referring ‘of themselves’ to the Brahman, and the passage which refers to an understanding of the Brahman by means of the Vedas, according to the principle of the moon and the branch—these seem rather to point to a portion of the Vedas which was regarded as giving instruction in true knowledge, as distinguished from merely laying down various sacrifices and ceremonials for special purposes. In fact, in one passage we have the germ of the whole VedAntic theory as afterwards settled. For there we are told, that sacrifices and penances are laid down as the preliminary steps towards the acquisition of true knowledge. By those sacrifices one is purified of one’s sins, and then acquires a knowledge of the supreme self as described in the Vedas— which, I apprehend, must mean the Upanishads. .
There is but one other point on which we need say anything further. And that is connected with the definition of a Brahmana. That definition appears to me, to point to an earlier stage in religious progress than is indicated in Apastamba and Manu. The true Brdhmama is he who is attached to the Brahman. Perhaps, this marks some little advance beyond the more general doctrine of the Gita, but it is still very far short of the petrified doctrine, if I may so call it, of the later law-givers. The Brahmana has not yet degenerated into the mere receiver of fees and presents, but is still in possession of the truth.
We thus see, that the external and internal evidence bearing upon the question of the position of the Sanatsugatiya in Sanskrit literature, seems to point to nearly the same period and place for it as for the Bhagavadgita. It is plain enough, that the evidence under both heads is extremely scanty and meagre. But such as it is, it appears to us to justify a provisional conclusion, that the Sanatsugatiya dates from a period prior to the rise of Buddhism, and forms part of that same movement in the religious history of ancient India of which the Gita is another embodiment. More than this, we are not at present in a position to assert. To this extent, the evidence cnables us, I think, to go. And we accordingly hold, that unless
L2
p. 148
other and further evidence requires a reversal of this judgment, the Sanatsugatiya may be treated as a work nearly contemporary with the Bhagavadgit4, and occupying generally the same point of view.
And we accordingly hold, that unless
L2
p. 148
other and further evidence requires a reversal of this judgment, the Sanatsugatiya may be treated as a work nearly contemporary with the Bhagavadgit4, and occupying generally the same point of view.
One word, finally, about the translation. As stated already, the text adopted is that which appears to have been before Sankard#arya. And the translation follows mainly his interpretations in his commentary. Sometimes we have followed Nilakaztha, whose commentary has been consulted as well as a very incorrect copy of apgother commentary by one Sarvag#a Narayana, contained in the MS. from Puvza lent me by Professor Bhandarkar. In some places even the commentators have failed to clear up obscurities, and there we have given the best translation we could suggest, indicating the difficulties. There has been an endeavour made here, as in the case of the Bhagavadgita, to keep the translation as close and faithful to the text as the exigencies of the English language permitted. The exegetical notes are mostly taken from the commentaries, even where the name of the commentator is not specified ; while the references to parallel passages have been collected, mostly by myself, in the same way as in the case of the Bhagavadgita.
SANATSUGATIYA.
Cuapter I.
DhritarAsh/éra said:
If, O Vidura! there is anything not (yet) said by you in (your) discourse, then do impart it to me who wish to hear, for you have spoken marvellous (things).
Vidura said :
O Dhritardshéra! the ancient youth Sanatsugata, (otherwise called) San4tana’, who declared that death exists not—he, O descendant of Bharata! the best of all talented men, will explain all the doubts of your mind, both those (which are) secret *, and those openly declared.
Dhrttardshéra said:
What, do you not yourself know more about this (subject), that SanAtana should explain (it) to me ? Explain (it) yourself, O Vidura! if there is any remnant of intelligence (left) in you.
* So Nilakantha. Sankara says Sanatsugita is Sanatkuméra, and the component parts of the name he paraphrases by ‘born from Brahman.’ For Sandtana, see Brihaddramyaka, p. 506, and note 1, p. 141 supra.
* Le. relating to subjects which may be freely discussed by all, and those which may not. Nilakan/ha adopts a different reading, which he interprets to mean ‘doctrines exoteric and esoteric,’ e.g. self-resiraint, &c. and the acquisition of mystic power, &c., respectively. The expression ‘doubts of the mind’ occurs, however, further on.
p. 150
Vidura said :
I am born of a Sidra womb, and do not like to say more than what (I have said). But the intelligence of that youth, I believe to be eternal’. He who has come of a Brahmaza womb, even though he may proclaim a great mystery, does not thereby become liable to the censure of the gods. Therefore do I say this to you.
Dhritarash/¢ra said :
But the intelligence of that youth, I believe to be eternal’. He who has come of a Brahmaza womb, even though he may proclaim a great mystery, does not thereby become liable to the censure of the gods. Therefore do I say this to you.
Dhritarash/¢ra said :
Do you, O Vidura! speak to the ancient San4tana for me, so that there may be a meeting even here, between (myself in) this body (and him).
Vaisampayana ? said :
(Then) Vidura meditated on that sage whose vows are laudable*. And he, too, O descendant of Bharata! knowing of such meditation, made his appearance. And he‘, too, received him with the ceremonies prescribed in the ordinances. After he had been comfortably seated, and had taken rest, Vidura then spoke to him: ‘ Venerable sir! there is some doubt in Dhrttardshéra’s mind, which cannot
' Le. I suppose, never-failing, and such as can deal with all sorts of topics. Sanatkum4ra, it need scarcely be stated, is the teacher of N&rada in the famous dialogue in the XAandogyopanishad, p. 473.
* Vaisampayana is the narrator of the grand story of which pieces like the present form parts.
* The reading is sometimes different, so as to mean ‘of rigid vows,’ as at Gita, p. 61 supra.
* The pronouns here are too numerous. Does ‘he’ here refer to Dhrstarash/ra? Vidura seems more likely, though the express mention of him in the next sentence might be treated as pointing the other way.
CHAPTER II, 2. 15!
be explained by me. Do you be pleased to explain (it) tohim. Hearing it (explained), this lord of men may cross beyond all misery, so that gain and loss}, (what is) agreeable and (what is) odious, old age and death, fear and vindictiveness, hunger and thirst, frenzy and worldly greatness, disgust and also laziness, desire and wrath, ruin and prosperity, may not trouble him.’
Cuapter II.
Vaisampayana said :
Then the talented king, Dhrztarash/ra, bowed ! to those words uttered by Vidura, and, in a secluded place *, interrogated Sanatsugdta regarding the highest knowledge‘, wishing to become (a) highsouled (man) °.
Dhrttardsh/ra said :
O Sanatsugata! which of the two is correct, your teaching *, about which I have heard, that death exists not, or that’ the gods and demons practised
* Comp. Gft4 passim; disgust, scil. that resulting from a general dissatisfaction with everything. As to ‘ruin and prosperity,’ Nilakantha adds, ‘and their causes, sin and merit.’
* Literally ‘respected.’ Nflakanfha says it means ‘rejoiced over,’ for Dbritarishéra thought, that in spite of his treachery he was safe, as death was taught by Sanatsug4ta to have no existence.
* Ie. free from the presence of ignorant and vulgar people. Cf. Gita, p. 68 supra.
* Le. knowledge concerning the supreme Self.
* Sankara’s construction seems different, but is not quite clear. He says, ‘ wishing to become—Brahman—the meaning is wishing to acquire the self Jost through ignorance.’
* Le. imparted to your pupils, Sankara adds; ‘heard,’ scil. from Vidura.
* Le. knowledge concerning the supreme Self.
* Sankara’s construction seems different, but is not quite clear. He says, ‘ wishing to become—Brahman—the meaning is wishing to acquire the self Jost through ignorance.’
* Le. imparted to your pupils, Sankara adds; ‘heard,’ scil. from Vidura.
* The construction is imperfect, but the sense is clear. Is yourp. 152 the life of Brahmaé4rins', for freedom from death ? Sanatsugata said :
Some (say), that freedom frem death (results) from action?; and others that death exists not. Hear me explain (this), O king! have no misgiving about it *. Both truths, O Kshatriya! have been current from the beginning‘. The wise maintain what (is called) delusion (to be) death. 15 verily call heedlessness death, and likewise I call freedom from heedlessness immortality. Through heedlessness, verily, were the demons* vanquished; and through freedom view correct, or the view involved in the practice of gods and demons?
1 See Gitd, p. 69 supra; Ka/Aopanishad, p. 102; Prasna, p. 162. As to the gods being afraid of death, see KhAndogya, p. 50; and Nrisimha T4pinf, p. 32; and as to gods and demons practising the life of Brahmafirins, see XAAandogya, p. 571; and cf. Brrhadfranyaka, p. 964.
* T.e. action prescribed in the Vedas.
* I.e. as to how I shall be able to reconcile the seeming contradiction between the ‘two truths.’
* T.e. of creation.
* Sanatsugata says he differs from ‘the wise ;’ delusion=thinking the not-self to be the self; heedlessness=falling off from one’s natural condition as the Brahman—which is the cause of delusion (Sankara). See p.153 infra; Kasha, p.152; and Taittiriya-upanishad, p. 80.
* Sankara suggests that demons might mean creatures attached to worldly objects; and gods those who are pleased in their own self; and he cites a stanza in support of this suggestion. The allusion, however, seems to be plainly to the story at A’Adndogya, P- 571 seq., where the idea and expression of ‘ being vanquished’ also occurs (p. 583). That word Sankara interprets in connexion with his suggested interpretation to mean ‘are born in lower species.” See Ahaindogya, p. 585, and Maitrt, p. a11, about asuras or demons. It is interesting to note that in the Introduction to the Mah4bhishya, there is an allusion to a story of the ‘demons’ being ‘ vanquished ’ in consequence of their grammatical blunders.
CHAPTER II, 9. 153
585, and Maitrt, p. a11, about asuras or demons. It is interesting to note that in the Introduction to the Mah4bhishya, there is an allusion to a story of the ‘demons’ being ‘ vanquished ’ in consequence of their grammatical blunders.
CHAPTER II, 9. 153
from heedlessness the gods attained to the Brahman. Death, verily, does not devour living creatures like a tiger; for, indeed, his form is not to be perceived. Some! say that death is different from this, (named) Yama, who dwells in the self*; the (practice of the) life of Brahmaéérins (being) immortality. That god governs his kingdom in the world of the Pitrzs, (being) good to the good, and not good to (those who are) not good. That death, (or) heedlessness, develops in men as desire, and afterwards as wrath, and in the shape of delusion®. And then travelling in devious paths‘ through egoism, one does not attain to union ° with the self. Those who are deluded by it*, and who remain under its influence, depart from this (world), and there again fall down’. Then the deities* gather around them. And then he undergoes death after death °. Being attached to the fruit of action, on action presenting itself, they follow after it '°, and do not cross
' Those deluded by worldly objects; ‘this’ means ‘heedlessness.’
* Sankara cites a stanza from Manu, which says that king Yama Vaivasvata dwells in the heart of every one. Cf. Aitareyaupanishad, p.187. The following clause he understands to contain two epithets of Yama, meaning ‘immortal, and intent on the Brahman.’ I follow Nflakan/ha, but not very confidently.
* Cf. Gttd, p. 57. Here we have the developments, the varying forms, of death or heedlessness.
* J.e. paths contrary to Srutis and Smritis.
* Concentration of mind on the self or Brahman.
* Le. the egoism spoken of before.
7 J.e. to this mortal world. Cf. Git4, p. 84, and Brihad&rasyaka, pp- 855, 856. There = from the next world. Sankara says, ‘having lived there.’
* Le. the senses. Cf Gftdé, p. 123, and inter alia tsopanishad, p. 10.
* Cf. Katha, p. 129, and Brthadarasyaka, p. 889.
* Le. the fruit. Cf. Kaséa, p. 155, and Mundaka, p. 317.
p. 154
There = from the next world. Sankara says, ‘having lived there.’
* Le. the senses. Cf Gftdé, p. 123, and inter alia tsopanishad, p. 10.
* Cf. Katha, p. 129, and Brthadarasyaka, p. 889.
* Le. the fruit. Cf. Kaséa, p. 155, and Mundaka, p. 317.
p. 154
beyond death. And the embodied (self), in consequence of not understanding union? with the real entity, proceeds on all hands* with attachment to enjoyments. That?, verily, is the great source of delusion to the senses ; for by contact ‘ with unreal entities, his migrations® are (rendered) inevitable ; because having his inner self contaminated by contact with unreal entities, he devotes himself to objects of sense on all sides, pondering on them (only). (That) pondering, verily, first ruins * him; and soon afterwards desire and wrath, after attacking him. These? lead children to death. But sensible men cross beyond death by their good sense. He who pondering (on the self) destroys*® (the) fugitive (objects of sense), not even thinking of them through contempt (for them), and who being possessed of knowledge destroys desires in this way, becomes, as it were, the death of death (itself), and swallows (it) up*. The being who
' Le. its identity with the Brahman.
2? Te. in various forms of life, Nflakasfha.
» The going about in search of enjoyments.
* The contact leads to pondering on them, and that to desire, &c., as described further on.
® Through various lives. Birth and death are certain for him.
® Ie. causes oblivion of his real nature, Sankara. Cf. the whole train of cause and effect at Gfta, p. 50 supra.
7 T.e. the pondering, desire, wrath, &c. As to ‘children,’ cf. Kasha, pp. 96 and 123, where bala is contrasted with dhira, as here. The ‘good sense’ is of help in withstanding the temptations of worldly objects.
* Destroys= abandons; pondering, just before this, is rendered by Sankara to mean ‘thinking of the objects as transient, impure,’ &c.
® Sankara cites on this a stanza of unknown authorship, which says, ‘The learned and clever man who knows the self, and by discrimination destroys all objects of sense, is said to be the death of death.’ See too p. 178 infra.
CHAPTER II, 17. 155
pursues desires, is destroyed (in pursuing) after the desires’. But casting away desires, a being gets rid of all taint* whatever. This body, void of enlightenment ?, seems (to be) a hell for (all) beings. Those who are avaricious run about‘, going headlong to a ditch, A man, O Kshatriya! who contemns everything else® learns nothing. To him (the body is) like a tiger made of straw®. And this internal self (joined to) delusion and fear* in consequence of wrath and avarice, within your body,— that verily is death *. Understanding death * to be thus produced, and adhering to knowledge, one is not afraid of death '° in this (world). In his province death is destroyed, as a mortal (is destroyed) on arriving in the province of death. ‘
Understanding death * to be thus produced, and adhering to knowledge, one is not afraid of death '° in this (world). In his province death is destroyed, as a mortal (is destroyed) on arriving in the province of death. ‘
Dhritarashéra said : The good, eternal, and most holy worlds", which
* On this Nilakan/ha quotes these lines, ‘The antelope, elephant, butterfly, bee, and fish—these five are destroyed by the five,’ i.e. the five objects of sense, sound, &c. See Santi Parvan (Moksha Dharma), chap. 174, st. 45.
* I.e. misery, Nilakan/ha; merit or sin, Sankara.
® I.e. void of discrimination between the real and unreal, Nflakantha; result of ignorance, Sankara. ‘A hell, as being full of filth,’ says Sankara, ‘such as phlegm, blood, excretions.’ Cf. Maitrtf, p. 48.
‘ As blind men groping about fall into a ditch, so do these, Sankara.
* I.e. other than the sensuous objects he loves; ‘learns nothing’ about the supreme Self which he disregards.
* Useless for any good purpose.
’ Cf. Taittirfya-upanishad, p. 102.
* As being ruinous to oneself. Sankara compares Gfti, p. 68. Cf. also Taittirtya-upanishad, p. 103, and see Brshadaramyaka, p. 61.
® Le. heedlessness and its developments as stated.
* Sankara cites on this Taittirtya-upanishad, p. 78.
" Such as Satyaloka, &c.
p. 156
are mentioned (as attainable) by the twice-born by means of worship’, those, say the Vedas, are the highest aim*. How is it, then, that one who understands this does not resort to action ?
Sanatsugata said :
(Thinking) so, an ignorant man does resort to action. The Vedas likewise do lay down various benefits * (for him). But that‘ (man) comes not hither*. (Becoming) the supreme self*, he attains the supreme, by the (right) path destroying the wrong paths 7.
Dhritarashéra said :
Who ® is it that constrains this unborn primeval
(self), if it is (itself) all this severally ®? And what
? Gyotish/oma, Asvamedha, and other rites.
* As leading to final emancipation.
* I.e. objects for which various ceremonies (or ‘ actions’) should be performed.
* Ie. the man of knowledge.
* Le. into the sphere of action. Cf. Gitd, p. 48.
* Knowing the supreme self is identical with becoming the supreme self, Muadaka, p. 323.
7 Le. getting rid of the paths which keep one away from the Brahman by means of contemplation of the Brahman, &c. _Nilakansha renders ‘right path’ to mean the Sushumad passage by which the soul proceeds to final emancipation, see KAandogya, p- 70; Kasha, p. 157.
* Sankara says: ‘ Having shown that true death is heedlessness, and having shown that heedlessness in its forms of anger &c. is the cause of all evil, and having also shown that death is destroyed by true knowledge, and having shown further that heaven &c. are really not man’s highest goal; the author has also implied the unity of the supreme and individual self. On that arises a doubt. which is stated in this passage.’
is the cause of all evil, and having also shown that death is destroyed by true knowledge, and having shown further that heaven &c. are really not man’s highest goal; the author has also implied the unity of the supreme and individual self. On that arises a doubt. which is stated in this passage.’
* All this=all the developments of the Brahman, ie. space, wind, fire, water, earth, vegetation, food, living creatures; see Taittittyopanishad, p. 68.
CHAPTER II, 2]. 157
has it to do, or what is its unhappiness'? Tell me all that accurately, O learned person !
Sanatsugata said :
There is great danger? in attributing distinctions to it. The everlasting * (principles) exist by connexion with the beginningless‘ (principle). So that his greatness is not lost at all*, and beings exist by connexion with the beginningless‘ (principle). That which is the real—the supreme Being *—is eternal. He creates the universe by means of changes’, for such is his power held to be; and for such connexions of things the Vedas are (authority) °.
' What is the purpose of its existence, and what misery does it undergo on entering the course of worldly life?
* «The danger,’ says Sankara, ‘is that of contravening Vedic texts such as “I am the Brahman,” “ Thou art that,” &c.’ May it not rather be that pointed out at Kashopanishad, p. 129, viz. never attaining final emancipation? Cf. also Nrisimha Tapini, p. 223.
® The individual selfs, Sankara. * Nature or maya.
* The appearance of degradation to an inferior state being delusive.
* The original word implies the possession of aisvarya, dharma, yasas, srt, vairagya, moksha. See Svetdsvatara, p. 329 (where the list is slightly different). For another definition, see Maitri, p. 6 (gloss).
* See note 9, p. 156.
* Sankara says: ‘The question of Dhritarashéra having suggested a difference between two principles, one of which constrains, and the other of which is constrained, the answer is—Such a difference ought not to be alleged, as it involves “danger.” Then the question arises, How is the difference, which does appear, to be explained? The reply is, It is due to the beginningless principle—delusion or ignorance. The next sentence shows that the universe as it appears is also a result of delusion.’ Nilakaw/ha says expressly, changes= delusion. He renders the original which we have translated by ‘ beginningless’ first, to mean ‘collection of objecis of enjoyments.’ Sankara’s explanation seems tautological as regards the words ‘connexion with the beginningless,’ which occur twice in the above. Nila-
p. 158
Dhrrtardshéra said:
Since some practise piety! in this world, and some likewise practise impiety in this world; is the piety destroyed by the sin, or else does the piety destroy sin?
Sanatsugata said :
Nila-
p. 158
Dhrrtardshéra said:
Since some practise piety! in this world, and some likewise practise impiety in this world; is the piety destroyed by the sin, or else does the piety destroy sin?
Sanatsugata said :
Whichever* he adheres to, the man of understanding always destroys both by means of knowledge ; (that is) settled *. Likewise, in the other case ‘, the embodied (self) obtains merit; and to such a one sin (also) accrues; (that too is) settled*. Departing (from this world), he enjoys by his actions both (kinds of) fruit, which are not enduring *—of actions (which are) pure, and of (those which are) sinful. The man of understanding casts aside sin by piety in this (world), for know that his piety is more powerful *. Those Brahmazas, in whom there is emulation? about (their) piety, as there is in strong men about (their) strength, after departing from this world, become glorious in heaven *. And kantha’s is not quite clear. May the expression on the second occasion mean, that the connexion by which beings are stated before to exist has had no beginning—has existed from eternity? The translation should then run thus: ‘And beings exist by a connexion which had no beginning ;’ (see Sdriraka Bhashya, p. 494.) Connexions of things=creation of universe by his power.
1 E.g. Agnishfoma, &c., Sankara.
* T.e. impiety or piety, sin or merit.
* In Srutis and Smritis, which Sankara quotes. A’hAndogya, p.622; Mundaka, p. 309; Brrhadiranyaka, p. 911. See, too, Maitri, p.131.
* Of the man devoid of knowledge.
* Cf. Gitd, p. 76, and Brrhadiranyaka, p. 636.
* See p. 164, note g infra.
7 The feeling of one’s own superiority over others in piety.
® ‘In the shape of Nakshatras,’ says Sankara, which is not quite intelligible. See AAindogya, p. 258, and Anugité infra, p. 240.
CHAPTER II, 31. 159
to those in whom there is no emulation about (their) piety, that (piety) is a means of (acquiring) knowledge ?. Such Brahmasas released from this (world), go to the heaven which is free from the threefold source of pain*. People who understand the Vedas call his conduct good. (But) people closely connected *, as well as strangers, do not pay much regard to him. Wherever he may believe food and drink for a Brahmama to exist in abundance, like water on grass in the autumn, there would he live and not be vexed‘. (To him) only that person is good, and no other (as a companion), who does nothing in excess, and who occasions fear and injury to a taciturn man®. And his food is acceptable to the good, who does not vex the self of a taciturn man, and who does not destroy the property of a Brahmana*. A Brdhmaaa should hold, that living in the midst of kinsmen, his actions should be always unknown’; and he should not
* According tothe Vedintic theory, the acts of piety purify the inner man, and are thus a stepping-stone to knowledge. See Introduction, p.147 supra. Cf. Gita, p. 122; and Brshadaranyaka, p. 899.
See Introduction, p.147 supra. Cf. Gita, p. 122; and Brshadaranyaka, p. 899.
* Le. physical, mental, and such as is caused by superhuman agency. This is Sankara’s explanation. It is somewhat farfetched, but I can find none better. Cf. Git4, p. 49. And see also Brihadiranyaka, p. 876, and the commentary of Sankara there with Anandagiri’s gloss.
* Eg. wife, children, &c.
* T.e. vexed as to how his livelihood is to be earned, &c.
* Excess, e.g. too much obsequiousness towards a ‘taciturn man, owing to his holiness, &c. Taciturn man = ascetic. Injury = disrespect, &c. Perhaps the protest against worldliness is here carried to an extreme. Sankara cites Manu as a parallel, ‘A Brahmawa should be afraid of (worldly) respect as of poison.’
* E.g. the Kusa grass, deerskin, &c., mentioned at Gfta, p. 68.
* Te. he should not parade his actions.) Sankara compares Vasish/ka and aVedic text. See, too, the quotation at Taitt. Aran. p.go2.
p. 160
think' (about them). What Brahmaza ought to think of the inner self, which is void of symbols 2, immovable, pure, and free from all pairs of opposites, in this way? ? What sin is not committed by that thief, who steals away his own self‘, who regards his self as one thing, when it is a different thing. The far-seeing Brahmaza, who knows the Brahman, is not wearied 5, he receives nothing *; he is honoured, free from trouble’, and wise, but acts as if he was not wise*. As dogs eat what is vomited, so do they, enjoying their own bravery’, eat what is vomited, always with disaster (to themselves). Those twice-born persons, who are not
' Cf. Gita, p. 103. Sankara suggests an alternative explanation of this stanza, which will make it mean that one performing the operations of the senses, should devote oneself nevertheless to the unknown principle, and not consider the senses to be the self.
* Te. beyond the reach of inference ; ‘subtle,’ says Sankara. Cf. Svetasvatara, p. 364; Brrhadaranyaka, p. 855; Maitri, p. 182; and Katha, p. 149, where Sankara suggests a somewhat different meaning. As to immovable, cf. fsa, p. 10, and Gita, p. 104. Sankara renders it by ‘ void of activity ;’ and pure he paraphrases by ‘free from ignorance and other taints.’
> It is difficult to say what ‘in this way’ refers to. Sankara renders it by ‘as possessing qualities appertaining to the two kinds of body.’ On Sankara’s suggested meaning of the stanza preceding (see note 1), it would refer to the confusion of the senses with the self.
* Such a person is called a destroyer of his own self at Lsopanishad, p. 9.
* Te. by the troubles of worldly life.
* Cf. ‘without belongings’ at Gita, p. 128.
7 Anger and other obstacles to concentration of mind.
* Le. unintelligent. The text of Vasishéha referred to in note 7, p. 159, says he should act like an unintelligent man. Cf. also Gaudupida-kirikAs, p. 443, and Sirfraka Bhishya, p. 1041.
* Cf. ‘without belongings’ at Gita, p. 128.
7 Anger and other obstacles to concentration of mind.
* Le. unintelligent. The text of Vasishéha referred to in note 7, p. 159, says he should act like an unintelligent man. Cf. also Gaudupida-kirikAs, p. 443, and Sirfraka Bhishya, p. 1041.
® Tle. singing the praises of their own greatness and worth, instead of keeping their ‘conduct unknown.’
CHAPTER II, 41. 161
first' in respect of human wealth, but who are first in the Vedas?, are unconquerable, not to be shaken}; they should be understood to be forms of the Brahman. Whosoever may in this (world) know all the gods ‘—doers of favours—he is not equal to a Brahmawta, (nor even) he* for whom he exerts himself. The man who makes no efforts *, and is respected, does not, being respected, think himself respected’, nor does he become vexed in consequence of disrespect. One who is respected * should think it to be a natural operation of people, like their opening or closing of the eyelids, that the learned respect him in this world. One who is not respected should think, that the deluded people who do not under- — stand piety, and who are devoid of (knowledge of) the world and the Sastras, will never respect one who is worthy of respect. Respect and taciturnity *, verily, never dwell together; for this world is (the field) for respect, the next for taciturnity, as is understood '*. For worldly wealth dwells in the
* Highly esteemed for or strongly attached to, Sankara. Human wealth=wife, offspring, property, &c. Cf. AXAandogya, p. 319; Brihad4ramyaka, p. 262.
* I.e. veracity and other duties taught by the Vedas.
* «They need fear nought,’ says Nilakan/ha.
* Tle. may sacrifice to them, Sankara.
* Not even the deity to whom the sacrifice is offered is equal to one who knows the Brahman. Cf. Taittirfya, p. 23, and Anugfi, p. 250.
* Ie. one who is ‘taciturn’ and does not parade his greatness.
* He does not care for the respect shown him.
* Because he knows the Brahman.
* Le. restraint of all senses, not of speech only. For the contrast compare that between sreya and preya at Kasha, p. 92.
* Le. by all men of understanding. Sankara’s rendering is diferent: ‘The next, which is known as Tad, is for taciturnity.’ He cites for this Gitl, p. 120.
[8] Mp. 162 sphere of respect ?, and that, too, is an obstacle *. While the Brahmic wealth*, O Kshatriya! is diffcult to be attained by any one devoid of knowledge. The ways (to it) are stated by the good to be of various descriptions, and difficult to reach—truth, straightforwardness, modesty ‘, restraint (of senses), purity, knowledge, which are the six impediments (in the way) of respect and delusion.
Cuapter III. °
Dhrttardshéra said :
Who possesses this taciturnity *, and which of the two ® is taciturnity? Describe, O learned person! the condition of taciturnity here. Does a learned man reach taciturnity” by taciturnity ? And how, O sage! do they practise taciturnity in this world ?
Cuapter III. °
Dhrttardshéra said :
Who possesses this taciturnity *, and which of the two ® is taciturnity? Describe, O learned person! the condition of taciturnity here. Does a learned man reach taciturnity” by taciturnity ? And how, O sage! do they practise taciturnity in this world ?
" T.e. they both follow on devotion to worldly life.
? T.e. in the way to final emancipation.
* The enjoyment of supreme felicity, Brahmananda (Sankara); the greatness consisting of a knowledge of Ask, Yagus, Saman, and the substance of their teaching, which is worthy of a Brahmaza (Nilakantha). See, too, Anugftd, p. 232.
* Modesty = being ashamed of doing wrong; restraint (of senses) =mental restraint; and purity is both internal and external,—Sankara; knowledge is, of course, knowledge of the Brahman.
* Te. that spoken of in the last chapter.
* Viz. mere silence, or the contemplation of the self after restraining all the senses. In the Br*hadaraayaka-upanishad, Sankara (p. 605) renders the original word, mauna, to mean, ‘ The fruit of the destruction of the consciousness of anything other than the self.’ And his commentator makes it clearer thus: ‘The conviction in the mind that one is the self—the supreme Brahman—and that there is nothing else existing but oneself.’
" T.e. the highest seat—the Brahman; for mind, sense, &c. are all non-existent there. Cf. Kasha, p.151, and Maitrf, p. 161.
CHAPTER III, 4. 163
Sanatsugata said :
Since the Vedas, together with the mind ’, fail to attain to him, hence (is he) taciturnity *—he about whom the words of the Vedas were uttered *, and who, O king! shines forth as consubstantial‘ with them.
Dhrttardshéra said :
Does * the twice-born person who studies the Rié and the Yagus texts, and the S4ma-veda, committing sinful. (acts), become tainted, or does he not become tainted ?
Sanatsugita said :
Not the S4man texts, nor yet the A#é texts, nor the Yagus texts * save him, O acute sir! from sinful
* Cf. Kenopanishad, p. 39; Kasha, p.152; Taittirfya, p. 119.
* «Taciturnity is his name,’ says Nilakan/ha.
? Or, says Sankara, ‘who is the author of the Vedas.’
* Le. ‘with the Vedas,’ says Nilakan/ha, Om, the quintessence of the Vedas, being a name of the Brahman (as to which cf. Gita, p. 79, and Maitrf, p. 84). Sankara takes the whole expression to mean gyotirmaya, consisting of light. Nilakaw¢ha says this stanza answers the five following questions put in the stanza preceding, viz. of what use is taciturnity? which of the two is taciturnity? &c., as above. The first four questions are answered by the first two lines of this stanza—the substance of the answer being, that the use of taciturnity is to attain the seat which is not to be grasped even by the mind, that taciturnity includes both restraint of mind and of the external senses. By means of such restraint, the external and internal worlds cease to be perceived as existing, and the highest goal is attained.
By means of such restraint, the external and internal worlds cease to be perceived as existing, and the highest goal is attained.
* This question arises naturally enough on Nilakassha’s interpretation of the preceding stanza, the meaning of which is in substance that the Vedas cannot grasp the Brahman fully, but they are of use towards a rudimentary comprehension of it, as is said farther on, see p. 172 infra.
* Cf. Svetisvatara-upanishad, p. 339; see, too, Nrisimha T4pinf, pp- 81-98.
M2
p. 164
action. I donottell youan untruth. The A4andas do not save a sinful deceitful? man who behaves deceitfully *, At the time of the termination (of his life), the AZandas abandon * him, as birds who have got wings (abandon their) nest.
Dhvtarash/¢ra said :
If, O acute sir! the Vedas are not able to save one who understands the Vedas, then whence is this eternal talk‘ of the Brahmamzas ?
Sanatsugata said :
O you of great glory! this universe becomes manifest through his special forms—names® and the rest. The Vedas proclaim (his form) after describing (it) well*, and (they? also) state his difference from the universe. For that® are this penance and sacrifice prescribed. By these a learned man acquires merit, and afterwards destroying sin by merit ®, he has his self illuminated by knowledge. By knowledge the learned man attains
» Te. one who parades his piety.
® Ie. hypocritically.
* I.e. do not rise to his memory—Nilakansha, citing Gfti, p. 78 supra.
* Scil. about the veneration due to one who has studied the Vedas—Nilakanféha, citing one or two passages in point.
* The universe consists of ‘names and forms,’ the reality being the Brahman only. Cf. AAandogya, p. 407 seq.
* Sankara refers to Taittiriya-upanishad, p. 68; A/AAndogya, Pp. 596 seq. &c.
* Sankara takes this to mean ‘sages,’ who, according to him, state the difference. He quotes Pardsara for this.
* Ie. the Brahman, that is to say, for attaining to it. Penance= Aandrayana and other observances; sacrifice=gyotishfoma, &c.
* Cf. p. 158 supra, and Taittiriya-4ranyaka, p. 888.
CHAPTER III, 12. 165
the self. But, on the other hand, one who wishes for the fruit—heaven *—takes with him * all that he has done in this (world), enjoys it in the next, and then returns to the path‘ (of this world). Penance is performed in this world; the fruit is enjoyed elsewhere. But the penance of Brahmamas is further developed*; that of others remains only as much (as when first performed).
Dhritardshéra said : How does the pure penance become developed and well developed*? O Sanatsugata! tell (me) how I should understand that, O Lord!
Sanatsugata said: This penance, free from sin’, is called pure*; and this pure penance becomes developed and well developed, not otherwise®. All this'®, O Kshatriya!
' Cf. SvetAsvatara, p. 327; Mundaka, p. 323.
O Sanatsugata! tell (me) how I should understand that, O Lord!
Sanatsugata said: This penance, free from sin’, is called pure*; and this pure penance becomes developed and well developed, not otherwise®. All this'®, O Kshatriya!
' Cf. SvetAsvatara, p. 327; Mundaka, p. 323.
* So Sankara. Nilakan/ha takes the original word to mean ‘the group of the senses,’ and the whole phrase to mean ‘enjoyments of sense.’ Nilakas/ha is supported by a passage further on, p- 167. But as to ‘those who wish for heaven,’ cf. Gita, pp. 48-84.
§ Te. in the form of merit, &c.
* Cf. Gft4, p. 84.
* Cf. KA4&ndogya, p. 23. Brahmasas=those that know the Brahman. See p. 171 infra.
* I am not quite sure about the meaning of the original here. Rrddha, which I have rendered ‘ developed,’ Nflakan/ha understands to mean ‘what is performed merely for show.’ What has been rendered ‘well developed’ in the text, Nilakan/ha takes to mean ‘performed from some desire,’ &c.
7 Anger, desire, &c.
* The original is kevala. Nflakantha says it is so called as being a means of kaivalya, ‘ final emancipation.’
* I.e. not that which is not free from sin, which latter is not developed at all.
* All objects of enjoyment, Nilakaw/Aa.
p. 166
has for its root that penance about which you question me. By penance', those conversant with the Vedas attained immortality, after departing from this world.
DhrvztarAsh¢ra said:
I have heard about penance free from sin, O Sanatsugdéta! Tell me what is the sin (connected) with penance, so that I may understand the eternal mystery ?, Sanatsugata said:
The twelve beginning with wrath, and likewise the seven cruelties, are the defects (connected) with it; and there are (stated) in the Sdstras twelve merits (connected) with it, beginning with knowledge, which are known to the twice-born, and may be developed. Wrath, desire*, avarice, delusion ‘, craving®, mercilessness, censoriousness, vanity, grief®, attachment’, envy’, reviling others—these twelve should always be avoided by a man of high quali-
’ Cf. Brihadaranyaka, p. 899. Tapas is variously rendered. See inter alia, Prasna, pp. 162-170; Svet4svatara, p. 307; Mundaka, pp. 270-280, 311-314; Khaindogya, p. 136; Anugita, pp. 247, 339.
* Te. Brahma-vidya, or science of the Brahman, Nilakam/ha ; the Brahman itself, Sankara.
* Te. lust.
* Want of discrimination between right and wrong.
® Desire to taste worldly objects.
* For the loss of anything desired.
T Desire to enjoy worldly objects. The difference between this and craving, according to Sankara, appears to be between merely tasting and continual enjoyment. According to Nilakamsha, the former is a desire which is never contented; the latter is merely a general liking.
* Impatience of other people’s prosperity ; censoriousness being the pointing out of flaws in other people’s merits; and reviling being an ignoring of the merits and merely abusing.
CHAPTER III, 19. 167
* Impatience of other people’s prosperity ; censoriousness being the pointing out of flaws in other people’s merits; and reviling being an ignoring of the merits and merely abusing.
CHAPTER III, 19. 167
fications'. These, O king of kings! attend each and every man, wishing to find some opening’, as a hunter (watches) animals. [Boastful, lustful, haughty, irascible, unsteady*, one who does not protect (those dependent‘ on him), these six sinful acts are performed by sinful men who are not afraid (even) in the midst of great danger ®.] One whose thoughts are (all) about enjoyments, who prospers by injuring (others), who repents of generosity, who is miserly, who is devoid of the power® (of knowledge), who esteems the group” (of the senses), who hates his wife *—these seven, different (from those previously mentioned), are the seven forms of cruelty. Knowledge, truth, self-restraint, sacred learning, freedom from animosity (towards living beings), modesty *, endurance'*, freedom from censoriousness, sacrifice, gift, courage "', quiescence !*,— these are the twelve great observances * of a Brahmasa. Whoever is not devoid of these twelve can govern this whole world, and those who are
1 Scil. for attaining to the Brahman.
* Some weak point by which they may attack a man.
® Fickle in friendship, &c.
* Such as a wife, &c.
* Connected with this or the next world, Nflakan/ha. This and a stanza further on I place witbin brackets, as it is not quite certain whether Sankara’s copy had them, though they are now in some of our copies of the text with his commentary. See Introduction.
* Cf. Muadaka, p. 319; KA&ndogya, p. 494.
* See note 2, at page 165.
* The wife having no other protector.
* See note 4, at page 162.
'* Of pairs of opposites, such as heat and cold, &c.
“ Restraint of senses in presence of their objects.
* Cf. Gita, pp. 69, 70.
%* Which are serviceable in attaining the highest goal.
p. 168
* The wife having no other protector.
* See note 4, at page 162.
'* Of pairs of opposites, such as heat and cold, &c.
“ Restraint of senses in presence of their objects.
* Cf. Gita, pp. 69, 70.
%* Which are serviceable in attaining the highest goal.
p. 168
possessed of three, two, or even one (of these) become, in (due) course, distinguished (for knowledge) and identified with the Brahman'. ([Self-restraint, abandonment’, and freedom from heedlessness—on these depends immortality. And the talented Brahmazas say that truth is chief over them.] Selfrestraint has eighteen defects; if (any one of them is) committed, it is an obstacle (to self-restraint). They are thus stated. Untruthfulness, backbiting, thirst *, antipathy (to all beings), darkness‘, repining’, hatred* of people, haughtiness, quarrelsomeness, injuring living creatures, reviling others, garrulity, vexation’, want of endurance®, want of courage ®, imperfection ', sinful conduct, and slaughter. That is called self-restraint by the good, which is free from these defects. Frenzy has eighteen defects"; and abandonment is of six kinds. The contraries of those which have been laid down " are stated to be the defects of frenzy. Abandonment of six kinds is excellent. Of those six, the third is hard to achieve. With it one certainly crosses
' The original is the word ‘taciturnity’ as at p. 162 supra.
* Offering one’s acts to God (Nilakansha), as to which ef. Gita, p. 64. See also p. 182 infra for this stanza.
5 Ie. for objects of sense. * Ignorance.
* Discontent even when one obtains much.
* This is active; antipathy is passive only.
7 Of oneself, by brooding on evil. Cf. Taittiriya, p. 119. One copy of Sankara’s commentary says this means ‘thinking ill of others without cause.’
* Of pairs of opposites.
* Restraint of senses in presence of their objects.
® Scil. as defects of self-restraint, viz. uniruthfulness, &c.
CHAPTER III, 27. 169
beyond all misery without distinction’. That being achieved, (everything) is accomplished*. The (first is the) giving away of sons and wealth to a deserving man who asks (for them); the second is gifts at Vedic ceremonies, and gifts at ceremonies laid down in the Smvttis®. The abandonment of desires, O king of kings! by means of indifference (to worldly objects) is laid down as the third‘. With these one should become free from heedlessness. That freedom from heedlessness, too, has eight characteristics, and is (a) great (merit). Truthfulness, concentration, absorbed contemplation, reflexion , and also indifference (to worldly objects), not stealing °, living the life of a Brahma4arin, and
Scil. any distinction as to physical, mental, or that which is caused by superhuman agency.
* Literally, ‘all is conquered.’ Everything that needs to be done is done. Cf. Kas/hopanishad, p. 155; Musdaka, p. 317.
any distinction as to physical, mental, or that which is caused by superhuman agency.
* Literally, ‘all is conquered.’ Everything that needs to be done is done. Cf. Kas/hopanishad, p. 155; Musdaka, p. 317.
* Another interpretation of ish/ApQrta is ‘offerings to gods, and offerings to the manes;’ a third ‘sacrifices, &c., and works of charity, such as digging tanks and wells ;’ for a fourth, see Sankara on Mundaka, p. 291.
‘ Each of the three classes mentioned contains two sub-classes, and so the six are made up. It is not quite easy to see the two h- ads under the third class; but perhaps indifference, and the consequent abandonment of desire, may be the two intended. To indicate that, I have adopted the construction which takes the words ‘by means of indifference’ with abandonment, instead of with ‘ gifts at Vedic ceremonies,’ &c. Sankara seems to understand ‘giving away of wealth’ with the words‘ by means of indifference,’ and thus to constitute the second head under the third class. But he is not quite clear.
* Concentration=fixing the mind continuously on some object, such as the being in the sun, &c.; contemplation is that in which one identifies oneself with the Brahman; reflexion as to what one is, whence one comes, and so forth.
* Sankara says this may refer to the ‘stealing’ mentioned at p. 160. The life of a Brahmasirin is here taken to mean conp. 170likewise freedom from all belongings'. Thus have the defects of self-restraint been stated; one should avoid those defects. Freedom from (those) defects is freedom from heedlessness; and that, too, is deemed to have eight characteristics*. Let truth be your (very) self, O king of kings! On truth all the worlds rest*. Truth is said to be their main (principle). Immortality depends on truth‘. Getting rid of (these) defects, one should practise the observance of penance. This is the conduct prescribed by the Creator. Truth is the solemn vow of the good. The pure penance, which is free from these defects, and possessed of these characteristics, becomes developed, and well developed®. I will state to you, in brief, O king of kings! what you ask of me. This (observance) ° is destructive of sin, and pure, and releases (one) from birth and death and oldage’. If one is free from the five senses, and also from the mind §, O descendant of Bharata! also from
(thoughts regarding) the past and the future ®, one becomes happy.
Dhritardshéra said: Some people make great boasts in consequence of (their knowing) the Vedas with the Akhydnas as tinence by the commentators, as also at Mundaka, p. 311 inter alia. See also AAandogya, p. 533.
' Son, wife, home, &c.; as to which cf. Gfti, p. 103, and Nrisimha T4pinf, p. 198, commentary.
* The eight mentioned already. > Cf. Tait. Aran. p. 885.
* Cf. Mundaka, p. 312; Santi Parvan (Moksha), chap. 199, st. 64 seq. Immortality = final emancipation.
* P. 165 supra. * Of penance, that is to say.
7 Cf. Gita, p. 109 for the collocation.
103, and Nrisimha T4pinf, p. 198, commentary.
* The eight mentioned already. > Cf. Tait. Aran. p. 885.
* Cf. Mundaka, p. 312; Santi Parvan (Moksha), chap. 199, st. 64 seq. Immortality = final emancipation.
* P. 165 supra. * Of penance, that is to say.
7 Cf. Gita, p. 109 for the collocation.
* Kashopanishad, p. 151; Maitri, p. 161. Sankara seems to take the five and the senses separately ; the five meaning the five classes of sensuous objects. ® Past losses and future gains, Nilakan/ha.
CHAPTER III, 38. 171
the fifth'; others, likewise, are (masters) of four Vedas; others, too, of three Vedas; others are (masters) of two Vedas, and of one Veda; and others of no Veda*. Tell me which of these is the greatest, whom I may know (to be) a Brahmaza.
Sanatsugata said :
Through ignorance of the one Veda*—the one truth—O king of kings! numerous Vedas came into existence. Some‘ only adhere to the truth. The fancies of those who have fallen away from the truth are abortive, and through ignorance of the truth, ceremonies become amplified®. One should understand a Brahmama, who (merely) reads much, to be a man of many words*. Know him only to be the (true) Brahmaza, who swerves not from the truth ’. O you who are the highest among men*! the Khandas, indeed, refer of themselves * to it. There-
‘ Cf, as to this, Max Millers Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 38 seq.; and AAindogya, pp. 164, 474, 493; Brihadaranyaka, Pp. 456, 687, 926; Maitr?, p.171; Nrisimha TApint, p. 105.
* The original is ‘void of Rsts.’ The commentators give no explanation. Does it mean those who abandon the karma-marga? Heretics who reject all Vedas are scarcely likely to be referred to in this way. Nilakaw/ha’s interpretation of all this is very different. See his gloss.
* Sankara gives various interpretations of this. Perhaps the best is to take it as meaning knowledge. ‘The one knowledge— the one truth’—would then be like the famous text—Taittirfya, p- 56—‘ The Brahman is truth, knowledge,’ &c.
* For this phrase cf. Git4, p. 73.
* Those who do not understand the Brahman lose their natural power of obtaining what they wish, and so go in for various ceremonies for various special benefits. Cf. KAandogya, p. 541; Ghd, p. 47; and p. 184 infra.
* Cf. Brshadaranyaka, p. 893. 7 Ibid. p. 636.
® Literally, ‘highest among bipeds,’ a rather unusual expression.
* Nilakas/ha says, ‘The part of the Vedas which teaches the
p. 172
Cf. KAandogya, p. 541; Ghd, p. 47; and p. 184 infra.
* Cf. Brshadaranyaka, p. 893. 7 Ibid. p. 636.
® Literally, ‘highest among bipeds,’ a rather unusual expression.
* Nilakas/ha says, ‘The part of the Vedas which teaches thep. 172 fore, studying them, the learned persons who understand the Adandas, attain to the Veda, not that which is to be known'. Among the Vedas, there is none which understands*. By the unintelligent’, one understands not the Veda, nor the object of knowledge *. He who knows the Veda knows the object of knowledge. He who knows the object of knowledge® knows not the truth. He who understands the Vedas understands also the object of knowledge; but that® is not understood by the Vedas or by those who understand the Vedas. Still the Brahmazas who understand the Vedas, understand the Veda by means of the Vedas*. As the branch of a tree with regard to the part of a portion of the glorious * one, so, they declare, are the Vedas with knowledge of the supreme is enough by itself for its purpose; it is not like the part about rites, &c., which rites must be performed before they serve any useful purpose.’ The G#adnakanda is enough by itself for understanding the Brahman. Sankara compares Git4, p. 113, and Ka/fa, p. 102.
’ The Veda=the Brahman, as above, cf. SvetAsvatara, p. 372 and commentary ; that which is to be known=the material world, which is a subject for human knowledge.
? Scil. understands the Veda—the Brahman.
8 *The mind,’ says Nilakan¢ha; literally, ‘that which is to be understood.’
* Because a real knowledge of it requires a knowledge of the Brahman. As to the next clause cf. inter alia AAandogya, p. 384; Brthadiranyaka, p. 450. °
* This is the converse of the last sentence, as to which cf. Brthadfranyaka, p. 925.
* The supreme.
* The apparent contradiction is explained in the next sentence.
* Ie. the moon. This refers to the well-known sikh4tandranydya. As the small digit of the moon, which cannot be perceived by itself, is pointed out as being at the tip of a branch of a tree pointing towards the moon, so the Vedas are of use as pointing towards the Brahman, though inaccurately and imperfectly.
CHAPTER III, 45. 173
As the small digit of the moon, which cannot be perceived by itself, is pointed out as being at the tip of a branch of a tree pointing towards the moon, so the Vedas are of use as pointing towards the Brahman, though inaccurately and imperfectly.
CHAPTER III, 45. 173
regard to the subject of understanding the supreme self. I understand him to be a Brahmaza who is ingenious, and explains! (Vedic texts). He who apprehends (those texts) thus*, does verily know that supreme (principle). One should not go in search of it among (things) antagonistic ® to it at all. Not looking (for him there) one sees that Lord by means of the Veda‘. Remaining quiet, one should practise devotion, and should not even form a wish in the mind®. To him the Brahman presents ® itself, and directly afterwards he attains to the perfect? (one). By taciturnity*, verily, does one become a sage; (one does) not (become) a sage by dwelling in a forest®*. And he is called the highest sage, who understands that indestructible (principle). One is called an analyser '° (also) in consequence of
} Scil. in the manner just indicated.
* As giving an idea of the Brahman. The first step to a knowledge of the Brahman is to ‘hear’ about it from Vedic texts. Cf. Brihadaranyaka, p. 925.
* Such as the body, the senses, &c., which must be distinguished as quite distinct from the self, though most often confounded with it.
* Such passages, namely, as ‘Thou art that, I am the Brahman, &c.
* About the objects of the senses.
® Cf. Kasha, p. 155.
* Cf. XA4&ndogya, p. 516. The Bhdman there is the same as the Bahu here, viz. the Brahman. Sankara says expressly in his comment on the Upanishad text, that Bahu and BhOman, among other words, are synonyms.
* Self-restraint, as explained before at p. 163.
* Though this is not unimportant, as may be seen from the contrast between town and forest at AAandogya, p. 340. Sce also Maitrf, p. 100; Mundaka, p. 240. As to the ‘highest sage,’ see Brihad4ranyaka, p. 899, where the passage about ‘sacrifice, gift, penance’ should be compared with Gitd, p. 122.
O Sanatsugata! since you have spoken these words of highest significance, relating to the Brahman, and of numerous forms‘, give me that advice which is excellent, and difficult to obtain in the
by means of a course (of study) in the Vedas *.
CnaptTer IV.
Dhyrvtardsh¢ra said :
O Sanatsugata! since you have spoken these words of highest significance, relating to the Brahman, and of numerous forms‘, give me that advice which is excellent, and difficult to obtain in the analyser (the word is the same as the word for grammarian) is he who analyses objects, not words merely. Now the true analysis of objects reduces them all to the Brahman (cf. XKAAndogya, p. 407; Brshadaranyaka, p. 152); and the sage understands this, and makes the analysis accordingly, so he is rightly called an analyser.
? This again is not clear, and the discrepancies of the MSS. make it more perplexing. The meaning, I take to be, that a man may perceive all material things, such as the worlds, Bhfr, &c. (as the commentators put it), but to be really omniscient, you must have knowledge of the truth—the Brahman, See Sabh4 Parvan, chapter V, stanza 7. And see, too, Brihadiraayaka, p. 613.
* P. 167 supra.
* ‘Hearing the Vedéntas—Upanishads,’ &c., says Sankara. See note 2 supra, p. 173.
* Does this mean referring to many aspects of the Brahman? Sankara merely says ninfrQp4. Nilakam/ha takes it differently, and as meaning that in which everything is elucidated; ‘relating to the Brahman’ Nilakantha takes to mean ‘leading to the Brahman,’ or ‘instrument for attaining to the Brahman.’
CHAPTER IV, 5. 175
midst of these created objects’. Such is my request, O youth! Sanatsugata said:
This Brahman, O king! about which you question me with such perseverance, is not to be attained by anybody who is in a hurry. When the mind is absorbed in the understanding’, then can that knowledge, which must be deeply pondered over, be attained by living the life of a Brahmaf#4rin*. For you are speaking of that primordial knowledge‘, which consists in the truth; which is obtained by the good by living the life of Brahmaéaérins*; which being obtained, men cast off this mortal world; and which knowledge, verily, is to be invariably (found) in those who have been brought up under preceptors °.
Dhritarashéra said :
Since that knowledge is capable of being truly acquired by living the life of a Brahmaéérin, therefore tell me, O Brahmana! of what description the life of a BrahmaZArin is’.
Sanatsugata said: Those who entering (as it were) the womb? of a
' In this material world, the highest knowledge is not to be got. Cf. Kasha, p. 96. * Ie. withdrawn from objects and fixed on the self only. Cf.
Gh&, p. 79, and Maitri, p. 179, where, however, we have hrid for buddhi.
* Virofana and Indra do so according to the XAAndogya, p. 570. See also Mundaka, p. 311.
* The object of which is the primal Brahman.
* Cf. Kkandogya, p. 534; and Gita, pp. 78, 79, and the passage from the Kaéha there cited.
* Khandogya, pp. 264-459. " See Khandogya, p. 553 5¢q-
* Le. attending closely upon him ; foetus = pupil.
p. 176
570. See also Mundaka, p. 311.
* The object of which is the primal Brahman.
* Cf. Kkandogya, p. 534; and Gita, pp. 78, 79, and the passage from the Kaéha there cited.
* Khandogya, pp. 264-459. " See Khandogya, p. 553 5¢q-
* Le. attending closely upon him ; foetus = pupil.
p. 176
preceptor, and becoming (as it were) a foetus, practise the life of Brahma&arins, become even in this world authors of Sastras!, and they repair to the highest truth? after casting off (this) body. They subjugate desires here in this world, practising forbearance in pursuit of the Brahmic state*; and with courage, they even here remove the self out of the body ‘, like the soft fibres from the Muaga. Father and mother, O descendant of Bharata! only form the body. But the birth® obtained from the preceptor, that verily is true®, and likewise immortal. He perfects? (one), giving (one) immortality. Recognising what he has done (for one), one should not injure him. The disciple should always make obeisance to the preceptor®; and, free from heedlessness, should always desire sacred instruction. When the pure man obtains knowledge by this same course of discipleship®, that is the first quarter of his life as a Brahmaédrin. As (is) his conduct
' Learned, men of knowledge, Sankara.
* The supreme, which is described as ‘truth, knowledge,’ &c. In our ancient works the truth often means the real.
® The state of being absorbed in the Brahman. Cf. Gftd, p. 52.
* Cf. Katha, p. 158.
®* Sankara cites Apastamba (p. 11) in support of this, and Prasnaupanishad, p. 256. The consciousness of being one with the Brahman is a new birth. See, too, Musdaka, p. 282.
* That birth is not merely delusive, and does not result in death.
T Immortality or final emancipation is not to be achieved without knowledge, which can only be got from a preceptor. And one is not perfect without that immortality; one is limited by the conditions of human existence. See Nirukta (Roth’s ed.), p. 41.
* Sankara compares Svetisvatara, p. 3743 see also p. 203 infra, The necessity of having a Guru is often insisted on even in the Upanishads. Cf. Muadaka, p. 282; AAindogya, p. 264.
® Staied at the beginning of this speech, Sankara,