अणव:

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

39

अण्डम्

Mundane egg

41, 122

अत्याश्रमी

samnyāsin

24

अर्थप्राप्तत्वात्

because of its incidental occurrence

17, 22, 30

अर्थवाद:

eulogy

9

अद्वय:

secondless

35

अधिष्ठानम्

the ground, the substratum

42, 46, 51, 76

अध्यात्माधिदैवतासु

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

55

अनधिकार्थ:

meant for him who is not the adhikārin

9

अनुष्ठेयरूपम्

of the nature of something to be religiously followed

17

अनुज्ञा

command

53

अनुमानम्

inference

82

अनुशासनम्

scriptural command

95

अन्तर्वती

pregnant woman

101

अन्तःकरणम्

the internal sense organ, mind

113

अन्तर्जालम्

joined

49

अपरब्रह्म

the lower Brahman, Hiranyagarbha

1

अपान

down-coursing air

45

अभ्यतपत्

meditated

44

अमूर्तस्य

not gross, non-material

88

अमृतत्त्वम्

immortality

25, 75

अमृतः

one who is immortal

126

अवस्थान

residence

30

आविद्या

primal ignorance, nescience, want of enlightenment

16, 17, 47, 67, 96

अविदुषः

of an ignorant person

27

अव्याकृतनामरूपभेदात्मकम्

undifferentiated by name and form

36, 122

असम्पन्नम्

inadequate

25

असत्‍वादि

one who holds that the creation proceeds from nothing

39

असंसरति

an epithet of the Absolute

72

आकाश

ether

41

आख्यायिका

episode, story

75, 93

आगमः-श्रुति

the Veda

89

आत्मज्ञानम्

the knowledge of self

9

आत्मदर्शनम्

self-realization

23

आत्मदृष्टि:

the eternal sight of the Ātman

89

आत्मविद्या

knowledge of self, the doctrine of the Ātman

25

आत्मस्वरूपम्

the nature of Ātman

95

आप:

the nether worlds

41

आप्तकामम्

one who has obtained all desires

10, 109

आग्न्राय:

the Veda

12

आयतनम्

abode

50

आलोक:

light

17

इन्द्र:

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

71

इष्टयोगानिचिकर्षा

desire to obtain what one likes

14

उक्थम्

praise-chant in prose

1

उत्पन्नविद्यस्य

to one who is enlightened

19

उत्पादयेत्

would generate

14

उत्सन्नाग्नि:

he whose sacrificial fire is extinguished

29

उन्मादान्तिमिरनिमित्तत्वात्

caused by mental or optical derangement

31

एषणम्

desire

16

(एषणत्रयं-पुत्रैषणा, दारैषणा, वित्तैषणाख्येति)

करणम्

the sense-organ

.. 46

कर्म

rites enjoined by the scriptures

.. 1

कर्मी

one engaged in ritual

.. 3, 4-note 2

क्रिया

ritual

.. 10, 17

कृताकृतफलसाक्षी

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

.. 62

कृतकर्तव्यताविरोधि

that which is opposed to past and future actions

.. 14

काणादानाम्

of the followers of the Vaiśeṣika system founded by Kanāda

.. 37, 85

कामप्रयुक्तत्वात्

prompted by desire

.. 19

कार्यकारणलक्षणः, पिण्डः

the bodily aggregate

.. 58

कार्यकारणसंघातम्

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

.. 62

गृहस्थ्यम्

life of a house-holder

.. 18, 24

गुणफलम्

the same as Angaphala—subsidary reward

.. 25

गुरूपसदनम्

pupilsip under a preceptor

.. 32

चरुपुरोडाशादिलक्षणम्

like boiled rice and rice-cake

.. 55

चन्द्रमसम्-चन्द्रमसं लोकम्

the region of the moon or Svarga

.. 98

चोद्यम्

question, objection

.. 74

चोदनाहैम्

fit to come under scriptural injunction

.. 17

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 Sastras

जीव:

individual soul

ज्ञानम्

upāsana or meditation

ज्ञानकर्मसुच्ययानुष्ठानम्

performance of ritual along with meditation

तप:

meditation

तार्किक:

logician

त्यकैषण:

one who is free from desires (cf. एषणत्रय)

त्याग:

renunciation

तृण्मारुत:

the wind of desire

तृणजलद्का

caterpillar

देवराज:

the king of Gods, Indra

देवता

the presiding deity

देवताप्ययम्

becoming identical with the deity

देहधारणम्

bodily sustenance

घुलोक:

Heavenly world

द्वैतम्

duality

धर्मोत्तरम्

other attributes

.. .. .. 6

धूमादिक्रमेण

धूमादिक्रमेण is the path of smoke by which those who have performed karma as enjoined in the Śāstras reach svarga after death

.. .. .. 98

नामरूपभेदः

differentiated by name and form

.. 36

निग्रहानुग्रहौ

punishment and bestowal of gifts

.. 56

नित्यकर्म

obligatory duty such as Sandhyā

.. 21

नित्यशुद्धबुद्धमुक्तस्वभाव

(Ātman) is of eternal purity, wisdom and freedom

.. .. 35

नित्यत्वे सति

being eternal

.. .. 12

निर्मिमीते

creates

.. .. 39

नियमः

injunction

.. .. 21

नियुक्तत्वात्

because it is enjoined

.. 10, 22

नियोग

scriptural injunction

.. 10, 22

निरालम्ब.

supportless, refugeless

.. .. 47

निर्वाणम्

Mokṣa, liberation

.. .. 109

नेतिनेति

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

.. .. 90

पञ्चभूतेभ्यः

from out of the five elements

.. 43

पञ्चमहाभूतानि

the five elements

.. .. 120

पञ्चेन्द्रियाणि

the five senses

.. .. 47

परः पुरुषार्थः

the highest good

.. .. 2

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

Vide 4-note 1

ब्रह्मचर्येम्

bachelorhood

.. 24

ब्रह्मवित्

the knower of Brahman

.. 71

ब्रह्मविद्या

knowledge of the Divine

.. 111

ब्रह्म

the Absolute

.. 120

ब्रह्मापरम्

the Lower Brahman

.. 120

ब्रह्मात्मदर्शी

one who has realized that the Self is Brahman

.. 11

ब्रह्मात्मविज्ञानम्

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

.. 15

भावरूपत्वात्

being abstract in nature

.. 54

भावात्मकम्

positive in character

.. 17

म्रान्तम्

one who is deluded

15, 89

भिक्षाचर्येम्

mendicancy

9, 20

मरम्

earth

.. 41

मरीचि:

the sky filled with the sun's rays

.. 41

मन्त्रवर्ण:

Śruti

.. 38

महावाक्यानि

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

69

महामायावी

Īśvara, spoken of as a great magician

.. 75

मुमुक्षु

one desirous of liberation

.. 23

मृत्यु:

Death

.. 32

मोक्ष:

Liberation

2, 103

यत्नगौरवात्

on account of great effort

.. 22

यथाकामित्वम्

uncontrolled behaviour

.. 31

यज्ञः

ritualistic sacrifice

98

यावज्जीवादिश्रुति:

Scriptural text enjoining performance of ritual till life lasts

29

लिङ्गम्

mark, middle term

85

लोकपालाः

the world-protectors

42, 120

लोका:

the worlds

42

वचसा

by the vāk or word which here means the Veda

12

वनस्पतय:

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

विषयेनद्रियजनितम्

born of the sense-object contact

47

वृत्तय.

notions, वृत्ति is also used to denote a mental mode

116

वैराग्यम्

renunciation, desirelessness

97

वयुत्थानम्

renunciation, turning away from Samsāra

16, 17

शास्त्रेण

on the authority of the Scriptures

12

शास्त्रकृता

ordained by the Scriptures

14

शास्त्रचोदितम्

enjoined by the Scriptures

31

शास्त्रोपदेश

Vedic teaching

.. .. .. 95

शिष्टकर्म

enjoined action

.. .. 12

श्रुति:

the Veda

.. .. .. 87

सङ्कल्प्य

having determined

.. .. 47

समुचयसाधनम्

means of attaining liberation by combining ritualistic practices with meditation

.. 2

सम्प्राप्तिविद्या

Vide 104-note 1

मंसारदोषवर्जितम्

one whom life's ills do not afflict

.. 10

ममार्णवमुद्र

sea of Samsāra

.. 47, 101

साकल्येन

in entirety

.. .. 24

साध्यसाधनलक्षणम्

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

.. .. 111

साङ्ख्ययानाम्

of the followers of the Sāmkhya system founded by Kapila

.. .. 37

सुषुप्ति:

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

.. .. 67

स्वर्ग

the region of bliss

.. 109, 126

स्वतोऽप्राप्तम्

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

.. .. 14

स्वयोनिभूतम्

born of himself

.. .. 52

स्वामी

master

.. .. 12

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

OTHER WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

KATHOPANISHAD.

SOME OPINIONS.

"The Hindu" —

"We agree with the editor that much of the poetic charm

of the Kathakopanishad would have been lost in a bald prose-

rendering in English, the editor's own translation in English

verse conveys in a large measure the forceful manner of

narration and the charm and finish of the original Sanskrit

poetry At the same time, the editor has given us a faithful

rendering of the Upanishadic thought

"Copious footnotes elucidate the Sanskrit text and the

English rendering and clarify the scheme of Philosophy

presented in the Upanishad and remove all possible mis-

apprehension and misunderstanding of the text The

exhaustive glossary will be found to be an extremely useful

feature of the publication"

Mr P V. Kane, M A , LL M , Vakil, Hugh Court, Angres

Wadi, Bombay, 4 —

"To those who have not made a deep study of the

Upanishads and the famous commentaries thereon in the

original this book will be of great use in conveying the recon-

dite philosophy of the Upanishad and something of the beauty

and poetry thereof."

Review from "The Educational Review" of January 1929 —

"This metrical translation runs on smoothly and freely

and makes the meaning fairly plain even to the lay reader It

is marked by a certain proportion of end-rhymes, and each

stanza has got, wherever it is required, a foot-note of expla-

nation and comments. The subtle nature of the Ātman is

also well brought out ; the English introduction is detailed

and instructive; and itself and the notes are devoted to an

exposition of the Advaitic view of this Upanishad There is

a useful glossary at the end."

Mr. M Hiriyanna, Mysore.—

"I earnestly hope that it will be widely used by students

as well as by others"

Mr. J. S. Narayanamurty, M.A., Lecturer, Govt Arts College,

Rajahmundry, and Chairman of the Board of Studies, and of

the Board of Examiners, Andhra University —

"I will gladly place it before the Philosophy Board of

Studies, along with other similar books when the question of

choosing a text-book on Indian Philosophy comes up for

discussion."