The Upanishads, Part I — SBE Vol. 1 (trans. F. Max Müller, 1879)
English·1879–1910·trans. Georg Bühler & James Legge·271 passages
The text · part 13 of 13
And when he awakes, then, as from a burning fire sparks proceed in all directions, thus from that self the prazas (speech, &c.) proceed, each towards its place; from the prazas the gods (Agni, &c.), from the gods the worlds.
Of this, this is the proof, this is the understanding. When a man is thus sick, going to die, falling into weakness and faintness, they say: ‘His thought has departed, he hears not, he sees not, he speaks not, he thinks not.’ Then he becomes one with that praza alone. Then speech goes to him (who is absorbed in praza) with all names, the eye with all
1 Uktha, hymn, is artificially derived from ut-thapayati, to raise up, and hence uktha, hymn, is to be meditated on as prasa, breath, which likewise raises up the body. See Ait. Ar. II, 1, 1g.
* He is absorbed in prfza. Or should it be pranah as nominative ?
p. 296
forms, the ear with all sounds, the mind with all thoughts. And when he departs from this body, he departs together with all these}.
4. Speech gives up to him (who is absorbed in praza) all names, so that by speech he obtains all names. The nose gives up to him all odours, so that by scent he obtains all odours. The eye gives up to him all forms, so that by the eye he obtains all forms. The ear gives up to him all sounds, so that by the ear he obtains all sounds. The mind gives up to him all thoughts, so that by the mind he obtains all thoughts. This is the complete absorption in praza. And what is prawa is pragiia (selfconsciousness), what is pragii4 (self-consciousness) is praza. For together do these two live in the body, and together do they depart.
Now we shall explain how all things become one in that pragiid (self-consciousness).
5. Speech is one portion taken out ® of pragiia (self-conscious knowledge), the word is its object, placed outside. The nose is one portion taken out of it, the odour is its object, placed outside. The eye is one portion taken out of it, the form is its object, placed outside. The ear is one portion taken out of it, the sound is its object, placed outside. The tongue is one portion taken out of it, the taste of food is its object, placed outside. The two hands
? According to another reading we might translate, ‘Speech takes away all names from that body; and pr4za, in which speech is absorbed, thus obtains all names.’
* Tread ud@/kam or udddham, instead of adQdham, explained by the commentator as adfiduhat. Professor Cowell translates, ‘ Speech verily milked one portion thereof,’ which may have been the original purport of the writer.
p. 297
Professor Cowell translates, ‘ Speech verily milked one portion thereof,’ which may have been the original purport of the writer.
p. 297
are one portion taken out of it, their action is their object, placed outside. The body is one portion taken out of it, its pleasure and pain are its object, placed outside. The organ is one portion taken out of it, happiness, joy, and offspring are its object, placed outside. The two feet are one portion taken out of it, movements are their object, placed outside. Mind is one portion taken out of it, thoughts and desires are its object, placed outside.
6. Having by pragiia (self-conscious knowledge) taken possession of speech, he obtains by speech all words. Having by pragiid takcn possession of the nose, he obtains all odours. Having by pragfié taken possession of the eye, he obtains all forms. Having by pragiia taken possession of the ear, he obtains all sounds. Having by pragiia taken possession of the tongue, he obtains all tastes of food. Having by pragfia taken possession of the two hands, he obtains all actions. Having by pragiia taken possession of the body, he obtains pleasure and pain. Having by pragfia taken possession of the organ, he obtains happiness, joy, and offspring. Having by pragii4 taken possession of the two feet, he obtains all movements. Having by pragii4 taken possession of mind, he obtains all thoughts.
7. For without pragiia (self-consciousness) speech does not make known (to the self) any word'. ‘My
1 Professor Cowell has translated a passage from the commentary which is interesting as showing that its author and the author of the Upanishad too had a clear conception of the correlative nature of knowledge. ‘The organ of sense,’ he says, ‘cannot exist without pragfi4 (self-consciousness), nor the objects of sense be obtained without the organ, therefore—on the principle, that when one thing cannot exist without another, that thing is said to be identical with the other—as the cloth, for instance, being
p. 298
mind was absent,’ he says, ‘I did not perceive that word. Without pragiid the nose does not make known any odour. ‘My mind was absent,’ he says, ‘I did not perceive that odour.’ Without pragiia the eye does not make known any form. ‘My mind was absent,’ he says, ‘I did not perceive that form.’ Without pragiid the ear does not make known any sound. ‘My mind was absent,’ he says, ‘I did not perceive that sound.’ Without pragfia the tongue does not make known any taste. ‘My mind was absent, he says, “I did not perceive that taste.’ Without pragiia the two hands do not make known any act. ‘Our mind was absent,’ they say, ‘we did not perceive any act. Without pragfia the body does not make known pleasure or pain. ‘My mind was absent, he says, ‘I did not perceive that pleasure or pain.’ Without pragiia the organ does not make known happiness, joy, or offspring. ‘My mind was absent,’ he says, ‘I did not perceive that happiness, joy, or offspring.’ Without pragiia the two feet do not make known any movement. ‘Our mind was absent,’ they say, ‘we did not perceive that movement.’ Without pragii4 no thought succeeds, nothing can be known that is to be known.
8. Let no man try to find out what speech is, let him know the speaker. Let no man try to find out what odour is, let him know him who smells. Let no man try to find out what form is, let him know the seer. Let no man try to find out what sound is, let never perceived without the threads, is identical with them, or the (false perception of) silver being never found without the mother of pearl is identical with it, so the objects of sense being never found without the organs are identical with them, and the organs being never found without pragfid (self-consciousness) are identical with it, mI ADHYAYA, 8. 299
p. 299
him know the hearer. Let no man try to find out the tastes of food, let him know the knower of tastes. Let no man try to find out what action is, let him know the agent. Let no man try to find out what pleasure and pain are, let him know the knower of pleasure and pain. Let no man try to find out what happiness, joy, and offspring are, let him know the knower of happiness, joy, and offspring. Let no man try to find out what movement is, let him know the mover. Let no man try to find out what mind is, let him know the thinker. These ten objects (what is spoken, smelled, seen, &c.) have reference to pragiid (self-consciousness), the ten subjects (speech, the senses, mind) have reference to objects. If there were no objects, there would be no subjects; and if there were no subjects, there would be no objects. For on either side alone nothing could be achieved. But that (the self of pragiid, consciousness, and prawa, life) is not many, (but one.) For as in a car the circumference of a wheel is placed on the spokes, and the spokes on the nave, thus are these objects (circumference) placed on the subjects (spokes), and the subjects on the praza. And that praza (breath, the living and breathing power) indeed is the self of pragiia (the self-conscious self), blessed, imperishable, immortal. He does not increase by a good action, nor decrease by a bad action. For he (the self of praza and pragiid) makes him, whom he wishes to lead up from these worlds, do a good deed; and the same makes him, whom he wishes to lead down from these worlds, do a bad deed'. And he is the guardian of the world, he is
1 The other text says, ‘whom he wishes to draw after him ; and whom he wishes to draw away from these worlds.’ RAmatirtha, inp. 300 the king of the world, he is the lord of the universe,— and he is my (Indra’s) self, thus let it be known, yea, thus let it be known!
Fourty ApnyAya},
1. There was formerly Gargya Baélaki?*, famous as aman of great reading; for it was said of him that he lived among the Ustnaras, among the Satvat- Matsyas, the Kuru-Paiifdlas, the Ka4st -Videhas *. Having gone to Agatasatru, (the king) of K4st, he said to him: ‘Shall I tell you Brahman?’ Agatasatru said to him: ‘We give a thousand (cows) for that speech (of yours), for verily all people run away, saying, “ Ganaka (the king of Mithila) is our father
(patron).”’ 2.4 BRIHAD-ARANYAKA- KAUSH?TAKI-BRAHMANA- UPANISHAD. UPANISHAD. i. Aditye purushad. i. Id. atish¢hak sarveshdm brzhat p&m#daravasa his commentary on the Mait. Up. 3, 2, quotes the text as translated above.
1 Praga, breath or life, has been explained in the preceding chapter. But this praza is not yet the highest point that has to be reached. Praza, life, even as united with pragii4, consciousness, is only a covering of something else, viz. the Self, and this Highest Self has now to be explained.
* The same story is told in the Brzhad-dramyaka II, 1 seq., but with important variations.
Praza, life, even as united with pragii4, consciousness, is only a covering of something else, viz. the Self, and this Highest Self has now to be explained.
* The same story is told in the Brzhad-dramyaka II, 1 seq., but with important variations.
® | take iti to depend on samspashéa, and read satvanmatsyeshu, though the commentary seems to have read so ’vasan, or sa vasan, for savasan. See Introduction, p. Ixxvii.
* The second paragraph forms a kind of table of contents for the discussion which is to follow. Ihave given instead a fuller table of contents, taken from the Bréhad-dramyaka II, as compared with the Kaushitaki-upanishad in its two texts. The variations of text A are given in small letters. In text B, the table of contents is given at the end of the discussion, in § 18, me me ill.
xiv. Savye ’kshan purusha. satyasy4tma,vidyuta atm4, tegasa atma.
3. Balaki said; ‘ The person that is in the sun, on him I meditate (as Brahman).’
Agatasatru said to him: ‘No, no! do not challenge me (to a disputation) on this’. I meditate on him who is called great, clad in white raiment *, the supreme, the head of all beings. Whoso meditates
' The king means to say that he knows this already, and that he can mention not only the predicates of the person in the sun thus meditated on as Brahman, but also the rewards of such meditation.
* This is properly a predicate of the moon, and used as such in the Brthad-4ranzyaka-upanishad, in the second paragraph of the dialogue.
Iv ADHYAYA, 8. 303
on him thus, becomes supreme, and the head of all beings.’
4. Baélaki said: ‘The person that is in the moon, on him I meditate.’
* This is properly a predicate of the moon, and used as such in the Brthad-4ranzyaka-upanishad, in the second paragraph of the dialogue.
Iv ADHYAYA, 8. 303
on him thus, becomes supreme, and the head of all beings.’
4. Baélaki said: ‘The person that is in the moon, on him I meditate.’
Agatasatru said to him; ‘Do not challenge me on this. I meditate on him as Soma, the king, the self, (source) of all food. Whoso meditates on him thus, becomes the self, (source) of all food.’
5. Balaki said: ‘The person that is in the lightning, on him I meditate.’
Ag§ftasatru said to him: ‘Do not challenge me on this. I meditate on him as the self in light. Whoso meditates on him thus, becomes the self in light.’
6. Balaki said: ‘The person that is in the thunder, on him I meditate.’
Agftasatru said to him: ‘Do not challenge me on this. I meditate on him as the self of sound’. Whoso meditates on him thus, becomes the self of sound.’
7. Balaki said: ‘ The person that is in the ether, on him I meditate.’
Agatasatru said to him: ‘Do not challenge me on this. I meditate on him as the full, quiescent Brahman, Whoso meditates on him thus, is filled with offspring and cattle. Neither he himself nor his offspring dies before the time.’
8. Balaki said: ‘The person that is in the air, on him I meditate.’
Agatasatru said to him: ‘Do not challenge me on this. I meditate on him as Indra Vaikuzdéha, as the unconquerable army. Whoso meditates on him thus, becomes victorious, unconquerable, conquering his enemies.’
1 This is not mentioned in the Brzhad-4ranyaka,
p. 304
9. Balaki said: ‘The person that is in the fire, on him I meditate.’
Agatasatru said to him: ‘Do not challenge me on this. I meditate on him as powerful. Whoso meditates on him thus, becomes powerful among others?.’
10. Balaéki said: ‘The person that is in the water, on him I meditate.’
AgAtasatru said tohim : ‘ Do not challenge me on this. I meditate on him as the self of the name. Whoso meditates on him thus, becomes the self of the name.’ So far with regard to deities (mythological) ; now with regard to the body (physiological).
11. Balaki said: ‘The person that is in the mirror, on him I meditate.’
Agatasatru said to him: ‘Do not challenge me on this. I meditate on him as the likeness. Whoso meditates on him thus, to him a son is born in his family who is his likeness, not one who is not his likeness,’
12, Balaki said: ‘The person that is in the echo, on him I meditate.’
Agatasatru said to him: ‘Do not challenge me on this. I meditate on him as the second, who never goes away. Whoso meditates on him thus, he gets a second from his second (his wife), he becomes doubled 2.
13. Balaki said: ‘The sound that follows a man, on that I meditate.
Agatasatru said to him: ‘Do not challenge me on
1 Instead of anyeshu, the second text, as printed by Professor Cowell, has anv esha. * This paragraph does not occur in the Brzhad-Aranyaka.
p. 305
13. Balaki said: ‘The sound that follows a man, on that I meditate.
Agatasatru said to him: ‘Do not challenge me on
1 Instead of anyeshu, the second text, as printed by Professor Cowell, has anv esha. * This paragraph does not occur in the Brzhad-Aranyaka.
p. 305
this. I meditate on him as life. Whoso meditates on him thus, neither he himself nor his offspring will faint before the time.’
14. Balaki said: ‘The person that is in the shadow, on him I meditate.’
Ag§Atasatru said to him: ‘Do not challenge me on this. I meditate on him as death. Whoso meditates on him thus, neither he himself nor his offspring will die before the time.’
15. Balaki said: ‘The person that is embodied, on him I meditate.’
Agatasatru said to him: ‘Do not challenge me on this. I meditate on him as Lord of creatures. Whoso meditates on him thus, is multiplied in offspring and cattle.’
16. Balaki said: ‘The Self which is conscious (pragiia), and by whom he who sleeps here, walks about in sleep, on him I meditate.’
Ag&tasatru said to him: ‘Do not challenge me on this. I meditate on him as Yama the king. Whoso meditates on him thus, everything is subdued for his excellencies.’
17. Balaki said: ‘The person that is in the right eye, on him I meditate.’
AgAtasatru said to him: ‘Do not challenge me on this. I meditate on him as the self of the name, as the self of fire, as the self of splendour. Whoso meditates on him thus, he becomes the self of these.’
18, Baélaki said: ‘The person that is in the left eye, on him I meditate.’
Agatasatru said to him: ‘Do not challenge me on this. I meditate on him as the self of the true, as the self of lightning, as the self of light. Whoso
[3] xp. 306 meditates on him thus, he becomes the self of these.’
19. After this Balaki became silent. Agdtasatru said to him: ‘Thus far only (do you know), O Balaki?’ ‘Thus far only,’ replied Balaki.
Then Agatasatru said to him: ‘Vainly did you challenge me, saying: ‘Shall I tell you Brahman ? O Balaki, he who is the maker of those persons (whom you mentioned), he of whom all this is the work, he alone is to be known,’
Thereupon Bal&ki came, carrying fuel in his hand, saying: ‘May I come to you asa pupil?’ Agétasatru said to him: ‘I deem it improper that a Kshatriya should initiate a Bréhmaza. Come, I shall make you know clearly.’ Then taking him by the hand, he went forth. And the two together came to a person who was asleep. And Ag&tasatru called him, saying: ‘Thou great one, clad in white raiment, Soma, King!’ But he remained lying. Then he pushed him with a ‘stick, and he rose at once. Then said Agatasatru to him: ‘ Balaki, where did this person here sleep? Where was he? Whence came he thus back?’ Balaki did not know. ,
Then he pushed him with a ‘stick, and he rose at once. Then said Agatasatru to him: ‘ Balaki, where did this person here sleep? Where was he? Whence came he thus back?’ Balaki did not know. ,
20. And Agatasatru said to him: ‘ Where this person here slept, where he was, whence he thus came back, is this: The arteries of the heart called Hita extend from the heart of the person towards the surrounding body. Small as a hair divided a thousand times, they stand full of a thin fluid of various colours, white, black, yellow, red. In these the person is when sleeping he sees no dream.
1 See § 3 init.
p. 307
Then he becomes one with that pravza alone. Then speech goes to him with all names, the eye with all forms, the ear with all sounds, the mind with all thoughts. And when he awakes, then, as from a burning fire, sparks proceed in all directions, thus from that self the prazas (speech, &c.) proceed, each towards its place, from the prazas the gods, from the gods the worlds. And as a razor might be fitted in a razor-case, or as fire in the fire-place (the aravi on the altar), even thus this conscious self enters the self of the body (considers the body as himself) to the very hairs and nails. And the other selfs (such as speech, &c.) follow that self, as his people follow the master of the house. And as the master feeds with his people, nay, as his people feed on the master, thus does this conscious self feed with the other selfs, as a master with his people, and the other selfs follow him, as his people follow the master. So long as Indra did not understand that self, the Asuras conquered him. When he understood it, he conquered the Asuras and obtained the pre-eminence among all gods, sovereignty, supremacy. And thus also he who knows this obtains pre-eminence among all beings, sovereignty, supremacy,—yea, he who knows this.
VAGASANEYI-SAWHITA- UPANISHAD,
SOMETIMES CALLED
TSAVASYA or {fSA- UPANISHAD.
e//
VAGASANEYI-SAMHITA- UPANISHAD.
1. ALL this, whatsoever moves on earth, is to be hidden in the Lord (the Self). When thou hast surrendered all this, then thou mayest enjoy. Do not covet the wealth of any man!
2. Though a man may wish to live a hundred years, performing works, it will be thus with him ; but not in any other way: work will thus not cling to a man. ;
3. There are the worlds of the Asuras! covered with blind darkness. Those who have destroyed their self (who perform works, without having arrived at a knowledge of the true Self), go after death to those worlds.
4. That one (the Self), though never stirring, is swifter than thought. The Devas (senses) never reached it, it walked? before them. Though standing still, it overtakes the others who are running. Méatarisvan (the wind, the moving spirit) bestows powers ® on it.
4. That one (the Self), though never stirring, is swifter than thought. The Devas (senses) never reached it, it walked? before them. Though standing still, it overtakes the others who are running. Méatarisvan (the wind, the moving spirit) bestows powers ® on it.
1 Asury},V4g. Samhit& ; asirya, Upan. Asury’ in the Upanishads in the sense of belonging to the Asuras, i.e. gods, is exceptional. I should prefer asfry4, sunless, as we find as(ryé t4masi in the Rig-veda, V, 32, 6.
2 Pfirvam arsat, Vag. Samh.; pfirvam arshat, Upan. Mahfdhara suggests also arsat as a contraction of a-risat, not perishing.
5 Apas is explained by karmézi, acts, in which case it would be ° meant for 4pas, opus. But the V4g. Samhita accentuates apas, i.e.
p. 312
5. It stirs and it stirs not; it is far, and likewise near!, It is inside of all this, and it is outside of all this. - .
6. And he who beholds all beings in the Self, and the Self in all beings, he never turns away from it?.
7. When to a man who understands, the Self has become all things, what sorrow, what trouble can there be to him who once beheld that unity?
8. He® (the Self) encircled all, bright, incorporeal, scatheless, without muscles, pure, untouched by evil; a seer, wise, omnipresent, self-existent, he disposed all things rightly for eternal years.
9. All who worship what is not real knowledge (good works), enter into blind darkness: those who delight in real knowledge, enter, as it were, into greater darkness.
10. One thing, they say, is obtained from real knowledge; another, they say, from what is not knowledge. Thus we have heard from the wise who taught us this‘.
11. He who knows at the same time both knowledge and not-knowledge, overcomes death through not-knowledge, and obtains immortality through knowledge.
12. All who worship what is not the true cause, aquas, and Anandagiri explains that water stands for acts, because most sacrificial acts are performed with water.
1 Tad v antike, Vag. Samh.; tadvad antike, Upan.
3 Vikikitsati, Vag. Samh.; vigugupsate, Upan.
® Sankara takes the subject to be the Self, and explains the neuter adjectives as masculines. Mahfdhara takes the subject to be the man who has acquired a knowledge of the Self, and who reaches the bright, incorporeal Brahman, &c. Mahfdhara, however, likewise allows the former explanation.
enter into blind darkness: those who delight in the true cause, enter, as it were, into greater darkness.
13. One thing, they say, is obtained from (knowledge of ) the cause; another, they say, from (knowledge of ) what is not the cause. Thus we have heard from the wise who taught us this.
14. He who knows at the same time both the cause and the destruction (the perishable body), overcomes death by destruction (the perishable body), and obtains immortality through (knowledge of) the true cause.
Thus we have heard from the wise who taught us this.
14. He who knows at the same time both the cause and the destruction (the perishable body), overcomes death by destruction (the perishable body), and obtains immortality through (knowledge of) the true cause.
15. The door of the True is covered with a golden disk?. Open that, O Pfishan, that we may see the nature of the True*.
16. O Péshan, only seer, Yama (judge), Sdrya (sun), son of Pragdpati, spread thy rays and gather them! The light which is thy fairest form, I see it. I am what He is (viz. the person in the sun)*.
17. Breath‘ to air, and to the immortal! Then this my body ends in ashes. Om! Mind, remember! Remember thy deeds! Mind, remember! | Remember thy deeds 5!
18. Agni, lead us on to wealth (beatitude) by a good path, thou, O God, who knowest all things!
1 Mahidhara on verse 17: ‘ The face of the true (purusha in the sun) is covered by a golden disk.’
2 Cf. Maitr. Up. VI, 35.
5 Asau purushad should probably be omitted.
‘ These lines are supposed to be uttered by a man in the hour of death.
5 The VAgasaneyi-samhita reads: Om, krato smara, k/#be smara, kritam smara. Uvafa holds that Agni, fire, who has been worshipped in youth and manhood, is here invoked in the form of mind, or that kratu is meant for sacrifice. ‘Agni, remember me! Think of the world! Remember my deeds }’ -
p. 314
Keep far from us crooked evil, and we shall offer thee the fullest praise! (Rv. I, 189, 1.)
This Upanishad, though apparently simple and intelligible, is in reality one of the most difficult to understand properly. Coming at the end of the V4gasaneyi-samhit&, in which the sacrifices and the hymns to be used by the officiating priests have been described, it begins by declaring that all has to be surrendered to the Lord. The name fs, lord, is peculiar, as having a far more personal colouring than Atman, Self, or Brahman, the usual names given by the Upanishads to what is the object of the highest knowledge.
Next follows a permission to continue the performance of sacrifices, provided that all desires have been surrendered. And here occurs our first difficulty, which has perplexed ancient as well as modern commentators.
Next follows a permission to continue the performance of sacrifices, provided that all desires have been surrendered. And here occurs our first difficulty, which has perplexed ancient as well as modern commentators.
I shall try, first of all, to justify my own translation. I hold that the Upanishad wishes to teach the uselessness by themselves of all good works, whether we call them sacrificial, legal, or moral, and yet, at the same time, to recognise, if not the necessity, at least the harmlessness of good works, provided they are performed without any selfish motives, without any desire of reward, but simply as a preparation for higher knowledge, as a means, in fact, of subduing all passions, and producing that serenity of mind without which man is incapable of receiving the highest knowledge. From that point of view the Upanishad may well say, Let a man wish to live here his appointed time, let him even perform all works. If only he knows that all must be surrendered to the Lord, then the work done by him will not cling to him. It will not work on and produce effect after effect, nor will it involve him in a succession of new births in which to enjoy the reward of his works, but it will leave him free to enjoy the blessings of the highest knowledge. It will have. served as a preparation for that higher knowledge which the Upanishad imparts, and which secures freedom from further births.
The expression ‘na karma lipyate nare’ seems to me to admit of this one explanation only, viz. that work done does not cling to man, provided he has acquired the highest knowledge. Similar expressions occur again and again. Lip was, no doubt, used originally of evil deeds which became, as it were, engrained in man; but afterwards of all work, even of good work, if done with a desire of reward. The doctrine of the Upanishads is throughout that orthodoxy and sacrifice can procure a limited beatitude only,p. 315 and that they are a hindrance to real salvation, which can be obtained by knowledge alone. In our passage therefore we can recognise one meaning only, viz. that work does not cling to man or stain him, if only he knows, i.e. if he has been enlightened by the Upanishad.
p. 315
and that they are a hindrance to real salvation, which can be obtained by knowledge alone. In our passage therefore we can recognise one meaning only, viz. that work does not cling to man or stain him, if only he knows, i.e. if he has been enlightened by the Upanishad.
Sankara, in his commentary on the Ved4nta-sfitras ITI, 4, 7; 13; 14, takes the same view of this passage. The opponent of Badarfyaza, in this case, Gaimini himself, maintains that karma, work, is indispensable to knowledge, and among other arguments, he says, III, 4, 7, that it is so ‘Niyamat,’ ‘Because it is so laid down by the law.’ The passage here referred to is, according to Sankara, our very verse, which, he thinks, should be translated as follows: ‘Let a man wish to live a hundred years here (in this body) performing works ; thus will an evil deed not cling to thee, while thou art a man; there is no other way but this by which to escape the influence of works.’ In answer to this, Badarayana says, first of all, III, 4, 13, that this rule may refer to all men in general, and not to one who knows; or, III, 4, 14, if it refers to a man who knows, that then the permission to perform works is only intended to exalt the value of knowledge, the meaning being that even to a man who performs sacrifices all his life, work does not cling, if only he knows ;—such being the power of knowledge.
The same Sankara, however, who here sees quite clearly that this verse refers to a man who knows, explains it in the Upanishad as referring to a man who does not know (itarasyanatmagfiatayatmagrahazdsaktasya). It would then mean: ‘ Let such a one, while performing works here on earth, wish to live a hundred years. In this manner there is no other way for him but this (the performance of sacrifices), so that an evil deed should not be engrained, or so that he should not be stained by such a deed.’ The first and second verses of the Upanishad would thus represent the two paths of life, that of knowledge and that of works, and the following verses would explain the rewards assigned to each.
Mahidhara, in his commentary on the Vagasaneyi-samhita, steers at first a middle course. He would translate: ‘Let one who performs the Agnihotra and other sacrifices, without any desire of reward, wish to live here a hundred years. If thou do so, there will be salvation for thee, not otherwise, There are many roads that lead to heaven, but one only leading to salvation, namely, performance of good works, without any desire of reward, which produces a pure heart. Work thus done, merely as a preparation for salvation, does not cling to man, i.e. it produces a pure heart, but does not
p. 316
Work thus done, merely as a preparation for salvation, does not cling to man, i.e. it produces a pure heart, but does notp. 316 entail any further consequences.’ So far he agrees with Uvasa’s explanation’. He allows, however, another explanation also, so that the second line would convey the meaning: ‘ Ifa man lives thus (performing good works), then there is no other way by which an evil deed should not be engrained; i.e. in order to escape the power of sin, he must all his life perform sacred acts.’
Next follows a description of the lot of those who, immersed in works, have not arrived at the highest knowledge, and have not recovered their true self in the Highest Self, or Brahman. That Brahman, though the name is not used here, is then described, and salvation is promised to the man who beholds all things in the Self and the Self in all things.
The verses 9-14 are again full of difficulty, not so much in themselves as in their relation to the general system of thought which prevails in the Upanishads, and forms the foundation of the Vedanta philosophy. The commentators vary considerably in their interpretations. Sankara explains avidy4, not-knowledge, by good works, particularly sacrifice, performed with a hope of reward ; vidya, or knowledge, by a knowledge of the gods, but not, as yet, of the highest Brahman. The former is generally supposed to lead the sacrificer to the pitr:loka, the world of the fathers, from whence he returns to a series of new births; the latter to the devaloka, the world of the gods, from whence he may either proceed to Brahman, or enter upon a new round of existences. The question then arises, how in our passage the former could be said to lead to blind darkness, the latter to still greater darkness. But for that statement, I have no doubt that all the commentators would, as usual, have taken vidy4 for the knowledge of the Highest Brahman, and avidy4 for orthodox belief in the gods and good works, the former securing immortality in the sense of freedom from new births, while the reward of the latter is blessedness in heaven for a limited period, but without freedom from new births.
This antithesis between vidya and avidy4 seems to me so firmly established that I cannot bring myself to surrender it here. Though this Upanishad has its own very peculiar character, yet its object is, after all, to impart a knowledge of the Highest Self, and not to inculcate merely a difference between faith in the ordinary gods and good works. It was distinctly said before (ver. 3), that those who have destroyed their self, i.e. who perform works only,
’ Uvata explains gigtshivisheA for gigivishet as a purushavyatayak,
VA@ASANEYI-SAMHiTA-UPANISHAD, 347
It was distinctly said before (ver. 3), that those who have destroyed their self, i.e. who perform works only,
’ Uvata explains gigtshivisheA for gigivishet as a purushavyatayak,
VA@ASANEYI-SAMHiTA-UPANISHAD, 347
and have not arrived at a knowledge of the true Self, go to the worlds of the Asuras, which are covered with blind darkness. If then the same blind darkness is said in verse g to be the lot of those who worship not-knowledge, this can only mean those who have not discovered the true Self, but are satisfied with the performance of good works. And if those who perform good works are opposed to others who delight in true knowledge, that knowledge can be the knowledge of the true Self only.
The difficulty therefore which has perplexed Sankara is this, how, while the orthodox believer is said to enter into blind darkness, the true disciple, who has acquired a knowledge of the true Self, could be said to enter into still greater darkness. While Sankara in this case seems hardly to have caught the drift of the Upanishad, Uvasa and Mahfdhara propose an explanation which is far more satisfactory. They perceive that the chief stress must be laid on the words ubhayam saha, ‘both together,’ in verses 11 and 14. The doctrine of certain Vedanta philosophers was that works, though they cannot by themselves lead to salvation, are useful as a preparation for the highest knowledge, and that those who imagine that they can attain the highest knowledge without such previous preparation, are utterly mistaken. From this point of view therefore the author of the Upanishad might well say that those who give themselves to what is not knowledge, i.e. to sacrificial and other good works, enter into darkness, but that those who delight altogether in knowledge, despising the previous discipline of works, deceive themselves and enter into still greater darkness.
Then follows the next verse, simply stating that, according to the teaching of wise people, the reward of knowledge is one thing, the reward of ignorance, i,e. trust in sacrifice, another. Here Mahfdhara is right again by assigning the pitr7loka, the world of the fathers, as the reward of the ignorant; the devaloka, the world of the gods, as the reward of the enlightened, provided that from the world of the gods they pass on to the knowledge of the Highest Self or Brahman.
The third verse contains the strongest confirmation of Mahfdhara’s view. Here it is laid down distinctly that he only who knows both together, both what is called ignorance and what is called knowledge, can be saved, because by good works he overcomes death, here explained by natural works, and by knowledge he obtains the Immortal, here explained by oneness with the gods, the last step that leads on to oneness with Brahman.
Uvasa, who takes the same view of these verses, explains at once,
p. 318
Uvasa, who takes the same view of these verses, explains at once,p. 318 and even more boldly than Mahidhara’, vidya, or knowledge, by brahmavigfiana, knowledge of Brahman, which by itself, and if not preceded by works, leads to even greater darkness than what is called ignorance, i.e. sacrifice and orthodoxy without knowledge.
The three corresponding verses, treating of sambhfiti and asambhfiti instead of vidya and avidy4, stand first in the V4gasaneyisamhita. They must necessarily be explained in accordance with our explanation of the former verses, i.e. sambhfiti must correspond - to vidya, it must be meant for the true cause, i.e. for Brahman, while asambhfiti must correspond with avidy4, as a name of what is not real, but phenomenal only and perishable.
Mahidhara thinks that these verses refer to the Bauddhas, which can hardly be admitted, unless we take Buddhist in a very general sense. Uvasa puts the Lok4yatas in their place*. It is curious also to observe that Mahfdhara, following Uvasa, explains asambhiti at first by the denial of the resurrection of the body, while he takes sambhfti rightly for Brahman. I have chiefly followed Uvasa’s commentary, except in his first explanation of asambhiti, resurrection *®. In what follows Uvasa explains sambhfiti rightly by the only cause of the origin of the whole world, i.e. Brahman‘, while he takes vindsa, destruction, as a name of the perishable body °.
Sankara sees much more in these three verses than Uvasa. He takes asambhfti as a name of Prakriti, the undeveloped cause, sambhfiti as a name of the phenomenal Brahman or Hiramyagarbha. From a worship of the latter a man obtains supernatural powers, from devotion to the former, absorption in Prakriti.
Mahfdhara also takes a similar view, and he allows, like Sankara, another reading, viz. sambhfitim avinasam a, and avindsena mrttyum tirtva. In this case the sense would be: ‘He who knows the worship both of the developed and the undeveloped, overcomes
1 Mahidhara decides in the end that vidya and amrttam must here be taken in a limited or relative sense, tasmA4d vidyopdsanamritam kipekshikam iti dik, and so agrees on the whole with Sankara, pp. 25-27.
death, i.e. such evil as sin, passion, &c., through worship of the undeveloped, while he obtains through worship of the developed, i.e. of Hiranyagarbha, immortality, absorption in Prakriti.’
® Vinasam vindsi 4a vapu’ sariram.
p. 319
death, i.e. such evil as sin, passion, &c., through worship of the undeveloped, while he obtains through worship of the developed, i.e. of Hiranyagarbha, immortality, absorption in Prakriti.’
All these forced explanations to which the commentators have recourse, arise from the shifting views held by various authorities with regard to the value of works. Our Upanishad seems to me to propound the doctrine that works, though in themselves useless, or even mischievous, if performed with a view to any present or future rewards, are necessary as a preparatory discipline. This is or was for a long time the orthodox view. Each man was required to pass through the 4sramas, or stages of student and householder, before he was admitted to the freedom of a Sanny4sin. As on a ladder, no step was to be skipped. Those who attempted to do so, were considered to have broken the old law, and in some respects they may indeed be looked upon as the true precursors of the Buddhists.
Nevertheless the opposite doctrine, that a man whose mind had become enlightened, might at once drop the fetters of the law, without performing all the tedious duties of student and householder, had strong supporters too among orthodox philosophers. Cases of such rapid conversion occur in the ancient traditions, and Badar4yana himself was obliged to admit the possibility of freedom and salvation without works, though maintaining the superiority of the usual course, which led on gradually from works to enlightenment and salvation’. It was from an unwillingness to assent to the decided teaching of the fs4-upanishad that Sankara attempted to explain vidya, knowledge, in a limited sense, as knowledge of the gods, and not yet knowledge of Brahman. He would not admit that knowledge without works could lead to darkness, and even to greater darkness than works without knowledge. Our Upanishad seems to have dreaded libertinism, knowledge without works, more even than ritualism, works without knowledge, and its true object was to show that orthodoxy and sacrifice, though useless in themselves, must always form the preparation for higher enlightenment.
How misleading Sankara’s explanation may prove, we can see from the translation of this Upanishad by Rammohun Roy. He followed Sankara implicitly, and this is the sense which he drew from the text :—
‘g. Those observers of religious rites that perform only the worship of the sacred fire, and oblations to sages, to ancestors,
1 Vedanta-sitras III, 4, 36-39.
320 vAGASANEYI-SAMHITA-UPANISHAD.
to men, and to other creatures, without regarding the worship of celestial gods, shall enter into the dark region : and those practisers of religious ceremonies who habitually worship the celestial gods only, disregarding the wership of the sacred ‘fire, and oblations to sages, to ancestors, to men, and to other creatures, shall enter into a region still darker than the former.
‘ro. It is said that adoration of the celestial gods produces one consequence ; and that the performance of the worship of sacred fire, and oblations to sages, to ancestors, to men, and to other creatures, produce another: thus have we heard from learned men, who have distinctly explained the subject to us.
‘11. Of those observers of ceremonies whosoever, knowing that adoration of -celestial gods, as well as the worship of the sacred fire, and oblation to sages, to ancestors, to men, and to other creatures, should be observed alike by the same individual, performs them both, will, by means of the latter, surmount the obstacles presented by natural temptations, and will attain the state of the celestial gods through the practice of the former.
‘12. Those observers of religious rites who worship Prakriti alone (Prakriti or-nature, who, though insensible, influenced by the Supreme Spirit, operates throughout the universe) shall enter into the dark region: and those practisers of religious ceremonies that are devoted to worship solely the prior operating sensitive particle, allegorically called Brahm4, shall enter into a region much more dark than the former.
‘13. It is said that one consequence may be attained by the worship of Brahm4, and another by the adoration of Prakriti. Thus have we heard from learned men, who have distinctly explained the subject to us.
‘14. Of those observers of ceremonies, whatever person, knowing that the adoration of Prakriti and that of Brahm4 should be together observed by the same individual, performs them both, will by means of the latter overcome indigence, and will attain the state of Prakriti, through the practice of the former.’