ceives in all things his Self only, nothing else. In his commentary on the Taittirlya Upanishad (p. 45) Sankara refers this passage to Brahman as an effect, not to Brahman as a cause.
? The spirit, the conscious self, is not identical with the body, but only joined to it, like a horse, or driving it, like a charioteer. In other passages the senses are the horses; buddhi, reason, the charioteer ; manas, mind, the reins. The spirit is attached to the cart by the detana ; cf. Anandagitanagiri.
? Because it perceives not only what is present, but also what is past and future.
Viii Prapathaka, 14 Khanda, I. 143
THIRTEENTH KHAWDA}?,
1. From the dark (the Brahman of the heart) I
come to the nebulous (the world of Brahman), from
the nebulous to the dark, shaking off all evil, as a
horse shakes his hairs, and as the moon frees herself
from the mouth of Rahu?. Having shaken off the
body, I obtain, self made and satisfied, the uncreated
world of Brahman, yea, I obtain it.
FouRTEENTH KHANDA.
1. He who is called ether ® (4k4sa) is the revealer
of all forms and names. That within which these
forms and names are contained is the Brahman, the
Immortal, the Self.
I come to the hall of Pragdpati, to the house; |
am the glorious among Brahmans, glorious among
princes, glorious among men‘. I obtained that
glory, I am glorious among the glorious. May I
never go to the white, toothless yet devouring,
white abode®; may I never go to it.
1 This chapter is supposed to contain a hymn of triumph.
? R4hu, in later times a monster, supposed to swallow the sun and moon at every solar or lunar eclipse. At first we only hear of the mouth or head of Rahu. In later times a body was assigned to him, but it had to be destroyed again by Vishzu, so that nothing remained of him but his head. Rahu seems derived from rah, to separate, to remove. From it raksh, to wish or strive to remove, to keep off, to protect, and in a different application rakshas, a tearing away, violence, rakshas, a robber, an evil spirit.
8 Akd4sa, ether or space, is a name of Brahman, because, like ether, Brahman has no body and is infinitely small.
* Here the three classes, commonly called castes, are clearly marked by the names of brahmaaa, ragan, and vis.
> Yonisabditam pragananendriyam,
144 KHANDOGYA-UPANISHAD.
1. Brahma (Hirazyagarbha or Paramesvara) told
this to Pragapati (Kasyapa), Pragapati to Manu (his
son), Manu to mankind. He who has learnt the
Veda from a family of teachers, according to the
sacred rule, in the leisure time left from the duties
to be performed for the Guru, who, after receiving
his discharge, has settled in his own house, keeping
up the memory of what he has learnt by repeating
it regularly in some sacred spot, who has begotten
virtuous sons, and concentrated all his senses on
the Self, never giving pain to any creature, except
at the tirthas! (sacrifices, &c.), he who behaves thus
all his life, reaches the world of Brahman, and does
not return, yea, he does not return.
1 The commentator says that even travelling about as a mendi- cant causes pain, but that a mendicant is allowed to importune people for alms at tirthas, or sacred places. Others explain this differently.
Palavakara
‘or
KENA-UPANISHAD.
eat >
* ie ~
7 a4 ~ . ‘> a ag Wee Pee a
ot gos oP is . a! y . os : ;
4 ee tee - ines ‘ Ae nm —
Bes ;
ead ae on : wes aha
a = oe a
i = _ ‘> ¢
as a aie was “gat: a a
: Poy iv
. _ » a
ws 7 *® -
a
ew 2 fi
- a hu a8 = t )
, §
ay ie #. 9 i
a)
S * | .
: 4
‘an 2
et
LP ., F4 =
4, “
, ~ d $4 if
7 a ae ‘ ‘ 4
= 7 es -
- ~ re 4 ° -
yj » -
at
vo ;
© - 4 _—
i nL . :
ye a moe =e ou!
( i o 3 ee ene
a = : —s
wk : ee a -
7 : 2 ig
TALAVAKARA-UPANISHAD.
First KHANDA.
1. THe Pupil asks: ‘At whose wish does the
mind sent forth proceed on its errand? At whose
command does the first breath go forth? At whose
wish do we utter this speech? What god directs
the eye, or the ear?’
2. The Teacher replies: ‘It is the ear of the ear,
the mind of the mind, the speech of speech, the
breath of breath, and the eye of the eye. When
freed (from the senses) the wise, on departing from
this world, become immortal }.
3. ‘The eye does not go thither, nor speech, nor
mind. We do not know, we do not understand, how
any one can teach it.
4. ‘It is different from the known, it is also
above the unknown, thus we have heard from those
of old, who taught us this”.
5. ‘That which is not expressed by speech and
1 This verse admits of various translations, and still more various explanations. Instead of taking vakam, like all the other words, as a nominative, we might take them all as accusatives, governed by atimufya, and sa u pramasya pramah as a parenthetical sen- tence. What is meant by the ear of the ear is very fully explained by the commentator, but the simplest acceptation would seem to take it as an answer to the preceding questions, so that the ear of the ear should be taken for him who directs the ear, i.e. the Self, or Brahman. This will become clearer as we proceed.
2 Cf. Isa Up. 11; 13.
148 TALAVAKARA-UPANISHAD.
by which speech is expressed, that alone know as Brahman, not that which people here adore.
6. ‘That which does not think by mind, and
by which, they say, mind is thought’, that alone
know as Brahman, not that which people here
adore.
7. ‘That which does not see by the eye, and by
which one sees (the work of) the eyes, that alone
know as Brahman, not that which people here
adore.
8. ‘That which does not hear by the ear, and by
which the ear is heard, that alone know as Brahman,
not that which people here adore.
9. ‘That which does not breathe by breath, and
by which breath is drawn, that alone know as Brah-
man, not that which people here adore.’
1. The Teacher says: ‘If thou thinkest I know
it well, then thou knowest surely but little, what is
that form of Brahman known, it may be, to thee??’
2. The Pupil says: ‘I do not think I know it well, nor do I know that I do not know it. He
1 The varia lectio manaso matam (supported also by the com- mentary) is metrically and grammatically easier, but it may be, for that very reason, an emendation.
2 In order to obtain a verse, we must leave out the words tvam yad asya deveshv atha nu mimamsyam eva. They were probably inserted, as an excuse for the third khamda treating of the relation of Brahman to the Devas. There is considerable variety in the text, as handed down in the Sama-veda and in the Atharva-veda which shows that it has been tampered with. Daharam for dabhram may be the older reading, as synizesis occurs again and again in the Upanishads.
Iii Khanda, I. 149
among us who knows this, he knows it, nor does he know that he does not know it}. |
3. ‘He by whom it (Brahman) is not thought, by
him it is thought; he by whom it is thought, knows
it not. It is not understood by those who under-
stand it, it is understood by those who do not
understand it.
4. ‘It is thought to be known (as if) by awaken-
ing, and (then) we obtain immortality indeed. By
the Self we obtain strength, by knowledge we obtain
immortality.
5. ‘Ifa man know this here, that is the true (end
of life); if he does not know this here, then there is
great destruction (new births). The wise who have
thought on all things (and recognised the Self in
them) become immortal, when they have departed
from this world.’
Tairp KHanpaA?,
1. Brahman obtained the victory for the Devas. The Devas became elated by the victory of Brah-
1 This verse has again been variously explained. I think the train of thought is this: We cannot know Brahman, as we know other objects, by referring them to a class and pointing out their differences. But, on the other hand, we do not know that we know him not, i.e. no one can assert that we know him not, for we want Brahman in order to know anything. He, therefore, who knows this double peculiarity of the knowledge of Brahman, he knows Brahman, as much as it can be known; and he does not know, nor can anybody prove it to him, that he does not know Brahman.
* This khavda is generally represented as a later addition, but its prose style has more of a Brahmama character than the verses in the preceding khamdas, although their metrical structure is irregular, and may be taken as a sign of antiquity.
150 TALAVAKARA-UPANISHAD.
man, and they thought, this victory is ours only, this greatness is ours only.
2. Brahman perceived this and appeared to them.
But they did not know it, and said: ‘What sprite
(yaksha or yakshya) is this ?’
3. They said to Agni (fire): ‘O Gatavedas, find out what sprite this is.’ ‘ Yes,’ he said.
4. He ran toward it, and Brahman said to him:
Who are you?’ He replied: ‘I am Agni, I am
GAatavedas.’
5. Brahman said: ‘ What power is in you?’ Agni
replied: ‘I could burn all whatever there is on
earth.’
6. Brahman put a straw before him, saying:
‘Burn this.’ He went towards it with all his might,
but he could not burn it. Then he returned thence
and said: ‘I could not find out what sprite this is.’
7. Then they said to Vayu (air): ‘O Vayu, find out what sprite this is.’ ‘ Yes,’ he said.
8. He ran toward it, and Brahman said to him:
‘Who are you?’ He replied: ‘I am Vayu, I am
Matarisvan.’
9. Brahman said: ‘What power is in you?’ Vayu
replied: ‘I could take up all whatever there is on
earth.’
10. Brahman put a straw before him, saying:
‘Take it up. He went towards it with all his
might, but he could not take it up. Then he re-
turned thence and said: ‘I could not find out what
sprite this is.’
11. Then they said to Indra: ‘O Maghavan, find
out what sprite this is.. He went towards it, but it
disappeared from before him.
12. Then in the same space (ether) he came
Iv Khanda, 4. 151
towards a woman, highly adorned: it was Uma, the
daughter of Himavat?. He said to her: ‘Who is
that sprite ?’
FourtTH KHANDA.
1. She replied: ‘It is Brahman. It is through
the victory of Brahman that you have thus become
great. After that he knew that it was Brahman.
2. Therefore these Devas, viz. Agni, Vayu, and
Indra, are, as it were, above the other gods, for they
touched it (the Brahman) nearest ?.
3. And therefore Indra is, as it were, above the other gods, for he touched it nearest, he first
knew it.
4. This is the teaching of Brahman, with regard
to the gods (mythological): It is that which now
* Uma may here be taken as the wife of Siva, daughter of Himavat, better known by her earlier name, Parvati, the daughter of the mountains. Originally she was, not the daughter of the mountains or of the Himdlaya, but the daughter of the cloud, just as Rudra was originally, not the lord of the mountains, girisa, but the lord of the clouds. We are, however, moving here in a secon- dary period of Indian thought, in which we see, as among Semitic nations, the manifested powers, and particularly the knowledge and wisdom of the gods, represented by their wives. Uma means originally flax, from va, to weave, and the same word may have been an old name of wife, she who weaves (cf. duhitrz, spinster, and possibly wife itself, if O.H.G. wib is connected with O.H.G. wéban). It is used almost synonymously with ambik4, Taitt. Ar. p. 839. If we wished to take liberties, we might translate uma haimavati by an old woman coming from the Himavat mountains; but I decline all responsibility for such an interpretation.