BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
WITH THE COMMENTARY OF
SHANKARACHARYA
Translated by
SWAMI MADHAVANANDA
WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY MAHAMAIIOPADHYAYA
PROF. S. KUPPUSWAMI SHASTRI, M.A., I.E.S.
Vidyavacliaspati, Darshanakalanidhi, Kulapati.
ADVAITA ASHRAMA
MAYAVATI, ALMORA, HIMALAYAS
Published by
Swami VlRES WARANANDA
ADVAITA ASHRAMA,
Mdtynvati, Almora
PRINTED BY
N. MyKHERJEE, B,A»
* AT^jfHE ARi; PRESS
20, BRITISH INDIAN STREET
CALCUTTA
* PREFACE
The long-felt want of a reliable, complete Eng-
lish translation of so important a book as Sankara’s
Commentary on the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad has
urged me to venture on this difficult undertaking.
Had the long-promised translation by Dr. Ganga-
nath Jha, in Mr. Seshachari’s series, come out, or
had *Dr. Roer been living to complete, and revise, his
translation, which extends only up to the first chapter
of the book and is long out of print, or if Prof.
Hiriyanna of Mysore had completed his admirable
edition, which covers only the first three sections of
# that chapter, there would have beeai no nete&sity
for another edition. But since the presentation in
English of Shankara’s longest and greatest com-
mentary on the Upanishads seemed to me to be over-
due, I have prepared this edition for the use of those
students of Vedanta whose kftowled^e of Sanskrit
is not as high as that of English.
Regarding both the text and the commentary
care has been taken to make the translation faithful,
and as "'literal as possible consistently with smooth
reading. Owing to the difference in structure be-
tween Sanskrit and English sentences, great difficulty
has been experienced in those portions where Shan-
kara explains the, words of the text. As far as pos-
sible, I have triec^to make these passages read like
a connected piece. For this purpose I have avoided
the common practice of transliterating the Sanskrit
n
words as they occur in the original' text, to be fol-
lowed by the translation of the explanatory word or
words— a practice which has a very disagreeable jerky
effect. Instead I have quoted their equivalents from
the running translation of the text, in the order in
which mey occur there. These have been put in
Italics to distinguish them easily from the commen-
tary. The advantage of this direct method will be
obvious to every reader.
The text of the Upanishad has been given in
Devanagari characters, and has been moderately
punctuated for easy comprehension. This has neces-
sitated the disjoining of some words. I have left
the full stops practically undisturbed. The text^is
folloNwd bv the running translation in comparatively
large types. Next comes the translation of the com- *
mentary in smaller types. I have mainly used Ash-
taker s edition, though f have also consulted the
Anandashrama edition. v\ ords supplied to con} pie tc
the sense as well as those that are explanatory have
been put in brackets. Certain grammatical remarks
in the commentary, however, have also been enclosed
in biackets so as not to break the continuity of the
passage in the midst of which they are inserted.
Some passages, of both text and commentary, al-
though possessing a deep spiritual significance, 'have
been omitted in the translation to suit the exigencies
of modern taste. Extra space between portions of
the commentary indicates that th$«, commentary that
follows is introductory to the next paragraph of the
text.
123
The use of capitals in English has presented an
additional difficulty. The same word ‘self,’ for in-
* •
stance, has had to* be used sometimes with a capital
and sometimes without it, according as it signifies
the individual or the Supreme Self. Occasionally
both forms have had to be used in the same\sntence,
where the popular conception about the self as being
limited has been corrected by a presentment of the
truth that the two are identical. Those to whom
this, distinction of capital and small letters appears
as puzzling will do well to ignore it altogether. The
same, remark applies to the question of gender, which
in Sanskrit belongs to the word itself. In translation
the gender has often had to be varied according to
the English idiom, producing sometiyies an unpleas-
ant effect owing to a sudden transition.
I have tried my best to make the translation
lucid. For this reason I have avoided the repeti-
tion of Sanskrit terms as far as possible, and sub-
stituted their nearest English Equivalents. This has
entailed on me the additional labour of finding out
the exact sense of a word at a particular place.
Eengthy discussions have been split up into para-
graphs, differentiating the prima facie views from the
conclusion. To effect a strict economy of space I
have deliberately confined myself to the fewest notes
possible. But I believe none that were essential
have been omitted- In such a difficult study as this
much is necessarily left to the good sense of the reader.
My aim throughout has been practical rather than
scholastic.
iv
I have generally followed the gloss of Anandagiri
and, wherever necessary, the great Vartika of Suresfy.
wafcacharya — two invaluable works on this Upani-
shac£ But I must confess that in a few places I
have been obliged to depart from them, as a different
explanation seemed to me to be more in keeping with
the drift of Shankara and the Upanishad. The depar-
tures are not so momentous as to require specific
mention in every case. With regard to passages that
needed further illumination, T have consulted eminent
scholars.
References to the quotations occurring in the
commentary have been inserted after almost every
quotation, as far as they could be traced. In some
places^ they have been purposely omitted, as tlTey
have been mentioned a few lines earlier. Where only *
figures without the name ot any book occur, the re-
ferences are to the Brihndaranvaka Upanishad, unless
there are clear indications to iJn* contrary. The ref-
erences given are not, meant to ht exhaustive, Except
in the case of this Upanishad. Col. Jacob’s Con-
cordance to the l J l>artishads and Dr. Bloomfield’s
Concordance to the lYdn.s haw been freely drawn
upon. The references to the Shatapatha Brahmana
belong to the Madhyandina recension, and those of
the. Mahabharata to the Kumbakonam edition.
Uahamahopadhyaya Prof S. Kuppuswami Shas-
tri, M.A., r.F.S., of tlie Presidency College, Madras,
a [profound scholar and well-knoVn authority on
Purva Mimamsa and Vedanta, ha$* written a learned
and appreciative Introduction, which considerably
enhances the value of the book.
V
A fairly exhaustive Index has been added, which,
I hope, will be found useful. At the top of each
page are given references to the opening and closing
paragraphs of even and odd pages respectively .
A word as to the pronunciation of Sanskrit words
used in the book. The consonants are be pro-
nounced as in English, except that v sounds like w.
(i is always hard. T and d are always soft, as in
French, unless italicised (in Rbman words). Of the
vowels a is to be pronounced like o in son, a like a in
far , e like ay in day, i like e in me, o as in so , and u
as in full. I have transliterated sf, *r, w and by
r?, *! and v by sh, and Anuswara by m or n. No
distinction has been made between the short and long
bounds of i or u. I have almost totally avoided the
use of diacritical marks, which are generally* a puzzle
to the uninitiated.
I take this opportunity of expressing my deep
indebtedness to all those who have kindly helped
me in various ways in preparing this work. Many
of them shall be nameless. My special thanks are
due to Prof. Kuppuswami Shastri for giving valuable
help in the interpretation of several difficult passages
as well as for writing the Introduction ; to Mahamaho-
padhyaya Pandit Lakshmipuram Shrinivasachar of
Mysore for similar assistance in interpretation ; to
Pandit P. Shivasubrahmanya Sh&stri of Mysore for
this as well as for tracing a number of references ; to
Professor Hanns Oertel of Munich and Pandit Radha-
prasad Shastri *of the Benares Hindu University for
furnishing a few more references ; to Pandit P.
Narayana Shastri and Mr. V. Subrahmanya Iyer of
VI
Mysore for helping iq other ways. But for their
kindness it would have been almost impossible for
me to fulfil my task with any degree of satisfaction. *
is scarcely necessary to add that the present
translation is meant only to facilitate the study of the
original cjflnmentary, and should better be read along
with it. I shall be glad to have any inaccuracies
pointed out and the untraced quotations located. It
is earnestly hoped that the book in its present form
will supply a much-needed want and help people of
both the East and the West to a better understanding
of the Vedanta philosophy and Shankara’s unique
contribution to it.
July , i Q34 . Madhavananda
INTRODUCTION
In compliance with -the wishes of the learned
translator of Sri Sankara s bhasya on the Bfhadaran-
yakopanisad , Szvami Sri Madhavdnandaji ot the Sri
Ramakrsna Mission, I have much pleasure in writing
this short introduction to this English rendering of
the Brhaddranyaka-bhdsya.
* I should first congratulate the translator on the
large measure of success which he has achieved in
his endeavour to produce a faithful and readable
English rendering of the greatest of the Upanisad-
blidsyas written by Sri Sahkardcarya. Such of the
students of the bhasyas of Sri Sankara as may know
English better than Sanskrit will find in this English
translation a reliable help to the understanding of
the contents of the Brhadaranyaka-bhdsya.
The Brhaddranyaka is the greatest of the Upa-
nisad s ; and Sri Sankara's bhasya oi^ this Upanisad
is the greatest of his commentaries on the Upanisads.
The Brhaddranyaka is the greatest not only in
■extent ; but it is also the greatest in respect of its
substance and theme. It is the greatest Upanisad in
the sense that the illimitable, all-embracing, absolute,
self-luminous, blissful reality — the Brhat or Brahman,
identical with Atman, constitutes its theme. And,
according to Sri* Sankara, it may be said to be the
greatest Upanisad, also for the reason that it com-
prehends both the upadeia or revelation of the true
nature of the mystic experience of the Brahman -
Vlll
Atman identity and the upapatti or logical explana-
tion of that great doctrine of advaita through the;
employment of the dialectic modes of argumentation
known as jalpa (arguing constructively as well as
destructively for victory) and vcida (arguing for
truth). •“Sri Sankara's Brhadaranyaka-bhasya is the
greatest of his commentaries on the Upanisads in the
sense that the great^Acdrya shows in this bhdsya, in
a very telling manner, how the great truth of
Brahman- Atman identity forms the main purport of
all the Vediintic texts in general and this great
Upanisad in particular, and maintains by means of
his powerful dialectics that the interpretations and
views of others are unsound and untenable — those
advanced bv the Vedistic realists ( Mlmamsakas ) , the
creationistie realists ( I disesikas and Naiydyikas)
and the advocates of the doctrine of bhcddbheda
(differeuce-cum-ideutity) like Bhartrprapanca. Sri
Surcsvara describes Sri Sankara' < Brhadaranyaka-
bhasya in these terms in the second verse of his
great Wlrtika fm his Bhdsya -
if
The older meaning of the term Upanisad is
‘Secret word’ or ‘Secret import' or ‘Secret doctrine.’
As long as it was understood in this sense, the
emphasis was on the mystic and ultra-rational aspect
of philosophical thought. Wheif, however, Sri
D rami d deary a , one of the Pre-Sankara thinkers who
commented upon the Upanisads , and Sri Sankara,
following Sri Dramida, interpreted the term Upa -
IX
nisad as standing for the realisation of Brahman -
Atman identity (Brahmavidya), which annihilates
the beginningless nescience called avidya, or as
standing for the ancient text helpful in that Realisa-
tion, the emphasis was shifted to the harmony
between the inner mystic vision of the .unity and
universality of Atman as the absolute being-spirit -
bliss ( saccidananda) and the philosophical conclusion
that may be reached by a proper use of logic and
dialectics. It is necessary to bear this in mind in
endeavouring to appraise justly the philosophical and
exegetic worth of Sri Sankara's commentary on the
Bfhad’dranyaka.
This great Upanisad consists of three kandas —
■the first being called the Madhu-kdnda , the second the?
Yajnavalkya-kdnda or the Muni-kdnda , and the third'
the Khila-kanda . The first kanda conveys the main
teaching of the advaita doctrine and is of the nature
of upadesa ; the second embodies the logical argu-
ment and explanation showing the soundness of the
upadesa ; and the third deals with|Certain upasands
or modes of meditation. The first two chapters of
the Madhu-kdnda deal with the Vedic rite, Pravargya ,
which forms a part of the ritualistic section ( karma -
kanda) of the Veda ; and according to Sri Sankara,
the Upanisad really begins with the third chapter
of the Madhu-kdnda. In this chapter, the phenom-
enal superimposition of the world on Brahman is
set forth and its origin, its full reach and its acme
are indicated ; and all this is presented as adhydrdpa
or supposititious positing. The fourth or the con-
cluding chapter of the Madhu-kdnda exhibits in a
X
telling manner the sublation which follows' and*
stultifies the supposititious positing of the world in
the preceding chapter, and elucidates the nature Of *
the brahman- Atman realisation which is invariably
and synchronously concomitant with the sublation ;
and all ttyis is apavada or sublation through the
stultifying realisation of truth. According to Sri
Sankara , adhydropa and apavada constitute the chief
jmeans of fully realising the absolute reality called
Snddham Brahma. All the details of Vedic rituals,
all the forms of meditation associated with them,
even the greatest of them — the horse-sacrifice (asva,-
medha) and the meditation associated with it, and
all the results accruing from them— all these consti-
tute the province of nescience ( avidya ) and even the
highest achievement of the Hiranyagarbha-ldka or
Brahma-ldka is but a part, though the acme, of the
immense cycle of transmigration ( samsdra ). This is
the substance of the account of adhydropa in the
third chapter of the Madhu-kdnda. In the fourth
Brdhmana of this chapter, the great rewards of
activities and meditation are described, so that a pure
and disciplined mind may see their impermanence
and detach itself from them ; the undifferentiated
Brahman (avydkjta) representing the meaning of
1 at and the differentiated spirit (vydkria) represent-
ing the meaning of 1 vam are then described; and
after showing how, in the condition of nescience
( avidyd) , one sees difference in the multifarious non-
spirit, the nature of the vidyd or knowledge of the
absolute spirit, which is the Atma-vidyd or Brahma -
yidyd and brings about the realisation of the allncss
xi
and the wholeness of Atmqn, is indicated in the
vidya-sutra — * wfaritaTOfrf. This is introduced at the
end of the description of adhyardpa, so that one may
not lose oneself in it and may find one’s way further
to the stage of apavada. Here Sri Sankara discusses
the import of the vidya-sutra. It has to Jbe consid-
ered whether this text should be taken as a comple-
mentarity restrictive injunction (niyamavidhi) , or a£
an injunction of something not got at in any othet
way (apurvavidhi) f or as an exclusively restrictive
injunction (parisamkhyavidhi). From Sri Sankara J s
discussion of the import of the vidya-sutra in the
Brhaddranyaka-bhdsya and from his observations
about the import of similar texts in the Samanvayd-
dhikarana-bhasya, it may be gathered that this text
should be understood as setting forth the great truth
that the absolute Brahman indirectly indicated by the
word Atman , and not any form of matter, .gross or
subtle, or any of its functions, should be realised as
the only reality ; and, as a matter of fact, there is
po scope for any kind of injunction directly with
/ /reference to such reality. Such apparent injunctions
look like injunctions at the initial stages of the quest
for truth ; but they ultimately turn out to be valid
statements of the one great truth for which the advaita
system stands., The fourth chapter of the Madhu-
kanda, or the second chapter of the bhasya, is devoted
to apavada and to an elucidation of the purport of
the vidya-sutra. After describing in an elaborate
manner the corporeal and incorporeal forms of the
corpus of the material universe superimposed on Brah-
man, this chapter proceeds to convey the great teach-
Xll
ing embodied in the words of the oft-quoted text — *
irfa *fr?f and emphatically avers that Brahman
is not sunya and can never be brought within the
scoped of 'any affirmation, but one may only glimpse
it indirectly through negations of eliminable factors —
“Not this, Not this” ifa *f). The fourth Brail-
man a of «the fourth chapter introduces Yajhavalkya
as offering to divide all his earthly possessions be-
tween his two wives — Kdiydyani and Maitrcyi.
Maitrcyi asks if she can free herself from death by
possessing the whole world filled with wealth, and
Yajhavalkya says ‘no*. Maitrcyi refuses all the
riches of the world, saying “If I am not thereby
free from death, what are these to me?” Yajha-
valkya commends the spiritual fitness of his wife’s
mind and proceeds to teach her the great truth of
Ihc I r cddntas. Sri Sankara draws pointed attention,
here, to the value of renunciation (samnydsa ) as the
means of true knowledge (jhdna). There are two
kinds of samnydsa — that which the •■reker for knowl-
edge ( jijhdsu) resorts t* for the sake of knowledge,
.and that which t4ie person who has realised the truth
(jnanin) resorts to for realising, without any hitch,
the blissfulness of the condition of liberation while
living (jivanmukti). King Jan aka, the greatest of
\ djhavalkya s disciples, continued to be a house-
holder (gi hast ha) and served the world in perfect
detachment as a jivanmukta ; but Yajhavalkya, who
was also a jivanmukta, after making momentous con-
tributions to the educating and upliftj^g of the world
in the sphere of spirituality, desired to renounce his
life as a householder (gdrhasthya) and to become a
Xlll
sUmnyasin. The ideal of a jivanmukta continuing
to serve in society is not really opposed to the ideal
of samnyasa and is beautifully synthesised with it in
the relation between Janaka and Y ajnavalkyd in f the
Brhadaranyaka ; and similarly through the delight-
ful liaison furnished by Maitreyi, the life of a
grhastha is unified in the fourth Brdhmana* of this
chapter with the life of a samnydsin. Yajnavalkya
conveys to Maitreyi the great truth that the pure
spirit — Atman — is the ultimate object of all forms of
love and is therefore to be understood as the eternal
*
bliss ; and Atman should be realised through the
duly regulated scheme of iravana, man ana and nidi -
dhydsana — knowing the truth from the Upanisads,
investigating and discussing it, and constant contem-
plation upon it (“winn m vx sro:
The upadhcsa in the Madhu-kancta is appropriate-
ly followed by the upapatti or argumentative andf
expository discourse in the Y djnavalkya-kanda, The
latter kanda consists of the fifth and sixth chapters
of the Upanisad. In the fifth, chapter, the dialectic
mode of argumentation known as jafya, or arguing
constructively as well as destructively for victory, is
employed. Yajnavalkya is presented here as the
stalwart dialectician in Janaka’s assembly of learned
philosophers and he fights his way to victory in the
interest of philosophical truth. The most important
Brahman a in this chapter is the eighth, in which
Brahmatattva is elucidated in answer to the questions
raised by Gdrgi] the lady philosopher who stands
out as the most outstanding personality among the
philosophical interlocutors opposing Y djnavalkya .
XIV
In the sixth chapter, . King Jancika plays the role,
not of a controversialist, but of one desirous of
completely knowing the truth (tattvabubhuisu)
and* the discourse proceeds on the lines of argu-
mentation for truth ( vada ). In the third and fourth
Brahmanas of this chapter, an illustrative exposition
o| paraloka and mdksa is given. The fifth Brahmana
repeats the dialogue between Y ajnavalkya and Mai -
ircyi and explains ttig means of self-realisation in the
highest sense (dtmabddha). In commenting upon
the concluding sentence of this Brahmana — “gciraeT
Vteu as also in commenting
upon the text etc. at the end of
the fifth Brahmana of the previous chapter and upon
6-4-22 of the sixth chapter, Sri Sankara discusses tlje
place of saninydsa and its value in the advaitic
scheme of life and liberation, and emphasises the
necessity for renunciation as providing special facil-
ities for unhampered realisation ; and in this con-
nection, as elsewhere, he is not in favour of any kind
of accommodation, in' practice oi theory, with the
advocates of the kaima-marga
The third division of the Brhaddranyaka is
known as the Khila-kanda and deals with certain
modes of meditation. The messages of the Brhaddra -
p yaka ontologv are conveyed in the texts —
itanW’; NraaiftanSW’; . The prag-
niatic message of this Upanisad is embodied in the
jtext— $ am mKUfa". The discipline of this
' Upanisad and its aim are embodied in the soul-
elevating abhyarohamantra — ‘From non-being, lead
me to being ; from darkness, lead me to light ; from
XV
death, lead me to deathlessness’-r- 44 **^ *n SSPTO; ?HFft Mr
toto”. All the teachings of this Vpa-
nisa'd are summed up in the first mantra of the, Khtfa-
kanda — ' That is the whole ; the whole is this ; from
the whole rises up the whole ; and having seized
the whole of the whole , the whole alone remains’ —
Such as are able to see the defects of the holism of
General Smuts may find comfort in the unimpeachable
w holism embodied in this mantra at the beginning
of the Khila-kdnda. The holism of General Smuts
may have, indeed, a chance of meeting with the
approval of advaitic dialectics, only if it links itself
up, as an ancillary, to the wholism of the absolute
monism of the Brhadaranyaka. The most striking
'message of this Upanisad on the ethical side is
embodied in the lesson which every meditator is
asked to read in the dental rumblings of the three
da f s (5-^-3) of a thunder-clap, which are suggestive
of self-restraint self-sacrifice (tr* r) and merciful
benevolence m) . This great ethical teaching is
embodied in the text — ^ and
Prajdpati conveys it to 'his three classes of children
the devas, the manusyas , and the asuras. Such
of the men as are godly in their nature and are
tossed about by kama, though otherwise good, should
be understood, according to Sri Sankara , as gods (^*0
among men ; such of them as are grasping and
greedy and actuated by Idbha, should be taken as
men among men ; and cruel men, demonised
by krddha, should be taken as demons . All
men should constantly practise dama, ddna and daya
XVI
Xo exorcise the monsters of kdma, Idbha afid
krddha.
Some alien and alien-minded scholars are* not
inclined to see any systematic presentation of a
philosophical doctrine in the Upanisads and believe
that the Upanisads, including even the Brahactd -
ranyalla, form a spiritual conglomerate of several
things of varying value belonging to different stages
— of thaumaturgic i pebbles, dualistic and pluralistic
toys and monistic gems. Those who carefully
study the Brhadaranyaka, and Sri Sankara's -great
bhdsya thereon, cannot easily resist the feeling that
the Brhadaranyaka thought is an integral whole
which is rooted on the advaita doctrine and has it
as its precious fruit, which uses a sound system of
exposition and dialectics easily lending themselves
to being expressed in the terms of the GautamiycP
logic, and which refuses to accommodate itself in
a satisfactory manner to any form of pluralistic
realism or to any kind of die timid spiritual and
metaphysical compromises involved in the bhedd-
bheda (diffeifciice-cum-ideiitity) phases of monistic
thought belonging to the Prc-Sahkara or Post-
Sankara stage in the history of Vedanta.
wiMit sfflt gw. 1,1
S. Kuppuswami Sastri.
NOTE
The Vedas, which are the oldest religious
literature of the world, and are the highest author-
ity with the Hindus in matters religious, consist of
two main divisions — the Mantras and the Brahmanas.
Though the latter are a sort of Commentary on the
former, both have equal authority. A Mantra may
be in verse, with fixed feet and syllables, when it is
called Rich, or it may not have any fixity of feet and
syllables, when it is called Yajus. A Rich that can
be sung is called a Saman. These three classes of
Mefntras have been grouped into four compilations
• or Samhitas, which are called the *Rig-Veda, the
Yajur-Veda, the Sama-Veda and ’the Atharva-Veda
Samhita. The common name for the first three is
Trayi, which means a triad. The Vedas are also
called- Shrutis, as distinguished from the Smritis y
under which comes all other sacred ^terature, and
which derive their authority from the Shrutis.
The Vedas are claimed to be eternal. They are
not the creation of man. Only they were revealed
to certain highly spiritual persons, called Rishis.
Each Samhita had one or more Brahmanas, only
a few of which are extant. The Yajur-Veda, which
has two forms, Dark and White, has the Taittiriya
and Shatapatha Brahmanas respectively. The White
Yajur-Veda was revealed to Yajnavalkya through the
grace of the Sun, who appeared to him in an equine
form. Hence, by a derivative meaning, it is also
XV111
called the Vajasaneyi Samhita, and the Shatapatha
Brahmana the Vajasaneyi Brahmana.
Some of the Brahmanas have a portion called
Aranyaka, in which, oftener than elsewhere, are
found one or more Upanishads. The Upanishads
constitute the Jnana-Kanda, as treating of philosophy,
while the rest of the Vedas is called Karma-Kanda,
as dealing with rituals.
The Samhitas % as well as the Brahmanas had
various recensions or Shfikhas according to their
original teachers, after whom they were named. The
Shatapatha Brahmana has the Kanwa and Madhyan-
dina recensions, which differ greatly from each other
in content as well as the number and arrangement of
their books and chapters, the former having seventeen
Kandas or books, and the latter only fourteen. The «
Brihadaranyaka Upauishad forms the concluding por-
tion of the last book, named ‘Aranyaka/ of both
recensions. But while the bulk of matter in both
versions is the same, there are marked discrepancies
jtoo. Shankar^ has commented upon the Kanw r a
/recension.
It may be mentioned in passing* that this recen-
sion of the Shatapatha Brahmana is not only not
in print, but is also not easily accessible, in its
entirety, even in a manuscript form. This is all the
more true of Sayanacharya’s great commentary on
this Brahmana.
CONTENTS
Page
Chapter I
1
Chapter II
... 252
•
"f Chapter III
... 409
T Chapter IV
... 569
Chapter V
... 801
Chapter VI
•
... 867
Index
... ...
... 953
List of Abbreviations
Ai.
• •• Aitareya Upanishad.
Ap.
... Apastamba Dharma Sutras.
Ba.
Bahvricha Brahmana.
Bau.
... Baudhayana Dharma Stitras.
Chh.
... Chhandogya Upanishad.
G.
• •• Bhagavad-Gita.
Gau.
... Gautama Efliarma Sutras.
Gau. N.
• Gautama Nyaya Sutras.
Ish.
... Isliavasya Upanishad.
Ja.
• •• Jabala Upanishad.
Ka.
• Kadia Upanishad.
Kau.
Kaushitaki Upanishad.
Ke.
Kena Upanishad.
Kshr.
... Ka/hashruti Upanishad.
M.
... Manu Samhita.
Ma.
... Mandukya Upanishad.
Mbh.
• • • Mahabharata.
Mn.
... Mahanarayana Upanishad.
Mu.
... Mundaka Upanishad.
Np.
Narada-Parivrajaka Upanishad.
Nr. Pu.
... NrisimhaVPurvatapani Upanishad.
Nr. Ut.
Nrisimha-Uttara^pani Upanishad.
Pr.
... Prashna Upanishad.
Ri.
... Rig- Veda.
Sh.
... Shatapatha Brahmana.
Shi.
Shiva Purana.
Shw.
Shwetashwatara Upanishad.
Ta.
. . . Tantfya-Mahabrahmana.
Tai.
Taittiriya Upanishad.
Tai. A.
... Taittiriya Aranyaka.
Tai. B.
*. .. Taittiriya Brahmana.
Tai. S.
... Taittiriya Samhita.
Va.
Vasish/ha Smriti.
V&.
... V&yu Purina.
Vish.
Vishnu Purana.
THE PEACE CHANT
& i i
& siTfef: sstt^j: 3rrrf^=r: i
Om. That (Brahman) is’ infinite, and
this (universe) is infinite. The infinite pro-
ceeds from the infinite. (Then) taking the
infinitude of the infinite (pniverse), it remains
as the infinite (Brahman) alon^.
Om Peace ! Peace ! Peace !
THE
BRIHADARANYAKA URANISHAD
CHAPTER I
SECTION I
Om. Salutation to Brahman (Hiranyagarbha 1 )
and the other sages forming the line of teachers who
have handed down the knowledge of Brahman. Salu-
tation to our own teacher. 9
With the \^prds, ‘The head of the sacrificial
horse is the dawn,’ etc. begins the Upanishad con-
nected with the Vajasaneyi Brahmana. This concise
commentary is being written on it to exjfiain to those
who wish to turn away from this relative world (Sam-
sa?a), the knowledge of the identity of the individual
self and Brahman, which is the means of eradicating
the cause of this wmrld (ignorance). This knowledge
of Brahman is called ‘Upanishad* because it entirely
removes this relative world together with its cause
from those who betake themselves to this study, for
the root ‘sad* prefixed by ‘upa* and ‘ni* means that..
Books also are called Upanishads as they have the
same end in view.
This Upanishad consisting of six chapters is called
‘Aranyaka* as it was taught in the forest (Aranya),
And because of its large size .it is called Brihad-
aranyaka. Now we are going to describe its relation
to the ceremonial portion of the Vedas. The whole
of the Vedas is dovoted to setting forth the means of
attaining what is good and avoiding what is evij, in
U^he being identified with the cosmic mind.
2 BRIHAD4RANYAKA UPANISHAD 1 .
so far as these are not known through perception and
inference, for all people naturally seek these two ends.
In matters coming within the range of experience, a
knowledge of the means of attaining the good and
avoiding the evil ends is easily available through per-
ception and inference. Hence the Vedas are not to
be sought for that. , Now, unless a person is aware of
the existence of the self in a future life, he will not
tie induced to attain what is good and avoid what is
evil in that life. For we have the example of the
materialists. Therefore the scriptures proceed to« dis-
cuss the existence of the self in a future life and the
particular means of attaining the good and avoiding
the evil in that life. For we see one of the Upani-
shads starts with the words, ‘There is a doubt
f
among men regarding the life after death, some sav-
ing that the self exists, and others that it does not’ 1
(Ka. I. 20), and concludes, ‘It is to be realised as ex-
isting indeed* (Ka. VI. 13), and so on. Also, begin-
ning with, ‘How (the. self remains) after death* (Ka.
V. 6), it ends with, JSpnie souls enter the womb to
get a new body, while others are born as stationary
objects (plants etc.), all according to their past work
and knowledge* (Ka. V. 7). Elsewhere beginning
with, ‘The man (self) himself becomes the light* (IV.
iii. 9), it ends with, ‘It is followed by knowledge,
work* (IV. iv. 2). Also, ‘One becomes good through
good work and evil through evil work* (III. ii. 13 ).
Again beginning with, ‘I w r ill instruct you* (II. i.
15 ), the existence of the extracorporeal self is es-
tablished in the passage, ‘Full of consciousness (i. e.
identified with the mind),’ etc. (II. i. 16 - 17 ).
l. t l.] BRIHADARANYAKA UPAWJSHAD * 3
• Objection : Is it not a matter of perception?
Reply : No, for we see the divergence of opinion
among different schools. Were the existence of the
self in a future body a matter of perception, tfie
materialists and Buddhists w^ould not stand opposed
to us, saying that there is no self. For nobody dis-
putes regarding an object of perception sucll as a
jar, saying it does not exist.
Objection : You are wrong, since a stump, for
instance, is looked upon as a man and so on.
Reply : No, for it vanishes when the truth is
known. There are no more contradictory views when
the stump, for instance, has been definitely known
as such through perception. The Buddhists, how-
ever, in spite of the fact that there is the ego-con-
sciousness, persistently deny the existence of the self
mother than the subtle body. Therefore, being differ-
ent from objects of perception, the existence of the
self cannot be proved by this means. Similarly in-
ference too is powerless.
Objection No, since the Shruti (Veda) points
out certain grounds of inference 1 for th£ existence of
the self, and these depend on perception, (these two
are also efficient means of the knowledge of the self).
Reply : Not so, for the self cannot be perceived
/ as having any relation to future life. But when its
existence has been known from the Shruti and from
certain- empirical grounds of inference cited by it,
the Mim&msakas aijd logicians, who follow in its foot-
steps, fancy that those Vedic grounds of inference
-r
1 Such as desires etc., which must have a basis, and this
is the «elf.
4 VRIHADjiRANYAKA V TAN I SHAD [ 1 . 1
such as the ego-consciousness are the products *of
their own mind, and declare that the self is know-
able through perception and inference. , .
* 'In any case, a man who believes that there is a
^ self which gets into relation with a future body,
' &e#ks to know the particular means of attaining the
good and avoiding the evil in connection with that
body. Hence the ceremonial portion of the Vedas
is introduced to acquaint him with these details.
But the cause of that desire to attain the good and
avoid the evil, viz., ignorance regarding the * Self,
which expresses itself as the idea of one’s being the
agent and experiencer, has not been removed by its
opposite, the knowledge of the nature of the self
as being identical with Brahman. Until that is re-
moved, a man prompted by such natural defects of
his as attachment or aversion to the fruits of his 1
actions, proceeds to act even against the injunctions
and prohibitions of the scriptures, and under the
powerful urge of his natural defects accumulates in
thought, word and deed a good deal of work known
as iniquity, producing harm, visible and invisible.
This leads to degradation down to the state of sta-
tionary objects. Sometimes the impressions made by
the scriptures are very strong, in which case he accu-
mulates in thought, word and deed a great deal of
what is known as good work which contributes to
his well-being. This work is twofold : that attend-
ed with meditation, and that which is mechanical.
Of these, the latter results in the attainment of the
world of the Manes and so on ; while work coupled
with meditation leads to worlds beginning witfy that
hi.] BRIHADARANYAKA U PARISH AD 5
of the gods and ending with the w r orld of Hiranya-
garbha. The Shruti says on the point, ‘One who
sacrifices to the Self is better than one who, sacri-
fices to the gods,’ etc. (Sh. XI. ii. 6. 13). And the
Smriti : ‘Vedic work is twofold/ etc. (M. XII. 88).
When the good work balances the evil, one becomes
a man. Thus the transmigration beginning with the
state of Hiranyagarbha and the rest and ending with
that of stationary objects, whicft a man with his
natural defects of ignorance etc. attains through his
good and bad deeds, depends on name, form and
action. This manifested universe, consisting of
means and ends, was in an undifferentiated state
before its manifestation. That relative universe,
without beginning and end like the seed and the
sprout etc., created by ignorance and consisting in a
superimposition of action, its factors and its results
on the Self, is an evil. Hence for the removal of the
ignorance of a man who is disgusted with this uni-
verse, .this Upanishad is being commenced in order to
inculcate the knowledge of Brahman which is the
very opposite of that ignorance.
The utility of this meditation concerning the
horse sacrifice is this : Those who are not entitled
to this sacrifice w r ill get the same result through this
meditation itself. Witness the Shruti passages :
‘Through meditation or through rites’ (Sh. X. iv. 3.
D), and ‘This (meditation on the vital force) alone
wins the world’ (I? iii. 28).
Objection : This meditation is just a part of
{he rite.
Reply : No, for the following Shruti passage
6 # BRIHJnJARANYAKA UPANISHAD [1.-1.
allows option : 'He who performs the horse sacri-
fice, or who knows it as such’ (Tai. S. V. iii. 12. 2).
Sjnce it occurs in a context dealing with knowted§e,
and since we see the same kind of meditation based
on resemblance being applied to other rites 1 also, we
understand that meditation will produce the same
result. Of all rites the greatest is the horse sacrifice,
for it leads to identity with Hiranyagarbha in his
collective and individual aspects. And its mention
here at the very beginning of this treatise on the
knowledge of Brahman is an indication that aft rites
fall within the domain of relative existence. It will
be shown later on that the result of this meditation
is identification with Hunger or Death.
Objection : But the regular (Nitya) rites, are
not productive of relative results.
Reply : Not so, for the Shruti sums up the re-
sults of all rites together. Every rite is connected
with the wife. In the passage. 'Let me have a wife.
.... This much indeed is desire’ (I. iv. 17), it is
shown that all actiofi is naturally prompted by desire,
and that the results achieved through a son, through
rites and through meditation are this world, the world
of the Manes and that of the gods respectively (I. v.
16), and the conclusion arrived at will be that every-
thing consists of the three kinds of food : 'This (uni-
verse) indeed consists of three things : name, form
and action’ (I. vi. 1). The manifested result of all
action is nothing but the relative universe. It is
these three which were in an ^differentiated state
(VI. 1 ii A iii n th€ PaSSage ' <This worId ’ ° Gautama, is fire’
. 1 . 1 ]
BRIHADARANYAKA UVAN1SHAV
1
before manifestation. That again is manifested owing
to the resultant of the actions Of all beings, as a tree
conies out of the seed. This differentiated and un-
differentiated universe, consisting of the gross 1 And
subtle worlds and their essence, falls within the cate-
gory of ignorance, and has been superimposed by it
on the Self as action, its factors and its resuits as if
they were Its own form. Although the Self is dif-
ferent from them, has nothing, to do with name,
form and action, is one without a second and is
eternal, pure, enlightened and free by nature, yet
It appears as just the reverse of this, as consisting
of differences of action, its factors and its results,
and so on. Therefore for the removal of ignorance,
the seed of defects such as desire and of action — like
the removal of the idea of a snake from a rope — with
regard to a man who is disgusted with this universe
of means and ends, consisting of actions, their factors
and their results — having realised that they are just
so much, the knowledge of Brahman is being set
forth’. »
The first two sections beginning with, ‘The head
of the sacrificial horse is the dawn/ will be devoted
to the meditation regarding the horse sacrifice. The
meditation about the horse is described as the horse
is the most important thing in this sacrifice. Its
importance is indicated by the, fact that the sacrifice
is named after it, and its presiding deity is Praj&pati
(Hiranyagarbha)
1 Earth, air and water are the gross world, and air and
the ether the subtle world. Their essence is the simple
form of each, before its combination with the other four
elements.
$ liklHA D.*RA NY A KA UPANISHAD [ 1 . 1 . 1 ..
I srt srsar^r fsrc: i
3TH: srror:, sncOT*^*!
f^*l: wsisptiT-
tWRfOH wffui, a^hr^rfot ut?i«3T:,
wtft, *srafr sr fc n fa \ tensm:, fwvnrl
5RT:, lip q^m:, PP^tPP^P
«hflfif, 3SR. ijqr^:, f H^^ SRT^;, qfesTWRr
ftMsft, qj%%
metre s sra H i a
i. Om. The head of the sacrificial horse
is the dawn, its eye the sun, its vital force'
the air, its open mouth the fire called Vaish-
wanara, and the body of the sacrificial horse ‘
is the year. Its back is heaven, its belly the
sky, its hoof the earth, its sides the four quar-
ters, its ribs the intermediate quarters, its
members the seasons, its joints the months
and fortnights*, its feet the days and nights,
its bones the stars and its flesh the clouds.
Its half-digested food is the sand, its blood-
vessels the rivers, its liver and spleen the
mountains, its hairs the herbs and trees. Its
forepart is the ascending sun, its hind part the
descending sun, its yawning is lightning, its
shaking the body is thundering, its making
w r ater is raining, and its neigKing is voice.
1 Represented by the breath.
1 . 1 . 1 .]
BRIHADARANYAKA VVANIStfAD
9
The head of the sacrificial horse, that is, one fit
for a sacrifice, is the dawn , a period of about three
•quarters of an hour just before sunrise. The particle
*vai’ recalls something well-known, here, the 'time
of dawn. The similarity is due to the importance of
each. The head is the most important part of the
body (and so is the dawn of the day) . The horse
which is a part of the sacrifice has to be purified ;
hence its head and other parts of its body are to be
looked upon as certain divisions of time etc. (and not
■vide versa). And it will be raised to the status of Pra-
j&pati by being meditated upon as such. In other
words, the horse will be deified into Prajapati if the
ideas of time, worlds and deities be superimposed on
ij, for Prajapati comprises these. It is like convert-
ing an image etc. into the Lord Vishnu or any other
deity. Its eye the sun, for it is next to the head (as
the sun is next to, or rises just after the dawn), and
has the sun for its presiding deity. Its vital force
the air, because as the breath it is of the nature of
mr.yits open mouth the fire called Vaishwanara.
The word 'Vaishwanara’ specifies * the fire. The
mouth is fire, because that is its presiding deity.
The body of the sacrificial horse is the year consist-
ing of twelve or thirteen months. The word 'Atman*
here means the body. The year is the body of the
divisions of time ; and the body is called Atman as
we see it in the Shruti passage, 'For the Atman
(trunk) is the centre of these limbs’ (Tai. A. II. iii.
5). The repetition of the phrase 'of the sacrificial
horse’ is intended to show that it is to be connected
with all the terms. Its back is heaven, because both
10
B&MADARXNYAKA UPANJSHAD [1. 1. 1.
are high. Its belly the sky, because both are hollow.*
Its hoof the earth : Tajasya’ should be Tadasya* by
the usual transmutation of letters, meaning, a seat*
for the foot. Its sides the four quarters, for they
are connected with the quarters. It may be objected
that the sides being two and the quarters four in
number, # the parallel is, wrong. The answer to it is
that since the head of the horse can be in any direc-
tion, its two sides cmn easily come in contact with
all the quarters. So it is all right. Its ribs the
intermediate quarters such as the south-east. Its
members the seasons : The latter being parts of the
year are its limbs, which brings out the similarity.
Its joints the months and fortnights, because both
connect (the latter connect the parts of the year ^s
joints do those gf the body). Its feet the days and
nights. The plural in the latter indicates that those 1
pertaining to Prajapati, the gods, the Manes and men
are all meant. ‘Pratishfha’ literally means those by
which one stands ; hence feet. The deity represent-
ing time stands on the’days and nights, as the horse
does on its feet . 0 Its bones the stars, both being white.
Its flesh the clouds : The word used in the text
means the sky, but since this has been spoken of as
the belly, here it denotes the clouds which float in
it. They are flesh, because they shed water as the
flesh sheds blood. Its half-digested food in the
stomach is the sand, because both consist of loose
1 A month of ours makes a day and might of the Manes.
A year of ours makes a day and night* of the gods; and
twenty-four million years of the latter make a day and
night of Praj&pati, equivalent to two Kalpas or cycles of
1 . 1 . 2.] brihadaranyaka upanisIhad 11
parts. Its blood-vessels the rivers, for both flow.
The word in the text, being plural, denotes blood-
vessels here. Its liver and spleen the mountains,
both being hard and elevated. ‘Yakrit* and ‘Kloman’
are muscles below the heart on the right and left.
The latter word, though always used in the plural,
denotes a single thing. Its hairs the herbs and trees •
These, being small ‘and large plants respectively,
should be applied to the short* and long hairs accord-
ing to fitness. Its forepart, from the navel onward,
is the ascending (lit., ‘rising’) sun, up to noon. Its
hind part the descending (lit., ‘setting’) sun, from
noon on. The similarity consists in their being the
anterior and posterior parts respectively ia each
case. Its yawning or stretching or jerking the
limbs is. lightning, because the orfe splits the cloud,
and the other the mouth. Its * shaking the body is
thundering, both producing a sound. Its making
water is raining, owing to the similarity of moisten-
ing. And its neighing is vpice or sound — no fancy-
ing is needed here.
; ircuuft sgs
stffr: . qT snjsf jrfensnwfim: I ^
II r ii
srsprf angcrg n
2. The * (gold) vessel called Mahiman in
front of the horse, which appeared about it
12
BRfoADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
LI. 1. 2
(i.e. pointing it out)* is the day. Its source
is the eastern sea. The (silver) vessel called
Mahpiian behind the horse, which appeared
about it, is the night. Its source is the west-
ern sea. These two vessels called Mahiman
appeared, on either side of the horse. As a
Haya it carried the gods, as a Vajiii the celes-
tial minstrels, as q>n Arvan the Asuras, and
as an Ashwa men. The Supreme Self is its
stable and the Supreme Self (or the sea) its
source.
The vessel called Mahiman , etc. Two sacrificial
, vessels called Mahiman, made of gold and silver re-
. spectively, are placed before and behind 1 the horse.*
*This is a meditation regarding them. The gold
vessel is the day, because both are bright. How is
it that the vessel in front of the horse , which
appeared about (literally, ‘after’) it, is the day f
Because the horse is Prajapati. And it is Prajapati
consisting of the sun etc. who is pointed out by the
vessel that we are required to look upon as the day.
(The preposition 'anu* here does liot mean ‘after/
but points out something.) So the meaning is, the
gold vessel (Mahiman) appeared pointing out the
horse as Prajapati, just as we say lightning flashes
pointing out (anu) the tree. Its source, the place
from which the 1 vessel is obtained, is the eastern sea.
Literally translated, it would mean, ‘is in the eastern
sea/ but the locative case-ending should be changed
1 That is, before and after the horse is killed.
1. 1. 2.] BR1HADARANYAKA • VPANISftAD
13 '
into the nominative to give the required sense.
Similarly the silver vessel behind the horse, which
appeared about it, is the night, because both (‘Rajata'
and ‘Ratri’) begin with the same syllable ‘(Ra), 1 or
because both are inferior to the previous set. Its
source is the western sea. The vessels are called
Mahiman, because they indicate greatness.' It is to
the glory of the horse that a gold and a silver vessel
are placed on each side of it. These two vessels
called Mahiman, as described above, appeared on
cither side of the horse. The repetition of the
sentence is to glorify the horse, as much as to say
that for the above reasons it is a wonderful horse.
The words ‘As a Haya J etc. are similarly eulogistic. -
‘Haya’ comes from the root ‘hi/ meaning, to move.
Hence the word means ‘possessing great speed.’
Or it may mean a species of h.orse. It carried the
gods, that is, made them gods, since it was Praja-
pati ; or literally carried them. It may be urged
that this act of carrying is rather a reproach. But
the answer is that carrying is natural to a horse ; so
it is not derogatory. On the contrary, the act, by
bringing the horse into contact with the gods, was
a promotion for it. Hence the sentence is a eulogy.
Similarly ‘Vajin’ and the other terms mean species
of horses. As a Vajin it carried the celestial mins-
trels ; the ellipsis must be supplied with the inter-
mediate words. Similarly as an Arvan (it carried)
the A suras, and as an Ashwa (it carried) men. The
1 Anandagiri takes ‘Varna’ in the sense of colour or
lustre, instead of syllable, in which case the night must be
supposed to be a moon-lit one.
14
BRI&ADAR4NYAKA UPANISHAD
[ 1 . 1 . 2
Supreme Self — ‘Samudra’ here means that — is its
stable, the place where it is tied. And the Supreme
Self its source, the cause of its origin. Thus it has
sprung from a pure source and lives in a pure spot.
So it is a tribute to the horse. Or 'Samudra* may
mean the familiar sea, for the Shruti says, ‘The horse
has its source in water’, (Tai. S. II. iii. 12).
SECTION II
3W1W, SI V H W t % ^ 5: 5 dHM*h$Jhd, SJlcflWfl
^ nfaf a i gre i ra a , srafr
£ ft ^lah^ l ^cd f HL ; ?K 5 ^T 3H$
^ 'StnsEjiWlEicSf II \[\
1 . There was nothing whatsoever here in
the beginning. It was covered by Death
(Hirany agarbha) , or Hunger, for hunger is
death. He created the mind, thinking, ‘Let
me have a mind .’ 1 He moved about worship-
ping (himself). As he was worshipping,
water was produced. (Since he thought), ‘As
I was worshipping, water sprang up,’ there-
fore Arka (fire) is so called. Water (or
happiness) surely comes to on^ who knows
how Arka (fire) came to have this name of
Arka.
Now the origin of the fire that is fit for use in
the horse sacrifice is being described. This story of
its origin is meant as a eulogy in order to prescribe
1 The word u^ed here is Atman, which among other
things means the body, Manas, intellect, individual self and
Supreme Self. The correct meaning at each place, as here,
is to be determined from the context. The word occurs
again in paragraph 4, where it means the body.
16
BX1HADAUANYAKA UPAN1SH4D [1.2.1.
a meditation concerning it. There was nothing*
whatsoever differentiated by name and form here , in
the universe, in the beginning , that is, before the.
manifestation of the mind etc.
Question : Was it altogether void ?
Nihilistic view : It must be so, for the Shruti
says, ‘There was nothing whatsoever here/ There
was neither cause nor effect. Another reason for
this conclusion is the fact of origin. A jar, for
instance, is produced. Hence before its origin it
must have been non-existent.
The logician objects : But the cause cannot be
non-existent, for we see the lump of clay, for
instance (before the jar is produced). What is not
perceived may well be non-existent, as is the case
with the effect here. But not so with regard to the
cause, for it is perceived.
The nihilist : No, for before the origin nothing
is perceived.. If the non-perception of a thing be
the ground of its non-existence, before the origin
of the whole universe neither cause nor effect is
perceived. Hei.ce everything must have been non-
existent.
Vcd&n tin's reply : Not so, for the Shruti says,
7 1 was covered by Death/ Had there been absolute-
ly nothing either to cover or to be covered, the
Shruti would not have said, ‘It was covered by
Death/ For it never happens that a barren woman’s
son is covered with flowers springing from the sky.
Yet the Shruti says, ‘It was covered by Death/
Therefore on the authority of the Shruti we conclude
that the cause which covered, a'nd the effect which
1 . 2 . 1 .] BR1HADARANY AKA VpANISHAD
17
was covered, were both existent before the origin of
the universe. Inference also points to this conclu-
sion. We can infer the existence of the cause <*and
effect 1 2 before creation. We observe that a positive
effect which is produced takes place only when there
is a cause and does not take place when th^e is no
cause. From this we infer that the cause of the
universe too must have existed before creation, as
is the case with the cause of a jar, for instance.
Objection : The cause of a jar also does not
pre-exist, for the jar is not produced without destroy-
ing the lump of clay. And so with other things.
Reply : Not so, for the clay (or other material)
is the cause. The clay is the cause of the jar, and
the gold of the necklace, and not the particular
lump-like form of the material, for they exist with-
out it. We see that effects such as the jar and the
necklace are produced simply when their materials,
clay and gold, are present, although the lump-like
form. may be absent. Therefore this particular form
is not the cause of the jar and the necklace. But
when the clay and the gold are absent, the jar and
the necklace are not produced, which shows that
these materials, clay and gold, are the cause, and
not the roundish form. Whenever a cause produces
an effect, it does so by destroying another effect it
produced just before, for the same cause cannot
produce more than one effect at a time. But the
cause, by destroying the previous effect, does not
destroy itself. Therefore the fact that an effect is
1 These will be taken up one by one.
2
IS BRIHA DA*kANY AKA UPANISHAD [1.2.!
produced by destroying the previous effect, the lump,
for instance, is not a valid reason to disprove that
the«eau8e exists before the effect is produced.
Objection : It is not correct, for the clay etc.
cannot exist apart from the lump and so on. In
other w^rds, you cannot say that the cause, the clay,
for example, is not destroyed when its previous
effect, the lump or any other form, is destroyed, but
that it passes on to some other effect such as the jar.
For the cause, the clay or the like, is not perceived
apart from the lump or jar, and so on.
Reply : Not so, for we see those causes, the
clay etc., persist when the jar and other things have
been produced, and the lump or any other form has
gone.
Objection :• The persistence noticed is due to
similarity, not to actual persistence of the cause.
Reply : No. Since the particles of clay or other
material which belonged to the lump etc. are percep-
tible in the jar and other things, it is unreasonable to
imagine simil^ity through a pseudo-inference. Nor
is inference valid when it contradicts perception, for
it depends on the latter, and the contrary view will
result in a general disbelief. That is to say, if every-
thing perceived as ‘This is that* is momentary, then
the notion of that* would depend on another notion
regarding something else, and so on, thus leading to
a regressus in infinitum ; and the notion of ‘This is
like that’ being also falsified thereby, there would be
n6 certainty anywhere. Besides the two notions of
‘this' and ‘that* cannot be connected, since there is
no abiding subject.
•|. 2 . 1 .] BRIHADARANYAKA Up'aNISHAD 19
Objection : They would be connected througn
the similarity between them.
’ Reply : No, for the notions of 'this’ and ‘that’
cannot be the object of each other’s perception, and
(siqce according to you there is no abiding subject
like the Self), there would be no perception <?f simi-
larity.
Objection : Although there is no similarity,
there is the notion of it.
Reply : Then the notions of ‘this* and 'that’
would also, like the notion of similarity, be based
on nonentities.
Objection (by the Yogachara school) : Let all
notions be based on nonentities. (What is the
harm ?)
• Reply : Then your view that everything is an
idea would also be based on a nonentity.
Objection (by the nihilist) : Let it be.
Reply: If all notions are false, your view that
n all notions are unreal cannot be established. There-
fore it is wrong to say that recognition takes place
through similarity. Hence it is proved that the
cause exists before the effect is produced.
The effect too exists before it is produced.
Question : How ?
Reply : Because its manifestation points out its
pre-rexistence. Manifestation means coming within
the range of perception. It is a common occurrence
that a thing, a jai*, for instance, which was hidden
by darkness or any other thing, and comes within
the range of perception when the obstruction is
removed by the appearance of light or in some
20 BRlHADtikANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [ 1 . 2 . 1 ?
other way, does not preclude its previous existence.
Similarly this universe too, we can understand,
existed before its manifestation. For a jar that ‘is
non-existent is not perceived even when the sun
rises.
Objection : No, it must be perceived, for you
deny its previous non-existence. According to you,
any effect, say a jar, is never non-existent. So it
must be perceived Vhen the sun rises. Its previous
form, the lump of clay, is nowhere near, and ob-
structions like darkness are absent ; so, being exist-
ent, it cannot but appear.
Reply : Not so, for obstruction is of two kinds.
Every effect such as a jar has two kinds of obstruc-
tion. When it has become manifest from « its
component cl a//, darkness and the wall etc. are the c
obstructions ; while before its manifestation from the
clay the obstruction consists in the particles of cla.y
remaining as some other effect such as a lump.
Therefore the effect, the jar, although existent, is
not perceived before 'its manifestation as it is hidden.
The terms and the concepts '‘destroyed/ ‘produced,’
‘existence’ and ‘non- existence’ depend on this two-
fold character of manifestation and disappearance.
Objection : This is incorrect, since the obstruc-
tions represented by particular forms such as the
lump or the two halves of a jar, are of a different
nature. To be explicit . Such obstructions to the
manifestation of a jar as darkness or the wall, we
see, do not occupy the same sp^ce as the jar, but
the lump or the two halves of a jar do. So your
statement that the jar, although present in the form
J. 2. 1.] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
21
of the lump or the two halves, is not perceived be-
cause it is hidden, is wrong, for the nature of the
obstruction in this case is different.
Reply : No, for we see that water mixed with
milk occupies the same space as the milk which
conceals it.
Objection : But since the component parts of a
jar such as its two halves or pieces are included in
the effect, the jar, they should no! prove obstructions
at all.
Reply : Not so, for being separated from the
jar .they are so many different effects, and can there-
fore serve as obstructions.
Objection : Then the effort should be directed
solely to the removal of the obstructions. That is to
# say, if, as you say, the effect, the jar* for instance,
is actually present in the state of the lump or the
two halves, and is not perceived because of an
obstruction, then one who wants that effect, the jar,
should try to remove the obstruction, and not make
the jar. But as a matter of fact, nobody does so.
Therefore your statement is wrong. •
Reply : No, for there is no hard and fast rule
about it. It is not always the case that a jar or any
other effect manifests itself if only one tries to
remove the obstruction ; for when a jar, for instance,
is covered with darkness etc., one tries to light a
lamp.
Objection : That too is just for destroying the
darkness. This effort to light a lamp is also for
removing the darkness, which done, the jar is
automatically perceived. Nothing is added to the jar.
22
$R1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [ 1 . 2 . 1 ,
Reply : No, for the jar is perceived as covered
with light when the lamp is lighted. Not so before
the lighting of the lamp. Hence this was .not
simply' for removing the darkness, but for covering
the jar with light, for it is since perceived as covered
with light. Sometimes the effort is directed to the
removal of the obstruction, as when the wall, for
instance, is pulled down. Therefore it cannot be laid
down as a rule that* one who wants the manifestation
of something must simply try to remove the ob-
struction. Besides one should take such steps as
will cause the manifestation for the efficacy of the
established practice regarding it. We have already
said that an effect which is patent in the cause serves
as an obstruction to the manifestation of other effects.
So if one tries only to destroy the previously mani-
fested effect such as the lump or the two halves'
which stand between it and the jar, one may also
have such effects as the potsherds or tiny pieces.
These too will conceal the jar and prevent its being
perceived ; so a fresh -attempt will be needed. Hence
the necessary# operation of the factors of an action
has its utility for one who wants the manifestation of
a jar or any other thing. Therefore the effect exists
even before its manifestation.
From our divergent notions of the past and
future also we infer this. Our notions of a jar that
was and one that is j^et to be cannot, like the notion
of the present jar, be entirely independent of objects.
For one who desires to have a jar not yet made sets
oneself to work for it. We do not see people strive
for things which they know to be non-existent.
1. 2. 1] BRJHADARANYAKA VfANISHAD 23
Another reason for the pre-existence of the effect is
the fact that the knowledge of (God and) the Yogins
■concerning the past and future jar is infallible. Were
the future jar non-existent, His (and their)* pe/cep-
tion of it would prove false. Nor is this perception
a mere figure of speech. As to the reasons for infer-
ring the existence of the jar, we have alreaiy stated
them.
Another reason for it is tl\at the opposite view
involves a self-contradiction. If on seeing a potter,
foi* instance, at work on the production of a jar one
is certain in view of the evidence that the jar will
come into existence, then it would be a contradiction
in terms to say that the jar is non-existent at the very
time with which, it is said, it will come into relation.
For to say that the jar that will be is non-existent, is
the same thing as to say that it will fiot be. It would
be like saying, ‘This jar does not exist.* If, howr
ever, you say that before its manifestation the jar is
non-existent, meaning thereby that it does not exist
exactly as the potter, for instance, exists while he is
at work on its production (that is, ^s a ready-made
jar), then there is no dispute between us.
Objection : Why ?
Reply : Because the jar exists in its own future
(potential) form. It should be borne in mind that the
present existence of the lump or the two halves is not
the same as that of the jar. Nor is the future exist-
ence of the jar the same as theirs. Therefore you
do not contradict us when you say that the jar is non-
existent before Its manifestation while the activity of
the potter, for instance, is going on. You will be
24
B&IHADASMNYAKA upanishad
[ 1 . 2 . 1
doing this if you deny to the jar its own future form
as an effect. But you do not deny that. Nor do all
things undergoing modification have an identical form
of ^dstence in the present or in the future.
Moreover, of the four kinds 1 of negation relating
to, say, a jar, we observe that what is called mutual
exclusiofi is other than the jar : The negation of a
jar is a cloth or some other thing, not the jar itself.
But the cloth, although it is the negation of a jar, is
not a nonentity, but a positive entity. Similarly the
previous non-existence, the non-existence due to «de-
struction, and absolute negation must also be other
than the jar ; for they are spoken of in terms of it,, as
in the case of the mutual exclusion relating to it.
And these negations must also (like the cloth, for in-
stance) be positive entities. Hence the previous non-
existence of a jar does not mean that it does not at all
exist as an entity before it comes into being. If,
however, you say that the previous non-existence of a
jar means the jar itself, then to mention it as being
of a jar’ (instead of as 'the jar itself’) is an incon-
gruity. If yoi* use it merely as a fancy, as in the
expression, ‘The body of the stone roller ,* 2 then the
phrase ‘the previous non-existence of a jar’ would
only mean that it is the imaginary non-existence that
is mentioned in terms of the jar, and not the jar it-
self. If, on the other hand, you say that the negation
1 Mutual exclusion, l>etv\<_en things of different classes,
as, A jar is not cloth’; previous non-existence, as of a jar
before it is made ; the non-existence due to destruction, as
of a jar when it is hr- -ken; and absolute negation, as ‘There
is no jar.’ ’ *
2 The stone roller has no body, it is the body.
. 1 . 2 . 1 ] BRIHADARANYAKA PliANlSHAD
25
of a jar is something other than it, we have already
answered the point. Moreover, if the jar before its
manifestation be an absolute nonentity like the pro-
verbial horns of a hare, it cannot be connected eitlier
with its cause or with existence (as the logicians
hold), for connection requires two positive entities
Objection : It is all right with things that are
inseparable.
Reply : No, for we cannot conceive of an insep-
arable connection between an existent and a non-
existent thing. Separable or inseparable connection
is. possible between two positive entities only, not
between an entity and a nonentity, nor between two
nonentities. Therefore we conclude that the effect
dqes exist before it is manifested.
By what sort of Death was the universe covered
This is being answered : By Hunger, or the desire to
eat, which is a characteristic of death. How is hunger
death? The answer is being given : For hunger is
death. The particle ‘hi’ indicates a well-known
reason. He who desires to eat kills animals imme-
diately after. Therefore ‘hunger’ refers to death.
Hence the use of the expression. ‘Death’ here means
Hiranyagarbha as identified w T ith the intellect, be-
cause hunger is an attribute of that which is so
identified. This effect, the universe, was covered by
that Death, just as a jar etc. would be covered by
clay in the form of a lump. He created the mind.
The word ‘Tat’,, (that) refers to the mind. That
Death of whom we are talking, intending to project
the effects which will be presently mentioned, created
the inner organ called mind, characterised by delib-
26 BR 1HADAJRANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [1. 2. 1.
eration etc., possessing the power to reflect on those
effects. What was his object in creating the mind ?
This is being stated : Thinking, ‘ Let me have a
miiid — through this mind (Atman) let me be possessed
of a mind.* This was his object. He, Prajapati,
being possessed of a mind after it was manifested,
moved hbout worshipping himself, thinking he was
blessed. As he was worshipping, water, an all-liquid
substance forming an accessory of the worship, was
produced. Here we must supply the words, 'After
the manifestation of the ether, air and fire/* for
another Shruti (Tai. II. i. 1) says so, and there can be
no alternative in the order of manifestation. Since
Death thought, 'As I was worshipping , water sprang
up/ therefore Arka, the fire that is suited to the horse
sacrifice, is so called . This is the derivation of the
name ‘Arka’ given to fire. This is a descriptive
epithet of fire derived from the performance of wor-
ship leading to happiness, and the connection with
water. Water or happiness surely comes to one who
knows how Arka (fire) came to have this name of
Arka. This ia due to the similarity of names. The
particles ‘ha* and ‘vai’ are intensive.
fsRStwxPv: HRH
2. Water is Arka. What was there
(like) froth on the water was? solidified and
became this earth. When that* was produced,
he was tired. While he was (thus) tired and
1. 2. 8] BR1HADARANYAKA VPAN1SHAD 27
•distressed, his essence, or lustre, came forth.
This was Fire.
* ' What is this Arka ? Water, that accessory of
worship, is Arka, being the cause of fire. For, it is
said, fire rests on water. Water is not directly Arka,
for the topic under discussion is not water, but fire.
It will be said later on, ‘This fire is Arka* *(I. ii. 7).
What was there like froth on the water, like the
coagulated state of curds, was 'solidified, being sub-
jected to heat internally and externally. Or the
word ‘Shara* may be the nominative (instead of a
complement), if we change the gender of the pro-
noun ‘Yad* (that). That solid thing became this
earth. That is to say, out of that water came the
embryonic state of the universe, compared to an egg.
When that earth was produced, he, % Death or Praja-
pati, was tired . For everyone is tired after work,
and the projection of the earth was a great feat of
Prajfipati. What happened to him then? While he
was [ (thus) tired and distressed, his essence, or lustre,
came forth from his body. What was that? This
was Fire, the first-born Virfij, 1 also Called Prajfipati,
who sprang up within that cosmic egg, possessed of
a body and organs. As the Smriti says, ‘He is the
first embodied being* (Shi. V. i. 8. 22).
e
sral i&Cf i 3^ , sasft
^ waft, ^pht yhfWIi <9
1 The being identified with the sum total of all bodies.
28
BFHHADAI^ANYAKA PUANISHAD [ 1 . 2 . 3
« *lf?T srtdldgr^ faST**. 11*11 # .
• 3. • He (Viraj) differentiated himself in
three ways, making the sun the third form,
and air the third form. So this Prana (Viraj)
is divided in three ways. His head is
the east, and his arms that (north-east)
and that (south-east). And his hind part is
the west, his hip-bones that (north-west) and
that (south-west), his sides the south and
north, his back heaven, his belly the sky, and
his breast this earth. He rests on water.
He who knows (it) thus gets a resting place
wherever he goes.
He, the Viraj who was born, himself differentiat-
ed or divided himself , his body and organs, in
three ways. How? Making the sun the third form ,
in respect of fire and air. The verb ‘made 1 must be
supplied. And air the third form , in respect of fire
and the sun. Similarly we must understand, ‘Making
fire the third form,* in respect of air and the sun,
for this also can equally make up the number three.
So this Prana (Viraj), although the self, as it
were, of all beings, is specially divided by himself as
Death in three ways as fire, air and the sun, without,
however, destroying his own form of Viraj. Now the
meditation on this Fire, the first-born Vir^j, the Arka
fit for use in the horse sacrifice and kindled in it, is
being described, like that on the horse. We have
^already said that the previous account of its origin
1. 2. 4] BR1HADARANY AKA T*PAN1SH*AD
is all for its eulogy, indicating that it is of such pure
birth. His head is the east , both being the most
* important. And his arms that and that, the north-
east and south-east. The word ‘Irma’ (arm) is
derived from the root ‘ir,* meaning motion. And his
hind part is the west, because it points to that direc-
tion when he faces the east. His hip-bones' that and
that, the north-west and south-west, both forming
angles with the back. His sides j the south and north,
both being so related to the east and west. His back
heaven, his belly the sky, as in the case of the horse*.
And his breast this earth, both being underneath.
He, this fire consisting of the worlds, or Prajapati*
rests on water, for the Shruti says, ‘Thus do these
worlds lie in water. ’ He gets a resting place where -
ever he goes. Who? Who knoivs that fire rests on
water, thus, as described here. < This is a subsidiary
result . 1
crNi ; cRj£?r siratei
I si ^ 3TT 5!H: TOW
5rrarsri grrasrfqra :, g rerafa re g p:: ; aforera:
^ OTnnq, iiuii
4. He desired, ‘Let me have a second
form 2 (body).' He, Death or Hunger,
3 The main result will be stated in paragraph 7.
2 The word nsed is Atman. We have translated it as*
‘form* for convenience. See footnote on p. 15.
30 BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [1. 2. 4
brought about the union of speech (the
Vedas) with the mind. What was the seed,
theae became the Year (Viraj). Before him
there had been no year. He (Death) reared
him for as long as a year, and after this
period projected him. When he was born,
(Death) opened his' mouth (to shallow him).
He (the babe) cried ‘Bhan!’ That became
speech.
It has been stated that Death, in the order *of
water and the rest, manifested himself in the cosmic
egg as the Viraj or Fire possessed of a body and
organs, and divided himself in three ways. Now by
what process did he manifest himself? This is being
answered: He, . Death, desired, ‘Let me have a
second form or body, through which I may become
embodied.’ Having desired thus, he brought about
the union of speech, or the Vedas, with the mind that
had already appeared. In other words, he reflected
on the Vedas, that is, the order of creation enjoined
in them, with hi* mind. Who did it ? Death charac-
terised by hunger. It has been said that hunger is
death. The text refers to him lest someone else
(Viraj) be understood. What was the seed, the cause
of the origin of Viraj, the first embodied being, viz.,
the knowledge and resultant of work accumulated in
past lives, which Death visualised in his reflection on
the Vedas, there, in that union, beaame the Year,
the Prajapati of that name who m^kes the year.
Death (Hiranyagarbha), absorbed in these thoughts^
projected water, entered it as the seed and, trans-
1 . 2 . 5 ] BRIHADARANYAKA UTANISHA'b 31
fofmed into the embryo, the cosmic egg, became the
year. Before him, the Viraj who makes the year,
Phe're had been no year, no period of that name.
Death reared him, this Vir&j who was in embryo, for
as long as a year, the well-known duration of time
among us, that is, for a year. What did he do after
that? And after this period, that is, a year., pro -
jected him, that is, broke the egg. When he, the
babe, Fire, the first embodied being, was born, Death
opened his mouth to swallow him, because he was
hungry. He, the babe, being frightened, as he was
possessed of natural ignorance, cried ‘Bhan y — made
this sound. That became speech or word.
ffij 5 ^ grraT
fiter— qyal qsrpr qron fa wi *nn:
I S3 fiitj-KHTW 5 ^ *r swftfa
5. He thought, ‘If I kill him, I shall
be making very little food.’ Through that
speech and that mind he projected all this,
whatever there is — the Vedas Rich, Yajus
and Saman, the metres, the sacrifices, men
and animals. Whatever he projected, he
resolved to eat. Because he eats everything,
therefore Aditi (Death) is so called. He
who knows how Aditi came to have this name
32
itRlHA DARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [1. 2. 5*
of Aditi, becomes the eater of all this, and
everything becomes his food.
• Seeing the babe frightened and crying, he,
Death, thought , although he was hungry, ‘If I kill
him, this babe, I shall he making very little food /
(The r%ot ‘man’ with the prefix ‘abhi’ means to
injure or kill.) Thinking thus he desisted from
eating him, for he must make not a little food, but a
great quantity of it, so that he might cat it for a long
time ; and if he ate the babe, he would make very
little food, as there is no crop if the seeds are eaten
up. Thinking of the large quantity of food necessary
for his purpose, through that speech, the Vedas
already mentioned, and that mind, uniting them, that
is, reflecting on the Vedas again and again, he pro-
jected all this, the movable and immovable (animals,
plants, etc.), whatever there is. What is it? The
Vedas Rich, Yajus and Sdman, the seven metres, viz.,
Gayatri and the rest, that is, the three kinds of
Mantras (sacred formulre) forming part of a cere-
mony, viz., tlnj hymns (Stotra), the praises (Shastraj 1
and the rest, composed in Gayatri and other metres,
the sacrifices, which are performed with the help of
those Mantras, men, who perform these, and animals,
domestic and wild, which are a part of the rites.
Objection : It has already been said that Death
1 The hymns aiv Riches that are sung by one class of
priests, the Udgfitri etc. The Shastras are those very
hymns but only recited by another cl^ss of priests, the
Hotri etc., not sung. There are other Riches too, which
are used in a different way by a third class of priests, tl»e
Adhwaryu etc., in the sacrifices. These are the third group
of Mantras.
.1. 2. 6] BRIHADARANY AKA 1/PAN1SHAD
33
projected Viraj through the union of speech (the
Vedas) with the mind. So how can it now be said
til at he projected the Vedas ?
Reply : It is all right, for the previous union of
the mind was with the Vedas in an unmanifested
state, whereas the creation spoken of here is the
manifestation of the already existing Vedas so that
they may be applied to the ceremonies. Understand-
ing that now the food had increased, whatever he,
Prajapati, projected , whether it was action, its means
or its results, he resolved to eat. Because he eats
everything, therefore Aditi or Death is so called .
So the Shruti says, 'Aditi is heaven, Aditi is the sky,
Aditi is the mother, and he is the father,’ etc.
(Ri. I. lix. 10). He who knows how Aditi , Prajapati
or Death, came to have this name of Aditi, because
I
of eating everything, becomes the eater of all this
universe, which becomes his food — that is, as identi-
fied with the universe, otherwise it would involve a
contradiction ; for nobody, we see, is the sole eater
of everything. Therefore the meaning is that he be-
comes identified with everything. Ani for this very
reason everything becomes his food, for it stands to
reason that everything is the food of an eater who is
identified with everything.
| STS-
srnar^, qfaawra ; snfriFi
| srTtjn # effem :
srftf sa fafjufggra ; antfatn i n
6. He desired, ‘Let me sacrifice again
34
EfclHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [1. 2. 6,
with the great sacrifice/ He was tired, and
he was distressed. While he was (thus) tired
an£ distressed, his reputation and strength
departed. The organs are reputation and
strength. When the organs departed, the
body Ijegan to swell, (but) his mind was set
on the body.
He desired, ete. This and part of the next
paragraph are introduced to give the derivation of
the words ‘Ashwa* (horse) and ‘Ashwamedha’ (horse
sacrifice). ‘Let me sacrifice again with the great
sacrifice/ The word ‘again’ has reference to his per-
formance in the previous life. Prajapati had per-
formed a horse sacrifice in his previous life, and was
born at the beginning of the cycle imbued with those
thoughts. Having been born as identified with the '
act of horse sacrifice, its factors and its results, he
desired, ‘Let me sacrifice again with the great sacri-
fice.’ Having desired this great r.ndertaking, he was
tired, like other men, and he was distressed. While
he was (thus)«fired and distressed — these words have
already been explained (in par. 2) — his reputation
and strength departed . The Shruti itself explains
the words; The organs are reputation, being the
cause of it, for one is held in repute as long as the
organs are in the body ; likewise, strength in the
body. No one can be reputed or strong when the
organs have left the body. Hence these are the
reputation and strength in this body. So the reputa-
tion and strength consisting of the organs departed.
When the' organs forming reputation and strength
. 1 . 2 . 7 ]
BRIHADARANYAKA VPANISIiAD
35
departed, the body of Prajipati began to swell , and
became impure or unfit for a sacrifice. (But) although
Brajapati had left it, his mind was set on the body,
just as one longs for a favourite object even when
one is away.
q tetrowq , ftwf *r ft
pn f rrfe i srcitosi: asfcsqwjfMa,
i w sRjgrfcr ?
mtfrt %3[ | icHHTOafawm a I »K-
senfrcsw srrawi i <T£i%arRT: i eremcq gr-
^*c*r sftf^RT | arr^gr
cPTrn, clFT 3JHcm ; SRTOtinSK:, HH(«
afar sncsrw: i ^ ^raT
, ; »w SP*!^ awft, 3*f
jjc^r^Tcm awfa, *mrorr m\
jfer
7. He desired, ‘Let this body of mine
be fit for a sacrifice, and let me be embodied
through this,’ (and entered it}. Because
that body swelled (Ashwat), therefore it came
to be called Ashwa (horse). And because it
became fit for a sacrifice, therefore the horse
sacrifice came to be known as Ashwamedha.
He who knows it thus indeed knows the horse
sacrifice. (Imagining himself as the horse
and) letting it remain free, he reflected (on it).
After a year h£ sacrificed it to himself, and
dispatched the (other) animals to the gods.
36 &RIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [1. 2. 7
Therefore (priests to this day) sacrifice £o
Prajapati the sanctified (horse) that is dedi-
cated to all the gods. He who shines yon’der
is the horse sacrifice; his body is the year.
This fire is Arka; its limbs are these worlds.
So th§se two (fire and the sun) are Arka and
the horse sacrifice. These two again become
the same god, Death. He (who knows this)
conquers further death, death cannot over-
take him, it becomes his self, and he becomes
one with these deities.
What did he (Hiranyagarbha) do with his mind
attached to that body? He desired. How? ' Let
this body of mine be fit for a sacrifice , and let me' be
embodied through this And he entered it. Because •
that body, bereft in his absence of its reputation and
strength, swelled (Ashwat), therefore it came to be
called Ashwa (horse). Hence Prajapati 1 himself is
named Ashwa. This is a uilogy on the horse. And
because on account of his entering it, the body, al-
though it had become unfit for a sacrifice by having
lost its reputation and strength, again became fit for
a sacrifice, therefore the horse sacrifice came to be
known as Ashwamedha . For a sacrifice consists of
an action, its factors and its results. And that it is
no other than Prajapati is a tribute to the sacrifice.
The horse that is a factor of the sacrifice has been
declared to be Prajapati in the passage, The head of
the sacrificial horse is the dawn/ *etc. (I. i. 1). The
1 Hiranyagarbha.
.1. 2. 7] BRIHADARANYAKA UPttNISHAD
37
present paragraph is introduced to enjoin a collective
meditation on that sacrificial horse which is Praj&pati,
ahd* the sacrificial fire which has already been de-
scribed (as such) — viewing both as the result of the
sacrifice. That this is the import of this section we
understand from the fact that in the previous ^section
no verb denoting an injunction has been used, and
one such is necessary. The words, He who knows
it thus indeed knows the horse Sacrifice, mean, ‘He
only, and none else, knows the horse sacrifice, who
knows the horse and the Arka or fire, described above,
as possessed of the features, to be presently mention-
ed, Which are here shown collectively. * Therefore
one must know the horse sacrifice thus — this is the
meaning. How ? First the meditation on the animal
♦is being described. Prajapati, desiring to sacrifice
again with the great sacrifice, imagined himself as
the sacrificial animal, and letting it, the consecrated
animal, remain free or unbridled, reflected (on ij.
After a complete year he sacrificed it to himself, that
is, as dedicated to Prajapati (Hirany jgarbha) , and
dispatched the other animals, domestic and wild, to
the gods, their respective deities. And because Pra-
japati reflected like this, therefore others should also
likewise fancy themselves, in the manner described
above, as the sacrificial horse and meditate : ‘While
being sanctified (with the Mantras), I am dedicated
to all the gods ; but while being killed, I am dedicat-
ed to myself. The other animals, domestic and wild,
are sacrificed to \heir respective deities, the other
gods, who are but a part of myself.* Therefore priests
38
BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [1. 2. 7.
to this day similarly sacrifice to Prajapati the sancti-
fied horse that is dedicated to all the gods.-
* He who shines yonder is the horse sacrifice.
The sacrifice which is thus performed with the help
of the animal is being directly represented as the
result. Who is he? The sun who illumines the
universe with his light. His body, the body of the
sun, who is the result of the sacrifice, is the year,
that period of time. The year is called his body as
it is made by him. Now, since the sun, as the horse
sacrifice, is performed with the help of fire, (the fatter
also is the sun). Here the result of the sacrifice is
being mentioned as the sacrifice itself: This ter-
restrial fire is Arka, the accessory of the sacrifice.
Its limbs, the limbs of this Arka, the fire that is
kindled at th^ sacrifice, are these ■ three worlds. So
it has been explained in the passage, ‘His head is the
east/ etc. (I. ii. 3). So these two , fire and the sun,
are Arka and the horse sacrifice, as described above
— the sacrifice and its result, respectively. Arka, the
terrestrial fire, is directly the sacrifice, which is a
rite. Since the latter is performed with the help of
fire, it is here represented as fire. And the result is
achieved through the performance of the sacrifice.
Hence it is represented as the sacrifice in the state-
ment that the sun is the horse sacrifice. These two,
fire and the sun, the means and the end, the sacrifice
and its result, again become the same god. Who is
it? Death. There was but one*deity before, who
later was divided into action, its means and its end.
So it has been said, ‘He differentiated himself in three
w r ays* (I. ii. 3). And after the ceremony is over, he
, 1. 2. 7] BR1HADARANYAKA URANISHAD
39
&gain becomes one deity, Death, the result of the
ceremony. He who knows this one deity, horse
sacrifice or Death, as, T alone am Death, the horse
sacrifice, and there is but one deity identical with
myself and attainable through the horse and fire* —
conquers further death , that is, after dying once he
is not born to die any more. Even though conquered-,
death may overtake him again. So it is said, death
cannot overtake him. Why? ^Because it becomes
his self , the self of one who knows thus. Further,
beifig Death , 1 the result, he becomes one with these
deities. This is the result such a knower attains.
1 Hiranyagarbha. See paragraph 1.
SECTION III
How is this section related to the preceding
one ? The highest result of rites combined with
meditation has been indicated by a statement of the
result of the horse sacrifice, viz., identity with Death
or Hiranvagarbha. f Now the present section, devoted
to the Udgitha, is introduced in order to indicate the
source of rites and meditation, which are the means
of attaining identity with Death.
Objection : In the previous section the result of
rites and meditation has been stated to be identity
with Death. But here the result of rites and medita-
tion on the Udgitha will be stated to be the trans-
cendence of identity with death. Hence, the results '
being different, this section cannot be meant to indi-
cate the source of the rites and meditation that have
been dealt with in the previous section.
Reply : The objection does not hold, for the
result of medication on the Udgitha is identity with
fire and the sun. In the previous section too this
very result was mentioned, 'He becomes one witli
these deities* (I. ii. 7).
Objection : Do not such statements as, ‘Having
transcended death/ etc. (I. iii. 12-16) clash with what
has been said before ?
Reply : No, for here the transcendence is of the
natural attachment to evil (not of Hiranyagarbha).
What is this natural attachment to evil, called death ?
What is its source ? By what means is it transcend-
. 1. 3. 1] BRIHADARANYAKA VBANISHAd 41
dd ? And how ? — tfiese are the things which are
sought to be explained by the following allegory :
3*rr s gMNtq n, frr rangma ’ i aa:
5 ^TT 3v*f:, ||?||
9
i. There were two classes of Prajapati’s
sons, the gods and the Asuras. Naturally/
the gods were fewer, and the Asuras more in
number. They vied with each other for (the
mastery of) these worlds. The gods said,
'Now let us surpass the Asuras in (this) sacri-
fice through the Udgitha.’
■ There were two classes : ‘Two’ here means two
■ classes. The particle ‘ha* is an expletive referring
to a past incident. It is here hsed to recall what
happened in the past life of the present Prajapati.
Of PrajdpatTs sons, in his past incarnation. Who
are they? The gods and the Asuras , the organs, that
of speech and the rest, of Prajapati himself. How
can they be the gods and Asuras ? * They become
gods when they shine under the influence of thoughts
and actions as taught by the scriptures. While those
very organs become Asuras when they are influenced
by their natural thoughts and actions, based only on
perception and inference, and directed merely to
visible (secular) ends. They are called Asuras be-
cause they delight only in their own lives (Asu),
or because they* are other than the gods (Sura).
1 Literally, ‘therefore.*
42
&R1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 1 . 3 . 1 ,
And because the Asuras are influenced by thoughts
and actions directed to visible ends, therefore the
gods were fewer, and the Asuras \ more in number .
(Tlie tehgthened form of the two adjectives due to the
addition of a votvel augment makes no change of
meaning.) The organs, as we know; have a stronger
tendency to thought^ and actions that are natural,
than to those that are recommended by the scrip-
tures, for the former serve visible ends. Hence the
gods are fewer, for the tendency that is cultivated by
the scriptures is rare ; it is attainable with great
effort. They, the gods and the Asuras living in
Prajapati’s body, vied with each other for (the mas-
tery of) these worlds t which are attainable through
thoughts and actions prompted by one’s natural incli-
nations as well as those cultivated by the scriptures.
The rivalry of* the gods and the Asuras here means
the emergence and subsidence of their respective ten-
dencies. Sometimes the organs manifest the impres-
sions of thoughts and actions cultivated by the scrip-
tures ; and when this happens, the impressions, mani-
fested by those very organs, of the thoughts and
actions based on perception and inference, and pro-
ducing visible results only — those tendencies charac-
teristic of the Asuras — subside. That is the victory
of the gods and the defeat of the Asuras. Sometimes
the reverse happens. The characteristic tendencies
of the gods are overpowered, and those of the Asuras
emerge. That is the victory of the Asuras and the
defeat of the gods. Accordingly, when the gods win,
there is a preponderance of merit, and the result is
elevation up to the status of Prajapati. And when
1 . 3 . 1 ]
brihadaranyaka vpanishAd
43
the Asuras triumph, demerit prevails, and the result
is degradation down to the level of stationary objects,
while if there be a draw, it leads to human birth.
What did the gods do when, being fewer, they were
overwhelmed by the Asuras who outnumbered them ?
The gods , being overwhelmed by the Asuras, said to
one another, ( Now let us surpass the A surcfe in this
sacrifice, Jyotishtoma, through the Udgitha, that is,
through identity with (the vital force), the chanter of
this accessory of a sacrifice called the Udgitha. By
overcoming the Asuras we shall realise our divinity
as set forth in the scriptures.* This identity with the
vital force is attained through meditation and rites.
The rites consist of the repetition of Mantras that
Will be presently enjoined : ‘These Mantras are to
be repeated,* etc. (I. iii. 28). The meditation is
what is being described.
Objection : This is a part of an injunction on
the repetition of certain Mantras leading to the attain-
ment of divinity, and is a mere eulogy ; it has noth-
ing to do with meditation.
Reply : No, for there occur the words, ‘He who
knows thus.*
Objection : Since the text narrates an old story
in this treatment of the Udgitha, it must be a part of
an injunction on the latter.
Reply : No, for it is a different context. The
Udgitha has been enjoined elsewhere (in the cere-
monial portion), , and this is a section on knowledge.
Besides, the repetition of those Mantras for the attain-
ment of identity with the gods is not an independent
a£t, for it is to be practised (only) by one who medi-
44
B&IHADAlgANYAKA UPANISHAD
[ 1 . 3 . 1
tates on the vital force as described in this section, 1
and this meditation on the vital force is represented
as being independent. And a separate result is men*
tioned for it in the passage, ‘This (meditation on
the vital force) alone wins the worlds’ (I. iii. 28).
Moreover the vital force has been stated to be pure,
and the*organs impure. This implies that the vital
force is enjoined as an object of meditation, for other-
wise there would be* no sense in calling it pure and
the organs such as that of speech, mentioned along
with it, impure, nor in extolling it, as is evident,
by the condemnation of the organ of speech etc. The
same remarks apply to the enunciation of the result
of meditation on it, ‘(That fire) having transcended
death shines,’ etc. (I. iii. 12). For the identification
of the organ of speech etc. with fire and so on, is the
result of attaining oneness with the vital force.
Objection : Granted that the vital force is to be
meditated upon, but it cannot possess the attributes
of purity etc.
Reply : It must, for the Shruti says so.
Objection * No, for the vital force being an
object of meditation, the attributes referred to may
just be a eulogy.
Reply : Not so, for in scriptural, as in secular
matters, correct understanding alone can lead to our
well-being. In common life one who understands
things correctly attains what is good or avoids what
is evil not if one understands t things wrongly.
Similarly here also one can attain well-being if only
one correctly understands the meaning of scriptural
passages, and not otherwise. Besides there is nothing
.1.3.1] BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD 45
to disprove the truth of objects corresponding to
notions conveyed by the words of the scriptures en-
joining a meditation. Nor is there any exception in
the Shrutis to meditation on the vital force ‘as pure
etc. Since that meditation, we see, is conducive to
our well-being, we accept it as true. And we see
that the opposite course leads to evil. We ftotice in
life that one who misjudges things — takes a man, for
instance, for a stump, or an enemy for a friend —
comes to grief. Similarly, if the Self, God, the
deities and so forth, of whom we hear from the scrip-
tures, prove fictitious, then the scriptures, like secular
things, would be a veritable source of evil ; but this
is acceptable to neither of us. Therefore we con-
clude that the scriptures present, for purposes of
meditation, the Self, God, the deities and so on, as
real.
Objection : What you say is wrong, for the
name and other things are represented as Brahman.
That is to say, the name and other things are obvious-
ly not Brahman, but the scriptures, we find, ask us,
in direct opposition to fact, to look* upon them as
Brahman, which is analogous to regarding a stump
etc. as a man. Hence it is not correct to say that
one attains well-being by understanding things as
they are from the scriptures.
Reply : Not so, for the difference is obvious, as
in the case of an image. You are wrong to say that
the scriptures asl$ us, in the face of fact, to look upon
the name and other things, which are not Brahman,
as Brahman, analogous to regarding a stump etc. as
a man.
46
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
[1. 3. J
Objection : How?
Reply : Because the scriptures enjoin medita-
tion on the name etc. as Brahman for one who clearly
knoVs that those things are different from Brahman ;
it is like meditation on the image etc. as Vishnu.
Just like the image etc., the name and other things
are used* merely as aids to meditation ; it is not meant
that they are Brahman. So long as one does not know
a stump as a stump* one mistakes it for a man. But
meditation on the name etc. as Brahman is not of
that erroneous nature.
Objection .- 1 There is only that meditation on
the name etc. as Brahman, but no Brahman. Regard-
ing an image as Vishnu and other gods, and a
Brahtnana as the Manes and so forth belongs to the
same category.
Reply : No, for we are advised to look upon the
Rich (hymn) etc. as the earth and so on. Here we
see only a superimposition on the Rich etc. of the
notions of actually existing things such as the earth.
Therefore on the analogy of that we conclude that
viewing the n$me etc. as Brahman and so forth is
based on actually existing Brahman and the rest.
This also proves that viewing an image as Vishnu
and other gods, and a Brahmana as the Manes and so
forth, has a basis in reality. Moreover a figurative
sense depends on a primary one. Since the five fires,
for instance, are only figuratively such, they imply
the existence of the real fire. Similarly, since the
name and other things are Brahman* only in a figura-
1 By the Mim&msaka.
. 1 - 3 . 1 ]
BRIHADARANYAKA UP^NISHAD
47
tive sense, they merely prove that Brahman in a real
sense must exist.
. „ Besides, matters pertaining to knowledge are
akin to those pertaining to rites. That rites like Ihe
new and full moon sacrifices produce such and such
results, and have to be performed in a certain definite
way, with their parts following each other iu a par-
ticular order, is a supersensuous matter beyond the
range of our perception and inference, which we
nevertheless understand as true solely from the words
of the Vedas. Similarly it stands to reason that
entities like # the Supreme Self, God, the deities, etc.,
of which we learn, also from the words of the Vedas,
as being characterised by the absence of grossness
etc., being beyond hunger and the like, and so on,
must be true, for they are equally supersensuous
'matters. There is no difference between texts relat-
ing to knowledge and those relating to rites as
regards producing an impression. Nor is the impres-
sion conveyed by the Vedas regarding the Supreme
Self and other such entities indefinite or contrary to
fact. 4
Objection : Not so, for there is nothing to be
done. To be explicit : The ritualistic passages, al-
though relating tb supersensuous matters, mentioii
an activity consisting of three parts 1 to be performed.
But in the knowledge of the Supreme Self, God, etc.,
there is no such activity to be performed. Hence it
is not correct to say that both kinds of passages are
alike.
s
1 What ? Through what ? And how ? — denoting respect-
ively the result, the means and the method of a rite.
48
BklHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
[ 1 . 3 . 1 ,
Reply : Not so, for knowledge is of things thrft
already exist. The activity to which you refer is
real, not because it is to be performed, but because
it is known through proper testimony (the Vedas).
Nor is the notion concerning it real because it relates
to something to be performed, but solely because it
is conveyed by Vedic, sentences. When a thing has
been known to be true from the Vedas, a person will
perform it, should it admit cf being performed, but
will not do it if it is not a thing to be done.
Objection : If it is not something to be done,
then it will cease to have the support of. Vedic testi-
mony in the form of sentences. We do not under-
stand how words in a sentence can be construed un-
less there is something to be done. But if there is
something to be done, they are construed as bringing
* . *,
out that idea. A sentence is authoritative when it
is devoted to an action — when it says that a certain
thing is to be done through such and such means in a
particular way. But hundreds of such words denot-
ing the object, means and method would not make a
sentence unless there is one or other of such terms
as the following. ‘Should do, should be done, is to
be done, should become and should bed Hence such
terms as the Supreme Self and Cod have not the
support of Vedic testimony in the form of sentences.
And if they are denoted by Vedic words (instead of
sentences) they become the object of other means of
knowledge . 1
1 According to the Mimamsakas only Vedic sentences
signifying an action have authority as' Shabda Pramana
(revelation). Vedic words, when not signifying an action,
• 1.3.1] BR1HADARANYAKA V PAN 1 SHAD 49
Reply : Not so, for we find sentences like,
‘There is Mt. Meru, which is of four colours/ which
relate to things other than an action. Nor has ^jiy-
one, on hearing such sentences, the idea that Mem
and the rest are something to be done. Similarly, in
a sentence containing the verb ‘to be/ what is there
to prevent the construing of its words denoting the
Supreme Self, God, etc., as substantives and their
qualifying words? *
Objection : This is not correct, for the knowl-
edge of the Supreme Self etc. serves no useful pur-
pose like that of Meru and so forth.
Reply : Not so, for the Shruti mentions such
results as, ‘The knower of Brahman attains the high-
est' (Tai. II. i. 1), and ‘The knot of the heart (intel-
lect) is broken/ etc. (Mu. II. ii. 8). m We also find
the cessation of ignorance and other evils which are
the root of relative existence. Besides, since the
knowledge of Brahman does not form part of any-
thing else (e.g. an action), the results rehearsed about
it cannot be a mere eulogy as in the case of the sacri-
ficial ladle. 1
Moreover it is from the Vedas that we know that
a forbidden act produces evil results ; and it is not
something to be done. A man who is about to do a
forbidden act has (on recollecting that it is forbidden)
merely recall our impressions of the objects denoted by
them. And since memory presupposes perception, those
Vedic words lose their character of revelation, for they
merely repeat what has been learnt from other sources.
1 The passage, ‘*He whose ladle is made of leaf never
hears an evil verse* (Tai. S. III. v. 7. 2), is a eulogy, because
it is subsidiary to an enjoined rite.
4
50 BRIHADA^ANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 1 . 3.1
nothing else to do except desisting from it. In fact,
prohibitions have just that end in view, viz., to
create an idea that the acts in question must not be
done. When a hungry man who has been chastened
by a knowledge of prohibited acts, comes across some-
thing not to be eaten in any way such as Kalanja
(the meat of an animal killed with a poisoned wea-
pon), or food coming from a person under a curse,
his first notion is t f hat the food can be eaten, but it
is checked by the recollection that it is a forbidden
food, as one’s first notion that one can drink from a
mirage is checked by the knowledge of its true
nature. When that natural erroneous notion is
checked, the dangerous 1 impulse to eat that food is
gone. That impulse, being due to an erroneous
notion, automatically stops ; it does not require an .
additional effort to stop it. Therefore prohibitions
have just the aim of communicating the real nature
of a thing ; there is not the least connection of human
activity with them. Similarly here also, the injunc-
tions on the true nature of the Supreme Self etc.
cannot but h^ve that one aim. And a man who has
been chastened by that knowledge knows that his
impulses due to an erroneous notion are fraught with
danger, and those natural impulses automaticallv
stop when their cause, the false notion, has been
exploded by the recollection of the true nature of the
Supreme Self and the like.
Objection : Granted that the dangerous im-
pulse to eat Kalanja and the like ipay stop when the
1 Prom the spiritual standpoint. The physical danger is
too patent to need a scriptural warning.
*1. 3. 1] BRIHADARANYAKA U? AN I SHAD 51
natural erroneous notion about their edibility has
been removed by the recollection of their true nature
as "harmful things ; but the tendency to do acts
enjoined by the scriptures should not stop in that
way, for they are not prohibited.
Reply : Not so, for both are due to erroneous
notions and produce harmful effects. Just as the
tendency to eat Kalanja etc. is due to a false notion
and productive of harm, so is the tendency to do
acts enjoined by the scriptures. Therefore, for a
man who has a true knowledge of the Supreme Self,
the tendency to do these acts, being equally due to
a fal'se notion and productive of harm, will naturally
cease when that false notion has been removed by
the knowledge of the Supreme Self.
* Objection : Let it be so with regard to those
acts (which are done for material ends), but the
regular rites, which are performed solely in obedience
to the scriptures and produce no harmful effects,
should on no account stop.
Reply : Not so, for they are enjoined on one who
has defects such as ignorance, attachment and aver-
sion. As the rites with material ends (K3mya), such
as the new and full moon sacrifices are enjoined on
one who has the defect of desiring heaven etc., so are
the regular rites enjoined on one who has the root of
all evils, ignorance etc., and the consequent defects
of attachment and aversion, manifesting themselves
as the quest of what is good and the avoidance of what
is evil, etc., and who being equally prompted by these
tries to seek good and avoid evil ; they are not per-
formed solely in obedience to the scriptures. Nor are
5g BRIHADAXaNYAKA UPAN1SHAD [1. 3. 1-
«
rites such as the Agnihotra, the new and full moon
sacrifices, Chaturmasya, Pashufcanda and Somayaga
intrinsically either rites with material ends or regular
rites. They come under the former category only be-
cause the man who performs them has the defect of
desiring heaven and so forth. Similarly the regular
rites performed by a man who has the defects of igno-
rance etc., and who out of natural promptings seeks
to attain what is £ood and avoid what is evil, are
intended for that purpose alone, for they are enjoined
on him. On one who knows the true nature of the
Supreme Self, we do not find any other work enjoined
except what leads to the cessation of activities. * For
Self-knowledge is inculcated by the obliteration of
the very cause of rites, viz., the consciousness of .all
its means sucffr as the gods. And one whose con- t
sciousness of action, its factors and so forth has been
obliterated cannot presumably have the tendency to
perform rites, for this presupposes a knowledge of
specific actions, their means and so on. One who
thinks that he is Brahman unlimited by space, time,
etc., and not-gross and so on, has certainly no room
for the performance of rites.
Objection : He may, as he has for the inclina-
tion to eat and so on.
Reply : No, for the inclination to eat and so on
is solely due to the defects of ignorance etc., and are
not supposed to he compulsory. But the regular rites
cannot be uncertain like that ; they cannot be some-
times done and sometimes omitted /according to one’s
whim). Acts like eating, however, may be irregular,
as they are solely due to one’s defects, and these have
•1. 3. 2] BR1HADARANY AKA ifFANISHAD 53
no fixed time for appearing or disappearing, like de-
sires for rites with material ends. But the regular
rites, although they are due to defects, cannot be yn-
certain, for they depend on specific times etc. pre-
scribed by the scriptures, just as the Kamya Agni-
hotra (which is a rite with material ends) depends on
such conditions as the morning and evening, because
it is enjoined by the scriptures.
Objection : As the inclination to eat etc. (al-
though due to defects) is regulated by the scriptures,
so the restrictions about that Agnihotra too may
apply to the sage.
Reply : No, for restrictions are not action, nor
are they incentives to action. Hence they are not
obstacles to the attainment of knowledge (even by an
aspirant). Therefore the Vedic dicta rnculcating the
true nature of the Supreme Self, because they remove
the erroneous notions about Its being gross, dual and
so on } automatically assume the character of prohibi-
tions of all action, for both imply a cessation of the
tendency to action. As is the case with prohibited
acts (such as the eating of forbidden food). Hence
we conclude that like the prohibitions, the Vedas
delineate the nature of realities and have that ulti-
mate aim.
ft ? srra^:, csr * ftwit
a yc sft i % 4r *
srfostf srIh crow a irh
54
BRIHA DAXANYA KA UPANISHAD
[ 1 . 3 . 2 .
2. They said to the organ 1 of speech',
‘Chant (the Udgitha) for us.’ ‘All right,’ said
the organ of speech and chanted for then!.
The common good that comes of the organ of
speech, it secured for the gods by chanting,
while .the fine speaking it utilised for itself.
The Asuras knew that through this chanter
the gods would surpass them. They charged
it and struck it with evil. That evil is what
we come across when one speaks improperly.
They , the gods, after deciding thus, said to the
organ of speech, that is, the deity identified with the
organ, ‘Chant (the Udgitha), or perform the function
of the priest called Udgatri, for us/ That is, they
thought that this function belonged to the deity of
the organ of speech, and that it was the deity referred
to by the Mantra for repetition, ‘From evil lead me
to good* (I. iii. 28). Here the organ of speech and
the rest are spoken of as the agents of meditation and
work. Why ? Because in reality all our activities in
the field of meditation and work are done by them and
belong to them. That they are not done by the Self
will be stated at length in the fourth chapter, in the
passage, ‘It thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it
were,* etc. (IV. iii. 7). Here too, at the end of the
chapter it. wilt be concluded that the whole universe
of action, its factors and its results, beginning with
the Undifferentiated, comes within the category of
ignorance : ‘This (universe) indeed consists of these
1 In this and the succeeding paragraphs the organ refers
to the deity identified with it.
,1.3.2] BRIHADARANYAKA UP.AN1SHAD
55
three: name, form and action’ (I. vi. 1). And the
Supreme Self, which is beyond the Undifferentiated,
does not consist of name, form and action, and is the
subject-matter of knowledge, will be concluded Sep-
arately by the denial of things other than the Self
with the words, 'Not this, not this.’ While the trans-
migrating self, which is conjured up by the limiting
adjunct (UpMhi) of the aggregate of the organ of
speech etc., will be shown as falling under the cate-
gory of that aggregate in the passage, '(The Self)
comes out (as a separate entity) from these elements,
and (this separateness) is destroyed with them’ (II.
iv. 12 ; IV. v. 13). Therefore it is but proper to
speak of the organ of speech etc. as being the agents
of^ meditation and work and receiving their fruits.
' All right , so be it,’ said the organ of speech ,
' when requested by the gods, and chanted for them,
for the sake of the gods who wanted it done. What
was the particular effect of the chanting done by
the organ of speech for the sake of the gods? The
common good of all the organs that comes through
the instrumentality of the organ of speech, on account
of the activities of speaking etc. — for this is the fruit
shared by all of them — it secured for the gods by
chanting the three hymns called Pavamana. 1 While
the result produced by chanting the remaining nine,
which, as we know from the scriptures, 2 accrues to
1 In the sacrifice called Jyotishtoma twelve hymns are
chanted by the ITdgatri. The fruits of chanting the first
three of these, called Pavam&na, go to the sacrificer, and
those of the rest to the chanting priest.
2 ‘Then through the remaining hymns (the chanter)
should secure eatable food for himself by chanting* (I. iii. 28).
56
BklHAirA&ANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 1 . 3. 3
the priest — the fine or articulated speaking — it utilised
for itself. Perfect enunciation of syllables is the
special function of the deity of speech ; hence that *s
specified by the expression, ‘fine speaking. ’ While
the effect of speaking that helps the body and organs
in general, belongs to the sacrifice!- as his share. Now,
finding *a loophole in the attachment of the deity in
utilising its power of fine speaking for itself, the A su-
ras knew that through this chanter the gods would
surpass them, overcome the natural thoughts and ac-
tions by the light of those acquired through the scrip-
tures, as represented by the chanter. Knowing this
they charged it, the chanter, and struck, that is,
touched, it with evil, their own attachment. That
evil which was injected into the vocal organ of Praja-
pati in his former incarnation, is visible even to-day.
What is it? iVhat ive come across when one speaks
improperly , or what is forbidden by the scriptures '
it is that which prompts one to speak, even against
one’s wishes, what is inelegant, dreadful, false and
so on. That it .still persists m the vocal organ of
people who hove descended from Praj&pati, is infer-
red from this effect of improper speaking. This evil
that is so inferred is the one that got into the vocal
oigan of Prajapati, for an effect conforms to its cause.
sim ; sn$t
j %
cnrfaf=9 ?r: ttcttt,
firafa ?=r pj tnem ii ^ \\
.1. 3. 5] BRIHADARANYAKA VRANISHAd
57
3. Then they said to the nose, ‘Chant
(the Udgitha) for us.’ ‘All right,’ said the
ilose and chanted for them. The common
good that comes of the nose, it secured for
the gods by chanting, while the fine smell-
ing it utilised for itself. The Asuras § knew
that through this chanter the gods would
surpass them. They charged it and struck
it with evil. That evil is what we come
across when one smells improperly.
•TO f !T 5 astfs, ftm-
sar^rrm^i whror
q g g gm rf 1 % # jt ^t-
. riciciiE^r^; a «
qrorr, ^ 03 ^ <juot a y a
4. Then they said to the eye, ‘Chant (the
Udgitha) for us.’ ‘All right,’ said the eye
and chanted for them. The common good
that comes of the eye, it secured *for the gods
by chanting, while the fine seeing it utilised
for itself. The Asuras knew that through
this chanter the gods would surpass them.
They charged it and struck it with evil.
That evil is what we come across when one
sees improperly.
am 5 w hiq g :, m a 35^% 5
sfhnppTTq^; «R sifrreer
58 BRIHADAJWNYAKA UPANISHAD [ 1 . 3 . 5 .
g t r^s^ n ui i ^ q ?r
ewfagsi qr^Hrfqv^. ^ q :
*T^qstfa^T 5“jwt% e qTUTT |ft||'
5. Then they said to the ear, ‘Chant (the
Udgitha) for us.’ ‘All right,’ said the ear and
chanted for them,. The common good that
comes of the ear, it secured for the gods by
chanting, while the fine hearing it utilised for
itself. The Asuras knew that through this
chanter the gods would surpass them. They
charged it and struck it with evil. That evil
is what we come across when one hears im-
properly.
^ 5 JR 3^:, H
JR 36RR^ ; qf JRfa 3Tl*TRr SJFTR^,
a^lcJ# | ^ ST rt ^fT-
RrfjT^rq qrcqqrfqWR; q: e
«R5 <3eiRl |qrtT: qrorfaw^SR, «R^TT: qTOJ-
Rf^WUI \ II
6. Then they said to the mind, ‘Chant
(the Udgitha) for u.s.’ ‘All right, ’.said the
mind and chanted for them. The common
good that comes of the mind, it secured for the
gods by chanting, while the fine thinking it
utilised for itself. The Asufas knew that
through this chanter the gods would surpass
. 1 . 3 . 7 ] BR1HAD~ARANYAKA VgANISHAD
69
them. They charged it and struck it with
evil. That evil is what we come across when
one thinks improperly. Likewise they also
touched these (other) deities with evil — struck
them with evil.
Likewise they tried one by one the deities of the
nose etc., thinking that they were each the deity
referred to by the Mantra enjoined for repetition and
were to be meditated upon, since they too chanted
the Udgitha. And the gods came to this conclusion
that the deities of the organ of speech and the rest,
whom they tried one by one, were incapable of chant-
ing the Udgitha, because they contracted evil from
the Asuras owing to their attachment to utilising
their power of doing fine performances for them-
selves. Hence none of them was the deity referred
to by the Mantra, 'From evil lead me to good/ etc.
(I. iii. 28 ), nor were they to be meditated upon, since
they were impure and did not include the others.
Likewise, just as in the case of the organ of speech
etc., they also touched these (Other) deities that have
not been mentioned, the skin and the rest, with evil,
that is to say, struck them with evil .
The gods, even after approaching one by one the
deities of» speech etc., were helpless as regards tran-
scending death.
sro csr
Sim ^iTTq^ ; ^ f SI 3 SH»c 3-
60
BAIHADA$ANYAKA VPANISHAD [ 1 . 3 . 7 .
foaNta, ctsf f^reiffRT
^5tt swra;., ^ts^t: ; fl^nrJWT, tm^r
fsgr^igs^ ^fgf * ctf n s II
7. Then the}^ said to this vital force in
the mouth, ‘Chant (the Udgitha) for us.’ ‘All
right,’* said the .vital force and chanted for
them. The Asuras knew that through this
chanter the gods ’would surpass them. They
charged it and wanted to strike it with evil.
But as a clod of earth, striking against a rock,
is shattered, so were they shattered, flung in
all directions, and perished. Therefore the
gods became (fire etc.), and the Asuras were
crushed. He who knows thus becomes his
true self, and' his envious kinsman is crushed.
7 hen they said to this — pointing it out — vital
force in the mouth, having its seat in the oral cavity,
'Chant (the Udgitha) for u, . ' ill right,’ said the
vital force to the gods who sought its protection, and
chanted, etc. , All this has been explained. The
Asm as wanted to strike it, the vital force in the
mouth, which was free from taint, with evil, the
taint of their own attachment. Having succeeded
with the organ of speech etc., they, through the
persistence of that habit, desired to contaminate it
too, hut perished, were routed. How? This is
being illustrated : As in life a clod pf earth, striking
against a rock, hurled at it with the intention of
crushing it, is itself shattered or crushed to atoms,
^0 were they shattered, flung in all directions, and
• 1 . 3 . 7 ] BR1HADARANYAKA QFANISHAD
61
perished. Because it so happened, therefore, owing
to this destruction of the Asuras — that is, dissocia-
tion from the evils due to natural attachment, which
checked the manifestation of their divinity — by virtue
of taking refuge in the vital force in the mouth,
which is ever unattached, the gods, the organs that
are under consideration, became — what ? — their own
divine selves, fire and so forth, to be mentioned later
on. Formerly also they had been fire and so on,
but with their knowledge covered by natural evil,
they had identified themselves with the body alone.
On the cessation of that evil they gave up their
identification with the body ; and the organ of speech
and the rest realised their identity with fire and so
oh, as taught by the scriptures. And the Asuras,
their enemies, were crushed . The sa«rificer of a past
age who is mentioned in the story, coming across
this Vedic allegory, tested in the same order the
deity of speech and the rest, discarded them as
stricken with the taint of attachment, identified him-
self with the taintless vital force in the mouth, and
thereby giving up his limited identification with the
body only, as represented by the organ of speech and
the rest, identified himself with the body of Viraj,
his present status of Prajapati, which, as the scrip-
tures say, represents the identification of the organ
of speech etc. with fire and so on. Similarly the
sacrificer of to-d^y, by the same procedure, becomes
his true self, as Prajapati. And his envious kinsman,
the evil that opposes his attainment of the status of
Prajapati, is crushed. A kinsman is sometimes friend-
62 BR1HADA*RANY AKA UPAN1SHAD [1. 3. T
§
ly, as, for instance, Bharata . 1 But the evil due to
attachment to sense-objects is an envious kinsman,
for; it hides one’s real nature as the Self. It is crush-
ed like the clod of earth by one’s union with the vital
force. Who gets this result? He who knows thus,
that is, c like the ancient sacrificer realises his identity
with the vital force described above.
Having finished with the result (of meditation
on the vital force) the Shruti resumes its allegorical
form and goes on. Why should the vital force in
the mouth be resorted to as one’s self, to the exclu-
sion of the organ of speech and the rest? To ex-
plain this by stating reasons, the Shruti points out
through the story that it is because the vital force
is the common self of the organ of speech etc. as
well as of the body.
8. They said, 1 Where was he who has
thus restored us (to our divinity) ?’ (and dis-
covered) : 'Here he is within the mouth.’
The vital force is called Avasya Angirasa, for
it is the essence of the members (of the body) .
They, the organs of Prajapati, which were re-
stored to their divinity by the vital force in the
mouth, and thus attained their goal, said, ‘Where
was he who has thus restored us ‘to our divinity?’
1 The half-brother of R&ma.
*1. 3. 9] BRIHADARANYAKA VPANISTIAD 03
The particle ‘mi’ indicates deliberation. People who
have been helped by somebody generally remember
their benefactor. The organs likewise remembered,
and thinking on w T ho it might be, realised the vital
force within themselves, in the aggregate of body
and organs. How? ' Here he is within the mouth,
is visibly present within the ether that is* in the
mouth.* People decide after deliberation ; so did
the gods. Since the vital force’ was perceived by
them as being present in the internal ether without
assuming any particular form like that of the organ
of speech etc., therefore the vital force is called
Ayasya. And since it did not assume any particular
form, it restored the organ of speech etc. to their real
status. Hence it is Angirasa, the self of the body
* and organs. How? For it is, as is well-known, the
essence , that is, the self, of the members, that is, of
the body and organs. And how is it the essence of
the members? Because, as we shall say later on,
without it they dry up. Since, being the self of the
members and not assuming any particular form, the
vital force is the common self of the body and organs
and pure, therefore it alone, to the exclusion of the
organ of speech etc., should be resorted to as one’s
self — this is the import of the passage. For the Self
alone should be realised as one*s self, since correct
notions lead to well-being, and erroneous notions, as
we find, lead to evil.
*TT STT OTTr 5
m ws T HffS &rfa «ar ^ n * n
64
B*R 1 H A D/bR ANY AKA UPANISHAD [1. 3. &
9. This deity is called Dur, because death
is far from it. Death is far from one who
ki\ows thus.
Objection : One may think that the purity of
the vital force is not a proved fact.
Raply : Has this not been refuted by the state-
ment that the vital force is free from the attachment
that the organ of speech and the rest betray by utilis-
ing their power of fine speaking etc. for themselves?
Objection : True, but since as Angirasa it is
spoken of as the self of the organ of speech etc., it
may be impure through contact with the latter, just
as one touched by another who has touched a corpse
is impure.
Reply : No, the vital force is pure. Why? be-
cause this deity is called- Dnr. ‘This* refers to the '
vital force, reaching which the Asuras were shattered
like a clod of earth hitting a rock. It is the deity
within the present sacrificer’s body whom the gods
decided as their saviour saying, ‘Here he is within
the mouth.’ ^And the vital force may well be called
a deity, being a part 1 of the act of meditation as its
object. Because the vital force is called Dur, that is,
is well-known as Dur — to be ‘called’ is synonymous
with being ‘celebrated as’ — therefore its purity is
well-known, from this name of Dur. Why is it call-
ed Dur? Because Death, the evil of attachment, is
jar from it, this deity, vital force. Death, although
it is close to the vital force, is away from it, because
»
as a god is a part of a sacrifice distinct from the
offerings etc.
1. 3. 10] BRIHADARANYAKA VPANISHAD
65
the latter is ever unattached. Therefore the vital
force is well-known as Dur. Thus its purity is con-
spicuous. The results accruing to a knower of t*his
are being stated : Death is far from one who knows
thus, that is, who meditates upon the vital force en-
dowed with purity, which is the topic of the section.
Meditation is mentally approaching the form of the
deity or the like as it is presented by the eulogistic
portions of the Vedas relating to the objects of medi-
tation, and concentrating on it, excluding conven-
tional notions, till one is as completely identified
with it as with one’s body, conventionally regarded
as one’s self. Compare such Shruti passages as,
‘Being a god, he attains the gods’ (IV. i. 2), and
‘What deity are you identified with in the east?’
.(III. ix. 20).
It has been stated, ‘This deity is called Dur. . . .
Death is far from one who knows thus.’ How is
death far from one who knows thus? Being incon-
gruous with this knowledge. In other w^ords, the evil
due to the attachment of the organs to contact with
the sense-objects is incongruous with one who identi-
fies oneself with the vital force, for it is caused by the
identification with particular things such as the organ
of speech, and by one’s natural ignorance ; while
the identification with the vital force comes of obedi-
ence to the scriptures. Hence, owing to this incon-
gruity, it is but proper that the evil should be far from
one who knows thus. This is being pointed out :
^tt 3T urn fei& i re r foaw f
66
BRIHADA’RANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [1. 3. 10-
fi f w r ^ ^r;
io. This deity took away death, the evil
of thqse gods, and carried it to where these
quarters end. There it left their evils. There-
fore one should not approach a person (of that
region), nor go to that region beyond the bor-
der, lest one imbibe that evil, death.
This deity — already explained — took away death ,
the evil of these gods such as that of speech, identic
lied with the vital force. Everybody dies because of
the evil due to the attachment of the organs to contact
with the sense-objects, prompted by natural igno-
rance. Hence this evil is death. The vital force is here’
spoken of as taking it away from the gods, simply be-
cause they identified themselves with the vital force.
As a matter of fact, evil keeps a way from this knower
just because it is out of place there. What did the
vital force da after taking away death, the evil of the
gods? It carried it to where these quarters , east and
so forth, end . One may question how this was done,
since the quarters have no end. The answer is that
it is all right, for the quarters are here conceived as
being that stretch of territory which is inhabited by
people possessing Vedic knowledge ; hence ‘the end
of the quarters’ means the coqntry inhabited by
people who hold opposite views, as a forest is spoken
of as the end of the country . 1 Carrying them, there
1 That is, inhabited country.
li 3* 11] BRJHA DA RANYA KA* *U PA NISH AD £7
it, the deity, vital force, left their evils, the evils of
these gods. (The word 'P&pmanah* is accusative
plural.) ‘Left’ — literally, placed in various humil-
iating ways, and, as is understood from the' sense
of the passage, among the inhabitants of that region
beyond the border who do not identify themselves
with the vital force. That evil is due to tfte contact
of the senses (with their objects) ; hence it must
reside in some living being. • Therefore one should
not approach, that is, associate with by addressing
or seeing, a person of the region beyond the border.
Association with him would involve contact with
evil, for it dwells in him. Nor go to that region
beyond the border, where such people live, called
.‘the end of the quarters,’ although it may be desert-
ed ; and the implication is, nor to any man out of
that land. Lest one imbibe that evil, death, by
coming into contact with such people. Out of this
fear one should neither approach these people nor
go to that region. ‘Ned’ (lest) is a particle denoting-
apprehension.
m qr qqr fe r & r ra t fere ref qftmq ^cgqq-
ssnvfcn II \\ II
ii. This deity after taking away death,
the evil of these gods, next carried them be-
yond death.
Now the result of this act of meditation, on the
vital force as one’s own self, viz., the identification
of the organ of speech etc. with fire and so on; "is be-
ing stated. This deity next carried them heybytd
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 1 . 3 . 11
death. Because death, or the evil that limits one to
the body, is removed by the identification with the
vital force, therefore the latter is the destroyer of the
evil of death.. Hence that vital force carried these
gods, that of speech etc., beyond death, the evil
which is being discussed, and made them realise their
respective unlimited divine forms as fire and so on.
ii vk it
12. It carried the organ of speech, the
foremost one, first. When the organ of speech
got rid of death, it became fire. That fire,
having transcended death, shines beyond its
reach.
/<, 'the vital force, carried the organ of speech,
the foremost one, first. Its importance consists in
being a better instrument in the chanting of the Ud-
githa than the other organs. What was its form
after it was carried beyond death ? When the organ
of speech got nV. of death, it became fire. Formerly
also it was fire, and being dissociated from death it
became fire itself, with only this difference : That
fire, having transcended death, shines beyond its
reach. Before its deliverance it was hampered by
death, and as the organ of speech pertaining to the
body, was not luminous as now ; but now, being
freed from death, it shines beyond its reach.
ebtf 915: q^ur qqfl q^h
1. 3. 16] BR1HADARANYAKA V PAM I SHAD
13. Then it carried the ncse. When it
got rid of death, it became air. That air,
having transcended death, blows beyond its
reach.
Similarly the nose became air. It, having tran-
scended death, blows beyond its reach. The rest
has been explained.
JRHHsSmRi 11 \M II
. 14. Then it carried the eye. When the
eye got rid of death, it became the sun. That
sun, having transcended death, shines beyond
its reach. ,
Likewise the eye became the sun. He shines.
%itorera.; m %i: ii^mi
15. Then it carried the ean When the
ear got rid of death, it became the quarters.
Those quarters, having transcended death, re-
main beyond its reach.
Similarly the ear became the quarters. The
quarters remain, divided into the east and so forth.
sro 5 wr[t ^
gs?pn
*nfa 5 qtf 5 qr mqfo T ^
II Ki II
BRIHADARAnYAKA UPANISHAD [1. 3. 16
16. Then it carried the mind. When the
mind got rid of death, it became the moon.
That moon, having transcended death, shines
beyond its reach. So does this deity carry
one who knows thus beyond death.
The *min d became the moon and shines. As the
vital force carried the ancient sacrificer beyond death
by . transforming the* organ of speech etc. into fire
and so on, so does this deity carry one , the sacrificer
of to-day, who knows thus the vital force as includ-
ing the five organs, that of speech etc. For the
Shfuti says, ‘One becomes exactly as one meditates
upon Him* (Sh. X. v. 2. 20).
333%, ?? Stfafagfe II II
17. Next it secured eatable food for itself
by chanting, for whatever food is eaten, is
ea’ten by the vital force alone, and it rests on
that. *
As the organ of speech and the rest had chanted
for their own sake, so the vital force in the mouth,
after securing, by chanting the three hymns called
Pavamana, the result to be shared by all the organs,
viz.-* identity with Vi raj, next secured eatable food
for itself by chanting the remaining nine hymns.
We,, have already said that according to the Vedas
the priests gei the results of a sacrifice. 1 How do we
J This although they officiate in the sacrifice on behaJf
of the sacrificer. The latter afterwards purchases , them 011
payment of a fee to the priests.
il. 3. 18] BRIHADARANYAKA U DANISH Ad 71
know that the vital fQrce secured that , eatable food
for itself by chanting ? The reason is being stated :
For whatever food — food in general is meant — is
eaten by creatures in the world is eaten by the ifiial
force (Ana) alone. The particle ‘hi’ (for) denotes a
reason. ‘Ana’ is a well-known name of the vital
force. There is another word ‘Anas ’ 1 ending in s,
which means a cart, but this word ends in a vowel
and is a synonym of the vital force. Besides, the
vital force not only eats the eatable food, it also
rests on that food, when it has been transformed
into the body. Therefore the vital force secured
the eatable food for itself by chanting, in order that
it might live in the body. Although the vital force
eats food, yet, because it is only in order that it
might live in the body, there is no question of its
* contracting the evil due to attachment to fine per-
formance, as was the case with the organ of speech
and the rest.
^ ^rr smsre., qa tq g T uq q^nr, cnpcm
siHT re ft;, jftefcrerer ; % q msfw-
frfr i sw fq arq qrep q ftq ; qq f qr qq *tt a* fasr-
Jqiqt qg: fC q3T qq^qaTqfc fq-
qfaq qtf ; q q |qfqq ^3 sfa qfq&jqfq q
|qT55 wqwit qqfq ; q qtcTOg qqft, qfr
q?OT3 qrqfr^i^t, |qi^ qiqwft «qfq II II
1 The nominative singular of both is ‘Anah.* Hence
the explanation. It* should be noted that the word 'Anena'
is also the instrumental singular of the pronoun ‘Idam’ (this
or it).
72
BklHADAJiANYAKA UPANISHAD [1. 3. 18
18. The gods said, ‘Whatever food therfe
is, is just this much, and you have secured it
for yourself by chanting. Now let us have a
share in this food.’ ‘Then sit around facing
me,’ (said the vital force). ‘All right,’ (said
the g^ds and) sat down around it. Hence
whatever food one eats through the vital force
satisfies these. £>o do his relatives sit around
facing him who knows thus, and he becomes
their support, the greatest among them and
their leader, a good eater of food and the ruler
of them. That one among his relatives who
desires to rival a man of such knowledge is
powerless to support his dependants. But one
who follows }iim, ° r desires to maintain one’s (
dependants being under him, is alone capable
of supporting them.
Is it not wrong to assert that all food ‘is eaten
by the vital force alone,' since the organ of speech
and the rest f are also benefited by the food ? The
answer is . No, for that benefit comes through the
vital force. How the benefit done to the organ of
speech etc. by the food comes through the vital force,
is being explained : The gods, the organ of speech
etc., called gods because they bring their respective
objects to light, said to the vital force in the mouth,
‘Whatever food there is, is eaten in the world to
sustain life, is just this much, and no more. (The
particle “vai” recalls what is vv'ell- known.) And
you have secured it all for yourself by chanting, that
1, 3. 18] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISH/W 73
ik, have appropriated it through chanting for your
own use ; and we cannot live without food. There-
fore now let us have a share in this food that is for
yourself/ (The absence of the causative suffix* in
the verb is a Vedic licence.) The meaning is, make
us also sharers of the food. The other said, ‘Then,
if you want food, sit around facing me/ When the
vital force said this, the gods said, ‘All right/ and
sat down around it, that is, encircling the vital force.
As they sit thus at the command of the vital force, the
food eaten by it, while sustaining life, also satisfies
them. The organ of speech and the rest have no
independent relation to food. Therefore the asser-
tion that all food *is eaten by the vital force alone’
is quite correct. This is what the text says : Hence,
because the gods, the organ of speech etc., at the
command of the vital force, sat arOund facing it,
being under its protection, therefore whatever food
one eats through the vital force satisfies these, the
organ of speech etc. So, as the organ of speech and
the rest did with the vital force, do his relatives also
sit around facing him who knows thps, knows the
vital force as the* support of the organ of speech etc.
— knows that the five organs such as that of speech
rest on the vital force ; that is, he becomes the refuge
of his relatives. And with his food he becoynes the
support of his relatives who sit around facing him,
as the vital force was of the organ of speech etc.
Also, the greatest among them and their leader, as
the vital force was of the organs. Further, a good
eater of food, that is, free from disease, and the ruler
of them, an absolute protector, or independent master,
74 BRIHADAR.4NYAKA UPANISHAD [1. 3. 18
just as the vital force was of the organ of speech
etc. All I this result comes to one who knows the
vital force in the above way. Moreover that fine
anting his relatives who desires to rival a man of
such knowledge , that is, the knower of the vital
force, is powerless to support his dependants, like
the Asftiras who had rivalry with the vital force.
But , among his relatives, one who follows him, this
knower of the vital «■ force, as the organ of speech atld
the rest did the vital force, or who desires to main -
tcdn ■ onc\s dependants being under him, just as the
organs desired to support themselves by following
the vital force, is alone capable of supporting them',
and Hone else who is independent. All this is de-
scribed as the result of knowing the attributes of the
vital force.
«
In order to demonstrate that the vital force is
the self of the body and organs, it has been intro-
duced as Angirasa, ‘It is Ayasya Angirasa’ (par. 8).
But it has not been specifically stated why it is called
Angirasa. Tlfe following paragraph is introduced to
furnish that reason. If that reason is valid, then
oniy will the vital force be admitted to be the self
of the body and organs. It has next been stated
that the organ of speech and the rest depend on the
vital force. 1 o show how that can be proved the
text says :
% jsj: ; srroft srr
SJfptf snwt f? 57 5 flWTOTTBK -
75
1..3, 19] BRIHADARANYAKA U PARISH AD'
sifpri to: n U II
19. It is called Ayasya Angirasa, for ft
is the essence of the members (of the body).
The vital force is indeed the essence of the
members. Of course it is their essence. ‘(For
instance), from whichever member the vital
force departs, right there it withers. There-
fore this is of course the essence of the mem-
bers.
* - >*f. • / ' * . . * - .
a * ‘ i * f , ' . / .> * r • ' ‘y
n is called Ayasya Angirasa, etc. — This is re-
peated here as it is (from paragraph 8) for the sake of
the . answer. The passage ending with, ‘The vital
force is indeed the essence of the members/ reminds
us of what has already been explained/ How? The
vital force is indeed the essence of the m embers. Of
course it is their essence. The particle ‘hi* denotes
a well-known fact. Everybody knows that the vital
force, and not the organ of speech etc., is the essence
of the members. Therefore it is right &o remind us
of this fact with the tvords, ‘The vital force is indeed/
How is it well-known? From whichever member —
any part of the body without distinction is meant- 1 -
the vital force departs, right there it, that member,
withers or dries up. The word ‘therefore/ signify-
ing conclusion, is construed with the last sentence.
Therefore this is of, course the essence of the members,
is the conclusion. Hence it is proved that the vital
force is the self of the body and organs. Because
when the self departs, withering or death (of the body)
76
* BRIHAQARANYAKA UPANISHAD [1. 3*. 19
takes place. Hence all creatures live through tfiat.
Therefore, leaving out the organ of speech and the
rest, the vital force alone should be meditated upon.
This is the sense of the whole passage.
The vital force is the self not only of the body
and organs, which represent form and action respect-
ively, but also of the Vedas, Rich, Yajus and S&man,
which consist of ,name. Thus the Shruti magnifies
the vital force, extolling it as the self of all, to show'
that it is a fit object of meditation.
^ , SITT# c^TT 07 T qfo;,
ipfe ii ii
20. This is also Brihaspati (lord of the
Rich). Speech is Brihati (Rich), and this is
its lord. Therefore this is Brihaspati.
This, the vital force in question called' Angirasa,
is also Brihaspati. How? Speech is Brihati, the
metre with thirty-six syllables. The metre Anu-
shtubh is spe|ch. How ? For the Shruti says, ‘Speech
is Anushtubh’ ITai. S. V. i. 3. 5). And this speech
called Anushtubh is included in the metre Brihati.
Hence it is right to say, ‘Speech is Brihati,’ as a
well-known fact. And in Brihati all Riches are in-
cluded, for it is extolled as the vital force. For
•another Shruti says, 'Brihati is the vital force. One
should know the Riches as the vital force.’ The
Riches are included in the vital force, as they consist
of speech. How this is so is being explained : And
this vital force is its lord, the lord of speech, that is.
1...3. 21] BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD *
77
of ihe Riches in the form of Brihati. For it gives
rise to speech, since the Riches are recited through
the air which is propelled by the fire in the stomach.
Or the vital force may be the lord of speech, being
its protector, for speech is protected by the vital
force, since a dead man has no power to utter words.
Therefore this is Brihaspati, that is, the vital fofce is
the self of the Riches.
a®Rs»rfa: ii n
2i. This is also Bralimanaspati (lord of
the Y&jus). Speech is Brahman (Yajus), and
this is its lord. Therefore this is Brahma-
nasjbati.
* Similarly the self of the Yajuses. *How? This
is also Brahmanaspati . Speech is Brahman or Yajus,
which is a kind of speech. And this is its lord, the
lord of that Yajus. Therefore this is Brahmanaspati,
as before.
How is it known that the words ‘JJrihati’ and
‘Brahman’ mean the Rich and the Yajus respectively,
and nothing else? Because at the end (of this topic,
in the next paragraph) the word ‘speech’ is used as
co-ordinate with ‘Saman,’ ‘Speech is Saman.’ Simi-
larly in the sentences, ‘Speech is Brihati,’ and ‘Speech
is Brahman,’ the words ‘Brihati’ and ‘Brahman,’
which are co-ordinate with ‘speech,’ ought to mean
the Rich and the Yajus respectively. On the princi-
ple of the residuum also this is correct. When the
Ssiman is mentioned, the Rich and the Yajus alone
78
BRIHAVARANY AKA UPAN1SHAD [ 1 . 3 . ,21
remain. Another reason is that they are both forms
of speech. The Rich and the Yajus are particular
kinds of speech. Hence they can well be co-ordinat-
ed with speech. Moreover, unless they are taken in
that sense, there will be no difference between the
two terms of each sentence. (In the next two para-
graphs) ‘Saman’ an<J. ‘Udgitha’ clearly denote specific
objects. Similarly the words ‘Brihati’ and 'Brahman'
ought to denote specific objects. Otherwise, not con-
veying any specific object, they would be useless, and
if that specific object be mere speech, both sentences
would be tautological. And lastly, the words Rich,
Yajus, Saman and Udgitha occur in the Vedas in the
order here indicated.
o^r s trsr fttit ; stt, sreN, sn grosrfa
acsra: i *ro: ^fror, writer, •
fa&nu ^ || ||
22. 'Phis is also Saman. Speech is Sa,
and this is Ama. Because it is Sa (speech)
and Aina (vital force), therefore Saman is so
called. Or because it is equal to a white ant,
equal to a mosquito, equal to an elephant,
’equal to these three worlds, equal to this
universe, therefore this is Saman. He who
knows this Saman (vital force) to be such
attains union with it, or lives in the same
world as it.
• 1 . 3 . 22 ] BRIHADARANYAKA URANISHAD
79
This is also Saman . How ? This is being ex-
plained : Speech is Sa, whatever is denoted by femi-
nine words is speech, for the pronoun SS (she) refers
to all objects denoted by them. Similarly this vital
force is Ama. The word ‘Ama’ refers to all objects
denoted by masculine words. For another Shruti
says, ‘How do you get my masculine namefe? He
should reply : Through the vital force. And how my
feminine names? Through speech* ( r Kau. I. 7). So
this word ‘Saman’ denotes speech and the vital force.
Again the word ‘Saman’ denotes a chant consisting
only of a combination of tones etc. that are produced
by the vital force. Hence there is nothing called
Saman except the vital force and speech, for the tone,
syllables, etc., are produced by the vital force and
( depend on it. ‘This’ vital force ‘is also Saman/ be-
cause what is generally known as Saman is a combi-
nation of speech and the vital force, Sa and Ama.
Therefore Saman , the chant consisting of a combina-
tion of tones etc., is so called, well-known in the
world.
Or because it is equal in all those respects to
be presently mentioned, therefore this is Saman .
This is the construction. The word ‘or’ is gathered
on the strength of the alternative reason indicated for
the derivation of the word ‘Saman.’ In what re-
spects is the vital force equal ? This is being answer-
ed : Equal to the body of a white ant, equal to the
body of a mosquito , equal to the body of an elephant,
equal to these three worlds, that is, the body of Viraj,
equal to this universe, that is, the form of Hiranya-
garbha. The vital force is equal to all these bodies
SO BRIHA DAitANY A KA UPANISHAD [1. 3. 22'
such as that of the white ant in the sense that it is
present in its entirety in them, as the essential char-
acteristics of a cow (Gotwa) are present in each* in-
dividual cow. It cannot be merely of the size of these
bodies, for it is formless and all-pervading. Nor does
the equality mean just filling up those bodies by con-
traction or expansion dike lamp-light in a jar, a man-
sion, etc. For the Shruti says, * These are all equal,
and all infinite' (I.V 13). And there is nothing in-
consistent in an all-pervading principle assuming in
different bodies their particular size. He who knows
this S&man, that is, the vital force called S&man be-
cause of its equality, whose glories are revealed by
the Vedas, to be such , gets this result : attains union
with it, identification with the same body and organs
as the vital force, or lives in the same world as it,
according to tfie difference in meditation. This is
meant to be the result of meditation continued till
identity with the vital force is established.
•w 3 stt snyrl err 3H, snnfa ^
****., 3^ rftaT ST II ^ II
23. This is also Udgitha. The vital
force is Ut, for all this is held aloft by the
vital force, and speech is Githa. This is
Udgitha, because it is Ut and Githa.
rhis is also Udgitha. The Udgitha is a partic-
ular division of the S&man, not chanting, for the
topic under discussion is S&man. How is the vital
force Udgitha? The vital force is* Ut, for all this
universe is held aloft or supported by the vital force.
1. 3. 24] BRIHADARANYAKA URAN1SHA1) 81
This prefix ‘lit,’ meaning holding aloft, denotes a
characteristic of the vital force. Thereiore the vital
force is Ut. Speech is Githd , for the division of
SAman called Udgitha is a variety of sound. ‘GithA,’
coming from the root ‘gai,’ denoting sound, is
nothing but speech. The Udgitha cannot be con-
ceived of as having any other form but sound Hence
it is right to assert that speech is GithA. The vital
force is Ut, and GithA is speech , dependent on the
vital force ; hence the two together are denoted by
one word : This is Udgitha.
trsnsf sw
rraT Jjqfa snf^-
errat ^ gfsr ^ sntfcr g^rrq-
II R* II
24. Regarding this (there "is) also (a
story) : Brahmadatta, the great-grandson of
Chikitana, while drinking Soma, said, ‘Let
this Soma strike off my head if I say that
Ayasya Angirasa chanted the Udgitha
through any other than this, (vital force and
speech)/ Indeed he chanted through speech
and the vital force.
Regarding this subject described above a story
is also narrated in the Shruti. Brahmadatta, the
great-grandson 1 of Chikitana , while drinking Soma
in a sacrifice, said, c Let this Soma in the bowl that
I am drinking strike off my head for being a liar,
**
1 Whose great-grandfather (i.e. Chikit&na) at least was
living. This is implied by the suffix. See Pflnini IV. i. 163.
6
82 BRIHADA$ANYAKA U PAN I SHAD [1 3. 24
that is, if I have told a lie. ’ (The suffix of the verb
is a substitute for an imperative suffix and expresses
a wish. 1 ) How can he become a liar? This is
b£hig explained : 'If I say that Aydsya Angirasa
chanted the Vdgitha through any other deity than
this vital force combined with speech, which is
being •discussed/ The term ‘Ayasya Angirasa,’ de-
noting the vital force in the mouth, refers to the
priest who chanted in the sacrifice of the ancient
sages who projected this world. Tf I say like this,
I shall be a liar, and for entertaining this false
notion let that deity strike off my head.’ The
mention of his taking this oath shows that one must
have a firm conviction of this knowledge . 2 This
purport of the story the Shruti concludes in its own
words : He, that chanter, called here Ay&sya Aftgi-
rasa, chanted 'through speech, which is subordinate to
the vital force, and the vital force, which is his own
self, meaning this is the significance of the oath.
firsdcT, WsrraT srowwuf&M ; awrasr
smf ^
ST*3 *3 3 usifticgiy: it ^ ||
25. He who knows the wealth of this
Saman (vital force) attains wealth. Tone is
indeed its wealth. Therefore one who is go-
1 P&niiii VII. i. 35. *
2 That the vital force is the deity of the Udgitha.
1. 3. 25] BR1HADARANY AKA UfANISHAD
83
Ing to officiate as a priest should desire to have
a rich tone in his voice, and he should do his
■priestly duties through that voice with a fine
tone. Therefore in a sacrifice people long to
see a priest with a good voice, like one who
has wealth. He who knows the wealth of
Saman to be such attains wealth.
He who knows the wealth % of this Saman, the
vital force under consideration, denoted by the word
'Saman/ which is here pointed out as being the one
in the mouth — what happens to him ? — he attains
wealth. Having drawn his attention by tempting
him with (a mention of) the result, the scripture
tells the listener : Tone is indeed its wealth. 'Tone*
is* sweetness of the voice ; that is its wealth or orna-
ment. For chanting, when attended wtth a good tone,
appears as magnificent. Because this is so, there-
fore one who is going to officiate as a priest , that is,
a chanter, should desire to have a rich tone in his
voice, in order to enrich the Saman with that tone.
This is an incidental injunction ; foj if the vital
force (identified with the chanter) is to be realised
as having a good tone through the fact of S&man
possessing it, a mere wish will not effect this, and
therefore, it is implied, appropriate means such as
cleaning the teeth and sipping oil should be adopted.
And he should do his priestly duties through that
cultured voice with a fine tone. Because tone is the
wealth of Saman and the latter is embellished by it,
therefore in a sacrifice people long to see a priest
with a good voice, as they do a rich man. It is a
BA BklHADAfiANYAKA UPANISHAD [1. 3. 25.
well-known fact that people want to see one who ha's
wealth. The result, already declared, of the medita-
tion on this characteristic of the vital force, is
repeated as a conclusion : He who knows the
wealth of Saman to be such attains wealth.
i ; VRfa gT^T ^tlf
qaft a c qig : ^STJt || ||
26. He who knows the correct sound of
this Saman (vital force) obtains gold. Tone
is its correct sound . He who knows . the
correct sound of Saman to be such obtains
gold.
Now meditation on another attribute, viz., pos-*
sessing correct sound, is being enjoined. That too is
having a good tone, but there is this difference : The
previous one was sweetness of the voice, whereas
this, denoted by the word ‘Suvarna/ is correct arti-
culation accojyiing to the laws of phonetics. He who
knows the correct sound of this Saman obtains gold ,
for the word ‘Smyrna* means both a good tone and
gold. That is to say, the result of meditating upon
this attribute is the obtaining of gold, which is the
common meaning of the word ‘Suvarna.’ Tone is its
correct sound. He who knows the correct sound of
Sdman to be such obtains gold. All this has been
explained.
• 1 . 3 . 27 ] BR1HADARANY AKA VPANISHAD 85
ufilt gafr 5 srar awj: || ^9 ||
27. He who knows the support of this
Saman (vital force) gets a resting place.
Speech (certain parts of the body) is its sup-
port. For resting on speech is the vital force
thus chanted. Some say, resting on food
(body). ' *
. Similarly, in order to enjoin meditation on
another feature of the vital force, viz., its support,
the .text says : He who knows the support of this
Sdman, that is, speech, on which the Saman rests,
gqts a resting place. The result is aptly in accord-
ance with the meditation, for the Shruti says, ‘(One
becomes) exactly as pne meditates upon Him*
(Sh. X. v. 2. 20). As before, when one has been
tempted by a mention of the result and wants to
hear what that support is, the scripture says : Speech
is the support of the Saman. ‘Speech* here means
the different parts of the body such «is the root of
the tongue ; those are the support. This is explain-
ed by the text : For resting on speech, that is, the
root of the tongue and other places, is the vital
force thus chanted, assumes the form of a chant.
Therefore speech is the support of the Saman. Some
say, it is chanted resting on food . It is but proper
to say that the vital force rests on this. Since this
latter view is also unexceptionable, one should medi-
tate at his option upon either speech or food as the
support of the vital force.
86
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [1. 3. 28
. 7 ^
HUT ST^tfgr, q qar JTT
*f$w, aror m ^fmf^a im^fa ;
^ m ^irafa, Jjcggr?
«5c?rfwr^d *rm, 3TJja m 5 crcrcrt m
Jjc^f 'dir:, s^tfd^dH., ^rtrrhjrf
arrc, m , jjarhqfga am^fa
ara ferd%rfNrfei i sro a ra t anfir ^aNtfor
aau^ as fwta a ana
^Tfl^a ar^; h tJTT a^fa^TaTca% ar ast a i a i a
ar a «unf anaaaf aaiaiafa ; a^a ^ f s r ^a ; a
tai^aaaraT smnfsa a aa^a c ^iw %a H '« 1}
ffa a?fta aTgrori^ n
28. Now therefore the edifying repetition
(Abhvaroha) only of the hymns called Pava-
manas. The priest called Prastotri indeed
recites the Saman. While he recites it, these
Mantras are» to be repeated : From evil lead
me to good. From darkness lead me to light.
From death lead me to immortality. When
the Mantra says, ‘From evil lead me to good,’
‘evil’ means death, and ‘good’ immortality; so
it says, ‘From death lead me to immortality,
that is, make me immortal.’ When it says,
‘From darkness lead me to light,’ ‘darkness’
means death, and ‘light,’ immortality; so it
says, ‘From death lead me to immortality, or
1 . 3 . 28 ] BRIHADARANYAKA U PLANISH AD
87
make me immortal . 9 In the dictum, ‘From
death lead me to immortality, ’ the meaning
does not seem to be hidden. Then through
the remaining hymns (the chanter) should se-
cure eatable food for himself by chanting.
Therefore, while they are being chanted, the
sacrificer should ask for a boon — anything
that he desires. Whatever objects this
chanter possessed of such knowledge desires,
either for himself or for the sacrificer, he
secures them by chanting. This (medita-
tion)’ alone does win the world (Hiranya-
garbha) . He who knows the Saman (vital
force) as such has not to pray lest he be unfit
•for this world.
A repetition of Mantras is being prescribed for
one who knows the vital force as such. The medi-
tation by knowing which one is entitled to this re-
petition of Mantras has been mentioned. Now, be-
cause this repetition of Mantras by one* possessed of
such knowledge produces the result of elevation to
divinity, therefore it is being described here. This
repetition, being connected with chanting, may be
thought applicable to every chant ; so it is restricted
by the mention of the Pavamanas. But since one
may think that it should be done with all the three
Pavamanas, the time is being further restricted :
The priest called Prastotri indeed recites the Saman .
While he recites it , that is, when he begins to chant
the Saman, these Mantras are to he repeated. And
as brihadAranyaka UPANISHAD [l. 3. 23
thisr repetition of Mantras is called. ‘Abhyaroha,’ be-
cause through this repetition one possessed of such
knowledge ‘advances towards’ the realisation of his
innate divinity. The plural in ‘these’ indicates that
there are three Yajus Mantras. The use of the accu-
sative case and the fact that these Mantras occur in
a Br&limana or explanatory portion of the Vedas,
indicate that the usual accent should be used in these
words, and not tire special intonation 1 used in the
hymns. This repetition of Mantras is to be done by
the sacrifices
These are the Yajus Mantras in question : From
evil lead me to good. From darkness lead me to
light. From death lead me to immortality. The
meaning of the Mantras is hidden. So the Brah-
mana itself explains them : When the Mantra says M
‘ P rcm evil lead me to good/ what is the meaning?
f EviV means death , that is, our natural actions and
thoughts ; ‘evil,’ because they degrade us very much j
and ( good/ that is, actions and thoughts as they are
regulated by the scriptures, means immortality, be-
cause they fead to it. Therefore the meaning is,
‘From evil actions and ignorance lead me to actions
and thoughts that are regulated by the scriptures ;
that is, help me to identify myself with those things
that lead to divinity.’ The import of the sentence
is being stated : So it says, f Make me immortal /
Similarly, when it says, * From darkness lead me to
light, darkness means death : All ignorance, being
of the nature of a veil, is darkness ; and it again is
] Which is indicated by the use of the instrumental case
in the directions.
1 . 3 . 28 ] BRIHADARANYAKA * iJPANISHAD 89
I ,
death, being the cause of it. And 'light* means im-
mortality, the opposite of the above, one’s divine
nature. Knowledge, being luminous, is called light ;
and it again is immortality, being of an imperish-
able nature. So it says, ( From death lead me to im-
mortality, or make me immortal / as before , # that is,
help me to realise the divine status of Viraj : The
first Mantra means, help me to identify myself with
the means of realisation, insteacf of with things that
are not such ; while the second one means, help me
to go beyond that even — for it is a form of ignorance
— and attain identity with the result. The third
Mantra, 'From death lead me to immortality/ gives
the combined meaning of the first two, and is quite
clear. In this the meaning does not seem to be
hidden as in the first two. That it should be
taken literally.
Then, after chanting for the sacrificer with the
three Pavamanas, through the remaining hymns the
chanter who knows the vital force and has become
identified with it, should secure eatable food for him-
self by chanting, just like the vital x f orce. Because
this chanter knows the vital force as above described,
therefore he is able to obtain that desired object.
Therefore, while they are being chanted, the sacrifice*
should ask for a boon — anything that he desires. Be-
cause whatever objects this chanter possessed of such
knowledge desires, either for himself or for the
sacrificer, he secures them by chanting. This sen-
tence should precede the one before it (for the sake
of sense).
Thus it has been stated that meditation and rites
90 BRIHADA&ANYAKA UPANJSHAD [1. 3. 28
together lead to identification with Hiranyagarbha.
There is no possibility of a doubt regarding this.
Therefore a doubt is being raised as to whether ‘in
the absence of rites meditation alone can lead to
that result or not. To remove it, the text says :
This meditation on the vital force alone does win the
world (Hiranyagarbha 1 ), even if it is disjoined from
the rites. He has not to pray lest he be unfit for this
world, for one who has already realised his identity
with Hiranyagarbha cannot possibly pray for the
attainment of him. A man who is already in a
village is not eager about when he will reach it, as
a man who is in a forest is. Expectation is always
about something remote, something other than one's
self ; it is impossible with regard to one's own self.
Therefore then* is no chance of his fearing lest he
should ever miss identity with Hiranyagarbha.
Who gets this result? He who knows this Saman
as such, meditates upon the vital force whose glories
have been described above, till he realises his identity
with it in the following way . ‘J am the pure vital
force, not to be touched by the evils characteristic
of the Asuras, viz., the attachment of the senses to
their objects. The five organs such as that of speech
have, by resting on me, been freed from the defects
of these evils, which spring from one's natural
thoughts, and have become fire and so forth ; and
they are connected with all bodies by partaking of
the eatable food that belongs to me. Being Angi-
rasa, I am the seif of all beings. And I am the self
1 Who is the cosmic form of the vital force.
1. 3. 28] BR1HADARANYAKA l fPANISHAD
91
of speech manifesting itself as Rich, Yajus, Saman
and Udgitha, for I pervade it and produce it. 1 am
transformed into a chant as Saman, and have tjie
external wealth or embellishment of a good voice ;
and I also have a more intimate correct sound, con-
sisting of fine articulation according to phonetics.
And when I become the chant, the throat am! other
parts of the body are my support. With these attri-
butes I am completely present in* all bodies such as
that of a white ant, being formless and all-pervading.’
SECTION IV
srtapftgqr srro-
^S?4TFlftfq§ STTfSTc^, a^S^TTOT-
jsram sra ^ ^ ^c^ffs ^ic^ i ^ i-
HagirqicHH g remc pqr: ; srtafa ? # « rf
ii ^ ii
i. In the beginning, this (universe) was
but the self (Viraj) of a human form. He
reflected and found nothing else but himsdf.
He first uttered, ‘I am he.’ Therefore he was_
called Aham (I). Hence, to this day, when a
person is addressed, he first says, ‘It is I,’ and
then says the other name that he may have.
Because he was first and before this whole
(band of aspirants) burnt all evils, therefore
he is called Purusha. He who knows thus
indeed burns one who wants to be (Virai) be-
fore him.
It has been explained that one attains the status
of Hiranyagarbha through a combination of medita-
tion and rites. That the same result is attained only
through meditation on the vital force has also been
stated in the passage, ‘This alone dpes win the world,’
etc. (I. iii. 28 ). The present section is introduced
in order to describe the excellent results of Vedic
,1. 4. 1] BRIHADARANYAKA UP.ANISHA'd
93
iheditations and rites by setting forth the independ-
ence and other powers of Hirauyagarblia, who is
himself the result of his past actions, in the projec-
tion, maintenance and dissolution of the universe.
The meditations and rites that are prescribed in the
ceremonial portion 1 of the Vedas would thereby be
extolled by implication. The import, howtfver, is
this : The sum total of these results of meditation
and rites belongs to the relative world, for Viraj 2 has
been described as possessing fear, dissatisfaction,
etc., has a body and organs, and consists of gross,
differentiated and transient objects. This prepares
the ground for what follows, since the knowledge of
Brahman alone, which is going to be described, can
lead to liberation. For one who is not disgusted
with things of the world consisting of a variety of
* means and ends, is not entitled to* cultivate the
knowledge of the unity of the Self, as one who is
not thirsty has no use for a drink. Therefore the
delineation of the excellent results of meditation and
rites is meant to introduce the succeeding portion.
It will also be said later on, "Of all these, this Self
alone should be realised* (I. iv. 7), "This Self is
dearer than a son* (I. iv. 8), and so on.
In the beginning , before the manifestation of any
other body, this universe of different bodies was but
the self , was undifferentiated from the body of Viraj,
1 Including the previous sections of this book.
2 The word used here is ‘Praj&pati/ which means both
Hiranyagarbha and Vir&j, the subtle and gross forms,
respectively, of the fcame being. Shankara often uses these
two terms almost interchangeably. This should be borne in
mind to avoid confusion.
94
i RIHAD^RANYAKA UPANISHAD [1. 4. 1
the first embodied being born out of the cosmic egfc,
who is here meant by the word ‘self.’ He is the prod-
uct of Vedic meditations and rites. And this .self
w5s of a human form, with a head, hands, etc., that
is, Viraj. He, who was born first, reflected on who
he was and what his features were, and found nothing
else but himself, consisting of the body and organs.
He found only himself, the self of all. And as he was
purified by Vedic knowledge in his past life, he first
uttered, ‘I am he/ the Viraj who is the self of all.
And because owing to his past impressions he first
declared himself as Aham, therefore he was called
A ham (I). That this is his name as given out by the
Sliruti will be mentioned later : ‘His secret name is
Aham* (V. v. 4). Hence, because this happened with
Viraj, the cause, therefore, to this day, among men,
his effects, when a person is addressed as, ‘Who are 1
you?’ he first says, * It is 1/ describes himself as
identified with his cause, Viraj, and then says, to
one who inquires about his particular name, the
other name, the name of his particular body, such
as Devadattgj or Yajnadatta, that he may have, as
given to that particular body by his parents.
And because he, Viraj, in his past incarnation
when he was an aspirant, by an adequate practice of
meditation and rites was the first of those who wanted
to attain the status of Viraj by the same method, and
before, this whole band of aspirants burnt — what? —
all evils, viz., attachment and ignorance, which ob-
structed his attainment of the status of Viraj— be-
cause it was so, therefore he is called Purusha, that
is, one wdio burnt first. As this Viraj became Pu-
1. 4. 2] BRIHADARANYAKA p PAN1SHAD
95
rusha and Viraj by burning all the obstructing evils,
so another person, by the fire of his practice of medi-
tation and rites, or by virtue of meditation alone,
burns one — whom ? — who wants to be Viraj before
him, this sage. The text points him out in the words,
'Who knows thus / It is implied that he has perfect-
ed himself in the practice of meditation.
Objection : The desire to attain the status of
Viraj must be dangerous, if one* is burnt by a sage
possessing this knowledge.
Reply : There is nothing wrong in it, for burn-
ing here means only the failure to attain the status of
Viraj first, due to a deficiency in the practice of medi-
tation. The man who uses the best means attains it
first, and the man who is deficient in his means does
not. This is spoken of as the former burning the
latter. It is not that one who uses the best means
actually burns the otheh.- As in the world, when sev-
eral people are having a running contest, the man
who first reaches the destination may be said to burn
the others, as it were, for they are shorn of their
strength, so is the case here.
• In order to show that the results, meant to be
extolled here, of meditation and rites enjoined in the
ceremonial portion of the Vedas, are not beyond the
range of transmigratory -existence, the text goes on:
qmyqwfai , cm m
sfarro, wi ii r ii
96 BKIHADAR4NYAKA UPANISHAD [ 1 . 4 . 2
2. He was afraid. Therefore people
(still) are afraid to be alone. He thought, ‘If
there is nothing else but me, what am I afraid
of?’ From that alone his fear was gone, for
what was there to fear ? It is from a second
entity that fear comes.
t.
He, Viraj, who has been presented as the first
embodied being of f a human form, was afraid, just
like us, says the text. Because this being with a
human form, possessing a body and organs, was
afraid owing to a false notion about his extinction,
therefore, being similarly situated, people to this day
are afraid to be alone. And the means of removing
this false notion that caused the fear, was, as in our
case, the right knowledge of the Self. He, Viraj,
thought, If there is nothing else but me, no other
entity but myself to be my rival, what am I afraid
of, for there is nothing to kill me?’ Prom that
right knowledge of the Self atone his, Viraj’s, fear
was clean gone. That fear of Viraj, being due to
sheer ignorance, was inconsistent with the knowl-
edge of the Supreme Self. This is what the text
says: For what was there to fear? That is, why
was he afraid, since there could be no fear when
the truth was known? Because it is from a second
entity that fear comes ; and that second entity is
merely projected by ignorance. A second entity that
is not perceived at all cannot certainly cause fear,
for the Shruti says, ‘Then what delusion and what
grief can there be for one who sees unity V (Ish. 7).
That his fear was removed by the knowledge of unity
1. 4. 2] BR1HADARANYAKA U&4N1SHAB 97
was quite proper. Why ? Because fear comes of a
second entity, and that notion of a second entity was
removed by the knowledge of unity ; it was non-
existent.
Here some object : What was Viraj's knowledge
of unity due to ? And who instructed him ? If it
came without any instruction, the same might dlso be
true of us. If, however, it was due to the impres-
sions of his past life, then the knowledge of unity
would be useless. As Viraj’s knowledge of unity
acquired in his past life, although it was present,
did not remove the cause of his bondage, ignorance
— for being born with that ignorance, he was afraid
— so the knowledge of unity would be useless in the
case of everybody. Should it be urged that the
knowledge prevailing at the last moment only re-
moves ignorance, our answer is that* it cannot be
laid down as a rule, since ignorance may appear
again just as it did before. Therefore we conclude
that the knowledge of unity serves no useful purpose.
Reply : Not so, foi as in the world, his knowl-
edge sprang from his perfected birth. That is to say,
as we see that when a person has been born with a
.select body and organs as a result of his past merits,
he excels in knowledge, intelligence and memory,
similarly Viraj, having burnt all his evils which pro-
duce qualities the very opposite of righteousness,
knowledge, dispassion and lordship, had a perfected
birth in which he was possessed of a pure body and
organs ; hence he might well have the knowledge of
unity even without any instruction. As the Smriti
says, ‘The Tord of the universe is born with these
7
98 BRJHA D4 RA NY A KA UPANISHAD [ 1 . 4.2
four virtues — infallible knowledge, dispassion, lord-
ship and righteousness’ (Va. I. i. 3).
Objcciion : If he was born with those virtues,
he could not have fear. Darkness never appears
with the sun.
Reply : Not so, for the expression, ‘He is born
with these virtues,! means that he is not instructed
about them by others.
Objection : In that case qualities like faith,
devotion and prostration (to the teacher) cease to be
the means of knowledge. The Gita, for instance,
says, ‘One who has faith and devotion and controls
one’s senses attains knowledge’ (G. IV. 39), and
‘Know that through prostration’ (G. IV. 34). There
are other texts from the Shrutis as well as Smritis
which prescribe similar means for knowledge. Now,
if know ledge “is due to the merits of one’s past life!
as you say was the case with Viraj, then the above
means become useless.
Reply : No, for then-; ma> be differences as re-
gards the means such as their alternation or combina-
tion, efficacy or inefficacy. We observe in life that
effects are produced from various causes, which may
operate singly or in combination. Of these causes
operating singly or in combination, some may be more
efficacious than others. Let us take a .single instance
of an effect produced irom various causes, say, the
perception of form or colour : In the case of animals
that see in the dark, the connection of the eye with
the object alone suffices, even without the help of
light, to cause the perception. IA the case of Yogins
the mind alone is the cause of it. While with us,
.1. 4. 3] BR1HA DARANYAKA URANISM AD
99
there is a combination of causes such as the con-
nection of the eye with the object, and light, which
again may vary according as it is sunlight or moon-
light, and so on. Similarly there would be differences
due to that light being of a particular character, strong
or feeble, and so on. Exactly in the same way with
the knowledge of the unity of the Self. Sometimes
the actions of one’s past life are the cause, as in the
case of Viraj. Sometimes it is* reflection, for the
Shruti says, ‘Desire to know Brahman through reflec-
tion’ (Tai. III. iii-v. 1). Sometimes faith and other
things are the only causes of attaining knowledge, as
we learn from such Shruti and Smriti texts as the
following : ‘He only knows who has got a teacher’
(Chh. VI. xiv. 2), ‘One who has faith attains knowl-
edge’ (G. IV. 39), ‘Know it by prostration’ (G. IV.
34), ‘(Knowledge received) from the teacher alone (is
best)’ (Chh. IV. ix. 3), ‘(The Self) is to be realised
through hearing,’ etc. (II. iv. 5 ; IV. v. 6). For the
above causes remove obstacles to knowledge such as
demerit. And the hearing, reflection and meditation
on Vedanta texts have a direct relation? to Brahman
which is to be known, for they are naturally the
causes to evoke the knowledge of Reality when the
evils, connected with the body and mind, that ob-
struct it have been destroyed. Therefore faith,
prostration and the like never cease to be the means
of knowledge.
. ajwfrKw ft ; si feeffer-
i si t^n^rRTsr «wt 5
100
BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
[1. 4. a
« y ifal c UH S^TqTrra^, rlcT: gTO-'
sen^-, 0 flf *nsr-
q&m:, asm^OTSETO: %*n ^ ; m
?rat U3«qTT STHTOirT || * ||
3. He was not at all happy. Therefore
people (still) are not happy when alone. He
desired a mate. He became as big as man and
wife embracing 'each other. He parted this
body into two. From that came husband and
wife. Therefore, said Yajnavalkya, this (body)
is one-half of oneself, like one of the two
halves of a split pea. Therefore this space is
indeed filled by the wife. He was united with
her. From that men were born.
Here is another reason why the state of Viraj is*
within the relative world, because he, Viraj , was not
at all happy, that is, was stricken with dissatisfaction,
just like us. Because it was so, therefore , on ac-
count of loneliness etc., even to-day people are not-
happy, do wot delight, when alone. Delight is a
sport due to conjunction with a desired object. A
person who is attached to it feels troubled in mind
when he is separated from Iris desired object ; this is
called dissatisfaction. To remove that dissatisfac-
tion, he desired a male, able to take away that dis-
satisfaction, that is, a wife. And as he thus longed
for a wife, he felt as if he was embraced by his wife.
Being of an infallible will, through that idea he he.
came as big— an what?— as man and wife, in the
world, embracing each other to remove their dissatis-
•1. 4. 3] BRIHADARANYAKA SPANISH AD 101
• #
faction. He became of that size. He parted this
body, of that size, into two . The tvord Very ’ 1 used
after ‘this* emphasises the distinction between the
new body and its cause, the original body of Viraj.
Viraj did not become of this size by wiping out his
former entity, as milk turns into curd by wholly
changing its former substance. What then ? He re-
mained as he was, but being of an infallible resolve,
he projected another body of the size of man and wife
together. He remained the same Viraj, as we find
from the sentence, ‘He became as big as,’ etc., where
< he > is co-ordinate with the complement. From that
parting came husband (Pati) and wife (Patni). This
is the derivation of terms denoting an ordinary
cottple. And because the wife is but one-half of one-
self separated, therefore this body is* one-half, like
one of the two halves of a split pea, before one marries
a wife. Whose half? Of oneself . Thus said Yaj -
navalkya, the son of Yajnavalka, literally, the ex-
pounder of a sacrifice ; that is, the son of Devarata.
Or it may mean, a descendant of Hiranyagarbha (who
is the expounder). Since one-half of a man is void
when he is without a wife representing the other
half, therefore this space is indeed again filled by
the wife when he marries, as one-half of a split pea
gets its complement when again joined to the other
half. He, the Viraj called Manu, was united with
her, his daughter called Shatarupd, whom he con-
ceived of as his wife. From that union men were
born .
3 Omitted in the translation.
102 HR] HAD A "RA NY A K A VPANISIIAV [1. 4. 4‘
m SHE , ^ 3 JTTcJTST n^T 5Rfoc3T
? §VrT fo&SSTRtfH ; *TT ifk¥R?I 0
alt R?fr in^rs3rR?ci ; qra&arranrau
srsgg^ far:, JRfltrTTT, mrfl fcTC , 5JT ^Nt-
¥R^, t ?ra ^JTFOTsrraer 5 ^ ^r:,
srfirfcm, serc,' at e&ror^, rratssnwsjn-
ma ; tRifci srr
ac*R*^3ra ii y n
4. She thought, ‘How can he be united
with me after producing me from himself?
Well, let me hide myself . y She became a cow,
the other became a bull and was united with
her; from that cows were born. The one be-
came a mare*, the other a stallion; the one be - 4
came a she-ass, the other became a he-ass and
was united with her ; from that one -hoofed
animals were born. The one became a she-
goat, the other a lie-goat ; the one became a
ewe, the other became a ram and was united
with her; from that goats and sheep were born.
Thus did he project everything that exists in
pairs, down to the ants.
Remembering the prohibition made in the Smritis
of union with one’s daughter, she , Shatarupa,
thought, ‘Horv can he do this vile tiling — he united
with me after producing me from himself ? Although
he has no abhorrence, well, let me hide myself by
changing into another species.’ Thinking thus she
1 . 4 . 5 ] BR1HADARANY AKA UPflNlSHAD 103
•
became a cow. Impelled by the past work of the
creatures that were to be produced*, Shatarupa and
Mami had the same thought over and over again.
Then the other became a bull and was united with
her. The latter portion has been explained. From
that cozes w ere born. Similarly the one became a
mare , the other a stallion ; likewise the one became
a shc-ass, the other became a hc-ass. From that
union one-hoofed animals , viz., ‘the three species,
horses, mules and asses, ivere born. Similarly the
one became a shc-goat, the other became a he-goat;
likewise the one became a ewe, the other became a
ram and was united with her. The word ‘her’ is to
be repeated so as to apply to both she-goat and ewe.
From that goats and sheep ivcrc born. Thus, through
this process, did he project everything that exists in
• •
pairs , as male and female, down to the ants, that is,
the whole (animate) world.
ifc ini
5. He knew, ‘I indeed am the creation,
for I projected all this/ Therefore he was
called Creation. He who knows this as such
becomes (a creator) in this creation of Viraj.
He, Viraj, after projecting this whole world
knew, ‘I indeed am the creation, that is, the project-
ed world. The world I have projected not being
different from me, I myself am that ; it is not some-
thing over and above myself. How? Tor I project -
ed all this, the whole world.’ Because Viraj desig-
104
BR1HA DARANYAKA UPANISHAD
[ 1 . 4 . *
nated himself by the word ‘creation,’ therefore he
was called Creation. Like Viraj, he becomes a
creator of a world not different from himself, in 'this
creation of Viraj, that is, in this world. Who? He
who , like Viraj, knows this , the world described
above, in its threefold division relating- to the body,
the elements and the gods, as such , as identical with
himself.
JTFJSTH 5 3T55foj*9RT
qt faTrr TT g : | sm srenw qitfa, m&ri
tspTo crg^r ^TT- ^rg :. g?* S ST# ^TT: I
3T«r ; grU^T
3T^„%rrarT^ , Frhr gqr^, srfsrTsraj: •
j& R F nre , 3TO qsficq:
- srfer^gsir
|| i II
€ /^en he rubbed back and forth thus,
tict?d tire from its source, the mouth
b hands. . Therefore both these are
'h'airjat the inside. When they talk
hlarigods, saying, ‘Sacrifice to him,"
.e to t/lie other one,’ (they are wrong,
rese are all his projection, for he is all
rs. Now whatever is liquid, he pro-
•;rotn the seed. That is Soma. This
, is indeed this much — food and the
"Eater <jf food. St>ma is food, and fire the eater
1 . 4 . 6 ] BRIHADARANYAKA VPANISHAD 105
of food. This is the super-creation of Viraj
that he projected the gods, who are even supe-
rior to him. Because he, although mortal
himself, projected the immortals, therefore
this is a super-creation. He who knows this
as such becomes (a creator) in this , super-
creation of Viraj.
Then , having thus projected this world consist-
ing of pairs, he, Viraj, desiring to project the gods
controlling the Brahmana and other castes, first
rubbed back and forth thus. The words Then* and
Thus* show the process by a gesture. Putting his
hands into his mouth he went on rubbing back and
fqrth. Having rubbed the mouth with his hands, he
produced fire, the benefactor of the Brahmana caste,
from its source, the mouth and the hands. Because
the mouth and the hands are the source of fire,
which burns, therefore both these are without hair.
Is it all over? No, only at the inside. Similarly the
Brahmana also ^vas born from the mouth of, JViraj.
Because both have sprang from the sapie source, the
Br ahjj j gma is favo ured by fire^-as-a youn ger brother is
by his elder brother. Th erefore it is well-known
from the Shrutis and Smritis that the Brahmanas have
fire as their deity, and their strength lies in their
mouth. Similarly from his arms, which are the abode
<?f strength, he manifested Indra and other gods who
control the Kshatriya caste, as well as that caste it-
self. Therefore we know from the Shrutis and
Smritis that the fcshatriyas and physical strength are
presided over by Indra. Similarly from his thighs,
106
BRIHA DA R*ANYA KA UP 4NISHA D
[1. 4. 6
which are the source of effort, he manifested the
Vasus and other gods who control the Vais by as, as
well as that caste itself. Therefore the Vaishyas are
devoted to agriculture and other such pursuits, and
have the Vasus etc. as their deities. Similarly from
his feet he manifested Pushan, the deity of the earth,
and the'Shudras, who have the capacity to serve — as
we know from the Shrutis and SmritisJ; The mani-
festation of the deities of the Ivshatriya 'etc. has not
been described here ; it will be described later on.
But the text concludes as if they were described, in
order to deal with creation as a whole. The real aim
of the text is (not to describe creation, but) to indicate
that all the gods are but Viraj, as stated here, for
manifested objects are not different from the magi-
festor, and the gods have been manifested by Viraj.
Now, this ‘being the import of the section, the
views of some ignorant people are being put forward
as a eulogy on that. The criticism of one serves as
a tribute to another. When, in discussing ceremo-
nials, the priests, who know only mechanical rites,
talk of particular cods, saying at the time of perform-
ing a sacrifice, ‘Sactijicc lo him , Fire/ ‘Sacrifice to
the other one, Indra,’ and so on, thinking, on ac-
count of differences regarding name, type of hymn,
function, and the like, that they are separate gods,
they should not be taken seriously, because these
different gods arc all his projection , manifestation of
Viraj, for he, Viraj , 1 the (cosmic) vital force, is all
the gods .
Here there is a difference of opinion. Some say
1 See footnote 2 oil p. 93.
•1. 4. 6J BklHA DA RANYAKA SPANISH AD
107
that Hiranyagarbha is -the Supreme Self, others that
he is the transmigrating individual self. The first
group says : fie must be the Supreme Self, for the
Shruti says so, as, for instance, in the passage, ‘They
call It Indra, Mitra, Varuna and Fire’ fRi. I. clxiv.
46), and also in, Tt is Hiranyagarbha, It is Indra, It
is Viraj and all these gods* (Ai. V. 3). And the
Smriti too, ‘Some call It Fire, others Manu and
Viraj’ (M. XII. 123), and ‘That (Supreme Self) which
is beyond the organs, imperceptible, subtle, undiffer-
entiated, eternal, consisting of all beings, and un-
thinkable, manifested Itself’ (M. I. 7). Or, accord-
ing to the second group : He must be the individ-
ual self, for the Shruti says, ‘He burnt all evils’
(F iv. 1). There can be no question of the burning
of evils in the case of the Supreme Self. The Shruti
also mentions his having fear and dissatisfaction, and
also, ‘That he, although mortal himself, projected
the immortals’ (this text), and ‘Behold Hiranya-
garbha as he is being born’ (Shw. IV. 12 ; Mn. X.
3). Further, the Shruti treating of the results of
rites says, ‘Sages are, of opinion that the attainment
of oneness with Viraj, the world-projectors (Manu
and others), Yama (the god of justice), Hiranya-
garbha and the Undifferentiated is the highest result
produced by Sattwa or pure materials (rites coupled
with meditation)’ (M. XII. 50).
Should it be urged that siich contradictory state-
ments being inadmissible, the scriptures lose their
authority, the answer is : Not so, for they can be
harmonised on the ground that different conceptions
are possible. That is to say, through his relation to
108
BRIHADAR'ANYAKA VPANISHAD [ 1 . 4 . 6 *
particular limiting adjuncts he can be conceived of
as different. That the transmigratory character of
Hiranyagarbha is not real, but due to limiting .-ad-
juncts, is known from such Shruti texts as the fol-
lowing : ‘Sitting, It roams far, and lying, It goes
everywhere. Who else but me can know that efful-
gent entity which is< endowed with joy and its
absence as well?’ (Ka. II. 21). Essentially he is but
the Supreme Self. *So Hiranyagarbha is one as well
as many. The same is the case with all beings, as
the Shruti says, ‘Thou art That’ (Chh. V. viii. 7
etc.). But Hiranyagarbha, possessing limiting ad-
juncts of extraordinary purity, is described by the
Shrutis and Smritis mostly as the Supreme Self, and
seldom as the transmigratory self. While ordinary
individuals, owing to an excess of impurity in their
limiting adjuncts, are mostly spoken of as the trans-
migratory self. But when divested of all limiting
adjuncts, everyone is spoken of by the Shrutis and
Smritis as the Supreme Self.
The rationalists, however, who discard the au-
thority of Revelation and rel>; on mere argument,
say all sorts of conflicting things such as that the
self exists or does not exist, that it is the agent or
is not the agent, and mystify the meaning of the
scriptures. This makes it extremely difficult to find
out their real import. But those who only follow
the scriptures and have overcome their pride, find
the meaning of the scriptures regarding the gods etc.
as definite as objects of perception.
* Now the Shruti wishes to tell of one and the
same god, Viraj, being differentiated as food and so
,1. 4. 6] BRIHADARANYAKA UgANISHAD
109
forth. Fire, which is the eater of food has already
been described. Now Soma, the food, is being de-
scribed : Now whatever is liquid in the world, he
produced from his seed , for the Shruti says, ‘From
the seed water’ (Ai. I. 4), and Soma is liquid.
Therefore whatever liquid was produced out of
Viraj’s seed is Soma. This universe is indeed this
much , and no more. What is it? Food, that is,
Soma, which being liquid is appeasing, and the
cater of food , that is, fire, because it is hot and dry.
Now follows a decision on the point : Soma is food,
that is, whatever is eaten, is Soma. (And fire the
eater of food) — whoever eats is fire. This decision
is based on sense. Sometimes fire too is offered as
an oblation, when it falls into the category of Soma
(food). And when a sacrifice is made to Soma, it
too becomes fire, being the eater. "One who thus
regards the universe consisting of fire and Soma as
oneself, is not touched by evil, and becomes Vir&j.
This is the super-creation of Virdj , that is, one that
is even superior to him. What is it? That he pro-
jected the gods, who are even superior to him .
This is why this manifestation of the gods is called
a super-creation. How is this creation even superior
to him ? This is being explained : Because he, al-
though mortal himself, projected the immortals, the
gods, by burning all his evils with the fire of medi-
tation and rites, therefore this is a super-creation ,
that is, the result of superior knowledge (and rites).
Hence he who knows this super-creation of Viraj
which is identical with him (that is, identifies him-
self with Viraj, who projected the gods), becomes
110
BRIHA DA & 1 NYAKA UPANISHAD [ 1 . 4 . 6
like him in this super-creation of Virdj, that is, be-
comes a creator like Viraj himself.
• a#? aSTTOWWITfo sqrfSR-
?rer, ^qmTqfaq^q t % ; qfqqqs^Tft qui-
^qrwnftq sqifoq%, ^
cr.q srf%TZ 3TT q’stnfaq:, qqr ^qT%sq%f:
Sqiq., fq#ffd qT fqqqVF^Tq ; ?T «T q^^rT |
a^csri ft qnqqq nnft jttjt siqfq, qqqqTqr,
qqqsarsj:, ^yjqq sftqq., w?qHt qq; ; qTfq^qqifq
qjfami^q i ^ qtsa qiqigqT^t q ^ tq, s^c^tt
#T^S?l q^feq flqfn ; 3TTcqc%iTqreftq, 3*q ^7rf
gq nqi stqfqi | q^qcqqqfaireq ^q^q qq-
qqTcOT, s^TglcTc^q ^q I qqT q q q^qTg-
fq^qq.; qrtfq qjiq fq*qt q qq %q II « ||
7. This (universe) was then undifferen-
tiated. It differentiated into name and form
— it was called such and such, and was of
such and sfich form. So to this day it is
differentiated into name and form — it is called
such and such, and is of such and such form.
This vSelf has entered into these bodies up to
the tip of the nails — as a razor may be put in
its case, or as fire, which sustains the world,
may be in its source. People do not see It,
for (viewed in Its aspects) It is incomplete.
When It does the function of living, It is called
the vital force; when it speaks, the organ of
,1. 4. 7] BRJHADARANYAKA UP AN] SHAD
111
speech ; when It sees, the eye ; when It hears,
the ear ; and when It thinks, the mind. These
are merely Its names according to functions.
He who meditates upon each of this totality
of aspects, does not know, for It is incomplete,
(being divided) from this totality by possessing
a single characteristic. The Self alone is to
be meditated upon, for all tfyese are unified in
It. Of all these, this Self alone should be
realised, for one knows all these through It,
just as one may get (an animal) through its
footprints. He who knows It as such obtains
fame and association (with his relatives).
All Vedic means consisting of meditation and
rites, which depend on several factors such as the
agent and culminate in identity with Hiranyagarbha,
a result achieved through effort, are but co-extensive
with this manifested, relative universe. Now the
Sliruti wishes to indicate the causal state of this mani-
fested universe consisting of means and ends, the state
which existed before its manifestation, as the exist-
ence of a tree in a seed-form is inferred from its effects
such as the sprout, in order that the tree of relative
existence, which has one's actions as its seed, and
ignorance as the field where it grows, may be pulled
up together with its roots. For in the uprooting of
it lies the perfection of human achievement. As it
has been said in the Upanishad as well as the Gita,
'With its roots a?bove (i.e. the Undifferentiated) and
branches below (Hiranyagarbha etc.)' (Ka. VI. 1 ; G.
112
BRWADAfiANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [ 1 . 4 . 7 ,
XV. 1). And in the Purana also, 'The eternal tree
of Brahman* (Mbh. XIV. xlvii. 14 ; Shi. V. i. 10. 76).
This was then : 'Tat’ (that) refers to the seed-form of
the* universe before its manifestation. Being remote,
it is indicated by a pronoun denoting an object not
directly perceived, for the universe that was to
emanate from the Undifferentiated is related to past
time. The particle ‘ha’ denoting tradition is used to
make the meaning « easily understood. When it is
said, 'It was then like this,* one easily comprehends
the causal state of the universe, although it is not
an object of perception, just as when it is said,
‘There was a king named Yudhishihira.* ‘This* refers
to the universe differentiated into name and form,
consisting of means and ends, as described above.
The co-ordination of the two words ‘that’ and 'this/
denoting respectively the remote and present states
of the universe, indicates an identity of the universe
in these two states, meaning that which was this, and
this which was that was nndifferuuiated. From this
it is clear that a non-existent effect is not produced,
nor an existeijjL effect lost. It, this sort of universe,
having been undifferentiated , differentiated into name
and form . The neuter-passive form of the verb indi-
cates that it differentiated of itself, that is, manifested
itself till it could be clearly perceived in terms of
name and form. (Since no effect can be produced
without a cause) it is implied that this manifestation
took place with the help of the usual auxiliaries,
viz., the controller, the agent and the operation of
the means. It was called such and such . The use
of a pronoun not specifying any particular name indi-
1.. 4. 7] BRIHADARANYAKA UP4NISHAD 113
ca*te$ that it got some name such as Devadatta or
Yajnadatta. And was of such and such form : No
particular form such as white or black is mentioned.
It had some form, say white or black. So to this ddy
it, an undifferentiated thing, is differentiated into
name and form — it is called such and such , and is of
such and such form. •
This Self, to teach about which is the aim of all
scriptures, on which differences of» agent, action and
result have been superimposed by primordial igno-
rance, which is the cause of the whole universe, of
which name and form consist as they pass from the
undifferentiated to the differentiated state, like foam
— an impurity — appearing from limpid water, and
which is distinct from that name and form, being
intrinsically eternal, pure, enlightened and free
*by nature — this Self, while manifesting undifferen-
tiated name and form, which are a part of It, has
entered into these bodies from Hiranyagarbha down
to a clump of grass, which are the support of the
results of people’s actions, and are characterised by
hunger etc. *
Objection : It was stated before that the un-
differentiated universe differentiated of itself. How
then is it now stated that the Supreme Self, while
manifesting that universe, has entered into it ?
Reply : There is nothing wrong in it, for really
the Supreme Self was meant as being identical with
the undifferentiated universe. We have already said
that that universe was necessarily manifested with the
help of the controller, the agent and the operation (of
the means). This is also borne out by the fact that
8
114 MIHAD4RANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 1 . 4 . 7
the word ‘undifferentiated* has been used co-ordiria-
tively with ‘this/ Just as this differentiated universe
has several distinguishing features like the controller
and other factors, which serve as its causes, similarly
that undifferentiated universe also must not be with-
out a single one of these distinguishing features. The
only difference between them is that the one is differ-
entiated and the other is not. Moreover we see in the
world that people *use expressions according to their
wish, as, for instance, ‘The village has come/ and
‘The village is deserted/ Sometimes they mean only
an habitation, as when they use the latter expression.
Sometimes they mean the inhabitants, as when they
use the former expression. Sometimes again the word
‘village’ is used in both the senses, as in the sen-
tence, ‘And one must not enter the village/ Similar-
ly here too,* this universe is spoken of as both*
differentiated and undifferentiated to indicate the
identity of the Self and not-Self. Likewise only the
(manifested) universe is meant when it is said that
this universe is characterised by origin and dissolu-
tion. Again, only the Self is meant in such expres-
sions as, ‘(That) great, birthless Self (IV. iv. 22, 24,
25), ‘Not. gross, not minute’ (III. viii. 8, adapted),
‘This (.self) is That which has been described as “Not
this, not this,” etc. (III. ix. 26 ; IV. ii. 4 ; IV. iv. 22 ;
IV. v. 15).
Objection : The manifested universe is always
completely pervaded by the Supreme Self, its mani-
festor. So how is It conceived of as entering into
it ? Only a limited thing can enter into a Space that
is 'riot occtipied by it, as a man can enter into a
1. 4. 7] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 115
village etc. But the ether cannot enter into any-
thing, since it is ever present in it.
Tentative answer: 1 The entrance in question
may be the assumption of a different feature, as in
the case of a snake born in a rock. To explain :
The Supreme Self did not enter into the universe in
Its own form, but, while in it, appeared under a
different feature 2 ; hence It is metaphorically spoken
of as having entered it, like the snake that is born in
a rock and is within it, or like the water in a cocoa-
nut.
Objection : Not so, for the Shruti says, ‘After
projecting it, the Self entered into it* (Tai. II. vi. 1).
This text says that the Creator, after projecting the
effect, entered into it unchanged. When it is said,
•‘After eating he goes/ the acts of eatiag and going,
belonging to earlier and later periods, are separate
from each other, but the agent is the same. This
is an analogous case. This is not possible if the Seif
remains in the universe and changes at the same time.
Nor is an entity that has no parts and is unlimited
ever seen to enter into something in fhe sense of
leaving one place and being connected with another.
Tentative answer : Well then, the Self has parts,
for the Shruti speaks of Its entrance.
Objection : No, for there are Shruti texts like
the following : ‘The Supreme Being is resplendent,
formless’ (Mu. II. i. 2), and ‘Without parts, devoid of
1 From now on ^ set of prima facie views will be
presented. The decision will come later.
2 That is, as the individual self.
116
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [1. 4. 7
activity* (Shw. VI. 19). Also there are Shruti texts
denying all particular nameable attributes to the Self.
Tentative answer: The entrance may be * like
that of a reflection.
Objection : No, for it cannot be admitted that
the Self is ever removed from anything.
tentative answef : May it not be like the en-
trance of an attribute in a substance ?
Objection : No, for the Self is not supported by
anything. An attribute, which is always dependent
on and supported by something else (the substance),
is metaphorically spoken of as entering it. But Brah-
man cannot enter like that, for the Shrutis describe
It as independent.
Tentative answer : Suppose we say that the Self
has entered into the universe in the same sense as a
seed enters into a fruit? ‘
Objection : No, for then It would be subject to
such attributes as being possessed of parts, growth
and decay, birth and death. But the Self has no such
attributes, for it is against such Shruti texts as ‘Birth-
less, undecaying’ (IV. iv. 25, adapted), as well as
reason.
Tentative answer : Well then, let us say some
other entity that is relative and limited has entered
into the universe.
Reply (by the Adwaitin) : Not so, for we find
m the Shruti that beginning with, ‘That deity (Exist-
ence) thought* (Chh. VI. hi. 2), and ending with,
And let me manifest name and form* (Ibid.), the
same deity is spoken of as the agent of entering as
well as manifesting the universe. Similarly, ‘After
1. 4. 7] BRiHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 117
projecting it, the Self entered into it' (Tai. II. vi. 1),
‘Piercing this dividing line (of the head), It entered
through that gate’ (Ai. III. 12), ‘The Wise One, who
after projecting all forms names them, and goes bn
uttering those names’ (Tai. A. III. xii. 7), ‘Thou art
the boy, and Thou art the girl, Thou art the decrepit
man trudging on his staff’ (Shw. IV. 3), ‘He* made
bodies with two feet’ (II. v. 18), ‘He transformed
Himself in accordance with each form’ (II. v. 19 ; Ka.
V. ix. 10) — these Shruti texts show that none other
than the Supreme Self entered into the universe.
Objection : Since the objects It has entered into
mutually differ, the Supreme Self (being identical
with them) must be many.
Reply : No, for there are such Shruti texts as
the following : ‘The same Lord resides in various
*ways’ (Tai. A. III. xiv. 1), ‘Although dne. It roamed
in many ways’ (Ibid. III. xi. 1), ‘Although one,
Thou hast penetrated diverse things’ (Ibid. III. xiv.
3), ‘The one Lord is hidden in all beings, all-pervad-
ing and the Self of all’ (Shw. VI. 11).
Objection : Leaving aside the que«y:ion whether
the Supreme Self can or cannot consistently enter,
since those objects that have been entered into are
subject to transmigration, and the Supreme Self is
identical with them, It too comes under transmigra-
tion.
Reply : No, for the Shrutis speak of It as being
beyond hunger etc.
Objection : It cannot be, for we see that It is
happy or miserable*, and so on.
Reply : Not so, for the Shruti says, ‘It is
118 BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 1 . 4 . .7
not affected by human misery, being beyond it’
(Ka. V. 11).
Objection : This is not correct, for it conflicts
with perception etc.
Reply : No, perception and the like have for
their object only the particular form (the apparent
self) that It takes owing to Its being the support of
Its limiting adjunct (mind). Such Shruti texts as,
‘One cannot see' the seer of sight* (III. iv. 2),
‘Through what, O Maitreyi, should one know the
knower?* (II. iv. 14 ; IV. v. 15), ‘It is never known,
but is the knower* (III. viii. 11), show that the con-
sciousness in question is not of the Self, but that
such perceptions as that one is happy or miserable,
concern only the reflection of the Self in limiting ad-
juncts like the intellect, for in the perception, *1 am^
this,* the subject is metaphorically spoken of as co-
ordinate with the object (body). Besides, any other
self is refuted by the statement, ‘There is no other
witness but This* (III. viii. 11). Happiness or misery,
being related to parts of the body, ate attributes of
the object. *
Objection : This is wrong, for the Shruti speaks
of their being for the satisfaction of the self, in the
words, ‘But it is for one’s own sake (that all is
loved), (II. iv. 5 ; IV. v. 6).
Reply : Not so, for in the words, ‘When there
is something else, as it were* (IV. iii. 31), it is taken
for granted that the happiness, misery, etc., are for
the satisfaction of the self while it is in a state of
ignorance. They are not attributes of the Self, for
they are denied of the enlightened self, as in such
X. 4. 7] BRIHADA^ANYAKA UPJNISHAD H9
passages as, ‘Then what should one see and through
what?’ (II. iv. 14 ; IV. v. 15), ‘There is no difference
whatsoever in It' (IV. iv. 19 ; Ka. IV. 11), ‘Then
what delusion and what grief can there be for o&e
who sees unity? 1 (Ish. 7).
Objection : It is wrong, for it clashes with the
system of logic. 1 •
Reply : No ; from the standpoint of reason too
the Self cannot be miserable. Fc«r misery, being an
object of perception, cannot affect the Self, which is
not an object of perception.
Objection : The Self may have misery as the
ether has the attribute of sound.
Reply : No, for the two cannot be objects of
the same consciousness. The consciousness that per-
ceives happiness and deals with objects of perception
only, cannot certainly be supposed t*o cognise the
Self, which is ever to be inferred. 2 If It were so
cognised, there would be no subject left, since there
is only one Self.
Objection : Suppose we say that the same Self
is both subject and object, like a lamp^
Reply : No, for It cannot be both simultaneous-
ly. Besides the Self cannot be supposed to have
parts. 3 This also refutes the (Buddhist) view that
the same consciousness is both subject and object.
Moreover we have no reason to infer that happiness
and the Self, which are the objects of perception and
1 In which the self is supposed to possess fourteen
attributes, viz., intelligence, happiness, misery, and so on.
2 The view of fehe old school of Ny&ya as also the
S&nkhyas.
8 As a lamp has, the flame illumining the rest of it.
120 BRIHADARANYAKA UPANJSHAD [1. 4. -7
inference respectively, stand to each other in the
relation of attribute and substance ; for misery is
always an object of perception, and abides in the
same substance (body) that has form or colour. Even
if the misery of the Self is said to be due to Its
contact with the mind , 1 it would make the Self a
thing* which has parts, is changeful and transitory,
for no attribute is ever seen to come or go without
making some chdnge in the substance connected
with it. And a thing which has no parts is never
seen to change, nor is an eternal entity seen to
possess transitory attributes. The ether is not
accepted as eternal by those who believe in the
Vedas, and there is no other illustration.
Objection : Although a thing may change, yet,
since the notion of its identity abides, it is eternal. t
Reply : No, for change in a thing implies that
its parts become otherwise.
Objection ; The Self, although It has parts, is
eternal.
Reply : Not so, for a thing that has parts is pro-
duced by threir combination, hence they may divide
again.
Objection : It is wrong, for we do not see this
in thunder, for instance.
Reply : Not so, for we can easily infer that it
must have been preceded by a combination. There-
fore the Self cannot be proved to have transitory
attributes like misery.
Objection : If the Supreme $elf has no misery,
1 Vaisheshika view.
1. 4. 7] BR1HADARANYAKA SPANISH AD
121
and there is no other entity to be miserable, then it
is useless for the scriptures to try to remove misery.
• Reply : Not so, for they are meant to remove
the false notion of misery superimposed by ignorance.
And the Self being admitted to imagine Itself as mis-
erable, the scriptures help to remove that error as
in the case of the failure to count the tenth man,
although he was there. 1
Like the reflection of the sttn etc. in water, the
entrance of the Self means only Its being perceived
like a reflection in the differentiated universe. Be-
fore the manifestation of the latter the Self is not
perceived, but after it is manifested, the Self is per-
ceived within the intellect, like the reflection of the
sun etc. in water and the like. Because It is thus
perceived as having entered, as it were, into the uni-
verse after manifesting it, It ifc indicated in such
terms as the following : ‘This Self has entered into
these bodies* (this text), ‘After projecting it, the
Self entered into it* (Tai. II. vi. 1), ‘Piercing this di-
viding line (bf the head), It entered through that
gate* (Ai. III. 12), and ‘That dei^y (Existence)
thought : Well, let me enter into these three gods
1 Ten men swam across a stream, and one of them
counted their number to see if everyone had safely
crossed. To their dismay one was found missing. Then
everyone took his turn at counting, but the result was
the same. So they began to lament, when a kind passer-
by inquired what it was all about. On being told what
had happened, he readily understood the situation, and
asked one of them to count again. When he stopped at
nine, the new-coiper said to him, ‘You are the tenth
man.’ This he repeated with the rest of them. Then
they saw their mistake and went away happy. Everyone
had left himself out in the counting!
122 BRIHADAHANYAKA UPANISHAD [1. 4. 7.
(fire, water and earth) as this individual self* etc.
(Chh. VI. iii. 2). The all-pervading Self, which is
without parts, can never be supposed to enter in the
senke of leaving a certain quarter, place or time and
being joined to new ones. Nor is there, as we have
said, any other seer but the Supreme Self, as is testi-
fied by 'such Shruti te'xts as, ‘There is no other wit-
ness but This, no other hearer but This* etc. (III.
viii. 11). The passages delineating the projection of
the universe and the entrance of the Self into it as
well as its continuance and dissolution, serve only as
aids to the realisation of the Self, for this is described
in the Shrutis as the highest end of man. Witness
such texts as the following : ‘It knew only Itself. . . .
Therefore It became air (I. iv. 10), ‘The knower of
Brahman attains the highest' (Tai. II. i. 1), ‘He who
knows that Sdpreme Brahman becomes Brahman*
(Mu. III. ii. 9), ‘He only knows who has got a
teacher' (Chh. VI. xiv. 2), ‘It takes him only so long
(as he does not give up the body),' etc. (Chh. VI. xiv.
2). And the Smritis, ‘Then knowing Me truly, he
enters into A[e' (G. XVIII. 55), ‘That (Self-knowl-
edge) is the chief of all knowledge, for it leads to
immortality' (M. XII. 85). Besides, since duality
has been repudiated, the passages delineating the
manifestation etc. of the universe can have the sole
aim of helping the realisation of the unity of the Self.
Therefore we conclude that the entrance of the Self
into the universe is but a metaphorical way of stating
that It is perceived in the midst of the latter.
Up to the tip of the nails is the intelligence of
the Self perceived. How has the Self entered ? This
.1. 4. 7] BR1HADARANY AKA UPANISHAD
123
is being explained : As in the world a razor may be
put in its case, the barber’s instrument-bag — is per-
ceived as being within it — or as fire, which sustains
the world, may be in its source, wood etc. (the predi-
cate is to be repeated with 'fire*), where it is per-
ceived through friction. As a razor lies in one part
of the case, or as fire lies in wood pervading it, so
does the Self reside in the body pervading it in a
general and particular way. There It is perceived as
doing the functions of living as well as sight etc.
Therefore people do not see It, realise the Self 1 that
has thus entered into the body and does the above
functions.
It may be urged that this statement, ‘People do
not see It,’ repudiates something for which there was
no occasion, for the vision of It is not the topic under
consideration. The answer to it is: 'There is noth-
ing wrong in it, for since the passages delineating
the projection etc. of the universe are meant as aids
to the realisation of the unity of the Self, the vision
of the Self is the subject under consideration. Com-
pare the Shruti, ‘He transformed Him§elf in accord-
ance with each form ; that form of His was for the
sake of making Him known’ (II. v. 19). Now the
reason is being given why people see It only as doing
the functions of the vital force etc. (but not as a
whole) : For It is incomplete when It does the above
functions. Why incomplete? When It does the junc-
tion of living, It is called the vital force . Because of
doing this function only, and none other, the Self is
i As It is in reality, although they see Its conditioned
aspect.
124 BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [1. 4. 7
called the vital force, from the derivative meaning:
of the term, as one is called a cutter or a cook.
Therefore, not combining the other aspects doing
ottfer functions, It is incomplete. Similarly, when It
speaks, the organ of speech (or speaker) ; when It
sees, the eye, or seer ; when It hears, the ear, or lis-
tener. *Tn the two seiltences, ‘When It does the func-
tion of living, It is the vital force/ and ‘When It
speaks, the organ of speech/ the manifestation of
its power of action is indicated. While the two sen-
tences, ‘When It sees, the eye/ and ‘When it hears,
the ear/ indicate the manifestation of Its power of
knowledge, for this is concerned with name and form.
The ear and the eye are the instruments of knowl-
edge, which has name and form as its material, for
there is nothing to be known except these two, and
the ear and thfe eye are the instruments to perceive
them. And action has name and form as its auxil-
iaries and inheres in the vital force ; the organ of
speech is the instrument to manifest this action
inherent in the vital force. Likewise the Self is
called the hapd, the foot and the organs of excre-
tion and generation, which are all suggested by the
organ of speech. The whole differentiated universe
is this much. It will be said later on, ‘This (uni-
verse) indeed consists of three things : name, form
and action’ (I. vi. 1). And when It thinks, the
mind, that which thinks. The word ‘mind* also
means the common instrument of the different mani-
festations of the power of knowledge. But here it
denotes the Self, the agent who thinks.
These, the vital force etc., are merely Its names
• 1. 4. 7] BRIHADARANYAKA UfANlSHAU 125
according to functions, not describing the Self as It
is. Hence they do not express the entity of the Self
as a whole. Thus the Self is differentiated by the
activities of living etc. into name and form such 1 as
the vital force, which are engendered by those
different activities, and is manifested at the same
time (but not realised as a whole). He who medi-
tates through his mind upon each of this totality of
aspects doing the functions of Kving etc., qualified
as the vital force or the eye, without combining the
other aspects doing particular functions — meditates
that this is the Self, does not know Brahman. Why?
For It, this Self, is incomplete, being divided from
this totality of aspects doing the functions of living
etc. by possessing a single characteristic, and not
including the other characteristics. As long as the
man knows the Self as such, as possessed of the
natural functions, and thinks that It sees, hears or
touches, he does not really know the whole Self.
Through what kind of vision can he know It ?
This is being explained: The Self alone is to be
meditated upon. That which possessgs the charac-
teristics such as living that have been mentioned — *
includes them — is the Self. 1 Combining all the
characteristics, It then becomes the whole. It is
as the Reality that It includes those characteristics
due to the functions of particular limiting adjuncts
such as the vital force. As it will be said later on,
Tt thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were 1 (IV.
iii. 7). Therefore the Self alone is to be meditated
1 The root-meaning of the word ‘Atman* is that which
pervades everything.
126 BRIHADA$ANYAKA UPANISHAD [1. 4. 7.
upon. When perceived thus as the Reality, It be-
comes complete. How is It complete ? This is
being answered: For all these differences due to .the
Hunting adjuncts such as the vital force, and denoted
by names arising from the functions of living etc.,
as described above, are unified in It, become one
with the unconditioned Self, as the different reflec-
tions of the sun in water become one in the sun.
'The Self alone is to be meditated upon*
— this is not an original injunction (but a restrict-
ive one), for meditation on the Self is known as
a possible alternative. 1 (In fact, neither injunction is
necessary on the point, for this meditation is inevi-
table, in the following way : ) The knowledge of the
Self has been imparted by such Shruti passages deal-
ing with the subject as, ‘The Brahman that is im-
mediate and direct’ (III. iv. 1-2 ; III. v. 1), ‘Which
is the Self ? This (infinite entity) that is identified
with the intellect, 1 etc. (IV. iii. 7). The very knowl-
edge of the nature of the Self removes the ignorance
about It, consisting in identification with the
non-Self, and f the superimposing of action, its fac-
tors, principal and subsidiary, and its results (on the
Self). When that is removed, evils such as desire
cannot exist, and consequently thinking of the non-
Self is also gone. Hence on the principle of the
residuum thinking of the Self follows as a matter
of course. Therefore meditation on It, from this
point of view, has not to be enjoined, for it is already
known (from other sources).
On this some say : Apart from the question
1 See p. 135.
.1. 4. 7] BRIHADARANYAKA VfANISHAD 127
whether meditation on the Self is known as: just a
possible alternative or as something that is always
known, the present case must be an original injunc-
tion, for knowledge and meditation being the same,
this (meditation on the Self) is not something already
known. The clause, ‘He does not know/ introduces
knowledge, and the sentence, ‘The Self alone Is to be
meditated upon/ coming just after that, indicates
that the words ‘knowledge* and ‘meditation* have the
same meaning. Such Shruti texts as, ‘For one knows
all these through It* (this text), and ‘It knew only
Itself* (I. iv. 10), show that knowledge is meditation.
And this, not being familiar to people, requires an in-
junction. Nor is a man induced to act merely by a
statement of the nature of a thing. Therefore this
must be an original injunction. Its similarity to the
injunctions about rites also corroborates this view.
For instance, ‘One should sacrifice/ ‘One should
offer oblations/ etc., are injunctions about rites, and
we do not see any difference between these and the
injunctions about meditation on the Self such as,
‘The Self alone is to be meditated up^n/ and ‘The
Self, my dear, is to be realised* (II. iv. 5 ; IV. v. 6).
Besides knowledge is a mental act. Just as mental
acts are enjoined by such (ritualistic) texts as, ‘Just
before uttering the invocation ending with ‘Vaushat*
(the invoking priest) should meditate upon the deity
to whom the offering is to be made* (Ai. B. XI. viii.),
similarly cognitive acts are enjoined by such texts as,
‘The Self alone is to be meditated upon/ ‘(The Self)
* is to be reflected *on and meditated upon* (II. iv. 5 ;
IV. v. 6). And we have said that the words ‘knowl-
128
BRIHADA^ANYAKA UPANlSHAD [1. 4. 7
edge’ and 'meditation’ are synonymous. Another
reason in .support of this view is that the requisite
effort (in meditation also) should have its three djvi-
siofts. That is to say, just as in the effort in connec-
tion with the injunction, 'One should sacrifice,’ we
know that in order to satisfy our curiosity about the
propos&i act, it must have three divisions, viz., 'What
is it?’ ‘Through what means?’ and 'In what way V
— similarly, in the effort in connection with the in-
junction, 'One should meditate,’ in answer to one's
queries regarding what to meditate upon, through
what means to meditate, and in what way to meditate,
the scriptures themselves support these three divi-
sions by saying that the vSelf is to be meditated upon,
through the mind, and by the practice of renuncia-
tion, 1 continence, equanimity, self-control, self- with-
drawal, 3 fortitude etc., and so on. And just as the
entire section dealing with the new and full moon
sacrifices, etc., is used as part of the injunction
regarding these sacrifices, similarly the section of the
Upanishads dealing with meditation on the Self must
be used only as part of the injunction regarding this
meditation. Such passages as, 'Not this, not this’
(II. iii. 6), ‘Not gross,’ (III. viii. 8), 'One only with-
out a second’ (Chh. VI. ii. 1), 'Beyond hunger etc.*
(III. v. 1, adapted), are to be used as setting forth
the particular nature of the Self, the object of medita-
tion. And the result is liberation or the cessation of
ignorance.
1 Giving up foi bidden acts as well as rites with material
ends.
a Giving up the regular and occasional rites.
1. 4. 7] BR1HADARANYAKA VPANISHAD 129
• #
Others say that meditation generates a new spe-
cial kind of consciousness regarding the Self, through
which the latter is known, and which alone removes
ignorance, and not the knowledge due to the Vedic
dicta about the Self. And in support of this view
they cite such texts as the following : ‘(The aspirant
after Brahman) knowing about this alone, should
attain intuitive knowledge’ (IV. iv. 21), ‘(The Self)
is to be realised — to be heard oi, reflected on and
meditated upon* (II. iv. 5 ; IV. v. 6), ‘That is to be
sought, and That one should desire to realise’ (Chh,
VIII. vii. 1,3).
Both views are wrong, for there is no reference
to anything else in the passage in question. To be
explicit : The sentence, ‘The Self alone is to be medi-
tated upon,’ is not an original injunction. Why?
•Because except the knowledge that arises from the
dictum setting forth the nature of the Self and re-
futing the non-Self, there is nothing to be done,
either mentally or outwardly. An injunction is ap-
propriate only where over and above the knowledge
that arises immediately from hearing a sentence
of the nature of an injunction, an activity on the part
of a man is easily understood, as in such sentences
as, ‘One who desires heaven must perform the new
and full moon sacrifices.’ The knowledge arising
from a sentence enjoining these sacrifices is certainly
not the performance of them. This depends on con-
siderations such as whether a person is entitled to
perform them. But apart from the knowledge aris-
ing from such passages delineating the Self as, "Not
this, not this,’ there is no scope for human activity
9
130 tfRIHADAIlANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 1 . 4 . 7
• r
as in the case of the new and full moon sacrifices
etc., because that knowledge puts a stop to all activ-
ity. For a neutral knowledge cannot initiate any
activity, since such passages as, 'One only without a
second/ and 'Thou art That* (Chh. VI. vii. 7), merely
remove the consciousness of any other entity but
the Self or Brahman. And when this is gone, no
activity is possible, for they are contradictory to
each other. #
Objection : The mere knowledge arising from
those passages does not suffice to remove the con-
sciousness of entities other than the Self or Brahman.
Reply : Not so, for such passages as, 'Thou art
That/ ‘Not this, not this/ ‘All this is but the Self*
(Chh. VII. xxv. 2), ‘One only without a second/
‘This universe is but Brahman and immortal* (Mu.
II. ii. 11), ‘There is no other witness but This’ (III.*
viii. 11), and ‘Know that alone to be Brahman* (Ke.
I. 5-9), describe the Reality alone.
Objection : Do they not supply the object for
the injunction about realising the Self?
Reply : No, for we have already answered that
point by saying that there is no reference to anything
else in those passages. That is to say, sentences
such as, ‘Thou art That/ which only delineate the
nature of the Self, immediately leading to Its realisa-
tion, there is no further action to be done with regard
to the injunction about that realisation.
Objection : A man does not proceed to know
the Self immediately on hearing a statement of the
nature of the Self, unless there is an injunction to
that effect.
1. 4 . 7 ] BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 131
Reply : Not so, for the knowledge of the Self
is already attained by hearing the dictum about It.
So what is the good of doing It over again ?
Objection : He may not even proceed to Ifear
about the Self. (So an injunction is necessary.)
Reply : Not so, for it would lead to a regressus
in infinitum . In other words, just as without an in-
junction he does not proceed to hear the meaning of
a passage about the Self, similarly he would not, in
the absence of another injunction, proceed to hear the
meaning of a passage enjoining this ; so another in-
junction is necessary. Similarly with that injunction
too. Hence there would be a regressus in infinitum.
Objection : Is not the train of remembrance of
the knowledge of the Self generated by the passage
relating to It something different from the knowledge
itself arising from the hearing of ’It (and hence that
is to be prescribed) ?
Reply : No, for the remembrance of the Self
comes automatically. That is to say, as soon as the
knowledge of the Self arises in consequence of hearing
a dictum delineating It, it necessarily destroys the
false notion about It. It could not arise otherwise.
And when this false notion about the Self is gone,
memories due to that, which are natural to man and
concern the multitude of things other than the Self,
cannot last. Moreover everything else is then known
to be an evil. In other words, when the Self is
known, things other than It are realised as evils, being
full of defects such as transitoriness, painfulness and
impurity, while tlfe Self is contrary to them. There-
fore the memories of notions about the non-Self die
182 BR1HADA$ANYAKA UPANISHAD [1. 4. 7
out when the Self is known. As the only alternative
left, the train of remembrance of the knowledge that
the Self is one, which comes automatically, is no.t to
be* prescribed. Besides, the memory of the Self re-
moves the painful defects such as grief, delusion, fear
and effort, for these defects spring from the opposite
kind of knowledge. Compare the Shruti texts, ‘Then
what delusion can there be?' (Ish. 7), ‘Knowing (the
bliss of Brahman) he is not afraid of anything’ (Tai.
II. 9), ‘You have attained That which is free from
fear, O Janaka’ (IV. ii. 4), ‘The knot of the heart is
broken’ (Mu. II. ii. 8), and so on.
Objection : Well then, the control of the mind
may be something different. In other words, since
the control of mental states is something different
from the knowledge of the Self arising from the
Vedic texts, sfltid since we know this has been pre- '
scribed for practice in another system (Yoga), let this
be enjoined.
Reply : No, for it is not known as a means of
liberation. In the Upanishads nothing is spoken of
as a means to the attainment of the highest end of
man except the knowledge of the identity of the self
and Brahman, Witness hundreds of Shruti texts
like the following : ‘It knew only Itself. . . There-
fore It became all’ (I. iv. 10), ‘The knower of Brah-
man attains the highest’ (Tai. II. i. 1), ‘He who
knows that Supreme Brahman becomes Brahman’
(Mu. III. ii. 9), ‘He only knower. who has got a
teacher. It takes him only so long (as he does not
give up the body)’ (Chh. VI. xiv. 2), ‘He who knows
it as such indeed becomes the fearless Brahman’ (IV*
• 1 . 4 . 7 ] BRIHADARANYAKA VPANISHAD
133
iv. 25 ; Nr. Ut. VIII). Besides there is no other
means for the control of mental states except the
knowledge of the Self and the train of remembrance
about it. We have said this as a tentative admis-
sion ; really we know of no other means of liberation
except the knowledge of Brahman.
Moreover, there being no curiosity to know, no
effort is necessary. To be explicit : You said, in
the effort in connection with injunctions such as, ‘One
should sacrifice,’ there is the curiosity to know what
the sacrifice is about, what its means are, and how it
is to be performed, and it is satisfied by the mention
of the goal, the means and the method of the sacri-
fice ; similarly here too, in the injunction about the
knowledge of the Self, those things are necessary.
But you are wrong, for all curiosity is ended as soon
as one knows the meaning of such texts as, ‘One only
without a second/ ‘Thou art That/ ‘Not this, not
this/ ‘Without interior or exterior’ (II. vi. 19 ; III.
viii. 8), and ‘This self is Brahman’ (II. v. 19). And
a man does not proceed to know the meaning of those
passages, prompted by an injunction. *We have al-
ready said that if another injunction is needed for
this, it would lead to a regressus in infinitum . Nor
is an injunction noticed in such sentences as, Brah-
man is ‘one only without a second/ for they finish
by simply stating the nature of the Self.
Objection : Do they not lose their authority (as
Vedas) by being mere statements of the nature of a
thing? In other words, just as passages like, ‘He
(the deity, Fire) cried. That is why he was called
Rudra’ (Tai. S. I. v. 1. 1), being a mere narration of
134 BR1HADA&ANYAKA UPANJSHAD [1. 4. 7
an event, 1 have no authority, so also the passages
delineating the Self have none.
# Reply : Not so, for there is a difference (between
the two sets of passages). The test of the authority
or otherwise of a passage is not whether it states a
fact or # an action, but its capacity to generate certain
and fruitful knowledge’. A passage that has this is
authoritative, and one that lacks it, is not. But w^e
want to ask you : * Is or is not certain and fruitful
knowledge generated by passages setting forth the
nature of the Self, and if so, how can they lose their
authority? Do you not see the result of knowledge
in the removal of the evils which are the root of trans-
migration, such as ignorance, grief, delusion and
fear? Or do you not hear those hundreds of Upa-
nishadic texts ^such as, ‘Then what delusion and what
grief can there be for one who sees unity?* (Ish. 7),
‘I am but a knower of (Vedic) Mantras, not of the
Self, so I am tormented with grief, and you, sir, must
take me beyond the reach of it* (Chh. VII. i. 3). Do
passages like, ‘He cried,’ lead to this kind of certain
and fruitful ^knowledge r If they do not, they may
well be without authority. But how can the fact of
their having no authority take away the authority
of passages leading to certain and fruitful knowledge ?
And if these are without authority, what trust can
one repose in passages dealing with the new and
full moon sacrifices, for instance?
Objection : These have authority because they
generate knowledge leading to action on the part of
1 And not an injunction, which is the sole test of author-
ity for the Vedas according to the Mimamsakas.
1. 4. 7] BR1HADARANYAKA 1*PAN1SHAD
135
a man. But passages inculcating the knowledge of
the Self do not do that.-
• Reply : True, but it is nothing against thejn,
for there is reason enough for their authority. And
that reason is what we have already stated, and none
other. It is not a reason to disprove the authority
of passages inculcating the Self that they generate
knowledge which has the effect of destroying the
seeds of all activity, rather it is their ornament. You
said (p. 129), sentences like, ‘The aspirant after Brah-
man) knowing about this alone should attain intui-
tive knowledge/ convey the necessity of meditation
in addition to knowing the meaning of the Vedic
dicta. It is true, but they do not constitute an
original injunction. Since meditation on the Self is
already known as a possible alternative, they can only
be restrictive.
Objection : How is that meditation already
known as a possible alternative, since, as you said,
on the principle of the residuum the train of remem-
brance of the knowledge of the Self is an inevitable
fact ? •
Reply : It is true, but nevertheless, since the
resultant of past actions that led to the formation of
the present body must produce definite results, speech,
mind and the body are bound to work even after the
highest realisation, for actions that have begun to
bear fruit are stronger than knowledge ; as, for in-
stance, an arrow that has been let fly continues its
course for some tiyie. Hence the operation of knowl-
edge, being weaker than they, (is liable to be inter-
rupted by them and) becomes only a possible alterna-
136
*BRIHADA&ANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [1. 4. 7
tive. Therefore there is need to regulate the train of
remembrance of the knowledge of the Self by having
r^pourse to means such as renunciation and dispas-
sion ; but it is not something that is to be originally
enjoined, being, as we said, already known as a
possible alternative. Hence we conclude that pas-
sages such as, '(The aspirant after Brahman) knowing
about this alone, should attain intuitive knowledge/
are only meant to lay down the rule that the train of
remembrance — already known (as a possible alterna-
tive) — of the knowledge of the Self must be kept up,
for they can have no other import.
Objection : This should be a meditation on the
non-Self, for the particle ‘iti’ (as) has been used. In
passages such as, ‘It should be meditated upon as
dear’ (IV. i. 3), the meaning is not that features such^
as dearness are to be meditated upon, but that the
vital force etc. possessing these features should be
meditated upon. Similarly here also, from the use of
the particle ‘iti’ along with the word ‘Self’ it is under-
stood that something other than the Self (i.e. the
Undifferentiated) but having the features of the Self
is to be meditated upon. Another reason in support
of this view is the difference of the passage in ques-
tion from another where the Self is presented as the
object of meditation. For instance, it will be stated
later on, ‘One should meditate only upon the world
called the Self’ (I. iv. 15). In that passage the Self
alone is meant to be the object of meditation, for
there is the accusative inflexion in the word ‘Self.'
Here, however, there is no accusative inflexion, but
the particle ‘iti’ is used along with the word 'Self/
•1. 4. 7] BRIHADARANY AKA tJPANlSHAb
137
Hence it is understood that the Self is not the object
of meditation here, but something else having the
features of the Self.
Reply : No, for at the end of this very passage
(this text) the Self alone, we find, is presented as the
object of meditation, ‘Of all these, this Self alone
should be realised,’ (and elsewhere), ‘This Self which
is innermost’ (I. iv. 8), and ‘It knew only Itself’ (I.
iv. 10).
Objection : The Self is not the object of medita-
tion, for the vision of that which entered is negated.
In other words, the Shruti precludes the vision of
that very Self whose entrance (into the universe) was
described, for the words, ‘People do not see It’ (this
text), refer to the Self which is under consideration.
Hence the Self is certainly not to be ipeditated upon.
Reply : Not so, for this is because of the defect
of incompleteness. In other words, the preclusion
of the vision is only to indicate the defect of incom-
pleteness in the Self, not to forbid It as an object of
meditation, for It is qualified by possessing the func-
tions of living etc. If the Self were not meant to be
the object of meditation, the mention of Its incom-
pleteness when endowed with single functions such
as living, in the passage, ‘For It is incomplete * (being
divided) from this totality by possessing a single
characteristic’ (this text), would be meaningless.
Hence the conclusion is that that Self alone which is
not possessed of single features, is to be meditated
upon, for It is complete. The use of the particle ‘itf
along with the word ‘Self,’ to which you referred,
138
BRIHADAR'ANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 1 . 4 . 7
only signifies that the truth of the Self is really be-
yond the scope of the term as well as the concept
‘Self.’ Otherwise the Shruti would only say, ‘One
should meditate upon the Self.* But this would im-
ply that the term and the concept ‘Self* were permis-
sible with regard to the Self. That, however, is re-
pugnant to the Shruti: Witness such passages as,
‘Not this, not this’ (II. iii. 6), ‘Through what, O Mai-
treyi, should one know the knower?’ (II. iv. 14 ; IV.
v. 15), ‘It is never known, but is the Knower’ (III.
viii. 11), and ‘Whence speech returns baffled together
with the mind’ (Tai. II. iv. 1 and ix. 1). As for the
passage, ‘One should meditate only upon the world
called the Self/ since it is meant to preclude the pos-
sibility of meditation on things other than the Self,
it does not copvey a different meaning from the one
we have been discussing.
Objection : Since they are alike incompletely
known, the Self and the non-Self are both to be
known. Such being the case, why should care be
taken to know the Self alone, as is evident from the
passage, ‘The Self alone is to be meditated upon/
and not the other?
Reply : Of all these, this entity called Self ,
which we are considering, alone should be realised,
and nothing else. The ‘of’ has a partitive force,
meaning ‘among all these/
Objection : Is the rest not to be known at all?
Reply : Not so. Although it^is to be known, it
does not require a separate knowledge over and above
that of the Self. Why? For one knows all these
1 . 4 . 7 ] BRIHADARANY AKA l^ANlSHAD
139
things other than the Self through It, when the Self
is kpown.
• Objection : But we cannot know one thing by
knowing another.
Reply : We shall answer the point while explain-
ing the passage relating to the drum etc. (IT. iv. 7).
Objection : How is the Self the one that should
be realised?
Reply : Just as in the world one may get a miss-
ing animal that is wanted back, by searching it
through its footprints — 'foot' here means the ground
with the print of hoof-marks left by a cow etc. —
similarly when the Self is attained, everything is
automatically attained. This is the idea.
Objection : The topic was knowledge — when the
Self is known, everything else is known. So why
is a different topic, viz., attainment, introduced here?
Reply : Not so, for the Shruti uses the words
‘knowledge* and ‘attainment* as synonyms. The non-
attainment of the Self is but the ignorance of It.
Hence the knowledge of the Self is Its attainment.
The attainment of the Self cannot be, as in the case of
things other than It, the obtaining of something not
obtained before, for here there is no difference be-
tween the person attaining and the object attained.
Where the Self has to attain something other than
Itself, the Self is the attainer and the non-Self is the
object attained. This, not being already attained, is
separated by acts such as producing, and is to be at-
tained by the initiation of a particular action with the
help of particular auxiliaries. And that attainment of
something new is transitory, being due to desire and
140
BRIHADARANY AKA UPANISHAD [1. 4. 7
action that are themselves the product of a false no-
tion, like the birth of a son etc. in a dream. But
this Self is the very opposite of that. By the very
fact of Its being the Self, It is not separated by acts
such as producing. But although It is always attain-
^ed, It is separated by ignorance only. Just as when
a mother-of-pearl appears through mistake as a piece
of silver, the non-comprehension of the former, al-
though it is being 'perceived all the while, is merely
due to the obstruction of the false impression, and
its (subsequent) comprehension is but knowledge, for
this is what removes the obstruction of false impres-
sion, | similarly here also the non-attainment of the
Self is merely due to the obstruction of ignorance.
Therefore the attainment of It is simply the removal
of that obstruction by knowledge ,* in no other sense
it is consistent. Hence we shall explain how for the
realisation of the Self every other means but knowl-
edge is useless. Therefore the Shruti, wishing to
express the indubitable identity of meaning of knowl-
edge and attainment, says after introducing knowl-
edge, 'May ggt/ for the root ‘vid* also means To get.'
Now the result of meditation on the characteris-
tic is being stated : He who knows It as such, knows
how this Self, entering into name and form, became
famous through that name and form as the ‘Self/ and
got the association of the vital force etc., obtains fame
and association with his dear ones. Or, he who knows
the Self as described above, obtains Kirti or the knowl-
edge of unity coveted by seekers of liberation, and
Shloka or liberation which results* from that knowl-
edge — gets these primary results of knowledge.
v 4. 8] BRIHADARANYIKA VPfiNISIIAD 141
3T??TOR qe p WH WT I e ^SSWTrJUT: fN
f N ^csiatfa, fc id 5, a&r sncuWf
fcr faqgqrata 5 « a sncma^a fiwgqr^ *5^
fiw 11 < 11
8. This Self is dearer than a son, dearer
than wealth, dearer than everything else, and
is innermost. Should a person (holding the
Self as dear) say to one calling anything else
dearer than the Self, ‘(What you hold) dear
will die’ — he is certainly competent (to say so)
■ — it will indeed come true. One should medi-
tate upon the Self alone as dear. Of him who
meditates upon the Self alone as dear, the dear
ones are not mortal.
Here is another reason why the Self should be
known to the exclusion of everything else. This Self
is dearer than a son : A son is universally held dear
in the world ; but the Self is dearer than he, which
shows that It is extremely dear. Similarly dearer
than wealth such as gold or jewels, and everything
else, whatever is admittedly held dear in the world.
Why is the Self dearer than those things, and not the
organs etc. ? This is being explained : And is in-
nermost. The body and the organs are inner and
nearer to oneself than a son or wealth, for instance,
which are external things. But this Self is nearer
than those even. *A thing which is extremely dear
deserves to be attained by the utmost effort. So is
142 BRIHA DARANYAKA UPANISHAD [1. 4. 8
• *
this Self, which is dearer than everything else held
dear in the world. Therefore one should make the
utmost effort to attain It, even abandoning that which
is* imposed as a duty 1 on one, for the attainment of
other dear objects. But one may ask, when both Self
and non-Self are dear, and the choice of one means
the rejection of the other, why should the Self alone
be chosen to the exclusion of the other, and not in-
versely ? This is being answered : Should a person
holding the Self as dear say to one catling anything
else but the Self, such as a son, dearer than the Self,
‘What you hold dear , for instance, the son, will die
(literally, will meet with the extinction of life) * —
Why does he say like this ? Because he is certainly
competent to say so. Hence — it, what he said,
will indeed come true , the dear one will die, for he
speaks the tr*ith. Therefore he is in a position to
say like that. Some say that the word ‘Ishwara*
(Competent) means ‘swift.* It might if it was com-
monly used in that sense. Therefore, giving up all
other dear things, one should meditate upon the Self
alone as dear. Of him who meditates upon the Self
alone as dear, who knows that the Self alone is dear
and nothing else, and thinks of It with the full con-
viction that the other things commonly held dear are
really anything but dear— of one possessed of this
knowledge the dear ones are not mortal. This is a
mere restatement of a universal fact , 2 for a knower
1 By the scriptures; e.g. marriage, for the sake of
having a son.
.. 2 y. iz '. that everybody has dear ones and suffers when
they die.. Although the knower of Brahman has no such
limited vision and therefore does not suffer on that account
143
1 . 4 . 9 ] BRIHADARANYAKA URANISHAD
• *
of the Self has nothing else to call dear or the
opposite. Or it may be a eulogy on the choice of
the Self as dear (in preference to non-Self) ; or it may
be the declaration of a result for one who is *an
imperfect knower of the Self, if he meditates upon the
Self as dear, for a suffix signifying a habit has been
used in the word, ‘Pramayuka* (mortal). 1 »
fag a s. a
g. They say : Men think, ‘Through
the knowledge of Brahman we shall become
all.’ Well, what did that Brahman know by
u r hich It became all ?
In the words, ‘The Self alone is to be meditated
upon* (I. iv. 7), the knowledge of Brahman which it
is the aim of the whole Upanishad to impart, has been
briefly indicated. With a view to explaining this
aphorism, the Shruti, in order to state the necessity
of this knowledge, makes this introduction : They
say. ‘Tat’ (that) is preparatory to what is going to
be unfolded in the next clause. ‘They* Fefers to those
seekers of Brahman who, on getting a teacher who is
like a boat on that boundless ocean which has for its
water the painful struggle due to rotation in the cycle
of birth, decay and death, desire to cross that ocean,
and being disgusted with the world of means and
yet he is here described in terms that are merely conven-
tional. %
1 Since mortal things cannot be immortal, it only means
that they attain longer life by virtue of this meditation.
144 BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [1. 4. S>
• r
ends consisting of righteousness and unrighteousness,
their means and their results, long to attain the eter-
nal, supreme good which is entirely different front the
abbve. What do they say ? This is being stated :
Men think, 4 Through the knowledge of Brahman or
the Supreme Self we shall become all, excluding
nothing.* The use of<the word 'men* indicates their
special aptitude for this, for they are specially enti-
tled to the practice prosperity and liberation. This
is the idea. As those seekers think with regard to
rites that they would bring sure results, similarly they
think that the knowledge of Brahman is sure to lead
to identity with all, for the Vedas are equally the
authority for both. Now this seems to be something
inconsistent, hence we ask, what did that Brahman
by knowing which men think they will become all,
know by which It became all f And the Shrutis say
that It is all. If It became all without knowing any-
thing, let it be the same with others too, what is the
use of the knowledge of Brahman t If, on the other
hand, It became all by knowing something, then this
identity with all which is the result of the knowledge
of Brahman, being the product of knowledge, be-
comes just like the result of an action, and therefore
transitory. There would also be a regressus in in -
fin Hum, viz., that too had become all by knowing
something else, that earlier thing, again, by knowing
something else, and so on. We take it for granted
that It did not become all without knowing some-
thing, for that would be distorting the meaning of
the scriptures. But the charge of the result being
transitory stands, does it not? No, none of those
I? 4. 10] BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAI)
145
charges can be levelled at it, for there is a particular
meaning to it.
If indeed that Brahman became all by knowiifg
something, we ask, what was it ? To this objection
the text gives the following absolutely faultless reply :
m ot srrcft^, 3iTc*n3fc3il^, 3*is*HT-
S*1r% i ?=raf 3* ^3T3t
sr 3i**3^, 33ofon*^, 33T jp^Torn^; ei^eT-
c 0t >33 fa3 T nfer . s*%^, *3*3*3 i
3%J**%ffl 3 33 H 3*1 SIHTS*>%, ** & *33
5*3^, rPF3 ^ 3 ^3TSRT^f3T 1*13, *Tc*T ?I3T
3*3%; *3 3ts?3t ^33*501^, 3*^ftOT13«*)s^-
**?%, 3 ST %1, 33T 3^3 ST ^3T3T*^ | 33T 1 3
313: 0*13* *3^3 33^:, 03^or: 333* ^313
33%5; 0^f**33 0*n3Il*3m35&3 33%, %3
3f3 1 3**I^3t 33 fs*3 3^33*3^T : || \o ||
10. This (self) was indeed Brahman in
the beginning. It knew only Itself* as, ‘I am
Brahman.’ Therefore It became all. And
whoever among the gods knew It also became
That; and the same with sages and men. The
sage Vamadeva, while realising this (self) as
That, knew, ‘I was Manu, and the sun.’ And
to this day whoever in like manner knows It
as, ‘I am Brahman,’ becomes all this (uni-
verse). Even thd gods cannot prevail against
him, for he becomes their self. While he who
10
146
BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [1. 4. 10
worships another god thinking, ‘He is one,
and I am another,’ does not know. He is like
animal to the gods. As many animals
serve a man, so does each man serve the gods.
Even if one animal is taken away, it causes
anguish, what -should one say of many
animals ? Therefore it is not liked by them
that men should know this.
Prima facie view : Brahman here must be the
conditioned Brahman, 1 for then only can the identity
with all be the product of effort. The Supreme
Brahman cannot become all as a result of knowledge.
But this identity with all is spoken of as a result of
knowledge : 'Therefore It became ail.* Therefore
the Brahman referred to in the passage, 'This was
indeed Brahman in the beginning,’ must be the con-
ditioned Brahman.
Or, since men alone are entitled to it, the word
‘Brahman’ may refer to a future knower of Brahman
who will be identified with It. For in the passage,
‘Men think . . . we shall become all’ (I. iv. 9), men
have been introduced, and it has already been said
that they alone are specially entitled to the practice
of prosperity and liberation — neither the Supreme
Brahman nor Hiranyagarbha, the conditioned Brah-
man. Therefore by the word ‘Brahman’ is meant a
man who through the knowledge of the conditioned
Brahman— ulen tiffed with the wdiole universe — com-
bined with rites, attained identity with the condition-
ed Brahman (Hiranyagarbha), and turning away from
The view of an earlier commentator (Vrittikara).
1. .4. 10] BRIHADARANYAKA UPXNISHAD
147
all enjoyments (in that state) and having broken his
ties of desire and action by attaining everything*
soughjt unity with the Supreme Brahman through the
knowledge of It. It is a common occurrence in the
world that words are used having reference to future
states, as in the. sentence, 'They are cooking rice,' 1
and in the scriptures too, 'The monk, 2 after perform-
ing a sacrifice in which wishing fearlessness to all
beings is his fee to the priests f etc. (Va. X.).
Similarly here also Brahman means a man desiring to
know Brahman and aspiring identity with It. This
is the view of some. 3
Reply : Not so, for that kind of identity with all
would be open to the charge of transitoriness. There
is no such thing in the world that really assumes a
different state through some cause and still is eternal.
Similarly, if identity with all be due to the knowledge
of Brahman, it cannot at the same time be eternal.
And if it be transitory, it would be, as we have al-
ready said, like the result of an action. But if by
identity with all you mean the cessation, through
the knowledge of Brahman, of that idea cjf not being
all -which is due to ignorance, then it would be
futile to understand by the term ‘Brahman* a man
who will be Brahman. Even before knowing Brah-
man everybody, being Brahman, is really always iden-
tical with all, but ignorance superimposes on him the
idea that he is not Brahman and not all, as a mother-
of-pearl is mistaken for silver, or as the sky is im-
] ‘Rice* here mean» the cooked grains.
2 He can be a monk only after the sacrifice.
3 Bhartriprapancha, another commentator.
148
BR1HAQARANYAKA UPANISHAD [1. 4.. 10
agined to be concave, or blue, or the like. Similarly,
if you think that here also the idea of not being
Brahman and not being all that has been superimpos-
ed on Brahman by ignorance, is removed by the
knowledge of Brahman, then, since the Vedas speak
the truth, it is proper to say that what was really the
Sup/eme Brahman ' is referred to in the sentence,
‘This was indeed Brahman in the beginning,’ for
that is the primary meaning of the word ‘Brahman."
But one must not think that the word ‘Brahman"
here means a man who will be Brahman, which
would be contrary to the meaning of that term.
For it is wrong to give up the plain meaning of
a word used in the Shruti and put a new meaning
in its place, unless there is a higher purpose be-
hind it.
Objection : But the fact of not being Brahman
and not being all exists apart from the creation of
ignorance.
Reply : No, for then it cannot be removed by the
knowledge of Brahman. This knowledge has never
been observed either directly to remove some charac-
teristic of a thing or to create one. But everywhere
it is seen to remove ignorance. Similarly here also
let the idea of not being Brahman and not being all
that is due to ignorance, be removed by the knowl-
edge of Brahman, but it can neither create nor put
a stop to a real entity. Hence it is entirely futile to
give up the plain meaning of a word used in the
Shruti and pul a new meaning in its place.
Objection : But is not ignorance out of place in
Brahman ?
1. -4. 10] BRIHADARANYAKA up wish ad
149
Reply : Not so, for knowledge regarding Brah-
man has been enjoined. When there has been no
superimposition of silver on a mother-of-pearl, and ij
is directly visible, no one takes the trouble to say
it is a mother-of-pearl, and not silver. Similarly,
were there no superimposition of ignorance on Brah-
man, the knowledge of unity regarding Brahman
would not be enjoined in such terms as the follow-
ing : All this is Existence, All t*his is Brahman, 1
'All this is the Self* (Chh. VII. xxv. 2), and This
duality has no existence apart from Brahman. 2
Objection : We do not say that there is no super-
imposition on Brahman of attributes other than It,
as in the case of a mother-of-pearl, but that Brahman
is not the cause of the superiinposition of these attri-
butes on Itself, nor the author of ignorance.
Reply : Let it be so, Brahman is not the author
of ignorance nor subject to error. But it is not ad-
mitted that there is any other conscious entity but
Brahman which is the author of ignorance or subject
to error. Witness such Shruti texts as, 'There is no
other knower but Him’ (III. vii. 23), ‘Inhere is no
other knower but This* (III. viii. 11), 'Thou art That*
(Chh. VI. viii. 7), 'It knew only Itself as, "I am Brah-
man* * * (this text), and 'He (who worships another
god thinking), "He is one, and I am another/* does
not know* (Ibid.). And the Smritis : '(Living) the
same in all beings* (G. XIII. 27), 'I am the self, O
Arjuna (dwelling in the minds of all beings)* (G. X.
1 Adapted from Chh. VI. ii. 1 and Mu. II. ii. 11 respect-
ively.
2 An echo of IV. iv. 19.
150
BR1HADARANY AKA UPANISHAD [1. 4. 10
20), and ‘(Wise men are even-minded) to a dog as well
as a Chandala’ (G. V. 18). And the Vedic Mantras :
‘He who (sees) all beings (in himself)’ (Ish. 6), and
‘When all beings (have become his self)’ (Ish. 7).
Objection : In that case scriptural instruction is
useless.
Reply : Quite so, let it be, when the truth has
been known.
Objection : r But it is also useless to know the
truth.
Reply : No, for we see it removes ignorance.
Objection ; If there is unity, this removal of
ignorance also is impossible.
Reply : Not so, for it contradicts experience.
We actually see that the knowledge of unity alone
dispels ignorance. If you deny an observed fact,
saying it is impossible, you would be contradicting
experience, a thing which nobody will allow. Nor
is there any question oi impossibility with regard to
an observed fact, because it has actually been
observed.
Objection : But this observation also is impos-
sible.
Reply : There also the same logic will apply.
Objection : ‘One becomes good through good
work’ (III. ii. 13), ‘It is followed by knowledge,
work’ (IV. iv. 2), ‘The individual self, the Purusha,
is a thinker, knower and doer’ (Pr. IV. 9) — from such
Shruti and Smriti texts as well as reason we know
that there is a transmigrating self other than and dis-
tinct from the Supreme Self. And the latter is known
to be distinct from the former from such Shruti texts
1, 4. 10] BRJHADARANYAKA U VANISH A D 151
as the following : 'This (self) is That which has been
described as "Not this, not this," * (III. iv. 26), Tt
transcends hunger etc./ 1 ‘The Self that is sinless, un-
decaying, deathless* (Chh. VIII. vii. 13), and 'Under
the mighty rule of this Immutable* (III. viii. 9).
Again, in the systems of logic (iVaisheshika and
Nyaya) advocated by Kanada and Gautama, thetexist-
ence of a God distinct from the transmigrating self
is established through argument. * That the latter is
different from God is clearly seen from his activity
due to his desire to get rid of the misery of relative
existence. Also from such Sliruti and Smriti texts
as : Tt is without speech and without zeal’ (Chh.
HI. xiv. 2), and T have no duties, O Arjuna* (G.
III. 32). And from the distinct mention of God as
the object of search and the individual self as the
seeker, in .such (Shruti) passages as : *‘That is to be
sought, and That one should desire to realise* (Chh.
VIII. vii. 1,3), 'Knowing It one is not touched (by
evil action)* (IV. iv. 23), 'The knower of Brahman
attains the highest* (Tai. II. i. 1), Tt should be realis-
ed in one form only’ (IV. iv. 20), ‘He, O Gargi, who
without knowing this Immutable* fttl. viii. 10),
‘Knowing It alone the sage* (IV. iv. 21), ‘The syl-
lable Om is called the bow, the individual self the
arrow, and Brahman the target* (Mu. II. ii. 4).
Another reason for the difference is the mention of
a journey and particular routes for a seeker of libera-
tion. If there is no difference, who should make the
journey and how, and in the absence of this, two
1 Adapted from III. v. 1.
152 BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [1. 4. 10
particular routes, viz., the southern and northern, are
meaningless, and the destination as well. But if the
individual self is different from the Supreme Self,
all this would be consistent. Also they must be dif-
ferent because the scriptures prescribe the two means,
viz., rites and knowledge. If the individual self is
different from Brahilian, the teaching of rites and
knowledge as means of prosperity and liberation re-
spectively, maj^ aptly apply to it, but not to God, for
the objects of His desire are eternally attained.
Therefore it is proper to understand the word ‘Brah-
man’ in the sense of a man aspiring to be Brahman.
Reply : No, for then instruction about Brahman
would be useless. If a man subject to transmigration
and only aspiring to be identified with Brahman be-
came all by knowing himself to be Brahman, although
he was not It, then instruction about the Supreme
Brahman is certainly useless, for he attained identity
with all as a result of knowing only the transmigrat-
ing self, and the knowledge of the Supreme Brahman
is never utilised for attaining human ends . 1
Objection : The instruction is only meant for
the man subject to transmigration so that he may
practise the meditation based on resemblance 2 with
regard to Brahman as, T am Brahman.’ For if he
does not fully know the nature of Brahman, with
what can he identify himself in fancy as, ‘I am Brah-
man’ ? This meditation based on resemblance is
1 By scriptural injunctions, making it a subsidiary part
of rites.
2 This .is a kind of meditation known as ‘Sampad/ in
which an inferior thing is thought of as a superior thing
through some common features, often fanciful.
X. 4. 10] BR1HA DAR'ANY AKA UP.AN1SHAD
153
possible only when the characteristics of Brahman are
.fully known.
.Reply : Not so, for we know that the words
‘Brahman’ and ‘self’ are synonymous, being used
thousands of times in co-ordination in such texts as
the following: ‘This self is Brahman’ (II. v. 19),
‘The Brahman that is immediate and direct’ (HI. iv.
1-2 ; III. v. 1), ‘The Self (that is sinless)’ (Chh. VIII.
vii. 1,3), ‘It is truth, It is the Self’ (Chh. VI, viii. 7
etc.) and ‘The knower of Brahman attains the high-
est’ (Tai. II. i. 1), these last introductory words (to
Tai. II.) being shortly after followed by the words,
‘From this Self,’ etc. (Ibid.). The meditation based
on resemblance is performed when the two things
concerned are different, not when they are identical.
And the sentence, ‘This all is the Self’ (II. iv. 6),
shows the unity of the Self under consideration that
is to be realised. Therefore the Self cannot be re-
garded as Brahman through the meditation based on
resemblance.
Nor do we see any other necessity for instruction
about Brahman, for the Shruti mentions^identification
with It in the passages, ‘(He who) knows (that Su-
preme) Brahman becomes Brahman’ (III. ii. 9), ‘You
have attained That which is free from fear, O Janaka’
(IV. ii. 4), and ‘He . . . becomes the fearless Brah-
man’ (IV. iv. 25). If the meditation based on re-
semblance were meant, this identity would not take
place, for one thing cannot become another.
Objection : On the strength of scriptural state-
ments, even the meditation based on resemblance
may lead to identity.
154 BRIHADARANYAKA UFA NISH AD [1. 4. 10.
Reply : No, for this meditation is only an idea.
And knowledge, as we have said, only removes the
false notion, it does not create anything. Nor can a
scriptural statement impart any power to a thing.
For it is an accepted principle that the scriptures are
only informative, not creative. Besides, in the pas-
sage, *This Self has entered into these bodies/ etc.
(I. iv. 7), it is clear that the Supreme Self alone has
entered. Therefore the view that the word ‘Brah-
man’ means a man who will be Brahman, is not a
sound one. Another reason is that it contradicts the
desired meaning. The import of this whole Upa-
nishad is the knowledge that Brahman is without
interior or exterior and homogeneous like a lump of
salt, as is known from the assertion made at the end
of both Madhu and Muni Kandas, 1 ‘This is the
teaching’ (II.* v. 19), and ‘This much indeed is
(the means of) immortality, my dear’ (IV. v. 15).
Similarly, in the Upauishads of all recensions the
knowledge of the unity of Brahman (self) is the cer-
tain. import. If, therefore, the passage in question is
interpreted to mean that the transmigrating self,
which is different from Brahman, knew itself, the
desired meaning of the Upanishads would be contra-
dicted. And in that case the scripture, having its
beginning and end not tallying with each other,
would be considered inconsistent. Moreover the
name would be out of place. In other words, if in
the passage, ‘It knew only Itself,’ the word ‘It’ is
supposed to refer to the transmigrating self, the name
1 Consisting of chapters I-II and III-IV respectively.
• 1. 4. 10] BR1HADARANYAKA liPANISUAD
155
given to the knowledge would not be ‘the knowledge
of Brahman/ for then, ‘It knew only Itself/ should
mean that the transmigrating self was the entity that
was known.
Objection : Suppose we say that the word
‘Self* refers to an entity other than the knower . 1
Reply : Not so, for there is the specification,
‘I am Brahman.’ If the entity known were other than
the knower, the specification shtmld be, ‘It is Brah-
man/ or ‘That is Brahman/ and not ‘I am Brahman.’
But since it is, ‘I am Brahman/ and there is the
assertion, ‘It knew only Itself/ we know it for
certain, that the self is Brahman. And then only the
name ‘the knowledge of Brahman’ would be appro-
priate, not otherwise. In the other case it would be
‘the knowledge of the transmigrating self.’ Nor can
the same entity really be both Brdhman and not
Brahman, just as the sun cannot be both bright and
dark, for these are contradictory features. And if
both were the cause of the name, there should not
be the sure appellation ‘the knowledge of Brahman/
It should then be ‘the knowledge of # Brahman and
of the transmigrating self/ Nor in proceeding to
expound the knowledge of Truth should one present
the reality as an absurdity like a woman, for instance,
being one-half old and one-half young. That will
only cause doubt in the mind of the listener. Where-
as it is sure knowledge that is regarded as leading
to liberation, the end of human life, as is evidenced
•
1 Which, according to the opponent, is the individual
self. Hence the entity known would be Brahman, thus
justifying the name of the knowledge.
156 BRIHADA RifNYA KA UPANISHAD [1. 4. 10
by the following Shruti and Smriti texts : ‘He who
really has (the conviction that he will attain the
conditioned Brahman after death) and has no doubt
about it (does attain him)’ (Chh. III. xiv. 4), and
'The doubting man perishes* (G. IV. 40). Hence one
who wishes to do good to others should not use
expressions of a doubtful import.
Objection : To think that Brahman, like us, is
a seeker of liberatioif, is not proper, and that is what
we see in the passage, ‘It knew only Itself
Therefore It became all.’
Reply : Not so, for by saying this you will be
flouting the scriptures. It is not our idea, but that
of the scriptures. Hence your fling hits them. And
you who wish to please Brahman should not give up
the real meaning of the scriptures by fancying things
contrary to it. * Nor should you lose your patience
over this much only, for all plurality is but imagined
in Brahman, .as we know from hundreds of texts like
the following : ‘It should be realised in one form
only* (IV. iv. 20), ‘There is no difference whatsoever
in Brahman* (^V. iv. 19 ; Ka, IV. 11), ‘When there is
duality, as it were* (II. iv. 14 ; IV. v. 15), and ‘One
only without a second* (Chh. VI. ii. 1). Since the
whole phenomenal world is imagined in Brahman
alone and is not real, you say very little when you
condemn this particular idea as improper.
Therefore the conclusion is that the word ‘Brah-
man* refers to that Brahman which projected the
universe and entered into it.
This, the Brahman (self) that is perceived as
being in this body, was indeed — this word is emphatic
1. 4. 10] BRIHADARANYAKA JJPANISHAD 157
— Brahman, and all, in the beginning , even before
realisation. But owing to ignorance it superimposes
on itself the notion that it is not Brahman, and that
it is not all, and consequently thinks, through mis-
take, that it is an agent, possessed of activity, the
experiencer of its fruits, happy or miserable, and
transmigrating. But really it is Brahman different
from all the foregoing and is all. Being somehow
awakened by a merciful teacher, who told it that it
was not subject to transmigration, 'It knew only It-
self/ its own natural Self, that is, which is free from
differentiations superimposed by ignorance. This is
the meaning of the particle ‘eva’ (only).
Objection : Tell me, what is that natural Self
which Brahman knew ?
Reply : Do you not remember the Self? It has
been pointed out as the one that entering into these
bodies does the function of the Prana, Apana, Vyana,
Udana and Sam ana .* 1
Objection : You are describing It as one would
describe a cow or a horse by simply saying, ‘It is a
cow/ or Tt is a horse/ You do not show the Self
directly. #
Reply : Well then, the Self is the seer, hearer,
thinker and knower.
Objection ; Here also you do not directly point
out the nature of that which does the functions of
seeing etc. Going is surely not the nature of one
who goes, nor cutting that of a cutter.
Reply : In that case the Self is the seer of sight,
1 See commentary on I. v. 3.
158 BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [ 1 . 4 . 10
the hearer of hearing, the thinker of thought and the
knower of knowledge.
Objection : But what difference does it make in
the' seer? Whether it be the seer of sight or of a
jar, it is but the seer under all circumstances. By
saying, ‘The seer of sight/ you are simply stating
a difference as regards the object seen. But the seer,
whether it be the seer of sight or of a jar, is just
the same. *
Reply : No, for there is a difference, and it is
this : If that which is the seer of sight is identical
with that sight, it always visualises the latter, and
there is never a time when sight is not visualised by
the seer. So the sight of the seer must be eternal.
If it were transitory, then sight, which is the object
visualised, may sometimes not be seen, as a jar, for
instance, may not always be perceived by the transi-
tory vision. But the seer of sight never ceases to
visualise sight like that.
Objection : Has the seer then two kinds of
sight, one eternal and invisible, and the other trans-
itory and visible ?
Reply : Yes. The transitory sight is familiar to
us, for we see some people are blind, and others are
not. If the eternal sight were the only one in exist-
ence, all people would be possessed of vision. But
the sight of the seer is an eternal one, for the Shruti
says, ‘The vision of the witness can never be lost*
(IV. iii. 23). From inference also we know this.
For we find even a blind man has sight consisting of
the impressions of a jar etc. in dreams. This shows
that the sight of the seer is not lost with the loss of
1 . 4 . 10 ] BR1HADARANYAKA VfANISHAD 159
the other kind of sight. Through that unfailing
eternal sight, which is identical with It and is called
the self -effulgent light, the Self always sees the other,
transitory sight in the dream and waking states/ as
idea and perception respectively, and becomes the
seer of sight. Such being the case, the sight itself
is Its nature, like the heat of fire, and there is no
other conscious (or unconscious) seer over and above
the sight, as the Vaisheshikas maintain.
It, Brahman, knew only Itself, the eternal sight,
devoid of the transitory sight etc. superimposed on It.
Objection : But knowing the knower is self-
contradictory, for the Shruti says, ‘One should not
try to know the knower of knowledge* (III. iv. 2).
Reply : No, this sort of knowledge involves no
contradiction. The Self is indeed known thus, as
‘the seer of sight.’ Also it does not ’depend on any
other knowledge. He who knows that the sight of
the seer is eternal, <loe§ not wish to see It in any
other way. This wish to see the seer automatically
stops because of its very impossibility, for nobody
hankers after a thing that does not exist. And that
sight which is itself an object of vision does not dare
to visualise the seer, in which case one might wish to
do it. Nor does anybody want to see himself. There-
fore the sentence, Tt knew only Itself,’ only means
the cessation of the superimposition of ignorance, and
not the actual cognising of the Self as an object.
How did It know Itself ? As, T am Brahman,
the Self that is the seer of sight.’ ( ‘Brahman’ is That
which is immediate and direct, the Self that is within
all, beyond hunger and the like, described as ‘Not
160 BRIHADAftANYAKA UPAN1SHAD >1. 4. 10
this, not this/ neither gross nor subtle, and so on.' ,T
am, as you 1 said, That and no other, not the transmi-
grating self.’ Therefore , from knowing thus, It,
Brkhman, became all. Since by the cessation of the
superimposed notion of not being Brahman, its effect,
the notion of not being all, was also gone, therefore
It became all. Hence men are justified in thinking
that through the knowledge of Brahman they would
become all. The question, ‘Well, what did that
Brahman know by which It became all?’ has been
answered : ‘This was indeed Brahman in the begin-
ning. It knew only Itself as, “I am Brahman.*’
Therefore It became all.’
And whoever among the gods knew It, the Self,
in the manner described above, that awakened self
also became That, Brahman. And the same with
sages and mens The words ‘gods' etc. are used from
the conventional point of view, not from that of the
vision of Brahman. We haye already said that it is
Brahman which has entered everywhere, as set forth
in the passage, ‘That Supreme Being first entered the
bodies’ (II. v. 18). Hence the words ‘gods’ etc. are
used from the 1 conventional standpoint determined by
the limiting adjuncts such as the body. Really it
was Brahman which was in those divine and other
bodies even lief ore realisation, being only looked upon
as something else. It knew onh r Itself and thereby
became alb
To strengthen the import of the passage that this
knowledge of Brahman leads to identity with all, the
Shruti quotes some Mantras. How ? The sage called
1 The teacher.
1. 4. 10] BR1HADARANY A KA UPAN1SHAD 161
Vdmadeva, while realising this , his own self, as
identical with That, Brahman, knew, from this reali-
sation of Brahman, that is, in that state of realisation
of the identity of the self and Brahman, visualised
these Mantras, T was Manu, and the sun / etc.
(Ri. IV. xxvi. 1). The expression, ‘While realising
this (self) as That’ — Brahman — refers to the knowl-
edge of Brahman. And the words, T was Manu,
and the sun,’ refer to its result,, identity with all.
By the use of the form, ‘While realising' It he
attained this result, viz., identity with all, the Shruti
shows that liberation is attainable through the aid of
the knowledge of Brahman, as in the expression,
‘While eating he is getting satisfaction.’ Someone
may think that the gods, who are great, attained this
identity with all through the knowledge of Brahman
because of their extraordinary power, *but those of
this age, particularly men, can never attain it owing
to their limited power. In order to remove this no-
tion the text says: And to this day whoever, curb-
ing his interest in external things, in like manner
knows It, the Brahman under consideration which has
entered into all beings and is indicated t>y the func-
tions of seeing etc., that is, his own Self, as, T am
Brahman / which is untouched by the attributes of
the phenomenal universe, is without interior or ex-
terior and absolute, by discarding the differences
superimposed by the false notion created by limiting
adjuncts, becomes all this, owing to his notion of in-
completeness — the effect of ignorance — being remov-
ed by the knowledge of Brahman. For there is no
difference as regards Brahman or the knowledge of It
ll
162
BRIHADA&ANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 1 . 4. 10
between giants like Vamadeva and the human weak-
lings of to-day. But, one may suppose, the result of
the knowledge of Brahman may be uncertain in the
case of the present generation. This is answered as
follows : Even the gods, powerful as they may be,
cannot prevail against him, the man who* has knovni
Brahman in the mahner described above — have not
the capacity to stop his becoming Brahman and all,
much less others. ,
Objection : Is there any ground for supposing
that the gods and others can thwart the attainment of
the results of the knowledge of Brahman ?
Reply : Yes, because men are indebted to them*
The Shruti text, (Every Brahmana — twice-born — by
his very birth is indebted) to the sages in respect of
continence, to the gods in respect of sacrifices, and to
the Manes in* respect of progeny’ (Tai. S. VI. iii. 10.
5), shows that a man by his very birth is under certain
obligations. And we know it from the illustration
of animals (in this text). There is also the text,
‘Now this self (the ignorant manV etc. (I. iv. 16),
describing him as an object of enjoyment for all,
which shows that it is reasonable to suppose that the
gods, in order to maintain their livelihood, may
hinder men, who are dependent, from attaining im-
mortality, as creditors do with their debtors. The
gods also protect their animals like their own bodies,
for the Shruti will show that each man being equiva-
lent to many animals, the gods have a great source
of livelihood in the rites performed by him. It will
presently be stated, ‘Therefore it is not liked by
them that men should know r this’ (this text), and
1. 4. 10] BR1HADARANYAKA URANISM AD 163
‘Just as one wishes safety to one’s body, so do all
beings wish safety to him who knows it as such*
(I. iv. 16 ). From the mention of dislike and safety
we understand that the gods think that when a man
attains the knowledge of Brahman, he will cease to
be their object of enjoyment and their animal, for
his dependence will have ended. Therefore tne gods
may very well hinder a prospective knower of Brah-
man from attaining the results o£ the knowledge of
Brahman ; for they are also powerful.
Objection : In that case the gods may find it
the easiest thing in the world to obstruct the frui-
tion of results in other spheres too, viz., rites.
Well, it would shake one’s faith in the practice of
the means of achieving prosperity and liberation.
Similarly God also, being of inscrutable power, can
put obstacles, as also time, action, sagred formulae,
herbs and austerities, which, as we know from the
scriptures as well as experience, can help or hinder
the fruition of results. This too would shake one’s
faith in the practice of scriptural rites.
Reply : Not so, for all things spring from
definite causes, and we also see variety in the uni-
verse. Both these will be inconsistent if things hap-
pen spontaneously. Since it is the accepted view of
the Vedas, Smritis, reasoning and tradition that
happiness, misery, and the like are the outcome of
one’s past work, the gods, or God, or time by no
means upset the results of work, for these depend
on requisite factors. Work, good or bad, that men
do cannot come into being without the help of factors
such as the gods, time and God, and even if it did,
164
BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [1. 4. 10
it would not have the power to produce results, for
it is the very nature of work to spring from many
causes such as the different factors. Therefore the
gods, God and others being auxiliaries to work, there
is nothing to shake our faith in the attainment of its
results.
Sometimes also (in ,the matter of thwarting) they
have to depend on the past work of men, for its in-
herent power cani\ot be checked. And there is no
fixity about the relative predominance of past work,
time, destiny and the nature of things ; it is inscru-
table, and hence throws people into confusion. Some,
for instance, say that in bringing about results one’s
past work is the only factor. Others say it is destiny.
A third group mentions time. Still others say it is
the nature of things. While yet another group
maintains it is all these things combined. Regarding
this the Vedas and Smritis uphold the primacy of
past work, as in the passage, ‘One becomes good
through good work and evil through evil work’ (III.
ii. 13), and so on. Although one or other of these
at times gains ascendancy in its own sphere over the
rest, whose potential superiority lies in abeyance for
the time being, yet there is no uncertainty about
[work producing results, for the importance of work
is decided by the scriptures as well as reason. 1
Nor (can the gods check the result of knowledge),
for the realisation of Brahman, which is this result,
consists in the mere cessation of ignorance. It has
been suggested that the gods may thwart the attain-
•
1 The variety that we see in the world can be explained
only as the outcome of men’s past work.
1. 4. 10] BRIHADARANYAKA VPANISHAD
165
ment of Brahman, which is the result expected from
the knowledge of It ; but they do not have that
power. Why? Because this result, the attainment
of Brahman, immediately follows the knowledge.
How ? As in the world a form is revealed as soon
as the observer’s eye is in touch with light, similarly
the very moment that one has knowledge of the
vSupreme Self, ignorance regarding It must disappear.
Hence, the effects of ignorance fieing impossible in
the presence of the knowledge of Brahman, like the
effects of darkness in the presence of a lamp, whom
should the gods thwart and by what means, for is
not the knower of Brahman the self of the gods?
This is what the text says : ‘For he, the knower of
Brahman, becomes their self, the reality of these
gods, the object of their meditation, # the Brahman
that is to be known from all scriptures, simulta-
neously with the knowledge of Brahman, since, as we
have said (p. 140), the only obstruction of ignorance
vanishes then and there, like a mother-of-pearl mis-
taken for a piece of .silver becoming itself again.
Hence the gods cannot possibly try to «tand against
their own self. They succeed in their effort to put
obstacles only in the case of one who seeks a result
which is other than the Self and is separated by space,
time and causation, but not with regard to this sage,
who is their self simultaneously with the dawning of
knowledge, and is not separated by space, time and
causation, for there is no room for opposition here.
Objection : Ip that case, since there is not a
stream of consciousness about knowledge (of Brah-
man), and since we see that a consciousness of an
166
brihadAranyaka UPANISHAD [1. 4. 10
opposite nature together with its effects persists, let
us say that only the last 1 consciousness of the Self
removes ignorance, and not the first one.
Reply : No, for your ground of inference will
be falsified on account of the first. If the first con-
sciousness of the Self, does not remove ignorance,
neither will the last, for they are alike consciousness
of the Self.
Objection : Well then, let us say, it is not the
isolated consciousness that removes ignorance, but
that which is continuous.
Reply : Not so, for there cannot be a continu-
ity, since it would be broken by thoughts of self-
preservation etc. So long as these crop up, there
cannot be an unbroken stream of consciousness about
knowledge, fyr they are contradictory.
Objection : Suppose the latter continues till
death to the exclusion of the former.
Reply : Not so, for the uncertainty about the
requisite number of thoughts to make up that stream
would be open to the charge of making the meaning
of the scriptures indefinite. In other words, there
being nothing to determine that so many thoughts
would make up a stream that will remove ignorance,
it would be impossible to determine the meaning of
the scriptures, which is not desirable.
Objection : The meaning is quite definite, for
in so far as it is a stream of consciousness, it will re-
move ignorance.
Reply : No, for there is no difference between
the first and the last stream of consciousness. There
1 The one arising at the moment of death.
1. 4. 10] BR1HADARANY AKA UMN1SHAD
167
being nothing to determine whether it is the first
stream of consciousness about knowledge that re-
moves ignorance, or the last one ending with the
moment of death, they too would be open to those
two charges already mentioned with regard to the
first and last thoughts.
Objection : Well then, let us say that knowl-
edge does not remove ignorance.
Reply : Not so, for the Shrftti says, ‘Therefore
It became all/ as also, ‘The knot of the heart is
broken/ etc. (Mu. II. ii. 8), ‘Then what delusion can
there be?* (Ish. 7), and so on.
Objection : These may be mere eulogies.
Reply : No, for then the Upanishads in all the
recensions would be classed as such, for they have
just this one aim.
Objection : Suppose we say that* they are but
eulogies, for they deal with the self which is already
known through perception. 1
Reply : No, for we have already refuted that
contention. 2 Also we have said that knowledge
produces palpable results, viz., the cessation of such
evils as ignorance, grief, delusion and fear (p. *34).
Therefore there can be no question about knowledge
removing ignorance, whether it be first or last, con-
tinuous or non-continuous, for knowledge culminates
in producing the cessation of ignorance and other
evils. Any consciousness that produces this result,
whether first or last, continuous or non-continuous,
2 As the basis of our ego-consciousness.
2 The ego-consciousness deals with the individual self,
not the Supreme Self, the Witness. See p. 118.
168
BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [1. 4. 10
is knowledge according to us. Hence there is no
scope whatsoever for .any objection.
You said, the last consciousness removes igno-
rance, because we see that a consciousness of an
opposite nature to knowledge together with its effects
persists. This is wrong, for the residue of Pr&rabdha
work'is the cause of the persistence of the body after
knowledge. In other words, that resultant of past
work which led to* the formation of the present body,
being the outcome of wrong perceptions and the evils,
(of attachment etc.), is able to bear fruit only as such,
that is, as coupled with those perceptions and evils ,
hence until the body falls, it cannot but produce, as
part of one’s experience of the results of past work,
just so much of wrong perceptions and the evils of
attachment etc., for the past work that made this
body has already begun to bear fruit and must run
its course like an arrow that has been shot. There-
fore knowledge cannot stop that, for they are not
contradictory. What does it do then ? It stops the
effects of ignorance which are contradictory to it and
are about tq spring up from (the ignorance lying in)
the self, which is the support of that knowledge, for
they have not yet appeared. But the other is past.
Moreover wrong perceptions do not arise in a man of
realisation, for there is then no object for them.
Whenever a wrong perception arises, it does so on
account of a certain similarity of something to an-
other, without ascertaining the particular nature of
that thing, as when a motlier-of-pearl is mistaken for
a piece of silver. And this can no more happen to
one who has ascertained the particular nature of that
1. 4. 10] BR1HADARANYAKA UPANJSHAD
169
thing, for the source of all wrong perceptions (that
cursory resemblance) has been destroyed ; as they no
more appear when a right perception of the mother-
of-pearl, for instance, has taken place. Sometimes,
however, memories due to the impressions of wrong
perceptions antecedent to the dawning to knowledge,
simulating those perceptions, suddenly appear and
throw him into the error of regarding them actually
as wrong perceptions ; as one Who is familiar with
the points of the compass sometimes all of a sudden
gets confused about them. If even a man of realisa-
tion comes to have wrong perceptions as before, then
faith in realisation itself being shaken, no one would
care to understand the meaning of the scriptures, and
all evidences of knowldge would cease to be such, for
then there would be no distinction between things
that are valid evidences and those that* are not. This
also answers the question why the body does not fall
immediately after realisation. The destruction of
actions done before, after and at the time of realisa-
tion as well as those accumulated in past lives — ac-
tions that have not yet begun to bear fi^iit — is proved
by the very negation of obstructions to the attainment
of results in the present text, as also from such Shruti
texts as the following : ‘ And his actions are destroyed’
(Mu. II. ii. 8), Tt takes him only so long (as he
does not give up his body)’ (Chli. VI. xiv. 2), ‘All
demerits are burnt up’ (Chh. V. xxiv. 3), ‘Knowing
It one is not touched by evil action’ (IV. iv. 23), ‘He
is never overtaken by these two thoughts (of having
done good and evil acts)’ (IV. iv. 22), ‘Actions done
or omitted do not trouble him’ (Ibid.), ‘(Remorse for
170 BRIHADAKANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [ 1 . 4 . 10
doing evil and not doing good) does not trouble him >
/(Tai. II. ix.), and 'He is not afraid of anything'
(Ibid.). Also from such Smriti texts as the follow-
ing : 'The fire of knowledge reduces all actions to
ashes' (G. IV. 37).
The objection that he is tied up by his obligations
(to the gods etc.), is not valid, for they concern an
ignorant man. It is he who is under those obliga-
tions, for he can be presumed to be an agent and so
forth. It will be said later on, 'When there is some - 1
thing else, as it were, then one can see something’
(IV. iii. 31). These last words show that the acts of
seeing etc. together with their results, which are de-
pendent on many factors created by ignorance, are
possible only in the state of ignorance, when the Self,
the Reality that has no second, appears as something
else, like a second moon when one has got the disease
of double vision (Timira). But the text, ‘Then what
should one see and through what?’ (II. iv. 14 ; IV. v.
15), shows that work is impossible in the state of
knowledge, when the illusion of manifoldness created
by ignorance* has been destroyed. Therefore the in-
debtedness in question belongs only to an ignorant
man, for whom it is possible to work, and to none
else. We shall show this at length while dealing
with passages that* are yet to be explained.
As, for instance, here. While he, one who is not
a knower of Brahman, who worships another god, a
god different from himself, approaches him in a sub-
ordinate position, offering him praises, salutations,
sacrifices, presents, self-surrender, meditation, etc.,
thinking, ' He is one, different from me, and I am
1. 4. 10] BRIHAD7TRANYAKA UPANISHAD
171
another, his subordinate, and I must serve him like a
debtor* — worships him with such ideas, does not know
the truth. He, this ignorant man, has not only the
evil of ignorance, but is also like an animal to the
gods. As a cow or other animals are utilised through
their services such as carrying loads or yielding milk,
so is this man of use to every one of the gods and
others on account of his many services such as the
performance of sacrifices. That is to say, he is there-
* fore engaged to do all kinds of services for them.
The scriptural rites, with or without the accom-
paniment of meditation, which this ignorant man, for
whom the divisions of caste, order of life and so forth
exist, and who is bound to those rites, performs,
leads to progress beginning with human birth and
ending with identity with Hiranyagarbha. While
his natural activities, as distinguished from those
prescribed by the scriptures, lead to degradation be-
ginning with the human birth itself and ending with
identity with stationary objects. That it is so we
shall explain in the latter part of this chapter begin-
ning with, ‘There are indeed three worlds* (I. V. 16 ),
and continuing right up to the end. While the effect
of knowledge (meditation) has been briefly shown to
be identity with all. The whole of this Upanishad
is exclusively devoted to showing the distinction be-
tween the spheres of knowledge and ignorance. We
shall show that this is the import of the whole book.
Since it is so, therefore the gods can thwart as
well as help an ignorant man. This is being shown :
As in the world many animals such as cows or horses
serve a man, their owner and controller, so does each
172
BRIHAITARANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 1 . 4 . 10
ignorant man , equivalent to many animals, serve the
gods. This last word is suggestive of the Manes and
others as well. He thinks, ‘This Indra and the other
gods are different from me and are my masters. I
shall worship them like a servant through praises,
salutations, sacrifices, efc., and shall attain as results
prosperity and liberation granted by them. , Now, in
the world, even if one animal of a man possessing
many such is taken away, seized by a tiger, for in-
stance, it causes great anguish. Similarly what is
there to wonder at if the gods feel mortified when a
man, equivalent to many animals, gets rid of the
idea that he is their creature, as when a householder
is robbed of many animals? Therefore it is not liked
by them , these gods — what? — that men should some-
how know this truth of the identitv of the self and
«
Brahman. So the revered Vyasa writes in the Anu-
gita, ‘The world of the gods, O Arjuna, is filled with
those who perform rites. And the gods do not like
that mortals should surpass them* (Mbh. XIV. xx.
59). Hence as men try to save animals from being
seized by tig»?rs etc., so the gods seek to prevent men
from attaining the knowledge of Brahman lest they
should cease to be their objects of enjoyment. Those,
however, whom they w T ish to set free, they endow
with faith and the like ; while the opposite class
they visit with lack of faith etc. Therefore a seeker
of liberation should be devoted to worshipping the
gods, have faith and devotion, be obedient (to the
gods) and be alert about the attainment of knowl-
edge or about knowledge itself. The mention of the
dislike of the gods is an indirect hint at all this.
1. 4. 11] BRIHADARANYAKA URANISHAD 173
In the sentence, 'The Self alone is to be meditat-
ed upon' (I. iv. 7) the gist 1 of the scriptures has been
put in a nutshell. In order to explain it, its relation,
and utility have also been stated in the eulogistic pas-
sage, ‘They say : Men think,’ etc. (I. iv. 9). And
that ignorance is the cause of one’s belonging to the
relative plane has been stated in the passage, ‘.While
he who worships another god,’ etc. (!l. iv. 10). There
it has been said that an ignorant njan is indebted and
dependent like an animal, having to do duties for the
gods etc. What is the cause of their having to do
those duties ? The different castes and orders of life.
The following paragraphs are introduced in order to
explain what these castes are, because of which this
dependent man is bound to the rites connected with
them, and transmigrates. It is to explain this in
detail that the creation of Indra and other gods was
not mentioned immediately after that of Fire. This
last, how r ever, was described to complete the picture
of creation by Viraj. It should be understood that
this creation of Indra and other gods also belongs to
that, being a part of it. It is being described here
only to indicate the reason why the ignorant man
alone is entitled to the performance of rites.
as ar ; srer i
^PT, SrT^Tf^T-
aa'or: ant ffe i
infer ; srferospRTT-
$ra aa w ***
1 The knowledge of Brahman.
174 BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [1. 4. 11
i *nrc tnsrerf mgRt, agi-
gn^et saffisrafa ^ri srHin^ ; ** z ferfei
e 55f*ir #sri^r
%“fec^T li U II
ii. In the beginning this (the Kshatriya
and dther castes) was indeed Brahman , 1 one
only. Being one, he did not flourish. He
projected an excellent form, the Kshatriya —
those who are Kshatriyas among the gods :
Indra, Varuna, the moon, Rudra, Parjanya,
Yama, Death, and Ishana. Therefore there
is none higher than the Kshatriya. Hence
the Brahmana worships the Kshatriya from a
lower position in the Rajasuya sacrifice. He
imparts that glory to the Kshatriya. The
Brahmana is the source of the Kshatriya.
Therefore, although the King attains suprem-
acy (in the sacrifice), at the end of it he
resorts to the Brahmana, his source. He who
slights tlij Brahmana strikes at his own
source. He becomes more wicked, as one is
by slighting one’s superior.
In the beginning this, the Kshatriya and other
castes, was indeed Brahman , identical with that
Brahman (Viraj) who after manifesting Fire as-
sumed the form of that. He is called Brahman, be-
cause he identified himself with the Brahmana caste.
One only ; Then there was no ^differentiation into
1 Viraj in the form of Fire, who was a Brahmana.
1. 4. 11] BR1HADARANY AKA UPAN1SHAD
175
other castes such as the Kshatriva. Being one , that
is, without any protector etc. such as the Kshatriya,
he did not flourish , that is, could not do his work
properly. Hence he, Viraj, thinking, ‘I am a
Br&hmana, and these are my duties/ in order to create
duties pertaining to a Brahmana by birth — to glorify
himself as a performer of rites — projected an * excel-
lent form, so as to endow it with pre-eminence. What
is that? The caste called Kshatrjya. This is being
pointed out by a reference to its individuals. Those
who are well-known in the world as Kshatriyas among
the gods. The plural is used (in ‘Kshatriyas') as in
grammar a w r ord denoting a caste may be optionally
in the plural . 1 Or because there are many individ-
uals in a caste, the difference is figuratively trans-
ferred to the group. Who are they ? This the text
answers by mentioning particularly .the anointed
ones : Tndra, the King of the gods ; Varuna, of the
aquatic animals ; the moon, of the Brahmanas ; Ru-
dra, of the beasts ; Parjanya, of lightning etc. ; Yama,
of the Manes ; Death, of diseases etc. ; and Ishdna,
of luminaries. These are some of the Kshatriyas
among the gods. It should be understofxi that after
them the human Kshatriyas, Pururavas and others
belonging to the Lunar and Solar dynasties, presided
over by the Kshatriya gods, Indr a and the rest, were
also created. For the creation of the gods is men-
tioned for this very purpose. Because Vir&j created
the Kshatriyas with some special eminence at-
tached to them, therefore there is none higher than
the Kshatriya , wild is the controller of the Brahmana
1 See Paniiii I. ii 58
m BR1HADARANYA KA VPAN1SHAD [1. 4. II
caste even. Hence the Brahmana, although he is the
source of him, worships the Kshatriya, who has a
higher seat, from a lower position . Where? In the
Rdjasuya sacrifice. He imparts that glory or fame
which belongs to him, viz., the title of Brahman, to
the Kshatriya. That is to say, when the King, anoint-
ed foi* the Rajasuya sacrifice, addresses the priest
from his chair as ‘Brahman/ the latter replies to
him, ‘You, 0 King, are Brahman/ This is referred
to in the sentence, ‘He imparts that glory to the
Kshatriya/ The Brahmana , who is the topic under
consideration, is indeed the source of the Kshatriya.
Therefore, although the King attains supremacy, viz.,
the distinction of being anointed for the Rajasuya
sacrifice, at the end of it, when the ceremony is over,
he resorts to the Brahmana, his source, that is, puts
the priest forward. But he who, proud of his strength,
slights or looks down upon the Brahmana, his own
source, strikes at or destroys his own source. He be-
comes more wicked by doing this. The Kshatriya ts
already wicked, on account of his cruelty, and he is
more so by hurting his own source, as in life one is
more wicked by slighting one's superior.
sr *=r f srewKgagr ,
3ncnfo *TtJT2n snf^iT
12. Yet he did not flourish. He project-
ed the Vaishya — those species of gods who are
designated in groups: The .Vasus, Rudras,
Adityas, Vishwadevas and Maruts.
1. 4. 14] BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
177
Yet, even after projecting the Kshatriyas, he,
Viraj, did not flourish in his work, as before,
for want of someone to acquire wealth. He pro-
jected the Vaishya, in order to acquire wealth which
is the means of performing rites. Who is that Vai-
shya? Those species of gods who are designated in
groups. The Vaishyas abound in groups, fof they
succeed in acquiring wealth mostly in combination,
not singly. (The suffix in the word ‘Jata* does not
change the meaning.) The Vasus , a group of eight ;
similarly the eleven Rudras, the twelve Adityas , the
thirteen Vishwadevas, sons of Vishwa, or the word
may mean ‘all the gods,’ and the forty-nine Maruts,
in seven groups.
i <J5T. vi sw S'arfsr ll. K\ II
13. He did not still flourish. He project-
ed the Shudra caste — Pushan. This (earth)
is Pushan. For it nourishes all this that
exists.
For want of a servant he did not ftill flourish .
He projected the Shudra caste. In the word ‘Shau-
dra’ there is a lengthening of the vowel without any
change of meaning. What was this Shudra caste that
was projected? Pushan , he who nourishes. Who is
this Pushan ? He is being particularly pointed out :
This earth is Pushan. The Shruti itself gives the
derivation : For it nourishes all this that exists.
win,
infer ; amt - srasft-
12
m
BRIHADAkANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 1 . 4 . 14
vjrnir, qrarnr?hp* ;
*F«r4r FTcer snf qqtftfa,
VTR qr Hc*T H?P5si%3¥Pf
«qfa It ||
14. Yet he did not flourish. He project-
ed that excellent form, justice (Dliarma).
This justice is the controller of the Kshatriya.
Therefore there is nothing higher than justice.
(So) even a weak man hopes (to defeat) a
stronger man through justice, as (one does)
through the King. That justice is truth.
Therefore they say of a person speaking the
truth, ‘He speaks what is just/ or of a person
speaking what is just, ‘He speaks the truth/
for both these are justice.
Yet, even after projecting the four castes, he did
not flourish, fearing that the Kshatriya might be un-
ruly. He projected that excellent form. What is it?
Justice. This justice, the projected excellent form,
is the controller of even the Kshatriya, fiercer than
that fierce, race even. ‘Yat’ should be changed into
‘Yah.’ Therefore, since it is the controller of even
the Kshatriya, there is nothing higher than justice,
for it controls all. The text proceeds to explain how
it is : So even a iceak man hopes to defeat a stronger
man than himself through the strength of justice, as
in life a householder does through the King, who is
the most powerful of all. Therefore it goes without
saying that justice, being stronger than everything
1. 4. 15] BR1HADARANYAKA UPANlSHAD m
else, is the controller of all. That justice, which is
uprightness in dealing and is made use of by people,
is truth . 'Truth ; is understanding a thing in accord-
ance with the scriptures. The same thing, when it
is practised, is called justice, and when it is under-
stood to be in accordance with the scriptures, is^ truth.
Since it is so, therefore bystanders knowing the dif-
ference between them say of a person speaking the
truth, that is, in accordance wit ft the scriptures, in
dealing with another, ‘He speaks what is just / or
conventionally right. Conversely also, of a person
speaking what is just or conventionally right, they
say, ‘He speaks the truth / or in accordance with the
scriptures. For both these that have been described,
that which is known and that which is practised, are
justice . Therefore that justice in -its double aspect
of theory and practice controls all, those that know
the scriptures as well as those that do not. There-
fore it is the 'controller of the Kshatriya/ Hence
an ignorant man identified with justice, in order to
practise its particular forms, identifies himself with
one or other of the castes, Brahman%, Kshatriya,
Vaishya or Shudra, which is< the pre-condition of that
practice ; and these are naturally the means that
entitle one to the performance of rites.
8^ fir?: ^T3[: ;
snsrort
fs: sro
Stfe, « *T
180
BRIHADArRANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [ 1 . 4 . 15
3WT 3TWT5T ; *1% 3T
SW a^TRTfrR:
«J3 ; sn cu re N atag q re fta 5 « ** stfjir^ ^N>-
gqrT^t, h i srorssmcnjft *m-
c*RTCFT?* cTrTc^p^ || \\ ||
15. (So) these (four castes were project-
ed) — the Brainpan a, the Kshatriya, the
Vaishya and the Shudra. He became a
Brahmana among the gods as Fire, and among
men as the Brahmana. (He became) a Ksha-
triya through the (divine) Kshatriyas, a
Vaishya through the (divine) Vaishyas and a
Shudra through the (divine) Shudra. There-
fore people desire to attain the results of their
rites among* the gods through fire, and among
men as the Brahmana. For Brahman became
these two forms. If, however, anybody de-
parts from this world without realising his
own world (the Self), It, being unknown, does
not protect him — as the Vedas not studied, or
any other work not undertaken (do not) . Even
if a man who does not know It as such, per-
forms a great many meritorious acts in the
world, those acts of his are surely exhausted
in the end. One should meditate only upon
the world called the Self. He who meditates
only upon the world called the Self never has
his work exhausted. From t*his very Self He
projects whatever he wants.
1. 4. 15] BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
181
(So) these four castes were projected — the Brdh -
man a, the Kshatriya, the Vaishya and the Shudra.
They are repeated here together in order to introduce
what follows. He , Brahman, the Projector (Viraj),
became a Brdhmana among the gods as Fire ,
and in no other form, and became a Brahmana
among men as the Brdhmana , directly. In the* other
castes he appeared in a changed form 1 : (He became)
a Kshatriya through the (divine) Kshatriyas, that is,
being presided over by Indra and other gods ; a
} 7 aishya through the (divine) Vaishyas 2 and a Shudra
through the (divine) Shudra . 3 Because Brahman,
the Projector, was changed in the Kshatriya and
other castes, and was unchanged in Fire and
the Brahmana, therefore people desire to attain the
results of their rites among the gods through fire ,
that is, by performing rites connected with it. It is
for this purpose that Brahman abides in the form of
fire, which is the receptacle in which sacrificial rites
are performed. Therefore it stands to reason that
people wish to attain results by performing those
rites in the fire. And among men as the Brdhmana :
If they w ant human results, there is no need for rites
depending on fire etc., but simply by being born as
a Brahmana they attain their life’s ends. And it is
only when they desire to attain results that depend
•on the gods, that they have to resort to rites con-
nected with fire. The Smriti too says, ‘But a Brah-
mana may undoubtedly attain perfection through the
1 That is, having first become Fire and the Brahmana.
2 Presided over by the Vasus etc.
3 Presided over by Pushan.
182
B&IHADApANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 1 . 4 / 15
repetition of sacred formulae, 1 whether he does other
rites (connected with fire) or not. A Brahmana is
one who is friendly to all* (M. II. 87). Also because
the monastic life is open to him only. Therefore
people seek to attain the results of their rites, so far
as they belong to the human plane, by attaining
Brahmanahood. For Brahman , the Projector, direct-
ly became these two forms , the Brahmana and fire,
that are respectively the agent and the receptacle
of the rites.
Some 2 explain the passage differently, saying that
people wish to realise the world called the Supreme
Self by means of fire and the Brahmana. 3 This is
wrong, for the division of castes has been introduced
in order to defend the undertaking of rites by people
who are in ignorance, and a specification also follows.
If the word * world’ here refers to the Supreme Self,
the specification that follows, viz., 'Without realising
one’s own world (the Self),’ would be meaningless.
If the world in question that is prayed for as being
dependent on fire, is any other world but the
Self, then ofjy the specification by the word ‘own’
would be consistent as refuting that extraneous
world. The world that is the Self is always denoted
by the words 'one’s own,’ while those that are created
by ignora|ce can never be 'one’s own.’ That the
worlds attained through rites are not 'one’s own’ is
1 This is suggestive also of the duties belonging to his
caste.
2 Bhartriprapancha is meant.
3 By offering oblations and presents respectively.
1. 4. 15J BR1HADARANYAKA VPANISHAD
183
stated by the words, '(Those acts) are surely ex-
hausted.*
One may object : Brahman projected the four
castes for the sake of ritualistic work. And that
work, called justice, being obligatory on all, con-
trols all and helps them to achieve their life’s ends.
Therefore, if by that work one attains one’s* own
world called the Supreme Self, although It may be
unknown, what is the good of setting It up as the
goal? This is being answered: ‘If, however, (the
word 'however’ refutes the prima facie view) any-
body, owing to identification with the rites depend-
ing on fire, or with the duties belonging to the BrsLli-
mana caste, departs from this transmigratory, adven-
titious and extraneous world consisting of the taking
up of a body and caused by ignorance, desire and
work, or dies, without realising his own *world called
the vSelf — because It is always one’s own Self — as, T
am Brahman,’ It — although It is his own world, yet
— being unknown, obstructed by ignorance and there-
fore virtually becoming extraneous to oneself, does
not protect him by removing his evils su^h as grief,
delusion and fear — as the man in the story 1 (the con-
ventional ‘self’) fails to protect himself for not know-
ing that he is the missing tenth man. As the Vedas
not studied do not protect a man by enlightening
him on the rites etc., or any other, secular, work ,
for instance, agriculture, not undertaken, not mani-
fested in its own form, does not protect anybody by
bestowing its results, similarly the Supreme Self,
although It is one’s own world, not being manifested
1 See footnote on p. 121.
184
BRlHADAkANYAICA UPANISHAD [1. 4. 35
in Its own form as the eternal Self, does not protect
one by destroying one’s ignorance etc.
Objection: What is the good of seeking protec-
tion through the realisation of one’s own world, the
Self ? Since the rites are sure to produce results, and
there are a great many rites conducive to beneficent
resulfs, the protection that they will afford will be
everlasting.
Reply : Not*so, for anything made is perisha-
ble. This is being stated : Even if a man, a wonder-
ful genius, who does not know It, his own world, the
Self, as such, in the manner described above, contin-
uously performs a great many meritorious acts such
as the horse sacrifice, producing only beneficent re-
sults, in the world, with the idea that through those
alone he will attain eternity, those acts of his, of this
ignorant man, being due to desire created by igno-
rance, are surely exhausted in the end, when he has
enjoyed their fruits, like the splendour arising from
the fantasy of a dream. They are bound to be peri-
shable, for their causes, ignorance and desire, are un-
stable. Hqjice there is no hope whatsoever that the
protection afforded by the results of meritorious acts
will be eternal. Therefore one should meditate only
upon the world called the Self, one’s own world. The
word ‘Self’ is here used in an identical sense with the
last words, for ‘one’s own world’ is the topic, and
here the words ‘one’s own’ are omitted. He who medi-
tates only upon the world called the Self— what hap-
pens to him? — never has his work exhausted, simply
because he has no work. This is a restatement of
an eternal fact. That is to say, an ignorant man con-
1. 4. 15] BRIHAD'ARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD 185
tinuously suffers from the misery of transmigration
by way of exhaustion of the results of his work. Not
so this sage. As Emperor Jan aka said. ‘If Mithila is
ablaze, nothing of mine is burning’ (Mbh. XII.
clxxvi. 56).
Some say that the ritualistic work itself of a sage
who meditates upon the world of his own Self never
-decays, because of its combination with meditation.
And they interpret the word ‘world* as inseparably
connected with rites in a double aspect : One is the
manifested world called Hiranyagarbha, which is the
repository of ritualistic work, and he who meditates
upon this manifested, limited world connected with
ritualistic work, has his work exhausted, for he iden-
tifies himself with the result of limited work. But he
who meditates upon that very world connected with
work by reducing it to its causal form, the undiffer-
entiated state, does not have his work exhausted, as
he identifies himself with the result of unlimited
work. This is a nice conceit, but not according to
the vShruti, for the words ‘one’s owii world’ refer to
the Supreme Self which is under consideration. Also,
after introducing It in the words ‘one f s own world*
the text again refers to It by dropping the quali-
fying phrase ‘one’s own’ and using the word ‘Self’ in
the sentence, ‘One should meditate only upon the
world called the Self.’ So there is no scope for con-
ceiving a world connected with ritualistic work.
Another reason for this is the qualification further
on by words signifying pure knowledge, ‘What shall
we achieve through children, we who have attained
this Self, this world (result) ?’ (IV. iv. 22). The words,
186
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [1, 4. 15
/This Self is our world/ mark It off from the worlds
attainable through a son, ritualistic work and lower
knowledge (meditation). Also, 'His world is not des-
troyed by any kind of work’ (Kau. III. 1), and 'This
is its highest world* (IV. iii. 32). The passage in ques-
tion ought to have the same import as those just
quoted, with the qualifying words. For here also we
find the specification, 'one's own world/
Objection: Yoy are wrong, for the sage desires
objects through this. That is to say, if 'one's own
world' is the Supreme Self, then by meditating upon
It one will become That. In that case it is not proper
to mention results apart from the attainment of
the Self, as in the passage, 'From this (very) Self he
projects whatever he wants’ (this text).
Reply : Not so, for the passage extols medita-
tion on the world of the Self. The. meaning is that
the world of the Self alone stands for all that is desir-
able to him, for he has nothing else but It to ask for,
since he has already attained all his objects. Just as
another Sliruti puts it, ‘From the Self is the vital
force, from the Self is hope' (Chh. VII. xxvi. 1). Or
the passage nifty indicate that lie is identified with all,,
as before (I. iv. 10). If he becomes one with the Su-
preme Self, then only it is proper to use the word
'Self' in the phrase 'from this very Self,' meaning,
‘from one's own world, the Self,' which is the topic.
Otherwise the text would have specified it by saying,
'From the world of work in an undifferentiated state,'
to demarcate it from the world of the Supreme Self
as well as from work in a manifested state. But since
the Supreme Self has already been introduced (as
1. 4. 16] BRIHADARANYAKA UP.jNISHAD
187
‘one’s own world’) and been subsequently specified
(by the word 'Self’), you cannot assume an interme-
diate state not mexitioned in the Shruti.
It has been said that an ignorant man identifying
himself with his caste, order of life, and so on, and
being controlled by justice, thinks he has certain du-
ties to the gods and others and is dependent on them
like an animal. Now what are those duties that make
him so dependent, and who are the gods and others
whom he serves through his actions like an animal ?
To answer this the text deals with both at length :
3TO> 3T3 3T SSTTcJTT ifrTRT 55*3?: ; ST
^anri stNt: 5 3T«r 353a %
%a sfrTttrrrq;, am afercjwft fa^rfa, ac S T OT fa ^ ,
; ®ra aargsaTFaraa?*, ’ a^wrtaR
^t%, Ir am aeasgsa^ar^af fa^fa ,
q^MTr^; ^3 wnq^T aarsar
aqata fe r, fiat &t*;: • aaT 5 a *sna sff a TaT-
aa
9
33T aafgfaa 11 \\ \\
16. Now this self (the ignorant man) is
an object of enjoyment to all beings. That he
makes oblations in the fire and performs sacri-
fices, is how he becomes such an object to the
gods. That he studies the Vedas, is how he
becomes an object of enjoyment to the Risliis
(sages) . That he makes offerings to the Manes
188 BRIHADAKANYAKA UPANISHAD [1. 4. 16
and desires children, is how he becomes such
an object to the Manes. That he gives shelter
to men as well as food, is how he becomes an
object of enjoyment to men. That he gives
fodder and water to the animals, is how he be-
comes such an object to them. And that
beasts and birds, and even the ants, feed in his
home, is how he becomes an object of enjoy-
ment to these. Just as one wishes safety to
one’s body, so do all beings wish safety to him
who knows it as such. This indeed has been
known, and discussed.
Now — this word is introductory — / his self , the
householder qualified for rites, who is. the subject
under consideration, and who being ignorant identi-
fies himself with this microcosm consisting of the
body, organs, and so on, is an object of enjoyment to
all beings, from the gods down to the ants, being
helpful to them through the performance of the duties
of their caste, order of life, etc. Now, through what
particular duties do they help each particular class,
for which they are called the objects of enjoyment to
them, and what are these particular classes? This
is being answered : That he, this householder, makes
oblations in the fire and performs sacrifices , etc. The
latter is dedicating some of his things to the gods,
and the former is finally offering them in the fire.
By this twofold imperative duty he is tied to the gods,
being dependent on them like animals. Hence he is
their object of enjoyment. That he studies the Vedas
1 . 4 . 16 ] BR1H AVAR ANY AKA UP&N1SHAD
189
daily, is how he becomes an object of enjoyment to
the Rishvs. That he makes offerings to the Manes r
of cakes, water, etc., and desires children, tries to
obtain them — ‘desire’ here includes the having of them
— that is, raises children, is how he becomes such an
object to the Manes. Through this bounden duty
he is subservient to the Manes as an object of Enjoy-
ment. That he gives shelter to men in his house by
giving them a place to sit on, water for washing, and
so on, as well as food to these people who stay, or to
others who do not .stay, but ask for food, is hoiv he
becomes an object of enjoyment to men. That he
gives fodder and water to the animals, is how he be-
comes such an object to them. And that beasts and
birds, and even the ants , feed in his home on the
crumbs, the offerings made to them, washings of uten-
sils, etc., is how he becomes an object m of enjoyment
to these.
Because he helps the gods and others by so many
services, therefore just as one wishes safety, non-de-
struction, continuity of the idea of possession, to one's
body, maintains it in all respects by nourishing and
protecting it lest one should lose one’s hold on it, so
do all beings, the gods and the rest described above,
wish safety, non-destruction, to him who knows it as
such, who thinks that he is an object of enjoyment to
all beings, and that he must discharge his obligations
like a debtor as above. That is, they protect him in
all respects to safeguard their rights on him, as a
householder does his animals. It has been said,
‘Therefore it is not liked by them,’ etc. (I. iv. 10).
This, that the above-mentioned duties must be dis~
190 BRIHADpRANYAKA UPANISHAD [1. 4. 16
charged like debts, indeed, has been known from the
section dealing with the five 1 great sacrifices (Sh. I.
vii. 2. 6), and discussed in the section on the sacri-
ficial offerings (Sh. 1. vii. 2. 1).
If by knowing Brahman he gets rid of that bond-
age erf duty which makes him an animal, as it were,
under what complusion does he take up the bondage
of ritualistic work. as if he were helpless, and not the
pursuit of knowledge which is the means of freedom
from that ?
Objection : Was it not said that the gods guard
him ?
Reply : Yes, but they too guard only those who,
being qualified for rites, are under their authority.
Otherwise this would be attaining the results of ac-
tions not done and forfeiting those of actions actually
done. But they do not guard any and every man not
particularly qualified for rites. Tiierefore there must
be something, goaded by which a man becopnes averse
to one’s own world, the Self, as if he were helpless.
Objccti&n : Is it not ignorance, for only an
ignorant man becomes averse to his own self and
engages in activity ?
Reply : It is not the motive power either, for
it merely conceals the true nature of a thing. But it
indirectly becomes the root of initiating action, just
as blindness is the cause of one’s falling into a pit
etc.
1 Viz., those meant for the gods, the Rishis, the Manes,
men and animals. They have been described in the text.
1. 4. 17] BRIHADARANYAKA ifPANISHAD 191
Objection : Well then, say what is the cause
of a man’s activity.
Reply : That is being stated here — it is desire.
As the Katfha Upanishad says that fools, being under
ignorance which is natural to man, are outgoing in
their tendencies and pursue objects of desire. And
the Smriti also says, ‘It is desire, it is anger 1 *’ etc.
(G. III. 37). And the Manu Samhita (II. 4) also
describes all activity as being due to desire. This
import is being elaborated here up to the end of the
chapter :
qq , sits*;rosra— 3n*n &
sm am far? & mirj;, sm
qmqn, q ,
q;mqq— gnm & ®m
sren^ am f%rf ft sqi^, am qfd ,
qroyffiN i ftfa? q srmrfa, a*$cqr rmcnqqrm^;
qpq) JUT CRTmicUT, qF3ITqT, STTOT: SfSTT,
qsprrgq* forf^, ft, ; srhf fqi*,
sfrq ur ft . andtareq q>q, ^t^tt ft
qfdft 5 ^ qq qi^ft q?r:, qrfrE: qsg:, qi^q>: *pq:,
qi^rgft^ sm qftsf fft=a ; aft? gqqrsftfo q qsf
II II fft 5ig«f sngjtTi^ ||
17. This (aggregate of desirable objects)
was but the self in the beginning — the only
entity. He desired, ‘Let me have a wife, so
that I may be born (as the child). And let
1 Which is desire thwarted.
192
BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [l. 4. 17
me have wealth, so that I may perform rites.'
This much indeed is (the range of) desire.
Even if one wishes, one cannot get more than
this. Therefore to this day a man being
single desires, ‘Let me have a wife, so that
I may be born. And let me have wealth, so
that I may perform rites.’ Until he obtains
each one of tlujsc, lie considers himself in-
complete. His completeness also (comes,
thus) : The mind is his self, speech his
wife, the vital force his child, the eye his
human wealth, for he obtains it through the
eye, the ear his divine wealth, for he hears
of it through the ear, and the body is his
(instrument of) rite, for lie performs rites
through tire body 7 . (So) this sacrifice has
five factors — the animals have five factors, the
men have five factors, and ail this that exists
has five factors. He who knows it # as such,
attains all this.
This was but the seif in the beginning , before
marriage. ‘Self’ here means a natural, ignorant man
of the upper three castes identified with the body
and organs (that is, a student). There was nothing
different from that self that could be desired, such
as a wife, and the self was the only entity in exist-
ence, possessed of ignorance which is the root of the
desire for a wife and so forth. Being tinged by the
impressions of ignorance that are natural to one, and
consist in a superimposition on the Self of ideas
1. 4. 17] BRIHADARANYAKA UP.ANISHAD
193
of action, its factors such as the agent, and its
results, he desired. How? Let me, the agent, have
a wife who will qualify me for the rites. Without
her I am not qualified for them. Hence let me have
a wife, to confer oil me this right. So that 1 myself
may be born , as the child. And let me have wealth
such as cattle, which are the means of performing the
rites, so that I may perform rites 1 that will give me
prosperity and liberation, in order ihat I may perform
rites that will wipe out my indebtedness and help me
to attain the worlds of the gods and others, as well as
rites that have material ends, such as those leading
to the birth of a son, wealth and heaven. This much
indeed, that is, limited to these things only, is desire .
Desirable objects are only these — the things com-
prised by the desire for means, viz., wife, son, wealth
and rites. The three worlds, viz., those of men, the
Manes and r the gods, are but the results of the above.
For the desire for means, viz., wife, son, wealth and
rites, is for securing these. Therefore the desire for
the worlds is the same as the previous one. That
one and the same desire assumes a twofold aspect ac-
cording to ends and means. Hence it will be assert-
ed later on, ‘For both these are but desires’ (III.
v. 1 ; IV. iv. 22).
Since all undertakings are for the sake of results,,
the desire for the worlds, being implied by the former
desire, is taken as mentioned ; hence the assertion
‘This much indeed is desire.’ When eating has been
mentioned, the resulting satisfaction has not to be
separately mentioned, for eating is meant for that..
1 The regular and occasional rites.
13
194
BRJHA Djf{RA NY A KA UPANlSHAD [ 1 . 4 . 17
These two hankerings after the ends and means are
the desire, prompted by which an ignorant man help-
lessly enmeshes himself like a silkworm, and through
absorption in the path of rituals becomes outgoing in
his tendencies and does not know his own world, the
Self. As the Taittiriya Brahmana says, ‘Being infat-
uated with rites performed with the help of fire, and
choked by smoke, they do not know their own world,
the Self’ (III. x. 1.1. 1). One may ask, how are de-
sires asserted to be so many, for they are infinite?
This is being explained : Because even if one wishes ,
one cannot get more than this , which consists of the
results and means. There is nothing in life besides
these results and means, either visible or invisible,
that can be acquired. Desire is concerning things
to be acquired, and since these extend no farther than
the above, it«is but proper to say, ‘This much indeed
is desire.* The idea is this : Desire consists of the
two hankerings after the ends and means, visible or
invisible, which are the special sphere of an ignorant
man. Hence the wise man should renounce them.
In ancient times an ignorant man possessed of
desire wished like this, and others before him had
also done the same. Such is the way of the world.
This creation of Viraj has been like this. It has been
said that he was afraid on account of his ignorance ;
then, prompted by desire, he was unhappy in being
alone, and to remove that boredom he wished for a
wife ; and he was united with her, which led to this
creation. Because it was like this, therefore to this
day , in his creation, a man being single, before
marriage, desires, ' Let me have a wife, so that I may
1. 4. 17] BR1HA DARA NY A KA URANISHAD
195
be born . And let me have wealth, so that I may
perform rites / This has already been explained.
Desiring like this and trying to secure a wife and so
forth, until he obtains each one of these, the wife and
the rest, he considers himself incomplete . As a
corollary to this, we understand that he is complete
when he secures all of these things. But when he
fails to attain this completeness, the- Shruti suggests
a method to bring this about : • His completeness,
the completeness of this man who considers himself
incomplete, is this — comes about in this way. How ?
This body with organs etc. is being divided. Since
the rest of them follow the mind, it, being their
chief, is like the self, hence it is his self. As the
head of a family is the self, as it were, of the wife and
the rest , 1 for these four follow him, so here also the
mind is conceived of as the self of this man for his
'Completeness, Similarly speech is his wife, for
speech follows the mind as a wife does her husband.
‘Speech* here means woids conveying an injunction
or prohibition, which the mind receives through the
ear, understands and uses. Hence speech is like a
wife to the mind. These, speech and mind, standing
for wife and husband, produce the vital force for per-
forming rites. Hence the vital force is like a child .
These rites, which represent the activity of the
vital force etc., are performed with the help of wealth
that is visible to the eye. Hence the eye is human
wealth. Wealth is of two kinds, human and. other than
human ; hence the qualifying word ‘human*: to keep
out the other kind. Human wealth such as cattle,
1 Son, human wealth and divine wealth. r ' ■ - "
196
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [1. 4. 17
which is used in ceremonies, is seen by the eye.
Hence the eye stands for it. Because of this rela-
tionship with it, the eye is called human wealth.
For he obtains it, the human wealth, through the
eye, that is, sees cows etc. What is the other kind
of Wealth? The ear } s divine wealth, for since medi-
tation is concerning the gods, it is called divine
wealth, and here the ear corresponds to that. How ?
For he hears of it* the divine wealth, or meditation,
through the ear. Hence meditation being dependent
on the ear, the latter is called divine wealth. Now
in this matter of resemblances what is the rite that is
performed by these beginning with the self and end-
ing with wealth? This is being answered: The
body is his rite. ‘Atman’ (self) here means the
body. How does the body stand for the rite ? Be-
cause it is thfc cause of the rite. How? For he per-
forms rites through the body. For the man who con-
siders himself incomplete, completeness can be attain-
ed in this way through imagination, just as externally
it can be brought about by having a wife and so on.
Therefore tips sacrifice has five factors, and is accom-
plished only through meditation even by one who
does not perform rites. But how can it be called a
sacrifice by being merely conceived as having five
factors? Because the external sacrifice too is per-
formed through animals and men, and both these
have five factors, being connected with the five things
described above such as the mind. This is expressed
by the text: The animals such as cows, have five
factors, and the men have five factors . Although
men also are animals, yet being qualified for rites.
1 . 4 . 17 ] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
197
they are distinguished from the others, hence they
are separately mentioned. In short, all this , the
means and the results of rites, that exists has jive
factors. He who knows it as such , imagines himself
to be the sacrifice consisting of five factors, attains
all this universe as his own self.
SECTION V
a q q T 5F r tf= T a i i
cr^UFT ^rarcorn, 5 ^TTOISrarT ||
5ftn q i cn3s $ re !, q^pi 03? a i q^rl |
cffw^'J nfefecf mfurfa *ra h n
^Trrr^r si ^qs%sarmsn^f ?=t^t i
qt tdi«(yfd Htsssruffi srat^sr i
ffa ’Syfan: ii \ ii
x . That the father produced seven kinds
of food through meditation and rites (I shall
disclose). One is common to all eaters. Two
he apportioned to the gods. Three he design-
ed for himself. And one he gave to the ani-
mals. On it rests everything — what lives and
what does not . Why are they not exhausted,
although they are always being eaten ? He
who knows this cause of their permanence,
eats food with Pratika (pre-eminence). He
attains (identity with) the gods and lives on
nectar.' These are the verses.
Ignorance has been discussed. It has been said
in that connection that an ignorant man worships
another god, thinking he is different from himself, and
that prompted by desire, he, identifying himself with
1. 5. 1] BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
199
a particular caste and order of life and being regulated
by a sense of duty, performs rites such as making
offerings in the fire, which help the gods and others
and make him an object of enjoyment to them. And
as all beings by their rites individually projected
him as their object of enjoyment, so did he by
his performance of rites with five factors, such as
making offerings in the fire, project all beings as well
as the whole universe as his objects of enjoyment.
Thus everyone according to his meditation and rites
is both the enjoy er and the object of enjoyment of the
whole universe. That is to say, everyone is alternate-
ly the cause as well as the effect of everyone else . 1
This we shall describe in the section on knowledge,
the meditation on things mutually helpful, showing,
as a step to the realisation of the unity of the self,
how everything is the effect of everything else and
helpful to it. The universe which the ignorant man
in question projected as his object of enjoyment
through his meditation and rites with material ends
having five factors, such as making offerings in the
fire, being divided in its entirety into seven parts
as causes and effects, is called the # seven kinds
of food, being an object of enjoyment. Hence he is
the father of these different kinds of food. These are
the verses , Mantras describing in brief these varieties
of food together with their uses, and are called
Shlokas for that reason.
1 Not Hiranvagarbha alone, but every being in a
particular cycle who performs meditation and rites accord-
ing to the scriptures, is here spoken of as the father of
all in the next cycle.
200
BRlHADAflANYAKA UPANISHAD
[ 1 . 5 . 2
6 q qMVi i «q ifq item qq<Hi*HqfteqT’ ?fq iteqT
qq j na q qfeqqT i ‘qqsreq rtoruh*; tetqft-
qreq qee ran qi m i qf^wtil i ^ q qqgqre^q r
q Rq qt sqiqq%, fite gjqg | ‘t *fq
§cf sar srgq a, q^rfiteif isfq q s q 1 S% ; ^
mgtsfcj^renfqfq i qqqqfiwigq;: qw i ‘q^jwi
qq> q tq gg ^’ ?fq qcqq: i qqr gfqra wgmta
q^iqsalqsftqfqi : qmiq ^tr snq q qra sfq-
&sqfm, mq qrgqmfte , sro q?R 5tram|^-
?pnq?fqi ‘qfiqq qq nfqfeq nm suftef^r ms
q’ ?fq qqfe staf qq qfqfgq q^ snf&rfq qtr q i
q£f%i4l£:, *fqcSR qq^T 5^*5^ 5*q<ftfq,
q q*n fqcnq . q^te ^rfq q^: gq^c^mraq-
c^q fqSR, «q f? qq^fq | ‘^[T-
rnfqq ^ftm^smrRT^r qq^f irfq gqqr qr 3T%fq:,
e gq: gqqqqq i £ qt qqm%fq sfa
ipqt qT 3T%fq:, R ^qq teqT fwr Sfqqq
qwfir: 5 q#qs=q ^qjr^^q ^ ; ‘Rts?qqfq STcfttq’
tfq 5^ aqfa;^, jg^tqqq i ^qrqfqq^fq, *t
3rigq3ftqfq’ ?fq nsfen n r n
2. ‘That the father produced seven kinds
of food through meditation and rites,’ means
that the father indeed produced them through
meditation and rites. ‘One is common to all
eaters,’ means, this food that is eaten is the
common food of all eaters. He who adores
1. 5. 2J BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 201
(monopolises) this food is never free from evil,
for this is general food. ‘Two he apportioned
to the gods,’ means making oblations in the
fire and offering presents otherwise to the
gods. Therefore people perform both these.
Some however say, those two are the new and
full moon sacrifices. Therefore one should
not be engrossed with sacrifices for material
ends. ‘One he gave to the* animals’ — it is
milk. For men and animals first live on milk
alone. Therefore they first make a new-born
babe lick clarified butter or suckle it. And
they speak of a new-born calf as not yet eating
grass. ‘On it rests everything — what lives
and what does not,’ means that. on milk indeed
rests all this that lives and that d®es not. It
is said that by making offerings of milk in
the fire for a year one conquers further death.
One should not think like that. He who
knows as above conquers further death the
very day he makes that offering, f<jr he offers
all eatable food to the gods. ‘Why are they
not exhausted, although they are always being
eaten ? ’ — means that the being (eater) is indeed
the cause of their permanence, for he produces
this food again and again. ‘He who knows
this cause of their permanence,’ means that the
being (eater) is indeed the cause of their per-
manence, for he produces this food through
his meditation for the time being and rites.
202 BRIHADARANY AKA UPANISHAD [1. 5. 2*
If he does not do this, it would be exhausted.
‘He eats food with Pratika’ : ‘Pratika’ means
pre-eminence ; hence the meaning is, pre-
eminently. ‘He attains the gods and lives on
nectar,’ is a eulogy.
That the father produced seven kinds of food
through meditation and rites : ‘Yat’ (that) is an
adverb modifying t the verb ‘produced. * The words
‘MedM’ and ‘Tapas* here mean meditation and rites
respectively, for these are the topic, and the ordinary
meanings of the words ‘Medlia’ and ‘Tapas* (intelli-
gence and austerity) are out of place. For rites with
five factors, viz., the wife and so forth, were de-
scribed, and just after that, meditation, referred to by
the words, ‘He who knows it as such/ etc. (I. iv. 17).
Therefore the familiar meanings of the two words.
‘Medha* and ‘Tapas’ must not be supposed here.
Hence the meaning of the sentence is : ‘The seven
kinds of food which the father produced through his
meditation and rites, I shall disclose.’ The last
words should be supplied to complete the sentence.
In the Ved!ts the meaning of the Mantras, being
hidden, is generally difficult to understand, hence the
Brahmana 1 (this text) proceeds to explain them.
Now what is the meaning of ‘That the father pro-
duced seven kinds of food through meditation and
rites* ? This is being answered. The text explains
the sentence only by the use of the particle ‘hi* (in-
deed) signifying a well-known fact. That is to say,
1 A portion of the Vedas explaining the Mantras. The
Vedas consist of Mantras and Br&hmanas,
1. 5. 2] BRIHADARANYAKA U*>AN1SHAD
203
the meaning of this Mantra is well-known. The
words of the Mantra, ‘That the father produced,’
being of the form of a restatement, it also refers to
something well-known. Hence the Brahmana boldly
says: The father indeed produced them through
meditation and rites.
Objection : How is this meaning well-known^
Reply : In the first place it is evident that the ■
ignorant man is the father of the means, beginning
with the wife and ending with the rites, whereby
the worlds are achieved as the result, and it has also
been stated in the passage, ‘Let me have a wife,’ etc.
(I. iv. 17). There it has been said that meditation,
which is divine wealth, rites and a son are the means
whereby the father projects the worlds which are the
results. And what will be stated later on (I. v. 16)
is also well-known. Hence it is right to say, ‘The
father indeed produced them through meditation and
rites.* Moreover it is w r ell-known in life that desire is
concerning results. And the wife and so forth have
been stated to be objects of desire in the passage,
‘This much indeed is desire* (I. iv. 17) • There can
be no desire in the subject-matter of the knowledge
of Brahman (liberation), for it is the oneness of every-
thing. Hence it is implied that one’s natural 1
thoughts and actions, w hich are not according to the
scriptures, of course lead to a projection of the rela-
tive universe (not liberation). This is also proved by
the fact that the evil results ending in identity with
1 That is, prompted by desire, which is the product of
ignorance.
204
BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
[ 1 . 5 . 2
stationary objects, are due to such thoughts and
actions. But the text seeks to bring out that relation
of end and means among objects which is according
to the scriptures, 1 for it is sought to inculcate an
aversion to them with a view to enjoining the knowl-
edge of Brahman. For since this entire gross and
subtle universe is impure, 'transitory, consisting of
ends and means, painful and within the category of
ignorance, one gets disgusted with it, and for such a
one the knowledge of Brahman has to be introduced.
Now the different uses of the varieties of food
are being stated : One is common io all eaters, is
the wording of the Mantra. Its explanation is given
by the words : This food is the common food of all
caters. What is it? This that is eaten by all beings
daily. The father, after producing the different
kinds of food* designed this to be the common food
of all eaters. He who adores or is devoted to this
common food, which, being eaten, sustains the life of
all living beings — adoration, as we see in life, means
devotion, as when we say, ‘One adores a teacher/
‘One adores a king/ etc. ; hence the meaning is : who
is chiefly concerned with enjoying food to prolong his
existence, instead of performing rites to store (good)
unseen results — such a man is never free from evil.
Compare the Vedic Mantra, ‘(If an ignorant man)
obtains food that is useless (to the gods, it is veritably
his death) * (Ri. X. cxvii. 6). And the Smritis, ‘One
must not cook only for oneself’ (Mbh. XII. eexlix. 5),
*He who eats without offering to the gods is a thief’
1 The other kind being left out of account as being
palpably injurious.
1. 5. 2] BR1HADARANY AKA UgANlSHAD
205
(G. III. 12), ‘The killer of a noble Brahman a 1 wipes
(his sin) in the man who eats his food/ and so on
(M. VIII. 317). Why is he not free from evil?
For this food which is eaten by all beings is general
food t the common property of all. And just because
it is the food of all, any morsel that is put into the
mouth is seen to be painful to others, for everyone
eagerly expects that it will be his. Therefore it is
impossible even to eat without causing pain to
others. The Smriti too says, ‘Since the sins of men
(abide in food, it is a greater sin not to share it with
others) . ’
Some say that it refers to the food called Vai-
shwadeva, which is daily offered (in the fire) by
householders for the beasts etc. This is wrong, for
this particular food is not observed to be common to
all eaters like that which is eaten by *all creatures*
Nor does the specification, ‘This that is eaten/ agree
with it. Besides, as this food known as Vaishwadeva
is included in that eaten by all creatures, the latter
kind of food, which is also eaten by outcasts, dogs,
etc., should be understood, for we see that tjiere is
this kind of food over and above that known as Vai-
shwadeva. With regard to it the specification, ‘This
that is eaten/ is appropriate. If the words ‘common
to all eaters’ do not mean this food, it would give
rise to the suspicion that it was not produced and
apportioned by the father. But there is unanimity
on the point that all kinds of food were produced and
apportioned by him. Besides it is not right that one
1 The commoner meaning 4 of the word ‘Bhruna* is a
foetus.
206
BRIM AD AR ANY AKA UPAN1SHAD [1. 5. 2
performing the scriptural rite called Vaishwadeva
should not be free from evils. And it has not been
forbidden. Nor is it a naturally hateful type of work
like fishing, for instance, for decent people practise
it, and the Shruti says that sin accrues from its non-
performance. But in the other case there is the possi-
bility of sin, for the Vedic Mantra says, 4 1 eat that
person as food who eats food (without giving part
of it to others ) 9 (Tai. III. x. 6).
Two he apportioned to the gods , is the wording
of the Mantra. Which are the two kinds of food
that he produced and apportioned to the gods ?
Making oblations in the fire and offering presents
othenvise to the gods f after finishing the former.
Because the father distributed these two kinds of
^food to the gods, therefore to this day householders
at the proper # time perform both these, make oblations
in the fire, thinking that they are offering that food
to the gods, and after that offer them presents. Some,
however, say that the two kinds of food the father
gave to the gods are not the above two offerings, but
the new and full moon sacrifices. The first view
holds that the above two offerings are meant, for the
Shruti mentions both (food and offering) as two, and
those offerings are very well-known. (This is rebut-
ted as follows : ) Although the number is all right
with regard to those two offerings, still the fact that
the new and full moon sacrifices — which too are men-
tioned by the Shruti — are the food of the gods, is
better known, being revealed by the Mantras. Be-
sides when the choice lies between a principal and a
subordinate object (denoted by the same word), the
1. 5. 2] DRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
207
preference goes to the former. Now the new and
full moon sacrifices are more important than the
above two offerings. Hence it is proper to conclude
that they alone are meant by the words, ‘Two he
apportioned to the gods/ Because these two kinds of
food, the new and full moon sacrifices, were set apart
by the father for the gods, therefore, to keep them
intact for the gods, one should not he engrossed with
sacrifices for material ends. The! word ‘Ish/B here
means ‘Kamyesh^V sacrifices with material ends.
This is well-known from the Shatapatha Brahmana
(I. iii. 5. 10). From the use of a suffix denoting habit
we understand that one must not be primarily engross-
ed with the performance of these sacrifices with
material ends. 1
One he gave to the animals. What is that one
food which the father gave to the animals? It is
milk. How are we to know that the animals are the
owners of it? This is being explained: For men
and animals first live on milk alone. It must be
their food, for how else would they systematically
live on that first? How do they live^on it first?
Because men and animals to this day live on that
food, just as the father apportioned it in the begin-
ning. Therefore men of the upper three castes make
a new-born babe lick clarified butter, in contact
with gold, in the post-natal ceremony, or, that is,
afterwards, suckle it. The other castes (who do not
have this ceremony) do whichever is practicable. In
the case of animals other than men, they only suckle
1 So there is no antagonism with such Vedic texts as,
'‘One who desires heaven must sacrifice* (TS. XVI. iii. 3).
208
BRIHADARANY AKA VPANISHAD [1. 5. 2
the young one. And they speak of a new-born calf ,
when somebody asks them how old it is, as not yet
eating grass, that is, very young — still living oil milk.
Whether they first take clarified butter in the post-
natal and other ceremonies, or whether others drink
milk, in either case they drink but milk, for clarified
butter, being a modification of milk, is also milk.
Why is the food of animals, which is the seventh
in order, explained as the fourth ? Because it is a
means of rites. Rites such as the Agnihotra are per-
formed with the help of milk. And these rites, which
depend on wealth, are the means of the three kinds
of food to be presently mentioned, which are the
results — as the two kinds of food, the new and full
moon sacrifices mentioned above. Hence, falling
under the category of rites, it is explained together
with them. Moreover, since both (they and it) are
equally means, mere order should give precedence to
the natural sequence due to sense. Besides, this way
of explaining facilitates understanding. The differ-
ent kinds of food can thus be easily explained with-
out a breal$ and their meaning 1 too will be easily
grasped. What is the meaning of, On it rests every-
thing — what lives and what does not ? That on milk
indeed, the food of animals, rests all this, the whole
universe in its threefold division according to the
body, the elements and the gods — that lives, the ani-
mate kingdom, and that does not live, stationary
objects such as hills. The word ‘indeed,’ signifying
something well-known, furnishes the explanation.
1 That four of them are means and three are results.
1. 5. 2] BRIHADARANYAKA VPANISHAD 209
How is the substance called milk the support of every-
thing ? Because it is the cause. And it is a cause
in that it is an integral part of rites such as the
Agnihotra. That the whole universe is the result of
the oblations offered in the Agnihotra and other rites,
is proved by hundreds of Shruti and Smriti texts.
Hence it is quite proper to explain the Mantra by the
use of the word 'indeed.’
It is said in some other Br&hmanas that by
making offerings of milk in the fire for a year one
conquers further death. The reference is to the
following : In a year three hundred and sixty obla-
tions are offered (counting morning and evening obla-
tions as one). That accounts for double the number
(splitting each into two). The bricks called Yajush-
mati, used in making the altar for the Agnihotra,
being also of that number, the oblations' are looked
upon as these bricks, and so also are the days of the
year. Through this meditation based' on resemblance
people attain identity with Fire, the Prajapati called
the Year. By offering oblations for a year in this
way one conquers further death, that is, inborn after
death among the gods, no more to die. Thus do the
Brahmana texts run. One should not think like that .
He who knows as stated above, that everything
rests bn milk, being the result of the oblations of
milk, conquers further death the very day he makes
that offering — he has not to wait for a year, but attains
identity with the universe in one day. This is ex-
pressed by the text, 'Conquers further death,’ that is/
the sage dying once or getting rid of the body, is
identified with the universe, and does not take on
14
210
BRIHA DARANYAKA UPANISHAD [1. 5. 2
another limited body to make further death possible.
What is the reason of his conquering further death
by attaining identity with the universe ? This is being
answered : For he offers all eatable food to all the
gods by means of the morning and evening oblations.
Therefore it is proper that he, by making himself one
with the oblations and attaining identity with all the
gods as their food — being the sum total of them — does
not die any more. This too has been stated in an-
other Brahmana : ‘Brahman, the self-born (a man
seeking identity with Hiranyagarbha) performed
rites. He reflected, “Rites do not produce eternal
results. Well, let me offer myself in all beings (as
in a fire) and all beings in me.” Offering himself
in all beings and all beings in himself, he attained
the highest place among all beings, independence and
absolute rufership’ (Sh. XIII. vii. 1. 1).
Why are they not exhausted , although they are
always, continuously, being eutenf Since the time
when the father producing the seven kinds of food
distributed them to different groups of eaters, they
have been^eating those foods, for they live on them.
And they ought to be exhausted, since everything that
is made must wear out. But they are not dwindling,
for we see the universe remains intact. So there must
be a cause for their permanence. Hence the question,
‘Why are they not exhausted V It is answered as
follows : The being is indeed the cause of their per-
manence. Just as in the beginning the father was*
the producer of the different kinds of food through
his meditation and rites with five factors such as the
wife, and their eater too, so those to whom he gave
1 . 5 . 2 ]
BR1HADARANY AKA UPAN1SHAD
211
the foods, although they are their eaters, are their
fathers as well, for they produce them through their
meditation and rites. This is expressed as follows :
The being who eats the foods is indeed the cause
of their permanence. How ? This is being explain-
ed : For he produces this food of seven kinds that
is eaten, consisting of the body and organs, actions
and results, again and again through his meditation
for the time being and rites , that is,* the efforts of his
speech, mind and body. If he does not do this , not
produce for a moment the seven kinds of food men-
tioned above through his meditation and rites, it
would be exhausted , or finished, being continuously,
eaten. Therefore just as the being is continuously
eating the foods, he is also creating them according
to his meditation and rites. Hence the ’being is the
cause of their permanence, by continuously creating
them. That is to say, for this reason the foods are
not exhausted although they are being eaten. There-
fore the whole universe consisting of a series of medi-
tations and rites, means and ends, actions and results
— although, being held together by a strejyn of work
and impressions of innumerable beings in combina-
tion, it is transient, impure, flimsy, resembling a flow-
ing river or a burning lamp, lacking in fibre like
a banana stalk, and comparable to foam, illusion, a
mirage, a dream, and so on — appears nevertheless to
those who have identified themselves with it to be
undecaying, eternal and full of substance. Hence
for stimulating our renunciation the text says, ‘He
produces this food through his meditation for the time
being and rites. If he does not do this, it would be
2\2
BRIHADARANYAKA VPAN1SHAD [1. 5. 2
exhausted/ for from the second chapter the knowl-
edge of Brahman has to be inculcated for those who
are disgusted with this universe.
Although three kinds of food are yet to be de-
scribed, still taking them as already explained along
with the previous ones, the result of knowing these
as they are is being summed up : He who knows
this cause of their permanence as described above,
means that the being (eater) is indeed the cause of
their permanence, for he produces this food through
his meditation for the time being and rites. If he
does not do this, it would be exhausted. He eats
food with Pratika is being explained : ( Pratika f
means pre-eminence ; hence the meaning is, pre-
eminently. He who knows that the being who is the
father of the different kinds of food is the cause of
their permanence, pre-eminently eats food and never
becomes a subsidiary part of it. Unlike an ignorant
man this sage, being the self of the foods, becomes
only their eater, but never a food. He attains the
gods, is identified with the gods, and lives on nectar :
This statement is a eulogy ; there is no new meaning
in it.
‘^STSTOJfr
•fwsft'wC n«rai gfa jr^tt
*FirN?r i «etjt: fc f qfa eg rc
jr^tt fesn*nfe s m *>a weft grJta sit i
QVT 4*fclwaT,' OT ft * 3 SmJrtsqRt S?IR ^R:
1 . 5 . 3 ] BRIHADARANYAKA VPAN1SHAD 213
STORtar arm 5 u:a«-nq> wi srotcjit,
qng’qt jRfcre: sm»m*T: n * n
3. ‘Three he designed for himself,’
means : The mind, the organ of speech and
the vital force ; these he designed for himself.
(They say), ‘I was absent-minded, I did not
see it,’ ‘I was absent-minded, I did not hear
it.’ It is through the mind that one sees and
hears. Desire, deliberation, doubt, faith,
want of faith, patience, impatience, shame,
intelligence and fear — all these are but the
mind. Even if one is touched from behind,
one knows it through the mind ; therefore (the
mind exists). And any kind of sound is but
the organ of speech, for it serves to.determine
a thing, but it cannot itself be revealed.
Prana, Apana, Vyana, Udana, Samana and
Ana — all these are but the vital force. This
body is identified with these — with the organ
of speech, the mind and the vital f ojjce .
The three kinds of food — results of rites with
five factors — which have been spoken of, being effects
and extensive in scope, were kept separate from the
previous ones. The succeeding portion up to the end
of this section is devoted to the explanation of them.
What is the meaning of, Three he designed for him-
self f It means: The mind, the organ of speech and
the vital force are the three kinds of food ; these the
father, after producing them at the beginning of the
214
BR1H AVAR ANY AKA UPAN1SHAD
[ 1 . 5 . 3
cycle, designed for himself . Of these there is a doubt
regarding the existence and nature of the mind.
Hence the text says : There is a mind apart from
the external organs such as the ear. For it is a well-
known fact that even when there is a connection be-
tween the external organ, the object and the self, a
man does not perceive that object, which may be
just in front, and when asked, ‘Have you seen this
form?’ he says, My mind was elsewhere — I was
absent-minded, I did not see it/ Similarly when
asked, ‘Have you heard what I have said?* he says,
*J was absent-minded, I did not hear it/ Therefore
it is understood that that something else, viz., the
internal organ called mind, which joins itself to the
objects of all the organs, exists, in the absence of
which the eye and other organs fail to perceive
their respective objects such as form and sound,
although they have the capacity to do so, and in the
presence of which they succeed in it. Hence it is
through the mind that everybody sees and hears, for
vision and the like are impossible w 7 hen the mind is
engaged. f
After the existence of the mind has been proved,
the text proceeds to describe its nature : Desire, sex-
attraction and the like, deliberation, considering a
thing which is before us, whether it is white or blue
and so on, doubt, faith, belief in the efficacy of rites
directed to invisible ends (the hereafter) as well as in
the existence of the gods and the like, want of faith m
the opposite notion, patience, stimulating the body
etc. when they droop, impatience, the opposite of
that, shame, intelligence and fear — all these, all such.
1. 5. 3] BRIHADARANYAKA U PUNISH AD
215
are but the mind . They are forms of the mind or
the internal organ. Another reason for the existence
of the mind is being stated : Because even if one is
touched by anybody from behind invisibly, one knows
it distinctly, that this is a touch of the hand, or that
this is a touch of the knee, therefore the internal
organ called mind exists. If there is no mind to
distinguish them, how can the skin alone do this?
That which helps us to distinguish between percep-
tions is the mind.
The mind then exists, and its nature too has been
known. Three kinds of food, which are the results
of rites, viz., the mind, the organ of speech and the
vital force, were sought to be explained here in their
divisions according to the body, the elements and the
gods. Of these only the mind, out of the group
consisting of the organ of speech, the mind and the
vital force as relating to the body, has been ex-
plained. Now the organ of speech is to be described.
Hence the text says: And any kind of sound ir.
the world, whether it is of the articulate kind
uttered by creatures with the help of the palate etc.,
or it is of the other kind produced by mi!sical instru-
ments or clouds etc., is but the organ of speech. So
the nature of the organ of speech has been stated.
Now its function is being described : For it, the
organ of speech, serves to determine or reveal a thing ,
but it cannot itself be revealed, like things ; it only
reveals them, for it is self-luminous like a lamp etc.
The light of a lamp and so forth is not of course re-
vealed by another light. Similarly the organ of speech
only reveals things, but cannot itself be revealed by
216
BRIHAD4RANYAKA UPANISHAD [1. 5. 3
others (of the same category). Thus the Shruti avoids
a regressus in infinitum by saying, Tt cannot itself be
revealed.* That is to say, the very function of the
organ of speech is to reveal.
Now the vital force is being described : Prdna,
the nerve function that is connected with the heart
and is capable of moving to the mouth and nostrils,
so called because it issues in front. Apdna, which
functions below the heart and extends up to the
navel ; it is called Apana, because it helps excretion.
Vydna, that which regulates the Prana and Apana
and is the nexus between them, as also the cause of
actions requiring strength. Uddna, that which causes
nutrition, rising up, and so on ; it extends from the
sole of the feet to the head and functions upwards.
Samdna, so called because of assimilating what we
eat and drink ; it has its seat in the belly and helps
the digestion of food. Ana is the generalisation of
these particular functions and is concerned with the
general activities of the body. Thus all these func-
tions of the Prana and the rest, as described above,
are but the vital force (Prana).
The Prana, which means the Ana (general nerve
function) in the body with particular functions; has
been described. And its activity also has been ex-
plained by a reference to its different functions. So
the three kinds of food called the mind, the organ
of speech and the vital force as relating to the body,
have been explained. Identified with these y that is,
their modifications, or composed of the mind, speech
and vital force of Hiranyagarbha — what is it ? — this
body including the organs, the microcosm, called
1 . 5 . 6 ] BRMADARANYAKA UgANISHAD
217
'self' because it is accepted as their self by ignorant
people. That which has been described in a general
way as ‘identified with these,’ is being elucidated
by the specification, with the organ of speech, the
mind and the vital force.
The manifestations of those foods belonging to
Hiranyagarbha as they relate to the elements are
being described :
33* 55*33 03 03 ; 33*313 55*0!:, 33*S3!fTSJ-
55*31:, mortal 55*3;: ll « II
4. These are the three worlds. The
organ of speech is this world (the earth), the
mind is the sky, and the vital force is that
world (heaven) .
These, the organ of speech, the mind and the
vital force, are the three worlds called the earth, sky
and heaven. This is being specified : The organ of
speech is this world , the mind is the sky, and the
vital force is that world.
33* 03 33 O F ter g fc , 33* SPT:
II ^ II
5. These are the three Vedas. The
organ of speech is the Rig- Veda, the mind is
the Yajur-Veda and the vital force the Sama-
Veda. ,
^3T: fq3tT 03 33 ; 3F*3 ^3T:, 33:
fo3?::, 3Tof* nrg^rr: n \ w
218
liRIHADAjtANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [ 1 . 5 . 6
6. These are the gods, the Manes and
men. The organ of speech is the gods, the
mind the Manes, and the vital force men.
f^FTT JTT?TT sdta ; JR ^ fh'TT, RTTgirll,
Sim: ST3TT II «9 II
7. These are the father, mother and
child. The mind is the father, the organ of
speech the mother, and the vital force the
child.
Similarly these are the three Vedas, etc. These
sentences are all easy.
qw i wgMH , fasom ; 11 <: n
8. These are what is known, what it is
desirable to know, and what is unknown.
Whatever is known is a form of the organ of
speech, for it is the knower. The organ of
speech protects him (who knows this) by be-
coming thqt (which is known).
These are what is known , what it is desirable to
know , and what is unknown. This is being speci-
fied : Whatever is clearly known is a form of the
organ of speech. The Shruti itself gives the reason :
For it is the knower, being self-luminous. How can
that be other than a knower which brings to light
other objects as well ? It will be stated later on,
‘Through the organ of speech, O Emperor, a friend is
known* (IV. i. 2). He who knows the particulars of
1. 5. 10] BR1HADARANYAKA U?AN1SHAD
219
the organ of speech gets the following result : The
organ of speech protects him who knows its manifest-
ations as given above, by becoming that which is
known. That is, it becomes his food, or object of
enjoyment, in that form.
q f e q fe fef a w re t J R ^re a g qjr, % fafar-
jr q n * n
9. Whatever it is desirable to know is a
form of the mind, for the mind is what it is
desirable to know. The mind protects him
(who knows this) by becoming that (which it
is desirable to know).
Similarly whatever it is desirable clearly to know
is a form of the mind, for the mind, since it takes the
form of a doubt (considers the pros ^nd cons of a
thing), is what it is desirable to know. *As before, he
who knows the manifestations of the mind gets the
following result: The mind protects him by be-
coming that which it is desirable to know, that is,
it becomes his food in that form.
snor^i ?rgqj^, sfayici: .
srm cpr wg gnwfi i 11 \o a
10. Whatever is unknown is a form of
the vital force, for the vital force is what is
unknown. The vital force protects him (who
knows this) by becoming that (which is un-
known).
Likewise whatever is completely unknown, and
not even suspected, is a form of the vital force, for
220
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [1. 5. 10
the vital force is what is unknown , as the Shruti
speaks of it as undefined (Chh. II. xxii. 1). Since
the organ of speech, the mind and the vital force
have been divided into the forms of what is known,
what it is desirable to know, and what is unknown, 1
the statements, 'These are the three worlds/ and so
on, are to be accepted solely on the authority of the
Shruti. Since we see these three forms, viz., what
is known, etc., are applicable to everything, it is
from the statement of the Shruti that we are to
understand that the meditation is to be confined to
the particular objects as indicated. The vital force pro-
tects him hy becoming that , that is, becomes his
food in the form of what is unknown. We often
see that teachers and parents, for instance, help
their pupils and (very young) children, barely
suspected by # or unknown to them. Similarly the
mind and vital force can be the food of the sage, bare-
ly suspected by and unknown to him (respectively).
The manifestations of the organ of speech, the
mind and the vital force relating to the elements have
been described. The following (three) paragraphs
deal with their manifestations relating to the gods:
eRIRHW HTOrft mq i gp refa : II U II
ii. The earth is the body of that organ
of speech, and this fire is its luminous organ.
1 This is a wider classification including all the previous
ones -mentioned in paragraphs 4 to 7, and involving a
cross-division. Nevertheless we are to take them as they
are, since the Shruti recommends them for meditation.
1. 5. 12] BR1H AVAR ANY AKA UPAN1SHAD
221
And as far as the organ of speech extends, so
far extends the earth and so far does this fire.
The earth is the body, or the external container,
of that organ of speech which has been spoken of as
the food of Hiranyagarbha, and this terrestrial fire is
its luminous organ, the content of the earth. The
vocal organ of Hiranyagarbha has two forms : One
is the effect (body) , the container and non-luminous ;
the other i& the instrument (organ), the content and
luminous. Both these, the earth and fire, are but
the vocal organ of Hiranyagarbha. And as far as
the organ of speech in its twofold aspect relating to
the body and the elements extends, so far through-
out extends the earth, the effect, as its container,
and so far does this fire, which is the content and the
instrument, pervading the earth in its luminous form.
The rest is similar. l
gr t rre ftf jr:, msreft trh, fwpr
m: sn'jftsuFR ; ^ wp, s?
§ srosr: 5 hrs II ^11
12. Heaven is the body of this mind, and
that sun is its luminous organ. And as far
as the mind extends, so far extends heaven,
and so far does that sun. The two were
united, and from that the vital force emanated.
It is the Supreme Lord . 1 It is without a, rival.
A second being is indeed a rival. He who
knows it as such has no rival.
1 This is said for the purpose of meditation.
222
BRIHA DA gANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 1 . 5 . 12
Heaven is the body, the effect, the container, of
this mind that has already been spoken of as the food
of Hiranyagarbha, and that sun is its luminous organ,
the content. And as far as the mind in its aspect
relating to the body or the elements extends, so far
extends heaven, which is the container of the mind,
the luminous organ, and so far does that sun, which
is the luminous organ and the content. The two,
fire and the sun, which are the forms of the organ of
speech and the mind relating to the gods, the mother
and father, were united, between the two halves of
the cosmic shell (heaven and earth), the one resolv-
ing to do the function of generation belonging to the
father, the mind, or the sun, and the other that of
manifestation belonging to the mother, the organ of
speech, or fire. And from that union the vital force ,
or Vayu 1 emanated, to function as vibration. It, that
which emanated, is the Supreme Lord, and not only
that, but it is also without a rival . What is a rival ?
A second being, appearing as an adversary, is called
a rival . Hence the organ of speech and the mind,
although they are different entities (from the vital
force), never become its rivals, both being subordi-
nate to the vital force (on the cosmic plane) as in
the body. Incidentally, the result of meditation on
this absence of rivalry is as follows : He, the sage,
who knows it, the vital force, as such, as being \yith-
out a rival, has no rival.
wtam nruiHUM:
warren#* am:, arssi arro, areredl -
J The cosmic aspect of the vital force, symbolised by air.
1 . 5 . 13 ] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 223
3 ^ ^ Q3 *WT:, wfore if: - sr zii |?TFRf^r
e syhtf zft t^rarc^mg-
Tf^S^rT ^ET 55^ || ^ ||
13. Water is the body of this vital force,
and that moon is its luminous organ. And
as far as the vital force extends, so far extends
water, and so far does that moon. These are
all equal, and all infinite. He who meditates
upon these as finite wins a finite world, but he
who meditates upon these as infinite wins an
infinite world.
Water is the body f the effect, the container of
the organs, of this vital force that is the food of Hi-
ranyagarbha, not of the vital force that has just been
described as the child, and that moon if its luminous
organ, as before. And as far as the vital force in its
aspects relating to the body etc. extends , so far ex-
tends water, and so far does that moon, the content
of the water, the organ, which in its aspects relating
to the body and the elements pervades the water. So
these are the three kinds of food, called 1 the organ of
.speech, the mind, and the vital force, which were
produced by the father through rites with five factors.
And the whole universe in its aspects relating to the
body and the elements is pervaded by these. There
is nothing besides these, either of the nature of an
effect or an instrument (body or organ), and Hiranya-
garbha is the sum of these. These, the organ of
speech, the mind, and the vital force, are all equal
in extensity — pervade whatever concerns the animate
224 BR1HADAJZANYAKA V PAN 1 SHAD [1. 5. 13
world in its aspects relating to the body and the ele-
ments, and for this very reason they ate infinite, fpr
they last as long as the relative universe. Surely yve
do not know of any relative universe apart from the
bodies and organs. And it has been stated 1 that
speech, mind and the vital force consist of the body
and organs. He who , whoever, meditates upon these
— which are a part and parcel of Hiranyagarbha — in
their aspect relating to the body or the elements, as
finite, wins a finite world — a result which is com-
mensurate with that meditation. That is, he is born
as finite, not as one with these. But he who medi-
tates upon these as infinite, as consisting of the
universe, a part and parcel of all beings, and un-
limited, wins an infinite world .
It has been said that the father, after producing
seven kinds of food through rites with five factors,
designed three of them for himself. These, the re-
sults of those rites, have been explained. Now how
are these the results of those rites? This is being
answered : Since those three kinds of food also, we
find, have five factors, for wealth and rites can also
be included in them. Of them, the earth and fir£i
as has been explained, are the mother, heaven and
the sun are the father, and the vital force (Vayu),
which is between these two, is the child. In order to
show how wealth and rites can be included in them
the next two paragraphs are being introduced.
e q?sr sNcsre: snrm%: qteawra :, hfs *nwr
1 In paragraphs 11-13.
1. 5. 141 BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 225
*K55T:, sHN'trt qfarci t ■ e rrfa-
fir^T ^ g ; ^m«ncqt nfafcrai
^55?n *isHirci srrjni^gstflr^^ era: sneraroe*-,
era^eri srnirg?t: srm ?r fgrf^fji^r, srft
l^esr^l, *^5TFTT tC^ ^cfFTT II ?« II
14. This Prajapati (Hiranyagarbha) has
sixteen digits and is represented by the year.
The nights (and days) are his fifteen digits,
and the constant one is his sixteenth digit.
He (as the moon) is filled as well as wasted by
the nights (and days). Through this six-
teenth digit he permeates all these living
beings on the new moon night and rises the
next morning. Therefore on this night one
should not take the life of living beings, not
even of a chameleon, in adoration of this deity
alone.
This Prajapati consisting of the three kinds of
food who is under consideration, is being particularly
described as the year. He has sixteen digits or mem-
bers and is represented by the year , consists of the
year, or is Time. The nights and the days, that is,
the lunar days, are the fifteen digits of this Prajapati
consisting of time, and the constant one , which is
ever the same, is his sixteenth digit . He is filled as
well as wasted by the nights , the lunar days, called
the digits. In the bright fortnight the Prajapati who
is the moon is filled by the lunar days beginning with
the first, through the gradual increase of digits, that
15
226
BR1HA DA RANYA KA UPANISHAD [1. 5. 14
is, waxes, till he attains the fulness of his orb on the
full moon night, and is also wasted by them in the
dark fortnight through the gradual decrease of digits,
till only the constant digit is left on the new moon
night. Through ihis abiding sixteenth digit called
the constant one, he, the Prajapati who is Time, per -
meatcs all these living beings by means of the water
they drink and the herbs they eat — pervades them in
these two forms — on the new moon night and, staying
there overnight, rises the next morning, joined to the
second digit.
Thus that Prajapati consists of five factors :
heaven and the sun as well as mind are the father ;
the earth and fire as well as the organ of speech are his
wife, the mother ; the vital force is their child ; the
lunar days, or digits, are wealth, for they increase and
decrease like it ; and the fact that these digits, which
are divisions of time, cause changes in the universe
is the rite. Thus this Prajapati, as a whole, emerges
as the result of rites with five factors, which is quite
in accordance with his desire, "Let me have a wife,
so that I may be born. And let me have wealth, so
that I may^perform rites 5 (I. iv. 17). It is an accept-
ed principle in life that the effect is commensurate
with the cause. Because this moon on this night
abides in her constant digit permeating all living be-
ings, therefore on this new moon night one should
not take the life of living beings, not kill them, not
even of a chameleon, which is naturally vicious and
is killed by people, because the very sight of it is*
inauspicious. One may ask : Is not the killing of
animals forbidden by the dictum, ‘One must not kill
1 . 5 . 15 ] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
227
any animal except where it is prescribed by the scrip-
tures* (Cf. Chh. VIII. xv. 1)? To this we reply:
Yes, it is ; the present text, however, does not make
an exception to that rule about the killing of animals
at other times than the new moon night, or even of
the chameleon, but is only (a special prohibition) in
adoration of this deity , the moon.
srenqfo sterna :, srcfcr
fertfer «K55 t:,
mNjuI ^rr, ^ ^
^T^raTcJTT, Stfvrf^rlH ; SWRTSrfq
sncJRT
'TH|: || ^ ||
15. That Prajapati who has sixteen digits
and is respresented by the year is ipdeed this
man who knows as above. Wealth constitutes
his fifteen digits, and the body his sixteenth
digit. He is filled as well as wasted by
wealth. This body stands for a nave, and
wealth is the felloe. Therefore if a man loses
everything, but he himself lives, people say
that he has only lost his outfit.
He who has been remotely described as that
Prajapati who has sixteen digits and is represented
by the year, should not be considered to be al-
together remote, because he is directly observed as
this one. Who is it? This man who knows the
Prajapati consisting of the three kinds of food to be
identical with himself, as described above. What is
228
BRIHAD4RANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 1 . 5 . 15
the similarity between them ? This is being ex-
plained : Wealth such as cattle constitutes the
fifteen digits of this man who knows as above, for it
increases and decreases, and it aids the performance
of rites. To contribute to his completeness, the
body is the sixteenth digit of this sage, corresponding
to the constant digit (of tlie moon). Like the moon
he is filled as well as wasted by wealth. This is a
familiar thing in, everyday life. This stands for a
nave, is fit to be such. What is it? This body.
And wealth is the felloe, stands for the external out-
fit, like the spokes and felloes of a wheel. Therefore
even if a man loses everything, suffers that affliction,
but he himself, corresponding to the nave of a wheel,
lives, people say that he has only lost his outfit, been
deprived of his outer trappings, like a wheel losing
its spokes and felloes. That is to say, if he is alive,
he again grows by means of wealth, corresponding to
the spokes and felloes.
Thus it has been explained how a man by the
performance of rites with five factors combined with
meditation, 4 the divine wealth, becomes the Prajapati
consisting of the three kinds of food. And it has also
been said that wealth such as the wife stands for the
outfit. In the previous portion it has only been
known in a general way that sons, rites and medita-
tion lead to the attainment of the worlds, but not that
there is a very definite relation between them and
those results. This relation between the means such
as the son and the particular results has to be stated.
Hence the following paragraph :
1. 5. 17] BRIHADARANYAKA UBANISHAD 229
sm srn? staK— uguuiU: fagshft
sNr s% ; nts^r re ya refe ;; gtuhr 5t^:, stt^t
^S^fWT ; 9KJTWT {%'CRT ^«F5hR: 5
1 stersri £g:, 5WT%rr srsrerfot n n
16. There are indeed three worlds, the
world of men, the world of the Manes and the
world of the gods. This world of men is to
be won through the son alone, 'and by no other
rite ; the world of the Manes through rites ;
and the world of the gods through meditation.
The world of the gods is the best of the worlds.
Therefore they praise meditation.
The word ‘Atha* is introductory. There are
indeed three worlds attainable by means mentioned in
the scriptures, neither more nor fewer. * (‘Indeed* is
intensive.) Which are they? The world of men, the
world of the Manes and the world of the gods. Of
these, this world of men is to be won or attained
through the son alone as means, and by no other rite,
nor meditation. The last two words are,understood.
How this world is to be won through the son we
shall explain later on. The world of the Manes
through rites alone such as the Agnihotra, neither
through the son nor through meditation. And the
world of the gods through meditation, neither through
the son nor through rites. The world of the gods is
the best of the three worlds. Therefore they praise
meditation , as being the means of attaining it.
280
brihadAranyaka UPANISHAD [ 1 . 5 . 17
SI£V, ; ^3*: ST^TTfS, 3^ 3§J,
?w:, ; qf 5fp? 53^1
HShfoctT I ^ t % g M gTT ^ T Wit q$T
^ 1 1; ssj sstai^iNi ^ sefrwan ;
qa regr r & u3?m a* q a w fa ft sgsw f s ft,
33tigft i « asu^mgsirafa ; sr
si^fiq^r OT: *35 5?I-
HTfsRI% I ®ra^H f^fe^^WrS?Rrf ¥1^%,
ggfa, hto ; ^ 3%-
afafagfer, fsn: srroT^gm
sufirsifci n \9 11
17. Now therefore the entrusting : When
a man thinks he will die, he says to his son,
‘You are Brahman, you are the sacrifice, and
you are the world.’ The son replies, ‘I am
Brahman, I am the sacrifice, and I am the
world.’ (The father thinks :) ‘Whatever is
studied is all unified in the word “Brahman.”
Whatever sacrifices there are, are all unified
in the word “sacrifice.” And whatever worlds
there are, are all unified in the word “world.”
All this (the duties of a householder) is indeed
this much. He, being all this, will protect
me from (the ties of) this world.’ Therefore
they speak of an educated son as being con-*
ducive to the world. Hence (a father) teaches
his son. When a father who knows as above
departs from this world, he penetrates his son
1 . 5 . 17 ] BR1HAD ARAN Y AKA UPXN1SHAD
231
together with the organ of speech, the mind
and the vital force. Should anything be left
undone by him through any slip, the son ex-
onerates him from all that. Therefore he is
called a son. The father lives in this world
through the son. Divine and immortal speech,
mind and vital force permeate him.
Thus the three means called -the son, rite and
meditation have been connected with their respective
results, the three worlds. A wife, being an aid to
the obtaining of a son and the performance of rites,
is not a separate means, and has therefore not been
separately mentioned. Wealth too, being an aid to
the performance of rites, is not a separate means. It
is a well-known ,fact that meditation and rites lead
to the winning of the worlds by merely ^coming into
existence. But one does not know how a son, not
being of the nature of an activity, can help to win
them. This has to be explained. Now therefore
follows the entrusting. This is the name of the rite
which is going to be described. It is called f entrust-
ing ’ because a father in this manner entrusts his own
duties to his son. When should this be done? This
is being stated : When a man , a father, on account
of some omen or otherwise, thinks he will die, he
says to his son, calling him, f You are Brahman, you
are the sacrifice, and you are the world / The son,
thus addressed, replies, ( I am Brahman, I am the
sacrifice, and I am the world / Having already been
instructed, he knows what to do ; so he says these
three sentences.
232
BRIHA DA RA NY AKA UPAN1SHAD [1. 5. 17
Thinking the meaning of these sentences to be
hidden, the Shruti proceeds to explain them. What-
ever is studied , has been or remains to be studied, is
all unified in the word f Brahman / That is, let the
study of the Vedas which so long was my duty, be
henceforth done by you, for you are Brahman. Simi-
larly whatever sacrifices there are , that were to be
performed by me, whether I have performed them
or not, are all unified in the word ' sacrifice / That
is, let whatever sacrifices I used to perform, be hence-
forth performed by you, for you are the sacrifice.
And whatever worlds there are, that were to be won
by me, whether I have won them or not, are all uni-
fied in the word 'world/ Henceforth you should win
them, for you are the world. From now on I entrust
to you the resolve which was mine of dutifully under-
taking study, sacrifices and the conquest of the
worlds, and I am freed from the resolve concerning
these ties of duty. All this the son accepted as it
was, having been instructed to that effect.
Guessing this intention of the father, the Shruti
says: All 0 this, the whole duty of a householder, is
indeed this much, viz., that he must study the Vedas,
perform sacrifices and win the worlds. He, being all
this, taking all this load of mine off me and putting
it on himself, will protect me from this world. The
past tense has been used in the sense of the future,
there being no restriction about tense in the Vedas.
Because a son who is thus trained will free his father *
from this world, that is, from the ties of duty on
earth, therefore Brahmanas speak of an educated son
as being conducive to the world for his father. Hence
1 . 5 . 17 ] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANJSHAD
233
a father teaches his son, hoping he will be conducive
to his attainment of the world. When a father who
knows as above , who has entrusted his resolve about
his duties to his son, departs from this world , he pene-
trates or pervades his son together with the organ of
speech, the mind and the vital force, which are under
consideration. Owing to the cessation of the cause
(wrong notion) which limited them to the body, the
father’s organ of speech, mind and vital force pervade
everything in their cosmic form as the earth, fire and
so on, like the light of a lamp within a jar when the
latter is broken. The father too pervades everything
along with them, for he is identified with the organ
of speech, the mind and the vital force. He thinks, ‘I
am the infinite organ of speech, mind and vital force,
whose manifestations have various aspects such as
that relating to the body.’ Therefore it has been
rightly said, 'He penetrates his son together with
the organ of speech, the mind and the vital force,’
for he follows these. He becomes the self of all inclu-
ding the son. The idea is this : A father who has
a son instructed in this way, remains ^n this very
world as that son ; that is, he should not be con-
sidered to be dead. Witness another Shruti, ‘This
other self of his is his substitute for the performance
of meritorious rites’ (Ai. IV. 4, adapted).
Now the derivation of the w T ord ‘Putra* (son) is
being given : Should anything, any duty, be left un-
done by him, the father, through any slip or slight
omission in the middle, the son exonerates him from
all that unfulfilled duty of his standing as an obstacle
to his attainment of the world, by fulfilling it him-
234
BRIHA DARANYA KA UPAN1SHAD [l. 5 . 17
self. Therefore , because he saves his father by ful-
filling his duties, he is called a son . This is the deri-
vative meaning of the word 'Putra* — one who 'saves’
the father by 'completing* his omissions. The father ,
although dead, is immortal and lives in this world
through such a son. Thus he wins this world of men
through his son. The world of the Manes and that
of the gods are not won in that way, but simply by
the fact of existence of meditation and rites. These
help to attain the worlds not by undertaking some
other activity like the son, but by simply coming into
existence. Divine and immortal speech, mind and
vital force, those pertaining to Hiranyagarbha, per-
meate him, this father who has entrusted his duties
to his son.
5wn a r Tg s rfe n it
18. The divine organ of speech from the
earth and fire permeates him. That is the
divine organ of speech through which what-
ever he says is fulfilled.
How does this take place ? This will be ex-
plained in this and the next two paragraphs. The
Shruti itself has shown that the son, rites and medi-
tation lead respectively to the world of men, of the
Manes and of the gods. Here some prattlers (the
Mim&msakas) ignorant of the particular import of the
Shruti say that the means such as the son lead to
liberation. The Shruti has thus gagged them : Be-
ginning with the statement that rites with five
1. 5. 18] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
235
factors are undertaken with material ends, in the
passage, ‘Let me have a wife/ etc. (I. iv. 17), it has,
among other things, concluded by connecting the son
and the rest with their respective results. Therefore
it is proved that the Shruti text referring to the
(three) debts applies to an ignorant man and not one
who has realised the Supreme Self. It will also be
stated later on, ‘What shall we achieve through
children, we who have attained this Self, this world ?’
(IV. iv. 22).
Others 1 say that the winning of the worlds of the
Manes and the gods means turning away from them.
And if one has a son and at the same time performs
rites and meditation together, one turns away from
these three 'worlds, and through the knowledge of the
Supreme Self attains liberation. Hence, they say,
the means such as the son lead indirectly to liberation
itself. To silence them also, this portion of the
Shruti sets itself to show the results attained by a
man who has a son to whom he has entrusted his own
duties, who performs rites and who knows the medi-
tation on the three kinds of food as identical with
himself. And one cannot say that this very result is
liberation, for it is connected with the three kinds of
food, and all the foods are the effects of meditation
and rites, since the father is stated to produce them
again and again, and there is the statement about
decay, ‘If he does not do this, it would be exhausted’
(I. v. 2). Thus only w r ould the mention of the effect
and instrument in the words, ‘body* and ‘luminous
organ’ (I. v. 11-13), be appropriate. Besides, the topic
1 Bhatriprapancha is meant.
236
BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [1. 5. 18
is concluded by a representation of the foods as con-
sisting of name, form and action : ‘This (universe)
indeed consists of three things,’ etc. (I. vi. 1). And
it cannot be deduced from this one sentence in ques-
tion (I. v. 16) that these three means being combined
lead to liberation in the case of some, and identity
with the three kinds of food in the case of others,
for the sentence only admits of a single interpreta-
tion, viz., that means such as the son lead to identity
with the three kinds of food.
The divine organ of speech , that which relates to
the gods, from the earth and fire permeates him , this
man who has entrusted his duties to his son. The
divine organ of speech, consisting of the earth and
fire, is the material of the vocal organs of all. But
(in an ignorant man) it is limited by attachment and
other evils pertaining to the body. In the case of the
sage, these evils being eliminated, it becomes all-
pervading, like water, or like the light of a lamp,
when its obstruction has been removed. This is
expressed by the text, ‘The divine organ of speech
from the eafth and fire permeates him.’ And that is
the divine organ of speech, devoid of the evils of
falsehood etc. and pure, through which whatever he
says about himself or others is fulfilled. That is,
his speech becomes infallible and irresistible.
^ jjit anrsrotrr •, 35 ^ jrt
19. The divine mind from heaven and the
sun permeates him. That is the divine mind
1. 5. 20] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 237
through which he only becomes happy and
never mourns.
Similarly the divine mind from heaven and the
sun permeates him. And that is the divine mind,
being naturally pure, through which he only becomes
happy and never mourns, not being connected with
the causes of grief.
sigsEsM fer: snnr snfiraifa ; sr#tsr:
m *=Ntfssn#5tfasr *r srof h fomfe 5
^ ^RTJTTcm ;
sNicrr s^jrrt ggffnr sniffor
i ^ ststt: :nNif?rT, swsrrai
assfa, fr 5 t 'nd
11 r»ii
20. The divine vital force from water and
the moon permeates him. That is the divine
vital force which, when it moves or does not
move, feels no pain nor is injured. He who
knows as above becomes the self of all beings.
As is this deity (Hiranyagarbha), so is he.
As all beings take care of this deity, so do
they take care of him. Howsoever these
beings may grieve, that grief of theirs is con-
nected with them. But only merit goes to
him. No demerit ever goes to the gods.
Likewise the divine vital force from water and the
moon permeates him. It is being specified : That is
the divine vital force which, when it moves among the
. 238
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANJSHAD [ 1 . 5 . 20
different beings taken individually, or does not move ,
when they are taken collectively — or moves in mov-
ing animals and does not move in stationary objects
— feels no pain, is not affected by fear that castles
sorrow, nor is injured or killed. He w\io knows the
meditation on the three kinds of food as identical
with himself, as described above, becomes the self of
all beings , becomes their vital force, their mind and
their speech, and thus, being the self of all beings,
becomes omniscient and the doer of everything as
well. This is the import. As is this • deity, Hiranya-
garbha, who attained this state first, so is he — his
omniscience or omnipotence is never thwarUfl. ‘He*
refers to the sage who is compared with the other.
Moreover, as all beings take care of or worship this
deity, Hiranyagarbha, through sacrifices etc., so do
they take care of him, one who knows as above,
constantly offer him worship consisting of sacrifices
etc.
Now a doubt arises : It has been said that he
becomes the self of all beings. Hence, being identified
with their bodies and organs, he may be affected by
their joys and sorrows. To which the answer is :
Not so, for his understanding is not limited. It is
those that identify themselves with limited objects
who are seen to be affected by sorrow when, for
instance, they are abused by anybody, thinking he
has abused them. But this sage who is the self of
all has no particular notion of identity with either
the object that is abused or the agency that abuses,
and cannot therefore be miserable on that account.
And there is no ground for sorrow as in the case of
1 . 5 . 21 ] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
239
that due to someone’s death. As when somebody
dies, a man feels miserable, thinking that .he was his
son or brother — the grief being due to this relation-
ship, and where this cause is absent, one, although
witnessing that death, is not afflicted, similarly this
divine being, who is not identified with limited things,
having no defects such as the false notions about
‘mine’ or ‘yours,’ and so on, which lead to misery, is
not affected by it.
This is being expressed : Howsoever these he -
mgs may grieve, that grief of theirs, the pain due to
that grief and the like, is connected with them, for it
is due to their identification with limited things. But
in the case of one who is the self of all, what can be
connected, or disconnected, and with what? But only
merit , that is, good results, goes to him, the sage who
is enjoying the status of Hiranyagarbha. He has done
exceedingly meritorious work ; hence only the results
of that go to him. No demerit ever goes to the gods,
for there is no scope for the results of evil actions
among them. That is, misery, which is the result
of evil actions, does not go to them.
•
Meditation on all three — the organ of speech, the
mind and the vital force — without any distinction has
been described in the passage, ‘These are all equal,
and all infinite’ (I. v. 13). No speciality attaching to
any one of these has been mentioned. Should one
understand this as it is, or upon examination may
some distinction be found in any one of these either
for the purposes of a vow or meditation ? This is be-
ing answered :
240
BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [1. 5. 21
srorat sr?nftamT; srsnqfql qraffar qrfq
g S-qUq g fo fo y>-M|Pq^fd qqq-
sqrfq q wffir q^T^ra ; ?nfq Jjeg: srcft agcq ta^ ft,
qifqwXi ^TTfqr<qT JJrg^qTq^q . qqn-sg|.W|cijq
qw, 3TT*qfq qg:, smqfq sffaqf , 3&qdq qifft-
sfoq q^qq: am: : cTTfq qiq I -m q q: sqgr
q: srq^arqqfer q sqqfl, spit q foqfq, 5?qT*qq
«q qrorcnftfq • q qq^qq gq ?sroraqq., qqn%q
q&m«q i q *5 qTTTTT ?fq ; Ffq ^ qTq
qfwf^ ¥rqfq q qq ; q q |qfqqT *qqfteg-
%pq f q , qgsg^q tqr?qqt feqq ssivarrcqn, ii r \ \\
21 . Now a consideration of the vow :
Prajapati projected the organs. These, on
being projected, quarrelled with one another.
The organ of speech took a vow, T will go on
speaking.’ The eye : ‘I will see.’ The ear :
‘I will hear.’ And so did the other organs
accordingeto their functions. Death captured
them in the form of fatigue — it overtook them,
and having overtaken them it controlled them.
Therefore the organ of speech invariably gets
tired, and so do the eve and the ear. But
death did not overtake this vital force in the
body. The organs resolved to know it.
‘This is the greatest among us that, when it
moves or does not move, feels no pain nor is
1. 5. 21] BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
241
injured. Well, let us all be of its foim.’
They all assumed its form. Therefore they
are called by this name of ‘Prana.’ That
family in which a man is born who knows as
above, is indeed named after him. And he
who competes with "one who knows as above
shrivels, and after shrivelling dies at the end.
This is with reference to the body.
Now begins a consideration of the vow or act of
meditation — among these organs whose function is to
be observed as a duty? Prajapati (Viraj), after pro-
jecting the beings, projected the organs such as that
of speech, called here ‘work/ because they are in-
struments of work. The particle ‘ha’ denotes tradi-
tion. These , on being projected , quarrelled with one
another. How? The organ of speech tdok a vow,
' I ivill go on speaking , will never stop doing my
function of speaking. If there is anybody who, like
me, can keep at his function, let him show his
strength.’ Similarly the eye : r J will see / The ear :
‘I will hear / And so did the other organs according
to their respective functions. Death, the destroyer,
captured them , the organs, in the form of fatigue .
How? It overtook them, appeared among those
organs, as they were engaged in their functions, in
the form of fatigue, and having overtaken them it,
death, controlled them, that is, stopped them from
functioning. Therefore, to this day, the organ of
speech, being engaged in its function of speaking,
invariably gets tired, ceases to function, being affect-
ed by death in the form of fatigue. And so do the
16
242 BRIHAD~4RANYAKA UPANISH 4D [1. 5. 21
eye and the ear. But death in the form of fatigue
did not overtake this vital force in the body, which
functions in the mouth. Therefore even now it
functions tirelessly. The other organs resolved to
know it. ‘ This is the greatest, foremost, among us,
because, when it moves or d<ys not move, it feels no
pain nor is injured. Well , let us now all be of its
form, identify ourselves with the vital force.’ Having
decided thus, they all assumed its form, realised the
vital force as their own self — observed the function of
the vital force as a duty, thinking their own functions
as insufficient to ward off death. Because the other
organs have the form of the vital force in so far as
they are mobile, and have tlieir own form in so far
as they perceive objects, therefore they, the organ of
speech and the rest, are called by this name of 4 Prana.*
Nothing can be mobile except the vital force. And
we observe that the functions of the organs are always
preceded by movement. That family in which a man
is born who knows as above, that all the organs are
but the vital force and are named after it, is indeed
named aftfr him by people. It is known by the name
of the sage, that it is the family of such and such,
as The line of Tapati .’ 1 This is the result accruing
to one who knows as above, that the organ of speecJi
and the rest are but forms of the vital force and are
named after it. And he who competes as a rival
with one who knows as above, with the sage who
identifies himself with the vital force, shrivels in this*
very body, and after shrivelling dies at the end, he
1 The daughter of the sun.
1 . 5 . 22 ] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISIIAD
2VS
does not die suddenly without suffering. This is
with reference to the body : Here is concluded the
subject of meditation on the vital force as identical
with oneself in so far as it relates to the body. That
relating to the gods will be next taken up.
*=T mtiruTT jparo: am:, nsfrdraf
^TdMT ^FJ: ; ^TdT:, d STFJ: ;
^idT nzm: || ^ ||
22. Now with reference to the gods :
Fire took a vow, ‘I will go on burning. ’ The
sun : ‘I will give heat.’ The moon : ‘I
will shine. ’ And so did the other gods accord-
ing to their functions. As is the vital force
in the body among these organs, so is Vavu
(air) among these gods. Other gods sink, but
not air. Air is the deity that never sets.
Now the meditation with reference to the gods
is being described. It is being decided which deity
is the best for the purpose of observing his functions
as a duty. Everything here is as in the preceding
paragraph with reference to the body. Fire took a
vow, T will go on burning / The sun : ( I will give
heat / The moon : T will shine / And so did the
other gods according to their functions. As, with
reference to the body, is the vital force in the body
among these organs, not overtaken by death, nor
stopped from functioning — remaining intact in its
244
BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [ 1 . 5 . 22
vow of functioning as the vital force, so is Vdyu (air)
among these gods such as fire. Other gods such as
fire sink, or set, cease to function, like the organ of
speech etc. in the body, but not air, like the vital
force in the body. Therefore air is the deity that
never sets. Thus it is decided after consideration
that the vow of one who identifies oneself with the
vital force with reference to the body, and with air
with reference to the gods, is unbroken.
SPOT 3
iresfa’ sttwt
srag, ** ottsi, st 3 hc’ ? % i
^ , sfiwn^-
grwrra, iNn qficjTT ; ^ g^-
prr f qqfe ^ , ^ sags?*
ii ii qsaw snspm^ n
23. Now there is this verse : ‘The gods
observed the vow of that from which the sun
rises and in which he sets. It is (followed)
to-day, and it will be (followed) to-morrow.’
The sun indeed rises from the vital force and
also sets in it. What these (gods) observed
then, they observe to this day. Therefore a
man should observe a single vow — do the func-
tions of the Prana and Apana (respiration and
excretion), lest the evil of death (fatigue)*
should overtake him. And if he observes it,
he should seek to finish it. Through it he
1. 5. 23] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
245
attains identity with this deity, or lives in the
same world with it.
Now there is this verse or Mantra that brings
out this very meaning : ‘The gods, fire and the rest,
and the organ of speech etc. (in the body), in ancient
times, after consideration observed the vow of that,
viz., air and the vital force, from which the sun rises
— externally he rises from air, and as the eye in the
body, from the vital force — and in which, air and the
vital force, he sets in the evening, and when a man
goes to sleep. It is followed by the gods to-day, now,
and it will be followed by them to-morrow, in future.
The words ‘followed by the gods* are understood.
Now the Brahinana briefly explains this Mantra : The
sun indeed rises from the vital force and also sets in
it. What is the meaning of the words,’ ‘The gods
observed the vow of that. ... It is (followed) to-
day, and it will be (followed) to-morrow 1 ? This is
being stated : What vow these gods, fire and the
rest and the organ of speech etc., observed then, that
is, the vow of air and of the vital force, they observe
to this day, and will observe unbroken. Hbt the vow
of the organ of speech etc. and of fire and the rest is
broken, for we see that at the time of setting, and
when one falls asleep, they sink in air and the vital
force respectively. As has been said elsewhere,
‘When a man sleeps, his organ of speech is merged in
the vital force, and so are the mind, the eye and the
ear. And when he awakes, these again arise from
the vital force. This is with reference to the body.
Now with reference to the gods : When fire goes
246
BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [1. 5. 23
out, it sets in air. Hence they speak of it as having
set. It indeed sets in air. And when the sun sets,
he enters air, and so does the moon ; the quarters too
rest on air. And they again arise from the air" (Sh.
X. iii. 3. 6-8). Because this one vow of air and the
vital force, consisting of vibration or movement, per-
sists in the gods such as fire and in the organ of speech
etc. — since all the gods follow it alone, therefore a
man, another person also, should observe a single
vow. What is that ? Do the functions of the Prana and
Ap&na. The functions of these two, viz., respiration
and excretion, never stop. Therefore, giving up the
functions of all other organs, he should observe this
one vow, lest the evil of death in the form of fatigue
should overtake him . ‘Lest’ denotes apprehension.
Tf I swerve from this vow, I am sure to be overtaken
by death’ — with this dread at heart he should observe
the vow of the vital force. This is the idea. And
if he observes it, does take up the vow of the vital
force, he should seek to finish it. If he desists from
this vow, the vital force and the gods would be flout-
ed. Therefore he must finish it. Through it, the
observance of this vow of identification with the vital
force, thinking, ‘The vocal and other organs in all
beings as well as fire and the other gods are but a
part and parcel of me, and I, the vital force, the self,
initiate all movement,’ he attains identity with this
deity, the vital force, 1 or lives in the same world with
it. This latter result takes place when the medita- *
tion is not up to the mark.
] Of which Hiranyagarbha is the cosmic aspect.
SECTION VI
wi stt frm «nr . ;frTRrer triP^ra^-
^ ft ggfftrr imns^rsN i
^rm, 071% SltRfjrfa: SW* ; OTT^OT HOT, 071%
^rrfoT ^rm% fiw% n ? n
i . This (universe) indeed consists of three
things : name, form and action. Of those
names, speech (sound in general) is the Uktha
(source), for all names spring from it. It is
their Saman (common feature), for it is com-
mon to all names. It is their Brahman (self),
for it sustains all names.
The differentiated universe consisting of means
and ends, which was introduced as the subject-matter
or ignorance, with its results culminating in identi-
fication with the vital force, as well as its state prior
to manifestation called the Undifferentiated, like a
tree and its seed — all this indeed consists of three
things. What are they? Name, form an d action, all
non-Self, and not the Self that is the Brahman, imme-
diate and direct. Therefore one should turn away
from it. This is the import of this section. One
whose mind is not averse to this non-Self has no in-
clination to meditate upon the Self, one’s own world,
as T am Brahman/ for the two tendencies — one going
outwards and the other devoting itself to the inner
Self — are contradictory. Compare the following from
248
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [1. 6. 1
the Ka£ha Upanishad (IV. 1) : 'The self -born Lord
injured the organs by making them outgoing in their
tendencies. Therefore they perceive only external
things, but not the inner Self. Once in a while some
steady man, desiring immortality, turns his gaze in-
wards and sees the inner Self.'
How can one establish the fact that this differen-
tiated and undifferentiated universe made up of ac-
tions, their factors and their results, consists only of
name, form and action, and is not the Self? This is
being answered : Of those names as set forth (in the
preceding portion), speech, that is, sound in general —
for it has been stated, 'And any kind of sound is but
the or^an of speech* (I. v. 3) — is the Uktha , the cause
or material of these particular names, as the salt rock
is of particles of salt. This is expressed by the text :
For all names, the differentiations such as Yajnadatta
and Devadatta, spring from it, this generality of
names, like particles of salt from the salt rock. And
an effect is not separate from its cause. Also partic-
ulars are included in the general. How does the
relation of general and particulars apply here? It,
sound in general, is their Saman, so called because of
sameness, that is, common feature. For it is common
to all names, which are its own particular forms.
Another reason is that the particular names, being
derived from it, are not different from it. And we
see that something which is derived from another is
not different from it, as a jar, for instance, is not
different from clay. How are particular names de-
rived from speech ? This is being explained : Be-
cause it, what is designated by the word 'speech/
1 . 6 . 3 ] BRIHADARANYAKA V DANISH AD
249
is their Brahman , self, for names are derived from
speech, since they have no reality apart from sound.
This is being demonstrated : For it, sound in gen-
eral, sustains or supports all names or particular
sounds by giving them reality. Thus on account of
their relation as cause and effect, and as general and
particulars, and the one giving the other reality,
particular names are proved to be just sound.
Similarly in the next two paragraphs all this is to be
applied as here set forth.
aw smm f ^ ft
m, srarfrr irii
2. Now of forms the eye (anything
visible) is the Uktha (source), for all forms
spring from it. It is their Saman (common
feature), for it is common to all forms. It is
their Brahman (self), for it sustains all forms.
Now of forms, white, black, etc., the eye, that
is, anything that is perceptible to the eye, form in
general, or whatever is visible, which is ftere denoted
by the word ‘eye,* (is the Uktha). For all forms
spring from it. It is their Sdman, for it is common
to all forms. It is their Brahman, for it sustains all
forms .
aw araf % srarffa
awiJugRivsfci ; wjt,
snp*.; u.a%q f m, ■wfe q ra i fi r aw fr fa r fsrofi 5
250
BR1HA DARANYAKA VPANISHAD fl. 6. 3
, sn^ ?tt
w*&{, rTiwnrnr smr^r: ii^ii ^snsron. 11
sroiitewra: ii
3. And of actions the body (activity) is
the Uktha (source), for all actions spring from
it. It is their Saman (common feature),, for
it is common to all actions. It is their Brah-
man (self), for it sustains all actions. These
three together are one — this body, and the
body, although one, is these three. This im-
mortal entity is covered by truth (the five
elements) : The vital force is the immortal
entity, and name and form are truth ; (so) thik
vital force is covered by them.
Now all particular actions consisting of thought
and perception as well as movement are being sum-
med up in activity in general. How ? Of all partic-
ular actions the body, that is, activity in general,
is the Uktha . The activity of the body is here called
the ‘body/* for it has been stated that one works
through the body. And all activity is manifested in
the body. Hence action or activity in general,
having its seat in the body, is designated by the
word ‘body.’ The rest is to be explained as before.
These three, viz., name, form and action described
above, combining together, being the support of one
another and the cause of one another’s manifesta-
tion, and merging in one another, like three sticks
supporting one another, are one. In what form, are
1 . 6 . 3 ] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
251
they unified? This is being* stated : This body , this
aggregate of body and organs. This has been ex-
plained under the three kinds of food, ‘This body
is identified with these/ etc. (I. v. 3). The whole
differentiated and undifferentiated universe is this
much — consists of name, form and action. And the
body , although one , viz., this aggregate of body and
organs, yet existing in different forms in its aspects
relating to the body, the elements and the gods, is
these three , name, form and action. This immortal
entity , presently to be mentioned, is covered by truth.
This sentence is being explained : The vital force,
which is of the nature of an organ, which supports
the body from within, and is (a limiting adjunct of)
the Self, is the immortal entity. And name and
form, represented, by the body, which is an effect,
are truth. (So) this vital force, which is active and
supports name and form, is covered or hidden (by
them), which are external, made up of the body,
subject to origin and destruction, and mortal. Thus
the nature of the relative universe, which is the
subject-matter of ignorance, has been pointed out.
After this the Self, which is the subject-matter of
knowledge, has to be studied. Hence the second
chapter is being commenced.
CHAPTER II
SECTION I
'The Self alone is to be' meditated upon* (I. iv.
7) ; to search after It is to search after everything ;
and that Self, being dearer than everything else, is
to be searched after. The passage, 'It knew only
Itself as, "I am Brahman” * (I. iv. 10), shows that the
Self alone is the subject-matter of knowledge. And
what is concerned with seeing differences, is the
subject-matter of ignorance, as indicated in the
passage, ‘(He who worships another god thinking),
"He is one, and I am another,” does not know*
(Ibid.). 'It should be realised in one form only*
(IV. iv. 20), 'He goes from death to death who sees
difference, as it were, in It* (IV. iv. 19 ; Ka. IV. 10)
— in such passages as these all the Upanishads
differentiate the subject-matter of knowledge from
that of ignorance.
Of the^t the whole subject-matter of ignorance
has been explained up to the end of the first chapter,
by assigning the differences regarding ends and means
to their respective places. And that entire subject-
matter of ignorance which has been so explained is
of two kinds : Internally it is the vital force, the
sustainer and illuminer, and immortal — comparable to
the posts etc. of a house. Externally it is denoted by
the word 'truth,* which is an effect, non-luminous,
subject to birth and death, and mortal — correspond-
2. 1. 1] BRIHADARANYAKA UfANlSHAD 253
ing to the straw, Kusha grass and earth in a bouse.
'By that is the vital force (denoted by the word 'im-
mortality') covered' — thus it has been concluded. And
that same vital force has various ramifications accord-
ing to the different external media through which it
manifests itself. ] It is said that the vital force is one
god. Its one common external body, with the sun
etc. as its different parts, is variously designated by
such terms denoting the body as Viraj, Vaishwanara,
the self of a human form, Prajapati, Ka and Hiranya-
garbha. To think that Brahman, one and manifold,
is this much only, that there is nothing more than
this, and that he is completely limited by each body,
conscious, the agent and experiencer, has obvious ref-
erence to the subject-matter of ignorance .J A Br£th-
mana named Gargya who has accepted this (condi-
tioned) Brahman as his self, is put forward as the
speaker ; while Ajatashatru, who believes in the
opposite kind of Brahman as his self, is the listener.
This method is adopted because if a subject is
presented in the form of a story comprising a prima
facie view and a conclusion, it is easily understood
by the listener. If, on the contrary, it # is presented
only through sentences that convey the bare mean-
ing, as in the case of logic, it is very difficult to un-
derstand, because the truth is highly abstruse. As
has been elaborately shown in the Ka£ha Upani-
shad, in such passages as, 'That which is rare for
many even to hear of,' etc. (II. 7), that Brahman is
intelligible only to a highly purified divine intellect
and unintelligible to an ordinary intellect. So also in
the Chhandogya Upanishad, 'He only knows who
254
BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [ 2 . 1 . 1
has got a teacher* (VI. xiv. 2], and ‘Knowledge re-
ceived from the teacher alone (is best)* (Chh. IV. ix.
3). And in the Gita, ‘Sages who have realised the
truth will instruct you in knowledge* (IV. 34). Here
too the great abstruseness of Brahman will be set
forth in elaborate detail in the conversation between
Shakalya and Yajnavalkya. ' Hence the attempt to
present the truth in the form of a story comprising
a prim a facie view and a conclusion is quite reason-
able.
Moreover the story is meant to teach rules of
conduct. If the teacher and the student be such and
such, then the import underlying the story is under-
stood. The story also forbids the use of mere argu-
mentation, as given out in the following Shruti and
Smriti passages, ‘This understanding is not to be at-
tained through argument* (Ka. II. 9), and ‘To one
who has been burnt by logic-chopping (this instruc-
tion is) not (to be given)* (Mbh. XII. eclii. 18).
That faith is a great factor in the realisation of Brah-
man is another implication of the story, because in
the story Gargya and Ajatashatru are seen to have
great faith.* ‘One who has faith attains knowledge,*
also says the Smriti (G. IV. 39).
& i gaqia i fe>{gi^u ?ft srra, e 5hrr-
q ra ra gra agi ^ asntrftfa 5 e fNrarara-
gifg 3SJ:, 3R5R* 3FW> ffa #
3RT vrereftfe II ^ II
1. Om. There was a man of the Garga
family called Proud Balaki, who was a
2. 1. 1] BR1HADARANYAKA U VANISH AD
255
speaker. He said to Ajatashatru, the King
of Benares, ‘I will tell you about Brahman.’
Ajatashatru said, ‘For this proposal I give you
a thousand (cows). People indeed rush sav-
ing, “Janaka, Janaka.” (I too have some of
his qualities.)’
liter c was at some past date a man holding the
prima facie view and knowing only the conditioned
Brahman which is the subject-matter of ignorance,
of the Garga family, descended from Garga, called
Proud Balaki. ‘Proud/ because of his very ig-
norance about the real Brahman. ‘Balaki’ — the son
of Balaka. The particle ‘ha’ refers to tradition as set
forth in the story. Who was a speaker, one skilled
in expounding, eloquent. He said to Ajatashatru, the
King of Benares, after approaching him,’ ( I will tell
you about Brahman / Thus accosted, Ajatashatru
said, ( For this proposal that you have made to me
I gi'vo you a thousand cows.’ The idea is, that little
statement is the reason for the gift of a thousand
cows. Why is the instruction about Brahman itself
not made the reason for this gift, instead of the mere
proposal about it ? Because the Shruti itself sets
forth the King’s intention. The two sentences,
‘Janaka is benevolent/ and ‘Janaka loves to hear,’
have been condensed into the two words ‘ Janaka ,
Janaka / Indeed signifies a well-known fact. The
King means: Janaka is benevolent, and he likes to
hear about Brahman ; so people who want to hear
or speak about Brahman or want some present rush
256
BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
[ 2 . 1 . 2
to him. Therefore (by your proposal) you have given
me too a chance to demonstrate all those qualities.
si stars ndrow i fofl pgr qafoni
aplsra 5 sr gte raT s r rag i g :, m
®r%5T: st^tt »j?TRt gvrf snrfsr sit ar^a-
g«nsT T[^r 5 sr *r *t£rt ajjrrci
srar vrarfsi n ^ ||
2 . Gargya said, ‘That being who is in
the sun, I meditate upon as Brahman/ Ajata-
shatru said, ‘Please don't talk about him. I
meditate upon him as all-surpassing, as the
head of all beings and as resplendent.' He
who meditates upon him as such becomes all-
surpassing, the head of all beings and resplen-
dent.
When the King was thus eager to listen and
turned towards him, Gdrgya said, 'The being who
identifies himself both with the sun and the eye, and
who having entered the body through the eye resides
in the heart as the ego, the experiencer and agent —
that being V meditate or look upon as Brahman in
this aggregate of body and organs. Therefore I ask
you to meditate upon that being as Brahman/ Thus
addressed, Ajdtashatru replied stopping him by a ges-
ture of the hand, ' Please don't talk about hint, this
Brahman, as something to be known/ The repeti-
tion of the negative particle is for stopping further
speech. ‘When both of us know the same Brahman,
you insult me by trying to make me out as ignorant.
Hence please don’t discuss this Brahman. If you
2. 1. 3] BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
257
know of any other Brahman, you should tell me of
that, and not of what I already know. If, however,
you think that I know only Brahman, but not his
particular attributes nor the results of meditating upon
them, please don’t think so, for I know all that you
speak of. How? All-surpassing , who exists sur-
passing all beings ; also the head of all beings ; and
resplendent , being endowed with resplendence. I
meditate upon the Brahman with these attributes as
the agent and experiencer in this aggregate of body
and organs.’ And one who meditates upon such con-
ditioned Brahman obtains results accordingly. He
who meditates upon him as such becomes all-surpass-
ing, the head of all beings and resplendent, for the
results must correspond with the particular attributes
meditated upon. As the Shruti says, ‘One becomes
exactly as one meditates upon Him’ (Sh. X*. v. 2. 20).
e ftara q qqrcft jpq qafcqit
f^ST:, ! j^ q!Ti g< qi ^ T: qT SHgfogqTCI
qrere q grtaH ti * 11
3. Gargya said, ‘That being who is in the
moon, I meditate upon as Brahman.’ Ajata-
shatru said, ‘Please don’t talk about him. I
meditate upon him as the great, white-robed,
radiant Soma.’ 1 He who meditates upon him
1 The word means the moon as well as a famous creeper
of ancient India which together with its juice was indis-
pensable to sacrifices.
17
258
BRIHAD4RANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
[ 2 . 1 . 3
as such has abundant Soma pressed in his
principal and auxiliary sacrifices every day,
and his food never gets short.
When Ajatashatru in the course of the dialogue
refuted the presentation of the sun as Brahman,
Gargya put forward another, viz., the presentation
of the moon as Brahman. That being who is in the
moon and also in the mind as the experiencer and
agent — all this is as in the previous paragraph. His
attributes are : Great in size ; white-robed , because
the vital force (which identifies itself with the moon)
has an aqueous body ; and radiant Soma . Consider-
ing the moon and the drink-yielding creeper Soma
that is pressed in sacrifices to be one, I meditate upon
that as Brahman. * He who meditates upon Brahman
as such , with the above-mentioned attributes, has
abundant Soma pressed in his principal sacrifices and
all the more in his auxiliary sacrifices every day.
That is, he has the means of performing both kinds
of sacrifice. And his food never gets short, because
he meditates upon Brahman as consisting of food.
i
asfarei % fa ; sr m
ltap?ftfa stt ?i fa ; ? qafo-
shit
srefa II M II
4. Gargya said, ‘That being who is in
* lightning. I meditate upon as Brahman.’
2. 1. 5] BRIHADARANYAKA UP^ANISHAD 259
Ajatashatru said, ‘ Please don't talk about him.
I meditate upon him as powerful.' He who
meditates upon him as such becomes powerful,
and his progeny too becomes powerful.
Likewise there is one god in lightning , the skin
and the heart. Powerful is the attribute. The result
of this meditation is that he becomes powerful , and
his progeny too becomes powerful. Because light-
ning may be of diverse forms, the result of the
meditation reaches his progeny as well as himself.
fr ffcrra mrci:, *r qsremrera * qa fcug
asTiqra sfa ; jtt
f^T:, tjrorsEra’ffs m « ij
ST5WT fTT^TWr^FT-
|| ^ ||
5. Gargya said, ‘This being who is in the
ether, I meditate upon as Brahman.' Ajata-
shatru said, ‘Please don't talk about him. I
meditate upon him as full and unmoving.'
He who meditates upon him as sucli is filled
with progeny and cattle, and his progeny is
never extinct from this world.
Likewise there is one god in the ether , in the
ether enclosed by the heart and in the heart. Full
and unmoving are the two attributes. The result of
meditation on Brahman with the attribute of fullness
is that he is filled with progeny and cattle, while
that of meditation on the attribute of immobility is
260
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 2 . 1 . 5
that his progeny is never extinct from this world —
the continuity of his line.
ffa ; 5? staranrrasi*:, jtt fafareta-
%T:, IrXt %^-SqTTfa c n qT Sl^cigqm
tfa 5 5r q a ftq gqre i
11 ^ 11
6. Gargya said, ‘This being who is in air,
I meditate upon as Brahman.' Ajatashatru
said, ‘Please don't talk about him. I medi-
tate upon him as the Tord, as irresistible, and
as the unvanquished army.' He who medi-
tates upon him as such ever becomes victori-
ous and invincible, and conquers his enemies.
Likewise there is one god in air , the vital force
and the heart. The Lord, irresistible and the un-
vanquished army f one that has never been defeated by
enemies, are the attributes. ‘Army/ because the
Maruts (the air-gods) are known to be a group. And
the result of the meditation is that he ever becomes
victorious and invincible by enemies, and conquers
his enemies .
*TF*T:, q $5*
asitaw *f?j . 5r ^Nrra re tm g rg:, in ftdfwwr-
%t:, qx ; 5T «w-
fqqroftt shit
* vraft ii « ii
2 . 1 . 8 ] BRIHADARANYAKA UP/IN1SHAD 261
7. Gargya said, ‘This being who is in
fire, I meditate upon as Brahman.’ Ajata-
shatru said, ‘Please don’t talk about him. 1
meditate upon him as forbearing.’ He who
meditates upon him as such becomes forbear-
ing, and his progeny too becomes forbearing.
There is one god in fire, speech and the heart.
Forbearing, tolerant of others, is the attribute. As
fire has many forms, the result includes the progeny,
as before.
sstara i si iNMMimi*:, m Staforssfa-
%t:, 5tt srg ft ag qw ffa ; sr v na
IK ||
8. Gargya said, ‘This being who is in
water, I meditate upon as Brahman.’ Ajata-
shatru said, ‘Please don’t talk about him. I
meditate upon him as agreeable.’ He who
meditates upon him as such has only agree-
able things coming to him, and not contrary
ones ; also from him are born children who
are agreeable.
There is one god in water, the seed and the heart.
Agreeable, that is, not contrary to the Shrutis and
Smritis, is his attribute. The result is that only
agreeable things, those in accordance with the injunc-
tions of the Shrutis and Smritis, come to him, nof
262
RR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [2. 1. 8
adverse ones. Another result is that from him are
born children U'ho are such (that is, obeying the
scriptures) .
sNrra m4:, qafeng
asrtara sfa , & ftararsrrasnj:, m
sTffrenjqrer sfer ; si *r
fogqr^ hstt vraft,
3ml $: qr^ fe a w f ercM l ii ^ ii
9. Gargya said, ‘This being who is in a
looking-glass, I meditate upon as Brahman/
Ajatashatru said, ‘Please don’t talk about him.
I meditate upon him as shining/ He who
meditates upon him as such becomes shining,
and his progeny too becomes shining. He
also outshines all those with whom he conies
in contact.
There is one god in a looking-glass and in other
reflecting objects such as a sword, and in the intel-
lect, whiclv is pure of material. Shining , naturally
bright, is the attribute. The result of the medita-
tion is likewise. The progeny is included in the
result, because there are many shining objects.
si sNrra «? 3 t ^
aJtens ' agr tq re r ; sr m fo-
yia f gg iqfr 3lfT% U II
2. 1. 11] BR1HA DARANYAKA VTAN1SHAD
263
10. Gargya said, ‘This sound that
issues behind a man as he walks, I meditate
upon as Brahman.’ Ajatashatru said, ‘Please
don’t talk about him. I meditate upon him
as life.’ He who meditates upon him as such
attains his full term of life in this world, and
life does not depart from him before the com-
pletion of that term.
Considering the sound that issues behind a man
as he 7valks and the vital force which is the cause of
life in this body to be one, he says, ‘ This sound / etc.
Life is the attribute. The result of the meditation is
that he attains his full term of life in this world, as
acquired through his past work, and even though
troubled by disease, life does not depart from him
before the completioyi of that term, measured by that
past work.
sr hf&, V q a fc ri f
%jr:, fscfirarsJNir aT ffa ; *r
qaiNgms?* fgrfmra. ? *rqf?r,
« K\ II
11. Gargya said, ‘Tliis being who is in
the quarters, I meditate upon as Brahman.’
Ajatashatru said, ‘Please don’t talk about him,
I meditate upon him as second and as non-
separating. He who meditates upon him as
such gets companions, and his followers never
depart from him.
264
BRIHAD 4 RANYAKI UPAN1SHAD [2. 1. 11
There is one god in the quarters, the ears and
the heart, viz., the Ash wins, the twin-gods who are
neyer separated from each other. His attributes
are : being attended with a companion and not being
separated from one another, the quarters and the
Ash wins having these characteristics. And the man
who meditates upon this gets that as a result, viz.,
being attended by companions and not being deserted
by his followers.
agitara ; sr sfararam’rcrj:, m fofsiFsfa-
qr 3i^?njqT*T ?f?r ; st q qsN 1 -
nq 1 tqT fc ff gta go sft55t-
12. Gargya said, ‘This being who identi-
fies himself with the shadow, I meditate upon
as Brahman.’ Ajatashatru said, ‘Please
don’t talk about him. I meditate upon him
as death.’ He who meditates upon him as
such attains his full term of life in this world,
and death does not overtake him before the
completion of that term.
There is one god m the shadow or external dark-
ness, internally in ignorance, which is a veil, and in
the heart. His attribute is death. The result of the
meditation is as before, the only difference being
that in the absence of premature death he is free
from suffering due to disease etc.
st fNrra mrch, ? gsq qafcng
2 . 1 14 ] BRIHADARANYAKA V DANISH AD
265
smrtara ; gtararerapg *:, m Stafeqysfa-
%t:, 3TTcw^ft% ; sr q qcifo-
gq i ^ s f renwft 5 ^rrctrfNrjft stsit
^ 5 *TF& || ||
13. Gargya said, ‘This being who is in
the self, I meditate upon as Brahman/
Ajatashatru said, ‘Please don’t talk about him,
I meditate upon him as self-possessed/ He
who meditates upon him as such becomes self-
possessed, and his progeny too becomes self-
possessed. Gargya remained silent.
There is one god in the self or Hiranyagarbha, in
the intellect and the heart. His attribute is self-
possessed. The result of the meditation is that he
becomes self-possessed, and his progeny too becomes
self-possessed. It should be noted that since the in-
tellect is different according to each individual, the
result is extended to the progeny also. When his
conceptions of Brahman were thus rejected one by one
owing to the King’s having already known them,
Gdrgya, with his knowledge of Brahman exhausted,
had nothing more to say in reply and remained silent,
with his head bent down.
ST sNHMiag l g :, :
11 w 11
14. Ajatashatru said, ‘Is this all?’
‘This is all.’ ‘By knowing this much one
266 miHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [ 2 . 1 . 14
cannot know (Brahman ). 9 Gargya said, ‘I
approach you as a student. ,
Seeing Gargya in that state Ajatashatru said , *Is
this all the knowledge of Brahman that you have ?
Or is there anything else?’ The other said, ' This is
all. 9 Ajatashatru said, 'By knowing this much one
cannot claim to know Brahman. Why then did you
proudly say you would teach me about Brahman ?'
Objection : Does it mean that this much knowl-
edge amounts to nothing ?
Reply : No, for the Shruti describes meditations
with particular results. Those passages cannot cer-
tainly be construed as mere eulogy. For wherever a
meditation has been set forth, we find phrases con-
veying original injunctions, as, for instance, ‘ All-
surpassing, (the head) of all beings' (II. i. 2). And
corresponding results are everywhere distinctly men-
tioned. This would be inconsistent were the passages
merely eulogistic.
Objection : Why then was it said, ‘By knowing
this much one cannot know (Brahman) ?'
Reply .* There is liothing wrong in it. It has a
relation to the capacity of the aspirant. Gargya,
who knew 7 only the conditioned Brahman, proceeded
to teach Ajatashatru, who was the listener, about
Brahman. Therefore the latter, who knew 7 the un-
conditioned Brahman, w T as right in saying to Gargya,
‘You do not know the true or unconditioned Brah-
man that you proceeded to teach me about.' If he
wanted to refute Gargya’s knowledge of the condi-
tioned Brahman too, he would not say, ‘By knowing
2 . 1 . 15 ] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
267
this much * ; he would simply say, ‘You know no-
thing. ’ Therefore we admit that in the sphere of
ignorance there are all these phases of Brahman.
Another reason for saying, ‘By knowing this much
one cannot know (Brahman)/ is that this knowledge
of the conditioned Brahman leads to that of the
Supreme Brahman. That these phases of Brahman
consist of name, form and action and have to be
known in the sphere of ignorance, has been shown
in the first chapter. Therefore the statement, ‘By
knowing this much one cannot know (Brahman)/ im-
plies that there is some other phase of Brahman
which should be known, (iargya, being versed in
the code of conduct, knew that that knowledge must
not be imparted to one who was not a regular student.
So he himself said, "7 approach you as would any
other student approach his teacher.’
asi ft sRpwtfa, c?TT w'Mfawurftfai ;
srmfiisranfqraaE , f^c. qn^snsr: srtor/Tsrfafa 5
sr w tr reft , ?f mfruTTSS^i sfNrqfgqns, sr
fterssft ll n
15. Ajatashatru said, ‘It is contrary to
usage that a Brahmana should approach a
Kshatriya thinking, “He will teach me about
Brahman.” However I will instruct you.’
Taking Gargya by the hand he rose. They
came to a sleeping man. (Ajatashatru) ad-
268 BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [2. 1. 15
dressed him by these names, ‘Great, White-
robed, Radiant, Soma.’ The man did not get
up. ' (The King) pushed him till he awoke.
Then he got up.
Ajdtashatru said : It is contrary to usage — what
is so? — that a Brdhmana , who comes of a superior
caste qualified to be a teacher, should approach a
Kshatriya , who is by custom not a teacher, in the
role of a student, with a view to receiving instruction
from him about Brahman. This is forbidden in the
scriptures laying down rules of conduct. Therefore
remain as a teacher ; I will anyway instruct you
about the true Brahman which should be known,
knowing which one can claim to have a knowledge of
Brahman. Seeing Gargya abashed, in order to set
him at ease, he took him by the hand and rose. They,
Gargya and Ajatashatru, came to a man who was
asleep in a certain part of the palace. Coming to him
he addressed the sleeping man by these names,
‘Great, White-robed, Radiant, Soma / Even though
thus addressed, the sleeping man did not get up.
Finding he#did not awake, (the King) pushed him till
he awoke. Then he got up. From this it was
evident that the being whom Gargya wanted to
convey was not Brahman, the agent and experiencer
in this body.
Objection : How do you know that the act of
going to the sleeping man, calling him and his not
getting up indicate that the Brahman advocated by
G&rgya is not (the true) Brahman ?
Reply : In the waking state, as^ the being whom
2. 1. 15] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 269
Gargya put forward as Brahman, the agent and ex-
perience^ is in touch with the organs, so is the being
put forward by Ajatashatru — who is the master of the
other being — in touch with them, as a king is with
his servants. But the grounds of differentiation
between the two beings put forward by G&rgya and
Ajatashatru, that stand in the relation of servant and
master respectively, cannot be ascertained, because
they are then mixed up. That is to say, the expe-
riencer is the seer or subject, and not an object,
and that which is not the experiencer is an object,
and not the subject ; but these two, being mixed up
in the waking state, cannot be shown separately.
Hence their going to a sleeping man.
Objection : Even in the sleeping man there is
nothing to determine that when addressed by special
names, only the experiencer will perceivk, and not
the non-experiencer.
Reply : Not so, for the characteristics of the
being whom Gargya means are well-defined. That
vital force which is covered by Truth* (name and
form constituting the gross body), which is the self
(the subtle body) and immortal, which cfbes not set
when the organs have set (are inactive), whose body
is water, which is white-robed, great, being with-
out a rival, and is the radiant Soma consisting of
sixteen digits — that vital force remains just as it is
known to be, doing its function, with its (active)
nature intact. Nor does Gargya mean that any other
agency contrary to the vital force is active at that
time. Hence it should know when called by its own
names ; but it did not. Therefore by the principle
270
BRIHADAgANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
[ 2 . 1 . 15
of the residuum the Brahman meant by Gargya is
proved not to be the experiencer.
If the Brahman meant by Gargya were the ex-
periencer by its very nature, it would perceive objects
whenever it came in contact with them. For instance,
fire, whose nature it is to burn and illumine, must
always burn any combustible it gets, such as straw
or tender grass, and also illumine things. If it does
not, we cannot assert that fire burns or illumines.
Likewise, if the vital force advocated by Gargya were
by nature such that it would perceive sound and
other objects that came within its range, it would
perceive the words ‘Great, White-robed,’ etc., which
are appropriate objects for it ; just as fire invariably
burns and illumines straw, tender grass, etc., that
come in contact with it. Therefore, since it did not
perceive sound etc. coming within its range, we
conclude that it is not by nature an experiencer ;
for a thing can never change its nature. Therefore
it is conclusively proved that the vital force is not
the experiencer.
Objection : May not the non-perception be due
to its failure to associate the particular names by
which it was addressed with itself ? It may be like
this : As when one out of a number of persons
sitting together is addressed, he may hear, but may
not particularly understand that it is lie who is being
called, because of his failure to associate his partic-
ular name with himself, similarly the vital force
does not perceive the words addressed to it, because
it fails to understand that the names such as ‘Great*
2. 1. 15] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
271
are its own and to associate them with itself, and
not because it is other than the knower.
Reply : Not so, for when the vital force is ad-
mitted to be a deity, the non-association in question
is impossible. In other words, one who admits that
the deity identifying himself with the moon etc. is
the vital force in the body, and is the experiencer
(self), must also admit, for the sake of intercourse
with him, that he associates himself with his partic-
ular names. Otherwise no intercourse with him
will be possible in the acts of invocation etc.
Objection : The objection is not proper, since
according to the view that makes the experiencer
(self) other than the vital force, there is a similar
non-perception. In other words, one who posits a
different experiencer from the vital force must admit
that it too, when called by such names' as ‘Great/
should hear them, because those names then apply
to it. But we never see it do this when called by
those names. Therefore the fact that the vital force
fails to hear the call, is no proof that it is not the
experiencer.
Reply : Not so, for that which possesses some-
thing as a part of it cannot identify itself with only
that much. According to the view that holds the
experiencer to be other than the vital force, the
latter is one of its instruments, and it is the possess-
or of them. It does not identify itself with only
the deity of the vital force, as one does not with
one’s hand. Therefore it is quite reasonable that
the experiencer, identifying itself with the whole,
does not hear when addressed by the names of the
272 BR1HA DA RA NY AKA UPAN1SHAD [2. 1. 15
vital force. Not so, however, with the latter when
it is addressed by its special names. Besides, the
self does not identify itself with just a deity.
Objection : Such a view is untenable, because
we sometimes see that the self does not hear even
when called by its own name. For instance, when
a man is fast asleep, he docs not sometimes hear
even when called by his conventional name, say
Devadatta. Similarly the vital force, although it is
the experiencer, does not hear.
Reply : Not so, for there is this difference be-
tween the self and the vital force that the former
sleeps, but the latter does not. When the self is
asleep, its organs do not function, being absorbed
in the vital force. So it does not hear even when
its own name is called. But if the vital force were
the experiencer, its organs should never cease to
function, nor should it fail to hear the call, since it
is ever awake.
Objection : It was not proper to call it by its
unfamiliar names. There are many familiar names
denoting the vital force, such as Prana. Leaving
them aside, ^ to call it by unfamiliar names such as
'Great* was not proper, for it is against convention.
Therefore we maintain that although it failed to
hear, the vital force is the experiencer.
Reply : No, for the purpose of using those un-
familiar names was to refute the contention that the
*
deity of the moon is the experiencer. To be explic-
it : That the vital force which is in this body and
ever awake is not the experiencer, has already been
proved simply by its failure to hear the call. But
2. 1. 15] BRIHADARANYAKA UPAftlSHAD
273
names denoting the deity of the moon were addressed
to it to disprove Gargya’s contention that the vital
force, which is the same as the deity of the moon,
is the experiencer in this body. This purpose could
not be served if the vital force w^ere addressed by
its popular names. By the refutation of the vital
force the contention that any other organ is the ex-
periencer is also refuted, because no organ can func-
tion at that time, all being absorbed in the vital
force. (And no other deity can be the experiencer),
for there is no such deity.
Objection : There is, for a number of gods
wfith particular attributes have been mentioned in
the portion beginning with ‘All-surpassing’ and
ending with ‘Self-possessed.’
Reply : Not so., for all the Shrutis admit them
to be unified in the vital force, as in the illustration
of the spokes and nave. Moreover in the passages,
‘Covered by truth’ (I. vi. 3), and ‘The vital force is
the immortal entity’ (Ibid.), no other experiencer
besides the vital force is admitted. 1 Also, in the
passages, ‘This indeed is all the gods’ (I. iv. 6), and
‘Which is that one god ? The vital force* (III. ix.
9), all the gods have been showm to be unified in
the vital force.
Similarly none of the organs can be put forward
as the experiencer ; for in that case it would be
impossible to connect memory, perception, wish,
etc., in the same subject. What one person has
seen another cannot recollect, cr perceive, or wish,
1 In the position taken by Gargya.
18
274 BRJHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [2. 1. 15
or recognise. Therefore none of the organs can
by any means be the experiencer. Nor can mere
(momentary) consciousness 1 be such.
Objection : Why not take the body itself to be
the experiencer, why imagine something over and
above it ?
Reply : That cannot be, for we notice a dif-
ference made by the pushing. If this aggregate of
body and organs were the experiencer, then, since
this aggregate ever remains the same, pushing or
not pushing would not make any difference as re-
gards awaking. If, however, something other than
the body were the experiencer, then, since it has
different kinds of relation to the body, and may
presumably get pleasure, pain or stupor as the varied
result of its past actions, according as they were
good, indifferent or bad, there would naturally be
a difference in the perception due to pushing or not
pushing. But were the body itself the experiencer,
there should not be any difference, since differences
concerning relation and the result of past actions
would be tf out of place in that case. Nor should
there be any difference due to the strength or feeble-
ness of the sound, touch, etc. But there is this
difference, since Ajatashatru roused the sleeping
man, whom a mere touch could not awaken, by
repeatedly pushing him with the hand. There-
fore it is proved that that which awoke through
pushing — blazing forth, as it were, flashing, as it
1 Without an abiding substratum : the view of the
Yog&ch&ra school of Buddhism.
2 . 1 . 15 ] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
275
were, and come from somewhere, as it were, render-
ing the body different from what it was, endowing
it with consciousness, activity, a different look, etc.
— is an entity other than the body and different from
the types of Brahman advocated by Gargya.
Moreover the vital force, being a compound,
must be for the benefit of some other entity. We
have already said that it, like the post etc. of a house,
is the internal supporter of the body and is combined
with the body etc. It is also as a felloe is to the
spokes. And in it, which is comparable to a nave,
everything is fixed. Therefore we understand that
like a house etc. it has been compounded for the
benefit of some entity categorically different from its
parts as also the aggregate. We see that the
parts of a house such as posts, walls, straw and
wood, as also the house itself, subserve the purpose
of a person who sees, hears, thinks and knows them,
and whose existence and manifestation are independ-
ent of the birth, growth, decay, death, name, form,
effect and other attributes of those things. From
this we infer that the parts of the vital for^e etc. as
also the aggregates must subserve the purpose of
some entity that sees, hears, thinks and knows them,
and whose existence and manifestation are independ-
ent of the birth, growth, etc., of those things.
Objection : But since the deity (called the vital
force) is conscious, it is equal in status (to the self) ;
so how can it be subordinate (to the other) ? That
the vital force is conscious has already been admitted
when we see it addressed by particular names. And
270
BRIHAIURANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
[2. 1. iS
since it is conscious, it cannot subserve the purpose
of another, for it is equal in status.
Reply : Not so, for the instruction that is sought
to be conveyed is about the unconditioned, absolute
Brahman. That the self identifies itself with action,
its factors and its results, is due to the limitations of
name and form and is superimposed by ignorance.
It is this that causes people to come under relative
existence, consisting in their identification with ac-
tion and the rest. This has to be removed by a
knowledge of the real nature of the unconditioned
Self. Hence to teach about that this Upanishad (from
this chapter) has been begun. For instance, it opens
with, T will tell you about Brahman’ (II. i. 1), and
‘By knowing this much one cannot know (Brahman)’
(II. i. 14) and concludes with, ‘This much indeed is
(the means of) immortality, my dear’ (IV. v. 15).
And nothing else is either meant to be taught or
expressed in between. Therefore there is no scope
for the objection that one cannot be subordinate to
the other, being equal in status.
The delation of principal and subordinate is only
for the dealings of the differentiated or conditioned
Brahman, and not the opposite One ; whereas the
whole Upanishad seeks to teach about the uncondi-
tioned Brahman, for it concludes with, ‘This (self)
is That which has been described as “Not this, not
this,” ’ etc. (III. ix. 26 ; IV. ii. 4 ; IV. iv. 22 ; IV. .
v. 15). Therefore it is proved that there is a con-
scious Brahman other than and different from these
types of unconscious Brahman.
2. 1. 16] BRJHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 277
* jki* wmrar., ^ ^ w fc*R-
jr: 3^;, «wm fs[f 3 ; 33 5 3
^ *TF& H \% ||
16. Ajatashatru said, ‘When this being
full of consciousness (identified with the mind)
was thus asleep, where was it, and whence did
it thus come?’ Gargya did not know that.
Having thus proved the existence of the self
other than the body, Ajatashatru said to Gargya,
f When this being full of consciousness was thus
asleep , before being roused by pushing/ etc. 'Con-
sciousness * here means the instrument of knowledge,
that is, the mind, or more specifically, the intellect.
What then does the phrase 'full of consciousness’
mean? It means, ‘Which is perceived in* the intel-
lect, which is perceived through it, and which per-
ceives through it/
Objection : When the suffix 'mayat' has so many
meanings, how do you know that it means ‘full of’ ?
Reply : Because in such passages as, ‘This .self
is indeed Brahman, as well as identified* with the
intellect, the Manas’ (IV. iv. 5), we see the suffix
used in the sense of fullness. Besides, the self is
never known to be a . modification of the conscious-
ness that is the Supreme Self. Again, in the passage,
'This being full of consciousness/ etc., the self is
mentioned as something already familiar. And last-
ly, the meanings, 'made of’ and ‘resembling/ are
here impossible. Hence on the principle of the resid-
uum the meaning is fullness only. Therefore the
276 BR1HAD.4RANYAKA VPANISHAD [ 2 . 1 . 16
f
phrase means, identified with the Manas, which con-
siders the pros and cons of a subject and does other
functions/ 'Being' (Purusha), because it dwells in
the intellect as in a city. The question, 'Where was
it then V is intended to teach the nature of the self.
By a reference to the absence of effects before awak-
ing, it is intended to show that the self is of a nature
opposed to action, its factors and its results. Before
awaking (in profound sleep) it perceives nothing what-
soever like pleasure and so forth, which are the effects
of past work. Therefore, not being caused by past
work, we understand that that is the very nature of
the self. In order to teach that the ‘self was then in
its nature, and that only when it deviates from it, it
becomes— contrary to its nature — subject to trans-
s migration, Ajatashatru asks G&rgya, who was abash-
ed, with a view to enlightening him on the point.
These two questions, ‘Whefe was it then V and
' Whence did it thus come ? f should have been asked
by Gargya. But simply because he does not ask
them, Ajatashatru does not remain indifferent. He
proceeds y> explain them, thinking that Gargya must
be instructed, for he himself has promised, 'I will
instruct you/ Although thus enlightened, Gargya
did not understand where the self was before awaking
and whence it came the way it did, either to tell or
ask about them. He did not know that.
jw: mtJTRT
2. 1. 17] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 279
♦ *
5rm • «^r nun*
sn% ^cf srtai^, sjgfcf
*R: ii ^ ii
17. Ajatashatru said, ‘When this being
full of consciousness is thus asleep, it absorbs
at the time the functions of the organs through
its own consciousness, and lies in the Akasha
(Supreme Self) that is in the heart. When
this being absorbs them, it is called Swapiti.
Then the nose is absorbed, the organ of speech
is absorbed, the eye is absorbed, the ear is
absorbed, and the mind is absorbed.’
Ajatashatru, to convey his intended meaning,
said : I shall ans.wer the question I asked, viz.,
‘ Wlien this being full of consciousness ' was thus
asleep, where was it, and whence did it come V
Listen. When this being full of consciousness is thus
asleep, it absorbs at the time the functions of the
organs, their capacity to perceive their respective
objects, through its own consciousness, the particular
manifestation in its limiting adjunct, *the mind,
caused by its material, ignorance, and lies in the
Akdsha that is in the heart. ‘Akasha* here means
the Supreme Self, which is identical with its own
self. It lies in that Supreme Self, which is its own
nature and transcendent ; not in the ordinary ether,
for there is another Shruti in its support : ‘With
Existence, my dear, it is then united* (Chh. VI. viii.
1). The idea is that it gives up its differentiated
forms, which are created by its connection with the
280
BRIHAD&RANYAKA UPANISHAD [2. 1. 17
limiting adjunct, the subtle body, and remains in its
undifferentiated, natural, absolute self.
Objection : How do you know that when it
gives up the superintendence over the body and
organs, it lives in its own self ?
Reply : Through its name being well-known.
Objection : What is that?
Reply : When this being absorbs them, the func-
tions of the organs, it is called Swapiti. Then this
is its 1 name that becomes widely known. And this
name has reference to a certain attribute of its. It
is called Swapiti because it is merged in its own self.
Objection : True, the fact of this name being
well-known tells us of the transcendent character of
the self, but there are no arguments in favour of it.
Reply : There are. During sleep the nose (Pra-
na) is absorbed. 'Prana* here means the organ of
smell, for the context deals with the organs such as
that of speech. It is only when it is connected with
these organs that the self is seen to have relative
attributes, because of those limiting adjuncts. And
these organs are then absorbed by it. How? The
organ of speech is absorbed, the eye is absorbed, the
ear is absorbed, and the minck is absorbed. There-
fore it is clear that the organs being absorbed, the
self rests in its own self, for then it is no more chang-
ed into action, its factors and its results.
JTSTTTsft JTfTsTTgFJT:, skN*ta«Ki
1 The word ‘Purusha > in the text is explained as stand-
ing for the genitive case.
2. 1. 18] BRIHADARANYAKA UpANISHAD 281
•, sr wr
sraroro n^r^r ^cniwR ^
srcft qfeiat a n
1 8. When it thus remains in the dream
state, these are its achievements : It then
becomes an emperor, as it were, or a noble
Brahmana, as it were, or attains states high
or low, as it were. As an emperor, taking his
citizens, moves about as he pleases in his own
territory, so does it, thus taking the organs,
move about as it pleases in its own body.
Objection : Although it is dissociated from the
body and organs in the dream state, which is a kind of
perception, we observe it to be possessed of relative
attributes : it is happy, miserable, bereaved of friends,
as in the waking state, and grieves or is deluded.
Therefore it must be possessed of attributes such as
grief and delusion, and these as also pleasure, pain,
etc., are not superimposed on it by the error
brought on by its contact with the body and organs.
Reply : No, because those experiences are false.
When it, the self in question, remains in the dream
state, which is a kind of perception, these are its
achievements, results of past work. What are they?
It then becomes an emperor, as it were. This appar-
ent suzerainty — not actual suzerainty, as in the wak-
ing state — is its achievement. Likewise a noble
Brahmana, as it were. It also attains states high or
low, such as that of a god or an animal, as it were .
Its suzerainty and other achievements are absolutely
282 BR1HADAHANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [2. 1. !8
false, for there is the clause ‘as it were/ and they are
contradicted by waking experience. Therefore it is
not actually connected with the grief, delusion,
etc., caused by the loss of friends and so forth, in
dreams.
Objection : As its achievements of the waking
state are not contradicted in that state, so its achieve-
ments such as suzerainty, which occur in the dream
state, are not contradicted in that state, and are a
part of the self, not superimposed by ignorance.
Reply : By demonstrating 1 that the self is a
conscious entity distinct from the vital force etc.,
have we not indicated that its identification with the
body and organs or with godhead in the waking state
is superimposed by ignorance and is not real ?
How then can it start up as an illustration of the
dream-world, like a dead man come back to life ?
Objection : True. Viewing the self, which is
other than the body etc., as the body and organs or
as a god, is superimposed by ignorance, like seeing a
mother-of-pearl as a piece of silver. This is estab-
lished by the very arguments that prove the existence
of the self other than the body etc., but those argu-
ments were not used specifically to prove the unat-
tached nature of the self. Therefore the illustration
of viewing the self as the body and organs or as a
god in the waking state is again brought forward.
Every argument ceases to be a mere repetition if there
is some little distinction in it.
Reply : Not so. The achievements such as su-
5 See commentary, p. 274.
2 . 1 . 18 ] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 283
zerainty, which are perceived in a dream, are not a
part of the self, for then we see a world which is
distinct from it and is but a reflection of the world
perceived in the waking state. In reality, an em-
peror, lying in his bed while his subjects are asleep
in different places, sees dreams, with his senses with-
drawn, and in that state finds himself, as in the
waking state, to be an emperor, again surrounded by
his subjects, taking part in a pageant and having
enjoyments, as it were. Except the emperor sleep-
ing in his bed, there is no second one who, surround-
ed by his subjects, is known to move about among
the objects of enjoyment in the day-time — whom the
former would visualise in sleep. Besides, one whose
senses are withdrawn can never see objects having
colour etc. Nor can there be in that body another
like it, and one sees dreams remaining only in the
body.
Objection : But one lying in bed sees oneself
moving in the street.
Reply : One does not see dreams outside. So
the text goes on : As an emperor, taking his citizens,
his retinue and others who minister to his comforts,
moves about as he pleases in his own territory, ac-
quired through conquest etc., so does it, this individ-
ual self, thus taking the organs, withdrawing them
from the places they occupy in the waking state —
‘Etat’ (this) is here an adverb (meaning, thus) — move
about as it pleases in its own body, not outside. That
is, it experiences impressions corresponding to things
previously perceived, revived by its desires and the
resultant of past actions. Therefore in dreams worlds
284
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 2 . 1 . 18
that never exist are falsely superimposed as being
a part of the self. One must know the worlds experi-
enced in the waking state also to be such. Hence it
goes without saying that the self is pure, and is never
connected with action, its factors and its results.
Since in both waking and dream states we observe
that the gross and subtle worlds consisting of action,
its factors and its results are but objects for the seer,
therefore that seer, the self, is different from its ob-
jects, the worlds perceived in those states, and is pure.
Since in a dream, which is a kind of perception,
the impressions of past experiences are objects, we
know that they are not attributes of the self, and that
for this reason it is pure. Now in the passage, ‘Then
it moves about as it pleases/ movement at pleasure
has been spoken of. It may be urged that the rela-
tion of the seer to the objects is natural, and that
therefore it becomes impure. Hence to establish its
purity the Shruti says :
am 5T f?rTT
st sjt wgrargraft nrnr
sfpfta, q sfrsfo n u il
19. Again when it becomes fast asleep —
when it does not know anything — it comes
back along the seventy-two thousand nerves
called Hita, which extend from the heart to
the pericardium (the whole body), and remains
2. 1. 19] BR1HA DARANY AKA UPAN1SHAD 285
in the body. As a baby, or an emperor, or a
noble Brahmana lives, havings attained the
acme of bliss, so does it remain.
Again when it becomes fast asleep, etc. Even
when it dreams, it is nothing but pure. Again when
giving up dreams, which are a kind of perception, it
becomes fast or perfectly asleep — attains its natural
state of perfect purity , 1 becomes pure as it is by
nature, giving up, like water, the impurity due to
contact with other things, (then its purity is all the
more clearly established). When does it become per-
fectly asleep? When it does not know anything.
Or, does not know anything else relating to sound
etc. The last few words have to be understood.
The first is the right interpretation, for the purport
is that there is no particular consciousness , in the state
of profound sleep.
Thus it has been said that when there is no
particular consciousness, it is the state of profound
sleep. By what process does this take place? This
is being described : Seventy-two thousand nerves
called Hitd, which are the metabolic effects of the
food and drink in the body, extend from the heart,
that lotus-shaped lump of flesh, to the pericardium,
which here means the body ; that is, they branch off,
covering the whole body like the veins of an Ashwat-
tha leaf. The heart is the seat of the intellect, the
internal organ, and the other or external organs are
subject to that intellect abiding in the heart. There-
fore in accordance with the individual's past actions
1 Samprasada : a synonym of profound sleep.
286 BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [2. 1. 19
the intellect in the waking state extends, along those
nerves interwoven like a fish- net, the functions of
the organs such as the ear to their seats, the outer
ear etc., and then directs them. The individual self
pervades the intellect with a reflection of its own
manifested consciousness. And when the intellect
contracts, it too contracts. That is the sleep of this
individual self. And when it perceives the expan-
sion of the intellect, it is waking experience. It
follows the nature of its limiting adjunct, the intel-
lect, just as a reflection of the moon etc. follows the
nature of water and so forth. Therefore when the
intellect that has the waking experience comes back
along those nerves, the individual self too comes
back and remains in the body, uniformly pervading
it, as fire does a heated lump of iron. Although it
remains unchanged in its own natural self, it is here
spoken of as remaining in the body, because it follows
the activities of the intellect, which again is depend-
ent on one’s past actions. For the self has no
contact with the body in profound sleep. It will be
said later on, ‘He is then beyond all woes of the
heart’ (IV. i:i. 22). That this state is free from all
miseries pertaining to relative existence is thus illus-
trated : As a baby, or an emperor whose subjects
are entirely obedient, and who can do whatever he
says, or a noble Brdhmana who is exceedingly mature
in erudition and modesty, lives, having attained the
acme of bliss, literally, a degree of it that entirely
blots out misery. It is a well-known fact that these,
the baby and the rest, while they remain in their
normal state, are exceedingly happy. It is only
2. 1. 20] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
287
when they depart from it that they feel miserable,
not naturally. Therefore their normal state is cited
as an illustration, because it is well-known. The
reference is not to their sleep. For sleep is the thing
to be illustrated here. Besides there is no difference
between their sleep and anybody else’s. If there
were any difference, the one might serve as an illus-
tration of the other. Therefore their sleep is not the
illustration. So, like this example, does it, the
individual self, remain. 'Etat* is an adverb here.
So does it remain in its own natural self beyond all
relative attributes during profound sleep.
The question, ‘Where was it then?’ (II. i. 16)
has been answered. And by this answer the natural
purity and transcendence of the individual self has
been mentioned. Now the answer to the question,
'Whence did it come ?’ (Ibid.) is being taken up.
Objection : If a man living at a particular vil-
lage or town wants to go somewhere else, he starts
from that very place, and from nowhere else. Such
being the case, the question should only be, 'Where
was it then? 1 We very well know that a man comes
from where he was, and from nowhere else. So the
question, 'Whence did it come V is simply redundant.
Reply : Do you mean to flout the Vedas ?
Objection ; No, I only wish to hear some other
meaning to the second question ; so I raise the
objection of redundancy.
Reply : Well then, we do not take the word
'whence* in the sense of an ablative, since in that
288
BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [2. 1. 20
case the question would be a repetition, but not if
we take it in a different sense.
Objection : Then let us take the question as an
inquiry about the cause. ‘Whence did it come?’
means, ‘What caused it to come here?’
Reply : It cannot be an inquiry about the cause
either, for we have a different kind of answer. For
instance, the answer sets forth the origin of the whole
universe from the Self, like sparks from fire etc. In
the emanation of sparks the fire is not the efficient
cause, but that from which they separate. Similarly
in the sentence, ‘From this Self/ etc. (this text),
the Supreme Self is spoken of as that source from
which the individual self emanates. Therefore the
answer being different, you cannot take the word
‘whence’ as an inquiry about the cause.
Objection : Even if it were used in an ablative
sense, the objection of redundancy would remain just
the same.
Reply : Not so. The two questions are meant
to convey that the self is not connected with action,
its factors and its results. In the preceding chapter
the subject-oiatter of knowledge and ignorance has
been introduced. ‘The Self alone is to be medi-
tated upon’ (I. iv. 7), ‘It knew only Itself’ (I. iv. 10),
‘One should meditate only upon the world called the
Self’ (I. iv. 15) — these represent the subject-matter of
knowledge. And that of ignorance includes rites with
five factors and its three results, the three kinds of
food, consisting of name, form and action. Of these,
all that had to be said about the subject-matter of
ignorance has been said. But the Self devoid of attri-
2. 1. 20] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 289
butes that is the subject-matter of knowledge, has
only been introduced, but not conclusively dealt with.
To do this the present chapter has opened with, T
will tell you about Brahman* (II. i. 1), and also T
will instruct you* (II i. 15). Therefore that Brahman
which is the subject-matter of knowledge, has to be
explained in Its true nature. And Its true nature is
devoid of differences relating to action, its factors
and its results, exceedingly pure and one — this is the
intended meaning. Therefore the Shruti raises two
questions that are appropriate to it, viz., ‘Where was
it then, and whence did it come?* (II. i, 16). '
Now that in which a thing exists is its container,
and what is there is the content, and the container
and content are observed to be different. Similarly
that from which a thing comes is its starting place,
and that which comes is the agent, which is observed
to be different from the other. Therefore one would
be apt to think, in accordance with convention, that
the self was somewhere, being different from that
place, and came from somewhere, being different
from it, and the means by which it came is also
different from it. That idea has to be lemoved by
the answer. (So it is stated that) this self was not
in any place different from itself, nor did it come
from any place different from itself, nor is there in
the self any means different from itself. What then
is the import? That the self was in its own self.
This is borne out by the Shruti passages, ‘It merges
in its own self* (Chh. VI. viii. 1), ‘With Existence,
my dear, it is then united* (Ibid.), ‘Fully embraced
by the Supreme Self* (IV. iii. 21), ‘Rests on the
19
290
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [2. 1. 20
Supreme Self/ etc. (Pr. IV. 7). For the same
reason it does not come from any place different
from itself. This is shown by the text itself, ‘From
this Self/ etc. For there is no other entity besides
the Self.
Objection : There are other entities besides the
Self, such as the organs.
Reply : No, because the organs etc. spring
from the Self alone. How this takes place is de-
scribed as follows :
fefft snwr:,
55ta>T:, ^rr., srarrfnr ; a^rhr-
5 smiTT # Slc^,
ii ^ o ll % fa shot snsnun. 11
20. As a spider moves along the thread
(it produces), and as from a fire tiny sparks fly
in all directions, so from this Self emanate all
organs, all worlds, all gods and all beings.
Its secret name (Upanisliad) is, ‘The Truth of
truth.’ The vital force is truth, and It is the
truth of that.
This is illustrated thus : As in the world a
spider, which is well-known to be one entity, moves
along the thread which is not different from itself —
and there is no other factor to that movement but
itself — and as from one homogeneous fire tiny
sparks, little specks of fire, fly in different ways, or
in numbers ; as these two illustrations show activity
2. 1. 20] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
201
even when there is no multiplicity of factors, as also
natural unity before the activity starts, just so from
this Self, that is, from the real nature of the individ-
ual self before it wakes up, emanate all organs such
as that of speech, all worlds such as the earth, which
are the results of one's past actions, all gods such as
fire, who preside over the organs and the worlds,
and all living beings, from Hiranyagarblia down to
a clump of grass. If the reading is, ‘All these
souls ,' 1 then the meaning will be, ‘Souls with par-
ticular characteristics manifested owing to contact
with limiting adjuncts.' It is the Self from which
this moving and unmoving world continually pro-
ceeds like sparks of fire, in which it is merged like
a bubble of water, and with which it remains filled
during existence. The secret name (Upanishad) of
this Self or Brahman, etc. ‘Upanishad' means ‘that
which brings (one) near' (Brahman), that is, a word
denoting It (a name). That this capacity to ‘bring
near' is a speciality of this particular name is known
on the authority of the scriptures alone. What is
this secret name? The Truth of truth. Since this
secret name always has a transcendental import, it
is difficult to understand. Therefore the Shruti
gives its meaning : The vital force is truth, and It
is the Truth of that. The next two sections will be
devoted to explaining this sentence.
Question : Granted that the next two sections
will be devoted to explaining the secret name. The
text says, ‘Its secret name.' But we do not know
As the M&dhyandina recension has it.
292
BRII-IADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [ 2 . 1 . 20
whether it is the secret name of the individual self,
which is the subject under discussion, which awoke
through pushing, is subject to transmigration, and
perceives sound etc., or whether it refers to some
transcendent principle.
Reply : What difference does it make?
Question : Just this : If it refers to the rela-
tive (transmigrating) self, then that is to be known,
and by knowing it (identity with) all will be attain-
ed ; further it alone will be denoted by the word
‘Brahman/ and the knowledge of it will be the
knowledge of Brahman. But if the transcendent
Self is meant, then the knowledge of It will be the
knowledge of Brahman, and from that identity with
all will be attained. That all this will happen we
know on the authority of the scriptures. But ac-
cording to this view (if the individual self and Brah-
man are different) the Vedic texts that teach their
identity, such as, ‘The Self alone is to be meditated
upon’ (I. iv. 7) and ‘It knew only Itself as, “I am
Brahman ,, 1 (I. iv. 10), will be contradicted. And (if
they are identical) there being no relative self differ-
ent from the Supreme Self, spiritual instruction will
be useless. Since this (unity of the self) is a ques-
tion that has not been answered and is a source of
confusion even to scholars, therefore in order to faci-
litate the understanding of passages that deal with
the knowledge of Brahman for those who seek after
It, we shall discuss the point as best as we can.
Prima facie view : The transcendent Supreme
Self is not meant, for the text states the origin of
2. 1. 20] BRIHADARAJStYAKA UPANISHAD
293
the universe from a self which awoke on being push-
ed with the hand, which perceives sound etc., and
which is possessed of a distinct state (profound
sleep). To be explicit: There is no Supreme Self
devoid of the desire for food etc., which is the ruler
of the universe. Why ? Because the Shruti, after
introducing the topic, T will tell you about Brah-
man ’ (II. i. 15), then mentioning the rousing of the
sleeping man by pushing with the hand — thereby
showing him to be the perceiver of sound etc. — and
describing his transition through the dream state to
that of profound sleep, shows the origin of the uni-
verse from that very self possessed of the state of
profound sleep, by the two illustrations of sparks
of fire and the spider, in the passage, "So from this
Self/ etc. And no other cause of the origin of the
universe is mentioned in between, for this section
deals exclusively with the individual self. Another
Shruti, the Kaushitaki Upanishad, which deals with
the same topic, after introducing the beings who are
in the sun etc., says, ‘He said : He, O Bdl&ki, who
is the maker of these beings, and whose handiwork
this universe is, is indeed to be knowif’ (IV. 19).
This shows that the individual self roused from
sleep, and none other, is to be known. Similarly
by saying, ‘But it is for one’s own sake that all is
loved’ (II. iv. 5 ; IV. v. 6), the Shruti shows that
that self which is familiar to us as being dear, is
alone to be realised through hearing, reflection and
meditation. So also the statements made while
introducing the topic of knowledge, such as, ‘The
Self alone is to be meditated upon’ (I. iv. 7), ‘This
294
BRIHADAfiANYAKA U PAN J SHAD [ 2 . 1 . 20
(Self) is dearer than a son, dearer than wealth/ etc.
(I. iv. 8), ‘It knew only Itself as, “I am Brahman/* ’
etc. (I. iv. 10), would be consistent if there were no
Supreme Self. It will also be said further on, ‘If a
man knows himself to be the Self* (IV. iv. 12).
Moreover in all Vedanta it is the inner self which
is put forward as the entity to be known, as ‘I am
Brahman/ and never any external object like sound
etc., saying, ‘That is Brahman/ Similarly in the
Kaushitaki Upanishad, in the passage, ‘Do not seek
to know about speech, know the speaker/ etc. (III. 8
etc.), it is the agent (the individual self) using speech
etc. as intruments, which is put forward as the
entity to be known.
Objection : Suppose we say that the individual
self in a different state is the Supreme Self ? It may
be like this : The same individual self which per-
ceives sound etc. in the waking state, is changed into
the transcendent Supreme Self, the ruler of the
universe, on getting into the state of profound sleep.
Tentative answer : No, this is contrary to ex-
perience. We never find anything having this
characteristic outside of Buddhist philosophy. It
never happens in life that a cow standing or going
is a cow, but that on lying down she becomes a horse
or any other species. It is contrary to logic also.
A thing that is known through some means of knowl-
edge to have a certain characteristic, retains that
characteristic even in a different place, time or con-
dition. If it ceases to have that characteristic, all
functioning of the means of knowledge would stop.
Similarly the Sankhyas, Mimamsakas and others who
2. 1. 20] BRIHADARANYAKA U^ANISHAD
295
are skilled in logic adduce hundreds of reasons to
prove the absence of a transcendent Self.
Objection : Your view is wrong, for the relative
self too lacks the knowledge of how to effect the
origin, continuity and dissolution of the universe.
To be explicit : The position you have advocated
so elaborately, viz., that the same relative self which
perceives sound etc. becomes the ruler of the universe
when it attains a different condition, is untenable.
For everybody knows that the relative self lacks the
knowledge, power and means to effect the origin,
continuity and dissolution of the universe. How can
a relative self like us construct this universe in which
the earth etc. are located, and which it is impossible
even to think of with the mind ?
Tentative answer : Not so, for the scriptures
are in our favour. They show the origin etc. of the
universe from the relative self, for example, ‘So from
this Self/ etc. (this text). Therefore our view is all
right.
Objection 1 : There is a transcendent Supreme
Self, and It is the cause of the universe, for such is
the verdict of the Shruti, Smriti and reasoft. Witness
hundreds of Shruti passages such as, ‘That which
knows things in a general and particular way*
(Mu. I. i. 9 and II. ii. 7), ‘That which transcends
hunger and thirst’ (III. v. 1), ‘Unattached, It is not
attached to anything’ (III. ix. 26), ‘Under the mighty
rule of this Immutable,’ etc. (III. viii. 9), ‘That which
living in all beings .... is the internal ruler and
1 By the believers in Ishwara only as the efficient, not
material cause of the universe.
296
BRIHAD4RANYAKA UPANISHAD [2. 1. 20
immortal* (III. vii. 15), '(That Being) who definitely
projects those beings .... and is at the same time
transcendent* (III. ix. 26), 'That great, birthless
Self* (IV. iv. 22 etc.), 'It is the bank that serves as the
boundary to keep the different worlds apart* (Ibid.),
'The controller of all, the lord of all* (Ibid.), 'The
Self that is sinless, undecaying, immortal* (Chh. VIII.
vii. 1, 3), 'It projected fire* (Chh. VI. ii. 3), 'In the
beginning this universe was only the Self* (Ai. I. 1),
'It is not affected by human misery, being beyond it*
(Ka. v. 11). Also the Smriti passage, 'I am the origin
of all, and from Me everything springs* (G. X. 8).
Tentative answer ; Did we not say that the
text, ‘So from this self,’ shows the origin of the uni-
verse from the relative self?*
Objection : Not so, for since in the passage,
'The Akasha that is in the heart* (II. i. 17), the
Supreme Self has been introduced, the text, ‘So from
this Self,* should refer to the Supreme Self. In re-
ply to the question, 'Where was it then?* (II. i. 16),
the Supreme Self, denoted by the word 'Akasha,* has
been mentioned in the text, ‘It lies in the Ak&sha
that is in fhe heart.* That the word 'Ak&sha* refers
to the Supreme Self is clear from texts such as : 'With
Existence, my dear, it is then united* (Chh. VI.
viii. 1), 'Every day they attain this world that is
Brahman, but they do not realise this* (Chh. VIII.
iii. 2), ‘Fully embraced by the Supreme Self* (IV.
iii. 21), and 'Rests on the Supreme Self* (Pr. IV. 7).
That the Supreme Self is the topic further appears
from the use of the word 'Self* with reference to the
Supreme Self, which has been introduced in the
2. 1. 20] BRIHADARANYAKA UP.ANISHAD
297
passage, ‘In it there is a little space* (Chh. VIII. i. 1).
Therefore the passage, ‘So from this Self,* should
indicate that the universe springs from the Supreme
Self alone. And we have already said that the rela-
tive self has not the power and knowledge to project,
maintain and dissolve the universe.
Objection : In the passages, ‘The Self alone is
to be meditated upon* (I. iv. 7), and ‘It knew only
Itself as, “I am Brahman’* * (I. iv. 10), the topic of
the knowledge of Brahman was introduced, and this
deals with Brahman as its subject. This section too
opens with sentences such as, ‘I will tell you about
Brahman* (II. i. 1), and ‘I will teach you about Brah-
man' (II. i. 15). Now the transcendent Brahman,
which is beyond hunger etc., and is eternal, pure,
enlightened and free by nature, is the cause of the
universe, while the relative self is the opposite of
that ; therefore it would not (in its present state)
perceive itself to be identical with Brahman. On the
other hand, would not the inferior relative self be
open to censure if it identified the Supreme Self, the
self -effulgent ruler of the universe, with itself?
Therefore it is unreasonable to say, ‘I anf Brahman.*
Hence one should wish to worship Brahman with
flowers, water, folding of the palms, praises, prostra-
tion, sacrifices, presents, repetition of Its name, medi-
tation, Yoga, etc. Knowing It through worship one
becomes Brahman, the ruler of all. But one should
not think of the transcendent Brahman as the rela-
tive self ; it would be like thinking of fire as cold,
and the sky as possessed of form. The scriptural
passages too that teach the identity of the self with
298
BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISKAT) [2. 1. 20
Brahman should be taken as merely eulogistic. This
interpretation will also harmonise with all logic and
common sense.
Adwaitin’s reply : That cannot be, for from
Mantra and Brahmana texts we know that the Su-
preme Self alone entered. Beginning with, ‘He made
bodies/ etc. (II. v. 18), the text says, ‘The Supreme
Being entered the bodies’ (Ibid.), ‘He transformed
Himself in accordance with each form ; that form of
His was for the sake of making Him known’ (II. v.
19). ‘The Wise One, who after projecting all forms,
names them, and goes on uttering those names’ (Tai.
A. III. xii. 7) — thus thousands of Mantras in all recen-
sions show that it is the transcendent Ishwara who
entered the body. Similarly Brahmana texts such as,
‘After projecting it, the Self entered into it’ (Tai. II.
vi. 1), ‘Piercing this dividing line (of the head) It
entered through that gate’ (Ai. III. 12), ‘That deity
(Existence), penetrating these three gods (fire, water
and earth) as this individual self/ etc. (Chh. VI. iii.
3, 4). ‘This Self, being hidden in all beings, is not
manifest/ etc. (Ka. III. 12). Since the word ‘Self’
has been irsed in all scriptures to denote Brahman,
and since it refers to the inner Self, and further the
vShruti passage, ‘He is the inner Self of all beings’
(Mu. II. i. 4), shows the absence of a relative self
other than the Supreme Self, as also the Shruti texts,
‘One only without a second’ (Chh. VI. ii. 1), ‘This
universe is but Brahman’ (Mu. II. ii. 11), ‘All this
is but the Self’ (Chh. VIII. xxv. 2), it is but proper
to conclude the identity of the individual self with
Brahman.
2. 1. 20] BRIHADARANYAKA UP^NISHAD 299
Objection : If such is the import of the scrip-
tures, then the Supreme Self becomes relative, and
if it is so, the scriptures (teaching Its transcendence)
become useless ; while if It is (identical with the
individual self and yet) transcendent, then there is
this obvious objection that spiritual instruction
becomes redundant. To be explicit : If the Su-
preme Self, which is the inmost Self of all beings,
feels the miseries arising from contact with all
bodies, It obviously becomes relative. In that case
those Shruti and Smriti texts that establish the trans-
cendence of the Supreme Self, as also all reason
would be set at naught. If, on the other hand, it
can somehow be maintained that It is not connected
with the miseries arising from contact with the bodies
of different beings, it is impossible to refute the
charge of the futility of all spiritual instruction, for
there is nothing for the Supreme Self either to achieve
or to avoid.
To this dilemma some suggest the following
solution : The Supreme Self did not penetrate the
bodies directly in Its own form, but It became the
individual self after undergoing a modification. And
that individual self is both different from and identi-
cal with the Supreme Self. In so far as it is differ-
ent, it is affected by relativity, and in so far as it
is identical, it is capable of being ascertained as, T
am Brahman.’ Thus there will be no contradiction
anywhere.
Now, if the individual self be a modification of
the Supreme Self, there may be the following alterna-
tives : The Supreme Self may be an aggregate of
300
BR1HA D^RANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 2 . 1 . 20
many things and consist of parts, like the earth, and
the individual self may be the modification of some
portion of It, like a jar etc. Or the Supreme Self
may retain Its form, and a portion of It be modified,
like hair or a barren tract, for instance. Or the entire
Supreme Self may be modified, like milk etc. Now
in the first view, according to which a particular
thing out of an aggregate of a great many things of
the same category becomes the individual self, since
this particular thing is only of the same category,
the identity is but figurative, not real. In that case
it would be a contradiction of the verdict of the
Shruti. If, however, (as in the second view) the
Supreme Self is a whole eternally consisting of parts
inseparably connected together, and, while It remains
unchanged in form, a portion of It becomes the rela-
tive individual self, then, since the whole inheres in
all the parts, it is affected by the merit or defect of
each part ; hence the Supreme Self will be subject to
the evil of transmigration attaching to the individual
self. Therefore this view also is inadmissible ; while
the view that holds that the whole of the Supreme
Self is trsmsformed, disregards all the Shrutis and
Smritis, and is therefore unacceptable. All these
views contradict reason as well as Shruti and Smriti
texts such as, ‘ (Brahman is) without parts, devoid of
activity and serene' (Shw. VI. 19), ‘The Supreme
Being is resplendent, formless, including both within
and without, and birthless* (Mu. II. i. 2), ‘All-per-
vading like the sky and eternal/ ‘That great, birth-
less Self is undecaying, immortal, undying' (IV. iv.
25), ‘It is never born nor dies' (Ka. II. 8 ; G. If. 20),
2 . 1 . 20 ] BRIHA DARANYAKA UPANISHAD 901
‘It is undifferentiated,* etc. (G. II. 25). If the indi-
vidual self be a portion of the immutable Supreme
Self, then it will find it impossible to go (after death)
to places in accordance with its past work, or else
the Supreme Self will, as already said (p. 299), be
subject to transmigration.
Objection : Suppose we say that the individual
self is a portion of the Supreme Self detached from
It like a spark of fire, and that transmigrates.
Reply : Yet the Supreme Self will get a wound
by this breaking off of Its part, and as that part
transmigrates, it will make a hole in the assemblage
of parts in another portion of the Supreme Self —
which will contradict the scriptural statements about
Its being without any wound. If the individual self,
which is a part of , the Supreme Self, transmigrates,
then, since there is no space without It, some other
parts of It being pushed and displaced, the Supreme
Self will feel pain as if It had colic in the heart.
Objection : There is nothing wrong in it, for
there are Shruti texts giving illustrations of sparks
of fire etc.
Reply : Not so, for the Shruti is merely infor-
mative. The scriptures seek not to alter things, but
to supply information about things unknown, as they
are.
Objection : What difference does it make?
Reply : Tisten. Things in the world are known
to possess certain fixed characteristics such as gross-
ness or fineness. By citing them as examples the
scriptures seek to tell us about some other thing
which does not contradict them. They would not
302
BRIHADflRANYAKA UPANISHAD [2. 1. 20
cite an example from life if they wanted to convey an
idea of something- contradictory to it. Even if they
did, it would be to no purpose, for the example would
be different from the thing to be explained. You
cannot prove that fire is cold, or that the sun does not
give heat, even by citing a hundred examples, for
the facts would already be known to be otherwise
through another source of knowledge. And one
source of knowledge does not contradict another, for
it only tells us about those things that cannot be
known' by any other means. Nor can the scriptures
speak about an unknown thing without having re-
course to conventional words and their meanings.
Therefore one who follows convention can never
prove that the Supreme Self really has parts or stands
to other things in the relation of whole to part.
Objection : But do not the Shruti and Smriti
say, 'Tiny sparks' (this text), and 'A part of Myself’
(G. XV. 7) ?
Reply : Not so, for the passages are meant to
convey the idea of oneness. We notice in life that
sparks of fire may be considered identical with fire.
Similarly a*part may be considered identical with the
whole. Such being the case, words signifying a
modification or part of the Supreme Self, as applied
to the individual self, are meant to convey its identity
with It. That this is so appears also from the intro-
duction and conclusion. In all the Upanishads first
identity is broached, then by means of illustrations
and reasons the universe is shown to be a modification
or part or the like of the Supreme Self, and the con-
clusion again brings out the identity. Here, for in-
2. 1. 20] BR1HADARANYAKA UP/INISHAD
303
stance, the text beings with, 'This all is the Self’ (II.
iv. 6), then through arguments and examples about
the origin, continuity and dissolution of the universe,
it adduces reasons for considering its identity with
Brahman, such as the relation of cause and effect,
and it will conclude with, 'Without interior or ex-
terior’ (II. v. 9 ; III. viii. 8), and ‘This self is Brah-
man’ (II. v. 19). Therefore from that introduction
and conclusion it is clear that the passages setting
forth the origin, continuity and dissolution of the
universe are for strengthening the idea ot the identity
of the individual self with the Supreme Self. Other-
wise there would be a break in the topic. All be-
lievers in the Upanishads are unanimous on the point
that all of these enjoin on us to think of the identity
of the individual s,elf with the Supreme Self. If it
is possible to construe the passages setting forth the
origin etc. of the universe, so as to keep up the con-
tinuity of that injunction, to interpret them so as to
introduce a new topic would be unwarrantable. A
different result too would have to be provided for.
Therefore we conclude that the Shruti passages set-
ting forth the origin etc. of the universe anust be for
establishing the identity of the individual self and
Supreme Self.
Regarding this teachers of Vedanta narrate the
following parable : A certain prince was discarded
by his parents as soon as he was born, and brought
up in a fowler’s home. Not knowing his princely
descent, he thought himself to be a fowler and pur-
sued the fowler’s duties, not those of a king, as he
would if he knew himself to be such. When, how-
304
BR1HA DARANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 2 . 1 . 20
ever, a very kind man, who knew the prince’s fitness
for attaining a kingdom, told him who he was — that
he was not a fowler, but the son of such and such
a king, and had by some chance come to live in a
fowler’s home — he, thus informed, gave up the notion
and the duties of a fowler and, knowing that he was
a king, took to the ways of his ancestors. Similarly
this individual self, which is of the same category
as the Supreme Self, being separated from It like a
spark of fire and so on, has penetrated this wilderness
of the body, organs, etc., and, although really tran-
scendent, takes on the attributes of the latter, which
are relative, and thinks that it is this aggregate of
the body and organs, that it is lean or stout, happy
or miserable — for it does not know that it is the
Supreme Self. But when the teacher enlightens it
that it is not the body etc., but the transcendent
Supreme Brahman, then it gives up the pursuit of
the three kinds of desire and is convinced that it is
Brahman. When it is told that it has been separated
from the Supreme Brahman like a spark, it is firmly
convinced that it is Brahman, as the prince was of
his royal birth. We know that a spark is one with
fire before it is separated. Therefore the examples
of gold, iron and sparks of fire are only meant to
strengthen one’s idea of the oneness of the individual
Self and Brahman, and not to establish the multipli-
city caused by the origin etc. of the universe. For
the Self has been ascertained to be homogeneous and
unbroken consciousness, like a lump of salt, and
there is the statement, Tt should be realised in one
form only’ (IV. iv. 20). If the Shruti wanted to
2. 1. 20] BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 305
teach that Brahman has diverse attributes such as
the origin of the universe, like a painted canvas, a
tree, or an ocean, for instance, it would not conclude
with statements describing It to be homogeneous
like a lump of salt, without interior or exterior, nor
would it say, ‘It should be realised in one form
only.' There is also the censure, ‘He (goes from
death to death) who sees difference, as it were, in
It,’ etc. (IV. iv. 19 ; Ka. IV. 10). Therefore the
mention in all Vedanta texts of the origin, continuity
and dissolution of the universe is only to strengthen
our idea of Brahman being a homogeneous unity,
and not to make us believe in the origin etc. as an
actuality.
Nor is it reasonable to suppose that a part of the
indivisible, transcendent, Supreme Self becomes the
relative, individual self, for the Supreme Self is in-
trinsically without parts. If a part of the indivis-
ible Supreme Self is supposed to be the relative,
individual self, it is tantamount to taking the former
to be the latter. If, on the other hand, the individual
self be a part of the Supreme Self owing to some
adventitious limiting adjunct of It, like the ether
enclosed in a jar, a bowl, etc., then thinking people
would not consider that it is really a part of the
Supreme Self, deserving to be treated as something
distinct.
Objection : We sometimes see that thinking as
well as ignorant people entertain fanciful notions
about things.
Reply : Not so, for ignorant people have false
notions, whereas thinking people have notions that
20
806 BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [2. 1. 20
relate only to an apparent basis for conventional inter-
course. For instance, even thinking people some-
times say that the sky is dark or red, where the dark-
ness or redness of the sky has just the above apparent
reality. But because of that the sky can never
actually become dark or red. Therefore in ascertain-
ing the true nature of Brahman, men of wisdom should
not think of It in terms of whole and part — unit and
fraction — or cause and effect. For the essential mean-
ing of all the Upanishads is to remove all finite con-
ceptions about Brahman. Therefore we must give up
all such conceptions and know Brahman to be un-
differentiated like the sky. This is borne out by
hundreds of Shruti texts such as, ‘All-pervading like
the sky and eternal, * and ‘It is not affected by human
misery, being beyond it’ (Ka. V. 11). We must not
imagine the self to be different from Brahman, like
a portion of fire, which is ever hot, being cold, or
like a portion of the effulgent sun being dark, for, as
already said, the essential meaning of all the Upani-
shads is to remove all finite conceptions about
Brahman. [ Therefore all relative conditions in the
transcendent self are only possible through the limit-
ing adjuncts of name and form. Compare the Shruti
Mantras, ‘He transformed Himself in accordance with
each form’ (II. v. 19), and ‘The Wise One, who after
projecting all forms names them, and goes on utter-
ing those names/ etc. (Tai. A. III. xii. 7). The
relative condition of the self is not inherent in it.
It is not true, but erroneous, like the notion that a
crystal is red or of any other colour owing to its
association with limiting adjuncts such as a red cotton
2. 1. 20] BRIHADARANYAKA UpANISHAD
307
pad.J Shruti and Smriti texts such as, ‘It thinks,
as it were, and shakes, as it were* (IV. iii. 7), ‘It
neither increases nor decreases through work’
(IV. iv. 23), ‘It is not affected by evil work* (Ibid.),
‘Living the same in all beings' (G. XlH. 27), ‘(Wise
men are even-minded) to a dog as well as a Chandala,
etc. (G. V. 18), as also reasoning establish only the
transcendence of the Supreme Self. Hence, if we
admit It to be indivisible, it will be particularly
impossible for us to maintain that the individual self
is either a part, a modification, or inherent power of
the Supreme Self, or something different from It.
And we have already said that the Shruti and Smriti
passages referring to the relation of whole and part
etc. are for the purpose of establishing their oneness,
not difference, for only thus will there be continuity
as regards the import of those passages.
If all the Upanishads teach that there is only the
Supreme Self, why, it may be asked, is something
contradictory to it, viz., the individual self, put
forward ? Some say that it is for removing the
objections against the authority of the ritualistic
portion of the Vedas : For the passages dealing with
rites depend on a multiplicity of actions, their factors
and their results, including the sacrificers, who enjoy
those results, and the priests, who officiate in them.
Now, if there were no separate individual self, the
transcendent Supreme Self would be one. How
under such circumstances would those passages in-
duce people to do actions producing good results, or
dissuade them from those that have bad results?
Who again would be the bound soul for whose libera-
308 BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [2. 1. 20
tion the Upanishads would be taken up ? Further,
according to the view which holds that there is only
the Supreme Self, how can instruction about It be
imparted ? And how can that instruction bear fruit ?
For instruction is given in order to remove the bond-
age of a bound soul ; hence in the absence of the
latter the Upanishads will Have nobody to address
themselves to. Such being the case, the same objec-
tions and replies that apply to the advocates of the
ritualistic portion of the Vedas, apply also to the
advocates of the Upanishads. For, as owing to the
absence of difference the ritualistic portion, being
without support, falls through as an authority, so do
the Upanishads. Then why not accept the authority
of oidy the ritualistic portion, which can be inter-
preted literally ? But the Upanishads may be reject-
ed, since in accepting them as authority one has to
alter their obvious import . 1 The ritualistic portion,
being authority once, cannot again cease to be author-
ity. It cannot be that a lamp will sometimes reveal
objects and sometimes not. There is also contradic-
tion with other means of knowledge such as percep-
tion. The tUpanishads that establish the existence
of Brahman alone, not only contradict their obvious
import and the authority of the ritualistic portion
of the Vedas, but they also run counter to such
means of knowledge as perception, which definitely
establish differences in the world. Therefore the Upa-
nishads cannot be taken as authority. Or they must
have some other meaning. But they can never mean
that only Brahman exists.
1 Since many passages clearly have a dualistic import.
2. 1. 20] BR1HADARANY AKA UPAN1SHAD
309
Adwaitin’s reply : That cannot be, for we have
already answered those points. A means of knowl-
edge is or is not a means according as it leads or does
not lead to valid knowledge. Otherwise even a post,
for instance, would be considered a means of knowl-
edge in perceiving sound etc.
Objection : What follows from this?
Reply : If the Upanishads lead to a valid
knowledge of the unity of Brahman, how can they
cease to be a means of knowledge ?
Objection : Of course they do not lead to valid
knowledge, as when somebody says that fire produces
cold.
Reply : Well then, we ask you, do not your
words refuting the authority of the Upanishads ac-
complish their object, like fire revealing* things, or
do they not? If you say they do, then your words
of refutation are means of valid knowledge, and fire
does reveal things. If your words of refutation are
valid, then the Upanishads too are valid. So please
tell us the way out.
Objection : That my words mean the refutation
of the authority of the Upanishads, and that fire
reveals tilings are palpable facts, and hence consti-
tute valid knowledge.
Reply : What then is your grudge against the
Upanishads, which are seen directly to convey a
valid knowledge of the unity of Brahman, for the
refutation is illogical ? And we have already said
that a palpable result, viz., cessation of grief and
delusion, is indirectly brought about by the knowl-
edge of this unity. Therefore, the objections having
310
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [2. 1. 20
been answered, there is no doubt of the Upanishads
being authority.
You have said that the Upanishads are no author-
ity, since they contradict their obvious import. This
is wrong, because there is no such contradiction in
their meaning. In the first , place, the Upanishads
never give us the idea that Brahman both is and is
not one only without a second, as from the sentence
that fire is both hot and cold we get two contradic-
tory meanings. We have said this taking it for
granted that a passage can have different meanings.
But it is not an accepted canon of the system that
tests passages (Mimams&) that the same passage may
have different meanings. If it has, one will be the
proper meaning, and the other will be contradictory
to it. But it is not an accepted rule with those who
test passages that the same sentence has different
meanings — one appropriate, and the other contradic-
tory to it. Passages have unity only when they have
the same meaning. In the second place, there are
no passages in the Upanishads that contradict the
unity of Brahman. As to the conventional 1 expres-
sion, ‘Fire is cold as well as hot,* it is not a single
sentence, because part of it merely relates what is
known through another means of knowledge (percep-
tion). The portion, ‘Fire is cold/ is one sentence,
but the clause, ‘Fire is hot/ merely reminds us of
what is known through another means of knowledge ;
it does not give us that meaning at first hand. There-
fore it is not to be united with the clause, ‘Fire is
1 Having relation to human experience, as opposed to
Vedic.
2. 1. 20] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
311
cold,’ because its function is exhausted by its merely
reminding us of what is experienced through another
source of knowledge. As to the presumption that
this sentence conveys contradictory meanings, it is
but an error due to the words ‘hot* and ‘cold’ being
used as co-ordinate with the word ‘fire.’ But neither
in Vedic nor in conventional usage does the same
passage have more than one meaning.
You have said that passages of the Upanishads
clash with the authority of the ritualistic portion of
the Vedas. This is not correct, because they have
a different meaning. The Upanishads establish the
unity of Brahman ; they do not negate instructions
regarding the means to the attainment of some
desired object, or prevent persons from undertaking
it, for, as already said, a passage cannot have more
than one meaning. Nor do ritualistic passages fail
to lead to valid knowledge regarding their own mean-
ing. If a passage produces valid knowledge regard*
ing its own special meaning, how can it clash with
other passages?
Objection : If Brahman be the only reality,
ritualistic passages are left without aity object to
apply to, and hence they cannot certainly lead to
valid knowledge.
Reply : Not so, for that valid knowledge is
palpable. We see it arising out of sentences such
as, 'One who desires heaven must perform the new
and Tull moon sacrifices,’ and. 'Do not kill a Brah-
mana.’ The assumption that this cannot take place
if the Upanishads teach the unity of Brahman, is
only an inference. And an inference cannot stand
312
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANlSHAD [ 2 . 1 . 20
against perception. Therefore your statement that
valid knowledge itself cannot arise, is absolutely
wrong.
Moreover actions, their factors and their results
are things we naturally believe in : they are the crea-
tion of ignorance. When through their help a man
who desires to gain something good or to avoid some-
thing evil, proceeds to adopt a means of which he has
only a vague, not definite idea, the Shruti simply
tells him about that ; it says nothing either for or
against the truth of the diversity of actions, their
factors and their results, which people have already
taken for granted. For the Shruti only prescribes
means for the attainment of desired ends and the
avoidance of untoward results. To be explicit : As
the Shruti that deals with rites having material ends
takes the desires as they are — although they are the
result of erroneous notions — and prescribes means for
attaining them, and it does not cease to do this on
the ground that desires are an evil, being the result
of erroneous notions, similarly the Shruti dealing
with the regular rites such as the Agnihotra takes the
diversity of actions and their factors as they are —
although they proceed from error — and enjoins rites
such as the Agnihotra, seeing some utility in them,
whether it be the attainment of some particular de-
sired end or the avoidance of some particular un-
toward result. It does not refrain from enjoining
them simply because .the utility relates to something
that is unreal, being within the domain of ignorance ;
as is the case with rites having material ends. Nor
would ignorant people cease to engage themselves in
2. 1. 20] BRIHADARANYAKA VPAN1SHAD
813:
those rites, for we see them doiiig it, as in the case
of people who are swayed by desires.
Objection : But it is only those that have knowl-
edge who are competent to perform rites.
Reply : No, for we have already said that the
knowledge of the unity of Brahman militates against
one’s competency to perform rites. This should also
be taken as an answer to the charge that if Brahman
be the only reality, there will be no scope left for,
instruction, and hence it can neither be received nor
produce any result. The diversity of people’s desires,
attachments and so forth is another reason. People
have innumerable desires and various defects such
as attachment. Therefore they are lured by the
attachment etc. to external objects, and the scrip-
tures are powerless' to hold them back ; nor can they
persuade those that are naturally averse to external
objects to go after them. But the scriptures do this
much that they point out what leads to good and
what to evil, thereby indicating the particular rela-
tions that subsist between the ends and means ; just
as a lamp, for instance, helps to reveal forms in the
dark. But the scriptures neither hinder # nor direct
a person by force, as if he were a slave. We see how
people disobey even the scriptures because of an
excess of attachment etc. Therefore according to the
varying tendencies of people, the scriptures variously
teach the particular relations subsisting between the
ends and means. In this matter people themselves
adopt particular means according to their tastes, and
the scriptures simply remain neutral, like the sun, for
instance, or a lamp. Similarly somebody may think
314
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [2. 1. 20
the highest goal to be not worth striving after. One
chooses one’s goal according to one’s knowledge, and
wants to adopt corresponding means. This is borne
out also by the eulogistic passages of the Shruti such
as, ‘Three classes of Prajapati’s sons lived a life of
continence with their father, Praj&pati,’ etc. (V. ii. 1).
Therefore the Vedanta texts that teach the unity of
Brahman are not antagonistic to the ritualistic scrip-
tures. Nor are the latter thereby deprived of their
scope. Neither do the ritualistic scriptures, which
uphold differences such as the factors of an action,
take away the authority of the Upanishads as regards
the unity of Brahman. For the means of knowledge
are powerful in their respective spheres, like the
ear etc.
Nevertheless certain self-styled wise men (the
logicians), following their own whims, think that the
different means of knowledge are mutually contra-
dictory, and also level against us the objection that
if Brahman be the only reality, such Upanishadic
texts contradict perception. For instance, objects
such as sound, which are perceived by the ear and
so forth, a*e observed to be different from one another.
So those who hold that Brahman is the only reality
contradict perception. Similarly the relative selves
that perceive sound etc. through the ear and so forth,
and acquire merit or demerit through their work, are
inferred to be different in different bodies. So those
who hold that Brahman is the only reality also con-
tradict inference. They also cite contradiction with
the Shruti. For instance, in passages such as, ‘One
who desires villages must sacrifice’ (Ta. XVII. x. 4),
2. 1. 20] BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
315
‘One who desires animals must sacrifice * (Ibid. XVI.
xii. 8) and ‘One who desires heaven must sacrifice’
(jlbid. XVI. iii. 3), the objects desired such as villages,
animals and heaven are known to be different from
the men who apply the means of obtaining them.
Our reply is that they are the. scum of the Br&h-
mana and other castes, who, with their minds
poisoned by vicious reasoning, hold views about the
meaning of the Vedas that are divorced from tradition, *
and are therefore to be pitied. How ? To those who
say that sound etc., perceived through the ear and so
forth, contradict the unity of Brahman, we put this
question : Does the variety of sound and the rest
contradict the oneness of the ether? If it does not,
then there is no contradiction in our position with
perception. They said : The selves that perceive
sound etc. through the ear and so forth, and acquire
merit or demerit through their work, are inferred to
be different in different bodies ; so the unity of
Brahman also contradicts inference. But we ask
them, ‘By whom are they so inferred V If they say,
^By us all who are experts in inference/ we would
ask them, ‘But who really are you that* call your-
selves so V What would be their reply then ? Per-
haps they would say, ‘When dexterity in inference
has been severally denied of the body, the organs, the
mind and the self, we experts in inference should be
the self joined to its accessories, the body, organs and
mind, for actions depend on many factors/ Our
reply is : ‘If such be your dexterous inference, then
you become multiple. For you yourselves have ad-
mitted that actions depend on many factors. Now
316
BRJHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [2. 1. 20
inference also is an action, which, as you have also
admitted, is done by the self joined to its accessories,
the body, organs and mind. Thus, while saying that
you* are experts in inference, you virtually admit that
each of you is multiple— the self joined to the acces-
sories, the body, organs and mind.’ O the dexterity
in inference shown by these bulls of logicians who
lack only a tail and horns ! How can a fool who
does not know his own self know its unity or differ-
ence ? What will he infer about it ? And on what
grounds ? For the self has no characteristic that
might be used to infer natural differences between
one self and another. Those characteristics having
name and form which the opponents will put for-
ward to infer differences in the self belong only to
name and form, and are but limiting adjuncts of the
self, just as a jar, a bowl, an air-hole, or the pores
in earth are of the ether. When the logician finds
distinguishing characteristics in the ether, then only
will he find such characteristics in the self. For not
even hundreds of logicians, who admit differences in
the self owing to limiting adjuncts, can show any
characteristic of it that would lead one to infer
differences between one self and another. And as
for natural differences, they are out of the question,
for the self is not an object of inference. Because
whatever the opponent regards as an attribute of the
self is admitted as consisting of name and form, and
the self is admitted to be different from these. Wit»
ness the Shruti passage, ‘Akasha (the self-effulgent
One) is verily the cause of name and form. That
within which they are is Brahman’ (Chh. VIII. xiv.
2. 1. 20] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
317
1), and also %et me manifest name and form’ (Chh.
VI. iii. 2). Name and form have origin and dissolu-
tion, but Brahman is different from them. There-
fore how can the unity of Brahman contradict infer-
ence, of which It is never an object ? This also re-
futes the charge that it contradicts the Shruti.
It has been objected that if Brahman be the only
reality, there will be nobody to receive instruction
and profit by it ; so instruction about unity will be
useless. This is wrong. For (if you contend on the
ground that) actions are the result of many factors,
(we have already refuted this point, hence) at whom
is the objection levelled ? (Surely not at us.) (Ilf,
however, your ground is that) when the transcend-
ent Brahman is realised as the only existence, there
is neither instruction, nor instructor, nor result of
receiving the instruction, and therefore the Upani-
shads are useless — it is a position we readily admit.
But if you urge that (even before Brahman is realised)
instruction is useless, since it depends on many
factors, we reply, no, for it will contradict the as-
sumption 1 of all believers in the self (including your-
self). Therefore this unity of Brahman fe a secure
fortress impregnable to logicians, those first-rate heret-
ics and liars, and inaccessible to persons of shallow
understanding, and those who are devoid of the grace
of the scriptures and the teacher. This is known
from such Shruti and Smriti texts as the following,
"Who but me can know that Deity who has both joy
and the absence of it?’ (Ka. II. 21), ‘Even the gods
1 That instruction is necessary before realisation.
318 DR1HADARANY AKA UPANISHAD [2. 1. 20
in ancient times were puzzled over this’ (Ka. I. 21),
and ‘This understanding is not to be attained through
argument’ (Ka. II. 9), as also from those that de-
scribe the truth as attainable through special favour
6 and grace, and also from the Mantras that depict
Brahman as possessed of contradictory attributes,
such as, ‘It moves, and does not move, It is far, and
near,’ etc. (Ish. 5). The Gita too says, ‘All beings
are in Me,’ etc. (IX. 4). ^Therefore there is no other
& entity called the relative self but the Supreme Brah-
man. Hence it is well said in hundreds of Shrhti
passages, ‘This was indeed Brahman in the begin-
ning. It knew only Itself as, “I am Brahman,” '
(I. iv. 10), ‘There is no other witness but This, no
Mother hearer but This,’ etc. (III. viii. 11). There-
fore the highest secret name of ‘the Truth of truth*
belongs only to the Supreme Brahman, j
SECTION II
The preceding section has broached the topic,
T will tell yon about Brahman’ (II. i. 15). In this
connection it has been stated that that from which the
universe originates, of which it consists (during con-
tinuity), and into which it dissolves is the one Brah-
man. Now what are the constituents of that uni-
verse which originates and dissolves ? The five
elements. And the elements consist of name and
form. It has already been said that name and form
are called truth. And Brahman is the Truth of this
truth consisting of the elements. How it is that the
elements are called truth, will be explained in the
(third) section, treating of the gross and subtle uni-
verses. Because the body and organs, as also ' the
vital force, consist of these gross and subtle elements,
therefore they are truth. In order to define the
nature of those elements that form the body and
organs, this and the following section are introduced.
That will be an explanation of the sacret name (‘The
Truth of truth’), for Brahman, the Truth of truth,
will be ascertained only by ascertaining that the body
and organs are truth. It has been said, ‘The vital
force is truth, and Brahman is the Truth of that’
(II. i. 20). Now, to explain what this vital force is,
and how many and what its secret names are, the
nature of the vital force, which is an instrument of
the self, is being described in the course of describ-
320 BR1HADARANYAKA IPANISHAD [2. 2. 1
in g the secret name of Brahman, just as a traveller
notices wells, parks, etc., lying along the road.
hh 5 fgpsreil i spt srre fgn g pfc tf
*nanr: sjhjt:, sc^tori*., sn^r:
S550TOT, 3*7?f ^TO || \ || •
i . He who knows the calf with its abode,
its special resort, its post and its tether, kills
his seven envious kinsmen. This vital force
in the body is indeed the calf ; this body is its
abode, the head its special resort, strength its
post, and food its tether.
He who knows the calf with its abode , its special
resort , its post and its tether gets this result. What
is that? He kills his seven envious kinsmen. Kins-
men are of two kinds, those who envy and those who
do not ; here the former are meant. The seven
organs 1 — instruments for perceiving objects — that are
in the head, that is to say, the attachment to sense-
objects which they cause, are called kinsmen, since
they are born with a person. Because they turn his
vision from the Self to the sense-objects, therefore
they are envious kinsmen — since they thus hinder him
from perceiving the inner Self. It is also said in the
Ka/ha Upanishad, ‘The self-born Lord injured the
organs by making them outgoing in their tendencies.
Therefore they perceive only external things, but
not the inner Self/ etc. (Ka. IV. 1). He who knows
1 The eyes, ears, nostrils and mouth.
2. 2. 1] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 321
the calf and the rest — understands their real nature —
removes from view, or kills, these envious kinsmen.
When the aspirant, hearing of this result, is inclined
to know more about them, the Shruti says: This is
indeed the calf. Which? This vital force which is in
the body as the subtle body, which in its fivefold form
pervades the body, and was addressed as ‘Great,
White-robed, Radiant, Soma* (IT. i. 15), and on which
the organs such as that of speech and the mind rest,
as we know from the illustration of the post to which
the horse’s feet are tethered (VI. i. 13). It is like
a young calf, not being in direct touch with the sense-
objects like the other organs. Mention has been
made of ‘the calf with its abode.’ Now what is the
abode of that calf, that instrument of the self, the
vital force, which is here likened to a calf? This
body , which is an effect, is its abode. ’An abode is
that in which something is put. This body is the
abode of that calf, the vital force, because it is by
staying in the body that the organs come to function
as channels of perception, not while they rest only
on the vital force. This has been demonstrated by
Ajatasliatru as follows : When the organs are with-
drawn, the individual self is not noticed ; it is only
when they occupy their respective seats in the body
that the individual self is. noticed as perceiving things.
This was proved by the man’s being roused by push-
ing with the hand. The head is its special resort.
It is so called because the vital force is connected
with particular parts of it. Strength, the power that
comes out of food and drink, is its post. ‘Prana’ and
‘Bala’ (strength) are synonyms, for the vital force
21
322
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [2. 2. 1
abides in the body, being supported by strength.
This is borne out by the Shruti text, ‘When this self
becomes weak and senseless, as it were > (IIV. iv. 1).
Just as a calf is supported by a post, 1 so is the vital
force by strength. Some understand that the respi-
ratory force that works in the body is the post. And l
food is its tether. The food we eat is changed into
three forms. That which is the grossest is excreted
from the body and is absorbed into the earth. The
intermediate form of chyle, passing through the
stages of blood etc., nourishes its effect, the gross
body, which is composed of seven ingredients. 2 The
body is nourished by the accession of its cause, viz.,
food, because it is the product of food ; and when
this is reversed, it decays and falls. The finest form,
called ‘nectar 1 and ‘highly powerful, * goes past the
navel to the heart, and penetrating the seventy-two
thousand nerves that radiate from there, generates
strength, here designated as ‘post/ and thereby helps
the subtle body, which is the aggregate of the inner
organs, and is here called the calf, to stay in the
gross body. Therefore food is the connecting link
between t<he vital force and the body, like a calf’s
tether with a loop at either end.
Now certain secret names regarding the calf
living in its special resort, with reference to the eye,
are being mentioned :
<■4*1 fW) srcr qr
1 When, for instance, somebody is tugging it.
2 Skin, blood, flesh, fat, marrow, t>one and seed.
2. 2. 2] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 328
q&q:, sRsfcfqn- cPnfecq:, qc$*or
tfrnfsr:, q ^gffe ^Sp, sivreqq q^fqT ^fqsq-
fqrqqn, sfoi^qT ; JTTFnsf gftq?* q qq II ^ n
2. These seven gods that prevent decay
worship it : Through these pink lines in the
eye Rudra attends on it ; through the water
that is in the eye, Parjanya ; through the
pupil, the sun ; through the dark portion, fire ;
through the white portion, Indra ; through
the lower eve-lid the earth attends on it; and
through the upper eye-lid, heaven. He who
knows it as such never has any decrease of
food.
These seven gods that prevent decay (literally,
undecaying), to be presently named, worship it, this
vital force, the instrument, which is tied to the body
by food, and resides in the eye. The root ‘stha'
with the prefix ‘upa’ becomes Atmanepadin when
it signifies praying with Mantras. Here too the
seven names of the gods stand for Mantras instru-
mental to prayer ; so the use of the Atmantpada with
‘stha’ is not out of place. Now the gods that pre-
vent decay are being enumerated. Through these
familiar pink lines in the eye as aids, Rudra attends
on it, the vital force that is in the body. Through
the aid of the water that is in the eye, which comes
out when there is contact with smoke etc., the god
Parjanya attends on, that is, prays to the vital force ;
and he is the food of the vital force and the cause
of its permanence. We have it in another Shruti,
324 BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [2. 2. 2
‘When Parjanya causes rain, the vital force is glad.'
Through the pupil , which has the power of sight,
the sun prays to the vital force. Through the dark
portion of the eye fire prays to it. 7 hrough the
while portion of the eye Indra prays. Through the
lower eye-lid the earth attends on it, because both
occupy a lower position.' And through the upper
eye-lid, heaven, because both occupy an upper posi-
tion. He who knows it as such, knows that these
seven gods that are the food of the vital force con-
stantly pray to it, gets this as a result — he never has
any decrease of food.
afaifswr i
smnzjft agmT n if?r i
srm; t simT%5i^Ti ; ‘<Tpn^ri
W&f- rftt’ sriwr sit sirwr:, ainn^i? 5 ‘sim-
mt a§mT grrrisreift sigron n \ n
3. Regarding this there is the following
verse : ‘There is a bowl that has its opening
below and bulges at the top ; various kinds of
knowledge have been put in it ; seven sages
sit by its side, and the organ of speech, which
has communication with the Vedas, is the
2. 2. 3] BRIHADARANY AKA UPANISHAD
325
eighth.’ The ‘bowl that has its opening
below and bulges at the top,’ is this head of
ours, for it is the bowl that has its opening
below and bulges at the top. ‘Various kinds
of knowledge have been put in it, ’ refers to
the organs ; these indeed represent various
kinds of knowledge. ‘Seven sages sit by its
side,’ refers to the organs ; they indeed are the
sages. ‘The organ of speech, which has
communication with the Vedas, is the eighth,’
because the organ of speech is the eighth, and
communicates with the Vedas.
Regarding this subject there is the following
verse or Mantra: 'There is a bowl that has its
opening below/ etc. Now the Shruti explains the
Mantra. What is that bowl? This Jiead of ours ,
for it is shaped like a bowl. How? For it has its
opening below , the mouth standing for this opening,
and bulges at the top, the head because of its round
shape answering to the description. 'Various kinds
of knowledge have been put in it ’ : Just as the Soma
juice is put in the bowl, so have varioils kinds of
knowledge been put in the head. The organs such
as the ear, and the vital force, which is distributed
among them in seven forms, represent various
kinds of knowledge, because they are the cause of
the perception of sound etc. This is what the Mantra
says. 'Seven sages sit by its side * : This portion
of the Mantra refers to the organs, which are of a
vibratory nature. They alone are the sages. ' The
organ of speech, zvhich has communication with the
326 BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [2. 2. 3
FecZas, is f/te eighth . n The reason for this is given :
Because the organ of speech is the eighth, and com-
municates with (or utters) the Vedas.
qraq:, sw src-
5T3r: 5 fjntw fqwjrfiraram^sft, aro&r fqwnfJnr:,
srar sm^fsr: 5 sintq qfas:,
3W sK^fq: ; qiTtqifq:, qraT 3?f%t #
snjfcra^NRfa 5 gq^Trn flsrfa, ^qq*qT?jf aqqfif
q ii « ii sfer feftq sng i mn , ii
4. These two (ears) are Gotama and
Bharadwaja : this one is Gotama, and this
one Bharadwaja. These two (eyes) are
Vishwamitra and Jamadagni : this one is
Vishwamitra, and this one Jamadagni. These
two (nostrils) are Vasishflia and Kashyapa :
this one is Vasishtha, and this one Kashyapa.
The tongue is Atri, for through the tongue
food is eaten. ‘Atri’ is but this name ‘Atti.’
He who knows it as such becomes the eater of
all, and everything becomes his food.
Now who are the sages that sit by the side of
that bowl? These two ears are Gotama arid Bhara-
dwdja : this one is Gotama, and this one Bharadwaja,
meaning the right and the left ear respectively, or
inversely. Similarly, to instruct about the eyes the
1 The tongue counts as two : as the organ of taste it
will be enumerated in the next paragraph as the seventh
sage; as the organ of speech it is here spoken of as the
eighth.
2 . 2 . 4 ] BRIM ADARANY AKA UPAN1SHAD
327
Shruti says, These two are Vishwamitra and Jama -
dagni : this one, the right, is Vishw&mitra, and this
one, the left, Jamadagni, or inversely. To instruct
about the nostrils the Shruti says, These two are
Vasishtha and Kashyapa : this one, the right nostril,
is Vasishtha, and this one, the left, Kashyapa, or
inversely, as before. The tongue is Atri, because of
its association with eating ; this is the seventh sage.
For through the tongue food is eaten. Therefore
that which is indirectly called ( A trV is but this famil-
iar name ‘Atti J (eats) — on account of being the eater.
Through meditation on the derivation of the word
‘Atri,’ he becomes the eater of all kinds of food
belonging to the vital force. In the next world he
becomes only the eater, and is never treated as food.
This is expressed by the words, f And everything
becomes his food / He who' knows it, the true nature
of the vital force, as such, as described above, be*
comes the vital force in this body, and is only the
eater associated with the abode and the special resort,
and not food. That is to say, he is entirely removed
from the category of food.
SECTION III
5 to agr&rt 5 ^— gjT 4NnJj?r Hr? *arn5rf
% fert ^ ?rar, ST3 r5W || * ||
i. Braliman has but two forms — gross
and subtle, mortal and immortal, limited and
unlimited, defined and undefined.
At the end of the first section it has been said
that the vital force is truth. Its secret names also
have been explained in connection with those of
Brahman, implying thereby that this is the same
vital force. Of what does it consist, and how is it
called truth? — these questions have to be answered.
Hence this section is commenced in order to define
the nature of the five elements, called truth, which
consist of the body and organs. It is by the elimina-
tion of these limiting adjuncts that the Shruti wishes
to define the nature of Brahman negatively, saying,
‘Not this, not this.’ Now Brahman has two forms:
The Brahman that is (respectively) connected with
the body and organs which are the product of the
five elements, is designated as gross and subtle, is
mortal and immortal , 1 and includes the impressions
created by those elements, is the omniscient, omnip-
otent, conditioned Brahman, consisting of actions,
their factors and their results, and admitting of all
kinds of association. That same Brahman, again, is
3 That is, relatively.
2 . 3 . 2 ]
BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
329
devoid of all limiting adjuncts, the object of intui-
tion, birthless, undecaying, immortal, fearless, and
beyond the reach of even speech and mind, being
above duality, and is described as ‘Not this, not this.’
Now these are the two forms by the elimination of
which Brahman is so described ; hence the text
begins : Brahman or the Supreme Self has but two
forms , through the superimposition of which by ig-
norance the formless Supreme Brahman is defined or
made conceivable. The word ‘vava’ (indeed) is em-
phatic. Which are those two forms? The gross and
subtle. The other phases of the gross and subtle are
included in them ; so they are counted as two only.
What are those phases of the gross and subtle ? These
are being mentioned : Mortal, subject to destruc-
tion, and immprtal, its opposite. TAmited, which
goes a little distance and stops, and unlimited, which
goes on, is pervasive, the opposite of ‘limited.’
Defiiied, having particular characteristics that distin-
guish it from others, and undefined, the opposite of
that, which can only be distantly referred to, as
something we know not what.
n ; <*cr-
'WcUrT ; qsn=sr acwi ,
^ ^ ^
gfa || II
2 . The gross (form) is that which is other
than air and the ether. It is mortal, it is
limited, and it is defined. The essence of
that which is gross, mortal, limited and
330
BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [2. 3. 2
defined is the sun that shines, for it is the
essence of the defined.
The gross and the subtle have each four phases.
Now what are the phases of the gross, and what are
those of the subtle ? This is being separately shown.
The gross (form) is : ‘Gross’ means having well-
defined parts, with parts interpenetrating one another,
that is, compact or solid. What is it? That which
is other — than what ? — than the two elements, air and
the ether ; hence it refers to the three remaining ele-
ments, viz., earth etc. It, this triad of elements called
gross, is also mortal , or perishable. Why ? Because
it is limited ; it is only a limited thing which, when
joined to some other thing, is checked by it, as a jar
by a post or wall, for instance. Similarly the gross
form is limited , being related to some other object,
and mortal, because of its clash with the latter. And
it is defined , having noticeable peculiarities of its
own ; and for that very reason it is limited, and being
limited it is mortal, and hence it is also gross. Or
because it is gross it is mortal, and being mortal it is
limited, and, being limited it is defined. Since these
four features do not contradict one another, any one
of them may stand to the others in the relation of
principal and qualifying word, or that of cause and
effect.. In any case, the three elements, each pos-
sessed of the four features, constitute the gross form
of Brahman. Anyone of these four epithets being
taken, the others are automatically taken. This is *
stated as follows : The essence of that which is gross ,
mortal, limited and defined , that is, of the three
2 . 3 . 3 ] BR1HA DA RA NY A KA UPAN1SHAD
331
elements each having the four attributes, is the sun
that shines, for the sun is the quintessence of the
three elements. It is the perfection of them, be-
cause through it they get their features of varying
colours. The shining solar orb is the representation
of the cosmic body, for it is the essence of the defined,
that is, of the three elements ; hence that is meant.
Because the shining sun has a gross form and is the
best product of the elements. About the cosmic
organ within the solar orb, we shall now speak.
n ^ ||
3. Now -the subtle — it is ;\ir and the
ether. It is immortal, it is unlimited, and it
is undefined. The essence of that which is
subtle, immortal, unlimited and undefined is
the being that is in the sun, for that is the
essence of the undefined. This is with refer-
ence to the gods. f
Now the subtle form is being described. It is
air and the ether, the two remaining elements. Being
subtle it is immortal, and unlimited, hence not clash-
ing with anything, and therefore immortal, not
subject to destruction. It is unlimited, the opposite
of limited, that is, pervasive. Because it cannot be
distinguished from others, therefore it is undefined .
The word ‘Tyat’ indicates something that can be
only indirectly described. The relation among the
332
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [2. 3. 3
four epithets is as before. The essence of that which
is subtle , immortal , unlimited and undefined, that is,
of the two subtle elements each having the four attri-
butes, is the being that is in the sun, Hiranyagarblia
as the cosmic organ , 1 which is called the vital force.
That is the quintessence of the two subtle elements,
as in the previous instance (the solar orb was of the
gross elements). This ‘being’ is the perfection of
the two subtle elements, because they 2 emanate from
the Undifferentiated in order to form the subtle body
of Hiranyagarblia. And because they seek to. pro-
duce this, therefore it is the best product of them.
For that is the essence of the undefined , because
the ‘being’ that is in the sun is not perceived like the
solar orb, and is the essence of the two elements.
Hence there is a similarity between the being who
is in the sun and the two elements. Therefore the
reason furnished in the clause, ‘For that is the
essence of the undefined/ as if it were a familiar
experience, is quite in order.
Some 3 4 say that the word ‘essence’ means cause,
referring to the self of Hiranyagarbha, which is a
conscious entity. The past actions of Hiranyagarbha
direct air and the ether, and with these as their
support 1 they direct the other elements. Therefore,
1 Corresponding to the organs in the body. The subtle
body of Hiranyagarbha is meant, and not his conscious self,
as will presently be seen.
2 Air and the ether are the principal, not the only
ingredients of the cosmic subtle body. The other three
elements also are there, but they play a subordinate part.
3 The reference is to Bhartriprapancha.
4 That is, taking their form.
2. 3. 3] BR1HA DA RANYAKA UPAN1SHAD 333
being the director, through its own actions, of air
and the ether, it is called their essence, or cause.
This view is wrong, because it makes the essence
of the subtle form dissimilar to that of the gross
form. To be explicit : The essence of the three
gross elements is, as we have seen, the solar orb,
which is gross and of the same class as the three
elements ; it is not a conscious entity. Therefore
it stands to reason that the essence of the two subtle
elements also should be of the same class as they.
For the trend of both passages is the same. For
instance, the gross and subtle forms have been dis-
tinguished as having four attributes each ; so it is
but proper that the essences of the gross and subtle
forms, like these forms themselves of which they
are the essences, should also be distinguished on
the same principled One cannot cook 'one-half of a
hen and keep the other half for laying eggs.
Objection : Suppose we say that the essence of
the gross form too refers to the conscious .self that
identifies itself with the solar orb 1 2 ?
Reply : You .say too little. The Shrutis every-
where teach that all gross and subtle fontis are Brah
man.
Objection : Ts not the word, ‘being,’ as applied
to unconscious things, inappropriate ?
Reply : No. We find the word ‘being’ applied
in the Shrutis to the subtle body having wings, tail,
1 That is, there must be a common feature between
them, to maintain the parallelism. Since one is insentient,
the other must be so too. Otherwise there will be absurdity.
2 The cause and effect being one.
334
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [2. 3. 3
-etc. In the following passage, ‘ “We can never beget
progeny (initiate activity) so long as we are thus
divided. Let us make these seven beings 1 into one
(the subtle body).” They made these seven beings
into one/ etc. (Sh. VI. i. 1. 3), we find the use of
the word ‘being/ as also in another Shruti (Tai. II.
i.) referring to the gross body, which is the product
of the food we eat, and other finer bodies. The
words, This vs with reference to the gods , close the
topic so as to introduce the next topic, which Is
relating to the body.
d^dcFFT CC5TRT WdTPT, ^d**! ^d«dJ
*Td T?dT qsrej:, *Tdt gfd || u ||
4. Now with reference to the body : The
gross form is but this — what is other than
(the corporeal) air and the ether that is in the
body. It is mortal, it is limited, and it is
defined. The essence of that which is gross,
mortal, limited and defined is the eye, for it
is the essence of the defined.
Now the division of the gross and subtle with
reference to the body is being set forth. What is
that gross form f It is but this. What is it? What
is other than (the corporeal) air and the ether that
is in the body , that is, the three constituent elements
of the body other than these two. It is mortal,
1 The five sense-organs, the organ of speech, and mind.
2. 3. 5] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
335
etc. — to be explained as in the preceding paragraphs.
The essence of that which is defined is the eye. The
eye is the essence of the (three gross) materials that
build up the body, for it is that which lends import-
ance to the (three gross elements in the whole) body,
just as the solar orb does with reference to the
gods. Also because of their priority in point of time.
(We have it in the Bralimana) that in the embryo it
is the eyes that are first formed (Sh. IV. ii. i. 28),
The Shruti too hints at this : ‘His essence, or lustre,
came forth. This was Fire’ 1 (I. ii. 2). And the eyes
possess lustre. The three elements in the body have
the eyes as their essence. For it is the essence of the
defined : The meaning of the reason is that the eye
is gross and is also the essence (of the three gross
elements in the body).
3tot^;r[— snnRsr ;
CRT:, ^
SSPP*:, gf'T *ET: II ^ II
5. Now the subtle — it is (the , corporeal)
air and the ether that is in the body. It is
immortal, it is unlimited, and it is undefined.
The essence of that which is subtle, immortal,
unlimited and undefined is this being that is
in the right eye, for this is the essence of the
undefined.
Now the subtle form is being described. The
1 Since ‘essence’ is here used synonymously with ‘lustre.'
BR1HADARANYAKA V PA NISH AD [2. 3. 5
two remaining elements, (the corporeal) air and the
ether that is in the body — are the subtle form. The
rest is to be explained as before. The essence of
that which is undefined is this being that is in the
right eye (i.e. the subtle body). The specification
about the right eye is based on the evidence of the
scriptures. For they declare that the subtle body is
specially manifest in the right eye ; we see it men-
tioned in all the Shrutis. For this is the essence oj
the undefined : as before, the meaning of the reason
is that the subtle body is fine, because it cannot be
definitely perceived, and is also the essence (of the
two subtle elements in the body).
tcRRT I qSTT 3TCT:,
span
srftfofa =7 0^%?*; srcnc! anfcft— ilfil *
; snwT # i n
slTgPJTH II
6. The form of that ‘being’ is as follows :
Like a cloth dyed with turmeric, or like grey
sheep’s wool, or like the (scarlet) insect called
Indragopa, or like a tongue of fire, or like a
white lotus, or like a flash of lightning. He
who knows it as such attains splendour like a
flash of lightning. Now therefore the de-
scription (of Brahman) : ‘Not this, not this.’
Because there is no other and more appropriate
2. 3. 6] BRIHADARANYAKA UP AN 1ST! AD
337
description than this ‘Not this.’ Now Its
name : ‘The Truth of truth.* The vital force
is truth, and It is the Truth of that.
The division of the gross and subtle, called
truth, which are the limiting adjuncts of Brahman,
into what relates to the gods and what relates to the
body, in their twofold division of the body and
organs, has been explained. Now we (the scrip-
tures) shall describe the form of that 'being 1 identi-
fied with the organs, that is, the subtle body. It
consists of impressions, and is produced by the union
of the intellect and the impressions of gross and
subtle objects ; it is variegated 1 like pictures on a
canvas or wall, is comparable to an illusion, or
magic, or a mirage, and is puzzling to all. For
instance, the Buddhistic Idealists (Yog^charas) are
mistaken into thinking that the self is this much
only. The Naiyayikas and Vaisheshikas, on the
other hand, maintain that like the colour of a cloth,
these impressions are the attributes of the self, which
is a substance. While the Sankhyas hold that the
mind, which is dependent on the Prakriti and is
possessed of three tendencies, is a separate entity,
subserves the purpose of the self, and operates for
its highest good (liberation through experience).
Some self-styled followers 2 of the Upanishads
too spin out the following theory : The gross and
subtle elements make one (the lowest) entity, the
Supreme Self is the highest entity, and different from
1 All this shows that it is the mind that is being de-
scribed, and not the self.
2 A hit at Bhartriprapancha.
22
338
BRIHADARANYAICA UPAN1SHAD [2. 3. 6
and intermediate between these two is the third
entity, which is the sum total of one's meditations,
actions and previous experience, together with the
individual self which is the agent and experiencer,
the one that Ajatashatru awoke. The actions etc.
are the cause, and the gross and subtle elements
mentioned above as also the body and organs, which
are the means of meditations and actions, are the
effect. They also establish a connection with the
logicians by stating that the actions etc. abide in
the subtle body. Then they are frightened lest this
should smack of Sankhya, and conform also to the
Vaishesliika view by saying that just as odour, which
abides in flowers, can be conserved in oil through
boiling, even when the flowers are gone, so even
when the subtle body is gone, all actions etc. are
conserved in a portion of the Supreme Self. That
portion, although transcendent, becomes conditioned
through attributes — the actions etc. — coming from
elsewhere . 1 This individual self then becomes the
agent and experiencer, and is subject to bondage
and liberation. Those actions etc. are but adventi-
tious things, coming from the elements ; the individ-
ual self, being a portion of the Supreme Self, is
in itself transcendent. Ignorance, which springs
from the Self, although natural to It, is not an attri-
bute of the Self, just as a desert does not affect the
whole earth. Through this statement they conform
also to the Sankhya view.
They look upon all this as excellent because of*
its harmonising with the logicians' view, but they do
3 The elements forming the body and organs.
2. 3. 6] BRIHADARANY AKA UPANISHAD
339
not see that it contradicts the verdict of the Upani-
shads as well as all reasoning. How ? For instance,
we have already said that if the Supreme Self be
composed of parts (and the individual Self be identi-
cal with It), such a view would be open to various
objections, such as the Supreme Self being subject to
transmigration and having wounds, besides the im-
possibility of Its going after death to places in ac-
cordance with Its past work. While if the individ-
ual self be eternally different from the Supreme
Self, it can never be identical with It. If it is urged
that the subtle body itself is figuratively referred to
as part of the Supreme Self, like the ether enclosed in
a jar, a bowl, the pores of the earth, etc., then it is
impossible to maintain that even when the subtle
body has ceased to be (as in the state of profound
sleep), impressions persist in a part of the Supreme
Self, or that ignorance springs from It, as a desert
from the earth, and so on. Nor can we even men-
tally imagine that impressions move from one thing
to another without the help of some object in which
they can inhere. Nor would such Shruti passages
as, ‘Desire, deliberation, doubt ('etc. are but the
mind)’ (I. v. 3), ‘It is on the heart (mind) that
colours rest’ (III. ix. 20), ‘It thinks, as it were, and
shakes, as it were* (IV. iii. 7), ‘All desires that are
in his heart’ (IV. iv. 7 ; Ka. VI. 14), and ‘He is
then beyond all the woes of his heart’ (IV. iii. 22) —
fit in with such a view. And it is not proper to
explain these passages otherwise than literally, for
they are meant to show that the individual self is
no other than the Supreme Brahman. And all the
340
BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [2. 3. &
Upanishads end by giving out this sole meaning.
Therefore persons skilled only in fancifully interpret-
ing the Shrutis all distort their meaning. Yet, if
those interpretations are in consonance with the
teaching of the Vedas, they are welcome ; we have
no grudge against them.
Moreover the expression, 'Brahman has but two
forms/ does not agree with the view that posits three
entities. If, however, the gross and subtle forms
together with the impressions respectively springing
from them constitute two forms, gross and subtle,
while Brahman is a third entity possessed of those
two forms, and there is no fourth entity in between,
then only is the assertion, ‘Brahman has but two
forms/ congruous. Otherwise we have to imagine
that the individual self is a part of Brahman, and
has the two forms ; or that the vSupreme Self, through
the medium of the individual self, has them. In
that case the use of the dual number, indicating
only ‘two forms/ would be inconsistent. The plural,
denoting ‘many forms/ including the impressions,
would be more appropriate — the gross and subtle
forms being two, and the impressions being the third
entity. If it is maintained that the gross and subtle
forms alone are the forms of the Supreme Self, but
the impressions belong to the individual self, then
the form of expression used, viz., that ‘the vSupreme
Self, which undergoes modification through the
medium of the individual self, (has the forms)/ would
be meaningless, since impressions too would equally *
effect the Supreme Self through the medium of the
individual self. But we cannot at all imagine, ex-
2. 3. 6] BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
341
•cept in a figurative sense, that a thing undergoes
modification through the medium of something else.
Nor is the individual self something different from
the Supreme Self. To admit this is to contradict
one’s own premise. Therefore this sort of interpret-
ation has its origin only in the imagination of those
who are ignorant of the meaning of the Vedas, and
is not warranted by the text. An interpretation of
the Vedas that is not so warranted cannot be regard-
ed either as a true interpretation or as helping to-
wards it, for the Vedas do not derive their authority
from any other source. Therefore the view that
three entities are in question is untenable.
The subtle body has been introduced in connec-
tion with matters relating to the body in the clause,
'The being that is in the right eye’ (II., iii. 5), and
in connection with those relating to the gods in the
clause, 'The being that is in the sun’ (II. iii. 3).
The word 'that’ (in the expression, 'The form of that
being’) refers to something that is being discussed,
in other words, that which is the essence of the
subtle undefined, but not the individual self.
Objection : Why should not these forms belong
to the individual self, since it too has a place in the
discussion, and the word 'that’ refers to something
that is under discussion?
Reply : No, for the Shruti wants to teach the
transcendent nature of the individual self. If the
forms, 'Like a cloth dyed with turmeric’ etc. (II. iii.
6), really belong to the individual self, then it would
not be described as indefinable in the terms, 'Not
this, not this.’
342
BRIHADARANYAICA UPANISHAD
[2. 3. G
Objection : Suppose we say this is a descrip-
tion of something else, and not of the individual
self.
Reply : Not so, for the fourth chapter, after
introducing the topic of the individual self, con-
cludes with, 'Through what, O Maitreyi, should one
know the Knower V (IV. v. 15). Also 'This self is
That which has been described as "Not this, not
this” 9 (III. ix. 26). Besides, thus only can the
statement, 'I will instruct you (about Brahman)/
be relevant. That is to say, if the Shruti wants to
teach the transcendent nature of the individual self
— which is free from all differentiations of limiting
adjuncts, then only can this assertion be fulfilled.
Because, instructed in this way, the student knows
himself to be Brahman, thoroughly understands the
import of the scriptures, and is afraid of nothing.
If, on the other hand, the individual self is one, and
what is described as 'Not this, not this/ is some-
thing else, then the student would understand just
the reverse of truth, viz., that Brahman is .something,
and that he is something else. He would not 'Know
only himself as, "I am Brahman” * (I. iv. 10).
Therefore the forms given in the passage, 'Now
the form of that being/ etc., are only those of the
subtle body.
Besides, in order to tell the nature of the
Supreme Self, which is the Truth of truth, the latter-
must be told in its entirety. And impressions being*
the particular forms of that truth, these forms of
the impressions are being mentioned. These are the
forms of this being, that is, of the subtle body that
2. 3. 6] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
34.3
is being discussed. What are they ? As in life we
have a cloth dyed with turmeric , so in the presence
of objects of enjoymert the mind gets a correspond-
ing tinge of impressions, whence a man under such
circumstances is said to be attached, as a cloth, for
instance, is dyed. Also as sheep's wool is grey , so
are some other forms of impressions. Again, as in
the world the insect called 1 ndragopa is deep red,
so also are some impressions of the mind. The
colouring varies sometimes according to the objects
presented to the mind, and sometimes according to
the tendencies of the mind itself. As again a tongue
of fire is bright, so are some people’s impressions at
times. Like a white lotus too are the impressions
of some. As in nature a single flash of lightning
illumines everything, so according to the intensity
of the manifestation of knowledge, do the impres-
sions of some people. It is impossible to ascertain
the beginning, middle or end, or number, or place,
time or cause of these impressions, for they are
innumerable, and infinite are their causes. So it
will be said in the fourth chapter, '(This self is)
identified with this (what is perceived^ and with
that (what is inferred),’ etc. (IV. iv. 5). Therefore
the examples given in the passage, ‘Like a cloth dyed
with turmeric,’ etc., are not meant to indicate the
exact number of the varieties of impressions, but
merely to suggest their types, meaning that impres-
sions are like these. The form of impression that
has been cited at the end, viz., 'Like a flash of light-
ning,’ belongs to Hiranyagarbha, which suddenly
manifests itself like lightning, as he emanates from
344
BRIHADARANY AKA UPAN1SHAD [2. 3. 6
the Undifferentiated. He who knows that particular
form of impression belonging to Hiranyagarbha,
attains splendour like a flash of lightning. The
particles ‘ha’ and ‘vai’ are for emphasis. Just like
this, that is, like that of Hiranyagarbha, becomes
the splendour or fame of one who knows it, the form
of impression last mentioned, as such, as described
above.
Having thus completely described the nature of
‘truth,’ the Shruti, in order to ascertain the nature
of what has been called ‘the Truth of truth/ viz.,
Brahman, begins this : Now therefore — since after
ascertaining the nature of ‘truth/ what remains is
the Truth of truth, therefore the nature of that will
be next ascertained. Description is a definite state*
ment about Brahman. What is this statement?
Not this, not this.
How through these two terms, ‘Not this, not
this/ is it sought to describe the Truth of truth?
By the elimination of all differences due to limiting
adjuncts, the words refer to something that has no
distinguishing mark such as name, or form, or
action, or 'heterogeneity, or species, or qualities.
Words denote things through one or other of these.
But Brahman has none of these distinguishing
marks. Hence It cannot be described as, ‘It is such
and such/ as we can describe a cow by saying,
‘There moves a white cow with horns/ Brahman is
described by means of name, form and action super-
imposed on It, in such terms as, ‘Knowledge, Bliss,
Brahman’ (III. ix. 28), and ‘Pure Intelligence’ (II.
iv. 12), ‘Brahman/ and ‘Atman.’ When, however,
2 . 3 . 6 ] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
345
we wish to describe Its true nature, free from all
differences due to limiting adjuncts, then it is an
utter impossibility. Then there is only one way
left, viz., to describe It as ‘Not this, not this,’ by
eliminating all possible specifications of It that one
may know of.
These two negative particles are used in an all-
inclusive sense, so as to eliminate every specifica-
tion whatsoever that may occur to us. vSucli being
the case, the doubt that Brahman has not been de-
scribed, is removed. If, on the other hand, the two
negative particles merely eliminated just the two
aspects of Brahman that are being discussed (viz.,
the gross and subtle), then other aspects of It besides
these two would not be described, and there would
still be the doubt as to what exactly Brahman is
like. So that description of Brahman would be use-
less, for it would not satisfy one’s desire to know
It. And the purpose of the sentence, T will in-
struct you about Brahman’ (II. i. 15), would remain
unfulfilled. But when through the elimination of
all limiting adjuncts the desire to know about space,
time and everything else (that is not Brahman) is
removed, one realises one’s identity with Brahman,
the Truth of truth, which is homogeneous like a
lump of salt, is Pure Intelligence, and is without
interior or exterior ; his desire to know is completely
satisfied, and his intellect is centred in the vSelf alone.
Therefore the two negative particles in ‘Not this,
not this,’ are used in an all-inclusive sense.
Objection : Well, after buckling to with such
ado is it fair to describe Brahman thus ?
346
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 2 . 3 . 6
Reply : Yes. Because there is no other and
more appropriate description than this ‘Not this, not
this/ therefore this is the only description of Brah-
man. The particle 'iti* covers all possible predica-
tions that are to be eliminated by the two negative
particles, as when we say, 'Every village is beauti-
ful/ It was said, 'Its secret name is: The Truth
of truth’ (II. i. 20) ; it is thus that the Supreme
Brahman is the Truth of truth. Therefore the name
of Brahman that has been mentioned is appropriate.
What is it? The Truth of truth. The vital force
is truth, and It is the Truth of that.
SECTION IV
‘The Self alone is to be meditated upon’ (I. iv.
7) ; ‘Of all these, this Self alone should be realised*
(Ibid.), for ‘It is dearer than a son* etc. (I. iv. 8). 1
In the course of explanation of the above passages
already introduced, the aim of knowledge and its
relation to that aim have been stated in the sentence,
‘It knew only Itself as, “I am Brahman. ” Thefe-
fore It became alb (I. iv. 10). Thus it has been
mentioned that the inner Self is the subject-matter
of knowledge. While that of ignorance is relative
existence, which consists of the ends and means of
rites with five factors, which again depend on the
division of men into four castes etc.; it is by nature
alternately manifest and unmanifest like the tree and
the seed, and is made up of name, form and
action. This relative existence has been dealt with
in the passage beginning with, ‘He (who worships
another god thinking), “He is one, and I am
another,’ * does not know’ (I. iv. 10), and concluded
in the passage, ‘This indeed consists of three
things: name, form and action’ (I. vi. 1). One
aspect of it is in accordance with the scriptures and
makes for progress leading up to the world of
Hiranyagarbha ; while the other aspect is not in
accordance with the scriptures and causes degrada-
tion down to the level of stationary objects. All
1 The last two quotations are adapted.
348
BR1HADARANY AKA UPAN1SHAD [ 2 . 4 . 1
this has already been shown in the section beginning
with, ‘Two classes of Prajapati’s sons/ etc. (I. iii. 1).
In order to show how a man disgusted with this
subject-matter of ignorance can qualify himself for
the knowledge of Brahman, which deals with the
inner Self, the entire subject-matter of ignorance
has been concluded in the first chapter. But in the
second chapter, after introducing the inner Self,
which is the .subject-matter of the knowledge of
Brahman, in the words, ‘I will tell you about Brah-
njan’ (II. i. 1), and T will instruct you about Brah-
man’ (II. i. 15), the Shruti has taught about that
Brahman, the one without a second devoid of all
differences, by eliminating, in the words, ‘Not this,
not this,’ all material qualities summed up in the
word ‘truth,’ which by its very nature comprises
action, its factors and its results. As part of this
knowledge of Brahman, the Shruti wishes to enjoin
renunciation. Bites with five factors such as wife,
son and wealth are the subject-matter of ignorance,
because they do not lead to the attainment of the
Self. If a thing calculated to produce a particular
result is applied to bring about a different result,
it frustrates its purpose. Running or walking is not
the means to appease one’s hunger or thirst. The
son and the rest have been prescribed in the Shruti
as means to the attainment of the world of men, of
the Manes and of the gods, not as means to the at-
tainment of the Self. They have been mentioned
as producing those specific results. And they have
not been enjoined on the knower of Brahman, being
classed by the Shruti as rites with material ends, in
2. 4. 1] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
349
the passage, ‘This much indeed is desire’ (I. iv. 17).
And the knower of Brahman has already attained all
desires ; he cannot for that very reason have any
more desires. The Sliruti too says, ‘We who have
attained this Self, this world’ (IV. iv. 22).
But there are some who hold that even a knower
of Brahman has desires. They have certainly never
heard the Brill ad arany aka Upanishad, nor of the
distinction made by the Sliruti that the desire for
a son and so forth belongs to an ignorant man, and
that with regard to the subject-matter of knowledge,
the statement, ‘What shall we achieve through
children, we who have attained this Self, this world?’
and so on, is applicable. They do not also know
the contradiction, based on incongruity, between the
attainment of knowledge, which obliterates all
action with its factors and results, and ignorance
together with its effects. Nor have they heard
Vyasa’s statement. The contradiction rests on the
opposite trends of the nature of rites and that of
knowledge, which partake respectively of ignorance
and illumination. On being asked, ‘There are two
Vedic injunctions : Perform rites, and give up rites.
What is the goal of knowledge, and what of rites ?
I wish to be enlightened on this. So please instruct
me. These two (it seems) are mutually contradic-
tory and run counter to each other’ (Mbh. XII.
ccxlvii. 1-2), Vyasa replied — thereby showing the
contradiction, ‘Men are bound by rites and freed by
knowledge. Hence sages who have known the
truth never perform rites,’ and so on (Ibid., verse 7).
Therefore the knowledge of Brahman leads to the
350
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 2 . 4 . 1
highest goal for man not with, but without the help
of any auxiliary means, for otherwise there would
be contradiction all round. It is to show this that
renunciation of the world, which consists in giving
up all means, is sought to be enjoined as a subsidiary
step. For at the end of the fourth chapter it has
been asserted, ‘This much indeed is (the means of)
immortality, my dear’ ; and we have also a hint for
inference in the fact that Yajnavalkya, who was a
ritualist, renounced the world.
Moreover the knowledge of Brahman as a means
to immortality has been imparted to Maitreyi, who
was without the means to perform rites. Also wealth
has been deprecated. If rites were means to immor-
tality, the derogatory remarks about wealth would
be out of place, since on it rites with five factors
depend. If, however, rites are desired to be
shunned, then it is proper to decry the means to it.
Moreover (in the state of knowledge) there is an
absence of the consciousness about caste, order of
life, etc., which are the qualifications for the per-
formance of rites, as we see in the passages, ‘The
Brfihmana ousts one’ (II. iv. 6 ; IV. v. 7), ‘The
Kshatriya ousts one/ etc. (Ibid.). When one ceases
to consider oneself a Brahmana, a Kshatriya, or the
like, there is certainly no room for such injunctions
as that this is the duty of Brahmanas, or that this
is the duty of Kshatriyas, for there are no such
persons. For a man who does not identify him-
self as a Brahmana, a Kshatriya, or the like, rites
and their accessories, which are the effects of that
consciousness, are automatically dropped because of
2. 4. 2] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
351
the giving up of that consciousness. Therefore this
story is introduced with a view to enjoining renun-
ciation of the wprld as part of the knowledge of the
Self.
^JTTc^RT^for, fir! 5R13ITq*JTcd SR*5TT-
|| \ ||
1. ‘Maitreyi, my dear/ said Yajnaval-
kya, ‘I am going to renounce this life. Allow
me to finish between you and Kfityayani. ’
The sage Ydjnavalkya addressing his wife, Mai-
treyi, said , 'Maitreyi, I am going to renounce this
householder’s life — 1 intend to take up the life of re-
nunciation, which is the next higher life. Hence l
ask your permission. (The particle ‘are’ is a voca-
tive.) Further I wish to finish between you and my
second wife, Kdtyayani, that is, put an end to the
relationship that existed between you through me,
your common husband ; by dividing my property
between you I will separate you through wealth,
and go.’
*=n frapft, u ?cr *nfh srstf
firerc gRrcjriT smfafo ;
a^tcsr^r 3 JTTsufei fir^% n ^ n
2. Thereupon Maitreyi said, ‘Sir, if
iiideed this whole earth full of wealth be mine,
shall I be immortal through that?’ ‘No,’
replied Yajnavalkya, ‘your life will be just
352
BR1HADARANY AKA UPAN1SHAD [2. 4. 2
like that of people who have plenty of things,
but there is no hope of immortality through
wealth . ’
Thus addressed, Maitrcyi said , ‘Sir, if indeed
this whole earth girdled by the ocean and full of
wealth he mine, shall I he immortal through that,
that is, through rites such as the Agnihotra, which
can be performed with the entire wealth of the
earth? The particle ‘nu’ indicates deliberation. The
word ‘Katliam’ (how) indicates disbelief, meaning
‘never’ ; or it may have an interrogative force, in
which case it should be construed with the slightly
remote words, ‘Shall I be immortal?’ 'No/ replied
Y ajnavalkya. If the word ‘how’ indicates disbelief,
Yajnavalkya’s word ‘No’ is an approval. If it has
an interrogative force, his reply means, ‘You can
never be immortal ; as is the life of people of means
filled with materials of enjoyment, so will your life
be ; hut there is no hope, even in thought, of immor-
tality through wealth, that is, rites performed with
wealth.’
m JTTJJrtT *qi ft*
^ ft || ^ ||
3. Then Maitreyi said, ‘What shall I do
with that which will not make me immortal ?
Tell me, sir, of that alone which you know (to
be the only means of immortality).’
Thus addressed, Maitrcyi said in reply, ‘If this
is so, what shall I do with that wealth which will
not make me immortal ? Tell me, sir, of that alone
2. 4. 5] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 353
which you know to be the only means of immor-
tality. ’
si ftera q i g g re ra:, fen sr: STrft fef
qf?, sqT^qTSqrfST ft, sqraSTTorw
4. Yajnavalkya said, 'My dear, you have
been my beloved (even before), and you say
what is after my heart. Come, take vour
seat, I will explain it to you. As I explain
it, meditate (on its meaning).
When rites performed with wealth were rejected
as a means to immortality, Yajnavalkya , seeing that
Maitreyi concurred with his views, was pleased and
said , ‘O Maitreyi, you have been my beloved even
before, and now you say what is just after 'my heart .
Therefore come and take your seat , I will explain to
you what you desire — that knowledge of the Self
which confers immortality. But as I explain it,
meditate, or desire to reflect steadfastly, on the mean-
ing of my words.’ The particle ‘vata’ is suggestive
of tenderness.
fh r ra , q stt qcg: qrenq qfe fsnrt
nqffr, sTTcVR^g qfe ferf 1 qr 3^
snqTq q>TJTTq stptt fen nqffr, qr rmq
sthtt fen nsrffr 1 q sn 3^ gq n nf qsrorq gqr:
fen nqfer, sTTcJp^g qrarq gqn fen nqfe 1
«T qT ferJPq fef fef 3TTcJPT?g
qmnq fef fef nqfa 1 *t sfT 3^ si?m: qrnmr
23
354
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [2. 4. 5
m fsitf sTTciR^g gnwTg as fsrg i
g gr fsw *rafg, snrSR^g
angra gn* fircf srafa i *r gT snt ^Hkht wmrra
®Nct: fspn v&fa, sncJRsg «rtor sHft: fsrcT
¥iaf% I g gr 3^ ^Tfrt sRTtna ^t: ferr *rafcr,
3TTcJH^g ^mTg ^STT: flRT flgPcT | g gT 3gJ
3^rmt «KTOTg SJcUffT fsmTpir tRfo, 3(lc41W3
3FTJTPT ^jrr^T fsjqrfw flgfprT | 5T gT 3?^
g> m ra few wafer, sncws^g a;mw few
Wafer I 3 TTcJTT ar 3^ WfeWTl JTSrfogt
ferf^Wlferasat fetfa , STTcTRt WT 3^ 35>I^
wa^ta flcgT fewiffeia *w f%%m: ii h ii
5. He said : It is not for the sake of the
husband, my dear, that he is loved, but for
one’s own sake that he is loved. It is not for
the sake of the wife, my dear, that she is
loved, but for one’s own sake that she is loved.
It is not for the sake of the sons, my dear,
that they are loved, but for one’s own sake
that they are loved. It is not for the sake of
wealth, my dear, that it is loved, but for one’s
own sake that it is loved. It is not for the
sake of the Brahmana, my dear, that he is
loved, but for one’s own sake that he is loved.
It is not for the sake of the Kshatriya, my-
dear, that he is loved, but for one’s own sake
that he is loved. It is not for the sake of the
2 . 4 . 5 ] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
355
worlds, my dear, that they are loved, but
for one’s own sake that they are loved. It
is not for the sake of the gods, my dear, that
they are loved, but for one’s own sake that
they are loved. It is not for the sake of the
beings, my dear, that they are loved, but for
one’s own sake that they are loved. It is not
for the sake of all, my dear, that all is loved,
but for one’s own sake that it is loved. The
Self, my dear Maitreyi, should be realised—
should be heard of, reflected on and meditated
upon. By the realisation of the Self, my
dear, through hearing, reflection and medita-
tion, all this is known.
With a view to teaching renunciation, as a means
to immortality, Yajnavalkya creates a distaste for the
wife, husband, sons, etc., so that they may be given
up. He said , c lt is not for the sake or necessity of
the husband that he is loved by the wife, but it is
for one* s own sake that he is loved by her.’ The
particle ‘vai* (indeed) recalls something that is well-
known, signifying that this is^a matter of common
knowledge. Similarly it is not for the sake of the
wife, etc. The rest is to be explained as before.
Likewise it is . not for the sake of the sons, wealth,
the Brdhmana, the Kshatriya, the worlds, the gods,
the beings, and all. The priority of enumeration is
in the order of their closeness to us as sources of joy ;
for it is all the more desirable to create a distaste for
them. The use of the word ‘all’ is for including
356
BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [2. 4. 5
everything that has and has not been mentioned.
Hence it is a well-known fact that the Self alone is
dear, and nothing else. It has already been said,
‘This (Self) is dearer than a son/ etc. (I. iv. 8). The
present text serves as a detailed commentary on that.
Therefore our love for other objects is secondary,
since they contribute to the pleasure of the Self ;
and our love for the Self alone is primary. There-
fore f the Self, my dear Maitreyi, should be realised,
is worthy of realisation, or should be made the ob-
ject of realisation. It should first be heard of from
a teacher and from the scriptures, then reflected on
through reasoning, and then steadfastly meditated
upon / Thus only is It realised — when these means,
viz., hearing, reflection and meditation, have been
gone through. When these three are combined,
then only true realisation of the unity of Brahman is
accomplished, not otherwise — by hearing alone. The
^ different castes such as the Brahmana or the Ksha-
triya, the various orders of life, and so on, upon
which rites depend, and which consist of actions,
their factors and their results, are objects of notions
superimposed on the Self by ignorance, and are
based on false perceptions like the notion of a snake
in a rope. In order to destroy these he says, ‘By
the realisation of the Self, my dear, through hearing ,
reflection and meditation, all this is known/ 1
an a an qw-
n tewraidw : sr 3 * staled qu§afs?aaTcj|sft
1 Shankara’s language here follows IV. v. 6.
2. 4. 6] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 857
cT ^ cf
i ? wp n cH ^: ^ • vt *R> Ht «5NsT:,
S& ^t:, fm^r wi ^ II $ II
6. The Brahmana ousts one who knows
him as different from the Self. The Ksha-
triya ousts one who knows him as different
from the Self. The worlds oust one who
knows them as different from the Self. The
gods oust one who knows them as different
from the Self. The beings oust one who
knows them as different from the Self. All
ousts one who knows it as different from the
Self. This Brahmana, this Kshatriya, these
worlds, these gods, these beings, and this all
are the Self.
Objection : How can the knowledge of one
thing lead to that of another ?
Reply : The objection is not valid, for there is
nothing besides the Self. If there were, it would
not be known, but there is no such thing ; the Self
is everything. Therefore It being known, every-
thing would be known. How is it that the Self is
everything? The Shruti answers it: The Brdhmana
ousts or rejects the man who knows him to be differ-
ent from the Self, that is, who knows that the Brah-
mana is not the Self. The Brahmana does so out of
a feeling that this man considers him to be different
from the Self. For the Supreme Self is the Self of
all. Similarly the Kshatriya, the worlds, the gods,
the beings, and all oust him. This Brdhmana and
S68 BR1HA DARA NY A KA UPANISHAD [2. 4. 6
all the rest that have been enumerated are the Self
th,at has been introduced as the object to be realised
through hearing etc. Because everything springs
from the Self, is dissolved in It, and remains imbued
with It during continuance, for it cannot be perceiv-
ed apart from the Self. Therefore everything is the
Self.
iiguiN , 5*5^3 eit—
II ® II
7. As when a drum is beaten one cannot
distinguish its various particular notes, but
they are included in the general note of the
drum or in the general sound produced by
different kinds of strokes.
But how can we know that all this is the Self
now ? Because of the inherence of Pure Intelligence
in everything, we conclude that everything is That.
An illustration is being given : We see in life that
if a thing cannot be perceived apart from something
else, the latter is the essence of that thing. As, for
instance, when a drum or the like is beaten with a
stick etc one c&nnot distinguish its various partic-
ular notes from the general note of the drum, but
they are included in, taken as modifications of, the
general note : We say these are all notes of the
drum, having no existence apart from the general
note of the drum. Or the particular notes produced
«by different kinds of strokes are included in the
general sound produced by those strokes : They can-
2. 4. 9] BR1HADARANY AKA UPANISHAD 359
not be perceived as distinct notes, having no separate
existence. Similarly nothing particular is perceived
in the waking and dream states apart from Pure
Intelligence. Therefore those things should be con-
sidered non-existent apart from Pure Intelligence.
gngflC'HTO, g stt— snsgl
ii <: ii
8. As when a conch is blown one cannot
distinguish its various particular notes, but
they are included in the general note of the
conch or in the general sound produced by
different kinds of playing.
Similarly, as when a conch is blown , connected
or filled with sound, one cannot distinguish its vari-
ous particular notes, etc. — to be explained as before.
h srtnrrsr g rremrere ? gnsnsgsgisgrag-
gftunsr g gftnrr=rT^r gn—
II 6 II
g. As when a Vina 1 is played on one can-
not distinguish its various particular notes,
but they are included in the general note of
the Vina or in the general sound produced by
different kinds of playing.
Similarly, as when a Vind is played on, etc.
The dative case in ‘Vin&yai’ stands for the genitive.
The citation of many examples here is for indicating
1 A kind of guitar.
360
BRJHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
[ 2 . 4 . 9
varieties of genus ; for there are many distinct kinds
of genus, sentient and insentient. It is to show
how through a series of intermediate steps they are
included in a supreme genus, Pure Intelligence, that
so many examples are given. lust as a drum, a
conch and a Vina have distinct general and particular
notes of their own, which 4re included in sound in
general, so during the continuance of the universe we
may know all things to be unified in Brahman, be-
cause the varieties of genus and particulars are not
different from It.
mat
3?rw firarr
fwfearft || ^0 II
io. As from a fire kindled with wet
faggot diverse kinds of smoke issue, even so,
my dear, the Rig-Veda, Yajur-Veda, Sama-
Veda, Atharvangirasa, history, mythology,
arts, Upanishads, verses, aphorisms, elucida-
tions and explanations are (like) the breath of
this infinite Reality. They are like the
breath of this (Supreme Self).
Likewise it may be understood that the universe,
at the time of its origin as also prior to it, is nothing
but Brahman. As before the separation of the sparks,
smoke, embers and flames, all these are nothing but
fire, and therefore there is but one substance, fire,
2. 4. 10] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
SGI
so it is reasonable to infer that this universe differen-
tiated into names and forms is, before its origin,
nothing but Pure Intelligence. This is expressed as
follows : As from a fire kindled with wet faggot
diverse kinds of smoke issue. The word ‘smoke’ is
suggestive of sparks etc. as well — meaning smoke,
sparks, etc., issue. Like this example, O Maitreyi,
all this is like the breath of this infinite Reality, the
Supreme Self that is being discussed. ‘Breath’ here
means, like the breath. As a man breathes without
the slightest effort, so do all these come out of It.
What are those things that are spoken of as issuing
from It as Its breath? The Rig-Veda, Yajur-Veda,
Sdma-Veda, Atharvangirasa, that is, the four kinds
of Mantras. History such as the dialogue between
Urvashi and Pururavas — ‘The nymph Urvashi,’ and
so on (Sh. XI. iv. 4.1); it is this Brahmana that is
meant. Mythology such as, ‘This universe was in
the beginning unmanifest,’ etc. (Tai. II. 7). Arts,
which treat of music, dancing, etc. — ‘This is also
Veda,’ etc. (Sh. XIII. iv. 3. 10-14). Upanishads, such
as, ‘It should be meditated upon as dear/ etc. (IV.
1.3). Verses, the Mantras occurring in the Brail -
manas, such as, ‘Regarding this there are the follow-
ing verses’ (IV. iii. 11 ; IV. iv. 8). Aphorisms, those
passages of the Vedas which present the truth in a
nutshell, for example, ‘The Self alone is to be medi-
tated upon’ (I. iv. 7). Elucidations of the Mantras.
Explanations, eulogistic passages. Or ‘elucidations’
may be of the ‘aphorisms’ above. As the passage,
‘The Self alone is to be meditated upon,’ or the
passage, ‘He (who worships another god thinking),
362 BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [2. 4. 10
“He is one, and I am another,” does not know. He
is like an animal (to the gods)' (I. iv. 10), has this
concluding portion of the present chapter as its elu-
cidation. And 'explanations’ may be of the Mantras.
Thus these are the eight divisions of the Brahmanas.
So only the Mantras and Brahmanas are meant. 1
It is the eternally composed' and already existent
Vedas that are manifested like a man’s breath —
without any thought or effort on his part. Hence
they are an authority as regards their meaning in-
dependently of any other means of knowledge.
Therefore those who aspire after well-being must
accept the verdict of the Vedas on knowledge or on
rites, as it is. The differentiation of forms invariably
depends on the manifestation of their names. 2 Name
and form are the limiting adjuncts of the Supreme
Self, of which, when they are differentiated, it is
impossible to tell whether they are identical with or
different from It, as is the case with the foam of
water. It is name and form in all their stages 3 that
constitute relative existence. Hence name has been
compared to breath. By this statement it is implied
that form too is like breath. Or we may explain it
differently : In the passage, 'The Brahmana ousts
one .... all this is the Self* (II. iv. 6 ; IV. v. 7),
the entire world of duality has been spoken of as the
subject-matter of ignorance. This may lead to a
doubt about the authority of the Vedas. In order
to remove this doubt it is said that since the Vedas
1 And not the popular meanings of those eight terms.
2 The one implies the other.
3 Varying degrees of grossness or subtleness.
2. 4. 11] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 36S
issue without any effort like a man's breath, they
are an authority ; they are not like other books.
*T 3TOT qqfc i w q t qq
^nnfsrt t irtrI *nfe%
03 SRRT ^TRT filS*F>T?RJ^, qq
^qTorf qq eiqf jn^uri stNi^bt-
*rj^, qq ^qqf sfawqmt jr q* T *Rqf , qq
^iht fqsiRT gqqfrqnqqj^, qq giRT wqi
qq gqqnrRRTqTgqR twrasw^,
qq gqqi fq^nmi qt^qnqsu^, qq sqqmuqqT
qT^qrrqqj^, qq ^ikr I^rt qiJtqnqfii^, it u ll
ii. As the ocean is the one goal 1 of all
sorts of water, .as the skin is the one goal of
all kinds of touch, as the nostrils are the one
goal of all odours, as the tongue is the one goal
of all savours, as the eye is the one goal of all
colours, as the ear is the one goal of all sounds,
as the Manas is the one goal of all delibera-
tions, as the intellect is the one goal of all
kinds of knowledge, as the hands are the one
goal of all sorts of work, as the organ of
generation is the one goal of all kinds of enjoy-
ment, as the anus is the one goal of all excre-
tions, as the legs are the one goal of all kinds
of walking, as the organ of speech is the one
goal of all Vedas.
1 The place where they merge or are unified.
364
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [2. 4. 11
Moreover it is not only at the time of its origin
and continuance that the universe, on account of its
non-existence apart from Pure Intelligence, is Brah-
man, but it is so at the time of dissolution also. Just
as bubbles, foam, etc., are non-existent apart from
water, so name, form and action, which are the
effects of Pure Intelligence and dissolve in It, are
non-existent apart from It. Therefore Brahman is
to be known as Pure Intelligence, one and homo-
geneous. So the text runs as follows. The examples
are illustrative of dissolution. As the ocean is the
one goal, meeting place, the place of dissolution or
unification, of all sorts of water such as that of rivers,
tanks and lakes. Likewise as the skin is the one
goal of all kinds of touch such as soft or hard, rough
or smooth, which are identical in nature with air . 1
By the word 'skin’ touch in general, which is per-
ceived by the skin, is meant ; in it different kinds
of touch are merged, like different kinds of water in
the ocean, and become nonentities without it, for they
were merely its modifications. Similiarly that touch
in general, denoted by the word ‘skin,* is merged in
the deliberation of the Manas, that is to say, in a
general consideration by it, just as different kinds of
touch are included in touch in general perceived by
the skin ; without this consideration by the Manas it
becomes a nonentity. The consideration by the
Manas also is merged in a general cognition by the
intellect, and becomes non-existent without it. Be-
coming mere consciousness it is merged in Pure
Intelligence, the Supreme Brahman, like different
1 As representing the vital force.
2 . 4 . 11 ] BR1HADARANY AKA UPANISHAD
365
kinds of water in the ocean. When through these
successive steps sound and the rest, together with
their receiving organs, are merged in Pure Intel-
ligence, there are no more limiting adjuncts, and
only Brahman, which is Pure Intelligence, compar-
able to a lump of salt, homogeneous, infinite,
boundless and without a braek, remains. There-
fore the Self alone must be regarded as one with-
out a second.
Similarly the nostrils, that is, odour in general,
(are the one goal) of all odours, which are modes of
earth. Likewise the tongue, or taste in general per-
ceived by the tongue, (is the one goal ) of all savours,
which are modes of water. So also the eye, or colour
in general perceived by the eye, (is the one goal) of
all colours, which are modes of light. So also (the
ear, or) sound in general perceived by the ear, ( is
the one goal) of all sounds, as before. Similarly the
generalities of sound and the rest are merged in delib-
eration, that is, a general consideration of them by
the Manas. This consideration by the Manas again
is merged in mere consciousness, that is, a general
cognition by the intellect. Becoming mere con-
sciousness it is merged in the Supreme Brahman,
which is Pure Intelligence. Similarly the objects
of the motor organs such as different kinds of speak-
ing, taking, walking, excretion and enjoyment are
merged in their general functions, like different
kinds of water in the ocean, and can no more be
distinguished. These general functions are again
nothing but the vital force, which is identical with
intelligence. The Kaushitaki Upanishad reads, ‘That
366
BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [2. 4. 11
which is the vital force is intelligence, and that which
is intelligence is the vital force’ (III. 3).
Objection : In everyone of those instances the
mergence of the objects only has been spoken of, but
not that of the organs. What is the motive of this?
Reply : True, but the Shruti considers the
organs to be of the same category as the objects, not
of a different category. The organs are but modes
of the objects in order to perceive them, as a light,
which is but a mode of colour, is an instrument for
revealing all colours. Similarly the organs are but
modes of all particular objects in order to perceive
them, as is the case with the lamp. Hence no special
care is to be taken to indicate the dissolution of the
•organs ; for these being the same as objects in general,
their dissolution is implied by that of the objects.
It has been stated as a proposition that ‘This all
is the Self’ (II. iv. 6). The reason given for this is
that the universe is of the same nature as the Self,
springs from the Self, and is merged in It. Since
there is nothing but Intelligence at the time of the
origin, continuance and dissolution of the universe,
therefore what has been stated as ‘Intelligence is
Brahman’ (Ai. V. 3) and ‘All this is but the Self*
(Chh. VII. xxv. 2), is established through reasoning.
The Pauranikas hold that this dissolution is nat-
ural. 1 While that which is consciously effected by
the knowers of Brahman through their knowledge of
Brahman is called extreme dissolution, which happens
1 The effects dissolving into their causes.
2. 4. 12] BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD 367
through the cessation of ignorance. What follows
.deals specially with that.
W HFSRiWT ^ STTRt
o5truri)y, w 3^ fwR-
sr i ^gcsarR gn^ rrg
fq w ffi fa , ST agftnftfa fNrra
qnn^FT: ll \\ II
12. As a lump of salt dropped into water
dissolves with (its component) water, and no
one is able to pick it up, but whencesoever one
takes, it tastes salt, even so, my dear, this
great, endless, infinite Reality is but Pure
Intelligence. (The self) comes out (as a
separate entity) from these elements, and (this
separateness) is destroyed with them. After
attaining (this oneness) it has no more con-
sciousness. 1 This is what I say, my dear.
So said Yajnavalkya.
An illustration on the point is being given : As
a lump of salt, etc. The derivative meaning of the
word ‘Sindhu* is water, because it ‘flows.* That
which is a modification or product of water is ‘Sain-
dhava,* or salt. ‘Khilya’ is the same as ‘Khila* (a
lump). A lump of salt dropped into water, its cause,
dissolves with the dissolution of (its component)
water. The solidification of a lump through its con-
1 That is, particular consciousness.
368
BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [ 2 . 4 . 12
nection with particles of earth and heat goes when
the lump comes in contact with water, its cause.
This is the dissolution of (the component) water, and
along with it the lump of salt is said to be dissolved.
No one, not even an expert, is able to pick it up as
before. The particle ‘iva* is expletive ; the meaning
is, none can at all pick it up. Why ? Whenceso-
ever, from whichsoever part, one takes the water
and tastes it, it is salt. But there is no longer any
lump.
Like this illustration, O Maitreyi, is this great
Reality called the Supreme Self, from which you have
been cut off by ignorance as a separate entity, through
your connection with the limiting adjuncts of the
body and organs, and have become mortal, subject
to birth and death, hunger and thirst, and other such
relative attributes, and identified with name, form
and action, and think you are born of such and such
a family. That separate existence of yours, which
has sprung from the delusion engendered by contact
with the limiting adjuncts of the body and organs,
enters its cause, the great Reality, the Supreme Self,
which stands for the ocean, is undecaying, immortal,
beyond fear, pure, homogeneous like a lump of salt,
Pure Intelligence, infinite, boundless, without a
break, and devoid of differences caused by the delu-
sion brought on by ignorance. When that separate
existence has entered and been merged in its cause,
in other words, when the differences created by igno-
rance are gone, the universe becomes one without a
second, ‘the great Reality.* Great, because It is
greater than everything else and is the cause of the
2. 4. 12] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
ether etc. ; Reality (Bhuta) — always a fact, for It
never deviates from Its nature. The verbal suffix
‘kta* here denotes past, present and future. Or the
word ‘Bhuta’ may denote truth ; the expression then
would mean : It is great and true. There may be
things in the relative world as big as the Himalayas,
for instance, created by a dream or illusion, but they
are not true ; hence the text adds the qualifying word
True.’ It is endless. Sometimes this may be in a
relative sense ; hence the text qualifies it by the term
infinite. Pure Intelligence : Literally, a solid mass
of intelligence. The word 'Ghana * (& solid mass)
excludes everything belonging to a different species,
as 'a solid mass of gold or iron.’ The particle ‘eva’
(only) is intensive. The idea is that there is no
foreign element in It.
Question : If It is one without a second, really
pure and untouched by the miseries of the relative
world, whence is this separate existence of the indi-
vidual self, in which it is born or dead, happy or
miserable, possessed of the ideas of T and mine/ and
so on, and which is troubled by many a relative
attribute ?
Reply : I will explain it. There are the ele-
ments transformed into the body, organs and sense-
objects, consisting of name and form. They are like
the foam and bubbles on the limpid water of the
Supreme Self. The mergence of these elements
down to sense-objects in Brahman, which is Pure
Intelligence, through a discriminating knowledge of
the Truth has been spoken of, like the emptying of
rivers into the ocean. From these elements called
24
370
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 2 . 4 . 12
‘truth/ that is, with their aid, the self comes out like
a lump of salt. As from water reflections of the sun,
moon and so on arise, or from the proximity of such
limiting adjuncts as red cotton-pads a transparent
crystal turns red and so forth, so from the limiting
adjuncts of the elements, transformed into the body
and organs, the self conies out clearly as an individ-
ualised entity. These elements, transformed into
the body, organs and sense-objects, from which the
self conies out as an individual, and which are the
cause of its individualisation, are merged like rivers
in the ocean by the realisation of Brahman through
the instruction of the scriptures and the teacher, and
are destroyed. And when they are destroyed like the
foam and bubbles of water, this individualised exist-
ence too is destroyed with them. As the reflections
of the sun, moon, etc., and the colour of the crystal
vanish when their causes, the water, the red cotton -
pad, and so on, are removed, and only the (sun),
moon, etc., remain as they are, so the endless, infinite
and limpid Pure Intelligence alone remains.
After attaining (this oneness) the self, freed from
the body and organs, has no more particular con-
sciousness. This is what I say , my dear Maitreyi.
No more is there such particular consciousness as,
T so and so am the son of so and so ; this is my land
and wealth ; I am happy or miserable/ For it is due
to ignorance, and since ignorance is absolutely de-
stroyed by the realisation of Brahman, how can the
knower of Brahman, who is established in his nature
as Pure Intelligence, possibly have any such partic-
ular consciousness? Even when a man is in the
2. 4. 13] BRJH A DA RAN YAK A UPANISIJAD
371
body , 1 particular consciousness is impossible ; so how
can it ever exist in a man who has been absolutely
freed from the body and organs? So said Ydjna-
v alky a — propounded this philosophy of the highest
truth to his wife, Maitreyi.
sHhfr, sdrer tit ^
sNri^cftfa ; 57 3 T *ri? asrtfrr, arer
^7 m f%irnTT?i n ^ 11
13. Maitreyi said, ‘Just here you have
thrown me into confusion, sir — by saying that
after attaining (oneness) the self has no more
consciousness.’ Yajnavalkya said, ‘Certainly
I am not saying anything confusing, my dear ;
this is quite sufficient for knowledge, O
Maitreyi.’
Thus enlightened, Maitreyi said , 'By attributing
contradictory qualities just here, to this identical
entity, Brahman, you have thrown me into confusion,
revered sir / So she says, 'Just here/ etc. How he
attributed contradictory qualities is being explain-
ed : 'Having first stated that the self is but Pure
Intelligence, you now say that after attaining one-
ness) it has no more consciousness. How can it be
only Pure Intelligence, and yet after attaining one-
ness have no more consciousness ? The same fire
cannot both be hot and cold. So I am confused on
this point/ Yajnavalkya said, 'O Maitreyi, certainly
I am not saying anything confusing, that is, not
using confusing language/
1 As in the state of deep sleep.
372 BR1HADARANY AKA UPANISIIAD [2. 4. 13
Maitreyi : Why did you mention contradic-
tory qualities — Pure Intelligence and, again, absence
of consciousness?
Ydjnavalkya : I did not attribute them to the
same entity. It is you who through a mistake have
taken one and the same entity to be possessed of
contradictory attributes. I did not say this. What
I said was this : When the individual existence of
the self that is superimposed by ignorance and is-
connected with the body and organs is destroyed by
knowledge, the particular consciousness connected
with the body etc., consisting of a false perception,,
is destroyed on the destruction of the limiting ad-
juncts of the body and organs, for they are deprived
of their cause, just as the reflections of the moon
etc., and their effects, the light and so forth, vanish
when the water and the like, which form their sup-
port, are gone. But just as the sun, moon, etc.,
which are the realities behind the reflections, remain
as they are, so that Pure Intelligence which is the
transcendent Brahman remains unchanged. That
has been referred to as ‘Pure Intelligence.’ It is the
Self of the whole universe, and does not really pass
out with the destruction of the elements. But the
individual existence, which is due to ignorance, is
destroyed. ‘Modifications are but names, a mere
effort of speech/ says another Shruti (Chh. VI. i. 4-6
and iv. 1-4). But this is real. ‘This self, my dear,
is indestructible’ (IV. v. 14). Therefore this ‘great,
endless, infinite Reality’ — already explained 1 — is
quite sufficient for knowledge, O Maitreyi. Later
1 In paragraph 12.
2 . 4 . 14 ] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 373
it will be said, 'For the knower’s function of know-
ing can never be lost ; because it is immortal* (IV.
iii. 30). _
% tafacr 3icrfa fa* faaft,
fart cr%rc ferorfit-
erffarc fare inpl, fare fesren far 5 *rs
w\ 3T^r w, fsaX, aia^JT ^
ara%T ^ >iw^, ai?%^ ^rrfer^, aialsi
^ dc^w ^ aj cj fij^rr-
anfai af %?r ? f^mane^ %sr firsrRT-
^far ii ii ffai srajsi n
14. Because when there is duality, as it
were, then one smells something, one sees
something, one hears something, one speaks
something, one thinks something, one knows
something. (But) when to the knower of
Brahman everything has become the Self,
then what should one smell and through what,
what should one see and through what, what
should one hear and through what, what should
one speak and through what, what should one
think and through what, what should one
know and through what ? Through what
should one know that owing to which all this
is known — through what, O Maitreyi, should
one know the knower ?
Why then is it said that after attaining oneness
the self has no more consciousness? Listen. Be-
374
BR III A DA RA NY A KA VPANISHAD [2. 4. 1 1
cause when , that is, in the presence of the particular
or individual aspect of the Self due to the limiting*
adjuncts of the body and organs conjured up by
ignorance, there is duality , as it were , in Brahman,
which really is one without a second, that is, there
appears to be something different from the Self.
I Objection : Since duality is put forward as an
object for comparison, is it not taken to be real ?
Reply : No, for another Shruti says, ‘Modifica-
tions are but names, a mere effort of speech’ (Chh.
VI. i. 4-6 and iv. 1-4), also ‘One only without a
second’ (Chh. VI. ii. 1), and ‘All this is but the Seif*
(Chh. VII. xxv. 2). J
Then, just because there is duality, as it were,
therefore one, he who smells, viz., the unreal indi-
vidual aspect of the Supreme Self, comparable to the
reflection of the moon etc. in water, smells some-
thing that can be smelt, through something else,
viz., the nose. ‘One’ and ‘something’ refer to two
typical factors of an action, the agent and object,
and ‘smells’ signifies the action and its result. As,
for instance, in the word ‘cuts.’ This one word
signifies the repeated strokes dealt and the separa-
tion of the object cut into two ; for an action ends
in a result, and the result cannot be perceived apart
from the action. Similarly he who smells a thing
that can be smelt does it through the nose. The
rest is to be explained as above. One knows some-
thing . This is the state of ignorance, j* But when
ignorance has been destroyed by the knowledge of
Brahman, there is nothing but the Self.J When to
the knower of Brahman everything such as name
2. 4. 14] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
375
and form has been merged in the Self and has thus
become the Self , then what object to be smelt should
one smell , who should smell, and through what
instrument? Similarly what should one see and
hear ? Everywhere an action depends on certain
factors ; hence when these are absent, the action
cannot take place ; and in the absence of an action
there can be no result. Therefore so long as there
is ignorance, the operation of actions, their factors 1
and their results can take place, but not in the case
of a knower of Brahman. For to him everything
is the vSelf, and there are no factors or results of
actions apart from It. Nor can the universe, being
an unreality, be the Self of anybody. Therefore it
is ignorance that conjures up the idea of the non-
Self ; strictly speaking, there is nothing but the
Self. Therefore when one truly realises the unity of
the vSelf, there cannot be any consciousness of ac-
tions, their factors and their results. Hence, be-
cause of contradiction, there is an utter absence of
actions and their means for the knower of Brahman.
The words ‘wliat’ and ‘through what’ are meant
as a fling, and suggest the sheer impossibility of the
other factors of an action also ; for there cannot
possibly be any factors such as the instrument. The
idea is that no one by any means can smell anything
in any manner.
Even in the state of ignorance, when one sees
something, through what instrument should one
know that owing to which all this is known f For
that instrument of knowledge itself falls under the
category of objects. The knower may desire to
376 BR1H ADARANY AKA UPAN1SHAD [ 2 . 4 . 14
know not about itself, but about objects. As fire
does not burn itself, so the self does not know it-
self, and the knower can have no knowledge of a
thing that is not its object. Therefore through what
instrument should one know the knower owing to
which this universe is known, and who else should
know it ? And when to the knower of Brahman
who has discriminated the Real from the unreal
there remains only the subject, absolute and one
without a second, through what instrument, O
Maitreyi, should one know that knower ?
SECTION V
The section on Maitreyi was commenced in order
to indicate that means of immortality which is wholly
independent of rites. It is the knowledge of the
Self, with the renunciation of everything as part of
it. When It is known, the whole universe is known ;
and It is dearer than everything ; therefore It
should be realised. And the way to this realisa-
tion is set forth by the statement that It should be
heard of, reflected on and meditated upon. It should
be heard of from the spiritual teacher and the scrip-
tures, and reflected on through reasoning. The
reasoning has been set forth in the passage furnish-
ing arguments in support of the proposition, ‘All
this is but the Self’ (Chh. VII. xxv. 2), viz., that the
universe has sprung only from the Self, has the Self
alone for its genus and dissolves only into the Self.
Now the validity of this reason may be questioned.
It is to refute this doubt that this section is com-
menced.
Because there is mutual helpfulness among the
parts of the universe including the earth, and be-
cause it is common experience that those things
which are mutually helpful spring from the same
cause, are of the same genus and dissolve into the
same thing, therefore this universe consisting of the
earth etc., on account of mutual helpfulness among
its parts, must be like that. This is the meaning
which is expressed in this section. Or, after the pro-
378
BRIHADARANYAKA UP A NISH AD [2. 5. i
position, ‘All this is but the Self/ has been supported
by the reason that the universe has its origin, con-
tinuance and dissolution in the Self, the meaning is
concluded with the present section, which pre-
ponderates in scriptural evidence. As the Naiya-
yikas say, ‘The restatement of a proposition after
stating the reason is conclusion’ (Gau. N. I. i. 39).
Others 1 explain that the 'scriptural passages preced-
ing the illustration of the drum are for the purpose
of hearing, those prior to the present section are for
reflection — since they give the arguments, and the
present section enjoins lheditation. In any case,
since reflection through reasoning must be strictly
in accordance with the verdict of scriptural evi-
dence, and meditation too must be in accordance
with reflection through reasoning, that is to say, with
the findings of scriptural evidence and reasoning,
a separate enjoining of meditation is unnecessary.
Therefore, in our opinion, the allocating of separate
sections to the hearing, reflection and meditation is
meaningless. At any rate the meaning of this and
the foregoing chapter is summed up in this section.
JTg,
3W:, *RbTT«rav:*TTcJT
*1^11 * II
i. This earth is (like) honey" to all
1 The reference is to Bliartriprapancha
2 That is, effect, or helpful.
2 . 5 . 1 ] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 379
beings, and all beings are (like) honey to this
earth. (The same with) the shining immortal
being who is in this earth, and the shining,
immortal, corporeal being in the body. (These
four) are but this Self. This (Self-knowl-
edge) is (the means of) immortality ; this
(underlying unity) is Brahman ; this (knowl-
edge of Brahman) is (the means of becom-
ing) all.
This well-known earth is the honey or effect —
being- like honey — of all beings from Hiranyagarbha
down to a clump of grass. Just as a beehive is
made by a great many bees, so is this earth made by
all beings. Likewise all beings arc the honey or
effect of this earth. Also, the shining , that is,
possessed of 'the light of intelligence, and immortal
being who is in this earth, and the shining, immortal
— as above — corporeal being in the body, that is, the
self as identified with the subtle body, are like honey
— being helpful — to all beings, and all beings are like
honey to them. This we gather from the particle
‘cha’ (and) in the text. Thus these four are the com-
posite effect of all beings, and all beings are the effect
of these four. Hence the universe has originated
from the same cause. That one cause from which it
has sprung is alone real — it is Brahman. Everything
else is an effect, a modification, a mere name, an
effort of speech merely. This is the gist of this
whole section dealing with the series of things mu-
tually helpful. (The above fourfold division) is but
this Self that has been premised in the passage, 'This
380
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [2. 5. 3
all is the Self* (II. iv. 6). This Self-knowledge is
the means of immortality that has been explained to
Maitreyi. This (Underlying unity) is the Brahman
which has been introduced at the beginning of this
chapter in the passages, ‘I will speak to you about
Brahman' (II. i. 1) and ‘I will teach you (about
Brahman)' (II. i. 15), and the knowledge of which is
called the knowledge of Brahman. This knowl-
edge of Brahman is that by means of which one
becomes all.
sot 3tpt: H'g. srranrrT ^srrfor
irg 5 g^:,
h srhsOTiTcOT 5 s«f an, se? II R II
2. This water is like honey to all beings,
and all beings are like honey to this water.
(The same with) the shining, immortal being
who is in this water, and the shining, im-
mortal being identified with the seed in the
body. (These four) are but this Self. This
(Self-knowledge) is (the means of) immortal-
ity, this (underlying unity) is Brahman, this
(knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of be-
coming) all.
Likewise water. In the body it exists specially
in the seed.
arcmfir: srefat rrg, g raffir
2 . 5 . 4 ] BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD 381
sc zctsmmm , s? sm, ^ n * ii
3. This fire is like honey to all beings,
and all beings are like honey to this fire.
(The same with) the shining, immortal being
who is in this fire, and the shining, immortal
being identified with the organ of speech in
the body. (These four) are but this Self.
This (Self-knowledge) is (the means of) im-
mortality, this (underlying unity) is Brahman,
this (knowledge of Brahman) is (the means
of becoming) , all.
Similarly fire. It exists specially in the organ
of speech.
irg, qwh sraffar
qstraravzrretf IP*:, aroW
^ qtamicTO 1 ; sraqji « ll
4. This air is like honey to all beings,
and all beings are like honey to this air. (The
same with) the shining, immortal being who
is in this air, and the shining, immortal
being who is the vital force in the body.
(These four) are but this Self. This (Self-
knowledge) is (the means of) immortality ;
this (underlying unity) is Brahman ; this
(knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of
becoming) all.
382
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 2 . 5 . 6
I/ikewise air. It is the vital force in the body.
The elements are called honey, because they help by
furnishing materials for the body. While the beings,
shining and so forth, residing in them are called
honey, because they help by serving as the organs.
As has been said, ‘The earth is the body of that
organ of speech, and this fire is its luminous organ*
(I. v. 11).
srermf^r: sotot irg, fiarfar
sjsiffi otj ; sramJTfarerTfqc^
asarrara^TcJT g^r:,
STOfcr e atSOTHcOT ; ssotjot^, an, s?
II
5. This sun is like honey to all beings,
and all beings are like honey to this sun.
(The same with) the shining, immortal being
who is in this sun, and the shining, immortal
being identified with the eye in the bodjr.
(These four) are but this Self. This (Self-
knowledge) is (the means of) immortality ;
this (underlying unity) is Brahman ; this
(knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of
becoming) all.
So also the sun is like honey . In the body, the
being identified with the eye.
sot ftyr. ifOTOT rrg, otot %n srafftr
OTjJ , OTOTOTTUg ftefowtajctOTT: g^OT,
2 . 5 . 7 ] BRIHADARANYAK'A UPANISHAD 383
srafor e qtawTcm ; m, %i
ii i ii
6. These quarters are like honey to all
beings, and all beings are like honey to these
quarters. (The same with) the shining, im-
mortal being who is these quarters, and the
shining, immortal being identified with the
ear and with the time of hearing, in the body.
(These forir) are but this Self. This (Self-
knowledge) is (the means of) immortality ; this
(underlying unity) is Brahman ; this (knowl-
edge of Brahman) is (the means of becom-
ing) all.
Likewise the quarters are like honey. Although
the ear is the counterpart of the quarters in the body,
yet the being identified 7f nth the time of hearing is
mentioned, because he is specially manifest at the
time of hearing sounds.
sw afenfri irg, stft
^ srtomTcm , & agr, ® II
7. This moon is like honey to all beings,
and all beings are like honey to this moon.
(The same with) the shining, immortal being
who is in this moon, and the shining, immor-
tal being identified with the mind in the body.
(These four) are but this Self. This (Self-
SS4
BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [2. 5. 9
knowledge) is (the means of) immortality ; this
(underlying unity) is Brahman ; this (knowl-
edge of Brahman) is (the means of becom-
ing) all.
Similarly the moon, hi the body, the being
identified with the mind . '
fu fipTc^irri vjrTTfri irg, 3T^r firsra:
3^r:, najnro^UTcif
g^r:, srerfr-j sfowcnr 5 &
II
8. This lightning is like honey to all
beings, and all beings are like honey to this
lightning. (The same with) the shining, im-
mortal being who is in this lightning, and
the shining, immortal being identified with
light in the body. (These four) are but this
Self. This (Self-knowledge) is (the means of)
immortality ; this (underlying unity) is Brah-
man ; this (knowledge of Brahman) is (the
means of becoming) all.
So also lightning. In the body, the being identi-
fied with the light that is in the organ of touch.
3UT <|<TRT JTg, SrWfawrh '
■SJjcUPT: g^ : , *tbii<wv.4|IcU sjns^:
2. 5. 10] BRIII A DA RANYA KA UPANIS1IAD 385
sqam r: 35*:, sra&r *3 qtejmein ;
mi, f? 11 * 11
9. This cloud is like honey to all beings,
and all beings are like honey to this cloud.
(The same with) the shining, immortal being
who is in this cloud, and the shining, immortal
being identified with sound and voice in the
body. (These four) are but this Self. This
(Self-knowledge) is (the means of) immortal-
ity/; this (underlying unity) is Brahman; this
(knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of
becoming) all.
Likewise the cloud. Although the being identi-
fied unth sound is the one represented in the body ,
yet as he is specially manifest in voice, he is here
mentioned as such.
^njffor
jpt: 3^:, qsrrrrrv^ncir wjz
3 W., ^OTJTTcflT ; sm,
^g^ll ||
10. This ether i.s like honey to all beings,
and all beings are like honey to this ether.
(The same with) the shining, immortal being
who is in this ether, and the shining, immortal
being who is (identified with) the ether in the
heart, in the body. (These four) are but this
Self. This (Self-knowledge) is (the means
25
386 BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 2 . 5 . 11
of) immortality; this (underlying unity) is
Brahman ; this (knowledge of Brahman) is
(the means of becoming) all.
Similarly the ether. In the body, the ether in
the heart.
It has been stated tliat the elements beginning 1
with earth and ending with the ether as also the gods,
identified respectively with the body and the organs,
are like honey to each individual because of their
helpfulness. What connects them with these indi-
viduals so that they are helpful like honey, is now
being described :
^cTif?i ng ; g^r:,
qasrFmwiTelT <p*r:, srqfcr e
& U§T, & U H
ii. This justice (Dharma) is like honey
to all beings, and all beings are like honey to
this justice. (The same with) the shining,
immortal being who is in this justice, and the
shining, immortal being identified with justice
in the body. (These four) are but this Self.
This (Self-knowledge) is (the means of) im-
mortality ; this (underlying unity) is Brah-
man ; this (knowledge of Brahman) is (the
means of becoming) all.
This justice, etc. Although justice is not
directly perceived, it is here described by the word
2. 5. 12] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
387
‘this* as though it were, because the effects initiated
by it (earth etc.) are directly perceived. Justice
has been explained (I. iv. 14) as consisting of the
Shrutis and Smritis, as the power which controls
even the Kshatriyas etc., which causes the variety
of the universe through the transformation of the
elements, and which is practised by people. This
last is another reason why it has been mentioned
here as something directly perceived — as 'This
justice/ There truth and justice, consisting respect-
ively of the scriptures and approved conduct, have
been spoken of as one. Here, however, in spite of
their identity they are mentioned as separate, be-
cause they produce their effects in two distinct forms
— visible and invisible. Justice that is invisible,
called Apurva, or original, produces its effects in-
visibly in a general and a particular form. In its
general form it directs the elements such as earth,
and in its particular form it directs the aggregate of
body and organs, in matters relating to the body.
Of these, the shining being who is in this justice
that directs the elements such as earth, and , in the
body , ( the being identified with justice) that fashions
the aggregate of body and organs (are also like honey
to all beings and vice versa).
wtaf )jdl««T TT'g, STFJ
q swm vanctf 35*:, srofa ^
gf tow i cw 5 far m, vs n & n
iz. This truth is like honey to all beings,
388
BR1HAVARANYAKA UPANISHAD [2. 5. 13
and all beings are like honey to this truth.
(The same with) the shining, immortal being
who is in this truth, and the shining, immortal
being identified with truth in the body.
(These four) are but this Self. This (Self-
knowledge) is (the means of) immortality ;
this (underlying unity) is Brahman ; this
(knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of
becoming) all.
Likewise that justice, in its visible form as good
conduct that is practised, comes to be known as
truth. It also is twofold — general and particular.
The general form is inherent in the elements, and
the particular form in the body and organs. Of
these, (the being who is) in this truth that is in-
herent in the elements and consists of present action,
and , in the body, (the being identified with the
truth) that is inherent in the body and organs (are
like honey to all beings and vice versa). ‘The
wind blows through truth/ says another Shruti
(Mn. XXII. 1).
13. This human 1 species is like honey to
all beings, and all beings are like honey to.
this human species. (The same with) the
1 This includes the other species.
■ 2 . 5 . 14 ] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 389
shining, immortal being who is in this human
species, and the shining, immortal being iden-
tified with the human species in the body.
(These four) are but this Self. This (Self-
knowledge) is (the means of) immortality ;
this (underlying unity) is Brahman ; this
(knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of
becoming) all.
This particular aggregate of body and organs is
directed by justice and truth. The human and other
species are the particular types to which it belongs.
We observe in life that all beings are helpful to one
another only by belonging to the human or other
species. Therefore these species, human and the
rest, are like honey to all beings. These too may be
indicated in two ways — externally as well as inter-
nally . 1
aiqTTTcOT ITf, qraffur
»pu:, *j33T*mTciTT Sta’hwtagatw: g^r:, siqfo H
q>SqiTTcOT , ** m, II II
14. This (cosmic) body is like honey to
all beings, and all beings are like honey to this
(cosmic) body. (The same with) the shining,
immortal being who is in this (cosmic) body,
and the shining, immortal being who is
this (individual) self. (These four) are but
1 Frotp the standpoint of the person describing them.
390 BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [2. 5. 15
this Self. This (Self-knowledge) is (the
means of) immortality ; this (underlying
unity) is Brahman ; this (knowledge of Brah-
man) is (the means of becoming) all.
The aggregate of bodies and organs which is
connected with the human and other species, desig-
nated here as this body (that is, the cosmic body),
is like honey to all beings.
Objection : Has this not been indicated by the
term ‘corporeal being* in the passage dealing with
earth (II. v. 1) ?
Reply : No, for there only a part, viz., that
which is a modification of earth, was meant. But
here the cosmic body, the aggregate of bodies and
organs devoid of all distinctions such as those per-
taining to the body and the elements, and consisting
of all elements and gods, is meant by the expression,
‘This body.* The shining , immortal being who is
in this (cosmic) body refers to the cosmic mind which
is the essence of the subtle (II. iii. 3). Only a part
of it was mentioned as being associated with earth
etc. But no manifestation with reference to the
body is mentioned here, because the cosmic mind
has no such limitation. The term this self refers
to the only remaining entity, the individual self,
whose pui'pose this aggregate of gross and subtle
bodies subserves.
S! stt srarrTcOT srehi ^Rmfa qfa:, siifo
JJSTirt ST3TT ; rTSPCTT *«RT^ ^ ^TTT: SR
mfqm:, qaftqrrfgrencgft sraffcr jjsTfir, sr
2. 5. IS] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 39t
^tt:, sfon, srar nnrr:, ^
smfqm: ii ^ ii
15. This Self, already mentioned, is the
ruler of all beings, and the king of all beings.
Just as all spokes are fixed in the nave and the
felloe of a chariot- wheel, so are all beings, all
gods, all worlds, all organs and all these (indi-
vidual) selves fixed in this Self.
This Self , already mentioned refers to the Self 1
in which the remaining individual self of the last
paragraph was stated to be merged (II. iv. 12).
When the latter, which is possessed of the limiting
adjunct of the body and organs created by ignorance,
has been merged through the knowledge of Brahman
in the true Self (or Brahman), it — such a self — be-
comes devoid of interior or exterior, entire, Pure
Intelligence, the Self of all beings, and an object of
universal homage — the absolute ruler of all beings ,
not like a prince or a minister, but the king of all
beings. The expression ‘ ruler of alP qualifies the
idea of kingship. One may be a king by just living
like a king, but he may not be the ruler of all. Hence
the text adds the qualifying epithet ‘ruler of all.'
Thus the sage, the knower of Brahman, who is the
Self of all beings, becomes free. The question, ‘Men
think, “Through the knowledge of Brahman we shall
become all.” Well, what did that Brahman know by
which It became all V (I. iv. 9) — is thus answered.
1 The Self, etc. — That is, the individual self as merged
in the Supreme Self.
392 BRIHADARANYAICA UPAN1SHAD [2. 5. 15
That is, by hearing of one’s own self as the Self of all
from the teacher and the Shrutis, by reflecting on It
through reasoning, and by realising It at first-hand,
as explained in this and the previous section (one
becomes all). Even before realisation one has always
been Brahman, but through ignorance one considered
oneself different from It ;« one has always been all,
but through ignorance one considered oneself other-
wise. Therefore, banishing this ignorance through
the knowledge of Brahman, the knower of Brahman,
having all the while been Brahman, became Brah-
man, and having all the time been all, became all.
The import of the scripture that was briefly
indicated 1 has been completely dealt with. Now
illustrations are being given to show that in this
knower of Brahman who is the self of all and has
realised himself as such, the whole universe is fixed :
Just as all spokes are fixed in the nave and the felloe of
a charioi-wheel, so are all beings from Hiranyagarbha
down to a clump of grass, all gods such as Fire, all
worlds such as this earth, all organs such as that of
speech, and all these selves, which penetrate every
body like a reflection of the moon in water, and are
conjured up by ignorance — in short, the whole uni-
verse, fixed in this Self t that is, in the knower of
Brahman who has realised his identity with the
Supreme Self. It has been stated (I. iv. 10) that
Vamadeva, who was a knower of Brahman, realised
that he had been Manu and the sun ; this identifica-
tion with all is thus explained : This man of reali-
sation, this knower of Brahman, identifies himself
1 In I. iv. 10 and IT. i. 1.
2. 5. 15] BRIIIADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
393
with all as his limiting adjunct, is the self of all, and
becomes all. Again he is without any limiting ad-
juncts, without name, devoid of interior or exterior,
entire, Pure Intelligence, birthless, undecaying, im-
mortal, fearless, immovable, to be described as ‘Not
this, not this/ neither gross nor subtle, and so on.
The logicians and certain self-styled scholats
versed in the Slirutis (Mimamsakas), not knowing
this import of them, think that they are contradic-
tory, and fall into an abyss of confusion by attempt-
ing fanciful interpretations. This import of which
we speak is borne out by the following Mantras of
the scriptures : ‘One and unmoved, but swifter than
the mind’ (Ish. 4), and ‘It moves, and does not move’
(Ish. 5). Similarly in the Taittiriya Aranyaka, ‘Than
which there is nothing higher or lower’ (Shw. III. 9 ;
Mn. X. 4) and ‘He goes on singing this hymn, “I am
the food, I am the food, I am the food,” ’ etc. (Tai.
III. x. 5). So in the Chhandogya Upanishad, ‘Laugh-
ing (or eating), playing and enjoying’ (VIII. xii.
3), ‘If he desires to attain the world of the Manes,
(by his mere wish they appear)’ (Chh. VIII. ii. 1),
‘Possessed of all odours and all tastes’ (Chh. III. xiv.
2), and so on. In the Mundaka Upanishad too, ‘(That
which) knows things in a general and particular
way’ (I. i. 9 and II. ii. 7), and ‘It is farther than the
farthest, and again It is here, right near’ (Mu. III. i.
7). In the Ka/ha Upanishad too, ‘Minuter than an
atom and biggerihan the biggest’ (II. 20), and ‘Who
(but me can know) that Deity who has both joy and
the absence of it?’ (Ka. II. 21). Also ‘Staying, It
surpasses those that run’ (Ish. 4). Similarly in the
394 BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 2 . 5 . 15
Git& : ‘I am the Vedic sacrifice and that enjoined
in the Smritis’ (IX. 16), ‘I am the father of this
universe' (IX. 17), ‘(The self) does not take on
anybody’s demerits’ (V. 15), ‘(Living) the same
in all beings’ (XIII. 27), ‘Undivided among divided
(things)’ (XVII. 20), and ‘The devourer as well as
producer’ (XIII. 16). Considering these and similar
scriptural texts as apparently contradictory in their
import, they, with a view to arriving at their true
meaning on the strength of their own intellect, put
forward fanciful interpretations, as, for instance,
that the self exists or does not exist, that it is or is
not the agent, is free or bound, momentary, mere
consciousness, or nothing — and never go beyond the
domain of ignorance, because everywhere they see
only contradictions. Therefore those alone who tread
the path shown by the Shrutis and spiritual teachers,
transcend ignorance. They alone will succeed in
crossing this unfathomable ocean of delusion, and
not those others who follow the lead of their own
clever intellect.
The knowledge of Brahman leading to immor-
tality has been completely dealt with. It was this that
Maitreyi asked of her husband in the words, ‘Tell
me, sir, only of that which you know to be leading
to immortality’ (II. iv. 3 ; IV. v. 4). In order to
extol this knowledge of Brahman the following story
is introduced. The two Mantras are meant to give
the purport of the story in brief. Since both Mantra
and Br&hmana extol it, the capacity of the knowledge
of Brahman to confer immortality and the attain-
2. 5. 16] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
395
ment of identity with all becomes obvious as if it
were set up on the highway. As the rising sun
dispels the gloom of night, so (does the knowledge
of Brahman remove ignorance). The knowledge of
Brahman is also eulogised in this way, that being in
the custody of King Indra it is difficult of attainment
even by the gods, since this knowledge carefully
preserved by Indra was attained after great pains
even by the Ashwins, who are doctors to the gods.
They had to behead the instructing Brahmana and
fix a horse’s head on him. When this was severed
by Indra, they restored the Brahmana’s head to its
place, and heard the entire knowledge of Brahman
from his own lips. Therefore there neither has been
nor will be— and of course there is not — any better
means of realising our life’s end than this. So this
is the highest tribute that can be paid to it.
The knowledge of Brahman is further extolled
thus : It is well-known in the world that rites are
the means to attain all our life’s ends ; and their
performance depends on wealth, which cannot pos-
sibly confer immortality. This can be attained only
through Self-knowledge independently of rites. Al-
though it could easily be treated of in the ritualistic
portion, under the Pravargya rites, yet because of
its contradiction to rites this Self-knowledge, coupled
only with renunciation of the world, is discussed as
the means of immortality, after that portion is passed.
This shows that there is no better means of attain-
ing our life’s ends than this. In another way also
is the knowledge of Brahman eulogised. Every-
body delights in company. The Shruti says, 'He
396
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [2. 5. 16
(Viraj) was not happy (alone). Therefore people (to
this day) do not like to be alone* (T. iv. 3). Yajna-
valkya, though just like any other man, gave up
through his Self-knowledge his attachment to world-
ly objects such as wife, children and wealth, became
satisfied with knowledge, and took delight only in
the Self. The knowledge 'of Brahman is further
eulogised thus : Since Yajnavalkya, on the eve of
his departure from the worldly life, instructed his
beloved w r ife about it just to please her. We infer
this from the following, 'You say what is after my
heart. Come, take your seat,* etc. (ill. iv. 4).
g fa: I
337 TO 351-
3^33 f%ri
^ g T .
JT«5FT tffaJTT 51 || || It
16. This is that meditation on things
mutually helpful which Dadhyach, versed in
the Atharva-Veda, taught the Ashwins.
Perceiving this the Rishi (Mantra) said, ‘O
Ashwins in human form, that terrible deed
called Damsa which you did out of greed, I
will disclose as a cloud does rain — (how you
learnt) the meditation on things mutually
helpful which Dadhyach, versed in the
Atharva-Veda, taught you through a horse’s
head . ’
2 . 5 . 16 ] BR1HADARANY AKA UPANISHAD 397
We have said that the story given here is for
the sake of eulogy. What is that story ? It is as
follows : This refers to what has just been dealt
with, for it is present to the mind. The particle
‘vai’ is a reminder. It reminds us of the story nar-
rated elsewhere ( v Sh. XIV. i. secs. 1 & 4) in a different
context, which is suggested by the word that . That
meditation on things mutually helpful which was
only hinted at, but not clearly expressed, in the
section dealing with the rite called Pravargya, is
described in this section in the words, ‘This earth/
etc. (II. v. 1). How was it hinted at there? — ‘Dadh-
yach, versed in the Atharva-Veda, taught these
Ash wins the section dealing with the meditation on
things mutually helpful ; it was a favourite subject
with them ; therefore he came to them (wishing to
teach them) thus’ (Sli. XIV. i. 4. 13)-: ‘He said,
“Indra has told me that he will behead me the
moment I teach it to anybody ; therefore I am afraid
of him. If he does not behead me, then I will accept
you as my disciples/ ’ They said, “We will protect
you from him.” “How will you protect me? ,>
“When you will accept us as your disciples, we shall
cut off your head, remove it elsewhere and preserve
it. Then bringing a horse's head we shall fix it on
you ; you will teach us through that. As you do
so, Indra will cut off that head of yours ; then we
shall bring your own head and replace it on you.”
“All right/’ said the Brahmana, and accepted the
Ashwins as his disciples. When he did so, they
cut off his head and kept it by elsewhere ; then
bringing a horse’s head they fixed it on him ; through
BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [ 2 . 5 . 16
that he taught them. As he was teaching them,
Indra cut off that head. Then the Ash wins brought
his own head and replaced it on him’ (Sh. XIV. i. 1.
22-24). On that occasion, however, only that
portion of the meditation on things mutually help-
ful was taught which forms part of the rite called
Pravargya, but not the secret portion known as Self-
knowledge. The story that was recited there is here
mentioned for the sake of eulogy. This is that
meditation on things mutually helpful which Dadli-
yach, versed in the Atharva-Veda, taught the Ash-
wins through this device.
Perceiving this deed the Rishi or Mantra said ;
O Ashwins in human form, that terrible deed, etc.
‘That’ qualifies the remote Damsa, which is the name
of the deed. What kind of deed was it? ‘Terrible/
Why was it done ? Out of greed. People do terrible
deeds in the world tempted by greed ; these Ashwins
too appear to have done exactly like that. What
you have done in secret, I will disclose. Like what ?
As a cloud does rain. The particle ‘na’ after a word
in the Vedas denotes comparison, not negation, as in
the expression, ‘Ash warn na/ (like a horse). ‘I will
disclose your terrible deed as a cloud indicates rain
through rumbling noise etc/ — this is the construc-
tion.
Objection : How can these two Mantras be
in praise of the Ashwins ? They rather condemn them.
Reply : There is nothing wrong in it ; these are
eulogistic, not condemnatory. Because in spite of
doing such a despicable deed they passed off absolute-
ly scathless ; not did they suffer anything in the
2. 5. 17] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 399
unseen realm. Therefore these two Mantras are
eulogistic. People sometimes rightly construe blame
as praise, and likewise it is common knowledge that
praise may be blame in disguise.
The secret meditation on things mutually help -
jul, known as Self-knowledge, which Dadhyach,
versed in the Atharva-V eda, taught you through a
horse's head. ‘Ha* and ‘im* are expletives.
£ fa: qssrererter*. i
STT^OTTsqT^cRT
Sf&i for: i
car^’ n n \\
17. This ' is that meditation' on things
mutually helpful which Dadhyach, versed in
the Atharva-Veda, taught the Ashwins. Per-
ceiving this the Rishi said, ‘O Ashwins, you
set a horse’s head on (the shoulders of) Dadh-
yach, versed in the Atharva-Veda. O terrible
ones, to keep his word he taught you the
(ritualistic) meditation on things mutually
helpful connected with the sun, as also the
secret (spiritual) meditation on them.’
This is that meditation, etc., is to be explained
as in the preceding paragraph ; it refers to the other
Mantra that relates the same story. Dadhyach, versed
in the Atharva-Veda, etc. There may be others
versed in the Atharva-Veda ; so the term is qualified
400 BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [2. 5. 17
by mention of the name, Dadhyach. ‘O Ashwins /
etc. — this is spoken by the Rishi 1 who visualised the
Mantra. ‘When the Brahmana’s head was severed,
you cut off a horse's head — O the cruelty of it ! —
and set it on the Brahmana’s shoulders. And he
taught you the meditation on things mutually help-
ful that he had promised to teach you.’ Why did
he run the risk of his life to do this? I'o keep his
word —desiring to fulfil his promise. This is a hint
that keeping one’s solemn promise is more important
than even life. What was the meditation on things
mutually helpful that he taught ? That which was
connected with the sun : The head of Yajna , 2 being
severed, became the sun. To restore the head the
rite called Pravargya was started. The meditation
concerning the severing of the head of Yajna, its
restoration, and so on, which forms a part of the
rite, is the meditation on things mutually helpful
connected with the sun. Terrible ones — who destroy
their rival forces, or kill their enemies. ‘He taught
you not only the ritualistic meditation on things
mutually helpful connected with the sun, but also
the secret meditation on them relating to the Supreme
1 Here Shankara explains the word in its literal, and
more plausible meaning. In paragraph 16 it was explained
as the Mantra itself. The name of the sage is Kakshivat.
For the verses given in paragraphs 16, 17 and 19 see Ri. —
I. exvi. 12, I. cxvii. 22 and Yl. xlvii. 18 respectively.
- Literally, sacrifice. Here it means Vishnu, who is
identified with it. For the story how r Vishnu, proud of his
well-earned excellence over the other gods, stood resting
his chin on the end of a bow, and how the others out of
jealousy got some white-ants to gnaw off the bow-string,
which resulted in the severing of Vishnu’s head, see Sh.
XIV. i. 1. 6-10. Compare also Tai. A. V. i. 3-6.
2 . 5 . 18 ] BRIHA DARANYAKA UPANISHAD 401
Self* which is dealt with in the present section, in
fact, throughout this and the preceding chapter. The
verb ‘taught 1 is to be repeated here from above.
3*3*^ fs^:, 3*a*^ **3^: I
3?:: q^rr ^stt %*: g^q 11 1
qr 3wr g^r: gq gfora: 5 ^Pr to-
sTHTfan, u \\
18. This is that meditation on things
mutually helpful which Dadliyaeh, versed in
the Atharva-Veda, taught the Ashwins. Per-
ceiving this the Rishi said, ‘He made bodies
with two feet and bodies with four feet. That
Supreme Being first entered the bodies as a
bird (the subtle body).’ He on account of
his dwelling in all bodies is called the Purusha.
There is nothing that is not covered by Him*
nothing that is not pervaded by Him.
This is that meditation , etc., is to be explained
as before. The two foregoing Mantras sum up the
story which is connected with the rite called Pra-
vargya. They express in the form of a story the
purport of the two chapters that have a bearing on
that rite. Now the text proceeds to describe through
the two following Mantras the purport of the two
chapters that deal with the meditation on Brahman.
It has been said that the Br&hmana versed in the
Atharva-Veda also taught the Ashwins a secret medi-
26
402
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [2. 5. 19
tation on things mutually helpful. What that medi-
tation was is now being explained. He made bodies,
etc. — the Supreme Lord who made this universe
come out of the unmanifested state, in the course of
His manifesting the undifferentiated name and form,
after first projecting the worlds such as this earth,
made bodies with two feet, viz., human and bird
bodies, and bodies with four feet, viz., animal
bodies. That Supreme Being, the Lord, first entered
the bodies as a bird, that is, as the subtle body. The
text itself explains it : He on account of His dwell -
ing in all bodies is called the Purusha. There is
nothing that is not covered by Him ; likewise there
is nothing that is not pervaded by Him. That is,
everything is enveloped by Him as its inside and
outside. Thus it is He who as name and form — as
the body and organs — is inside and outside every-
thing. In other words, the Mantra, ‘He made
bodies,’ etc., briefly enunciates the unity of the Self.
^ I cT^rT-
^ ^q qfeft snjq,
0FT 5** SldT 3$U| |
spf q 3*sr q q ft
^ 5 spwnrm q§i -
Scqgsircnn^ n U n ^ a
19. This is that meditation on things
2. 5. 19] BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
403
mutually helpful which Dadhyach, versed in
the Atharva-Veda, taught the Ashwins. Per-
ceiving this the Rishi said, 4 (He) transformed
Himself in accordance with each form ; that
form of His was for the sake of making Him
known. The Lord on account of His Maya
(notions superimposed bv ignorance) is per-
ceived as manifold, for to Him are yoked ten
organs, nay hundreds of them. He is the
organs ; He is ten, and thousands — many, and
infinite. That Brahman is without prior or
posterior, without interior or exterior. This
self, the perceiver of everything, is Brahman.
This is the teaching.
This is that meditation , etc., is to be explained
as before. (He) transformed Himself in accordance
with each form, or (to put it differently) assumed the
likeness of each form. A son has the same form as, or
resembles, his parents. A quadruped is not born of
bipeds, nor vice versa. The same Lord, in the process
of manifesting name and form, f transformed Himself
in accordance with each form/ Why did He come in
so many forms ? That form of His was for the sake of
making Him known . Were name and form not mani-
fested, the transcendent nature of this Self as Pure In-
telligence would not be known. When, however, name
and form are manifested as the body and organs, it
is possible to know Its nature. The Lord on account
of His Maya or diverse knowledge, or (to give an
alternative meaning), the false identifications created
404
BR1HA DA RA NY AKA UPANISHAD [2. 5. 1t>
by name, form and the elements, not in truth — is
perceived as manifold , because of these notions
superimposed by ignorance, although He is ever the
same Pure Intelligence. Why? For to Him are
yoked , like horses to a chariot, ten organs — called
‘Hari* because they draw — nay hundreds of them,.
for the purpose of revealing their objects ; ‘hundreds, 1
because there are a great many beings. Since there
are a large number of sense-objects, (the Supreme
Self appears as manifold). It is to reveal them, and
not the Self, that the organs are yoked. As the
Kafha Upanishad says, ‘The self-born Lord injured
the organs by making them outgoing in their tenden-
cies’ (IV. 1). Therefore the Self is known not in Its
true nature as homogeneous Pure Intelligence, but
merely as the sense-objects*
Question : Then this Lord is one entity, and
the organs another?
Reply : No ; He is the organs ; he is ten, and
thousands — many, and infinite — because there are an
infinite number of beings. In short, that Brahman
which is the self is without prior, that is, cause, or
posterior, that is, effect, without interior or exterior,
that is, it has no other species within It or without
It. What is this homogeneous Brahman? This self.
What is it? The inner self that sees, hears, thinks,
understands, knows ; ' the p ere elver of everything,
because as the self of all it perceives everything. This
ts the teaching of all Vedanta texts — the gist of them.
It leads to immortality and fearlessness. The import
of the scriptures has been fully dealt with.
SECTION VI
asm ?fai: i nWr: <ilfa-
m^TTr^, qf fe * r pg ft hWr:
SOTfag^TR^,
snifter: ^fterar aftaurer, »iW: a \ a
i. Now the line of teachers : Pautima-
shya (received it) from Gaupavana. Gaupa-
vana from another Pautimashya. This
Pautimashya from another Gaupavana. This
Gaupavana from Kaushika. Kaushika from
Kaundinya. Kaundinya from Shandilya.
Shandilya from Kaushika and 'Gautama.
Gautama
snfsrtspn^, anfsrte: i
arref te renr i ., snaiftera snsifteT-
^tWit*., *lW:
RrrPTrq^, »nnjn*n^, wr-
g l OT t ^ , ¥fTT5nfl ¥fTT5r3ira HWrt,
^TT^Tsnri, wR^ra: , qRRraf
?nr^, ^ R t ^n{h : II ^ ||
2. From Agniveshya. Agniveshya from
Shandilya and Anabhimlata. Anabhimlata
from another of that name. He from a third
Anabhimlata. This Anabhimlata from Gau-
406
BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [2. 6. 3
tama. Gautama from Saitava and Prachina-
yogya. They from Parasharya. Parasharya
from Bharadwaja. He from Bharadwaja and
Gautama. Gautama from another Bhara-
dwaja. He from another Parasharya. Para-
sharya from Baijavapayana. He from Kau-
shikayani. Kaushikayani
srrafq^r: qrcnnqfai,, qromf
3TT%qT^, srrtqt JTTut:, ttW> »iW-
ITTT, *iW srrc^IT^, qrc^q:
qntq:
ctTfT, >n^ra, msRt
q^Hqrat
q«J: ^¥WrT, q?«IT: R , 3RTFJ
3TT%^ 3tnjferTqirT 0 sn^jf^TT^ fqsarwrqi-
*}t^, fq^q^i$sf>qwn^, srBqift asro-
qorrar, ^q^TsoqortesRqft f^R, sreraf
srrsqsRR, »|r: storsr: spssrrr, srssfcR qq;q:,
fqsf%f%sqt:, sqfe SRT*h, SRR:
srrrr, *rt?r: ^qqrar, *r*t: qwHt
asi^n ; m sq«rg, ag^tsw 11 * n qg u
3. From Ghritakausliika. Ghritakau-
shika from Parasharyayana. He from Para-
2. 6. 3] BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD 407
sharva. Parasharya from Jatukarnya. Jatu-
karnya from Asurayana and Yaska. Asura-
yana from Traivani. Traivani from Aupa-
jandhani. He from Asuri. Asuri from
Bharadwaja. Bharadwaja from Atreya. Atreya
from Manfi. Manfi from Gautama. Gautama
from Vatsya. Vatsya from Shandilya.
Shandilya from Kaishorya Kapva. He from
Kumaraharita. Kumaraharita from Galava.
Galava from Vidarbhikaundinva. He from
Vatsanapat Babhra\^a. He from Pathin
Saubhara. He from Avasya Angirasa. He
from Abhuti Twashtra. He from Vi sli wa-
rn pa Twash/ra. He from the Ash wins.
They from Dadhyach Atharvana. . He from
Atliarvan Daiva. He from Mritvu Pra-
dhwamsana. He from Pradhwamsana. Pra-
dhwamsana from Ekarshi. Ekarshi from
Viprachitti. Vipracliitti from Vvash/i.
V_vashti from Sana.ru. Sanaru from Sana-
tana. Sanatana from Sanaga. Sanaga from
Paramesh/liin (Viraj). He from Brahman
(Hiranyagarbha). Brahman is self-born.
Salutation to Brahman.
Now the line of teachers for the first two
chapters called Madhukanda, which aim at expound-
ing the knowledge of Brahman, is being given as
a eulogy on the latter. This is also a Mantra to
be expounded and regularly repeated. The word
408
BRIHADAR'ANYAKA UPANISHAD
[ 2 . 6 . 3
‘Vamsha* (line of teachers) is so called because of
its resemblance to a bamboo ; just as a bamboo is
divided into sections, so is this line of teachers
divided into sections beginning from the top down
to the root. The order of succession of teachers of
the first four chapters (of the last book 1 of the Shata-
patha Brahmana) is here spoken of as ‘Vanisha.’
In this list the names in the nominative case stand
for the disciples, and those in the ablative case stand
for the teachers. Parameshthin is Viraj. From
Brahman or Hiranyagarbha 2 3 ; beyond him the line
of teachers does not extend. As for Brahman / It
is self-horn, eternal. Salutation to that eternal
Brahman.
1 Of which the opening chapter of this work forms the
third chapter (Kanwa recension).
2 In whose mind the Vedas were revealed through the
grace of the hord, the ‘Brahman* next mentioned.
3 The Supreme Brahman, of which the Vedas are but
another form ; hence there can be no question of their
originating from some other source.
CHAPTER III
SECTION I
With 'Janaka, Emperor of Videlia/ etc., the
portion relating to Yajnavalkya begins. Though it
treats of the same subject as the preceding one, viz.,
the Madhukanda, yet it is not a mere repetition,
being mainly argumentative, whereas the preceding
portion was mainly of the nature of scriptural evi-
dence. When both scriptural evidence and argument
start to demonstrate the unity of the Self, they can
show it as clearly as a bael fruit on the palm of one's
hand, for it has been said, '(The Self) should be
heard of, reflected on/ etc. (II. iv. 5 ’; IV. v. 6).
Therefore it is to test the meaning of the Shrutis in
the light of arguments that this portion relating to
Yajnavalkya, which is mainly argumentative, is
commenced.
The story may be taken either as a eulogy on
knowledge, or as prescribing the way to acquire it ;
for it is a well-known fact, which scholars also notice
in the scriptures, that the making of presents is
one such way. Through presents people are won
over ; and here we see that plenty of gold and a
thousand cows are presented. Therefore, though
this section has another main purpose, the story is
introduced to show that the making of presents is
a way to the acquisition of knowledge. Another
customary way of acquiring it, as observed in the
410 BRIHADARANYAKA VPAN1SHAD [3. 1. I
system of logic, is the association with adepts in
that line, and discussion with them ; that too is
amply shown in this chapter. And it is a common
expedience that association with scholars adds to
our knowledge. Therefore we must conclude that
the story is meant to point out the way to acquire
knowledge.
sfTgjwT srfrra&n 5 aw-
f%fsisrraT sii^oitjh-
JT^Rcm ; e ? JT3T
<TT*T II l II
i. Om. Janaka, Emperor of Videlia,
performed a sacrifice in which gifts were freely
distributed. Vedic scholars from Kuril and
Panchala were assembled there. Emperor
Janaka of Videha had a desire to know,
‘Which is the most erudite of these Vedic
scholars?’ He had a thousand cows confined
in a pen, and on the horns of each cow were
fixed ten Padas 1 (of gold).
There was a ruler of Videha named Janaka , who
was an Emperor. He performed a sacrifice in which
gifts were freely distributed. Or the sacrifice itself
may have had that name, referred to elsewhere in
the Vedas. Or the horse sacrifice may here be so
called because of the abundance of gifts in it. Vedic
scholars from Kuru and Panchala — which are famous
1 A Pada is about one-third of an ounce.
3 . 1 . 2 ] . BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD 411
for their large number of scholars — were assembled
in that sacrifice, either on invitation or as spectators.
Seeing that large assembly of scholars, Emperor
Janaka of Videha, the sacrifices had a desire to know
which was the greatest Vedic scholar among them.
He thought like this: ( Which is the most erudite
of these Vedic scholars t They are all versed in
the Vedas, but which is the greatest of them V
Being desirous of knowing this, he, as a means to
finding it out, had a thousand young co7vs confined in
a pen. The cows are being described. On the horns
of each cow were fixed ten Pddas (a Pada being a
quarter of a Pala) of gold — five on each horn.
stT^pJTT sft 3t afgis: ^ 3crr
*TT ^jRTTfrT% | ^ 5 STT5HJTT ST ; 3T«T § 3TSR55R:
ngRifrugarra, 33 t: smisasn*
5T%gt • 3TSJ 5 SlSTSfi^ ^TP3^
3^ 5 S3 |sf 33=50, g S30 qr f q g PI S%<
ffsr ; e cf3T3, suit srsr afgigrc
sf faW T 33 33R - 3 5 33 33 33 =?S ^?TT-
WT5T: II R II
2. He said to them, ‘Revered Brah-
manas, let him who is the best Vedic scholar
among you drive these cows (home).’ None
of the Brahmanas dared. Then Yajnavalkya
said to a pupil of his, ‘Dear Samashravas.
please drive these cow r s (home).’ He drove
them. The Brahmanas were furious. ‘How
412
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD , [3. 1. 2
do e$ he dare to call himself the best Vedic
scholar among us?’ There was a Hotri 1 of
Emperor Janaka of Videha named Ashwala.
He now asked Yajnavalkya, ‘Yajnavalkya,
are you indeed the best Vedic scholar among
us?’ Yajnavalkya replied, T bow to the best
Vedic scholar, I just want the cows.’ There-
upon the Hotri Ashwala determined to inter-
rogate him.
Having the cows thus confined, he said address-
ing those Brahmanas, ‘ Revered Brahmanas, you are
all Vedic scholars ; lei him who is specially so among
you drive these cows home.* None of the Brah-
manas thus addressed dared to announce his surpass-
ing Vedic scholarship. When they were thus
silenced, Yajnavalkya said to a pupil of his , r Dear
Sdmashravas , please drive these cows home/
‘Sdinashravas’ means one who learns how to chant
the Saman. Hence by implication Yajnavalkya is
made out to be versed in all the four Vedas . 2 He
drove the cows towards his teacher’s home. YSjna-
valkya, by accepting the prize meant for the best
Vedic scholar, indirectly declared himself as such ;
so the Brdhmanas were furious. The reason for
their anger is being stated : How does he dare to
1 A priest who has the duty of invoking the gods in
a sacrifice, reciting from the Rig-Veda.
2 j s principally a teacher of the Yajur-Veda ; the
pupil in question learns from him how to chant the Saman,
which is the Rich set to music; so he must also know
these two Vedas ; and the Atharva-Veda is subsidiary to
the other three.
3 . 1 . 3 ]
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
413
call himself the best Vedic scholar among us who
are each a great scholar? Among the Brahmanas
thus enraged, there was a Hotri of Janaka, the sacri-
fice^ named Ashwala. He prided himself upon being
the greatest Vedic scholar, and was insolent owing
to royal patronage. So he challenged Yajnavalkya
as follows : ( Yajnavalkya , are you indeed the best
Vedic scholar among us ?’ The prolonged accent
signifies censure. Yajnavalkya replied : f I bow ta
the best Vedic scholar , now I just want the cows /
Thereupon , that is, when he accepted the prize meant
for the best Vedic scholar, and thereby declared him-
self to be one, the Hotri Ashwala determined to *
interrogate him.
^sr&bnflrcT , stt*# ^?tt, rfshi qro
sr ^tt, sr gfo:, n * n
3. ‘Yajnavalkya,’ said he, ‘since all this
is overtaken by death, and swayed by it, by
what means does the sacrificer go beyond the
clutches of death ?’ ‘Through the organ of
speech — through fire, which is the (real)
priest called Hotri. The sacrificer ’s organ of
speech is the Hotri. This organ of speech is
fire ; this fire is the Hotri ; this (fire) is libera-
tion; this (liberation) is emancipation.’
‘Yajnavalkya,’ said he. In the section on the
Udgitha (I. iii.) comprised in the MadhukSnda it
414
BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
[ 3 . 1 .
has been briefly explained how a sacrificer can escape
death through the rite with five factors coupled
with the meditation about it. The present section
being an examination of that, a rather detailed
treatment is being given here in order to introduce
some particulars about that meditation. ' Since all
this, the accessories of this rite such as the priests
and the fire, is overtaken by death , that is, by ritual-
istic work attended with our natural attachment —
not only overtaken, but also swayed by death, by
what means, or meditation, does the sacrificer go
beyond the clutches of death , become independent
of it?’
Objection : Has it not already been said in the
section on the Udgitha that he transcends death by
identifying himself with the vital force in the mouth ?
Reply : Yes, but the particulars that have been
omitted there will be given here. So there is nothing
wrong in it.
Yajnavalkya said, * Through the organ of speech
— through fire, which is the (real) priest called Hotri
The explanation follows. Who is that Hotri through
whom the sacrificer transcends death ? ‘ The sacri-
ficer' s organ of speech is the Hotri / •‘Sacrifice* here
means the sacrifier. Witness the Shruti, ‘The
sacrifice is the sacrificer > (Sh. XIV. ii. 2. 24). The
sacrificer *s organ of speech is the Hotri with reference
to sacrifices. How? This organ of speech of the
sacrificer is the well-known fire, with reference to the
gods. This has already been explained under the
topic of the three kinds of food (I. v. 3, 11). And
that fire is the Hotri , for the Shruti says, ‘Fire is
S. 1 . 3 ]
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
415
the Hotri* (Sh. VI. iv. 2. 6). These two auxiliaries
of a sacrifice, viz., the priest called Hotri with refer-
ence to sacrifices, and the organ of speech with
reference to the body, being limited, are 'overtaken
by death,’ that is, are continually changed by ritual-
istic work directed by our natural attachment due
to ignorance, and are therefore 'swayed by death.*
If the sacrificer looks upon them as fire, their divine
form, it conduces to his 1 liberation from death. So
the text says : This is liberation , that is, the Hotri
who is fire is liberation. In other words, looking
upon the Hotri as fire is that. As soon as the
sacrificer looks upon the two auxiliaries as fire, he
is freed from death consisting in his limited natural
attachment relating to the body and the elements.
Therefore that Hotri, when looked upon as fire, is
'liberation,* that is, the means of liberation, for the
sacrificer. This is emancipation : That which is
liberation is emancipation, that is, a means to it.
To look upon those two limited auxiliaries as fire,
which is their unlimited divine form, is liberation.
This liberation which consists in looking upon (the
Hotri and the organ of speech) in their divine aspect
is also spoken of as the resulting emancipation — be-
coming one with fire, their divine form — which takes
one beyond the death that consists in attachment to
limitations relating to the body and the elements.
It is called emancipation, because that liberation
itself is a means to it. It has already been explained
in the section on the Udgitha that the identification
of the organ of speech etc. with fire and so on is
1 As also the Hotri ’s.
416
BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [3. 1. 3
itself the emancipation of the sacrifice!*. There it
has been said in a general way that identity with
the vital force in the mouth is the means of libera-
tion, but the particulars have not been given. Here
some details, viz., the viewing of the organ of speech
etc. as* fire and so on, are given. The emancipa-
tion from death here dealt with is the same as that
which has been described as a result in the section
on the Udgitha in the words, ‘(That fire) having
transcended death shines,* etc. (I. iii. 12).
gfo:, h # n
4. ‘Yajnavalkya,’ said he, ‘since all this
is overtaken by day and night, and swayed by
them, by what means does the sacrificer go
beyond the clutches of day and night?’
‘Through the eye — through the sun, which
is the (real) priest called Adhwarvu. 1 The
eye of the sacrificer is the Adhwaryu. This
eye is the sun ; this sun is the Adhwaryu ;
this (sun) is liberation ; this (liberation) is
emancipation.’
' Yajnavalkya said he. The emancipation from
death, which is another name for ritualistic work
1 Whose duty it is to get ready the various accessories
of a sacrifice and offer the oblations reciting from the
Yajur-Veda.
3. 1. 5J
BRIHA DARANYA KA UPANISHAD
417
directed by our natural attachment due to ignorance,
has been explained. Time is the cause of changes in
the accessories of rites such as the new and full moon
sacrifices, on which death, tli at is to say, ritualistic
work with attachment, rests. This paragraph is intro-
duced as emancipation from that time should be
separately indicated ; because even without the per-
formance of rites, we notice before and after it the
action of time as the cause of changes in the acces-
sories of the rites. So the text goes on : Since all
this is overtaken by day and night. That time has
two forms: one consisting of day, night, etc., and
the other consisting of lunar days etc. The emanci-
pation from the former type of time is being first
indicated, since everything is born, grows and dies
because of the day and night ; so also with the means
of a sacrifice. The eye of the sacrifice r is the Adh-
waryu ; here too ‘sacrifice* means the sacrifices
The rest of the paragraph is to be explained as
before. When the two accessories, viz., the sacri-
fice's eye and the Adhwaryu, are stripped of
their limitations relating to the body and the
elements, and are looked upon in their divine aspect,
this is liberation. In other words, the viewing of
the Adhwaryu as the sun is liberation. This libera-
tion is emancipation , as in the preceding paragraph ;
because there can be no day and night for one who
has identified himself with the sun.
27
4X8 BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [3. 1. 5
f^3TT sngsn sn^(5T 5 OTW* # 5
simr: ^ sn^:, ^ ^rerr, gf%:, n ^ n
5. ‘Yajnavalkya,’ said he, ‘since all this
is overtaken by the bright and dark fort-
nights, and swayed by them, by what means
does the sacrificer go beyond the bright and
dark fortnights?’ ‘Through the vital force —
through air, which is the (real) priest called
Udgatri. 1 The vital force of the sacrificer is
the Udgatri. This vita] force is air, and it
is the Udgatri ; this (air) is liberation ; this
(liberation) is emancipation.’
Now the emancipation from time represented by
lunar days etc. is being indicated : Since all this,
etc. The sun is the cause of the days and nights,
which are alike, but not of the lunar days from the
first to the fifteenth ; these are subject to increase
and decrease, and are caused by the moon. There-
fore through identification with the moon one goes
beyond the bright and dark fortnights, just as through
identification with the sun one goes beyond day and
night. Now the vital force of the sacrificer is air.
It again is the Udgatri , as we know from the section
on the Udgitha, where it has been settled : Tndeed
he chanted through speech and the vital force* (I.
iii. 34). Also, ‘Water is the body of this vital force,
and that moon is its luminous organ* (I. v. 13).
Since the vital force, air and moon are one, the Shruti
considers that there is no difference between summing
1 Who chants hymns from the S&ma-Veda.
3 . 1 . 6 ]
BR1HADARANYAKA VPAN1SHAD
419
up with the moon , 1 and with air, and mentions air
as the divine form. Moreover the changes of the
moon are due to air . 2 Therefore air is the cause
even of that ('moon) which makes the division of
time into lunar days etc. Hence it all the more
stands to reason that one who has identified oneself
with air goes beyond time as divided into lunar days
etc. For this reason another Shruti (the Madhyan-
dina recension) states that the viewing (of the acces-
sories of a sacrifice) as the moon is liberation and
emancipation ; while here, in the Kamva recension,
the viewing of the two accessories as their cause,
viz., air, is called liberation and emancipation. So
there is no contradiction between the two Shrutis.
JTTOT TJT ; JR* # srSTPT sfiaTT ; rRlf^ JR:
*T SfIT, ST 5%:, STTfagfo:—
jjt^IT: 5 sra || i ||
6. ‘Yajnavalkya,’ said he, ‘since the sky
is, as it were, without a support, through
what support does the sacrificer go to heaven ? ’
‘Through the mind — through the moon,
which is the (real) priest called Brahma. s
The mind of the sacrificer is the Brahma.
This mind is the moon ; the moon is the
1 As the M&dhyandina recension does.
2 Really, cosmic force (Sutratman), of which air is the
-conventional symbol.
Who supervises the functions.
420
BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [3. 1. 6
Brahma ; this '(moon) is liberation ; this
(liberation) is emancipation . ’ So far about the
ways of emancipation ; now about the medita-
tion based on resemblance.
The way the sacrificer transcends the form of
death known as time has’ been explained. Now
what is that support by means of which he attains
a result transcending death, which is a limitation —
in other words, is emancipated ? This paragraph
answers the point : Since the sky, so familiar to
us, is, as it were, without a support, etc. The words
‘as it were’ indicate that there is a support to it, but
it is not known. Ail inquiry is being made about this
unknown support by the use of the pronominal ad-
jective ‘Kena’ (through what) ; otherwise the attain-
ment of results would be impossible. What is that
support by means of which the sacrificer attains the
result of his rites and is released? — is the question.
Through what support does the sacrificer go to
heaven as the result (of his rites) — in other words,
is released ? Through the mind— through the moon,
which is the (real) priest called Brahma ; this is to
be explained as before. Now what is familiar to us
as the mind l of the sacrificer with reference to the
body, is the moon with reference to the gods ; for
it is a well-known fact that the mind in the body is
the same as the moon among the gods. The moon
again is the priest called Brahma. Hence the sacri-
ficer beholds the limited form of the Brahma among
the elements, and that of his own mind in the body,
as the unlimited moon. That is to say, through
3 . 1 . 6 ]
BR1HADARANY A KA UPANISHAD
421
the support of the mind viewed as the moon he
attains heaven as the result of his rites — in other
words, is released. The word ‘iti’ indicates the con-
clusion of the topic ; that is, such are the various
ways of emancipation from death. The topic is con-
cluded, because all kinds of meditation regarding the
accessories of a sacrifice have been dealt with in this
connection. So far about the ways of emancipation,
that is, such are the various ways of emancipation.
Now the meditation based on resemblance is
being spoken of. By this is meant meditation, by
virtue of some point of resemblance, on rites with
inferior results like the Agnihotra, as rites with
superior results, in order to obtain these results ; or
it is meditation on some part of the lesser rite as those
very results. Even when people try with all their
ardour to undertake measures to bring about certain
ends', they may fail of their object through some de-
fect. vSo a man who regularly tends the sacrificial fire
takes up any rite such as the Agnihotra that suits
him, and if he happens to know the results of par-
ticular rites, meditates that the rite before him will
produce the results lie seeks. Otherwise it would be
impossible for people of even the upper three castes,
who are entitled to them, to perform the Rajasuya, 1
Ashwamedha, Naramedha and Sarvamedha sacri-
fices. And even the reciting of scriptures relating
to them would merely be devotional study, unless
1 A sacrifice usually performed by emperors. The other
three are sacrifices in which a horse, some substitute for
a man, and animals in general are respectively sacrificed.
All the four are elaborate and expensive undertakings
beyond the means of most people.
422
BR1HA DARANYA KA UPAN1SHAD [3. 1. 6
th$re be some means of attaining the results of those
rites. Those people can attain these results only by
means of the meditation based on resemblance ;
hence such meditation is fruitful, and is therefore
being 1 described.
cnftr-
7. ‘Yajnavalkya,’ said he, ‘with how
many kinds of Rich will the Hotri do his part
in this sacrifice to-day?’ ‘With three kinds.’
‘Which are those three?’ ‘The preliminary,
the sacrificial, and the eulogistic hymns as
the third.’ ‘What does he win through
them?’ ‘All this that is living.’ 1
‘ Yajnavalkya / said he, to draw his attention,
f with how many kinds of Rich will the Hotri do his
Part — recite hymns — in this sacrifice to-day V The
other said, 'With three kinds of Rich/ When he
said this, Ashwala asked him again, ' Which arc
those three f' The first question was about the
number, the second about the Riches themselves.
The preliminary , that class of hymns which are used
before a sacrifice ; the sacrificial, those hymns that
are used for the purpose of the sacrifice ; and the
eulogistic hymns, that class of hymns which are used
in praise. Every kind of Rich, whether used in
1 That is, the three worlds.
3 . 1 . 8 ] BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD 423
praise or otherwise, is included in these three classes.
' What does he win through them ?* ‘ All this that
is living / On account of this parity of number he
wins whatever is living (in the three worlds). On
account of the similarity in number etc. he obtains
all this result through meditation.
5 f?l5l •
5TT UT gcTT 3?f^5[5^, ?JT $?TT
; *TT f?lT
. ut
fcTT arfirefofo, srerta %
farjssto: 5 ?TT f5IT rTTfil-
^fer, am m fi ikh
8. ‘Yajnavalkya,’ said he, ‘how many
kinds of oblations will the Adhwaryu offer in
this sacrifice to-day ?’ ‘Three.’ ‘Which are
those three?’ ‘Those that blaze up on being
offered, those that make a great noise, and
those that sink in.’ ‘What does he win
through them?’ ‘Through those that blaze
up on being offered he wins the world of the
gods, for this world shines, as it were.
Through those that make a great noise he
wins the world of the Manes, for this world is
full of uproar. And through those that sink
in he wins the human world, for this world is
lower. ’
424
BRJHA DARANYA KA UPANISHAD [3. 1. 8
' Ydjnavalkya / said he, etc. This has already
been explained. ' How many kinds of oblations will
the Adhwaryu offer in this sacrifice to-day V ‘Three.’
f Which are those three ?' etc. — already explained.
Yajnavalkya replied : Those that blaze up on being
offered, such as oblations of wood and clarified butter.
Those that make a great noise, such as flesh.
And those that sink in, penetrate the earth — for
example, milk and Soma juice. ' What does he win
through them / through the oblations thus offered?
Through those that blaze up on being offered , etc. —
The offerings made are bright, and the result, the
world of the gods, is also bright. On account of this
similarity he meditates that the bright offerings he is
making are the very form of the result he seeks
through his rites, viz., the world of the gods — that
he is achieving that very result, the world of the
gods. Through those oblations that make a great
noise he wins the world of the Manes, because of the
similarity in producing horrible noises. For, attached
to the world of the Manes is the city of Yama, where
people subjected to tortures by him cry, 'Alas, we
are undone, release us, oh, release us !’ So also do
the offerings of meat etc. make a noise. On account
of this similarity with the world of the Manes he
meditates that he is actually attaining that world.
Through those offerings that sink in he wins the
human world, because both are equally related to
what is above the earth. For this world is lower than
the higher worlds, which are to be attained ; or
'lower’ because of the similarity in going down . 1
3 Too often men having evil tendencies degrade.
3 . 1 . 9 |
BR1HADARANY AKA UP AN I SHAD
425
Therefore, while offering oblations of milk or Soma,
he meditates that he is actually attaining the human
world.
^fsrpjrat ■ n;^f?r . ^jn
*r%f?r • ir ®Rrcf £ jr:, 3r?cit fin<% ^tt:,
3R?cl^r ^ ^ 5R% || * n
9. ‘Yajnavalkya,’ said he, ‘through how
many gods does this Brahma from the right
protect the sacrifice to-day?’ ‘Through one.’
‘Which is that one?’ ‘The mind. The
mind is indeed infinite, and infinite are the
Vishwadevas. Through this meditation the
aspirant wins an infinite world.’
f Yajnavalkya / said he, etc., is to be explained
as before. Through how many gods does this priest
called Brahma from the right, sitting in his particular
seat, protect the sacrifice f The plural number in
‘gods' is merely for the sake of conformity. To
explain : The priest protects the sacrifice through
one god only ; so one who knows this should not put
a question using the plural. But because the plural
number was used in the questions and answers in the
two preceding paragraphs — ‘Through how many ?’
‘Through three.’ ‘How many?’ ‘Three’ — here too
the plural is used in the question ; or the plural form
is used in order to puzzle the opponent. r Through
one/ replied Yajnavalkya ; the god through whom
the Brahma protects the sacrifice from his seat on the
right is one. ‘ Which is that one?’ The mind is
426
BR1HADARANYAKA UPANJSHAD [3. 1. 9
that god ; it is through the mind, through medita-
tion, that the Brahma does his function. ‘The mind
and speech are the two ways of a sacrifice ; the
Brahma rectifies one of them (speech) through the
mind (or silence)/ so says another Shruti (Chh. IV.
xvi. 1-2). Therefore the mind is that god, and
through it the Brahma protects the sacrifice. And
that mind is indeed infinite, because of its modifica-
tions. The word ‘indeed 1 signifies that it is a well-
known fact. Everybody knows that the mind is
infinite. The gods identify themselves with its
infinity : And infinite are the Vishwadevas ; for
another Shruti says, ‘In which (mind) all the gods
become one/ etc. Through this meditation the as-
pirant wins an infinite world, because of the similarity
as regards infinitude.
3&prmT qrstrr g srehr grftaT ;
sn a r re n fiifd , smr gdggrppn , ^
qT5qT, S?TR: ST^TT .
g tafr* 1 ! f dggrT« F WT arafa, spafajrata* *ns*i*n,
3,55^* VRqqr 5 Heft 5 5t?TTS>355 II ||
SWtf aTSltrn^ II
io. ‘Yajnavalkya,’ said he, ‘how many
classes of hymns will the Udgatri chant in
this sacrifice to-day?’ ‘Three classes.’
‘Which are those three?’ ‘The preliminary,
the sacrificial, and the eulogistic hymns as
3. 1. 10] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAV
427
the third.’ ‘Which are those that have ref-
erence to the body?’ ‘The Prana is the
preliminary hymn, the Apana is the sacri-
ficial hymn, and the Vyana is the eulogistic
hymn.’ ‘What does he win through them?’
'Through the preliminary hymns he wins the
earth, through the sacrificial hymns he wins
the sky, and through the eulogistic hymns he
wins heaven.’ Thereupon the Hotri Ashwala
kept silent.
r Ydjnavalkya / said he, etc., is to be explained as
before. 'How many classes of hymns will the Udgd-
tri chant V By the word 'hymns* is meant a collec-
tion of Riches that can be chanted. All Riches what-
soever, whether capable of being chanted or not, are
comprised in just three classes, says Yajnavalkya ;
and they are explained as the preliminary , the sacrifi-
cial and the eulogistic hymns as the third. It has
already been said that the aspirant wins 'All this that
is living/ One may ask, 'Through what similarity?'
The answer is being given : 'Which are those three
Riches that have reference to the body V 'The
Prana is the preliminary hymn/ because both begin
with the letter p. ' The Apana is the sacrificial
hymn/ because it comes next in order. Also, the
gods eat the offered oblations through the Apana 1 ;
and a sacrifice is also an offering . 2 'The Vydna is
1 By accepting them with the hand etc., which is done
through the Ap&na.
2 Which the gods accept. This acceptance follows in
both cases.
428
BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [3. 1. 10
the eulogistic hymn/ for another Shruti says, ‘He
utters the Rich without the help of the Prana or the
Apana* 1 (Chh. I. iii. 4). 'What does he win through
them V — already explained. The similarity with
regard to particular relations that was not mentioned
before is being given here ; the rest lias already been
explained. Because of the similarity 2 of relation
to a particular world (viz., the earth), through the
preliminary hymns he wins the earth ; through the
sacrificial hymns he wins the sky, because both
occupy an intermediate position ; through the eulo-
gistic hymns he wins heaven, because both occupy the
highest position. Thereupon, that is, when his
questions were answered, the Hotri Ashwala , kept
silent, realising that his opponent was too deep for
him .
1 That is, through the Vyana.
2 Both come in first.
SECTION II
The relation of the story to the subject has
already been dealt with. The emancipation from
deatli in the form of time as well as rites has been
explained. Now what is this death, the emancipa-
tion from which has been explained ? It consists of
the Grahas (organs) and Atigrahas (objects), which
are centred in the attachment due to our natural
ignorance, and are limited by the objects relating
to the body and the elements. The forms such as fire
and the sun of one who has been freed from that
death consisting in limitation have been explained in
the section on the Udgitha, and some details about
them have been set forth in reply to Ashwala’s quest-
ions ; all that is the result of rites coupled with medi-
tation. Liberation from this relative existence consist-
ing of ends and means has to be effected ; hence the
nature of death is being described, for it is the man in
bondage who has to be liberated. It is true that the
nature of an emancipated man has also been describ-
ed, but sucli a man is not yet free from death in the
form of the organs and objects. So it has been said
with reference to the being who is in the sun,
‘Hunger is death* (I. ii. 1) and ‘This indeed is
death* (Sh. X. v. 2. 2) ; also, ‘Death, though one, has
many forms* (Sh. X. v. 2. 16). In other words, he
alone who has attained identity with the sun is
spoken of as escaping from the clutches of death ;
and the organs and objects, which are but forms of
430
BRIH AVAR ANY AKA UPANISHAD [ 3 . 2 . 1
death, are not absent in the sun. It has already been
said, ‘Heaven is the body of this mind, and that
sun is its luminous organ' (I. v. 12), and it will be said
further on, ‘The mind is also the Graha (organ) ; it
is controlled by the Atigraha (object), desire' (III.
ii. 7), ‘The Prana (nose) is the Graha ; it is controlled
by the Atigraha, the Apana (odour)’ (III. ii. 2), and
‘The organ of speech is the Graha ; it is controlled by
the Atigraha, name' (III. ii. 3). We have thus ex-
plained it in the passage bearing on the three kinds
of food ; and we have fully argued the point that
what causes the starting of bondage cannot lead to its
cessation.
Some, however, consider every rite to be leading
to the cessation of bondage. Therefore, they say, he
who resorts to the succeeding forms of death (bodies)
is freed from the preceding forms of it : he resorts
to the former not to cling to them, but to turn away
from them ; so everything is a form of death untii
duality is at an end, and when this takes place, he
really transcends death. Hence, they say, the inter-
mediate liberation is but a relative one.
All this, we say, is unwarranted by the
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.
Objection : Does not liberation consist in
identity with all, as is borne out by the Shruti text,
‘Therefore It became all’ (I. iv. 10) ?
Reply : Yes, it does, but such Shruti texts as,
‘One who desires villages must sacrifice’ (Ta. XVII. *
x. 4), and ‘One w r ho desires animals must sacrifice’
(Tfi. XVI. xii. 8), do not convey liberation. If they
did, they would not signify villages, cattle, heaven,
3. 2. 1] BR]HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
431
etc., and hence the latter would not be understood
as such. But they are considered to be the varied
results of our past actions. Moreover, if the Vedic
rites conveyed liberation, there would be no relative
existence at all . 1
Objection : We maintain that although identity
is the purport of those passages, yet relative exist-
ence is the very nature of rites, which follow
automatically (from a knowledge of the Vedic in-
junctions), as when a lamp is lighted to show a
particular form, everything in that place is brought
to light.
Reply : Not so, for it is unwarranted by any
means of knowledge. In other words, , if the Vedic
rites together with meditation convey only identity,
there is nothing to prove that bondage follows auto-
matically (from a knowledge of the Vedic injunc-
tions). There is neither perception, nor inference,
nor for that very reason scriptural evidence either . 2
Objection : But both identity and relative exist-
ence may be conveyed by the same sentence, like
a canal or a lamp, for instance, serving many
purposes.
Reply : It cannot be, for it would be against
the laws of sentences. Nor can you say that the
import of a sentence (here, rites) serves both to
initiate bondage and to stop it. The examples of
1 This is the result of one’s merit and demerit, which
again depend on the observance or non-observance of
scriptural injunctions. Now, if these convey liberation,
relative existence, having no cause, is nullified.
2 Because it does not contradict perception and inference.
432
BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1S1IAD
[3. 2. 1
tjie canal, the lamp and so forth are in order, because
their uses are matters of perception. 1
You may say that there are Mantras 2 in support
of your view ; but it is just this view of yours that
is untenable. We have to find out whether these
Mantras mean this or something else. Therefore we
conclude that death in the form of the organs and
objects is bondage, and this section is introduced to
show a way out of that bondage. We do not know
the trick of taking up an intermediate position, 3 as
between waking and sleeping states ; it would be as
absurd as the same woman being one-half old and
one-half young. The reason why after the words 'go
beyond death’ (III. i. 3, adapted), the organs and
objects are mentioned, is that these latter also really
mean death. In other words, the whole range of
ends and means constitutes bondage, because it is not
free from the organs and objects. Only when the
fetters are known, can the fettered man try to get
rid of them. Hence the present section is introduced
to describe the nature of bondage.
* tfe n u
1.. Then Artabhaga, of the line of Jarat-
1 Which do not admit of any discussion.
2 For example : ‘He who knows meditation and rites
together transcends death* (Ish. 10).
3 That the ritualistic portion of the Vedas leads neither
to bondage nor directly to liberation.
3 . 2 . 1 ]
BRIHADARANYAKA VPAN1SHAD
433
karu asked him. ' Yajnavalkya,’ said he,
'how many are the Grahas , 1 and how many
are the Atigrahas 2 ?’ 'There are eight Grahas
and eight Atigrahas.’ ‘Which are those eight
Grahas and eight Atigrahas ? ’
Then, that is, when Ashwala stopped, Arta-
bhaga , the son of Ritabhaga, of the line of Jaratkaru,
asked Yajnavalkya, already introduced. ‘Ydjnaval-
kya / said he — this is to draw his attention. (The
particle ‘ha’ suggests the narration of a past incident).
As before, comes the question, ‘How many are tJic
Grahas , and how many are the Atigrahas The
particle ‘iti’ marks the close of the speech.
Objection : The subject-matter of the question,
viz., the Grahas and Atigrahas, may be’ either known
or not known. If they are known, then their
number, which is an attribute, is also known. In
that case, the question regarding it, ‘How many are
the Grahas, and how many are the Atigrahas ?* is
out of place. If, on the other hand, the Grahas and
Atigrahas are not known, then the question should
be regarding their nature : ‘What are the Grahas,
and what are the Atigrahas ?* and not, ‘How many
are the Grahas, and how many are the Atigrahas V
Again questions may be asked regarding the par-
ticulars of things about which we have a general
. 1 One of the root-meanings of the word ‘Graha’ is that
which perceives ; hence an organ.
2 Atigraha — literally, that which is greater than a
Graha ; here it means a sense-object, which determines
the nature of the perception.
28
434
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 3 . 2 . 1
knowledge, as, for instance : ‘Which of these belong
to the Ka£ha recension and which to the Kalapa?’
But no such things as Grahas and Atigrahas are
known in life. If they were, the question might
be regarding the particulars about them.
Reply: It has been asked (III. i. 3) how the
sacrificer ‘goes beyond’ death. It is only one who
is controlled by a Graha (that which seizes) that*
can be liberated. It has been mentioned twice —
‘This is liberation ; this is emancipation’ (Ibid.).
Therefore the Grahas and Atigrahas are known
things.
Objection : Even in that case four Grahas and
Atigrahas have been mentioned, viz., the vocal organ,
eye, vital force and mind. So the question ‘how
many’ is not to the point, for the number is already
known.
Reply : Not so, because there the number was
indefinite. The passage in question did not seek to
fix it at four. Here, however, in the meditation on
the Grahas and Atigrahas, the attribute of number is
sought to be fixed at eight ; so the question is quite
in order. Therefore liberation and emancipation
have been mentioned twice in the passage, ‘This is
liberation ; this is emancipation.’ The Grahas and
Atigrahas too are settled facts. Hence Artabh&ga
asked, ‘How many are the Grahas, and how many
are the Atigrahas?’ Yfijnavalkya replied, ‘ There are-
eight Grahas and eight Atigrahas / ' Which, in
particular, are those eight Grahas and eight Atigrahas
that you have spoken of?’
3. 2. S] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
435
stmrl t sj?:,
fS»TWIT%lf5r || R
2. The Prana (nose) is the Graha ; it is
controlled by the Atigraha, the Apana,
{odour), for one smells odours through the
Apana (the air breathed in).
Yajnavalkya replied: The Prana is the Graha .
‘Prana’ here means the nose, from the context. It,
the nose, is connected with air. ‘Apana’ here means
odour ; it is so called because it always accompanies
odour, for everybody smells with the nose odours
presented by the air that is breathed in (Apana).
This is expressed by the sentence : For one smells
odours through the Apana.
51?:, JET JTT5rT%ai|or f?
II ^ ||
3 . The organ of speech is the Graha ; it
is controlled by the Atigraha, name, for one
utters names through the organ of speech.
f^T § si?:,
II « II
q?ta:, %
4. The tongue is the Graha; it is con-
trolled by the Atigraha, taste, for one knows
tastes through the tongue.
<5^ si?:, feQuiiftmifeor q?ta:, f?
wfhrq^r% 11 ^ 11
5. The eye is the Graha; it is controlled
436
BR1HADARANYAKA UPANlSHAD
[ 3 . 2 . 5
by the Atigraha, colour, for one sees colours
through the eye.
w^ i wg q iHa ii I II
6. The ear is the Graha ; it is controlled
by the Atigraha, sound, for one hears sounds
through the ear.
^T^nftsnltnr ^ci:, jttot ft
|| <9 ||
7. The mind is the Graha ; it is controlled
by the Atigraha, desire, for one wishes desires
through the mind.
^ ^JTWTft5n|nr
ft ^j} sRtrft 11 11
8. The hands are the Graha ; they are
controlled by the Atigraha, work, for one does
work through the hands.
c 3 RT ST c^T ft
u * n
9. The skin is the Graha; it is controlled
by the Atigraha, touch, for one feels touch
through the skin. These are the eight
Grahas and eight Atigrahas.
The organ of speech is the Graha . The organ
of speech, as confined to one particular body, deals
3. 2. 10] BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
437
with things to which people are attached, and makes
utterances which are untrue, pernicious, rude, offens-
ive, and so on. It thus controls or captures people ;
hence it is a Graha. It, this Graha called the organ
of speech, is controlled by the Atigraha, name , that
is, by whatever is uttered. (The long vowel in
‘Atigraha* is a Vedic licence.) For the organ of
speech is meant to express things ; it is used bv
them for just that purpose ; hence it is controlled by
them, and there is no deliverance for it until it has
done this function. Therefore the organ of speech
is said to be controlled by the Atigraha, name, for
it is a fact that people, impelled by their attachment
to things capable of expression, get into all sorts
of troubles. The rest is to be explained as before.
These , the organs up to the skin, arc the eight
Grahas and the objects up to touch are the eight
A ti grahas.
fec^lT ^fcti SPRT *2^3’,
sro sTJjfa ii \o ||
io. ‘Yajnavalkya, ’ said he, ‘since all this
is the food of death, who is that god whose
food is death?' ‘Fire is death; it is the food
of water. (One who knows this) conquers
further death.'
When the topic of the Grahas and Atigrahas
(organs and objects) was concluded, Artabhaga spoke
again. r Yajnavalkya / said he, c since all this mani-
fested universe is the food of death — everything is
438
BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 3 . 2 . 10
born and imperilled, being swallowed by death in
the form of the Grahas and Atigrahas — who is that
god whose food is death even?* — for another Shruti
says, ‘Whose sauce is death’ (Ka. II. 25). The in-
tention of the questioner is this : If Yajnavalkya
mentions the death of death, it will lead to a regressus
in infinitum. If, on the other hand, he does not
mention it, liberation from this death in the form of
the Grahas and Atigrahas will be impossible. For
liberation can take place only when this form of
death is destroyed, and this last would be possible
if there be the death of death even. Hence, con-
sidering the question unanswerable, he asks, ‘Who is
that god?*
(Yajnavalkya said) : There is the death of
death.
Objection : This will lead to a regressus in
infinitum, since that death too may have its death.
Reply : No, because you cannot conceive
another destroyer for that which is the death of all.
Objection : How do you know that there is
the death of death ?
Reply : We see it. Fire, for instance, is the
death of all, being a destroyer. But it is swallowed
by water ; hence it is the food of water. So believe
that there is the death of death, and it swallows all
the Grahas and Atigrahas. When these fetters are
destroyed — swallowed by that death — liberation from
relative existence becomes possible, for it has al-
ready been said that the Grahas and Atigrahas are
the fetters. So it is clear that we can get rid of
these ; hence our efforts to get rid of bondage are
3. 2. 11] BRIHA DARANYAKA UPANISHAD
439
fruitful. Therefore (one who knows this) conquers
further death.
csn^n: 5 kth?crt?K ;
3R?r SIJRSfcl5% ; *7 3^0R%, SITSRPTfa, 37TOna>
^ II u II
ii. ‘Yajnavalkya/ said he, ‘when this
(liberated) man dies, do his organs go up from
him, or do they not?* ‘No/ replied Yajna-
valkya, ‘(they) merge in him only. The
body swells, is inflated, and in that state lies
dead.’
‘When, after death 1 has been swallowed by
another death, viz., the realisation of the Supreme
Self, this liberated man of realisation dies , do his
organs such as those of speech, called the Grahas,
and the Atigrahas such as name, which in the form
of impressions are in him and impel him to action,
go up from him, the dying knower of Brahman, or
do they not ?* ‘No/ replied Yajnavalkya, ‘they do
not. The organs and objects, becoming one with
the Supreme Self, attain identity with, or merge in
him only, their cause, the man of realisation who is
the Reality of the Supreme Brahman — like waves
in the ocean.’ The following passage from another
Shruti shows the dissolution of the organs, designated
by the word 'digit,’ in the Supreme Self, ‘So do these
sixteen digits of the seer, which have the Self as their
1 That is, the organs and objects.
440
BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [3. 2. 11
merging place, dissolve on reaching It* (Pr. VI. 5).
Here their identification with the Supreme Self is
shown. Does not the man die then? ‘No, it is the
body that dies, for it swells, is inflated by the ex-
ternal air like a pair of bellows, and in that state lies
dead, motionless. ’ The^ gist of the passage is that
the liberated man, after his bondage has been de-
stroyed, does not go anywhere.
i,
; sntfa, ?nrr, ^tt: .
STSFclfo st SPjfa || ||
12. ‘Yajnavalkya, ’ said he, ‘when this
mail dies, what is it that does not leave him?’
‘Name. The name is infinite, and infinite
are the Vishwadevas. He (who knows this)
wins thereby an infinite world.’
Is it only the organs of a liberated man that are
merged, or is it also all 1 that moves them to action?
If it is only the former but not the latter, then with
the presence of these stimulating causes the organs
would again be likely to function. If, on the other
hand, everything such as desire and action is
merged, then only liberation is possible. It is to
bring this out that the next question is put : ‘Yajna-
valkya/ said he, r when this man dies, what is it that
docs no t leave him ? J The other said : Name .
That is, everything is merged ; only the name 2 is
left because of its relation to the type, for the name
1 That is, the objects.
3 That he is a liberated man ; this too as others see it.
3. 2. 13] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
441
is eternal. The name is infinite — the infinity of the
name is its eternity — and infinite are the Vishzva-
devas, because they possess the infinity of the name.
He (who knows this) zvins thereby an infinite world.
Having identified himself with the Vishwadevas who
possess the infinity of the name, he wins through
this realisation an infinite world.
fNra, jwi Jj?i<rqifsr
srTrf srrw:,
f^T: BTT^i ym i rW , STT'Txff-
gjpr ^?urra¥tm,
SUSTT^TclFI Sf JTT^clr^ WiR |
3 T>j t^r scssrerag: • 1 3^
«FifnrT vrafa, <m: qiqftfa 1 creft - 1
zvum 11 \\ 11 filter 11
13. ‘ Yajnavalkya, ’ said he, ‘when the
vocal organ 1 of a man who dies is merged in
fire, the nose in air, the eye in the sun, the
mind in the moon, the ear in the quarters,
the body in the earth, the ether of the heart
in the external ether, the hair on the body
in the herbs, that on the head in the trees,
and the blood and seed are deposited in water,
where is then the man ?’ ‘Give me your hand,
dear Artabhaga, we will decide this between
1 All these refer to (the limited manifestations of) their
presiding deities.
442
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [3. 2. 13
Qurselves, we cannot do it in a crowd.’ They
went out and talked it over. What they men-
tioned there was work, and what they praised
there was also work. (Therefore) one becomes
good through good work and evil through evil
work. Thereupon Artabhaga, of the line of
Jaratkaru, kept silent.
The death that consists in bondage in the form
of the Grahas and Atigrahas (organs and objects) has
been described, and because that death has its death,
liberation is possible. This liberation is the dissolu-
tion, here itself, of the Grahas and Atigrahas, like
the extinction of a light. It is to ascertain the nature
of the stimulating cause of that death which consists
in the bondage called the Grahas and Atigrahas
that this paragraph is introduced. f Y ajnavalkya/
said he.
Here some 1 say : Even though the Grahas and
Atigrahas together with their stimulating cause are
rooted out, a man is not liberated. Separated from
the Supreme Self by ignorance, which springs from
himself and is comparable to a desert (on earth), and
at the same time turning away from the world of
enjoyment, he, with his name only left, and his
desires and past work rooted out, remains in an
intermediate stage. His perception of duality should
be removed by the realisation of the unity of the
Supreme Self." So now meditation on the Supreme*
Self has to be introduced. Thus this school con-
1 The reference is to Bhartriprapancha.
3. 2. 13] BR1HADARANY AKA UPANISHAD
443
ceives an intermediate stage called Apavarga or
release, and establishes a link with the next section.
Now we ask these people how it is that the
disembodied man, after his organs have been de-
stroyed, attains the realisation of the Supreme Self
through hearing, reflection and meditation. They
themselves maintain that a man whose organs have
been dissolved has only his name left ; the Shruti
too says, '(The body) lies dead’ (III. ii. 11). So
they cannot even in imagination establish their
position. If, on the other hand, they think that a
man, during his very lifetime, has only ignorance
left in him and turns away from the world of enjoy-
ment, they should explain what this is due to. If
they would attribute it to his identification with the
whole universe, individual and collective, it has
already been refuted (pp. 204, 211). (Only two
courses are open : ) Either the sage, endowed with
meditation on his identity with the universe, individ-
ual and collective, combined with rites, may, after
death, with his organs dissolved, attain identity with
the universe or with Hiranyagarbha. Or in his
very lifetime he may, with his organs intact, turn
away — become averse — from the world of enjoyment
and be inclined towards the realisation of the Supreme
Self. But both cannot be attained through means
requiring one and the same effort : If the effort
be the means of attaining the state of Hiranyagarbha,
it cannot be the means of turning away from the
world of enjoyment ; and if it be the means of turn-
ing away from the world of enjoyment and inclina-
tion towards the Supreme Self, it cannot be the
444
BR1HADARANY AKA UPANISHA1) [3. 2. 13
means of attaining the state of Hiranyagarbha, for
what helps to cause motion cannot at the same time
help to stop motion. If, on the other hand, he after
death attains the state of Hiranyagarbha, and then,
with his organs dissolved and only the name left,
is qualified (as Hiranyagarbha) for the knowledge
of the Supreme Self, then instruction about the
knowledge of the Supreme Self for us ordinary people
would be meaningless ; whereas such Shruti passages
as, ‘Whoever among the gods knew It (also became
That),’ etc. (I. iv. 10), teach that the knowledge
of Brahman is for bringing the highest end of life
within the reach of all. Therefore the conception
of this school is very poor and contrary to the teach-
ings of the scriptures. Now let us return to our
subject.
In order to ascertain what starts the bondage
known as the Grahas and Atigrahas (organs and
objects) the text says : When the vocal organ of
a man who dies without attaining the highest knowl-
edge and possessed of the idea that he has a head,
hands, etc., is merged in fire , the nose is merged
in air, the eye in the sun (the verb ‘is merged’ is
understood in each case), the mind in the moon, the
ear in the quarters, the body in the earth . The word
‘Atman’ here means the ether of the heart, which is
the seat of the self ; it is merged in the external ether.
The hair on the body is merged in the herbs, that
on the head is merged in the trees, and the blood ancL
seed are deposited in water : The word ‘deposited’
indicates that they are again withdrawn. 1 In every
1 When a new body is taken
3. 2. 13] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
445
case the words ‘vocal organ* etc. refer to their pre-
siding deities ; the organs themselves do not depart
before liberation. When the presiding deities cease
to work, the organs become like tools, such as a bill-
hook, laid down ; and the agent, man, being dis-
embodied, is helpless. So the question is being
asked regarding his support, ' Where is then the
man ?' — that is, on what does he then rest? The
question is : ‘What is that support resting on which
he again takes the body and organs, and which starts
the bondage known as the Cralias and Atigrahas?*
The answer is being given : ‘Exponents of
different schools have put forward different things,
viz., nature , 1 chance, time, work, destiny, mere con-
sciousness and void, as the support in question.
Therefore, being open to various disputes, the truth
cannot be ascertained by the usual method of defeat-
ing the opponent. If you want to know the truth
in this matter, give me your hand , dear Artabhaga ,
we will decide this question that you have asked
between ourselves. Why? Because we cannot
decide it in a crowd , and we must retire to a solitary
place to discuss it.’ They went out , etc., is the narra-
tion of the Shruti. What Yajnavalkya and Arta-
bhaga did after retiring to the solitary place is
being stated : They went out of the crowded place
and talked it over. First they took up one after
another the different conventional views on the
subject and discussed them. Listen what they men -
1 These are advocated respectively by the Mimamsakas,
materialists, astrologers, Vaidikas, believers in the gods,
idealists and nihilists — the last two being Buddhist schools.
446 BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [3. 2. 13
Honed at the end of the discussion, after refuting
all the tentative views. There they mentioned work
as the support which caused the repeated taking of
the body and organs. Not only this ; having ac-
cepted time, work, destiny and God as causes, what
they praised there was also work. Since it is
decided that the repeated taking of the body and
organs, known also as the Grahas and Atigrahas, is
due to work, therefore one becomes good through
good' work enjoined by the scriptures, and becomes
its opposite, evil, through the opposite or evil work .
When Yajnavalkya thus answered his questions,
Artabhdga, of the line of Jaratkaru, thereupon,
finding it impossible to dislodge him, kept silent.
SECTION III
Bondage in the form of the Grahas and Ati-
gr alias (organs and objects) has been described ; that
which together with its cause binds a man so that
he transmigrates, and freed from which he is liberat-
ed, is death ; and liberation from this is possible,
because there is the death of death. The liberated
man does not go anywhere ; it has been decided that
everything about him is gone, leaving only the name,
as when a light goes out. Though the bodies and
organs of those that transmigrate and those that are
going to be liberated (at death) are equally connected
with their causes, the bodies and organs of the
liberated are for ever discarded, while those of the
transmigrating are repeatedly taken up — owing, as
has been decided after a discussion, to work ; and
when that is exhausted, everything is destroyed save
only the name, and this is liberation. That work is
either good or evil, for it has been decided : ‘One
becomes good through good work, and evil through
evil work’ (III. ii. 13). Relative existence is due to
these. Of these, evil work subjects a man to
sufferings through repeated births and deaths in
moving and stationary bodies — naturally full of pain
— including those of lower animals, spirits and the
denizens of hell. All this is as well-known to any-
body as the royal road ; the Shruti here pays atten-
tion only to good work, which is in harmony with
the scriptures : ‘One becomes good through good
448
BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [3. 3. I
work.’ And the Shrutis and Smritis are unanimous
on the point that good work alone leads to all that
man aspires after. Now liberation is a cherished
object with man ; so one may think that it too is
attainable through work . 1 Moreover, as the work
is better and better, the result also is so ; hence
one may presume that a' high degree of excellence
in the work may lead to liberation ; this idea has
to be removed. The result of excellent work
coupled with meditation is this much only, for work
and its result are confined to the manifested universe
of name and form. Work has no access to that
(liberation) which is not an effect, is eternal, un-
manifested, beyond name and form, and devoid of
the characteristics of action with its factors and
results. And where it has access, it is just the rela-
tive world. It is to bring out this idea that the
present section is introduced.
Some say : Disinterested work coupled with
meditation may produce a different kind of effect*
as poison or curd, for instance, may (with the help
of charms or sugar).
Reply : No, for liberation is not an effect — it
is but the destruction of bondage, not a created thing.
And we have already said that bondage is ignorance,
which cannot be destroyed by work, for work can
function only in the visible realm. Production,
attainment, modification and purification are the
functions of work. In other words, work can pro-,
duce, or bring within reach, or modify, or purify
1 Scriptural or ritualistic work is meant ; so throughout
the following discussion.
3 . 3 . 1 ]
BRJHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
449
something ; it has no other function besides these,
since nobody knows about it. And liberation is not
one of these ; we have already said that it is simply
hidden by ignorance.
Objection : True. We admit that work alone
is of such a nature ; but disinterested work coupled
with meditation is of a different nature. It is com-
mon experience that things known to have a partic-
ular property, such as poison or curd, display, in
combination with special knowledge, charms, or
sugar, quite a different property. Why not admit
the same about work?
Reply : No, for there is no evidence in support.
In other words, there is not one evidence — neither
perception, nor inference, nor analogy, nor implica-
tion, nor scriptural statement to prove that work
has any other function but those enumerated above.
Objection : Since there is no other result (but
liberation), the injunctions (about rites) would other-
wise be meaningless ; this, to be sure, is a proof.
To be explicit : The regular rites must not be
supposed to have heaven as the result, on the analogy
of the Vishwajit sacrifice . 1 Nor is any specific result
mentioned in the Shrutis ; all the same they are
enjoined. So on the principle of the residuum libera-
tion is understood to be their result, for otherwise
people will not care to perform them.
Reply : Is it not the analogy of the Vishwajit
1 The scriptures enjoin the i>erformance of the Vishwajit
sacrifice, but do not mention any specific result of it. Yet
there must be .some result to induce people to perform it.
In all such cases the practice is to consider heaven as that
result.
29
450
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
[ 3 . 3 . 1
sacrifice over again, since liberation is supposed to
be the result in question ? Unless some result, be
it liberation or anything else, is presumed, people
would not care to perform them ; so liberation is
presumed to be that result by verbal implication , 1 as
in the case of the Vishwajit sacrifice. Such being
the case, how do you say that the analogy of the
Vishwajit sacrifice will not apply here ? You pre-
sume a result, and yet deny that it is on the analogy
of the Vishwajit .sacrifice. This is self-contradiction.
Objection : Suppose we say that liberation is
not a result at all?
Reply : You cannot, for then you will be giving
up your proposition. You have stated that work,
like poison, curd, etc., can produce a different result.
Now, if liberation is not at all a result, the effect of
work, it will go against your proposition ; and if it
is the effect of work, you must show where it differs
from other results of the kind such as heaven. If,
on the other hand, it is not the effect of work, you
must explain what you mean by saying that it is
the result of the regular rites ; and yon cannot main-
tain that there is a difference merely because of the
use of two different words, 'effect’ and 'result.’ If
you say that liberation is not a result ajid yet it is
produced by the regular rites, or that it is" the 'result’
of the regular rites, but not their 'effect,’ you will
be contradicting yourself, as if you said, 'Fire is
cold.’
Objection : Suppose we say that it is like
1 In which by hearing a word we infer some other
connected word to complete the sense.
3 . 3 . 1 ]
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
451
knowledge ? Just as ' liberation, although not pro-
duced by knowledge, is yet said to be the effect of
knowledge, so why not take it to be the effect of
work in that sense?
Reply : No, for knowledge dispels ignorance.
Because knowledge removes the obstruction of igno-
rance, liberation is metaphorically said to be the effect
of knowledge ; but work cannot dispel ignorance.
And we cannot imagine any other obstruction to
liberation but ignorance that can be removed by
work, for it is eternal and identical with the self
of the aspirant.
Objection : Suppose we say work removes that
ignorance ?
Reply : No, for it is something quite different.
Ignorance, which is non-manifestation, is the oppo-
site of knowledge, which is manifestation ; but work
is not the opposite of ignorance, and is there-
fore entirely different from knowledge. Ignorance,
whether it means the want of knowledge, or doubt,
or a wrong notion, is always removable by knowl-
edge, but not by work in any of its forms, for there
is no contradiction between ignorance and work.
Objection : Let us then presume that work has
an unseen power of dispelling ignorance.
Reply : No ; when it is clear that knowledge
will dispel ignorance, it is unreasonable to presume
such an unseen power in work. As when it is clear
that threshing will husk paddy, we do not presume
that it will be done without our knowledge by the
regular rites like the Agnihotra, similarly we do not
attribute the cessation of ignorance to the unseen
452
BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [3. 3. 1
pbwer of the regular rites ; and we have repeatedly
said that knowledge and work are contradictory.
That kind of knowledge which does not clash with
work has been mentioned as leading to the world of
the gods, as in the Shruti passage, 'Through knowl-
edge (meditation) the world of the gods (is attain-
ed)’ (I. v. 16). Moreover, if some result must be
presumed for the regular rites mentioned in the
Shrutis, should it be that which clashes with work,
which cannot possibly be the effect of substance,
attribute, or action, and over which work is never
known to have any power? — or should it be that
result over which work is known to have power, and
which harmonises with work ? If those rites must be
presumed to have some result to induce people to per-
form them, then, since the verbal implication is ful-
filled by the presumption of a result that harmonises
with them, neither liberation, which is eternal, nor
the cessation of ignorance that obstructs it, can be
supposed to be this result ; for the former kind of
result would be in keeping with the nature of work,
and would be a subject where it is known to function.
Objection : We maintain that on the principle
of the residuum liberation must be supposed to be
this result. To explain : All rites produce those
results (heaven, animals, children, etc.). Barring the
other kind of result, however, we do not find any-
thing else that can be supposed to be the result of
the regular rites ; only liberation is left, and it is a
result coveted by the knowers of the Vedas. There-
fore that must be supposed to be the result in
question.
3. 3. 1] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
453
Reply : No, for since the individual results of
those rites may be infinite in number, you cannot
apply the principle of the residuum. No one who is
not omniscient can assert that the objects desired by
men as the results of their work, or the means of
attaining them, or the desires themselves are so many
in number ; for they have no fixed place, time,
or cause, and are regulated by the kind of result
that men seek. Again, as each individual has vari-
ous desires, the results, as also their means, are
necessarily infinite ; and because they are infinite,
it is impossible for anyone to know exactly how
many they are. So, when the exact number of the
results and their means is unknown, how can libera-
tion be proved to be the only remaining item ?
Objection : But it is the only remaining item
outside the results of work as a class. To be ex-
plicit : Although the objects desired and their
means are infinite, they all alike fall within the
category of results of work ; but liberation, not being
the result of work, would be left out ; hence, being
the only remaining item, it should be taken to be
the result in question.
Reply : No, for according to you it is the result
of the regular rites, and therefore belongs to the
same category as the other results of work ; hence
it cannot be counted as the residuum. Therefore we
must conclude that the verbal implication is fulfilled,
since there is another way of solving the problem,
viz., by supposing that anyone of the functions of
production, attainment, modification and purification
is the result of the regular rites.
454
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [3. 3. 1
Objection : Suppose we say that liberation is
one of the four ?
Reply : No, for being eternal, it cannot be
produced, and cannot also be modified ; for the same
reason, as also not being of the nature of a means,
it cannot be purified either ; for only a thing that
serves as a means can be purified, as the sacrificial
vessel or clarified butter by the sprinkling of water,
and so on. Nor is liberation purified in the sense of
being the effect of a process of improvement, as a
sacrificial post etc. (carved out of a block of wood
and the like).
Objection : Then by the principle of the resi-
duum it must be attainable.
Reply : Not attainable either, because it is
identical with the Self and one.
Objection : Since the regular rites differ from
other kinds of work, their results too ought to be
different.
Reply : No ; since they are equally work, why
should not their results be similar to those of other
kinds of work?
Objection : Suppose w r e say, because different
causes operate in the two cases?
Reply : No, for the case is analogous to that of
the Kshfimavati sacrifice etc. For instance, when
the sacrificial fire burns a house, this particular sacri-
fice is performed ; we have also the injunction, 'When
a vessel containing oblations is broken, or when the-
contents are spilt, an offering should be made in the
fire* ; and in these occasional rites liberation is not
supposed to be the result. Similarly the regular
3. 3. 1] BR1HADARANY AKA UPANISHAD
455
rites, not being different from them, on account of
their dependence on certain causes — the Shrutis, for
instance, enjoin them for life — cannot have libera-
tion as their result. (To give a different illustra-
tion : ) Light is an auxiliary to everyone's vision
of colour ; but owls etc. cannot see in light — their
eyes differing in this respect from those of others.
But because of this difference we do not suppose
that their eyes can also perceive taste etc., for we
have no knowledge of any such power on their part.
Any peculiarity is admissible only in that respect
about which — maybe after going far afield 1 in the
search — we have certain knowledge.
You spoke of the regular rites producing a
different effect like poison, curd, and so forth in
conjunction with special knowledge, charms, sugar,
etc. Let them do so ; we accept this view, and there
is no dispute over this point. In other words, if you
maintain that disinterested work coupled with medi-
tation produces a different kind of effect, we do not
contest this point ; for between two persons, one
sacrificing to the gods, and the other sacrificing to
the Self, the Shrutis state the superiority of the latter
in the following passages : j/^One who sacrifices to
the Self is better than one who sacrifices to the gods/^
etc. (Sh. XI. ii. 6 . 13) , 2 and ‘That alone which is per-
formed with the help of meditation (is stronger)/
etc. (Chh. I. i. 10). The phrase ‘sacrificer to the
Self/ used by Manu in connection with the knowl-
edge of the Supreme Self in the stanza, ‘Seeing (him-
1 From the human kingdom, as in the present case.
2 Adapted. So also on p. 5.
456
BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [3. 3. 1
self in all and all in himself^he becomes a sacrificer
to the Self (and attains independence)’ (M. XII. 91),
means that simply by his sameness of vision he be-
comes a sacrificer to the Self. Or the phrase may
have been used having regard to the aspirant’s former
condition. */The sacrificer to the Self performs the
regular rites for self-purification ^as we know from
the Shruti text, ‘This particular part of my body
is being purified by this (rite)’ (Sh. XI. ii. 6. 13).
Similarly the Smritis too in the passage, ‘Through
the sacrifices relating to conception/ etc. (M. II. 27),
show that the regular rites purify the body and
organs. Purified by those rites, the sacrificer to the
Self attains the sameness of vision ; either in this or
in some future life he attains Self-realisation. The
meaning is that by his sameness of vision he becomes
independent. The phrase ‘sacrificer to the Self’ has
been used having regard to his former condition — to
show that the regular rites combined with meditation
help towards realisation.
Moreover passages like, ‘Sages are of opinion
that the attainment of oneness with Viraj, the world-
projectors, Yama, Hiranyagarbha and the Undifferen-
tiated is the highest result produced by Sattwa or
pure materials (rites coupled with meditation)’ (M.
XII. 50), and ‘(They) are merged in the five ele-
ments’ (Ibid. 90), show the mergence in the elements
in addition to the attainment of the status of the
gods. Those who read the latter passage as, ‘(They)
transcend the five elements,’ betray a very poor
1 So it is a tribute to the knowledge of Brahman.
3 . 3 . 1 ] BR1HADARANY AKA UPAN1SHAD
457
knowledge of the Vedas, and as such may be left
out of account. The passages in question are not
to be dismissed as mere eulogy, for the chapter In
which they occur treats of the results of work
culminating in oneness with Hiranyagarbha, and of
Self-knowledge, which is distinct from work, and
these correspond exactly to the ritualistic portion
(of the Vedas) and the Upanishads respectively.
Besides we find that the non-performance of pre-
scribed rites and the doing of forbidden acts results
in degradation to the state of stationary objects,
dogs, hogs, or the like ; and we also come across
spirit existences like the ‘vomit-eaters.*
, Besides, none can think of any prescribed or
forbidden acts other than those mentioned in the
Shrutis and Smritis, the non-performance or perform-
ance, respectively, of which would cause one to
become a spirit, a dog, a hog, a stationary object,
or the like — results the existence of which we know
from perception or inference ; and none denies that
these states are the results of past actions. There-
fore, just as these lower states — spirit, animal, or
stationary existences — are the results of one*s non-
performance of the prescribed rites or performance
of the forbidden acts, similarly we must understand
that the higher results culminating in oneness with
Hiranyagarbha are as much the results of past
actions. Hence the passages in question are not to
be taken as mere stories concocted for the sake of
eulogy, like ‘He cut off his own omentum* (Tai. S.
II. i. 1. 4), ‘He cried* (Ibid. I. v. i. 1), and so on.
Objection : If those passages are not stories,
453
BR1HADARANY AKA UPAN1SHAD
[3. 3. I
the subject under discussion (work and its results)
also must be so.
Reply : Let it be ; this much only (the absence
of examples to the contrary) does not contradict the
reality of the subject under discussion, or invalidate
our position. Nor can you say that the positions
referred to in the passage, '‘Viraj, the world-project-
ors/ etc. (M. XII. 50), are the results of rites with
material ends ; for these are stated to produce an
equality of status with the gods. Thei'efore the
regular rites and rites like Sarvainedha and horse
sacrifice performed by persons with selfish motives
lead to the attainment of oneness with Hiranyagarbha.
and so on. But in the case of those who perform
the regular rites disinterestedly, just for the purifica-
tion of the mind, they help towards realisation. The
Smriti says, ‘This body is made fit for the realisation
of Brahman (by them)’ (M. II. 28). Because these
rites indirectly help those people, they are aids to
realisation as well ; so there is no contradiction.
That this is the meaning, we shall explain at the end
of the story of Janaka in Chapter IV. You cited
the examples of poison, curd, etc. (producing al-
together different results under special circumstan-
ces) ; they are not open to disputation, being matters
of perception and inference. But that 1 which is to
be known exclusively from the scriptures, cannot, in
the absence of explicit statements to that effect, be
imagined to have properties similar to those of poison,,
curd, etc. Nor are the Shrutis supposed to have
1 Ritualistic work combined with meditation.
3. 3. 1] BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
459
authority in matters which are contradicted by other
means of knowledge, as, for instance, if they said,
'Fire is cold and wets things.’ If, however, a pas-
sage 1 is ascertained 2 to have the meaning given by
the Shrutis, then the evidence 3 of the other means
of knowledge must be held to be fallacious. For
instance, the ignorant think of a fire-fly as fire, or
of the sky as a blue surface ; these are perceptions
no doubt, but when the evidence of the other means
of knowledge regarding them has been definitely
known to be true, the perceptions of the ignorant,
although they are definite experiences, prove to be
fallacious. Therefore, the authority of the Vedas
being inviolable, a Vedic passage must be takeu
exactly in the sense that it is tested to bear, and
not according to the ingenuity of the human mind.
The sun does not cease to reveal objects because of
the ingenuity of the human mind ; similarly the
Vedic passages cannot be made to give up their
meaning. Therefore it is proved that work 4 does
not lead to liberation. Hence the present section is
introduced to show that the results of work are
within the pale of relative existence.
aro tsf j pggf g nqfr : .
1 For example, ‘Thou art That.*
2 By the six tests, viz., beginning, conclusion, repetition,
originality, result, eulogy and demonstration. See Veddnta-
sdra , paragraph 183 et seq.
3 Dualistic evidence.
4 Ritualistic work — even if combined with meditation.
460
BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [3. 3. 1
, aHT^rsmSMT, W. qrfT%cTT 3WIW-
fafa ; W. qTft%?lT aTOSR., ST C^T <£33lfrr STfT-
gssrcr, $ <nft%aT sroerfafa n \ \\
i. Then Bhuijyu, the grandson of Taliya,
asked him. ‘Yajnavalkya,’ said he, ‘we tra-
velled in Madra as students, and we came to
the house of Patancliala, of the line of Kapi.
His daughter was possessed by a Gandharva.
We asked him, “Who are you?’’ He said,
“I am Sudhanwan, of the line of Angiras.’’
When we asked him about the limits of the
world, we said to him, “Where were the de-
scendants of Parikshit?” And I ask you,
Yajnavalkya, where were the descendants of
Parikshit? (Tell me) where were the descend-
ants of Parikshit?’
Then, when the descendant of Jaratkaru had
stopped, the grandson of Lahya named Bhujyu asked
him, Yajnavalkya, whom we are discussing. ‘Yajna-
• valkya ,’ said he. The meditation on the horse sacrifice
has been spoken of at the beginning of the book, and
this sacrifice produces both collective and individual
results. Whether combined with meditation, or per-
formed exclusively through it, it is the highest of all
rites. The Smriti says, ‘There is nothing more hein-
ous than killing a noble Brahmana nor anything
more meritorious than the horse sacrifice,’ for through
it one attains the collective as well as individual
3. 3. 1] BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
461
results. Of these, whatever 1 is within the uni-
verse has been shown to be the individual results of
the horse sacrifice. While it has been said, ‘Death 2
becomes his self, and he becomes one with these
deities’ (I. ii. 7). This Death is Hunger, and is vari-
ously called Cosmic Intelligence, the Aggregate, the
First-born, Air, Cosmic Energy, Satya and Hiranya-
garbha. That which is the essence of the whole uni-
verse, individual and collective, which is the inner
self or subtle body of all beings, the essence of the
subtle, in which the actions of all beings inhere, and
which is the highest result of rites as well as of the
meditations connected with them — has the mani-
fested universe for its field. How far is its range —
what is its extent, spreading all round like a globe,
has to be stated. If this is done, the entire world
of bondage will have been described. In order to
show the extraordinary character of the meditation on
the identity with that universe, collective and indi-
vidual, Bhujyu mentions an incident of his own life.
He thinks of confusing his opponent by this means.
‘We travelled in the territory called Madra as
students, observing the appropriate vow for study,
or as priests called Adhwaryus, and we came to the
house of Patanchala, of the line of Kapi. His
daughter was possessed by a Gandharva / some being
other than human ; or the word may mean the fire
that is worshipped in the house — the god who is a
priest (to the gods). We conclude thus from his
special knowledge, for an ordinary being cannot
1 The reference is to the gods such as fire, sun and air.
2 This is the collective result.
462
BRIHADARANYAKA UFANISHAD [3. 3. 1
possibly have such knowledge. ‘We all sat round
him and asked him, “Who are you f — What is your
name, and what kind of being are you?” He, the
Gandharva, said, “I am named Sudhanwan, of the
line of Angiras.” When we asked him about the
limits of the world, we, among that group desirous
of knowing the extent ’of the cosmic orb, priding our-
selves upon our good fortune, said to him — what?
— “Where were the descendants of Parikshit V n
And the Gandharva told us all about it. So I have
been instructed by a celestial being, and you do not
have that knowledge ; hence you are defeated.'
This is his idea. ‘Being possessed of this revealed
knowledge from the Gandharva, I ask you, Yajna-
valkya, where were the descendants of Parikshit ?
Do you know this, Yajnavalkya ? Tell me, I ask you,
where were the descendants of Parikshit ?*
sr gqra # w., ^ e re rai w ai to -
srforH # , rf sfert
; 5it sfeflr fsscrnrcsnps:
qqfa ; sgisreft ^rra, qrasT
5 <rrf?F5r:
feqr ?nrnraq?T3nMi^i-
5 qqfrrq # ^ SU[IJ?fer ,
5 fWTS[l^ sqfq:, eqfe , 3 vi 3*15 ctf
f n r it
1 Their names are given in Sh. XIII. v. 4. 1-3.
3 . 3 . 2 ] BRJHA DARANYA KA UPANISHAD
463
2. Yajnavalkya said, ‘The Gandharva
evidently told you that they went where the
performers of the horse sacrifice go/ ‘And
where do the performers of the horse sacri-
fice go ?’ ‘Thirty-two times the space covered
by the sun’s chariot in a day makes this
world ; around it, covering twice the area, is
the earth; around the earth, covering twice
the area, is the ocean. Now, as is the edge of
a razor, or the wing of a fly, so is there just
that much opening at the junction (of the two
halves of the cosmic shell). (Through that
they go out.) Fire, in the form of a falcon,
delivered them to the air; the air, putting
them in itself, took them where the (previous)
performers of the horse sacrifice were.’ Thus
did the Gandharva praise the air. 1 There-
fore the air is the diversity of individuals, and
the air is the aggregate. He who knows
it as such conquers further death. There-
upon Bhujyu, the grandson of Lahya, kept
silent.
Yajnavalkya said, c The Gandharva evidently told
you that they, the descendants of Parikshit, went
where the performers of the horse sacrifice go/ The
particle ‘vai* recalls a past incident. When his
question was answered, Bhujyu asked, ‘And where
do the performers of the horse sacrifice go ?* With
a view to telling where they go, Yajnavalkya de-
1 As symbolising the cosmic vital force. ~ *
464
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [3. 3. 2
scribed the dimensions of the cosmic orb : Thirty -
two times the space covered by the sun's chariot in
a day makes this world , surrounded by the moun-
tain Lok&loka. This is the world which constitutes
the body of Virfij, and in which people reap the
fruits of their past actions. *This much is the L,oka ;
beyond this is the Alofca. Around it, covering twice
the area of this world is the earth. Similarly around
the earth, covering twice the area, is the ocean, which
the writers of the Puranas name after rain-water.
Now the size of the opening at the junction of the
two halves of the cosmic shell is being given.
Through this opening as an exit the performers of
the horse sacrifice go out and spread. Now, as is
the edge of a razor, or the wing of a fly possessed
of fineness, so is there just that much opening at
the junction (of the two halves of the cosmic shell).
The word Tndra* is a synonym of God ; here it
refers to the fire which is kindled in the horse
sacrifice, and the meditation on which has been
described in the words, ‘His head is the east/ etc.
(I. ii. 3). Fire, in the form of a falcon, with wings,
tails, etc., delivered them, the descendants of Pari-
ksliit, who had performed the horse sacrifice, to the
air, because, being gross, it itself had no access
there. The air, putting them in itself, making them
a part of itself, took them where the previous per-
formers of the horse sacrifice were. Thus did the
Gandharva praise the air that had helped the per-
formers of the horse sacrifice to reach their goal.
The story is finished ; but the Shruti gives us the
gist of it directly, stepping out of the garb of the
3 . 3 . 2 ]
BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
465
story. Because the air (vital force) is the inner self
of all beings, moving and stationary, and is also out-
side them, therefore the air is the diversity of individ-
uals, in forms relating to the body, the elements and
the gods ; similarly the air is the aggregate, as the one
cosmic vital force. He who knows it as such attains
identity with the air in its individual as well as
collective form. What he gains by this is being*
stated : He conquers further death, that is, after
dying once he dies no more. Thereupon, when his
question was answered, Bhujyu t the grandson of
Lahya, kept silent.
30
SECTION IV
It has been stated that a man under the control
of the organs and objects (Grahas and Atigrahas),
which are themselves directed by his merits and
demerits, repeatedly takes up and discards the organs
and objects and transmigrates. And the perfection of
merits has been explained as being concerned with
the manifested universe, collective and individual —
being the identification with Hiranyagarbha in both
those aspects. Now the question arises as to whether
the entity that transmigrates under the control of the
organs and objects exists or does not exist ; and if
it exists, what it is like. So it is to teach about the
Self as a distinct entity that the question of Ushasta
is introduced. If one knows It as unconditioned,
naturally free from action and its factors, one is freed
from the above-mentioned bondage together with its
stimulating causes. The purpose of the story is
already known.
aisqr ;
fterra, q 3TTcITT rf
ft 5?U5I^ 5T StTcJTT
? *t: swhr snfcrfft e a sucOT
51 sutJTT
ssrrfftfft ^ ^ STTcJTT HeJrcK:,
5 i 3 TT 5 JIT 07* a sttcOT srafccrc:: 11 * 11
1. Then Ushasta, the son of Chakra,
3 . 4 . 1 ]
BRIHADARANYAKA VPANISHAD
467
asked him. ‘Yajnavalkya,’ said he, ‘explain
to me the Brahman that is immediate and
direct — the self that is within all.’ ‘This
is your self that is within all.’ ‘Which is
within all, Yajnavalkya?’ ‘That which
breathes through the Prana is your self that
is within all. That which moves downwards
through the Apana is your self that is within
all. That which pervades through the Vyana
is your self that is within all. That which
goes out through the Udfuia is your self that
is within all. This is vour self that is within
all.’
Then Ushasta, the son of Chakra , asked him ,
Yajnavalkya, who has already been introduced. The
Brahman that is immediate, not obstructed from the
seer or subject by anything', and direct, not used in
a figurative sense, like the ear and so forth, which
are considered to be Brahman. What is that? The
self that is within all . The word ‘self* refers to the
inner (individual) self, that being the accepted mean-
ing of the term. The words ‘Yat’ and 'Yah* 1 indi-
cate that the self familiar to all is identical with
Brahman. Explain that self to me, tell about it
clearly, as one shows a cow by taking hold of its
horns, as much as to say, ‘This is it.'
Thus addressed, Yajnavalkya replied, f This is
your self that is within all / The qualification, 'That
is within all/ is suggestive of all qualifications what-
1 Neuter and masculine forms of the word meaning
‘that.*
463
BR11IADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
L3. 4. 1
soever. That which is 4 immediate’ or unobstructed,
and ‘direct’ or used in its primary sense, and which
is ‘Brahman’ or the vastest, the self of all and within
all — all these specifications refer to the self. ‘What
is this self of yours?’ ‘That by which your body
and organs are ensouled is your self, that is, the self
of the body and organs.’ ‘There is first the body ;
within it is the subtle body consisting of the organs ;
and the third is that whose existence is being doubted.
Which of these do you mean as my self that is within
all f* Thus spoken to, Yajnavalkya said, ‘T/mf which
breathes (literally, does the function of the Prana)
through the Prana, which operates in the mouth and
nose, in other words, “which makes the Prana
breathe’’ (Ke. I. 9), is your self, that is, the individual
self of the body and organs.’ The rest is similar in
meaning. That which moves downwards through
the Apdna, Which pervades through the Vya7ta —
the long i in the two verbs is a Vedic licence — by
which the body and organs are made to breathe and
do other functions, like a wooden puppet. Unless
they are operated by an intelligent principle, they
cannot do any function such as breathing, as is the
case with the wooden puppet. Therefore it is by
being operated by the individual self, which is dis-
tinct from them, that they breathe and do other func-
tions, as does the puppet. Hence that principle dis-
tinct from the body and organs exists which makes
them function,
ift:,
3. 4. 2] BR1HADARANY AKA UPANISHAD
469
?T 3?TcOT SRTRR:, 5T & 3?jra*%f?T ;
cT STTeOT RgfcrR: ; 5Krml STOtlSR^R SrafrcR: ?
*T * 5Rf: STTcTR *jajqT^, ?T JR|JR?TR
wNfar:, st fsTtr^f^raR feiTsftm: i o^r ?r sttcitt
SI3TRR:, STcfrSRI^J^I cI5Tt 3q-
tt:tjt || R II f fa gg«r sttsrth ii
2. Usliasta, the son of Chakra, said,
‘Yon have indicated it as one may say that
a cow is such and such, or a horse is such
and such. Explain to me the Brahman that
is immediate and direct — the self that is
within all.’ ‘This is your self that is within
all.’ ‘Which is within all, Yajnavalkya ?’
‘You cannot see that which is the witness
of vision ; you cannot hear that which is
the hearer of hearing; you cannot think
that which is the thinker of thought ; you
cannot' know that which is the knower of
knowledge. This is your self that is. within
all; everything else but this is perishable.’
Thereupon Ushasta, the son of Chakra, kept
silent.
Ushasta, the son of Chakra, said : As somebody
first proposes one tiling and then, being in doubt, may
say something else — for instance, having proposed to
point out a cow or a horse, he merely describes them
through certain characteristics of theirs such as walk-
ing, and says, ‘A cow is that which walks/ or ‘A
horse is that which runs’ — so you too have indicated
BRIHADARANYAKA VPAN1SHAD L3. 4. 2
S'"
Brahman through certain characteristics such as
breathing. To be brief, give up your trick prompted
by your hankering after the cows, and explain to me
nJie Brahm an that is imme diate and d irect — the se lf
that ts within all. Yajnavalkya replied : I adhere
to^ie^TtJposiHoir that I first made, that your self
is such and such ; it' is exactly as I have described it.
You asked me to present the self as one would a
jar etc. I do not do so, because it is impossible.
Why is it impossible ? Owing to the very nature of
the thing. What is that ? Its being the witness of
vdsic m etc. f for the mself is the witness of vision.
Vision is o f two kin ds, o rdinary and real. Ord inary"
vision is a function of the mind as connected with ,
the eye ; it is an act, and as such Tt 1ias~ a beginning
and a n e n d~B ut~UTe~T^ to the sell
is like the_ heat and ligh t of fire ; being the very
essence of the witness it Has” neither beginning nor
end. B eca use it appears to be conn ected _ with the
or d i na ry vision , which is produced a nd LJs^ but a
limitin g adjunc t of it, it is s poken of as the witness,
and jiTso as di fferenti atedinto witness „and__visipn j _
The ordinary^ vision, however, is coloured by the
obj ects seen through the eye, aiKT oF coufse lias a
be ginning ; it appears to be conn ec ted with the eter -_
nal . vision o£^thg-...selh -and is b ut its reflection ; it
originates, and ends, pervaded by the other. It is
therefore that the , _ eternal_jyi sion of the_se]^Is~ni ela 1
ph orieally s p oken o f as the witness, a nd al tliouglT"
eternally seeing, is spo ke n ' of as sometim es seeing
and sometim es not seeing. But as a matter of fact
the vision of the seer never changes. So* it will be
3 . 4 . 2 ]
BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAV
471
said in the fourth chapter, ‘It thinks, as it were, and
shakes, as it were’ (IV. iii. 7), and ‘The vision of the
witness can never be lost* (IV. iii. 23).
This is the meaning of the following passage :
You cannot sec that which is the witness of vision,
that is, which pervades by its eternal vision the act
of our ordinary vision. This latter, which is an act,
is affected by the objects seen, and reveals only
colour (form), but not the inner self that pervades
it. Therefore you cannot see that inner self which
is the witness of vision. Similarly you cannot hear
that which is the hearer of hearing ; you cannot think
that which pervades thought, the mere function of
the mind ; you cannot know that ivhich pervades
knowledge , the mere function of the intellect. This
is the very nature of the thing ; therefore it cannot
be shown like a cow etc.
Some 1 explain the passage, ‘You cannot see the
witness of vision/ etc., differently. According to
them ‘the witness of vision’ means ‘that which sees/
the agent or cause of vision in general, without any
distinction of kind. In other words, they regard
the genitive case in ‘of vision’ as having an objective
force. That vision is caused and is an effect, like a
jar. The suffix in the word ‘Drashtri’ (witness) indi-
cates agency. Therefore, these commentators opine,
the expression ‘the witness of vision’ means ‘the agent
of vision.’ But they fail to see that the words ‘of
vision’ then become redundant ; or even if they see
it, they take it as a repetition, or as a faulty reading
not worth anything, and pay no attention to it. How
1 The reference is to Bhartiiprapancha.
472
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHA I)
[ 3 . 4 . 2
are the words redundant ? They are redundant, be-
cause the word ‘Drashtri’ itself would be enough
to indicate the agency of vision ; then one should
only say, ‘You cannot see the witness/ For
the text uses the suffix ‘trich’ with the verb,
and in grammar this always indicates agency of
the act denoted by the verb. We only say, ‘One
is conducting the traveller or the cutter’ ; we
should not, in the absence of any special meaning,
say, ‘the traveller of travelling, or ‘the cutter of
cutting.’ Nor should the extra words be dismissed
as a mere elucidation, if there is any alternative
explanation ; and it is not a faulty reading, sine*
all 1 unanimously accept it. Therefore it is a defec
of the commentators’ understanding and not a res-
tate on the part of the students.
But the way we have explained it, viz., that the
self endowed with eternal vision, as opposed to the
ordinary vision, should be pointed out, accounts for
the two words ‘witness’ and ‘vision’ (in ‘the witness
of vision’) as describing the subject and the object,
with a view to defining the nature of the self. It
will also agree with the passage, ‘The vision of the
witness (can never be lost)’ etc. (IV. iii. 23), occur-
ring elsewhere, as also with the clauses, ‘(Through
which) the eyes see’ (Ke. I. 7), ‘(By which) this ear
is heard’ (Ke. I. 8), occurring in another text. It
is also consonant with reason. In other words, the
self can be eternal if only it is immutable ; it -is a
contradiction in terms to say that a thing is change-
ful and vet eterhal. Moreover the Shruti texts, ‘It
1 Students of both Kanwa and Madhyandina recensions.
3, 4. 2]
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
473
thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were’ (IV. iii.
22), ‘The vision of the witness can never be lost,*
and ‘This is the eternal glory of a knower of Brah-
man’ (IV. iv. 23; , would otherwise be inconsistent.
Objection : But such terms as ‘witness/ ‘hearer/
‘thinker’ and ‘knower/ also would be inconsistent
if the self is immutable.
Reply : Not so, for they only repeat conven-
tional expressions as people think them. They do
not seek to define the truth of the self. vSince the
expressions. ‘The witness of vision/ etc., cannot
otherwise be explained, we conclude that they mean
what we have indicated. Therefore the opponents’
rejection of the qualifying term ‘of vision’ is due
only to ignorance. This is your self specified by
all those above-mentioned epithets. Everything
else but this self, whe ther it is the gross body 7 or the
"subtle Tiody consi sting o f the organs, is heris hab l e .
This only is imperishable, changeless . Thereupon
Ushasta , the son of Chakra, kept silent.
SECTION V
Bondage with its stimulating causes has been
spoken of. The existence of that which is bound,
as also its distinctness from the body etc., has also
been known. Now the knowledge of the Self to-
gether with renunciation, which are the means of
liberating it from that bondage, have to be described.
Hence the question of Kahola is introduced.
3W SRfte: q foftq^q ; 5 qT qqrq frfq
^hriTi, q^q ^n^q^n^aia, q snrm ^qffcR:, q
ft sqras^fq ; qq q sttcot qq^qr: i q*nft
qiyq^qq ^qf?qT: ? q>SWiqTfTn^ si)qj fttf
3TTT Jjcgqcftfq I qq # qmcJTTq fqf^cqt qigixrn:
gqqnuqiST fqqqunqTSq ^qtrmrfsq s^c'qiqpi
fftsrrqq qrfot . qT m q gqqwr ^tt fqqqwT, m
IqqqorT^T 5&KqwT, qft gift qqift qq :qqq: |
q^qifqi^pJT: qiftrgcq fqfqsT q^ftq
q T^qq qtfeqq fftfqqiq gfq:, suftq q ftfa
q fqfquiq ai^r: ; q qigm: %q *qiq^ ? ftq
^qi#q?w qq, srqreq^iqg i qqr § qfiq: qW-
q%q qqrrm u ? it ?fq q^q qigmg it
i. Then Kahola, the son of Knshitaka,
asked him. ‘Yajnavalkva,’ said he, ‘explain
to me the Brahman that is immediate and
3 . 5 . 1 ]
BRIHADARANYAKA V BANISH AD
475
direct — the self that is within all.’ ‘This is
your self that is within all.’ ‘Which is
within all, Yajnavalkya?’ ‘That which
transcends hunger and thirst, grief, delusion,
decay and death. Knowing this very Self
the Brahmanas renounce the desire for sons,
for wealth and for the worlds, and lead a men-
dicant life. That which is the desire for sons
is the desire for wealth, and that which is
the desire for wealth is the desire for the
worlds, for both these are but desires. There-
fore the knower of Brahman, having known
all about scholarship, should try to live upon
that strength which comes of knowledge ;
having known all about this strength as well
as scholarship, he becomes meditative ; having
known all about both meditativeness and its
opposite, he becomes a knower of Brahman.
How does that knower of Brahman behave?
Howsoever he may behave, lie is just such.
Except this everything is perishable.’ There-
upon Kahola, the son of Kushitaka, kept
silent.
Then Kahola , the son of Kushitaka , asked him .
' Yajnavalkya / said he — to be explained as before —
‘ explain to me the Brahman that is immediate and
direct — the self that is within all/ knowing which
one is freed from bondage. Yajnavalkya said, ‘This
is your self.’
Question : Do Ushasta and Kahola ask about
476
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
[ 3 . 5 . 1
one and the same self, or do they ask of different
selves having similar characteristics ?
Some 1 say : It ought to be different selves, for
then only can the two questions be other than a
repetition. Had Ushasta and Kahola asked about
the same self, then one question having dealt with
that, the second would have been redundant ; and
the passage in question is not a mere elucidation.
Therefore the two selves must be different, viz.,
the individual self and the Supreme Self.
Reply : No, because of the use of the word
‘your.’ It has been said in the reply, ‘This is your
self’ (III. iv. 1-2 ; this text), and the same aggregate
of body and organs cannot have two selves, for each
aggregate possesses a single self. Nor can Ushasta
and Kahola mean selves essentially different from
each other, since both cannot be primary, and self,
and within all. If one of the two be Brahman in
a primary sense, the other must be secondary i
similarly with selfhood and being within all, for
these three terms are contradictory. If one of the
two Brahmans be the self, primary, and within all,
then the other must be non-self, secondary, and not
within all. Therefore one and the same self has
been mentioned twice with a view to telling some-
thing special about it. That part only of the second
question which is common to the first is a repeti-
tion of the latter, and the second question is intro-
duced in order to furnish some detail not mentioned
before.
Objection : What is this detail?
1 Bhartriprapancha is meant.
3 . 5 . 1 ]
BR1HADARANYAKA UPANJSHAD
477
Reply : It is this. In the first question it has
been stated that there is a self distinct from the
body, whose bondage together with its stimulat-
ing causes has been spoken of ; but in the second
something more is added, viz., that this self is
beyond relative attributes such as hunger — a detail,
by knowing which, together with renunciation, one
is freed from the bondage above spoken of. There-
fore we conclude that in both cases the question
and answer, ending with the words, ‘This is your
self that is within all,’ have an identical meaning.
Objection : How can the same self possess con-
tradictory attributes such as being beyond hunger
etc. and having them ?
Reply : The objection is not valid, having
already been refuted (p. 306). We have repeatedly
said that the relative existence of the self is but a
delusion caused by its association with limiting
adjuncts such as the body and organs, which are but
the modifications of name and form. We have also
made this clear while explaining the apparently con-
tradictory passages of the Shrutis (p. 393). For
instance, a rope, a mother-of-pearl, or the sky, be-
comes a snake, silver, or blue respectively, owing to
attributes imputed by people, but in themselves they
are just a rope, a mother-of-pearl, or the sky. Thus
there is no contradiction if things possess contradic-
tory attributes.
Objection : Will not such Upanishadic texts as,
‘One only without a second' (Chh. VI. ii. 1), and
‘There is no difference whatsoever in It' (IV. iv. 19 ;
478
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [3. 5. 1
K. IV. 11), be contradicted if you admit the exist-
ence of the limiting adjuncts, name and form ?
Reply : No ; this has already been refuted by
the illustrations of the foam of water and (the modi-
fications of) clay etc. But when name and form are
tested from the standpoint of the highest truth in
the light of the above Shruti texts, as to whether
they are different from the Supreme Self or not,
they cease to be separate entities, like the foam of
water, or like the modifications (of clay) such as a jar.
It is then that such passages as, ‘One only without
a second/ and ‘There is no difference whatsoever in
It,’ have scope from the standpoint of the Supreme
Self as referring to the highest realisation. But when
on account of our primordial ignorance the reality
of Brahman, although remaining as it is, naturally
untouched by anything — like the reality of the rope,
the mother-of-pearl and the sky — is not discriminated
from the limiting adjuncts such as the body and
organs, which are created by name and form, and
our natural vision of those adjuncts remains, then
this phenomenal existence consisting of things
different from Brahman has full play. This unreal
phenomenal existence created by differentiation is
indeed a fact for those who do not believe in things
as different from Brahman as well as for those who
do believe. But the believers of the highest truth,
while discussing in accordance with the Shrutis the
actual existence or non-existence of things apart
from Brahman, conclude that Brahman alone is the
one without a second, beyond all finite relations.
So there is no contradiction between the two views.
3. 5. 1] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
479
We do not maintain the existence of things different
from ^rahman in the state when the highest truth
has been definitely known, as the Shrutis say, ‘One
only without a second/ and ‘Without interior or
exterior’ (II. v. 19 ; III. viii. 8). Nor do we deny
the validity, for the ignorant, of actions with their
factors and results while the relative world of name
and form exists. Therefore scriptural or conven-
tional outlook depends entirely on knowledge or
ignorance. Hence there is no apprehension of a
contradiction between them. In fact, all schools
must admit the existence or non-existence of the
phenomenal world according as it is viewed from the
relative or the absolute standpoint.
Regarding the nature of the self as it is in reality
once more the question is asked : ‘ Which is within
all , Yajnavalkya V The other replied, ‘ That which
transcends hunger and thirst / (The word ‘which’
in the text should be construed with ‘transcends’
coming shortly after.) As the sky, fancied by the
ignorant as being concave and blue, is really with-
out these qualities, being naturally untouched by
them, similarly Brahman, although fancied as being
subject to hunger, thirst, etc., by the ignorant, who
think that they are hungry or thirsty, really trans-
cends these qualities, being naturally untouched by
them, for the Shruti says, ‘It is not affected by human
misery, being beyond it’ (Ka. V. 11) — that is, by
misery attributed by ignorant people. Hunger and
thirst have been compounded in the text, as both
are vital functions.
Grief is desire. The discomfort that one feels
480
BR1HA DARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [ 3 . 5 . 1
as one reflects on some covetable thing is the seed
of desire for one afflicted with a hankering, because
it kindles desire ; while delusion is a mistake, a
confusion, arising from a wrong perception ; it is
ignorance, the fruitful source of all troubles. The
two words are not compounded, as grief and delusion
produce different results. They have their seat in
the mind. (The self also transcends) decay and
death , which centre in the body. ‘ Decay’ is that
modification of the body and organs which is marked
by wrinkles, grey hair, etc. ‘Death’ is the fall of
the body, the last modification to overtake it.
These, the hunger and the rest, which centre in the
vital force, mind and body, and are present in beings
in an unbroken succession like days and nights, etc.,
and like the waves of an ocean, are called the rela-
tive or transmigratory existence with regard to them.
But that which is described as the witness of vision
and so forth, is immediate or unobstructed and direct
or used in a primary sense, which is within all, and
is the self of all beings from Hiranyagarbha down
to a clump of grass, is ever untouched by such rela-
tive attributes as hunger and thirst, as the sky is
untouched by impurities like the clouds etc. Know-
ing this very Self , their own reality, as T am this —
the Supreme Brahman, eternally devoid of relative
attributes, and ever satisfied,’ the Brdhmanas (they
are mentioned because they alone are qualified for
renunciation) renounce, literally, rise up in an oppo-
site direction to— what? — the desire for sons, as
means to winning this world, thinking, ‘We will win
this world through sons,* in other words, marriage ;
3 . 5 . 1 ] BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD 481
hence the meaning is, they do not marry. (The,
desire) for wealth : procuring cattle, etc., which are
the means of rites, in order that one may perform
rites through them and win the world of the Manes,
or that one may win the world of the gods either
by combining rites with meditation, which is
divine wealth, or solely through meditation on
Hiranyagarbha. Some say that one cannot renounce
divine wealth, since it is through this that renuncia-
tion is possible. But this view is wrong, for divine
wealth also falls within the category of desires, as
we know from the Shruti passage, ‘This much indeed
is desire’ (I. iv. 17). It is the meditation on the
gods such as Hiranyagarbha which is spoken of as
wealth, because it leads to the world of the gods.
The knowledge of Brahman, which concerns the
unconditioned Pure Intelligence, cannot certainly be
the means o'f attaining the world of the gods. Wit-
ness the Shruti passages, 'Therefore It became all*
(I. iv. 10), and ‘For he becomes their self’ (Ibid.).
It is through the knowledge of Brahman that
renunciation takes place, for there is the specific
statement, ‘Knowing this very Self.’ Therefore
they renounce all these three objects of desire which
lead to worlds that are not the Self. (‘EshamV
means desire, for the Shruti says, ‘This much
indeed is desire.’) That is to say, they cease to
hanker after all this threefold means of attaining
worlds that are not the Self.
Every desire for means is a desire for results ;
therefore the text says that desire is one. How ?
That which is the desire for sons is the desire for
31
432
BRIHADARANY AKA UPANISHAD
[3. 5. 1
wealth, for both are alike means to tangible results.
And that which is the desire for wealth is the
desire for the worlds, for it is directed towards
results. People adopt different means, actuated by
the desire for results. Hence desire- is one, because
the desire for the worlds cannot be attained without
the requisite means; for both these are but desires,
one being but a means to the other. Therefore the
knower of Brahman has nothing to do with rites or
their accessories. (‘Brahmanas’ in the text means
those of past times.) The rites and their accessories
here spoken of refer to the holy thread etc., which
are means to the performance of rites pertaining to
the gods, the Manes and men, for through them these
rites are performed. Compare the Shruti, ‘The holy
thread that hangs straight down from the neck is
for rites pertaining to men’ (Tai. S. II. v. 11. 1).
Therefore the ancient Brahmanas — knowers of Brah-
man — renouncing rites and their accessories such as
the holy thread, embrace the life of a monk
(of the highest class) known as the Parama-
hamsa, and lead a mendicant life, live upon
begging — giving up the insignia of a monk’s life
prescribed by the Smritis, which are the means of
livelihood for those who have merely taken recourse
to that life. Witness the Smritis : ‘The knower of
Brahman wears no signs/ ‘Therefore the knower of
religion, w T ho wears no signs, (should practise its
principles) (cf. Mbh. XIV. xlvi. 51), and ‘His signs
are not manifest, nor his behaviour’ (cf. Va. X.). And
the Shruti : ‘Then he becomes a monk, w r ears the
ochre robe, shaves his head, and does not accept
3 . $. 1 ] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
483
(superfluous) gifts/ etc, (Ja. 5) ; also, 'Having cut
off his hair together with the tuft and giving up the
holy thread/ etc. (Kshr. I., II. 3).
Objection : Because of the use of the present
tense in it, the passage, 'The Brahmanas renounce
.... and live a mendicant life/ should be taken as
a mere eulogy ; it has none of the three suffixes denot-
ing an injunction. Therefore on the strength of a
mere eulogy the abandonment of the holy thread and
other such accessories of rites prescribed by the
Shrutis and Smritis cannot be urged. 'He only who
wears the holy thread may study the Vedas, offi-
ciate in sacrifices, or perform them’ (Tai. A. II. i. 1).
In the first place, the study of the Vedas is enjoined
in the mendicant life : 'By giving up the study of
the Vedas one becomes a Sliudra ; therefore one
must not do it* (Quoted in Va. X). Also Apa-
stamba : ‘Uttering speech only when studying the
Vedas’ (Ap. II. xxi. 10, 21). The scriptures con-
demn giving up the study of the Vedas in the verse,
‘Quitting the study of the Vedas, abuse of the
Vedas, deceitful evidence, murder of a friend, and
eating forbidden or uneatable food — these six acts
are equivalent to drinking’ (M. XI. 56). Secondly,
the passage, ‘One should wear the holy thread while
serving the preceptors, old people and guests, per-
forming sacrifices, repeating sacred formulae, eating,
rinsing one’s mouth and studying the Vedas’ (Ap. I.
xv. 1), enjoins the holy thread as an accessory of
those acts, and the Shrutis and Smritis prescribe
such acts as the attending on the preceptors,
study of the Vedas, eating and rinsing one’s
484 BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [3. 5. 2
mouth among the duties of a monk ; therefore we
cannot understand the passage in question as ad-
vocating the giving up of the holy thread.
Although the renunciation of desires is enjoined,
yet it means the renunciation of only the three
desires, viz., those concerning sons and so forth, and
not of all rites and their means. If all rites are
abandoned, it will be doing something not enjoined
by the Shrutis, and discarding the holy thread etc.,
actually enjoined by them. This omission of acts
enjoined and performance of those forbidden would
be a grave offence. Therefore the assumption that
the insignia such as the holy thread should be aban-
doned is merely an instance of the blind following
the blind.
Reply : No, for the Shruti says, ‘The monk
should give up the holy thread, the study o£^i&e
Vedas, and all such things’ (Kshr. 4 ; Kr. 2). (/More-
over the ultimate aim of the Upanishads is to teach
Self-knowledge. It has already been stated, ‘The
Self is to be realised — to be heard of, reflected on,’
etc. (II. iv. 5) ; and it is common knowledge that
that very Self is to be known as immediate and
direct, as being within all, and devoid of the relative
attributes of hunger etc.JKSince this entire Upa-
nishad sets itself to bringing this out, the passage
in question cannot form a part of some other (ritual-
istic) injunction, and is therefore not a eulogy. For
JSelf -knowledge is to be attained, and the Self, being
devoid of the attributes of hunger etc., is to
be known as different from the means and results
of an action. To know the Self as identified with
3 . 5 . 1 ] # BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 485
these is ignorance]|\.Witness the Shrutis : ‘He (who
worships another god thinking), “He is one, and I
am another,” does not know* (I. IV. 10), ‘He goes
from death to death who sees difference, as it
were, in If (IV. iv. 19 ; Ka. IV. 10), ‘It should
be realised in one form only* (IV. iv. 20), ‘One
only without a second’ (Chh. VI. ii. 1), ‘Thou
art That’ (Chh. VI. viii. 7), etc. \J The means and
results of an action are different from the Self that
is beyond the relative attributes such as hunger,
and fall within the category of ignorance, ^as
is proved by hundreds of texts like the follow-
ing : ‘When there is duality, as it were’ (II. iv. 14 ;
IV. v. 15), ‘He who worships another god thinking,
“He is one, and I am another,” does not know,’
‘While those who know It as otherwise (become
dependent and attain perishable worlds),’ etc. (Chh.
VII. xxv. 2).
•/Knowledge and ignorance cannot co-exist in
the same individual, Kfor they are contradictory like
light and darkness. Therefore the know r er of the
Self must not be supposed to have relations with
the sphere of ignorance consisting of actions, their
factors and their results, for it has been deprecated
in such passages as, ‘He goes from death to death,’
etc. All actions with their factors and results,
which fall within the category of ignorance, are
meant to be shunned through the help of knowledge,
the opposite of ignorance ; and such auxiliaries as
the holy thread fall within the same category. There-
fore desire is different from, and is associated with
things other than, the Self, which by Its nature is
486
BRIHADARANYAKA V BANISH AD .[ 3 . 5 . 1
neither the means nor the result of an action.
They, the means and the result of an action, are
both desires, and the holy thread etc. and the cere-
monies to be performed through them are classed
under means. This has been clenched by a reason
in the clause, ‘For ]x)th these are but desires’ (this
text). Since the means such as the holy thread, and
the ceremonies to be performed through them are
within the range of ignorance, are forms of desires,
and are things to be shunned, the renunciation of
them is undoubtedly enjoined.
Objection : Since this Upanishad seeks to incul-
cate Self-knowledge, the passage relating to the re-
nunciation of desires is just a eulogy on that, and
not an injunction.
Reply : No, for it is to be performed by the
same individual for whom Self-knowledge is en-
joined. The Vedas can never connect with the same
individual something that is enjoined and something
that is not enjoined. Just as the Shrutis connect
pressing, pouring and drinking (of the Soma juice)
with the same individual — that he should press the
juice out, pour it into the fire, and drink what is
left — because all the three are obligatory, similarly
Self-knowledge, renunciation of desires and begging
would be connected with the same individual if onlv
these were obligatory.
Objection : Suppose we say that being under
the category of ignorance and being (auxiliaries of)
desires, the abandonment of the holy thread etc. is
a mere corollary of the injunction on Self-knowledge,
and not a separate injunction ?
3 . 5 . 1 ]
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
487
Reply : No. Since it is connected with the
same individual along with the injunction of Self-
knowledge, the obligatory nature of this renuncia-
tion as well as the begging is all the more clearly
established ; and the objection that it is a mere eu-
logy because of the use of the present tense does
not hold, since it is analogous to such injunctions
as that the sacrificial post is 1 made of fig- wood.
Objection : We admit that the passage, '(The
Brfihmanas) renounce desires .... and lead a
mendicant life,’ enjoins monasticism. In this life,
however, means such as the holy thread and certain
insignia are enjoined by the Shrutis and Smritis.
Therefore the passage in question means that acces-
sories other than these, although the latter are (aux-
iliaries of) desires, should be renounced.
Reply : Not so, for we know that there is
another kind of monasticism different from this one.
The latter is connected with the same individual as
Self-knowledge, and is characterised by the renun-
ciation of desires. This monasticism is a part of
Self-knowledge, because it is the renunciation of
desires, which contradict Self-knowledge and are
within the province of ignorance. Besides this
there is another kind of monasticism, which is an
order of life and leads to the attainment of the world
of Hiranyagarbha and so on ; it is about this that
means such as the holy thread and particular insig-
nia are enjoined. When there is this other kind of
monasticism in which the adoption of means like
1 Here ‘is’ means 'must be.’
488
BR1HADARANY AKA UPANISHAD [3. 5. 1
the (auxiliaries of) desires is just a duty peculiar to
that life, it is wrong to contradict Self-knowledge
that is enjoined by all the Upanishads. If one seeks
to adopt means such as the holy thread, which are
within the province of ignorance and are (auxiliaries
of) desires, it would certainly be contradicting the
knowledge of one’s self — which is neither the means
nor the result of an action, and is devoid of such
relative attributes as hunger — as identical with
Brahman. And it is wrong to contradict this knowl-
edge, for all the Upanishads aim at this.
Objection : Does not the Shruti itself contradict
this by teaching the adoption of desires in the
words, ‘(The Brahmanas) lead a mendicant life’?
That is to say, after enjoining the renunciation of
desires it teaches in the same breath the adoption of
a part of them, viz., begging. Does this not imply
the adoption of other connected things as well?
Reply : No, the begging does not imply other
things as well, just as the drinking of the remnant
(of Soma juice) after the oblation has been offered
does not include any additional things ; since it re-
lates only to the disposal 1 of what is left, it implies
nothing else. Moreover the begging has no purify-
ing effect ; the drinking of the juice might purify
a person, but not the begging. Thotigh there may
be some merit in observing the rules regarding it,
yet its application to the knower of Brahman is in-
admissible.
1 Pratipatti-karma is the disposal of the accessories
of a rite after they have served their purpose, to prevent
their interfering with other work.
3. 5. 1] BR1HADARANY AKA UPANISHAD 489
Objection : If this is so, why should there be
mention of his begging his food ?
Reply : It is quite in order, because the passage
thereby enjoins the rejection of other means of sub-
sistence.
Objection : Still what is the necessity for that?
Reply : None, if his realisation has reached
that point of inaction ; we accept that view. As to
the texts regarding monasticism such as, ‘He only
who wears the holy thread may study (the Vedas)/
etc. (Tai. A. II. i. 1), we have already answered your
objection by saying that they concern only the
monasticism of those who have not known Brahman :
we have pointed out that Self-knowledge would
otherwise be contradicted. That the knower of
Brahman has no work 1 to do is shown by the follow-
ing Smriti passage, 'The gods consider him a knower
of Brahman who has no desires, who undertakes no
work, who does not salute or praise anybody, and
whose work has been exhausted, but who himself
is unchanged’ (Mbh. XII. cclxix. 34). Also, ‘The
knower of Brahman wears no signs,’ and 'Therefore
the knower of religion, who wears no signs,’ etc.
(cf. Mbh. XIV. xlvi. 51). Therefore the knower of
the Self should embrace that vow of the highest order
of monks which is characterised by the renunciation
of desires and the abandonment of all work together
with its means.
Since the ancient Brahmanas, knowing this Self
as naturally different from the means and results of
an action, renounced all desires, which are such
1 'Work' in this connection means ritualistic work.
490
BR1HADARANYAKA U PAN 1 SHAD [3. 5. 1
means and results, and led a mendicant life, giving
up work producing visible and invisible results,
together with its means, therefore to this day the
knower of Brahman , having known all about scholar-
ship or this knowledge of the Self from the teacher
and the Shrutis — having fully mastered it — should
renounce desires. This is the culmination of that
scholarship, for it comes with the elimination of
desires, and is contradictory to them. Since scholar-
ship regarding the Self cannot come without the
elimination of desires, therefore the renunciation of
these is automatically enjoined by the knowledge of
the Self. This is emphasised by the use of the suffix
‘ktwach > in the passage in question, as referring to the
same individual who has the knowledge of the Self.
Therefore the knower of Brahman, after renouncing
desires, should try to live upon that strength which
comes of knowledge . Those others who are ignorant
of the Self derive their strength from the means
and results of actions. The knower of Brahman
avoids that and resorts simply to that strength
which comes of the knowledge of the Self, which
is naturally different from the means and results of
an action. When he does this, his organs have no
more power to drag him down to the objects of
desire. It is only the fool without the strength of
knowledge, who is attracted by his organs to desires
concerning objects, visible or invisible. Strength is
the total elimination of the vision of objects -by
Self-knowledge ; hence the knower of Brahman
should try to live upon that strength. As another
Shruti pvds it, \/ Through the Self one attains
3 . 5 . 1 ]
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISH'AD
491
strength’ (Ke. II. 4) ; also, ‘This Self is unattain-
able by the weak’ (Mu. III. ii. 4). Having known
all about this strength as well as scholarship, he
becomes meditative, in other words, a Yogin. What
a knower of Brahman should do is to eliminate all
ideas of the non-Self ; doing this he accomplishes
his task and becomes a Yogin. After having known
all about scholarship and strength, which respect-
ively mean Self-knowledge and the elimination of
ideas of the lion-Self, he knows all about meditative-
ness too — which is the culminating result of the
latter — and its opposite, and becomes a knower of
Brahman, or accomplishes his task : he attains the
conviction that all is Brahman. Because he has
reached the goal, therefore he is a Brahmana, a
knower of Brahman ; for then his status as a knower
of Brahman is literally true. Therefore the text
says : How does that knower of Brahman behave ?
Howsoever he may behave, he is just such — a
knower of Brahman as described above. The ex-
pression, ‘Howsoever he may behave/ is intended
for a tribute to this state of a knower of Brahman,
and does not mean reckless behaviour. Except
this state of realisation of Brahman, which is the
true state of one’s self which is beyond hunger etc.,
and is eternally satisfied, everything , that is, desires,
which are within the category of ignorance, is
perishable — literally, beset with troubles — unsub-
stantial like a dream, an illusion, or a milage ; the
Self alone is detached and eternally free. Taercupon
Kahola, the son of Kushitaka, kept silent.
SECTION VI
am t?f mnf srraasft tcfu .
qNw, sr&rssqter g sifcr g, qrfsqsg sre q t q
sitaisH s i faug f a 5 JTnfffa • q>fcq.g »gas
q i gitayi srtenSfa . srei ftqre^ nmffa 5
q>%ng ^rdR^Mfsi arfaTsg srt^ns&fe . qwisr-
ssHfc!! 5 rnfff% ■ ^jf^nsg *T*sR^for sitor^
starafa ■ 3n%?55^s amffa 5 «g^rrf^fq-
sstaT artery sftauafa ; nmffa ;
^ferg^ srE?N >t aitemp q sftanqia 5 a^Hr-
55t%g anrffa 5 affcug ara a ^agfaT a f te ro^
sftanj^fa 5 ^t%3 unff%; a>fsa?g ^asstaT
srtemsr srtens%fa ; maf fa ; ajfsw| *srfer-
yg si fai sftaisj g fa T3 %fa ; twn i fiagfog nrnffe;
«Ffer» gsrrofassfaT aitara gtars%fa ; m-
ssf^g anfffa • safsa^ *a?§ agisshaT artara
sftai^fa 5 st qterra, arfa mfswT^ft:, m ^ gaf
sTO', ara fag^q f a ^aa w f a gsgfa arfa, m#r-
aT$ftfsfa 5 acft ? amf a i^ g i^m-sre n \ ii
? fa Tg' 5TT5MI^ ||
i. Then Gargi, the daughter of Vacha-
knu, asked him. ‘Yajnavalkva,’ she said,
SfiK al 1 this is pervaded by water, by what
3. 6. 1] BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 493
is water pervaded?’ ‘By air, O Gargi.’
‘By what is air pervaded?’ ‘By the sky,
O Gargi.’ ‘By what is the sky pervaded?’
‘By the world of the Gandharvas , 1 O Gargi.’
‘By what is the world of the Gandharvas
pervaded?’ ‘By the sun, O Gargi.’ ‘By
what is the sun pervaded?’ ‘By the moon,
O Gargi.’ ‘By what is the moon pervaded?’
‘By the stars, O Gargi.’ ‘By what are
the stars pervaded?’ ‘By the world of the
gods, O Gargi.’ ‘By what is the world
of the gods pervaded?’ ‘By the world of
Indra, O Gargi.’ ‘By what is the world of
Indra pervaded?’ ‘By the world of Viraj,
O Gargi.’ ‘By what is the world of Viraj
pervaded?’ ‘Bv the world of Hiranyagarbha,
O Gargi.’ ‘By what is the world of Hiranya-
garbha pervaded ?’ He said, ‘Do not, O Gargi,
push your inquiry too far, lest your head
should fall off. You are questioning about
a deity that should not be reasoned about.
Do not, O Gargi, push your inquiry too far.’
Thereupon Gargi, the daughter of Vachaknu,
kept silent.
To describe the nature of that which has been
stated to be the immediate and direct Brahman —
the self that is within all, the three sections up to
that dealing with the story of Shakalya are being
1 Celestial minstrels.
494
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [3. 6. 1
introduced. The elements from earth up to the ether
are arranged one within the other. The idea is to
show how an aspirant — the subject — can realise his
own self, which is immediate and direct, is within
all, and beyond all relative attributes, by taking up
each relatively external element and eliminating it.
Then Gargi , the daughter of Vachaknu, asked him .
* Yajnavalkya / she said , f if all this, all that is
composed of earth, is pervaded within and without
(literally, placed like the warp and woof — or woof
and warp — in a cloth) by water/ Otherwise it
would be scattered like a handful of fried barley
flour. The following inference is suggested : We
observe that whatever is an effect, limited and gross
is respectively pervaded by that which is the cause,
unlimited and subtle, as earth is pervaded by water.
Similarly (in the series from earth to the ether) each
preceding element must be pervaded by the succeed-
ing one — till we come to the self that is within all.
This is the import of the question.
Now these five elements are so arranged that
each preceding one is held together by the succeed-
ing element, which is its cause and is more subtle
and pervasive. And there is nothing below the
Supreme Self which is different from the elements, 1
for the Shruti says, ‘The Truth of truth 1 (II.
i. 20 ; II. iii. 6). The truth is the five elements,
and the Truth of truth is the Supreme Self.
( j B y what is water pervaded V Since it too is an
effect, gross and limited, it must be pervaded
1 So the different worlds enumerated in this paragraph
are included in them.
3. 6. 1] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
495
by something ; and what is that ? All the
subsequent questions are to be construed in
this way. ‘By air, 0 Gdrgi / One may object
that the answer should be fire ; to which we reply
that the answer is all right. Fire cannot independ-
ently manifest itself like the other elements ; it
must take the help of particles of earth or water ;
hence it is not mentioned as pervading water. ‘By
what is air pervaded V ‘By the sky, O Gdrgi/
The same elements combining with one another form
the sky ; this is pervaded by the world of the Gan-
dharvas, this again by the sun, the sun by the moon,
the moon by the stars, the stars by the world of the
gods, this by the world of lndra, this again by the
world of Virdj, that is, by the elements composing
the body of Viraj ; the world of Virdj is pervaded
by the world of Hiranyagarbha, that is, by the
elements composing the universe. The plural is
used in the text (‘ worlds’ instead of ‘world') be-
cause these worlds, arranged in an ascending order
of subtlety, are each 90m posed of the same five
elements transformed so as to become fit abodes for
the enjoyment of beings. ‘By what is the world of
Hiranyagarbha pervaded ?* Yajnavalkya said, ‘Do
not, O Gdrgi, push your inquiry too far — disregarding
the proper method of inquiry into the nature of
the deity 1 ; that is, do not try to know through
inference about a deity that must be approached
only through oral instruction (Agama), lest by so
doing your head should fall off / The nature of the
deity is to be known from the scriptures alone, and
1 The Sutra, which is described in the next section.
496
BR1HADARANY AKA UPAJXISHAD [ 3 . 6 . 1
Gargi’s question, being inferential, disregarded this
particular means of approach. 'You are questioning
about a deity that should not be reasoned about, but
known only through its special means of approach,
the scriptures. Therefore do not, 0 Gdrgi, push
your inquiry loo far unless you wish to die/ There-
upon Gdrgi, the daughter of Vachaknu, kept silent .
SECTION VII
ara tsrgfrasfi arrefar: qsreg .
JT5 * q grerm qn'^i ^5 qsravft-
*u*ii! j vq f < i , y 5 i^^lcii ) 5w^^ni 5
^sasftcSKsro arra^tiT 5 # 5 g reftc qa 3 py qn^f
qTf^Km, %c«r g c^ qm=q Sc**ai iforo g 55^:
qraj ssNr: ^tPh g ^rrffr srgssnfir sre reft fa ;
^fr s a q tc qa ^g: qncq:, *nt a g nq ?%^ f a ■ sftssi-
qtcqcT^ qrrwf atc*i g rq qrra
w rera f fSurt n ?jt ^ 55t^ q< g star gqrH^r g
*jSTfH srtariT* 5 sitesRftcqcr^5: qrrcq:,
5 TTf rf flirafttfe 5 ^Tt-SsHtcMH^' sfiTCtf *nfsNdsj,
t cic^i^ ^ (ii'aiff ^ifrRrfftuTfir% *ar g g t %^ ,
^ 55 ^fq^, *r ^ ^^WL > « *i?rfera(., a ane*T-
fs^, *=r 5 ffeffftsasrX ; <m.i ; a^f ar
sn^Tfinrf agjqsft^si#,
g^ir ^ frqfa’airftfa ■, ^ arr rft?w <f
gFrT^fJnrfiTf?! { «ft *r
qsiT t^or am aysrt?r 11 \ 11
1. Then Uddalaka, the son of Aruna,
asked him. ‘Yajnavalkya,’ he said, ‘inMadra
we lived in the house of Patanchala Kapya
(descendant of Kapi), studying the scriptures
32
498
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [3. 7. 1
on sacrifices. His wife was possessed by a
Gandharva. We asked him who he was. He
said, “Kabandha, the son of Atharvan.” He
said to Patanchala Kapya and those who
studied the scriptures on sacrifices, “Kapya,
do you know that Sutra 1 by which this life,
the next life, and all beings are held
together?’’ Patanchala Kapya said, “I do
not know it, sir.’’ The Gandharva said
to him and the students, “Kapya, do you
know that Internal Ruler who controls this
and the next life and all beings from within?”
Patanchala Kapya said, “I do not know Him,
sir.” The Gandharva said to him and the
students, “He who knows that Sutra and that
Internal Ruler as above indeed knows
Brahman, the worlds, the gods, the Vedas,
the beings, the self, and everything.” He
explained it all to them. I know it. If
you, Yajnavalkya, do not know that Sutra
and that Internal Ruler, and still take away
the cows that belong only to the knowers of
Brahman, your head shall fall off. ’ ‘I know,
O Gautama, that Sutra and that Internal
Ruler.’ ‘Anyone can say, “I know, I
know.” Tell us what you know.’
Now the Sutra, the innermost entity of the world
of Hiranyagarblia, has to be described ; hence this
1 Literally, thread. Hence the word is metaphorically
used for Prana or the cosmic force.
3 . 7 . 1 ]
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
499
section. This Sutra should be approached through
oral instruction, which is therefore being introduced
through an anecdote: Then Udddlaka, the son of
Arana, asked him. ‘ Yajnavalkya / he said, ‘in the
territory called Madra we lived in the house of
Pata7ichla Kapya — of the line of Kapi — studying the
scriptures on sacrifices. His wife was possessed by
a Gandharva. We asked him who he was. He said,
“Kabandha, the son of Atharvan .” He, the Gan-
dharva, said to Patanchala Kapya and his pupils who
studied the scriptures on sacrifices, “Kapya, do you
know that Sutra by which this life, the next life
and all beings, from Viraj down to a clump of grass,
arc held together, strung like a garland with a
thread ?” Thus addressed, Kapya reverentially said,
“I do not know it, the Sutra, sir” The Gandharva
again said to the teacher and us : Kapya, do you
know that hiternal Ruler — this is being specified —
who controls this and the next life and all beings
from within, causes them to move like a wooden
puppet, that is, makes them perform their respective
functions? Thus addressed, Patayichala Kapya
reverentiallj r said, “I do not know Him, sir.” The
Gandharva again said — this is in praise of the medi-
tation on the Sutra and the Internal Ruler within
it — “Kapya, he who knows that Sutra and that
Internal Ruler who is within the Sutra and governs
it, as described above, indeed knows Brahman or the
Supreme Self, the worlds such as the earth controlled
by the Internal Ruler, the gods such as Fire presid-
ing over those worlds, the Vedas, which are the
500
BR1HADARANY AKA UPANISHAD [3. 7. I
authority for all, the beings such as Hiranyagarbha 1
and the rest, who are held together by the Sutra and
controlled by the Internal Ruler who is within it,
the self , which is the agent and experiencer and
is controlled by the same Internal Ruler, and every-
thing — the whole world also similarly controlled.
This praise of the ’meditation on the Sutra and the
Internal Ruler tempted Kapya and us to hear of it ;
and the Gandharva explained the Sutra and the
Internal Ruler to them and us. I know this medita-
tion on the Sutra and the Internal Ruler, having been
instructed by the Gandharva. If you, Yajnavalkya,
do not know that Sutra and that Internal Ruler, that
is, do not know Brahman, and still wrongly take
away the cows that belong only to the knowers of
Brahman, I will burn you with my curses, and your
head shall fall off / Thus addressed, Yajnavalkya
said, f I know, O Gautama (descendant of Gotama),
that Sutra about which the Gandharva told you, and
that Internal Ruler about whom you have known
from him/ At this Gautama retorted : Anyone, any
fool, can say what you have said — what ? — I know ,
I know/ lauding himself. What is the good of that
bluster? Show it in action ; tell us what you know
about them.
^
&t*i: sraffor g ajcnfir
1 TJie word used is ‘Brahman/ which means Vir&j as
well, in which sense it is to be taken in connection with
the next clause, for Hiranyagarbha, being the same as the
Sutra, cannot be held together by it.
3. 7. 2] BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD SOI
, sngsn % ntaw
; «wWa<ll«^n, St^tfd || R II
2. He said, ‘Vayu, O Gautama, is that
Sutra. Through this Sutra or Vayu this and
the next life and all beings are held together.
Therefore, O Gautama, when a man dies, they
say that his limbs have been loosened, for
they are held together, O Gautama, by the
Sutra or Vayu. ‘Quite so, Yajnavalkya.
Now describe the Internal Ruler. ’
He, Yajnavalkya, said, etc. The Sutra, by
which the world of Hiranyagarbha is at the present
moment pervaded, as earth by water, and which
can be known only through oral instruction, has to
be described. It is for this that Uddalaka’s question
in the preceding paragraph has been introduced. So
Yajnavalkya answers it by saying, f Vdyu, O Gau-
tama , is that Sutra , and nothing else/ ‘Vayu’ is
that subtle entity which like the ether supports earth
etc., which is the material of the subtle body with
its seventeen parts 1 in which the past actions and
impressions of beings inhere, which is collective as
well as individual, and whose external forms, like
the waves of an ocean, are the forty-nine Maruts.
That principle of Vayu is called the Sutra. Through
this Sutra or Vayu this arid the next life arid all
beings are held or strung together. This is well-
known (to those who know the Sutra) ; it is also
•
i The five elements, ten organs, vital force (with its
fivefold function) and mind (in its fourfold aspect). Or
the ten organs, five vital forces, Manas and intellect.
502
BR1H ADARANY AKA UPAN1SHAD
[ 3 . 7 . 2
common knowledge. How? Because Vayu is the
Sutra and supports everything, therefore, 0 Gau-
tama, when a man dies, they say that his limbs have
been loosened .’ When the thread (Sutra) is gone,
gems etc. that are strung on it are scattered ;
similarly Vayu is tjie Sutra. If the limbs of a man
are strung on it, like gems on a thread, it is but
natural that they will be loosened when Vayu is gone.
Hence it is concluded : ‘For they are held together ,
O Gautama, by the Sutra or Vayu / ‘Quite so,
Yajnavalkya, you have rightly described the Sutra.
Now describe the Internal Ruler, who is within it
and controls it.* Thus addressed, Yajnavalkya said :
v. sfoarr gfsnan tr 'jfefT ?r
SHIcWRWFWja: II * II
3. He who inhabits the earth but is
within it, whom the earth does not know,
whose body is the earth, and who controls the
earth from within, is the Internal Ruler, your
own immortal self.
He who inhabits the earth . ... is the Internal
Ruler. Now all people inhabit the earth ; so there
may be a presumption that the reference is to any-
one of them. To preclude this the text specifies
Him by saying, ‘Who is within the earth.’ One may
think that the deity identified with the earth is the
Internal Ruler ; hence the text says, ‘Whom even
the deity identified with the earth does not know as
a distinct entity dwelling within her.’ Whose body
3. 7. 5] BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
503
is the earth itself and none other — whose body is
the same as that of the deity of the earth. The
‘body* implies other things as well ; that is, the organs
of this deity are also those of the Internal Ruler.
The body and organs of the deity of the earth are
the result of her own past actions ; they are the body
and organs of the Internal Ruler as well, for He has
no past actions, being ever free. Since He is by
nature given to doing tilings for others, the body
and organs of the latter serve as His ; He has no
body and organs of His own. This is expressed as
follows: ‘Whose body is the earth.* The body and
organs of the deity of the earth are regularly made
to work or stop work by the mere presence of the
Lord as witness. Such an Ishwara, called N a ray an a,
who controls the deity of the earth , that is, directs
her to her particular work, from within , is the
Internal Ruler about whom you have asked, your
own immortal self, as also mine and that of all
beings. ‘Your’ implies ‘others* as well. ‘Immortal,*
that is to say, devoid of all relative attributes.
SRfaj*., *its<Tk?rrd qJTqfcT, 077 3 37TcOT??R?J*I-
II « II
4. He who inhabits water but is within
it, whom water does not know, whose body is
waiter, and who controls water from within, is
the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
gftsfe wfad 077 % snrms aqkm ga: 11 ^ \\
504
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [3. 7. 5
5. He who inhabits fire but is within it,
whom fire does not know, whose body is fire,
and who controls fire from within, is the Inter-
nal Ruler, your own immortal self.
qtarrf?:^ qq?qfT$i q
qqqfq, qq 3
6. He who inhabits the sky but is within
it, whom the sky does not' know, whose body
is the sky, and who controls the sky from
within, is the Internal Ruler, your own im-
mortal self.
ql qpft fag y qr q’fryg rc;, q q*q sirg:
snrkq^, qf qqqfq, qq q ancqi ^ qfoq-
*&'• II ® II
7. He who inhabits the air but is within
it, whom the air does not know, whose body
is the air, and who controls the air from
within, is the Internal Ruler, your own
immortal self.
qt fi[fq fqgf^qrssrr*;:, q q*q
qf f^ q4|? q r> qqqfq, qq cT snciTFaq^wr-
Wt'- II II
8. He who inhabits heaven but is within
it, whom heaven does not know, whose body
is heaven, and who controls heaven from
3. 7. 11] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
50S
within, is the Internal Ruler, your own
immortal self.
*1
J: II 6 II
5j
5J
9. He who inhabits the sun but is within
it, whom the sun does not know, whose body
is the sun, and who controls the sun from
within, is the Internal Ruler, your own
immortal self.
?f f^ir h fin:,
fapr: ^ *msrf?r, w 3 aricOT-
11 ^.0 ||
10. He who inhabits the quarters but is
within them, whom the quarters do not know,
whose body is the quarters, and who controls
the quarters from within, is the Internal
Ruler, your own immortal self.
* %3[,
OTT a sncJTFrFTh^fT: || U II
11. He who inhabits the moon and stars
but is within them, whom the moon and stars
do not know, whose body is the moon and
stars, and who controls the moon ajid stars
from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own
immortal self.
506 BRIHADARANYAKA VPAN1SHAD [ 3 . 7 . 12
q srwTd IdBwwwn qgro,
^ *ro*rf5T, a
snr*ns9Plfw^5l: II II
12. He who inhabits the ether but is
within it, whom .the ether does not know,
whose body is the ether, and who controls
the ether from within, is the Internal Ruler,
your own immortal self.
rwi si
gw: srcfcfli, ?nmfgr, a sncJTFa-
ll U li
13. He who inhabits darkness but is
within it, whom darkness does not know,
whose body is darkness, and who controls
darkness from within, is the Internal Ruler,
your own immortal self.
_ - * ^ > __ __ ___
srecRTTCT Rn^elSraTSSrP::, 33TT «T
^5f: SKta*., H77 51 3TIcfrpgprf-
3RT^5I:— II V* H
14. He who inhabits light but is within
it, whom light does not know, whose body is
light, and who controls light from within, is
the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
This much with reference to the gods. Now
with reference to the beings.
The rest is to be similarly explained. He who
inhabits water, fire, the sky, the air, heaven, the sun ,
3. 7. 17] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
507
the quarters , the moon and stars , the ether , darkhess
— the external darkness which obstructs vision, and
light, light in general, which is the opposite of dark-
ness. This much with reference to the gods, that is,
the meditation on the Internal Ruler as pertaining
to the gods. Now with reference to the beings, that
is, the meditation on the Internal Ruler as pertain-
ing to the different grades of beings from Hiranya-
garbha down to a clump of grass.
«r
ijcnfir ?T fsr^:,
*r: oxr 3ncJn??rafwi-
^Tcf: — : 3TO1WTTCWRL II ^ II '
15. He who inhabits all beings but is
within them, whom no being knows, whose
body is all beings, and who controls all beings
from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own
immortal self. This much with reference to
the beings. Now with reference to the body.
sr: snot fasqt snun^rw::, sf m^ff ?r
sm: m srrRfa, a sttcWtT-
II K\ II
16. He who inhabits the nose but is
within it, whom the nose does not know, whose
body is the nose, and who controls the nose
from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own
immortal self.
?rt snfo *13 * urn
508 ** . BRIH ADAR ANY AKA UPANISHAD [3. 7. 17
s srtou , g rraJ T r g| { t *wrqfa, cr ^ sncTn^^rh^-
« i« ii
17. He who inhabits the organ of speech
but is within it, whom the organ of speech
does not know, whose body is the organ of
speech, and who controls the organ of speech
from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own
immortal self.
;=R|:
wteq i, qjRft, w a srrcJnfrraivi-
*&s: II II
18. He who inhabits the eye but is within
it, whom the eye does not know, whose body
is the eye, and who controls the eye from
within, is the Internal Ruler, your own
immortal self.
srM srN sr
srH ^n c kq^, m sibsmfcn^ qtRfa, ?r sn?m-
II U II
19. He who inhabits the ear but is within
it, whom the ear does not know, whose body
is the ear, and who controls the ear from
within, is the Internal Ruler, your own
immortal self.
^ JRfa fag' ^H ^ftsyar:, stft
JR: qjRfa, tjrr cf sncJJTR-
II Ro ||
3. 7. 23] BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
509
20. He who inhabits the mind (Manas)
but is within it, whom the mind does not
know, whose body is the mind, and who con-
trols the mind from within, is the Internal
Ruler, your own immortal self.
strike, a sn cuiwera f-
II II
2 1. He who inhabits the skin but is
within it, whom the skin does not know, whose
body is the skin, and who controls the skin
from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own
immortal self.
fowl ms
^rTJf ?rf ?(
siicinfcrcTwi*|?r: n '<r ii
22. He who inhabits the intellect but is
within it, whom the intellect does not know,
Whose body is the intellect, and who controls
the intellect from within, is the Internal
Ruler, your own immortal self.
kf: srrck^, wrfe , n
5 2TST, ST^IT,
^rTcfr f^fT?TT 5 SET, JTRTtScltsfel
srten, srRrtefrsfet nfHT, jf js^s^sfei as
510
bRIHADARANY AKA UPANISHAD [3. 7. 23
ll r \ II aTfj^n^ II a .
23. He who inhabits the organ of genera-
tion but is within it, whom the organ does not
know, whose body is the organ, and who con-
trols the organ froiti within, is the Internal
Ruler, your own immortal self. He is never
seen, but is the Witness; He is never heard,
but is the Heai'er ; He is never thought, but is
the Thinker; He is never known, but is the
Knower. There is no other witness but Him,
no other hearer but Him, no other thinker
but Him, no other knower but Him. He is
the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
Everything else but Him is mortal. There-
upon Uddalaka, the son of Aruna, kept silent.
Now with reference to the body. He who in-
habits the nose together with the vital force, the
organ of speech, the eye, the ear, the mind (Manas),
the skin, the intellect and the organ of generation
(literally, the seed). Why is it that the deities of
the earth etc., in spite of their exceptional powers,
fail to see, like men etc., the Internal Ruler who lives
in them and controls them ? This is being answered :
He is never seen, never the object of anybody’s ocular
perception, but being close to the eye as Pure Intelli-
gence, He Himself is the Witness. Similarly He is
never heard, or perceived by anybody through the
ear, but He Himself, with His never-failing power of
hearing, is the Hearer, being close to all ears. Like-
3. 7. 23] BRIHADARANYAICA UPANISHAD
511
wise He vs never thought, never becomes the object
of deliberation by the mind, for people think of those
things that they have seen or heard, and the Internal
Ruler, never being seen or heard, is never thought ;
but He is the Thinker , for His thinking power never
wanes, and He is close to all minds. Similarly He is
never known or definitely grasped like colour etc., or
like pleasure and so forth ; but He Himself is the
Knower, for His intelligence never fails, and He is
close to the intellect. Now the statements, 'Whom
the earth does not know/ and ‘Whom no being
knows/ may mean that the individual selves (the
earth etc.) that are controlled are different from the
Internal Ruler who controls. To remove this pre-
sumption of difference the text goes on to say : There
is no other witness but Him , this Internal Ruler ;
similarly, no other hearer but Him, no other thinker
but Him, and no other knower but Him. He, except
whom there is no other witness, hearer, thinker and
knower, who is never seen but is the Witness, who
is never heard but is the Hearer, who is never thought
but is the Thinker, who is never known but is the
Knower, who is immortal, devoid of all relative
attributes, and is the distributor of the fruits of
everybody’s actions — is the Internal Ruler, your own
immortal self. Everything else but Him , this
Ishwara or Atman, is mortal. Thereupon Udddlaka,
the son of Aruna, kept silent.
SECTION VIII
Now Brahman, which is devoid of hunger etc.,
unconditioned, immediate and direct, and is within
all, has to be described. Hence the present section.
3TST ? nrasjsgnra, awn a nrereft
si nsft ?ft n a srrg ^qn-
suftn wrfajfagihi* ; nmffn n \ [\
i. Then the daughter of Vachaknu said,
‘Revered Brahmanas, I shall ask him two
questions. Should he answer me those, none
of you can ever beat him in describing
Brahman.’ ‘Ask, O Gargi.’
Then the daughter of Vachaknu said. Having
previously been warned by Ycijnavalkya, she had
desisted lest her head should fall off. Now she asks
the permission of the Brahmanas to interrogate him
once more. ' Revered Brahmanas, please listen to
what I say. 7 shall ask him, Yajnavalkya, two more
questions, if you will permit it. Should he answer
me those, none of you can ever possibly beat him in
describing Brahman / Thus addressed, the Brah-
manas gave her the permission: f Ask, O Gargi. 9
*n sfara, g n gE raq q spit «n
aft s nurergft
EiiesnfvRl ^ tw&nt? c^tt
3 . 8 . 3 ] BR1I1ADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 513
STwri aft & jyftfa ; T 3 ®
»TT»fffa || ^ ||
2. She said, ‘I (shall ask) you (two ques-
tions). As a man of Benares or the King of
Videha, scion of a warlike dynasty, might
string his unstrung bow and appear close bv,
carrying in his hand two bamboo-tipped
arrows highly painful to the enemy, even so,
O Yajnavalkya, do I confront you with
two questions. Answer me those.’ ‘Ask,
O Gargi.’
Having received the permission, she said to
Yajnavalkya, 'I shall ask you two questibns.’ The
extra words are to be supplied from the preceding
paragraph. Yajnavalkya was curious to know what
they were. So, in order to indicate that the questions
were hard to answer, she said through an illustra-
tion : As a man of Benares — the inhabitants of
which are famous for their valour — or the King of
Videha, scion of a warlike dynasty, might string his
unstrung bow and appear close by, carrying in his
hand two bamboo-tipped arrows — an arrow might be
without this bamboo-tip ; hence the specification
— highly painful to the enemy, even so, O Yajnaval-
kya, do I confront you with two questions, compar-
able to arrows. Answer me those, if you are a knower
of Brahman. The other said, ( Ask, O Gdrgi /
srr irfara, snarer
33
514
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
[ 3 . 8 . 3
cT ^ STtcT II ^ II
3. She said, ‘By what, O Yajnavalkya,
is that pervaded which is above heaven and
below the earth, which is this heaven and
earth as well as between them, and wdiich they
say was, is and will be?'
She said : By what, O Yajnavalkya, is that
Sutra, already referred to, pervaded, as the element
earth is by w^ater, which is above heaven, or the upper
half of the cosmic shell, and below the earth, or the
lower half of the cosmic shell, which is this heaven
and earth as well as between them, the two halves of
the cosmic’ shell, and which they say, on the authority
of the scriptures, was in the past, is doing its function
at the present moment, and will be continuing in
future, as is inferable from indications — which (Sutra)
is described as all this, in which, in other w r ords, the
whole dualistic universe is unified ?
ftara, q^vsr jttPt %r:, q^rro sfosq?:,
^Tqrjfert 3$, q^fjf ^ WT3W *fq*q-
3TTqjT5t rfrfa q sfcr %% || a ||
4. He said, ‘That, O Gargi, wdiich is
above heaven and below the earth, wdiich is
this heaven and earth as well as between
them, and wdiich they say w^as, is and will be,
is pervaded by the unmanifested ether.’
Yajnavalkya said, 'That, O Gargi, which you
have referred to as being above heaven, etc. — all that
3 . 8 . 6 ]
BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
515
which is called the Sutra — is pervaded by the un -
manifested ether : This manifested universe consist-
ing of the Sutra exists in the unmanifested ether, like
earth in water, in the past, present and future, in its
origin, continuance and dissolution/
*TT stare, qira t sqg ta JT nta
renter:, ^ imffta u ^ a
5. She said, ‘I bow to you, Yajnavalkya,
who have fully answered this question of mine.
Now be ready for the other question/ ‘Ask,
O Gargi/
She again said, ‘I bow to you — these and the
following words indicate the difficult nature of the
question — who have fully answered this question of
mine. The reason why it is difficult to answer is that
the Sutra itself is inscrutable to ordinary people and
difficult to explain ; how much more so, then, is
that which pervades it ! Therefore I bow to you.
Now be ready, hold yourself steady, for the other
question / Yajnavalkya said, ‘Ask, O Gargi /
*n itare,
#rreT:, sn^n'ifasn 1 %, g jppsi
^fgpiznsitreregta, re srtta it ^ n j*/
6. She said, ‘By what, O Yajnavalkya,
is that pervaded which is above heaven and
below the earth, which is this heaven and
earth as well as between them, and which they
say was, is and will be ? ’
516
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 3 . 8 . 6
All this has been explained. The question and
the answer are repeated in this and the next para-
graph in order to emphasise the truth already stated
by Y&jnavalkya. Nothing new is introduced.
mf*T f^r:,
S^rPCT 53
srrainfi 33 sr^tri 3 sftcf itfir 5
^53T*Fun srtcrar n a ii y/'
7. He said, ‘That, O Gargi, which is
above heaven and below the earth, which is
this heaven and earth as well as between them,
and which they say was, is and will be, is
pervaded by the nnmanifested ether.’ ‘By
what is the nnmanifested ether pervaded?’
Yajnavalkya repeated Gargi’s question as it was,
and emphasised what he had already stated by say-
ing, *By the unmanifested ether / Gargi said, f By
what is the unmanifested ether pervaded ?* She con-
sidered the question unanswerable, for the unmani-
fested ether itself, being beyond time past, present
and future, was difficult to explain ; much more so
was the Immutable (Brahman) by which the unmani-
fested ether was pervaded ; hence It could not be
explained. Now, if Yajnavalkya did not explain It
for this reason, he would lay himself open to the
charge of what is called in the system of logic ‘non-
comprehension’ ; if, on the other hand, he tried to
explain t It, notwithstanding the fact that It was a
thing that could not be explained, he would be guilty
of what is called ‘a contradiction’ ; for the attempt to
3 , 8 . 8 ] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISJFfAD
517
explain what cannot be explained is such a contradic-
tion.
sr 035 »nf»T snsnirT
•., 5 T fira*T,
8. He said : O Gargi, tlie knowers of
Brahman say, this Immutable (Brahman) is
that. It is neither gross nor minute, neither
short nor long, neither redness not moisture,
neither shadow nor darkness, neither air nor
ether, unattached, neither savour nor odour,
withoht eyes or ears, without the vocal organ
or mind, non-luminous, without the vital
force or mouth, not a measure, and without
interior or exterior. It does not eat anything,
nor is It eaten by anybody.
With a view to evading both the charges,
Yajnavalkya said : 0 Gargi , the knowers of Brah-
man say, this is that about which you have asked,
‘By what is the unmanifested ether pervaded?*
What is it ? The Immutable, that is, which does
not decay or change. By referring to the opinion
of the knowers of Brahman, he evades both the
charges by suggesting that he will say nothing objec-
tionable, nor that he has failed to comprehend the
question. When he thus answered her question,
G&rgi must have rejoined, ‘Tell me, what is that
518
BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [ 3 . 8 . 8
Immutable which the knowers of Brahman speak
of?’ Thus addressed, Yajnavalkya said: It is not
gross, that is, is other than gross. Then It must be
minute ? No, nor minute. Theii is It short ?
Neither short. Then It must be long? No, nor
long. By this fourfold negation of size all the
characteristics of a substance are denied of It ; in
other words, this Immutable is not a substance. Is
It then redness, which is a quality ? No, It is differ-
ent from that too — neither redness ; redness is a
quality of fire. Is It then the moisture of water ?
No, nor moisture. Is It then a shadow, being al-
together indescribable? No, It is different from that
too — neither shadow. Is It then darkness? No,
nor darkness. Let It then be air. No, neither air.
May It then be the ether? No, nor ether. Is It
then sticky like lac? No, It is unattached. Is It
then savour? Neither savour. Let It then be
odour. No, nor odour. Has It then eyes? No,
It is without eyes, for It has not that instrument of
vision ; as the Mantra says, ‘He sees without eyes’
(Shw. III. 19). Similarly It is without ears, as the
Shruti puts it: ‘He hears without ears’ (Ibid.).
Let It then have the vocal organ. No, It is with-
out the vocal organ. Similarly It is without the mind.
Likewise It is n on-luminous, for It has no lustre like
that of fire etc. It is without the vital force ; the
vital force in the body is denied of It. Has It then
a mouth or opening ? No, It is without a mouth.
Not a measure : It does not measure anything. Is
It then porous? No, It is without interior. Then
maybe It has an exterior? No, It has no exterioi.
3 . 8 . 9 ]
BR1HADARANYAKA UPANJSHAD
519
Is it then an eater? No, Jt does not eat anything.
Then is It anybody’s food ? No, nor is It eaten by
anybody. In other words, It is devoid of all attri-
butes, for It is one only without a second ; so what
is there that can be specified, and through what ?
g-T mf*T
fsTjaft fags:, sr swrefa srfa
fa^r fags:, qs^s st
SRITSfa STf»T fa^ST 5fsf TTTCTT
5HSS: HSrgTT ?fa fa^STfasgfar 5 SST=S ST 3T^S
STfs sn^irsfST *rei: 5%s«r: qsf-
?fas:, sfatefrssn:, st st s fasmg ? s?fs st
st^s surras rnfa ?^sr srsrtaffa,
S5WTS ^ST:, ^sf fasd^FSTS^T: II * II
g. Under the mighty rule of this Immu-
table, O Gargi, the sun and moon are held in
their positions ; under the mighty rule of this
Immutable, O Gargi, heaven and earth main-
tain their positions ; under the mighty rule
of this Immutable, O Gargi, moments,
Muhurtas, 1 days and nights, fortnights,
months, seasons and years are held in their
respective places ; under the mighty rule of
this Immutable, O Gargi, some rivers flow
eastward from the White Mountains, others
flowing westward continue in that direction,
1 Equivalent to about 48 minutes.
520
BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [3. 8. 9
and still others keep to their respective
courses ; under the mighty rule of this Immu-
table, O Gargi, men praise those that give,
the gods depend on the sacrificer, and the
Manes on independent offerings (Darvihoma ). 1
The vShruti, by' attempting to negate various
attributes of the Immutable, has indicated Its ex-
istence. Yet, anticipating the popular misconception
about It, it adduces an inferential evidence in favour
of Its existence : Under the mighty rule of this
Immutable, the Brahman that has been known to be
within all. immediate and direct — the self that is
devoid of all attributes such as hunger, O Gargi, the
sun and moon, which are like two lamps giving light
to all beings at day and night respectively, are held
in their positions, as a kingdom remains unbroken
and orderly under the mighty rule of a king.
They must have been created for the purpose of
giving light by a Universal Ruler who knows of
what use they will be to all, for they serve the
common good of all beings by giving light, as we see
in the case of an ordinary lamp . 2 Therefore That
exists which has made the sun and moon and com-
pels them, although they are powerful and inde-
pendent, to rise and set, increase and decrease, ac-
cording to fixed place, time and causes . 3 Thus there
1 A class of offerings which have neither any subsidiary
parts nor are themselves subsidiary to any sacrifice.
2 As ^rom a lamp we infer the existence of its maker,
so from the sun and moon we infer the existence of an
omniscient God, ‘the Immutable. *
3 Adrishfa or the resultant of the past work of beings.
3. 8. 9] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
521
exists their mighty Ruler, the Immutable, as the
lamp has its maker and regulator. Under the mighty
rule of this Immutable , O Gdrgi, heaven and earth
maintain their positions , although they are by nature
subject to disruption because of having parts, inclined
to fall owing to their weight, liable to separate,
being a compound, and are independent, being each
presided over by a conscious deity identifying itself
with it. It is this Immutable which is like a bound-
ary wall that preserves the distinctions among things
— keeps all things within their limits ; hence the sun
and moon do not transgress the mighty rule of this
Immutable. Therefore Its existence is proved. The
unfailing index of this is the fact that heaven and
earth obey a fixed order ; this would be impossible
were there not a conscious, transcendent Ruler. Wit-
ness the Mantra, "Who has made heaven powerful
and the earth firm’ (Ri. X. cxxi. 5).
Under the mighty rule of this Immutable , O
Gdrgi t moments, Muhurtas, etc. — all these divisions of
time, which count all things past, present and future,
that are subject to birth — are held in their respective
places. As in life an accountant appointed by his
master carefully calculates all items of income and
expenditure, so are these divisions of time controlled
by the Immutable. Similarly some rivers, such as
the Ganges, flow eastward from the White Mount-
ains, the Himalayas, for instance, and they, notwith-
standing their power to do otherwise, 1 keep to their
1 Since the deities identifying themselves with these
are supposed to be conscious.
522
BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
[ 3 . 8 . 9
original courses ; this too indicates a Ruler. Others
flowing westward , such as the Indus, continue in
that direction, and stilt others keep to their respect-
ive courses, do not deviate from the courses they
have taken ; this is another indication.
Moreover even learned men praise those that
give gold etc., even at a personal sacrifice. Now the
conjunction and disjunction of gifts, their donors and
their recipients are seen to take place before our eyes
in this very life. But the subsequent recombination
(of the donor and the fruit of his gift) is a matter
we do not directly see. Still people praise the chari-
table, for they observe on other evidence that those
that give are rewarded. This would be impossible
were there no Ruler who, knowing the various results
of actions, brought about this union of the giver and
the reward, for the act of giving obviously perishes
then and there. Therefore there must be someone
who connects the givers with the results of their
charity.
Objection : Cannot the unforeseen result of an
action (Apurva) serve this purpose?
Reply : No, for there is nothing to prove its
existence.
Objection : Does not the same objection apply
to the Ruler too ?
Reply : No, for it is an established fact that the
Shrutis seek to posit His existence. We have already
(p. 53) said that the Shrutis aim at delineating
the Reality. Besides, the implication on which the
theory of the unforeseen result depends is out of
place, for the fruition can be otherwise accounted
a. 8. 9]
BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAI)
5 23
for. We observe that the reward of service is obtain-
ed from the person served ; and as service is an act,
and sacrifices, gifts, offering oblations in the fire,
etc., are just as much acts, it stands to reason that
the reward for their performance should come from
those in whose honour they are performed, viz., God
and so forth. Since we can explain the obtaining of
rewards without sacrificing the inherent power of
acts directly observed, it is improper to sacrifice that
power. Moreover it involves a superfluity of assump-
tions. We must assume either God or the unfore-
seen result. Now we observe that it is the very
nature of an act of service that it is rewarded by the
person served, not bv the unforeseen result ; and no
one has ever actually experienced this result. So (in
your view) we have to assume that the unforeseen
result, which nobody has ever observed, exists ; that
it has the power to confer rewards ; and that having
this power, it does in addition confer them. On our
side, however, we have to assume only the existence
of the person served, viz., God, but not His power to
confer rewards nor His exercise of it, for we actually
observe that the person served rewards the service.
The grounds for inferring His existence have already
been shown in the text : 'Heaven and earth main-
tain their positions,’ etc. (this text). Likewise the
gods , although they are so powerful, depend on the
sacrifice r for their livelihood — for such means of
subsistence as the porridge and cakes. That in spite
of their ability to live otherwise, they have*taken to
this humiliating course of life, is possible only be-
cause of the mighty rule of the Lord. Similarly the
524
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
[ 3 . 8 . 9
Manes depend for their subsistence on independent
offerings. The rest is to be explained as before.
STT
5TT JTinrfq'f^TCT^RrcnfH
5? f^r: ; 3TO n »TTf»T faf^TTCOT-
sr mgrir: n il
io. He, O Gargi, who in this world,
without knowing this Immutable, offers obla-
tions in the fire, performs sacrifices and under-
goes austerities even for many thousand years,
finds all such acts but perishable ; he, O
Gargi, who departs from this world without
knowing this Immutable, is miserable. But
he, O Gargi, who departs from this world after
knowing this Immutable, is a knower of
Brahman.
Here is another reason for the existence of the
Immutable, because until one knows It one is bound
to suffer transmigration ; and That must exist, the
knowledge of which puts a stop to it, for this is but
logical.
Objection : May not rites alone do this?
Reply : No, he, O Gargi, who in this world,
without knoiving this Immutable, offers oblations in
the fire, performs sacrifices and undergoes austerities
even for many thousand years, finds all such acts but
perishable . After he has enjoyed their fruits, those
rites are inevitably exhausted. Besides, that mighty
3. 8. 11] BR1 RADAR ANY AKA UPANISHAD
525
Ruler, the Immutable, exists, by knowing which
misery is at an end — transmigration is stopped, and
not knowing which the ritualist is miserable — enjoys
only the results of his rites and moves in an endless
series of births and deaths. So the text says: He,
O Gargi, who departs from< this world without know-
ing this Immutable, is miserable, like a slave etc#
bought for a price. But he, O Gargi, who departs
from this world after knowing this Immutable, is a
knower of Brahman.
It may be contended that like the heat and
light of fire, the rulership of the Immutable is natural
to the insentient Pradhana (of the Sankhyas, and not
to Brahman). The reply is being given:
asr sraer srhi,
STrasj II U II V
ii. This Immutable, O Gargi, is never
seen but is the Witness ; It is never heard, but
is the Hearer; It is never thought, but is
the Thinker; It is never kiiown, but is the
Knower. There is no other witness but This,
no other hearer but This, no other thinker
but This, no other knower but This. By this
Immutable, O Gargi, is the (unmanifested)
ether pervaded.
This Immutable, O Gdrgi, is never seen by any-
body, not being a sense-object, but is Itself the
526
BRIHADARANY AKA UPANISHAD 13 . 8 . 11
Witness, being vision itself. Likewise It is never
heard, not being an object of hearing, but is Itself
the Hearer, being hearing itself. So also It is never
thought, not being an object of the mind, but is
“Itself the Thinker, being thought itself. Similarly
It is never known, not being an object of the intellect,
tbut is Itself the Knower, being intelligence itself.
Further, there is no other witness but This, the
Immutable ; this Immutable Itself is everywhere the
Witness, the subject of vision. Similarly there is no
other hearer but This ; this Immutable Itself is every-
where the Hearer. There is no other thinker but
This ; this Immutable Itself is everywhere the
Thinker, thinking through all minds. There is no
other knower but This ; this Immutable Itself is the
Knower, knowing through all intellects — neither the
insentient Pradhana, nor anything else. By this
Immutable, 0 Gargi, is the (unmanifested) ether per-
vaded. . The Brahman which is immediate and direct,
which is the self within all and is beyond the relative
attributes of hunger etc., and by which the (unmani-
fested) ether is pervaded, is the extreme limit, the
ultimate goal, the Supreme Brahman, the Truth of
truth (the elements) beginning with earth and ending
with the ether.
otswu. ||
12. She said, ‘Revered Brahmanas, you
3. 8. 12] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
S27
should consider yourselves fortunate if you
can get off from him through salutations.
Never shall any of you beat him in describing
Brahman.’ Then the daughter of Vachaknu
kept silent.
She said : ' Revered Brahmanas, listen to my
words. You should consider yourselves fortunate if
you can get off from him , Yajnavalkya, through
salutations , by saluting him. You must never even
think of defeating him, much less do it. Why ?
Because never shall any of you beat him, Yajna-
valkya, in describing Brahman . I already said that
if he answered my two questions, none could beat
him. I still have the conviction that in describing
Brahman he has no match.’ Then the daughter of
Vachaknu kept silent.
In the section dealing with the Internal Ruler
it has been said, 'Whom the earth does not know,’
and 'Whom no being knows.’ Now what is the
similarity as well as difference among the Internal
Ruler whom they do not know, those who do not
know Him, and the conscious Principle which,
being the subject of the activities of vision etc. of
all things, is spoken of as the Immutable ?
Regarding this 1 some say : The Internal Ruler
is the slightly agitated state of the ocean of Supreme
Brahman, the Immutable, which never changes its
nature. The individual self, which does not know
*
1 Some one-sided views within the Vedaiitic school itself
are being presented.
528
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [3. 8. 12
that Internal Ruler, is the extremely agitated state
of that ocean. They also imagine five 1 other states
of Brahman ; again they maintain that Brahman has*
eight 2 states. Others say that these are but the
powers of the Immutable, which, according to them,
has unlimited powers. Still others maintain that
these are modifications of the Immutable.
Now the states and powers are inadmissible, for
the Shrutis declare the Immutable to be beyond the
relative attributes of hunger etc. Certainly one and
the same thing cannot simultaneously be both beyond
hunger etc. and subject to those conditions. The
same argument applies to the Immutable having
powers, while the flaws in attributing modifications
and parts to the Immutable have already been pointed
out in the second chapter (p. 300). Hence all these
views are wrong.
What then is the difference among them ? It is
all due to the limiting adjuncts, we reply ; intrinsic-
ally there is neither difference nor identity among
them, for they are by nature Pure Intelligence,
homogeneous like a lump of salt. Witness the Shruti
texts : ‘Without prior or posterior, without interior
or exterior* (II. v. 19), and ‘This self is Brahman’
(Ibid.) ; also in the Mundaka Upanishad : ‘It in-
cludes the interior and exterior, and is unborn* (II. i.
2). Therefore the unconditioned Self, being beyond
speech and mind, undifferentiated and one, is desig-
nated as ‘Not this, not this* ; when It has the limiting
1 Viz.* the individual, species, Vir&j, Sutra and destiny.
2 Viz., the above five together with the Undifferentiated,
the Witness and the individual self.
3. 8. 12] BR1HADARANY AKA UPANISHAD
529
adjuncts of the body and organs, which are character-
ised by ignorance, desire and work, It is called the
transmigrating individual self ; and when the Self
has the limiting adjunct of the power of Maya mani-
festing through eternal and unlimited knowledge, It
is called the Internal Ruler and Ishwara. The same
Self as by nature transcendent, absolute and pure,
is called the Immutable and Supreme Self. Similar-
ly., having the limiting adjuncts of the bodies and
organs of Hiranyagarbha, the Undifferentiated., the
gods, the species, the individual, men, animals,
spirits, etc., the Self assumes those particular names
and forms. Thus have we explained this through
the Shruti passage : Tt moves, and does not move'
(Ish. 5). In this light alone such texts as, ‘This is
your self (that is within all)’ (III. iv. 1-2 ; III. v. 1),
‘He is the inner Self of all beings’ (Mu II. i. 4),
‘This (self) being hidden in all beings,’ etc. (RLa. III.
12), ‘Thou art That’ (Chh. VI. viii. 7), ‘I Myself am
all this* (Chh. VII. xxv. 1), ‘All this is but the Self*
(Chh. VII. xxv. 2), and ‘There is no other witness
but Him’ (III. vii. 23), do not prove contradictory ;
but in any other view they cannot be harmonised.
Therefore they differ only because of their limiting
adjuncts, but not otherwise, for all the Upanishads
conclude : ‘One only without a second* (Chh. VI.
ii. 1).
34
SECTION IX
The Brahman that is within all has been indicated
by a description of how, in the series of things
beginning with 'earth ranged according to their
density, each preceding item is pervaded by the
succeeding one. And that Brahman has been de-
scribed as the Ruler of the diverse forms of the Sutra
(such as earth) which are comprised in the differen-
tiated universe, because in it the indications of this
relation are so much more patent. The present
section, named after Shlkalya, is introduced in order
to convey the immediacy and directness of that
Brahman by a reference to the contraction and ex-
pansion of the different gods who are ruled by It.
qq |?f f^v*: ^TT^r: qsreg . qiq-
; e |?i&r fafw t?3-
^q*q qt q S7?TT, qq?3 sft q
; sftfofa Sfaiq, ;
qqt?5D?iF7TrT ; qrmra q>cqq qnr-
q^fq ; qfefa ; arrtirfH fNrrq, q^q
5 qq sfa , srtfrrfq grtqrq,
^TT qi gqsqfr fq ; ; qtfqfa ffaiq, qjcqq
Sfsn sfa ; qtfqfq
*sqq ^qt ^ sftfrfgf stqiq,
% qq^q qt q Jam, qqs(q qt q
*35^1* || * ||
3. 9 . 1 ] BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
531
i. Then Vidagdha, the son of Shakala,
asked him, ‘How many gods are there,
Yajnavalkya ?’ Yajnavalkya decided it
through this (group of Mantras known as)
Nivid (saying), ‘As many as are indicated in
the Nivid of the Visliwadevas — three hundred
and three, and three thousand and three.’
‘Very well,’ said Shakalya, ‘how many gods
are there, Yajnavalkya?’‘Thirty-three.’‘Very
well,’ said the other, ‘how many gods are
there, Yajnavalkya?’ ‘Six.’ ‘Very well,’
said Shakalya, ‘how many gods are there,
Yajnavalkya?’ ‘Three.’ ‘Very well,’ said
the other, ‘how many gods are there, Yajna-
valkya?’ ‘Two.’ ‘Very well,’ said Shakalya,
‘how many gods are there, Yajnavalkya?’
‘One and a half.’ ‘Very well,’ said the other,
‘how many gods are there, Yajnavalkya?’
‘One.’ ‘Very well,’ said Shakalya, ‘which
are those three hundred and three and three
thousand and three?’
Then Vidagdha, the son of Shakala, asked him,
' How many gods are there, Yajnavalkya ?’ Ydjna-
valkya decided the number asked for by SMkalya
through this Nivid that is just going to be mentioned.
'As many gods as are indicated in the Nivid of the
eulogistic hymn on the Vishwadevas." The Nivid
is a group of verses giving the number of the gods,
which are recited in the eulogistic hymn on the
Vishwadevas. ‘There are as many gods as are men-
532
BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [3. 0. I
tiomed in that Nivid.* Which is that Nivid? The
words of that Nivid are quoted : ' Three hundred
and three gods, and again three thousand and three
gods. So many gods are there.* ' Very well/ said
Shdkalya, ‘you know their intermediate number
correctly.* He next asks the smaller number of these
very gods, ' How many gods are there , Yajnavalkya V
(Yajnavalkya answers one by one:) Thirty-three,
six, three, two, one and a half, and one. After asking
the larger and the smaller number of the gods, he
now asks about their identity, ‘Which are those three
hundred and three, and three thousand and three ?*
H
^ sTsmfei
ii R ii
2 . Yajnavalkya said, ‘These are but the
manifestations of them, but there are only
thirty-three gods.’ ‘Which are those thirty-
three ?’ ‘The eight Vasus, the eleven Rudras
and the twelve Adityas — these are thirty-one,
and Indra and Prajapati make up the thirty-
three.’
Ydjnavalkya said, ( These, the three hundred and
three etc., are but the manifestations of them, the
thirty-three gods. But really there are only thirty -
three gods/ 4 Which are those thirty -three-?* The
reply iscbeing given : 4 The eight Vasus, the eleven
Rudras and the twelve Adityas — these arc thirty-one
and Indra and Prajdpati make up the thirty-three/
3 . 9 . 4 ]
BR1HADARANY AKA UPANISHAD
533
(fa ; sfasft *5*
swl^asr saRjJim sigmfo?
^ &£ faafafa cFJTTsesr ?fa n ^ n
3. ‘Which, are the Vasus?’ ‘Fire, the
■earth, the air, the sky, the sun, heaven, the
moon and the stars — these are the Vasus, for
in these all this is placed ; therefore they are
■called Vasus.’
•
f Which are the Vasus ? } The identity of each
.group of the gods is being asked. f Fire, the earth /
etc. — from fire up to' the stars are the Vasus. Trans-
forming themselves into the bodies and organs of all
beings, which serve as the support for their work and
its fruition, as also into their dwelling-places, these
gods help every being to live, and they themselves
live too. Because they help others to live, therefore
they are called Vasus.
tfa ; (ifa 3^ srrwr., ;
asngjcr (fa 11 a 11
4. ‘Which are the Rudras?’ ‘The ten
organs in the human body, with the mind as
the eleventh. When they depart from this
mortal body,- they make (one’s relatives) weep.
Because they then make them weep, therefore
they are called Rudras.’
f Which are the Rudras V f The ten sensory amd
motor organs in the human body, with the mind as
534
BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [ 3 . 9 . 4
the eleventh. When they, these organs, depart from
this mortal body, after a person has completely ex-
perienced the results of his past work, they make his
relatives weep . Because they then make them weep
(Rud), therefore they are called Rudras /
SEBT srrf^IT ffa 5 SRPfl # m*TT:
qfir! ^r^rf^TT || mi
5. ‘Which are the Adityas?* ‘The
twelve months (are parts) of a year ; these are
the Adityas, for they go taking all this with
them. Because they go taking all this with
them, therefore they are called Adityas/
' Which are the Adityas ?’ ‘It is well-known
that the twelve months are parts of a year ; these
are the Adityas. How? For as they rotate they go
taking a person’s longevity and the results of his
work with them. Because they go taking (Ada) all
this with them, therefore they are called Adityas /
* ff?:, S K ffTq fa fo f g ;
*rar: Mdmfdfifa ; ssm: sRfacgftfa ; swfirfrfa •
m •, 11 ^ 11
6. ‘Which is Indra, and which is Praja-
pati ? ’ ‘The cloud is Indra, and the sacrifice
is Prajapati.’ ‘Which is the cloud ?’ ‘Thun-
der (strength).’ ‘Which is the sacrifice?’
< Animals.’
3 . 9 . 8 ] BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD 535
‘Which is Indra, and which is Prajdpati V f The>
cloud is Indra, and the sacrifice is Prajdpati / ‘Which
is the cloud V ‘Thunder/ that is, vigour or strength,
which kills others ; that is Indra, for it is his func-
tion. ‘Which is the sacrifice V ‘Animals/ for they
are the means of a sacrifice. Because a sacrifice has
no form of its own and depends on its means, the
animals, therefore they are called sacrifice.
sjbsr, ^ ^ ^ ii ® »
7. ‘Which are the six (gods)?’ ‘Fire,
the earth, the air, the sky, the sun and heaven
— these are the six. Because all those (gods)
are (comprised in) these six.’
‘Which are the six (gods) ?’ The same gods, fire
and the rest, that are classed as Vasus, leaving out
the moon and the stars, become six in number.
'Because all those (thirty-three and other gods) that
have been spoken of are these six.’ In other words,
the Vasus and others that have been enumerated as
details are included in these six.
^ ^rr ; w wft aten, 03
^ ffa ; ^ 5 ^
rfa IK II
8. ‘Which are the three gods?’ ‘These
three worlds, because in these all those gods
are comprised.’ ‘Which are the two gods?’
58®
BRIHAD'ARAKTYAKA UP AN I SHAD [3. 9. 8
‘'Matter anti the vital’ force. 1 ’ ‘Which are the
one and a half?’ ‘'This (air) that blows.
‘Which are the three gods ?’ ‘These three
worlds / The earth and fire taken together make
one god, the sky and air make another, and heaven
and the sun make 'a third ; these are the three gods.
Because in these three gods all the gods are com-
prised , therefore these are the three gods ; this is
the view of a certain section of, philologists. ‘Which
are the two gods ?' ‘Matter and the vital force * —
these are the two gods ; that is to say, these include
all the gods that have been enumerated. ‘Which are
the one and a half ?* ‘ This air that blows .
cT^:, qy«iN> ' syhr wf, am
?f?T ;
stfsr ; saw w m, n * n
9. ‘Regarding this some say, “Since the
air blows as one substance, how can it be one
and a half?’’ It is one and a half because
through its presence all this attains surpass-
ing glory.’ ‘Which is the one god?’ ‘The
vital force (Hiranyagarbha) ; it is Brahman,
which is called Tyat (that).’
‘Regarding this some say in objection, "Since
the air blows as one substance, how can it be one and
a half ?” It is one and a half because through its
presence all this attains surpassing glory / y Which
is the one god ?’ ‘The vital force ; it, the vital
>4
1 The vital force in its cosmic aspect, or Hiranyagarbha,
is meant. So also in the next paragraph.
3. 9. 11] BRITIA DA R ANY AKA UP ANIS AT AD
597
force, is Brahman,, for it is vast,, being* the sum total
of all the gods. And this* Brahman is called Tyai
(that)/ which is a word denoting remoteness. Thus
the gods are one as well as many. The infinite
number of gods are included in the limited number
mentioned in the Nivid ; these again are included
in the successive (smaller) numbers, thirty-three and
so on, up to the one vital force. It is this one vital
force which expands into all those numbers up to the
infinite. Thus the vital force alone is one and infinite
as well as possessed of the intermediate numbers.
That this one god, vital force-, has different names>
forms, activities, attributes and powers is due to in-
dividual differences of qualification . 1
Now eight other forms of that same vital force
which is a form of Brahman are being set forth :
^fqs^q qCTq e reqt , witaft fen, qt
q rf ^ q itf^=TT
| qT ai? q qoqtf
qiTTcq ; q qqp? 3^ ^ qqt, qqq W+o** t
q*q qn 5 aiJjqfirfq fNrra 11 *0 11
10. ‘He who knows that being whose
abode is the earth, whose instrument of vision
is fire,, whose light is the Manas,, and who is
the ultimate resort of the entire body and
organs, knows truly, O Yajnavalkya.’ ‘I
1 People perform different kinds of meditation and rites,
and 1 acquire different grades* of mental culture, thereby
attaining, identity with fire etc., which are all parts of the
cosmic vital force. Hence the above differences.
538
BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [3. 9. 10
know that being of whom you speak — who is
the ultimate resort of the entire body and
organs. It is the being who is identified with
the body. Go on, Shakalya.' ‘Who is his
deity (cause)?' ‘Nectar (chyle),' said "he.
He who knows that being or god whose abode is
the earth, whose instrument of vision is fire : Xoka*
here means that through which one sees ; that is to
say, who sees through fire. Whose light is the Manas,
who considers the pros and cons of a thing through
the Manas. In other words, this god has the earth for
his body and fire for his eye, weighs over things
through the mind, identifies himself with the earth
and is possessed of a body and organs. And who is
the ultimate resort of the entire body and organs.
The idea is this : As the skin, flesh and blood
derived from the mother, which stand for the field,
he is the ultimate resort of the bone, marrow and
sperm derived from the father, which stand for the
seed, as well as of the organs. He who knows it as
such knows truly, is a scholar. You do not know
him, Yajnavalkya, but still pose as a scholar. This
is his idea.
Tf knowing him confers scholarship, I know that
being of whom you speak — who is the ultimate re-
sort of the entire body and organs / Then Sh&kalya
must have said, Tf you know that being, tell me
what his description is.* ‘Listen what it te,* says
the other,, f it is the being who is identified with the
body, which preponderates in earthy elements, that
is, who is represented by the three constituents of
3 . 9 . 10 ] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANJSHAD
539
the body, or sheaths, as they are called, derived from
the mother — that is the god about whom you have
asked, Sh&kalya. But there is something more to
be said about him by way of description ; go on,
Shdkalya, that is, ask about it.’ Thus challenged,
he was furious like a goaded elephant and said, 'Who
is his deity, the deity of that god identified with the
body?* That from which something emanates has
been spoken of in this section as the deity of that
thing. * Nectar / said he. ‘Nectar’ here means chyle,
or the watery essence of the food that is eaten, which
produces the blood derived from the mother ; for
it generates the blood stored in a woman, and this
blood produces the skin, flesh and blood of the foetus,
which are the support of its bone, marrow, etc. The
common portions of the next seven paragraphs need
no explanation.
«wnc«i 5 q srwtc: 3^sr: «w:,
jfTR^r 5 && tsfefe 5 few *fe \\ \\ \\
ii. ‘He who knows that being whose
abode is lust, whose instrument of vision is
the intellect, whose light is the Manas, and
who is the ultimate resort of the entire body
and organs, knows truly, O Yajnavalkya. ’ ‘I
know that being of whom you speak — -who is
the ultimate resort of the entire body and
540
BRIHADARANYAKA U BANISH AD 13. 9. 11
organs. It is the being who is identified
with Inst. Go on, Shakalya.’ ‘Who is his
deity?’ ‘Women,’ said he.
'Whose abode is lust / or the desire for sex
pleasures ; that is, who has lust as his body. 'Whose
instrument of vision is the intellect / that is, who sees
through the intellect. 'It is the being identified!
with lust / and the same in the body as well. ( Who
is his deity V 'Women/ said he, for men’s desire is
inflamed through them.
P ira te nsft s q ifo:,,
*TOTc«I 5 q 5
5FT fNTO |) ^ ||
12. ‘He who knows that being whose
abode is colours, whose instrument of vision
is* the eye, whose light rs th% Manas and who
is the ultimate resort of the entire body and
organs, knows truly, O Yajnavalkya..’ T
know that being of whom you speak — who is
the ultimate resort of the entire body and
organs. It is the being who is in the sun.
Go on, Shakalya/ ‘Who- is his deity?’
‘Truth (the eye),’ said he.
'Whose abode is colours/ white, black, etc. 'It
is the heiqg who* is in the sun/ for he is the particular
effect of all colours .’ 1 r Who is' his deity V 'Truth/
1 Being produced by them for their own manifestation.
3. 9. 14] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
541
said he. ‘Truth* here means the eye, for the sun
among the gods is the product 1 of the eye in one’s
body.
arrow qq srNf sHri, t Risq frfe ,
q q 3 ^ gr t
gqranrereqq j qr q s^r gre fe r rara
qgronr q qqw wbi: qrfqwro: j^q: gr
qq:, qfq sirogq 5 qgq «ri ^r%fq ;
^Nrro h \\ II
13. ‘He who knows that "being whose
abode is the ether, whose instrument of
vision is the ear, whose light is the Manas,
and who is the ultimate resort of the entire
body and organs, knows truly, O Yajna-
valkya.’ ‘I know that being of whom you
speak — who is the ultimate resort of the
entire body and organs. It is the being who
is identified with the ear and with the time
of hearing. Go on, Shakalva.’ ‘Who is his
deity?’ ‘The quarters,’ said he.
‘Whose abode\ is the ether/ etc. ‘It is the being
who is identified with the ear and particularly with
the time of hearing/ ‘Who is his deity ?* ‘The
quarters/ said he, for (the Slirutis -say) it is from the
quarters that this particular being within the body
is produced.
to qq qgqrcrarc^, gsjq qf
1 So says the Shruti (e.g. Ri. X. xc. 13).
542
BR1HADARANYAKA UPANlSHAD [3. 9. 14
# pq fwneM' i iw T W i:
piwiiEKa i qrr ^ ?f pq gq^qictrc: *m-
qqf *mrc«l 5 q qqTq graww : pq: *T qq:, qfq
SnTSfirjA) ; q*q «RT ; Jfcgftfa ^IqTO II l* ||
14. ‘He who knows that being whose
abode is darkness, whose instrument of vision
is the intellect, whose light is the Manas, and
who is the ultimate resort of the entire body
and organs, knows truly, O Yajnavalkya.’
‘I know that being of whom you speak — who
is the ultimate resort of the entire body and
organs. It is the being who is identified with
shadow (ignorance). Go on, Shakalya.’ ‘Who
is his deity?’ ‘Death,’ said he.
' Whose abode is darkness J such as that of the
night. In the body 'it is the being identified with
shadow, or ignorance.’ 'Who is his deity ?’ 'Death/
said he. Among the gods this is his cause (according
to the Shrutis).
qqpifa, iMr,
# cf pq fqqTc^^qTcJH: q^FP m^, ^ t
^14|l¥q<-*q | qT 315 cT S^q qTT-
qqf qHicvj 5 q pq: qq:, qpr
J fnq^q . ^fq ; gterra 11 ^ n
15- 'He who knows that being whose
abode is (particular) colours, whose instrument
of vision* is the eye, whose light is the Manas,
and who is the ultimate resort of the entire
3. 9. 16] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
543
body and organs, knows truty, O Yajna-
valkya.’ ‘I know that being of whom you
speak-— -who is the ultimate resort of the entire
body and organs. It is the being who is in a
looking-glass. Go on, Shakalya.’ ‘Who is
his deity?’ ‘The vital force,’ said he.
' Whose abode is colours / In paragraph 12
colours in general were referred to ; but here partic-
ular colours, those that reflect, are meant. The
particular abode of the god who dwells in these
colours is reflecting objects such as a looking-glass.
'Who is his deity ?’ ' The vital force/ said he. That
being called reflection emanates from the vital force. 1
gr rare Ere q q i srr q*r-
» ______ __ __ __
3n>r qJTTc^ ; qq:, ;
q>T 5 WIT ftqra II II
16. ‘He who knows that being whose
abode is water, whose instrument of vision is
the intellect, whose light is the Manas, and
who is the ultimate resort of the entire body
and organs, knows truly, O Yajnavalkya.’
‘I know that being of whom you speak — who
is the ultimate resort of the entire body and
organs. It is the being who is in water. Go
C
i Being dependent on friction etc., which require
strength.
544
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 3 . 9 . 16
on, Shakalya.’ ‘Who is his deity?’ ‘Varuna
(rain).,’ said he.
‘Whose abode is water ’ in general. He specially
lives in the water of reservoirs, wells, tanks, etc. f Who
is his deity ?’ ‘Varuna (rain).’ Because the water (of
reservoirs etc.) tha-t is (drunk and) assimilated in the
body comes from rain, which is the cause of the
water of reservoirs etc.
4r cf p*? qprp mqi , t
i err *£ a pa ^a^TTcw: w-
apui • *r pww: pa: 4 =r era:, afa
iOTawa ; ; mnafafrda 11 n
17. ‘He who knows .that being whose
abode is the seed, whose instrument of vision
is the intellect, whose light is the Manas, and
who is the ultimate resort of the entire body
and organs, knows truly, O Yajnavalkya.’
‘I know that being -of whom you speak — who
is the ultimate resort of the entire body and
organs. It is the being who is identified with
the son. Go on, Shakalya.’ ‘Who is his
deity?’ ‘Prajapati ;(ithe father),’ said he.
' Whose abode is the seed / ‘It is the being
identified with the son / who is the particular abode
of the being Who inhabits the seed. '‘The being iden-
tified with the son* here means the bones, marrow and
seed derived from the father. ‘Who is his deity ? r
3 . 9 . 19 ] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
545
‘ Prajdpati / said he . 'Prajapati* here means the
father, for from him the son is born.
stara ear snfron
^TTTSRWUWthdl^ || ||
x8. ‘Shakalya,’ said Yajnavalkya, ‘have
these Vedic scholars made you their instru-
ment for burning charcoals?’
For the sake of meditation one and the same vital
force has been inculcated in eight different forms ;
each god having three divisions, viz., abode (general
form), being (special manifestation) and deity (cause),
is but a form of the vital force. The text now goes
on to show how the same vital force, divided into
five forms according to the different quarters, is
unified in the mind. When Shakalya kept silent,
Yajnavalkya addressed him, throwing a spell over
him, as it were, like that of an evil spirit. r Shdkalya /
said he, f have these Vedic scholars made you their
instrument for burning charcoals such as fire-tongs ?*
The particle ‘swid’ denotes deliberation. He means,
'They must have done so, but you do not perceive
that you are being consumed by me.’
as* fe g Tftfe ; ^
qgfagr ffa ; affsfr si^t: a u ll
19. ‘Yajnavalkya,’ said Shakalya, ‘is it
because you know Brahman that you have
thus flouted these Vedic scholars of Kuru and
Panchala?’ ‘I know the quarters with their
35
546 BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISIiAD [ 3 . 9 . 19
deities and supports.’ ‘If you know the
quarters with their deities and supports —
‘ Yajnavalkya / said Shakalya , ‘is it because you
know Brahman that you have thus flouted these Vedic
scholars of Kuru and Panchala by suggesting that they
themselves were afraid and made me their fire-tongs?’
Yajnavalkya said, ‘This is my knowledge of Brahman
— what is it? — that I know the quarters , that is, the
meditation concerning them ; not the quarters alone,
but with their presiding deities and supports as well.’
The other said, ‘If you know the quarters with their
deities and supports, that is, if you say you know the
meditation with its results —
H ;
gig: afafgaftfa ; gg<TT f%
s qrfir qtrcrfa 5 wfw egg
^targ, ft ofRTfg, sfg
wfrr gfgftjgrfg ¥R5gtfg ; ag^gcraTgrg^Ri iroii
20. ‘What deity are you identified with
in the east?’ ‘With the deity, sun.’ ‘On
what does the sun rest?’ ‘On the eye.’ ‘On
what does the eye rest?’ ‘On colours, for
one sees colours with the eye.’ ‘On what do
colours rest?’ ‘On the heart (mind),’ said
Yajnavalkya, ‘for one knows colours through
the heart ; it is on the heart that colours rest.’
‘It is just so, Yajnavalkya.’
‘What deity are you identified with in the east ?
3. 9. 20] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
547
— what deity have you who are identified with the
quarters?* Yajnavalkya, realising his own heart or
mind — divided in five forms according to the quarters
and identified with the quarters — and through it the
whole universe, as his own self, stood facing the east,
with the conviction that he was the quarters. We
gather this from his claim that he knew the quarters
with their supports. Shakalya according to Yajna-
valkya’s statement asks, ‘What deity are you identi-
fied with in this quarter ?* Everywhere in the Vedas
it is stated that in this very life one becomes identified
with and attains the god one meditates upon. It will
be stated further on, ‘Being a god, he attains the
gods* (IV. i. 2). The idea is this: You are identi-
fied with the quarters ; who is your presiding deity
in the east ? — as the east, .which deity are you united
with? Yajnavalkya said : ‘With the deity , sun — the
sun is my deity in the east.’ This is in substantia-
tion of his claim that he knew the quarters with their
•deities ; the other part, that relating to their supports,
remains to be dealt with ; so the text goes on : r On
what does the sun rest ‘On the eye / for the
Vedic Mantras and their explanatory portions — for
instance, ‘From the eye the sun was produced*
(Ri. X. xc. 13, etc.) and ‘From the eye came the
sun* (Ai. I. 4) — say that the sun is produced from the
eye that is in the body ; and an effect rests on its
■cause. ‘ On what does the eye rest V ‘On colours /
The eye, itself a modification of colours, is directed
by them so as to perceive them ; it is produced by
those very colours that direct it to perceive them.
'Therefore the eye, together with the sun, and the
548
BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD 13 . 9 . 20
east, and all that lie in the east, rests on colours ; the
entire east, together with the eye, is but colours. ‘On
what do these colours rest f J ‘On the heart/ said
Yajnavalkya/ Colours are made by the heart ; it is
the heart that is transformed into them, ‘for every-
body knows colours through the heart/ ‘Heart* here
refers to the intellect and Manas taken together (that
is, mind). Therefore ‘it is on the heart that colours
rest/ The idea is that since one remembers colours,
lying as impressions, through the heart, therefore
colours rest on the heart. ‘It is just so, Y&jnavalkyaS
si to sfa ; m ; w:
srfsfsa ffa *, ^HnTPTTfrr% ; uf?r-
; SRrraTfrrfe,
wgraf h sr sngT
g^*T fgSTgT STRICT,
#3T STgT gfefg a T 5
II R\ II
2i. ‘What deity are you identified with
in the south?’ ‘With the deity, Yama (the
god of justice).’ ‘On what does Yama rest?’
‘On the sacrifice.’ ‘On what does the sacri-
fice rest?’ ‘On the remuneration (of the
priests).’ ‘On what does the remuneration
rest?’ ‘On faith, because whenever, a man
has faith, he gives remuneration to the priests ;
therefore it is on faith that the remuneration
rests.’ ‘On what does faith rest?’ ‘On the
3 . 9 . 22 ] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
549
heart/ said Yajnavalkva, ‘for one knows faith
through the heart ; therefore it is on the heart
that faith rests.’ ‘It is just so, Yajnavalkya/
‘What deity arc you identified with in the south ? f
etc., should be explained as before: Who is your
deity in the south? ‘With the deity , Yama — I am
the south, and Yama is my deity.’ ‘On what does
Yama rest V ‘On the sacrifice / Yama together
with the south rests on the sacrifice, his cause. How
•can Yama be the effect of a sacrifice ? This is being
answered : The priests officiate in the sacrifice, and
the sacrificer redeems it from them by means of the
remuneration, and wins the south together with
Yama through that sacrifice. Hence Yama, being
its effect, rests on the sacrifice, together with the
south. ‘On 7vhat does the sacrifice rest V ‘On the
remuneration (of the priests).* The sacrifice is re-
deemed through the remuneration ; therefore it is
the effect of the remuneration. ‘On what does the
remuneration rest t* ‘On faith / 'Faith* means
liberality — faith in the Vedas coupled with devotion.
How does the remuneration rest on faith ? ‘Because
whenever a man has faith , he gives remuneration to
the priests ; if he has no faith, he does not give it.
Therefore it is on faith that the remuneration rests /
x On what does faith rest V ‘On the heart / said
Ydjnavalkya, 'faith is a modification of the heart, for
one knows faith through the heart , and a modification
rests on that which has it ; therefore it is on the heart
that faith rests / ( It is just so, Ydjnavalkya/
550
BR1HADARANYAKA UPA'NISHAD [3. 9. 22
?! ^PT: ; srfefq ;
srf?T%5fT ; ^rT^frfe ; %Bl qferfgafwfa *
gqq *f?r, q^Fmqfq qfosti srcwng:, s^n% ^s*,
g^qTf^ q ftfifa ffq, g^ 0q^q: qfqfSffwfrfq .
22. ‘What deity are you identified with
in the west?’ ‘With the deity, Vanina (the
god of rain)/ ‘On what does Varan a rest?’
‘On water/ ‘On what does water rest?’ ‘On
the seed/ ‘On what does the seed rest?’ ‘On
the heart. Therefore do they say of a new-
born child who closely resembles (his father),,
that he has sprung from (his father’s) heart,
as it were — that he has been made out of (his
father’s) heart, as it were. Therefore it is
on the heart that the seed rests.’ ‘It is just
so, Yajnavalkya.’
‘What dciiy are you identified with in the west ?*
‘With the deity, Varuna — -Vanina is my presiding
deity in that direction/ ‘On what does Varuna,
rest ?* ‘On water/ for Varuna is the effect of water.
Witness the Shrutis, ‘Faith is water* (Tai. S. I. vi.
8. 1), and ‘From faith he created Varuna/ ‘On what
does water rest ? 9 ‘On the seed/ for the Shruti
says, ‘From the seed was water created* (cf. Ai. I.
i. 4). ‘On what does the seed rest ? J ‘On the heart/
because tlje seed is the effect of the heart. Lust is
a modification of the heart, for the seed issues from
the heart of a man under its influence. ‘Therefore
3. 9. 23 J BR1HADARANYAKA UPANJSHAD
551
do they say of a new-born child , who closely resembles
(his* father), that he has sprung from his father’s
heart, as it were, that he has been made out of (his
father’s) heart , as it were, as an ear-ring is made out
of gold. Therefore it is on the heart that the seed
rests / { Jt is just so, Yajnavalkya /
STctf ^TT STctf
sfafgafaRl 5 ffe
wr sfafsrf
II R* ||
23. ‘What deity are you identified with in
the north?’ ‘With the deity, Soma (the moon
and the creeper).’ ‘On what does Soma rest ?’
‘On initiation.’ ‘On what does initiation
rest?’ ‘On truth. Therefore do they say to
one initiated, “Speak the truth’’; for it is on
truth that initiation rests.’ ‘On what does
truth rest?’ ‘On the heart,’ said Yajnavalkya,
‘for one knows truth through the heart ;
therefore it is on the heart that truth rests.’
‘It is just so, Yajnavalkya.’
‘What deity are you identified with in the
north ?’ ' With the deity, Soma.’ ‘Soma’ here means
both moon and creeper. ‘On what does Soma
rest ?’ ‘On initiation for the initiated sacrificer
purchases the Soma creeper, and sacrificing with that
552 BRIHADARANYAKA VP AN I SHAD [3. 9. 23
creeper along with meditation, attains (his identity
with) * the north, presided over by the moon and
named after her. ‘On what does initiation rest V
‘On truth / How? Because initiation rests on truth,
‘ therefore do they say to one initiated : Speak the
truth / lest the cause being spoilt, the effect also be
spoilt. Therefore ‘it is on truth that initiation rests.’
‘On what does truth rest f J ‘On the heart / said
Ydjnavalkya , ‘for one knows truth through the
heart ; therefore it is on the heart that truth rests /
‘It is just so, Ydjnavalkya *
firfa a a
24. ‘What deity are you identified with
in the fixed direction (above) ?’ ‘With the
deity, fire.’ ‘On what does fire rest?’ ‘On
speech.’ ‘On what does speech rest?’ ‘On
the heart.’ ‘On what does the heart rest?’
‘What deity are you identified with in the fixed
direction ?’ Being the same to all who dwell round
Mount Meru , 1 the direction overhead is called the
fixed direction. ‘With the deity, fire / for overhead
there is more light, and fire is luminous. ‘On what
1 A fabulous mountain round which the sun* and the
planets are said to revolve. The directions east, west, etc.,
vary according to the relative position of the dwellers
around this mountain, the east being that in which they
see the sun rise. But the direction overhead is obviously
constant to all of them.
3. 9. 25] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
553
does fire rest ?* 'On speech / 'On what does speech
rest V 'On the heart / Now Yajnavalkya, through
his heart extending in all directions, has realised all
the quarters as his own self ; the quarters, with
their deities and supports, are a part and parcel of
him, and he is identified with name, colour (form)
and action. Of these, colour together with the east
is one with his heart. Mechanical rites, the act of
procreation and rites combined with meditation, rep-
resenting the south, west and north respectively,
together with their results and presiding deities, are
likewise unified in his heart. And all names together
with the overhead direction also reach his heart
through speech. The whole universe is comprised in
these : colour (form), action and name ; and all these
are but (modifications of) the heart. Therefore
Shakalya asks about the heart, w r hich is the embodi-
ment of everything : 'On what does the heart rest ?*
Sisk t***i:,
Ferrer, grgsf sprifh
II V* II
25. ‘You ghost,’ 1 said Yajnavalkya,
‘when you think the heart is elsewhere than
in us, (then the body is dead). Should it be
elsewhere than in us, dogs would eat this body,
or birds tear it to pieces.’ 2
' You ghost/ said Yajnavalkya , addressing him by
a different name, 'when you think the heart, or the
1 Laterally, that which vanishes at day-time.
2 Literally, churn it.
554
BR1HADARANY AKA UPANISHAD [3. 9. 25
mind, which is the self 1 of the body, is elsewhere than
in us, (then the body is dead). Should it he else-
where than in us, dogs would then eat this body, or
birds tear it to pieces. Therefore the heart rests on
me, that is, the body’ — this is the idea. The body
also, as consisting- of name, colour (form) and action,
rests on the heart.
^TcHT ^ ; STPJT
5 srror: srfofas ; sptr ;
^f^rreTlIR: UfaferT ff?T ; 5>TR ffo ;
s^r: srfefgcT ; ^r ; qfc na^R : srfM^r
5% ; ?WR H ^c^TcfTT.
qgn*, anrffcff srff sftqt,
arferf jt 5?m%, ?t faarfa i cRRrararrara-
Jrrfff, srcft 3^ JW: ; ST sreiT-
jgWTfcRgJ STr^glTtSraim^, cf <pq
; ?f ilr^sr fqsR?qfsT, qyf ^ f^qfrr^cftfcf I
?f 5 *r ; ?tft ? ^ fqwa, arfq sts*i
26. ‘On what do the body and the heart 2
rest?’ ‘On the Prana.’ ‘On what does the
Prana rest?’ ‘On the Apana.’ ‘On what
does the Apana rest?’ ‘On the Vvana.’ ‘On
what does the Vyana rest?’ ‘On the Udana.’
‘On what does the Udana rest?’ ‘On the
Sam ana.’ This self is That which has been
l
1 In a figurative sense.
2 Literally, you and (your) self.
3. 9. 26] BR1HADARANY AKA UPAN1SHAD
555
described as ‘Not this, not this.’ It is imper-
ceptible, for It is never perceived ; undecaying,
for It never decays ; unattached, for It is never
attached ; unfettered — it never feels pain, and
never suffers injury. ‘These are the eight
abodes, the eight instruments of vision, the
eight deities and the eight beings. I ask you
of that Being who is to be known only from
the Upanishads, who definitely projects those
beings and (again) withdraws them into Him-
self, and who is at the same time transcendent.
If you cannot clearly tell me of Him, your
head shall fall off.’ Shakalva did not know
Him ; his head fell off ; and robbers snatched
away his bones, mistaking them for something
else.
‘You have stated that the body and the heart —
the effect and the instrument — rest on each other. I
therefore ask you : On what do the body and the
heart rest f J 4 On the Prana * : The body and the
mind rest on the force called Frana. 1 ‘On what
does the Prana rest V ( On the Apana * : That force
called the Prana would go out through the mouth and
nostrils, were it not held back by the force called the
Apana. ‘On what does the Apana rest ? J ‘On the
Vy&na* : That force called the Apana would also
depart through the lower orifice as the Prana w^ould
through the mouth and nostrils, were thef not both
1 For the functions of these see commentary on I. v. 3.
556
BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [3. 9. 26
held back by the force called the Vyana, which occu-
pies an intermediate position. ‘On what does the
Vydna rest ?' ‘On the Udana ' : All the three forces
would go out in all directions, were they not fixed,
as to a post, to the Uddna. ‘On what does the Udana
rest ?* ‘On the.Samdna/ for all these forces rest on
the Samana. The idea is this : The body, mind
and the vital forces are interdependent and work
together as an orderly aggregate, dominated by the
purpose of the individual self. Now that transcend-
ent Brahman, which is immediate and direct, by
which all these up to the ether are regulated, on
which they rest, and by which they are pervaded,
has to be described. Hence the text goes on :
This self is That which has been described in the
Madhukanda 1 as ‘Not this, not this * (II. iii. 6). It is
imperceptible, not perceivable. How ? Because It is
beyond the attributes of effects, therefore It is im-
perceptible. Why? For It is never perceived . Only
a differentiated object, which is within the range of
the organs, can be perceived ; but the Self is the
opposite of that. Similarly undecaying . What is
gross and made up of parts decays, as, for instance,
the body ; but the Self is the opposite of that ; hence
It never decays. Likewise unattached . A gross
object, being related to another gross object, is at-
tached to it ; but the Self is the opposite of that ;
hence It is never attached . Similarly unfettered, or
free. Whatever is gross becomes bound ; but It,
being tlie%opposite of that, is free, and for that reason
never feels pain. Hence also It never suffers injury .
1 Consisting of chapters I and II.
3 . 9 . 26 ] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
557
Being beyond perception, decay, attachment, bondage
and attributes characteristic of effects, It never suffers
injury, in other words, is never destroyed.
The Shruti, out of eagerness, has set aside the
order (of the dialogue), stepped out of the story and
described in its own form the Being who is to be
known only from the Upanishads. Then it resumes
the garb of the story and says (through Yajnavalkya) :
These are the eight abodes, described above (in para-
graphs 10 to 17) in the words, r Whose abode is the
earth/ etc. ; the eight instruments of vision, fire etc. ;
the eight deities, referred to in, ‘ “Nectar (chyle )/ *
said he/ etc. (par. 10) ; the eight beings, mentioned
in, 'The being who is identified with the body 1 (Ibid.),
etc. I ask you, who are proud of your learning, of
that Being devoid of hunger etc. ivho is to be known
only from the Upanishads, and through no other
means of knowledge, who definitely projects those
beings, those identified with the body etc., divided
into eight groups of four items 1 each, so as to consti-
tute the universe as it is, and (again) withdraws them
through the east etc. into Himself, that is, into the
heart (mind), and who is at the same time transcend-
ent, beyond the attributes of the limiting adjuncts,
such as identification with the heart. If you cannot
clearly tell me of Him, your head shall fall off, said
Yajnavalkya. Shakalya did not know that Being
who is to be known only from the ' Upanishads ; his
head fell off . The story is ended. 'Shakalya did not
know Him/ etc., is the narration of the Skruti.
1 The abode, the instrument of vision, the light and
the deity.
558
BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [3. 9. 26
Further, robbers snatched away even his bones
as they were being carried to his home by his dis-
ciples for the funeral rites — why ? — mistaking them
for something else, viz., treasure under transport.
A previous anecdote is here referred to. In (Book
XI of the SJiatapatha Brahmana entitled) the
Ashtadhyayi 1 there occurs a dialogue between Yajna-
valkya and Shakalya with a similar ending. There
Yajnavalkya gave a curse : ‘ “You shall die in an
unholy place at an inauspicious time, and even your
bones shall not reach home.” He died exactly like
that ; and robbers seized his bones too, mistaking
them for something else* (Sh. XI. vi. 3. 11). The
moral of the story is that one should not be disrespect-
ful, but rather obedient to a true knower of Brahman.
That story is here referred to in order to teach conduct
and also to extol the knowledge of Brahman.
How can that Brahman which has been indicated
as ‘Not this, not this’ by the elimination of everything
else, be positively indicated ? In order to answer
this, as also to state the cause of the universe, the
Shruti again resorts to the story. The point of the
story is that one should take away cattle by defeating
Vedic scholars who do not truly know Brahman. In
view of the customary procedure 2 Yajnavalkya said :
sm fNrra, snsmi ^ m
3^3, sir STT JTT ^33cT, zrt sr: rf
\ It treats of rituals and is so named because it consists
of eight chapters.
2 That things belonging to Br&hmanas must not be taken
without their consent.
a. 9. 28. 1] BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
559
sr: gsg n ftfa 5 ^ 5 qTsmr q
31$ ll n
27. Then he said, ‘Revered Brahmanas,
whichsoever amongst you wishes, may ask me
questions, or all of you may. Or I shall ask
questions of whichsoever amongst you wishes,
or ask all of you/ The Brahmanas did not
dare.
Then, after the Brahmanas were silent, he said,
addressing them, r Revered Brahmanas, whichsoever
amongst you wishes to ask me questions, may come
forward and ask me questions, or all of you may . Or
I shall ask questions of whichsoever amongst you
wishes that I should ask him, or ask all of you/ The
Brahmanas, even though thus addressed, did not dare
to give any reply whatsoever.
qsrsg —
qrn tw qq*qfq*qqsr gqqtayrr 11
sstarfq qwfq, qf?: 11 1 11
28. He asked them through these verses :
(1) As is a large tree, so indeed is a man.
(This is) true. His hair is its leaves, his
skin its outer bark.
When the Brahmanas were silent, he asked them
through the following verses : As in the world is a
large tree — the word ‘Vanaspati’ qualifies the word
‘tree* — so indeed is a man. This is true. Mis hair is
its leaves : A man’s hair corresponds to the leaves
of a tree. His skin is its outer bark.
560
BRIHADARANY AKA UPAN1SHAD [3. 9. 28. 2
g^ rf^, r?R ScTO II
a^raw°ncg^ ^ isiT%T5?n^ii r ii
(2) It is from his skin that blood flows,
and from the bark sap. Therefore when a
man is wounded, blood flows, as sap from a
tree that is injured.
It is from a man’s skin that blood flows , and it
is from the bark of a large tree that sap exudes.
Since a man and a large tree thus resemble each other
in all respects, therefore when a man is wounded ,
blood flows , as sap from a tree that is injured or cut.
gfenmgq iw»<ifui, f^rre sng, n
sreq te r s g rcg ft ssrr f^n n * u
(3) His flesh is its inner bark, and his
nerves its innermost layer of bark ; it is tough.
His bones lie under, as does its wood ; his
marrow is comparable to its pith.
Similarly a man’s flesh is the inner bark of a
large tree. A man’s nerves are the inner?nost layer
of bark in a tree, that layer which is under the inner
bark and attached to the wood ; it is tough, or strong,
like the nerves. A man’s bones lie under the nerves ;
similarly under the innermost bark is the wood . A
man’s marrow is comparable to the pith of a large
tree. There is no difference between the two ; they
resemble each other.
dsfer q f gwwKTO gg; if
fgnn n a n
(4) If a tree, after it is felled, springs again
3 . 9 . 28 . 6 ] BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
561
from its root in a newer form, from what root
does man spring forth after he is cut off by
death ?
If a tree, after it is felled, springs again from its
root in a newer form, etc. We have seen that pre-
vious to this feature there was complete similarity
between a tree and a man. We notice, however, this
peculiarity in a tree that it springs again after it is
felled, while we do not see that a man cut off by
death springs forth again. But there must be a
renascence from some source. Therefore I ask you,
from what root does man spring forth after he is cut
off by death ? In other words, whence is a dead man
reborn ?
^l*U^ *5T ir fsitssren Wt&:
II
II Ml
(5) Do not say, ‘From the seed,’ (for) it is
produced in a living man. A tree springs
also from the seed ; after it is dead it
certainly springs again (from the seed as well) .
If you say that he springs from the seed, do not
say (so), you should not say so. Why ? Because the
seed is produced in a living man, not in a dead man.
A tree springs also from the seed, not from the trunk
only. (The particle ‘iva’ is expletive). A large tree,
after it is dead, certainly springs again from the seed
as well.
St ST jsroi# H ,
JTc& faH f eff TT ?«FH: TO^|r4£!&|c4Hln(d H^U
36
562
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [3. 9. 28. 6
(6) If a tree is pulled out with its root, it
no more sprouts. From what root does a
mortal spring forth after he is cut off by
death ?
If a tree is pulled out with its root or its seed,
it no ?nore sprouts. Therefore I ask you about the
root of the whole universe : From what root does
a mortal spring forth after he is cut off by death ?
3TTcT qsr ; II
fiRTFTITR^ m,
|| $ li II
sivgmi H ^ \\
(7) If you think he is ever born, I say, no,
he is again born. Now who should again
bring him forth ? — Knowledge, Bliss, Brah-
man, the supreme goal of the distributor
of wealth as well as of him who has realised
Brahman and lives in It.
If you think he is ever born, and there is nothing*
more to ask about him — a question about birth is
possible only of one who is yet to be born, and not of
one who is already born ; but a man is ever born, so
no question about his birth is admissible — I say, no.
What happens then ? After death he is again born
of a certainty, for otherwise you would be assuming
that a man reaps the fruits of actions that he has
never done, and fails to obtain those of actions he has
actually done. So I ask you, who should again bring
him , the dead man, forth ?
3. 9. 28. 7] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
563
The Brahmanas did not know that : that root
of the universe out of which the dead man is again
born was unknown to them. Hence, being the best
of the knowers of Brahman, Yajnavalkya defeated
the Brahmanas and took away the cows. The
story is finished. The Shruti in its own form now
tells us of the root of the universe, about which
Yajnavalkya asked the Brahmanas, and gives the
words that directfy describe Brahman : Knowledge,
or Pure Intelligence, which is also Bliss, not smitten
with pain like sense-perception, but serene, benefi-
cent, matchless, spontaneous, ever content and homo-
geneous. What is that ? Brahman, which has both
the characteristics (Knowledge and Bliss). The
supreme goal, or the bestower of the fruits of actions,
of the distributor of wealth, that is, of the sacrificer
who engages in rites — the word ‘Rati* (wealth) has
a possessive force — as well as the supreme goal of
him who has realised Brahman and lives in It, having
renounced ail desires and doing no (ritualistic) work.
Here is something to discuss. The word ‘bliss’
is generally known to denote pleasure ; and here we
find the word ‘bliss’ used as an epithet of Brahman
in the expression ‘Bliss, Brahman.’ Elsewhere in the
Shrutis too we have : ‘He knew bliss to be Brahman*
(Tai. III. 6), ‘Knowing the bliss of Brahman* (Tai. II.
fi), ‘If this Supreme Self were not bliss’ (Tai. II. 7).
‘That which is infinite is bliss* (Chh. VII. xxiii. 1),
‘This is its supreme bliss,* etc. (IV. iii. 32). The word
‘bliss* is also commonly known to refer t<f pleasure
that is perceived. The use of the word ‘bliss* in
the above quotations would be justified if the bliss
664
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 3 . 9 . 28 . 7
of Brahlnan be an object of perception. It may be
urged : On the authority of the Shrutis, Brahman
bliss that is perceived ; so what is there to discuss ?
The reply is : Not so, for we notice Shruti texts
that are contradictory. It is true that in the Shrutis
the word ‘bliss*’ refers to Brahman ; but there is alsa
the negation of perception when there is oneness.
For example : ‘But when to the knower of Brah-
man everything has become the f Self, then what
should one see and through what, . . what should
one know and through what?’ (II. vi. 14 ; IV. v. 15),
‘Whete one sees nothing else, hears nothing else,
knows nothing else, that is the infinite* (Chh. VII.
xxiv. 1), ‘Being fully embraced by the Supreme
Self, he knows neither anything outside of himself,*
etc. (IV. iii. 21). Therefore on account of the con-
tradictory Shruti texts a discussion is necessary.
Hence we should discuss in order to ascertain the
trile meaning of the Vedic passages. Moreover there
is a divergence of opinion among the advocates of
liberation. The Sankhya and Vaisheshika schools,
for instance, while believing in liberation, hold that
there is no joy to be perceived in it, thus differing
from others, who maintain that there is surpassing
joy in it, known only to the person concerned.
Now what is the correct position ?
Prinia facie view : There is joy to be perceived
in liberation, for the Shnltis mention bliss etc. with
regard to it, as in the following passages : ‘Laughing
(or eating), playing and enjoying* (Chh. VIII. xii.
3), ‘If he desires to attain the world of the Manes,
(by his mere wish they appear)* (Chh. VIII. ii. 1)*
3. 9. 28 . 7 ] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
565
'‘That which knows things in a general and particular
way* (Mu. I. i. 9 and II. ii. 7), ‘Enjoys all desires,’
etc. (Tai. II. v. 1).
Objection : But is not perception impossible
when there is oneness, since the different factors of
an action are then absent ? Every action depends
on a number of factors, and perception too is an
action.
Tentative answer : The objection does not hold.
On the authority of the Shrutis we must admit that
there is perception of the bliss of Brahman. We
have already said that such Shruti texts as, ‘Knowl-
edge, Bliss/ etc., would be meaningless if the bliss
itself were incapable of being perceived.
Objection : But even a scriptural text cannot
make fire cold or water hot, for these texts are merely
informative. They cannot tell us that in some other
country fire is cold, or that in some inaccessible
country water is hot.
Tentative answer : Not so, for we observe bliss
and knowledge in the individual self. Texts such
as, ‘Knowledge, Bliss/ etc., do not convey a meaning
that clashes with perception and other means of
knowledge, as, for instance, the sentence, ‘Fire is
cold/ does. On the contrary, we feel their agree-
ment with them. One directly knows the self to be
blissful, as when one feels, ‘I am happy/ So the
agreement in question with perception etc. is quite
clear. Therefore Brahman, which is Miss, being
knowledge as well, knows Itself. Thus would the
Shruti texts cited above, viz., ‘Laughing (or eating)*
566
BR1HADARANY AKA VPAN1SHAD [3. 9. 28. 7
playing, enjoying/ etc., which prove the existence
of bliss in the Self, be found to be consistent.
Adwaitin’s reply : You are wrong, for there can
be no knowledge in the absence of the body and
organs. Absolute separation from the body is libera-
tion, and when, there is no body there can be no>
organs, for they will have no support. Hence too
there will be no knowledge, there being no body and
organs. If knowledge could arise even in the absence
of the body and organs, there would be no necessity
for anyone to possess them. Moreover (if Brahman
as Knowledge Absolute cognises the bliss in libera-
tion), it will contradict the oneness of Brahman . 1
Objection : Suppose we say that the Supreme
Brahman, being eternal Knowledge, ever knows It-
self as Bliss- Absolute?
Reply : No, (this has just been answered).
Even the man under bondage, when freed from rela-
tive existence, would regain his real nature (Brah-
man). (So the same argument would apply to him
also’.) Like a quantity of water thrown into a tank,
he does not retain a separate existence so as to know
the blissful Brahman. Hence, to say that the liber-
ated man knows the blissful Self is meaningless. If,
on the other hand, the liberated man, being different
from Brahman, knows the bliss of Brahman and the
individual self as, ‘I am the Bliss Absolute/ then
the oneness of Brahman is contradicted, which would
be against all Shrutis ; and there is no third alterna-
tive. Moreover, if Brahman ever knows Its own
bliss, it is superfluous to distinguish between aware-
1 By making It both subject and object.
3. 9. 28. 7] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
567
ness and unawareness. If It is constantly aware of
this bliss, then that is Its nature ; hence there is no
sense in maintaining that It cognises Its own bliss.
Such a view would be tenable if ever there was the
possibility of Its not knowing that bliss, as, for in-
stance, a man knows himself and another (by an act
of will). There is certainly no sense in distinguish-
ing between a state of awareness and one of unaware-
ness in the case of a man whose mind is uninter-
ruptedly absorbed in an arrow, for instance. If, on
the other hand, Brahman or the Self is supposed to
be knowing Its bliss interruptedly, then in the inter-
vals when It does not cognise Itself, It must know
something else 1 ; and the Self would become change-
ful, which would make It non-permanent. Hence
the text, ‘Knowledge, Bliss/ etc., must be interpreted
as setting forth the nature of Brahman, and not
signifying that the bliss of the Self is cognised.
Objection : If this bliss is not cognised, such
Shruti texts as ‘Laughing (or eating), playing/ etc.,
will be contradicted.
Reply : No, for such texts only describe actions
happening normally, because of the identity of the
liberated man with all . 2 That is to say, since the
liberated man is identified with all, therefore wherever
we observe the laughing etc. — in the Yogins or
in the gods — the Shrutis merely describe them as
1 And thereby become finite and mortal (Chh. VII. xxiv,
1), or else become unconscious.
2 ‘All* meaning infinite existence, in which sense it is
used in many places in this book. See, for instance, I. iv.
9-10, and commentary pp. 144, 160.
568
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [3, 9. 28. 7
they are with regard to the liberated man, simply
on account of his identity with ail. It is but
a eulogy on liberation, which is synonymous with
such identity.
Objection : If those passages merely describe
what happens normally, then there is the chance of
the liberated man’s being affected by misery also. If,
in other words, he partakes of the laughing etc.,
happening normally to the Yogins and others, he may
also suffer the misery that (plants and other) station-
ary existences experience.
Reply : No,, all these objections have already
(p. 306) been refuted on the ground that the distinc-
tions of happiness, misery, etc., are but superimposed
by the delusion created by contact with the limiting
adjuncts, the body and organs, which are the products
of name and form. We have also stated the respective
spheres of the apparently contradictory Shruti texts
(p. 393). Hence all passages containing the word
‘bliss* should be interpreted like the sentence, ‘This
is its supreme bliss* (IV. iii. 32).
CHAPTER IV
SECTION I
The relation of this and the next section to the
preceding one is as follows : There a Being, to be
known only from the Upanishads, has been described
as ‘Not this, not this,* who projects eight beings,
viz., the one identified with the body and the rest,
and withdraws them into the heart (mind), again
projects them in five forms according to the quarters
and withdraws them into the heart, then unifies both
heart and body, which depend on each other, in the
Sutra, the being identified with the universe, also
called Samana, with its fivefold function such as the
Prana, and who transcends the being identified with
the universe with his three states — the body, heart
and Sutra. The same Being has been described both
directly and as the material cause of the universe in
the words, ‘Knowledge, Bliss/ etc. (III. ix. 28. 7).
Some more instruction about Him has to be given
by a reference to the deities, that of speech and the
rest. Hence this and the next section are being
introduced in order to furnish another means of
doing this. The story is meant to show the custom
to be observed on such occasions.
i snwft 5 ansrfewT, ^ s q u re rere
a r re arra i ?f stare,
^3*, sr* i qrenfefa £sre \m
570
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [4. 1. 1
i; Om. Janaka, Emperor of Videha,
took his seat, when there came Yajnavalkya.
Janaka said to him, ‘Yajnavalkya, what has
brought you here? To have some animals,
or to hear some subtle questions asked?'
‘Both, O Emperor,' said Yajnavalkya.
Janaka, Emperor of Videha, took his seat, that
is, gave audience to those who wanted to see him,
when there came Yajnavalkya, either to have or
maintain something of his own, or, in view of the
Emperor’s desire for knowledge, to do him a favour.
Offering his guest adequate worship, Janaka said to
him, f Yajnavalkya , what has brought you here ? Is
it to have some more animals, or to hear some subtle
questions asked — to hear from me questions on
subtle subjects till decisions are arrived at?’ ' Both
animals and questions, O Emperor / The word
‘Emperor’ indicates that Janaka must have performed
the Vajapeya sacrifice. ‘Emperor’ also means one
who rules over territories through his vassals, who
obey his commands ; or the word may mean, ‘Ruler
of all India.’
Sjfofo, stgffa • mffiT f vtR p T R re Nt h.
WX T S»sffa,
% . sraara If ? a
itsqatf^fa ■ ; <3 a at
qu re reaq l arftar aa a n , srransr: srfagT, a?tc3ra-
Srafta 5 an- swar ? ai*ta
4. 1. 2] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 571
SNro | qTSTT t 5H*%^
grm fqtrr sqfqq^:
qifsraq^, sw q M-t.y-cj 5 ?Nr:, *nqffin ^
^cTTft qrehr q^riq?^ • qpt srerrc q^JT
a® ; &T STH^lfa, gqTtT^f ^Tr^ERTrffrT, ^T
ijcar ^TR^fgr, n qq figr^agqret i
a^ratfer ^Nrrq i e ^tara
qraq^qq:, fq^rc ? n q gfiM irii
2. ‘Let me hear what anyone of your
teachers may have told you.’ ‘Jitwan, the
sou of Shilina, has told me that the organ of
speech (fire) 1 is Brahman.’ ‘As one who has
a mother, father and teacher should say, so
has the son of Shilina said this — that the
organ of speech is Brahman, for what can a
person have who cannot speak? But did he
tell you about its abode (body) and support?’
‘No, he did not.’ ‘This Brahman is only
one-footed, O Emperor.’ ‘Then you tell us,
Yajnavalkya.’ ‘The organ of speech is its
abode, and the ether (Undifferentiated) its
support. It should be meditated upon as
intelligence.’ ‘What is intelligence, Yajna-
valkya?’ ‘The organ of speech itself, O
Emperor,’ said Yajnavalkya, ‘through the
1 Throughout this and the next six paragraphs, the organ
means its presiding deity, except when it is the abode.
572
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [4. 1. 2
organ of speech, O Emperor, a friend is
known; the Rig-Veda, Yajur-Veda, Sama-
Veda, Atharvangirasa, (Vedic) history , 1 my-
thology, arts, Upanishads, verses, aphorisms,
elucidations and explanations, (the effects of)
sacrifices, (of) offering oblations in the fire
and (of) giving food and drink, this world
and the next, and all beings are known
through the organ of speech alone, O
Emperor. The organ of speech, O Emperor,
is the Supreme Brahman. The organ of
speech never leaves him who knowing thus
meditates upon it, all beings eagerly come to
him, and being a god, he attains the gods.*
‘I give you a thousand cows with a bull like
an elephant,’ said Emperor Janaka. Y&jna-
valkya replied, ‘My father was of opinion
that one should not accept (wealth) from a
disciple without fully instructing him.’
‘But let me hear what anyone of your teachers
— for you serve several of them — may have told you *
The other said, ‘My teacher Jitwan, the son of
Shilma, has told me that the organ of speech, that is,
its presiding deity (fire), is Brahman / Y£jnavalkya
said, 'As one who has a mother adequately to instruct
him in his childhood, a father to instruct him after
that, and a teacher to instruct him from His initia-
tion with^the holy thread up to the completion of
1 For ati explanation of these terms see commentary on
II. iv. 10.
4 . 1 . 2 ] BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
573
his studies, should say to his disciple, so has Jitwan,
the son of Shilina, said this — that the organ of speech
is Brahman. One who has had the advantage of
these three sources of purification is a teacher in the
primary sense of the word, and never fails to be all
authority himself. For what can a person have who
cannot speak t — he achieves nothing either in this
life or in the next.
f But did he tell you about the abode and support
of that Brahman ?* ‘Abode* means the body ; ‘sup-
port* is permanent resort. Jitwan said, * No , he did
not / Yajnavalkya said, ‘If so, this Brahman is only
one-footed, and lacking the remaining three feet, it
will not produce any effect, even though meditated
upon.* * Then you tell us, Yajnavalkya, for you know
(about them).* Yajnavalkya said, ' The organ of
speech is its abode , or the body of the deity of the
organ of speech (fire), which is a form of Brahman,
and the ether known as the Undifferentiated its sup -
port at its origin, during its continuance and at its
dissolution. It should be meditated upon as intelli-
gence. The secret name of intelligence is the fourth
quarter of Brahman ; one should meditate upon this
Brahman as intelligence.*
f What is intelligence, Yajnavalkya ? Is intel-
ligence itself meant, or its effect (speech) ? Is it
different from the organ of speech, like the body
support?* ‘No.* ‘What is it then?* f The organ of
speech itself, 0 Emperor / said Ydjnavalkya p ‘is
intelligence : Intelligence is not different from the
organ of speech.* How is it? The reply is being
given : Through the organ df speech, 0 Emperor,
574
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [4. 1. 2
a friend is known , when somebody says, ‘He is our
friend.' Likewise the Rig- Veda etc. Sacrifices mean
the spiritual effects produced by them ; the same
with offering oblations, as well as giving food and
drink. This world, the present life, the next world,
the life to come, and all beings are known through
the organ of speech alone, O Emperor. Therefore
the organ of speech, O Emperor, is the Supreme
Brahman . The organ of speech never leaves him,
the knower of the Brahman described above, who
knowing thus meditates upon it, all beings eagerly
come to him with offerings etc., and being a god in
this very life, he attains the gods, is merged in them
after death. T give you a thousand cows with a
bull like an elephant / said Emperor Janaka, as a
return for the instruction received. Yajnavalkya
replied, f My father was of opinion that one should
not accept wealth from a disciple without fully
instructing or satisfying him. I too hold that view. 1
3 , 5T«n
am # asTfa,
for ^rrfofo ; ^ urea i aaa
SlfoSm? * foasftfofo ; ^5RtfT3[T u.dr^g ifofo ;
sr t sfr afo *mwe>w ; am na ww i H ., anarrcr:
nfoST, ; «kt foam awasa a ?
ana aa qgifgfa fforar, a r w a srerrc aronaT-
tot araVfo, ara fo^gH-a a foRjgr c afo , ^ra am-
sif ’ warfo at fosfofo sm * n?aa srerrc anrrra ;
4. 1. 3] BR1HADARANY AKA UPANISHAD
575
STTlft # <TOT 51§J : STTW^ 5^T%,
^ 4^TT *T f%ST%-
cT^TT^ ; 3R«Kt
• ?T ?r^ra focTT fojjfqa STRg-
fti'Ri a * 11
3. ‘Let me hear whatever anyone may
have told you.’ ‘Udanka, the son of Shulba,
has told me that the vital force (Vayu) is
Brahman.’ ‘As one who has a mother,
father and teacher should say, so has the son
of Shulba said this — that the vital force is
Brahman, for what can a person have who
does not live ? But did he tell you about its
abode (body) and support?’ ‘No, he did
not.’ ‘This Brahman is only one-footed,
O Emperor.’ ‘Then you tell us, Yajnaval-
kya.’ ‘The vital force is its abode, and
the ether (Undifferentiated) its support. It
should be meditated upon as dear.’ ‘What is
dearness, Yajnavalkya?’ ‘The vital force
itself, O Emperor,’ said Yajnavalkya, ‘for
the sake of the vital force, O Emperor, one
performs sacrifices for one for whom they
should not be performed, and accepts gifts
from one from whom they should not be
accepted, and it is for the sake of the vital
force, O Emperor, that one runs the risk of
one’s life in any quarter one maj' go to. The
vital force, O Emperor, is the Supreme
576
BRIHADA RANYAKA UPANISHAD [4. 1. 3
Brahman. The vital force never leaves him
who knowing thus meditates upon it, all
beings eagerly come to him, and being a god,
he attains the gods.’ T give you a thousand
cows with a bull like an elephant/ said
Emperor Jan&ka. Yajnavalkya replied, ‘My
father was of opinion that one should not
accept (wealth) from a disciple without fully
instructing him.’
' Let me hear whatever / etc. ‘Udanka, the son of
Shulba, has told me that the vital force is Brahman /
‘The vital force’ means the deity Vayu, as ‘the organ
of speech’ in the preceding paragraph meant the deity
fire. ' The vital force is its abode , and the ether (Un-
differentiated) its support .’ Its secret name: ‘It
should be meditated upon as dear / f For the sake of
the vital force, O Emperor, one performs sacrifices
for one for whom they should not be performed ,.
such as even an outcast, and even accepts gifts from
one from whom they should not be accepted, for
instance, an Ugra 1 ; and one runs the risk of one’s
life in any quarter infested by robbers etc. that one
may go to . All this is possible because the vital
force is dear: It is for the sake of the vital force,
O Emperor. Therefore the vital force, O Emperor,
is the Supreme Brahman. The vital force never
leaves him/ etc. The rest has been explained.
5
7 N©
1 One born of a Kshatriva father and a Shudra mother r
and generally characterised by cruelty.
4. 1. 4] BRIH AVAR ANY AKA UPAN1SHAD 577
srfa!:, g^g a#fg 5 1 t,j: i icc
3?TTr^, ?HTT 5T3[TWf55RNg^ 5T?ff?r, 3?q^>
f| fqj ; ^stsr'm ^ g re g uw n f sifesTJ^ ? g
fogging 5 qg>qT3T q a cg gifgf g ; ^ g gi - 3J5
g g g g cgg 5 g^grg? r^, sgqnsi: srfggT,
g iq refta -, qn- gsiaT qT gg<»qq ? g^g ggifefa
starg, g^^T g ggri sr
3n% T £ i 3 t fofa , aqgrf% ; g^g mnz qnr
m ; ^ g^^frfe, gqfo^rf »|gT?gfg$ref?g, ^gf
»jrqT % gig< 5 fa, g yg fgsisteigqrc^ ,
*r^g* ^uftfg dqnrg ggqft g^: ; g ^gig qw-
gsqg:, fqar fefFqg g i ggfer g uuu
4. ‘Let me hear whatever anyone may
have told you.’ ‘Barku, the son of Vrishna,
has told me that the eye (sun) is Brahman.’
‘As one who has a mother, father and teacher
should say, so has the son of Vrishna said
this — that the eye is Brahman. For what
can a person have who cannot see? But did
he tell you about its abode and support?*
‘No, he did not.’ ‘This Brahman is only
one-footed, O Emperor.’ ‘Then, you tell
us, Yajnavalkya.’ ‘The eye is its abode, and
the ether (Undifferentiated) its support. It
should be meditated upon as truth.’ ‘What
is truth, Yajnavalkya?’ ‘The eye* itself, O
Emperor,’ said Yajnavalkya, ‘if a person,
37
578
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [4. 1. 4
O Emperor, says to one who has seen with
the eyes, 4 'Have you seen? ,, and one
answers, "Yes, I have,” then it is true.
The eye, O Emperor, is the Supreme Brah-
man. The eye never leaves him who know-
ing thus meditates upon it, all beings eagerly
come to him,, and being a god, he attains the
gods.’ 'I give you a thousand cows with a
bull like an elephant,’ said Emperor Janaka.
Yajnavalkya replied, 'My father was of
opinion that one should not accept (wealth)
from a disciple without fully instructing
him.’
f Let me hear / etc. Barku, the son of Vrishna,
etc. The eye is Brahman : The sun is the presiding
deity of the eye. The secret name is truth. 'Be-
cause what one hears with the ears may be false,
but not what one sees with the eyes, therefore if a
person, 0 Emperor, says to one who has seen with
the eyes, “Have you seen the elephant?” and he
answers, “Yes, I have,” then it is considered true ;
while if another says, "I have heard of it,” it may
not correspond with fact. But what is seen with the
eyes is always true, as it corresponds with fact/
fir'ftcit mrgrra:, srhf t
4 . 1 . 5 ] BRIHA DA R ANY AKA UPANISHAD
579
# Ht stjw wm& R srta&rnrewL srptfTsr:
STfHBT, SR^cT ■ ?KT5f!rmT q URt«W ?
ftsr «r grenfefa fterR, q ra re ft ?ri ^
%f JT^Pd ST^rT 3RRT ft %K ;
%Tt # «fhTH, sN 0 TOT sl§l ;
?sfNf ^RTrefrr ^l^Tfir^Tftr, ^ jjrt
zt q& ;
^TJTtfd ^Ntr 3R^- 4Hft: ; *r ^TR TORT^:,
facfT ftSTF^cT iT Rgftw || q ||
5. ‘Let me hear whatever anyone may
have told you.’ Gardabliivipita, of the line
of Bharadwaja, has told me that the ear (the
quarters) is Brahman.’ ‘As one who has a
mother, father and teacher should say, so has
the descendant of Bharadwaja said this — that
the ear is Brahman, for what can a person
have who cannot hear? But did he tell you
about its abode and support?’ ‘No, he did
not.’ ‘This Brahman is only one-footed, O
Emperor.’ ‘Then you tell us, Yajnavalkya,’
‘The ear is its abode, and the ether (Un-
differentiated) its support. It should be
meditated upon as infinite.’ ‘What is in-
finity, Yajnavalkya?’ ‘The quarters them-
selves, O Emperor,’ said Yajnavalkya, ‘there-
fore, O Emperor, to whatever direction one
may go, one never reaches its end. (Hence)
the quarters are infinite. The quarters, O
580
BR1HADARANY AKA UPAN1SHAD [4. 1. 5
Emperor, are the ear, and the ear, O'
Emperor, is the Supreme Brahman. The
ear never leaves him who, knowing thus,
meditates upon it, all beings eagerly come to
him, and being a god, he attains the gods.’
‘I give you a thousand cows with a bull like
an elephant,’ said Emperor Janaka. Yajna-
valkya replied, ‘My father was of opinion
that one should not accept (wealth) from a.
disciple without fully insructing him.’
‘ Let me hear,’ etc. Gardhabhivipita, of the line
of Bharadwaja, etc. The ear is Brahman : The
quarters are the presiding deities of the ear. 'It
should be meditated upon as infinite.' ‘What is the
infinity of the ear?’ ‘Because the quarters them-
selves are the infinity, therefore, O Emperor, to what-
ever direction, east or north, one may go, one never
reaches its end. Hence the quarters are infinite.
The quarters, 0 Emperor, are the ear. Therefore the-
infinity of the quarters is also that of the ear.’
3TRT55: # 5J§Tf?l 5 *TStTT JRJOTfcpj-
rP-TT t
Kltftl, SHR# % fsi ; % rT^TT-
srfasm ? * ; wnsr
5 # srl’ ; JR
3TT5RTS0: $f?TgT, 3TR?^ , gi R^ ' d l
? JR JR^TT t
4 . 1 . 6 ] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 581
?r^rr srflrcra: gsfr grroffr,
sn^: •, asft # »mr agj . jw ) 1 sr^Tfa,
^rsrfinW ijaTRTfagrcfcr, ajr^T ^srwwlfa, ^
«^r fqSd^MI^I ; 5*c*£WT 5 5T*ftfa
SRSfit 5 *T fNra ^ T ^r^K T:, facTT
fnsnjftrsi ii % it
6. ‘Let me hear whatever anyone may
have told you.’ ‘Satyakama, the son of
Jabala, has told me that the Manas (here, the
moon) is Brahman.’ ‘As one who has a
mother, father and teacher should say, so has
the son of Jabala said this — that the Manas is
Brahman, for what can a person without the
Manas have? But did he tell you about its
abode and support?’ ‘No, he did not.’
'‘This Brahman is only one-footed, O
Emperor.’ ‘Then you tell us, Yajnavalkya.’
■“The Manas is its abode, and the ether (Un-
differentiated) its support. It should be
meditated upon as bliss.’ ‘What is bliss,
Yajnavalkya?’ ‘The Manas itself, O Em-
peror,’ said Yajnavalkya, ‘with the Manas, O
Emperor, a man (fancies and) woos a woman.
A son resembling him is born of her, and he
is the cause of bliss. The Manas, O Em-
peror, is the Supreme Brahman. T^Jie Manas
never leaves him who, knowing thus, medi-
tates upon it, all beings eagerly come to him,
382
BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
[4. 1. 6
and being a god, he attains the gods.’ ‘I give
you a thousand cows with a bull like an
elephant/ said Emperor Janaka. Yajnaval-
kya replied, ‘Mv father was of opinion that
one should not accept (wealth) from a disciple
without fully* instructing him/
‘ Satyakama , the son of Jabdla/ etc. The moon
is the presiding deity of the Manas. The secret name
is bliss. ‘Because the Manas itself is bliss, there-
fore with the Manas a man fancies and woos a
woman.
From that a son resembling him is born
of that woman, and that son is the cause of bliss ;
therefore the Manas, which brings this son into-
being, is bliss.’
fq^rci: cqq q ; q«rT
mq^naq^qT^, qm qqgjPKsqftaqtigqq q
as ft, ft ft? ^nftft ;
qftgl^ ? q foaqtftft ; U3^TT5T qac^ gl Qift :
sfr aft qnw?w ; 3H9RTO:
aftgT, ; art ftmqr anra^r ?
gqqftq wsnftft qfarq, fqq q srarrc giftt
q flWllWWFWjl , t SWTI ^qqf *jqTHt aftgT,
0> STCIT3 Siqffft a^nft aftftqift qqfft ?
fspf q *renq qtq a© 5 qsf gqsr sjsft, eqfa^r
sjprsqftiqKftr, ^ ^cqT %qi q «5ft, q qq fqgft-
; ^q' qqaftft sftro saqqft
4. 1. 7] BRIHADARANYAKA VPANJSHAD 583
^5: 5 fN raqnwgw , firm - fo st « i a iw g fawc
11 <9 n srotf snsjnr^ it
7. ‘Let me hear whatever anyone may
have told you.’ ‘Vidagdha, the son of
Shakala, has told me that the heart (mind,
here, Prajapati) is Brahman.’ ‘As one who
has a mother, father and teacher should say,
so has the son of Shakala said this — that the
heart is Brahman. For what can a person
without the heart have? But did he tell you
about its abode and support?’ ‘No, he did
not.’ ‘This Brahman is only one-footed, O
Emperor.’ ‘Then you tell us, Yajuavalkya.’
‘The heart is its abode, and the ether (Un-
differentiated) its support. It should be
meditated upon as stability.’ ‘What is
stability, Yajuavalkya?’ ‘The heart itself,
O Emperor,’ said Yajnavalkya, ‘the heart, O
Emperor, is the abode of all beings, and the
heart, O Emperor, is the support of all beings ;
on the heart, O Emperor, all beings rest ; the
heart, O Emperor, is the Supreme Brahman.
The heart never leaves him who, knowing
thus, meditates upon it, all beings eagerly
come to him, and being a god, he attains the
gods.’ ‘I give you a thousand cows with a
bull like an elephant,’ said Eniperefr Janaka.
Yajnavalkya replied, ‘My father was of
584
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [4. 1. 7
opinion that one should not accept (wealth)
from a disciple without fully instructing him.’
Vidagdha, the son of Shakcda, etc. The heart is
Brahman . The heart, 0 Emperor, is the abode of
all beings . We have already said in the section
relating to Sh&kalya that all beings consisting of
name, form and action depend on the heart (mind) and
rest on it. 1 ‘Therefore on the heart, 0 Emperor, all
beings rest . Hence it should be meditated upon as
stability / Prajapati (Hiranyagarbha) is the pre-
siding deity of the heart.
1 See commentary on III. ix. 24.
SECTION II
qra rer gy i, ^ m sn^ftfa •, ^ shrra, ?tot t
gr m3 qr qm^ t a ,
^«*dlW^rfm*%: OH l fad l cHlRl ; *& I^TT5R
3TT3m ^hHltdMc* 3^f fii g -s ^ T TW: m
JTfir^r^ftfd ; ms g^j R r ^ zn t srP-^nnwj
sro t ^ss dg^rrfiT ?nr rrfir^wrfd 5 sratg
ffrarftfe ii * ii
i. Janaka, Emperor of Videha, rose from
his lounge and approaching Yajnavalkya said,
‘Salutations to you, Yajnavalkya, please in-
struct me.’ Yajnavalkya replied, ‘As one
wishing to go a long distance, O Emperor,
should secure a chariot or a boat, so have you
fully equipped your mind with so many secret
names (of Brahman). You are likewise re-
spected and wealthy, and you have studied
the Vedas and heard the Upanishads; (but)
where will you go when you are separated
from this body?’ ‘I do not know, sir, where
I shall go.’ ‘Then I will tell you where you
will go. ’ ‘Tell me, sir. ’
*
Janaka, Emperor of Videha, etc. As Yajna-
valkya knew all aspects of Brahman with their attri-
586
BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [4. 2. I
butes, Janaka gave up his pride of teachership, rose
from his lounge, a particular kind of seat, and
approaching Ydjnavalkya, that is, prostrating him-
self at his feet, said, Salutations to you, Ydjnavalkya,
please instruct me/ The word ‘iti* marks the close
of his speech. Ydjnavalkya replied, ‘ As in the world
one wishing to go a long distance should secure a
chariot, if he wants to go by land, or a boat, if he
wants to go by water, so have you fully equipped
your mind with so many secret names (of Brahman)
— by meditating upon Brahman in so many aspects
bearing those names. Not only that, you are likeivise
respected and wealthy, not poor, and you have studied
the Vedas and heard the U panishads from teachers.
Although you are thus endowed with all glories,
you are but in the midst of fear owing to the absence
of Self-knowledge, that is, you are far from achieving
the object of your life, till you realise the Supreme
Brahman. With all this outfit serving as a boat or
chariot, where will you go when you are separated
from this body : What will you attain?’ T do not
know, sir, where I shall go/ ‘If thus you do not
know where you will go to achieve the object of
your life, then I will tell you where you will go/
‘ Tell me, sir, if you are gracious to me.’ ‘Listen.’
tcqra ffifr qytgnihr 5
V* % ^tt: stcq^fg^r: II II
2. This being who is in the right eye is
named Indha. Though he is Indha, he is
4. 2. 3] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
587
indirectly called lndra, for the gods have a
fondness, as it were, for indirect names, and
hate to be called directly.
This being who is specially located in the right
eye — the being in the sun who has been described
before in the dictum, 'The eye is Brahman' (IV. i. 4),
and is called Satya — is named Indha. This being, on
account of his resplendence, has an obvious name,
Indha. Though he is Indha, he is indirectly called
lndra, for the gods have a fondness, as it were, for
indirect names, and hate to be called directly. Thus
you have attained the self called Vaishwanara.
aqftq q snsoTsi: 5
^Ocsnqror
Iso: ffTcTT OUT OT^-
srfoferr prefer, qorftqT
3. The human form that is in the left eye
is his wife, Viraj (matter). The space that
is within the heart is their place of union.
Their food is the lump of blood (the finest
essence of what we eat) in the heart. Their
wrap is the net-like structure in die heart.
Their road for moving is the nerve that goes
588
BRIHADARANY A KA UPANISHAD
[ 4 . 2 . 3
upward from the heart ; it is like a hair split
into a thousand parts. In this body there are
nerves called Hita, which are placed in the
heart. Through these the essence of our food
passes as it moves on. Therefore the subtle
body has finer food than the gross body.
The human form that is in the left eye is his
wife, Viraj. Of Indra or the self called Vaishwanara
whom you have attained, Vir&j, or matter, is the wife,
both being objects of enjoyment. This couple, matter
and its enjoyer, is united in dreams . 1 How? The
space that is within the lump of flesh called the
heart is their place of union, the place where Indra
and his wife enjoy each other’s company. Their
food, or means of sustenance, is the following. What
is it? The lump of blood — (literally) blood in the
form of a lump — in the heart . The food we eat takes
two forms ; the gross part goes down (and is excret-
ed), and the rest is metabolised in two ways under
the action of the internal heat. That part of the
chyle which is of medium fineness passes through the
successive stages of blood etc., and nourishes the gross
body made up of the five elements. The finest part
of the chyle is ‘the lump of blood,’ which, penetrat-
ing our fine nerves, causes Indra — identified with
the subtle body and called Taijasa — who is united
with his wife in the heart, to stay in the body.
1 Vishwa (or Vaishwanara), Taijasa and Prajna are the
names of tfte self as identified with the gross, subtle and
causal body, respectively, in the states of wakefulness, dream
and dreamless sleep. Hence the Vaishwanara itself is now
being described as the Taijasa for the purpose of meditation.
4 . 2 . 4 ]
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
589
This is what is expressed by the passage, ‘Their
food/ etc. There are other things also. Their
wrap is, etc. People who sleep after their meals
use wraps ; the Shruti is fancying that similarity
here. What is the wrap of this couple? The net-
like structure in the heart. ‘Net-like/ because
of the numerous openings of the nerves. Their
road for moving, or coming from the dream to
the waking state, is the nerve that goes upward front
the heart . Its size is being given : As in the world
a hair split into a thousand parts is extremely fine,
so is it. In this body there are nerves called Hitd,
which are placed in that lump of flesh, the heart „
From it they branch off everywhere like the filaments
of a Kadamba flower. Through these extremely fine
nerves the food passes as it moves on. The body of
Indra (the subtle body) is nourished by this food and
held fast as by a cord. Because the gross body is
nourished by gross food, but this subtle body, the
body of Indra, is sustained by fine food. The food
that nourishes the gross body is also fine, in com-
parison with the gross substances in the body that
are eliminated ; but the food that sustains the subtle
body is finer than that. Hence the gross body has
fine food, but the subtle body has finer food than
the gross body. ‘Sharira* in the text is the same
as ‘Sharira* (body). The idea is that the Taijasa is
nourished by finer food than the Vaishw^nara.
spfi msft mg: srron:,
mwn, mfrsft nRg: smm:, f^jj^g:
mwr:, mwT:, fipraig:
590
BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [4. 2. 4
SimT:, SR? %i: *R STTOT: 5 3c*IlcWT 5
3i*j8fr qgi?*, 3T5[Nf Jifs store*, «t f?
srfent ff s?rere* si ; t sh^r
siratefrfa staro qwrew ; i ^
3TCR cST S T ^d l tn^Rq ^ sft iTSRSRR
^ to^r:, srcn^ifR II « II
fi[?ft?i sn^rm^ a
4. Of the sage (who is identified with the
vital force 1 ), the east is the eastern vital force,
the south the southern vital force, the west the
western vital force, the north the northern
vital force, the direction above the upper
vital force, the direction below the nether
vital force, and all the quarters the different
vital forces. This self is That which has
been described as ‘Not this, not this,’ ‘It is
imperceptible, for It is never perceived ;
undecaying, for It never decays ; unattached,
for It is never attached ; unfettered — It never
feels pain, and never suffers injury. You
have attained That which is free from fear,
O Janaka,’ said Yajnavalkya. ‘Revered
Yajnavalkya,’ said Emperor Janaka, ‘may
That which is free from fear be yours,
for you have made That which is free from
fear known to us. Salutations to you ! Here
1 That is, the Prajna, of which the. vital force is a
limiting adjunct.
4 . 2 . 4 ]
BR1HA DA RA NY A KA VP A NISH A D
591
is this (empire of) Videha, as well as myself
at your service ! ’
This Taijasa which is identified with the heart
{mind) is supported by the subtle vital force, and
becomes the vital force, (here, the Prajna). Of the
sage who has first attained the Vaishwanara, then
the Taijasa, or the self identified with the mind,
and after that the self identified with the vital force
(Prajna), the east is the eastern vital force ; similarly
the south the southern vital force, likewise the west
the western vital force, the north the northern vital
force, the direction above the upper vital force, the
direction below the nether vital force, and all the
quarters the different vital forces . Thus the sage
identifies himself, by stages, with the vital force that
comprises everything. Then withdrawing this all-
comprising vital force into the Supreme Self, he
attains the natural state of the Witness, the transcend-
ent Self that is described as ‘Not this, not this/
This self which the sage thus attains is That which
has been described as ‘ Not this, not this / This
passage, up to ‘never suffers injury/ has already
been explained (III. ix. 26 ). ( You have attained That
which is free from fear due to birth, death, etc.,
O Janaka / said Ydjnavalkya. This is in fulfilment
of the statement, ‘Then I will tell you where
you will go/ ' Revered Ydjnavalkya/ said Emperor
Janaka, ( may That rvhvch is free from fear be
yours too, for you have made That wtych is free
from fear, the Brahman, known or accessible to us,
by the removal of the veil of ignorance created by
592
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [4. 2. 4
the limiting adjuncts. What else can I give you in
return for this knowledge, for you have presented the
Atman Itself? Hence salutations to you! This
(empire of) Videha is yours — enjoy it just as you
will : I myself too am at your service . Please use
me as well as Ihe empire just as you like.’
SECTION III
The connection of the present section with the
preceding portion is as follows : The individual self
— the Brahman that is immediate and direct, the
self that is within all — is identical with the Supreme
Self. We know this from such Shruti texts as, ‘There
is no other witness but Him* (III. vii. 23), and
‘There is no other witness but This’ (III. viii. 11),
as well as ‘This self has entered into these bodies*
(I. iv. 7), and it is inferred from its functions of speech
etc. That it exists and is different from the body,
has been explained in the dialogue between Balaki
and Ajatashatru (II. i.) in the Madhukanda by the
denial of agency and enjoyment to the vital force etc.
Nevertheless, in the section dealing with the question
of Ushasta, in the words, ‘That which breathes
through the Prana,* etc. (III. iv. 1), it has been ex-
pounded in a general way, by the introduction of the
functions of breathing etc., that the self is to be in-
ferred from these functions, and in the words,
‘Witness of vision/ etc. (III. iv. 2), it has been
more particularly declared as being by nature con-
stant intelligence. It suffers transmigration owing
to adventitious limiting adjuncts, 1 as, for instance, the
appearance of a rope, a desert, a mother-of-pearl,
and the sky as a snake, water, silver and blue re-
spectively, is due to the super imposition q£ foreign
elements, not intrinsically. But devoid of the limit-
1 Ignorance and its effects.
38
594
BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [4. 3. 1
ing adjuncts, it is indefinable, to be described only
as ‘Not this, not this/ the Brahman that is imme-
diate and direct, the self that is within all, the
Immutable, the Internal Ruler, the mighty Ruler,
the Being who is to be known only through the
Upanishads, Knowledge, Bliss and Brahman. That
same Brahman which is immediate and within all
has again been taught (by the mention of some par-
ticular ways of attaining It). (Rastly, it has been
stated : ) He who is called Indlia (Vaishwanara)
takes fine food ; beyond it, in the heart, is the self
identified with the subtle body, which takes finer
food ; higher still is the self identified with the uni-
verse, which has the vital force for its limiting ad-
junct (that is, the Prajna). By dissolving (in the
Supreme Self) through knowledge even this self
identified with the universe, which is but a limiting
adjunct, like the snake, for instance, in the rope,
(the transcendent Brahman referred to in the
passage), ‘This self is That which has been described
as “Not this, not this” ’ (III. ix. 26), has been incul-
cated. Thus did Yajnavalkya set Janaka beyond fear
by a brief reference to scriptural evidence. Here,
in a different connection, 1 the states of wakefulness,
dream, profound sleep and transcendence have been
introduced in the words, ‘Indha/ ‘Has finer food/
‘The different vital forces/ and ‘This self is That
which has been described as “Not this, not this.” *
Now the subject is to be explained at length through
those ve~y states of wakefulness etc., with the help of
valid reasoning ; Janaka is to be helped to attain the
1 To show the order of gradual emancipation.
4. 8. 1] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
595
Brahman that is beyond fear ; the existence of the
self should be established by the removal of the
doubts raised against it ; and it should be proved to
be different from the body, pure, self-effulgent, by
nature identical with constant intelligence and super-
lative bliss, and beyond duality. For this purpose
the present section is introduced. The story is meant
to indicate the method of imparting and receiving
the instruction, and is particularly a eulogy on
knowledge, as is suggested by the granting of the
boon etc. 1
srafo qw, ^ 5 5 ^srriq «£? n *||
i. Yajnavalkya went to Janaka, Em-
peror of Videlia. He thought he would not
say anything. Now t Janaka and Yajnavalkya
had once talked on the Agnihotra, and Yajna-
valkya had offered him a boon. He had
begged the liberty of asking any questions he
liked ; and Yajnavalkya had granted him the
boon. So it was the Emperor who first asked
him.
Yajnavalkya 7 vent to Janaka, Emperor of
Videha. While going, he thought he would not say
anything to the Emperor. The object of the visit
was to get more wealth and maintain ttfat already
1 Since the Kmperor chose this very boon, in preference
to any other.
596 BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [4. 3. t
possessed. Yajnavalkya, although he had resolved
not to say anything, explained whatever Janaka asked.
Why did he act contrary to his intentions? The
answer to this is given by the story here related.
Sometime in the past there had been a talk between
Janaka and Yajnavalkya on the subject of the Agni -
hotra. On that occasion Yajnavalkya, pleased with
Janaka’s knowledge on the subject, had offered him
a boon . Janaka thereupon had begged the liberty
of asking any questions he liked ; and Yajnavalkya
had granted him the boon. On the strength of that
boon it was the Emperor Janaka who first asked him ,
although Yajnavalkya was in no mood to explain
and was silent. That Janaka had not put his quest-
ion on the previous occasion was due to the fact
that the knowledge of Brahman is contradictory to
rituals (hence the topic would be out of place), and
is independent : It is not the effect of anything,
and serves the highest end of man independently of
any auxiliary factors.
n R II "A'
2 . ‘Yajnavalkya, what serves as the light
for a man?’ ‘The light of 1 the sun, O Em-
peror,’ said Yajnavalkya, ‘it is through the
light of the sun that he sits, goes out, works
and returns.’ ‘Just so, Yajnavalkya.’
t,
Yajnavalkya — Janaka addresses him by name to*
1 The ‘of’ is here appositional.
4 . 3 . 2 ]
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
597
•draw his attention — u'hat serves as the light for a
man, which he uses in his everyday life ? The quest-
ion is about the ordinary man, with head, hands,
etc., identifying himself with the body and organs.
Does he use a light extraneous to his body, which is
made up of parts, or does some light included in this
aggregate of parts serve the purpose of a light for
him? This is the question.
Question : What difference does it make if he
uses a light extraneous to his body or one forming
a part of it ?
Reply : Listen. If it is decided that he by his
very nature has to use a light extraneous to his body,
then with regard to the effects of a light that is in-
visible we shall infer that they are also due to an
extraneous light. If, on the other hand, he acts
through a light not extraneous to the body but part
and parcel of himself, then, where the effects of a
light are visible, although the light itself is invis-
ible, we can infer that the light in question must
be an inner one. If, however, there is no restric-
tion as to whether the light which a person uses is
within or without himself, then there is no decision
•on the matter of the light. Thinking thus Janaka
asks Yajnavalkya, ‘What is the light for a man V
Objection : Well, if Janaka is so clever at
reasoning, what is the use of his asking questions?
Why does he not decide it for himself ?
Reply : True, but here the thing to be inferred,
the grounds of inference, and their various relations
are so subtle that they are considered a puzzle even
for a number of scholars, not to speak of one. It is
598 BRIHADARANYAKA UP A NISH AD [4. 3. 2
for this reason that in deciding subtle religious
matters deliberation by a conference is sought. A
good deal also depends upon individual qualifications.
A conference may accordingly consist of ten persons,
or three, or one. Therefore, though the Emperor
is skilled in reasoning, yet it is quite proper for him
to ask Yajnavalkya, because people may have vary-
ing capacities for understanding. Or it may be that
the Shruti itself teaches us through the garb of a
story, by setting forth a mode of reasoning in con-
formity with our ways of thinking.
Yajnavalkya too, knowing Janaka’s intention,
desired to teach him about the light of the self that
is other than the body, and took up a ground of in-
ference that would establish this extracorporeal light.
For instance, he said , ‘The light of the well-knowrf
sun, O Emperor . J How? ‘It is through the light
of the sun, which is outside his body and helps the
function of the eyes, that the ordinary man sits, goes
out to the field or forest, and going there works and
returns the way he went.* The use of many speci-
fications is to indicate that the light 1 is well known
to be essentially different from the body ; and the
citing of many external lights is to show that the
ground of inference is unfailing. ‘Just so, Yajna -
valkya /
tfa 5 gar re t wrf?r&r?ftf?r,
1 Which remains the same under all these varying
circumstances.
4 . 3 . 5 ] BR1HADA RANYAKA UPANISHAD 599
aw $5?* ; qaftaa-
s n ss rew f ii * ii
3. ‘When the sun has set, Yajnavalkya,
what serves as the light for a man?’ ‘The
moon serves as his light. It is through the
light of the moon that he sits, goes out, works
and returns.’ ‘Just so, Yajnavalkya.’
Likewise, ' When the sun has set, Yajnavalkya ,
what serves as the light for a man V ‘The moon
serves as his light /
arcafira sTTf ^ c fr
<pq ffa . srfsnfai^ wTfaaaatfa,
afrfjRqrEr ^atfaqi’Ea q«qq^ 3 rjt faq^Mtfa ,
qqMrasnsiqe**q 11 y n
4. ‘When the sun and the moon have
both set, Yajnavalkya, what serves as the
light for a man?’ ‘The fire serves as his
light. It is through the fire that he sits, goes
out, works and returns.’ ‘Just so, Yajna-
valkya. ’
When the sun and the moon have both set, the
fire serves as the light.
areafaa
3 pa sfa , ar^ar^?
aiaaTa *qHaqn& q«*q% q*£
5^ faqqfra tfa •, asnt ssnsfq qa aifara
600
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 4 . 3 . 5
li ^ ii
5. ‘When the sun and the moon have
both set, and the fire has gone out, Yajna-
valkya, what serves as the light for a man?’
‘Speech (sound) serves as his light. It is
through the light of speech that he sits, goes
out, works and returns. Therefore, O Em-
peror, even when one's own hand is not clearly
viable, if a sound is uttered, one manages to
go there.' ‘Just so > Yajnavalkva.’
When the fire has gone out, speech serves as the
light. 'Speech’ here means sound. Sound, which
is the object of hearing, stimulates the ear, its organ ;
this gives rise to discrimination in the mind ; through
that mind a man engages in an outward action. Else-
where it has been said, 'It is through the mind that
one sees and hears* (I. v. 3). How can speech be
called a light, for it is not known to be such? The
answer is being given : ' Therefore , O Emperor /
etc. Because a man lives and moves in the world
helped by the light of speech, therefore it is a well-
known fact that speech serves as a light. How?
r Even when, as in the rainy season, owing to the
darkness created by the clouds frequently blotting out
all light, one f s own hand is not clearly visible —
though every activity is then stopped owing to the
want of external light — if a sound is uttered, as, for
instance, a dog barks or an ass brays, one manages
t(Kgo there. That sound acts as a light and connects
4 . 3 . 6 ] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
601
the ear with the mind ; thus speech (sound) does the
function of a light there. With the help of that
sound serving as a light, the man actually goes
there, works at that place and returns.’ The mention
of the light of speech includes odour etc. For when
odour and the rest also help the nose and other organs,
a man is induced to act or dissuaded from it, and so
on. So they too help the body and organs. ' Just so,
Ydjnavalkya /
m i ra i q f grfe jp* fir ;
fe qg fra tf a n ^ ii
6. ‘When the sun and the moon have
both set, the fire has gone out, and speech has
stopped, Yajnavalkya, what serves as the
light for a man?’ ‘The self serves as his
light. It is through the light of the self that
he sits, goes out, works and returns.’ ‘Just
so, Yajnavalkya.’
When speech also has stopped and other external
aids too, such as odour, all the activities of the man
would stop. The idea is this : When the eyes and
other organs, which are outgoing in their tendencies,
are helped in the waking state by lights such as the
sun, then a man vividly lives and moves in the world.
So we see that in the waking state a light extraneous
to his body, which is an aggregate of parts, serves
as the light for him. From this we conclude that
602 BRIHADARANYAKA UPANJSHAD [4. 3. 6
when all external light is blotted out in the states
of dream and profound sleep, as well as in similar
circumstances of the waking state, a light extraneous
to his body serves the purpose of a light for him. We
see also that the purpose of a light is served in dreams,
as, for instance,, meeting and parting from friends,
going to other places, etc. ; and we awake from deep
sleep with the remembrance 1 that we slept happily
and knew nothing. Therefore there exists some ex-
traneous light. Wliat is that light which acts when
speech has stopped? The reply is being given : ‘The
self serves as his light / By the word ‘self’ is meant
that light which is different from one’s body and
organs, and illumines them like the external lights
such as the sun, but is itself not illumined by any-
thing else. And on the principle of the residuum it
is inside the body ; for it has already been proved
that it is different from the body and organs, and
we have seen that a light which is different from
the body and organs and helps their work is perceived
by the organs such as the eye ; but the light that we
are discussing (the self) is not perceived by the eyes
etc., when lights such as the sun have ceased to work.
Since, however, we see that the usual effects of a
light are there, we conclude that *it is through the
light of the self that he sits, goes out, works and
returns / Therefore we understand that this light
must be inside the body. But it is different from
lights such as the sun, and immaterial. Tha't is why,,
unlike the^sun etc., it is not perceived by the eye
and so forth.
1 Which shows that the light in question was there.
4 . 3 . 6 ]
BR1HADARANYAKA U PA NISH AD
603
Objection (by the materialist) : No, for we see
that only things of the same category help each
other. You are wrong to state as a proved fact
that there is an inner light different from the sun
etc. Why ? Because we observe that the body and
organs, which are material, are helped by lights such
as the sun, which also are material and of the same
category as the things helped. Here too we must
infer in accordance with observed facts. Supposing
that the light that helps the work of the body
and organs is different from them like the sun
etc., still it must be inferred as being of the same
category as these, for the very reason that it helps
them, as is the case with lights such as the sun.
Your statement that because it is internal and is not
perceived, it is different (from lights such as the sun),
is falsified by the eye etc. ; for lights such as the
eye are not perceived and are internal, but they are
material just the same. Therefore it is only your
imagination that you have proved the light of the
self to> be essentially different from the body etc.
Moreover, as the existence of the light in question
depends on that of the body and organs, it is pre-
sumed to possess the characteristics of the latter.
Your inference , 1 being of the kind that is based on
general observation, is fallacious, because it is con-
tradicted 2 ; and it is by means of such an inference
that you establish the light in question (the self) to
1 For example, whatever reveals another thin# is different
from it.
2 For instance, the eye, which (according to the material-
ists) reveals the body, is not different from it.
604
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
[ 4 . 3 . 6
be different from the body and organs, like the sun
and so forth (being different from the objects they
reveal). Besides, perception cannot be nullified by
inference ; and we see that this aggregate of body
and organs sees, hears, thinks and knows. If that
other light helps this aggregate like the sun etc., it
cannot be the self, any more than the sun and the
rest are. Rather it is the aggregate of body and
organs, which directly does the functions of seeing
etc., that is the self, and none else, for inference is
invalid when it contradicts perception.
Reply : If this aggregate be the self that does
the functions of seeing etc., how is it that, remaining
as it is, it sometimes performs those functions and
sometimes does not?
Objection : There is nothing wrong in it, be-
cause it is an observed fact. You cannot challenge
facts on the ground of improbability. When you
actually observe a fire-fly to be both luminous and
non-luminous, you do not have to infer some other
cause for it. If, however, you do infer it from some
common feature, you may as well infer anything
about everything, and nobody wants that. Nor
must one deny the natural property of objects, for
the natural heat of fire or the cold of water is not due
to any other cause.
Reply : Suppose we say it all depends on the
merits or demerits of people ?
Objection : Then those merits or demerits them-
selves might habitually depend on some other cause.
Reply : What if they do?
4 3 . 6 ]
BR1HADARANY AKA UPANISHAD
605
Objection : It would lead to a regressus in
infinitum, which is not desirable.
Reply : Not so, for in dreams and remembrance
we notice only things seen before. What the ad-
vocate of the nature theory has said about the func-
tions of sight etc. belonging to the body, and not to
the self, which is different from it, is wrong, for if
these functions really belonged to the body, one
would not see in a dream only things already seen. A
blind man dreaming sees only things that he has
already seen, and not unfamiliar forms, which one
would find in Shakadwipa, for instance. This proves
that he alone who sees in a dream only familiar things
also saw things before, while the eyes were there —
and not the body. If the body were the seer, it
would not see in a dream only familiar sights when
the eyes, the instruments of its vision, are taken
out. And we know that even blind men, who have
had their eyes taken out, say, ‘To-day I saw in a
dream the Himalayan peak that I had seen before/
Therefore it is clear that it is not the body, but he
who dreams, that also saw things when the eyes were
intact.
Similarly, in the case of remembrance, he who
remembers being also the one who saw, the two are
identical. Thus onlv can a person, after shutting
his eyes, remember the forms he has seen before,
just as he saw them. Therefore that which is shut
is not the seer ; but that which, when the eyes are
shut, sees forms in remembrance, must haye been the
seer when the eyes were open. This is further
proved by the fact that when the body is dead, no
606
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [4. 3. 6
vision takes place, although the body is intact. If
the body itself were the seer, even a dead body would
continue to see and do similar functions. There-
fore it is clear that the real agent of seeing etc. is
not the body, but that whose absence deprives the
body of the power of vision, and whose presence gives
it that power.
Objection : Suppose the eyes and other organs
themselves were the agents of vision and so forth ?
Reply : No ; the remembrance that one is touch-
ing the very thing that one has seen, would be
impossible if there were different agents for these
two acts.
Objection : Then let us say, it is the mind.
Reply : No ; the mind also, being an object,
like colour etc., cannot be the agent of vision and so
forth. Therefore we conclude that the light in
question is inside the body, and yet different from it
like the sun etc.
You have said, ‘Some light which is of the same
category as the body and organs must be inferred,
since the sun and the like are of the same category
as the things they help.* This is wrong, for there
is no hard and fast rule about this help. To explain :
We see that fire is kindled with the help of straws
grass and other fuel, w 7 hich are all modifications of
earth. But from this we must not conclude that
everywhere it is the modifications of earth that help
to light a fire, for we notice that w^ater, which belongs
to a different category, helps to kindle the fire of
lightning and the fire in the stomach. Therefore,
when something is helped by another, there is no
4 . 3 . 6 ]
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANJSHAD
607
restriction about their being of the same category or
of different categories. Sometimes men are helped
by men, their own species, and sometimes by animals,
plants, etc., which are of different species. There-
fore the reason you adduced for your contention, that
the body and organs are helped by lights that are of
the same category as they, like the sun etc., falls to
the ground.
Further you have said that the argument put
forward by us (viz., that the light we are speaking
of must be within the body and yet different from it,
for unlike the sun etc. it is invisible) does not prove
the light in question to be either internal or different
from the body and organs, because the reason stated
is falsified by the eyes etc. This is wrong ; all we
have to do is to add to it the qualifying phrase,
‘Except the eyes and other organs.’ Your statement
that the light in question must be a characteristic of
the body is also incorrect, for it involves a contra-
diction with inference. The inference was that the
light must be something else than the body and
organs, like the sun etc ; and this premise of yours
contradicts that. That the existence of the light
depends on that of the body has been disproved by
the fact that the light is absent in a dead body. If
you challenge the validity of an inference of the kind
based on general observation, all our activities, in-
cluding eating and drinking, would be impossible,
which you certainly do not desire. We see in life
that people who have experienced that ^hunger and
thirst, for instance, are appeased by eating and drink-
ing, proceed to adopt these means, expecting similar
608 BR1HADARANY AKA UPANISHAD [4. 3. 6
results ; all this would be impossible. As a matter of
fadt, however, people who have the experience of
eating and drinking, infer on the ground of similarity
that their hunger and thirst would be appeased if
they ate and drank again, and proceed to act
accordingly.
Your statement that this very body performs
the functions of seeing etc., has already been refuted
on the ground that in dreams and remembrance the
seer is other than the body. This also refutes the
view that the light in question is something other
than the self. Your reference to the fire-fly etc.
being sometimes luminous and sometimes not, is not
in point, for the appearance or disappearance of the
glow is due to the contraction or expansion of its
wings or other parts of its body. You said that we
must admit merit and demerit to have the nature
of inevitably producing results. If you admit this,
it will go against your own assumption . 1 By this
the objection of a regressus in infinitum is also re-
futed. Therefore we conclude that there is a light
which is other than the body and within it, and it
is the self.
3^: ; 51 5WR:
Cre a te 5 sr % *3^4 g ftg re fa-
CTftr n $ ii>
7. ‘Which is the self?’ ‘This infinite
1 That there is no extracorporeal self acquiring in
every birth merit and demerit which determine its future.
4 . 3 . 7 ]
BRJHA
ANY AKA UPANISHAD
609
entity (Purusha) that^js identified with the
intellect and is in the micn&t of the organs, the
(self-effulgent) light withiri\ the heart (in-
tellect). Assuming the likeness (of the in-
tellect), it moves between the two worlds; it
thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were.
Being identified with dreams, it transc^^s
this world — the forms of death (ignorance*
etc.).’
•Though the self has been proved to be other
than the body and organs, yet/.owing to a misconcep-
tion caused by the observation that things which
help others are of the same category as they, Janaka
cannot decide/whether the self is just one of the
organs or something different ,kand therefore asks :
Which is the self f The misconception is quite
natural, for the logic involved is too subtle to grasp
easily. Or Although the self has been proved to be
other than the body, yet all the organs appear to be
intelligent, since the self is not perceived as distinct
from thenTfs so I ask you : Which is the self ?
Among the body, organs, vital force and mind, which
is the self you have spoken of — through which light,
you said, a man sits and does other kinds of work?
Or, which of these organs is ‘this self identified with
the intellect* that you have meant, for all the organs
appear to be intelligent ? As when a number of
Br&hmanas are assembled, one may ask, ‘They are
all highly qualified, but which of these ^is versed
in all the six branches of the Vedas?* In the first
explanation, ‘Which is the self?* is the question, and
39
610
BR1HADARANYAKA USA NISH AD [4. 3. 7
‘This infinite entity that xS identified with the intel-
lect/ etc., is the answer ; in the second, ‘Which of
the organs is the self that is identified with the intel-
lect V is the question. Or the whole sentence,
^Which is -his self that is identified with the intellect
and is*u the midst of the organs^the light within
the Heart V is the question. The words, ‘That is
r /ientified with the intellect/ etc., give the precise
description of the self that has been known only in
a general way. But the word ‘iti’ in, ‘Which is the
self/ ought to mark the end of the question, without
its being connected with a remote word. Hence we
conclude that the expression, ‘Which is the self/ is
really the question, and all the rest of the sentence,
beginning with, ‘This infinite entity that is identified
with the intellect/ etc., is the answer.
The word ' this ’ has been used with reference to
the self, since it is directly known to us. ‘Vijnana-
maya’ means identified with the intellect ; the self
is so called because of our failure to discriminate its
association with its limiting adjunct, the intellect,
for it is perceived as associated with the intellect, as
the planet Rahu is with the sun and the moon. The
intellect is the instrument that helps us in every-
thing, like a lamp set in front amid darkness. It has
been said, ‘It is through the mind that one sees and
hears* (I. v. 3). Every object is perceived only as
associated with the light of the intellect, as objects
in the dark are lighted up by a lamp placed in front ;
the other organs are but the channels for the intel-
lect. Thereforel^the self is described in terms of
that, as ‘Identified with the intellect.*^ Those who
4. 3. 7] BRIHADA^AJSYAKA UP A NISH AD 611
•explain the word ‘Vijn&nkniaya’ as a modification
of the consciousness that is the Supreme Self, evi-
dently go against the import of the Shrutis, since ifi
the words ‘Vijn&namaya/ ‘Manomaya/*etc., the suffix
‘mayat’ denotes something else than rff edification ;
and where the meaning of a word is doubtful'; it can
be ascertained by a reference to a definite use of the
word elsewhere, or from the rest of the passage ; or
•else on the strength of irrefutable logic . 1 From the
use of the expression, 'Through its association w T ith
the intellect / 2 a little further on, and from the words,
'Within the heart (intellect)/ the word ‘Vijuanamaya*
ought to mean ‘identified with the intellect/ The
locative case in the term, in the midst of the organs,
indicates that the^elf is different from the organs^ as
‘a rock in the midst of the trees Vindicates only near-
ness ; for there is a doubt about the identity or differ-
ence of the self from the organs. ,1 ‘In the midst of
the organs’ means ‘different from the organs/ for
that which is in the midst of certain other things is
of course different from them, as ‘a tree in the midst
of the rocks.’ 'AVithin the heart .^One may think
that the intellect, which is of the same category as
the organs, is meant, as being in the midst of the
organs. This is refuted by the phrase, ‘Within the
heart.’ ‘Heart’ is primarily the lotus-shaped lump of
flesh ;i/here it means the intellect, which has its
seat in the heart. >The expression therefore means
1 If tlie self be a modification of the intellect liberation
would be impossible.
2 Shankara here takes the reading ‘Sadhih’ instead of
*$a hi’ as in the text he follows.
612
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
[ 4 . 3 . T
‘within the intellect.^ The word ‘within 1 indicates
that the self is different from the modifications of
the intellect. The self is called light, because it is
self-effulgent, * for through this light, the self-
effulgent Atman, this aggregate of body and organs
sits, goes out' and works, as if it were conscious, as
a jar placed in the sun (shines). Or as an emerald
or any other gem, dropped for testing into milk
etc., imparts its lustre to them, so does this lumin-
ous self, being finer than even the heart or intel-
lect, unify and impart its lustre to the body and
organs, including the intellect etc., although it is
within the intellect ; for these have varying degrees:
of fineness or grossness in a certain order , 1 and the
self is the innermost of them all.
•-'The intellect, being transparent and next to the
self, easily catches the reflection of the intelligence of
the self. Therefore even wise men happen to identify
themselves with it first ; next comes the Manas,,
which catches the reflection of the self through the*
intellect ; then the organs, through contact with the*
Manas ; and lastly the body, through the organs.
Thus the self successively illumines with its own*
intelligence the entire aggregate of body and organs A
It is therefore that all people identify themselves with*
the body and organs and their modifications in vary-
ing degrees, without any fixity, according to their
discrimination. The Lord also has said in the Gitd,.
‘As the one sun, O Arjuna, illumines the whole
1 From the objects to the self is an ascending*©rder of
fineness, and from the self to the objects is an ascending-
order of grossness.
4. 3. 7] BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD 613
world, so the self, the owner of the field of this
Body, illumines the whole body* (G. XIII. 33) ; also,'
'(Know) the light of the sun (which illumines the
entire world, to be Mine)/ etc. (G. XV. 12). The
Kafha Upanishad also has it, ‘Eternal in the midst
of transitory things, the Intelligent One among all
intelligent beings* (Ka. V. 13) ; also, Tt shining,
everything else shines ; this universe shines through
Its light* (Ka. V. 15). The Mantra also says,
'Kindled by which light, the sun shines* (Tai. B. III.
xii. 9. 7). /Therefore the self is the ‘light within the
intellect, ‘Purusha/ that is, infinite entity , 'fazing all-
pervading like the ether. Its self -effulgence is infi-
nite, because it is the illuminer of everything, but is
itself not illumined by anything else. This infinite
■entity of which you ask, ‘Which is the self?* is self-
effulgent.
It has been said that when the external lights
that help the different organs have ceased to work,
the self, the infinite entity that is the light within the
intellect, helps the organs through the mind. Even
when the external aids of the organs, the sun and
■other lights, exist, since these latter (being com-
pounds) subserve the purpose of some other agency,
•and the body and organs, being unconscious, cannot
exist for themselves, this aggregate of body and
organs cannot function without the help of the self,
the light that lives for itself . V It is always through
the help of the light of the self that all our activities
take place. ‘This intellect and Manas are conscious-
ness. (all these are but names of Intelligence
or the Atman)* (Ai. V. 2), says another Shruti, for
614
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
[ 4 . 3 . 7
every act of people is attended with the ego, and the
reason for this ego 1 we have already stated through
the illustration of the emerald.
Though it is so, yet during the waking state
that light called the* / self, being beyond the organs,
and being particularly mixed up in the diversity of
functions of the body, and the organs, internal and
external, such as the intellect, cannot be shown
extricated from them, like a stalk of grass from its
sheath ; hence, in order to show it in the dream state,
Yajnavalkya begins : Assuming the likeness ... it
moves between the two worlds. The infinite entity
that is the self-effulgent Atman, assuming the like-
ness — of what? Of the intellect, which is the topic,,
and is also contiguous. In the phrase, ‘Within the
heart,* there occurs the word ‘heart,* meaning the
intellect, and it is quite close ; therefore that is
meant.*#- And what is meant by ‘likeness*? The
failure to distinguish it like a horse or a buffalo.
The intellect is that which is illumined, and the
light of the self is that which illumines, like light ;
and it is well-known that we cannot distinguish the
two. It is because light is pure that it assumes the
likeness of that which it illumines. When it illumines
something coloured, it assumes the likeness of that
colour. When, for instance, it illumines something
green, blue or red, it is coloured like them. Similar-
ly^he self, illumining the intellect, illumines through
it the entire body and organs, U as we have already
stated through the illustration of the emerald.
1 The reflection of the self in the intellect constitutes-
this ego.
4. 3. 7] BR1HADARANY AKA UPANISHAD 615
Therefore through the similarity of the intellect, *^116
self assumes the likeness of everything. Hence it will
be described later on as ‘Identified with everything'*)
(IV. iv. 5). Therefore it cannot be taken apart from
anything else, like a stalk of grass from its sheath,
and shown in its self -effulgent form. It is for this
reason that the whole world, to its utter delusion,
superimposes all activities peculiar to name and
form on the self, and all attributes of this self-
effulgent light on name and form, and also superim-
poses name and form on the light of the self and
thinks, ‘This is the self, or is not the self ; it has
such and such attributes, or has not such and such
attributes ; it is the agent, or is not the agent ; it is
pure, or impure ; it is bound, or free ; it is fixed, or
gone, or come ; it exists, or does not exist/ and so
on. Therefore ‘assuming the likeness (of the intel-
lect) it moves' alternately ‘between the two worlds*
— this one and the next, the one that has been
attained and the one that is to be attained — by
successively discarding the body and organs already
possessed, and taking new ones, hundreds of them,
in an unbroken series. This movement between the
two worlds is merely due to its resembling the intel-
lect — not natural to it. That it is attributable to its
resembling the limiting adjuncts of name and form
created by a confusion, and is not natural to it, is
being stated : Because, assuming the likeness (of the
intellect), it moves alternately between the two
worlds. The text goes on to show that this is a
fact of experience. It thinks , as it were f : By illu-
mining the intellect, which does the thinking, through
616
BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [4. 3. 7
its own self-effulgent light that pervades the intel-
lect, the self assumes the likeness of the latter and
seems to think, just as light (looks coloured). Hence
^people mistake that the self thinks ; but really it does*
not. ^Likewise it shakes , a's it were : When the intel-
lect and other organs as well as the wind. move, the
self, which illumines them, becomes like them, and
therefore seems to move rapidly ; but really*fhe light
of the self has no motion.*
*^How are we to know that it is owing to the
delusive likeness of the intellect that the self moves
between the two worlds and does other activities,
and not by itself? This is being answered by a
statement of reason: Being identified with dreams , <
etc. The self seems to become whatever the intel-
lect, which it resembles, becomes. Therefore when
the intellect turns into a dream, that is, takes on
the modification called a dream, the self also assumes
that form ; when the intellect wants to wake up, it
too does that. Hence the text says : Being identi-
fied with dreams , revealing the modification known
as dreams assumed by the intellect, *4nck thereby 1
resembling them, it transcends this world , that is,
the body and organs,* functioning in the waking
state, round which our secular and scriptural activi-
ties are centred. Because the self remains revealing
by its own distinct light the modification known as
dreams assumed by the intellect, therefore it must
really be self -effulgent, pure and devoid of agent and
action with its factors and results.^ It is only the
likeness of the intellect that gives rise to the delusion
that the self moves between the two worlds* and has
4 . 3 . 7 ]
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
617
other such activities. The forms of death, that is,
work, ignorance, etc. Death has no other forms of
its own ; the body and organs are its forms. Hence
the self transcends those forms of death, on which
actions and their results depend.
Buddhist 1 objection : We say there is no such
thing as the light of the self similar to the intellect
and revealing it, for we experience nothing but the
intellect either through perception or through in-
ference, just as we do not experience a second intel-
lect at the same time. You say that since the light
that reveals, and the jar, for instance, that is
revealed, are not distinguishable in spite of their
difference, they resemble each other. We reply
that in that particular case, the light being perceived
as different from the jar, there may well be similar-
ity between them, because they are merely joined
together, remaining all the while different. But in
this case *Kve do not similarly experience either
through perception or through inference any other
light revealing the intellect^ just as the light reveals
the jar. At is the intellect which, as the conscious-
ness that reveals, assumes its own form as well as
1 There are four schools of Buddhism, viz., the
Vaibh&shika, Sautrantika, Yogachara and M^dhyamika, all
maintaining that the uni verse consists only of ideas and is
momentary — every idea lasting only for a moment and being
immediately replaced by another exactly like it. The first
two schools both believe in an objective world, of course
ideal, but whereas the first holds that that world is cogni-
sable through perception, the second maintains that it cam
only be inferred. The third school, also called- Vijn&navH-
din, believes that there is no external world, and that the
.subjective world alone is real. The last school, called also
Shunyav&din (nihilist), denies both the worlds.
618
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 4 . 3 . 7
those of the objects. Therefore neither through
perception nor through inference is it possible to
establish a separate light which reveals the intellect**.
What has been said above by way of example,
viz., that there may be similarity between the light
that reveals and the jar, for instance, that is revealed,
because they are merely joined together, remaining
all the while different, has been said only tentative*
ly 1 ; it is not that the jar that is revealed is different
from the light that reveals it. In reality, it is the
jar in contact with light that reveals itself ; for (each
moment) a new jar is produced, and it is conscious-
ness that takes the form of the jar — or any other
object — in contact with light. Such being the case,
there is no instance of an external object, for every-
thing is mere consciousness.
Thus the Buddhists, after conceiving the intel-
lect as tainted by assuming a double form, the revealer
and the revealed (subject and object), desire to
purify it. Some of them , 2 for instance, maintain
that consciousness is untrammelled by the dualism
of subject and object, is pure and momentary ;
others want to deny that even. For instance, the
Madhyamikas hold that consciousness is free from
the dual aspect of subject and object, hidden and
simply void, like the external objects such as a jar.
All these assumptions are contradictory to this
Vedic path of well-being that we are discussing, since
1 This ft; the view of the Yogachara school as opposed
to that of the first two.
2 The Yog&charas.
4 . 3 . 7 ]
BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
619
they deny the light of the self as distinct from the-
body and illumining the consciousness of the intel-
lect. Now to those who believe in an objective world
we reply : Objects such as a jar are not self-
luminous ; a jar in darkness never reveals itself,
but is noticed as being regularly revealed by
coming in contact with the light of a lamp etc.
Then we say that the jar is in contact with light.
Even though the jar and the light are in contact,
they are distinct from each other, for we see their
difference, as between a rope and a jar, when they
repeatedly come in contact and are disjoined. This
distinction means that the jar is revealed by some-
thing else ; it certainly does not reveal itself.
Objection : But do we not see that a lamp
reveals itself? People do not use another light to
see a lamp, as they do in the case of a jar etc.
Therefore a lamp reveals itself.
Reply : No, for there is no difference as regards
its being revealed by something else (the self). Al-
though a lamp, being luminous, reveals other tilings,
yet it is, just like a jar etc., invariably revealed by
an intelligence other than itself. Since this is so,
the lamp cannot but be revealed by something other
than itself.
Objection : But there is a difference. A jar,
even though revealed by an intelligence, requires a
light different from itself (to manifest it), while the
lamp does not require another lamp. Therefore the
lamp, although revealed by something ^lse, reveals
itself as well as the jar.
Reply : Not so, for there is no difference.
620
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [4. 3. 7
directly or indirectly (between a jar and a lamp).
As the jar is revealed by an intelligence, so is
equally the lamp. Your statement that the lamp
reveals both itself and the jar is wrong. Why ?
Because what can its condition be when it does not
reveal itself? 4 s a matter of fact, we notice no
difference in it, either directly or indirectly. A
thing is said to be revealed only when we notice
some difference in it through the presence or absence
of the revealing agent. But there can be no question
of a lamp being present before or absent from itself ;
and when no difference is caused by the presence or
absence, it is idle to say that the lamp reveals itself.
But as regards being revealed by an intelligence
the lamp is on a par with the jar etc. Therefore the
lamp is not an illustration in point to show that
consciousness (of the intellect) reveals itself ; it is
revealed by an intelligence just as much as the
external objects are. Now, if consciousness is re-
vealed by an intelligence, which consciousness is it ?
— the one that is revealed (the consciousness of the
intellect), or the one that reveals (i.e. the conscious-
ness of the self) ? Since there is a doubt on the
point, we should infer on the analogy of observed
facts, not contrary to them. Such being the case,
just as we see that external objects such as a lamp
are revealed by something different from them (the
self), so also should consciousness — although it re-
veals other things like a lamp — be inferred, on the
ground of its being revealed by an intelligence, to
be revealed^not by itself, but by an intelligence
different from it. And that other entity which re-
4 . 3 . 7 ]
BRIHAD ARAN Y AKA UPAN1SHAD
621
veals consciousness is the self — the intelligence which
is different from that consciousness.
Objection : But that would lead to a regressus
in infinitum .
Reply : No ; it has only been stated on logical
grounds that because consciousness is an object
revealed by something, the latter must be distinct
from that consciousness. Obviously there cannot be
any infallible ground for inferring that the self
literally reveals the consciousness in question, or
that, as the witness, it requires another agency to
reveal it. Therefore there is no question of a
regressus in infinitum.
Objection : If consciousness is revealed hy
something else, some means of revelation is requir-
ed, and this would again lead to a regressus in in-
finitum.
Reply : No, for there is no such restriction ;
it is not a universal rule. We cannot lay down an
absolute condition that whenever something is re-
vealed by another, there must be some means of rev-
elation besides the two — that which reveals and that
which is revealed, for we observe diversity of con-
ditions. For instance, a jar is perceived by some-
thing different from itself, viz., the self ; here light
such as that of a lamp, which is other than the per-
ceiving subject and the perceived object, is a means.
The light of the lamp etc. is neither a part of the
jar nor of the eye. But though the lamp, like the
jar, is perceived by the eye, the latter does not re-
quire any external means corresponding to the light,
over and above the lamp (which is the object).
622
BRlHADAkANYAKA UPANISHAD [4. 3. 7
Heiice we can never lay down the rule that wherever
a thing is perceived by something else, there must
be some means besides the two. Therefore, if con-
sciousness is admitted to be revealed by a subject
different from it, the charge of a regressus in infini-
tum , either through the means, or through the
perceiving subject (the self), is altogether untenable.
Hence it is proved that there is another light, viz.,
the light of the self, which is different from conscious-
ness.
Objection (by the idealist) : We say there is no
external object like the jar etc., or the lamp, apart
from consciousness ; and it is commonly observed
that a thing which is not perceived apart from
something else is nothing but the latter ; as, for
instance, things such as the jar and cloth seen in
dream consciousness. Because we do not perceive
the jar, lamp, and so forth seen in a dream, apart
from the dream consciousness, we take it for granted
that they are nothing but the latter. Similarly in the
waking state, the jar, lamp, and so forth, not being
perceived apart from the consciousness of that state,
should be taken merely as that consciousness and
nothing more. Therefore there is no external object
such as the jar or lamp, and everything is but con-
sciousness. Hence your statement that since con-
sciousness is revealed, like the jar etc., by some*
thing else, there is another light besides conscious-
ness, is groundless ; for everything being but con-
sciousness, there is no illustration to support you.
Reply : No, for you admit the existence of the
4 . 3 . 7 ]
BRJHA DA RANYAKA UPANISHAD
623
external world to a certain extent. You do not alto-
gether deny it.
Objection : We deny it absolutely.
Reply : No. Since the words 'consciousness/
'jar’ and ‘lamp’ are different and have different
meanings, you cannot help admitting to a certain
extent the existence of external objects. If you do
not admit the existence of objects different from con-
sciousness, words such as ‘consciousness,* ‘jar* and
‘cloth,* having the same meaning, would be synony-
mous. Similarly, the means being identical with the
result, your scriptures inculcating a difference be-
tween them would be useless, and their author
(Buddha) be charged with ignorance.
Moreover you yourself admit that a debate be-
tween rivals as well as its defects are different from
consciousness. You certainly do not consider the
debate and its defects to be identical with one's
consciousness, for the opponent, for instance, has to
be refuted. Nobody admits that it is either his own
consciousness or his own self that is meant to be
refuted ; were it so, all human activities would stop.
Nor do you assume that the opponent perceives
himself ; rather you take it for granted that he is
perceived by others. Therefore we conclude that
the whole objective world is perceived by some-
thing other than itself, because it is an object of our
perception in the waking state, just like other objects
perceived in that state, such as the opponent — which
is an easy enough illustration ; or as one » series 1 of
1 The series called Hari, for instance, is perceived by
the series called Rama.
624
BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [4. 3. 7
(momentary) consciousnesses, or any single one 1 of
them, is perceived by another of the same kind.
Therefore not even the idealist can deny the existence
of another light different from consciousness.
Objection : You are wrong to say that there is
an external world, since in dreams we perceive
nothing but consciousness.
Reply : No, for even from this absence of ex*
ternal objects we can demonstrate their difference
from consciousness. You yourself have admitted
that in dreams the consciousness of a jar or the like
is real ; but in the same breath you say that there is
no jar apart from that consciousness ! The point
is, whether the jar which forms the object of that
consciousness is unreal or real, in either case you
have admitted that the consciousness of the jar is
real , 2 and it cannot be denied, for there is no reason
to support the denial. By this 3 the theory of the
voidness of everything is also refuted ; as also the
Mimdmsaka view that the Self is perceived by the
individual self as the T \ 4
Your statement that every moment a different
jar in contact with light is produced, is wrong, for
even at a subsequent moment we recognise it to be
the same jar.
1 Buddha’s knowledge, for instance, perceives that of
any ordinal mortal.
2 The reality of the consciousness presupposes the
existence of external objects, which alone determine the
form of that consciousness.
3 The impossibility of doing away with the distinction
between knowledge and the object known.
4 For the same thing cannot be both subject and objects
4 . 3 . 7 ]
BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
625
Objection : The recognition may be due to
similarity, as in the case of liair, nails, etc., that
have been cut and have grown anew.
Reply : No, for even in that case the momen-
tariness is disproved. Besides, the recognition is due
merely to an identity of species. When the hair,
nails, etc., have been cut and have grown again,
there being an identity of species as hair, nails,
etc., their recognition as such due to that identity is
unquestionable. But when we see the - hair, nails,
etc., that have grown again after being cut, we never
have the idea that they are, individually, those iden-
tical hairs or nails. When after a great lapse of time
we see on a person hair, nails, etc., of the same
size as before, we perteive that the hair, nails, etc.,
we see at that particular moment are like those seen
on the previous occasion, but never that they are
the same ones. But in the case of a jar etc. we
perceive that they are identical. Therefore the two
cases are not parallel.
When a thing is directly recognised as identical,
it is improper to infer that it is something # else, for
when an inference contradicts perception, the ground
of such inference becomes fallacious. Moreover the
perception of similarity is impossible because of the
momentariness of knowledge (held by you). The per-
ception of similarity takes place when one and the
same person sees two things at different times. But
according to you the person who sees a thing does;
not exist till the next moment to see another thing*
for consciousness, being momentary, ceases to be
as soon as it has seen some one thing. To explain :
40
626
BRJHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [4. 3. 7
The perception of similarity takes the form of ‘This
is like that/ ‘That* refers to the remembrance of
something seen ; ‘this* to the perception of something
present. If after remembering the past experience
denoted by ‘that/ consciousness should linger till
the present moment referred to by ‘this/ then the
doctrine of momentariness would be gone. If, how-
ever, the remembrance terminates with the notion
of 'that/ and a different perception, relating to the
present, (arises and) dies with the notion of ‘this/
then no perception of similarity expressed by, r This
is like that/ will result, as there will be no single
consciousness perceiving more than one thing (so as
to draw the comparison). Moreover it will be im-
possible to describe our experiences. Since conscious-
ness ceases to be just after seeing what was to be
seen, we cannot use such expressions as, ‘I see this/
or ‘I saw that/ for the person who has seen them
will not exist till the moment of making these
utterances. Or, if he does, the doctrine of momen-
tariness will be contradicted. If, on the other
hand, the person who makes these utterances and
perceives the similarity is other than the one who
saw those things, then, like the remarks of a man
born blind about particular colours and his percep-
tion of their similarity, the writing of scriptural
books by the omniscient Buddha and other such
things will all become an instance of the blind
following the blind. But this is contrary to your
views. Moreover the charges of obtaining results
of actions not done and not obtaining those of ac-
4. 3. 7] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
627
tions already done, are quite patent in the doctrine
•of momentariness.
Objection : It is possible to describe a past ex-
perience by means of a single chain-like perception
that takes place so as to include both the preceding
and the succeeding perception, and this also accounts
for the comparison, ‘This is like that/
Reply : Not so, for the past and the present
perception belong to different times. The present
perception is one link of the chain, and the past per-
ception another, and these two perceptions belong
to different times. If the chain-like perception
touches the objects of both these perceptions, then
the same consciousness extending over two moments,
the doctrine of momentariness again falls to the
ground. And such distinctions as ‘mine’ and 'yours’
being impossible , 1 all our dealings in the world will
come to naught.
Moreover, since you hold everything to be but
consciousness perceptible only to itself, and at the
same time say that consciousness is by nature but
the reflection of pellucid knowledge, and since there
is no other witness to it, it is impossible to regard it
as various such as transitory, painful, void and un-
real. Nor can consciousness be treated as having
many contradictory parts, like a pomegranate etc.,
for according to you it is of the nature of pellucid
knowledge. Moreover, if the transitoriness, painful-
ness, etc., are parts of consciousness, the, very fact
that they are perceived will throw theii^ into the
1 Since there is only one consciousness, and that also
momentary.
628
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [4. 3. 7
category of objects, different from the subject. If,
on the other hand, consciousness is essentially trans-
itory, painful, and so on, then it is impossible to con-
ceive that it will become pure by getting rid of those
characteristics, for a thing becomes pure by getting
rid of the impurities that are connected with it, as.
in the case of a mirror etc. But a thing can never
divest itself of its natural property. Fire, for in-
stance, is never seen to part with its natural light or
heat. Although the redness and other qualities of
a flower are seen to be removed by the addition of
other substances, yet even there we infer that those
features were the result of previous combinations,
for we observe that by subjecting the seeds to a
particular process, a different quality is imparted to
flowers, fruits, etc. Hence consciousness cannot be
conceived to be purified.
Besides you conceive consciousness to be impure
when it appears in the dual character of subject and
object. That too is impossible, since it does not come
in contact with anything else. A thing cannot surely
come in contact with something that does not exist ;
and when there is no contact with anything else,
the properties that are observed in a thing belong
naturally to it, and cannot be separated from it, as
the heat of fire, or the light of the sun. Therefore
we conclude that your assumption that consciousness
becomes impure by coming temporarily in contact
with something else, and is again free from this im-
purity, l^merely an instance of the blind following
the blind, and is unsupported by any evidence.
Lastly, the Buddhistic assumption that the ex-
4. 3. 8] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
629
tinction of that consciousness is the highest end of
human life, is untenable, for there is no recipient of
results. For a person who has got a thorn stuck
into him, the relief of the pain caused by it is the
result (he seeks) ; but if he dies, we do not find any
recipient of the resulting cessation of pain. Similar-
ly, if consciousness is altogether extinct and there
is nobody to reap that benefit, to talk of it as the
highest end of human life is meaningless. If that
very entity or self, designated by the word 'person *
— consciousness, according to you — whose well-being
is meant, is extinct, for whose sake will the highest
end be ? But those who (with us) believe in a self
different from consciousness and witnessing many
objects, will find it easy to explain all phenomena
such as the remembrance of things previously seen
and the contact and cessation of pain — the impurity,
for instance, being ascribed to contact with extra-
neous things, and the purification to dissociation from
them. As for the view of the nihilist, since it is
contradicted by all the evidences of knowledge, no
attempt is being made to refute it.
n <s n \y
8. That man, 1 when he is born, or attains
a body, is connected with evils (the body and
organs) ; and when he dies, or leaves the body,
he discards those evils. «
1 The individual self. So also in the next few para-
graphs.
630 BRIHA DARANYAKA UPANISHAD [4. 3. S
Just as in this world a man, in the same body,
is identified with dreams and in that state lives in
the light that is his own self, transcending the body
and organs, so is that mari who is being discussed,
when he is horn , connected with evils, that is,
with their inseparable concomitants or effects, the
body and organs, which are the support of merit and
demerit. How is he born ? When he attains a body,
with the organs and all, that is, identifies himself
with it. When that very person dies, or leaves the
body, to take another body in turn, he discards those
evils, that is, the body and organs, which are but
forms of evil and have fastened themselves on him.
The phrase ‘leaves the body* is an explanation of
'dies.* Just as in his present body he, resembling the
intellect, continuously moves between the waking
and dream states by alternately taking and giving
up the body and organs, which are but forms of evil,
so does he continuously move between this and the
next world by alternately taking and giving up the
body and organs, by way of birth and death, until
he attains liberation > Therefore it is proved from
this conjunction and disjunction that the light of
the self about which we have been talking is distinct
from these evils, the body and organs.
It may be contended that there are not those
two worlds between which the man can move altern-
ately through birth and death as between the waking
and dream states. The latter of course are matters
of experience, but the two worlds are not known
through any means of knowledge. Therefore these
4 . 3 . 9 ]
BRIHADARANYAKA VPANJSHAD
631
waking and dream states themselves must be the
two worlds in question. This is being answered by
the following text :
37 5 VRcT:— fcf 53f
=5 ; SP2T tjcfar STOWR ; cTfijCRH?^
wra ^ tnprfa— ^ q^^.wisr ^ i
srq «r*nsKiftor trtsstawifl ?mi5T:rmi5Ewl’-
^*if?T ; e sresrfqfa,
5T^et jrrarmtfi^Fi m
f^mPT, ^ sttsu, s*itfa»Tr sr^fafa . a**ro
3^: n * || O'
g. That man has only two abodes, this
and the next world. The dream state, which
is the third, is at the junction (of the two).
Staying at that junction he surveys the two
abodes, this and the next world. Whatever
outfit he may have for the next world , provid-
ing himself with that he sees both evils
(sufferings) and joys. When he dreams, he
takes away a little of (the impressions of) this
all-embracing world (the waking state), him-
self puts the body aside and himself creates
(a dream body in its place), revealing his own
lustre by his own light — and dreams. In this
state the man himself becomes the light.
That man has only two abodes, . no third or
fourth. Which are they? This and the next world.
The present life, consisting of the body, organs,
632
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [4. 3. s)
objects and their impressions, which we now perceive,
and the future life to be experienced after we have
given up the body and the rest.
Objection : Is not the dream state also the next
world ? In that case the assertion about 'only two
abodes’ is wrong."
Reply : No, the dreayn state , which is the
third , is at the junction of this and the next world ;
hence the definite pronouncement about two abodes.
The junction of two villages does not certainly count
as a third village. How do we know about the ex-
istence of the next world, in relation to which the
dream state may be at the junction ? Because stay-
ing at that junction he surveys the two abodes.
Which are the two? This and the next world.
Therefore, over and above the waking and dream
states, there are the two worlds between which the
man (the individual self), resembling the intellect,
moves, in an unbroken series of births and deaths.
How does he, staying in the dream state, survey
the two worlds, what help does he take, and what
process does he follow ? This is being answered :
Listen how he surveys them. Whatever outfit —
'Akrama’ is that by means of which one proceeds,
that is, support or outfit — the man may have for the
attainment of the next world, that is, whatever
knowledge, work and previous experience he may
have for this end, providing himself with tjiat — just
ready to take him to the next world, like a seed
about to ,sprout — he sees both evils and joys. The
plural is due to the varied, results of virtue and vice,
meaning both kinds. 'Evils’ refer to their results,
4 . 3 . 9 ]
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
633
or sufferings, for they themselves cannot be directly
■experienced ; the joys are the results of virtue. He
feels both sufferings and joys consisting of the im-
pressions of experiences of previous lives ; while
those glimpses of the results of merits and demerits
that are to come in his future life, he experiences
through the urge of those merits and demerits, or
through the grace of the gods. How are we to
know that in dreams one experiences the sufferings
and joys that are to come in the next life ? The
answer is : Because one dreams many things that
are never to be experienced in this life. Moreover a
dream is not an entirely new experience, for most
often it is the memory of past experiences. Hence
we conclude that the two worlds exist apart from
the waking and dream states.
An objection is raised : It has been said that in
the absence of the external lights such as the sun,
the man identified with the body and organs lives
and moves in the world with the help of the light
of the self, which is different from the body and
organs. But we say that there is never an absence
of lights such as the sun to make it possible for one
to perceive this self-effulgent light as isolated from
the body and organs, because we perceive these as
always in contact with those external lights. There-
fore the self as an absolute, isolated light is almost
or wholly a nonentity. If, however, it is ever per-
ceived as an absolute, isolated light free from the
contact of the elements and their derivative^, external
and internal, then all your statements will be correct.
This is being answered as follows :
634
BR1HA DA RA NY A KA UPANISHAD [4. 3. 9
When he, the self that is being discussed, dreams
freely, what is his outfit then, and in what way does
he dream, or attain the junction between this world
and the next ? The answer is being given : He
takes away a little of this all-embracing world, or
the world we experience in the waking state. ‘All-
embracing’ (Sarvavat 1 ) : Literally, protecting or
taking care of everything ; it refers to the body and
organs in contact with sense-objects and their
reactions. Their all-embracing character has been
explained in the section dealing with the three kinds
of food in the passage beginning with, ‘Now this
self/ etc. (I. iv. 16). Or the word may mean,
possessing all the elements and their derivatives,
which 2 serve to attach him to the world ; in other
words, the waking state. (‘Sarvavat' is the same
as ‘Sarvavat/) He detaches a portion of these,
that is, is tinged by the impressions of the present
life. Himself puts the body aside, literally, kills
it, that is, makes it inert or unconscious. In the
waking state fhe sun and other deities help the
eyes etc. so that the body may function, and the
body functions because the self experiences the
results of its merits and demerits. The cessation
of the experience of those results in this body
is due to the exhaustion of the work done by
the self ; hence the self is described as killing
the body. And himself creates a dream bpdy com-
1 Two derivations are given. In the first ‘Sarva’ fall)
is joined to the verb ‘Ava/ to protect; in the second it
takes the suffix ‘vat/ denoting possession.
2 In their threefold division pertaining to the body etc.
4. 3. 9J
BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
635
posed of past impressions, like one created by magic.
This creation too is the consequence of his past
work ; hence it is spoken of as being created by
him. Revealing his own lustre, consisting in the
perception of sense-objects, the mind itself being
modified in the form of diverse impressions of the
latter. It is these modifications that then take the
place of objects, and are spoken of as being them-
selves of the nature of lustre in that state. With
this his own lustre as object, and revealing it (the
mass of impressions of sense-objects) by his own
light, that is, as the detached subject or witness
possessing constant vision, he dreams . Being in this
state is called dreaming. In this state, at this time,
the man, or self, himself becomes the detached light,
free from the contact of the elements and their
derivatives, external and internal.
Objection : It is stated that the self then has
glimpses of the impressions of the waking state. If
so, how can it be said that ‘in that state the man
himself becomes the light’ ?
Reply : There is nothing wrong in it, because
the glimpses are but objects (not the subject). In
that way alone can the man be shown to be himself
the light then, and not otherwise, when there is no
object to be revealed, as in profound sleep. When,
however, that lustre consisting of the impressions
of the waking state is perceived as an object, then,
like a sword drawn from its sheath, the light of
the self, the eternal witness, unrelated to, anything
and distinct from the body and the organs such as
the eye, is realised as it is, revealing everything.
636
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [4. 3. 9
Therefore it is proved that 'in that state the man
himself becomes the light.’
Objection : How can the man himself be the
light in dreams, when we come across at that time
all the phenomena of the waking state dependent
■on the relation between the subject and object, and
the lights such as the sun are seen to help the eye
and other organs just the same as in the waking-
state? In the face of these how can the assertion
be made that ‘in that state the man himself becomes
the light’ ?
Reply : Because the phenomena of dreams are
■different. In the waking state the light of the self
is mixed up with the functions of the organs, intel-
lect, Manas, (external) lights, etc. But in dreams,
since the organs do not act and the lights such as
the sun that help them are absent, the self becomes
distinct and isolated. Hence the dream state is
different.
Objection : The sense-objects are perceived in
dreams just the same as in the waking state. How
then do you adduce their difference on the ground
that the organs do not function then ?
Reply : Listen —
*T rT* tHT ff ?T qWETTsfi - 3m
mTrm*farR«m: v g^: srg^
srafs-r, sm w^R. g?: srg^: 5 enr tjmsrrr:
WF&t ^att ; ^ % SR3T II u
4 . 3 . 10 ] BR1HADARANY AKA UPANISHAD
637
io. There are no chariots, nor animals
to be yoked to them, nor roads there, but he
creates the chariots, animals and roads.
There are no pleasures, joys, or delights
there, but he creates the pleasures, joys and
delights. There are no pools, tanks, or rivers
there, but he creates the pools, tanks and
rivers. For lie is the agent.
There are no objects such as chariots there, in
dreams. Nor are there animals to he yoked to them ,
such as horses ; nor roads for the chariots. But he
himself creates the chariots, annuals and roads. But
how does he create them, since there are no trees
etc., which are the means of the chariots and so
forth ? The reply is being- given : It has been said
(in paragraph 9), 'He takes away a little of this
all-embracing world, himself puts the body aside,
and himself creates.* The modifications of the mind
are a little of this world, that is, are its impressions ;
the former, detaching the latter — in other words,
being transformed into the impressions of chariots
etc. — and being stimulated by the individual* s pre-
vious work, which is the cause of their perception,
appear as the sense-objects ; this is expressed by the
words, 'And himself creates,* and also by the clause,
'He creates the chariots/ etc. Really there are
neither activities of the organs, nor lights such as
the sun that help them, nor objects such as the
chariots to be illumined by them, but only their
impressions are visible/ having no existence apart
from the palpable modifications of the mind that
638
BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [ 4 . 3 . 10
are stimulated by the individual's previous work,
which is the cause of the perception of those impres-
sions. The light with constant vision that witnesses
them, the light of the self, is perfectly isolated in
this state, like a sword separated from its sheath.
Likewise there are no pleasures, kinds of happi-
ness, joys such as those caused by the birth of a
son etc., or delights, which are those very joys
magnified, but he creates the pleasures, etc. Like-
wise there are no pools, tanks or rivers there, but
he creates the pools, etc., in the form of impressions
only. For he is the agent. We have already said
that his agency consists in merely being the cause
of the work that generates the modifications of the
mind representing those impressions. Direct activity
is then out of the question, for there are no means.
Activity is impossible without its factors. In dreams
there cannot be any factors of an action such as
hands and feet. But in the waking state, when they
are present, the body and organs, illumined by the
light of the self, perform work that (later on) pro-
duce the modifications of the mind representing the
impressions of the chariot etc. Hence it is said,
‘For he is the agent.’; This has been stated in the
passage, Tt is through the light of the self that he
sits, goes out, works and returns’ (IV. iii. 6). There
too, strictly speaking, the light of the self has no
direct agency, except that it is the illuminer of
everything. The light of the self, whicli is Pure
Intelligence, illumines the body and organs through
the min5, and they perform their functions being
illumined by it ; hence in the passage quoted the
4. 3. 11] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
639
agency of the self is merely figurative. What has
been stated in the passage, ‘It thinks, as it were,
and shakes, as it were 1 (IV. iii. 7), is here repeated
in the clause, ‘For he is the agent/ in order to
furnish a reason. 1
suffer i
3^ HUH
ii. Regarding this there are the follow-
ing verses :
‘The radiant infinite being (Purusha) who
moves alone, puts the body aside in the dream
state, and himself awake and taking the shin-
ing functions of the organs with him, watches
those that are asleep. Again he comes to the
waking state.
Regarding this subject that has just been treated
of, there are the following verses or Mantras :
The radiant — literally, golden ; the light that is
Pure Intelligence — infinite being who 7noves alone
through the waking and dream states, this world
and the next, and so un, puts the body aside, makes
it inert, in the dream state, and himself awake, being
possessed of the constant power of vision etc., and
taking the shining — literally, pure — functions of the
organs with him, watches those that are leep , all
1 For the creation of chariots etc. in dreams.
640
BRJHADARANY AKA UPANISHAD [4. 3. II
external and internal things that are centred in the
modifications of the mind and appear as impressions
— things that have ceased to be in their own forms.
In other words, he reveals them through his own
constant vision. Again he comes to the waking
state, to work. *
h V< II
12. ‘The radiant infinite being who is
immortal and moves alone, preserves the un-
clean nest (of a body) with the help of the vital
force, and roams out of the nest. Himself
immortal, he goes wherever he likes.
Likewise he preserves the unclean — literally,
worthless — nest, the body, extremely loathsome as
consisting of many filthy things, with the help of
the vital force that has a fivefold function — other-
wise it would be taken for dead — but he himself
roams out of that nest. Though he dreams staying
in the body, yet, having no connection with it like
the ether in the body, he is said to be roaming out.
Himself immortal, he goes wherever he likes : For
whatever objects his desire is roused, he attains
them in the form of impressions.
^nfnT ^*r: stgfJr i
4 . 3 . 14 ] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 641
smfsr ii ^ 11
13. 'In the dream world, the shining one,
attaining higher and lower states, puts forth
innumerable forms. He seems to be enjoying
himself in the company of women, or laugh-
ing, or even seeing frightful things.
Further, in the dream zvorld , the shining one,
attaining higher and lower states , as gods and
animals, for instance, puts forth innumerable forms,
as impressions. He seems to be enjoying himself
in the company of women, or laughing with friends,
or even seeing frightful things, such as lions and
tigers.
!T cf || |
rf STRTrf | ifiWf SSlfa
SI srfatprj^ I am) simfei^ff
5 srrfsr sni crrft fgn ;
ST^Tsf 3^:
^Tftr, aw syftfsr it ii
14. ‘Kverybody sees his sport, but no-
body sees him.' They say, ‘Do not wake him
up suddenly.’ If he does not find the right
organ, the body becomes difficult to doctor.
Others, however, say that the dream state of
a man is nothing but the waking state, because
he sees in dreams only those things ‘that he
sees in the waking state. (This is wrong.)
41
642
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 4 . 3 . 14
In the dream state the man himself becomes
the light. ‘I give you a thousand (cows), sir.
Please instruct me further about liberation . 9
Everybody sees his sport, consisting of the im-
pressions of villages, cities, women, eatables, etc.,
conjured by the self, but nobody sees him. What
a pity that although the self is totally distinct from
the body and organs and is present before their very
eyes, people are yet unfortunate enough not to see
it, notwithstanding its capacity of being seen ! This
is how the Shruti is sympathising with mankind.
The idea is that in dreams the self becomes altogether
distinct and is itself the light.
They say, c Do not wake him up suddenly .*
There is also a popular belief that proves the self to
be distinct from the body and organs in dreams.
What is that? Physicians and others say, ‘Do not
wake up a sleeping man suddenly or violently/
They say so only because they see that (in dreams)
the self goes out of the body of the waking state
through the gates of the organs and remains isolated
outside. They also see the possibility of harm
in this, viz., that if the self is violently roused, it
may not find those gates of the organs. This is
expressed as follows : If he does not find the right
organ, the body becomes difficult to doctor . The
self may not get back to those gates of the organs
through which it went out, taking the shining func-
tions of the latter, on it may misplace these func-
tions. In that case defects such as blindness and
deafness may result, and the body may find It
4. 3. 14] BRIHA DA RA NY A KA UPAN1SHAD
643
difficult to treat them. Therefore from the above
popular notion also we can understand the self-
luminosity of the Atman in dreams.
Being identified with dreams, the self transcends
the forms of death ; therefore in dreams it is itself
the light. Others , however, say that the dream
state of a man is nothing but the waking state — that
the dream state, which is the junction between this
world and the next, is not a state distinct from either
of them, but identical with this world, that is, the
waking state. Supposing this is so, what follows
from this? Listen. If the dream state is nothing but
the waking state, the self is not dissociated from
the body and organs, but rather mixed up with
them ; hence the self is not itself the light. So in
order to refute the self -luminosity of the Atman,
these people say that the dream state is identical
with the waking state. And they state their reason
for taking it as the waking state : Because a man
sees in dreams only those things, elephants etc.,
ihat he sees in the waking state. All this is wrong,
because then the organs are at rest. One dreams,
only when the organs have ceased to function.
Therefore no other light (than the self) can exist in
that state. This has been expressed by the words,
‘There are no chariots, nor animals/ etc. (IV. iii.
10). Therefore in the dream state the man himself
undoubtedly becomes the light.
By the illustration of dreams it has been proved
that there is the self-luminous Atman, ami that it
transcends the forms of death. Since it alternately
moves between this world and the next, and so on.
644
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [4. 3. U
it is distinct from them. Likewise it is distinct from
the nests of the waking and dream states. And
Yajnavalkya has proved that since it moves altern-
ately from one to the other, it is eternal. Hence, to
requite the knowledge received, Janaka offers a
thousand cow3. 'Because you have thus instructed
me, I give you a thousand cows , sir. You have
permitted me to ask any question I like, and I want
to ask about liberation. What you have told me
about the self is helpful for that ; as subserving that
end, however, it is only a part of what I want.
Hence I request you to instruct me further about
liberation, so that I may hear the decision about the
whole of my desired question, and through your grace
be altogether free from this relative existence. * The
gift of a thousand cows is for the solution of a part
of the meaning of the term ‘liberation.’
What was stated at the beginning of this section,
viz., Tt is through the light of the self that he sits, 1
etc. (IV. iii. 6), has been proved in the dream state
by a reference to the experiences of that state in the
passage, Tn this state the man (self) himself becomes
the light’ (IV. iii. 9). But regarding the statement,
‘Being identified with dreams, it transcends this,
world — the forms of death (ignorance etc.)’ (IV. iii.
7), it is contended that the self transcends merely
the forms of death, not death itself. We see it plain-
ly in dreams that although the self is separated from
the body and organs, it experiences joy, fear, etc. ;
therefore it certainly does not transcend death, for
we see the effects of death (i.e. work) such as joy
4. 3. 15] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
645
and fear at the time. If it is naturally handicapped
by death, then it cannot attain liberation, for nobody
can part with his nature. If, however, death is not
the nature of the self, then liberation from it will
be possible. In order to show that death is- not the
natural characteristic of the self, Yajnavalkya, al-
ready prompted by Janaka with the words, ‘Please
instruct me further about liberation* (IV. iii. 14),
•sets himself to this task :
g qnmr sr, srfsfmtf g faq i wngqfc *=»
ff?T ; *TT5jj
^rfa, ara -&A ftwfar&r n V\ \\
15. After enjoying himself and roaming,
and merely seeing (the results of) good and
evil (in dreams), he (stays) in a state of pro-
found sleep, and comes back in the inverse
order to his former condition, the dream
state. He is untouched by whatever he sees
in that state, for this infinite being is un-
attached. ‘It is just so, Yajnavalkya. I
give you a thousand (cows), sir. Please
instruct me further about liberation itself.’
He, the self-luminous being who is under con-
sideration, and who has been pointed out in the
dream state, (stays) in a state of profoijid sleep,
‘Samprasada ’ — the state of highest serenity. In the.
waking state a man gets impurities due to the com-
646
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 4 . 3 . 15
mingling of innumerable activities of the body and
organs ; he gets a little joy by discarding them in
dreams ; but in profound sleep he gets the highest
serenity ; hence this state is called ‘Samprasada/
The self in a state of profound sleep will be later on
described as, ‘For he is then beyond all the woes of
his heart' (IV. iii. 22), and ‘Pure like water, one, and
the witness' (IV. iii. 31). He stays in a state of
profound sleep, having gradually attained the highest
serenity. How does he attain it ? After enjoying
himself — just before passing into the state of profound
sleep — in the dream state itself, by having a sight
etc. of his friends and relatives, and roaming ,
sporting in various ways, that is, experiencing
the fatigue due to it, and merely seeing, not doing,
good and evil, that is, their results (pleasure and
pain). We have already said (p. 633) that good and
evil cannot be directly visualised. Hence he is not
fettered by them. Only one who does good and evil
is so fettered ; one certainly cannot come under their
binding influence by merely seeing them. There-
fore, being identified with dreams, the self transcends
death also, not merely its forms. Hence death
cannot be urged to be its nature. Were it so, the
self would be doing things in dreams ; but it does
not. If activity be the nature of the self, it will
never attain liberation ; but it is not, for it is absent
in dreams. Hence the self can get rid of death in
the form of good and evil.
Objection : But is not activity its nature in the
waking state?
Reply : No, that is due to its limiting adjuncts*
4. 3. 15] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
647
the intellect etc. This has been proved on the
ground of apparent activity from the text, Tt thinks,
as it were, and shakes, as it were’ (IV. iii. 7). There-
fore, since the self wholly transcends the forms of
death in dreams, death can never be urged to be
natural to it. nor is liberation an impossibility.
‘Roaming’ in that state, that is, experiencing the
resulting fatigue, and afterwards experiencing the
state of profound sleep, he conies back in the inverse
order of that by which he went, that is, retracing
his steps, to his former condition, viz., the dream
state. It was out of this that he passed into the state
of profound sleep, and now he returns to it.
It may be asked, how is one- to know that a man
does not do good and evil in dreams, but merely sees
their results? Rather the presumption is that as he
does good and evil in the waking state, so he does
them in the dream state also, for the experience is
the same in both cases. This is being answered :
He, the self, is untouched by whatever results of
good and evil he sees in that dream state. If he
actually did anything in dreams, he would be bound
by it ; and it would pursue him even after he woke
up. But it is not known in everyday life that he
is pursued by deeds done in dreams. Nobody con-
siders himself a sinner on account of sins committed
in dreams ; nor do people who have heard of them
condemn or shun him. Therefore he is certainly
untouched by them. Hence he only appears to be
doing things in dreams, but actually the^e is no
activity. The verse has been quoted : ‘He seems
to be enjoying himself in the company of women’
648 BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [4. 3. 15
(IV. iii. 13). And those who describe their dream
experiences use the words 'as if’ in this connection,
as, for instance, 'I saw to-day as if a herd of
elephants was running . 9 Therefore the self has no
activity (in dreams) .
How is it'that it has no activity? (This is being
explained : ) We see that an action is caused by
the contact of the body and organs, which have
form, with something else that has form. We never
see a formless thing being active ; and the self is
formless, hence it is unattached. And because this
self is unattached, it is untouched by what it sees
in dreams. Therefore we cannot by any means attrib-
ute activity to it, since activity proceeds from the
contact of the body and organs, and that contact is
non-existent for the self, for this infinite being (self)
is unattached. Therefore it is immortal. f It is just
so, Yajnavalkya. J give you a thousand (cows), sir,
for you have fully shown that the self is free from
action — which is a part of the meaning of the term
‘ ‘liberation.’ } Please instruct me further about
liberation itself /
qt q* *csrr
3^r , quAfoartrewi, to! toj*
^Tfq, fqiT^ITqq jyftfir l| \\ If
1 6. , After enjoying himself and roaming
in the dream state, and merely seeing (the
results of) good and evil, he comes back in
4 . 3 . 17 ] BR1HAVARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
649
the inverse order to his former condition, the
waking state. He is untouched by whatever
he sees in that state, for this infinite being is
unattached. ‘It is just so, Yajnavalkva. I
give you a thousand (cows), sir. Please in-
struct me further about liberation itself.’
Objection : In the preceding paragraph the
non-attachment of the self has been stated as the
cause of its inactivity in the passage, ‘For this
infinite being is unattached. ’ It has also been stated
before that under the sway of past work ‘lie goes
wherever he likes’ (IV. iii. 12). Now desire is an
attachment ; hence the reason adduced — ‘For this
infinite being is unattached ’ — is fallacious.
Reply : It is not. How? This is how the self
is unattached : On his return from the state of
profound sleep, after enjoying himself and roam-
ing in the dream state , and merely seeing (the results
of) good and evil, he comes back in the inverse order
to his former condition — all this is to be explained
as before — the waking state ; therefore this infinite
being (self) is unattached. If he were attached, or
smitten by desire, in the dream state, he would, on
his return to the waking state, be affected by the
evils due to that attachment.
Just as, being unattached in the dream state, he
is not affected, on his return to the waking state,
by the evils due to attachment in the d^eam state,
so he is not affected by them in the waking state
either. This is expressed by the following text :
650 BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 4 . 3 . 17
> *
^gr *csrr gfcgT, s«zg
gotf g <n<i g, gg: stfgygrg sr^raWrsjgfg grat-
gsrshr ii ii
17. After enjoying himself and roaming
in the waking state, and merely seeing (the
results of) good and evil, he comes back in
the inverse order to his former condition, the
dream state (or that of profound sleep).
After enjoying himself and roaming in the
waking state, etc. — to be explained as before. 'He
is untouched by whatever he sees in that — waking”
— state, for this infinite being is unattached.’
Objection : How is the assertion made about
his 'merely seeing’ ? As a matter of fact, he does
good and evil in the waking state, and sees their
results too.
Reply : Not so, for his agency is attributable
to his merely revealing the different factors of an
action. Such texts as, 'It is through the light of
the self that he sits,’ etc. (IV. iii. 6), show that the
body and organs work, being revealed by the light
of the self. For this reason agency is figuratively
attributed to the self, which naturally has none. So
it has been said, 'It thinks, as it were, and shakes,
as it were’ (IV. iii. 7). The agency is simply due
to its limiting adjuncts, the intellect etc., and is
not natural to it. Here, however, the self is de-
scribed from the standpoint of reality independently
of the limiting adjuncts : 'Merely seeing (the results
of) good and evil,’ not actually doing them. Hence
there is no fear of contradiction between this and
4. 3. 17] BR1HA DA RA NY A KA UPANISHAD 651
#
the previous text, because the self, freed from its
limiting adjuncts, really neither does anything nor
is affected by the results of any action. As the Lord
has said, ‘The immutable Supreme Self, O Arjuua,
being without beginning and without attributes,
neither does anything nor is affected by its results,
although It is in the body* (G. XIII. 31). And the
gift of a thousand cows is made because Yajnavalkya
has shown the self to be free from desire. Similar-
ly this and the. preceding paragraph prove the non-
attachment of the self. Because, passing into the
dream state and that of profound sleep, it is not
affected by what it did in the waking state — for we
do not then find actions such as theft — therefore in
all the three states the self is naturally unattached.
Hence it is immortal, or distinct from the attributes
of the three states. He comes back to his former
condition , the state of profound sleep (Swapnanta). <
Since the dream state, with its function of seeing
visions, has already been mentioned by the word
‘Swapna,' the addition of the word ‘Anta' (end)
will be appropriate if we take the word ‘Swap-
nanta * in the sense of dreamless sleep, which state
will also be referred to in the passage, ‘He runs for
this state' (IV. iii. 19). If, however, it is argued
by a reference to the following passages, 1 ‘Enjoying
himself and roaming in the dream state,' and
‘Moves to both these states, the dream and waking
states,' that here also the word ‘Swapn&nta' means
the dream state, with its function of seeing visions,
1 Paragraphs 34 and 18 respectively. In these passages
the word ‘Anta’ occurs thrice, meaning not end, but state.
'652
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 4 . 3 . 17
there is nothing wrong in that interpretation too ;
for non-attachment of the self is what is sought to
be established, and that is accomplished in both inter-
pretations. Therefore, on returning to the dream
state ‘after enjoying himself and roaming in the
waking state, and merely seeing (the results of) good
and evil/ he is not pursued by the evils of the waking
state.
Thus the idea that has been established by the
last three paragraphs is that this self is itself the
light and distinct from the body and organs and
their stimulating causes, desire and work, on account
of its non-attachment — ‘For this infinite being is
unattached/ How do we know that the self is un-
attached ? Because it moves by turn from the
waking to the dream state, from this to the state
of profound sleep, from that again to the dream
state, then to the waking state, from that again to
the dream state, and so on, which proves that it
is distinct from the three states. This idea has also
been previously introduced in the passage, ‘Being
identified with dreams, it transcends this world — the
forms of death’ (IV. iii. 7). Having treated this at
length, the Shruti now proceeds to give an illustra-
tion, which is the only thing that remains.
g il *<: it
18. As a great fish swims alternately
to both the banks (of a river), eastern and
4. 3. 19] BR1HA DA RANYAKA UPAN1SHAD 653
western, so does this infinite being move to
both these states, the dream and waking
states.
In support of the idea set forth above, the folio w-
ing illustration is being given : As in the world
a great fish that moves freely, never being swayed
by the river-currents, but rather stemming them,
sivims alternately to both the banks of a river,
eastern and western , and while swimming between
them, is not overpowered by the intervening current
of water, so does this infinite being move to both
these states which are they ? — the dream and wak-
ing states. The point of the illustration is that the
body and organs, which are forms of death, together
with their stimulating causes, desire and work, are
the attributes of the non-self, and that the self is
distinct from them. All this has already been ex-
haustively explained.
In the preceding paragraphs the self-luminous.
Atman, which is different from the body and organs,
has been stated to be distinct from desire and work,
for it moves alternately to the three states. These
relative attributes do not belong to it per sc ; its
relative existence is only due to its limiting adjuncts,
and is superimposed by ignorance ; this has been
stated to be the gist of the whole passage. There,
however, the three states of waking, dream and pro-
found sleep have been described separately — not
shown together as a group. For instance, it has
been shown that in the waking state the self appears,
through ignorance, as connected with attachment*
654
BRIHADARANY AKA UPAN1SHAD [4. 3. 19
death (work), and the body and organs ; in the dream
state it is perceived as connected with desire, but
free from the forms of death ; and in the state of
profound sleep it is perfectly serene and unattached,
this non-attachment being the additional feature.
If we consider all these passages together, the result-
ing sense is that the self is by nature eternal, free,
enlightened and pure. This comprehensive view has
not yet been shown ; hence the next paragraph. It
will be stated later on that the self becomes such
only in the state of profound sleep : ‘That is his
form — beyond desires, free from evils, and fearless’
(IV. iii. 21). As it is so unique, the self desires to
enter this state. How is that? The next paragraph
will explain it. As the meaning becomes clear
through an illustration, one is being put forward.
si stt
srfsct: qsrfenq
uceror sivsrfo m
* n u II
19. As a hawk or a falcon flying in the
sky becomes tired, and stretching its wings,
is bound for its nest, so does this infinite
being run for this state, where falling asleep
he craves no desires and sees no dreams.
As a hawk or a falcon (Suparna), a swifter kind
of hawk, flying or roaming in the external sky be-
comes tired, exhausted with undertaking different
flights, and stretching its wings, is bound for, directs
itself towards, its nest — literally, where it has a per-
4 . 3 . 20 ] BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
655
feet rest — so does this infinite being run for this
state, where fallvig asleep he craves no desires and
sees no dreams . Tliis last clause describes what is
denoted by the word ‘state.* The words ‘craves
no desires* shut out all desires of the dream and
waking states without reservation, the negative
particle having that all-inclusive force. Similarly
with, ‘And sees no dreams.’ The experiences of the
waking state also are considered by the Shruti to be
but dreams ; hence it says, ‘And sees no dreams.’
Another Shruti passage bears this out : ‘He has three
abodes, three dream states* (Ai. III. 12). As the
bird in the illustration goes to its nest to remove
the fatigue due to flight, so the Jiva (self), con-
nected with the results of action done by the contact
of the body and organs in the waking and dream
states, is fatigued, as the bird with its flight, and in
order to remove that fatigue enters his own nest or
abode, that is, his own self, distinct from all relative
attributes and devoid of all exertion caused by action
with its factors and results.
It may be questioned : If this freedom from
all relative attributes is the nature of the Jiva, and
his relative existence is due to other things, viz.,
the limiting adjuncts, and if it is ignorance that
causes this relative existence through those extra-
neous limiting adjuncts, is that ignorance natural to
him, or is it adventitious, like desire, work, etc. ?
If it is the latter, then liberation is possible. But
what are the proofs of its being adventitious, and
why should ignorance not be the natural characteris-
656
BR1HA DA RA NY AKA UPANISHAD [4. 3. 20
tic of the self? Hence, in order to determine the
nature of ignorance, which is the root of all evil,
the next paragraph is introduced.
5tt srr fen msr %.sr:
fferen 5!>ferej <£JIT ; 3TO qtn R?rftq fsfecnq,
fScffa fe^5iqqf?T, JTnftq qaf?l,
; 3TO qq ^=T
^qfssftfa 9>S*q q5W> ?>«R: II Ro II
20. Iii him are those nerves called Hita,
which are as hue as a hair split into a thou-
sand parts, and filled with white, blue,
brown, green and red (serums). (They are
the seat of the subtle body, in which impres-
sions are stored.) Now when (he feels) as
if he were being killed or overpowered, or
being pursued by an elephant, or falling into
a pit, (in short) conjures at the time through
ignorance whatever terrible things he has ex-
perienced in the waking state, (that is the
dream state). And when (he becomes) a god,
as it were, or a king, as it were, or thinks,
‘This (universe) is myself, wdio am all,’ that
is his highest state.
In him, in this man with head, hands, etc.,
are those nerves called Hita , 1 which are as fine
as a hair split into a thousand parts, and they are
filled with white, blue, brown, green and red serums.
1 Referred to in II. i. 19 and IV 2. 3.
4 . 3 . 20 ] BR1HADA RANYAKA UFA NISH AD
657
Many and various are the colours of the serums,
owing to the intermixture, in various proportions,
of nerve matter, bile and phlegm. The subtle body
with its seventeen constituents 1 has its seat in these
nerves, which have the fineness of the thousand part
of the tip of a hair, are filled with serums, white and
so on, and spread all over the body.
All impressions due to the experience of high
and low attributes of the relative universe are centred
in this. This subtle body, in which the impressions
are stored, is transparent like a crystal because of
its fineness ; but owing to its contact with foreign
matter, viz., the serums in the nerves, it undergoes
modifications under the influence of past merit and
demerit, and manifests itself as impressions in the
form of women, chariots, elephants, etc. Now, such
being the case, when a man has the false notion
— called ignorance — based on past impressions, that
some people, enemies or robbers, have come and
are going to kill him — this is being described by the
text : As if he, the dreamer, were being killed or
overpowered. Nobody is killing or overpowering
him ; it is simply his mistake due to the past im-
pressions created by ignorance. Or being pursued
or chased by an elephant, or falling into a pit, a
dilapidated well, for instance. He fancies himself
in this position. Such are the false impressions that
arise in him — extremely low ones, resting on the
modifications of the mind brought about by his past
iniquity, as is evidenced by their painfui nature.
1 See footnote on p. 501.
42
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [4. 3. 2D
In short, he conjures at the time , that is, in dreams,
when there is no elephant or the like, through the
impressions created by ignorance, which have falsely
manifested themselves, whatever terrible things such
as an elephant he has experienced in the waking
state.
Then, when ignorance decreases and knowledge
increases, (the result is as follows). The text de-
scribes the content and nature of the knowledge :
And when he himself becomes a god , as it were.
When, in the waking state, meditation regarding
the gods prevails, he considers himself a god, as it
were, on account of the impressions generated by it. *
The same thing is being said of the dream state too :
He becomes 'a god, as it were.’ Or a king, as it were :
Having been installed as the ruler of a state (in
the waking state), he thinks in his dreams also that
he is a king, for he is imbued with the impressions
of his kingly state. Similarly, when (in the waking-
state) his ignorance is extremely attenuated, and
the knowledge that he comprises all arises, he thinks
under the influence of these impressions in the dream
state also, 'This (universe) is myself , who am
all.’ That , this identity with all, is his highest
state, the Atman’s own natural, supreme state.
When, prior to this realisation of identity with all,
he views the latter as other than himself even by a
hair’s breadth, thinking, ‘This is not myself,’ that
is the state of ignorance. The states divorced from
the self t that are brought on by ignorance, down to
stationary existence, are all inferior states. Com-
pared with these — states with which the Jiva has
4 . 3 . 20 ] BRIHADARANYAICA UPANlSHAD
659
relative dealings — the above state of identity with all,
infinite and without interior or exterior, is his
supreme state. Therefore, when ignorance is elim-
inated and knowledge reaches its perfection, the state
of identity with all, which is another name for libera-
tion, is attained. That is to say, this result of
knowledge is directly perceived in the dream state,
just, as the self-effulgence of the Atman is.
Similarly, when ignorance increases and knowl-
edge vanishes, the results of ignorance are also
directly perceived in dreams : ‘Now when (he feels)
as if he were being killed or overpowered/ etc.
Thus the results of knowledge and ignorance are
identity with all and identity with finite things,
respectively. Through pure knowledge a man is
identified with all, and through ignorance he is
identified with finite things, or separated from some-
thing else. He is in conflict with that from which
he is separated, and because of this conflict he is
killed, overpowered or pursued. All this takes place
because the results of ignorance, being finite things,
are separated from him. But if he is all, what is
there from which he may be separated, so as to be
in conflict ; and in the absence of conflict by whom
would he be killed, overpowered or pursued ? Hence
the nature of ignorance proves to be this, that it
represents that which is infinite as finite, presents
things other than the self that are non-existent, and
makes the self appear as limited. Thence arises the
desire for that from which he is separated ; desire
prompts him to action, which produces resluts. This
is the gist of the whole passage. It will also be
660
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [4. 3. 20'
stated later oil, 'When there is duality, as it were,
then one sees something/ etc. (II. iv. 14 ; IV. v. 15).
Thus the nature of ignorance with its effects has
been set forth ; and as opposed to these, the effect
of knowledge also, viz., the attainment of identity
with all, has been- shown. That ignorance is not the
natural characteristic of the self, since it automati-
cally decreases as knowledge increases; and when
the latter is at its highest, with the result that the
self realises its identity with all, ignorance vanishes
altogether, like the notion of a snake in a rope when
the truth about it is known. This has been stated
in the passage, ‘But when to the knower of Brahman
everything has become the self, then what should
one see and through what?' etc. (Ibid.). Therefore
ignorance is not a natural characteristic of the self,
for that which is natural to a thing can never be
eliminated, as the heat and light of the sun. There-
fore liberation from ignorance is possible.
?ra«n fsR*rr few
STfRTcJTJTT
W STFaTH ; 515T
2i. That is his form — beyond desires,
free from evils, and fearless. As a man, ful-
ly embraced by his beloved wife, does not
know anything at all, either external or in-
ternal, so does this infinite being (self), fully
4. 3. 21] BRIHA DA RANYA KA UPANlSHAD
661
embraced bv the Supreme Self, not know
anything at all, either external or internal.
That is his form — in which all objects of
desire have been attained and are but the self,
and which is free from desires and devoid of
grief.
Now liberation, consisting in identity with all,
which is the result of knowledge devoid of action
with its factors and results, and in which there
is no ignorance, desire, or work, is being directly
pointed out. This has already been introduced in
the passage, ‘Where falling asleep it craves no
desires and sees no dreams’ (IV. iii. 19). That,
this identity with all which has been spoken of as
‘his highest .state,’ is his form — beyond desires
(Atichclihanda) . This word is to be turned into
neuter, since it qualifies the word ‘Rupa’ (form).
‘Chhaiula’ means desire ; hence ‘Atichchhanda’
means transcending desires. There is another word
‘Chhandas’ ending is s, which means metres such
as Gayatri. But here the word means desire ;
hence it must end in a vowel. Nevertheless the
reading ‘Atichclihanda’ should be taken as the usual
Vedic licence. In common parlance too the word
‘Chhanda’ is used in the sense of desire, as in
‘Swachchhanda’ (free), ‘Parachclihanda’ (dependent
on others’ will), etc. Hence the word must be
turned into ‘Atichchhaudam’ (neuter) to mean that
this form of the self is free from desires, likewise,
free from evils. ‘Evils’ mean both merits and
demerits, for it has elsewhere (IV. iii. 8) been said,
662
BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [ 4 . 3 . 21
‘Is connected with evils,’ and ‘Discards those evils/
‘Free from evils’ means devoid of merits and demer-
its. Also, fearless. Fear is an effect of ignorance *
for it has already been said that through ignorance
he conjures terrible things (IV. iii. 20). Hence the
word must be construed as denying the cause through
the effect. ‘Fearless form’ means one that is bereft
of ignorance. This identity with all which is the
result of knowledge, is this form — beyond desires,
free from evils and fearless. It is fearless because
it is devoid of all relative attributes. This has al-
ready been introduced at the conclusion of the pre-
ceding section, by the scriptural statement, ‘Yon
have attained That which is free from fear, O Janaka’
(IV. ii. 4). But here it is elaborated by argument
to impress the meaning conveyed by the scriptural
passage in question.
This Atman is itself the light that is Pure Intel-
ligence, and reveals everything by its own intel-
ligence. It has been said (in paragraphs 15 and 16)
that (he is untouched by) the roaming or by what-
ever he sees, or enjoys, or knows in that (dream)
state. And it is also proved by reasoning that the
eternal nature of the self is that it is the light of
Pure Intelligence. (Now r an objection is being
raised : ) If the self remains intact in its own form
in the state of profound sleep, why does it not know
itself as ‘I am this/ or all those things that are
outside, as it does in the waking and dream states?
The ans\ier is being given : Listen why it does not
know. Unity is the reason. How is that? This is
explained by the text. As the intended meaning is
4 . 3 . 21 ] BR JHA DA RA NY AKA UPAN1SHAD
m
vividly realised through an illustration, it goes oil
to say : in the world a man, fully embraced by
his beloved wife, both desiring each other’s com-
pany, does not know anything at all, either external
to himself, as, ‘This is something other than myself/
or internal, as, ‘I am this, or I am happy or miser-
able’ — but he knows everything outside and inside
when he is not embraced by her and is separated,
and fails to know only during* the embrace owing to
the attainment of unity — so, like the example cited,
does this infinite being, the individual self, who is
separated (from the Supreme Self), like a lump of
salt, through contact with a little of the elements
(the body and organs) and enters this body and
organs, like the reflection of the moon etc. in water
and so forth, being fully embraced by, or unified with,
the Supreme Self, his own real, natural, supreme-
ly effulgent .self, and being identified with all, with-
out the least break, not know anything at all,
either external, something outside, or internal, within
himself, such as, T am this, or I am happy or
miserable.’ You asked me why, in spite of its being
the light that is Pure Intelligence, the self fails to
know iu the state of profound sleep. I have told
you the reason — it is unity, as of a couple fully
embracing each otliei. Incidentally it is implied
that variety is the cause of particular consciousness ;
and the cause of that variety is, as we have said,
ignorance, which brings forward something other
than the self. Such being the case, when the Jiva
realises that he is different from ignorance, he attains
but unity with all. Therefore, there being no such
664 BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [4. 3. 21
division among the factors of an action as knowledge
and known, whence should particular consciousness
arise, or desire manifest itself, in the natural,
immutable light of the self?
Because this identity with all is his form, there-
fore that is his }orm, the form of this self-effulgent
Atman, in which all objects of desire have been
attained , because it comprises all. That from which
objects of desire are different has hankering after
them, as the form called Devadatta, for instance,
in the waking state. But this other form is not so
divided from anything ; hence in it all objects of
desire have been attained. It may be asked, can
that form not be divided from other things that exist,
or is the self the only entity that exists ? The answer
is, there is nothing else but the self . How ? Be-
cause all objects of desire are but the self in this
form. In states other than that of profound sleep,
that is, in the waking and dream states, things are
separated, as it were, from the self and are desired
as such. But to one who is fast asleep, they be-
come the self, since there is no ignorance to project
the idea of difference. Hence also is this form free
from desires, because there is nothing to be desired,
and devoid of grief (Shokantara) . ‘Antara’ means a
break or gap ; or it may mean the inside or core . 1
In either case, the meaning is that this form of the
self is free from grief.
farUf'TcTT tqsrfo, maTO TcTr, 55fa>T 3*55NRT:,
1 Hence grief cannot hurt it, for it is the very self of
that.
4. 3. 22] BRlll A DA R ANY AKA UPANISHAD
665
wrwfasmtir:, arrcrtenro: ; a**r^T»ra iju^sn-
ST^TlTcf TT^fT, % rTTT
*raf?r a ^ ii
22. In this state a father is no father,
a mother no mother, the worlds no worlds,
the gods no gods, the Vedas no Vedas. In
this state a thief is no thief, the killer of a
noble Brahmana no killer, a Chandala no
Chandala, a Pulkasa no Pnlkasa, a monk no
monk, a hermit no hermit. (This form of
his) is nn touched by good work and un-
touched by evil work, for he is then beyond
all the woes of his heart (intellect).
It has been said that the self-effulgent Atman
which is being described is free from ignorance,
desire and work, for it is unattached, while they
are adventitious. Here an objection is raised :
The Shruti has said that although the self is Pure
Intelligence, it does not know anything (in the
state of profound sleep) on account of its attaining
unity, as in the c£se of a couple in each other’s
embrace. The Shruti has thereby practically said
that like desire, work, etc., the self-effulgence of
the Atman is not its nature, since it is not perceived
in the state of profound sleep. This objection is
refuted by a reference to the illustration of the
couple in each other’s embrace, and it r ‘s asserted
that the self-effulgence is certainly present in pro-
found sleep, but it is not perceived on account of
666
BR 1HADA RANYAKA UPANISHAD [4. 3. 22
unity ; it is not adventitious like desire, work, etc.
Having" mentioned this incidentally, the text takes
up the topic under discussion, viz., that the form
of the self that is directly perceived in the state of
profound sleep is free from ignorance, desire and
work. So it is 'a statement of fact to describe this
form as beyond all relations. Since in the state of
profound sleep the self has a form that is ‘beyond
desires, free from evils and fearless/ therefore in
this slate a father is no father. Iiis fatherhood
towards the son is due to an action, from which he
is dissociated in this state. Therefore the father,
notwithstanding the fact of his being such, is no
father, because he is entirely free from the action
that relates him to the son. Similarly we under-
stand by implication that the son also ceases to be
a son to his father, for the relation of both is based
on an action, and he is beyond it then, since it has
been said, ‘Free from evils’ (IV. iii. 21).
likewise a mother is no m other t the worlds ,
which are either won or to be won through rites,
are no worlds, owing to his dissociation from those
rites. Similarly the gods, who are a part of the
rites, are no gods, because he transcends his relation
to those rites. The Vedas also, consisting of the
Brfihmanas, which describe the means, the goal and
their relation, as well as the Mantras, and forming
part of the rites, since they deal with them,* whether
already read or yet to be read, are connected with
a man through those rites. Since he transcends
those rites, the Vedas too then are no Vedas.
Not only is the man beyond his relation to his
4. 3. 221 BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
667
good actions, but he is also untouched by his terribly
evil actions. So the text says : In this state a thief,
one who has stolen a Brahm ana’s gold — we know
this from his mention along with one who has killed
a noble Brahmana — is free from this dire action,
for which he is called a thief, a despicable sinner.
Similarly the killer of a noble Brahmana is no killer .
Likewise a Chan data, etc. Not only is a man free
from the actions done by him in his present life,
but he is also free from those dire actions of his past
life that degrade him to an exceedingly low birth.
A Cliandala is one born of a Sliudra father and a
Brahmana mother. (‘Chaudfila* is but a variant of
the same word.) Not being connected with the
work that caused his low birth, he is no C hand ala.
A Pulkasa is one born of a Sliudra father and a
Kshatriya mother, (Taulkasa* is a variant of the
same word.) lie too is no Pulkasa. Similarly a
man is dissociated from the duties of his particular
order of life. For iustance, a monk is no monk,
being free from the duties that make him one.
Likewise a hermit or recluse is no hermit. The
two orders mentioned are suggestive of all the
castes, orders, and so on.
In short, (this form of his) is untouched by
good work f rites enjoined by the scriptures, as well
as by evil work, the omission to perform such rites,
and the doing of forbidden acts. The word ‘un-
touched* is in the neuter gender as it qualifies ‘form,*
the Tearless form* of the preceding paragraph*
What is the reason of its being untouched by them ?
This is being explained: For he, the self of a
€68
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [4. 3. 22
nature described above, is then beyond all the woes,
or desires, etc. It is these desires for wished -for
things that in their absence are converted into woes.
A man who has either failed to attain those things
or lost them keeps thinking of their good qualities
and suffers. Hence woe, attachment and desire are
synonyms. (The clause therefore means : ) Because
in the state of profound sleep he transcends all
desires ; for it has been said, ‘He craves no desires*
(IV. iii. 21), and ‘Beyond desires.* Coming in the
wake of those terms, the word ‘woe’ ought to mean
desires. Desires again are the root of action ; it will
be stated later on, ‘What it desires, it resolves ; and
Avhat it resolves, it works out* (IV. iv. 5). There-
fore, since he transcends all desires, it has been well
said, ‘It is untouched by good work/ etc.
Of his heart : The heart is the lotus-shaped lump
of flesh, but being the seat of the internal organ,
intellect, it refers to that by a metonymy, as when
we speak of cries from the chairs (meaning persons
occupying them). The woes of his heart, or intellect
— for they abide there, since it has been said,
‘Desire, deliberation, (etc. are but the mind)’ (I. v.
3). It will also be said later on, ‘The desires that
dwell in his heart* (IV. iv. 7). This and the other
statement about ‘the woes of his heart’ repudiate the
error that they dwell in the self, for it has been
said that being no more related to the heart in the
state of profound .deep, the self transcends the forms
of death.* Therefore it is quite appropriate to say
that being no more related to the heart, it transcends
the relation to desires abiding in the heart.
4. 3. 22] BRIHADARANYAKA U BANISH A I)
66 $*
Those 1 who maintain that the desires and im-
pressions dwelling in the heart go farther and affect
the self, which is related to it, and even when it is
dissociated from the self, they dwell in the latter,
like the scent of flowers etc. in the oil in which they
have been boiled, can find no meaning whatsoever
for such scriptural statements as, ‘Desire, delibera-
tion,’ Tt is on the heart (mind) that colours rest’
(III. ix. 20), ‘The woes of his heart,’ etc.
Objection : They are referred to the intellect
merely because they are produced through this
organ .
Reply : No, for they are specified in the words,
‘(That) dwell in (his) heart.’ This and the other
statement, Tt is on the heart that colours rest,’
would hardly be consistent if the intellect were
merely the instrument of their production. Since
the purity of the self is the meaning intended to be
conveyed, the statement that desires abide in the
intellect is truly appropriate. It admits of no other
interpretation, for the Shruti says, Tt thinks, as it
were, and shakes, as it were’ (IV. iii. 7).
Objection : The specification about ‘desires that
dwell in his heart’ implies that there are others that
dwell in the self too.
Reply : No, for it demarcates these desires
from those that are not then in the heart. In other
words, the epithet, ‘That dwell in his heart,’ con-
trasts not this particular seat of desires with some
other seats, but contrasts these desires with those
that are not in the heart at the time. For instance,,
1 The reference is to Bhartriprapancha.
670
BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [4. 3. 22
those that have not yet sprung up — the future ones,
or those that are past, having been checked by con-
trary ideas, are surely not in the intellect ; and yet
they may crop up in future. Hence the specifica-
tion in contradistinction to them is quite in order,
meaning those * desires regarding some object that
have sprung up and are present in the intellect.
Objection : Still the specification would be re-
dundant.
Reply : No, because more attention should be
paid to them as objects to be shunned. Otherwise,
by ascribing the desires to the self, you would be
holding a view which is contrary to the wording of
the Shruti and is undesirable. 1
Objection : But does not the negation of a fact
of normal experience in the passage, ‘He craves no
desires (IV. iii. 19), mean that the Shruti mentions
the desires as being in the self ?
Reply : No, for the experience in question about
the self being the seat of desires is due to an ex-
traneous agency (the intellect), as is evidenced by
the Shruti passage, ‘Being identified with dreams
through its association with the intellect* 2 (IV, iii.
7). Besides there is the statement about the self
being unattached, which would be incongruous if
the self were the seat of desires ; we have already
said that attachment is desire.
Objection : May we not say from the Shruti
passage, ‘To whom all objects of desire are but the
»
1 As standing in the way of liberation.
2 See footnote 2 on p. 611.
4. 3. 22] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISIIAD
671
Self (IV. iv. 6), that the self has desires regarding
itself ?
Reply : No, that passage only means the absence
of any other object of desire than the self.
Objection : Does not the reasoning of the Vai-
sheshika and other systems support the view that the
self is the seat of desires etc. ?
Reply : No ; the arguments of the Vaisheshika
and other systems are to be disregarded, since they
contradict specific statements of the Shrutis such as,
‘(That) dwell in (his) heart* (IV. iv. 7). Any reason-
ing that contradicts the Shrutis is a fallacy. Moreover
the self-effulgence of the Atman is contradicted. That
is to say, since in the dream state desires etc. are
witnessed by Pure Intelligence only, the views in
question would contradict the self-effulgence of the
Atman, which is stated as a fact by the Shrutis and
is also borne out by reason ; for if the desires etc.
inhere in the self, 1 they cannot again be its objects,
just as the eye cannot see its own particulars. The
self-effulgence of the witness, the self, has been
proved on the ground that objects are different en-
tities from the subject. This would be contradicted
if the self be supposed to be the seat of desires etc.
Moreover it contradicts the teachings of all scrip-
tures. If the individual self be conceived as a part
of the Supreme Self and possessing desires etc., the
meaning of all the scriptures would be set at naught.
We have explained this at length in the second
chapter (p. 300). In order to establish the meaning
of the scriptures that the individual self i! identical
1 As qualities do in a substance.
672
B Rill A DA RA N Y A KA U BANISH AD [4. 3. 22
with the Supreme Self, the idea that it is the seat
of desires etc. must be refuted with the greatest
care. If, however, that view is put forward, the
very meaning of the scriptures would be contra-
dicted. Just as the Vaishesliikas and Naiyayikas,
holding that wish and so forth are attributes of the
self, are in disharmony with the meaning of the
Upanishads, so also is this view not to be enter-
tained, because it contradicts the meaning of the
Upanishads.
It has been said that the self does not see (in
the state of profound sleep) on account of unity, as
in the case of the couple, and that it is self -effulgent.
Self -effulgence is being Pure Intelligence by nature.
Now the question is, if this intelligence is the very
nature of the self, like the heat etc. of fire, how
should it, in spite of the unity, give up its nature,
and fail to know ? And if it does not give up
its nature, how is it that it does not see in the
state of profound sleep ? It is self contradictory
to say that intelligence is the nature of the self, and
at the same time, that it does not know. The
answer is, it is not self -contradictory ; both these
are possible. How ? —
snt 1^?# erer qsqfa, sr ft 5*5? i-
qrqq fo T n n
23. That it does not see in that state is
because although seeing then, it does not see
for the vision of the witness can never be lost,.
4. 3. 23 J BRlIiA DARANYAKA VPAN1SHAD
673
because it is immortal. But there is not that
second thing separate from it which it can see.
That it docs not see in that state of profound
sleep is because although seeing then , it does not
see. You think that it does not see in the state of
profound sleep ; but do not think so. Why ? Be-
cause it is seeing then.
Objection : But we know that in the state of
profound sleep it does not see, because then neither
the eye nor the mind, which are the instruments
of vision, is working. It is only when the eye, ear,
etc., are at work that we say one is seeing or hear-
ing. But we do not find the organs working.
Therefore we conclude that it must surely not be
seeing.
Reply : Certainly not ; it is seeing ; for the
vision of the witness can never be lost. As the heat
of fire lasts as long as the fire, so is the witness, the
self, immortal, and because of this its vision too is
immortal ; it lasts as long as the witness does.
Objection : Do you not contradict yourself by
saying in the same breath that it is a vision of the
witness, and that it is never lost ? Vision is an act
of the witness ; one is called a witness just because
one sees. Hence it is impossible to say that vision,
which depends on an act of the witness, is never lost.
Reply : It must be immortal, because the Sbruti
says it is never lost.
Objection : No, a Shruti text merely informs (it
cannot alter a fact). The destruction of something
that is artificially made is a logical necessity, and
43
674
BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD |4. 3. 23
c&nnot be prevented even by a hundred texts, be-
cause a text only informs about a thing just as it is.
Reply : The objection does not hold. The
vision of the witness is possible, like the sun etc. re-
vealing things. Just as the sun and the like are
naturally always luminous and reveal things through
their natural, constant light, and when we speak
of them as revealing things, we do not mean that
they are naturally non-luminous and only reveal
things by a fresh act each time, but that they do
so through their natural, constant light, so is the
self called a witness on account of its imperishable,
eternal vision.
Objection : Then its function as a witness is
secondary.
Reply : No. Thus only can it be shown to be
a witness in the primary sense of the word, because
if the self were observed to exercise the function of
seeing in any other way, then the former way might
be secondary. But the self has no other method of
seeing. Therefore thus only can we understand its
being a witness in the primary sense, not otherwise.
Just as the sun and the like reveal things through
their constant, natural light, and not through one
produced for the time being, (so is the self a witness
through its eternal, natural intelligence), and that
is its function as a witness in the primary sense, for
there cannot be any other witness besides- it. There-
fore there is not the least trace of self-contradiction
in the statement that the vision of the witness is
never lost.
Objection : We observe that the suffix < trich > is
4 . 3 . 23 ] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
67 5
used in words denoting an agent of temporary acts,
such as ‘Chhettri* (cutter), ‘Bhettri* (breaker) and
‘Gantri* (traveller). So why not in the word
’‘Drashtri* (seer or witness) also in that sense?
Reply : No, for we see it otherwise in the word
“Prakashay itri ’ (re vealer ) .
Objection : We admit this in the case of lumin-
ous agencies, for there it can have no other sense,
but not in the case of the self.
Reply : Not so, for the Shruti says its vision is
never lost.
Objection : This is contradicted by our experi-
ence that we sometimes see and sometimes do not see.
Reply : No, for this is simply due to particular
.activities of our organs. We observe also that those
who have had their eyes removed keep the vision
that belongs to the self intact in dreams. Therefore
the vision of the self is imperishable, and through
that imperishable, self-luminous vision the Atman
continues to see in the state of profound sleep.
How is it, then, that it does not see? This is
being answered : But there is not that second thing,
the object, separate from it which it can see, or per-
ceive. Those things that caused the particular
visions (of the waking and dream states), viz.^ the
mind (with the self behind it), the eyes, and forms,
were all presented by ignorance as something
different from the self. They are now unified in
the state of profound sleep, as the individual self
has been embraced by the Supreme Self, 'inly, when
the self # is under limitations, do the organs sfand
as something different to help it to particular ex-
676
BRIHADARANYAKA VPAN1SHAD [4. 3. 2S
periences. But it is now embraced by its own
Supreme Self, which is Pure Intelligence and the Self
of all, as a man is by his beloved wife. Hence
the organs and objects do not stand as different en-
tities ; and since they are absent, there is no partic-
ular experience, for it is the product of the organs
etc., not of the self, and only appears as the product
of the self. Therefore it is a mistake due to this
(absence of particular experience) that the vision of
the self is lost.
fsatfrt fasiHr fasifa, * % sngara-
24. That it does not smell in that state
is because although smelling then, it does not
smell; for the smeller’s function of smelling
can never be lost, because it is immortal. But
there is not that second thing separate from it
which it can smell.
q£ 5RT cRT
f ggfowfei ll 11
25. That it does not taste in that state is
because although tasting then, it does not
taste; for the taster’s function of tasting can
never be lost, because it is immortal. But
there is, not that second thing separate from it
which it can taste.
*r£ 5PH *T % SJtE&K-
4 . 3 . 29 ] BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
677
fqqfissh*) fqsrete l i re if ire g n g ? * g
3?rft7qft*R; qg|gii \\ n
26. That it does not speak in that state
is because although speaking then, it does
not speak ; for the speaker's function of
speaking can never be lost, because it is im-
mortal. But there is not that second thing
separate from it which it can speak.
erer <?n *yorrftr, ?t ft srfg:
: 5T g
nTm ctrffOTrft^rR 11 ^ it
27. That it does not hear in that state is
because although hearing then, it does not
hear; for the listener's function of hearing
can never be lost, because it is immortal. But
there is not that second thing separate from it
which it can hear.
asr rrg% jtrrt # wa irg^, n ft *r? g& t-
fttrferrr fq^sfsRTftjcqig : * g ftertemfo
|| II
28. That it does not think in that state
is because although thinking then, it does not
think; for the thinker’s function of thinking
can never be lost, because it is immortal. But
there is not that second thing separate from
it which it can think. »
qf ?RT S'JSF# 5T5T qft *sftg:
678
BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [ 4 . 3 . 29
fosretef iw T feicq iq; 5 * g fedta-
29. That it does not touch in that state
is because although touching then, it does not
touch ; for the toucher’s function of touching
can never be lost, because it is immortal. But
there is not that second thing separate from
it which it can touch.
fasrrcTft rra fosn^rfer, *r f|
ag fiMtan fea ^swifesirK II ||^
30. That it does not know in that state
is because although knowing then, it does not
know; for the knower’s function of knowing
can never be lost, because it is immortal. But
there is not that second thing separate from
it which it can know.
The rest is to be similarly explained : That it
does not smell , That it does not taste , That it doer
not speak , That it does not hear , That it does not
think , That it does not touch , That it does not know,.
etc. Though thinking and knowing are aided by
vision etc., yet they have activities concerning
objects past, present and future that do not depend
on the eyes etc. Hence they are separately men-
tioned .
Now the question is, are the vision and so forth
attributes different from the self and from one
another, like the heat, light, combustion, etc., of fire.
4. 3. 30] BRJH AVAR ANY AKA UPAN1SHAD 670
or are they different phases of an attribute identical
with the self, the difference being caused only by
extraneous limiting adjuncts ? On this some 1 say :
The self is an entity that by itself has both unity and
difference, just as a cow is one as a substance, but
its features, the dewlap etc., are different from one
another. As gross substances have both unity and
difference, so we can infer that formless substances
without parts also have both unity and difference.
Since this is observed to be the universal rule, the
vision and so forth belonging to the self are different
from one another, but as the self they are one. To
this we reply : No, for the passage in question has
a different meaning. The passage, 'That it does not
see in that state/ etc., does not mean to show that
the vision and so forth are attributes different from
the self, but is introduced in order to answer the
following objection : If the Atman is self-luminous
intelligence, how is it that it does not know in the
state of profound sleep ? Surely then it must be
otherwise. This is how it is being answered : Its
natural self-luminous intelligence manifests itself in
the waking and dream states through many limiting
adjuncts such as the eyes, and comes to be designated
as vision etc. But in the state of profound sleep,
owing to the cessation of the different activities of
the mind and organs, these latter do not appear, and
therefore the nature of the self cannot be perceived
as differentiated by them. Yet it is spoken of as
being present in a way that is a mere recapitulation
1 Bhartriprapancha is meant.
680
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 4 . 3 . 30
of normal experience. Hence the view that the
passage in question presents the attributes such as
vision as different from the self, is based on an
ignorance of its true meaning.
Moreover it would be in conflict with the Shruti
text that speaks of the self as homogeneous Pure
Intelligence, like a lump of salt, and also with texts
like the following: ‘Knowledge, Bliss’ (III. ix. 28),
‘Truth, Knowledge’ (Tai. II. i. 1), and ‘Intelligence
is Brahman’ (Ai. V. 3). From the common use of*
words also we know this. We often use such ex-
pressions as, ‘One knows colour through the eyes,*
‘One knows sound through the ears,’ ‘One knows the
taste of food through the tongue,’ etc., which show
that the objects denoted by the words ‘vision’ etc.
can be designated as knowledge alone. And the use
of words is a means of knowledge. Examples also
corroborate this view. Just as in the world a crystal
is naturally transparent, and only for that reason
assumes different colours by coming in contact with
different limiting adjuncts such as green, blue, or
red colour, and no one can imagine that the crystal
has any other attribute but its natural transpar-
ency, such as green, blue, or red colour, similarly
the different powers of vision etc. are observed in
the light called the self, which is naturally Pure
Intelligence, simply owing to its contact with the
limiting adjuncts such as the eyes, because Pure
Intelligence, like the crystal, is naturally transparent.
The self -luminosity of the Atman is another reason.
Just as tfie light of the sun, coming in contact with
things to be illumined, appears as green, blue, yellow,
•4. 3. 30] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
681
red, etc., although in reality it cannot be so divided,
so does the light called the self, revealing the whole
universe as well as the eyes etc., assume their form.
This has been stated in the passage, Tt is through
the light of the self that he sits/ etc. (IV. iii. 6).
Besides, substances that have no parts cannot
be conceived as multiple, for there is no such ex*
ample. Although the ether is conceived as all-pervad-
ing and so on, and atoms as possessing various
* attributes such as odour and savour, yet, when
discriminated, these prove to be due only to extrane-
ous limiting adjuncts. The ether, for instance, has
no attribute of its own called all-pervasiveness ; it
is through its association with all as limiting adjuncts
that it is designated as all-pervading, when as a
matter of fact it is present everywhere in its natural
form. The question of going or not going does not
arise with regard to the ether in itself, for going is an
action that connects something existing at a partic-
ular place with some other place, and this action
is impossible in a thing that admits of no differentia-
tion. vSimilarly different attributes can never be in
the ether. The same is also true of atoms etc. An
atom, say of earth, which consists only of odour,
is the minutest particle of it, and is itself odour ;
one cannot conceive that it again has a property
called odour. It may be urged that an atom
can have savour etc. But that is due to its contact
with water and so on. Therefore there is no ex-
ample to prove that a substance which has no parts
can possess many attributes. This also refutes the
view that the powers of vision and so forth of the
682
BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD O 3. 30
Supreme Self can have different modifications such
as the eyes and colours.
sre s rrerf^r
3|??TtSrqfg5n«ftm^ || ^ H V
31. When there is something else, as it
were, then one can see something, one can
smell something, one can taste something, one
can speak something, one can hear some-
thing, one can think something, one can
touch something, or one can know something.
It has been said that in the state of profound
sleep there is not, as in the waking and dream states,
that second tiling differentiated from the self which
it can know ; hence it knows no particulars in pro-
found sleep. Here it is objected : If this is its
nature, why does it give up that nature and have
particular knowledge? If, on the other hand, it is
its nature to have this kind of knowledge, why does
it not know particulars in the state of profound
sleep? The answer is this: When , in the waking
or dream state, there is something else besides the
self, as it were, presented by ignorance, then one,
thinking of oneself as different from that something
— although there is nothing different from the self,
nor is there any self different from it — can see some-
thing, This has been shown by a reference to one’s
experience in the dream state in the passage, ‘As if
he were being killed, or overpowered’ (IV. iii. 20).
4. 3. 32] BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
083
Similarly one can smell, taste, speak, hear, think ,
touch and know something.
efess g^Ns: ^src-
. ccqtsFT qrjqt o&tsm
q** stups*: , n r ^^R^WRTTf ?r >jcrrfa m*nyi-
a y* ii
32. It becomes (transparent) like water,
one, the witness, and without a second. This
is the world (state) of Brahman, O Emperor.
Thus did Yajnavalkya instruct Janaka : This
is its supreme attainment, this is its supreme
glory, this is its highest world, this is its
supreme bliss. On a particle of this very
bliss other beings live.
When, however, that ignorance which presents
things other than the self is at rest, in that state of
profound sleep, there being nothing separated from
the self by ignorance, what should one see, smell,
or know, and through what ? Therefore, being fully
embraced by his own self-luminous Supreme Self, the
Jiva becomes infinite, perfectly serene, with all his
objects of desire attained, and the self the only
object of his desire, transparent like water, one ,
because there is no second : It is ignorance which
separates a second entity, and that is at rest in the
state of profound sleep ; hence ‘one.* ' r he witness ,
because the vision that is identical with tlae light of
the self is never lost. And without a second, for
<384
BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [4. 3. 32
there is no second entity different from the self to
be seen. This is immortal and fearless. This is the
world of Brahman , the world that is Brahman : In
profound sleep the self, bereft of its limiting ad-
juncts, the body and organs, remains in its own
supreme light’ of the Atman, free from all relations,
O Emperor. Thus did Ydjnavalkya instruct Janaka.
This is spoken by the Shruti.
How did he instruct him? This is its supreme
attainment , the attainment of the individual self.
The other attainments, characterised by the taking
of a body, from the state of Hiranyagarbha down to
that of a clump of grass, are created by ignorance
and therefore inferior to this, being within the sphere
of ignorance. But this identification with all, in
which one sees nothing else, hears nothing else,
knows nothing else, is the highest of all attainments
such as identity with the gods, that are achieved
through meditation and rites. This too is its su-
preme glory, the highest of all its splendours, being
natural to it ; other glories are artificial. Likewise
this is its highest world ; the other worlds, which
are the result of its past work, are inferior to it ;
this, however, is not attainable by any action, being
natural ; hence 'this is its highest world.’ Similarly
this is its supreme bliss, in comparison with the other
joys that are due to the contact of the organs with
their objects, since it is eternal ; for another Shruti
says, ‘That which is infinite is bliss’ (Chh. VII. xxiii.
1). ‘That in which one sees something, . . . knows
something, is puny,’ mortal, secondary joy. But
this is the opposite of that ; hence ‘this is its
4. 3. 33] BRJHA DA RANYA KA UPANISHAD
685
supreme bliss/ On a particle of this very bliss , put
forward by ignorance, and perceived only during the
contact of the organs with their objects, other beings
live. Who are they ? Those that have been sepa-
rated from that bliss by ignorance, and are considered
different from Brahman. Being thus different, they
subsist on a fraction of that bliss which is perceived
through the contact of the organs with their objects.
e at tig.:
5 ^ set JT^wnwroR^T: H fqrjnrf
■. sro St sna fq?jurt fiHPRtanaT-
m^T: Sf tRt iROsfesta? 3TR^: ; aro ^ set
JT cSJcratei strict: ST JR: ^^RTJTR^:— ^
5 RjWt 5 3TO ^ SET ^J^qRT-
JTRRT: ^ UR srnTR^aRTORR: , aaj STtfaafaf-
, 3TO ^RUTTSTR^rRmR^T: *T
hr: snnaflratR strr:, as* srtfaatstfsRts^m-
ga: ; sro St st?t snnaf?raN> strrt: e er> agraN;
^rr:, asr arifaatef faate RRga: ; sraa aa
qra 3TRR:, aa s^Nk: stare aw-
aRa: , Htst ¥RaSt TOI* 3R
$naa lyftfii 5 sra s aT gasaa> firoaRRrc,
itaiat ST5TT ^ST^Mt RRTR 3^^rHlfqfa || ** 1|
33. He who is perfect of body and pros-
perous among men, the ruler of others, and
most lavishly supplied with all human enjoy-
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 4 . 3 . 38
ments, represents the greatest joy among
men. This human joy multiplied a hundred
times makes one unit of joy for the Manes
who have won that world of theirs. The joy
of these Manes who have won that world
multiplied a hundred times makes one unit
of joy in the world of the celestial minstrels.
This joy in the world of the celestial minstrels
multiplied a hundred times makes one unit of
joy for the gods by action — those who attain
their godhead by their actions. This joy of
the gods by action multiplied a hundred times
makes one unit of joy for the gods by birth,
as well as of one who is versed in the Vedas,
sinless and free from desire. This joy of the
gods by birth multiplied a hundred times
makes one unit of joy in the world of
Prajapati (Viraj), as well as of one who is
versed in the Vedas, sinless and free from
desire. This joy in the world of Prajapati
multiplied a hundred times makes one unit of
joy in the world of Brahman (Hiranyagarbha) ,
as well as of one who is versed in the Vedas,
sinless and free from desire. This indeed is
the supreme bliss. This is the state of Brah-
man, O Emperor, said Yajnavalkya. T give
you a thousand (cows), sir. Please instruct
me further about liberation itself.’ At this
Yajnavalkya was afraid that the intelligent
4 . 3 . 33 ] BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 687
Emperor was constraining him to finish with
all his conclusions.
(It has been said that) all beings from Hiranya-
garbha down to men live on particles or fractions of
the supreme bliss. In order to convey an idea of
this bliss as a whole through its parts, as of a rock
of salt through its grains, the present paragraph is
introduced. He who is perfect of body , having no
physical defects, and prosperous , provided with
luxuries, among men ; also the ruler of others the
independent lord of people of the same class, not a
mere provincial ruler ; and most lavishly supplied
with all human enjoyments — the adjective ‘human’
excludes the materials of . heavenly enjoyment ; he
is the foremost among those who possess all these
human luxuries — represents (literally, is) the greatest
joy among men. The identity of joy and its
possessor in this sentence (‘joy' meaning ‘enjoyer')
indicates that this joy is not different from the self.
For it has been said in the passage, ‘When there is
something else, as it were/ etc. (IV. iii. 31), that
the lower degrees of bliss have only emanated from
the supreme bliss in the dual form of subject and
object ; hence it is but proper to bring out this
identity in the phrase, ‘Greatest joy/ Kings like
Yudhisihira are examples in point. The Shruti
teaches us about this supreme bliss, in which differ-
ences cease, by making a start with human joy,
which we all know, and multiplying it a hundred
times in successive steps. Now, where* this joy
increasing a hundred times at each step reaches its
688
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [4. 3. 33
limit, and where mathematical differences cease,
there being nothing else but the self to see, hear or
think, that is the supreme bliss, and in order to
describe this the text proceeds: This human joy
multiplied a hundred limes makes one unit of joy
for the Manes who have won that world of theirs .
This latter is a qualifying clause meaning those who
have pleased the Manes by the performance of
obsequial rites etc., and have won their way to their
world. Their measure of joy is the human joy multi-
plied a hundred times. That again multiplied a
hundred times makes one unit of joy in the world of
the celestial minstrels. That again multiplied a
hundred times makes one unit of joy for the gods by
action — those who attain their godhead by their
actions such as the Agnihotra enjoined by the
Shrutis. Similarly one unit of joy for the gods by
birth , those who are gods from their very birth, as
w ell as of one who is versed in the \ 7 edas, sinless, that
is, doing what is prescribed by the scriptures, and
free from desire for all objects below the level of the
gods by birth. That his joy equals theirs is gathered
from the word ‘cha’ (and) in the text. That- multi-
plied a hundred times makes one unit of joy in the
world of Prajdpaii, that is, in the body of Viraj,
as well as of one who is versed in the Vedas, sinless
and free from desire — this has already been explained
— and who meditates on him. That multiplied
a hundred times makes one unit of joy in the world
of Brahman, that is, in the body of Hiranya-
garbha, as well as of one who, etc. — already ex-
plained. After this mathematical calculations cease
4. 3. 33 J BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
This has been called the supreme bliss, of which the
joys of the world of Hiranyagarbha etc. are but
particles, like drops of an ocean. That in which the
other joys, increasing step by step in multiples of
hundred, merge, and which is experienced by one
versed in the Vedas, is indeed the supreme bliss
called Samprasada (that experienced in profound
sleep) ; for in it one sees nothing else, hears nothing
else (and so on). Hence it is infinite, and for that
reason immortal ; the other joys are the opposite of
that. The Vedic erudition and sinlessness (men-
tioned above) are common to the other joys too. It
is the difference made by the absence of desire that
leads to the increase of joy a hundred times. IJere
it is suggested by implication that Vedic erudition,
sinlessness and the absence of desire are the means of
attaining the particular types of joy ; as rites such as
the Agnihotra are means to the attainment of godhead'
by the gods. Of these, the two factors, Vedic
erudition and sinlessness, are common to the lower
planes too ; hence they are not regarded as means,
to the attainment of the succeeding kinds of joy. For
this the absence of desire is understood to be the
means, since it admits of degrees of renunciation. This
supreme bliss is known to be the experience of the
Vedic scholar who is free from desire. Vedavy&sa
also says, ‘The sense-pleasures of this world and the
great joys of heaven are not worth one-sixteenth part
of the bliss that comes of the cessation of desire’
(Mbh. XII. clxxiii. 47). #
This is the state of Brahman, O Emperor, said
Ydjnavalkya . For this instruction I give you a
44
680
BR1HADARANY AKA UPANISHAD [ 4 . 3 . 33
thousand cows, sir. Please instruct me further about
liberation itself — this has been explained. At this
last request Yajnavalkya was afraid — the Shruti tells
us the reason of his fear : he was afraid not for his
lack of ability to teach or for ignorance, but — that
the intelligent Emperor was constraining him to
finish with all his conclusions. Whatever questions
of his regarding liberation I answer, the Emperor,
being intelligent, takes all to be but a part of the
questions that he is at liberty to ask me, and puts
me newer questions every time to answer. 'On the
plea of asking his wished-for questions covered by the
boon, he wants to possess all my knowledge’ — this
was, the cause of Yajnavalkya’s fear.
il ii
34. After enjoying himself and roaming
in the dream state, and merely seeing the
effects of merits and demerits, he conies back,
in. the inverse order, to his former condition,
the waking state.
It has been shown (in paragraph 9) that the indi-
vidual self becomes itself the light in dreams. Further
on it has also been shown, by a reference to its moving
between the dream and waking states, that it is differ-
ent from the body and organs, and by the illustra-
tion of the great fish, that it is free from desire and
work, on account of its non-attachment. Again the
effects of ignorance in the dream state have been
4. 3. 34] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
691
shown in the passage, ‘As if he were being killed,'
etc. By implication the nature of ignorance too has
been ascertained as the superimposition of attributes
other than the true ones, and as not being a natural
attribute of the self. Similarly the effects of knowl-
edge too have been shown in the dream state, by a ref-
erence to one's experience, as identity with all, in the
passage, ‘When he thinks, “This (universe) is myself,
who am all,” that is his highest state’ (IV. iii. 20). It
has also been stated that identity with all, which is
its nature — its transcendent form, in which it is free
from all such relative attributes as ignorance, desire
and work — is directly experienced in the state of pro-
found sleep. The Atman is self-luminous and is the
supreme bliss ; this is the subject-matter of knowl-
edge ; this is the perfectly serene state, and the
culmination of happiness — all this has been explained
by the foregoing passages. And they are illustra-
tions of liberation and bondage, which are the effects
of knowledge and ignorance respectively. These two
have been indicated with their causes and effects.
But Janaka, mistaking that all that has merely been
an illustration, thinks that liberation and. bondage,
which are the themes they seek to illustrate, are yet
to be explained together with their causes by Y&jna-
valkya, as coming under his wished-for questions
covered by the boon. Hence his further request :
‘Please instruct me further about liberation itself.'
Now it has been said that the same self-luminous
Atman moves unattached like a great iisji between
the dream and waking states. As it moves like the
great fish between these two states, alternately relin-
BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [ 4 . 3 . 34
quishing and taking up the body and organs, which
are the forms of death, so at the time of death and
birth it is alternately disconnected and connected
with those very forms of death. Its journey, referred
to in the passage, 'It moves between the two worlds/
was barely indicated as the theme that was illustrated
by its moving between the dream and waking states.
That journey with its causes has to be described at
length ; hence the rest of this section. In a preced-
ing paragraph (IV. iii. 17) the self has been spoken
of as going from the waking to the dream state, and
thence to the state of profound sleep, which is the
illustration for liberation. The present paragraph is
related to that, since it seeks to show how, coming
down from that state, it goes through the relative ac-
tivities of the waking state. The Jiva, passing from
the waking to the dream state, and thence to the
state of profound sleep, stays there for a while ;
then he comes slightly down and after enjoying him-
self and roaming in the dream state, etc. — all this
has been explained — he comes back to the waking
state.
wsww:
ii ii
35. Just as a cart, heavily loaded, goes
on creaking, so does the self that is in the
body, being presided over by the Supreme
Self, go' making noises, when breathing be-
comes difficult.
4. 3. 35] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
693
From here on transmigration of the self is being
described. To show that as the self came from the
dream to the waking state, so it will pass from this
body to the next, an example is being given. Just
as in life a cart, fully or heavily loaded with utensils
and other household effects such as a mortar and
pestle, a winnowing-fan and cooking vessels, as well
as eatables, goes on creaking under the load, driven
by the carter, so does the self that is in the body, that
is, the self that has the subtle body as its limiting ad-
junct, which moves between this and the next world,
as between the waking and dream states, through birth
and death, consisting respectively in the association
with and dissociation from the body and organs —
called evils — and the departure of which is immediate-
ly followed by that of the vital force etc., being pre-
sided over, or revealed, by the self-luminous Supreme
Self, go making noises. As has been said, Tt is
through the light of the self that he sits, goes out/
etc. (IV. iii. 6). It should be noted here that when
the subtle body, which has the vital force as its chief
constituent, and is revealed by the self-luminous
Atman, goes, the self, of which it is the limiting ad-
junct, also seems to go. As another Shruti says, ‘On
whose (departure must I depart) ?* (Pr. VI. 3), and
Tt thinks, as it were' (IV. iii. 7), Hence the text
says, ‘Presided over by the Supreme Self. 1 Other-
wise how can the self, being unified with the Supreme
Self, go making noises like a cart ? Therefore (the
meaning is that) the self, with the subtle *body as
its limiting adjunct, goes making noises (the death
rales), afflicted by the feeling of pain as the vital parts
094
BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [4. 3. 35
are being slashed. When does that happen? When
breathing becomes difficult — when the man is gasping
for breath. The word ‘etat’ is an adverb (meaning
‘thus’). Although this is an occurrence that is com-
monly observed,- the Shruti repeats it only to create
a spirit of renunciation in us. So miserable is this
relative existence ! Since at the time of death the
vital parts are slashed, causing loss of memory and
putting a man in a helpless state of mind on account
of the pangs felt, so that he cannot adopt the requisite
means for his well-being, therefore, before that crisis
comes, he must be alert in practising the means con-
ducive to that end. This is what the Shruti says out
of compassion.
h wqwfarjnH gfrra q a T grftr-
sft g w rc stt stt ^vj-
qaforrer 3=5* apaftsfpn: sfrigs* g*f:
sifa»n*r afeilanwfe sttowt 11 n
36. When this (body) becomes thin — is
emaciated through old age or disease —
then, as a mango, or a fig, or a fruit of the
peepul tree is detached from its stalk, so does
this infinite being, completely detaching him-
self from the parts of the body, again go, in
the same way that he came, to particular
bodies, for the unfoldment of his vital force.
When, and owing to what, does that difficulty
of breath take place? How does it take place, and
what for? The answers to these questions are being
4. 3. 36 J BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD 695
given : When this human body that is a product
of ignorance, with head, hands, etc., becomes thin.
Why? Through old age, being naturally worn out
like a fruit ripened by time, or disease, literally, that
which causes affliction, hence, fever etc. Afflicted
with disease, the body, owing to impaired digestion,
cannot digest the food that is eaten, and not being
nourished by its essence, gets thin. This is what js
meant by the expression, ‘Or through disease.’
When the body is extremely emaciated by fever
and other causes, dyspnoea sets in, and at this stage
the man goes making noises like the overloaded
cart. Whoever has a body must be overtaken by
old age, suffer from disease etc., and have leanness ;
these are inevitable evils. The fact is mentioned
to generate a spirit of renunciation in us.
How he leaves the body when he goes making
noises is being described through an illustration :
Then, as a mango , or a fig, or a fruit of the fieefiul
tree, etc. The citing of many and dissimilar ex-
amples is for the purpose of stating that death may
come from any cause, since the causes of death are
indefinite and innumerable. This too is for stimulat-
ing renunciation : Since he is subject to death from
so many causes, he is always in the jaws of death.
Js detached from its stalk (Bandhana) : The word
‘Bandhana’ may mean the sap that binds it to the
stalk, or it may mean the stalk to which it is attached.
As the fruit is detached from the sap or the stalk
by the wind and many other causes, so does this
infinite being, the self that is identified with the
subtle body — that has this as its limiting adjunct —
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 4 . 3 . 86
completely detaching himself from the parts of the
body such as the eye — not preserving the body
through the vital force, as he does when he goes
into the state of profound sleep, but withdrawing
the organs together with the vital force — again
go etc. The word ‘again’ suggests that he has
before this also gone many a time from one body to
another, as he moves frequently between the dream
and waking states. In the same way that he came
to his present body, to particular bodies , according
to his past work, knowledge, and so forth. What
for ? For the unfoldment of his vital force : Though
literally it would mean, ‘For the vital force,* yet,
since he goes along with it, the epithet would be
meaningless. He goes from one body to another
only for the unfoldment of the vital force. It is by
this means, and not by the mere existence of the
vital force, that he fulfils his object, viz., the enjoy-
ment of the fruits of his work. Therefore in order
that the vital force may be auxiliary to that, the
specification, ‘For the unfoldment of his vital force,*
is appropriate.
Now it may be objected : When the Jiva goes
leaving this body, he has no power to take up
another, for he is dissociated from his body and
organs. Nor are there others who, like servants,
would wait for him with another body made ready,
as a King’s retinue waits for him with a house kept
ready. How under the circumstances can he take
up another body ? The answer is : He has adopted
the whole universe as his means to the realisation
4. 3. 37] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 097
of the fruits of his work ; and he is going from one
body to another to fulfil this object. Therefore the
whole universe, impelled by his work, waits for him
with the requisite means for the realisation of the
fruits of his work made ready. Witness the Shruti *
‘A man is born into the body that has been made for
him* (Sh. VI. ii. 2. 27). It is analogous to the case
of a man about to return from the dream to the
waking state. The process is being explained by a
familiar illustration :
awjrmfa,
m orator ii asirnfa,
a a
37. Just as when a King is coming, the
Ugras set against particular offences, the
Sutas and the leaders of the village wait for
him with varieties of food and drink and
mansions ready, saying, ‘Here he comes, here
he comes, ’ so for the person who knows about
the fruits of his work, all the elements wait
saying, ‘Here comes Brahman, here comes
Brahman.’
Just as when a King , duly installed on the
throne, is coming to some place within his kingdom,
the Ugras, a particular caste, or so called from their
fierce deeds, set against particular offences, appointed
to punish thieves etc., the Sutas, a hybrid cnste, and
the leaders of the village, anticipating the King’s
visit, wait for him with varieties of food such as those
698 BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 4 . 3 . 37
that are chewed or otherwise eaten, and drink such
as "wine and mansions such as palaces ready, saying r
( Here he comes, here he comes / so for the person
who knows about the fruits of his work, that is, the
transmigrating $elf — for the fruits of one’s work are
the topic under consideration, and they are referred
to by the word ‘evam’ (thus) — all the elements that
make up his body, together with the presiding deities,
Indra and the rest, who help the organs to function,
wait with the means of enjoying the fruits of his
work made ready — being impelled by that work.
wsuxr TTsnsi
gifiremTqfr a , srafa ii \c n ffa
a i g t mq ||
38. Just as when the King wishes to
depart, the Ugras set against particular offen-
ces, the Sutas and the leaders of the village
approach him, so do all the organs approach
the departing man at the time of death, when
breathing becomes difficult.
Who accompany him as he thus wishes to go?
And do those who accompany him go prompted by
an act of his, or do they go of their own accord,
together with the elements that make up his nev
body, called the next world ? Regarding this an
illustration is being given : Just as when the King
wishes t(> depart, the Ugras set against particular
offences, the Sutas and the leaders of the village
approach him in a body, unbidden by the King, and
4. 3. 38] BR1HADARANY AKA UPAN1SHAD
699
simply knowing that he wishes to go, so do all the
organs approach the departing man , the experiencer
of the fruits of his work, at the time of death, when
breathing becomes difficult. This last clause has
been explained.
SECTION IV
The description of transmigration has been
introduced. In that connection it has been said,
‘The infinite being, completely detaching himself
from the parts of the body,’ etc. (IV. iii. 36). In
order to state when that detachment takes place and
how, it is necessary to describe the process of trans-
migration in detail. Hence the present section.
^ *r5TT*TOTrJmi5*# HOTfrfcr
srmrT ar firewre fci ; st qa retafrure T;
srafa it * 11
i. When this self becomes weak and
senseless, as it were, the organs come to it.
Completely withdrawing these particles of
light, it comes to the heart. When the pre-
siding deity of the eye turns back from all
sides, the man fails to notice colour.
When this self, which is under consideration,
becomes weak . Really it is the body that becomes
weak, but its weakness is figuratively spoken of as
that of the self ; for being formless, it can never by
itself become weak. Similarly it becomes senseless,
as it were, that is, fails to discriminate. It cannot
by itself be senseless or otherwise, for it is the eternal
self-luminous Intelligence ; hence the expression ‘as
*it were/ The state of helplessness noticeable at the
4. 4. 1] BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
701
time of death, which "is caused by the withdrawal of
the organs, is attributed by ordinary people to the
self. So they say, 4 Oh, he has become senseless !*
Or the expression 'as it were* should be con-
nected with both the adjectives, meaning 'becomes
weak, as it were, and senseless, as it were,* for both
states are alike due to extraneous limiting adjuncts,
and both the verbs agree with the same subject. At
this time the organs such as that of speech come to
it, the self. Then this self that is in the body is
detached from the parts of the body. How does
this detachment take place, and how do the organs
come to the self ? This is being answered : Com-
pletely withdrawing these particles of light, that is,
the organs such as the eye, so called because they
reveal colour etc. The adverb 'completely* shows
the distinction of this state from a dream, when they
are just drawn in, not absolutely, as in this case,
as is knowm from such passages as, 'The organ of
speech is absorbed, the eye is absorbed* (II. i. 17),
'He takes away a little of this all-embracing world
(the waking state)* (IV. iii. 9), and 'Taking the
shining functions of the organs with him,* etc. (IV,
iii. 11). It comes to the heart, that is, the ether in
the lotus of the heart ; in other words, its intelligence
is manifested in the heart. (The withdrawal in
question is attributed to the self) simply because the
activities of the intellect and so forth are at rest.
The Atman by itself cannot move, or undergo
changes such as the stopping of activities for it
has been said, ‘It thinks, as it were, and shakes,
as it were* (IV. iii. 7). It is through its limiting
702
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
[4. 4. 1
adjuncts such as the intellect that all changes are
attributed to the self. When does it withdraw the
particles of light ? This is being answered : The
presiding deity of the eye — literally, the being asso-
ciated with the eye — who is a part of the sun, being
directed by the experience's past work, goes on
helping the functions of the eye as long as he lives,
but he ceases to help the eye and is merged in his
own self, the sun, when the man is about to die.
This has been stated in the passage, 'When the vocal
organ of the dead man has been merged in fire, the
vital force in Vayu, the eye in the sun,’ etc. (III. ii.
13). They will again occupy (their respective places)
when the man takes another body. This (dual
phenomenon) takes place when a man is fast asleep,
and when he wakes up. This is expressed by the
text : When the presiding deity of the eye turns
back from all sides, the dying man fails to notice
colour. At this time the self completely withdraws
the particles of light, the eye and other organs, as
in the dream state.
WTJ: 5 UStorafo, si iSRrl lenj: , gsforefsr, sr
, ngteraft, sr g gorteiteng : 5 tcstowfa,
sr ugsr irsnj: ; sr
?! fsrerRFftFtJTs: 5 ' gymm*
s ra te fo 5 sitrr^^r sncin fsr^umfsr— sit,
qwrf 5rr, qr an^^wr: 5 asjc*msrf smrt-
5 g |q wtgw>wrd htwi si;j c g> wP a 5
4. 4. 2] BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 703
i ?f firai-
wtot »j^rr sr a ^ u
2. (The eye) becomes united (with the
subtle body) ; then people say, ‘He does not
see. ’ (The nose) becomes united ; then they
say, ‘He does not smell.’ (The tongue) be-
comes united ; then they say, ‘He does not
taste.’ (The vocal organ) becomes united;
then they say, ‘He does not speak.’ (The
■ear) becomes united; then they say, ‘He does
not hear. ’ (The Manas) becomes united ;
then they say, ‘He does not think.’ (The
skin) becomes united ; then they say, ‘He does
not touch.’ (The intellect) becomes united;
then they say, ‘He does not know.’ The top
of the heart brightens. Through that bright-
ened top the self departs, either through the
eye, or through the head, or through any
other part of the body. When it departs, the
vital force follows ; when the vital force de-
parts, all the organs follow. Then the self
has particular consciousness, and goes to the
body which is related to that consciousness.
It is followed by knowledge, work and past
experience.
Every organ becomes united with the subtle
body of the dying man ; then people at 1 ,ig side say
of him, 'H.e does not see.’ Similarly when, on the
withdrawal of its presiding deity, the nose becomes
704 BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [4. 4. 2
united with the subtle body, they say, ‘ He does not
smell / The rest is to be similarly explained. The
moon or Varuna is the deity of the tongue ; when
he stops functioning, they say, ‘He does not taste /
Similarly they say that he does not speak, hear,
think, touch and know. This means that at that
time the presiding deities cease to work, and the
organs are united in the heart. 1 What takes place
in the body after the organs have been united in the
heart is now being stated: The top of the heart
mentioned above, that is, of the orifice of the heart
— its ‘top’ here means the nerve-end, which is the
exit for the self — brightens, as in the dream state,
its own lustre due to the drawing in of the organs
being revealed by its own light as the Atman. 2
Through that top brightened by the light of the
Atman, the individual self, with the subtle body as
its limiting adjunct, departs. As the Prashna Upa-
nishad puts it : ‘On whose departure must I depart,
and on whose stay, must I stay ? — He projected the
vital force* (VI. 3).
In the subtle body the self-effulgent intelligence
of the Atman is always particularly manifest. It is
because of this limiting adjunct that the self comes
under relative existence involving all such changes
as birth and death, and going and coming. The
twelve organs, including the intellect, consist of it ;
it is the Sutra, 3 the life, and the inmost self of the
movable and immovable universe. As the self de-
1 That' is, the subtle body with its seat in the heart.
2 IV. iii. 9.
3 III. vii. 2.
4 . 4 . 21
BRIHA DA RA NY A KA UPAN1SHA D
705
parts with the help of the light at the top of the
heart, by which way does it leave the body ?
Through the eye, if it has a store of work or relative
knowledge that would take it to the sun, or through
the head , if they are such as would entitle it to go
to the world of Hiranyagarbha, or through any other
part of the body, according to its past work and
knowledge. When it, the individual self, departs
for the next world, that is, when it has the intention
to go there, the vital force follows, like the Prime
Minister of a King ; and when the vital force departs ,
all the organs such as that of speech follow. This
simply denotes conformity to their respective leaders,
not that the vital force and the organs go one after
the other, as it happens in a party. 1
Then the self has particular consciousness, as
in dreams, in consequence of its past work, not
independently. If it had this consciousness in-
dependently, everybody would achieve the end of
his life ; but it never has that. Hence Vyasa says,
‘(A man attains whatever he thinks of at the moment
of death) if he has always been imbued with that
idea’ (G. VIII. 6). As a matter of fact, everybody
has at that moment a consciousness which consists
of impressions in the form of particular modifica-
tions of his mind (regarding the next life) that are
induced by his past work. And goes to the body
which is related to that consciousness, that is, is
revealed by that particular consciousness. There-
fore, in order to have freedom of action a ^ the time
1 The particle ‘anu’ (after) here means ‘according to/
Really they all go together.
45
706
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
[ 4 . 4 . 2
of death, those aspirants after the future life who
have faith should be alert in the practice of the
system of Yoga and right knowledge, and in the
acquisition of particular merit (by doing good deeds).
All the sacred books also carefully seek to dissuade
men from doing evil ; for nothing can be done at the
dying moment, as there is no independence for the
inan, who is carried away by his past work. It has
been said, ‘One becomes good through good work
and evil through evil work’ (III. ii. 13). The aim
of the Upanishads in all the recensions is to prescribe
remedies for this evil. There is no other way to eradi-
cate this evil completely except by following the
course laid down by them. Therefore all should try
to practise the remedies prescribed by the Upani-
shads ,* this is the gist of the whole passage.
It has been stated that the departing self, loaded
with materials, goes making noises like a cart. Now,
as it starts for the next world, what is its food on the
way or for consumption on reaching that world,
corresponding to the carter’s load, and what are the
materials for building its new body and organs ? The
answer is being given : It, this self journeying to
the next world, is followed by knowledge of all
sorts, those that are enjoined or forbidden as well
as those 1 that are neither enjoined nor forbidden ;
also work, enjoined or forbidden, and neither enjoined
nor forbidden, and past experience, that fs, the im-
pressions of experiences regarding the results of past
actions. These impressions take part in initiating
1 Regarding common or trivial things; similarly with
work
4. 4. 3] fiRIHA DA RANYAKA UPANISHAD 7Q7
fresh actions as well as in bringing past actions to
fruition ; hence they too accompany. Without these
impressions no action can be done, nor any results
of past actions achieved, for the organs are not skil-
ful in unpractised work. But when the organs are
prompted to work by the impressions of past ex-
perience, they can easily attain skill even without
practice in this life. It is frequently observed that
some are clever in certain kinds of work such as
painting from their very birth, even without practice
in this life, while others are unskilful even in some
very easy tasks. Similarly in the enjoyment of
sense-objects also some are observed to be naturally
skilful or dull. All this is due to the revival or non-
revival of past experience. Therefore without past
experience we cannot understand how anybody can
proceed to do any work or to enjoy the fruits of past
work. Hence these three — knowledge, work and past
experience— are the food on the way to the next
world, corresponding to the load of the carter. Since
these three are the means of attaining another body
and enjoying (the fruits of one’s past work), there-
fore one should cultivate only the good forms of
them, so that one may have a desirable body and
desirable enjoyments. This is the purport of the
whole passage.
Now the question is, when the self, loaded with
knowledge etc., is about to go to another body, does
it leave the old body and go to another bke a bird
going to another tree? Or is it carried b^ another
body serving as a vehicle to the place where, accord-
708 BRJ HA DA RAN Y A K A UPAN1SHAD [4. 4. 3
ing to its past work, it is to be born ? Or does it
stay here, while its organs become all-pervading and
function as such ? Or is it that so long as it remains
in the body, its organs are contracted to the limits of
that, but when it dies they become all-pervading — like
the light of a lamp when the (enclosing) jar is broken
— and contract again when a new body is made P 1 Or,
as in the Vaisheshika system, does only the mind go
to the place where the new body is to be made ? Or
is there any other theory in the Vedanta? This is
being answered : We know from the Shruti text,
‘These are all equal, and all infinite’ (I. v. 13), that
the organs are all-comprising. 2 Another reason for
this is their resting on the vital force, which is all-
comprising. Their limitation in the sphere of the
body and the elements (as colour etc.) is due to the
work, knowledge and past impressions of men.
Therefore, although the organs are naturally all-
pervading and infinite, since the new body is made
in accordance with the person’s work, knowledge and
past impressions, the functions of the organs also
contract or expand accordingly. As it has been said,
‘Equal to a white ant, equal to a mosquito, equal to
an elephant, equal to these three worlds, equal to this
universe* (I. iii. 20). It is also supported by the
following : ‘He who meditates upon these as in-
finite,’ etc. (I. v. 13), and ‘(One becomes) exactly as
one meditates upon Him,’ etc. (Sh. X. v. 2. 20).
1 Of the different views given here, the first three are
those of the Jains, the Devatav&dins (the upholders of the
theory of ingel-guides), and the S&nkhya and allied schools
respectively, while the fourth represents the Vedantic view-
2 In their form relating to the gods.
4 . 4 . 3 |
BR1HADAR A NY AKA UPANISHAP
709
Therefore the impressions called past experience,
under the control of the person’s .knowledge and
work, stretch out, like a leech, from the body, retain-
ing their seat in the heart, as in the dream state,
and build another body in accordance with his past
work ; they leave their seat, the old body, when a
new body is made. An illustration on this point is
being given :
cram qwzmigxT tiw&n ft
IU II
3. Just as a leech supported on a straw
ffoes to the end of it, takes hold of another
support and contracts itself, so does the self
throw this body aside — make it senseless —
take hold of another support, and contract
itself.
Regarding this passing on to another body the
following is an illustration : Just as a leech support -
ed on a straw goes to the end of it, takes hold of
another straw as support and contracts itself, that is,
one part of its body, to where the other part is, so
does the self, the transmigrating self that is being
discussed, throw this body, the one already taken,
aside, as it does when entering the dream state—
make it senseless by withdrawing itself from it —
take hold of another support or body, as r the leech
does another straw, by stretching out its impressions,
and contract itself, that is, identify itself, at the place
710
BRIHADARANY AKA UPANJSHAD [4. 4. 3
where the new body is being formed, with that new
body, movable or immovable — as in dreams the self
creates a new body and dwells, as it were, in that
dream body.
There the organs, under the sway of the person’s
past work, are combined so as to manifest their
functions ; an external body, like one made of straw
and clay, is also formed. When the organs have
been arranged, the presiding deities such as fire come
to the body to help the organ of speech gnd so forth.
This is the process of the formation of a new body.
Now, in this formation of a new body does the
self again and again crush the materials that are
always there ready at hand and with them make a
new body, or does it collect new materials everv
time ? This is being answered through an illustra-
tion :
srfirsri irofacgT, s rera srenf
sjt, nrosr srr, f*r stt, sTrsrrqetr *r, sns*
«tt || « ||
4. Just as a goldsmith takes apart a little
quantity of gold and fashions another — a
newer and better — form, so does the self throw
this body away, or make it senseless, and
make another — a newer and better — form,
suited to the Manes, or the celestial minstrels.
4. 4. 51
B R JH AD ARAN Y A KA UPAN1SHAD
711
or the gods, or Viraj, or Hiranyagarbha, or
other beings.
Just as a goldsmith takes apart a little quantity
of gold and fashions another — a newer and better —
form than the previous model, so does the self
(these and the preceding words have been explained)
again and again crush the five elements beginning
with earth and ending with the ether that are always
ready at hand — which have been described in the
second chapter in the passage, 'Brahman has but two
forms* (II. iii. 1), and stand for the gold— and make
another — a newer and better — form , or body, suited
to the Manes, that is, fit for enjoyments in the world
of the Manes, or the celestial minstrels, that is, fit
for their enjoyments, or the gods, or Virdj, or
Hiranyagarbha, or other beings , according to its past
work and knowledge.
All those things which are the limiting adjuncts
of the self and are styled its bonds, and connected
with which it is considered identified with them, are
here gathered together and pointed out in a group :
3T SHTOTcJTT Sjgl fegHTfl ft
sjgjfa: sfhrcrc: snqtaft en g m ar re r w -
, am rrt zrmwrft wot
*rrg*rqfd, qmnrt qrqf- srqfd 5
«wfun qiq: qflfrr i jqsqrj: qmroq
712 BR1H A DA RANYA KA UPANISHAD [4. 4. 5
gs* *Fer ; vrerfo acsfig&rfa,
q^SR3?lk% rlc^Jl INI
5. That self is indeed Brahman, as weil
as identified with the intellect, the Manas and
the vital force % with the eyes and ears, with
earth, water, air and the ether, with fire, and
what is other than fire, with desire and the
absence of desire, with anger and the absence
of anger, with righteousness and unrighteous-
ness, with e\*erythiug — identified, as is well-
known, with this (what is perceived) and with
that (what is inferred). As it does and acts,
so it becomes ; by doing good it becomes good,
and by doing evil it becomes evil — it becomes
virtuous through good acts and vicious through
evil acts. Others, however, say, ‘The self
is identified with desire alone. What it
desires, it resolves ; what it resolves, it works
out; and what it works out, it attains.’
That self which thus transmigrates is indeed
Brahman, the Supreme Self that is beyond hunger
etc., as well as identified with the intellect (Vijna-
namaya), being noticed through it ; for it has been
said, ‘Which is the self ? This infinite entity
(Purusha) that is identified with the intellect and is
in the midst of the organs,’ etc. (IV. iii. 7). The
self is called Vijnanamaya, resembling the intellect,
because it is conceived as possessing the attributes
of the intellect, as in the passage, ‘It thinks, as it
were, and shakes, as it were’ (Ibid.). Likewise
4. 4. 5] BR1HA DAK A NY AKA UPANISHAi > 7Vi
identified with the Manas, because of its proximity
to that. Also identified with the vital force that has
the fivefold function ; for which reason the individ-
ual self is observed as moving, as it were. Similarly
identified with the eyes, when it sees forms. Like-
wise identified with the cars , when it hears sounds
Thus as each particular organ functions, the self
becomes identified with that.
Similarly, being identified with the eyes and
other organs through the intellect and vital force,
the self becomes identified with the elements such
as earth. When a body preponderating in elements
of earth has to be made, it becomes identified with
earth. Similarly, when creating a watery body in
the world of Varuna and so forth, it becomes identified
with water. Likewise, when an aerial body has to
be made, it becomes identified with air. Similarly,
when making an ethereal body, it is identified with
the ether. Thus when it makes bodies for the gods,
which preponderate in elements of fire, it becomes
identified with fire. As opposed to these, the bodies of
animals, of denizens of hell, of ghosts, and so forth,
are composed of materials other than fire ; with regard
to them the text says, identified with what is other
than fire. Similarly, being identified with the body
and organs, the self, on seeing something to be at-
tained, forms the wrong notion that it has got this
one, and has to get that one, and setting its heart on
that, becomes identified with desire. When on seeing
evil in that thing its longing for it ceases, and the
mind becomes serene, pure and calm, then it be-
comes identified with the absence of desire . Like-
714 BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [4. 4. 5
#
wise, when that desire is somehow frustrated, it takes
the form of anger, and the self becomes identified
with anger. When that anger is appeased by some
means, and the mind becomes serene and peaceful,
it is called the absence of anger ; the self becomes
identified with that. Thus the self, becoming identi-
fied with desire and anger as well as the absence of
them, becomes identified with righteousness and un-
righteousness, for without desire, anger, etc., the
tendency to righteousness and so forth cannot arise.
Witness the Smriti : ‘Whatever action a man does,
is the outcome of desire* (M. II. 4).
Being identified with righteousness and unright-
eousness it becomes identified with everything .
Everything is the effect of righteousness and unright-
eousness : whatever is differentiated is the result of
these two. The self, on attaining it, becomes identi-
fied with that. In short, identified , as is well-
known, with this, that is, with objects that are
perceived, and therefore with that. ‘That* refers to
imperceptible objects that are indicated only by
their perceptible effects. The mind has an infinite
number of thoughts, which cannot be definitely
specified ; they are known at particular moments
through their effects, which lead us to infer that this
or that particular thought is in one’s mind. Through
that perceptible effect — which marks the identifica-
tion of the self with ‘this’ or the perceptible — its
remote or internal activity is indicated, and it is
therefore ( designated as identified at present with
‘that’ or the imperceptible. To put it briefly, as it
habitually does and acts, so it becomes. ‘Doing’
4 . 4 . 5 ]
PR1HADARANYAKA VP AN I SHAD
715
refers to prescribed conduct as indicated, for instance,
by injunctions and prohibitions, while ‘action’ is not
so prescribed ; this is the distinction between them.
By doing good it becomes good : This amplifies the
idea of ‘As it does/ and by doing evil it becomes evil ,
the idea of ‘As it acts/
The use of a suffix denoting habit (in four
words of the text) may lead to a notion that the
identification with good and evil actions consists in
intense association with them, not in merely doing
them. To remove this it is said, it becomes virtuous
through good acts and vicious through evil acts .
The identification comes of merely doing good and
evil acts, and does not require habitual performance.
This last only intensifies the identification ; this is
the difference. The long and short of it is, that
doing good and bad deeds under the impulse of
desire, anger, etc., is the cause of the Atman’s iden-
tification with everything, its undergoing trans-
migration and passing from one body to another ;
for, impelled by this, the self takes one body after
another. Therefore good and bad deeds are the
cause of its transmigratory existence. Scriptural
injunctions and prohibitions are directed to this.
Herein lies the utility of the scriptures.
Others , other authorities on bondage and libera-
tion, however, say : It is true that good and bad
deeds prompted by desire etc. are the eause of a
man’s taking a body ; still it is under the influence
of desire that he accumulates these deeds When
desire is gone, work, although present, does not lead
to the accumulation of merit or demerit. Even if he
716
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
[ 4 . 4 . 5
goes on doing good and bad deeds, these, bereft of
the desire, produce no results ; therefore desire is
the root of transmigratory existence. As the Mun-
daka Upanishad says, 'He who longs for objects of
desire, making much of them, is born along with
those desires in places where he will realise them’
(III. ii. 2). Therefore the self is identified with
desire alo?ie. Its identification with other things,
although it may be present, does not produce any
results ; hence the text emphatically says, 'Identified
with desire alone.* Being identified with desire,
what it desires , it resolves . That desire manifests
itself as the slightest longing for a particular object,
and, if unchecked, takes a more definite shape and
becomes resolve. Resolve is determination, which is
followed by action. What it resolves as a result of
the desire, it works out by doing the kind of work
that is calculated to procure the objects resolved
upon. And what it works out , it attains , that is, its
results. Therefore desire is the only cause of its
identification with everything as well as of under-
going transmigration.
wsrffr i
si*
fef nsfr f qtrewrer i
nrcqr?5T I
ssforar u ,
srreroTO stout aeawfc i,
asfe a | ii
4 . 4 . 6 ]
BRJHADARANYAKA VPANISHAD
nr
6. Regarding this there is the following
verse : ‘ Being attached, he, together with
the work, attains that result to which his
subtle body or mind is attached. Exhausting
the results of whatever work he did in this
life, he returns from that world to this for
(fresh) work.’ Thus does the man who*
desires (transmigrate). But the man who
does not desire (never transmigrates). Of
him who is without desires, who is free from
desires, the objects of whose desire have been
attained, and to whom all objects of desire are
but the Self — the organs do not depart.
Being but Brahman, he is merged in Brah-
man.
Regarding this subject there is also the follow-
ing verse : Being attached , that is, with his desire
for it roused, he, the man whc transmigrates, to-
gether with the work that he did with attachment
to its result, attains that lesult to which his subtle
body or mind is firmly attached, that is, for which
it yearns — since he did the work out of a desire for
that. (The mind is called the subtle body — Linga— -
because it is the principal part of the latter ; or the
word ‘lyinga’ may mean an index, that which indi-
cates the self.) Therefore, only on account of this,
attachment of his mind, he attains the result through
that action. This proves that desire is the root of
transmigratory existence. Hence a knower 1 of Brah-
man who has rooted out his desires may work, but
718
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
[ 4 . 4 . 6
it will produce no (baneful) result ; for the Shruti
says, ‘For one who has completely attained the
objects of his desire and realised the Self, all desires
dissolve in this very life’ (Mu. III. ii. 2).
Further, exhausting the results of work — what
kind of work ?— whatever work he did in this life,
by experiencing them, he returns from that world
to this for work, for work holds the foremost place
in this world. Hence the text says, ‘For work/
that is, to work again. After working again, he,
owing to attachment to results, again goes to the
next world, and so on. 1'hus does the man who
desires transmigrate. Since it is this man of desire
that transmigrates thus, therefore the man who does
not desire , does not transmigrate anywhere.
It has been said that only the man who is attach-
ed to results transmigrates. Since one who has no
desires cannot perform (ritualistic) work, the man
who does not desire necessarily attains liberation.
How does a man cease to desire ? He who is with-
out desires is the man who does not desire. How
is this absence of desire attained ? This is being ex-
plained : Who is free from desires, that is, whom
desires have left. How do they leave? The objects
of whose desire have been attained. How are they
attained ? Because he is one to whom all objects
of desire are but the Self — who has only the Self,
and nothing else separate from It that can* be desir-
ed ; to whom the Self alone exists — the Pure Intel-
ligence without interior or exterior, entire and homo-
geneous ; and neither above nor below nor in the
middle is there anything else but the Self to be desired.
4. 4. 6] BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD 719
What should a person desire who has realised :
'When everything has become the Self to one, what
should one see, hear, think or know, and through
what?’ For a thing that is known as other than
oneself may become an object of desire. But such
a thing does not exist for the knower of Brahman,
the objects of whose desire have all been attained.
He to whom all objects of desire, being but the Self,
are already attained, is alone free from desires, is
without desires, and does not desire any more ;
hence he attains liberation. For he to whom every-
thing is the Self, has nothing else to desire. It is
contradictory to say that he has something other
than the Self to desire, and again, that to him every-
thing is the Self. Since a man who has realised his
identity with all has nothing to desire, he cannot
perform rites.
Those who hold that even a knower of Brahman
must perform rites in order to avoid evil , 1 cannot
say that to him everything is the Self, for they
regard the evil that they wish him to avoid as differ-
ent from the Self. Whereas we call him a knower
of Brahman who constantly knows the Self which is
beyond hunger etc. and untouched by evil ; he con-
stantly sees the Self which is beyond hunger and so
forth. Work can nevei touch him who does not
see anything other than the Self to be avoided or
received* But one who is not a knower of Brahman
must perform rites to avoid evil. Hence there is no
contradiction. Therefore, having no de^res, the
i Due to the non-performance of the regular rites.
720
HRJHA DA R'ANYA KA UFA N 1SF1A D
[ 4 . 4 . 6
person who does not desire is no more born ; he only
attains liberation.
Since the man who does not desire has no work
and therefore has no cause to go to the next world,
his organs such as that of speech do not depart or go
up from the body. That man of realisation who has
attained all the objects of his desire, since they are
but the Self to him, has become Brahman in this
very life, for as an illustration of the Infinite Brah-
man the following form was pointed out : ‘That is
his form — in which all objects of desire have been
attained and are but the Self, and which is free
from desires* (IV. iii. 21). Now that of which the
above is an illustration is being concluded in the
words, ‘But the man who does not desire/ etc. How
does such a man attain liberation ? The answer is
as follows : He who sees the Self, as in the state
of profound sleep, as undifferentiated, one without
a second, and as the constant light of Pure Intel-
ligence — only this disinterested man has no work and
consequently no cause for transmigration ; therefore
his organs such as that of speech do not depart.
Rather this man of realisation is Brahman in this
very life, although he seems to have a body. Being
but Brahman , he is merged in Brahman . Because
he has no desires that cause the limitation of non -
Brahman, therefore ‘being but Brahman he is merged
in Brahman* in this very life, not after Jhe body
falls. A man of realisation, after his death, has no
change of condition — something different from what
he was fn life— but he is only not connected with
another body. This is what is meant by his becom-
4. 4. 6] BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 721
ing * merged in Brahman’ ; for if liberation was a
change of condition, it would contradict the unity
of the Self that all the Upanishads seek to teach.
And liberation would be the effect of work, not
knowledge — which nobody would desire. Besides,
liberation would become transitory, for nothing that
has been produced by an action is seen to be eternal,
but liberation is admitted to be eternal, as the Mantra
says, ‘This is the eternal glory (of a knower of
Brahman V etc. (IV. iv. 23).
Further, nothing but the inherent nature of a
thing can he regarded as eternal. If liberation is
the nature of the self, like the heat of fire, it cannot
be said to be a consequence of human activity. The
heat or light of fire surely is not a consequence of
the activity of fire ; it is a contradiction in terms to
say that they are, and yet that they are the natural
properties of fire. If it be urged that they are an
outcome of tlte activity of combustion, the answer
is, no, because they depend on manifestation by the
removal of obstructions to one’s perception. That
fire is manifested through its qualities of heat and
light by the process of combustion etc., is due not
to the fire itself, but to the fact that those qualities,
not being connected with anybody’s vision, were
hidden, and are manifested when the obstructions
to vision are removed by the process of combustion.
This leads to the error that the qualities of heat
and light are produced by the combustion. If heat
and light are not admitted as the natural ^properties
of fire, well then, we shall cite as examples what-
46
722
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [4. 4. 0
ever be its natural properties. Nobody can say that
things have no natural properties at all.
Nor can liberation be a mere negative something
— the cessation of bondage, like the breaking of
fetters, for the Supreme Self is supposed to be the
only entity that exists. As the Shruti says, ‘One
only without a second* (Chh. VI. ii. 1). And there
is no other entity that is bound, whose freedom
from bondage, as from fetters, would be liberation,
for we have spoken at length of the absence of any
other entity but the Supreme Self. 1 Therefore, as
we have also said, the cessation of ignorance 2 alone is
commonly called liberation like the disappearance of
the snake, for instance, from the rope when the erro-
neous notion about its existence has been dispelled.
Those who hold that in liberation a new 3 knowl-
edge and bliss are manifested, should explain what
they mean by manifestation. If it means ordinary
perception or the cognition of objects, they should
state whether the knowledge or bliss that is manifest-
ed is existent or non-existent. If it is existent, it
is the very self of that liberated man to whom it is
manifested ; hence, there being possibly no bar to
the. perception, it will always be manifest, and for
this reason it is meaningless to specify its being
manifest to the liberated man. If, however, it is
manifest only at certain times, 4 then because of the
1 See, for instance, pp. 116, 147, 298.
2 Which is the cause of the idea of bondage.
3 That ;s, different from those arising from sense-contact.
4 That is, in the state of relative existence, being
frequently obstructed by iniquity etc.
4 . 4 . 6 ]
BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
723
obstacles to its perception, it is different from the
self, and therefore there arises the question of its
manifestation through some other means ; hence
there will be the necessity of these means also . 1
But if the knowledge and bliss in question have the
same support as the perception, then, there being
no possibility of obstacles, they will either be always
manifest or always hidden ; there is no warrant for
conceiving an intermediate stage between the two.
Now attributes that have the same support, and are
a part and parcel of the same substance, cannot
have the relation of subject and object to one
another. Besides, the entity that is subject to trans-
migration before the manifestation of knowledge and
bliss, and liberated after it, must be different from
the Supreme Self, the eternally manifest Knowledge
Absolute, for the two are totally different from each
other, like heat and cold ; and if differences are ad-
mitted in the Supreme Self, the Vedic position will
be abandoned.
Objection : If liberation makes no difference
from the present state, it is unreasonable to make a
particular effort for it, and the scriptures too become
useless.
Reply : No, for both are necessary to remove
the delusion created by ignorance. Really there is
no such distinction as liberation and bondage in the
self, for it is eternally the same ; but the ignorance
regarding it is removed by the knowledge arising
from the teachings of the scriptures*: and prior to
1 Which will make liberation akin to relative existence.
724
BRIHA DA RA NY A KA VP A NISH A D
[ 4 . 4 . 6
the receiving of these teachings, the effort to attain
liberation is perfectly reasonable.
Objection : There will be some difference in
the self that is under ignorance, due to the cessation
or continuance of that ignorance.
Reply : No ; we have already said (p.477) that
it is admitted to be the creation of ignorance, like
a rope, a desert, a mother-of-pearl and the sky ap-
pearing as a snake, water, silver, and blue respect-
ively.
Objection : But there will be some difference
in the self due to its being or not being the cause of
ignorance, as in the case of man affected with the
eye-disease called Timira 1 or free from it.
Reply : No, for the Shruti denies that the
Atman by itself is the cause of ignorance, as in the
passage, ‘It thinks, as it tvere, and shakes, as it
were’ (IV. iii. 7) ; and the error we call ignorance
is due to a combination of diverse activities. Another
reason is that ignorance is an object witnessed by
the self. 2 He who visualises the error of ignorance
as something distinct from his own self, like a jar
etc., is not himself under that error.
Objection : Surely he is under that error, for
one feels that one sometimes has the notion, ‘I do not
know, I am confused.’
Reply : No, for that too is distinctly perceived.
He who distinctly perceives a thing cannot surely
be said to be mistaken about it ; it is self-contradic-
4
1 Causing distorted vision.
2 Therefore it cannot be an integral part of the subject.
4 . 4 . 6 ]
BR IHA DA R. I NY A KA UP A NISH A D
725
tory to say that he perceives it distinctly, and at the
same time, that he is mistaken about it.
You say that a person feels, 'I do not know, I
am confused ’ ; thereby you admit that he visualises
his ignorance and confusion, in other words, that
these become the objects of his experience. So how
can the ignorance and confusion, which are objects,
be at the same time a description of the subject, the
perceiver ? If, on the other hand, they are a de-
scription of the subject, how can they be objects and
be perceived by the subject ? An object is perceived
by an act of the subject. The object is one thing,
and the subject another ; it cannot be perceived by
itself. Tell me how under such circumstances the
ignorance and confusion can be a description of the
subject. Moreover a person who sees ignorance as
something distinct — perceives it as an object of his
own cognition — does not regard it as an attribute
of the perceiver, as is the case with thinness, colour,
and so forth, in the body. Similarly (the effects of
ignorance also are not attributes of the self).
Objection : But everybody perceives pleasure,
pain, desire, effort, etc. (as belonging to himself).
Reply : Even then the man who perceives them
is admittedly different from them.
Objection : Well, we have referred to the
person who says, ‘I do not know what you say, 1
am confused.’ What do you say to that?
Reply : Let him regard himself as ignorant and
confused ; we, however, accept one who sees like
this as knowing and possessed of a clear jJetception.
For instance, Vyasa has said that the owner of the
726
BR1H AVAR ANY AKA UPAN1SHAD [4. 4. 6
field (the self) reveals the entire field (body and
mind), including desire etc. And there are hund*
reds of texts like the following : '(He truly sees
who) sees the Supreme Lord living the same in all
beings — the immortal Principle in the midst of things
perishable 1 (G. 'XIII. 27). Therefore the Atman by
itself has no difference due to bondage or liberation,
knowledge or ignorance, for it is admitted to be
always the same and homogeneous by nature.
Those, however, who, considering the reality of
the self to be different, reduce the scriptures deal-
ing with bondage and liberation to mere plausible
statements, would dare to find the footprints of birds
in the sky, to pull it with their clenched hands, or
to cover it as with a skin. But we can do no such
thing. We hold that it is the definite conclusion of
all the Upanishads that we are nothing but the
Atman, the Brahman that is always the same, homo-
geneous, one without a second, unchanging, birth-
less, undecaying, immortal, deathless and free from
fear. Therefore the statement, 'He is merged in
Brahman' (this text), is but a figurative one, mean-
ing the cessation, as a result -of knowledge, of the
continuous chain of bodies for one who has held
an opposite view.
Transmigration, which was the thing that was
sought to be explained by the example of going into
the waking and dream states, has been described ;
so also its causes — knowledge, work and past
experience. Those limiting adjuncts — the elements
comprising the body and organs — surrounded by
4. 4. 7] BRIHADARANY AKA UPANISHAD
727
which the self experiences the transmigratory exist-
ence, have also been mentioned After stating, as
a firima facie view, that their immediate causes are
good and bad deeds, the cause has finally been decid-
ed to be desire. Having described bondage and its
cause by showing that the decision of the Brahmana
on this point agrees with that of the Mantra, the
Shruti has concluded the topic with the words, ‘Thus
does the man who desires (transmigrate) * (IV. iv. 6).
Then beginning with, ‘But the man who does not
desire (never transmigrates)* (Ibid.), liberation con-
sisting in the identity with all, which is the thing that
was sought to be explained by the example of the
state of profound sleep, has been described. And the
cause of liberation has been stated to be the attain-
ment of all objects of desire through their becoming
the Self. But since this state is unattainable without
Self-knowledge, the cause of liberation has by impli-
cation been stated to be the knowledge of Brahman.
Therefore, although desire has been said to be the
root of bondage, it is ignorance that, being the
opposite of what leads to liberation (knowledge), has
virtually been stated * to be the cause of bondage.
Here also liberation and its means have been dealt
with by the Brfihmana. To strengthen that, a
Mantra, called Shloka, is being quoted:
ST* *TTOT fam: |
a c**dl SRftST,
728
BRIHADARZNYAKA UPANISHAD
[ 4 . 4 . 7
33$%^ srctf star, ^xronrrctrjs^: sjtw! sr#?
^5T *m ; sfara
5R^t || ® ||
7. Regarding this there is this verse :
‘When all the desires that dwell in his heart
(mind) are gone, then he, having been mortal,
becomes immortal, and attains Brahman in
this very body.’ Just as the lifeless slough
of a snake is cast off and lies in the ant-hill,
so does this body lie. Then the self becomes
disembodied and immortal, (becomes) the
Prana (Supreme Self), Brahman, the Light.
‘I give you a thousand (cows), sir,’ said
Janaka, Emperor of Videha.
Regarding this very theme there is this verse or
Mantra : When all the desires , forms of yearning,
of the knower of Brahman all the objects of whose
desire are the Self, are gone , are destroyed together
with their root. That dwell in his heart , those well-
known desires concerning this and the next life, viz.,
the desire for children, wealth and worlds, that abide
in the intellect (mind) of the ordinary man. Then
he, having been mortal, becomes immortal , being
divested of desires together with their root. It is
virtually implied that desires concerning things other
than the Self fall under the category of ignorance,
and are but forms of death. Therefore, on the cessa-
tion of death, the man of realisation becomes im-
mortal. 'And attains Brahman, the identity with
Brahman, that is, liberation, living in this very body .
4 . 4 . 7 ]
BRIHA DA R. 1 NY A KA UP A NISH A D
729
Hence liberation does not require such things as
going to some other place Therefore the organs
of a mail of realisation do not depart ; they are
merged in their cause, the self, just where they are.
As has been said (III. ii. 12), only their names re-
main.
But how is it that when the organs have been
merged, and the body also has dissolved in its cause,
the liberated sage lives in the body identified with
all, but does not revert to his former embodied ex-
istence, which is subject to transmigration ? The
answer is being given : Here is an illustration in
point. Just as in the world the lifeless slough of a
snake is cast off by it as no more being a part of
itself, and lies in the ant-hill, or any other nest of
a snake, so does this body, discarded as non-self by
the liberated man, who corresponds to the snake, lie
like dead.
Then the other, the liberated man identified witli
all — who corresponds to the snake — although he re-
sides just there like the snake, becomes disembodied,
and is no more connected with the body. Because for-
merly lie was embodied and mortal on account of
his identification with the body under the influence
of his desires and past work ; since that has gone,
he is now disembodied, and therefore immortal.
Prana means that which lives. It will be said in a
suceecling verse, ‘The Vital Force of the vital force’
(IV. iv. 18) ; and another Shruti says, ‘The mind (in-
dividual self), my dear, is tethered to the Prana
(Supreme Self)’ (Chh. VI. viii. 2). From tfie context
and the sentence also it is clear that the word ‘Prana’
730
BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [ 4 . 4 . 7
here means the Supreme Self. Brahman, the same
as the Supreme Self. What is that? The Light of
Pure Intelligence, the light of the Atman, illumined
by which the universe gets its eye of knowledge, and
beaming with intelligence, remains unshaken in its
path.
That wished-for question for the purpose of
liberation, about which Yajnavalkya gave Janaka a
boon, has been elaborately answered by the Shruti,.
taking the form of the story of Janaka and Yajna-
valkya. It deals with bondage and liberation to-
gether with their causes, by means of themes and
illustrations. The way of deliverance from relative
existence has been told to all. Now the Shruti it-
self states that Janaka said such and such to com-
pensate for the instructions he had received. What
was it? ‘Thus delivered, I give you a thousand
cows, sir, as a requital for the instructions re-
ceived,’ said Janaka, Emperor of Videha. Now,
since the meaning of liberation has been ascertained,,
why does he not offer himself as well as the empire
of Videha, but merely give a thousand cows, as
when only a part of liberation was explained ? What
is the idea behind it ?
Here some say : Janaka, who takes delight in
the knowledge of the Self, wants to hear again
through Mantras what he has already heard ; hence
he does not offer everything. He thinks he will do
it at the end, after he has heard what he wants to
from Yajnavalkya. He is afraid lest, in case he
offers everything now, the sage should think that
he does not want to hear any more, and withhold
4. 4. 8]
BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
731
the Mantras. So he gives a thousand cows to inti-
mate his desire to hear more. All this is wrong, for
the Shruti, being trustworthy authority, can never
have recourse to a subterfuge like a man. Besides
there is something more to be explained ; although
liberation, which is attainable through Self-knowl-
edge, has been explained, a part of the latter, viz.,
the relinquishment of desires that is called renuncia-
tion, is yet to be described. Therefore the view that
the Emperor merely wishes to hear the Mantras is
not sound. A resort to repetition can be made only
when there is no other way out, and should be
avoided when there is an alternative ; and we have,
already said (p. 486) that renunciation is not a mere
eulogy on Self-knowledge. It may be urged that in
that case the Emperor should say, '(Please instruct
me) further about liberation itself/ To this we
reply : The objection does not hold. The Emperor
thinks that renunciation is not a direct cause of
liberation like Self-knowledge ; accordingly it can
go in like a subsidiary act in a sacrifice. 1 For the
Smriti says, 'One should give up the body through
renunciation.’ Even if renunciation were a means
to liberation, it would not necessitate the request,
'(Please instruct me) further about liberation itself,
because it merely serves to mature Self-knowledge,
which is the means of liberation.
srtg: qr«iT fspra: gnuft
.. .1 *s _ . *s
ITT ,
1 Pratipatti-karma. See footnote on p. 488.
732
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
[ 4 . 4 . 8
^rhRfaci fgrgrKT: n <1 n
8. Regarding this there are the follow-
ing verses : The subtle, extensive, ancient
way has touched (been reached by) me. (Nay)
I have realised it myself. Through that
sages — the knowers of Brahman — (also) go
to the heavenly sphere (liberation) after the
fall of this body, being freed (even while
living) .
Regarding this subject, that liberation is attain-
ed by the knower of Brahman all the objects of
whose desire are the Self — a subject that has been
dealt with by both Mantra and Brahmana in the
preceding portion — there are ihe following verses
showing the details : The subtle , being difficult to
comprehend ; extensive , or on account of another
reading, ‘Vitara/ effectively leading to liberation ;
ancient , primeval, being revealed by the eternal
Shrutis, not modern like the misleading paths ema-
nating from the intellect of the logicians ; way, the
path of knowledge that conduces to liberation ; has
touched me, that is, has been reached by me. That
which is attained by somebody is connected with him
as if it touched him ; hence the path of liberation
consisting in the knowledge of Brahman,- having
been attained by me, is said to have touched me.
I have not merely attained it, but have realised it
myself. Realisation (Anuvedana) is that attainment
which, as knowledge ripens, culminates in the ulti-
4. 4. 9 ] BR1HADARAXYAKA UPAN1SHAD
733
mate results, as eating culminates in satiety. In the
previous clause only a contact with knowledge is
meant ; this is the difference .
Objection : Is this seer of the Mantras the only
person who has achieved the result of the knowledge
of Brahman, and has none else done it, so that he
asserts, ‘I have realised it myself’ ?
Rcfrly : There is nothing wrong in it. It is a
eulogy on the knowledge of Biahman inasmuch as
its result is unique — it is subjective. Such indeed
is Self-knowledge : it gives one the conviction that
one is completely blessed, and it requires no other
witness than the testimony of one’s own experience ;
so what can be better than this? Thus it is a glori-
fication of the knowledge of Brahman ; not that no
other knower of Brahman attains that result. For
the Sliruti says, ‘Whoever among the gods (knew
It also became That)’ (I. iv. 10), which shows that
the knowledge of Brahman is accessible to all. This
is expressed by the text : Through that path of the
knowledge of Brahman sages, t men of illumination,
that is, other knoivers of Brahmai i also, go to the
heavenly sphere, or liberation, which is the result
of the knowledge of Brahman (‘Heavenly sphere*
generally means heaven, the abode of the gods, but
here from the context it means liberation), after the
fall of this body, being freed even while living.
(pri i
<CJ5«n a§PJTT .
H e. n
734
BRIHADARANYAKA UPlNlSHAD [4. 4. 9
9, Some speak of it as white, others as
blue, grey, green, or red. This path is
realised by a Brahmana (knower of Brah-
man). Any other knower of Brahman who
has done good deeds and is identified with the
Supreme Light; (also) treads this path.
Seekers after liberation are at variance regard-
ing this path leading to liberation. How ? Some
aspirants speak of it as white , pure or limpid, others
as blue, others as grey , green, or red , according to
their experience. In reality, however, they , are the
nerves Sushumna and so forth, filled with phlegm and
other liquids, for they have been mentioned in the
words, '(Filled) with white, blue, grey,’ etc. (IV. iii.
20). Or they consider the sun to be this path of
liberation, because of the reference in another Shruti,
'He is white, he is blue,’ etc. (Chh. VIII. vi. 1).
Besides, the path of realisation cannot have any
colour, white or any other. In either case these
white and other colours refer to some other path than
that of the knowledge of Brahman, which is the one
under consideration.
It may be urged that the word ‘white’ refers
to the pure monistic path. To this we reply : Not
so, for it is enumerated along with the words, 'blue,*
'yellow,’ 1 etc., denoting colour. The white and
other paths that the Yogins designate as the paths
of liberation, are not really such, for they fall within
the range of relative existence. They merely lead
to the w r orld of Hiranyagarbha, and so on, for they
1 This word does not occur in the above text.
4. 4. 9] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
736
relate to the exit through particular parts of the body :
'Through the eye, or through the head, or through
any other part of the body’ (IV. iv. 2). Therefore
the path of liberation is the absorption of the body
and the organs such as the eye in this very life, like
the going out of a lamp — when transmigration is
impossible, owing to the exhaustion of all desires
through their attainment by the transformation of
all objects of desire as the Self. This path of
knowledge is realised by a Brdhmana who has given
up all his desires, and become one with the Supreme
Self. Any other knower of Brahman also treads this
path of the knowledge of Brahman. What kind of
knower of Brahman? Who first of all has done good
deeds and then given up the desire for children etc.,
and is identified with the Supreme Light — by con-
necting himself with the Tight of the Supreme Self,
is metamorphosed into that, that is, has become the
Atman in this very life. Such a knower of Brahman
treads this path.
One who combines good work with knowledge
is not meant here, for we have said that these are
contradictory. The Smriti too says, 'Salutation to
that Embodiment of Liberation whom serene monks,
fearless about rebirth, attain after the cessation of
the effects of their good and bad deeds’ (Mbh. XII.
xlvi. 56). There is also the exhortation to relin-
quish merit and demerit : 'Give up doing good and
evil' (Mbh. XII. cccxxxvii. 40). And there are the
following Smriti passages : 'The gods consider him
a knower of Brahman who has no desires, w*^ under-
takes no work, who does not salute or praise any-
736
IIR 1H ADA RAN Y A K A UPAN1SHAD
[ 4 . 4 . 9
body, and whose work has been exhausted, but who
himself is unchanged’ (Mbh. XII. cclxix. 34), and
‘For a knower of Brahman there is no wealth com-
parable to unity, sameness, truthfulness, virtue,
steadfastness, non-injury, candour, and withdrawal
from all activities’ (Mbh. XII. clxxiv. 37). Here
also the Shruti, a little further on, after giving the
reason why work will be unnecessary, in the passage,
‘This is the eternal glory of a knower of Brahman :
it neither increases nor decreases through work’ (IV.
iv. 23), will advise the giving up of all activities in
the words, ‘Therefore he who knows it as such be-
comes self-controlled, calm,’ etc. (Ibid.). Therefore
the clause, ‘Who has done good deeds,’ should be
explained as we have done. Or the sentence may
mean : The knower of Brahman who treads this
path is a doer of good deeds and a Yogin who has
controlled his senses. 3 Thus it is a eulogy on the
knowledge of Brahman. A doer of good and a
Yogin of this type are considered highly fortunate
people in the world. Hence these two epithets serve
to glorify the knower of Brahman. 1 2
srrer cut: ufoflfo i
lerefr ^ gf am sr s %jftt ?sit: ii \o h
io. Into blinding darkness (ignorance)
enter those who worship ignorance (rites).
1 Through meditation on the Dahara (the eth'er in the
heart) etc., and attained extraordinary powers. This is
Allan dogiri’s explanation of the word 'Taijasa.' ‘Tejas*
according *to him means the organs.
2 By describing him as being of equal status to the*
other two.
4. 4. 11] BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 737
Into greater darkness, as it were, than that
enter those who are devoted to knowledge (the
ceremonial portion of the Vedas).
Into blinding darkness, that is, darkness that
obstructs one’s vision, or ignorance that regulates
transmigration, enter those who worship, that is,
follow ignorance, the opposite of knowledge, that is,
work consisting of ends and means, in other words,
those who practise rites. Into greater darkness, as
it were, than even that enter those who are devoted,
or attached, to knowledge, that portion of the Vedas
which deals with things that are the outcome of igno-
rance, that is, the ritualistic portion, in other words,
those who disregard the teachings of the Upanishads,
saying that that portion alone which deals with the
injunctions and prohibitions is the Vedas, and there
is none other.
3RT: HUH
ii. Miserable are those worlds enveloped
by (that) blinding darkness (ignorance). To
them, after death, go those people who are
ignorant and unwise.
What is the harm if they enter into the darkness
that obstructs one’s vision ? This is being answer-
ed : Miserable are those worlds enveloped by that
blinding darkness which obstructs one’s vision ; that
is, they are the province of that darkness of igno-
rance. To them, after death, go — who? — tho*r people
who are ignorant. The word 'people’ means com-
47
738
BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [4. 4. 11
moti folk, or those subject to repeated births. Will
only ignorance in general take one there t No, they
must be unwise (Abudh) too. 'i'he word is formed
from the root ‘budli/ meaning, to know, by the
addition of the suffix ‘kwip’ ; that is, devoid of the
knowledge of the Self.
¥** i
12. If a man knows the Self as ‘I am
this,’ then desiring what and for whose sake
will he suffer in the wake of the body ?
If a man, one in a thousand, knows the Self ,
which is his own as well as the Supreme Self, which
knows the desires of all beings, which is in the heart
(intellect), and is beyond the attributes of hunger
etc. (the word ‘if' shows the rarity of Self-knowl-
edge) — knows how ? — as ‘I am this ’ Supreme Self,
the witness of the perception of all beings, which
has been described as ‘Not this, not this/ and so on,"
than which there is no other seer, hearer, thinker
and knower, which is always the same and is in
all beings, and which is naturally eternal, pure, en-
lightened and free ; desiring what other thing, of
the nature of a result, distinct from his own Self,
and for whose sake, for the need of what other person
distinct from himself : Since he as the Self has
nothing to wish for, and there is none other than
himself for whose sake he may wish it, he being the
Self of all, therefore desiring what and for whose
sake will he suffer in the wake of the body — deviate
4 . 4 . 13 ] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
739
from his nature, or become miserable, follow-
ing the misery created by his limiting adjunct, the
body, that is, imbibe the afflictions of the body?
For this is possible for the man who does not see
the Self and consequently desires things other than
It. He struggles desiring something for himself,
something else for his son, a third thing for his wife,
and so on, goes the round of births and deaths, and
is diseased when his body is diseased. But all this
is impossible for the man who sees everything as
the Self. This is what the Shruti says.
snrirr-
II K\ II
13. He who has realised and intimately
known the Self that has entered this perilous
and inaccessible place (the body), is the
maker of the universe, for he is the maker
of all, (all is) his Self, and he again is indeed
the Self (of all).
Further, he, the knower of Brahman, who has
realised and intimately known the Self — how ? —
known himself as the innermost Self, as T am the
Supreme Brahman,’ the Self that has entered this
place (the body) which is perilous, beset with numer-
ous dangers, and inaccessible with hundreds and
thousands of obstacles to enlightenment thi Jagh dis-
crimination — this knower of Brahman who has re :
740
BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [4. 4. W
alised this Self through intuition is the maker of the
universe . How ? Is it only in name ? This is
being answered : No, not in name merely, for
he is the maker of all : He is not such under the
influence of any extraneous agency. What then?
All is his Self. ' Is the Self something different from
him? The answer is: He again is indeed the Self
(Loka). The word ‘Loka’ here means the Self.
That is to say, all is his Self, and he is the Self of
all. This innermost Self which has entered this
body, beset with dangers and inaccessible, and which
the knower of Brahman realises through intuition,
is not the individual self, but the Supreme Self,
because It is the maker of the universe, the Self of
all, and all is Its Self. One should meditate upon
one’s identity with the Supreme Self, the one only
without a second : This is the gist of the verse.
|| II
14. Being in this very body we have
somehow known that (Brahman). If not, (I
should have been) ignorant, (and) great de-
struction (would have taken place). Those
who know It become immortal, while others
attain misery alone.
Further, being in this very body, so full of
dangers, that is, being under the spell of the long
sleep of ignorance, we have somehow known that
4. 4. 15] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
741
Brahman which is under consideration as our own
self ; oh, blessed are we — this is the idea. If we had
not known that Brahman which we have known, I
should have been ignorant (Avedi). ‘Vedi’ is one
who has knowledge ; hence ‘Avedi’ means ignorant.
The shortening of the last vowel does not affect the
meaning. What harm would there have been had
I been ignorant? Great , of infinite magnitude;
destruction , consisting in births, deaths, etc., would
have taken place. Oh, blessed are we that we have
been saved from this great destruction by knowing
Brahman, the one without a second ; this is the idea.
As we have escaped this great destruction by know-
ing Brahman, so those who know It become im-
mortal , while those others, people other than the
knowers of Brahman, who do not thus know Brah-
man, attain misery alone, consisting in births,
deaths, etc. That is to say, the ignorant never es-
cape from them, for they regard misery itself (the
body) as the Self.
* Hrt> u \\ it
15. When a man after (receiving in-
structions from a teacher) directly realises
this effulgent Self, the Lord of all that has
been and will be, he no longer wishes to hide
himself from It.
But when a man, somehow meeting a highly
merciful teacher and receiving his grace, *i-terwards
directly realises this effulgent (Deva) Self, or, the
742
BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [4. 4. 15
Self that bestows on all the respective results of their
deeds, the Lord of all that has been and will be, that
is, of the past, present and future, he no longer
wishes particularly to hide himself from It, this Lord.
Everyone who sees diversity wishes to hide himself
from God. But this man sees unity, hence he is not
afraid of anything. Therefore he does not want to
hide himself any more. Or the meaning may be :
When he directly realises the effulgent Lord as
identical with his own self, he no longer blames any-
body, for he sees all as his self, and for that reason
whom should he blame ?
16. Below which the year with its days
rotates, upon that immortal Light of all
lights the gods meditate as longevity.
Also, below which Lord, that is, in a different
category from it, the year , representing time
which limits everything that is born, with its
own parts, the days and nights, rotates, occupies a
lower position without being able to limit It — upon *
that immortal Light of all lights, which is the re-
vealer of even such luminaries as the sun, the gods
meditate as longevity. Things other than that
perish, but not this Light, for it is the longevity of
all. Because the gods meditate upon this Light
through its attribute of longevity, therefore they are
long-lived. Hence one who desires a long life
should nieditate upon Brahman through Its attribute
of longevity.
4. 4. 18] BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
743
qfwqsi T2J3WT srPKTsiaj i
afo JJ5*I 3TTc*TT*T || ||
1 7. That in which the five groups of five
and the (subtle) ether are placed, that very
Atman I regard as the immortal Brahman.
Knowing (Brahman) I am immortal.
Moreover that Brahman in which the five groups
of five, the celestial minstrels etc., who are five in
number, viz., the celestial minstrels, the Manes, the
gods, the Asuras and the Rakshasas — or the four
castes with the Chandfdas as the fifth — and the ether
called the Undifferentiated, which pervades the
Sutra, are placed — it has been said, ‘By this Immu-
table, O Gargi, is the (unmanifested) ether pervaded*
(III. viii. 11) — that very Atman I regard as the im-
mortal Brahman. I do not consider the Self as differ-
ent from that. What then is it? Knowing Brah-
man, 7 am immortal. I was mortal only through
ignorance. Since that is gone, I, the knowing one,
am indeed immortal.
STBJFW SfTTOpT
H firfspFjagi g*Twras»qi^n ll
18. Those who have known the Vital
Force of the vital force, the Eye of the eye,
the Ear of the ear, and the Mind of the mind,
have realised the ancient, primordial Brah-
man. *
Further it is by being revealed by the light of
744 BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [4: 4. 18
the Atman that is Pure Intelligence, its own Self,
that the vital force functions ; therefore It is the
Vital Force of the vital force. Those who have
known the Vital Force of the vital force , as also the
Eye of the eye, the Ear of the ear : The eye and
the other organs receive their powers of vision and
so forth only by being inspired by the energy of
Brahman ; by themselves, divested of the light of
the Atman that is Pure Intelligence, they are like
wood or clods of earth ; and the Mind of the mind
— in other words, those who have known the Self
not as a sense-object, but as the innermost Self whose
existence is inferred from the functions of the eye
etc., have realised, known with certainty, the an-
cient or eternal, and primordial Brahman ; for the
Mundaka Upanishad .says, ‘That which the knowers
of the Self realise* (II. ii. 19).
STIJTTfer |
^ jttNt II U II
19. Through the mind alone (It) is to be
realised. There is no difference 1 whatsoever
in It. He goes from death to death, who
sees difference, as it were, in It.
The means of the realisation of that Brahman
is being described. Through the mind alone, puri-
fied by the knowledge of the supreme Trujth, and in
accordance with the instructions of the teacher, (It)
is to be realised. There is no difference whatsoever
in It, Brahman, the object of the realisation.
1 Separateness or diversity.
4. 4. 20] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
745
though there is no difference, one superimposes it
through ignorance. He goes from death to death .
Who? Who sees difference , as it were , in It. That
is to say, really there is no duality apart from the
superimposition of ignorance.
W. i
fifTiT: IT 3TTrJTT || Ro ||
20. It should be realised in one form
only, (for) It is unknowable and eternal.
The Self is taintless, beyond the (subtle)
ether, birthless, infinite and constant.
Since It is such, therefore It should be realised T
in one form only, viz., as homogeneous Pure Intel-
ligence, without any break in it, like the ether ; for
It, this Brahman, is unknowable, owing to the unity
of everything (in Brahman). One is known by
another ; but It is one, hence unknowable. Eternal,
unchangeable, or immovable. It may be objected :
Surely this i; contradictory — to say that It is un-
knowable, and also that It is known ; Tt is known/
means, that It is cognised by the means of knowl-
edge, and ‘unknowable* is the denial of that. To
this we reply : It is all right, for only this much
is denied that It like other things is known by any
other means than scriptural evidence. Other things
are cognised by the ordinary means independent of
-scriptural evidence ; but the truth of the Self cannot
■ thus be known by any other means of knowledge but
that. The scriptures too describe It merely by the
negation of the activities of the subject, the evidences
of knowledge, and so on, in such terms as these:
746
BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [4. 4. 20
When everything is the Self, what should one see*
. . . know, and through what ? — and not by resorting
to the usual function of a sentence in which some-
thing is described by means of names. Therefore
even in the scriptures the Self is not presented like
heaven or Mount Meru, for instance, for it is the
very Self of those that present it. A presentation by
someone has for its object something to be present-
ed, and this is possible only when there is
difference.
The knowledge of Brahman too means only the
cessation of the identification with extraneous things
"\such as the body). The relation of identity with It
has not to be directly established, for it is already
there. Everybody always has that identity with It,
but it appears to be related to something else. There-
fore the scriptures do not enjoin that identity with
Brahman should be established, but that the false
identification with things other than That should
stop. When the identification w r ith other things is
gone, the natural identity with one’s own Self be-
comes isolated ; this is expressed by the statement
that the Self is known. In Itself It is unknow-
able — not comprehended through any means. Hence
both statements are consistent.
The Self is taintless , that is, free from the im-
purities of good and evil, beyond the ether , subtler,
or more pervasive, than even the unmanifested
ether, birthless — the negation of birth implies that
of the five succeeding changes 1 of condition also, for
1 According to Yaska a thing comes into being, exists,
grows, begins to decline, decays and dies.
4. 4. 22] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
747
these originate from birth — infinite, vaster than any-
thing else, and constant , indestructible.
afo fairiq- nirr $sffa sngiuT: i
iTT^FTT^p^TSI. ,
% aa^ii ffa ii ^ ii
2i. The intelligent aspirant after Brah-
man, knowing about this alone, should attain
intuitive knowledge. (He) should not think
of too many words, for it is particularly fa-
tiguing to the organ of speech.
The intelligent aspirant after Brahman, know-
ing about this kind of Self alone, from the instruc-
tions of a teacher and from the scriptures, should
attain intuitive knowledge of what has been taught
by the teacher and the scriptures, so as to put an
end to all questioning — that is, practise the means
of this knowledge, viz., renunciation, calmness, self-
control, withdrawal of the senses, fortitude and con-
centration. (He) should not think of too many
words. This restriction on too many words implies
that a few words dealing exclusively with the unity
of the Self are permissible. The .Mundaka Upani-
shad has it : ‘ Meditate upon the Self with the help
of the syllable Om’ (I T . ii. 6), and ‘Give up all other
speech’ (II. ii. 5). For it, this thinking of too many
words, is particularly fatiguing to the organ of
speech .
748 BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHA U [ 4 . 4 . 22
wtetaiM: ; h «t sn^frr
^TR,. Ht crq-rajvpTT W ^f^T: ; qq
gaifaqfer:, qq ijaqra::, qq ^gfihrcTjr qqf
; %^Tgqg?|q 3 t§pjtt fqfqf^qfsq
qiNr ?praRTSit*T ; qsfcq fqf?cqT gfq-
l q^ftq starfaql ^{irsgRrT: qgnrfyrr 1
r *rT3[ SJT # gq fq^RT: ST3TT =7
W3PTT qtfrsqnft ^qf JfTS^ITTrrfFT sftq; - %
^ jlqun^iT^ fqqqqrTqT^q fTt^rnn’rnjg
^r»JFTT»I fir^IRPT q*f??T • qT m JWOTT m
f^nm, qT fira'^n *=rr sft&rarT, qft sr qq^t
qq *qq: 1 qq %fq sfcqTciri, srqgjt qf? qsi%,
snrffqf q% 5TT?T#r, 3T^T qff 'itfarfr q
sqqft, q fiTqfq ; qqg |tq q qrq ?fa— sr: qiq-
qqrtqfafq, 3 R: qnTTinrqsFTqfjrfq , 3 |qq
q?T rrrf%, qq qqq: 11 vt 11
22. That great, birthless Self which is
identified with the intellect and is in the midst
of the organs, lies in the ether that is within
the heart. It is the controller of all, the
lord of all, the ruler of all. It does not be-
come better through good work nor worse
through bad w r ork. It is the lord of all, It
is the ruler of all beings, It is the protector
of all beings. It is the bank that serves as
the boundary to keep the different worlds
apart. The Brahmanas seek to know It
4. 4. 221 BRIHA PAR ANY AKA UPAN1SHAD
749>
through the study of the Vedas, sacrifices,
charity, and austerity consisting in a dis-
passionate enjoyment of sense-objects.
Knowing It alone one becomes a sage.
Desiring this world (the Self) alone monks
renounce their homes. This is (the reason
for it) : The ancient sages, it is said, did
not desire children (thinking), ‘What shall we
achieve through children, we who have at-
tained this Self, this world (result).’ They,
it is said, renounced their desire for sons, for
wealth and for the worlds, and lived a mendi-
cant life. That which is the desire for sons
is the desire for wealth, and that which is
the desire for wealth is the desire for the
worlds, for both these are but desires. This
self is That which has been described as ‘Not
this, not this.’ It is imperceptible, for It is
never perceived ; undecaying, for It never
decays; unattached, for It is never attached;
unfettered — It never feels pain, and never
suffers injury. (It is but proper) that the
sage is never overtaken by these two thoughts,
‘I did an evil act for this,’ and ‘I did a good
act for this.’ He conquers both of them.
Things done or not done do not trouble him.
Bondage and liberation together with their
causes have been described by the preceding portion
consisting of the Mantras as well as the Brahmana.
750
BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [ 4 . 4 . 22
The nature of liberation has again been elaborately
set forth by the quotation of verses. Now it has to
be shown how the whole of the Vedas is applicable
to this subject of the Self ; hence the present para-
graph is introduced. By recapitulating the topic of
Self-knowledge with its results in the way it has
been dealt with in this chapter, it is sought to show
that the entire Vedas, except the portion treating of
ceremonies having material ends, are applicable to
this. Hence the words, ‘That great,’ etc., recapitulat-
ing what has been stated. That refers to something
already mentioned. What is it ? It is pointed out
by the words, ‘Which is identified with the intellect,’
etc., which are intended to preclude any reference
to the Self just mentioned (in verse 20). Which
one is meant then ? The answer is : Which is iden-
tified with the intellect and is in the midst of the
organs. The passage is quoted for settling the
doubt, for at the beginning of Janaka’s questions it
has been stated, ‘Which is the self? — This (infinite
entity) that is identified with the intellect and is in
the midst of the organs,’ etc. (IV. iii. 7). The idea
is this : By the demonstration of desire, work and
ignorance as attributes of the non-vSelf, the self-efful-
gent Atman that has been set forth in the passage
in question is here freed from them and transformed
into the Supreme Self, and it is emphatically stated,
Tt is the Supreme Self, and nothing else* ; * it is
directly spoken of as the great, hirthless Self. The
words, ‘Which is identified with the intellect and is
in the midst of the organs,’ have been already ex-
plained and have the same meaning here. Lies in
4 . 4 . 22 ] BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD 751
the ether that is within the lotus of the heart, the
ether (Akasha) that is the seat of the intellect.
The Atman lives in that ether containing the intel-
lect. Or the meaning may be that the individual
self in the state of profound sleep dwells in that
unconditioned Supreme Self, called Akasha, which
is its very nature. This has been explained in the
second chapter by way of answer to the question,
‘Where was it then?* (II. i. 16). It is the controller
of all, Hi rany agarbha, Indra, and the rest, for all live
under It. As has been said, ‘Under the mighty
rule of this Immutable (O Gargi) ,* etc. (III. viii. 9).
Not only the controller, but the lord of all, Hiranya-
garbha, Indra and others. Lordship may sometimes
be due to birth, like that of a Prince over his
servants, although they are stronger than he. To
obviate this the text says, the ruler of all , the
supreme protector, that is, independent, not swayed
by ministers and other servants like a Prince. The
three attributes of control etc. are interdependent.
Because the Self is the ruler of all, therefore It is
the lord of all, for it is well-known that one who
protects another as the highest authority, wields
lordship over him ; and because It is the lord of all,
therefore It is the controller of all. Further It, the
infinite entity identified with the intellect, the light
within the heart (intellect), does not become better,
or improve from the previous state by the accession
of some attributes, through good work enjoined by
the scriptures, nor worse, that is, does not fall from
its previous state, through bad work forbidden by
the scriptures. Moreover everyone doing these func-
752
BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [4. 4. 22
tions of presiding, protection, etc., is attended with
merit and demerit consequent on bestowing favours
and inflicting pains on others ; why is the Self alone
absolved from them ? The answer is ; Because It is
the lord of all , and accustomed to rule over work
also, therefore If is not connected with work.
Further It is the ruler of all beings , from Hiranya-
garbha down to a clump of grass. The word ‘ruler"
has already been explained.
It is the protector of all those beings. It is the
bank — what kind of bank? — that serves as the
boundary among the divisions of caste and order of
life. This is expressed by the words, to keep the
different worlds , beginning with the earth and ending
with the world of Hiranyagarbha, apart, distinct
from on another. If the Lord did not divide them
like a bank, they would get mixed up with one
another. Therefore, in order to keep the worlds
apart, the Lord, from whom the self-effulgent Atman
is not different, acts as the embankment. One who
knows all this also becomes the controller of all,
and so on. This sets forth the results of the knowl-
edge of Brahman. The whole of the ceremonial
portion of the Vedas, except that dealing with rites
having material ends, is applicable as a means to
this knowledge of Brahman as delineated, with the
results described above, in the present chapter
beginning with, ‘What serves as the light .for a
man?’ (IV. iii 2-6). How this can be done is
being explained : The Brahmanas (the word ‘Brah-
mana* implies the Kshatriyas and Vaishyas, for all
the three castes are equally entitled to the study
4. 4. 22] BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
758
of the Vedas) seek to know II, this infinite entity
as described above, that can be known only from
the Upanishads, through the study of the Vedas
consisting of the Mantras and Brahmanas — by daily
reading them. Or the passage may mean, 'They
seek to know It through the Mantras and Brah-
manas relating to the ceremonial portion/ How do
they seek to know It? 'Through sacrifices, * etc.
Some, 1 however, explain the passage as fol-
lows : 'They seek to know that which is revealed
by the Mantras and Brahmanas/ According to
them the word 'Vedanuvachana > would mean only
the Aranyakas/ since the ceremonial portion does
not speak of the Supreme Self ; for the Shruti dis-
tinctly says, ‘That Being who is to be known only
from the Upauishads* (III. ix, 26). Besides, the
word ‘Vedfuiuvachana/ making no specification,
refers to the whole of the Vedas ; and it is not
proper to exclude one portion of them.
Objection : Your interpretation is also one-
sided, since it excludes the Upanishads.
Reply : No, the objection does not apply to
our first explanation, in which there is no contradic-
tion. When the word 'Vedanuvachana’ means daily
reading, the Upanishads too are of course included ;
hence no part of the meaning of the word is aban-
doned. Besides it is used along with the words,
'sacrifices/ etc. It is to introduce sacrifices and
other rites that the word 'Vedanuvachana’ has been
used. Therefore we understand that it means the
1 The reference is to Bhartriprapancba.
2 Which include among others the Upanishads.
48
754
BR1HA DA RA NY A KA UPAN1SHAD [4. 4. 22
rites, because the daily reading of the Vedas is also
a rite.
Objection : But how can they seek to know
the Self through such rites as the daily reading of
the Vedas, for they do not reveal the Self as the
Upanishads do ?"
Reply: The objection does not hold, for the
rites are a means to purification. It is only when
the rites have purified them, that people, with their
minds pure, can easily know the Self that is re-
vealed by the Upanishads. As the Mundaka Upa-
nishad says, 'But his mind being purified, he sees
through meditation that Self which has no parts’
(III. i. 8). The Smriti also says, ‘A man attains
knowledge only when his evil work has been de-
stroyed/ etc. (Mbh. XII. ccii. 9).
Objection : How do you know that the regular
rites are for purification ?
Reply : From such Shruti texts as the follow-
ing : 'He indeed sacrifices to the Self who knows
that this particular part of his body is being puri-
fied by this (rite), and that particular part of his
body is being improved by that (rite)/ etc. (Sh.
XI. ii. 6. 13). All the Smritis too speak of rites as
being purificatory, as, for instance, the passage,
'The forty-eight acts of purification/ etc. (cf.
Gau. VIII. 22). The Git& also says, 'Sacrifices,
charity and austerity are purifying to the intelligent
aspirant’ (XVIII. 5), and ‘All these knowers of
sacrifices have their sins destroyed by the sacrifices’
(IV. 30). Through sacrifices, viz., those performed
with things and those consisting in knowledge, both
4 . 4 . 22 ] BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
755
of which conduce to purity ; and one who, being
cleansed, has a pure mind, will spontaneously attain
knowledge. Hence it is said, 'They seek to know
through sacrifices.’ Charity , for this too destroys
one’s sins and increases one’s merits. And aus-
terity. The word meaning without distinction all
forms of austerity including (even extreme forms
like) the Krichchhra, Chandrlyana, etc., it is quali-
fied by the phrase : consisting in a dispassionate en-
joyment of sense-objects. This absence of unre-
strained enjoyment is the real meaning of the word
‘Anasliaka,* not starvation, which will, sure enough,
lead to death, but not to Self-knowledge. The
words, 'study of the Vedas,’ 'sacrifices,’ 'charity/'
and 'austerity,’ refer to all regular rites without ex-
ception. Thus the entire body of regular rites —
not rites that have material ends — serves as a
means to liberation through the attainment of Self-
knowledge. Hence we see that the section of the
Vedas dealing with knowledge nas the same im-
port as that dealing with rites. Thus, knowing
It alone , the Self as described in the preceding
portion, in the above mentioned way, one becomes
a sage, a man of reflection, that is, a Yogin.
Knowing It alone, and none other, one becomes a
sage. It may be urged that one can become a sage
by knowing other things also ; so how is it asserted,
‘It alone’? To which we reply: True, one
can become a sage by knowing other things too;
but not exclusively a sage ; he may also bec ome a
ritualist. But knowing this Being that is to be
known only from the Upanishads, one becomes a
756
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [4. 4. 22
sage alone, and not a ritualist. Therefore it is to
indicate his unique feature of becoming a sage that
the text asserts, Tt alone.* Since action is impos-
sible when the Self is known, as is expressed in the
words, 'What should one see and through what?' —
only reflection can then take place. Further, desir-
ing, or seeking, this world alone, their own Self,
monks renounce their homes, literally, depart in the
most effective way, that is, relinquish all rites.
Because of the assertion, 'Desiring this world
alone,* we understand that those who seek the three
external worlds 1 are not entitled to the monastic
life, for an inhabitant of the region of Benares who
wishes to reach Hardwar, does not travel eastward.
Therefore, for those who desire the three external
worlds, sons, rites and meditation on the condi-
tioned Brahman are the means, since the Sliruti
says, 'This world of men is to be won through the
sou alone, and by no other rite,* etc. (I. v. 16).
Hence those who want them should not reject such
means as the son, and embrace the monastic life,
for it is not a means to them. Therefore the asser-
tion, 'Desiring this world alone monks renounce
their homes,* is quite in order. The attainment
of the world of the Self is but living in one’s own
Self after the cessation of ignorance. Therefore,
should a person desire that world of the Self, for
him the chief and direct means of that would be
the withdrawal from all activities, just as the son
and the like are the means of the three external
worlds ; for such acts as would secure the birth of
1 The earth, the world of the Manes and heaven.
4. 4. 22] BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAT)
757
a son, and so on, are not means to the attainment
of the Self. And we have already mentioned the
contradiction involved in them on the ground of im-
possibility. Therefore, desiring to attain the world
of the Self, they do renounce their homes, that is
to say, must abstain from all rites. Just as for a
man seeking the three external worlds, a son and
so forth are enjoined as the requisite means, so for
one who has known about Brahman and desires to
realise the world of the Self, the monastic life con-
sisting in the cessation of all desires is undoubtedl 3 r
enjoined.
Why do those seekers after the world of the
Self particularly renounce their homes? The text
gives the reason in the form of a laudatory passage.
This is the reason for that monastic life : The
ancient sages , ancient knowers of the Self, it
is said , did not desire children, as also rites and the
meditation on the conditioned Brahman. (The word
''children* suggests all these three means to the three
external worlds.) In other words, they did not try
for sons etc. as means to those three worlds. It may
be objected that they must practise the meditation
on the conditioned Brahman, since they could re-
nounce desires on the strength of that alone. The
answer is : No, because it is excluded. To be ex-
plicit : In the passages, ‘The Brahmana ousts one
who knows him as different from the Self* (II. iv.
6 ; IV. v. 7), and 'All ousts one,* etc. (Ibid.), even
the meditation on the conditioned Brahman is ex-
cluded, for this Brahman too is included in the
word 'all.’ Also, ‘ Where one sees nothing else/
758
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [4. 4. 22
etc. (Chh. VII. xxiv. 1). Also because it has been
forbidden to see in Brahman differences about prior
or posterior, and interior or exterior, in the passage,
< Without prior or posterior, without interior or ex-
terior J (II. v. 19). And, 'Then what should one see,
. . . know, and through what?’ (II. iv. 14 ; IV. v.
15). Therefore there is no other reason for the re-
nunciation of desires except the realisation of the
Self.
What was their intention ? They thought :
‘ What object or result shall zve achieve through the
instrumentality of children , for they are definitely
known to be the means of attaining an external
world, and that world does not exist apart from
our own Self, since everything is our own Self, and
we are the Self of everything ; and just because It
is our Self, It cannot be produced, attained, modi-
fied or improved by any means. Acts that purify
the performer of sacrifices to the Self merely con-
cern his identification with the body and organs,
for the Shruti speaks of the relation between the
whole and part, etc., regarding them, "This partic-
ular part of my body is being purified by this
(rite),” etc. (Sh. XI. ii. 6. 13). One who sees the
Self as Pure Intelligence, homogeneous and with-
out a break cannot meditate upon purification or
improvement based on a relation between the whole
and part. Therefore we shall achieve ' nothing
through means such as children. It is only the
ignorant^ man who has to attain results through
them. Because a man who sees water in a mirage
proceeds to drink from it, another who sees
4. 4. 22 J BR1HADARASYAKA UPANISHAD
759
no water there, but a desert, cannot certainly be so
inclined. Similarly we who see the Truth, the
world of the Self, cannot run after things to be
achieved through children, etc. — things that are like
a mirage and so forth, and are the objects of the
defective vision of ignorant people.’ This was their
idea.
This is expressed as follows : We beholders of
the Truth, who have attained this Self that is free
from hunger etc. and is not to be modified by good or
bad deeds, this world, this desired result. There are
no means to be desired for realising this Self that is
free from all such relative attributes as ends and
means. It is only with regard to a tiling which is
attainable that means are looked for. If a search is
made for means to secure something that is un-
attainable, it would be like swimming on land under
the impression that it is water, or like looking for
the footprints of birds in the .sky. Therefore the
knowers of Brahman, after realising this Self, should
only renounce their homes, and not engage in rites ;
because the ancient knowers of Brahman, knowing
this, did not want children. What they did after
condemning this dealing with the world of ends and
means as being the concern of the ignorant, is being
described : They f it is said, renounced their desire
for sons, for wealth and for the worlds, and lived
a mendicant life, etc. All this has been explained
(III. v. 1).
Therefore, desiring the world of the Self monks
renounce their homes, ' that is, should ^renounce.
Thus it is an injunction, and harmonises with the
760
BR1HADARA NY A KA UPANISHAD f4. 4. 22
eulogy (that follows). The sentence, which is pro-
vided with a eulogy (immediately after), cannot it-
self have the force of glorifying the world of the
Self, for the verb ‘renounce’ has for its eulogy the
succeeding passage, ‘This is (the reason),’ etc. If
the previous sentence were a eulogy, it would not
require another eulogy ; but the verb ‘renounce’ (as
interpreted above) does require the eulogy, ‘This is
(the reason),’ etc.
Because ancient sages, desisting from rites
directed towards obtaining children etc., did re-
nounce their homes, therefore people of to-day also
renounce them, that is, should renounce them. — If
we thus construe the passage, the verb ‘renounce’
cannot have the force of glorifying the world of the
Self. We have explained this (III. v. 1) on the
ground that the verb is connected by the Shruti
with the same subject as that of ‘knowing.’ More-
over the verb ‘renounce’ is here used along with
‘the study of the Vedas,’ etc. As the study of the
Vedas and other such acts, which have been en-
joined as means to the realisation of the Self, are
to be taken literally, and not as eulogies, so also the
renunciation of home, which has been mentioned
along with them as a means to the attainment of the
world of the Self, cannot be a eulogy. Besides, a
distinction in the results has been made by the
Shruti. The words, ‘Knowing 1 It — this World of
the Self — alone’ (this text), divide the Self as a
result distinct from the other results, the external
♦
1 The renunciation in question follows this indirect
knowledge so as to mature it into actual realisation.
4. 4. 22] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
761
worlds, as a similar division has been made in the
passage, ‘This world is to be won through the son
alone, and by no other rite ; the world of the Manes
through rites’ (I. vi. 16, adapted). Nor is the verb
'renounce’ eulogistic of the world of the Self as if
this were something already known. Besides, like
a principal sacrifice, it itself requires a eulogy.
Moreover, were it a eulogy it would occur in the
text only once. 1 Therefore it is purely a mistake
to consider it as a tribute to the world of the Self.
Nor can renunciation as an act to be performed
be regarded as a eulogy. If, in spite of its being
such an act, it is considered to be a eulogy, then
rites such as the new and full moon sacrifices, which
are to be performed, would also become eulogies.
Nor is renunciation clearly known to have been en-
joined elsewhere outside of the present topic, in
which case it might be construed here as being eu-
logistic. If, however, renunciation be supposed to
be enjoined anywhere, it should primarily be here ;
it is not possible anywhere else. If, again, renun-
ciation is conceded to be enjoined on those who are
not qualified for any rite, in that case acts such as
the climbing of trees may also be considered as
equally appropriate injunctions, for both are alike
unknown as obligatory under the circumstances.
Therefore there is not the least chance of the passage
in question being a eulogy.
It may be asked : If this world of the Self
alone is desired, why do they not undertake work
1 As a matter of fact, there are several verbs in the
passage that repeat the idea.
762
BR1HADARANY A KA UPAN1SHAD [ 4 . 4 . 22
as a means to its attainment ? What is the good
of renunciation ? The answer is : Because this
world of the Self has no connection with work.
That Self, desiring which they should renounce their
homes, is not connected, either as a means or as an
end, with any of* the four kinds of work, viz., those
that are produced, etc. Therefore this self is That
which has been described as f Not this, not this ' ; It
is imperceptible, for it is never perceived , etc. — this
is the description of the Self. Since it has been
established through scriptural evidence as well as
reasoning, specially in this dialogue between Janaka
and Yajnavalkya, that the Self as described above
is not connected with work, its results and its means,,
is different from all relative attributes, beyond hun-
ger, etc., devoid of grossness and so on, birthless, un-
decaying, immortal, undying, beyond fear, by nature
homogeneous Intelligence like a lump of salt, self-
effulgent, one only without a second, without prior
or posterior, and without interior or exterior — there-
fore after this Self is known as one’s own Self work
can no more be done. Hence the Self is undifferen-
tiated. One who has eyes surely does not fall into
a well or on thorns while going along the way. Be-
sides, the entire results of work are included in
those of knowledge. And no wise man takes pains
for a thing that can be had without any effort. ‘If
one gets honey near at hand, why go to a nlountain
for it? If the desired object is already attained,
what sensible man would struggle for it?’ The Gita
too says/ ‘All work, O Arjuna, together with its
factors is finished with the attainment of knowledge’
4 . 4 . 22 ] BRJHA DA RA NY A KA UP A NISH AD
763
(IV. 33). Here also it has been stated that all other
beings live on particles of this very Supreme Bliss
that is accessible to the knower of Brahman. Hence
the latter cannot undertake work.
Because this sage, desisting from all desires,
after realising the Atman that has been described as
‘Not this, not this’ as his own Self, lives identified
with That, therefore it is but proper — these words
are to be supplied to complete the sentence — that
he who has this knowledge and is identified with
that Self is never overtaken by these two thought $
that are just going to be mentioned. Which are
they ? The following ones : r I did an evil act for
this reason, for example, the maintenance of the
body. Oh, my action was wretched. This sinful
act will take me to hell.’ This repentance that
conies to one who has done something wrong, does
not overtake this .sage who has become identified
with the Self, described as ‘Not this, not this.’
Similarly { 1 did a good act, such as the performance
of a sacrifice or charity, for this reason, owing to the
desire for results. So I shall enjoy the happiness
that comes of it in another body.* This joy also does
not overtake him. He, this know^er of Brahman,
conquers both of them, both these actions, good and
bad. Thus for a monk who has known Brahman,
both kinds of action, whether done in the past or in
the present life, are destroyed, and no new ones are
undertaken. Also, things done, such as the regular
rites, or those very things not done — the omission
of them — do not trouble him. It is the* man who
is ignorant of the Self that is troubled by the actions
764
BRIHADARANY AKA UPANISHAD [ 4 . 4 . 22
done, by having to receive their results, and by those
not done, by being visited with their adverse conse-
quences. But this knower of Brahman burns all
work to ashes with the fire of Self-knowledge. As
the Smriti says, ‘Just as a blazing fire (burns) the
fuel (to ashes),’ etc. (G. TV. 37). As to those ac-
tions that caused the present body, they are worked
out through actual experience. Hence the knower
of Brahman has no connection with work.
i
mr farin' irf|m
HfNt fqf^cqT
«Kirwr qu#.* n \
ri^rt^rfiT^JFrfr ?PrT OTTfefr
^TcJT^^icmJT q^qfo, **sTOTcrn?i qsqfa 5
qT^iTR ctrft , qjf qT’cm mfa,
^ qn^TTJT ?rqfa fqqTqf
sngmt ; cr*7 srarc, n?r srrfqcih#fa
^qra qT^rq^q: . fq^T* qqrfir, Ht
sqfq ii ii
23. This has been expressed by the
following hymn : This is the eternal glory
of a knower of Brahman : it neither increases
nor decreases through work. (Therefore)
one should know the nature of that alone.
Knowing it one is not touched by evil action.
Therefore he who knows it as such becomes
4. 4. 23'] BR J HA DA RA NY A KA U PAN] SHAD
765
self -controlled, calm, withdrawn into him-
self, enduring and concentrated, and sees the
Self in his own self (body) ; he sees all as the
Self. Evil does not overtake him, but he
transcends all evil. Evil does not trouble
him, (but) he consumes all evil. He becomes
sinless, taintless, free from doubts, and a
Brahmana (knower of Brahman). This is
the world of Brahman, O Emperor, and you
have attained it — said Yajnavalkya. ‘I give
you, sir, the empire of Videha, and myself
too with it, to wait upon you/
This , wliat has been staled by the Brfihmana,
has been expressed by the following hymn : ThiSt
what is described as 'Not this, not this/ etc., is the
eternal glory of a knower of Brahman who has given
up all desires. Other glories are due to work, hence
they are not permanent ; but this glory is distinct
from them — it is eternal, for it is natural. Why is
it eternal? The reason is being given: It neither
increases nor decreases through work — it does not
undergo the change called growth through good
work done, nor does it undergo the change called
decay through evil work. Since all changes are
due to growth or decay, they are all negated by
these two epithets. Hence this glory, being change-
less, is eternal. Therefore one should know the
nature of that glory alone . The word f Pada literal-
ly means that W'hich is attained or kno^n : hence
it means only the nature of this glory ; one should
766
BR1HADARANY AKA UPAN1SHAD [4. 4. 23
know that. What would come of knowing it? The
answer is being given : Knowing it, this glory, one
is not touched by evil action, comprising both good
and evil, for both are evil to a knower of Brahman.
Since this glory of the knower of Brahman is
thus unconnected with work, and is described as
‘Not this, not this/ therefore he who knows it as
such becomes self-controlled, desisting from the activ-
ities of the external organs ; also calm, averse to the
desires of the internal organ or mind ; withdrawn
into himself, free from all desires, a monk ; endur-
ing, indifferent to the pairs of opposites (pleasure
and pain, etc ) ; concentrated, attaining one-pointed-
ness by the dissociation from the movements of the
organs and mind. This has been stated before in
the words, ‘Having known all about the strength
that comes of knowledge, as well as scholarship/
etc. (III. v. 1). And sees the Self, the inner Intel-
ligence, in his own self, the body and organs. Does
he see only the Self limited to the body? No, he
sees all as the Self, he sees that there is nothing
different even by a hair’s breadth from the Self. By
reason of his reflection he becomes a sage, giving
up the three states of waking, dream and profound
sleep. Evil, comprising merit and demerit, does not
overtake him, the knower of Brahman who has this
sort of realisation, but he, this knower of Brahman,
transcends all evil, by realising it as his Self. Evil,
consisting in what has been done or not done, does
not trouble him, by producing the desired result or
generating sin, but he, this knower of Brahman,
consumes all evil, burns it to ashes with the fire of
4. 4. 2$] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISIIAD
767
the realisation of the Self of all. He, who knows
It as such, becomes sinless, that is, devoid of merit
and demerit, taintless, that is, free from desires,
free from doubts, and a Brdhmana (knower of Brah-
man), with the firm conviction that he is the Self
of all, the Supreme Brahman.
Such a man becomes in this state a Brahmana
(literally, a knower of Brahman) in the primary
sense of the word. Before living in this state of
identity with Brahman, his Brahmanahood was but
figurative. This identity with the Self of all is the
world of Brahman, the world that is Brahman, in a
real, not figurative, sense, O Emperor, and you have
attained it, this world of Brahman, which i c fearless,
and is described as ‘Not this, not this’— said Yajna-
valkya.
Janaka, thus identified with Brahman — helped
on to this state by Yajnavalkya — replied, ‘Since you
have helped me to attain the state of Brahman, l
give you, sir, the empire of Videha, the whole of
my dominion, and myself too with it, that is, Videha,
to wait upon you as a servant/ The conjunction
‘and* shows that the word ‘myself is connected with
the verb ‘give/
The topic of the knowledge of Brahman is fin-
ished, together with its offshoots and procedure as
well as renunciation. The highest end of man is also
completely dealt with. This much is to be attained
by a man, this is the culmination, this is the supreme
goal, this is. the highest good. Attaining tnis one
achieves all that has to be achieved and becomes a
768
BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD I*. 4. 23
knower of Brahman. This is the teaching of the
entire Vedas.
sir ufisra sucOTSstt# 5
?r mst ^ h r* ii
24. That great, birthless Self is the
eater of food and the giver of wealth (the
fruits of one’s work). He who knows It as
such receives wealth (those fruits).
That great, birthless Self which has been ex-
pounded in the story of Janaka and Yajnavalkya,
is the cater of all food, living: in all beings, and the
giver of wealth, that is, the fruits of the actions of
all, in other words, he connects all beings with the
results of their respective actions. He who knows
Tt, this birthless Self that is the eater of food and
the giver of ‘wealth,’ as such, as described above,
that is, as endowed with these two attributes, eats
food, as the Self of all beings, and receives wealth,
the entire fruits of everybody’s actions, being their
very Self. Or the meaning’ may be, the Self is to
be meditated upon as endowed with these attributes
even by a man who wants visible results. By that
meditation he becomes the eater of food and the
receiver of wealth ; that is to say, he is thereby
connected with visible results, viz., with the power
to eat (plenty of) food and with cows, horses, etc.
sr err qqr
; srepT # agr . srosr f| 4r srafer u
II W II 11
. 4 . 4 . 25 ] BRlflAPARANYAKA UPANISHAD 769
25. That great, birthless Self is un-
decaying, immortal, undying, fearless and
Brahman (infinite). Brahman is indeed
fearless. He who knows It as such becomes
the fearless Brahman.
Now the import of the whole Upanishad is being:
summed up in this paragraph, as much as to say that
this is the gist of the entire Upanishad. That great ,
birthless Self is undecaying , that is, It does not
wear off ; immortal , because It is undecaying. That
which is born and decays also dies ; but because It
is indestructible on account of Its being birthless
and undecaying, therefore It is undying. That is
to say, since It is free from the three changes of
condition, birth and so on, It is also free from the
other three changes of condition and their effects —
desire, work, delusion, etc., which are but forms of
death. Hence also It is fearless : Since It is possess-
ed of the preceding attributes, It is devoid of fear*
Besides, fear is an effect of ignorance ; by the nega-
tion of that effect as well as of the six changes of con-
dition, it is understood that ignorance too is negated.
What is the fearless Self that is also possessed of
the other attributes? Brahman, that is, vast, or
infinite. Brahman is indeed fearless : It is a well-
known fact. Therefore it is but proper to say that
the Self endowed with the above attributes is
Brahman .
He who knows It, the Self described above,
as such , as the fearless Brahman, becomes the fear-
less Brahman. This is the purport of the whole
49
770 BRIHADARASYAKA UPANlSHAD ‘[4. 4. 25
Upanishad put in a nutshell. It is to bring home
this purport that the ideas of projection, maintenance,
dissolution, etc., as well as those of action, its factors
and its results were superimposed on the Self.
Again, by their negation — by the elimination of the
superimposed attributes through a process of 'Not
this, not this’ — the truth has been made known.
Just as, in order to explain the nature of numbers
from one up to a hundred thousand billions, a man
superimposes them on certain lines (digits), calling
one of them one, another ten, another hundred, yet
another thousand, and so on , 1 and in so doing he
only expounds the nature of numbers, but he never
says that the numbers arc the lines ; or just as, in
order to teach the alphabet, he has recourse to a
combination of leaf , 2 ink, lines, etc., and through
them explains the nature of the letters, but he never
says that the letters are the leaf, ink, etc., similarly
in this exposition the one entity, Brahman, has been
inculcated through various means such as the pro-
jection (of the universe). Again, to eliminate the
differences created by those hypothetical means, the
truth has been summed up as 'Not this, not this.'
In the end, that knowledge, further clarified so as
to be undifferentiated, together with its result, has
been concluded in this paragraph.
1 According to place.
2 Serving for paper.
SECTION V
In the Madhukanda, which predominates in
scriptural statements, the truth of Brahman has been
ascertained. In the chapters relating- to Yajnavalkya,
which predominate in reasoning, by setting up
opposing sides, the same subject has been discussed
more by way of a debate. In the fourth chaptei,
by means of questions and answers between the
teacher and his disciple, it has again been discussed
at length and brought to a conclusion. Now the
present section relating to Maitreyi is being intro-
duced as a conclusion of the proposition regarding
tne same topic. And this is the method adopted by
the authorities on logic, as stated in the following
definition, ‘The restatement of a proposition after
stating the reason is conclusion } (Gau. N. I. i. 39; .
Or it may be like this : That Self-knowledge together
with renunciation which has been described as the
means of immortality in the Madhukanda, is also
established as such by argument, for the chapters
relating to Yajnavalkya preponderate in that. There-
fore it is decided by both scripture and argument
that Self-knowledge together with renunciation is the
means of immortality. Hence those seekers after
immortality who believe in the scriptures should
adopt this means, for a thing that is ascertained by
the scriptures and reasoning deserves credence on
account of its proving universally true. As for the
explanation of the words in this section, it is to be
772 BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD ' [4. 5. 1
understood the same as in the second chapter. We
shall explain only those portions that have hot been
explained.
sm 5 *n$^m**r t wraf sR^rg: — g
qsicq wift ^ ; sajsr, ^itafhr
afii q > T Wwgft ; ®m ^ ^r^r^ihm^ifigqT-
*>frswUI K ll
i. Now Yajnavalkya had two wives,
Maitreyi and Katyayani. Of these Maitreyi
used to discuss Brahman, (while) Katyayani
had then an essentially feminine outlook.
One day Yajnavalkya, with a view to em-
bracing another life,
The word ‘now’ (Atha) indicates sequence after
the furnishing of reasons, for the preceding portion
predominates in reasons. Then in this section relat-
ing to Maitreyi, which consists mainly of scriptural
statements, the theme put forward in the preceding
portion is concluded. The particle ‘ha* (meaning,
it is said ) 1 refers to a past incident. The sage Yaj-
navalkya , it is said, had two wives : one was named
Maitreyi , and the other, Katyayani. Of these two
wives, Maitreyi used to discuss Brahman , (while)
Kdtydyani had then an essentially feminine outlook ,
minding household needs. One day Ydjwavalkya,
with a view to embracing another life from the
1 Omitted in the running translation to avoid clumsiness,
a$ in some other places.
4 . 5 . 3 ] * BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 773
householder’s life that he was then living, that is,
the monastic life, 1
agrfsnajfsn
^ ^ssrar
|| R ||
2. ‘Maitreyi, my dear/ said Yajna-
valkya, ‘I am going to renounce this life for
monasticism. Allow me to finish between
you and Katyayani/
He addressed his older wife by name and said,
*1 am going to renounce this householder's life for
monasticism , O Maitreyi. Please permit me. Allozv
me, if you wish, to finish between you and Kdtyd-
yani All this has been explained.
m fhrra
’jwf 5
fhrra ^rr^rar^sRT:, aftfqrf
^ sttfecf sp are r g Jnsnfei
u * it
3. Maitreyi said, ‘Sir, if indeed this
whole earth full of wealth be mine, shall I be
immortal through that, or not?’ ‘No,’
replied Yajnavalkya, ‘your life will be just
like that of people who have plenty of things,
but there is no hope of immortality through
wealth.’ .
1 The sentence is carried over to the next paragraph.
774 BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD '[ 4 . 5 . 4
stt fterra ifcns *n*i?n Fri fans Ito
? *r^r ¥TTT^rn% rf ayJHfcr n « 11
4. Then Maitreyi said, ‘What shall I do
with that which will not make me immortal ?
Tell me, sir, of that alone which you know
(to be the only means of immortality).’
Being thus addressed, Maitreyi said , 'If indeed
this whole earth full of wealth be mine, shall I be
immortal through that, that is, rites to be performed
through wealth, or not ?' 'No/ replied Y ajnavalkya,
etc. — already explained.
e fsraT t ^ sfr
srat fspref^, ^ erft wfr a gq regrenfg %
3 ft 11 tl
5. Yajnavalkya said, ‘You have been my
beloved (even before), and you have chosen
what is after my heart. If you wish, my
dear, I will explain it to you. As I explain
it, meditate (upon its meaning).’
He said, 'You have been my beloved even
before, and you have chosen (literally, increased)
what is after my heart. Hence I am pleased with
you. If you wish to know the means of immortal-
ity, my dear, I will explain it to you/
* gr 3^ qcg: wwki qfft: fft?ft
qfft: fft*TT i jt qrr
srnnft tow sum fs^n sTTrTR^g
brutr sren fst?n 1 ar srr yrmt
4 . 5 . 6 |» IIRIHAOARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
776
^TJTFT 3^fT: fa*TT Wffcl, 3TTcHS!*3 3THTT** g*T:
fsrarr syqrfar i * stt ^ farrer srmro fara’ fa*#
srarfa, 3 >tjtt*i fa^r' fa*# vrafar i *t =n
qsjHf 5RTOFT tysfrar: fa*n ®rccJm*g
«JJTOT*r <wsr: fa*IT | *T 37 3$ afTOT:
*Frai*r a§i fa*# siafa, stfTciR*^ sktot** asr fa*#
¥T^r% i ?r ar aft ^rma sra fa*# ¥rafa,
sTTcJPFg aiTma gnr fa*# *jarfa i a ar w)**>mt
a>raT*r sjfaiT: fa*n srafer, ^TcJR’Fg 3 tot*i ?5T^t
fa*TT vrafcr | H 5TT 3f*! ^TT*TT 3TOT*T ^«TT: faaT
^cJTfFg ^TBT*T ^T: fa*IT ^fsrt I *T
5TT 3Tt *#?HT ERTTTT*! t^T: fa*IT S T TctW*-«3
^THT*I %^T: fa*TT | a aT W!
^nTT*r *jftTfa fa*nfar vra’feT, 3tTcaa*-g ^ttjtt*t
^Tfa fa*ufar ^rafcr i a ar ^ *h*N*t a>raT*i
fa*# srafa, 3HciR*fg ^>tjtt*t *aa fa*# flafa i
SjjrTCT gr 3T< 5tT5n: — ci»*#) ITf^TS*## fafa^lT-
faavi r iHffa ; sncirfa *35^ 5% ^ fawra
ygf mi fafaan. 11 \ ll
6. He said, ‘It is not for the sake of the
husband, my dear, that he is loved, but for
one’s own sake that he is loved. It is not for
the sake of the wife, my dear, that she is
loved, but for one’s own sake that she is loved.
It is not for the sake of the sons, my dear,
that they are loved, but for one’s own sake
776' B Rite A DARA NY A KA UPAN1SHAD '[4. 5. 6
that they are loved. It is not for the sake of
wealth, 11137- dear, that it is loved, but for one’s
own sake that it is loved. It is not for the
sake of the animals, my dear, that they are
loved, but for one’s own sake that they are
loved. It is not’ for the sake of the Brahmana,
my dear, that he is loved, but for one’s own
sake that he is loved. It is not for the sake
of the Kshatriya, my dear, that he is loved,
but for one’s own sake that he is loved. It
is not for the sake of the worlds, my dear, that
they are loved, but for one’s own sake that
they are loved. It is not for the sake of the
gods, my dear, that they are loved, but for
one’s own sake that they are loved. It is not
for the sake of the Vedas, my dear, that they
are loved, but for one’s own sake that they are
loved. It is not for the sake of the beings,
my dear, that they are loved, but for one’s
own sake that they are loved. It is not for the
sake of all, my dear, that all is loved, but for
one’s own sake that it is loved. The Self, my
dear Maitreyi, should be realised — should be
heard of, reflected on and meditated upon.
When the Self, my dear, is realised by being
heard of, reflected on and meditated upon, all
this is known. *
When f the Self , my dear Maitreyi, is realised.
How ? By being first heard of from the teacher and
4. 5. 1} BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
777
the scriptures, then reflected on, discussed through
argument or reasoning — the hearing is from the
scriptures (and the teacher) alone, the reflection
through reasoning — and lastly yneditated upon (liter-
ally, known), ascertained to be such and such and
not otherwise. What happens then ? All this that is
other than the Self is known, for there is nothing
else but the Self.
sup rf agi <ro-
cJRt cf ■PT^Sf^TeJW: ^ ^ ;
v( m, & ^ fit %^T:,
SJTTfa »3rTT^, q^JTTcflT || 3 II
7. Tlie Brahmana ousts one who knows
him as different from the Self. The Ksha-
triya ousts one who knows him as different
from the Self. The worlds oust one who
knows them as different from the Self. The
gods oust one who knows them as different
from the Self. The Vedas oust one who
knows them as different from the Self. The
beings oust one who knows them as different
from the Self. All ousts one who knows it as
different from the Self. This Brahmana, this
Kshatriya, these worlds, these god^j, these
Vedas, these beings and this all — are the Self.
778 BRIHA DA RANYAKA UPANISHAD A. 5. 7
They oust this person who does not see rightly
— bar him from the absolute aloofness of the Self —
for his offence of looking on them as different from
the Self. This is the idea.
si fr gngrts^r s g^ ggn -
3^*3 err—
qfta: it <: n
8. As when a drum is beaten one cannot
distinguish its various particular notes, but
they are included in the general note of the
drum or in the general sound produced by
different kinds of strokes.
ST «T«IT STi^FCT H
RT^oriR, g ?T^5r— RT —
^ ^<T: II * II
9. As when a conch is blown one cannot
distinguish its various particular notes, but
they are included in the general note of the
conch or in the general sound produced by
different kinds of blowing.
si Rm sTfarra striiirto r WTs^Ts^fg-
qfamr 3 si^afrr — sftnrrRTSSR sn —
si# ^tci: || \o ||
10. As when a Vina is played on one
cannot distinguish its various particular notes,
but they are included in the general note of
4. 5. lVl BRIHADARANYAKA VPANJSHAD
779
the Vina or in the general sound produced b5 r
different kinds of playing.
fofsrasrrfer,
tV: srre^ssrarf^Tsr ?f?nrra: f^rar ^tr-
^rrTOjgrapraTJTT^r aji’rarsnffh^
^TTTfer , 3RT ^ 55fa»:, 'TOST 5 ?Nf:, H^rfot
g ^Tfit . 3T*sra?nf* e^rrfhr ffr.wifcraTfJT n 5»? n
ii. As from a fire kindled with wet
faggot diverse kinds of smoke issue, even so,
my dear, the Rig-Veda, Yajur-Veda, Sama-
Veda, Atharvangirasa, history, mythology,
arts, Upanishads, verses, aphorisms, elucida-
tions, explanations, sacrifices, oblations in the
fire, food, drink, this world, the next world,
and all beings are all (like) the breath of this
infinite Reality. They are (like) the breath
of this (Supreme Self).
In the second chapter, by a description of words
as the breath of the Supreme Self it has been im-
plied 1 that objects such as the worlds are also Its
breath. Hence they have not been separately men-
tioned. But since the import of the entire scriptures
is being summarised here, it is necessary to make
that implied meaning explicit. Hence the worlds
and the rest are separately mentioned.
sr ?raT ^rq*nr, jra sr^rr
i Because a word must mean something.
780
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [41 S. 12
^Rifsrr eMtomq t , ^
^ ^rif’Tr T*TT?TT nrf
s*f*ri w^rf hsrt si^tjtt
^iprf ^f^TTHT *R ,
u^r ^r^rr f^irat. , utf ^hrr ^rar^r
*>r
wi fir^mfnrr qnj^Rrosn^ , ^ ^Ihrosqvrr
, ccsf ^TTt II ^ II
12. As the ocean is the one goal of all
sorts of water, as the skin is the one goal of all
kinds of touch, as the nostrils are the one
goal of all odours, as the tongue is the one goal
of all savours, as the eye is the one goal of all
colours, as the ear is the one goal of all sounds,
as the Manas is the one goal of all delibera-
tions, as the intellect is the one goal of all
knowledge, as the hands are the one goal of
all sorts of work, as the organ of generation is
the one goal of all kinds of enjoyment, as the
anus is the one goal of all excretions, as the
legs are the one goal of all kinds of motion, as
the organ of speech is the one goal of all
Vedas.
^ *pxr wl n^r,
5TT at l ‘ qt4 l r^R«-rR V | ^ngj: $c5T: USTTOUT ^ ;
qsteft ^r^rrar ?TT5%rrgf%?n*T%, h
asffjftfer shrra <i i ww ! II n li
4. 5. l\] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 781
13. As a lump of salt is without interior
or exterior, entire, and purely salt in taste,
even so is the Self without interior or exterior,
entire, and Pure Intelligence alone. (The
self) comes out (as a separate entity) from
these elements, and (this separateness) is de-
stroyed with them. After attaining (this one-
ness) it has no more (particular) consciousness.
This is what I say, my dear. So said
Yajnavalkya.
When through knowledge all the effects have
been merged, the one Self remains like a lump of
salt, without interior or exterior , entire, and Pure
intelligence. Formerly it possessed particular con-
sciousness owing to the particular combinations with
the elements. When that particular consciousness
and its cause, the combination with the elements,
have been dissolved through knowledge — after
attaining (this oneness) it has no more (particular)
consciousness — this is what Yajnavalkya says.
sn stera iht ®fr, si's? sr m
, h 37 safari fenffTirtfa ; st fisrra, m
sRflrfa, srfgRTsft «rr
swtf ll ll
14. Maitreyi said, ‘Just here y ou have
led me into the midst of confusion, sir, I do
not at all comprehend this.’ He said,
‘Certainly I am not saving anything con-
782 BRIHAVARANYAKA UPANISHAD [4. 5. 14
fusing. This self is indeed immutable and
indestructible, my dear.’
She said, 'Just here, in this very thing, that is,
Pure Intelligence, you have led me into the midst
of confusion , that is, confounded me, by saying,
"After attaining (oneness) it has no more conscious*
ness.” Hence I do not at all comprehend — clearly
understand — this Self that you have described. He
said, 1 Certainly I am not saying anything confus-
ing ; for this self that is under consideration is in-
deed immutable (literally, undying) and indestruc-
tible, my dear Maitreyi.’ That is to say, it is not
subject to destruction either in the form of change
or of extinction.
bb % sNfira srafa b%r 3m qiprfB, b%r
S[BT fstEtfa. BfBBT fBT THBB,
Bf^BT fB^ B%R ?BT B%R IcR
B%R r^TBTfB ; cBFB QBBIcSkT-
Bc%B q^B[, Bc%B BI Bc^B qj
Bc%B SRqfaq^B , Bct.B sqnjBTB , Bc%B
B. Br%B BT ^SOB , Bc%B BJ fBBTBTBTB ?
43B fB3nBTfB B %B fBBTBtBTB ? 3T
BfUTcm, B f^ SGBTBT B % ^IBB,
B f? *3*^, B B foarfB 5
^B fBBTBtBTB , frBBBgg l lB Blfa
$Bfq, qBTB?£ fTBcBI
II II *fB II
4. S. iVj BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
783
15. Because when there is duality, as it
were, then one sees something, one smells
something, one tastes something, one speaks
something, one hears something, one thinks
something, one touches something, one knows
something. But when to the knower of Brah-
man everything has become the Self, then what
should one see and through what, what should
one smell and through what, what should one
taste and through what, what should one speak
and through what, what should one hear and
through what, what should one think and
through what, what should one touch and
through what, what should one know and
through what ? Through what should one
know that owing to which all this is known ?
This self is That which has been described
as ‘Not this, not this.’ It is imperceptible,
for It is never perceived ; undecaying, for It
never decays; unattached, for It is never
attached ; unfettered — It never feels pain, and
never suffers injury. Through what, O
Maitreyi, should one know the knower? So
you have got the instruction, Maitreyi. This
much indeed is (the means of) immortality,
my dear.’ Saying this Yajnavalkya left
home.
In all the four chapters one and th» same self
has l>een ascertained to be the Supreme Brahman.
784
BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [<*. 5 . 15
But the means to Its attainment are various. The
goal of all of them, however, is that Self which has
been pointed out in the second chapter in the words,
‘Now therefore the description : Not this, not this*
(II. iii. 6). The same has also been ascertained in
the third chapter, in the dialogue between Shakalya
and Yajnavalkya, where death (the falling off of
the head) was mentioned as the wager ; then at the
end of the third chapter, next in the dialogue
between Janaka and Yajnavalkya, and again here at
the conclusion of the Upanishad. In order to show
that all the four chapters are exclusively devoted to
this Self, and that no other meaning is intended in
between, the conclusion has been made with the
words, ‘This self is That which has been described
as “Not this, not this,” * etc.
Since, in spite of the truth being presented in
a hundred ways, the Self is the last word of it all,
arrived at by the process of ‘Not this, not this,*
and nothing else is perceived either through reason-
ing or through scriptural authority, therefore the
knowledge of this Self by the process of ‘Not this,
not this* and the renunciation of everything are the
only means of attaining immortality. To bring out
this conclusion the text says : This much indeed —
this realisation of the Self, the one without a .second,
by the eliminating process of ‘Not this, not this/ is
(the means of ) immortality , my dear Maitreyi, and
this is independent of any auxiliary means. That
of which you asked me saying, ‘Tell me, sir, of that
alone which you know (to be the only means of im-
mortality)/ is just this much. So you have known
4. 5. 15^ brihadaramyzka upanishad
785
it. — Saying this, describing this Self-knowledge, the
means of immortality, to his beloved wife Maitreyi,
Ydjnavalkya — what did he do ? — did what he had
first proposed saying, ‘I am going to renounce this
life* — left home, became a monk. The discussion of
the knowledge of Brahman, culminating in renuncia-
tion, is finished. This much is the instruction, this
is the teaching of the Vedas, this is the ultimate
goal, this is the end of what a man should do to
achieve his highest good.
Now we are going to have a little discussion in
order to have a clear conception of the meaning of
the scriptures, for we see various conflicting state-
ments in them. For instance, the following texts indi-
cate that there is only one order of life (the house-
holder’s) : ‘One should perform the Agiiihotra for life’
(Ba.), ‘One should perform the new and full moon
sacrifices for life’ (Ibid.), ‘One should wish to live a
hundred years or. earth only performing rites’ (Ish. 2),
‘This Agiiihotra is a .sacrifice that must be continued
till .decay and death come’ (Sh. XII. iv. 2. 1),
and so on. There are also statements establish-
ing another order of life (monasticism) : ‘Knowing
(the Self) . . . they give up desires . . . and re-
nounce their homes,’ 1 ‘After finishing the student
life he should be a householder, from that he should
pass on to the life of a hermit in the forest, and
then become a monk. Or he may do otherwise —
he should renounce the world from the strident life
1 Adapted from III. v. 1 and IV. iv. 22.
50
786
BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD U. 5. IS
itself, or from the householder’s life, or from the
hermit life’ (Np. 77 ; Ja. 4, adapted), ‘There are but
two outstanding paths — first the path of rites, and next
monasticism ; of these the latter excels’ (cf. Tai. A.
X. lxii. 12), and ‘Neither through rites, nor through
progeny, nor through wealth, but through renuncia-
tion some attained immortality’ (Mn. X. 5 ; Kai. 2)-
Similarly the Srnritis : ‘One who leads the student
life renounces’ (Ap. II. xxi. 8, 19), ‘One who leads
a perfectly celibate life may enter into any order of
life’ (Va. VIII. 2), ‘Some say he has an option of
choosing his order of life’ (Gau. III. 1) ; also, ‘After
studying the Vedas as a .student, he should seek to
have sons and grandsons to purify his ancestors.
Lighting the sacred fires and making sacrifices ac-
cording to the injunctions, he should retire into the
forest and then seek to become a monk’ (Mbh. XI I.
clxxiv. 6.), ‘The Brahmana, after performing the
sacrifice to Prajapati and giving all his wealth to the
priests as remuneration, should place the fires with-
in himself and renounce his home’ (M. VI. 38), and
so on. *
Thus hundreds of contradictory passages from
the Shrutis and Srnritis are found, inculcating an
option with regard to renunciation, or a succession}
among the orders of life, or the adoption of any one
of them at will. The conduct of those who are
versed in these scriptures has also been mutually con-
flicting. And there is disagreement even among
great scholars who understand the. meaning of the
scriptures. Hence it is impossible for persons of
shallow understanding clearly to grasp the meaning
4 . 5 . 15 } BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD 787
of the scriptures. It is only those who have a firm
hold on the scriptures and logic, that can distinguish
the particular meaning of any of those passages from
that of the others. Therefore, in order to indicate
their exact meaning, we shall discuss them accord-
ing to our understanding.
Prima facie view : The Vedas inculcate only
rites, for the Shruti passages such as, ‘(One should
perform the Agnihotra) for life’ (Ba.), admit of no
other meaning. The Shruti speaks of the last rite of a
man in these terms, ‘They burn him with the sacri-
ficial vessels.' There is also the statement about the
rites being continued till decay and death come.
Besides there is this hint, ‘(This) body, reduced to
ashes/ etc. (V. xv. 1 ; Ish. 17). If he were a monk,
his body should not be reduced to ashes. The
Smriti also says, ‘He alone should be considered en-
titled to the study of these scriptures, whose rites
from conception to the funeral ground are performed
with the utterance of sacred formulae, and no one
else’ (M. II. 16). The rites that are enjoined by
the Vedas to be performed in this life with the utter-
ance of sacred formulae, are shown by the Smriti to
terminate only on the funeral ground. And because
* a man who does not perform those rites is not en-
titled (to the study of the Smritis), he is absolutely
debarred from having any right to the study of the
Vedas. Besides, it is forbidden to extinguish the
sacred fire, as in the passage, ‘He who extinguishes,
the sacred fire destroys the power of the gods' (TaL
5. I. v. 2. 1).
788
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD ( 4 . 5 . 15
Question: Since renunciation etc. are also en-
joined, is not the import of the Vedas as inculcating
rites only optional ?
The opponent' s answer: No, for the Shruti
texts inculcating renunciation etc. have a different
meaning. To be explicit : Since such Shruti texts
as, ‘One should perform the Agnihotra for life’ (Ba.),
‘One should perform the new and full moon sacrifices
for life’ (Ibid.), make such rites depend on life itself,
and for that reason cannot be interpreted differently,
whereas the passages inculcating renunciation etc.
are applicable to those who are unfit for rites, there-
fore there is no option (with regard to the meaning
of the Vedas as inculcating rites). Besides, since the
Shruti says, ‘One should wish to live a hundred years
on earth only performing rites’ (Ish. 2), and the
passage, ‘One is absolved (from rites) either by ex-
treme old age or by death’ (Sh. XII. iv. 1. 1), leaves
no room for the ritualist to quit the rites except ill
the event of extreme old age or death, the injunction
regarding their being continued in these cases up to
the funeral ground, is not optional. Moreover the
blind, the hump-backed, and so forth, who are unfit
for rites, surely deserve the compassion of the Shruti ;
hence the injunction about other orders of life such ,
as monasticism are not out of place (as being applica-
ble to them).
Question : But there will be no room for the
injunction regarding the sequence of monasticism.
Th 6 opponent’s answer : Not so, for the Vish-
wajit and Sarvatnedha sacrifices will be an excep-
4. 5. \5) BR 1HA DA Rst NY A KA UPAN1SHAD
789
tion 1 to the rule about the lifelong performance of
sacrifices. In other words, these two sacrifices are
the only exceptions to the injunction about the life-
long performance of sacrifices, and the succession re-
ferred to in the passage, ‘After finishing the student
life he should be a householder, from that he should
pass on to the life of a hermit in the forest, and then
become a monk’ (Np. 77 ; Jfi. 4, adapted), is
applicable to these cases. There will thus be no
contradiction. That is to say, if the injunction re-
lating to the sequence of monasticism applies to such
cases, then there is no contradiction, for the sequence
holds good. But if it is regarded as applicable to
other cases, the injunction about the lifelong per-
formance of sacrifices is restiicted in its scope.
Whereas, if the sequence is applicable to the Vish-
wajit and Sarvamedha sacrifices, there is no such
contradiction.
The A divailin \s* reply : Your view is wrong, for
you have admitted Self-knowledge to be the means of
immortality. To be explicit : You have admitted
the Self-knowledge that has been introduced with the
words, ‘The Self alone is to be meditated upon 1
(I. iv. 7.), and concluded with, ‘This self is That
which has been describe^ as “Not this, not this,” *
(III. ix. 26). So you are only reluctant to admit that
this much alone is the means of immortality, inde-
1 Because one has to part with all one's wealth *.n them.
Hence any more performance of sacrifices would be impos-
sible for want of funds. These persons alone are then
entitled to monasticism etc.
790 BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD (4. 5. 15
pendently of anything else. Now I ask you why you
are intolerant of Self-knowledge.
Objection : Here is my reason. As, to a person
who wants heaven but does not know the means of
its attainment, the Vedas inculcate such means as
the Agnihotra, so here also, to one who wants to
attain immortality but does not know the means of
it, they inculcate the instruction desired — ‘Tell me,
sir, of that alone which you know (to be the only
means of immortality) (II. iv. 3; IV. v. 4) — in the
words, ‘This much .... my dear* (IV. v. 15).
Reply : In that case, just as you admit the
Agnihotra etc., inculcated by the Vedas, to be the
means of attaining heaven, so also you should do
with Self-knowledge. You should admit it to be the
means of immortality exactly as it is inculcated, for
in either case the authority is the same.
Objection: What would happen if it is admitted?
Reply: Since Self-knowledge destroys the cause
of all actions, the awakening of knowledge would
terminate them. Now rites such as the Agnihotra,
which are connected with the wife and fire, can be
performed only if there are agencies for whom they
are meant, and this entails an idea of difference. In
other words, they cannot be performed unless there
are the gods — Fire etc. — for whose sake they are
undertaken, and this last depends on the sacrificer’s
regarding the gods as different from himself. That
notion of difference regarding the deities to be
honoured, in view of which such deities are recom-
mended fey the Vedas as means to sacrifices, is de-
stroyed, in the state of enlightenment, by knowledge.
4. 5. 155 BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
791
as we know from such Shuiti passages as, ‘He (who
worships another god thinkingf, “He is one, and I
am another / * does not know* (I. iv. 10), ‘The gods
oust one who knows them as different from the Self’
(II. iv. 6 ; IV. v. 7), ‘He goes from death to death
who sees difference, as it were, in It' (IV. iv. 19 ;
Ka. IV. 10), ‘It should be realised in one form only'
(IV. iv. 20), and ‘He sees all as the Self’ (IV. iv.
23). Nor is Self-knowledge dependent on place,
time, circumstances, etc., for it relates to the Self,
which is an eternal verity. It is rites which, being
bound up with persons (subjective), may depend on
place, time, circumstances, etc. ; but knowledge,
being bound up with reality (objective), never
depends on them. As fire is hot, and as t u e ether
is formless (independently of plac^, time, etc.), so also
is Self-knowledge.
Objection : If this is so, the Vedic injunctions
about rites, which are an unquestionable authority,
are nullified ; and of two things possessing equal
authority, one should not nullify the other.
Reply: Not so, for Self-knowledge only destroys
one’s natural idea of difference. It does not nullify
other injunctions ; it only stops the idea of difference
ingrained in us.
Objection: Still, when the cause of rites is re-
moved, they are impossible, and it virtually means
that the injunctions regarding them are gone.
Reply : No, it is not open to the charge, for
it is analogous to the cessation of our tendency to
perform rites having material ends, when # desire it-
self has been removed ; just as a man, induced to
792
BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD ?4. 5. 15
perform a sacrifice leading to heaven by the injunc-
tion, ‘One who desires heaven must perform sacri-
fices’ (TA. XVI. iii. 3), gives up his inclination to
perform this kind of sacrifice with a material end
when his desire has been removed by the injunctions
forbidding desires : His action does not nullify the
injunctions regarding rites with material ends.
Objection: The injunction forbidding desires
leads to an impression about the uselessness of them,
and consequently the injunctions advocating rites
with material ends cannot operate. So these injunc-
tions are virtually nullified.
Reply : If Self-knowledge nullifies the injunc-
tions about rites in the same way, we admit this.
Objection : But this would take away the
authority of the injunctions about rites, just as the
injunctions about rites with material ends are null and
void w T hen desire is forbidden. In other words, if rites
are not to be undertaken, with the result that there
is no one to perform them, then the injunctions
about their performance become useless, and con-
sequently the whole section of the Vedas dealing
with such injunctions necessarily loses its authority.
Reply : No, it will be operative prior to the
awakening of Self-knowledge. Our natural con-
sciousness of difference regarding action, its factors
and its results, will, previous to the awakening of
Self-knowledge, certainly continue to be an incentive
to the performance of rites, just as, before the idea
about the harmful nature of desires arises, our natural
craving for heaven etc. will certainly induce us to
engage in rites having material ends.
4. 5. lfl BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
793
Objection : In that case the Vedas are a source
of evil.
Reply : No, good and evil depend on one’s
intentions, for except liberation alone everything
else comes within the province of ignorance. Good
and evil are matters of personal whims, for we find
that sacrifices are performed with death as their
objective. 1 Therefore the injunctions about rites are
operative only until one is confronted with "those
about Self-knowledge. Hence rites do not go hand
in hand with Self-knowledge, which proves that this
alone is the means of immortality, as set forth in the
words, ‘This much indeed is (the means of) immortal-
ity, my dear* (IV. v. 15), for knowledge is independ-
ent of rites. Hence, even without any explicit
injunction to that effect, the ‘enlightened sage can,
for reasons already stated, 2 embrace the monastic life
simply through his strong conviction about the
identity of the individual self with Brahman that is
devoid of the factors of an action such as the deity
to whom it is performed as well as caste etc., and is
immutable.
Since the ancient sages, not caring for children,
renounced their homes on the ground stated in the
clause, ‘We who have attained this Self, this world’'
(IV. iv. 22), therefore, as it has been explained, this
renunciation of their homes by the sages can take
place simply by their knowing 3 the world of the Self.
1 The Mahabharata tells of King Yudhishthira’s perform-
ing a sacrifice in advance concerning ‘the great exit.*
2 In IV. iv. 23. •
3 That is, indirectly, from the teacher and the scrip-
tures; direct realisation is not meant.
794
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 4 . 5 . 15
Similarly it is proved that the man who seeks illu-
mination can also renounce the world, for there is
the statement, ‘Desiring this world alone monks
renounce their homes , (Ibid.)- And we have said
that rites are for the unenlightened. That is to say,
because, so long as ignorance persists, there is scope
for rites intended to produce, attain, modify, or
purify, therefore rites, as we have stated, are also the
meanS of Self-knowledge through the purification of
the mind, as the Shruti says that the Brahmanas seek
to know It through sacrifices, etc.
Under the circumstances, if we examine the com-
parative efficacy, for bringing forth Self-knowledge,
of the duties pertaining to the different orders of
life, which concern only the unenlightened, we find
that virtues such as the absence of pride which are
mainly intended for the control of the senses, and
meditation, discrimination, non-attachment, etc.,
which deal with the mind, are the direct aids ; the
others, owing to the predominance of injury, attach-
ment, aversion, etc., in them, are mixed up with#a
good deal of evil work. Hence the monastic life is
recommended for seekers after liberation, as in the
following passages, ‘The giving up of all duties that
have been described (as belonging to particular orders
of life) is (best). Renunciation, again, is the culmi-
nation of this giving up of the duties,’ ‘O Brahmana,
what will you do with wealth, or friends, or a wife,
for you shall have to die ? Seek the Self that has
entered the cave of your intellect. Where are your
grandfather and other ancestors gone, as well as
your father?’ (Mbh. XII. clxxiv. 38), In the
-4. 5. lS] BRIHADARANY AKA UPANISHAV 795
■Sankhya and Yoga, systems also renunciation is
spoken of as a direct means of knowledge. The
absence of the impulsion of desire is another reason
(why the seeker after liberation renounces the world).
For all the scriptures tell us that the impulsion of
desire is antagonistic to knowledge. Therefore, for
a seeker after liberation who is disgusted with the
world, the statement, ‘He should renounce the world
from the student life itself,’ etc. (Np. 77), is quite
reasonable, even if he is without knowledge.
Objection : But we have said that renunciation
is for the man who is unfit for rites, for there alone
is the scope for them ; otherwise the dictum of the
Shruti about the lifelong performance of rites would
be contradicted.
Reply : The objection does not hold, for there is
enough scope for those statements of the Shruti. We
have already 3 said that all rites are for the unenlighten-
ed man with desire. It is not absolutely that rites
are enjoined for life. For men are generally full of
desires, which concern various objects and require the
help of many rites and their means. The Vedic rites
are the means of various results and are to be per-
formed by a man related to a wife and the fire ; they
produce many results being performed again and
again, like agriculture etc., and take a hundred years
to finish, either in the householder’s life or in the
forest life. Hence in view of them the Shruti texts
enjoin lifelong rites. The Mantra also says, 'One
should wish to live a hundred years on earth only
1 See p. 758.
796
BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [T 5. 15
performing rites’ (Ish. 2). Tl\e giving up of rites
after the Visliwajit and Sarvamedha sacrifices refers
to such a man ; while in the case of those on whom
lifelong rites are enjoined, these should be continued
right up to the funeral ground, and the body con-
sumed in fire. Or it may be that the injunctions of
the Shruti about the lifelong performance of rites con-
cern the other two castes except the Brahmana, for
the Kshatriya and the Vaishya are not entitled to the
monastic life. In that case, texts such as, ‘Whose
rites . . . are performed with the utterance of sacred
formulae’ (M. II. 16), and ‘The teachers speak of
only one order of life,’ etc. (Gau. III. 36 ; Bau.
II. vi. 29), would refer to the Kshatriyas and
Vaishyas. Therefore in accordance with a person’s
capacity, knowledge, non-attacliment, desire, etc.,
the various methods of an option with regard to
renunciation, or a succession among the orders
of life, or the embracing of the monastic life are
not contradictory. And since monasticism lias been
separately enjoined on tliose who are unfit for
rites, in the passage, ‘Whether he has completed
his course of study or not, whether he has
discarded 1 the fire or been released 2 from it,’ etc.
(Ja. 4), (the above injunctions about monasticism refer
to normal people qualified for rites). Therefore it is
proved that the other three orders of life (besides
the householder’s life) are surely meant for those who
are qualified for rites.
1 Wilfully, even when his wife is living.
2 By the scriptures, on the death of his wife
SECTION VI
31*1: WW— rftcRRTfj, ifhqTT:
^f?WT T -4t nlq^TrT , *ftq5R: q^fci-
^ET 0 q^fti^Tir^, qftftrgy?*: JOTfa^TO*,
snifagt**: qilfeqjra »tWt% *iW: ii ? n
1. Now the line of teachers : Pautima-
sliya (received it) from Gaupavana. Gaupa-
vana from another Pautimashya. This Pauti-
mashya from another Gaupavana. This
Gaupavana from Kaushika. Kaushika from
Kaum/inya. KaunJinya from Shandilya.
Shfuu/ilya from Kaushika and Gautama.
Gautama
snf^FTi^, 3TTfe%^q> mnjf
iTT^ff hWee, *iW: qrcnfmm-
tJTT^, TrrTinqiWr *tt«i knur^, m^iryui
JTTr^, ^E^EETt STETraERT^, jTETE^EETr OTV*T-
f^TEETET. Jn«q^*TTqR: ^WeTO:
^oteejte^, q>E*Em: ^eere^t?^, heekeet:
q^fosFETft: II R ||
2. From Agniveshya. Agniveshya from
Gargya. Gargya from another Gargya. This
Gargya from another Gautama. This Gau-
tama from Saitava. Saitava from Tarasliar-
yayana. Parasliaryayana from Gargyayana.
798
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD {4. 6. 2'
Gargyayana from Uddalakayana. Uddalaka-
yana from Jabalayana. Jabalayana from
Madkyandinayana. Madkyandinayana from
Saukaravana. Sankarayana from Kasha-
yana. Kaskayana from Savakayana. Saya-
kavana from Kanskikayani. Kauskikayani
OTqq: qrorai^, qnrsraf
3rrfj*q*r»nsB qr*q»ra, srifjoqtn'fqqift:, qqrfkr-
sfrrsRqfqTTfJ^:, ^T^jfarfcgraT^, flR-
5r5T sn* qir^, sntqt qr<£:, qTfarjffqjn^, ifWt
riWri^, qWfr qTr^TFT, qic^: SOTfe-qi^,
sarftr^q: ^RTr^n:qrrT 0 #qfq: ^T^q: fWTT-
^Tfen^, $qrojTfefi’ qrcRT^, in^qt fq^rf-
qftfrgyqi^, qc^RqTcfr qT^qR,
qr^mi^igq: <ro q?m: ?^sn-
*qRTff**TT^, WJWt sn^cq^T^,
qnqRRCTgt fqsq^qTrqi^Trl , fq^Kq*c^>sfsq-
WJT^, arfMtfft srra^TT^, ^q^POqwtsq-
Wf fqi^, sraqffqt^fqf: srpiq^qi^, ijr^: mwf-
*r: s^^ert^, SPR*R q*^:, qqjfqfqqfe#:,
fqqf%Rrs*p£, sqfe *RTd:, SRR: ^RTcRTc^,
?rtcr: ^r*tr, qnfrfgq:, q^st assr: ;
as a?st qq: ii * ii sfa q*s aT§m**.n
ffq qgqfsvqR: n
4. 6. 3? BRMADARANY-AKA UPANISHAD
799
3- From Ghritakaushika. Ghritakau-
shika from Parasharyayana. Parasharyayana
from Parasharya. Parasharya from Jatu-
karnya. Jatukarnya from Asuravana and
Yaska. Asurayana from Traivani. Traivani
from Aupajandhani. Aupajandhani from
Asuri. Asuri from Bharadwaja. Bharadwaja
from Atreya. Atreya from Manfi. Manfi
from Gautama. Gautama from another Gau-
tama. This Gautama from Vatsya. Vatsya
from Shandilya. Shandilya from Kaishorya
Kapya. Kaishorya Kapya from Kumara-
harita. Kumaraharita from Galava. Galava
from Vidarbhikaundinya. He from Vatsa-
napat Babhrava. He from Pathin Saubliara.
He from Ayas}m Angirasa. He from Abhuti
Twashtra. He from Vishwarupa Twashira.
He from the two Ashwins. The Ashwins from
Dadhyach Atharvana. He from Atharvan
Daiva. He from Mrityu Pradhwamsana. He
from Pradhwamsana. Pradhwamsana from
Ekarshi. Ekarshi from Viprachitti. Vipra-
chitti from Vyashti. Vyashfi from Sanaru.
Sanaru from Sanatana. Sanatana from
Sanaga. Sanaga from Parameshthin (Viraj).
Parameshthin from Brahman (Hiranya-
garbha). Brahman is self -born. Salutation
to Brahman ! .
Now the line of teachers for the two chapters
800
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD '{ 4 . 6 . 3
relating to Yajnavalkya is being enumerated, like that
of the Madhukanda. The explanation is the same as
before. Brahman is self-horn. Salutation to Brah-
man! Om.
CHAPTER V
SECTION I
<£jfor ^otot^to n
€omsm\m g^nra - ^firflr 5
aigion 5
11 \ n snari ardour n
1. Om. That (Brahman) is infinite, and
this (universe) is infinite. The infinite pro-
ceeds from the infinite. (Then) taking the
infinitude of the infinite (universe), it remains
as the infinite (Brahman) alone.
Om is the ether-Brahman — the eternal
ether. ‘The ether containing air/ says the
son of Kauravyayani. It is the Veda, (so)
the Brahmanas (knowers of Brahman) know ;
(for) through it one knows what is to be
known .
The supplement to the Upanishad is being* intro-
duced with the words, ‘That is infinite/ etc. That
Brahman which is immediate and direct, the Self that
is within all, unconditioned, beyond hunger etc., and
is described as ‘Not this, not this/ and the realisation
of which is the sole means of immortality, lias been
presented in the last four chapters. Now certain
51
802
BR JHADARANYA KA U BANISH AD ‘ (. 5 . 1 . 1
meditations, not mentioned before, of that same Seif
as conditioned and coming within the scope of words,
their meanings, and so on — meditations that do
not clash with rites, lead to great prosperity, and
take one through a gradual process of liberation, have
to be mentioned ; hence the present chapter. It is
also the intention of the Shruti to enjoin the medita-
tion on Om as forming a part of all other meditations,
and the practice of self-control, charity and compas-
sion.
That is infinite , not limited by anything, that is,
all-pervading. The suffix ‘kta’ in the word ‘Puma’
(literally, complete) has a subjective force. ‘That’
is a pronoun denoting something remote ; it means
the Supreme Brahman. It is complete, all-pervading
like the ether, without a break, and unconditioned.
So also is this conditioned Brahman, manifesting
through name and form and coming within the scope
of relativity (the universe), infinite or all-pervading
indeed in its real form as the Supreme Self, not in
its differentiated form circumscribed by the limiting
adjuncts. This differentiated Brahman, the effect,
proceeds or emanates from the infinite, or Brahman
as cause. Although it emanates as an effect, it does
not give up its nature, infinitude, the state of the
Supreme Self — it emanates as but the infinite.
Taking the infinitude of the infinite, or Brahman as
effect, that is, attaining perfect unity with ifs own
nature by removing through knowledge its apparent
otherness that is created by ignorance through the
contact of limiting adjuncts, the elements, it remains
as the unconditioned infinite Brahman alone, without
5 . 1 . 1 ]
BR 1 HA DA RAN Y A KA UPANISHAD
803
interior or exterior, the homogeneous Pure Intel-
ligence.
What has been said before, viz., ‘This (self) was
indeed Brahman in the beginning. It knew only
Itself. Therefore It became all’ (I. iv. 10), is the
explanation of this Mantra. ‘Brahman’ in that sell'
tence is the same as, ‘That is infinite’ ; and ‘This is
infinite,’ means, ‘This (universe) was indeed Brahman
in the beginning.’ Similarly another Shruti says,
‘Whatever is here is there, and whatever is there is
here’ (Ka. IV. 10). Hence the ‘Infinite,’ denoted by
the word ‘That,’ is Brahman. That again is ‘this in-
finite’ (universe) — Brahman manifested as effect, con-
nected with the limiting adjuncts of name and form,
projected by ignorance, and appearing as different
from that real nature of its own. Then knowing it-
self as the supreme, infinite Brahman, so as to feel,
‘I am that infinite Brahman,’ and thus taking its in-
finitude, that is, removing by means of this knowl-
edge of Brahman its own limitation created by igno-
rance through the contact of the limiting adjuncts of
name and form, it remains as the unconditioned
infinite alone. So it has been said, ‘Therefore It
became all.’
Brahman, which is the theme of all the Upani-
shads, is described once more in this Mantra to in-
troduce what follows ; for certain aids, to be presently
mentioned, viz., Om, self-restraint, charity and com-
passion, have to be enjoined as steps to the knowledge
of Brahman — aids that, occurring in thi£ supple-
mentary portion, form part of all meditations.
804 BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD ( [5. 1. t
Some 1 explain the Mantra thus : From the in-
finite cause the infinite effect is manifested. The
manifested effect is also infinite or real at the present
moment, even in its dualistic form. Again, at the
time of dissolution, taking the infinitude of the in-
finite effect into itself, the infinite, causal form alone
remains. Thus in all the three stages of origin, con-
tinuance and dissolution, the cause and the effect
are infinite. It is just one infinity spoken of as di-
vided into cause and effect. Thus the same Brahman
is both dual and monistic. For instance, an ocean
consists of water, waves, foam, bubbles, etc. As the
water is real, so also are its effects, the waves, foam,
bubbles, etc. — which appear and disappear, but are
a part and parcel of the ocean itself — real in the true
sense of the word. Similarly the entire dual uni-
verse, corresponding to the waves etc. on the water,,
are absolutely real, while the Supreme Brahman
stands for the ocean water. If the universe is thus
real, the ceremonial portion of the Vedas is also
valid. If, however, the dual world is but apparently
so — if it be a creation of ignorance, false like a mirage
— and is in reality the one without a second, then the
ceremonial portion, having nothing to work upon,,
becomes invalid. This would only mean a conflict,
for one portion of the Vedas, viz., the Upanisliads*
would be valid, since they deal with the Reality, the
one without a second, but the ceremonial portion
would be invalid, since it deals with duality, which
is unreal To avoid this conflict, the Shruti speaks.
1 Tile reference is to Bhartriprapaneha.
• 5 . 1 . 1 ]
BR1HA DA RA NY AKA UPAN1SHA D
805
of the reality of both cause and effect, like that of
the ocean, in the Mantra, ‘That is infinite/ etc.
All this is wrong, for neither an exception nor
:an option — which are applicable to specified objects —
is possible with Brahman. It is not a well-considered
view. Why? Because an exception can be made with
regard to some part of an action, where the general
rule would otherwise apply. For example, in the
dictum, ‘Killing no animal except in sacrifices/ (Chh.
VIII. xv. 1), the killing of animals prohibited by
the general rule is allowed in a special case, viz., a
■sacrifice such as the Jyotishtoma. But that will not
apply to Brahman, the Reality. You cannot estab-
lish Brahman, the one without a second, by the
general rule, and then make an exception in one part
of It ; for It cannot have any part, simply because
It is the one without a second. Similarly an option
also is inadmissible. For example, in the injunc-
tions, ‘One should use the vessel Shodashi in the
Atiratra sacrifice/ and ‘One should not use the vessel
Shodashi in the Atiratra sacrifice/ an option is
possible, as using or not using the vessel depends on
a person's choice. But with regard to Brahman, the
Reality, there cannot be any option about Its being
either dual or monistic, for the Self is not a matter
depending on a person's choice. Besides there is a
contradiction involved in the same thing being both
•one and many. Therefore this is not, as we said,
a well-considered view.
Moreover it contradicts the Shruti as well as
reason. For instance, Shruti passages that describe
Brahman as Pure Intelligence, homogeneous iike a
800
BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD <[5. 1. I
lump of salt, without a break, devoid of such differ-
ences as prior or posterior, interior or exterior, includ-
ing the external and internal, birthless, ‘Not this,
not this,’ neither gross nor minute, not short, un-
decaying, fearless and immortal — passages that are
definite in their import and leave no room for doubt
or mistake — would all be thrown overboard as mere
trash. Similarly it would clash with reason, for a
thing that has parts, is made up of many things
and has activity, cannot be eternal ; whereas the
eternity of the Self is inferred from remembrance
etc. — which will be contradicted if the self be
transitory. Your own assumption 1 too will be use-
less, for if the Self be transitory, the ceremonial
portion of the Vedas will clearly be useless, since
it will mean that a man will be getting the reward
for something he has not done, and be deprived
of the reward for what he has actually done.
Objection : There are the illustrations of the
ocean etc. to show the unity and plurality of Brah-
man. So how do you say that the same thing can-
not be both one and many ?
Reply : Not so, for they refer to something
quite difierent. We have said that unity and plural-
ity are contradictory only when applied to the Self,
which is eternal and without parts, but not to effects^
which have parts. Therefore your view T is untenable
as it contradicts the Shruti, the Smriti 2 and reason.
Rather than accept this, it is better to abandon the
1 About the validity of the ceremonial portion of the
Vedas.
3 This has not been particularly touched upon here.
5. 1. 11
BR1HA DA RA NY A KA UPANISlIAD
807
Upanishads. Besides, your view is not in accordance
with the scriptures, for such a Brahman is not fit
for meditation. A Brahman that is teeming- with
differences comprising thousands of evils in the shape
of births, deaths, etc., has parts like an ocean, a
forest, and so forth, and is heterogeneous, has never
been presented by the Shrutis either as an object of
meditation or as a truth to be realised. Rather they
teach Its being Pure Intelligence ; also, ‘It should
be realised in one form only' (IV. iv. 20). There is
also the censure on seeing It as multiple : ‘He goes
from death to death who .sees difference, as it were,
in It’ (IV. iv. 19 ; Ka. IV. 10). What is deprecated
by the Shrutis is not to be practised ; and that which
is not practised (as being forbidden) cannot be the
import of the scriptures. Since the multiple aspect
of Brahman, in which It is regarded as heterogeneous
and manifold is condemned, it is not to be sought
after with a view to realisation ; hence it cannot be
the import of the scriptures. But the homogeneity
of Brahman is what is to be sought after, and is there-
fore good, and for that reason it ought to be the
import of the scriptures.
You said that one part of the Vedas would be
invalid in the sphere of ceremonials because of the
absence of the dual world, while another part would
be valid in the realm of unity. This is wrong, for the
scriptures seek to instruct merely according to exist-
ing circumstances. They do not teach a man, as
soon as he is born, either the duality or the unity of
existence, and then instruct him about rifees or the
knowledge of Brahman. Nor does duality require to
808
BR1HADA RANYA KA UPANISHAD
,[5. 1. I
be taught ; it is understood by everyone as soon
as he is born ; and nobody thinks from the very
outset that duality is false, in which case the scrip-
tures would first have to teach the reality of the dual
world and then establish their own validity. (The
unreality of the universe is no bar to the validity of
the scriptures, for) even the disciples of those who
deny the Vedas (and do not believe in an objective
universe ) 1 would not hesitate to accept the authority
of their scriptures when they are directed (to do some-
thing helpful in accordance with them) by their
teachers. Therefore the scriptures, taking the dualis-
tic world as it is — created by ignorance and natural
to everybody — first advise the performance of rites
calculated to achieve the desired ends, to those who
are possessed of that natural ignorance and defects
such as attachment and aversion ; afterwards, when
they see the well-known evils of actions, their factors
and their results, and wish to attain their real state
of aloofness, which is the opposite of duality, the
scriptures teach them, as a means to it, the know ledge
of Brahman, consisting in the realisation of the unity
of the vSelf. So when they have attained that result
— their real state of aloofness, their interest in the
validity of the scriptures ceases. And in the absence
of that the scriptures too just cease to be scriptures
to them. Hence, the scriptures having similarly ful-
filled their mission with regard to every person,
there is not the least chance of a conflict with them ;
1 Certain schools of Buddhism, for instance. Even they
would act up to such teachings of their scriptures as, ‘Those
who desire heaven should worship the monastery.’
s. 1. 1}
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANJSHAD
803
for such dualistic differences as scripture, dis-
ciple and discipline terminate with the knowledge
of unity. If any of these survived the others, there
might be a conflict with regard to it. But since
scripture, disciple and discipline are interdependent,
not one of them survives the rest ; and, when all
duality is over, and only unity, the one without a
second, the Good, alone stands, with whom is con-
flict apprehended ? Hence also there is no non-
contradiction either.
Even taking your position for granted, we have
to say that it is useless, for even if Brahman be both
one and many, there will be the same conflict with
the scriptures. That is to say, supposing we admit
that the same Brahman has both unity and plurality
like the ocean etc., and that there is no other thing,
even then we cannot escape the charge of a conflict
with the .scriptures that you have levelled against us.
How ? For one and the same Supreme Brahman has
both unity and plurality ; being beyond grief, delu-
sion, etc., It would not seek instruction ; nor would
the teacher be different from Brahman, for you have
admitted the same Brahman to be both one and many.
If you say, since the dual world is manifold, one can
teach another, and it will not be instruction imparted
to or by Brahman, we reply that you contradict your
own statement that Brahman in Its twofold aspect of
unity and plurality is one and the same, and that
there is nothing else. Since that world of duality in
which one teaches another is one thing, and unity 1
1 ‘Adwaitaui* : This seems to be the correct trading,
and not ‘Dwaitam.’
810
BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
Ifi. 1 . 1
is of course another tiling, your example of the ocean
is inappropriate. Nor can we presume that Brahman,
if It' is one consciousness, as the ocean is one mass of
water, will either receive instruction from, or instruct,
anyone else. If Devadatta is both one and manifold,
consisting of the hands etc., it is absurd to think
that between his tongue and ear — both parts of him —
the tongue will instruct and the ear only receive the
instruction, while Devadatta himself will neither
instruct nor receive any instruction, for he has only
one consciousness, as the ocean is made up of the
same volume of water. Therefore such an assump-
tion will clash with the Shruti and reason, and
frustrate your own object. Hence our interpretation
of the Mantra, 'That is infinite,’ etc., is the correct
one.
Om is the ether-Brahman , is a Mantra. No
direction for its use has been given elsewhere ; the
Brahmana here directs that it is to be used in medita-
tion. 'Brahman’ in this Mantra is the entity speci-
fied, and ‘ether’ is its description. In the term ‘ether-
Brahman’ the entity specified and the description are
co-ordinate, as in the expression, ‘A blue lotus.* The
word ‘Brahman’ without any qualifying word would
mean any vast object ; hence it is specified as the
'ether-Brahman.’ The ether-Brahman is either the
import of the word 'Om,’ or identical with it. In
either case the co-ordinate relation holds good.
Here the word 'Om’ is used to serve as a means
to the meditation on Brahman. As other Shrutis say,
'This is the. best help (to the realisation of Brahman)
and the highest’ (Ka. II. 17), ‘One should concentrate
5. 1. li
BRMADARANYXKA UPANISHAI)
81!
on the Self, uttering Om’ (Mu. XXIV. 1), ‘One should
meditate upon the Supreme Being only through the
syllable Om’ (Pr. V. 5), ‘Meditate upon the Self with
the help of the syllable Om’ (Mu. II. ii. 6), and so
on. Besides, the instruction can have no other mean-
ing. For instance, elsewhere, in such passages as,
‘He recites the praise with Om, he chants the Udgitha
with Om’ (Chh. I. i. 9), we know’ from the directions
for use that the syllable Om is used at the beginning
and end of the reading of the Vedas. But we do not
see any such different meaning here. Therefore the
instruction of the word Om here is for the purpose
of presenting it as a means to meditation only. Al-
though the words ‘Brahman,’ ‘Atman,’ etc., are
names of Brahman, yet on the authority of th^ Shrutis
we know that Om is Its most intimate appellation.
Therefore it is the best means for the realisation of
Brahman. It is so in tw’o ways— as a symbol and as
a name. As a symbol : Just as the image of Vishnu
or any other god is regarded as identical with that
god (for purposes of worship), so is Om to be treated
as Brahman. (Why?) Because Brahman is pleased
with one who uses Om as an aid ; for the Shruti says,
‘This is the best help and the highest. Knowing this
help one is glorified in the world of Brahman
(Hiranyagarbha)* (Ka. II. 17).
Now’, lest ‘ether* should mean the material ether,
the text says, the eternal ether, that is, the ether
which is the Supreme Self. Because the latter, being
beyond the reach of ihe eye and other organs, cannot
be perceived w ithout some help, therefore the aspirant
superimposes it w r ith faith, devotion and great rapture
S12
BR1HADARANYA KA UPAN1SHAD
r 5. 1. 1
on the syllable Om, as people superimpose Vishnu
on images of stone etc. with carvings of His features.
( The ether containing air, just the ordinary ether, not
the eternal ether/ says — who? — the son of Kaura-
vydyani. The word 'ether* is primarily used in the
sense of the ether containing air ; so he thinks that
should be taken. Now, whether it is 'the eternai
ether/ meaning the unconditioned Brahman, or it is
'the ether containing air/ meaning the conditioned
Brahman, in either case the syllable Om, as a symbol,
becomes a means of realising It, like an image. For
another Shruti has it, ‘The syllable Om, O Satya-
kama, is the higher and lower Brahman* (Pr. V. 2).
The only difference is over the meaning of the word
'ether/
It, this Om, is the Veda, (for) through it one
knows what is to be known. Therefore Om is the
Veda or name (of Brahman). Through that name
the aspirant knows or realises what is to be known,
viz., Brahman, which is the object signified or desig-
nated by the name. Therefore the Brahmanas know
that it is the Veda : They mean that as a name it is
intended as a means to the realisation of Brahman.
Or the passage, 'It is the Veda/ etc., may be a eulogy.
How ? Om is enjoined as a symbol of Brahman, for
it is co-ordinated with the word 'Brahman* in the
sentence, ‘Om is the ether-Brahman.* Now it is
being praised as the Veda, for the entire Vedas are
but Om : They all issue out of it and consist of it ;
this Om is differentiated into the divisions of Rich,
Yajus, Sarian, etc., for another Shruti says, 'As by a
stick all leaves (are pierced, so all speech is pierced
5. 1. 1} BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
813
by Om)' (Chh. II. xxiii. 4). Here is another reason
why Om is the Veda — 'through it', this Dm, ‘one
knows whatever is to be known' ; hence this Om is
the Veda. The other Vedas owe their Vedahood to
this. Therefore Om, being so important, should be
used as a means to self-realisation. Or the passage
in question may be thus interpreted : It is ‘the
Veda.' 1 What is it? That Om 'which the Brahmanas-
know' ; for it should be known by the Brfdimanas in
various forms such as Pranava and Udgitha. If it is
used as a means to realisation, the entire Vedas are
practically used.
1 In this interpretation the inarticulate A is flropped from
the text the reading being, Vedo yam , etc.
SECTION II
srrartjtm: sntTtraft facrft
3^5*3: , sfacgrc 3^:, aaig ^
sraTfafa ; ar*ar ta^regara * ?% , safrrfssn*
; swftpftfa ^g:, a saTc^ft ;
srtfirfa ^Nnra, sqsrTfaȣf?i ii 5 u
i. Three classes of Prajapati ’s sons lived
a life of continence with their father, Prajapati
(Viraj) — the gods, men and Asuras. The
gods, on the completion of their term, said,
‘Please instruct us.’ He told them the syl-
lable ‘Da’ (and asked), ‘Have you under-
stood?’ (They) said, ‘We have. You tell us :
Control yourselves.’ (He) said, ‘Yes, you
have understood . ’
The present section is introduced to prescribe the
three disciplines of self-control etc. Three classes of
Prajapati’ s sons lived a life of continence , that is,
lived as students, since continence is the most im-
portant part of a student’s life, with their father ,
Prajapati. Who were they? The gods , men and
Asuras , in particular. Of them, the gods , on the
completion of their term — what did they do? — said to
their father, Prajapati, ‘Please instruct ns. ’ When
they thus sought his instruction, he told than only
the syllable ‘Da’ ; and saying it the father asked them,
5 . 2 . &\ BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAl)
815
f Have you understood the meaning of the syllable I
told you by way of instruction, or not V The gods
said, ‘IVc have/ Tf so, tell me what i said.’ The
gods said, ‘You tell us : Control yourselves, for you
are naturally unruly.’ The other said, ‘Yes, you
have understood rightly . 9
3 TO tq 3 ?§:, aqtg qqrRrfct ■, %*qr
? ffrt ; ffa 5 sq^rrfe-
5 iirfirfrT gtaiqr,
a h 11
2. Then the men said to him, ‘Please
instruct us.’ He told them the same syllable
‘Da’ (and asked), ‘Have you understood?'
(They) said, ‘We have. You tell us : Give.’
(He) said, ‘Yes, you have understood.’
The common portions are to be explained as
before. ‘ You tell us : (hive — distribute your wealth
to the best of your might, for you are naturally
avaricious. What else would you say for our benefit ?’
— so said the men.
3TO 3vf:, asftg jt> srtRtRt ;
t?r^rT^*gqrar 5 sf?i ; sq^rifa-
^Rr $%:, ^qv^RrRt q ; arffirRi ^iqiq,
sqfrrf^tRr ; Tqr qrqgq^Rl ^Rfq^
3 % ?Rr— ? tT ^qvqfqRl ; cl^cqq
^qrfiiR! 11 3 11 ?Rr ferftq 11
3. Then the Asuras said to hifii, ‘Please
instruct us.’ He told them the same syllable
816
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
[ 5 . 2 . $
‘Da’ (and asked), ‘Have you understood?’
(They) said, ‘We have. You tell us : Have
compassion.’ (He) said, ‘Yes, you have under-
stood. ’ That very thing is repeated by the
heavenly voice, the cloud, as ‘Da,’ ‘Da,’ ‘Da’ :
‘Control yourselves,’ ‘Give,’ and ‘Have com-
passion.’ Therefore one should learn these
three — self-control, charity and compassion.
Similarly the Asuras took it as, ‘ Have compassion ,
be kind to all, for you are cruel, given to injuring
others, and so on.’ That very instruction of Praja-
pati continues to this day. Prajapati, who formerly
taught the gods and others, teaches us even to-day
through the heavenly voice of the cloud. How ?
Here is the heavenly voice heard. Which is it? The
cloud. As ‘Da/ ‘Da/ ‘Da* : ' Control yourselves/
‘Give/ and ‘Have compassion / The syllable ‘Da* is
repeated thrice to represent in imitation the above
three terms, not that a cloud produces three notes
only, for we know of no such limitation as to number.
Because to this day Prajapati gives the same instruc-
tions, ‘Control yourselves/ ‘Give’ and ‘Have Compas-
sion/ therefore one should learn these three of Praja-
pati. What are they? Self-control t charity and
compassion. Men should think, ‘We must carry out
the instructions of Prajapati/ The Smriti too says,
‘Lust, anger and greed — these are the three gateways
to hell, destructive to the self ; therefore one should
renounce these three* (G. XVI. 21). The preceding
portion is but a part of this injunction, ‘One should
learn/ etc. Still those who can guess the motives*
5 . 2 . 3 ]* BR1HADARANYAKA IJPANISHAD 817
of others hold different views on why Prajapati spoke
the same syllable ‘Da* thrice to the gods etc., who
wanted separate instructions, and how they too dis-
criminatingly understood his intention from the sam^
syllable ‘Da.’
Regarding this some say : The gods, men and
A suras, considering themselves guilty of a lack of self-
control, charitableness and compassion respectively,
lived as students with Prajapati, apprehensive of what
he might say to them ; and as soon as they heard the
syllable ‘Da,’ their own fears led them to understand
its meaning. It is a well-known principle in life
that sons and pupils are to be dissuaded from evil
through instruction. Hence Prajapati was right in
uttering just the syllable ‘Da/ and so too Y\ere the
gods etc. in understanding it differently according
to their respective defects, for the syllable ‘Da’ occurs
in all the three words denoting ‘self-control * etc.
From this it is clear that when one is conscious of
one’s faults, one can be weaned from them through
the briefest advice, as the gods etc. were through
the mere syllable ‘Da.’
Objection : Well, this instruction was for the
three classes, the gods and the rest, and even they
were to adopt only one instruction apiece. It is not
that even to-day men should learn all the three.
Reply : In ancient times these three were
practised by the gods etc. — distinguished people. So
men indeed should practise all of them.
Objection : But should not compassion be ex-
cluded from the list, because it was practised b> the
A suras — very undesirable people?
52
818
BR1HADARANYAKA UPANJSHAD *[5,2.3
Reply : No, for all the three are equally good
instructions. Hence there is some other meaning to
it. All the three classes, the gods and the rest, were
• Prajapati's sons, and a father would teach his sous
only what is good for them ; so Prajapati, who knew
what was good for them, would not teach them other-
wise. Therefore this instruction of his to his sons is
exceedingly beneficent. Hence men indeed should
learn all the three.
Or, there are no gods or Asuras other than men.
Those among men who are wanting in self-control,
but are otherwise endowed with many good qualities,
are the gods ; those who are particularly greedy are
men ; while those who are cruel and given to injuring
others are the Asuras. So the same species, men, ac-
cording to their lack of self-control and the other two
defects, as well as to their tendencies of balance,
activity and inertia, are given the titles of gods etc.
Hence it is men who should learn all the three instruc-
tions, for Prajapati meant his advice for them alone ;
because men are observed to be wild, greedy and
cruel. The Smriti too says, ‘hust, anger and greed
(are the three gateways to hell) ; . . . therefore one
should renounce them’ (G. XVI. 21).
SECTION III
The three disciplines, self-control etc., which are
a part of all meditations have been enjoined. One is
qualified for all meditations by becoming’ self-
controlled, non-avarieious and compassionate. The
topic of the realisation of the unconditioned Brahman
has been finished with the third and fourth chapters.
Now meditations on Its conditioned aspect, resulting
in prosperity, have to be described. Hence the
following sections.
*71 5
g n ntf ^ .
qfa ^**r ssfai ^ II * ii 5 tjrftcf sn^rorn it
i. This is Prajapati — this heart (intel-
lect). It is Brahman, it is everything. ‘Hri-
daya’ (heart) has three syllables. ‘Hri’ is one
syllable. To him who knows as above, his
own people and others bring (presents). ‘Da’
is another syllable. To him who knows as
above, his own people and others give (their
powers). ‘Ya’ is another syllable. He who
knows a$ above goes to heaven.
It has just been said that Prajapath instructs.
Now who is this instructor Prajapati ? This is being
820
BR1HA DARANYA KA UPANISHAD
«[ 5 . 3 . t
answered: This is Prajapati. Who? This heart ,
that is, the intellect, which has its seat in the heart.
That heart in which, at the end of the section relating
to Shakalya (III. ix.), name, form and work have
been stated to merge by way of the divisions of the
quarters, which resides in all beings and is identified
with them all, is Prajapati, the projector of all beings.
It is Brahman , being vast and identified with all. It
is everything. It has been stated in the third
chapter that the intellect is everything. Since it
is everything, the intellect that is Brahman
should be meditated upon. Now, first of
all, a meditation on the syllables of the name
‘Hridaya’ is being described. The name ‘Hridaya'
has three syllables. Which are they? ' Hri ' is one
syllable. To him, this sage, who knows as above ,
knows that ‘Hri’ is the same as the root ‘Hri,’
meaning, to bring, his own people, relatives, and
others not related to him bring presents. This last
word must be supplied to complete the sentence.
Because the organs, which are a part of the intellect
(its ‘own’), and the objects, sound etc., which are not
so related to it (‘others’), bring their respective
functions as offerings to the intellect that is Brahman,
which in its turn passes them on to the Self, therefore
he who knows that ‘Hri’ is a syllable of the name
‘Hridaya’ also receives presents. This result is in
accordance with the meditation. Similarly f Da J too
is another syllable. This too is a form of the root
‘da,’ meaning, to give, inserted in the name ‘Hridaya*
as one of ^its syllables. Here also, to him who knows
as above , knows that because the organs, which are
5. 3. 1> BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
821
a part of the intellect, and the objects, which are not
so related to it, give their respective powers to the
intellect that is Brahman, which too gives its own
power to the Self, therefore the syllable is called
‘Da,’ his own people and others give their powers.
Similarly *Ya f too is another syllable . He who
knows as above, that the form ‘Ya,’ derived from
the root ‘in,* meaning, to go, has been inserted
in this name, goes to heaven. Thus one gets such
conspicuous results from the meditation even on
the syllables of its name ; what should one say of the
meditation on the reality of the heart itself ? Thus
the introduction of the syllables of its name is for the
purpose of eulogising the heart (intellect).
SECTION IV
**5^r
flf^nr ^ w*i sf§E%, srarftm&tara; •, fsra s^-
stojht ^ ^r srgff^r .
*tc*t ghr sib n t n snutjn^ n
i. That 1 (intellect-Brahman) was but this
— Satva (gross and subtle) alone. He who
knows this great, adorable, first-born (being)
as the Satya- Brahman, conquers these worlds,
and his (enemy) is thus conquered and becomes
non-existent — he who knows this great, ador-
able, first-born (being) thus, as the Satya-
Brahman, for Satya is indeed Brahman.
In order to enjoin a meditation on that Brahman
called Hridaya (intellect) as Satya, the present .section
is being introduced. That refers to the intellect-
Brahman. The particle ‘vai’ is a reminder. That
intellect-Brahman who may be recalled — is the
meaning of the first ‘Tat’ (that). He is being
described in another way, is the meaning of the
second ‘Tat.’ What is that way? He was hut this .
With this last word the third ‘Tat* is connected.
‘This* refers to something in the mind that will pres-
ently be stated. Who ‘was but this* ? He who s has
1 The pronoun ‘Tat* (that or it) occurs thrice in the text.
The last two (as well as the particle ‘vaC) have been omitted
in the translation to avoid confusion. They are explained in
the commentary.
5 . 4 . 1 ]
BR1HA DA RANYA KA UFA NISH A D
823
been described as the intellect-Brahman ; here the
third ‘Tat’ comes in. What is he ? This is being
specified as Satya alone — the Satya-Brahman, or
Brahman that is ‘Sat’ and ‘Tyat,’ the gross and subtle
elements, in other words, consisting of the five
elements. He, anyone, who knows this being identi-
fied with Satya — great, because of his vastness, ador-
able, first-born , since this Brahman was born before
all other relative beings — as the Satya-Brahman , gets
the following result : As the Satya-Brahman has
made all these worlds a part of himself, or conquered
them, so he who knows the great, adorable, first-born
Brahman identified with Satya, conquers these worlds.
Also his enemy — this word is understood — is thus
conquered, as the worlds are by Brahman, and
becomes non-existent , that is, is conquered. Who
gets this result ? To answer this the text concludes :
He who knows this great, adorable, first-born (being)
thus — as the Satya-Brahman . Hence the result is
aptly in accordance with the meditation, for Satya is
indeed Brahman .
SECTION V
SIFT ; cTT STR:
TO, srerrorfa^, srarrqfa^rR.; ^ t^rr:
<tth% , a^ s rcgHi^ — ^He^rfafa ; *r
?rfoc*fam$ro^ • aywlriil
5 ^cT^pgSRS: qft-
gffag, ^rsrgjifer *Frf?t ;
%fer ll K ll
i. This (universe) was but water (liquid
oblations connected with sacrifices) in the
beginning. That water produced Satya.
Satya is Brahman. Brahman (produced)
Prajapati, and Prajapati the gods. Those
gods meditate upon Satya. This (name)
‘Satya’ consists of three syllables : ‘Sa’ is one
syllable, ‘ti’ is another syllable, and ‘ya’ is
the third syllable. The first and last syllables
are truth. In the middle is untruth. This
untruth is enclosed on either side by truth.
(Hence) there is a preponderance of truth.
One who knows as above is never hurt by
untruth.
This section is in praise of the Satya-Brahman.
He has been called great, adorable and first-born
(V. iv. 1). , How is he the first-born? This is being
explained : This was but water in the beginning.
s. 5. 1] # BRIHADARANYAKA UPANlSHAD 825
* Water’ liere means the oblations that are connected
with rites such as the Agnihotra. They are called
water because they are liquid. This ‘water/ after
the rites are finished, maintains its connection with
them in some invisible, subtle form, and is not alone,
but united with the other elements ; but it is given
prominence on account of its connection with the
rites. All the elements, which before their manifesta-
tion remain in an undifferentiated state, are together
with the agent designated as water. That water,
which is the seed of the universe, remains in its
undifferentiated form. This entire universe, differen-
tiated into name and form, was just this water in the
beginning , and there was no other manifested object.
Then that water produced Satya ; therefore thr Satya-
Brahman is the first-born. The manifestation of the
undifferentiated universe is what is spoken of here
as the birth of Hiranyagarbha or Sutra tinan. Satya
is Brahman . Why? Because of his greatness. How
is he great ? This is being explained : Because he
is the projector of everything. How r ? The Satya-
Brahman (produced) Prajapati, the lord of all beings,
Viraj, of which the sun etc. are the organs. The
verb ‘produced’ is understood. Prajapati , Viraj,
produced the gods. Since everything was produced
in this order from the Satya-Brahman, therefore he
is great. But how is he adorable? This is being
explained : Those gods who w ere thus produced
meditate upon that Satya-Brahman, even superseding
their father Viraj. Hence this first-born great one is
adorable. Therefore he should be meditated upon
with one's whole heart. The name of the Satya-
826
B R 111 A DA R A NY A KA UP A NISH A D
# [ 5 . 5 . 1
Brahman also is Satya. This consists of three
syllables . What are they ? ' Sa J is one syllable , f ti *
is another syllabic. The long i has been added to
t for facility of indication. ' Ya ' is Ihc third syllabic .
Of these, the first and Iasi syllables , ‘sa’ and ‘ya,’
are truth, being free from the form of death. In the
middle is untruth. Xlntruth is death, for the words
‘Mrityu’ (death) and ‘Anrita’ (untruth) have both
a t in them. This untruth, the letter t, which is a
form of death, is enclosed or encompassed on either
side by truth, by the two syllables ‘sa* and ‘ya/ which
are forms of truth. Hence it is negligible, and there
is a preponderance of truth. One who knows as
above, knows the preponderance of truth and the
insignificance of all deatli or untruth, is never hurt
by untruth that he may have uttered unawares.
HtqmfcrT || ^ ||
2. That 1 which is Satya is that sun — the
being who is in that orb and the being who is
in the right eye. These two rest on each
other. The former rests on the latter through
the rays, and the latter rests on the former
through the function of the eyes. When a
man is about to leave the body, he sees the
1 The translation of this sentence and its commentary
is slightly condensed for the sake of clarity.
5 . 5 . 2 ]# BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
827
solar orb as clear. The rays no more come
to him.
Now a meditation on different parts of the body
of the Satya-Brahman is being described: That
which is Satya , the first-born Satya-Brahman, is that
sun. Who is he? The being who is in that orb ,
who thinks he is the sun, and the being who is in
the right eye. They are both Satya-Brahman ; the
word ‘and’ shows this connection. Because these
two, the beings in the sun and the eye, are but differ-
ent forms of the Satya-Brahman, therefore they rest
on each other, the solar being rests on the ocular
being and vice versa, for there is a relation of mutual
helpfulness between the self as identified with
different, parts of the body and the presiding deities.
How they rest on each other is being explained :
'The former, the solar being, rests on the latter,
the being (individual self) who is identified in this
body with the eye, through the rays, helping the
other with his light. And l He latter, the being who
is in the eye, rests on the former, the being who is
identified among the gods with the sun, through the
function of the eyes, helping that deity (by reveal-
ing him). When a man, the individual self or the
experience!* inhabiting this body, is about to leave
the body, the solar being, who is the presiding deity
of the eye, withdraws his rays and maintains a blank,
indifferent pose. Then he, the individual self, sees
the solar orb as clear, shorn of its beams, like the
moon. This portent of death is incidentally men-
tioned, so that a man may be careful and take
828
BR1HADARANY AKA UPANISHAD [ 5 . 5.2
necessary steps. The rays no more come to him .
In the discharge of their master’s duties, they used
to do so before with regard to the being who is
identified with the eye, in order to help him ; but
considering those duties finished, as it were, they
no more come to him. Hence this mutual helpful-
ness between them" shows that both are parts of the
same Satya-Brahman.
«r qq fsrc: ;
fm:, ^ 5TTI ; ^ STf , t
^ sfagr ; £ nfatS, £ 31^ ;
II \ li
3. Of this being who is in the solar orb,
the syllable ‘Bhur’ is the head, for there is one
head, and there is this one syllable; the word
‘Bhuvar’ is the arms, for there are two arms,
and there are these two syllables ; the word
‘Swar’ is the legs, for there are two legs, and
there are these two syllables. His secret
name is ‘Ahar.’ He who knows as above
destroys and shuns evil.
Now, of this being who is in the solar orb, called
Satya, the Vyahritis (Bhur, Bhuvar and Swar) are
the limbs. How? The Vyahriti called ‘Bhur’ is his
head, because it comes first. The Shruti itself
points out the similarity between them : There is
one head, and there is this one syllable, Bhur. Each
is one in .number. The word ‘Bhuvar’ is the arms,
because both are two in number. There are two
5. 5. 4]* BRIHADARANYAKA UPANJSHAD
829
arms, and there arc these two syllables. Similarly
the word ‘Swcr’ is the legs , for there are tivo legs,,
and there are these two syllables. The ward ‘Pra-
tish£ha’ means the legs, for they help one to stand
The secret name of this Satya-Brahman who has the
Vyahritis as his limbs— that name, called by which
that Brahman turns to us, as it happens with us —
is f Ahar / He who knows as above, that ‘Ahar* is
derived from the root ‘han* or ‘ha,’ meaning, to kill
or to shun, destroys and shuns evil.
fsir: ;
fsrc:, ^ : g^Tf , §■ 07*
mir sfogT ; i_ af?rA, g o^ -wir ;
qTcm:f srsrfa ^ a o^r
ii « ii n
4. Of this being who is in the right eye,
the syllable ‘Bhur’ is the head, for there is
one head, and there is this one syllable; the
word ‘Bhuvar’ is the arms, for there are two
arms, and there are these two syllables ; the
word ‘Swar’ is the legs, for there are two legs.
and there are these two syllables. His secret
name is ‘Aham. ’ He who knows as above
destroys and shuns evil.
Similarly of this being -who is in the right eye,
the syllable 'Bhur’ is the head, etc. — to be explained
as before. His secret name is 'A ham' (I), because
he is the inner self. He who knows, et». — already
explained.
SECTION VI
Since Brahman has many limiting adjuncts, each
with diverse forms, a meditation on the same Brahman
as possessed of the limiting adjunct of the mind, is
being enjoined :
sftfirqf ^^5^^
snarfei ^rf^af fe n \ h ? far siigioi^ 11
i. This being identified with the mind
and resplendent (is realised by the Yogins)
within the heart like a grain of rice or barley.
He is the lord of all, the ruler of all, and
governs whatever there is.
This being identified with the mind , because he
is perceived there ; also he perceives through the
mind ; and resplendent, literally, having lustre as
his real state or nature — since the mind reveals every-
thing, and he is identified with the mind, therefore
he is resplendent — is realised by the Yogins (we must
supply these words) within the heart like a grain
of rice or barley in size. He is the lord of all things,
which are but variations of him. Even with lord-
ship, one may be under the sway of ministers etc.,
but he is not like that. What then is he? ’He is
the ruler, independent protector, and governs what-
ever therfc is — the whole universe. The result of this
meditation on Brahman identified with the mind is
5. 6. If BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISILW
831
the attainment of identity with him as such, for the
Brahmana say^, ‘One becomes exactly as one medi-
tates upon Him’ (Sh. X. v. 2. 20).
SECTION VII
q q# %q agnmi
shot snu^n
i. They say lightning is Brahman. It
is called lightning (Vidvut) because it scatters
(darkness). He who knows it as such — that
lightning is Brahman — scatters evils (that are
ranged against) him, for lightning is indeed
Brahman.
Another meditation on the same Satya-Brahman,
with a particular result, is being introduced. They
say lightning is Brahman. The derivation of light-
ning as Brahman is being given : It is called light-
ning (Vidyut) because it scatters darkness. Really
lightning flashes cleaving the darkness due to clouds.
He who knows it as such , knows that lightning is
Brahman as possessed of the above attributes, scatters
or dispels all the evils that are ranged against him ,
It is a fitting result for one who knows it as such —
that lightning is Brahman, for lightning is indeed
Brahman.
SECTION VIII
^ ; awnssrc^R: rrt: —
^T?TWrrd 5T^TTT ^?<^R: JF^T^TT: ; ?R?r gfr
E?eA ^TT — RTT?EFR ^ sfMgqKH g,
firWR JTJWT:, SRrreiR fq?R: . <=r^tt: am 3fTRT:,
^ ^cR: II % II ?f*iEJT crrgjRri^ t|
i. One should meditate upon speech (the
Vedas) as a cow (as it were). She has four
teats — the sounds \Swfiha,’ ‘Vashat/ ‘Hanta’
and ‘Swadlia/ Tlie i>ods live on two of her
teats — the sounds ‘Swfiha’ and ‘Vashat * men
on the sound ‘Hanta/ and the Manes on the
sound ‘Swadlia/ Her bull is the vital force,
and her calf the mind.
Still another meditation on the same Brahman is
being mentioned— that speech is Biahman. ‘Speech’
here means the Vedas. One should meditate upon
that speech (the Vedas} as, that is, as if she was,
a cow . Just as a cow secretes milk through her four
teats for her calf to suck, so does this cow, speech,
secrete through her four teats, to be presently men-
tioned, food for the gods t lc. that is comparable to
milk. Now what are those teats, and who are those
for whom she secretes the food? The gods, corres-
ponding to a calf, live on two of the teats of this
cow, speech. Which are they? The sound # 'Swihti'
and f Vashat/ for through them oblations are offered
53
834
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD < [5. 8. r
to the gods. Men on the sound ‘ Hunt a * : Food is
given to men with the use of the word ‘Hanta’ (if
you want). The Manes on the sound ' Swadhd for
food is offered to the Manes to the utterance of this
word. Her bull, the bull for that cow, speech, is the
vital force, for the Vedas are rendered fruitful by
the vital force, and her calf the mind, for she is
stimulated to secretion by the mind ; because the
Vedas are applied to a subject that has been thought
over by the mind, thereiore the mind stands for the
calf. He who meditates upon this cow, speech, as
such, attains identity with her.
section IX
*T%*ra% ; ?n=qq ^Ttqr rnfe qftdc«ulfafa’iIW
•, sr ^>^fawr?*srf?T 3 ?f site squftfo n \ 11
# *rate sn^ro^ii
1. This fire that is within a man and
digests the food that is eaten, is Vaishwanara.
It emits this sound that one hears by stopping
the ears thus. When a man is about to leave
the body, lie no more hears this sound.
Here is another meditation like the preceding ones.
This jire is Vaishwanara. Which fire? This that is
within a man. Is it the element fire that is one of
the components of the body ? No, it is the one called
Vaishwanara, which digests the food. Which food ?
The food that is eaten by men. That is to say, the
heat in the stomach. For a direct sign of it the text
says: As that fire digests the food, it emits this
sound. What is it? That one hears by stopping the
ears thus , with one's fingers. The word ‘etat* is an
adverb (meaning, thus). One should meditate upon
that fire as Vaishwanara, or Viraj. Here too the
result is identification with it. Incidentally a death
omen is being described : When a man } the expert-
encer in this body, is about to leave the bqdy, he no
more hears this sound .
SECTION X
t e srpjRnrssfa ;
a*3l e enr firfa^f R*n ^sraeRFi &, jfc *t 3?^
stewth -, ^ 3TTf^TOFr^g%, ^ ^
?T*TT fSITTET Ijf, ^ *T 37^ 3?T5KR% ; ^ =tF3[R*TOT-
Tr^f?r, ?rofr ?s rT^r firfe^tgr <?*, ?m ^
37^ 3iT^im ■, h d%F^-
snrs^ft: ^m: h ? ii 5 ?ir st^titi^ \y/^
i. When a man departs from this world,
lie reaches the air, which makes an opening
there for him like the hole of a cliariot-wheel.
He goes upwards through that and reaches the
sun, who makes an opening there for him like
the hole of a tabor. He goes upwards through
that and reaches the moon, who makes an
opening there for him like the hole of a drum.
He goes upwards through that and reaches a
world free from grief and from cold. He lives
there for eternal years.
This section describes the goal and the result of
all meditations. When a man who knows those medi-
tations departs from this world , gives up the body,
he reaches the an, which remains crosswise in the
sky, motionless and impenetrable. The air makes an
opening there, in its own body— separates the parts
of its own body, that is, makes a hole in it — for him.
5. 10. if BR1HADARANY AKA UPANISHAD
837
as he comes. What is the size of that hole ? Like
the hole of a chariot-wheel , which is of a well-known
size. He, the sage, goes upwards (literally, upward-
bound) through that and reaches the sun. The sun
stands blocking the way for the prospective traveller
to the world of Brahman ; he too lets a sage with
this kind of meditation pass. He makes an opening
there for him like the hole of a tabor (Tambara), a
kind of musical instrument. He goes upwards
through that and reaches the moon. She too makes
an opening there for him like the hole oj a drum, the
size of which is well-known. fie goes upwards
through that and reaches a world , that of Iliranya-
garbha. What kind of world? Free from grief, that
is, mental troubles, and from cold, that is, physical
sufferings. Reaching it, he lives there for eternal
years, that is, for many cycles of ours, which con-
stitute the lifetime of Hi rally agarbha.
SECTION XI
qnr ?tit wr |q *rlq>
nqfq q qq ; qq| qwr aq* q nnmqq ;
qrq |q «ftq> qqfa q qq ; qqf qw qqt q
damrcnqsqT^qfq, wi |q ^ srqfq q qq
tq ii l H ?fq qqjTqsri aTfinro n
i. This indeed is excellent austerity that
a man suffers when he is ill. He who knows
as above wins an excellent world. This
indeed is excellent austerity that a man after
death is carried to the forest. He who knows
as above wins an excellent world. This
indeed is excellent austerity that a man after
death is placed in the fire-. He who knows as
above wins an excellent world.
This indeed is excellent austerity. What is it?
That a man suffers when he is ill, attacked with fever
etc. One should think that this is excellent austerity,
for both entail suffering. For a sage who thinks like
that, without either condemning the disease or being
dejected over it, that austerity itself serves to wipe
out his evils. He who knows as above has his evils
burnt by this austerity in the form of meditation,
and wins an excellent world. Similarly a dying man
thinks from the very beginning — what ? — this indeed
is excellent austerity that after death he is carried
5. 11. lj BRIHADARANY AKA VPAN1SHAD 83*
to the forest by the priests for the funeral ceremony.
He thinks that it will be an excellent austerity for
him, because in both there is this journey from the
village to the forest ; for it is well-known that retire-
ment from the village to the forest is excellent aus-
terity. He who knows as above wins an excellent
world . Similarly this indeed is excellent austerity
that a man after death is placed in the fire , because
in both there is this entering into the fire. He who
knows as above wins an excellent world.
SECTION XII
mg:, am, 'ijrfa m sra^
stTOTrr ; srnift g^r^R mw:, asr am, ^rfa #
jpi g ct^r ^ ^nr
qmat m^a: , a^[ SEg srr^: foeroj , f 5 >
fmg, fafr-nwn mn>g ^Hiifa . ^
5 rnfarm, m ster, ^r% a-M 7 ^m ^T 43cm
’Knar a^arfa ; a^ar a fagerra atfa ; mr t
fa, fftrnfa gsrifar 4 jaT^r fasifa , ^firfa ,
smff t mnt gfcnft sett^t vjaifa rurgr -
^rarftr g m srf^tmft fasiffa, ^rffar
tje%, a aa ^ ik 11 *fir 51^ mgrra; 11
1. Some say that food is Brahman. It
is not so, for food rots without the vital force.
Others say that the vital force is Brahman.
It is not so, for the vital force dries up with-
out food. But these two deities being united
attain their highest. So Pratrida said to his
father, ‘What good indeed can I do to one who
knows like this, and what evil indeed can I
do to him either?’ The father, with a
gesture of the hand, said, ‘Oh, no,. Pratrida,
for who would attain his highest by being
identified with them?’ Then he said to him
5. 12. f] BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
841
this: ‘It is “vi.” Food is “vi,” for all
these creatures rest on food. It is “ram.”
The vital force is “ram,” for all these crea-
tures delight if there is the vital force.’ On
him who knows as above all creatures rest,
and in him all creatures delight.
Similarly, in order to enjoin another meditation
the text says : Some teachers say that food — literal-
ly, what is eaten — is Brahman. It is not so — one
must not understand that food is Brahman. Others
say that the vital force is Brahman. It is not so — that
too should not be taken as true. But why is not
food to be understood as Brahman? For food rots or
is decomposed without the vital force ; so how can it
be Brahman ? For Brahman is that which is in-
destructible. Let the vital force then be Brahman.
Not so either, for the vital force dries up without
food. The vital force is the eater ; hence it cannot
live without eatables. Therefore it dries up without
food. Since neither of them can singly be Brahman,
therefore these two deities , food and the vital force,
being united attain their highest, that is, Brahman-
hood.
So, having thus decided it in his mind, one whose
name was Prdtrida said to his father, ' What good
indeed can I do to one who knows like this, knows
Brahman as I have conceived it ? That is, what
worship can I offer him? And what evil indeed can
I do to him cither V That is to say, he has achieved
842
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [A. 12. 1
the goal of his life. The man who knows that food
and the vital force together constitute Brahman, is
not slighted by any offence done to him, nor is he
magnified by honours done to him. When he said
this, his father, stopping him with a gesture of the
hand, said, ' Oh , no, Prcitrida, do not say so, for
who would attain his highest by being identified with
them, that is, food and the vital force ? No aspirant
would attain perfection through this realisation of
Brahman. Therefore you must not say that such a
man has achieved the goal of his life/ Tf this is so,
please tell me how he attains perfection/ Then he
said to him this, the following. What was it? It
is f vi/ What is that? The answer is being given:
Food is f vi, J for all these creatures rest on food 1 , hence
food is called f vi/ Also it is ( ram/ the father said.
What is that? The vital force is ‘ ram / Why? For
all these creatures delight if there is the vital force,
which is the abode of strength. Hence the vital
force is 'ram/ Food (that is, the body) has the
virtue of being the abode of all creatures, and the
vital force that of affording delight to all, for none
who is without a body as his abode is pleased, nor
is anyone, even if he has a body, pleased if he lacks
vitality or strength. When a person has a body and
strength, then only he is pleased, considering himself
exceptionally fortunate, for the Shruti says, Tt should
be a youth, a virtuous youth, and studious/ .etc.
(Tai. II. viii. 1). Now the results attained by one
who knows as above are being stated : On him who
«•
1 ‘Food’ here means the body, which is a modification
of the food we eat.
s. 12. ?] BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
843
knows as above all creatures rest f because of his
knowledge of the virtue of food, and in him all crea-
tures delight, because of his knowledge of the virtue
of the vital force.
SECTION XIII
; nm gr ^«nr, aiwf gsrgcsiT-
<7*rf?T ; ^T^iq^U&kR-dgfrt, sqvreq
sraNiari gprfa, q- q^r n \ n
i. (One should meditate upon the vital
force as) the Uktlia (a hvmn of praise). The
vital force is the Uktlia, for it raises this uni-
verse. From him who knows as above rises
a son who is a knower of the vital force, and
he achieves union with and abode in the same
world as the Uktlia.
The Uktlia — is another meditation. The Uktha
is a hymn of praise. It is the principal feature of
the JNJahavrata sacrifice (Somayaga). What is that
Uktha? The vital force is the Uktha. The vital
force is chief among the organs, as the Uktha is
among hymns of praise. Hence one should meditate
upon the vital force as the Uktha. How is the vital
force the Uktha? This is being explained: For it
raises this universe ; because of this raising it is called
the Uktha. No lifeless man ever rises. The result
of the meditation on it is being stated : From him
70 ho k noivs as abdve rises a son 7 oho is a knower of
the vital force — this is the visible result ; and he
achieves union with and abode in the same uwrld as
the Uktha -< this is the invisible result.
? stw* # *rg:, arrot ifmffr
5. 13. »] BR1HADARANY AKA UPANISHAD
845
; wgsiw, ^j^r:
arcrfa, u %3[ n r ii
2. (One should meditate upon the vital
force as) the Yajus. The vital force is the
Yajus, for all these being's are joined with
one another if there is the vital force. All
beings are joined for the eminence of him who
knows as above, and he achieves union with
and abode in the same world as the Yajus
(vital force).
One should meditate upon the vital force as
the Yajus too. The vital force is the Yajus. 1 How
is the vital force the Yajus? For all (these)
beings are joined with otic another if time is the
vital force. None has the strength to unite with
another unless he has life ; hence the vital force is
called the Yajus —because it joins. The result that
accrues to one who knows as above is being stated :
All beings arc joined for the eminence of him who
knows as above — they tiy to make him their chief.
And he achieves union with and abode in the same
ivorld as the Yajus or the vital force. These words
have already been explained.
; smit # htjt, sm fTinft wfrr ^errfa
5 sr*rf2| sntffor wmw
^7^, *TTsr: sratecTT 5Tsrf?r, ora n*«
3. (One should meditate upon the vital
1 The name of one of the Vedas; but here it is given a
figurative meaning. The same with ‘Saman’ m the next
paragraph.
846
BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [ 5 . 13 . $
force as) the Saman. The vital force is the
vSaman, for all these beings are united if there
is the vital force. For him who knows as
above all beings are united, and they succeed
in bringing about his eminence, and he
achieves union with and abode in the same
world as the Saman.
One should also meditate upon the vital force as
the Sdnian. The vital force is the Saman. How is
the vital force the Saman ? For all beings are united
if there is the vital force. The vital force is called
Saman because of this union — causing them to unite.
For him who knows as above all beings are united
and not only that, they succeed in bringing about
his eminence. The rest is to be explained as before.
N»/ SHOT • Stmt # SHUT, SITnft # SPW,
fn srrtir: srforcrh; si gpwwniftfa,
4. (One should meditate upon the vital
force as) the Kshatra. The vital force is the
Kshatra, for it is indeed the Kshatra. The
vital force protects the body from wounds.
He who knows as above attains this Kshatra
(vital force) that has no other protector, and
achieves union with and abode in the same
world as the Kshatra.
One should meditate upon the vital force as the
Kshatra. The vital force is the Kshatra , for it is
5. 13. 4 ] BR1HADARANY AKA UPAN1SHAD
847
indeed the Kshatra, as is well-known. How ? This
is being explained : Because the vital force protects
the body from wounds , injuries inflicted with
weapons etc., by filling them up with new flesh,
therefore it is well-known as the Kshatra, on account
of this healing of the wounds. The result that ac-
crues to one who knows this is being stated : He
who knows as above attains this Kshatra, or the vital
force, that has net other protector , is not protected by
anything else (atra). Or the word may be ‘Kshatra-
matra,’ as another (the Madhyandina) recension has
it ; in which case the meaning will be, ‘Attains iden-
tity with the Kshatra, or becomes the vital force.’
And achieves union with and abode in the same world
as the Kshatra .
SECTION XIV
gft ftwgra qjHfir . -mr^x 5 sit qq>
ttfM q^, 035 tq^n q?ra ; e qrq^s
s *)%5 cirrs; mfo qrsrqi qq^r qq %q ik 11
1. ‘Bliumi’ (the earth), ‘Antariksha’
(sky) and ‘Dy aus’ (heaven) make eight
syllables, and the first foot of the Gavatri 1
has eight syllables. So the above three
worlds constitute the first foot of the Gavatri.
He who knows the first foot of the Gavatri to
be such wins as much as there is in those
three worlds.
The meditation on Brahman as possessed of
different limiting adjuncts such as the heart has been
stated. Now the meditation on it as possessing the
limiting adjunct of the Gayatri has to be stated ;
hence the present section. Gayatri is the chief of
the metres. It is called Gayatri because, as will be
said later on, it protects the organs of those who
recite it. Other metres have not this power. The
verse Gayatri is identical with the vital force, and
1 Gayatri (or Savitri) is the most sacred verse of the
Vedas. It reads as follows : Tat saviturvarenyam , bhargo
dcvasya dhimahi, dhiyo ■ yo nah prachodaydt — ‘We meditate
on thq adorable glorv of the radiant sun. May he direct our
intellect! (Ri. III. lxii. 10). There is also a metre called
Gayatri which has three feet, of eight syllables each. It will
be seen that the verse Gayatri is in this metre. Shankara
seems to have both these senses in mind.
5. 14. U BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
849
the latter is the soul 1 of all metres. The vital force,
as has been said, is called the Kshatra on account
of its protecting the body by healing its wounds ;
(c'nd Gayatri saves the organs of its reciters. So)
Gayatri is identical with the vital force. Hence the
meditation on Gayatri is being particularly enjoined.
There is another reason. It is the cause of the birth
of the Brahmanas, the noblest among the twice-born.
From the passage, 'He created the Brahmana through
Gayatri, the Kshatriya through Trishfubh, and the
Vaishya through Jagati’ (Va. IV. 3, adapted), we
know that the second birth 2 of the Brahmana is due
to Gayatri. Therefore it is chief among the metres.
The passages, ‘The Brahmanas, renouncing their
desires/ etc. (III. v. 1), ‘The Brahmanas speak of
(that Immutable)/ etc. (III. viii. 8), ‘He is a Brah-
mana’ (III. viii. 10), ‘He becomes sinless, taintless,
free from doubts, and a knower of Brahman’ (IV. iv.
23), show that a Brahmana attains the highest end
of his life ; and that Brahmanahood is due to his
second birth through Gayatri. Hence the nature of
Gayatri should be described. Since the best among
the twice-born (the Brahmana) who is created by
Gayatri is entitled to the achievement of his life’s
ends without any obstruction, therefore this achieve-
ment is due to Gayatri. Hence with a view to enjoin-
ing a meditation on it the text says : ‘Bhumi/ 'Anta-
riksha ’ and ' Dyaus * make eight syllables , and the
first foot of the Gayatri has eight syllables. The
1 Because it helps their utterance. #
2 At the time of his initiation into the student life with
the holy thread etc.
54
$5<y
BRlHADARArfYAKA UPAN1SHAD [ 5 . 14. 1
syllable ‘ya* (in the word ‘Varenya’) should be sepa-
rated to supply the eighth syllable. (The particles
"ha* and ‘vai* indicate some well-known fact.) So
the above three worlds, the earth etc., constitute the
first foot of the Gdyatri, because both have eight
syllables. The result accruing to one who knows
the first foot of the Gayatri consisting of the three
worlds is as follows: He who knows the first foot
of the Gdyatri to be such wins as much as there is
to be won in those three worlds .
©\ 1
tiri? n;a?j ; ^ mqcfter
wft fozrr srofo srtsRtrT \\ \ u
2. ‘Richah,’ ‘Yajumsi’ and ‘Samani’ 1
make eight syllables, and the second foot of
the Gayatri has eight syllables. So the
above three Vedas constitute the second foot
of the Gayatri. He who knows the second
foot of the Gayatri to be such wins as much as
that treasury of knowledge, the three Vedas,
has to confer.
Similarly f Richah/ ‘Yajumsi’ and f Samani/ the
syllables of the names of that treasury of knowledge,
the three Vedas, are also eight in number, and the
second foot of the Gdyatri has likewise eight
syllables. So the above three Vedas, Rich, .Yajus
and Saman, constitute the second foot of the Gdya-
tri, just because both have eight syllables. He who
1 The plural forms of the names of the three Vedas.
5. 14. ^ BR1H AVAR ANY AKA UPANlSBAD SSI
knows the second foot of the Gdyatri to he Such,
consisting of the three Vedas, wins as much as that
treasury of knowledge, the three Vedas, has to con-
fer as result.
srpjrteqRt s?tr scsigTsrgiTTfar 5 5 stt
»TT?m , q^r j|q!*q7 qfttT ; ^ qiqf^f
rnfar qrqg; srefa q>s*qT qqf* q^ ^ •,
3^ ^cr q«[ ’KT^t q qq qqfa , q| =35*1
<r*|€tan. ; # 5 T ^tl ?q ; q^hsETT
saqg iqq r^r sqqqft qqfa ■ qq |q feraT
q^T <rq(q qrsf^T qq^ir qq ir^ 11 ^ 11
3. ‘Prana’ ‘Apana’ and ‘Vyana” make
eight syllables, and the third foot of the
Gayatri has eight syllables. So the above
three forms of the vital force constitute the
third foot of t lie Gayatri. He who knows the
third foot of the Gayatri to be such wins all the
living beings that are in the universe. Now
its Turiya, apparently visible, supramundane
foot is indeed this — the sun that shines.
‘Turiya’ means the fourth. ‘Apparently
visible foot,’ because he is seen, as it were.
‘Supramundane,’ because he shines on the
whole universe as its overlord . He who
knows the fourth foot of the Gayatri to be
such shines in the same way with splendour
and fame. •
1 This word must be split so as to make three syllables.
852
BRIHADARTNYAKA UPANISHAD £ 6 . 14 . 3
Similarly ‘Prana/ ‘ Apana 3 and ‘Vyana/ these
names of the vital force etc., have also eight syllables,
and they constitute the third foot of the Gayatri.
He who knoivs the third foot of the Gayatri to be
such wins all the living beings that are in the uni-
verse. The Gayatri, as consisting of words, has
only three feet. Now its fourth foot, which is the
import of the verse, is being described : Now the
Turiya, apparently visible , supramundane foot of that
Gayatri is indeed this, viz., the sun that shines .
The Shruti itself explains the meaning of the words
in the above passage. The word 4 Turiya ’ means
what is generally known as the fourth. What is
the meaning of the words, ‘Apparently visible foot 3 T
This is being answered : Because he, the being who
is in the solar orb, is seen, as it were ; hence he is
so described. What is the meaning of the word
4 supramundane 3 ? This is being explained : Because
he, this being in the solar orb, shines on the whole
universe as its overlord. The word ‘Rajas’ means
the universe produced out of Rajas, or activity.
The word ‘upari* (literally, above) has been repeated
twice to indicate his suzerainty over the whole uni-
verse. It msfy be urged that since the word ‘whole*
serves that purpose, it is useless to repeat the word
‘upari.* The answer to this is that it is all right,
because the word ‘whole’ may be taken to refer only
to those worlds above which the sun is observed to
shine, and the repetition of the word ‘upari’ removes
this possibility. As another Shruti says, ‘He rules
the worlcis that are beyond the sun and commands
the enjoyments of the gods as well* (Chh. I. vi. 8).
5 . 14 . 4$ BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 863
Therefore the repetition serves to include all. As
the sun shines with splendour, in the form of suzer-
ainty and fame, so he who knows the fourth , appar-
ently visible foot of the Gayatri to be such shines
with splendour and fame.
. qrq'sqqfofcgfft 5^^ q^ qsckafa •
srfgfferTT ; at nfaf^aq; , qyq ,
t ; tt faq^maT^qTarn,
sr^JR^qfqfa, q qq
awr qq sr^sqm , at ac^aq q& afaf^saq ; am*
q q?w , acsnnt qfafrsaq 5 aqirqif qar garr-
^tiftq f fa 5 qa #qT mq'sqvqTcJi qfaf^ar ; *tt Irt
qqi^aq; qmn # qqi:, acqnm^ara; a^qi^q
a^JTT^rq’ft am ; *et qi&qiw ^Tfq^tqyqTf, qqq
jett • q^RT 3T?qr§ q*q muri^riqH ii y ti
4. That Gayatri rests on this fourth,
apparently visible, supramundane foot. That
again rests on truth. The eye is truth, for
the eye is indeed truth. Therefore if even
to-day two persons come disputing, one say-
ing, ‘I saw it,’ and another, ‘I heard of it,’
we believe him only who says, ‘I saw it.’
That truth rests on strength. The vital
force is strength. (Hence) truth rests on the
vital force. Therefore they say strength is
more powerful than truth. Thus the. Gayatri
rests on the vital force within the body.
SSI BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [<6. 14. 4
That Gayatri saved the Gavas. The organs
are the Gavas ; so it saved the organs. Now,
because it saved the organs, therefore it is
called the Gayatri. The Savitri that the
teacher communicates to the pupil is no other
than this. It Saves the organs of him to
whom it is communicated.
That Gayatri with three feet which has been
described, which comprises the three worlds, the
three Vedas and the vital force, rests on this fourth ,
apparently visible, supramundane foot, because the
sun is the essence of the gross and subtle universe.
Things deprived of their essence become lifeless and
unstable, as wood and so forth are when their pith
is burnt. So the three-footed Gayatri, consisting of
the gross and subtle universe, rests with its three
feet on the sun. 7' hat fourth foot (the sun) again
rests on truth. What is that truth? The eye is
truth. How? For the eye is indeed truth— it is a
well-known fact. How? Therefore if even to-day
two persons come disputing, giving contradictory
accounts, one saying, 7 saw it/ and another, 7
heard of it —the thing is not as you saw it,’ of the
two we believe him only who says, 7 saw it/ and
not him who says, 7 heard of it.’ What a man
hears of may sometimes be false, but not what he
sees with his own eyes. So we do not believe the
man who says, 7 heard of it.’ Therefore the eye,
being the means of the demonstration of truth, is
truth. That is to say, the fourth foot of the Gayatri
with the other three feet rests on the eye. It has
5. 14. |] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAP
855
also been stated : ‘On what does that sun rest? — On
the eye’ (III. ix. 20).
That truth which is the support of the fourth
foot of the Gayatri rests on strength . What is that
strength? The vital force is strength . Truth rests
on that strength or the vital force. So it has been
stated that everything is pervaded by the Sutra (III.
vii. 2). Since truth rests on strength, therefore
they say strength is more powerful than truth. It
is also a well-known fact that a thing which sup-
ports another is more powerful than the latter. We
never see anything weak being the support of a
stronger thing. Thus, in the above-mentioned way,
the Gayatri rests on the vital force within the body.
That Gayatri is the vital force ; hence the universe
rests on the Gayatri. The Gayatri is that vital force
in which all the gods, all the Vedas, and rites
together with their results are unified. So, as the
vital force, it is the self, as it were, of the universe.
That Gayatri saved the Gayas. What are they?
The organs such as that of speech are the Gayas,
for they produce sound. 1 So it saved the organs.
Because it saved the organs (of the priests using
them), therefore it is called the Gayatri ; owing to
this saving of the organs it came to be known as the
Gayatri. The Sdvitri or hymn to the sun that the
teacher communicates — hist a quarter of it, then
half, and finally the whole — to the pupil, after in-
vesting him with the holy thread at the age of eight,
is no other than this Gayatri, which is identical with
1 This is primarily true of the vocal organ, b.t the
whole group is named after it.
856
BR1HA DARANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 6 . 14 . 4
the vital force, and is the self, as it were, of the uni-
verse. What the child receives from him is now ex-
plained here. It saves the organs of him, the child,
to whom it is communicated, from falling into hell
and other dire fates.
% % ; *r ?tot , nprelfo ^rfinri-
afa II u
5. Some communicate (to the pupil) the
Savitri that is Anush/uv (savin”), ‘Speech is
Anushtuv; we shall impart that to him.’
One should not do like that. One should
communicate that Savitri which is the Gayatri.
Even if a man who knows as above accepts
too much as gift, as it were, it is not (enough)
for even one foot of the Gayatri.
Some, the followers of certain recensions of the
Vedas, communicate to the initiated pupil the Sdvi -
tri that is produced from, or composed in, the metre
called Anushtuv. Their intention is being stated :
They say, ‘ Speech is Anushtuv , and it is also Sara-
swati in the body. We shall imparl that speech
— Saraswati — to the boy/ One should not do, or
know, like that. What they say is totally wrong.
What then should one do? One should communi-
cate that Savitri which is the Gayatri. Why ?
Because ifc. has already been said that the Gayatri is
the vital force. If the child is taught about the
■5. 14. fr] BRIHA DA RAN YAK A UPANISHAD
85 1
vitai force, he will be automatically taught about
speech, and Saraswati, and the other organs as well.
Having stated this incidentally, the text goes on to
praise the knower of the Gayatri: Even if a man who
knows as above accepts too much as gift , as it wcic
— really there is no such thing as too much for him,
for he is identified with the universe — it, the whole
amount of gift received, is not enough for even one
foot of the Gayatri.
qrlrSTVW qspTTJ|?n^ ; sm qTq?ftq Wt fqtJT
qTqf^f UTfar
qi » j jic gq ^ ■ 'irai»=TF orRq grter q<r qOk'in
q qq qq%, qq %qqqicqw ; fa 3 qqiqcsrfq-
*jf miq » i ii
6. He who accepts these three worlds
replete (with wealth), will be receiving (the
results of knowing) only the first foot of the
Gayatri. He who accepts as much as this
treasury of knowledge, the Vedas, (has to
confer), will receive (the results of knowing)
only its second foot. And he who accepts as
much as (is covered by) all living beings,
will receive (the results of knowing) only its
third foot. While its fourth, apparently
visible, supramundane foot — the ,sun that
shines is not to be counterbalanced by any
858
BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD fc5. 14. 8
gift received. Indeed how could anyone
accept so much as gift ?
He, that knower of the Gayatri, who accepts
these three worlds, the earth etc., replete with
wealth such as cattle and horses, will he receiving
only the first foot of the Gayatri, which has been
explained. That acceptance will counterbalance
the results of knowing- only its first foot, but will
not produce any additional sin. JIc who accepts as
much as this treasury of knowledge , the Vedas, (has
to confer), will receive only its second foot. It will
set off the results of knowing only its second foot.
vSimilarly he who accepts as much as (is covered by)
all living beings, i vill receive only its third foot. It
will match the results of knowing only its third
foot. All this is said merely as a supposition.
Should anyone accept gifts equivalent even to all the
three feet, it will wipe out the results of knowing
only those three feet, but cannot lead to a new fault.
Of course there is no such donor or recipient ; it is
imagined only to extol the knowledge of the Gaya-
tri. Supposing such a donor and recipient were
available, this acceptance of gifts would not be con-
sidered a fault. Why ? Because there would still
be left the knowledge of the fourth foot of the Gaya-
tri, which is among the highest achievements of a
man. This is pointed out by the text : While its
fourth, apparently visible, supramundane foot — the
sun that shines — is not to be counterbalanced by any
gift received, as the other three feet mentioned
above are. Even these three are not to be thus
5. 14. 7J BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
859
counterbalanced. All this has been said as a mere
hypothetical proposition. Indeed how could anyone
accept so much as gift — equivalent to the three
worlds, and so on ? Hence the Gayatri should be
meditated upon in this (entire) form.
^ i ^sicipi
q^pr m srcqfgfa ; ^ ‘
ST^PP*! JTT 5TT—TT
n^ngqfgr^H —3^13: smfafa
ii <9 ii
7. Its salutation : ‘O Gayatri, thou
art one-footed, two-footed, three-footed and
four-footed, and thou art without any feet,
for thou art unattainable. Salutation to thee,
the fourth, apparently visible, supramundane
foot ! Mav the enemy never attain his
object ! ’ (Should the knower of the Gayatri)
bear hatred towards anybody, (he should)
either (use this Mantra) : ‘Such and such —
may his desired object never flourish ! ’ — in
which case that object of the person against
whom he thus salutes the Gayatri, never
flourishes — or (he may say), ‘May I attain
that (cherished object) of his ! ’
Its salutation, the salutation of the Gayatri —
literally, the word ‘Upasthana’ means goiqg near and
staying, or saluting — with the following sacred for-
$60
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISIIAD [£. 14 . 7
mula : ‘O Gdyatri, thou art one-footed , with the three
worlds as thy first foot, two-footed , with the three
Vedas as thy second foot, three-footed, with the
three forms of the vital force as thy third foot, and
four-footed, with the snn as thy fourth foot. Thus
thou art attained or known by the meditating aspi-
rants. Beyond that'thou art without any feet, in thy
own supreme, unconditioned form. Thou hast no
foot (Pada), that is, means of attainment, for thou art
unattainable, being the Self described as ‘Not this,
not this.’ Hence salutation to thee , the fourth,
apparently visible, supramundane foot — in thy rela-
tive aspect ! May the enemy , the evil that stands
in the way of my realisation of thee, never attain his
object, of obstructing this realisation ! The word
‘iti’ marks the close of the .sacred formula. Should
the knower of the Gayatri himself bear hatred
towards anybody, he should either use the following
sacred formula against him in his salutation to the
Gayatri : ‘ Such and such— naming him — may In's,
Devadatta’s, desired object never flourish V — in which
case that object of the person, Devadatta, against
whom he thus salutes the Gayatri, never flourishes.
Or he may salute the Gayatri saying, f May I attain
that cherished object of Devadatta/ Of the three
Mantras given above — ‘May the enemy never attain,*
etc. — anyone may be used at option according to the
intention of the aspirant.
?iWr: sfara-, aFrr
5. 14. &] BR1HADARANYAKA VPANISHAD
861
^ ^ gr arftrafi^TsrrawiT^af?!,
; q?r tshrfa?r?ifa siffsr qro
yyil'T Qg: ^55»Tts^T: || <£ ||
^3^1 sngTJii^ a
8 . O11 this Janaka, Emperor of Videha,
is said to have told Budila, the son of
Ashwatarashwa, ‘Well, you gave yourself
out as a knower of the Gayatri ; then why,
alas, are you carrying (me) as an elephant ?’
He replied, ‘Because I did not know its mouth,
O Bmperor. ’ ‘Fire is its mouth. Even if
they put a large quantity of fuel into the lire,
it is all burnt up. Similarly, even if one who
knows as above commits a great many sins,
he consumes them all and becomes pure,
cleansed, undecaying and immortal. ’
• In order to enjoin the mouth of the Gayatri a
eulogistic story is being narrated in this paragraph.
(The particles 'ha’ and 'vai* refer to a past incident.)
On this subject of the knowledge of the Gayatri,
Janaka, Emperor of Videha, is said to have told
Budila, the son of Ashwatarashwa, ' Well, you gave
yourself out as a knower of the Gayatri — said you
were one— then why are you acting contrary to that
statement ? If you really were a knower of the
Gayatri, then why, alas, as a result of your sin in
accepting gifts, are you carrying (me) as an ele-
phant ?' (The adverb ‘nu’ indicates deliberation.)
Thus reminded by the Emperor, he replied, 'Because
$62 BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD f5. 14. 8
I did not know its mouth, O Emperor . My knowl-
edge of the Gayatri, being deficient in one part, has
been fruitless . 9 (The Emperor said), ‘Listen then,
fire is its mouth . Even if they , common people, put
a large quantity of fuel into the fire, it, that fuel, is
all burnt up. Similarly , even if one who knows as
above, that fire is the mouth of the Gayatri — who
himself is identified with the Gayatri and has fire as
his mouth — commits a great many sins such as those
due to the acceptance of gifts etc., he consumes all
those sins and becomes pure like the fire, cleansed
of those sins due to the acceptance of gifts etc.,
undccaying and immortal/ because he is identified
with the Gayatri.
SECTION XV
qrtw ^oq^rrltrfef 5*33^ 1
Hrj; c3 ^?33Tf 3 *Tc3SIHT3 |
?m fft snsnqwi ©»jf ttrh i
gra: ; 3# ^TOJf testSt i
TTS'WTWt 'p'T: ^TSfwfor I
^TfiTvraJ^ir^ STEOTWT |
^P SKcft ^£R $rf WE, ERcit fjfr WRT |
333 syrer '^rnw ,
fspsufa |
3 j^rsr 3 ?( 3 ej^ fa^ir 11 \ 11
«t^t argjnrn n q^ffsam: 11
■ 1. Tile face (nature) of Satva (Brahman)
is hidden (as it. were) until a golden vessel.
O Pushan (nourisher of the world — the sun),
remove it, so that I, whose reality is Satya,
may see (the face). O Pushan, O solitary
Rishi (seer or traveller), O Yama (controller),
O Surya (sun), O son of Prajapati (God or
Hiranyagarblia), take away thy rays, curb
thv brightness. 1 wish to behold that most
benignant form of thine. I myself am that
person; and I am immortal. (When my
body falls) may my vital force return to the
864 BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD {5. 15. r
air (cosmic force), and this body too, reduced
to ashes, (go to the earth) ! O Fire, who art
the syllable ‘Om/ O Deity of deliberations,
recollect, recollect all that I have done, O
Deity of deliberations, recollect, recollect all
that I have done. O Fire, lead us along the
good way towards our riches (deserts). O
Lord, thou knowest everybody’s mental
states ; remove the wily evil from us. We
utter repeated salutations to thee.
The man who has combined meditation with
rites is praying to the sun in his dying moments.
This is topical too, for the sun is the fourth foot of
the Gayatri, and the salutation to him is under con-
sideration ; hence lie is being prayed to. The face,.
or real nature, of Satya, or the vSatya-Brahman, is
hidden, as it were, with a golden or shining vessel,
the solar orb, as something held dear is kept hidden
with a vessel. ‘Hidden,’ because no one whose
mind is not concentrated can see it. O Pushan — the
sun is so called because he nourishes the world —
remove it, that vessel serving as a cover, as it were,
because of its obstructing vision, that is, remove the
cause of obstruction to the vision, so that I, whose
reality is Satya (Satya-Brahman), in other words, who
am identical with thee, may see (the face). The names
Pushan etc. are for addressing the sun. O solitary
Rishi, or seer, because of his vision, for he is the
soul of the universe and as the eye sees everything.
Or the word may mean ‘O solitary traveller/ for the
Shruti says, ‘The sun roams alone’ (Tai. S. VII. iv
5 . 15 . U KRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAU 865
18. 1). () Yania (controllei ) , for the control of the
whole world is due to thee. 0 Surya, literally, one
who efficiently directs the liquids, or his rays, or the
vital force or intellect of all beings. O & on of Prajd*
Pali or God, who is the Lord of all beings, or of
Hiranyagarbha. Take away ihy rays , curb thy
bright n css r so that I may see thee ; for I cannot see
thee as thou art, being blinded by thy dazzling light,.'
as one cannot see tilings when it lightens. Hence
withdraw thy radiance. 7 7 visit to behold that most
benignant faun of thine. ‘I wish* should be changed
into 'we wish/ 7 myself am that person whose
limbs are the syllables of the Vyfihritis, 'Bhur’
(earth), 'Bhuvar’ (sky) and 'Swar’ (heaven), called
'person’ (Purusha) because of his having the form of
a man. ‘Ahar’ (day) and 'Aham’ (I) have been
mentioned (V. v. 3, 4) as the secret names of the
being in the sun and the being in the eye respective-
ly (who are identical). That is referred to here.
Aitd I am immortal. The word 'immortal’ should
be thus construed. When my body falls— while I
am immortal and identified with the vSatya-Brahman
may my vital force in the body return to the
external air (cosmic force). Similarly, may the
other deities return to their respective sources. And
this body too, being reduced to ashes, go to the
earth !
Now he is praying to the deity Fire, who is
identified with his deliberations and presides over the
mind : O Fire, who art the syllable f Om * — the words
f Om ’ and TCrato’ are both used here as vocatives —
for 'Onf is his symbol, O Deity of deliberations.
55
886
BRIHA IM R A NY AKA UPANISHAD <[5. 15. 1
being identified with the mind, recollect what is to
be recollected, for a desirable goal is attained through
thy recollection at the time of death ; hence I pray
to thee : Recollect all that 1 have done. The
repetition is expressive of earnestness. Also, O
Fire, lead us along the good way towards our riches ,
that is, for receiving the fruits of our work ; not
along the southern, dark way that leads to return,
but along the good, bright way. O Lord, thou
knowest everybody's mental slates. Remove all the
wily evil from us. Freed from it through thy grace,
we shall go along the northern way. But we are
unable to serve thee ; 7vc only utter repeated saluta-
tions to thee. That is to say, we shall serve thee
through the utterance of salutations, for we are too
weak to do anything else.
CHAPTER VI
SECTION I
| . ^ t 5^0 55f STO g ^7 5^3ST ST^BT
5?n?rt • 3Twr t T^gaj
£*3$g ^trt vT^rf^T, sifq g ^it ^35%, ** *&
^ ll III
i. Om. He who knows that which is
the oldest and greatest, becomes the oldest
and greatest among his relatives. The vital
force is indeed the oldest and greater*. He
who knows it to be such becomes the oldest
and greatest among his relatives as well as
among those of whom he wants to be such.
It has been stated that Gayatri is the vital force.
But why is Gayatri the vital force, and not the organs
such as that of speech ? Because the vital force is
the oldest and greatest, which the organs are not.
How is it the oldest and greatest ? The present
section is introduced to settle this point. Or, medi-
tation on the vital force alone as the ‘Uktha/
‘Yajus,’ ‘S^man,’ ‘Kshatra/ etc., has been described,
although there are other things such as the eye.
The present section gives only the reason, which is
its connection with the preceding chapter, on account »
of its immediate sequence. But this section is not
a part of that chapter. These two chapters being
868 BRIHAITARANYAKA UPANISHAD « [6. 1. t
of the nature of a supplement, such meditations on
the vital force, with specific results of their own, as
have not been mentioned before, have to be de-
scribed ; this is what the Shruti intends to do.
He who knows that which is the oldest and
greatest , that is, has the attributes of priority in age
and greatness — what it is will be presently mentioned
— surely becomes the oldest and greatest among his
relatives. (The particles ‘ha’ and ‘vai’ are emphatic.)
The pupil, tempted by this mention of the result,
is eager to put his question, when the teacher says
to him : The vital force is indeed the oldest and
greatest. But how is one to know that it is such,
since at conception all the organs (of the embryo)
are equally connected with the formative elements
contributed by the parents ? The answer is that
nevertheless the seed, if lifeless, will not develop ;
which means that the vital force begins to function
earlier than the eye and other organs ; hence it is
the oldest in age. Besides, the vital force goes on
fostering the embryo from the moment of concep-
tion, and it is only after it (the vital force) has begun
to function that the eye and other organs begin their
work. Hence the vital force is legitimately the
oldest of the organs. But one may be the oldest
member in a family without being the greatest, be-
cause of his lack of good qualities ; and the second,
or the youngest member may be the greatest by
reason of his superior qualities, but not the oldest.
Not so, however, with the vital force. It is indeed
the oldest and greatest. How is it known to be the
greatest ? It will be shown through the ensuing
6 . 1 . 2 ] # BRJHADARANYAKA VPANISHAD 869
conversation. In any case, he who knows, or medi-
tates upon, the vital force as the oldest and greatest,
becomes the oldest and greatest among his relatives,
by virtue of meditation on a thing that is oldest and
greatest, as well as among those other than his rela-
tives, of whom he wants to be the oldest and greatest.
The man who meditates upon the vital force as the
oldest and greatest attains this result. It may be
questioned how a person can be the oldest at will,
since it depends on age. But the answer is that
there is nothing wrong in it, since ‘being the oldest’
here means functioning (before the rest) as the vital
force does.
id % t sffaET srfas:
** ii ^ n
2. He who knows the Vasish/ha (that
which best helps to dwell or cover) becomes
the Vasish/ha among: his relatives. The
organ of speech is indeed the Vasish/ha. He
who knows it as such becomes the Vasish/ha
among his relatives as well as among those
of whom he wants to be such.
He who knows the Vasishtha becomes the
Vasishtha among his relatives. The resfflt is accord-
ing to the meditation. He also becomes the
Vasish/ha among those other than his relatives, of
whom he wants to be the Vasish/ha. ‘Then please
tell me what this Vasish/ha is.’ The organ^ of speech
is indeed the Vasishtha. The derivative meaning of
870
BR1HA DARA NY A KA U VANISH AD
[ 6 . 1 . 2
the word is ‘that which helps one to dwell, or covers
one splendidly/ For people who have the gift of
speech become rich and live in splendour ; or the
word may be derived from the root ‘vas/ meaning,
to cover, for speakers overcome others through their
eloquence. Hence by realising the organ of speech
as the Vasishflia one becomes such. The result is in
accordance with the realisation.
^ sr sfagr sfafagfa
f 5 ate, ^ ^ fif ^ sfa-
fasfer ? sfefasfa set ^ ii^ir
3. He who knows Pratish/ha (that which
has steadiness) lives steadily in difficult as
well as smooth places and times. The eye
indeed is Pratishtha, for through the eye one
lives steadily in difficult as well as smooth
places and times. He who knows it as such
lives steadily in difficult as well as smooch
places and times.
He w ho knows Pratishtha, that which has the
attribute of steadiness — literally, that by means of
which one lives steadily — has this result : He lives
steadily in smooth places and times, as also in
difficult or inaccessible places and difficult times
such as those of famine. Tf it is so, please fell me
what that Pratish/ha is/ The eye indeed is Pratishtha .
How? For by seeing them through the eye one lives
steadily in difficult as well as smooth places and
times. Hence the results are quite appropriate : He
6 . 1 . 5 ]
brihadaranyaka vpanishad
871
who knows it as such lives steadily in difficult as
well as smooth places and times .
^ S t sfqq craft q' qnri qnqqlt ,
ate q siq^, srte gq %qT 5 sr
qg% q qqtf qnqq^ q qq || « ||
4. He who knows Sampad (prosperity)
attains whatever object lie desires. The ear
indeed is Sampad, for all these Vedas are
acquired when one has the ear (intact). He
who knows it to be such attains whatever
object he desires.
He 7vho knows Sampad, that which has the
attribute of prosperity, gets this result : He attains
whatever object he desires. But what is it that has
got this attribute? The car indeed is Sampad .
How is the ear endowed with this attribute? For
all \ r cdas arc acquired when one has the ear , be-
cause only one who has the organ of hearing can
study them, and objects of desire depend on the per-
formance of rites that are enjoined by the Vedas.
Therefore the ear is possessed of prosperity. Hence
the result is in accordance with the meditation : He
who knows it to be such attains whatever object he
desires.
qt 5 qT suqqq %^tqqq ^TRT wqfa, siiqqq
qr snqqq^-, sqqqq ^TTqt flqfo,
anqfte a*nqi, q qq 11 h 11
5. He who knows the abode becomes the
abode of his relatives as well as of (other)
872 BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [6. 1. 5
people. The Manas indeed is the abode.
He who knows it to be such becomes the abode
of his relatives as well as of (other) people.
He 7 who knows the abode becomes the abode of
his relatives as zvell as of other people. What is that
abode? The Manas indeed is the abode of the
organs and objects. The latter become 'objects of
enjoyment for the self only when they get an abode
in the Manas ; and the organs start and stop their
work in accordance with the deliberations of the
Manas. Hence it is the abode of the organs. There-
fore the results are according to the meditation :
He 7vho knows it to be such becomes the abode of
his relatives as well as of (other) people.
# sraifa: ; qsrfaq qq iiiii
6. He who knows Prajati (that which
has the attribute of generation) is enriched
with children and animals. The seed (organ)
has this attribute. He who knows it to be
such is enriched with children and animals.
He who knozvs Prajati is enriched with children
and animals. The seed has this attribute ; the word
‘seed’ refers to the organ of generation. The result
is in keeping with the meditation : He who knows
it- to be such is enriched 7 vith children and animals.
^ STTOTT fqsr^JTraT 5Ȥl 3Pg:,
qrf sfl erfsra 5 ssfcrra, StseftT
^ jreft qtql^ sr sfr erfsra tl $ n
L *} BRIHA DA RA NY A KA VPANISHAD 873
7* These organs, disputing over their
respective greatness, went to Brahman and
said to him, ‘Which of us is the Vasisli/ha?’
He said, ‘That one of you will be the
Vasish/ha, who departing from among your-
selves, people consider this body far more
wretched . 1
These organs, that of speech and the rest, dis-
puting ov cr -literally, giving contradictory accounts
of — (heir respective greatness, eacli claiming that it
was the greatest, went to Brahman, or Prajapati
denoted by the word ‘Brahman, * and said to him,
‘ Which of us is the Wisishtha — (best) lives ami over-
comes others?’ Ifc , Brahman, b*ing asked by them,
said, ‘That one of yon will be Hie Vasishtha, who
departing from the body from among yourselves ,
people consider this body far more wretched than
before’-— for the body, being an aggregate of many
impure things, is wretched even while a person is
alive ; it will be more so then. This is said for
creating a feeling of disgust in us. Prajapati,
although he knew it, did not say, ‘This is the
Vasish/ha,’ to avoid offending the rest.
: sn sfacsr s fr a m reft s r ra , wro-
WfZt jfTfrgfafa ; H $%:, iWWwS T
sn^TT. StHN,
H«TOT, SRTPOTI^n ;
srfgtsi f ^ IK H
874 BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD , [6. 1. 8
8. The organ of speech went out. After
staying a whole year out it came back and
said, ‘How did you manage to live without
me?’ They said, 4 We lived just as dumb
people do, without speaking through the
organ of speech, but living through the vital
force, seeing through the eye, hearing 'through
the ear, knowing through the mind and
having children through the organ of genera-
tion.’ So the organ of speech entered.
Being thus addressed by Brahman, the organs
went out one by one to try their power. Of them
the organ of speech went out of the body iirst. Then
after staying a whole year out it came hack and
said, 'How did you manage to live without me V
Thus addressed, they said, ‘We lived just as in the
world dumb people do, without speaking through the
organ of speech, but living, doing the vital function,
through the vital force, seeing, doing the function
of vision, through the eye, similarly, hearing through
the car, knowing, considering what should or should
not be done, and so on, through the mind and having
children through the organ of generation / Being
thus answered by the organs, the organ of speech ,
realising that it was not the Vasish/ha in the body,
entered.
srrnpri: snot*, «rrarr, sjosrsri:
6 . 1 . 11 ] BRMADARANYAKA VPANISHAD 875
sfttnr, firsteft jrht, usiFmTsn ^rraT, t^nraft-
; sif^n ? || * ||
9- The eye went out. After staying a
whole year out it came back and said, ‘How
did you manage to live without me?’ They
said, ‘We lived just as blind people do, with-
out seeing through the eye, but living through
the vital force, speaking through the organ
of speech, hearing through the ear, knowing
through the mind and having children
through the organ of generation.’ So the
eye entered.
srbf friram • sksijt-
n^r: sjrann, sn^tsf, error,
S^rr, fegrrof srerra?TRT tcTOT, trorrot-
; \o ii
io. The ear went out. After staying a
whole year out it came back and said, ‘How
did you manage to live without me?’ They
said, ‘We lived just as deaf people do, without
hearing through die ear, but living through
the vital force, speaking through the organ of
speech, seeing through the eye, knowing
through the mind and having children through
the organ of generation.’ So the ear entered.
Usft fteSFTfT •, rF#=Tc?K sffc J 4T*Tc*ftero, WISH-
STOkT JTfft aftfegfofa ; ^ ftlb ^Tg*vjf
876 BRIHADARANYAKA VPAN1SHAD [6, 1. 11
JTSTCTT, STTUTFcr: STT^tfr, gTOT,
sr^tor, ^cWT, .
Slf^i ? JW II u II
11. The mind went out. After staying
a whole year out it came back and said,
'How did you manage to live without me?’
They said, ‘We lived just as idiots do, without
knowing through the mind, but living through
the vital force, speaking through the organ
of speech, seeing through the eye, hearing
through the ear and having children through
the organ of generation.’ So the mind
entered .
*xlt ; rfr^'qrfR wsm-
siskcT irpr sftfogfirfa ; % irpf:, spett igtaT stskhto-
ITT*TT frTRT, aWTI: muffT, qTOT, q^lfrl^-
sirinr, firgri^ jttot, qsTO3rtfin$fa .
srf^I ? fcn || ||
12. The organ of generation went out.
After staying a whole year out it came back
and said, ‘How did you manage to live with-
out me?’ They said, ‘We lived just as eu-
nuchs do, without having children through
the organ of generation, but living through
the vital force, speaking through the organ
of speech, seeing through the eye, hearing
through the ear and knowing through the
mind.’ So the organ of generation entered.
6. 1. 13 J BR I HA BAR A NY AKA UFA NISH AD
877
Likewise the eye went out, etc. All this 4S to
be explained as before. The ear f the mind, the
organ of generation .
am f stm ^cSFjftimsmT
; ^ ^=f:,
jtt sfre 3c?rm:, * # ;
5^ ft l| ^ II
13. Then as the vital force was about to
go out, it uprooted those organs just as a
great, tine horse from Sind pulls out the pegs
to which his feet are tied. They said, ‘Please
do not go out, sir, we cannot live without
you.’ ‘Then give me tribute.’ ‘All right.’
Then as the vital force was about to go out, the
vocal and other organs were immediately dislodged
from their places. This is being illustrated by an
example: It uprooted, those organs from their
places, just as in life a great, large-sized, fine, noble-
featured, horse from Sind, the place of his origin,
simultaneously pulls out the pegs to which his feet
arc lied, when the rider mounts on him to test him.
They, the organ of speech etc., said, ' Please do not
go out, sir, for we cannot live without you.’ (The
vital force said : ) ‘If y r u have thus understood my
eminence, then, as I am the chief here, give me trib-
ute-’ This conversation among the organs is an
imaginary one devised to teach how a wise man
should test the greatness of his peers. It is thus
that a wise man finds out who is the greatest among
them. That mode of testing is presented in the
878
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [6. 1. US
form of a conversation ; for otherwise it is absurd
to think that each one of the organs, which work
together, can actually go out by turns for the space
of a year, and so on. Therefore, only the wise man
who wants to know, for purposes of meditation,
which is the greatest of the organs, reasons in this
way. The organs, when demanded tribute, agreed
saying, ‘All right /
^ sntfsrrar, srgi srfagTfa ca agfa^-
; agr 3^ srfagTfR ca ,
^gT 3^ cfaqfa c«I 5!rNRJ_ ; *}gT 3^-
WRcRJlfR c# ?IgFIcRTT^ftf?I JR: ; *JgT 3^ 03JT%-
c3T t?T: ; AT fi RTT R , fej
arer ; fij^T wrwr 3 tt stt ?rfrr<R-
f**R5r?TS5n^, 3TRT 3TO ?f?T ; «T 5 5TT STF^TR^'
^frt,
slssfa: sftfaqr yfrn^R srrarofR, ^fs'icarar-
JjfR 5 clgJWSW S^fcit JRRT II || ffa
srjt 11
14. The organ of speech said, ‘That
attribute of the Vasishtha which 1 have is
yours.’ The eye : ‘That attribute of steadi-
ness which I have is yours.’ The ear:
‘That attribute of prosperity which I have is
yours.’ The mind : ‘That attribute of
abode which I have is yours.’ The organ of
generation : ‘That attribute of generation
which I have is yours.’ (The vital force
1 . *41 BR1HADARAKYAKA upanishad
879
said :) ‘Then what will be my food and my
dress?’ (The organs said:) ‘Whatever is
(known as) food, including dogs, worms,
insects and moths, is your food, and water
your dress.’ He who knows the food of the
vital force to be such, never happens to eat
anything that is not food, or to accept any-
thing* that is not food. Therefore wise men
who are versed in the Vedas sip a little water
just before and after eating. They regard it
as removing the nakedness of the vital force.
The organ of speech came forward first to offer
the tribute and said , " That attribute of the \ asishiha
'which T have is yours. With that you are the
Vasish/ha.' The eye : ' That attribute of steadiness
which I have is yours . You are that steadiness.'
The rest is similar. The other organs gave one by
one their attributes of prosperity , abode and genera-
tion. (The vital force said:) ‘If it is so, you have
handsomely paid me tribute. Now tell me, endowed
with such attributes that I am, what will be my food
and my dress V The others said, f Whatever is
known in the world as food , including dogs , worms,
insects and moths — whatever is food for dogs etc.,
and with that every food that is eaten by other crea-
tures i s all your food/ We are here enjoined to look
upon everything as the food of the vital force.
Some say that he who knows the food of the vital
force can eat anything with impunity. This is
wrong, for it has been forbidden by other scriptures.
880
BRJHADAR A N Y A KA UPAN1SHAD \G. 1. 14
Objection : May this not be an alternative to
them ?*
Reply : No, for this is not an injunction in
favour of promiscuous eating. The passage, Tie
never happens to eat anything that is not food/ is
merely a eulogy on the meditation enjoined about
regarding everything as the food of the vital force,
for it should be treated as a part of that injunction.
It has no power to contradict what has been en-
joined by other scriptures, for it has quite a different
meaning (viz., to extol the above meditation). What
is sought to be enjoined here is the idea that every-
thing is the food of the vital force, not that one
should eat everything. Your assumption that the
eating of everything is allowable is totally false, for
there is no authority to support it.
Objection : The man who knows about the
food of the vital force is identified with the latter,
and as such everything can be regarded as his food ;
hence the eating of everything is surely allowable in
his case.
Reply : No, for anything and everything can-
not be one’s food. It is true that this sage is identi-
fied with the vital force, but he possesses a body
through which he has attained his knowledge, and
the eating of every kind of food such as those of
worms, insects and gods is incongruous with it.
(Nobody can possibly want to eat anything and
everything.) Hence it is meaningless to declare in
1 .Meaning that ordinary people must abide by that
restriction, but he who knows the food of the vital force
may eat anything.
6. 1. 14} BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
881
that connection that the eating of all sorts of food
is free from blame, for the blame in question would
never arise.
Objection : But as identified with the vital
force, he does eat the food of even worms, insects,
etc.
Reply ? True, but there is no scriptural pro-
hibition regarding it. So it would be quite in order,
like the Palasha flower, which is naturally red.
Hence it would be meaningless to say that he is
allowed to eat everything as the vital force, for the
eating of everything would not in that case amount
to a blame. But the prohibition is with regard to
the sage in relation to a particular body, md no
exception has been made in his, favour. Therefore
he will certainly incur blame if he transgresses that
prohibition, for the passage, Tie never happens to
eat anything that is not food/ has a different
meaning.
* Moreover the meditation on everything as the
food of the vital force is being enjoined here not for
the vital force as associated with the body of a Brah-
mana etc., but for the vital force in general. Just
as, although everything may be food for the vital
force in a general way, some kind of food helps to
sustain the life of certain creatures, as poison does
for the worm born in it, but it would do palpable
harm in the form of death etc. to others in spite of
its being the food of the vital force, similarly, al-
though everything is food for the vital force, yet,
if it eats forbidden food while associated \vith the
body of a Brahmana etc., it will certainly incur
56
882
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANJSHAD E»6. 1 . 14
blame. Therefore it is entirely misleading to think
that the eating of forbidden food is harmless.
‘And water that is drunk will stand for your
dress .’ Here too we are enjoined to look upon water
as the dress of tl;e vital force. It cannot of course
be used as dress. Therefore the natural act of
drinking water should be meditated upon hs dressing
the vital force. Tie who knows the food of the vital
force to be such — that everything is its food — never
happens to eat anything that is not food. Even if
he eats something that should not be eaten, that
too becomes regular food, and he is not touched by
the blame due to it. It is a eulogy on this medita-
tion, as we have said ; similarly he never happens
to accept anything that is not food. Even if he
accepts something that is forbidden, an elephant,
for example, that too becomes the kind of food that
it is allowable to accept. There too he is not
touched by the blame of accepting .something that
is unacceptable — which is also said by way of eulogy.
The result of the meditation, however, is identifica-
tion with the vital force, for what has just been
stated is not meant to be a result of the meditation,
but simply a eulogy on it.
Objection : Why should not this itself be the
result ?
Reply : It cannot, for he who sees the vital force
as his own self attains identity with it as its result.
And since he is identified with the vital force, and
has thus become the self of all, even a forbidden food
becomes allowable food ; similarly even unacceptable
1. 14] • BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
883
.gifts become acceptable. This is a eulogy 1 on the
meditation, taking the acts just as they occur in life.
Hence that passage has not the force of an injunction
■directed to a definite result.
Since water is the dress of the vital force, there-
fore wise men, Brahmanas, who are versed in the
} r cdas sip a*little water just before and after eating.
What do they mean by it ? This is being stated :
They regard it as removing the nakedness of the
vital force. It is a fact that a person giving a dress
to another thinks that he is removing the nakedness
of the latter ; and it has already been said that water
is the dress of the vital force. The passage means
that while drinking water one should think that one
is giving a dress to the vital force.
Objection : But a person sips water just before
and after meals with the object of purification. If
that also means removing the nakedness of the vital
force, the act of sipping would be a double act, which
it should not be. If it is for purification, it is not
for dressing the vital force, and vice versa. Under
the circumstances there should be another sipping
of water to dress the vital force.
Reply : No, for the duality of action is justifi-
able. These are two separate actions. The sipping
of water before and after meals enjoined by the
Smriti is for the sake of purification, and is simply
an act ; there the purification does not require any
meditation etc. Here we are enjoined to look upon
the water that forms part of the act of sipping as
1 As a matter of fact, such acts are iust as much for-
bidden for this sage as for any other person.
884
BRJHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD <6. 1. 14
dress for the vital force. But if that is done, it will
not contradict the purpose of purification attaching
to the act of sipping, for it will be a different act
(from meditation). Therefore in the act of sipping
water before and. after meals we are simply enjoined
to meditate upon the water as being the dress of the
vital force. It is an injunction, since it is* not known
from any other source.
SECTION II
The connection of the present section beginning
with, ‘Shwetaketu, the grandson of Aruna, came/
etc., with the preceding portion of the book is this:
This is .a supplementary section, and what was left
out before is now being stated. At the end of the
fifth chapter, the person who combines rites and
meditation is begging the fire for a passage, ‘O
Fire, lead us along the good way/ etc. Now the
Mantra seems to suggest that there are many ways,
for it has specified hlie good way’ ; and these ways
are the routes by which one obtains the results of
one’s deeds. It will be .said later on, ‘Doing which/
etc. (VI. ii. 2). Naturally one may ask how many
these routes are. Hence the present section is intro-
duced to bring together all the different ways of
transmigration, to show that they are just so many,
and these are the results of one’s natural actions,
as well as of rites combined with meditation that
are enjoined by the scriptures. Although in the
passage, 'Two classes of Prajapati’s sons,’ etc. (I.
iii. 1), the natural form cl evil has been indicated,
yet its results have not been particularly pointed out.
Only the results of rites performed in accordance
with the scriptures have been shown there in the
passage concluding with the identification with the
three kinds of food ; for in commencing the pursuit
of the knowledge of Brahman an aversion to these
886 BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD 9 [6. 2. I
also is considered necessary. There too it has only
been said that mere rites lead to the world of the
Manes, and meditation as well as rites combined
with it leads to heaven. It was not stated which
way leads to the world of the Manes, and which to
heaven. That 'too has to be fully stated in this
supplementary section, which is therefore being:
taken up. It is also desirable to bring all things-
together at the conclusion of the Upanishkd.
Moreover it has been said that ‘this much is
(the means of) immortality * (IV. v. 15, adapted),
and that there is no hope of immortality through
rites (II. iv. 2 and IV. v. 3, adapted). But no
reason has been given for it. For that purpose too
the present section is introduced. It suggests a
reason through implication: Because such, is the
goal of rites, which have nothing to do with immor-
tality, therefore this much (i.e. Self-knowledge),
alone is the means of attaining it. Besides it has-
been stated elsewhere in the portion dealing with- the
Agnihotra, ‘But certainly you do not know the
departure of these two oblations, or their route,
or stay, or enjoyment, or return to this world, or
the person who is about to depart for the next world*
(Sh. XI. vi. 2. 4). In the answer to them the effects
of the oblations have been described in the words,
‘These two oblations, after being offered, depart,*
etc. (Sh. XI. vi. 2. 6-7). These are in reality the
results of the offering of oblations by the agent, the
performer of the Agnihotra ; for without being con-
nected \yith the agent, the act of offering oblations*
cannot be presumed independently to produce those
6. 2. li BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD 887
effects such as departure, since an act produces
effects only for the benefit of the agent, and it also
depends on certain factors (of which the agent is
the chief one) . The passage in question being a
eulogy on the Agnihotra, the sixfold effect has there
been attributed to that. But here all that is stated
to belong to the agent, for the topic to be expounded
here is the knowledge of the results of rites ; and
through that the Sliruti wishes to enjoin here the
meditation on. the five fires that are the means of
getting access to the northern way. Thus the
different ways of transmigration will all be summed
up. This is the highest result of rites. Hence with
a view to showing these two the vShruti introduces
the following story.
m srisSfar: q^raTsrt 5
*=r siranro afafo
5 wifafa ftera n ? n
i. Shwetaketu, the grandson of Aruna,
came to the assembly of the Panclnllas. He
approached Pravahana, the son of Jivala, who
was having his servants wait on him . Seeing
him the King addressed him, ‘Boy.’ He
replied, ‘Yes, sir.’ ‘Have you been taught
by your father?’ He said, ‘Yes.’
Shwetaketu, the grandson of Aruna, after being
taught by his father, came to the assembly of the
Panchdlas to display his learning. The .Pa neb alas
were famous (for their learning). With the proud
888
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD , [6. 2. 1
idea of conquering first their assembly, and then
the royal court, he approached Pravahana, the son of
Jivala, and the King of Panchala, who was having
his servants wait on him. (The particle ‘ha’ refers
to a past incident, and ‘vai’ indicates certainty.)
The King had already heard of his pride of learning,
and wished to teach him a lesson. Seeing him, he
addressed him as soon as he arrived, ‘Boy/ The
prolongation of the accent in the address is express-
ive of censure. Thus addressed, he t replied , f Yes,
sir/ Though a Kshatriya is not entitled to this
form of address, he used it in anger. The King
said, ' Have you been taught by your father The
other said , f Yes, I have. If you are in doubt, you
oan question me.’
strain: itstt: writ sf?r •
ftfa ; mqi ;
; w ^jrfrr: 3*: 3^:
ffa • tqiqrer qf?reqT-
m^eq’r ^TRTmrnr: 3wn^t micmq
ffa ? 5f?r tsfNrra ; ic>jf ^qqrereq m q«r: q%-
f q ^mre q m — qr^qr ^qqiff m q?m*
fqejqrrf m ? srfq f? q ^n*.—
*5 ^«fRTgrf JTcqkTJ^ ,
HTWITfegf fqwIUcHdfa,
q^f?RT fq?rt mere g || ;
qqJgq sNto 11 ?. 11
6 * 2 - BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 889
y
2. Do you know how these people
■diverge after death?’ ‘No,’ said lie. ^‘Do
.you know how, they return to this world?’
‘No,’ said he. ^‘Do you know how the other
world is never filled by so many people dying
thus again and again?’ ‘No,’ said he. **‘Do
you know after how many oblations are offered
water (the liquid offerings) rises up possessed
of a human voice (or under the name of man)
and speaks?’ ‘No,’ said lie. *^‘Do you know
the means of access to the way of the gods,
or that to the way of the Manes — doing which
people attain either the way of the gods or the
way of the Manes? We have heard the
words of the Mantra : “I have heard of two
routes for men, leading to the Manes and the
gods. Going along them all this is united.
They lie between the father and the
mother (earth and heaven).” 1 ’ He said, ‘I
know not one of them.’
‘Well then, do you know how these familiar
people diverge after death ?' (The prolongation of
the final accent in the verb suggests deliberation.)
‘While going along the ,ame route they come to a
point where the roads split ; some take the one,
and some the other ; this is the divergence. Do you
know how these people are divided ?’ — This is the
idea. ' No / said the other. ‘Then do you know
how they return to this world ?’ ‘No/ m said Shwe-
1 Ri. X lxxxviii. 15.
890
BRIHA DARANYA KA UPANISHAD
<[ 6 . 2 . 2
taketu. ‘Do you know how the other world is never
filled by so many people dying thus , in the familiar
way, again and again f y ‘No/ said he. ‘Do you
know after how many oblations are offered water
rises up, appears perfectly, possessed of a human
voice (or under the name of man) and speaks ?’
This happens when it takes a human form. ‘No/
said he. ‘Very well. Blit do you know the means
of access to the way of the gods, or that to the way
of the Manes — in other words, the kind of (ritual-
istic) work doing which people attain either the way
of the gods or the way of the Manes V The latter
part of the sentence explains the word Tratipad’
(means of access). That is to say, do you know the
means of attaining the two worlds?
‘We have heard the words of the Mantra that
express this sense.* That is, there is a Mantra too
expressing this idea. What is that Mantra ? It is
this : I have heard of two routes. One of them
leads to the Manes, is connected with the world of
the Manes ; that is, one attains the world of the
Manes through that way. — The word ‘Aham’ (I)
agrees with the verb ‘Ashrinavam* (have heard),
which is separated by the word ‘Pitrin&in . * — And
another is related to the gods ; it leads to the gods.
Who go by those two routes to the Manes and the
gods? This is being answered: For, or relating to,
men. That is, men only go by those routes. Going
along those two routes all this 1 is united ; and those
1 The universe as means and end. The routes connect
this world w*ith the next world, and departed spirits travel
along them to their destination.
6 . 2 ., 3 ]
BR1H ADARANY AKA UPANISHAD
891
two routes lie between the father and the mother .
Who are they ? The two halves uf the shell of the
universe consisting of heaven and earth. The Brah-
mana gives the following explanation of the words :
‘This (earth) is the mother, and that (heaven) is the
father’ (Sh. XIII. ii. 9. 7 ; Tai. B. III. viii. 9. 1).
These two routes are within the two halves of the
universe and hence belong to the relative world.
The/ cannot lead to absolute immortality. Shwe-
taketu said , ' 1 know not one of this set of questions/
^ ; ft
5TT ^ 5
CT2J JTT STOR. ^ ;
SfyF^ FI ?JT 5 STFfcfiTF^^T II * II
^ Then the King invited him to stay.
The boy, disregarding the invitation to stay,
•hurried away. He came to his father and
said to him, ‘Well, did you not tell me before
that vou had (fully) instructed me?’ ‘What
has hurt vou, my sagacious child?’ ‘That
wretch of a Kshatriya asked me five questions,
and I knew not one of them.’ ‘Which are
they?’ ‘These,’ and he quoted their first
words.
Then , after he had removed his pride of learn-
ing th e Kwg invited him, Shwetaketu, who is
under consideration, to stay, saying, .‘Please stay
here. Let water be brought for washing your feet.
892
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [6. 2. 3
and the customary offering to respected guests be
made / The boy, Shwetaketu, disregarding the
invitation to stay , hurried away to his father. He
came to his father and said to him, ‘Well, did you
not tell me before, at the time of my finishing the
study, that you had instructed me in every branch
of learning ?’ Hearing the reproachful words of his
son, the father said, f What has hurt you, caused
your grief, my sagacious child ?’ He said, ‘Listen
what happened to me. That wretch of a Kshatriya
— literally, an associate of the Ksliatriyas ; a term of
reproach — asked me five questions, and I knew not
one of them / ‘ Which arc they — those questions
asked by the King V inquired the father. To which
the son replied, ‘These/ and he quoted the first
words of those questions.
^qrq, q«n q*cq qra snsffm q«n qq^
^ qrpwqNiHy, afe 3 cR iRfrq
qgjqq f fq • flqiqq qsgfNrfq ; e 3TP5TTnw
^TTfTrqfq^n:, srq srsq qqjR • q ftqra,
3TC *FTq% WWiq qsi % fq || a II
4. The father said, ‘My child, believe
me, whatever I knew I told you every bit of
it. But come, let us go there and live as
students.’ ‘You go alone, please.’ At this
Gautama came to where King Pravahana, the
son of Jirala, was giving audience. The
King gave him a seat, had water brought for
6. 2. &] BRJHA DA R ANY AKA UPANISHAD
89S
him, and made him the reverential offering.
Then he said, ‘Revered Gautama, we will
give you a boon/
The father , to soothe his angry child, said , ‘My
child, believe me, whatever of meditations I knew,
I told you every bit of it. Who is dearer to me than
you, for whom I would withhold anything ? I too
do not know what the King asked about. There-
fore come, let us go there and live as students with
the King, to learn it.’ The boy said, ‘You go alone,
please , I do not care to see his face/ At this
Gautama, that is, Aruni, who was descended from
the line of Gotama, came to where King Pravahana ,
the son of Jivala, was holding a sitting, w giving
audience. Or the genitive caae in the two words
in the text (denoting the King’s name) should be
changed into the nominative. The King gave him
a. respectable seat, had water brought jor him, his
guest Gautama, through servants, and made him
the reverential offering (Arghya) through his priest,
as also the Madhuparka 1 with sacred texts uttered.
Having thus worshipped him, he said to him,
‘Revered Gautama, we will give you a boon / con-
sisting of cows, horses, etc.
5T fNrra, gfa g rre ft v crq gpc:, g swro p nsfr
grraJWqsqreTT ft II ^ II
5. Aruni said, ‘You have promised me
this boon. Please tell me what you spoke to
my boy about.’
1 An offering consisting of honey, curds, etc.
894
BR1HADARANY AKA UPAN1SHAD [ 6 * 2 . 5
Gautama said , ‘You have promised me this
boon. Make yourself firm in this promise. Please
tell me what you spoke to my hoy, or son, about —
those questions. This is my boon. ,
a.jS'tfa II \ II
6. The King said, ‘This conies under
heavenly boons, Gautama. Please ask some
human boon.’
The King said, ‘This, what you ask, comes
under heavenly boons. Please ask some human
boon . 7 * 9
^ finrron nfarssnsrT
sRircTurr qfejTO, m ?rt w^gt WrF FTT-
WRifafa ; »j4 3q?rf?cT,
7. Aruni said, ‘You know that I already
have gold, cattle and horses, maid-servants,
retinue, and dress. Be not ungenerous
towards me alone regarding this plentiful,
infinite and inexhaustible (wealth).’ ‘Then
you must seek it according to form, Gautama. ’
‘I approach you (as a student).’ The ancients
used to approach a teacher simply through
declaration. Aruni lived as a student by
merely announcing that he was at his service.
6. 2. 8\ BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
895
Gautama said, ‘ You too know that I have them.
So the human boon that you propose to give me will
do me no good. Because T too already have plenty
of gold, cattle and horses, maidservants, retinue,
and dress / The words ‘Ap attain asti’ (there is
attainment) should be connected with all the terms.
‘And wluvt I already have, neither I should ask of
you, nor you should give me. You have promised me
a boon*. You alone know what is proper under the
circumstances — that you should keep your promise. I
have also another thing on my mind : Having been
generous everywhere, he not ungenerous , stingy,
towards me alone regarding this wealth — plentiful,
infinite, that is, producing such results, and in-
exhaustible, that is, reaching down to one’s sons and
grandsons. You should not deny such wealth to
me alone. You will not deny it to anybody else.’
Thus addressed, the King said, ' Then you must seek
to have this learning according to form, that pre-
scribed by the scriptures.* At this Gautama said, 7
approach you as a student.* The ancients — Brah-
manas seeking instruction from Kshatriyas or
Vaishyas, or Kshatriyas seeking it from Vaishyas,
as a matter of necessity — used to approach a teacher
simply through declaration, not by actually approach-
ing his feet or serving Km. Hence Gautama lived
as a student by merely announcing that he 7vas at
his service, without actually approaching the King’s
feet.
foaragr Vi for* ^ sttsittt
896 BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD ( 6 . 2 . &
swra : 5it csrg gwf sr$*nfir, Hhr ajr^t-
siciimijjfirfa n c n
8. Tlie King said : Please do not take
offence with us, Gautama, as your paternal
grandfathers did not (with ours). Before
this, this learning never rested with a Brah-
mana. But I shall teach it to you; for who
can refuse you after you speak like this ?
When Gautama thus declared his preference for
this unavoidable humiliation to ignorance, the King ,
thinking that he was hurt, said begging his
pardon : Please do not take offence with us t
Gautama, as your paternal grandfathers did not
with ours. That is to say, you should observe that
attitude of your grandfathers towards us. Know
that before this transmission to you, this learning
that you have asked for never rested with a Brah-
mana. It has all along come down through a line
of Kshatriya teachers. I too should, if possible,
maintain that tradition. Hence I said, ‘This comes
under heavenly boons, Gautama. Please ask some
human boon’ (VI. ii. 6). But it cannot be main-
tained any more, for your boon cannot be withheld.
7 shall teach even this learning to you ; for who else
even can refuse you after you speak like this f
Then why should I not teach it to you ?
ttstt wrefn u 5 11
6 . 2 . 9 ]
BRJHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
897
9. That world (heaven), O Gautama, is
fire, the sun is its fuel, the rays ; ts smoke,
the day its flame, the four quarters its cinder,
and the intermediate quarters its sparks. In
this fire the gods offer faith (liquid oblations
in subtle form). Out of that offering King
Moon is born (a body is made for the sacrificer
in the, moon).
‘That world, O Gautama, is fire/ etc. The
fourth question is being answered first. The order
of the questions is broken, because on the solution
of this question depends that of the others. Thai
world, heaven, O ( *auiama , is fire. We are enjoined
to look upon heaven, which is not fire, as fire, as in
the case of man and woman later on. Of that fire,
heaven, the sun is the fuel, because of the kindling,
for heaven is illumined by the sun. The rays its
smoke, localise of the similarity of rising from the
fuel, for the rays emanate from the sun, and smoke,
as we know, comes out of the fuel. The day its
flame, because both are bright. The four quarters
its cinder, because both represent a pacified state . 1
The intermediate quarters its sparks, because they
are scattered like sparks. In this fire of heaven,
possessed of such attributes, the gods, Indra etc.,
offer faith as an oblation. Out of that offering King
Moon, King of the Manes and Brahmanas, is born .
Now who are the gods, how do they offer obla-
tions, and w'hat is this oblation called faith r We
4
1 Space, like cinder, has no heat or lustre.
57
BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD , [6. 2. 0
have just touched on this point elsewhere in our
introductory remarks on this section (p. 886). In
order to ascertain the six things referred to by the
words, ‘But certainly you do not know the depar-
ture of these two oblations/ etc., certain things
have been stated* in the portion dealing with the
Agnihotra. These are some of the statements :
r These two oblations of the Agnihotra , after being
offered, depart. They enter the sky, of which they
make an Ahavaniya fire, 1 * 3 with air as its fuel, and
the sun’s rays its white oblation. They offer liba-
tions to the sky and depart from there. They enter
heaven, of which they make an Ahavaniya fire, with
the sun as its fuel,’ and so on (Sh. XI. vi. 2. 6-7).
Of course these oblations of the Agnihotra depart
together with their accessories. Whatever accesso-
ries they are known to possess here, such as the
Ahavaniya fire, fuel, smoke, cinder, sparks and the
articles of oblation, they take along with them as
they leave this world for heaven. There, although
everything is in an undifferentiated state during the
dissolution of the world, those ingredients retain
their separate existence in an extremely subtle form
— the fire remaining as fire, the fuel as fuel, the
smoke as smoke, the cinder as cinder, the sparks as
sparks and the articles of oblation as articles of
oblation such as milk. That ceremony of the Agni-
hotra with its accessories, which never ce'ases to
exist, but remains in a subtle form known as the
1 The chief of the three Vedic sacrificial fires which the
upper thr^e castes are regularly required to tend. The
oblations to the gods are offered in it.
-8. 2. 9] , BRIHADARANYAKA VPANISHAD
Apurva, reappears in its old form at the time of
manifestation, by making use of the sky etc. as the
Ahavaniya fire and so on as before. The ceremony
of the Agnihotra is like that even to-day.
Thus the nature of those six things beginning
with the departure of the oblations and ending with
the departure of the sacrificer for the next world,
has been ascertained earlier in the Shatapatha
Brfihmana, in the portion dealing with rites, and
it has been stated that it is with a view to eulogising
those two oblations of the Agnihotra that the whole
universe has been described as being the development
of the Apurva of those oblations. But here the
object is to describe the results of the sac ificer’s
rites and to enjoin meditation on the five fires
beginning with the fire of heaven, as a means to
attaining the northern way, in order that he may
enjoy the results of specific rites ; hence the medita-
tion on heaven as fire etc. is introduced. It should
be* noted that those forms of the vital force in the
body that .serve as priests in the Agnihotra here,
become Indra etc. on attaining their form relating
to the gods, and they serve as priests there, offering
oblations in the fire of heaven. They (as a part of
the sacrificer) performed the Agnihotra here with
a view to attaining its results, and it is they who,
at the time of reaping the results, also become
priests in different places in the next world, assum-
1 Literally, new. According to the Mim&rnsakas every
action, after it is over, remains in a subtle form, a hich
has the peculiar, indestructible power of materialising at
a subsequent period as the tangible result of that action.
900
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD , [6. 2. 9
ing suitable forms, and being called by the name of
gods. The liquid substances too, which, forming a
part of the Agnihotra ceremony, are here poured into
the Avahaniya fire and devoured by it, assume an
invisible, subtle form and accompany the agent, the
sacrificer, to the other world, going through smoke
etc. first to the sky and thence to heaven. When
those subtle liquid substances — which are the effects
of the act of offering, form a part of the Agnihotra,
and are known as 'faith’ — enter heaven with the
agent, to construct a new body for him in the lunar
sphere, they are said to be offered as oblations.
Entering heaven, they produce a body for the agent
in the lunar sphere. This is referred to in the
passage : The gods offer faith . Out of that offering
King Moon is born , for the Shruti says, ‘Faith is
water’ (Tai. S. I. vi. 8. 1).
The question was, ‘Do you know after how
many oblations are offered water rises up possessed
of a human voice and speaks?* (par. 2). In order
to answer it, the statement has been made : ‘That
world is fire.* Therefore it is clear that the liquid
substances which form a part of the sacrifice and
produce the body of the agent are designated as
‘faith.’ ‘Water* only is mentioned as rising up
possessed of a human voice, on account of the pre-
ponderance of liquid elements in the body, not that
the other four elements are absent in it. The forma-
tion of the body is due to the performance of the
Agnihotra, and liquid substances are a part of it.
Hence w?ter (as typifying liquids) is the most im-
portant factor in the formation of the body. This
<>■ 2 . 10 ] BR1HADARANYAKA V PAN 1 SHAD 901
is another reason why it is spoken of as ‘rising lip
possessed of a human voice,’ for everywhere it is the
sacrificer who has a rebirth. So, although in the
portion dealing with the Agnihotra the six things
such as the departure of the two oblations have been
mentioned so as to glorify the oblations of the Agni-
hotra alone, yet all Vedic rites such as the Agni-
hotra are meant ; for after introducing rites with
five factors, which are connected with the wife and
fire, it has been said, ‘The world of the Manes (is
to be won) through rites’ (I. v. 16 ). It will also
be stated later on, ‘While those who conquer the
worlds through sacrifices, charity and austerity,’ etc.
(par. 16 ).
Rl jfTcf ; cfFT ,
STOlfrir qiT:,
^tt: Tram ;
ffe II ^0 II
• IO. Parjanya (the god of rain), O Gau-
tama, is fire, the year is its fuel, the clouds
its smoke, lightning its flame, thunder its
cinder, and the rumblings its sparks. In this
fire the gods offer King Moon. Out of that,
offering rain is produced.
Parjanya, O Gautama, is fire, the second recep-
tacle of the two oblations in the order of their return.
Parjanya is a god identifying himself with the
materials of rain. The year is its fuel, for this fire
of Parjanya is kindled by that as it revolves with
its parts commencing with autumn and ending with
902
BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD J6. 2. 10
summer. The clouds its smoke, being produced
from smoke, or because of its cloudy appearance.
Lightning its flame , since both are luminous.
Thunder its cinder , because both represent a pacified
state and are hard. The rumblings of the clouds its
sparks, because both scatter and are numerous. In
this receptacle of the two oblations the gods, those
very priests mentioned above, offer King Moon, who
was produced out of the offering of ‘faith’ in' the fire
of heaven ; he is offered in the second fire, that of
(Parjanya, and out of that offering of the moon rain
is produced.
mi # gNfrsfat ff enT $ ,
atfsnfjr:, gyj[JTT
^rr ffti ; mm
null
ii. This world, O Gautama, is fire, the
earth is its fuel* fire its smoke, the night its
flame, the moon its cinder, and the stars its
Sparks. In this fire the gods offer rain. Out
of that offering food is produced.
This world, O Gautama, is fire. ‘This world r
means the abode where all creatures are born and
experience the results of their past work, and which
consists of action, its factors and its results ; it is
the third fire. The earth is the fuel of that fire,
for this world 1 is kindled by the earth, which is
provided with numerous materials for the enjoy*
1 ‘This ^world’ and ‘the earth’ stand to each other in
the relation of a person and his body.
6. 2. 12] BRIHADARANYAKA VPANISHAD 903
t
ment of living beings. Fin its smoke , for both rise
from , their abode, earth ; because fire is produced
out of the fuel, which preponderates in earth, and
smoke too arises from the same source. The night
its flame , because both originate from the contact
of fuel. As a flame is produced by the contact of
fuel with fire, so is the night by the contact of the
fuel of the earth, for the earth's shadow is called
the darkness of night . 1 The moon its cinder , both
being produced from flames ; for cinder is produced
from flames, and so is the moon in the night ; or
because both represent a pacified state. The stars
its sparks , because both scatter. In this etc. — to
be explained as befor e ~(thc gods ) offer rain. Out of
that offering food is produced, for it is a well-known
fact that food such as rice and barley is produced
from rain.
gw sn srfsrirfaiT ; wfrfcr srnift
II KR II
iq . Man, O Gautama, is fire, the open
mouth is its fuel, the vital force its smoke,
speech its flame, the eye its cinder, and the
ear its sparks. In this fire the gods offer
food. Out of that offering the seed is pro-
duced.
Man, O Gautama, is fire. The familiar human
i Which is caused by a part of the earthy obstructing
the sun’s rays.
904 BR1HA DAR'ANYAKA VPAN1SHAD [ 6 . 2 . 12
f
being with head, hands, etc., is the fourth fire. The
open mouth is its fuel , for through it a m#n is
kindled (shines) in speech, study of the Vedas, etc.,
as fire is with fuel. The vital force its smoke, both
rising from the same source, for the vital force rises
from the mouth. , Speech or the word its flame, for
both reveal. A flame reveals tilings, and 4 speech or
the word signifies its object. The eye its cinder ,
because both represent a pacified state, or -are the
sources of light. The ear its sparks, owing to the
similarity of scattering. In this fire (the gods)
offer food. One may say, we do not see any gods
here offering food. The answer is, that is no
objection, for the forms of the vital force can be
taken as gods. With reference to the deities, Indra
and others are the gods ; in the body the same are
the forms of the vital force, and they put food into
a man. Out of that offering the seed is produced,
for it is the outcome of food.
sftmfsf qTfsref^:, grs^TTT:,
am feraft II U ll
13. Woman, O Gautama, is fire. In
this fire the gods offer the seed. Out of that
offering a man is born. He lives as long as
he is destined to live. Then, when he dies,
Woman, O Gautama, is fire, the fifth one to
serve as tfie receptacle of the sacrifice, hi that fire
905
6. 2. 141 HR1HA DARANYAKA UFA NISH A I)
the gods offer the seed. Out of that offering a man
is horn. Thus water (liquids), designated as ‘faith,'
being successively offered in the fires of heaven, rain-
god, this world, man and woman, in the increasingly
grosser forms of faith, moon, rain, food and seed
respectively, produce what we call man. The fourth
question, ¥ ‘Do you know after how many oblations
are offered water rises up possessed of a human voice
and speaks?’ (par. 2), has been thus answered, viz.,
that when the fifth oblation is offered in the fire of
woman, water, transformed into the seed, liecomes
possessed of a human voice. lie, that man, born in
this order, lives. How long? A s long as he is des-
tined to live, that is, as long as the resultant of his
past work, which makes him stay in this body, lasts.
Then, on the exhaustion of that. 7 vhen he dies,
yjn:, srPsktei:, m:,
fsFjfofT: ; ^TT: gm .
rPP7T qw ¥THST5r°T; It II
14. The\^ carry him to be offered in the
fire. The fire becomes his fire, the fuel his
fuel, the smoke his smoke, the flame his
flame, the cinder his cinder, and the sparks
his sparks. In this fire the gods offer the
man. Out of that offering the man emerges
radiant.
Then the priests carry him, the dead man, to
be offered in the fire. The well-known fire becomes
906
BRIHADARANYAKA UP A NISH AD [ 6 . 2 . 14
his fire, the receptacle for the sacrifice in which he
himself is to be the oblation ; no new fire is to be
imagined. The familiar fuel his fuel, the smoke his
smoke, the flame his flame, the cinder his cinder, arid
the sparks his sparks. All these familar objects are
meant. Tn this fire the gods offer the man as the
last oblation. Out of that offering the map, emerges
radiant, exceedingly bright, having been purified by
all the rites performed from conception to the funeral
ceremony.
^ ^ ^rmt srstf ^^rgqT-
JTTJT^f SgKSNjI^. »T*PTf?r ;
3r qar: srefoi 5 itai * gro-
t%: II ^ II
15. Those who know this as such, and
those others who meditate with faith upon the
Satya-Brahmau in the forest, reach the deity
identified with the flame, from him the deity
of the day, from him the deity of the fort-
night in which the moon waxes, from him the
deities of the six months in which the sun
travels northward, from them the deity
identified with the world of the gods, from
him the sun, and from the sun the deity of
lightning. (Then) a being created from the
mind (of Tliranyagarbha) comes and conducts
6 2. 15 # ] BRIHADARAWYAKA UPAN1SHAD
907
them to the worlds of Hiranvagarbha. They
attain perfection and live in those worlds of
Hiranyagarbha* for a great many superfine
years. They no more return to this world.
Now in order to answer the first question it is
being;' stated: Those who know this meditation on
the five fires as such, as described above — the word
‘such’ • refers to the five fires described in terms of
fire, fuel, smoke, flame, cinder, t sparks, faith (liquid
offerings), etc.; so the meaning is — those who know
these five fires as above.
Objection : Is not this meditation the same as
that on the two oblations of the Agnihotra ? F'or
there, in the course of the discussion on the six
things such as the departure of the two oblations,
it has been stated, ‘They make heaven itself the
Ahavaniva fire,’ etc. Here too there are many points
of similarity, as, for example, the other world is
fire, the sun is the fuel, and so on. Therefore this
meditation is just a part of that.
Reply : No, because this is an answer to the
question, ‘After how many oblations are offered, * etc.
So the word ‘such’ must refer to that much only
which is covered by the answer to this question.
( otherwise the question vvould be useless. Now,
since the number of the fires is already known , 1 the
fires themselves are to be described here.
Objection : Suppose we say that the fires and
so forth are known, but are merely repeated here.
1 In the portion dealing with the Agnihotra.
908 BRJHADA RANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [6. 2. 15
Reply : In that case, they must be repeated as
they occur there, not in such terms as, ‘That world
is fire.’ 1
Objection : The mention of heaven etc. is sug 1
gestive of the remaining items.
Reply : Even ' then the first and last items
should be quoted to suggest the rest. Another Shruti
bears out our contention. In a section of the Chhan-
dogya Upanishad treating of the same subject there
are the words, ‘Those who know the five fires/
(V. x. 10), which shows that the number of the fires
is fixed as five. Therefore this meditation on the five
fires cannot be a part of the Agnihotra. 2 The simi-
larity as regards the fire, fuel, etc., to which you
referred is, as we have said, only for the sake of
extolling the Agnihotra. Therefore a mere knowl-
edge of the six things such as the departure of the
oblations will not lead to the attainment of the deities
of the flame etc., for this has been enjoined through
a knowledge of the five fires that are being discussed,
as is evident from the use of the word ‘such’ in the
text.
But who are ‘those who know this as such' ?
The householders, of course. One may object : Is
it not the purpose of the Shruti to enjoin that they
by means of sacrifices etc. are to attain the southern
way characterised by the deity of smoke and so on ?
1 There are discrepancies. The sky, for instance, is
omitted, and so on.
2 Because in that case the fire in which the first offerings
are made wculd begin the series, thus making the number
6. 2. If] BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD 90*
The answer is : Not so ; for there may be house-
holders not knowing the five fires for whom sacrifices
etc. are enjoined as means. Besides, the hermit and
the monk have been indirectly mentioned, for they
are connected with the forest ; and the meditation
on the five fires is connected with rites that only a
householder can perform. Hence students also are
not meant by the words, ‘Who know this as such.’
They enter the northern way, as we know on the
authority of the Smriti, ‘Eighty-eight thousand sages
who led a celibate life attained (relative) immortality
through the northern route of the sun* (cf. Vish. II.
viii. 92, 94). Therefore those householders who know
as above, that they are born of tire, are children
of fire — who know that they h-ve been born out of
a number of fires in this order, and are but another
form of fire, and those others who meditate with
— not upon— faith upon the Sat y a- Brahman, 2 or
Hiranyagarblm, in the forest , in other words, the
hermits and monks who constantly live in the forest,
all reach the deity identified with the flame.
As long as the householders do not know either
the meditation on the five fires or the Satya-Brahmau,
they are born from the fire of woman when the fifth
oblation beginning with that of faith (the liquids)
has been offered in order, and again perform rites
like the Agnihotra, with a view to attaining the
other world. Through those rites they again go to
the world of the Manes, passing in order the deity of
smoke etc., and again return, passing in order the
1 See V. i. 1.
910 BR1HADARANY AKA UPANISHAD [0. 2. 15
rain-god and so forth. Then they are again born of
the fire of woman, again perform rites, and so on,
thus rotating constantly like a Persian wheel 1 by
their comings and goings between this world and
the next. But when they know the meditation on
the five fires, they' are freed from this rotation and
reach the flame. The ‘flame’ here does not mean
a tongue of fire, but the deity identified with the
flame and called by that name, who is stationed in
the northern route. They reach him, for monks
have no direct relation to the flame. Hence the
word means the deity of that name. From him the
deity of the day. Since there can be no restriction
with regard to the time of death, the word ‘day’
also means the deity of the day. Death occurs as
soon as the term of life is over ; one cannot make
the rule that a knower of this meditation must die at
daytime ; so the day cannot be fixed as such time.
Nor do those who die at night wait for the day, for
another Sliruti says, ‘He reaches the sun as quickly
as the glance of the mind’ (Chh. VIII. vi. 5).
From hint the fortnight in which the moo it
waxes : That is, being conducted by the deity of
the* day, they reach the deity of the bright fortnight.
From him , being conducted by the deity of the
bright fortnight, they reach the six months in which
the sun travels northward. The plural in the word
‘months’ indicates that a group of six deities iden-
1 Ghatiyantra, a contrivance for drawing water from a
well, in which a series of bowls are fixed to an endless
chain which, ‘-■when pulled, makes each bowl come up filled
with Water and get emptied at the top.
■ 6 . 2 . 15 ] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 911
>
titled with the northern march of the sun is meant.
From them the world of the gods : Being conducted
by this group of deities, they reach the deity iden-
tified with the world of the gods. From him they
reach the sun, and from the sun the deity of, or iden-
tified with, lightning. As they reach the deity of
lightning* a being created from the mind of Hiranya-
garbha, a denizen of his world, comes and conducts
them to the ivorlds of 1 liranyagarbha. The plural 1
in the word ‘worlds’ indicates that there are higher
and lower planes in that world, which is possible,
as there may be differences of grade in meditations.
Being conducted there by that being, they attain
perfection and lire in those worlds of l liranyagarbha
for a great many superfine years, that is, many
human cycles, which constitute the lifetime of
Hiranyagarbha. They , after reaching the world of
Hirauyagarbha, no more return to this world, for the
word ‘here’ occurs in the Madhyandina recension.
# Objection : The word ‘here' just indicates a
type, meaning this and similar worlds, as in the
passage, ‘The full-moon sacrifice should be per-
formed on the next day.’
Reply : No, fer then the qualifying word ‘here’
would be redundant. That is to say, if they did not
return at all, the use or the word ‘here’ would be
meaningless. In the passage cited, the fact that the
sacrifice has to be performed on the next day would
not be known, were it not mentioned ; so the specifi-
cation is all right. The term ‘next day’ has not been
used there superfluously, on the ground (adduced
912
BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [6. 2. 15-
by you) that it represents a type . 1 Only where the
relevancy of a qualifying word is not to be found
after investigation, is it proper to discard it as re-
dundant ; but not where the significance of the word
is patent. Therefore we understand that they return
after the lapse of <the present cycle.
am ^ stir fttot ssNfiTSRfm ft girofa-
mwq^mTmoRraTRf^riTif^T qfa, indm: fq?j-
5CT3RH, ; FT STimTR ^pqfirT,
?rierq qs-JT HTJT TTSTiqTn^TWnT^TtqmfFT,
qqtJriJEFni wjrafor •, FRi ?rt FTF=qqqcq§nfcrT-
arrerrengT^, qrqWfqqr,
5 ^ sfiieff mmTR ir qy: jpqisft
fqm, FTFTT qiqtsft 5T Tq?FT ^HTlfSTc^c^T^ST: ;
ft ; sra qmuft jt fq^r
qfan: qFT^t M ^ n rfa
5TT5TJTq:il
16. While those who conquer the worlds
through sacrifices, charity and austerity,
reach the deity of smoke, from him the deity
of the night, from him the deity of the fort-
1 Meaning, any day. The question is, the Chaturm&sya
sacrifice being performed on the full-moon day, when is
the full-moon .sacrifice to be performed ? This the' Shruti
decides by saying that it should be performed on the next
day. This is true in all cases. Hence the term ‘next
day,’ assuming that it repiesents a type, demarcates that
particular day from all other days, and is therefore not
superfluous. * Similarly the word ‘here’ is significant,
meaning that they return in another cycle.
913
2. 16] BR1HA DA RANYA KA UPANISHAD
night in which the moon wanes, from him
the deities of the six months in which the sun
travels southward, from them the deity of the
world of the Manes, and from him the moon.
Reaching the moon they become food. There
the gods enjoy them as the priests drink the
shining Soma juice (gradually, saying, as it
were),. ‘Flourish, dwindle.' And when their
past work is exhausted, they reach (become
like) this ether, from the ether air, from air
rain, and from rain the earth. Reaching the
’earth they become food. Then they are
again offered in the fire of man, thence in
the fire of woman, whence they are born (and
perform rites) with a view to going to other
worlds. Thus do they rotate. While those
others who do not know these two ways be-
come insects and moths, and these frequently
bftii\g things (gnats and mosquitoes).
While those who do not know as above, who
knowing only the six tilings such as the departure
of the two oblations connected with the Agnihotra,
are mere ritualists, who conquer the worlds — the
plural in ‘worlds’ suggests here also varieties of
results — through sacrifices such as the Agnihotra,
charity , the distribution of gifts among beggars out-
side the altar, and austerity such as Kriehchhra and
Chandrayana , 1 reach smoke. Here too, as in the
i Both these are penances consisting in facing accord-
ing to certain rules.
58
914 BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [6. 2. IS
northern route, the words ‘smoke’ etc. refer to
deities. That is, they reach the deity of smoke.
Here also the deities are conductors as before. From
him the deity of the night, from him the deity of
the fortnight in which the moon wanes, from him
the deities of the six months in which the sun travels
southward , from them the deity of the 7oo,rld of the
Manes, and from him the moon. Reaching the moon
they become food. There the gods enjoy tlicni, these
ritualists who reaching the moon have become food,
as masters do their servants — as the priests here drink
in sacrifices the shining Soma juice (saying, as it
were), ‘ Flourish , dwindle. 9 The words, ‘Flourish,
dwindle,’ are not a sacred formula, but simply mean
that priests frequently cheer up the Soma juice that
is in the bowl, and gradually finish it by drinking
— in other words, they drink it at intervals (not
all at once). Similarly the gods too enjoy the ritual-
ists who have got new bodies in the moon and
have become the materials of their luxury, giving
them frequent intervals of rest by rewarding them
according to their past work. That is cheering them
like cheering the Soma juice. And 7 vhen their past
work — sacrifices, charity, etc., that led them to the
moon — is exhausted, they reach this well-known
ether. The liquids called faith which were offered
in the fire of heaven and took the form of the moon
— with which a new watery body was built for the
ritualists in the moon for their enjoyment — melt on
the expiry of the momentum of their past work, like
a lump oh ice in contact with sunshine. Tn that
6. 2. l<y Ji RJfl A DA RA N YAK A UPAN1SHAD Mfl
state they become fine and look like the ether. This
is expressed bv the words, 'They ieach this ether. 1
Then those ritualists, living* with that kind of
body in the sky, are blown hither and thither by
the east-wind etc. This is what is meant by the
words, ‘ From the ether air.' h'rom air they reach
rain. This has been stated in the passage, 'They
offer King Moon in the fire of the rain-god’ (par. 10,
adapted). Then they drop on the earth as rain.
Reaching the earth they become food such as rice
and barley. This has been expressed in the passage,
‘In the fire of this world they offer rain. Out of
that food is pioduced’ (par. 11, adapted). Then
they as food arc again offered in the fire of man ,
an adult. Then ee as the seed they are offered
in the fire of woman, whence 1 hey are born, and
perfoim rites such as the Agnihotra, with a view to
going to other worlds. Then they move repeatedly
between the moon and this world, passing in order
tire deity of smoke etc. Thus do they , these ritual-
ists, continuously rotate in a circle like the Persian
wheel, until they know Brahman so as to attain the
northern way, or immediate liberation. As it has
been said, ‘Thus does the man who desires (trans-
migrate)’ (IV. iv. 6).
While those others w\o do not knou> these two
ways, the northern and southern, that is, do not
practise either meditation or rites to attain the
northern or southern way respectively— what do they
become ?— become insects and moths , and these fre-
quently biting things, that is, gnats and g iosquitoes„
Thus this last transmigratory existence is very pain-
916 BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 6 . 2 . 16
ful, and it is extremely difficult for one who has
fallen into it to get out of it again. So another
Shruti says, ‘They become these tiny creatures that
come and go repeatedly, of which it has been said,
as it were : Be born and die* (Chh. V. x. 8). The
purport of the entire passage is that we must there-
fore try our best to give up our natural .pursuit of
work and knowledge, and practise tho.se rites or
meditations which are enjoined by the scriptures and
are the means of attaining the southern or northern
way. So it has been stated in another Shruti, ‘The
deliverance from this (the state of becoming rice etc.)
is indeed much more difficult’ (Chh. V. x. 6).
'Therefore one should cultivate a disgust (for return
to the world)’ (Chh. V. x. 8), that is, strive for
liberation. It is clear that between these two even,
greater care should be taken to secure the means of
attaining the northern way, for it has been said,
'Thus do they rotate’ (this text).
So all the questions have been answered. The
fourth question, ‘After how many oblations,’ ' etc.,
has been first answered in the • passage beginning
with, ‘That world’ (par. 9), and ending with, 'A
man is born’ (par. 13). The fifth question, concern-
ing the means of attaining the way of the gods or
the way of the Manes, has been answered next by
a description of the means of attaining the northern
and southern ways. This has also answered the first
question by saying that starting with fire some reach
the deity of the flame, and some the deity of smoke,
and here ,is the divergence. The answer to the
second question, concerning the return to this world.
6. 2. 16J BRIHADARANYAKA VPAN1SHAV
917
has been given by the statement that they return
to this world, passing successively through the stages
of the ether etc. ; and that has also dealt with the
third question by stating that the other world is not
filled up for that very reason, as also owing to the
fact that some become insects, moths, etc.
SECTION III
ST m SRTTPfcl IT^cSrmTfTTfa, ^^FT?T STEJ^-
TTTJTq^ 3WITI' ST^T^gqSTSrft
qr srrf'ri qw5Rt% qforg& qftfo-
^Tfiigqwni^m qfecftqTfciTSS^af srsf.^ gsrr
Jigr^r TTf«r STJrt«r 1
^n^FrTT ^TScSrfe aTTC&g-
fsH*bjr srfcr <pwr q>mrg. ,
gwitsi ^rm^T ^
jti gar: srl: ^saq^sg— ^ tt^t i
ar fan^t faq?ia^ fipar^xift % fa,
at car gasa arraT q§t srsiaatagg-sar^T 11? 11
1. He who wishes to attain greatness
(should perforin) on an auspicious day in' a
fortnight in which the moon waxes, and under
a male constellation, during the northward
march of the sun, (a sacrifice in the following
manner) : He should undertake for twelve
days a vow connected with the Upasads (live
on milk), collect in a cup or bowl made of fig
wood all herbs and their grains, sweep and
plaster (the ground), bring in the fire, spread
(the Kusha grass), purify the offerings in
the prescribed manner, interpose the Mantha
(paste made of those things), and offer ob*
6. 3. 1J BR1HA DARANYAKA UPANISHAD
919
lations with the following Mantras : ‘O Fire,
to all those gods under you, who spitefully
frustrate men’s desires, I offer their share.
May they, being satisfied, satisfy me with
all objects of desire ! Swfiha. To that all-
procuring deity who turns out spiteful under
your protection, thinking she is the support
of all., I offer this stream of clarified butter.'
S waha. ’
The results of meditation and rites have been
stated. Of these, meditation is independent, but
rites depend on both divine and human wealth. So
for the sake of rites wealth must be acquired, and
that in a harmless way. Hence for that purpose the
ceremony called the Mantha (paste) is being incul-
cated, as a means to attaining greatness ; for if great-
ness is attained, wealth follows as a matter of course.
vSo the text says: He who wishes to attain great-
ness, that is, wants to be great. The reference is to
one* who desires wealth and is qualified for the per-
formance of rites. The time for the ceremony of
Mantha which is sought to be enjoined, is being
stated : During the northward march of the sun.
This covers a large extent of time, so it is being
restricted to a fortnight in which the moon waxes,
that is, the bright fortnight. That too is a long
period ; hence, on an auspicious or favourable day,
that is, one calculated to bring success to one’s
undertaking. He should undertake for twelve days,
counting back from the auspicious day on which he
intends to perform the rites and including it, a vow
920
BR1HADARANY AKA UPANISHAD f [6. 3. t
connected with the Upasads. These are well-known
rites in connection with the Jyotishtoma sacrifice r
in which the sacrificer has to drink cow’s milk
according to the yield of an increasing and decreas-
ing number of teats of the animal. But since those
rites are not to be Combined here, only the drinking
of milk, without any restriction as to details, is
meant.
Objection : If the compound in ‘Upasad-vrata*
is expounded so as to mean ‘the vow that is the
Upasads,’ then all the details of procedure have to
be observed. So why not observe them?
Reply : Because it is a ceremony according to
the Smriti. This ceremony of the Mantha is enjoin-
ed by the Smriti (and not the Shruti).
Objection : How can a ceremony that is en-
joined by the Shruti be one in accordance with the
Smriti ?
Reply : The Shruti here is merely repeating
the Smriti. Were it a Vedic ceremony, it would be
related to the Jyotishtoma sacrifice as a part is to a
whole, and as such must conform to all the charac-
teristics of the main sacrifice. But it is not a Vedic
ceremony. For this reason it is also to be performed
in the Avasathya (household) fire ; and the entire
procedure is to be in accordance with the Smriti.
So the vow in question is that of living on milk.
Collect in a .cup or bowl made of fig wood/ in a
vessel of this wood, whether shaped like a cup or a
bowl — the option being with regard to the shape,
and not the material, which must be fig wood — alT
herbs that* are available and within one’s means :
6. 3. 2] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 321
The ten cultivated species such as rice and barley,
to be enumerated later on, must be included ; there
is no harm in having more. And their grains , as far
as available and within one’s means. The word ‘iti’
is suggestive of the collection of all the materials, that
is to say, including all other things that are to be col-
lected. The order of procedure should be under-
stood to be in accordance with the Grihya Sutras.
Sweep' and plaster : These are cleaning the ground.
Bring in the fire : It is implied that the sacrifice
is to be performed in the Avasathya fire, for the
word is in singular, and there is mention of the fire
being brought in, which is only possible of a fire
that already exists . 1 Spread the Kush - grass.
Purify the offerings in the prescribed manner :
Since the ceremony is in accordance with the Smriti,
the manner referred to is that of the \Sthalipaka.’*
Under a male constellation, one having a masculine
name, associated with the auspicious day. Interpose
tile Mantha : Having crushed all those herbs and
grains, soaked them in curds, honey and clarified
butter in that fig bowl, and rubbed them up with
a rod, place the paste between himself and the fire.
And offer oblations, with a fig ladle, in a part of the
fire prescribed for this purpose, with the following
Mantras, beginning with, O Fire, to all those gods /
etc.
*en?T, sigro ]|Nt
1 The three fires (AhavamVa etc.) connected with Vedic
sacrifices have to be lighted each time.
2 A religious ceremony observed by householders. The
word literally means ‘cooking in a pot.’
•922
BRIhTA DA RA NY A KA UPANISHAD ,[6. 3. 2
w s p rafa ; srnjmr *srr?r, perr
^ ^^fjwawfd ; 5TT% ^T^T, SJ%ST4
§c?n JT?^ ^T^T, #3$ SRnt“
c4?ft gc^T JU=^ jg fagwq q qfa ■, F4TIT,
?RPT ^llr^ gc4T TF$t
^t^t, snrrer *3rrtc4sft jgcsrc ^
^t|c^ fc4T IT?'4 ^WR4f?T II R- II
2. Offering oblations in the fire saying,
* Swaha to the oldest, Swaha to the greatest,’
he drips the remnant adhering to the ladle into
the paste. Offering oblations in the fire say-
ing, ‘Swaha to the vital force, Swaha to the
Vasish/ha,’ he drips the remnant, etc. Offer-
ing oblations saying, ‘Swfdia to the organ of
speech, Swaha to that which has steadiness,’
he drips, etc. Offering, oblations saying,
‘Swaha to the eye, Swaha to prosperity,’ he
drips, etc. Offering oblations saying, ‘Swaha
to the ear, Swaha to the abode,’ he drips, etc.
Offering oblations saying, ‘Swaha to the
Manas, Swaha to Prajati,’ he drips, etc.
Offering oblations saying, ‘Swaha to the
organ of generation,’ he drips, etc.
Offering two oblations each time beginning with,
' Swaha to the oldest , Swaha to the greatest / he drips
the remnant adhering to the ladle into the paste.
The worths ‘oldest,’ ‘greatest,’ etc., which are
characteristics of the vital force, indicate that only
3. SJ
BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
923
the knower of the vital force is entitled to this
ceremony.
STjHfr |c^T IF?* ;
wr|cq5^ j[c3T w?t ; aj:
^srTtc^sft gesrr IF** 5 ijsn
gc^TT JF^ fr^T
#5FPFR*rf?I 5 *R: gcSTT JF$i RST-
gp F Fwfa -. surit §rRT ?gfaR*rarc-
; ^srra ^crt jf^ 1 R^sFFFFifa 5
^RFT jgcRT JF*t ^SRJFFPlfo :
F TTg H n ft gc^T IF^ *r5FrJFFFlf?r ; fe*3FT F?l|-
gc^TT JF^ q fcrcwqsw fe : *Frfcl ^sntcSsft
fr^n JF^ Fff=FFFFFrfa ; SlairF& F*Tte3?ft §<RT
#?RJFFFlf?T II * II
3. Offering an oblation in the fire saying,
‘Swaha to fire,’ he drips the remnant adher-
ing to the ladle into the paste. Offering an
oblation saying, ‘Swaha to the moon,’ he
drips, etc. Offering an oblation saying,
‘Swaha to the earth,’ he drips, etc. Offering
an oblation saying, ‘Swaha to the sky,’ he
drips, etc. Offering an oblation saying,
‘Swaha to heaven,’ he drips, etc. Offering
an oblation saying, ‘Swaha to the earth, sky
and heaven,’ he drips, etc. Offering an
oblation saying, ‘Swaha to the Brahinana, ’
he drips, etc. Offering an oblation saying,
924
BR1HAVARANY AKA UPAN1SHAD
[ 6 . 3 . 3
‘Swaha to the Kshatriya,’ he drips, etc.
Offering an oblation saying, ‘Swaha to the
past,’ he drips, etc. Offering an oblation
saying, ‘Swaha to the future,’ he drips, etc.
Offering an oblation saying, ‘Swaha to the
whole,’ he drips, etc. Offering an oblation
saying, ‘Swaha to all,’ he drips, etc.' Offer-
ing an oblation saying, ‘Swaha to Prajapati,’
he drips, etc.
Beginning with, ‘Swdhd to the organ of genera-
tion/ he offers one oblation each time, and drips
the remnant adhering to the ladle into the paste.
Then he stirs the paste again with another rod.
i fo rf q ,
sreissirfh, firferoTnmfa,
wfa, 3n?f y ffi atrfh, fipjdh, snffih, '* s srofh,
fasprofe, shpifsotfa ii y \\
4. Then he touches the paste saying, 1
‘You move (as the vital force), you burn (as
fire), you are infinite (as Brahman), you are
still (as the sky). You combine everything
in yourself. You are the sound ‘Hing, ’ and
are uttered as ‘Hing’ (in the sacrifice by the
Prastotri). You are the Udgitha and are
chanted (by the Udgatri). You are recited
1 The paste is identified with its deity, the cosmic vital
force. Hence epithets applicable to the latter are used
with reference to it.
6 . 3 . 6 J
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
925
(by the Adhwaryu) and recited back (by the
Agnidhra). You are fully ablaze in a humid
(cloud). You are omnipresent, and master.
You are food (as the moon), and light (as fire).
You are death, and you are that in which all
things merge.’
Then he touches the paste uttering* the Mantra,
4 You move/ etc.
siRtefaqfo, »rr *r§teiRtefaqf?r q rc f fe rfo it ^ n
5. Then he takes it np saying, ‘You
know all (as the vital force) ; we too are aware
of your greatness. The vital force is the
king, the lord, the ruler. May it make me
king, lord and ruler ! ,
Then he takes it up with the vessel, in his hand,
saying, ‘ You know all/ etc.
.sp fos r ra mfa— argfegqfoqqti wggrmT sgaT-
irg; 1 *??csrtqsft: 1
jj: 1 wff 1 vg iragat'TO:,
flgOTqrtfti T5T: I Jfvj fqm I
1 irgirrat sFisqfa:,
qvjq! sreg I *»: I ^
1 *rqi ^4 ih"°> JrpRft: 5
^ **qTS*r, q&r- w. yn?T,
gn^nsT qnff srsrifcttfq sn^fimr: nfeifd ;
ararrf^qgqfas^ — ng-
926
BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [6. 3. 6
^Tsfirfar ; srs^nfo-
stct srofo ii % it
6. Then he drinks it saying, ‘The
radiant sun’s adorable — ; The winds are
blowing sweetly, the rivers are shedding
honey, may the herbs be sweet unto us !
Swaha to the earth. Glory we meditate upon ;
May the nights and days be charming,
and the dust of the earth be sweet, may
heaven, our father, be gracious ! Swaha to the
sky. May he direct our intellect ; May the
Soma creeper be sweet unto us, may the sun
be kind, may the quarters be helpful to us !
Swaha to heaven.’ Then he repeats the
whole Gayatri and the whole Madhumati, 1
and says at the end, ‘May 1 be all this !
Swaha to the earth, sky and heaven.’ Then
he drinks the whole remnant, washes his
hands, and lies behind the fire with his
head to the east. In the morning he salutes
the sun saying, ‘Thou art the one lotus of the
quarters ; may I be the one lotus of men ! ’
Then he returns the way he went, sits behind
the fire, and repeats the line of teachers :
Then he drinks it. He drinks the first draught,
uttering the first foot of the Gayatri, one portion of
of the Madhumati and the first Vyahriti . 2 vSimilarly
1 Hymn to sweet things.
2 The Vy ilirilis are the three syllables ‘Bhur,’ ‘Blnivar’
and ‘Swar,’ meaning respectively the earth, sky and heaven.
6 . 3 . 8 ]
BR1HADARANY AKA V PAN 1 SHAD
92 ?
he drinks the second draught, uttering the second
foot of the Gayatri, the second portion of the Madhu-
mati and the second Vyahriti. Likewise he drinks-
the third draught, uttering the third foot of the
Gayatri, the third portion of the Madhumati and the
third Vyahriti. Then he repeats the whole Gayatri
and the whole Madhumati, and says at the end, ' May
1 he all this! Swahd to the earth, sky and heaven/
Then he drinks the whole remnant. He should
arrange beforehand so that the whole quantity of paste
may be finished in four draughts. What adheres to
the vessel, lie should scrape and drink quietly. He
washes his hands, and lies behind the fire with his
head to the east. After saying his morning prayers,
he salutes the sun with the Mantra : ‘I'hou art the
one lotus oj the quarters/ etc. Then he returns the
way he went, sits behind the fire, and repeats the
line of teachers :
^
7. Uddalaka, the son of Aruna, taught
this to his pupil Yajnavalkva, the Vajasaneya
(founder of the White Yajur-Veda derived
from the sun), and said, ‘Should one sprinkle
it even on a dry stump, branches would grow
and leaves sprout.’
tpnj wrrgraifr ft z umvw ) %qTqr-
pfcrrfcH safa q q* fsifa-
, 5TlJk»eJI»3T:, q^TJTTTJfVfH ||«<S ||
928 BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [ 6 . 3 . 8
8. Then Yajnavalkya, the Vajasaneya,
taught this to his pupil Madhuka, the son of
Paingi, and said, ‘Should one sprinkle it
even on a dry stump, branches would grow
and leaves sprout.’
3 rfq ST 03 55%
a mtas gren;, 11 * 11
9. Madhuka, the son of Paingi, again
taught this to his pupil Chula, the son of
Bhagavitta, and said, ‘Should one sprinkle it
even on a dry stump, branches would grow
and leaves sprout.’
grf%5T ssFcqrqra, arfor tr cpf 5 *% wioft ,
3rT^S®T»3T:, SI^J: tR5I!nT5ftf5T || *o ||
10. Then Chula, the son of Bhagavitta,
taught this to his pupil Janaki, the son of
Ayasthuna, and said, ‘Should one sprinkle it
even on a dry stump, branches would grow
and leaves sprout.’
035 ter arrararoT-
srfa q <33 5^ fafa-
smtg: qssTsjTHtfa it U II
n. Janaki, the son of Ayasthuna, again
taught thcs to Satyakama, the son of Jabalfi,
6. 3. 12] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAP 929
and said, ‘Should one sprinkle it even on a
dry stump, branches would grow and leaves
sprout.’
qr^T, 3?fa ?T ersf 5IT^T53U3T:,
®TT 5JfI?I H JR H
12. And Satyakania, the son of Jabala,
in his turn, taught this to his pupils and said,
‘Should one sprinkle it even on a dry stump,
branches would grow and leaves sprout.’
One must not teach this to anyone but a son
or a pupil.
(He repeats the line of teachers) beginning with,
Udddlaka, the son of Aruna, taught this , and
ending with, Satyakdma , the son of Jabdld, taught
this to his pupils and said , ' Should one sprinkle it
even on a dry stump, branches would surely grow
and leaves sprout / The teacher Satyakania taught
this doctrine of the Mantha, handed down by a single
line of teachers beginning with Uddalaka, to a large
number of pupils and said. Wliat did he say?
Should one sprinkle it, this paste, purified for the
purpose of drinking, even on a dry or dead stump,
branches ivould surely grow on that tree, and leaves
sprout, as on a living stump. So it goes without
saying that this ceremony will fulfil one’s desires.
It is a eulogy on this ceremony, meaning that it is
59
930
BR1HA DAHANYAKA UPAN1SHAD [6. 3. 12:
infallible in its results. There are six 1 qualified
recipients of learning. Of them only two, viz., the
son and the pupil, are being declared as eligible for
this doctrine of the Mantha together with the medita-
tion on the vital force.
?V3T:,
snmifur vnfmfjr wg-
fsW^T> ifhfJTTSg ;
SStfs II U || rT^frcf II
13. Four things are made of fig wood :
the ladle, the bowl, the fuel and the two
mixing rods. The cultivated grains are ten
in number : Rice, barley, sesamum, beans,
Anu, Priyangu, wheat, lentils, pulse and
vetches. They should be crushed and soaked
in curds, honey and clarified butter, and
offered as an oblation.
Four things are made of fig wood. This has
been explained (p. 920). The cultivated grains are
ten in number. We have already said that the ten
species of cultivated grains must be included. They
are being enumerated : rice, barley f sesamum, beans,
Anu, called by that name, Priyangu, called in some
parts ‘Kangu/ pulse (Khalwa), or Nishpava, 'popu-
larly called ‘Valla/ and vetches (Khalakula), or
1 A pupil, a knower of the Vedas, an intelligent person,
one who pays, a dear son, and one who exchanges another
branch of learning.
6. 3. 13] BRIHADARAmAKA UPAN1SHAD
931
Kulattha. In addition to these all other herbs and
grains should be procured as far as possible, as we
have said, barring only those that are unfit for
sacrificial purposes.
SECTION IV
uttt # ^tstt 'gfqer'V m :, gfsnan snq:, siqrot
»raq:, sfavfiRt g^nfar, gwntui qwsrci
gw:, gww t?T: || ? II
i. The earth is the essence of all* these
beings, water the essence of the earth, herbs
of water, flowers of herbs, fruits of flowers,
man of fruits, and the seed of man.
The present section is introduced to lav down
the method by which to obtain the kind of son who,
by tlie manner of his birth and conception and by
liis Rood qualities, will help to achieve the worlds
both for himself and for his father. Only a person
who knows the meditation on the vital force and
has performed the ceremony of the Mantha leading
to prosperity, is entitled to this ceremony of. the
Mantha leading to the birth of a son. When a man
wants to perform this ceremony, he should, after
performing the former ceremony, wait for the right
time of his wife. This we understand from the
mention of the seed being the quintessence of the
herbs etc. The earth is the essence of all these
beings, moving and stationary, for it has been .stated
that it ‘is like honey to all beings’ (II. v. 1, adapted!.
Water is the essence of the earth, for it is pervaded
by water. Herbs are the essence of water, for
the herbs 6tc. are the effects of water. Flowers of
6. 4. 5$
BR1HA DA RANYA KA UPAN1SHAD
933
herbs, fruits of floivcrs, man of fruits, and the seed
of man , for another Shruti says, "It is the essence
emanating from all parts of the body’ (Ai. IV. 1).
st ? sRnafa^riass , ^fcnsSI srfagt a>saaT-
*lrfa 5 st %a srs^ ; ar sjsna aaisa 5 asm
SqTSTTa ; ST nrrf STT2j‘ 5TT^'T <i rffTcTT«T aa
sn^arsa^, ^taarasas^jia 11 a 11
2. Prajapati thought, ‘Well, let me make
an abode for it,’ and lie created woman.
Prajapati, the Creator, thought, \Since the seed
is thus the quintessence of all beings, what can be
a fit abode for it?’ Thinking thus he created woman.
asm ^fasqs?:, rirmfa afir:, gmfaaaift —
srfa^r scaa:— : *? araia. ? £ ai^fta
aswrasa srrarr srafa, atarasa srrajt siafe a asf
fa5ra v ita?Tsr asfa ; sttstt Tarwi fpa ;
■sra a sarTfagraara^iST asfa, srsa %a: Tp*r
fSFi II * II
aa^ set a afgrgrTg^raa; snsfam? ; aa:g; stt
a af^gfrenarf J^jpa stt^ : sa a afi&FfWTS-
?Tfsa btt 5, a?ar aar snsmaaT fafsfeaT fa^^af-
ssais^rcaa^a, a fqafa§[ra>sataf isf as?atfa •
a§ ar sa ^asa ar snaaf ar ^a: sa^afa 11 « 11
, srg ar a?a^a—
a?fe*j 5 ?a: ifaatasaTTfrsfta,
S-- "V .... _ _ . __ — „ •
a^raarscasrs^a: 1
BRIHADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD fS. 4. 5
*n^ g?r-
gas?ta: ga*a: i
a»TPWT?f TOTS-TO^,
fcqJTTfiwn^STWTWT^mPrl^ *3*1 ai at
f** 33 aT 3 w\ It
am 3TTc*n«i qs^asfaiFa^a— afa ffar
ffc^a =ET5[ft sfatf ; sfti ar «mr ia>rT
am^lsTOT: ; asOTTaeSTgisrsf a^fsaatofaaaata-
Xr^a || \ ||
6. If a man sees his reflection in water,
he should recite the following Mantra : ‘(May
the gods grant) me lustre, manhood, reputa-
tion, wealth and merits.’ She (his wife) is
indeed the goddess of beauty among women.
Therefore he should approach this handsome
woman and speak to her.
If perchance he sees his reflection in water, he
should recite the following Mantra : '(May the gods
grant) me lustre/ etc. She is indeed the goddess of
beauty among women. Therefore he should ap-
proach this handsome woman and speak to her, when
she has taken a bath after three nights.
sit a ^na, aiTaftarnaafaftaTg ( snr
aa ^rra, ajmftat aaar aT aifaaT ahr?-
caT fatw fta, sfe&w ^ to asi stcr ; srstt
aa aafa ir • 11
«. 4. 9j
BR1HADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAV
93S
7. If she is not willing, he should buy
her over; and if she is still unyielding, he
should strike her with a stick or with the hand
and proceed, uttering the following Mantra,
‘I take away your reputation,’ etc. She is
then actually discredited.
If she is not willing , he should buy her over,
press his wishes through ornaments etc. ; and if she
is still unyielding , he should strike her with a stick
or with the hand , and announcing that he was going
to curse her and make her unfortunate, he should
proceed , uttering the following Mantra : ‘1 take
- away your reputation / etc. As a result of that
curse, she comes to be known as barren and unfortu-
nate, and is then actually discredited.
*tt srerar
iftfa ; srera: 11 n
• 8. If she is willing, he should proceed,
uttering the following Mantra : ‘I transmit
reputation into you,’ and they both become
reputed.
If she is willing, or agreeable to her husband,
then he should proceed, uttering the following Man-
tra : ‘I transmit reputation into you.’ Then they
both become reputed.
aww fSrsR, g£sr
936
BRIHADAIfANYAKA V VANISH AD
16 . 4 . 9
J?qVf?r || t 1|
3i«r nTfa^fq snf hwjw f?njra,
g^si gsi stem, sifiwTwrniTPsrT^r , * ^rsn
^cf STT^ ffe 5 sfotT ^ ¥T^f?I II ?° II
am er sqm* f g% g^r
fjv^PT, 3T7TRnfi7snwn^, ffepfar ^ t^sn snak
; arfir^sr ¥Rfa n \\ n
sm ?npr sitotit snr: smsf %§fg*!ira, snn-
qr^s liignsm isire, afasrfrr srcsrffSrftcsiT, afsw-
KfaT: 5TCg^t: ufcRfrU: SI^tET gf^TTrT- *TO
Srf*T5 SfWfi, SfmF7T^ H 3TT^— 3TSHfaf?l ; fW
sifosps^fh, ^rnjRT sne[t— sisiT^rfe; rm srfii-
=5 s^ft:, ft 3TT^— aTSUfofa : WTT Slfip5 -
arnmncrareft ?r sn^— 3TSitfirf?r ; si sn
nrr f^frfyc^r f^f^SSJTW^TrlffH, q&rf^-
siTgnir: ; crsOT^fw^ftf^rer ^ t7 r ntqirsT-
^f^nr wsrfo || \~< ll
12. If a man’s wife has a lover whom he
wishes to injure, he should put the fire in an
unbaked earthen vessel, spread stalks of- reed
and Kusha grass in an inverse way, and offer
the reed tips, soaked in clarified butter, in
the fire in an inverse way, saying, ‘Thou hast
sacrificed in my kindled fire, T take away thy
6, 4. 12] BR1HADARANYAKA UPANJSHAD
937
Prana and Apana — such and such. Thou
hast sacrificed in my kindled fire, 1 take away
thy sons and animals — such and such. Thou
hast sacrificed in my kindled fire, I take away
thy Vedic rites and those done according to
the Smriti — such and such. Thou hast
sacrificed in my kindled fire, I take away thy
hopes* and expectations — such and such/
The man whom a Brahmana with knowledge
of this ceremony curses, departs from this
world emasculated and shorn of his merits.
Therefore one should not wish even to cut
jokes with the wife of a Vedic scholar who
knows this ceremony, for lie who has such
knowledge becomes an enemy.
If a man's wife has a lover i vhom he wishes fo
injure , that is, to cast an evil spell on him, lie should
perform the following rite: lie should put the fire
in (in unbaked earthen vessel- -everything to he done
in an inverse way — and offer the reed tips, soaked in
clarified butler , in the fire in an inverse way, accom-
panied by the following Mantras, ‘Thou hast sacri-
ficed / etc., and at the end of each mention his name,
' such and such / The man whom a Brahmana with
knowledge of this ceremony curses, departs shorn of
his merits. Therefore one should not wish even to
cut jokes with the wife of a I r edic scholar who knows
this ceremony, much less give any more serious
offence, for even he who has such* knowledge
becomes an enemy.
■938 BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD |j8. 4. 13
3 W fq% 5 [-
fcRTT^r:, Xt f^yr * ;
*n^ sfugtasraraX. ll l\ ll
13. If anybody’s wife has the monthly
sickness, she should drink for three days out
of a cup (Kamsa). No Shudra man or woman
should touch her. After three nights she
should bathe, put on a new cloth, and be put
to thresh rice.
If anybody’s wife has, etc. This paragraph
should precede the passage beginning with, ‘She is
indeed the goddess of beauty among women* (par. 6),
for the sake of consistency. She should drink for
three days out of a cup (Kamsa). No Shudra man
or woman should touch her. After three nights,
when she has finished the three nights’ vow, she
should bathe, put on a new cloth (these words, though
at some distance, should be connected here), and be
put to thresh rice .
ST & Sp> 3TT^T,
qrafacsrr
qrsnu ; aqfoa# n 11
14. He who wishes that his son should
be born fair, study one Veda and attain a full
term of life, should have rice cooked in milk,
and he and his wife should eat it with clarified
butter. Then they would be able to produce
such a son.
'6.. 4. 1>] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD 939
He who wishes thai his son should be born fair
in complexion, study one Veda and attain a full term
■of life , that is, a hundred years, should have, etc.
am n & a&fires: aft ^t-
Tr^fq^rr srftr-
; n \\ ii
15* He who wishes that his son should
be born tawny or brown, study two Vedas and
attain a full term of life, should have rice
cooked in curds, and he and his wife should
•eat it with clarified butter. Then they would
be able to produce such a son.
Have rice cooked in curds. If he wishes his
son to be versed in two Vedas, he should follow this
rule about eating.
am ft iprort 5 tt%,
Mwfiicqri
5 || II
16. He who wishes that his son should
be born dark with red eyes, study three Vedas
and attain a full term of life, should have rice
cooked in water, and be and his wife should
eat it with clarified butter. Then they would
be able to produce such a son.
Simple, natural rice is meant. The mention of
water is for precluding other ingredients.
am q ft qfas«ii sit^p,
940
BRIHADARANYAKA VPAN1SHAD [«. 4. 1?
Hfr^teii^Ttetem ;
$93^ swfote n n
1 7. He who wishes that a daughter
should be born to him who would be a scholar
and attain a full'term of life, should have rice
cooked with sesamum, and he and *his wife
should eat it with clarified butter. Then
they would be able to produce such a daughter.
The scholarship of the daughter is regarding
domestic affairs only, for she is not entitled to read
the Vedas. Rice and sesamum should be boiled
together.
3TO ST rrfh^rfr finite: FffrrfFrim:
srarfam site* -flrf'teT srrifa, ^r?ir?tegiHte,
stejira#— srte^or m h \<l h
18. He who wishes that a son should he
born to him who would be a reputed scholar,
frequenting the assemblies and speaking
delightful words, would study all the Vedas
and attain a full term of life, should have rice
cooked with the meat of a vigorous bull or one
more advanced in years, and he and his wife
should eat it with clarified butter. Then
they would be able to produce such a son.
‘Vigita* (reputed) literally means ‘variously
praised.’ Frequenting the assemblies , that is, elo-
quent, for scholarship has been separately mentioned.
ۥ 4 . 19 1 BRIHA11ARAA YAKA UTANISHAD 941
t
Delightful , literally, pleasant to hear, that is, words
that are chaste and pregnant with meaning. Rice
cooked together with meat. The meat is restricted
to that of a vigorous bull , able to breed, or one more
advanced in years.
%fe=3T WTeft-
qT3R4=q7»TOTri J^TT, T,
sm^R'Pn: sn^frT ; g$n**T qrfft, ^qi^ - <35-
fqc^T%#qt sfrigTriT ffpqiqt^TS^T-
spjpriir, *r «nqt qsir 11 > * n
19. In llie very morning lie purifies the
clarified butter according to the mode of
Sthalipaka, and offers Sthalipaka oblations
again and again, saying, ‘Swfilia to fire,
Swfilia 1 to Aiiumati, Swfilia to the radiant
suit who produces infallible results.’ After
offering he takes up (the remnant of the
cooked food), eats part of it and gives the rest
to his wife. Then he washes his hands, fills
the water-vessel and sprinkles her thrice with
that water, saying, ‘Get up from here, Vishwa-
vasu, 1 and find out 'mother young woman
(who is) with her husband.’
In the very morning he takes the rice produced
by the threshing, punjics the clarified butter accord-
ing to ihe mode of Sthalipaka, boils the rict and
1 A celestial minstrel.
942
BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [6. 4.
offers Sthdlipaka oblations again and again , saying ,
f Swdhd to fire/ etc. Here all the details must be
understood as being in accordance with the Grihya
Sutras. After offering he takes up the remnant of
the cooked food, eats part of it and gives the rest
to his wife. Then 'he washes his hands , sips a little
water, fills the water-vessel and sprinkles his wife
thrice with that water , saying the following Mantra :
' Get up from here/ etc. The Mantra is to be ‘littered
once.
f£r?rcr
ffa II Ro II
20. He embraces her saying, ‘I am the
vital force, and you are speech ; you are
speech, and I am the vital force ; I am Saman,
and you are Rich 1 ; I am heaven , 2 and you
are the earth ; come, let us strive together so
that we may have a male child/
Then he purifies her with Mantras, and both eat
the rice cooked in milk or other things according to
the kind of child desired. This is the order to be
followed. While retiring, he embraces her, saying
the following Mantra : 7 am the vital force/ etc.
swTFrr 3^ fafagteif
1 Saman rests on Rich while it is chanted.
2 Heaven* is called father and the earth mother.
6. 4. 24] BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD
94»
®towg*TI% —
f^sojsfffSr ^Rg, wftrr fq*ig 1
snfaai g sriTTqfgr^r rnr ^ng % 1
*ra fajfterfo, »pt 13^5% 1
*ra & srfepft i^rrerrawr if R{ h
sRoft qp^rt 1
?f ft *ro mfe 1
^mfjrmrr ifeft, ?tot s^fe? w *Tf5rnft 1
grigftsiT ?i«n *w orsf *m ?f—
srcnfg'fa ii rr. 11
?TOT 5 TTg: R fa f grfa R 5 T 3 : 1
o[^r ^ *Tfr#g arcrgon 1
?f 3 ^PTRf st 5 T: RPT 3 : R^foPT: i
efip? feT% WW RT3RT || \\ ||
sn^sfogqsnrrapi, wf ^
^sfta 'j 4 <iww)M«n 5 f 4 ^)f% —
yzira^mR: q§ 1
3re?rhrcrsri m ^c#^U3rar g q^ftsr— smjT t
ufa srrjrtesrft jrrt sjsHSr — ^ t^t i
qc* 4 uilPl^ft^g, *J 3 T I
«rfiref gqw>faa«fo?»^ w *'~
11 ii
944
BRIHADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [6. 4. 24
24. When (the son) is born, he should
bring in the fire, take him in his lap, put a
mixture of curds and clarified butter in a cup,
and offer oblations again and again with that,
saying, * Growing in this home of mine (as the
son), may I maintain a thousand people!
May (the goddess of fortune) never depart
with children and animals from his line !
Swaha. The vital force that is in me, I
mentally transfer to you. Swaha. If I have
done anything too much or too little in this
ceremony, may the all-knowing beneficent
fire make it just right for me — neither too
much nor too little! Swaha. *
Now the post-natal ceremony is being described.
When the son is born , he should bring in the fire,
take tlie son in his lap , put a mixture of curds and
clarified butler in a cup, and offer oblations again
and again (in little quantities) with that in the pre-
scribed part of the fire, uttering the following Mantra :
4 Growing in this / etc.
3T«n^r spomftrfjram sn^nfafa fa: ;
srcr ^fa rrg spr 1
^3TTfa^ ^rfa, ^nfa, ^r:
sfa r^fa apsnfrfa a ^ a
25. Then putting (his mouth) to the
child’s right ear, he should thrice repeat,
‘Speech, speech.’ Next mixing curds, honey
and clarified butter, he feeds him with (a strip
6. 4. 25] BR1IIADARANYAKA UPAN1SHAD
945
of) gold not obstructed (by anything), saying,
‘I put the earth into you, I put the sky into
you, I put heaven into you, I put the whole
of the earth, sky and heaven into 3'ou.’
Then putting his own mouth to the child's right
ear, he should thrice repeat, ( Speech, speech . 11
Next, mixing curds, honey and clarified butter , he
feeds him with (a strip of) gold not obstructed (by
anything), uttering the following Mantras, one at a
time : ‘I put/ etc.
to vrsrfa ii '<% ii
26. Then he gives him a name, ‘You are
Veda (knowledge ). 9 That is his secret name.
Then he gives him a name, ‘ You are Veda/
That, the word 'Veda,* is his secret name .
srear ph: snsfrat *rr nqfcg,
*TT PsT-JT q ' gflra r: ippi: i
firr^rr srraffw
Pilfer ctSt? n n ii
27. Then he hands him to his mother to
be suckled, saying, ‘P Saraswati, that breast
of thine which is stored with results, is the
sustainer of all, full of milk, the obtainer of
wealth (one’s deserts) and generous, and
through which thou nourishest all who are
1 Wishing that the Vedas may enter into kim.
. 60
946
BR1HA DARANYAKA UPANISHAD [6. 4. 27
worthy of it (the gods etc.) — transfer that
here (to my wife, for my babe) to suck/
Then he hands him , the child who is in his lap,
to his mother to be suckled with the following
Mantra : ‘O Saraswati, that breast / etc.
HT cW sfkSTcft II ' |
cf «tt n^rerTg:, srfafacfT
sjrTPj:, thtt ^ fsr*n
— sTTgUUFT jTt 3TT3T3 ff?T II \C II 5%
ggsl sirnmn; II
28. Then lie addresses the mother : ‘You
are the adorable Arundliati, the wife of
Vasisfha ; you have brought forth a male
child with the help of me, who am a man. Be
the mother of many sons, for you have given
us a son.’ Of him who is born as the child
of a Brahmana with this particular knowl-
edge, they say, ‘You have exceeded your
father, and you have exceeded your grand-
father. You have reached the extreme limit
of attainment through your splendour, fame
and Brahmanical power.’
Then he addresses the mother as follows : ‘You
are the adorable,’ etc. Of him who is born, etc.— A
son born in this way becomes the object of praise in
such terms as the following : That he surpasses his
6. 4. 28] BR1H A DA R ANY AKA UPAN1SHAD
947
father and grandfather , and that he has reached the
highest degree of attainment through his splendour,
fame and Brdhmanical power. The Brahmana who
possesses such knowledge and gets a son, also
deserves similar tribute. This is understood.
SECTION V
sto sfar: i ^t^it-
5PTR5T3ft3^: TTTTO fr ^TT ^,
5^, stWer^ftg^: q Kwfl ynq., qTCT*rc>pt:
JKTSJTOsfrpTT^, qjTcqiqRt^I: q?(fsEfhq^T?T, q^fa-
qnq^r snsnaftg^ra
tKTWtq^rraa ERTtftfsn^, qntftgsr: n \ \\
i . Now the line of teachers : The son
of Pautimashi (received it) from the son of
Katvayani. He from the son of Gautami.
The son of Gautami from the son of Bharad-
waji. He from the son of Parashari. The
son of Parashari from the son of Aupaswasti.
He from the son of another Parashari. He
from the son of Katvayani. The son of
Katvayani from the son of Kaushiki. The
son of Kaushiki from the son of Alambi and
the son of Vaivaghrapadi. The son of
Vaiyaghrapadi from the son of Kanwi and
the son of Kapi. The son of Kapi
srnf^g^ nWt -
33ft YTT ^ Tafr^:
qi c# 3^: qrowl^l?? ,
(j vwfa q ftyft gr refe q ft -
6 . 5 . 2 ] BRIHADARAZTYAKA UPANISHAD 949
• *
3^, qmifcufty* 3TRWTiftgsra, STTrhmft^:
*^3^ : an«5-
.«rwf\g*i^, 3n®jsnq?f^r « ns*ft g* m , srrarsft-
3^ aFFeftgsn*., aiT qg g ftyfr giq gs K mtftg^ ,
*rro§s;w«ftg*) wnisfig^, mngstftgsr: aoTf q g aft -
gpn^, •sirfa^tg^ TOfwfrpnqc.,
¥n^rtg3T: ^r^tg^rmjTn, s^ffg[-
5 f* 3^ t^cftg^r:
wrcfetftg*: &ratafrftg*i3, uramr’ftg^: srisft-
«ftg»n^r, ^sfN^g^r: matg^T ^ ferr fe q:, nrefr-
g^r sn^nnrT^ , stt^:, sn^fr: n r a
2. From the son of A.treyi. The son of
Atreyi from the son of Gautami. The son of
Gautami from the son of Bharadwaji. He
from the son of Parashari. The son of
Parashari from the son of Vatsi. The son of
Vatsi from the son of another Parashari.
The son of Parashari from the son of Varka-
runi. He from the son of another Varkaruni.
This one from the son of Artabhagi. He
from the son of Shaungi. The son of
Shaungi from the son of Sankriti. He from
the son of Alambayani. He again from the
son of Alambi. The son of Alambi from the
son of Jayanti. He from the son of Mandu-.
kayani. He in his turn from the son of
Manduki. The son of Manduki ffom the son
950 BR1HADARANYAKA UPANISHAD [6. 5. 2
of Shandali. The son of Shandali from the
son of Rathitari. He from the son of Bha-
luki. The son of Bhaluki from the two sons
of Kraunchiki. They from the son of Vaida-
bhriti. He from the son of Karshakeyi. He
again from the son of Praeliinayogi. He
from the son of Sanjivi. The son of Sanjivi
from Asurivasin, the son of Prashni. The
son of Prashni from Asurayana. He from
Asuri. Asuri
WWX 3q Id:,
qpsqhTTcT,
3TS[TW3TTcT, 'tffecft qr'Wrft ifcncq^qTrT,
q»!jqq: ftr-qTc^^qqTrr , fs^q: qjijqq: q^qqTfTO^:,
qj^qqf qtffqqfet:, qmfwFJqT:, arfwprcnf^eqTH .
^Tfg^qpftmfq ^Tfq q^fq
qr^nqs% 11 ^ 11
3. From Yajnavalkya. Yajnavalkya from
Uddalaka. Uddalaka from Arnna. Aruna
from Upaveshi. Upaveshi from Kushri.
Kushri from Vajashravas. He from Jihwavat,
the son of Badhyoga. He from Asita, the
son of Varshagana. He from Harita Kash-
yapa. He from Sliilpa Kashyapa. This one
from Kashyapa, the son of Nidhruva. He
from Vach. She from Ambhini. She from
the sun. These white Yajuses received from
6. 5. 4] BR1HADARANYAKA VPANISHAD 951
« *
the sun are explained by Yajnavalkya Vaja-
saneya.
smTTOT
I q pmi , mwsai: ^c^TTrT,
mfeSfc, sm-
sniftri^ff 5ric^n?r, grrPi: $%t,
qirq^raf TT^FciKiTn^FT , quggn nsi’R!^^*rFg?:T-
c^ra^Wra; , gr: quq^q: srenq?k, srjnqfro ?jur:,
am mg 5 agi^t to: it y n sfa q^rf sngrnq. 11
ff?f qjjtosqFT: j|
4. The same up to the son of Sanjivi.
The son of Sanjivi from Mandukayani.
Mandukayani from Mandavya. Mandavya
from Kautsa. Kautsa from Mahitthi. He
from Vamakakshayana. He from Shandilya.
Shandilya from Vatsva. Vatsva from Kushri.
Kiushri from Yajnavaehas, the son of Raja-
stamba. He from Tura, the son of Kavashi.
He from Prajapati (Hirany agarbha) . Praja-
pati through his relation to Brahman (the
Vedas). 1 Brahman is self-born. Salutation
to Brahman.
Now the line of teachers of the whole Upanishad
is being given. (They are here named after their
mothers) because the wife holds the most important
1 For another interpretation see commentary on II. vi. 3.
952
BR1HADARANY A KA UPANISHAD
[ 6 . 5 . 4
place (in this ceremony ). 1 It has been mentioned
that a gifted son is born. Hence the Upanishad is
narrating the line of teachers by describing the son
through the name of the mother. These white
Yajuses, etc. — 'White’ because they are not mixed
up (with human faults), or these Yajuses are pure
or fresh. From Prajapati down to the son of
Pautimashi is a descending order (if we read it
inversely), with the teacher always mentioned first.
(The line is) the same up to the son of Sdnjivi . 2
Prajapati through his relation to Brahman or the
Vedas. That Brahman (the Vedas) has come down
the line from Prajapati and variously branched off
among us. It is without beginning and end — self -
born, or eternal. Salutation to that Brahman (the
Vedas). And salutation to the teachers who have
followed it.
1 Because it is she who, being purified through sprinkl-
ing etc., produces a worthy son.
2 Above him it bifurcates, to merge again at the top,
the sun being identical with Prajapati or Iiiranyagarbha.
INDEX
Aditi, its derivation 31.
results of meditation on it
31-33.
Adityas 532-533.
Air, the string holding the
world* together 501.
Ajatashatru 253.
dialogue with Gargya 254
ct s'cq.
Apurva 387.
Arka, its derivation 15, 26.
Asliwa, its derivation 34.
Ash wins 398, 896.
Atman, different from the
three states 652-653.
or Brahman 743
realised by the pure-
minded 744.
Its nature 748-749, 769,
780.
the ruler and controller of
all 751.
as an embankment 752.
how to realise It 753-756,
. 776.
has no connection with
work 762-763.
not touched by good and
evil 763-767.
Its knower free from
duality 765-768.
•everything is loved for its
sake 775.
is everything 777-780.
See also Brahman.
Austerity, the supreme 838.
Bhartriprapancha, criticised
337-340, 378, 471, 669,
679-682, 753, 804.
Bliss, its measure in deep
sleep 685-690.
Bodv, not the experiencer
'274.
gross and subtle 317, 341,
343, 589, 607.
not the seer 605.
Bondage, its cause 190-191.
Buddhists, their view of the
sell 3, 337, 617.
their theory that the self
is both subject and ob-
ject refuted 119-120.
Brahman, knower of It ab-
solved from the regular
rites 51-52; from all rites
482-486 ; must be re-
spected 558.
Tts definition 319.
Its nature 565-568.
conditioned, not the high-
est truth 255 ; medita-
tion on it and its
result 257-266 ; its gross
and subtle forms 328,
330-335.
knowledge of It 147, 159;
not connected with activ-
ity 129-132 : not part of
an injunction 135 ; its
necessity 143 ; through
it one becomes all 147 ;
men specially entitled
to it 144 ; attainable even
to-day 161 ; gods do not
like our attaining it 172-
189, but cannot thwart
it 165; destroys igno-
rance immediately 165-
168.
individual self identical
with 145-160.
is infinite 801-802.
unconditioned 266.
954
INDEX
is one : logicians’ objec-
tion to ' this refuted
314-317.
unknowable 470-473, 510.
its unity with Truth 478.
the ultimate support of
the world 493-496.
the Internal Ruler 502-512.
the ultimate cause " of
everything 517.
has no attributes 517-519.
proof of Its existence 520-
524.
ever the subject 525-526.
described negatively 556.
how presented in the
Upani shads 556.
the root of man 559-562.
how to realise 732-736,
743-747, 753.
realised by the pure 744 ;
not by too much reason-
ing 7*47.
undnferentinted and differ-
entiated 802-810.
Om is the symbol of
differentiated 810-813.
as the elements (Satya)
822.
as Bhur etc. 828-830.
meditation on It as
limited by the mind
830-831.
as lightning 832.
as speech 833.
journey to it after death
836.
as food 840-843.
Brahmana, disciple, the way
he approaches a teacher
of lower caste 895.
Castes 105, 174, 180-181.
Creation, explained 100-103.
its ultimate cause is the
Self 113.
entrance of the Self injo
it 121-123.
why described in the scrip-
tures 122.
Death, means Hiranya-
garbha 30.
is divided in three wavs
28.
various wavs of liberation
from it 415-421;
consists of the • organs
and their objects 429-431.
Desire, cause of man’s
bondage 190-191, '481.
the root of all activity
191-194.
springs from ignorance
192.
their range 193-194.
dissolves in the case of
the liberated man 440.
does not affect the Self
669-672.
cause of transmigration
715-720.
how conquered 717-720.
Dream-state 281-284, 616,
634-652, 690.
Dreamless sleep 285-286, 645,-
654-684, 685-690.
Earth, its creation 26-27.
Ether, unmanifested, is the
cause of the world'
514-517.
Evil, natural propensity to
how overcome 60-61.
company to be avoided 67.
Faith 254.
Fear 96.
Fire, creation of 105.
First Cause, the Supreme
Self 290, 378, 379-390.
Five fires, meditation om
them 897-904.
INDEX
955
Food, seven kinds 199,
204-216.
of the animals 207.
result of meditation on
the three foods 238.
* pronibition with regard to
it 880-883.
Gargi 512 ct seq.
Gargya 253,
dialogue with Ajatashatru
255 et scq.
Gayatri * &48-860.
Gods, not different from
Viraj 106.
do not like men’s attain-
ing knowledge 172-189.
their food 206.
chief among them 243.
their number according to
groupings 531-539.
Hiranvngarbha 1, 7, 344,
461.
identified with the intel-
lect 25.
is he the Supreme Self or
the individual ^elf 107
*has sixteen digits 225.
as ‘time 226.
identification with him
leads t<> freedom from
jovs and sorrows 238.
his limbs 828-830.
Hita 284, 588, 656.
Horse sacrifice, its result 6.
its importance 7.
meditation on different
parts of the horse in it
8-14.
its aim 9.
its derivative explana-
tions 34.
meditation connected with
it 35-39.
the highest of rites 460.
performers of 464.
Idealists, deny the self 622.
Ignorance 7, 149.
superimposed on Brahman
149.
the cause of dualitv 156,
373-376.
destroved by knowledge
165-168.
the root of desire 192.
is relative existence 347.
when it is destroyed, the
individual self merges
in the Supreme Self
367-372.
identifies the Self with
the intellect etc. 615.
not a natural characteris-
tic of the Self 655-660.
its cessation is liberation
722 .
Ignorant, the food of the
gods 187-190.
Immortality, cannot be
attained through wealth
352 773.
Indr a 395, 534, 587.
Intellect, as Brahman 819-
821.
Intelligence, Pure, is the
Supreme Self 367.
Jauaka 255, 570, 585, 595.
]iva. See Self.
Justice (Dharmal, con-
troller of the Kshatriyas
178.
is the same as Truth 179.
Karma-ICanda 4.
Katyayani 351, 772-773.
Knowledge, the means to it
98-99, 254, 409-410.
right knowledge, the only
means to liberation 132.
and. attainment of the Self
are identical 139-140.
956
INDEX
contradictory to work 170,
452.
destroys ignorance 165-168.
not attainable through
rites 182-183.
its results are eternal
184-185.
and work, their different
results and spheres
348-350.
leads independently to
the highest goal 349.
is unity 373-376.
Ivshatriyas 174.
Liberation 143, 728.
its means 132, 771.
dissolves death and action
440.
is not an effect, and so
cannot result from
work 449-459.
is not the result of the
regular rites 449-453,
454-456.
its bliss is subjective
564-568.
is not a change of condi-
tion 720-726.
is cessation of ignorance
722.
does not mean any new
knowledge 722.
gradual liberation 734,
836.
Limiting adjuncts 362.
Logicians, their views
refuted 17-25.
their objection to the
unity of the self
refuted 314-317.
their view of the self 337.
M'adhu-Vidya 397-404.
teachers of ^05-408.
Mahiman 112.
Maitrevi 351, 772-779.
Maya 403.
See also Ignorance.
Meditation, should be on
the Self 136-138.
combined with rites 185.
is the means to the world
of the gods 229.
its tvpes and results
414-428.
produces different results
from mere rites 455-456.
based on resemblance
421-428.
Men, specially entitled to
the knowledge of Brah-
man 144.
Mind, separate from the
organs 214.
its nature 214.
its function 218.
part of the subtle body
337, 343.
Monks, give up the holy
thread, study of the
Vedas, etc. 484, 486,
487.
Name, and form, the cause
of relativity 362, 478.
Naiyayikas. See Logicians.
Negation, its four kinds 24.
Nerves, their colours 656,
734.
Nihilist 16, 19.
Om, the symbol of Brahman
810-813.
Organs, as the gods and the
Asuras 41.
benefited by food 72.
not the experiencer in the
body 273.
are of the same category
as the objects 366.
and their objects 433-437.
INDEX
957
their dissolution at death
439.
viewed as Brahman and its
results 572-585.
their respective excellence
870-872 ; their dispute
over this 872-879.
Parable, of the fowler Prince
303. .
Prajapati 534.
See also Hiranyagarbha
!Wd Viraj .
Prarabdha , works even after
Knowledge 185.
Pravahana 887 ct scq.
Pravnrgya 397-398.
Prayers, of a dying person
who has combined medi-
tation and rites 863-865
Rationalists 108.
Rebirth, its cause 445.
Renunciation, the way to
Brahman and Knowledge
481-491, 749.
inculcated 757-761, 785-796.
iRites, the regular 6, 449-456;
.not compulsory o n
knowers of Brahman
51-52.
their results are relative
93, 95, 96, 100, 184.
are for the ignorant 173,
187.
cannot lead to Knowledge
182-183.
combined with medita-
tion 185 ; le^id to identity
with Hiranyagarbh a
456-457.
of entrusting 231-235.
cannot lead to liberation
449-453, 454-456.
the highest of them 460.
their results 736-737
are for the purification
of the mind 754.
Rudras 532-533
Sacrifice, the new and full
moon 206.
for material ends dis-
couraged 207.
for attaining greatness
918-931.
for attaining a particular
kind of child 932-959.
Vishwajit 449.
Samian 846.
Sankhvas, their view of the
self 337.
on the state of liberation
564.
Satiny asa, who is entitled to
756-759.
Senses, outgoing L> nature
249, 320, 404.
See also organs.
Self, not established through
perception or inference
118, 203; Mimamsaka
view in this matter 3.
denied by the Buddhist 5,
617-622.
neither the agent nor
connected with action
54, 278, 288, 647-652.
Its nature 113, 115, 116,
118-120, 655-660.
cannot be both subject and
object 119-120.
Its entrance into the
universe 121-123.
is the read entity behind
the vital force, senses,
etc. 124.
Its right comprehension
125.
meditation on It is not
an original injunction
126.
Its knowledge leads to
INDEX
958
knowledge of everything
139.
Its attainment and knowl-
edge identical 139-140.
why It should be known
141.
why it is the dearest 141,
355.
identity of individual, and
Brahman 145-160, 477,
590-592.
and ignorance 254.
individual, not a part or
modification of the Su-
preme 277, 299-307. •
distinct from body, organs,
etc. 276, 602, 630.
in deep sleep merges in
its own Self 281, 289.
the first cause 290.
its relative condition not
real 306.
Supreme, or unconditioned
Brahman 336.
views of other schools
about it refuted 337-340,
671.
its transcendental and
relative aspects 341,
479-481, 594.
how to realise It 354.
relative world a super-
imposition on 356.
is everything 357-360.
is Pure Intelligence 370.
fettered, its fate at death
444.
individual, transmigrates
467-468.
its cosmic relations 586-592.
the light in man 596.
its various states 608-637.
individual 609.
illumines the body aggre-
gate 612.
is self-effulgent 613, 617.
why it does not know
itself in deep sleep
662-665, 672-676, 682-685.
unaffected by desire and
impressions 669-672.
view of it both as one and
multiple refuted 679-682.
See also Atman and
Brahman.
individual, at death
692-708.
after death, of the bound
707-716; of the .liberated
720.
Shwetaketu 887 ct seq i
Taijasa 588.
Transmigration 630, 632-633,
692.
its cause 715-720.
different wavs for it 885.
Truth 388.
Uktha 844.
Udgitha 40, 78-85.
meditation on it 41.
its identification with the
vital force 80.
Universe, springs from
ignorance 5-7.
its projection 15-16, 110,
295-303.
its undifferentiated condi-
tion 113-114.
is the result of man's
natural thoughts and
actions 202-204.
is ephemeral 211.
consists of name, form
and action 247-251.
springs from the Supreme
Self and 'not the* indi-
vidual self 295-303.
superimposed on the Self
356.
Upanishads, derivative mean-
ing of the word 1.
their aim 5, 6, 54, 171.
INDEX
95$
valid authority 308-309,
311.
and ritualistic portion of
the Vedas do not clash
313.
no contradiction in them
310.
Vaisijeshikas, on the nature
of the self 337, 671, 708.
on the State of liberation
564.
Vaishw^Jeva offering 205.
Vaifchwanara 587.
as gastric fire 835.
Vaishvas 177.
Vamadeva 161 .
Vasus 532, 533.
Vedas, their object 1-2.
authority in super con-
scious matters 47, 459.
aim at giving knowledge
and not at prescribing
actions 47-59, 133-134.
only informative and not
creative 154.
authoritative 362.
instruct according to tem-
perament 231-235.
Vedic work, is twofold 4-5.
its' twofold results 4.
Viraj 6, 587.
is ‘fire 27, 93, 181.
is divided in three ways
28.
meditation on 28.
his creation 30,
his knowledge of unity
due to pure birth and
best Samskaras 97-98.
manifested the gods 106.
his body 464.
Vishwa 588.
Vital force, foremost of the
organs 60-63, 75, 240-242,
867, 873-877.
its purity 64, 71.
meditation on 61, 234-238;
its results, 65-68, 245-246,
257-266.
the eater of all food 70.
shares its food with other
organs 72.
extolled 76.
its fivefold function 216.
is not the experiencer
268-270.
being a compound is for
the benefit of something
else 275.
its eight forms 537-545.
its forms according to the
quarters 547-554.
the support of the body
and the heart 554-555.
as Uktha 844.
as Yajus 845.
as Saman 846.
as Gayatri 848-856 ; the
result of such medita-
tion 859-862.
Way, of the gods 905-911.
of the Manes 912-917.
Wealth, cannot lead to
immortality 352.
Work, its result 6.
produces certain result
164.
dissolves in the case of
the liberated 170, 445.
contradictor}' to Knowl-
edge 170/452.
the cause of rebirth 445.
good, produces good
results, and bad, the
opposite 446, 447.
its fourfold function
448-449.
does not remove ignorance
451.
cannot affect • the Self
484.
See als8 rites.
960
INDEX
World, the three worlds and Yajnavalkya 351, 570, 575*
the means to attain 595, 772-773.
them 229. Yajus 845.
relative, a super imposition Yoguchara school 19, 237,.
on the Self 356. 274.
ADDENDA
Page 29, line 15, after water insert Sh. X.v. 4. 3.
„ 76 ,, 25 „ force „ Ai. A II. h 6.
i, „ » 26 „ „ „ Ibid JI. ii. 2.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11