Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1firmly within the heart. Through these indeed that (food) flows on flowing, and he (the Taigasa) receives as it were purer food? than the corporeal Self (the Vaisvanara). 4. ‘His (the Taigasa’s) Eastern quarter are the pravas (breath) which go to the East; ‘His Southern quarter are the prazas which go to the South ; ‘His Western quarter are the prazas which go to the West; ‘His Northern quarter are the prazas which go to the North ; ‘His Upper (Zenith) quarter are the prazas which vo upward ; ‘His Lower (Nadir) quarter are the prazas which vo downward ; ‘ All the quarters are all the prazas. And he (the Atman in that state) can only be described by No”, no! He is incomprehensible, for he cannot be comprehended; he is undecaying, for he cannot decay ; he is not attached, for he does not attach himself; he is unbound, he does not suffer, he does not perish. O Ganaka, you have indeed reached fearlessness, — thus said Yagz#avalkya. Then Ganaka said: ‘ May that fearlessness come to you also who teachest us fearlessness. I bow to you. Here are the Videhas, and here am I (thy slave).’ * Dvivedaganga explains that food, when it is eaten, is first of all changed into the coarse food, which goes away downward, and into the subtler food. This subtler food is again divided into the middle juice that feeds the body, and the finest, which is called the red lump. *wee Brih. Up. Il, 3, 6; IV, 9; 20: IV ADHYAYA, 3 BRAHMANA, I. 161 a OP ORS 1 TuirD BRAHMANWA. 1. Yagi%avalkya came to Ganaka Vaideha, and he did not mean to speak with him’. But when formerly
2' The introduction to this Brahmana has a very peculiar interest, as showing the close coherence of the different portions which together form the historical groundwork of the Upanishads. Ganaka Vaideha and Yag#avalkya are leading characters in the Brzhadéranyaka-upanishad, and whenever they meet they seem to converse quite freely, though each retains his own character, and Yag#avalkya honours Ganaka as king quite as much as Ganaka honours Yag#avalkya as a Brahmama. Now in our chapter we read that Yagaavalkya did not wish to enter on a discussion, but that Ganaka was the first to address him (pQrvam paprassha). This was evidently considered not quite correct, and an explanation is given, that Ganaka took this liberty because on a former occasion Yagiavalkya had granted him permission to address questions to him, whenever he liked. It might be objected that such an explanation looks very much like an after-thought, and we find indeed that in India itself some of the later commentators tried to avoid the difficulty by dividing the words sa mene na vadishya iti, into sam enena vadishya iti, so that we should have to translate, ‘ Yag#avalkya came to Ganaka intending to speak with him.’ (See Dvivedaganga’s Comm. p. 1141.) This is, no doubt, a very ingenious conjecture, which might well rouse the envy of European scholars. But it is no more. The accents decide nothing, because they are changed by different writers, according to their different views of what the Pada text ought to be. What made me prefer the reading which is supported by Sankara and Dvivedaganga, though the latter alludes to the other padakkfeda, is that the tmesis, sam enena vadishye, does not occur again, while sa mene is a common phrase. But the most interesting point, as I remarked before, is that this former disputation between Ganaka and Yagaavalkya and the permission granted to the King to ask any question he liked, is not a. mere invention to account for the apparent rudeness by which Yagfavalkya is forced to enter on a discussion against his will, but actually occurs in a former chapter. In Satap. Br. XI, 6, 2, 10, we read: tasmai ha Yag#avalkyo varam dadau; sa hovaka, kama-
3[15] mM 162 BRIHADARANYAKA-UPANISHAD. a ee Ganaka Vaideha and Yagfavalkya had a disputation on the Agnihotra, Yag#avalkya had granted him a boon, and he chose (for a boon) that he might be free to ask him any question he liked. Yagavalkya granted it, and thus the King was the first to ask him a question. 2. ‘Yagfavalkya,’ he said, ‘what is the light of man??’ Yagfavalkya replied: ‘The sun, O King; for, having the sun alone for his light, man sits, moves about, does his work, and returns.’ Ganaka Vaideha said : ‘So indeed it is, O Yagiavalkya.’ 3. Ganaka Vaideha said: ‘When the sun has set, O YAg#avalkya, what is then the light of man?’ YAgiiavalkya replied: ‘The moon indeed is his light ; for, having the moon alone for his light, man sits, moves about, does his work, and returns.’ Ganaka Vaideha said : ‘So indeed it is, O Yagziavalkya.’ 4. Ganaka Vaideha said: ‘When the sun has set, O Yagziavalkya, and the moon has set, what is the light of man ?’ YAagiavalkya replied: ‘Fire indeed is his light ; prasma eva me tvayi Yag#avalky4sad iti, tato brahma Ganaka Asa. This would show that Ganaka was considered almost like a Brahmana, or at all events enjoyed certain privileges which were supposed to belong to the first caste only. See, for a different view, Deussen, Vedanta, p. 203; Regnaud (Matériaux pour servir & I’histoire de la philosophie de I’Inde), Errata; and Sacred Books of the East, vol. i, p. Ixxiii. * Read kimgyotir as a Bahuvrthi. Purusha is difficult to translate. It means man, but also the true essence of man, the soul, as we should say, or something more abstract still, the person, as I generally translate it, though a person beyond the Ego.
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.
1firmly within the heart. Through these indeed that (food) flows on flowing, and he (the Taigasa) receives as it were purer food? than the corporeal Self (the Vaisvanara). 4. ‘His (the Taigasa’s) Eastern quarter are the pravas (breath) which go to the East; ‘His Southern quarter are the prazas which go to the South ; ‘His Western quarter are the prazas which go to the West; ‘His Northern quarter are the prazas which go to the North ; ‘His Upper (Zenith) quarter are the prazas which vo upward ; ‘His Lower (Nadir) quarter are the prazas which vo downward ; ‘ All the quarters are all the prazas. And he (the Atman in that state) can only be described by No”, no! He is incomprehensible, for he cannot be comprehended; he is undecaying, for he cannot decay ; he is not attached, for he does not attach himself; he is unbound, he does not suffer, he does not perish. O Ganaka, you have indeed reached fearlessness, — thus said Yagz#avalkya. Then Ganaka said: ‘ May that fearlessness come to you also who teachest us fearlessness. I bow to you. Here are the Videhas, and here am I (thy slave).’ * Dvivedaganga explains that food, when it is eaten, is first of all changed into the coarse food, which goes away downward, and into the subtler food. This subtler food is again divided into the middle juice that feeds the body, and the finest, which is called the red lump. *wee Brih. Up. Il, 3, 6; IV, 9; 20: IV ADHYAYA, 3 BRAHMANA, I. 161 a OP ORS 1 TuirD BRAHMANWA. 1. Yagi%avalkya came to Ganaka Vaideha, and he did not mean to speak with him’. But when formerly
2' The introduction to this Brahmana has a very peculiar interest, as showing the close coherence of the different portions which together form the historical groundwork of the Upanishads. Ganaka Vaideha and Yag#avalkya are leading characters in the Brzhadéranyaka-upanishad, and whenever they meet they seem to converse quite freely, though each retains his own character, and Yag#avalkya honours Ganaka as king quite as much as Ganaka honours Yag#avalkya as a Brahmama. Now in our chapter we read that Yagaavalkya did not wish to enter on a discussion, but that Ganaka was the first to address him (pQrvam paprassha). This was evidently considered not quite correct, and an explanation is given, that Ganaka took this liberty because on a former occasion Yagiavalkya had granted him permission to address questions to him, whenever he liked. It might be objected that such an explanation looks very much like an after-thought, and we find indeed that in India itself some of the later commentators tried to avoid the difficulty by dividing the words sa mene na vadishya iti, into sam enena vadishya iti, so that we should have to translate, ‘ Yag#avalkya came to Ganaka intending to speak with him.’ (See Dvivedaganga’s Comm. p. 1141.) This is, no doubt, a very ingenious conjecture, which might well rouse the envy of European scholars. But it is no more. The accents decide nothing, because they are changed by different writers, according to their different views of what the Pada text ought to be. What made me prefer the reading which is supported by Sankara and Dvivedaganga, though the latter alludes to the other padakkfeda, is that the tmesis, sam enena vadishye, does not occur again, while sa mene is a common phrase. But the most interesting point, as I remarked before, is that this former disputation between Ganaka and Yagaavalkya and the permission granted to the King to ask any question he liked, is not a. mere invention to account for the apparent rudeness by which Yagfavalkya is forced to enter on a discussion against his will, but actually occurs in a former chapter. In Satap. Br. XI, 6, 2, 10, we read: tasmai ha Yag#avalkyo varam dadau; sa hovaka, kama-
3[15] mM 162 BRIHADARANYAKA-UPANISHAD. a ee Ganaka Vaideha and Yagfavalkya had a disputation on the Agnihotra, Yag#avalkya had granted him a boon, and he chose (for a boon) that he might be free to ask him any question he liked. Yagavalkya granted it, and thus the King was the first to ask him a question. 2. ‘Yagfavalkya,’ he said, ‘what is the light of man??’ Yagfavalkya replied: ‘The sun, O King; for, having the sun alone for his light, man sits, moves about, does his work, and returns.’ Ganaka Vaideha said : ‘So indeed it is, O Yagiavalkya.’ 3. Ganaka Vaideha said: ‘When the sun has set, O YAg#avalkya, what is then the light of man?’ YAgiiavalkya replied: ‘The moon indeed is his light ; for, having the moon alone for his light, man sits, moves about, does his work, and returns.’ Ganaka Vaideha said : ‘So indeed it is, O Yagziavalkya.’ 4. Ganaka Vaideha said: ‘When the sun has set, O Yagziavalkya, and the moon has set, what is the light of man ?’ YAagiavalkya replied: ‘Fire indeed is his light ; prasma eva me tvayi Yag#avalky4sad iti, tato brahma Ganaka Asa. This would show that Ganaka was considered almost like a Brahmana, or at all events enjoyed certain privileges which were supposed to belong to the first caste only. See, for a different view, Deussen, Vedanta, p. 203; Regnaud (Matériaux pour servir & I’histoire de la philosophie de I’Inde), Errata; and Sacred Books of the East, vol. i, p. Ixxiii. * Read kimgyotir as a Bahuvrthi. Purusha is difficult to translate. It means man, but also the true essence of man, the soul, as we should say, or something more abstract still, the person, as I generally translate it, though a person beyond the Ego.
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.