’ The commentator explains this rightly. Pragapati means by the person that is seen in the eye, the rea! 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-sitras II, 6). “Fhe 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 teld no falsehood. He meant by purusha the personal element in tiie highest sense, and it was not his fault that his pupils took purusha for man or body.
136 KHANDOGYA-UPANISHAD.
E1GHTH KuHawpa.
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 water-
pan.’
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 ?’
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 Virofana, 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
* I take 4tmanah as a genitive, governed by yad, not as an accusative plural.
? The commentator reads yatare for yatah.
Viii Prapathaka, 9 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 (upani-
shad) 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 KHANDA.
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 Pragapati. Pragdpati said to him: ‘ Ma-
ghavat (Indra), as you went away with Virofana,
satisfied in your heart, for what purpose did you
come back ?’
* 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 Viro- kana had mistaken the true import of what Pragapati said, yet while Virokana took the body to be the Self, Indra thought that the Self was the shadow of the body.
* 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).’
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 KHawpa.
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?.
' I have adopted the reading vikkhayayanti, because it is the most difficult, and therefore explains most easily the various cor- ruptions, or it may be emendations, that have crept into the text. Sankara explains vik#éhaidayanti by vidravayanti, and this shows that he too must have read vikthayayanti, for he could not have explained vikkhadayanti, which means they uncover or they deprive of their clothing, by vidravayanti, they drive away. It is true that vikkhayayanti may be explained in two ways; it may be the causa- live 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. Pragdpati said to him: ‘ Ma-
ghavat, 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 Pragdpati said:
and quite inadmissible in another passage where vikkhayayati occurs, whereas, if derived from vikh (ofyoua) in a causative sense, Sankara could hardly have chosen a better explanation than vidra- vayanti, they make run away. The root vith, vikkhayayati is recognised in Pawini III, 1, 28, and in the Dhatupazha 28, 129, but it has hitherto been met with in this passage only, and in Brthadaranyaka Up. IV, 3, 20. Here also the author speaks of a man who imagines that people kill him or do him violence, or that an elephant chases him, or that he falls into a pit. Here we have hastiva vikkhayayati, and Sankara, at least as printed by Dr. Roer, explains this by vikkhapayati, viékhadayati, vidravayati ; dhavatity arthak. Much better is Dvivedaganga’s commentary, as published by Dr. Weber, Satap. Brahm. p. 1145, Kadasid enam hast? vitkhayayativa vidravayativa; vikha gatau, gupidhdpaviksi- pazipanibhya aya iti (Paz. III, 1, 28) svartha dyapratyayah. In the Dictionary of Boehtlingk and Roth the derivation from £4, to cut, is preferred; see Nachtrage, s.v. AAa.
140 KHANDOGYA-UPANISHAD.
ELEVENTH K.HANDA.
1. ‘When a man being asleep, reposing, and at
perfect rest !, sees no dreams, that 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. In truth he thus does not know himself
(his self) that he is I, nor does he know anything
that exists. He is gone to utter annihilation. I see
no good in this.
2. Taking fuel in his hand he went again as a
pupil to Pragdpati. Pragdpati said to him: ‘ Ma-
ghavat, as you went away satisfied in your heart,
for what purpose did you come back ?’
He said: ‘Sir, in that way he does not know
himself (his self) that he is I, nor does he know
anything that exists. He is gone to utter annihila-
tion. I see no good in this.’
3. ‘So it is indeed, Maghavat,’ replied Pragapati ;
‘but I shall explain him (the true Self) further to
you, and nothing more than this*. Live here other
five years.’
He lived there other five years. This made in all
one hundred and one years, and therefore it is said
that Indra Maghavat lived one hundred and one
years as a pupil with Pragapati. Pragdpati said to
him :
TweELFTH Kuawpa.
1. ‘Maghavat, this body is mortal and always
held by death. It is the abode of that Self which is
* See Kh. Up. VIII, 6, 3.
* Sankara explains this as meaning the real Self, not anything
different from the Self.
immortal and without body'. When in the body (by
thinking this body is I and I am this body) the Self
is held by pleasure and pain. So long as he is in
the body, he cannot get free from pleasure and pain.
But when he is free of the body (when he knows
himself different from the body), then neither pleasure
nor pain touches him ?.
2. ‘The wind is without body, the cloud, light-
ning, and thunder are without body (without hands,
feet, &c.) Now as these, arising from this heavenly
ether (space), appear in their own form, as soon as
they have approached the highest light,
3. ‘Thus does that serene being, arising from this
body, appear in its own form, as soon as it has
approached the highest light (the knowledge of
Self*). He (in that state) is the highest person
(uttama pdrusha). He moves about there laughing
(or eating), playing, and rejoicing (in his mind), be it
with women, carriages, or relatives, never minding
that body into which he was born +.
? According to some, the body is the result of the Self, the elements of the body, fire, water, and earth springing from the Self, and the Self afterwards entering them.
2 Ordinary, worldly pleasure. Comm.
$ The simile is not so striking as most of those old similes are. The wind is compared with the Self, on account of its being for a time lost in the ether (space), as the Self is in the body, and then rising again out of the ether and assuming its own form as wind. The chief stress is laid on the highest light, which in the one case is the sun of summer, in the other the light of knowledge.
* These are pleasures which seem hardly compatible with the state of perfect peace which the Self is supposed to have attained. The passage may be interpolated, or put in on purpose to show that the Self enjoys such pleasures as an inward spectator only, without identifying himself with eicher pleasure or pain. He sees them, as he says afterwards, with his divine eye. The Self per-
142 KHANDOGYA-UPANISHAD.
‘Like as a horse attached to a cart, so is the spirit! (praza, pragfidtman) attached to this body.
4. ‘Now where the sight has entered into the
void (the open space, the black pupil of the eye),
there is the person of the eye, the eye itself is the
instrument of seeing. He who knows, let me smell
this, he is the Self, the nose is the instrument of
smelling. He who knows, let me say this, he is the
Self, the tongue is the instrument of saying. He
who knows, let me hear this, he is the Self, the ear
is the instrument of hearing.
5. ‘He who knows, let me think this, he is the
Self, the mind is his divine eye% He, the Self,
seeing these pleasures (which to others are hidden
like a buried treasure of gold) through his divine
eye, i.e. the mind, rejoices.
‘The Devas who are in the world of Brahman
meditate on that Self (as taught by Pragapati to
Indra, and by Indra to the Devas). Therefore all
worlds belong to them, and all desires. He who
knows that Self and understands it, obtains ail
worlds and all desires.’ Thus said Pragdapati, yea,
thus said Pragdépati.