Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1II, 1. * The same verse occurs in the Kasha 6, 16, and is frequently quoted elsewhere, for instance, Mait. comm. p. 164. For vishvann, the right reading would seem to be vishvak. In the Mait. Up. VI, 30, the Trishfubh are reduced to Anush/ubh verses. See also Prasna Up. III, 6-7; Muzd. Up. II, 2. 8 Here the highest problem is treated again, the knowledge of the true Self, which leads beyond the world of Brahma (masc.), and enables the individual self to return into the Highest Self. VIIY PRAPATHAKA, 7 KHANDA, 3. 135 holding fuel in their hands, as is the custom for pupils approaching their master. 3. They dwelt there as pupils for thirty-two years. Then Pragdpati asked them: ‘For what purpose have you both dwelt here ?’ They replied: ‘A saying of yours is being repeated, viz. “the Self which is free from sin, free from old age, from death and grief, from hunger and thirst, which desires nothing but what it ought to desire, and imagines nothing but what it ought to imagine, that it is which we must search out, that it is which we must try to understand. He who has searched out that Self and understands it, obtains all worlds and all desires.” Now we both have dwelt here because we wish for that Self,’ Pragapati said to them: ‘The person that is seen © in the eye’, that is the Self. This is what I have said. This is the immortal, the fearless, this is Brahman.’ . They asked: ‘Sir, he who is perceived in the water, and he who is perceived in a mirror, who is he?’ He replied: ‘He himself indeed is seen in all these *.’ 1 The commentator explains this rightly. Pragapati means by the person that is seen in the eye, the real agent of seeing, who is seen by sages only, even with their eyes shut. His pupils, however, misunderstand him. They think of the person that is seen, not of the person that sees (Yoga-sfitras II, 6). The person seen in the eye is to them the small figure imaged in the eye, and they go on therefore to ask, whether the image in the water or in a mirror is not the Self. ? The commentators are at great pains to explain that PragApati told no falsehood. He meant by purusha the personal element in the highest sense, and it was not his fault that his pupils took purusha for man or body. 136 KHANDOGYA-UPANISHAD. EicgHTH KHawpa. 1. ‘Look at your Self in a pan of water, and whatever you do not understand of your Self}, come and tell me.’ They looked in the water-pan. Then Pragapati said to them: ‘What do you see?’ They said: ‘We both see the self thus altogether, a picture even to the very hairs and nails.’ 2. Pragdpati said to them: ‘After you have adorned yourselves, have put on your best clothes and cleaned yourselves, look again into the waterpan.’ They, after having adorned themselves, having put on their best clothes and cleaned themselves, looked into the water-pan. PragApati said: ‘What do you see?’
2PragApati said: ‘What do you see?’ 3. They said: ‘Just as we are, well adorned, with our best clothes and clean, thus we are both there, Sir, well adorned, with our best clothes and clean.’ Pragdpati said: ‘That is the Self, this is the im- -mortal, the fearless, this is Brahman.’ Then both went away satisfied in their hearts. 4. And Pragapati, looking after them, said: ‘They both go away without having perceived and without having known the Self, and whoever of these two’, whether Devas or Asuras, will follow this doctrine (upanishad), will perish.’ Now Viroéana, satisfied in his heart, went to the Asuras and preached that doctrine to them, that the self (the body) alone is to be worshipped, that the 1 T take 4tmana# as a genitive, governed by yad, not as an accusative plural. * The commentator reads yatare for yatah. VIII PRAPATHAKA, Q KHANDA, 2. 137 self (the body) alone is to be served, and that he who worships the self and serves the self, gains both worlds, this and the next. 5. Therefore they call even now a man who does not give alms here, who has no faith, and offers no sacrifices, an Asura, for this is the doctrine (upanishad) of the Asuras, They deck out the body of the dead with perfumes, flowers, and fine raiment by way of ornament, and think they will thus conquer that world?. NintH Kuawpa. 1. But Indra, before he had returned to the Devas, saw this difficulty. As this self (the shadow in the water)? is well adorned, when the body is well adorned, well dressed, when the body is well dressed, well cleaned, if the body is well cleaned, that self will also be blind, if the body is blind, lame, if the body is lame’, crippled, if the body is crippled, and will perish in fact as soon as the body perishes. Therefore I see no good in this (doctrine). 2. Taking fuel in his hand he came again as a pupil to Pragdpati. Pragdpati said to him: ‘ Maghavat (Indra), as you went away with Viroféana, satisfied in your heart, for what purpose did you come back ?’ 1 This evidently refers to the customs and teaching of tribes not entirely conforming to the Brahmanic system. Whether the adorning of the dead body implies burial instead of burning, seems doubtful. * The commentator remarks that though both Indra and Virokana had mistaken the true import of what Prag4pati said, yet while Virofana took the body to be the Self, Indra thought that the Self was the shadow of the body. 5 Srama, lame, is explained by the commentator as one-eyed, ekanetra. 138 KHANDOGYA-UPANISHAD. He said: ‘Sir, as this self (the shadow) is well adorned, when the body is well adorned, well dressed, when the body is well dressed, well cleaned, if the body is well cleaned, that self will also be blind, if the body is blind, lame, if the body is lame, crippled, if the body is crippled, and will perish in fact as soon as the body perishes. Therefore I see no good in this (doctrine).’
3Therefore I see no good in this (doctrine).’ 3. ‘So it is indeed, Maghavat, replied Pragapati ; ‘but I shall explain him (the true Self) further to you. Live with me another thirty-two years.’ He lived with him another thirty-two years, and then Pragdpati said: TENTH KHanpa. 1. ‘He who moves about happy in dreams, he is the Self, this is the immortal, the fearless, this is Brahman.’ Then Indra went away satisfied in his heart. But before he had returned to the Devas, he saw this difficulty. Although it is true that that self is not blind, even if the body is blind, nor lame, if the body is lame, though it is true that that self is not rendered faulty by the faults of it (the body), 2. Nor struck when it (the body) is struck, nor lamed when it is lamed, yet it is as if they struck him (the self) in dreams, as if they chased him? 1 I have adopted the reading viésh4yayanti, because it is the most difficult, and therefore explains most easily the various corruptions, or it may be emendations, that have crept into the text. Sankara explains vi#ésadayanti by vidr&vayanti, and this shows that he too must have read visshdyayanti, for he could not have explained vi#éhadayanti, which means they uncover or they deprive of their clothing, by vidravayanti, they drive away. It is true that vikkhdyayanti may be explained in two ways; it may be the causative of £44, to cut, but this meaning is not very appropriate here, VIII PRAPATHAKA, IO KHANDA, 4. 139 He becomes even conscious, as it were, of pain, and sheds tears. Therefore I see no good in this. 3. Taking fuel in his hands, he went again as a pupil to Pragdpati. PragApati said to him: ‘Maghavat, as you went away satisfied in your heart, for what purpose did you come back ?’ He said: ‘Sir, although it is true that that self is not blind even if the body is blind, nor lame, if the body is lame, though it is true that that self is not rendered faulty by the faults of it (the body), 4. Nor struck when it (the body) is struck, nor lamed when it is lamed, yet it is as if they struck him (the self) in dreams, as if they chased him. He becomes even conscious, as it were, of pain, and sheds tears. Therefore I see no good in this.’ ‘So it is indeed, Maghavat,’ replied Pragdpati; ‘but I shall explain him (the true Self) further to you. Live with me another thirty-two years.’ He lived with him another thirty-two years. Then Prag4pati said :
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1II, 1. * The same verse occurs in the Kasha 6, 16, and is frequently quoted elsewhere, for instance, Mait. comm. p. 164. For vishvann, the right reading would seem to be vishvak. In the Mait. Up. VI, 30, the Trishfubh are reduced to Anush/ubh verses. See also Prasna Up. III, 6-7; Muzd. Up. II, 2. 8 Here the highest problem is treated again, the knowledge of the true Self, which leads beyond the world of Brahma (masc.), and enables the individual self to return into the Highest Self. VIIY PRAPATHAKA, 7 KHANDA, 3. 135 holding fuel in their hands, as is the custom for pupils approaching their master. 3. They dwelt there as pupils for thirty-two years. Then Pragdpati asked them: ‘For what purpose have you both dwelt here ?’ They replied: ‘A saying of yours is being repeated, viz. “the Self which is free from sin, free from old age, from death and grief, from hunger and thirst, which desires nothing but what it ought to desire, and imagines nothing but what it ought to imagine, that it is which we must search out, that it is which we must try to understand. He who has searched out that Self and understands it, obtains all worlds and all desires.” Now we both have dwelt here because we wish for that Self,’ Pragapati said to them: ‘The person that is seen © in the eye’, that is the Self. This is what I have said. This is the immortal, the fearless, this is Brahman.’ . They asked: ‘Sir, he who is perceived in the water, and he who is perceived in a mirror, who is he?’ He replied: ‘He himself indeed is seen in all these *.’ 1 The commentator explains this rightly. Pragapati means by the person that is seen in the eye, the real agent of seeing, who is seen by sages only, even with their eyes shut. His pupils, however, misunderstand him. They think of the person that is seen, not of the person that sees (Yoga-sfitras II, 6). The person seen in the eye is to them the small figure imaged in the eye, and they go on therefore to ask, whether the image in the water or in a mirror is not the Self. ? The commentators are at great pains to explain that PragApati told no falsehood. He meant by purusha the personal element in the highest sense, and it was not his fault that his pupils took purusha for man or body. 136 KHANDOGYA-UPANISHAD. EicgHTH KHawpa. 1. ‘Look at your Self in a pan of water, and whatever you do not understand of your Self}, come and tell me.’ They looked in the water-pan. Then Pragapati said to them: ‘What do you see?’ They said: ‘We both see the self thus altogether, a picture even to the very hairs and nails.’ 2. Pragdpati said to them: ‘After you have adorned yourselves, have put on your best clothes and cleaned yourselves, look again into the waterpan.’ They, after having adorned themselves, having put on their best clothes and cleaned themselves, looked into the water-pan. PragApati said: ‘What do you see?’
2PragApati said: ‘What do you see?’ 3. They said: ‘Just as we are, well adorned, with our best clothes and clean, thus we are both there, Sir, well adorned, with our best clothes and clean.’ Pragdpati said: ‘That is the Self, this is the im- -mortal, the fearless, this is Brahman.’ Then both went away satisfied in their hearts. 4. And Pragapati, looking after them, said: ‘They both go away without having perceived and without having known the Self, and whoever of these two’, whether Devas or Asuras, will follow this doctrine (upanishad), will perish.’ Now Viroéana, satisfied in his heart, went to the Asuras and preached that doctrine to them, that the self (the body) alone is to be worshipped, that the 1 T take 4tmana# as a genitive, governed by yad, not as an accusative plural. * The commentator reads yatare for yatah. VIII PRAPATHAKA, Q KHANDA, 2. 137 self (the body) alone is to be served, and that he who worships the self and serves the self, gains both worlds, this and the next. 5. Therefore they call even now a man who does not give alms here, who has no faith, and offers no sacrifices, an Asura, for this is the doctrine (upanishad) of the Asuras, They deck out the body of the dead with perfumes, flowers, and fine raiment by way of ornament, and think they will thus conquer that world?. NintH Kuawpa. 1. But Indra, before he had returned to the Devas, saw this difficulty. As this self (the shadow in the water)? is well adorned, when the body is well adorned, well dressed, when the body is well dressed, well cleaned, if the body is well cleaned, that self will also be blind, if the body is blind, lame, if the body is lame’, crippled, if the body is crippled, and will perish in fact as soon as the body perishes. Therefore I see no good in this (doctrine). 2. Taking fuel in his hand he came again as a pupil to Pragdpati. Pragdpati said to him: ‘ Maghavat (Indra), as you went away with Viroféana, satisfied in your heart, for what purpose did you come back ?’ 1 This evidently refers to the customs and teaching of tribes not entirely conforming to the Brahmanic system. Whether the adorning of the dead body implies burial instead of burning, seems doubtful. * The commentator remarks that though both Indra and Virokana had mistaken the true import of what Prag4pati said, yet while Virofana took the body to be the Self, Indra thought that the Self was the shadow of the body. 5 Srama, lame, is explained by the commentator as one-eyed, ekanetra. 138 KHANDOGYA-UPANISHAD. He said: ‘Sir, as this self (the shadow) is well adorned, when the body is well adorned, well dressed, when the body is well dressed, well cleaned, if the body is well cleaned, that self will also be blind, if the body is blind, lame, if the body is lame, crippled, if the body is crippled, and will perish in fact as soon as the body perishes. Therefore I see no good in this (doctrine).’
3Therefore I see no good in this (doctrine).’ 3. ‘So it is indeed, Maghavat, replied Pragapati ; ‘but I shall explain him (the true Self) further to you. Live with me another thirty-two years.’ He lived with him another thirty-two years, and then Pragdpati said: TENTH KHanpa. 1. ‘He who moves about happy in dreams, he is the Self, this is the immortal, the fearless, this is Brahman.’ Then Indra went away satisfied in his heart. But before he had returned to the Devas, he saw this difficulty. Although it is true that that self is not blind, even if the body is blind, nor lame, if the body is lame, though it is true that that self is not rendered faulty by the faults of it (the body), 2. Nor struck when it (the body) is struck, nor lamed when it is lamed, yet it is as if they struck him (the self) in dreams, as if they chased him? 1 I have adopted the reading viésh4yayanti, because it is the most difficult, and therefore explains most easily the various corruptions, or it may be emendations, that have crept into the text. Sankara explains vi#ésadayanti by vidr&vayanti, and this shows that he too must have read visshdyayanti, for he could not have explained vi#éhadayanti, which means they uncover or they deprive of their clothing, by vidravayanti, they drive away. It is true that vikkhdyayanti may be explained in two ways; it may be the causative of £44, to cut, but this meaning is not very appropriate here, VIII PRAPATHAKA, IO KHANDA, 4. 139 He becomes even conscious, as it were, of pain, and sheds tears. Therefore I see no good in this. 3. Taking fuel in his hands, he went again as a pupil to Pragdpati. PragApati said to him: ‘Maghavat, as you went away satisfied in your heart, for what purpose did you come back ?’ He said: ‘Sir, although it is true that that self is not blind even if the body is blind, nor lame, if the body is lame, though it is true that that self is not rendered faulty by the faults of it (the body), 4. Nor struck when it (the body) is struck, nor lamed when it is lamed, yet it is as if they struck him (the self) in dreams, as if they chased him. He becomes even conscious, as it were, of pain, and sheds tears. Therefore I see no good in this.’ ‘So it is indeed, Maghavat,’ replied Pragdpati; ‘but I shall explain him (the true Self) further to you. Live with me another thirty-two years.’ He lived with him another thirty-two years. Then Prag4pati said :
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.